PDA

View Full Version : Contradictions in the Bible? (sf Does God Exist)



jammo
12-05-2013, 05:54 PM
it gives me joy that God has gone to alot of trouble to give me that book, it has wisdom in it that i learn from, and it sheds light upon the world showing what is true and what isn't.

It's a pity he didn't bother getting it proof-read to remove the contradictions and inconsistencies and sure it helps me make my important life decisions based on what is true and what is not. Truths like Apple computers are better than Dell computers; air travel is better than train travel; facebook is better than Instagram and so on. Where would I be without the bible in today's modern world?

I am also constantly inspired by what the bible says about slavery (for example) "If a man smite his servant or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished; notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money." Inspirational stuff indeed.

John777
12-05-2013, 08:18 PM
It's a pity he didn't bother getting it proof-read to remove the contradictions and inconsistencies

Well the good news is that the real KJV Bible has NO contradictions and inconsistencies. You may have been unlucky to read a modern version.


Truths like Apple computers are better than Dell computers; air travel is better than train travel; facebook is better than Instagram and so on. Where would I be without the bible in today's modern world?

The Bible deals with the BIG issues of life i would say those decisions are rather tiny.


I am also constantly inspired by what the bible says about slavery (for example) "If a man smite his servant or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished; notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money." Inspirational stuff indeed.

This is Old Testament Law which is voided by:

Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Romans 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Kevin Bonham
12-05-2013, 08:27 PM
Well the good news is that the real KJV Bible has NO contradictions and inconsistencies.

So you say, but I've already demonstrated a contradiction in your interpretations of it, as concerns whether certain people can or cannot know "God".

The problem is that you are just a propagandist for scripture. You'll assert such things on its behalf but don't even seem capable of engaging the debate when contradictions in your interpretations are pointed out (beyond the merely apparent contradictions that many Christians have ready answers to).

As such your view that there are NO contradictions is of NO use because you have NO understanding of the basic logical skills required to recognise a contradiction when one is pointed out to you!

jammo
12-05-2013, 09:10 PM
Well the good news is that the real KJV Bible has NO contradictions and inconsistencies. You may have been unlucky to read a modern version.



It took about 5 seconds to find a list of 21 contradictions in the KJV.
See http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Contradictory-Wisdom-in-Bible.php

Enjoy.

Oepty
12-05-2013, 10:04 PM
It took about 5 seconds to find a list of 21 contradictions in the KJV.
See http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Contradictory-Wisdom-in-Bible.php

Enjoy.

I am sorry jammo but that page is a joke. I have not read every word but a lot of the verses quoted have nothing to do with the question they are supposedly answering. If you really want me to go through it one question at a time I guess I can but I am not very keen to do so.

Ian Murray
12-05-2013, 10:10 PM
I am sorry jammo but that page is a joke. I have not read every word but a lot of the verses quoted have nothing to do with the question they are supposedly answering. If you really want me to go through it one question at a time I guess I can but I am not very keen to do so.
Jammo 1 Oepty 0

Adamski
13-05-2013, 12:05 AM
It took about 5 seconds to find a list of 21 contradictions in the KJV.
See http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Contradictory-Wisdom-in-Bible.php

Enjoy.
A lot of those are cases where the NT makes the OT void or stronger. Jesus came to fulfil the law which often involved strengthening it. E.g. Matthew 5: 21-22 (in any decent translation).

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2013, 03:40 AM
I am sorry jammo but that page is a joke. I have not read every word but a lot of the verses quoted have nothing to do with the question they are supposedly answering. If you really want me to go through it one question at a time I guess I can but I am not very keen to do so.
Exactly. Atheopathic lists of decontextualized Bible verses like that are dime-a-dozen, and impress local atheopaths like Jammo and LE too lazy to do a minimum of study. For example, just about all claimed contradictions are refuted in this splattering of the Skeptics' Annotated Bible (http://www.tektoonics.com/test/parody/sab.html). For that crass list that Jammo linked to (5 seconds of work on his part is about right) that LE/IM drools over:

Should we offer help and give to others?
Easy: Matthew 19:21 is addressed to one rich man who idolized his wealth, not a general command to all. Matthew 7:6 is not talking about physical pearls, you dropkicks, but pearls of wisdom and holiness, as shown by the first line: "Do not give dogs what is sacred."

Should we express our Christianity in public?
Again, simple for anyone with a single active braincell, which doesn't apply to the chesschat atheopaths: We should praise the Lord in public worship, but not do good acts simply for the adoration of others. Matthew 9:30 was a specific time in Jesus' ministry where He was not ready yet to proclaim His messiahship publicly.

Should we Test God?
Elementary: we don't test God, but we do test those who claim to be speaking for Him.

Should we show honor to our family?
Yawn: yes we honour our parents, but we should honour Christ so much more that love for parents seems like "hate" in the typical semitic hyperbole. See Does Luke 14:26 teach literal hate? (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesussayshate.html)

Are some things in the Bible figurative (not literal)
Who denies that? But the example is crass—see 2 Peter 3:8—‘one day is like a thousand years’ (http://creation.com/2-peter-38-one-day-is-like-a-thousand-years).

jammo
13-05-2013, 03:14 PM
I am sorry jammo but that page is a joke. I have not read every word but a lot of the verses quoted have nothing to do with the question they are supposedly answering. If you really want me to go through it one question at a time I guess I can but I am not very keen to do so.

The point is Oepty, that it takes just one of the listed contradictions to be true to refute the claim that there are no contradictions of inconsistencies in the KJB. You may reject some of them but that does not refute the argument.

If you want to focus on one incident that appears to inconsistent then let's look at who discovered the empty tomb of Jesus.

"In all 4 gospels, Mary Magdelene discovered Jesus's empty tomb. However, each gospel claims a little different story.
For example, in Matthew, Mary Magdelene and some other Mary didn't go to the tomb itself, but an angel of the Lord was outside of it and told them that Jesus has risen. They didn't see if the tomb itself was truly empty, but they immediately tried to tell the disciples.
In Mark, Mary Magdelene, and Mary, the mother of James and Salome, came to the tomb, saw that the stone was removed from the sepulchre, and, going in, found the tomb was empty and a young man (I think was an angel) told them that Jesus rose from the dead.
In Luke, BOTH Marys and some other woman found the stone had been removed from the sepulchre. They went in, and found the tomb was empty, and also found two men in "shining garments". They told the women that Jesus has rose from the dead. The women told the disciples, who at first did not believe them.
In John, Mary Magdelene found the stone was removed from the sepulchre, but since it was dark she did not go in. She told Peter, the "disciple whom Jesus loved", and Peter was the first to go in the sepulchre and see the tomb was empty. They saw two angels (Or at least Peter did.)"

In my view these accounts appear to be a little inconsistent. Maybe God's*memory was not the best when he "inspired" some unknown people to write these books. After all he's getting on a bit. What do you think?

jammo
13-05-2013, 03:33 PM
A lot of those are cases where the NT makes the OT void or stronger. Jesus came to fulfil the law which often involved strengthening it. E.g. Matthew 5: 21-22 (in any decent translation).

How does that work I wonder? Did God perhaps change his mind between the OT and NT? Did he love slavery in the OT but changed his mind in the NT?
Please explain.

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2013, 03:47 PM
From Errors in the Bible? (http://creation.com/claimed-bible-errors), responding to similar decontextualized claims as above:

There are several factors at work here. First, I would recommend that you read the Tekton article on inspiration linked to above [On Gospel Details and Precision in Narratives (http://creation.com/redirect.php?http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/gospelprecision.html)], so you can understand how small details (the sort which would not qualify as “mistakes” in a way as to undermine the doctrine of inerrancy) wouldn’t concern the Gospel writers or their audience. Then see how the author applies those principles to the Resurrection narratives in his more detailed article The Resurrection Narratives Harmonized Contextually (http://www.tektonics.org/qt/rezrvw.html). However, most of the ‘contradictions’ here don’t even fall in that category. They are simply not errors or contradictions at all. Each evangelist is picking and choosing which details to report, so that one evangelist chooses to describe only one angel out of two or leaves out an earthquake. That isn’t a contradiction; it’s the author’s prerogative to choose which details to report as long as an omission does not distort the story. Many biblioskeptics don’t understand logic (see this explanation from Logic and Creation (http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind-logic-and-creation#contradiction)).

Matthew is organizing his material topically in 28:2, not chronologically; the earthquake, rolling away of the stone, and appearance of the angel could have happened at any time before the women got there. A translation of the Greek which properly brings this out would be “And behold there had been a great earthquake, for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven and went and rolled away the stone and sat on it.” We do things like this in writing even today, so it’s not a contradiction in chronology.

The question about how many angels there were, one or two, is another selection issue. Matthew and Mark choose to depict the one who did the most talking, Luke added the detail that there was another there too. The same goes for how many women saw Jesus. It’s not surprising that Mary Magdalene is highlighted in the accounts, because she was Jesus’ most prominent female follower, and there’s evidence that she was actually funding His (and His disciples’) ministry.

