Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Favorite Bible Version
brandplucked
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 85 (263086)
11-25-2005 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by arachnophilia
11-12-2005 1:32 AM


Who killed Goliath?
uh, i'm gonna take a crack at some of this, but not all. because i'm really tired tonight. (expect typos)
The NIV is missing 64,000 words and doesn't know who killed Goliath in 2Samuel 21:19 but did figured it out in 1Chronicles 20:5.
this is a very important point about the accuracy of translation. let's look at the kjv translation:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2Sa 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew [the brother of] Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear [was] like a weaver's beam.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all, so what you have here in the NIV is that two different men killed the same giant names Goliath, and this was done once by king David years before, and then later on by a different man, who also, by the way, is said to have killed the brother of Goliath in 1 Chron. 20:5. Makes sense to me:-)
The simple fact is most of you do not believe any Bible or any single text in any language is now the complete, inerrant, and 100% true words of God. Just another sign of the times we live in.
In His grace,
Will

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by arachnophilia, posted 11-12-2005 1:32 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by arachnophilia, posted 11-25-2005 3:41 PM brandplucked has replied

  
brandplucked
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 85 (263089)
11-25-2005 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by arachnophilia
11-12-2005 1:32 AM


Jehovah, or Yahweh, or Yahoo?
The NKJV omits "JEHOVAH" entirely
"the "name" JEHOVAH appears in the text of the kjv all of 3 times, if memory serves. this is strictly a translation issue: the name of god in the bible, everywhere it's used, is ???? -- yahweh...
so for many years, english speaking people thought god's name was "jehovah." it's not, it's yahweh."
Hi Arach, sorry, but you are slightly misinformed.
The Significance of the Name JEHOVAH
In regards to JEHOVAH, a remarkable thing about the King James Bible is that the name is found exactly 7 times - Genesis 22:14; Exodus 6:3, 17:15; Judges 6:24; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2 and 26:4. Seven is the number of spiritual perfection. This Hebrew word is translated three different ways by the KJB. As LORD, GOD, and JEHOVAH.
The NKJV, NIV and NASB only translate this word in two ways--as LORD, and GOD. But God is a triune God, and the KJB has translated it in three ways. God is the creator, Lord is the sovereign ruler of His creation, and JEHOVAH is the personal name of the Redeemer God, who redeems His people.
The first time JEHOVAH appears is in Genesis 22 when Abraham is stopped from offering up his son Isaac. All of this of course is a type of the Father offering up His Son. "As it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen". God will provide, JEHOVAH JIREH.
The second time the name appears (and Christ is the second person of the trinity) is in the second book of Exodus, which is the book of redemption. In Exodus 6:3-6 God appears to Moses and here the name is used again in connection with REDEMPTION. "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them." Likewise the second time the word 'redeem' occurs in the Bible is found right here in this context. Verse 6 "And I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments." So JEHOVAH is the personal name of the Redeemer God.
The word JEHOVAH, as the personal name of God, is found not only in the KJB, but also in Tyndale 1530, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version 1881, the American Standard Version 1902, Young's, Darby's, Webster's 1833 translation, the 1936 Jewish translation (Hebrew Pub. Com. New York), Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909 and 1960, the KJV 21st Century, the New English Bible 1970, and the Third Millenium Bible. This name has disappeared from the RSV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, and ESV.
Some people tell us the name of God should be something like YAHWEH, Jahweh or Yaweh, rather than JEHOVAH. The problem with this argument is that there are a multitude of Biblical personal names that all have JEHOVAH as part of the name. We read in all English versions that I am aware of names such as JEHOiakim, JEHiah, JEHOshaphat, JEHOhanan, JEHOiachin, JEHOiada, JEHOram and JEHOshua. I have yet to see one of these English bibles come out yet spelling these as Yahhosaphat, Yahoiakim, Yahoiada etc.
In the Holman Christian Standard Bible of 2003, the whole divine pattern is messed up. The Holman translates this single word in four different ways - LORD, GOD, Yah, and Yahweh. Yah occurs twice and Yahweh some 72 times, but they also translate it as LORD and as GOD, all in a shotgun pattern.
Another significant point about the KJB is found in Psalm 68:4 "Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him."
This word JAH is found only once in the entire Bible. It is one word composed of three letters. Thus representing the triune God. And it is the eighth time total that this personal name occurs. What is the significance of the number 8? Eight is the number of a new beginning. Seven days in a week, 8 is a new beginning. Also the males were circumcised on the eighth day, to signify a new covenant relationship with God.
In Leviticus 25:22 we see the land was to rest the seventh year and they were to sow a new crop in the eighth year. Noah was the eighth person saved during the flood when God began again to repopulate the earth. Even in Revelation 17:11 when the Beast begins his reign of the Antichrist, he is the eighth.
Seven is the number of spiritual perfection and in the KJB the name JEHOVAH is found 7 times. Three in one is the Trinity and we have the name JAH found only once. Eight is the number of a new beginning, and it is through the redeeming grace of JEHOVAH that we are made new creatures in Christ and begin a new life in Him.
In addition to this, another interesting thing found only in the King James Bible is the name JEHOVAH in capital letters is found four times in the Old Testament - Exodus 6:3; Psalms 83:18; Isaiah 12: 2 and 26:4. Likewise the name JESUS in capital letters is found only four times in the New Testament - Matthew 1:21, 25; 27:37; and John 19:19. Four is the number of the earth and JEHOVAH God Himself has come to this earth to save His people from their sins.
So, only in the King James Bible do we have these precious truths revealed. This is just one of the many marks of God on this Book that shows it is indeed His inspired word in the English language.
Will Kinney

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by arachnophilia, posted 11-12-2005 1:32 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by arachnophilia, posted 11-25-2005 4:32 PM brandplucked has not replied

  
brandplucked
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 85 (263090)
11-25-2005 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by arachnophilia
11-13-2005 1:03 AM


