The Inerrancy of the Bible

well, first of all, i would like to state that it is my educated opinion that the KJV (or any other version of the bible) is far from perfect. all translations have their strengths and weaknesses, and even the source documents have their strengths and weaknesses. unfortunately we do not have the originals texts for the books of the bible. the kjv is the 1611 translation of the masoretic text, which of course discounts the strengths of the septuagint (earlier, but in greek). a good translation refers to boths texts whenever possible.your class would do better to actually study and examine the history of the bible, as literature. it is far more interesting than any "bible study" type class i have ever been to. as already mentioned, this verse is talking about the words jesus spoke. john is actually blasphemous in that he calls a mortal being a deity. if you study the rest of the bible you will notice that this is a big no-no. even if jesus *IS* god, to call him god and treat him as such is wrong. here's two to boggle your class's minds then:

---

1. the bible often repeats itself. samuel/kings and chronicles contain so much of the exact same material that it is clear that the author of one borrow from the other. however, sometimes things get changed up. here's an example.

quote:

---

2Sa 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
  —"King James Version"

---

quote:

---

1Ch 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
  —"King James Version"

---

feel free to check the rest of the passages; they are talking about the same event.

---

2. here's another God/Devil mix up.

quote:

---

Isa 14:12 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!
  —"King James Version"

---

quote:

---

Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star.
  —"King James Version"

---

---

now, these of course are sort of rigged. neither has to be an issue of errancy, if you are willing to accept the theological connotations. but i like give these to people (and classes) that boast of refuting inerrency, and answering any questions, because it's fun to see them tapdance around the verses were it says that YHWH = Satan and Jesus = Lucifer.

what are you on about now? god very obviously leads us into temptation. see, well, the passages i just quoted. the prayer christ gives is ASKING god not to do that, not saying that he DOESN'T. read the two passages. other than the verse quoted, they read almost word for word. one is cause by the anger of the lord, no mention of satan, and one by satan's trickery, no mention of god. the two verses have clearly exchanged one for the other.however, you are on the right track. satan cannot act without god's permission. one more time.lucifer = lating for "light bringer" or the planet venus -- the morning star
noctifer = lating for "night bringer" or the planet venus -- the evening star.lucifer literally means the morning star. more importantly, this is probably the same heavenly body isaiah is refering to when he uses the hebrew "heylel" but we only know because of this verse, and the words "son of the morning." this phrase is reason "heylel" is translated "lucifer" by the kvj.we happy yet? if not, look up, i dunno, any christian dogma anywhere. heck, even the movie "dogma" do. (snootchy bootchies.) that's nice, but in the revelation verse, christ is calling HIMSELF lucifer. nope. hasatan = the opposition, the one who tests man. lucifer, heylel, is something else. read the isaiah verse again. revelation is apocalyptic prophesy. as in it hasn't happened yet. so this verse:

quote:

---

kjv Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

---

hasn't happened yet. and calling satan "the devil" is no big stretch either. devil just means liar. he lies to us, he tests us. keep in mind that revelation is STRONGLY allegorical (and probably refering to political matters, not spiritual). but god casting satan out might mean that god is not going to test us anymore. satan isn't so much a being as an office.

ok, let's break down the 14th chapter of isaiah. let's start with the opening prophesy.

quote:

---

Isaiah 14

​

But the LORD will pardon Jacob, and will again choose Israel, and will settle them on their own soil. And strangers shall join them and shall cleave to the House of Jacob. For the peoples shall take them and bring them to their homeland; and the House of Israel shall possess them as slaves and haindmaidens on the soil of the LORD. They shall be captors of their captors and masters of their taskmasters.

---

basically, he's saying things are gonna turn around, and israel will exile babylon, and make slaves of them. anything about the devil here?

quote:

---

Isaiah 14 (continued)

​

And when the LORD has given you rest from your sorrow and trouble, and from the hard service that you were made to serve, you shall recite this song of scorn over the king of Babylon:

---

so when this happens, the israelites are to add insult to injury and MOCK the king of babylon with the son that follows, directed at the king of babylon. not the devil.

quote:

---

Isaiah 14 (continued)

​

How is the taskmaster vanished,
How is the oppression ended!
The LORD has broken the staff of the wicked,
The rod of the tyrants,
That smote the people in wrath
With stroke unceasing,
That belabored nations in fury
In relentless pursuit.