Carson’s commentary on John’s Gospel has the best discussion I’ve found on the alleged Resurrection account discrepancies. [The Gospel According to John. Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 632–635.] To sum it up, some of the discrepancies are on the trivial level and are based on the selectivity of the Gospel writers in choosing some details and leaving out others. Critics who say these things are actual contradictions are imposing their ridiculously rigid, uniquely Western, views on what consists of precise reporting. No one in ancient Palestine would take things like who went to the tomb to be a contradiction. Other things are judged to be contradictions based on too little evidence. Carson’s harmonization is worth quoting at length:


“For example, Mary Magdalene finds the tomb empty and, upon hearing her report Peter and the beloved disciple rush off to the tomb. Eventually they return to their own homes (v. 10), while Mary is found outside the tomb crying (v. 11). When or how did Mary get there? For almost two thousand years it has been assumed, not unreasonably, that she returned to the garden alone, or possibly in the wake of the two running men. Must a narrator report each mechanical step? This lack of information, coupled with modern assumptions about the way ancient editors and communities constantly cut up their sources and patched them together in new pieces, has led to several ingenious but unbelievable reconstructions.”
Constructing a chronology for the Resurrection appearances is one of the more complicated issues; this is because we’re not exactly sure how the different authors’ accounts relate to the details in the other authors’ appearances. This is because there is nothing that would force the disciples to record the resurrection appearances in precise chronological order;


“in terms of the fundamental meaning and significance of each resurrection account, and in terms of the way they were first preached, each of Jesus’ resurrection appearances could stand more or less alone: the entire sequence of appearances was not necessary to establish meaning and credibility. This means that the student of the Gospels must proceed with extraordinary caution when historical or source-critical harmonizations are attempted.”
Modern news stories covering the same event have much the same sort of ‘contradictions’ skeptics point to in the Gospel accounts

JP Holding’s article on harmonization (http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/lincoln01.html) points out that modern news stories covering the same event have much the same sort of ‘contradictions’ skeptics point to in the Gospel accounts, while at the same time not having any “mistakes” in the sense of false elements to the report. The Christian Thinktank also has a very good article (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ordorise.html); especially the point about the apparent discrepancies lending credibility to the Gospels as four separate witnesses to the Resurrection; absolute agreement in every small detail would be evidence that they had depended on each other to such an extent that they could not be considered independent witnesses.

Oepty
13-05-2013, 05:58 PM
The point is Oepty, that it takes just one of the listed contradictions to be true to refute the claim that there are no contradictions of inconsistencies in the KJB. You may reject some of them but that does not refute the argument.

If you want to focus on one incident that appears to inconsistent then let's look at who discovered the empty tomb of Jesus.

"In all 4 gospels, Mary Magdelene discovered Jesus's empty tomb. However, each gospel claims a little different story.
For example, in Matthew, Mary Magdelene and some other Mary didn't go to the tomb itself, but an angel of the Lord was outside of it and told them that Jesus has risen. They didn't see if the tomb itself was truly empty, but they immediately tried to tell the disciples.
In Mark, Mary Magdelene, and Mary, the mother of James and Salome, came to the tomb, saw that the stone was removed from the sepulchre, and, going in, found the tomb was empty and a young man (I think was an angel) told them that Jesus rose from the dead.
In Luke, BOTH Marys and some other woman found the stone had been removed from the sepulchre. They went in, and found the tomb was empty, and also found two men in "shining garments". They told the women that Jesus has rose from the dead. The women told the disciples, who at first did not believe them.
In John, Mary Magdelene found the stone was removed from the sepulchre, but since it was dark she did not go in. She told Peter, the "disciple whom Jesus loved", and Peter was the first to go in the sepulchre and see the tomb was empty. They saw two angels (Or at least Peter did.)"

In my view these accounts appear to be a little inconsistent. Maybe God's*memory was not the best when he "inspired" some unknown people to write these books. After all he's getting on a bit. What do you think?

This poses a bigger challenge than that page you linked to but they do fit together to form a complete picture of what happened

antichrist
13-05-2013, 06:03 PM
Simple application of scientific principles can make any type of God you want.. the Romans knew this 2000 years ago and they weren't even scientific about it :rolleyes:

..the Sybile told me

does Sybile tell u many things?

jammo
13-05-2013, 06:27 PM
The Bible deals with the BIG issues of life i would say those decisions are rather tiny.

OK. So what are the big issues we are facing today?

Gun Control.
Global warming.
Budget deficit.
Nuclear proliferation.
Election rigging.
Illegal immigrants.
Computer fraud/hacking.
Stock market crashes.
Suicide bombers.
Overpriced Australian dollar.

How does the bible help with those issues?

Desmond
13-05-2013, 06:53 PM
OK. So what are the big issues we are facing today?

Gun Control.If your enemy shoots you in cheek, turn and let him shoot you in the other one. But if he shoots you in the eye, shoot him right back in his eye.

jammo
13-05-2013, 09:31 PM
If your enemy shoots you in cheek, turn and let him shoot you in the other one. But if he shoots you in the eye, shoot him right back in his eye.

Good point. But there is probably something in the NT where God changes his mind about that sort of thing.

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2013, 11:01 PM
Gun Control.
The Bible teaches the right to self-defence.


Global warming.
See here (http://creation.com/global-warming-what-is-the-creationist-view).


Budget deficit.
The Bible restricts governments to protecting enemies from without and within (i.e. criminals), to to all the things modern governments love to spend on. The Bible also says that stealing is wrong—including if one can get majority vote in Parliament. Much government activity involves stealing from one class of citizen and giving to other people, including people who refuse to work, women who wilfullly have babies out of wedlock, protected industries, maternal leave, and foreign despots ("foreign aid" is really stealing from poor people in rich countries to give to rich people in poor countries).


Nuclear proliferation.
The Bible speaks of the fallen nature of man, but Clinton trusted North Korea's despot


Election rigging.
The Bible is against fraud.


Illegal immigrants.
The Bible is against breaking the laws of the land.


Computer fraud/hacking.
The Bible is against fraud.


Stock market crashes.
Once again, governments exceeding their biblical mandate in many cases. With 1929, it was anticipation of the horrid Smoot-Hawley tariff bill; with the recent one, it was governments interfering in the housing market.


Suicide bombers.
The Bible is against murder.


Overpriced Australian dollar.
Who says that is a problem? It is for exporters not for importers. And clearly the current price is what people are prepared to pay for it, so "overpriced" is a misnomer.

Rincewind
13-05-2013, 11:44 PM
Once again, governments exceeding their biblical mandate in many cases.

Have you heard of the separation of church and state?

Saragossa
13-05-2013, 11:50 PM
How does that work I wonder? Did God perhaps change his mind between the OT and NT? Did he love slavery in the OT but changed his mind in the NT?
Please explain.

JW visited me the other day and I asked them about Slavery in the NT. They seemed ready to admit there was nothing condemning it but that perhaps things were a little different back then (something I don't buy or seem to think matters when it was still essentially forced labour).

Capablanca-Fan
14-05-2013, 12:05 AM
JW visited me the other day and I asked them about Slavery in the NT. They seemed ready to admit there was nothing condemning it but that perhaps things were a little different back then (something I don't buy or seem to think matters when it was still essentially forced labour).
Mostly it was indentured servitude. The OT forbids the type of slavery that existed in antebellum South of the USA, because it forbids manstealing and generational slavery. Also, while slavery was ubiquitous throughout the world—all inhabited continents and all "races" were involved as both slavers and slaves—it was only in the Christianized west that slavery was abolished. See Anti-slavery activist William Wilberforce: Christian hero (http://creation.com/anti-slavery-activist-william-wilberforce-christian-hero).

Capablanca-Fan
14-05-2013, 12:07 AM
Have you heard of the separation of church and state?
I have, but the US Constitution doesn't include that phrase or notion. When Jefferson used that phrase to the Danbury Baptists, he meant that the state should not encroach on the church or religious freedom, not that Christianity should be expunged from public life.

Rincewind
14-05-2013, 12:39 AM
I have, but the US Constitution doesn't include that phrase or notion. When Jefferson used that phrase to the Danbury Baptists, he meant that the state should not encroach on the church or religious freedom, not that Christianity should be expunged from public life.

So your use of the term biblical mandate makes it sound like you believe that sovereign states exist by the grace of and derive their authority from God. Is that what you believe?

jammo
14-05-2013, 09:59 AM
OK, so now that we have established that there are contradictions in the bible (even if they are non-material) can someone explain to me how the bible is supposed to be "the word of God."

To my mind if God wanted to get his message out he'd pick a good scribe, inspire him to write down God's message, then proof-read the document thoroughly to correct any errors or typos and only then get the document published.

Instead he seems to have inspired various scribes in different lands and different times to record his message. Some of the scribes might not have done a terribly good job so God has organised a committee of Bishops to go through the various books and decide which ones should be in the bible and which not.

I may be wrong, but this latter process does not seem to me to be a terribly efficient way of getting the message out and ensuring that it is "error free."
Can we know if God wanted it reported that there was one angel at the tomb, or two angels, or he didn't care because that's a trivial detail and not part of his key message? Perhaps the bit about the angels was just the scribes embellishing the message as they saw fit.

All in all it seems to be a most unsatisfactory method of communication. Perhaps God should send one of his children down to earth to explain it to us?

Capablanca-Fan
14-05-2013, 10:41 AM
OK, so now that we have established that there are contradictions in the bible (even if they are non-material)
No we haven't. Lazy copy-pasting decontextualzed passages from gutter atheopathic sites doesn't count.


To my mind if God wanted to get his message out he'd pick a good scribe, inspire him to write down God's message, then proof-read the document thoroughly to correct any errors or typos and only then get the document published.
Who cares what you want, as a 21th century armchair critic? Why should God have to spoonfeed you? It was perfectly understandable to the original readers.

jammo
14-05-2013, 04:35 PM
No we haven't. Lazy copy-pasting decontextualzed passages from gutter atheopathic sites doesn't count.

Who cares what you want, as a 21th century armchair critic? Why should God have to spoonfeed you? It was perfectly understandable to the original readers.

So it seems that God needs to take a course in effective communication if he wants to get his message across to modern readers. Maybe his message was only relevant to the "original readers" and not to modern people who have science to explain things which religion previously attempted to do.

I don't want anything by the way, except perhaps a reasoned answer to my question. Something you are clearly unable to supply.

John777 has been very noticeable by his absence. Maybe he doesn't have any answers either.

