Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,924 Year: 4,181/9,624 Month: 1,052/974 Week: 11/368 Day: 11/11 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Inerrancy of the Bible
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3488 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 52 of 301 (176486)
01-13-2005 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by 36Christians
01-12-2005 4:22 PM


Bat or Bird
quote:
The answer to this is that they were simply using a different classification system.
Bloodletting
The practice of bloodletting seemed logical when the foundation of all medical treatment was based on the four body humors: blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile. Health was thought to be restored by purging, starving, vomiting or bloodletting.
Hopefully you realize that the manuals on bloodletting were considered true when written, but now we know the procedure does not provide a cure.
When the Hebrews classified bats with birds, the statement would have been true or accepted in their time. Today we know that bats are not birds.
Do you contend that if a statement is considered true when it was written that it should be considered true for eternity?
Oddly enough you could have maintained your Bible inerrancy argument concerning this statement if you hadn't said that KJV is perfect.
According to Strong's concordance the word "owph" has a meaning of flying creature, bird, fowl.
If you look at the classification system used in Leviticus 11 you find general groupings.
"These shall ye eat of all that are in the water; whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat."
"Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing"
Since the word "owph" has a possible meaning of "flying creatures" and we do know today that bats are not birds, logically the translation should have been "flying creatures" instead of birds or fowl which have a more specific meaning to us today.
The Complete Jewish Bible renders it:
The following creatures of the air are to be detestable for you...
Granted when the KJV "translation" was started in 1607 and completed in 1611, they still didn't know that bats weren't birds, but today we do.
IMO, since translations are made to be understood by the reader, it is incorrect for any Bible translation to use the words bird or fowl (since they have specific meanings today) if "flying creatures" is available.
This message has been edited by purpledawn, 01-13-2005 16:52 AM

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by 36Christians, posted 01-12-2005 4:22 PM 36Christians has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 4:54 PM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 220 by 36Christians, posted 01-19-2005 12:00 PM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3488 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 53 of 301 (176498)
01-13-2005 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by 36Christians
01-10-2005 10:23 AM


KJV Translation Problems
Per the Chicago Statement on Bible Inerrancy
Article X
WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
Here are some translation problems you can address:
Acts 17
19 - And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?
22 - Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
The words in bold: Areopagus and Mars' hill are the same word, why the difference in translation? In other translations both verses use Areopagus.
The italicized word: superstitious is rendered religious in other translations.
NIV
So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects.
Complete Jewish Bible
Sha'ul stood up in the Council meeting and said, "Men of Athens: I see how very religious you are in every way!
Why did KJV choose the negative translation as opposed to the positive translation?

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by 36Christians, posted 01-10-2005 10:23 AM 36Christians has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by johnfolton, posted 01-13-2005 12:51 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 223 by 36Christians, posted 01-19-2005 12:53 PM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3488 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 55 of 301 (176636)
01-13-2005 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by johnfolton
01-13-2005 12:51 PM


Re: KJV Translation Problems
As usual you don't answer the questions asked. Hopefully 36Christians will.
I find it interesting that my King James Version printed in 1875 is very different than the one I have that was printed in 1989. No Apocrypha in the newer one.
Acts 12:4
And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
Do you truly believe that the author of Acts meant Easter when he wrote "Pascha"?

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by johnfolton, posted 01-13-2005 12:51 PM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by NosyNed, posted 01-13-2005 5:04 PM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3488 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 60 of 301 (176686)
01-13-2005 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by NosyNed
01-13-2005 5:04 PM


Re: Drive by is 36??
I'm assuming 36C is a group, which would cause them to answer a bit slower. I wasn't rushing them. Just wanted 36C to know that I didn't get my answer from Tom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by NosyNed, posted 01-13-2005 5:04 PM NosyNed has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3488 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 71 of 301 (176902)
01-14-2005 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by johnfolton
01-12-2005 12:54 PM


Lucifer
quote:
The bible verse calls lucifer the son of the morning, not the bright and morning star.
Verse 12 is not referring to Satan.
Isaiah 14
On the day the LORD gives you relief from suffering and turmoil and cruel bondage, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:...
How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn!...
It is a taunt against the king of Babylon. Read the whole work!
As this Lucifer link shows, the meaning of words change over time. Taking the new meaning back in time is a mistake, an error and does cause problems.
To the ancient Hebrews the verse refers to a fallen Babylonian King.
In the time of Jerome, Lucifer was the name of the morning star. So he translated it as such without harming the original aim of the taunt.
Later Lucifer became a fallen angel and associated with the word Satan or Devil. This is not a major problem until we take the new meaning of the word Lucifer and apply it to Isaiah 14:12.
Given the new usage of the word lucifer, today it is an error to translate "helel" as lucifer.
This puts the KJV in error, again.