---

yay, we're saved! sound like they're talking about the devil here?

quote:

---

Isaiah 14 (continued)

​

All the earth is calm, untroubled;
Loudly it cheers.
Even pines rejoice your fate,
And the cedars of Lebanon;
"Now that you have lain down,
None shall come up to fell us."

---

does the devil cut down trees? or conquer the entire known world?

quote:

---

Isaiah 14 (continued)

​

Sheol down below was astir
To greet your coming--
Rousing for you the shades
Of all the earth's chieftains,
Raising from their thrones
All the kings of nations.
All speak up and say to you,
"So you have been stricken as we were,
You have become like us!
Your pomp is brought down to Sheol,
And the strains of your lutes!
Worms are to be your bed,
Maggots your blanket!"

---

Sheol is the hebrew underworld, like Hades. everyone goes there, the good, the bad. KJV renders this "grave" but it is the origin of the word "Hell." however, this does not seem to indicate lakes of fire, does it? instead, decaying, rotting, death. worms and maggots. this passage is the response of the kings he [the king of babylon] has killed in his conquests to his own death.

quote:

---

Isaiah 14 (continued)

​

How are you fallen from heaven,
O Shining One, son of the Dawn!
How are you felled to earth,
O vanquisher of nations!

---

ah, the important part. look this in the context of the rest of the passages you've just read. they're saying the god-king of babylon has been proven to be mortal. it's no coincidence with the word "felled" there, it's in reference to the trees earlier. now it is HE who is cut down. notice also it says "vanquisher of nations!" does the devil vanquish nations? does he invade, and exile civilizations? no, but babylon DOES. keep reading

quote:

---

Isaiah 14 (continued)

​

Once you thought in your heart,
"I will climb to the sky;
Higher than the stars of God
I will set my throne.
I will sit in the mount of assembly,
On the summit of Zaphon: [ie: mt Zion]
I will mount the back of a cloud --
I will match the Most High."

---

figuratively, it's the king of babylon ruling over the israelite religion, a big no-no for them. i sure you can find a lot of this kind of stuff in the bible. however, i think it's a reference to this:

quote:

---

"I have completed its magnificence with silver, gold, other metals, stone, enameled bricks, fir and pine. The first which is the house of the earth’s base, the most ancient monument of Babylon; I built and finished it. I have highly exalted its head with bricks covered with copper. We say for the other, that is, this edifice, the house of the seven lights of the earth, the most ancient monument of Borsippa. A former king built it, (they reckon 42 ages) but he did not complete its head. Since a remote time, people had abandoned it, without order expressing their words. Since that time the earthquake and the thunder had dispersed the sun-dried clay. The bricks of the casing had been split, and the earth of the interior had been scattered in heaps. Merodach, the great god, excited my mind to repair this building. I did not change the site nor did I take away the foundation. In a fortunate month, in an auspicious day, I undertook to build porticoes around the crude brick masses, and the casing of burnt bricks. I adapted the circuits, I put the inscription of my name in the Kitir of the portico. I set my hand to finish it. And to exalt its head. As it had been in ancient days, so I exalted its summit."

​

King Nebuchadnezzar, c. 605 B.C.

---

the unfinished ancient monument is believed to be the biblical tower of babel. nebuchadnezzar rebuilt it, and finished it around the time the hebrews came to babylon. it's probable that isaiah would have known of it, and might have even taken the height as an insult the their god somehow, since the authors of genesis seemed to as well. (imagine how he'd take the empire state building?)

quote:

---

Isaiah 14 (continued)

​

Instead, you are brought down to Sheol,
To the bottom of the Pit.