Capablanca-Fan
14-05-2013, 10:55 PM
So it seems that God needs to take a course in effective communication if he wants to get his message across to modern readers. Maybe his message was only relevant to the "original readers" and not to modern people who have science to explain things which religion previously attempted to do.
It is relevant to everyone, but sometimes 21st-century readers need to do a minimum of legwork to check the grammatical-historical context. And let's face it, it's not the difficult-for-21st-century-reader parts you don't like as much as the clear-to-everyone parts.


I don't want anything by the way, except perhaps a reasoned answer to my question. Something you are clearly unable to supply.
Supply some reasonable questions instead of lazy copy-paste jobs from village-atheopathic sites.


John777 has been very noticeable by his absence. Maybe he doesn't have any answers either.
He hasn't any answers to my questions either (about his KJV-onlyism) so don't feel too special.

Rincewind
15-05-2013, 12:15 AM
It is relevant to everyone, but sometimes 21st-century readers need to do a minimum of legwork to check the grammatical-historical context. And let's face it, it's not the difficult-for-21st-century-reader parts you don't like as much as the clear-to-everyone parts.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, it isn't the part of the bible that I don't understand that worry me.

Capablanca-Fan
15-05-2013, 12:20 AM
To paraphrase Mark Twain, it isn't the part of the bible that I don't understand that worry me.
Exactly!

It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.

jammo
15-05-2013, 02:37 PM
Supply some reasonable questions instead of lazy copy-paste jobs from village-atheopathic sites.


My problem is not lack of questions, but trying to get you to answer them.

For instance in post #23 I asked "can someone explain to me how the bible is supposed to be "the word of God."

I posted my thoughts on the process, what are yours?

Capablanca-Fan
15-05-2013, 03:34 PM
My problem is not lack of questions, but trying to get you to answer them.
What questions, apart from crass leading ones? E.g. you asserted that there are contradictions in the Bible but have not proven this.

Then you suggested, "Perhaps God should send one of his children down to earth to explain it to us?" ignoring the fact that He already did about 2,000 years ago.

Why should God or I spoonfeed any 21st-century village atheopath who demands that the Bible should be for him alone?

Patrick Byrom
15-05-2013, 08:31 PM
The main problem with the Bible is not the contradictions, but the ambiguities and the potential for misinterpretations. If the Bible is purely a human document, this makes perfect sense. But surely a divinely-inspired work should not be interpreted differently by different theologians?

To avoid potential misinterpretation of my own writing, please note that my point is the existence of different interpretations, not the validity (or otherwise) of any particular one. So please don't quote evidence for a specific interpretation - if you have overwhelming evidence for your view, please forward it to your fellow Christians (Vatican City might be a good place to start).

A Bible that automatically translates itself into the reader's native language (for example) might have avoided a lot of bloodshed.

jammo
15-05-2013, 09:44 PM
What questions, apart from crass leading ones? E.g. you asserted that there are contradictions in the Bible but have not proven this.

Then you suggested, "Perhaps God should send one of his children down to earth to explain it to us?" ignoring the fact that He already did about 2,000 years ago.

Why should God or I spoonfeed any 21st-century village atheopath who demands that the Bible should be for him alone?

See! You just totally ignored my question again and continued with your insulting rants.

You wanted a question. I'll repeat it again.
For instance in post #23 I asked "can someone explain to me how the bible is supposed to be "the word of God."

God may have sent one of his children to earth 2000 years ago to straighten us out, but if subsequent generations are struggling to get the message then I suggested that it may be a good idea for him to do so again. Is that really so hard for you to understand?

Finally, "who demands that the Bible should be for him alone?"
What rubbish. Where do you get this from? I have no interest whatever in owning/reading/having a bible of any sort.

jammo
15-05-2013, 10:10 PM
The main problem with the Bible is not the contradictions, but the ambiguities and the potential for misinterpretations. If the Bible is purely a human document, this makes perfect sense. But surely a divinely-inspired work should not be interpreted differently by different theologians?

To avoid potential misinterpretation of my own writing, please note that my point is the existence of different interpretations, not the validity (or otherwise) of any particular one. So please don't quote evidence for a specific interpretation - if you have overwhelming evidence for your view, please forward it to your fellow Christians (Vatican City might be a good place to start).

A Bible that automatically translates itself into the reader's native language (for example) might have avoided a lot of bloodshed.

An insightful observation. I'm concerned also about the method of distribution. I'm sure that there are people in China or Indians in the Amazon who have not yet seen a copy even though it's been out for about 1700 years. You would have thought that God could do better than that if he really wanted to get his message out. As to bloodshed, perhaps it would have been best had the bible never been compiled. I hear that the Book of Thomas is a good read though.

Capablanca-Fan
16-05-2013, 04:45 AM
The main problem with the Bible is not the contradictions, but the ambiguities and the potential for misinterpretations.
But as Mark Twain and RW whinged, their problem is with the unambiguous statements. The problem you raise is mainly for modern readers living at a different time and in a different cultural and linguistic context. But that is remedied by understanding this context. E.g. Paul's letters to gentile churches make far more sense in the context of Greco-Roman rhetoric (Paul was both a Jew and a Roman Citizen by birth). The Gospels, especially Matthew, must be understood as Jewish documents. So when understanding John's teaching about the Logos in his Gospel prologue (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1%3A1-18&version=NIV), we should realize that he and his original audience would have known of the Jewish concept of the Memra (http://creation.com/christmas-and-genesis#memra).


To avoid potential misinterpretation of my own writing, please note that my point is the existence of different interpretations, not the validity (or otherwise) of any particular one. So please don't quote evidence for a specific interpretation - if you have overwhelming evidence for your view, please forward it to your fellow Christians (Vatican City might be a good place to start).
My book Refuting Compromise (http://creation.com/refuting-compromise-refutation-of-hugh-ross-introductory-chapter-and-reviews) documents how the Roman Catholic Church's own "Saints" and "Doctors of the Church" taught a "young" earth, and mostly taught creation in six ~24 hour days.


A Bible that automatically translates itself into the reader's native language (for example)
Then the Bible would be treated as a magical fetish, whereas the important things are the propositions it contains.


might have avoided a lot of bloodshed.
Not much. It wouldn't have avoided the hundreds of millions of deaths under atheopathic communism.

Adamski
16-05-2013, 07:31 AM
You wanted a question. I'll repeat it again.
For instance in post #23 I asked "can someone explain to me how the bible is supposed to be "the word of God."

God may have sent one of his children to earth 2000 years ago to straighten us out, but if subsequent generations are struggling to get the message then I suggested that it may be a good idea for him to do so again.The word of God refers to all of the written snd spoken message from God and Jesus Christ Himself (e.g. John 1:1). The word "word" in the Greek is Logos and it has multiple meanings. The written word of God is the Bible. In New Testament times this was the Old Testament, referred to by expressions like "the Law and the Prophets". Jesus and Paul many times say the Scriptures (now including the New Testament) should guide our lives as they are divinely inspired. See e.g. 2 Timothy 3:16 (Paul) or indeed Jono's book Refuting Compromise.

Patrick Byrom
16-05-2013, 12:56 PM
... The Gospels, especially Matthew, must be understood as Jewish documents. ...
My book Refuting Compromise (http://creation.com/refuting-compromise-refutation-of-hugh-ross-introductory-chapter-and-reviews) documents how the Roman Catholic Church's own "Saints" and "Doctors of the Church" taught a "young" earth, and mostly taught creation in six ~24 hour days.
But you are doing exactly what I asked people not to do when replying: Defending the validity of a specific interpretation of the Bible :wall:
As I said, you need to convince the other Bible experts who disagree with you, not me.


Not much. It wouldn't have avoided the hundreds of millions of deaths under atheopathic communism.
Assuming that atheopathic communism would even have existed if the Bible was clearer, of course.

Capablanca-Fan
16-05-2013, 02:04 PM
But you are doing exactly what I asked people not to do when replying: Defending the validity of a specific interpretation of the Bible :wall:
You can ask, but it doesn't mean that I will comply.


As I said, you need to convince the other Bible experts who disagree with you, not me.
They barely argue on grammatical or historical grounds. My book Refuting Compromise is unrefuted.


Assuming that atheopathic communism would even have existed if the Bible was clearer, of course.
That's weak blaming an alleged unclarity of the Bible for atheopathic Bible-hating communism. More likely, blame the craven leftard western intellectuals who defended communism, and the various other anti-anti-communists.

Capablanca-Fan
16-05-2013, 02:07 PM
An insightful observation. I'm concerned also about the method of distribution. I'm sure that there are people in China or Indians in the Amazon who have not yet seen a copy even though it's been out for about 1700 years. You would have thought that God could do better than that if he really wanted to get his message out.
Jammo just wants a magic genie who spoils him.


As to bloodshed, perhaps it would have been best had the bible never been compiled.
As to bloodshed, hundreds of millions lives would have been saved if the Darwiniacs had not gained prominence.


I hear that the Book of Thomas is a good read though.
You heard wrong:

Simon Peter said to them, "Mary should leave us, for females are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "See, I am going to attract her to make her male so that she too might become a living spirit that resembles you males. For every female (element) that makes itself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

Desmond
16-05-2013, 06:05 PM
My book Refuting Compromise is unrefuted.Clearly discounting entire fields of scientific inquiry, as apologists are wont to do by necessity.

Patrick Byrom
16-05-2013, 08:59 PM
You can ask, but it doesn't mean that I will comply.

They barely argue on grammatical or historical grounds. My book Refuting Compromise is unrefuted.
I can sympathise with that - I know exactly how it feels when people ignore your arguments :(


That's weak blaming an alleged unclarity of the Bible for atheopathic Bible-hating communism.
I wasn't suggesting that unclarity in the Bible led directly to communism. I was pointing out that if there had been more agreement on Bible interpretation, that could have changed history significantly.