Hell, hades, Sheol, or whatever
Who in their right mind would think "Hades" or "Sheol" is "up-to-date" and "much clearer" than "hell"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
first of all, sheol (????) is the hebrew word that is translated as "hell" in the kjv. check your concordance if you don't believe me. it literally means "grave." they're simplying using the hebrew name instead of the anglicized one. why is that wrong? if we're gonna complain abotu accuracy, isn't it MORE accurate to use the word that's actually in the source text?
Hi A, sorry again, but since you don't believe any Bible is the inerrant words of God, I guess you can make your own opinions the final authority. Here is some info you may have overlooked.
Hell or Hades?
The doctrine of Hell is getting a lot cooler in the modern versions.
In fact, a lot of theologically important words in the Holy Bible are being toned down or even lost entirely. As examples, here is a partial list of the frequency of certain words comparing the King James Bible Old Testament, with the NKJV, the NASB, and the NIV Old Testament.
TRUTH KJB - 118 times; NKJV - about same; NASB - 92; NIV - 41
GRACE KJB -38 times; NKJV - 20; NASB - 9; NIV - 8
MERCY, MERCIFUL KJB - 288 times; NKJV -same; NASB - 51; NIV - 85
SOUL KJB - 478 times; NKJV - same; NASB - 255; NIV - 110
LUCIFER KJB - 1 time; NKJV - 1 time; NASB - 0; NIV - 0
JEHOVAH KJB - 7 times; NKJV - 0; NASB - 0; NIV - 0
HELL KJB - 31 times; NKJV - 19; NASB - 0; NIV - 0
Examples of other words in the whole Bible, both testaments.
DOCTRINE KJB - 56 times; NKJV - 42; NASB - 14; NIV - 7
FORNICATION KJB - 44 times; NKJV - 21; NASB - 8; NIV - 0
DAMNATION, DAMNED KJB - 9 times; NKJV - 0; NASB - 0; NIV - 0
HELL (whole Bible) KJB - 53 times; NKJV - 32; NASB -13; NIV - 14
This particular study will focus on the word Hell and how it is being air conditioned by degrees in many modern versions. There are many who criticize the King James Bible as being wrong for translating certain Hebrew and Greek words as Hell.
In the King James Old Testament the Hebrew word Sheol is variously translated as HELL - 31 times; THE GRAVE - 31 times, and as THE PIT - 3 times.
The various modern versions disagree among themselves and have little room in which to criticize the KJB.
The NKJV translates this same word Sheol 18 times and as HELL 19 times, rather than the 31 times as in the KJB. It also has translated the word as the GRAVE and the PIT.
The NIV never translates it as hell or even as Sheol, but instead has the GRAVE 55 times, DEATH 6 times, the DEPTHS 2 times, the DEPTHS OF THE GRAVE 2 times, and as THE REALM OF DEATH once.
The NASB on the other hand, transliterates rather than translates this word every single time as SHEOL. How many Christians know what Sheol is? It strikes fear in the heart, doesn't it?
What we see here is that the very scholars who criticize the King James Bible for translating the word at times as HELL can't seem to agree even among themselves as to what the word means in various contexts.
Let's look at a few examples.
Psalm 9:17
King James Bible - "The wicked shall be turned into HELL, and all the nations that forget God."
NIV - "The wicked RETURN TO THE GRAVE, all the nations that forget God."
There are two big problems with the NIV rendering here. First, you can only RETURN TO someplace you have already been before. Does the NIV teach reincarnation? You can teach it using the NIV, but you cannot get the doctrine of reincarnation from the King James Bible.
Second, most everyone, the wicked and the righteous, go to the grave. So what else is new? The context is the fate of the wicked, and it is not the same as that of the righteous. The NIV rendering is silly at best, and diabolical at worst.
NASB - "The wicked will RETURN TO SHEOL, even all the nations who forget God."
The NASB has two similar problems. How do people return to someplace if they have not been there before? Also what in the world is Sheol? Many criticize the KJB for being hard to understand, but how many of them know what Sheol is? And again there is no distinction between the wicked and the righteous in the NASB rendering.
The NKJV - "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." = the KJB here.
In 1395 Wycliffe wrote: "Synneris be turned togidere in to helle; alle folkis, that foryeten God."
And the 2002 Message paraphrases it in this way: "The wicked bought a one-way ticket to hell."
The Hebrew word Sheol communicates nothing to us in the English language. There are many different views among the scholars themselves as to what this word signifies and it seems to vary with different contexts. Many Hebrew and Greek words have multiple meanings which change their sense according to the context and scholars argue over them all the time.
There are times when the word simply means the GRAVE, as in Genesis 42:38 where Jacob says: "My son shall not go down with you (into Egypt)...if mischief befall him...then shall ye bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to THE GRAVE."
At other times the word means HELL, as the place of the dead in the heart of the earth. Scriptue tells us in both the Old and New Testaments that there are compartments or degrees of hell. Both Deuteronomy 32 and Psalm 86 speak of THE LOWEST HELL. In Deuteronomy 32:22 God says: "For a fire is kindled in mine anger and shall burn unto the lowest hell", and in Psalm 86:13 David says to God: "For great is thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell."
Shoel as HELL in the Old Testament
Among the various Bible versions that sometimes translate the Hebrew word sheol as "hell" are the following: Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, the Jewish 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation by Alexander Harkavy into English, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, the Italian Diodati 1602, the Douay-Rheims 1950, the Bible in Basic English 1961 (2 Sam.22:6; Psalm 18:5), New Life Version 1969 (Pro. 5:5, 7:27, 19:18, 15:24,23:14), God's Word Translation 1995, the KJV 21st Century Version, Third Millenium Bible, and the 2002 version called The Message in 2 Samuel 22:6; Job 26:6, Psalm 9:17, 16:10, 18:5, 31:17, 49:14, 55:15, 88:3, 89:68, 116:3, 141:7, Proverbs 5:5, 7:27, 9:18, 15:24, 27:20, and Isaiah 57:9!!!,
In the New Testament the same confusion among the various bible versions is seen in the manner in which they translate or not the word Hades. There are many Bible critics who tell us the King James Bible is in error for translating the word Hades as Hell. Yet, as we shall see, the "scholars" are in total disagreement among themselves regarding this.
Luke 16:19-31 is the classic case showing the division that existed in hell before the resurrection of Christ from the dead. There we see the beggar Lazarus in Abraham's bosom being comforted and in contrast we see the rich man IN HELL being tormented. There was a great gulf fixed between the two sections dividing the righteous from the wicked.
The Greek word used here is hades. The King James Bible translated it as hell, while the NKJV and NASB have Hades. The NIV is interesting in that it has variously translated this same word as "Hades -5 times, depths - 2 times, grave - 1 time; and as Hell only once and that is here in Luke 16:23!
Hell itself is not the final state of the wicked. After the great white throne judgment we are told in Revelation 20:14 "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."
Those who complain about this word being translated as "hell" should check out some other bible versions to see what others, who have just as much education as they do, have done with these passages.
Hades as HELL in the New Testament
Not only does the King James Bible translate the Greek word hades as "hell" but so do the following Bible versions: Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, John Wesley 1755, Webster's 1833 translation, Spanish Reina Valera 1909(infierno), Italian Diodati, Douay 1950, New Life Version 1969, the Living Bible, the New Living Translation 1996 (Mat. 16:18), Today's English Version 1992 (Mat.11:23, Luke 10:15), Good News Bible 1992 (Mat. 11:23; Luke 10:15), Bible in Basic English 1961 (Mat. 11:23; 16:18, Luke 10:15, 16:23, Acts 2:27,31, and the 4 in Revelation), God's Word Translation 1995 (Mat. 11:23, 16:18, Luke 10:15, 16:23, Rev.1:18, 6:8, 20:13-14), KJV 21st Century, Third Millenium Bible, and The Message of 2002 (Mat. 16:18, Luke 10:15, 16:23, Rev. 1:18, 6:6, 20:13-14).
Wordsmyth Dictionary defines Hades as:
1. in Greek mythology, the underworld inhabited by the dead, or the god who rules there; Pluto. 2. in the New Testament, the state or home of the dead. 3. the place of punishment for the wicked after death; hell.
The American Heritage Dictionary 200 defines Hades as:
1. Greek Mythology a. The god of the netherworld and dispenser of earthly riches. b. This netherworld kingdom, the abode of the shades of the dead. 2. also hades Hell.
Notice that the first definitions given refer to Hades as myth, or merely as the place of the dead, without any reference to suffering or torment. For a preacher to say: "Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ or you will go to Hades" seems to lack the visceral impact of "or you will go to Hell." What do you think?
The American Heritage dictionary defines hell as: 1. Hell - The abode of condemned souls and devils in some religions; the place of eternal punishment for the wicked after death. b. A state of separation from God; exclusion from God's presence. 2. The abode of the dead, identified with the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades; the underworld.
The New KJV is not the same as the King James Bible. Here are some examples:
Matthew 16:18
KJV: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
NKJV: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." Luke 16:23
KJV: "And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."
NKJV: "And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."
The New KJV is inconsistent in the Old Testament in that it does render the word sheol as "hell" 19 times, yet it transliterates this same word as Shoel 18 times to match the NASB rendering. The word Hell is removed in 2 Samuel 22:6, Job 11:8, 26:6, Psalm 16:10, 18:5, 86:13, 116:3, Isaiah 5:14, 14:15, 28:15,18, 57:9, Jonah 2:2, Matt. 11:23, 16:18, Luke 10:15, 16:23, Acts 2:27, 31, Rev. 1:18, 6:8, 20:13,14.
Will K