---

there's his fall: death. the bottom seems to indicate that he is not given a proper burial, punished by dishonorment in death. remember, this is not hell, this is "the grave" or the underworld.

quote:

---

Isaiah 14 (continued)

​

They who behold you stare;
They peer at you closely:
"Is this the man
Who shook the earth,
Who made realms tremble,
Who made the world a waste
And wrecked its towns,
Who never released his prisoners to their homes?"

---

are they talking about the devil? see that word? MAN. this is a man who waged war on the entire known world, and who held israel captive. his sin is that of pride, thinking himself higher than the god of israel. it may well be the origin of the devil story. but read this verse again and tell me if the devil is a man who conquered the earth.

quote:

---

Isaiah 14 (continued)

​

All the kings of nations
Were laid, every one, in honor.
Each in his tomb;
While you were left lying unburied,
Like loathsome carrion.

---

what did i say about proper burial? he's left for the flies. does the devil need to be buried? is he left like a dead animal?

quote:

---

Isaiah 14 (continued)

​

Like a trampled corpse
[In] the clothing of slain gashed by sword
Who sink to the very stones of the Pit.
You shall not have a burial like them;
Because you destroyed your country,
Murdered your people.

---

he's not even given the burial of a soldier, in a mass grave, because he pissed off the god of israel, bringing harm to his people.

quote:

---

Isaiah 14 (continued)

​

Let the breed of evildoers
Nevermore be named!
Prepare a slaughtering block for his sons
Because of the guilt of their father.
Let them not arise to posses the earth!
Then the world's face shall be covered with towns.

---

so they're gonna kill off his family, his entire line. does the devil have a son, let alone sons? would you need to kill his sons? do these sons pose a threat to population of the world?this who section is CLEARLY talking about the king of babylon, probably nebuchadnezzar in particular. it cannot be talking about the devil. the song is not prophesy, the opening prose is. the song is what the israelites were supposed to scorn the king of babylon with, upon the fulfilment of the prophesy.i've already explained the translation issue. notice this translation doesn;t even use "lucifer?" it uses "shining one" which is the literal rendering of the name "heylel." i've also seen it rendered "day star" or "morning star."moreover, even should we use the name lucifer, there is no indication that this name applies to ANYTHING but a man. this is the only verse it's used in, and the context is clearly the king of babylon, a mortal human being.

no, your BIBLE DICTIONARY makes reference to both the king of babylon and satan. that's the first hint that you actually don't know what you're talking about. concordances don't define anything: they list words and where they appear. dictionaries provide definitions. rather clear distinction, but even some publishers mix the two up.the second hint is of course that you TRUST said bible dictionary. never, ever trust just your bible dictionary. most are filled with more dogma than useful information, and this one is case in point.the word lucifer appears exactly ONCE in the kjv, and even less often in most other translations. the context for the word could imply an underlying mythological reference, but it seems to apply to the king of babylon. the mythological bit is probably a babylonian legend, not a hebrew one, and has nothing to do with satan or the devil.i think you will find that entire story you know of was extracted from a misreading of this verse, a verse in one of the gospels, and a few in revelation (which are prophetic). excuse me? ok, i can find a lot of racism and prejudice in the bible, but THIS is not one of those instances. and god has not made anything clear.and if you ask the palestinians, they're fighting for their own promised land. the passage in question, which i quoted almost ALL OF regard babylon. not palestine, it's closer to iraq. sorry, you'll have to forgive me. i'm a literalist, as it turns out. this passage is about the king of babylon, and ONLY the king of babylon. nothing about casting satan down, satan is not the one ruling over israel and judah, and satan is not a destroyer of nations. babylon is.revelation does use babylon metaphorically, but isaiah IS NOT. we're discussing isaiah 14:1-21, the passage dealing with "heylel." this is a separate section, even if it is the same chapter. if you have a properly rendered bible, you'll notice that verse 1-4 are prose, and 4-21 are poetry (song). it picks up as prose again in 22, and poetry again in 24. the prose are headings (probably added at a later date) to the songs, and divide them. the poem here is a separate entity.remember, chapters and verse numbers are a system added by christians, not the original authors.and no, it's not about the present state of israel. assyria as an empire hasn't existed for about 2000 years -- babylon pretty much beat them out. assyria is, again, more in the iraq area. this, btw is the THIRD separate poem in isaiah 14. just so we know what's going on here. and my bible says philistia. but it's sort of a similar idea. no.it says do not rejoice because king ahaz is dead, because his death will bring more trouble to them. no, let me paint the picture for you in better modern english.ahaz is the snake, and his head has been chopped off. the philistines are dancing around it's corpse because their trouble is gone. but from the neck springs an even more venomous foe.that's what the verse is saying. it's probably refering, figuratively, to ahaz's heir.