Capablanca-Fan
17-05-2013, 01:59 AM
I can sympathise with that - I know exactly how it feels when people ignore your arguments :(
Yet it has won converts, . Only recently, a pastor used it in an internal debate in his denomination about whether "young" earth or "old" earth is a better understanding of the Bible. My main target, Hugh Ross, demanded an apology from me for writing the book.


I wasn't suggesting that unclarity in the Bible led directly to communism. I was pointing out that if there had been more agreement on Bible interpretation, that could have changed history significantly.
Most unlikely. The main disagreements were on things like whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (Eastern Orthodox) or from the Father and the Son (Western Christianity), then on doctrines like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide (Reformation) or not (Roman Catholicism), then things like whether baptism should be for believers only (Anabaptists, Baptists) or could include babies (Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican). I fail to see how this could lead to communism even indirectly. No, that is an atheopathic ideology through and through.

Even the "unclarity" in the above debates was not due to any problems in the Bible, but problems for people far removed from the biblical context.

Patrick Byrom
18-05-2013, 01:33 AM
Most unlikely. The main disagreements were on things like whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (Eastern Orthodox) or from the Father and the Son (Western Christianity), then on doctrines like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide (Reformation) or not (Roman Catholicism), then things like whether baptism should be for believers only (Anabaptists, Baptists) or could include babies (Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican). I fail to see how this could lead to communism even indirectly. No, that is an atheopathic ideology through and through.
This is definitely off-topic, but I need to explain in detail, as you're completely missing my point (which is ironic, of course, considering the topic we're discussing):

No disagreement between Martin Luther and the Pope over Biblical interpretation -> No Reformation;
No Reformation -> No division between Catholic and Protestant countries;
No division between Catholic and Protestant Countries -> United Europe;
United Europe -> No World War 1;
No World War 1 -> No communism in Russia.
No communism in Russia -> No communism elsewhere.

It's all speculative, of course.


Even the "unclarity" in the above debates was not due to any problems in the Bible, but problems for people far removed from the biblical context.
But I understand that even in Biblical times there were disputes about interpretation, and there were certainly a large number of disputes in the next few centuries (eg, Marcionism).

Capablanca-Fan
18-05-2013, 09:00 AM
This is definitely off-topic, but I need to explain in detail, as you're completely missing my point (which is ironic, of course, considering the topic we're discussing):

No disagreement between Martin Luther and the Pope over Biblical interpretation -> No Reformation;
No Reformation -> No division between Catholic and Protestant countries;
No division between Catholic and Protestant Countries -> United Europe;
United Europe -> No World War 1;
No World War 1 -> No communism in Russia.
No communism in Russia -> No communism elsewhere.

It's all speculative, of course.
Ya think ;) Yet the nominally Protestant countries UK and Germany were on opposite sides. In reality, evolutionized liberal theology that despises the Bible had infected the Kraut church.


But I understand that even in Biblical times there were disputes about interpretation, and there were certainly a large number of disputes in the next few centuries (eg, Marcionism).
Marcionism was easily dealt with. Arianism was more difficult but still decisively defeated.

jammo
18-05-2013, 09:18 PM
The word of God refers to all of the written snd spoken message from God and Jesus Christ Himself (e.g. John 1:1). The word "word" in the Greek is Logos and it has multiple meanings. The written word of God is the Bible. In New Testament times this was the Old Testament, referred to by expressions like "the Law and the Prophets". Jesus and Paul many times say the Scriptures (now including the New Testament) should guide our lives as they are divinely inspired. See e.g. 2 Timothy 3:16 (Paul) or indeed Jono's book Refuting Compromise.

Perhaps I haven't made myself clear Adamski.
We have the bible. It is supposed to be "the Word of God."
It does not become "the Word of God" just because someone says it is.
My question is as to how the message gets from God (or Jesus) deciding to communicate something to the book we have today. It's not the same process as John Smith or the Prophet used. So far as I know the only time God put pen to paper (or tablet) was when he gave the tablets to Moses.

Is the bible really "the Word of God" or a compilation of humans approved by a committee?

Capablanca-Fan
18-05-2013, 09:55 PM
Perhaps I haven't made myself clear Adamski.
Not surprising, because you love following junk atheopathic sites that haven't a clue about context.


We have the bible. It is supposed to be "the Word of God."
For good reasons. See Should we trust the Bible? (http://creation.com/trust-the-bible) and Using the Bible to prove the Bible? Are biblical creationists guilty of circular reasoning? (http://creation.com/not-circular-reasoning)


Is the bible really "the Word of God" or a compilation of humans approved by a committee?
The first. Leading NT scholar F.F. Bruce put it well:


‘The NT books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, …. [Church] councils [did] not impose something new upon the Christian communities but codif what was already the general practice of those communities.’ [[I]The New Testament Documents: Are they reliable? IVP, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1960.]

One of the world’s greatest authorities on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger, pointed out:


‘You have to understand that the canon was not the result of a series of contests involving church politics. … . You see, the canon is a list of authoritative books more than it is an authoritative list of books. These documents didn't derive their authority from being selected; each one was authoritative before anyone gathered them together.’ The Case for Christ, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1998.]

John777
24-05-2013, 09:14 PM
OK. So what are the big issues we are facing today?

Gun Control.
Global warming.
Budget deficit.
Nuclear proliferation.
Election rigging.
Illegal immigrants.
Computer fraud/hacking.
Stock market crashes.
Suicide bombers.
Overpriced Australian dollar.

How does the bible help with those issues?

Good question i'm not knocking you for this.

Jesus created all things.

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

When one understands the truth they dont focus on earthly things but eternal things.

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

When one is saved they dont need to worry.

John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

Jesus is in control.

John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Kevin Bonham
24-05-2013, 09:18 PM
When one understands the truth they dont focus on earthly things but eternal things.

Sounds like a recipe for apathetic fatalism and shirking. However if more Christians took even this advice as opposed to focussing on the "earthy things" in other people's moral lives the world would be a much better place.

jammo
24-05-2013, 10:00 PM
Good question i'm not knocking you for this.

Jesus created all things.

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

When one understands the truth they dont focus on earthly things but eternal things.

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

When one is saved they dont need to worry.

John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

Jesus is in control.

John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Bad reply - I'm not knocking you for this.
Shall I take that as "it doesn't"?

Adamski
25-05-2013, 12:51 AM
Bad reply - I'm not knocking you for this.
Shall I take that as "it doesn't"?
Biblical advice and lessons from Bible stories can hep with all life's issues.

John777
25-05-2013, 09:00 AM
Biblical advice and lessons from Bible stories can help with all life's issues.

Exactly. Technology has changed but peoples hearts remain the same therefore the Bible is valid today.

jammo
25-05-2013, 10:44 PM
Biblical advice and lessons from Bible stories can hep with all life's issues.

OK. Let's put that to the test. What does the bible say about global warming and nuclear proliferation?

Adamski
25-05-2013, 11:28 PM
OK. Let's put that to the test. What does the bible say about global warming and nuclear proliferation?
Nothing specifically in the first case. But I don't believe global warming has been proved. There seems to be just as much of a case for global cooling. Nuclear proliferation is covered under passages that refer to "wars and rumours of wars" such as Matthew chapter 24.

Capablanca-Fan
26-05-2013, 02:05 AM
Nothing specifically in the first case. But I don't believe global warming has been proved. There seems to be just as much of a case for global cooling. Nuclear proliferation is covered under passages that refer to "wars and rumours of wars" such as Matthew chapter 24.
Not that a village atheopath like Jammo cares. If anyone dared to invoke the Bible to solve such problems, Jammo and his ilk would demand that they leave the Bible in church.

jammo
26-05-2013, 09:15 AM
Not that a village atheopath like Jammo cares. If anyone dared to invoke the Bible to solve such problems, Jammo and his ilk would demand that they leave the Bible in church.

Not that any-one cares what an irrational, gun-toting creationist nutter like Jono thinks. I'm having an interesting discussion testing people's belief in what the bible says. Jono is just continuing his normal tactic of personal abuse and trying to get people to read his looney publications.

Desmond
26-05-2013, 10:02 AM
But I don't believe global warming has been proved. There seems to be just as much of a case for global cooling. Bollocks.

Capablanca-Fan
26-05-2013, 06:49 PM
Not that any-one cares what an irrational, gun-toting creationist nutter like Jono thinks. I'm having an interesting discussion testing people's belief in what the bible says. Jono is just continuing his normal tactic of personal abuse and trying to get people to read his looney publications.
Jammo is another in need of learning about specular reflection and potly melanism.

Capablanca-Fan
26-05-2013, 06:49 PM
Bollocks.
Classic argumentation from a globull warm-monger.

Desmond
26-05-2013, 07:21 PM
Classic argumentation from a globull warm-monger.
Argumentation on par with what I was replying to.

John777
26-05-2013, 08:51 PM
I'm having an interesting discussion testing people's belief in what the bible says.

Go ahead and test mine - i'm into the King James Bible, i love it, i read it everyday. :)

jammo
26-05-2013, 09:47 PM
Go ahead and test mine - i'm into the King James Bible, i love it, i read it everyday. :)

I would John777, but judging by your posts you are not into logical debate. You just quote irrelevant bible verses. I'll stick to reading chess books. They tell me everything I need to know about the issues of the day.

John777
27-05-2013, 06:22 PM
I would John777, but judging by your posts you are not into logical debate. You just quote irrelevant bible verses.

are there any Bible verses that should be irrelevant?


I'll stick to reading chess books. They tell me everything I need to know about the issues of the day.

:wall:

jammo
27-05-2013, 06:31 PM
Jammo is another in need of learning about specular reflection and potly melanism.

Afraid this has gone right over my head. "Potly" - is there such a word?
Maybe it's in the bible or something. Reflection? Melanism? Are they relevant to our discussion or has Jono taken the wrong dose of whatever he is on?