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by arachnophilia, posted 11-13-2005 1:03 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by arachnophilia, posted 11-25-2005 4:58 PM brandplucked has not replied

  
brandplucked
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 85 (263091)
11-25-2005 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by arachnophilia
11-13-2005 1:03 AM


Whale, big fish, or a sea monster?
you see, jonah, whom this verse is about, spent 3 nights in the belly of a FISH.
Uh, sorry A, but this fish was a whale.
Whale, big fish, or sea monster?
Matthew 12:40
"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the WHALE'S belly: so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
The word correctly translated as "Whale" is ketos. I have a modern Greek dictionary. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible. It is just a Greek/English dictionary. If you look up ketos it simply says whale. If you look up whale, it says ketos.
In Websters dictionary 1999 edition, there are two Englsih words listed which come from this Greek word ketos. Cetus is the constellation of the Whale. Cetology is the branch of zoology dealing with whales and dolphins. These are both English words derived from ketos. This word occurs only one time in the New Testament. The correct translation of this word is not "fish", as the NKJV and some others have it. "Fish" would be a different Greek word which is ixthus.
ce·tol·o·gy
NOUN: The zoology of whales and related aquatic mammals.
ETYMOLOGY: Latin cetus, whale;
Ce·tus
NOUN: A constellation in the equatorial region of the Southern Hemisphere near Aquarius and Eridanus.
ETYMOLOGY: Latin cetus, whale, from Greek ketos.
Jonah 1:17 refers to a great fish. "Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights."
The whale, though technically a mammal, has a fishlike body, and the word fish is defined in the Dictionary as including any aquatic animal with a fishlike body. The modern "scientific" classification was unknown in the days of Jonah and of Jesus, and is really of little relevance. Most people even today, when they see a big whale, think: "Wow, what a huge fish!" - until some pedantic type says: No, that's a mammal, not a fish.
God's classification of animals is a bit different than man's. "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds."
First Corinthians 15:39.
Perhaps in an attempt to appear scientific rather than actually correctly translating what the word really means - "a whale" - , the NKJV, and the ESV have "the great fish", the NIV and Green's MKJV have "the huge fish", Young's has "the fish", the ISV reads "sea creature" while the NASB, NRSV, Jerusalem Bible, and New English Bible have "the sea monster"!
Bible versions that have correctly translated this word as WHALE are the Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, Geneva 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Webster's 1833, the Revised Version 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901, Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Italian Diodati 1607, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, St. Joseph's New American Bible of 1970, KJV 21st Century, Third Millenium Bible, Hebrew Names Version, and even the Revised Standard Version of 1952. What big fish would have swallowed Jonah except a whale? Or was it the NASB's SEA MONSTER?
As always, the King James Bible is correct in properly rendering this word as "whale" and the NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB and others are not.
Will Kinney

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by arachnophilia, posted 11-13-2005 1:03 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by arachnophilia, posted 11-25-2005 4:51 PM brandplucked has not replied

  
brandplucked
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 85 (263092)
11-25-2005 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Nighttrain
11-14-2005 11:04 PM