quote:

---

verse 1

​

But the LORD will pardon Jacob, and will again choose Israel, and will settle them on their own soil. And strangers shall join them and shall cleave to the House of Jacob... [to become slaves]

---

quote:

---

verse 32 (last verse)

​

And what will he answer the messengers of any nation?
That Zion has been established by the LORD:
In it, the needy of His people shall find shelter.

---

no, actually, i see no relation. how many "god loves us" passages do you think i can find in isaiah, let alone the rest of the bible? the idea of god setting up zion is so commonplace it even makes it into bad matrix sequels.the first verse says that god will forgive israel, and that they will enslave their masters. the last says that the israelites in need will find refuge. the first verse is speaking, in prose, of the entire promised land, and the last in poetry about jerusalem. they have very little in common except the idea of god being particular about them and their homeland, which the bible is practically deep-fried in.moreover, they're in completely separate sections. the first bit is a heading probably not in the original writings of isaiah, and the last bit is part of the poetry two whole poems later. they probably weren't even written by the same person.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 01-17-2005 05:07 AM

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.

ok, let's play the put up or shut up game. how about in the bible? book, chapter and verse? in regards to satan being an "angel of light" or the existance of said angels, book, chapter and verse? book, chapter and verse? book, chapter and verse?

quote:

---

Luk 10:17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
Luk 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
Luk 10:19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
Luk 10:20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

---

where is the proof that this anything to do with a war in heaven, as opposed to power over temptation and testing? jesus would have used satan in the jewish sense, being a jew. to jews, satan is one of the angels of the lord who tests men. the verse makes perfect sense that way. book, chapter, verse? show me proof that lucifer = satan. i've already posted the entire context of the only mention of the name lucifer. that would be a seraph, not an angel. know what else were seraphs? the things that plagued the israelites in numbers, that moses made an idol of, nailed to a cross, and used to take away the afflictions of the people. so if we're gonna go strictly metaphorical now... well don't.

well that's the peoples' fault, and webster's. it's dogman, and they should know better. lucifer was perfectly acceptable in 1611. well, it was. in 1611, it probably would have been read correctly. it's just that people today are somehow absolutely afraid context, both textual, and of the context of the society that wrote or translated a dated body of work.so, you might say it's an outdated translation, but not an errant one. (i can find LOTS of errancy issues with the kjv, but imho this is not one of them)

actually, no. there are beliefs that can be proven wrong. so while there might not be a winner per-se, there are losers.it's very post-modern and culturally relativist to say that everything is belief and no one is right. but if my belief is contrary to observation -- it's wrong.

ok, just for the hell of it i'll play. yes, the first option. no. yes not sure i totally follow, but yes i think so. no, not in the christian dualistic sense.

my jps edition has their translation ("shining one" i think) capitalized, and has a footnote saying "a character in some lost myth."i have no idea where they got this idea or upon what it is based. but they seem to think it's a proper noun. it may just be the influence of christianity, and is total bullshit.maybe amlodhi would know?

well, they did supposedly have this giant pillar of fire watching over them all day...

