Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8926 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2019 4:58 PM
46 online now:
AZPaul3, JonF, ooh-child, PaulK, ringo, Tangle (6 members, 40 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,194 Year: 15,230/19,786 Month: 1,953/3,058 Week: 327/404 Day: 45/96 Hour: 4/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which Version of the Bible is the Word of God?
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1 of 174 (493653)
01-10-2009 6:03 AM


I think debates here concerning what this or that Bible says are hampered by posters not citing exactly which version of the Bible they are using as a reference. Often I feel that such posters may be talking past each other by using different translations. I have seen various sources indicating there are thousands of versions of the Bible and even on the internet there are search engines such as BibleGateway that claim to search 100 versions simultaneously.

So I have some questions:

Some people here believe this or that Bible is a literal translation of the word of god. Please identify which version of the Bible is the literal word of god including the language in which it was written.

Some people apparently believe that all the versions generally state the same concepts and therefore are equivalent regardless of version or language. How does this belief square with the idea that every dot and crossed T is to be taken literally letter by letter. What about the difference just between the Catholic and many Protestant versions in number of books included or excluded?

A few people seem to believe that the best version of the Bible, such as the Tanakh when referring to the OT, is that which has undergone the least translations is subject to the least error. Does anyone agree or disagree with this assessment?

Also, there are various denominations that evidently consider the Bible either incomplete or improperly translated. Such would to me seem to include Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, etc. I am curious as to what justification one uses in declaring all previous versions of the Bible either incomplete or obsolete while simultaneously considering it whole, complete, and infallible.

I just think it creates problems when Biblical literalists refuse to identify exactly which version of the Bible they are using, including any supplemental 'prophets' they include, when arguing for the veracity of biblical history, sanctions, guidelines, laws, and prophecy.

So I ask those who claim Biblical inerrancy to identify which version is inerrant so that us unwashed masses can be 'saved.'

Remember refusal to do so puts your position concerning your own religion and proclamations in this forum in an unfavorable light.

I realize there have been threads discussing this very concept in the past and if one is still open please fold this proposal into the appropriate venue. If not then please place this PNT under The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy.

Edited by anglagard, : fix grammar problem


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Buzsaw, posted 01-10-2009 9:21 AM anglagard has responded
 Message 6 by Peg, posted 01-24-2009 6:30 AM anglagard has not yet responded
 Message 150 by Black, posted 02-23-2009 7:34 PM anglagard has not yet responded
 Message 160 by Portillo, posted 07-16-2011 2:59 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 4 of 174 (495701)
01-24-2009 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Buzsaw
01-10-2009 9:21 AM


Thanks for responding Buz, it appears you are the only participant in this forum who insists that the Bible is the actual word of God that is willing to identify which version of the Bible is the 'word of God.'

Please pardon me for not replying sooner but I am currently researching this topic in regard to your reply in order to provide an appropriately comprehensive critique.

It may take a bit of time as IMO I am finding the development of the KJV and ASV are rather interesting subjects in their own right.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Buzsaw, posted 01-10-2009 9:21 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Nighttrain, posted 01-24-2009 3:41 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 18 of 174 (496029)
01-25-2009 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Peg
01-25-2009 7:53 PM


Re: What is a "literal translation"?
As best I can tell, you are among the advocates of a literal interpretation of the Bible over all other human testimony, empirical knowledge gained through science, and each and every other interpretation of any religious text including both other sects of Christianity and all other religions.

So it should be easy to tell us all which exact Bible translation is literally the word of God.

Buzsaw could do it, why can't you?


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Peg, posted 01-25-2009 7:53 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Peg, posted 01-27-2009 2:48 AM anglagard has responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 32 of 174 (496398)
01-28-2009 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Peg
01-27-2009 2:48 AM


Re: What is a "literal translation"?
Peg writes:

all bibles in their original languages are the word of God

all bibles that have been translated correctly are the word of God

I would even go so far as to say that all bible translations are the word of God. Unfortunately, some of them are just badly translated.

You are proving difficult to pin down. Could you tell us which are properly translated and which are poorly translated?

Buz said the word of God is the KJV and the ASV. That is a bit more specific, if not just a bit provincial.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Peg, posted 01-27-2009 2:48 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Peg, posted 01-28-2009 4:28 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 112 of 174 (499021)
02-16-2009 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Peg
01-27-2009 2:48 AM


Re: What is a "literal translation"?
Peg writes:

all bibles in their original languages are the word of God

all bibles that have been translated correctly are the word of God

I would even go so far as to say that all bible translations are the word of God. Unfortunately, some of them are just badly translated.

Yet in Message 9

Peg writes:

The book of Enoch is not considered an inspired book, it was never a part of the biblical cannon so using it in an argument against the bible is pointless. Its not part of the bible.

Strange that this article states:

quote:
While this book today is non-canonical in most Christian Churches, it was explicitly quoted[2]:8 in the New Testament (Letter of Jude 1:14-15) and by many of the early Church Fathers. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church to this day regards it to be canonical.

So if the "Ethiopian Orthodox Church to this day regards it to be canonical" yet "The book of Enoch is not considered an inspired book, it was never a part of the biblical cannon {sic} so using it in an argument against the bible is pointless. Its not part of the bible," how does that logically fit in with "all bibles in their original languages are the word of God?"

Edited by anglagard, : clarity


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Peg, posted 01-27-2009 2:48 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Peg, posted 02-16-2009 2:16 AM anglagard has responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 115 of 174 (499026)
02-16-2009 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Peg
02-16-2009 2:16 AM


Re: What is a "literal translation"?
Peg writes:

when i say 'bible' im talking about the Canon

Which one?


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Peg, posted 02-16-2009 2:16 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Peg, posted 02-16-2009 4:40 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 135 of 174 (499848)
02-21-2009 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by PaulK
02-20-2009 4:55 AM


Josephus, the Amazing Technicolor Turncoat
PaulK writes:

Josephus was not just a historian.

As we both know, he was also a turncoat and traitor of the first rank.

For the edification of the reader, from wiki:

quote:
Those who have viewed Josephus as a traitor and informer have also questioned his credibility as a historian — dismissing his works as Roman propaganda or as a personal apologetic, aimed at rehabilitating his reputation in history.

Considering his personal history, count me among the ranks of the above. This guy was no Thucydides, more like using Benedict Arnold as an 'unbiased' source on the American Revolution.

Edited by anglagard, : subtitle


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2009 4:55 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019