"There is NO inerrant Bible"
Nightrain says: " For anyone to state we have the unadulterated texts, is to indulge in flights of fancy."
Hi all, what is happening today is that most Christians no longer believe any Bible or any texts in any languages are the inerrant, complete and 100% words of God.
"The Bible is not the inspired and inerrant word of God"
Most Christians today do NOT believe The Bible IS the inerrant and infallible word of God.
This statement may seem shocking at first, and many pastors and Christians will give the knee-jerk reaction saying that they do believe the Bible IS the infallible word of God. However, upon further examimation, it will soon be discovered that when they speak of an inerrant Bible, they are not referring to something that actually exists anywhere on this earth. They are talking about a mystical Bible that exists only in their imaginations; and each person's particular version differs from all the others.
God said: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11
The Lord Jesus Christ also stated in Luke 18:8 "Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"
The apostle Paul wrote concerning the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto Him: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, EXCEPT THERE COME A FALLING AWAY FIRST..." 2 Thessalonians 2:3
The number of professing Christians who do not believe in a "hold it in your hands and read" type of inspired Bible has steadily increased over the years since the flood of multiple-choice, conflicting and contradictory modern bible versions began to appear about 100 years ago.
The following testimonies about the character of Evangelicalism today were made by key Evangelical leaders. The irony is that these same men are part of the problem they lament. Each of these men has been guilty of endorsing modern bible versions.
"MORE AND MORE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS HISTORICALLY COMMITTED TO AN INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE HAVE BEEN EMBRACING AND PROPAGATING THE VIEW THAT THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS IN IT. This movement away from the historic standpoint has been most noticeable among those often labeled neo-evangelicals. This change of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges, theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies" (Harold Lindsell, former vice-president and professor Fuller Theological Seminary and Editor Emeritus of Christianity Today, The Battle for the Bible, 1976, p. 20).
"WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart. What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world ... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life" (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).
George Barna, president of Barna Research Group, reported that a study exploring the religious beliefs of the 12 largest denominations in America highlights the downward theological drift that has taken place in Christian churches in recent years. The study found that an alarmingly high number of church members have beliefs that fall far short of orthodox Christianity. ONLY 41 PERCENT OF ALL ADULTS SURVEYED BELIEVED IN THE TOTAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE. Only 40 percent believed Christ was sinless, and only 27 percent believed Satan to be real.
Of the Baptists surveyed 57 percent said they believed that works are necessary in order to be saved, 45 percent believed Jesus was not sinless, 44 percent did not believe that the Bible is totally accurate, and 66 percent did not believe Satan to be a real being. Barna said, "The Christian body in America is immersed in a crisis of biblical illiteracy."
What Christians really believe
A book by George A. Marsden, "Reforming Fundamentalism" quotes a survey of student belief at one of the largest Evangelical seminaries in the US. The poll indicated that 85% of the students "do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture."
This book also lists the results of a poll conducted by Jeffery Hadden in 1987 of 10,000 American clergy. They were asked whether they believed that the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant Word of God in faith, history, and secular matters: 95% of Episcopalians, 87% of Methodists, 82% of Presbyterians, 77% of American Lutherans, and 67% of American Baptists said "No."
The Barna Research Group reported in 1996 that among American adults generally: 58% believe that the Bible is "totally accurate in all its teachings"; 45% believe that the Bible is "absolutely accurate and everything in it can be taken literally."
"Support dropped between that poll and another taken in 2001. Barna reported in 2001 that: 41% of adults strongly agrees that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches."
"Seminary students, future pastors and leaders in the church, show very little support for the inerrancy of the Bible position. What does that foretell about the future of the church? Undoubtedly, just as the poll results show in the 1996 - 2001 time frame, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE BELIEVING THE BIBLE IS INERRANT WILL DROP."
The 1994 Churched Youth Survey conducted by the Barna Research Group for the Josh McDowell Ministry revealed the following facts through a scientifically designed process that randomly selected youth groups from thousands of churches throughout the U.S. and Canada. Over 3,700 youth were extensively and confidentially surveyed. The participants were youth involved in church activities and who overwhelmingly identified their parents as loving and their family experience as positive. This survey reveals the same troubling data as does the national PEERS test results.
The Churched Youth Survey revealed the following:
* Only 44% asserted that humans are capable of grasping the meaning of truth
* 57% could not even say that an objective standard of truth exists.
* 85% are likely to reason "just because it's wrong for you doesn't mean its wrong for me."
* Only 29% disagreed with the statement: "When it comes to matters of ethics, truth means different things to different people; no one can be absolutely positive they have the truth."
* Only 38% disagreed with the statement: "Nothing can be known for certain except the things that you experience in your life."
No absolute truth
The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.
Sam Kobia, Secretary, World Council of Churches, ENI 1-23-04:"Having a variety of translations available encourages the Bible to be read in a plural and ecumenical way. HAVING A VARIETY OF TRANSLATIONS AVAILABLE IS A PRECIOUS TOOL IN THE STRUGLE AGAINST RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM." (Caps are mine)
Here are some excerpts from a Wall Street Journal, editorial page, that appeared on the internet in July of 2004. It is an article written by Dale Buss, titled "Christian Teens? Not Very"
Mr. Buss writes: "It turns out that, while they may profess the faith and indeed love Jesus, the vast majority of Christian teenagers in this country actually hold beliefs fundamentally antithetical... Some leaders believe that mushy doctrine among the younger generation ranks as the No. 1 crisis facing American Christendom today."
"About one-third of American teenagers claim they're "born again" believers, according to data gathered over the past few years by Barna Research Group, the gold standard in data about the U.S. Protestant church, and 88% of teens say they are Christians. About 60% believe that "the Bible is totally accurate in all of its teachings." And 56% feel that their religious faith is very important in their life."
"Yet, Barna says, slightly more than half of all U.S. teens also believe that Jesus committed sins while he was on earth. About 60% agree that enough good works will earn them a place in heaven, in part reflecting a Catholic view, but also flouting Protestantism's central theme of salvation only by grace. About two-thirds say that Satan is just a symbol of evil, not really a living being. Only 6% of all teens believe that there are moral absolutes--and, most troubling to evangelical leaders, only 9% of self-described born-again teens believe that moral truth is absolute."
"When you ask even Christian kids, 'How can you say A is true as well as B, which is the antithesis of A?,' their typical response is, 'I'm not sure how it works, but it works for me,'" says George Barna, president of the Ventura, Calif.-based research company. "It's personal, pragmatic and fairly superficial."
Mr. Buss continues in his article: "Some commentators produce even more startling statistics on the doctrinal drift of America's youth. NINETY ONE PERCENT OF BORN AGAIN TEENAGERS surveyed a few years ago proclaimed that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE TRUTH, says the Rev. Josh McDowell, a Dallas-based evangelist and author. More alarmingly, that number had risen quickly and steadily from just 52% of committed Christian kids in 1992 who denied the existence of absolute truth. A slight majority of professing Christian kids, Mr. McDowell says, also now say that the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ never occurred."
"There's a greater disconnect now than ever in the history of the church in America between what a Christian young person says they are and what they actually believe," says Mr. McDowell, who has ministered mainly to youth for more than 30 years. "Christianity is based on truth; Jesus said, 'I am the truth.' But you have an overwhelming majority even of Christian kids saying there is no absolute truth."
A popular New Age religious site that endorses all religions of the world is called Religious Tolerance. Org. (Home page of the ReligiousTolerance.org web site)
This site has some interesting comments regarding the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible. They ask: Does inerrancy really matter?
"From one standpoint, this doctrine is of great importance, because it determines, at a very fundamental level, how Christians approach Scripture."
"To most conservative theologians Biblical inerrancy and inspiration are fundamental doctrines. Unless the entire Bible is considered to be the authoritative word of God, then the whole foundation of their religious belief crumbles. If the Bible contains some errors, then conservative Christians feel that they would have no firm basis on which to base their doctrines, beliefs, morality and practices. The books of the Bible must be either inerrant, or be devoid of authority."
They continue: "To most liberal theologians, the Bible is not inerrant. They believe that its books were obviously written and edited by human authors: with limited scientific knowledge, who promoted their own specific belief systems, who attributed statements to God that are immoral by today's standards, who freely incorporated material from neighboring Pagan cultures, who freely disagreed with other Biblical authors." (Religious Tolerance.org)
What I personally found of great interest is the following comment in the same article. The people at Religious Tolerance noted: "Some Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians CONSIDER A PARTICULAR ENGLISH TRANSLATION TO BE INERRANT. THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE AMONG LAY MEMBERS IN THEIR BELIEFS ABOUT THE KING JAMES VERSION. But most conservatives believe that inerrancy only applies to the original, autograph copies of the various books of the Bible. None of the latter have survived to the present day. We only have access to a variety of manuscripts which are copies of copies of copies...An unknown number of errors are induced due to Accidental copying errors by ancient scribes or intentional changes and insertions into the text, made in order to match developing theology." (Religious Tolerance.org)
Most Christians who do not believe the King James Bible or any other version are now the inerrant, infallible, complete and pure words of God, define Inerrancy in the following manner: “When all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible IN ITS ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether relative to doctrine or ethics or the social, physical or life sciences.” (P. D. Feinberg, s.v. “inerrancy, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology Inerrancy & the autographa.)
The usual tap dance performed by those who deny any Bible or any text in any language is now the inerrant, complete and infallible words of God is typified by the following quote: "Inerrancy applies to the autographa, not to copies or translations of Scripture. This qualification is made because we realize that errors have crept into the text during the transmission process. It is not an appeal to a “Bible which no one has ever seen or can see.” Such a charge fails to take into account the nature of textual criticism and the very high degree of certainty we possess concerning the original text of Scripture."
Well, this may sound very pious and good, but the undeniable fact is that this Christian scholar is talking about "a Bible no one has seen or can see".
As for this gentleman's "nature of textual criticism" is concerned, this so called "science" is a giant fraud and a pathetic joke played on the unsuspecting saints who might think these men actually know what they are doing. I have posted a series on the "science of textual criticism" that reveals the true nature of this hocus-pocus methodology of determining what God really said. You can see all parts of this study, starting with:
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/science.html
Here are some facts taken directly from the Holy Bible. You do not need to be a scholar or seminary student to get a grasp of what the Bible says about itself. You either believe God or you don't.
The Bible believer first looks to God and His word to determine what the Book says about itself. The Bible cannot be clearer concerning it's preservation:
Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."
Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
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."
Psalm 100:5: "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations."
Psalm 33:11: "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations."
Psalm 119:152, 160: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. ... thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."
Isaiah 59:21: "... My Spirit that is upon thee [Isaiah], and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."
Matthew 5:17-18: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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."
Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."
God has promised to preserve His wordS IN A BOOK here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away. He either did this and we can know where they are found today, or He lied and He lost some of them, and we can never be sure if what we are reading are the true words of God or not.
God's words are in a BOOK. Consider the following verses: "Now go, write it before them in a table, and NOTE IT IN A BOOK, that it may be for the time to come FOR EVER AND EVER." Isaiah 30:8
"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and READ: no one of these shall fail...for my mouth it hath commanded..." Isaiah 34:16
"Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of THE BOOK it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart." Psalm 40:7-8
"And if any man shall take away from THE WORDS OF THE BOOK of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK." Revelation 22:19
I believe the King James Bible is the inspired, inerrant and complete words of God for the following reasons:
#1 The Old Testament is based solely on the Hebrew Masoretic texts, in contrast to the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB and other modern versions that frequently reject the Hebrew readings. The Old Testament oracles of God were committed to the Jews and not to the Syrians, the Greeks or the Latins. "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2) The Lord Jesus Christ said not one jot or one tittle would pass from the law till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18
See my two articles on how the modern versions all reject the Hebrew texts.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos.html http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos2.html
#2 The King James Bible alone is without proven error, and this in spite of intense opposition and criticism from the Bible correctors and modern scholarship.
"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail..." Isaiah 34:16.
#3 I believe in the Sovereignty and Providence of Almighty God. God knew beforehand how He would mightily use the King James Bible to become THE Bible of the English speaking people who would carry the gospel to the ends of the earth during the great modern missionary outreach from the late 1700's to the 1950's. The King James Bible was used as the basis for hundreds of foreign language translations, and English has become the first truly global language in history.
See article Can a Translation Be Inspired? http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html
#4 The King James Bible is always a true witness and never lies or perverts sound doctrine. This is in contrast to all modern English versions that do pervert sound doctrine in numerous verses and prove themselves to be false witnesses to the truth of God.
"Thy word is true from the beginning, and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalm 119:160
"A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." Proverbs 14:5
In contrast, all the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV contain proveable and serious doctrinal errors. See my article on No Doctrines Are Changed?:
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/nodoctrine.html
#5 At every opportunity the King James Bible exalts the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ to His rightful place as the sinless, eternally only begotten Son of God who is to be worshipped as being equal with God the Father. All modern versions debase and lower the Person of Christ in various ways.
"GOD was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 1 Timothy 3:16. (compare this verse in the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman) See also John 3:13; Luke 23:42, and 1 Corinthians 15:47.
See article on The Only Begotten Son
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/begotnSon.html
#6 The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.
The Bible itself prophesies that in the last days many shall turn away their ears from hearing the truth and the falling away from the faith will occur. The Lord Jesus asks: "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8
"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11
"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16
The new versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman Standard all reject the Traditional Greek Text, and instead rely primarily on two very corrupt Greek manuscripts called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These so called "oldest and best" manuscripts also form the basis of all Catholic versions as well as the Jehovah Witness version.
See my article that shows what these two false witnesses actually say:
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/oldbest.html
If you mistakenly think that all bibles are basically the same, I recommend you take a look at this site. It is in two parts, but very easy to read. It shows what is missing in most modern New Testaments.
Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (1/2)
For an article showing that the true Historic Confessional position about the inerrancy of the Bible supports the King James Bible view, rather than the recent position of "the originals only". See:
http://www.geocities.com/avdefense1611/historicposition.html
In and by His grace alone,
Will Kinney

