|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028 |
Originally posted by Mines SVT:
Originally posted by Cris'pus:
Originally posted by Woodencross:
The only reason I said this was because it doesn't matter what a sect of Christianity says. It matters what the Bible says. The Bible is the inerrant word of God!
If there is only one truth in the bible but many versions from Man, does God lead every denom. or just one?
See my note above about going back to the original Greek & Hebrew. This is something every pastor should be doing when they are writing their sermon. This way, they may be able to point out where the translation is incorrect and should have been something else.
Actually, the King James version is very accurate as related to the original greek and hebrew. There are differences in the words used, simply because some of the hebrew and greek words have no "direct" translation into the English Language. And yes, it's a VERY good idea to study the original languages because when you do you get a very colorful version of the Biblical text.
As for the MANY VERSIONS out there, there are some that are considered better than others, but the King James Version, which I don't use actually, is very accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 584
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 584 |
Originally posted by the other davis:
Originally posted by Viss1:
I've been told that believing Christ died for our sins is a guaranteed path into Heaven. A little ambivalence towards the less fortunate wouldn't seem to be a huge problem under that philosophy.
Right. You don't have to do anything and you just get to go to "heaven"(or whatever better place)? That's could be one of the most retarded things that I've heard from so called "christians". We have to obey the commandments set down by God and Christ (which btw, i believe are two seperate entities) so that we can be part of something bigger, whatever you may believe that that is. Honestly, I think that if everyone actually "studied to show themselves approved", the whole "who's religion is right" thing would not exist..as much. You have to take into account varying views on things, but as a general rule, if we looked at everything in the bible correctly, we would be able to say that we are true christians. Unfortunately, the christianity of today is not the same as the christianity of the 1st century believers or of Christ's day. If you look back through profane(secular) history, you will see that as an effort to join his nation together in unity, Constantine merged the then current religions of Christianity and Paganism into one to create christianity as we know it. Where do you think we get the idea of Christmas? Basically, the pagans had the winter sulctice, and they definately didn't want to give up their parties, so Constantine decided that they should call it christ's birthday to get the 1st century christians to go along with it. Same idea with Easter. Halloween...now that's a totally unreligious holiday...in fact, it was the polar opposite...but this itn't about the origins of holidays so i'll shut up now.
You speak the truth, though your statement was somewhat disorganized. As for the part I bolded - I just wanted to point out that Constantine came quite some time after the 1st century. Anyway, what belief set do you hold a claim to?
E0 Silver Frost CSVT #3095/6535
Alpine CDA-9851
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,975
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,975 |
Originally posted by Woodencross:
As for the MANY VERSIONS out there, there are some that are considered better than others, but the King James Version, which I don't use actually, is very accurate.
Not to mince words but, "very"?
Quote:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1956, Vol. XIV, p. 81) said: â??Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception.â?
In the King James Version the word â??hellâ? is rendered from she?´ohl?´ 31 times and from hai?´des 10 times.....Vineâ??s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1981, Vol. 2, p. 187) says: â??HADES . . . It corresponds to â??Sheolâ?? in the O.T. [Old Testament]. In the A.V. of the O.T. [Old Testament] and N.T. [New Testament], it has been unhappily rendered â??Hell.â??â?
'By modern translations, their more accurate renderings, they do not leave the English reader to imagine that the inspired Christian writers used only one Greek word for our English word â??worldâ? in the King James Version Bible. Even in the Hebrew Scriptures there are five distinct Hebrew words that the King James Version Bible translates by the one English word â??world.â? In the Christian Greek Scriptures there are four distinct Greek words that the King James Version renders into English as â??world.â? You can see that the result of this would be religious confusion of mind.'
"Some older Bibles, such as the King James Version, end the Lordâ??s Prayer with what is known as a doxology (an expression of praise to God): â??For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.â? The Jerome Biblical Commentary states: â??The doxology . . . is not found in the most reliable [manuscripts].â?"
I use the Authorized version in my studies but hardly can we admit it to be VERY accurate.
Quote:
So many changes have been made, many of them in the readings of passages, that the Committee on Versions (1851-56) of the American Bible Society found 24,000 variations in six different editions of the King James Version!
And it has been 150 years since then, so no doubt more changes and revisions, but all for the better? Thats's why we refer to translations that use the original MSS as well. Hence, your "accurate" KJV is somewhat misleading. Esp since, as we know, there IS a difference between a version and translation anyway.