Doesn't matter much ... I'm enjoying Jono and John777 fighting it out over who has the better bible. Surely the answer must be found somewhere in the good book?

John777
27-05-2013, 06:47 PM
has Jono taken the wrong dose of whatever he is on?

:naughty:


Doesn't matter much ... I'm enjoying Jono and John777 fighting it out over who has the better bible. Surely the answer must be found somewhere in the good book?

The answer is this:

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

1 Peter 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Psalms 56:10 In God will I praise his word: in the LORD will I praise his word.

There are 200+ different English translations. There can only be one perfect English Bible. i believe in unity based on one Bible.

Capablanca-Fan
28-05-2013, 02:55 AM
:naughty:
Yes, Jammo is not too bright (at least not in this issue, where his atheopathy has addled his brain; no question that he is bright on chessboard-related issues). Specular reflection is the type that occurs from smooth shiny surfaces, as opposed to the diffused reflection from other surfaces. And pots sometimes get black, which in Greek is μελανός (melanos).


There are 200+ different English translations. There can only be one perfect English Bible. i believe in unity based on one Bible.
But this is very similar to the argument used by the Roman Catholics: the Bible is no use unless we have a infallble guide by which to interpret it, and the RC Church is the only possible candidate. But there was no guarantee that God would provide such an infallible interpreter, and there is no proof that the RC is that interpreter. Similarly, God did not guarantee an perfect English translation, and certainly there is no evidence that the KJV-1769 is that perfect translation (as opposed to the Geneva Bible, ESV, etc.).

John777
28-05-2013, 08:06 PM
But this is very similar to the argument used by the Roman Catholics: the Bible is no use unless we have a infallble guide by which to interpret it, and the RC Church is the only possible candidate. But there was no guarantee that God would provide such an infallible interpreter, and there is no proof that the RC is that interpreter. Similarly, God did not guarantee an perfect English translation, and certainly there is no evidence that the KJV-1769 is that perfect translation (as opposed to the Geneva Bible, ESV, etc.).

some thoughts:

"Is God so weak that He could not preserve His words? Could not the God Who gave His Words to holy men of old preserve His words for our generation?"

"My Bible says that the Word of God is pure."

"My Bible says that the words and the Spirit are the same."

"Would God give all pure words to one generation but impure words to another generation?"

2nd Timothy 3:16, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
"Verse 16 says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." If "all scripture" means "the total Scripture," then would every book in that "all scripture" be inspired? Would every chapter in every book of that "all scripture" be inspired? Would every verse in every chapter in every book of that "all scripture" be inspired? Then would every word in every verse in every chapter in every book in that "all scripture" be inspired? Yes!

"There has to be a book in this world somewhere that contains all the words of God with not one word added and not one word taken away. I believe I hold it in my hand - The King James Bible."

Capablanca-Fan
28-05-2013, 11:05 PM
"Is God so weak that He could not preserve His words? Could not the God Who gave His Words to holy men of old preserve His words for our generation?"
What He could do and what He did do are very different things. God did preserve His words, but not in the way KJVOs think. That is, under His sovereign providence, very early manuscripts were preserved in the hot dry sands of Egypt, so they were out of the reach of potential corruptors, and could authenticate the biblical text when found almost two millennia later.


"Would God give all pure words to one generation but impure words to another generation?"
That is a bigger problem for your position, because it entails that no one had God's word until 1769, when Blayney produced the revision of the KJV that you claim is perfect. Also, no Greek manuscript is identical to the Textus Receptus, produced by the Roman Catholic Erasmus via textual criticism.


2nd Timothy 3:16, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
"Verse 16 says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." If "all scripture" means "the total Scripture," then would every book in that "all scripture" be inspired? Would every chapter in every book of that "all scripture" be inspired? Would every verse in every chapter in every book of that "all scripture" be inspired? Then would every word in every verse in every chapter in every book in that "all scripture" be inspired? Yes!
Timothy was not familiar with Early Modern English, but read the Bible in Hebrew or maybe the LXX Greek. “If the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul, then it's good enough for me,” is meant to be a joke, or at least I hope so.

John777
29-05-2013, 05:55 PM
Originally Posted by John777: "Is God so weak that He could not preserve His words? Could not the God Who gave His Words to holy men of old preserve His words for our generation?"


What He could do and what He did do are very different things. God did preserve His words, but not in the way KJVOs think. That is, under His sovereign providence, very early manuscripts were preserved in the hot dry sands of Egypt, so they were out of the reach of potential corruptors, and could authenticate the biblical text when found almost two millennia later.

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Now i ask can you show me a perfect bible in the English translation?

i hope that God enlightens you from His holy word, i really do:


That is a bigger problem for your position, because it entails that no one had God's word until 1769, when Blayney produced the revision of the KJV that you claim is perfect. Also, no Greek manuscript is identical to the Textus Receptus, produced by the Roman Catholic Erasmus via textual criticism.

Perhaps the greatest compliment, though veiled, that Erasmus's independent nature ever received came in 1559, twenty-three years after his death. That is when Pope Paul IV put Erasmus's writings on the "Index" of books, forbidden to be read by Roman Catholics.

http://chick.com/reading/books/158/158_57.asp


Timothy was not familiar with Early Modern English, but read the Bible in Hebrew or maybe the LXX Greek. “If the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul, then it's good enough for me,” is meant to be a joke, or at least I hope so.

Well, quite frankly, if it's good enough for Luke, it's good enough for me.

http://chick.com/reading/books/158/158_10.asp

Adamski
29-05-2013, 11:53 PM
Quoted by Chick link just given by John:

"Thus, Luke states that his gospel begins with the earliest acts of Christ and ends with His ascension. Therefore, any Greek manuscript or manuscripts, no matter what their age, containing the Gospel of Luke which omits either of these accounts is not authentic. In an examination of the 23rd Edition of Nestle's Greek Text we find that the Greek words, "Kai anepheroto eis ton huranon," "and was carried up into the heaven" are not found in this text.

The footnote in the critical apparatus indicates that the authority for removing this phrase is no more than manuscript (MS) Sinaiticus, D, one majuscule MS known as number 52 and one 5th century palimpsect (a MS which has been erased and written over top of). .... Yet on the basis of only two MSS the conservative scholars of the secret Lockman Foundation have omitted this phrase from Luke 24:51 in the New American Standard Version (NASV). Hence, the NASV is not truly a reliable translation. In fact, of most modern versions, only the "liberal" scholars of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) agreed with the "conservative" scholars of the NASV in omitting the phrase. Thus the known Communistic liberals of the RSV and the conservatives of the NASV are in full agreement that Christ did not ascend bodily into heaven.

So we see that if Luke, the writer of the Gospel of Luke and the book of the Acts of the Apostles, could examine a King James Bible and a New American Standard Version he would declare the New American Standard Version a fraud and promptly proclaim the King James Bible as authentic."

This conclusion just does not follow at all. Just because a translation misses out a phrase it does not mean that the translators don't believe the content of the phrase. It just means they felt that the evidence against its presence in that particular location was sufficiently strong to consign it to a footnote.

Capablanca-Fan
30-05-2013, 01:36 AM
Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
This is a misunderstanding. You need to look at verses 5 and 8 for the context:


5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

The context shows that the "preservation" applies to the people he would "set in safety" while "the wicked walk on every side". In the Hebrew it is clearer, because "preserve them" is masculine, agreeing with the gender of the "poor" and "needy" people, while the word for "words" is feminine, so can't be what the verb "preserve" is referring to. The KJV translators themselves knew this, because the real 1611 original had a marginal note on the word "them" in v. 7: Heb. him, i. euery one of them. See also Psalms 12:6–7: A Great "Word Preservation" Passage—Or Is It? (http://www.kjv-only.com/psalm12.html)


Now i ask can you show me a perfect bible in the English translation?
No. that's why I take the KJV translators' advice to study a "variety of translations". And to some extent, I can consult the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, although I am not an expert.


Perhaps the greatest compliment, though veiled, that Erasmus's independent nature ever received came in 1559, twenty-three years after his death. That is when Pope Paul IV put Erasmus's writings on the "Index" of books, forbidden to be read by Roman Catholics.
He never left the Roman Catholic Church, and debated Luther on foundational doctrines. I am aware that KJVO revisionism tries to turn him into a quasi American independent Baptist, but that's bizarre.


Well, quite frankly, if it's good enough for Luke, it's good enough for me.
Luke wrote in Koinè Greek not Early Modern English!

Capablanca-Fan
30-05-2013, 01:42 AM
Quoted by Chick link just given by John:
I have no idea what this is talking about. Luke 24:51 (NASB) reads (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+24%3A51&version=NASB):

While He was blessing them, He parted from them and was carried up into heaven.

John777
30-05-2013, 05:53 PM
This is a misunderstanding. You need to look at verses 5 and 8 for the context:


5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

so you say that verse 7 is misinterpreted but how do you deal with verse 6?

Other verses in the Bible tell me that every word in the Bible is perfect:

Psalms 56:10 In God will I praise his word: in the LORD will I praise his word.

1 Peter 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.


Is there a perfect English translation?


No. that's why I take the KJV translators' advice to study a "variety of translations". And to some extent, I can consult the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, although I am not an expert.

The problem is this: if you study a variety of translations how do you know which one is right? and if someone disagrees with you are they right or are you right? Every scholar becomes there own authority instead of the word of God being the authority. 200 different English translations? Confusion results.

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

God made the universe but somehow He doesn't have a perfect word of God for English speaking people across the world? The English language is an international language, i believe in a perfect word of God.


He never left the Roman Catholic Church, and debated Luther on foundational doctrines. I am aware that KJVO revisionism tries to turn him into a quasi American independent Baptist, but that's bizarre.

Still Erasmus became anti-catholic and spoke against the catholic system, his works were hardly that of a typical catholic, just see who God used in the Bible to bring about His word, Moses? David? Peter? Paul? all except the Lord Jesus were sinners.