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Nighttrain, posted 11-14-2005 11:04 PM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by AdminAsgara, posted 11-25-2005 1:34 PM brandplucked has replied
 Message 71 by Nighttrain, posted 11-25-2005 6:19 PM brandplucked has not replied
 Message 73 by arachnophilia, posted 11-26-2005 12:23 AM brandplucked has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2323 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 66 of 85 (263094)
11-25-2005 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by brandplucked
11-25-2005 1:21 PM


Re: "There is NO inerrant Bible"
Hello Will, welcome to EvC.
I understand that what you have been posting here are your own words, but the long cut and pastes from your website make it seem that you are not debating with the other posters. It seems that you are simply pasting your articles all over the web.
I would appreciate if you would engage posters here with something other than entire articles from your website. You can post exerpts and discuss issues, you can post links to your relevant articles while engaging members on specific points that have been raised.
We welcome your input, but please do not just paste entire articles.

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
    http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 65 by brandplucked, posted 11-25-2005 1:21 PM brandplucked has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 76 by brandplucked, posted 11-26-2005 10:37 AM AdminAsgara has replied

      
    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 1365 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 67 of 85 (263107)
    11-25-2005 3:41 PM
    Reply to: Message 61 by brandplucked
    11-25-2005 12:56 PM


    Re: Who killed Goliath?
    Hi all, so what you have here in the NIV is that two different men killed the same giant names Goliath, and this was done once by king David years before, and then later on by a different man, who also, by the way, is said to have killed the brother of Goliath in 1 Chron. 20:5. Makes sense to me:-)
    well, if you noticed in the post you were replying to, i didn't talk about what the niv said. i talked about what the masoretic hebrew says (and posted what it said, with my own translation).
    the fact is that the masoretic leaves out the word "brother" (as well as his name) in that verse in samuel. so it's not that NIV is leaving out words -- the kjv is ADDING them. they're not in the "original." but it makes sense for it to be goliath's brother because, as you point out, david killed goliath already. (1st samuel 17)
    however, it should also be noted that chronicles seems to have been written after kings, and it contains a few things considered to be corrections, or even dogmatic re-writings. in the jewish tradition, samuel and kings are holy books in the section called nevi'im ("the prophets"). chronicles is a lot less holy, in the section called kethuvim ("writings" such as psalms).
    i included a very prominent correction/clarification in the post before.
    The simple fact is most of you do not believe any Bible or any single text in any language is now the complete, inerrant, and 100% true words of God. Just another sign of the times we live in.
    i'm not so much concerned with trying to make the bible 100% true, complete, or the word of god. i'm more interested in understanding it, what it says, how to read it, and why it's important. i try to honor it in a truthful and honest way -- and if that makes it the word of god, so be it.
    but most of study i've done seems to indicate that it's not. in situations like this, people are essentially arguing that the KJV is the word of god, and no other text, not even the source it was translated from. and that, frankly, is a little cultish. i'm not into bibolatry.