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by johnfolton, posted 01-12-2005 12:54 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by johnfolton, posted 01-14-2005 11:41 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 93 by johnfolton, posted 01-14-2005 5:37 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 104 by johnfolton, posted 01-15-2005 12:51 PM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3488 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 84 of 301 (177013)
01-14-2005 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by johnfolton
01-14-2005 11:41 AM


Re: Lucifer
quote:
I've no problem that Lucifer the devil is the serpent that the babylonians thought they were worshipping when as some of your are saying when they saw the planet Venus.
Unfortunately that's not what I said.
This is an "Accuracy and Inerrancy" thread, please address the information I presented.
Without quoting verses show me evidence that my information is wrong.
The verses you provided have nothing to do with the taunt in Isaiah 14.

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by johnfolton, posted 01-14-2005 11:41 AM johnfolton has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3488 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 99 of 301 (177207)
01-15-2005 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by johnfolton
01-14-2005 5:37 PM


Re: Lucifer
Read carefully!
1. Isaiah 14:29 which includes the "firery flying serpent" is an oracle that came in the year that King Ahaz died. It is NOT part of the taunt aimed at the Babylonian king that used the word "lucifer."
2. "firery flying serpent" means:
Saraph (Strong's)
1. serpent, fiery serpent
poisonous serpent (fiery from burning effect of poison)
2. seraph, seraphim
majestic beings with 6 wings, human hands or voices in attendance upon God
Please address the points I made in Message 71 concerning the error of using the word lucifer.
Here is a little information on the Jewish View of Satan which is helpful since Isaiah is Jewish. As I've mentioned to you before, try to understand the Jewish perspective.
This message has been edited by purpledawn, 01-15-2005 08:06 AM

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by johnfolton, posted 01-14-2005 5:37 PM johnfolton has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3488 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 106 of 301 (177276)
01-15-2005 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by johnfolton
01-15-2005 12:51 PM


Re: Lucifer
The taunt in Isaiah 14 is not a prophecy. It is a poem taunting the king of Babylon. Nothing in the taunt refers to the Devil because they didn't believe in the Devil.
The question at the end of chapter 14 has nothing to do with the word we are discussing.
You have not shown me any evidence that the Hebrew word translated as Lucifer (which Christians say is the Devil) is an accurate translation. I have shown you that it is an inaccurate translation.
Jewish beliefs do not support the KJV translation.
Hebrew translations do not support the KJV translation.
The meaning of "lucifer" when Jerome used it supports the Jewish translation, which does not refer to the Devil, but does not support the current Christian meaning of Lucifer.
Revelation has nothing to do with Isaiah 14.
Lucifer with a meaning of Satan or Devil is not an accurate translation for the Hebrew word "helel."

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by johnfolton, posted 01-15-2005 12:51 PM johnfolton has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3488 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 123 of 301 (177592)
01-16-2005 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by johnfolton
01-16-2005 11:47 AM


Re: Lucifer
quote:
I've already agreed with purpledawn that I can accept it figuratively. This means I can accept definition (1a).
You can't agree with me if I didn't say it was figurative for Satan. You agree with Strong's which gives all the meanings of the word as it stands today. I contend that the word "helel" DOES NOT mean the Devil or Satan!
The Lucifer link I provided shows that "lucifer" with its current meaning of Satan is not the meaning of "helel."
I also showed you that the Jewish View of Satan has nothing to do with a fallen deity. Therefore the taunt in Isaiah has nothing to do with the Christian Devil, figuratively or otherwise.
Read carefully and comprehend!
(The paragraph breaks are mine to make it easier to read.)
The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopaedia and Scriptural Dictionary, 1902
LUCIFER - A word that occurs once in the English Version in the lines--How art thou fallen from heaven, Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou felled to the ground, That didst weaken the nations! (Isaiah 14:12)
The Hebrew seems to mean 'brilliant,' 'splendid,' 'illustrious,' or , as in the Septuagint, Vulgate, the Rabbinical commentators, Luther, and others, 'brilliant star;' and in this sense was the proper name among the Hebrews of the morning star.
Tertullian and Gregory the Great understood this passage of Isaiah in reference to the fall of Satan; in consequence of which the name Lucifer has since been applied to Satan; and this is now the usual acceptation of the word.
But Dr. Henderson, who in his Isaiah renders the line, 'Illustrious son of the morning!' justly remarks in his annotation:
The application of this passage to Satan, and to the fall of the apostate angels, is one of those gross perversion of Sacred Writ which so extensively obtain, and which are to be traced to a proneness to seek for more in any given passage than it really contains, a disposition to be influenced by sound rather than sense, and an implicit faith in received interpretations.
The scope and connection show that none but the king of Babylon is meant. In the figurative language of the Hebrews a star signifies an illustrious king or prince. The monarch here referred to having surpassed all other kings in royal splendor, is compared to the harbinger of day, whose brilliancy surpasses that of the surrounding stars.
Falling from heaven denotes a sudden political overthrow--removal from the position of high and conspicuous dignity formerly occupied.
I repeat: If you define Lucifer as Satan, it is not an accurate translation of the Hebrew word "helel."
Septuagint
Here is where we find the name Lucifer. The term Lucifer comes not from the Hebrew or even from the Greek translation (Septuagint), but from the 4th century AD Latin translation...
If you wish to continue stating that the Hebrew word "helel" refers to Satan, then you need to show evidence other than Strong's Concordance which gives all possible definitions (past and present).
I still contend that the word "helel" DOES NOT mean the Devil or Satan and you have not proven otherwise. So the KJV is still in error in translating the word "helel."