Luke wrote in Koinè Greek not Early Modern English!

Yes i know.

Capablanca-Fan
30-05-2013, 08:41 PM
so you say that verse 7 is misinterpreted but how do you deal with verse 6?
It is not just I who say this, but as I showed. the KJV translators agree with me.


Other verses in the Bible tell me that every word in the Bible is perfect:
Which I agree with. But they were in Hebrew (occasionally Aramaic) or Greek, not one of the Early Modern English translations, of which you have arbitrarily chosen one.


The problem is this: if you study a variety of translations how do you know which one is right?
I'm just taking the advice of your translators. If they were wrong there then why should they be right when they translate?

John777
31-05-2013, 07:36 PM
so you say that verse 7 is misinterpreted but how do you deal with verse 6?


It is not just I who say this, but as I showed. the KJV translators agree with me.

what would the KJV translators think of proponents of the NASV, ESV, etc?


Other verses in the Bible tell me that every word in the Bible is perfect:


Which I agree with. But they were in Hebrew (occasionally Aramaic) or Greek, not one of the Early Modern English translations, of which you have arbitrarily chosen one.

God has His word in other languages besides Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, as in Acts 2 here:

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?


I'm just taking the advice of your translators. If they were wrong there then why should they be right when they translate?

just the same way as with Moses, imperfect men used by God to do the will of God.

Capablanca-Fan
01-06-2013, 01:57 AM
what would the KJV translators think of proponents of the NASV, ESV, etc?
Quite highly I would imagine, since they were doing the same thing: bring the Bible into the language of their day, not the language of four centuries previously:


Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob’s well (which is deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, “Read this, I pray thee,” he was fain to make this answer, “I cannot, for it is sealed.” [Isa 29:11]’

But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.


God has His word in other languages besides Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, as in Acts 2 here:
None of that was Scripture. I've already posted a quotation from the KJV translators showing that they understood the difference between the original manuscripts and translations.


just the same way as with Moses, imperfect men used by God to do the will of God.
Moses explicitly said that he was passing on God's word. We have no such declaration from the KJV translators. But your position is without foundation. At the very least, you have no justification for ignoring their recommendations for a translation in the "vulgar tongue" and studying "a variety of translations".

John777
01-06-2013, 09:29 PM
No offense but you sound like James White in your answers.

Can you trust James White? (Part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYCVWa84Nb4

Adamski
02-06-2013, 12:43 AM
James White speaks a lot of sense.

See e.g. his first response to Sam Gipps on KJV Onlyism at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNGa_dRTNMo

Capablanca-Fan
02-06-2013, 01:38 AM
James White speaks a lot of sense.
Indeed he does. His book addressing KJV-onlyism (http://www.amazon.com/King-James-Only-Controversy-Translations/dp/0764206052)is excellent. Another good series is by Fred Butler, Confessions of a KJV Only Advocate (http://www.fredsbibletalk.com/KJVonly.html).

John777
02-06-2013, 03:31 PM
Indeed he does. His book addressing KJV-onlyism is excellent.

ah no it isn't i recommend you see this:

(play from 4:30 mark)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S9Z8knbVFk

and you might want to see these videos by Preacher Bryan Delinger:

Ridiculous Bible PerVersions Of The New Age

http://www.youtube.com/user/husky394xp?feature=watch

Capablanca-Fan
02-06-2013, 03:41 PM
ah no it isn't i recommend you see this:
None of these people is credible. I can check the work of both White and Riplinger, and White is right and Riplinger hopelessly wrong. The Riplinger-type position is absurd on the face of it, since I can and have taught all the doctrines of Christianity from the modern version, despite KJVO charges that they are "left out" or otherwise undermined.

John777
02-06-2013, 04:00 PM
None of these people is credible.

what? what do you they need to earn for credibility?

1 Corinthians 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

1 Corinthians 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:


I can check the work of both White and Riplinger, and White is right and Riplinger hopelessly wrong.

where?

here is video that shows you a few lies by White:

James White lies about Riplinger's work 3 times in two pages

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgfmWLNus2E

Riplinger vs White-who can you trust:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8Ogwqz9iDo

And much more about White:

http://www.youtube.com/user/edwardpf123/search?query=james+white


The Riplinger-type position is absurd on the face of it, since I can and have taught all the doctrines of Christianity from the modern version, despite KJVO charges that they are "left out" or otherwise undermined.

In Isaiah 14:12, the father of the new versions removes his mask. The King James reads, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!..." The NIV, NASV, NRSV etc. reads, "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn..." The new per-versions change "Lucifer" to "morning star." According to Revelation 22:16, the "morning star" is the Lord Jesus Christ. What blasphemy! What perversion! And there's no basis whatsoever for the change, as the Hebrew word for star [kokab] is not even found in Isaiah 14:12. Is there any doubt who is the father of these new versions?

Capablanca-Fan
04-06-2013, 02:54 PM
what? what do you they need to earn for credibility?
Even a minimal understanding of the original languages and the history of manuscript transmission.


In Isaiah 14:12, the father of the new versions removes his mask. The King James reads, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!..." The NIV, NASV, NRSV etc. reads, "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn..." The new per-versions change "Lucifer" to "morning star." According to Revelation 22:16, the "morning star" is the Lord Jesus Christ. What blasphemy! What perversion! And there's no basis whatsoever for the change, as the Hebrew word for star [kokab] is not even found in Isaiah 14:12. Is there any doubt who is the father of these new versions?
I've answered this elsewhere:

One example that some have used as ‘proof’ of the corruption of modern Bibles is Isaiah 14:12: ‘How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star’, which supposedly equates Jesus with Satan, because in Rev. 22:16 Jesus calls Himself the (bright) Morning Star. But the KJV avoids this alleged problem by using the word ‘Lucifer’. However, ‘morning star’ is the correct translation of the Hebrew heylel, and even the real KJV-1611 had in a footnote, ‘O daystarre’. ‘Lucifer’ is based, once again, on Jerome’s Vulgate. To put it into perspective, the Isaiah 14 passage was entirely mocking of Satan — he wanted to be like the Most High, and part of his counterfeit of God was also to counterfeit the true Star. Elsewhere, Satan is called “the god of this world (or ‘age’)” (2 Corinthians 4:4), but this doesn’t deny that YHWH-Elohim is the true God who is sovereign over the entire creation. In context, no-one would think that Jesus is being addressed in the Isaiah passage.

John777
05-06-2013, 05:05 PM
what do you need to earn credibility?


a minimal understanding of the original languages and the history of manuscript transmission.

i guess Peter and John dont qualify

Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.


NASB(New American Standard Bible)

Luke 2:33 (KJV) And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

Luke 2:33 (NASB) And His father and mother were amazed at the things which were being said about Him.

COMMENT: The name Joseph has been changed to His father, thereby denying that God was the Saviour's Father not Joseph.

John 7:8 (KJV) Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.

John 7:8 (NASB) Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come.

COMMENT: By omitting the word 'yet' the NASV makes the Saviour a liar, because he did later go up to the feast. (John 7:10)

1 John 5:7 (KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

1 John 5:7 (NASB) For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

COMMENT: Here is an example of massive mutilation.

The NASV is strongly influenced by two corrupt manuscripts: Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. These have defiled the entire publication.

If Satan had altered every text concerning a single doctrine his deception would have been soon discovered by even the casual Bible student. All he needed to deceive God's people was to alter a word or sentence here and another word or sentence there. That was all that was necessary; and that is what he has so successfully done with every modern translation which is based on corrupt manuscripts. He has deceived millions of sincere Christians and i was once one of them.

Capablanca-Fan
06-06-2013, 09:13 AM
i guess Peter and John dont qualify

Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.
They perceived this. But of course, Peter and John were not unlearned. They had been taught by Jesus Himself for three years. And Hebrew was their first language, and it's likely that they learned Greek because that was a common language throughout the Roman Empire.


Luke 2:33 (KJV) And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

Luke 2:33 (NASB) And His father and mother were amazed at the things which were being said about Him.

COMMENT: The name Joseph has been changed to His father, thereby denying that God was the Saviour's Father not Joseph.
If the NASB were really trying to deny the virginal conception, then it would hardly have: ‘Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.’ in Is. 7:14 and Matthew 1:23, and teach the virgin birth clearly in Luke 1:34–35.
The fact is, Joseph was Jesus’s adoptive father or stepfather, although not His biological father. Joseph would have had the ‘head of the family’ role in Jesus’ childhood as the husband of His mother and father of His half-brothers. But it’s plausible to imagine that a copyist wrongly thought that this passage detracted from the virgin birth, thus believing that he had an errant copy, so ‘corrected’ it. And it was this ‘corrected’ reading that was copied more often in the Byzantine empire, the only place where Greek was preserved. But it’s highly implausible to believe that a satanic scribe changed ‘the child’s father and mother …’ to ‘Joseph and his mother …’ and left all the other much clearer statements of the virginal conception completely untouched!
Note also, this is yet more proof of the gross double standards of most KJJV-only literature: if they were consistent with their own ‘reasoning’, they would attack the KJV for saying ‘Now [B]his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover’ (Luke 2:41), and ‘…his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing’ (Luke 2:48).


John 7:8 (KJV) Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.

John 7:8 (NASB) Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come.

COMMENT: By omitting the word 'yet' the NASV makes the Saviour a liar, because he did later go up to the feast. (John 7:10)
But there is an innocent explanation: this was referring to the public procession to Jerusalem as part of the feast. Jesus was not joining this openly since His time was not come. But He does go secretly, as the NASB says in v. 10.