    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 61 by brandplucked, posted 11-25-2005 12:56 PM brandplucked has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 77 by brandplucked, posted 11-26-2005 10:44 AM arachnophilia has replied

      
    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 1365 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 68 of 85 (263110)
    11-25-2005 4:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 62 by brandplucked
    11-25-2005 12:59 PM


    Re: Jehovah, or Yahweh, or Yahoo?
    Hi Arach, sorry, but you are slightly misinformed.
    you sure?
    In regards to JEHOVAH, a remarkable thing about the King James Bible is that the name is found exactly 7 times - Genesis 22:14; Exodus 6:3, 17:15; Judges 6:24; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2 and 26:4.
    i count four: Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible
    genesis 22:14, exodus 17:15, judges 6:24 are all names of places that use the ha-shem as a root.
    The NKJV, NIV and NASB only translate this word in two ways--as LORD, and GOD. But God is a triune God, and the KJB has translated it in three ways. God is the creator, Lord is the sovereign ruler of His creation, and JEHOVAH is the personal name of the Redeemer God, who redeems His people.
    that's a little close to numerology. why should it matter how many different ways a name is translated or transliterated? it SHOULD only be translated ONE way. (similar to your point, there is only ONE god)
    but i'll repeat it again: god's name is . period. everytime you read "LORD" and "jehovah" that's what it says in hebrew - yud heh vav heh. the proper pronounciation, with the implied vowels, is yahweh. but we'll come back to that -- nobody pronounces hebrew names correctly.
    "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them."
    this bit is also not true:
    quote:
    Gen 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
    quote:
    Gen 21:33 And [Abraham] planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the LORD, the everlasting God.
    according to genesis, abraham and the patriarchs DID know ha-shem, the name of the lord. remember, that's the same name in the hebrew -- .
    Some people tell us the name of God should be something like YAHWEH, Jahweh or Yaweh, rather than JEHOVAH. The problem with this argument is that there are a multitude of Biblical personal names that all have JEHOVAH as part of the name.
    yes, this WOULD be a problem if we only read the english version. here's how they're pronounced in hebrew.
    We read in all English versions that I am aware of names such as JEHOiakim,
    יְהוֹיָקִים -- YeHOYaQYM. yehoyakim.
    JEHiah
    יחִיָּה -- YeCHYaH -- yechiah. this one's actually a good counter example too, because the part referring to god is at the end: see the -yah? god's name starts yah- yud HEH not yud CHET. the letters are closely pronouced, but not the same. it screws me up figuring out gender all the time in hebrew.
    JEHOshaphat
    יהוֹשָׁפָט -- Y'HOSHaFat. yehoshaphat.
    JEHOhanan
    יְהוֹחָנָן -- YeHOCHaNaN.
    JEHOiachin
    יְהוֹיָכִין -- YeHOYaCYN. yehoiakin. (note also that there is no "cha" as in "change" sound in hebrew. the way it's approximated today is a tsadi with an apostrophe, not a kaf. kaf's are pronounced like k's)
    JEHOiada
    יְהוֹיָדָע -- YeHOYaDa'A. yehoiada'a.
    JEHOram
    יְהוֹרָם -- YeHORaM. yehoram.
    JEHOshua
    יְהוֹשֻׁעַ -- YeHOSHu'A. yehoshua (joshua) or in greek ihsoue or yehsous (jesus).
    I have yet to see one of these English bibles come out yet spelling these as Yahhosaphat, Yahoiakim, Yahoiada etc.
    i have also never seen ANY bible tell us about isaJAH, jeremJAH, zacharJAH, zephanJAH, obadJAH, or nehemJAH. it's all the same root. why is it -YAH here?
    as i pointed about, we don't pronounce ANY hebrew name correctly. yitsak becomes "isaac" and yehoshua becomes "joshua" or "jesus." yehudi becomes "jewish." yerushalym becomes "jerusalem." yordan becomes "jordan." etc. it's part of the anglicization of the text -- but i promise you that's not how they say the names in synagogue, even if jews today commonly use the anglicized names in casual speech.
    Another significant point about the KJB is found in Psalm 68:4 "Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him."
    This word JAH is found only once in the entire Bible. It is one word composed of three letters. Thus representing the triune God.
    one problem, it's TWO letters. yud-heh. vowels don't count. it's simply a shortening of YHVH, much like "el" is related to "elohym." and if you're counting names of places that use YHVH as a root, why not count names that use YH as a root too? like all of the ones we just talked about above. bit of a double standard.
    So, only in the King James Bible do we have these precious truths revealed. This is just one of the many marks of God on this Book that shows it is indeed His inspired word in the English language.
    what makes you suppose these are the marks of god instead of something done intentionally by translators, or just you reading way to much into numerical significance?
    [edit] also, take a look at the formatting of my post -- by hitting the peek button -- to see the different kinds of quoting tags. it'll make things much easier to read.
    This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-25-2005 04:33 PM
    This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-25-2005 05:10 PM

    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 62 by brandplucked, posted 11-25-2005 12:59 PM brandplucked has not replied

      
    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 1365 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 69 of 85 (263112)
    11-25-2005 4:51 PM
    Reply to: Message 64 by brandplucked
    11-25-2005 1:10 PM