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by johnfolton, posted 01-16-2005 11:47 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by johnfolton, posted 01-16-2005 6:54 PM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3488 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 128 of 301 (177662)
01-16-2005 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by johnfolton
01-16-2005 6:54 PM


Re: Lucifer
It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing. You failed to show evidence that the word "helel" is equivalent to Satan.
Therefore the KJV translation is in error.

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by johnfolton, posted 01-16-2005 6:54 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by johnfolton, posted 01-16-2005 11:58 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 133 by arachnophilia, posted 01-17-2005 5:06 AM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3488 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 135 of 301 (177749)
01-17-2005 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by johnfolton
01-16-2005 11:58 PM


Lucifer Still Not Satan
Nice story in Enoch, but it still does not associate the morning star, Venus, with Satan.
Isaiah is not talking about a fallen angel.
Satan is not associated with the planet Venus. Everything that falls is not Satan. Satan is an adversary. Venus was considered a bright star. Venus did not fall from the sky and it was not cast down to earth.
As I said before, the original meaning of "lucifer" which was light-bearer was an adequate translation in its day. Once "lucifer" became associated with the Christian thought of Satan as a demon, then using the word "lucifer" to mean the morning star is incorrect.
You cause yourself problems if you really want Satan associated with the morning star.
2 Peter 1:19
So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.
The word used for "morning star" is phosphoros which in Strong's means:
light bringing, giving light
the planet Venus, the morning star, day star
metaph. Christ
Congratulations! You have now associated Christ with Satan.
Re 22:16
"I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David , the bright morning star."
Personally, I would prefer that the KJV be in error than for Christ to be Satan.

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by johnfolton, posted 01-16-2005 11:58 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by johnfolton, posted 01-17-2005 10:34 AM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3488 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 136 of 301 (177757)
01-17-2005 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by arachnophilia
01-17-2005 5:06 AM


Re: Lucifer
quote:
the kjv is not in error. "lucifer" is a perfectly acceptible rendering of "heylel." it's the people who think it's talking about satan that are in error.
I agree that the latin meaning of the word was appropriate in a latin bible.
Unfortunately the theological meaning of Lucifer in Webster's dictionary today is:
Satan, esp. as leader of the revolt of the angels before his fall.
That is why I contend that in an English Bible using the word Lucifer to denote the morning star is incorrect. People today associate the word "Lucifer" with Satan, not Venus.
The translation should be aimed at the people reading the book.

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by arachnophilia, posted 01-17-2005 5:06 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by arachnophilia, posted 01-17-2005 3:56 PM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3488 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 139 of 301 (177851)
01-17-2005 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by johnfolton
01-17-2005 10:34 AM


Satan Not Morning Star
Enoch written about 200BCE or later.
Isaiah lived about 400 years earlier.
The only mention of "lucifer" in your link was a footnote which actually refers to the word "ha satan" not "helel" or morning star:
(10) Satanail. Or, "the impious one." Ha-satan in Hebrew means "the adversary" referring here to the "lead" adversary, or Lucifer.
I seriously doubt if Enoch wrote the footnote.
This does not show that Satan is the morning star.
As I showed you in my last post, equating the morning star with Satan then equates Christ with Satan.
Morning Star = Lucifer = Satan
Morning Star = Christ
Therefore Christ = Satan
Not a wise choice. Helel does not mean Satan!