In any case, the UBS 4th ed is far from dogmatic about "not" (ouk), giving it a "C" rating (D is the lowest). There was much disagreement. Some argued that that an early scribe changed it to "not yet" (oupō) for much the same reasons as you object to the passage; i.e. mistakenly thinking that the original wording is errant (this explains a number of other differences). Others point out that "not yet" has quite strong MS support, just as you say, including the early papyri 66 and 75, and the much maligned Vaticanus, and lots of others! Indeed, the NIV goes with "not yet".


1 John 5:7 (KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

1 John 5:7 (NASB) For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

COMMENT: Here is an example of massive mutilation.
No, evidence that the KJV has this spurious addition. As I've explained in Islam, testimony, and the Trinity (http://creation.com/islam-testimony-trinity):


First, not only is is absent from most Greek manuscripts, it was never found in any of them until the 16th century. The first of any Greek witnesses was a 13th-century translation from a Latin work.

Second, if such a verse had existed, it would surely have been used to defend the correct Trinitarian view. Yet it is absent from all the Greek works by the great Trinitarians like Basil and Athanasius. It is also absent from the 2nd-century Latin writer Tertullian, the first to expound the explicit doctrine, as explained in point 7 above. The passage is just not found in old Latin Christian works or in the earliest editions of the Vulgate. The Comma is also conspicuously absent from the ancient translations such as Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, and Slavonic. Luther’s German translation from the second edition of Erasmus’ Greek also lacked the Comma. See also the articles by evangelical textual scholar Dr Dan Wallace, The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7–8 (http://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8) and The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian (http://bible.org/article/comma-johanneum-and-cyprian).

Third, it is very dangerous to assert that such an important verse had been removed from most manuscripts. This is actually all-too-similar to the Islamic charge that the Bible has been corrupted to remove references to Muhammad. The answer is the same: unless they can produce the alleged early uncorrupted manuscripts to compare with the extant ones, they have no case. In any case, these alleged corruptors could not have done a good job, since they left the passages that Trinitarians actually used to prove their argument!

In reality, the heretics mostly didn’t corrupt manuscripts but twisted the meanings of the clearly genuine readings. The one main exception was Marcion, a wealthy heretic who tried to produce a highly reduced Canon of Scripture. But he was excommunicated and his huge donation returned to him. So Christians were on the lookout for deliberate tampering as Marcion tried. See also “Isn’t it true that all modern Bible versions are translated from biblical manuscripts corrupted by heretics?” (http://www.fredsbibletalk.com/qa008.html) by Fred Butler, who is a good CMI supporter.

Fourth, why use such a textually dubious argument for the Trinity when there are so many well-attested passages that make this doctrine plain?


If Satan had altered every text concerning a single doctrine his deception would have been soon discovered by even the casual Bible student.
Apparently his "deception" is so incompetent that he left all the important information in these allegedly corrupted manuscripts.


All he needed to deceive God's people was to alter a word or sentence here and another word or sentence there.
More question-begging. In reality, the KJV and the TR it comes from have many added words.

John777
07-06-2013, 05:59 PM
i'm sort of convicted not to debate because of these verses:

Romans 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

2 Corinthians 12:20 For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults:

Goughfather
07-06-2013, 08:38 PM
i'm sort of convicted not to debate because of these verses:

Romans 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

2 Corinthians 12:20 For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults:

Hopefully the irony is not lost on Jono.

Capablanca-Fan
07-06-2013, 11:52 PM
i'm sort of convicted not to debate because of these verses:

Romans 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

2 Corinthians 12:20 For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults:
From Christian Apologetics Questions and Answers (http://creation.com/christian-apologetics-questions-and-answers) (and I've added hyperlinks to the KJV just for John 777)

The term ‘Christian apologetics’ doesn’t refer to apologizing (or saying ‘sorry’) for being a Christian. It comes from the Greek word ἀπολογία (apología) meaning defence. The Greek term refers to a reasoned defence that would be given in a court of law. The classic example is Plato’s Apology, Socrates’ defence against the charges of atheism and corrupting the youth.

Christian apologetics is the reasoned defence of the Christian faith against objections, but also includes the setting forth of positive grounds for Christianity. It is the duty of all Christians, because:

The Lord Jesus Christ commanded: ‘Love the Lord your God … with all your mind.’ (Matthew 22:37 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A37&version=KJV))
The Apostle Peter commanded Christians: ‘Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.’ (1 Peter 3:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:15&version=KJV))
Jude’s inspired epistle said: ‘I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.’ (v. 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%203&version=KJV))
The Apostle Paul said: ‘We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ’ (2 Corinthians 10:5).

John777
08-06-2013, 05:55 PM
From Christian Apologetics Questions and Answers (http://creation.com/christian-apologetics-questions-and-answers) (and I've added hyperlinks to the KJV just for John 777)


Thanks for the links i have to go through each one, i did give an answer but it seems with Christians that aren't KJVO there are all sorts of "reasons" that can be said to support there own favorite versions. You have been educated in the James White school of thought but i haven't, from personal experience i know that the KJV Bible is right, God is no respecter of persons, what matters is what the word of God says, sometimes we have to admit we are wrong and the word of God is right. i think that humility is a great option. Let God be true and every man a liar.

Adamski
08-06-2013, 06:50 PM
From Christian Apologetics Questions and Answers (http://creation.com/christian-apologetics-questions-and-answers) (and I've added hyperlinks to the KJV just for John 777)

The term ‘Christian apologetics’ doesn’t refer to apologizing (or saying ‘sorry’) for being a Christian. It comes from the Greek word ἀπολογία (apología) meaning defence. The Greek term refers to a reasoned defence that would be given in a court of law. The classic example is Plato’s Apology, Socrates’ defence against the charges of atheism and corrupting the youth.

Christian apologetics is the reasoned defence of the Christian faith against objections, but also includes the setting forth of positive grounds for Christianity. It is the duty of all Christians, because:

The Lord Jesus Christ commanded: ‘Love the Lord your God … with all your mind.’ (Matthew 22:37 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A37&version=KJV))
The Apostle Peter commanded Christians: ‘Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.’ (1 Peter 3:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:15&version=KJV))
Jude’s inspired epistle said: ‘I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.’ (v. 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%203&version=KJV))
The Apostle Paul said: ‘We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ’ (2 Corinthians 10:5).
Excellent post by Jono. Christian apologetics is vitally important. His answers to John777 on the alleged errors in the NASB above are also excellent. The NASB is one of my 2 favorite translations (the other being the NKJV) because of its accuracy. Lately, I have also started to read the more recent ESV (English Standard Version) which is also accurate and is growing on me. KJV now comes in 4th. (I don't like the NIV because I think too much real Scripture is in footnotes. I was also put off it when I heard that at least one of the translators was gay.)

Desmond
08-06-2013, 07:23 PM
Christian apologetics is vitally important. Why?

jammo
08-06-2013, 08:51 PM
I was also put off it when I heard that at least one of the translators was gay.)

An interesting comment in today's society. How did you feel when you heard that the other translators were heterosexual. i even heard that one of the translators was black.

How did you feel about the KJV when you found out that King James himself was gay. is that why you place the KJV fourth.

Adamski
08-06-2013, 11:13 PM
Why?Because as the verse from Peter says, Christians must be ready to have an answer /explanation for the hope that is in them.

Saragossa
08-06-2013, 11:21 PM
I was also put off it when I heard that at least one of the translators was gay.

Why does that change anything?

Adamski
08-06-2013, 11:21 PM
An interesting comment in today's society. How did you feel when you heard that the other translators were heterosexual. i even heard that one of the translators was black.

How did you feel about the KJV when you found out that King James himself was gay. is that why you place the KJV fourth.King James 1 was but one of the translators so his private life has never been a factor in my assessment of the KJV. BTW FWIW, I believe historians generally accept that his adviser the Duke of Buckingham was gay but not all believe that the King himself was. The gay lifestyle is clearly called sinful in the Bible, even in the NIV, but this is all impinging on another thread.

Saragossa
08-06-2013, 11:30 PM
King James 1 was but one of the translators so his private life has never been a factor in my assessment of the KJV. BTW FWIW, I believe historians generally accept that his adviser the Duke of Buckingham was gay but not all believe that the King himself was. The gay lifestyle is clearly called sinful in the Bible, even in the NIV, but this is all impinging on another thread.

Do you check no other translator of the bibles you engage in sinful behaviour?

Adamski
08-06-2013, 11:32 PM
Do you check no other translator of the bibles you engage in sinful behaviour?Nah - and I rarely read KJV or NIV now.

Saragossa
08-06-2013, 11:49 PM
Nah - and I rarely read KJV or NIV now.

You really should. The NASB has over 30 contributors, at least one of them must have tainted the bible with their sins.

Capablanca-Fan
09-06-2013, 12:34 AM
I was also put off it when I heard that at least one of the translators was gay.)
Thanks for the generous comments on my posts. I also agree with you that the NASB, NKJV, and ESV are among the best translations out there, and better than the NIV in most cases.

About a gay translator of the NIV, that is a staple of KJVO agitprop, but not actually true. Here is something from a letter I wrote a long time ago against one KJVO called David Waite (although he doesn't believe that the KJV was separately inspired unlike Ruckman):


The old accusation about a lesbian on the translation committee. Waite’s referring to Virginia Mollenkott, but the charge against the NIV committee is without foundation. To give you some background, Mollenkott once moved in evangelical circles, but she was a lot like Charles Templeton (http://creation.com/shame-on-charisma#templeton). He was a colleague of the famous evangelist Billy Graham—it could even be said that Templeton was the star and Graham was the other guy. But Templeton began a slippery slide (http://creation.com/the-slippery-slide-to-unbelief-a-famous-evangelist-goes-from-hope-to-hopelessness) to apostasy (http://creation.com/death-of-an-apostate). Mollenkott also became convinced that Genesis 1 and 2 were contradictory, and this led to an excuse to reject the authority of Scripture. But the main thing for her was imposing the ideas of fallible women (feminists) on the infallible Word of God. The fine book The Feminist Gospel : The Movement to Unite Feminism With the Church (http://www.amazon.com/The-Feminist-Gospel-Movement-Feminism/dp/0891076522) by Mary A. Kassian, 1992, analyses Mollenkott’s slide into New Age/Goddess cult in great detail. It might interest you to know that in my university Christian days, I spoke out fervently against ‘biblical’ feminism almost as much as creation compromises, and my views have not changed. Anyway, when she still appeared to be an evangelical, the NIV committee briefly used her as a style consultant (not a translator), because she was an academic in English literature. When her views became clear, she was quickly dismissed.