\part one, to my knowledge it was.part two... well, it took me alot longer than i thought to find a kjv apocrypha online. the sources i found had the same translation you used. sounds like a theological problem translating...

no, you're wrong. because that's an absolutely truth in itself. if you're right, then you can never prove that statement. if you can, it's false. you espoused the belief that there are not beliefs that are wrong, or can be proven as such. if i said "i believe the bible says that jesus flew around in a time machine watching his dvd player instead driving properly and maimed everal small children in a terrible accident" you could easily ask me to show you such a verse, and i would be unable. therefore, in terms of what the bible says, that belief is wrong: it does not say that.this is a similar argument. no objestions here. i'm not trying to impress anyone. i arguing a counter-point, and addressing beliefs that are not firmly founded in scripture, but are mostly dogmatic. there are hints, yes, but often very misinterpretted out of context. i'm just trying to give that proper context. you're welcome to, but be warned. i do take some scripture with more of a grain of salt than others. and for the exact reasons you described. for instance, i don't see god in the details of john.

no, but it DOES say he was the morning star. that is, after all, what lucifer means. if it had said "noctifer" it would mean he was the evening star. parallelism. bringer of light, son of the morning. see. they're a pair. like man and woman, rivers and oceans, heaven and earth, 3 and 4, etc. this is very, very common in biblical poetry, although normally it's on the next line down. pick just about any psalm and look for repitition. most say everything twice, different words -- same meaning. a. enoch was written after the flood. it records the events thereof in the first book.
b. enoch's flood happens in chapter ten, which is well before 29.
c. the first mention of satan in the book of enoch is in chapter 40, which is in plural. the first actual mention of the NAME satan is in chapter 53. but he is not present. angels (of the lord) are preparing his weapons to be turned against man. no mention appears to be in the dualistic fallen sense.
d. this is the 29th chapter of enoch: "And thence I went to another place in the desert, and approached to the east of this mountain range. And there I saw aromatic trees exhaling the fragrance of frankincense and myrrh, and the trees also were similar to the almond tree." yes, that's ALL of it. two verses.
e. the lead fallen angel in the flood myth in enoch is azazel, who may also be found in leviticus chapter 16 as "the scapegoat" in the kjv (mistranslation).so, unless you're talking about a TOTALLY different book of enoch than the one i have, this point can't get any more wrong. yes, ala tower of babel. did satan build the tower of babel? no, but lucifer (nebuchadnezzar) DID, as in historical fact. except there is no indication of time in the verse, and it's surrounded by passages about control over temptation: tests. that IS what satan does, tests. however you believe in him, that is his function. there is no indication that it was punishment either -- his destination seems to have been EARTH. seraphim? i thought he was an angel. leviathan? i thought he was an angel. tanniyn? i thought he was an angel.see, these are all mythological animals. is genesis 1 talking about lucifer when it says god make great dragons in the water? when revelation talks of these, it's using SYMBOLISM, like it is everywhere else in the darned book. liar? ok, i'll go with that one. but there are other lying spirits. look it up, there's a fun story in samuel, i think, in which god sends what would be termed devils in christian mythology to a foriegn king. no proof. except that the passage talking about lucifer is entirely directed at the king of babylon. he *IS* the king of babylon. maybe it's symbolism too, but the idea of a "The Devil" opposition to god seems to be absent from the text. who said that was the idea? satan may well have been working through the king of babylon to test the israelites. but he was operating under god's authority. to say anything else is to grossly misread the entirety of isaiah. also, even if satan is operating through the king of babylon, that does not make him lucifer. that makes him satan. the KING is lucifer. the passage is refering to mebuchadnezzar, and i think it's meant to be SARCASTIC. rome - roman army. santa clause is a derivation of saint nicholas. the man is a SAINT for christ's sake, and he worked his entire life in service to the poor and needy -- a very christian cause. that entire accusation is downright offensive. how could he test men if he were up in heaven? or in hell for that matter? it's not a matter of being cut down, it's a matter of duty. sure, being the riding the back of the garbage truck sucks, but it makes perfect sense if you're the garbage man. it's not punishment, it's what you do. except the passage is refering to height issue of the tower. this *IS* an issue of being cut down, and it is the KING who is being cut down. although this is probably refering to a real person as well, supposing the devil (LOWERCASE i might add) is satan. revelation is apocalyptic, by the very definition it hasn't happened yet (at the time of its writing).

quite, probably would have helped them out some!i dunno, ask eddy penngelly. maybe they're really talking about burning a dvd or something.