    Re: Whale, big fish, or a sea monster?
    The whale, though technically a mammal, has a fishlike body, and the word fish is defined in the Dictionary as including any aquatic animal with a fishlike body. The modern "scientific" classification was unknown in the days of Jonah and of Jesus, and is really of little relevance. Most people even today, when they see a big whale, think: "Wow, what a huge fish!" - until some pedantic type says: No, that's a mammal, not a fish.
    "dag" is the hebrew word for fish. it says fish.
    you've got a bit of a problem, though. the KJB still says fish in jonah:
    quote:
    Jon 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
    surely, if it's inerrant they would have said "whale." there is a word that the kjv translators translated as "whale," too.
    quote:
    Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
    quote:
    Job 7:12 [Am] I a sea, or a whale, that thou settest a watch over me?
    quote:
    Eze 32:2 Son of man, take up a lamentation for Pharaoh king of Egypt, and say unto him, Thou art like a young lion of the nations, and thou [art] as a whale in the seas: and thou camest forth with thy rivers, and troubledst the waters with thy feet, and fouledst their rivers.
    it uses the same word for each of these, and that's every mention of the word "whale" in the bible. if you really want to know, none of them are probably whales -- it seems to be referring to sea serpents. the word used, tanniyn, means snake. it's the animal that moses's staff becomes when he drops in pharoah's court. although, i admit, turning into a whale would be damned impressive.
    but the point is that you have to have ANOTHER double standard here. by "fish" they meant whale, even though they had a word for whale. or, if they DIDN'T have a word for whale, than the translation of tanniyn is in error.
    i'd go for the second, personally.
    Perhaps in an attempt to appear scientific rather than actually correctly translating what the word really means - "a whale" - , the NKJV, and the ESV have "the great fish", the NIV and Green's MKJV have "the huge fish", Young's has "the fish", the ISV reads "sea creature" while the NASB, NRSV, Jerusalem Bible, and New English Bible have "the sea monster"!
    the only strictly literal translation is "big fish." "dag gadol" is not exactly a complex phrase in hebrew. "great fish" is ok, because it's just a synonym and sounds more poetic. but "whale" and "sea creature" and "sea monster" are not what it says. it say big fish.
    maybe it MEANS one of those things, but which is more important to you? literal translation, or translation of ideas?
    Bible versions that have correctly translated this word as WHALE are the Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, Geneva 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Webster's 1833, the Revised Version 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901, Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Italian Diodati 1607, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, St. Joseph's New American Bible of 1970, KJV 21st Century, Third Millenium Bible, Hebrew Names Version, and even the Revised Standard Version of 1952.
    i didn't check all of those, but you must be referring to matthew. the ones i DID check all say "fish" in jonah.
    What big fish would have swallowed Jonah except a whale? Or was it the NASB's SEA MONSTER?
    these guys could EASILY swallow a human whole. although, i doubt strongly that a person could live through it. they're not predatory, but an accidental swallowing would drown a person. actually, i don't think a person could live in ANYTHING'S stomach.
    maybe they meant a whale. who knows -- but in jonah it says "fish" and the KJV even translates it as such. if the kjv changes what 2 samuel says regarding goliath and his brother, why not change "fish" to "whale" as well for the sake of inter-text accuracy as well?
    As always, the King James Bible is correct in properly rendering this word as "whale" and the NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB and others are not.
    the kjv says FISH:
    quote:
    Jon 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three night

    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 64 by brandplucked, posted 11-25-2005 1:10 PM brandplucked has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 74 by Nighttrain, posted 11-26-2005 4:42 AM arachnophilia has not replied

      
    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 1365 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 70 of 85 (263113)
    11-25-2005 4:58 PM
    Reply to: Message 63 by brandplucked
    11-25-2005 1:05 PM


    Re: Hell, hades, Sheol, or whatever
    Hi A, sorry again, but since you don't believe any Bible is the inerrant words of God, I guess you can make your own opinions the final authority. Here is some info you may have overlooked.
    i'm not even going to look over this, as it appears to be a lengthy cut and paste, and all stuff i've heard before anyways. i promise you, i have not overlooked anything.
    the hebrew word translated as "hell" is or sheol. that's what it says. complaining that it's WRONG is like complaining the hebrew names version is wrong because it says "havah" instead of "eve." one is the anglicized version of the original word, and the other is the original word. same deal with the greek. the greek word translated as hell is adhz -- hades. hades is the word in the original, and "hell" is the anglicized version of the same concept in hebrew: sheol.
    you can complain all you want, but go pick up a copy an interlineal text and see for yourself. the originals say "sheol" and "hades." what's to overlook? all kinds of propaganda about someone's preference? it's what the source documents say, so it's valid. the end.
    This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-25-2005 05:02 PM

    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 63 by brandplucked, posted 11-25-2005 1:05 PM brandplucked has not replied

      
    Nighttrain
    Member (Idle past 4015 days)
    Posts: 1512
    From: brisbane,australia
    Joined: 06-08-2004


    Message 71 of 85 (263125)
    11-25-2005 6:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 65 by brandplucked
    11-25-2005 1:21 PM


    Re: "There is NO inerrant Bible"
    Hi, Will, and welcome to the fray.It`s not a good plan to use the shotgun approach as a long stream of challenges just disintegrates into a 'he said, she said' type of debate. If you want to delve into the search for originals, the first thing you have to do is put dogma aside, because we know that 'providential preservation' has nothing to do with biblical inerrancy.
    The scary thing I have been considering is that there may not have ever been autographs, but oral and written folktales incorporated into a control volume.Hilkiah`s crowd may have been busy bees. The fact that the scribes could correct text makes me wonder just how holy they found their texts (the Emendations of the Sopherim, the underlying attitude of the peshers in the Qumran Scrolls, etc.)
    Just how infallible the KJV may be is under query if the Southern Convocation of Churches in the C of E found it necessary to assemble a skilled committee to revise their 'inerrant' volume. And so it goes on-----.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 65 by brandplucked, posted 11-25-2005 1:21 PM brandplucked has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 72 by arachnophilia, posted 11-25-2005 11:15 PM Nighttrain has not replied

      
    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 1365 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 72 of 85 (263157)
    11-25-2005 11:15 PM
    Reply to: Message 71 by Nighttrain
    11-25-2005 6:19 PM


    Re: "There is NO inerrant Bible"
    The scary thing I have been considering is that there may not have ever been autographs, but oral and written folktales incorporated into a control volume.Hilkiah`s crowd may have been busy bees. The fact that the scribes could correct text makes me wonder just how holy they found their texts (the Emendations of the Sopherim, the underlying attitude of the peshers in the Qumran Scrolls, etc.)
    the actual text seems to have had very little modification done to the ot after 200 bc, and textual hints point to a date of about 600 bc. emendations, vowels, etc, don't really count for the same reason that footnotes don't count in the modern kjv.
    there are hints at corrections, but usually it's one book correcting the other, ie: chronicles correcting sam/kings, or a controversial phrase or two removed between the septuagint and masoretic. but the degree of similarity between the sept, mas, and qumran documents indicates that it was written and copied with very little modifaction.
    further, the compilation of books from multiple sources (j,e,d,p,l) or multiple books from the same source (q) indicates that the stories had a written history before being written in their modern forms, which suggests internal accuracy was more of a concern than fixing mistakes. some texts could well go back to 600 bc in something close to their modern forms (albeit possibly in separate parts).

    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 71 by Nighttrain, posted 11-25-2005 6:19 PM Nighttrain has not replied

      
    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 1365 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 73 of 85 (263164)
    11-26-2005 12:23 AM
    Reply to: Message 65 by brandplucked
    11-25-2005 1:21 PM