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by johnfolton, posted 01-17-2005 10:34 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by johnfolton, posted 01-17-2005 6:22 PM purpledawn has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3488 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 146 of 301 (177962)
01-17-2005 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by arachnophilia
01-17-2005 3:56 PM


Re: Lucifer
Got access to a Latin Vulgate?
In the Vulgate, the word lucifer is used elsewhere: it describes the Morning Star (the planet Venus), the "light of the morning" (Job 11:17); the "signs of the zodiac" (Job 38:32) and "the aurora" (Psalm 109:3). Aside from Isaiah's reference to the King of Babylon, "lucifer" is applied to "Simon son of Onias" (Ecclesiasticus 50:6). In the New Testament, the Vulgate translates "glory of heaven" (in Apocalypse 2:23) and "Jesus Christ" (in II Peter 1:19; Apocalypse 22:16) with "lucifer". ( these references need checking)
This link is interesting if you haven't read it already.
Jerome apparently used "lucifer" several times in the Latin Vulgate. None of which, thankfully, describes Satan.
Ecclesiasticus is Sirach
Sir.50
[1] Simon the high priest, the son of Onias, who in his life repaired the house again, and in his days fortified the temple:
[2] And by him was built from the foundation the double height, the high fortress of the wall about the temple:
[3] In his days the cistern to receive water, being in compass as the sea, was covered with plates of brass:
[4] He took care of the temple that it should not fall, and fortified the city against besieging:
[5] How was he honoured in the midst of the people in his coming out of the sanctuary!
[6] He was as the morning star in the midst of a cloud, and as the moon at the full:
[7] As the sun shining upon the temple of the most High, and as the rainbow giving light in the bright clouds:
I guess the question would be was Sirach included in the first KJV with the apocrypha and if it was, was morning star translated as Lucifer in English?
I'll have to do some more research.
BTW, it is nice to discuss with a reasonable person.

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by arachnophilia, posted 01-17-2005 3:56 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by johnfolton, posted 01-17-2005 9:41 PM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 183 by arachnophilia, posted 01-18-2005 11:45 PM purpledawn has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3488 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 159 of 301 (178074)
01-18-2005 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by arachnophilia
01-17-2005 3:56 PM


Latin Vulgate
I found a Latin Vulgate online. I couldn't find Sirach in Latin.
I looked up the verses from that web page:
In the Vulgate, the word lucifer is used elsewhere: it describes the Morning Star (the planet Venus), the "light of the morning" (Job 11:17); the "signs of the zodiac" (Job 38:32) and "the aurora" (Psalm 109:3). Aside from Isaiah's reference to the King of Babylon, "lucifer" is applied to "Simon son of Onias" (Ecclesiasticus 50:6). In the New Testament, the Vulgate translates "glory of heaven" (in Apocalypse 2:23) and "Jesus Christ" (in II Peter 1:19; Apocalypse 22:16) with "lucifer". ( these references need checking)
The only ones that truly use lucifer are:
Job 11:17 et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et cum te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer
Job 38:32 numquid producis luciferum in tempore suo et vesperum super filios terrae consurgere facis
2 Peter 1:19 et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris
and our favorite
Isaiah 14:12 quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes
Now the line just before Job 38:32 is:
numquid coniungere valebis micantes stellas Pliadis aut gyrum Arcturi poteris dissipare
Here are the same two lines in KJV (Job 38)
31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?
33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?
The proper names are capitalized. Now if this is an accurate representation of the Latin Vulgate, we see that "lucifer" wasn't capitalized in any of the latin verses.
Now look at our line in Isaiah:
KJV - How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Latin - quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.
The translators in 1611 made a proper name out of a word that wasn't a proper name in the Latin Vulgate.
Origen (185-254AD) and Tertullian (155-After 220 A.D.) seem to have promoted the extended tales of Satan.
Jermone wrote the Vulgate (382-405AD) by translating the Greek into Latin. I don't see where he used the Hebrew.
Greek for "morning star" as you know is "phosphoros" which was also the word used in 2 Peter 1:19.
phosphoros
light bringing, giving light
the planet Venus, the morning star, day star
metaph. Christ
The KJV 1607-1611 - 54 scholars used the original Hebrew and Greek and they used previous translations.
So Jerome translated "phosphoros" as "lucifer" in both Isaiah and 2 Peter and neither as a proper name.
The KJV group made "lucifer" a proper name in Isaiah, but not in 2 Peter.
Was their translation of Isaiah based on the ancient Hebrew, prior translations or influenced by the tales of Satan which were based on various Bible verses?

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by arachnophilia, posted 01-17-2005 3:56 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by arachnophilia, posted 01-18-2005 11:25 PM purpledawn has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024