In any case, the dismissal of the NIV because of even the fleeting association with Mollenkott is an example of the genetic fallacy, i.e. the error of trying to prove an error because of its source (http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind-logic-and-creation#genetic). But clearly even a heretic is capable of correctly translating something—after all, we often cite the neo-Orthodox James Barr on Genesis (http://creation.com/oxford-hebraist-james-barr-genesis-means-what-it-says) (as a hostile witness).

Really, it is ridiculous to accuse the NIV of being soft on homosexuality. Lev. 18:22: ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.’ Rom. 1:25–27: ‘They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator — who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.’ These passages clearly call homosexual acts ‘detestable’, the result of ‘shameful lusts’, ‘unnatural’, ‘indecent’, ‘perversion’. How can Waite rationally claim that the NIV ‘justified homosexuals in their abominable practices and makes the version gay-friendly and acceptable to the gay community’?

And here we go yet again: Waite complains that the KJV’s ‘sodomite’ is ‘replaced’ by ‘male shrine prostitute’ in places like Deuteronomy 23:17. Once again, no! It’s not a ‘replacement’ but an independent translation of the Hebrew. If you check in Strong’s Concordance, you will find that the Hebrew word is qadesh, and the meaning given is ‘(quasi) sacred person, i.e. (techn.) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry: — sodomite, unclean’. Sodomite would be Sedomi from the Hebrew Sedom for Sodom plus the ending –i designating a native, just as Israelite is Yisraeli. In the Hebrew, male homosexuals are simply not referred to as natives of Sodom. So the NIV is actually more precise than the KJV here.

So it is unfair for John777 to dismiss me as an uncritical follower of James White, although his book is first rate. I am very capable of assessing various versions myself, and refuting ignorant charges by the KJVO brigade.

Desmond
09-06-2013, 07:47 AM
Because as the verse from Peter says, Christians must be ready to have an answer /explanation for the hope that is in them.
Apologetics has nothing to do with hope. Plenty of people have hope and aren't apologists.

Capablanca-Fan
09-06-2013, 10:10 AM
Apologetics has nothing to do with hope. Plenty of people have hope and aren't apologists.
Because they don't have a reason for it. Christians do, and are supposed to give reasons for it, as well as demolish arguments against it.

Desmond
09-06-2013, 11:25 AM
Because they don't have a reason for it. What nonsense.


Christians do, Yet only a subset of Christians are apologists.

Capablanca-Fan
09-06-2013, 12:27 PM
Yet only a subset of Christians are apologists.
But they should be, if they want to be obedient to God's Word.

Desmond
09-06-2013, 12:47 PM
But they should be, if they want to be obedient to God's Word.
Yet they have hope without doing so, showing Adamski's statement to be wrong.

Perhaps he would like to try again: Why is Christian apologetics vitally important.

Capablanca-Fan
09-06-2013, 01:29 PM
Yet they have hope without doing so, showing Adamski's statement to be wrong.
We are talking about real Christians who believe Christ, including "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). I have no interest in any other kind.


Perhaps he would like to try again: Why is Christian apologetics vitally important.
As above. What does an misotheist like you care anyway?

Desmond
09-06-2013, 01:37 PM
We are talking about real Christians who believe Christ, including "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). I have no interest in any other kind.
If that is true, then the statement should be read as

Christian apologetics is vitally important to Christian apologists.
Yawn.


As above. What does an misotheist like you care anyway?What do you care what I care?

Capablanca-Fan
09-06-2013, 02:00 PM
If that is true, then the statement should be read as

Christian apologetics is vitally important to Christian apologists.
No, Jesus-believing Christians should take Christian apologetics as vitally important.

Saragossa
09-06-2013, 03:08 PM
Even if there was a homosexual translator why would that make their translation inferior? If you want to talk bias, let's talk about 30 male, religiously conservative, heterosexuals, who have interest in preserving the bible they know.

Desmond
09-06-2013, 06:42 PM
No, Jesus-believing Christians should take Christian apologetics as vitally important.
Even if you're right, why should the rest of us care? Christianity is just one of thousands of religions, and your flavour of it is just one of dozens. Something being vitally important for a small group of people does not necessarily make it vitally important period.

Adamski
10-06-2013, 03:55 PM
Even if there was a homosexual translator why would that make their translation inferior? If you want to talk bias, let's talk about 30 male, religiously conservative, heterosexuals, who have interest in preserving the bible they know.
It is just that the way such a person wants to translate certain verses could be watered down from an evangelical Christian interpretation. Specifically, verses concerning homosexuality.

Goughfather
10-06-2013, 04:04 PM
It is just that the way such a person wants to translate certain verses could be watered down from an evangelical Christian interpretation. Specifically, verses concerning homosexuality.

But you miss the point of Saragossa's question. Doesn't your concern about bias from a homosexual translator also apply to translators who are religious conservatives? For instance, perhaps these translators may wish to promote a translation that reinforces a complementarian view of gender relation and women's roles in the ministry.

John777
10-06-2013, 07:47 PM
It is just that the way such a person wants to translate certain verses could be watered down from an evangelical Christian interpretation. Specifically, verses concerning homosexuality.

Well i think that has happened with the latest NIV and TNIV that there is a watering down on genders to make the version more "world friendly"

Capablanca-Fan
10-06-2013, 11:50 PM
Well i think that has happened with the latest NIV and TNIV that there is a watering down on genders to make the version more "world friendly"
That may be, and I am against “gender-neutra” Bibles (http://creation.com/gender-neutral-bible-translations) that substitute a gender-neutral word for one that is gendered in the original. I don't mind gender neutral if the original word is gender-neutral, such as anthrōpos (ἄνθρωπος) meaning “human being”.


Even if there was a homosexual translator why would that make their translation inferior?
Because of the danger of slanting the translation towards homosexual behaviour, such as the Queen James Bible (http://creation.com/wicked-bible). Similarly, it helps to know that the “New World Translation” was translated by people very weak in the original languages who had the agenda of denying the deity of Christ. For that matter, I disagree also with the “Conservative Bible (http://creation.com/politicizing-scripture-conservative-bible-translation)”, the translators of which were trying to slant the Bible in favour of American political conservatism. I've also written a parody piece about a “New Compromise Version” (http://creation.com/new-compromise-bible-version-satire), about what a Bible would need to look like to allow for evolution and millions of years.

Desmond
12-05-2014, 07:38 AM
If there was no death before the fall how did Adam and Eve get clothed in the skins of animals? Non-fatal flayings?

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2014, 07:44 AM
If there was no death before the fall how did Adam and Eve get clothed in the skins of animals? Non-fatal flayings?

They were clothed in animal skins after the Fall. Can't you atheopaths read?

Desmond
12-05-2014, 06:30 PM
They were clothed in animal skins after the Fall. Can't you atheopaths read?Yeah, basically straight after. So either god cut the skin straight off the animal and made it into clothes without going through any kind of curing process etc (that would be pleasant) or he killed the animal ahead of time, i.e. before the fall.

Or maybe like creating light from distant galaxies in motion, he magicked the skin into existence pre-tanned.

Capablanca-Fan
14-05-2014, 02:51 AM
Yeah, basically straight after. So either god cut the skin straight off the animal and made it into clothes without going through any kind of curing process etc (that would be pleasant) or he killed the animal ahead of time, i.e. before the fall.
No, the implication is that the animal deaths were after the Fall. God is certainly capable of curing skins quickly. Real animal deaths were involved, and this was the first teaching that sin against the perfectly holy God was so serious that blood sacrifice was required.


Or maybe like creating light from distant galaxies in motion, he magicked the skin into existence pre-tanned.
We have long advised against the "light created in transit" idea. Do try to keep up.

Desmond
14-05-2014, 07:23 AM
No, the implication is that the animal deaths were after the Fall.How is this implied?
God is certainly capable of curing skins quickly.Oh really, what methods does he use and how quick are they? Should seem strange if God has a better way of doing it and Adam didn't copy and use it.
Real animal deaths were involved, and this was the first teaching that sin against the perfectly holy God was so serious that blood sacrifice was required.Yeah, sacrificing others' blood is sadly a recurring theme with religions.


We have long advised against the "light created in transit" idea. Do try to keep up.Oh really, what nonsense are you peddling in this area this week?

Rincewind
14-05-2014, 01:58 PM
Oh really, what nonsense are you peddling in this area this week?

I don't think Jono has a divinely inspired answer but aslong as they have one theory which might be plausible then it is automatically better than anything that might come out of real science since they contradict the mythology of bronze age shepherds.

Do a search on here for any discussion on Carmelian relativity or John Hartnett. That is one theory which seems to be Jono pet one at the moment. There is not much actual science in it and claims to it superiority relating the absence of dark energy and dark matter are spurious because their solution has a free parameter which Hartnett plucks out of the air and Carmelian relativity also posits a whole other temporal dimension, so-called cosmological time, as an unjustified assumption and as a consequence has a very small following in the physics world.

But hey, if you are free to make stuff up then you can get a cosmology that avoids starlight in transit. But really you aren't any closer to a cosmology that makes sense.

Capablanca-Fan
15-05-2014, 11:55 PM
Yes, Carmelian relativity combined with a centric universe. The "light created in transit" idea was abandoned many years ago.