    this post is inerrant. god told me so personally.
    This statement may seem shocking at first, and many pastors and Christians will give the knee-jerk reaction saying that they do believe the Bible IS the infallible word of God. However, upon further examimation, it will soon be discovered that when they speak of an inerrant Bible, they are not referring to something that actually exists anywhere on this earth. They are talking about a mystical Bible that exists only in their imaginations; and each person's particular version differs from all the others.
    brand -- i've looked at an analyzed a lot of different translations, trying to find "the right one." i'm sad to say that it simply doesn't exist. every translation i've ever read has some kind of dogma attached to it; a filter through which the translators checks his results. even my current favourite translation of the ot, the jps, does this. it considers "ben-elohym" too polytheistic for its tastes, and renders the phrase "-divine beings-" instead of the more literal "sons of god."
    frankly, issues like this annoy me in every translation. some more than others. i've also found that my own understanding how the culture and languistic customs behind the translation was severely lacking. my current "solution" to this is learning to read (and speak) hebrew. i'm finding it very illuminating in the respects of how language is used. but more importantly, why read the king james translation of the masoretic text when you can read the masoretic text itself?
    surely, just because of language differences, something is lost. i know i understand the english bible a lot better for knowing a little hebrew. do i think the masoretic text is perfect? well, certainly more so than the kjv or other translations. but it does have its share of issues too -- some of them have been pointed out above.
    The number of professing Christians who do not believe in a "hold it in your hands and read" type of inspired Bible has steadily increased over the years since the flood of multiple-choice, conflicting and contradictory modern bible versions began to appear about 100 years ago.
    i hate to point it out, but you don't need more than one bible for it to be contradictory. there's three contradictions above, two of them in the kjv text.
    a church preaching that there is only one true bible, and all others are somehow wrong, is quite dangerous. it's the same line of thought that originally prohibited the translations into the common language (tyndale, luther, etc). the idea was that the latin vulgate was perfect -- and only the church could read and interpret the bible, and would tell the congregation what to believe. i see a lot of "this is what the bible says" being preached. it's pretty easy to see what the bible says, imo. you just pick one up and read it. usually when someone talks about what the bible says, they're wrong. we all know the story of adam's apple, moses crossing the red sea, and that noah took 2 of each animal on the ark. but the bible never says what kind fruit (it can't be an apple, btw), it says moses crossed the sea of reeds, and noah either took 2 of each or 7 of each, depending.
    the problem is compounded because people see certain things when they're told to look for them; the fallacy of positive instances. they see things like original sin/the fall, the devil competing with god for heaven before the creation, and a false sense of eternal life implied for everyone -- they're not really even there. it's just one group's reading. the people who actually wrote most of the bible don't hold any of these beliefs.
    people should be encouraged to read the bible and make up their own minds, not blindly follow church doctrine. more translations? i think that's a good thing. surely it calls more people to christ. i don't think a few words being translated differently is hiding the truth, or that it really means their worshipping the devil or something.
    and if people are gonna be snooty about one particular version -- well, mine's older than theirs, and written in the right language.
    What I personally found of great interest is the following comment in the same article. The people at Religious Tolerance noted: "Some Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians CONSIDER A PARTICULAR ENGLISH TRANSLATION TO BE INERRANT. THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE AMONG LAY MEMBERS IN THEIR BELIEFS ABOUT THE KING JAMES VERSION. But most conservatives believe that inerrancy only applies to the original, autograph copies of the various books of the Bible. None of the latter have survived to the present day. We only have access to a variety of manuscripts which are copies of copies of copies...An unknown number of errors are induced due to Accidental copying errors by ancient scribes or intentional changes and insertions into the text, made in order to match developing theology." (Religious Tolerance.org)
    my bible professor once showed us a scribal error. strangely enough, a lot of hebrew letters look very, very similar because of their consistent block style. a nun-sofit looks a lot like a vav with a longer tail. don't draw a line long enough by accident, and you've changed the letter. similarly, a bet can become a gimel. a chet and a heh can be interchanged pretty easily (as shown above). this can quite easily change what word is being used.
    now, an intentional change for theological reasons i CAN show you (in the kjv, even).
    quote:
    Deu 32:8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
    the phrase used here is "beni yisra'el." but does this make sense at all? god divided the nations in genesis 11. israel hadn't been born yet, let alone have children, let alone have a nation. how would god number the nations according the number of israelites? even supposing divine foresight, the number of israelites WHEN?
    if it helps, the greek septuagint (400 years older than the masoretic, but a translation) says that god numbered the nations according to the number of the sons of god. the next verse says "but israel belongs to the lord."
    what it's saying is that the lord rules israel -- and a son of god rules over every other nation. if "sons of god" means angels, or perhaps "gods" that's a tad polytheistic, isn't it? maybe it just means "kings" but there was apparently enough debate that it was CHANGED somewhere between the septuagint and the masoretic. polytheism and judaism don't go together well.
    the kjv translates the masoretic. most bibles today translate the masoretic, but pay attention to the septuagint. the kjv simply translates the edit faithfully -- shouldn't a truly inspired translation have fixed it? or do you assert that the one that makes no sense is right, and god is trying to confuse us?
    anyways, this is my favourite kjv argument:
    Most Christians who do not believe the King James Bible or any other version are now the inerrant, infallible, complete and pure words of God, define Inerrancy in the following manner: “When all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible IN ITS ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether relative to doctrine or ethics or the social, physical or life sciences.” (P. D. Feinberg, s.v. “inerrancy, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology Inerrancy & the autographa.)
    you can't possibly claim that reading and understand the hebrew is the same experience as reading english. even if the translation IS 100% accurate, the way it's read is just different, and more involved.
    quote:
    The Authorized Version Was Translated Under A God-Ordained English King
    [...] Unlike the modern versions, the KJV was translated under a king. In fact, the king's name was "James," which is the English word for "Jacob," whom God renamed "Israel," because he had power with God and with men (Gen. 32:28).
    The new versions have been translated in America, which is not a monarchy. God's form of government is a theocratic monarchy, not a democracy. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that His word would be translated for the English speaking people under a monarchy with an English king. I know the King James Bible is the word of God because it was translated under a king.
    quote:
    EvC user and close friend Brennakimi writes:
    if we start a campaign saying that theocratic monarchy is god's form of government and that voting is devil worship, do you think we could take our country back?
    This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-26-2005 12:28 AM

    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 65 by brandplucked, posted 11-25-2005 1:21 PM brandplucked has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 75 by Nighttrain, posted 11-26-2005 5:01 AM arachnophilia has replied

      
    Nighttrain
    Member (Idle past 4015 days)
    Posts: 1512
    From: brisbane,australia
    Joined: 06-08-2004


    Message 74 of 85 (263188)
    11-26-2005 4:42 AM
    Reply to: Message 69 by arachnophilia
    11-25-2005 4:51 PM


    Re: Whale, big fish, or a sea monster?
    Nice pic, Arach. Kinda reminds me of my ex-mother-in-law.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 69 by arachnophilia, posted 11-25-2005 4:51 PM arachnophilia has not replied

      
    Nighttrain
    Member (Idle past 4015 days)
    Posts: 1512
    From: brisbane,australia
    Joined: 06-08-2004


    Message 75 of 85 (263191)
    11-26-2005 5:01 AM
    Reply to: Message 73 by arachnophilia
    11-26-2005 12:23 AM


    Mistranslations
    Arach, could you do me a favour? If you haven`t read it, try to get a copy of 'The Bible came from Arabia'--Kamal Salibi. Putting aside his geographical arguments which caused controversy, I found his development of Hebrew mis-translations to be interesting. He believes Semitic native-born speakers have a better ear for metathesis and consequently offer a different version to our standard translations. As you are studying Hebrew, you will be in a far better position to judge his arguments than I ever will. Just like your opinion--no rush. If you have read it, what did you decide?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 73 by arachnophilia, posted 11-26-2005 12:23 AM arachnophilia has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 82 by arachnophilia, posted 11-26-2005 6:32 PM Nighttrain 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