Reverse realm and contradictions of bible translation

I get it. You have to learn to walk in the other guys shoes. You would need to find me conflicting information from a source I trust in order to make a valid point.Just as if I was trying to discredit your "age for the earth", I would have to use a "Scientific" source to discredit you.I can't call all scientific literature POISONED.

The link you posted was a discussion regarding a person who questioned
"if we don't have the original, how do we know that the original was copied correctly?"The answer is: each time a new translation comes out,
that's what they do.
Then we can always check new bible versions against the old ourselves if we have any question on an issue.Or we can contact the translators to find what documents they used.

Sky-Writing,I know what it was about but the facts are still the same. Read the thread. The thread talks about the facts of there being differences(many) between biblical translations(also manuscripts) and biblical manuscripts(in original assumed language).Here are some links from that thread to get you started in the right direction. Follow their lead and see what YOU find. Then come back with a reasonable response. A response that the texts match is not reasonable. The evidence is pointed out in the links below and it is clear that the biblical manuscripts/translations are different from each other.EvC Forum: Inerrant Bible Manuscripts?EvC Forum: Inerrant Bible Manuscripts?EvC Forum: Inerrant Bible Manuscripts?EvC Forum: Inerrant Bible Manuscripts?Edited by Sasuke, : editEdited by Sasuke, : clarityEdited by Sasuke, : linksEdited by Sasuke, : spellingEdited by Sasuke, : edit

Yes? Please follow with the point that is (obviously) not obvious to me.

Sky,look man, I am not going to do the research for you. I pointed you in the right direction. I am simply trying to give you some more FACTS. The facts are that biblical manuscripts don't match. Since biblical manuscripts don't match it is CLEAR that in reality when you read the Bible your reading text that is not pure to the autographs.Edited by Sasuke, : edit

I THINK what your trying to get at is:
The author wrote his text with a pen.
We don't have his penned words
or even the same language
and some translations even differ from each other
so our copy has built in error.So could not possibly be perfect or literal.It's a valid point.Your concern can be addressed by doing a scientific test.
Take one passage/paragraph/or page. Give it to two people.Tell one person to read it literally.
Tell the other to interpret what it means.Ask a biblical Scholar to judge the results.
It can be a reformed Jew or (most) any kind of Scholar. Somebody who has spent a reasonable about of study on the Bible.
The first person will be in agreement with the scholar more of the time. If you say 51% then my case is weak. I'm (guessing) 98% of the time. So Literal "Interpretation" is the best method for understanding what the passage "really means".I just went through an example of this yesterday. The non believer was telling me that the passage "a mist came up and watered all the ground" meant that rain fell.I went to a science website and looked up "Dew". The site used very similar words and ended with " Some parts of the world get more moisture from Dew than from rain. Another example where the non-literalistic reader messes up.I have my own phrase for it with it's own definition:
Literal Truth
To me, means that God can speak straight to the heart of the reader, no matter which translation they use, what language they use, or what weird or crazy cut up version of the Bible they use.God can speak his Literal Truth to the reader. But they ONLY get the real meaning if they accept that what they are reading has no errors to worry about. If they are worried about errors they will miss the Truth that's right there.That's my view on innerancy.I THINK that's what your getting at. But I'm just guessing.PS I went through your links to confirm what I had guessed at.
My analysis was correct.
I couldn't read the entire posts because neither writer had any focus on the results of the documented differences.Line 21: 3rd from last word: Q = "ke-sheniy" prep + ns (scarlet) and M = "ke-sheniym" prep + nmpl (as scarlets).
Line 22: 2nd word: Q = omission of aleph in the spelling of this word.
Line 23: 4th word: Q = addition of prep beth (in) to "chereb" (sword)
Line 25: 3rd word: Q = "hayu" pf 3mpl (they are) and M = "hayah" pf 3ms (it is)You are suggesting to me that GOD is unable to reveal His Literal Truth because (they are) is not the same as (it is).I say the point is Bologna.Edited by Sky-Writing, : PS

Sky,I am pointing out that it does not matter if you read it literally or metaphorically. I don't care how you interpret the Bible. I am pointing out that what you're interpreting is not the autographs. So you reading something that is not PURE to the autographs. It does not matter how you interpret it as long as you realize your interpreting something that is not PURE to the autographs.

Well, Why didn't you say so? I could have responded"Sure, I know that."Edited by Sky-Writing, : .

Sky,then what is the point in argueing over the text?

Which argument?

Sky,Any/all..Edited by Sasuke, : No reason given.

Well, you'll need to be specific to get an answer.

Sasuke and Sky-Writing,This is a debate forum and not a chat forum. You both are wasting posts and not moving the discussion forward.Make a case for a position or use the private message feature to straighten out your misunderstanding. Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour suspension.Thank you

I THINK what your trying to get at is:
The author wrote his text with a pen.
We don't have his penned words
or even the same language
and some translations even differ from each other
so our copy has built in error.So could not possibly be perfect or literal.It's a valid point.I suggest multiple versions of the Bible for the parts that
you find confusing to you. It helps to clear up problems.

Sky,I don't trust the content of the Bible. I merely agree with a few things. God's existence. Christ as savior. These are by choice cus neither of them can be proven to exist or to have existed. The reason I believe in them is solely because of revelation and dejavu... Granted both revelation and dejavu can be explained by Science... I just simply choose to be faithful. WRT to this thread, so I don't get suspended. As I've stated before, The scripture in the Bible is derived from many different authors that span many millennia of time. Just as what another posted earlier in this thread, a lot of scripture was probably passed down by word of mouth. Then eventually it was written down by people that didn't have the entirety of the story just like in the game of phone. When you communicate a message to a friend, that message is passed through the people and eventually that message has changed when you hear it via the grapevine. This has happened with the Bible. The message is undoubtedly different than its autographs which were written, most likely, centuries after its origin. Then eventually it was copied in the form of manuscripts which is what we read in our time. However, these manuscripts were hand copied for millenia before they reached our time, plenty of time for change to occur. Then sometime in the 1500's a printing press was built, the scriptures were organized already(via culture) and so it was printed in the form of a book(even though its books).In my opinion its safe to say that God is a for sure part of the message that existed through millenia of time. Its also reasonable to say Jesus Christ was a significant enough figure in these stories to have been preserved to some degree. As to what stigmata to assign to either of these figures I assume love just simply because its logical to presume that is part of the message as well. Things like laws though or regulations these are definately going to change over time with culture. So all that part of the Bible is for sure just crap.. Stuff like end of the world scnenarios seem ludicrus to me. Typically prophecies like seen in revelations are crap. These prophecies are simply to broad to say a phophecy is being fullfilled.. You need something specific. The world is going to turn yellow on 2015. LOL. That is pretty specific. Those are the kinda prophecies I like to see cus in 2015 we can test it. Anything else is just hogwash superstition.This is reality, come back to it..... Edited by Sasuke, : data