1992 Ford Escort LX-E
-Tracer LTS spoiler
-GT Grille
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028 |
This is where I stand on this... Originally posted by www.equip.org:
reliability of the bible manuscripts
Non-Christians, (skeptics like New Agers or Mormons) claim that in the process of copying Scripture the text of the Bible was corrupted. Is this really true?
Suppose you wrote an essay and asked five friends to copy it. Each of them in turn asked five more friends to do the same â?? kind of like a chain letter. By the fifth â??generation,â? you would have approximately four thousand copies. Now, obviously, in the process, some people are going to make some copying errors. The first five people to copy it would make mistakes, and then most of the people who copy from them will make some more mistakes. Eventually youâ??d have thousands of copies and all of them flawed.
Sounds pretty bad, right? But hold on. Your five friends might make mistakes, but they wouldnâ??t all make the same mistakes. If you compared all of the copies, you would find that one group contained the same mistake while the other four did not â?? which of course, would make it easy to tell the copies from the original. Not only that, but most of the mistakes would be obvious â?? things like misspelled words or words that were accidentally omitted. Anyone looking at all four thousand copies would have no trouble figuring out which was the original.
Thatâ??s essentially the same situation with the Bible. Weâ??ve got thousands of copies of the Bible in its original language, and scholars who have studied them have been able to classify them into groups and in most cases determine what the original documents actually said. The few cases which are still debated by scholars really donâ??t affect the basic message of the Bible at all.
In fact, interestingly enough when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered at Qumran, they predated the earliest extant text â?? the Masoretic text by almost one thousand years â?? yet in spite of this vast span of time, there was no substantive difference at allâ?¦..In fact, in looking at Isaiah 53 there were only 17 changes between the Masoretic text and those found at Qumran â?? 10 involved spelling, 4 style and 3 involved the Hebrew letters for the word light in verse 11. However, none of these differences were substantive â?? God has indeed preserved His Word.
On Manuscript reliability, thatâ??s the CRI Perspective. Iâ??m Hank Hanegraaff.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
And here
Originally posted by www.equip.org:
the RELIABILITY OF THE BIBLE
Obviously, a vast amount of time has passed since the Bible was first penned. So, how do we know that the Bible is reliable?
The Bible is a historical document. Interestingly enough, if you subject it to the same tests that you subject other historical documents to, youâ??ll discover that the Bible proves itself to be far superior to any other ancient writing.
First, letâ??s look at the New Testament which, incidentally, was originally written in the Greek language between 50 and 100 A.D. Although we donâ??t have the original autographs, there are presently some 5,000 Greek manuscripts in existence, with as many as 25,000 more copies. Just as amazing is the fact that the earliest manuscripts can be dated back as far as 120 A.D. This is tremendous when you consider that only seven of Platoâ??s manuscripts are in existence today â?? and thereâ??s a 1,300-year gap which separates the earliest copy from the original writing! Equally amazing is another fact; and that is, that the New Testament has been virtually unaltered. This has been demonstrated by scholars who have compared the earliest written manuscripts with manuscripts written centuries later. And remember, the accounts in the New Testament were recorded directly by eyewitnesses, (or by those who were associated with them) and in fact had close contact with the events themselves.
But what about the Old Testament? Letâ??s take a quick look at one of the most incredible finds of the century â?? the Dead Sea Scrolls. With the discovery of these manuscripts at Qumran in 1946, texts were found that were about 1,000 years older than any previously-known Old Testament manuscript. And when compared with the later texts, these writings proved to be virtually identical.
With every turn of the archaeologistâ??s spade, we see further evidence of Scriptureâ??s trustworthiness. Such renowned and historical scholars as William Albright and Sir Frederick Kenyon have clearly testified that the findings of archaeology have served to underscore the authenticity of the Bible. Well, is the Bible reliable? I believe the evidence speaks for itself. And with that, I rest my case.
On the reliability of Scripture, that's the CRI Perspective. Iâ??m Hank Hanegraaff.
The point is, is that the Biblical text is VERY accurate to the original documents that we have our hands on. In other words, it's not partially accurate, it's not halfway accurate, but very accurate.
The fact remains that most translations that we have today are more of a thought for thought translation. That means that words, letters, spellings etc are going to be different. The meaning isn't different, just the way it's said. The King James was more a word for word translation. What truly matters though is this...
THE MESSAGE IS THE SAME!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 261
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 261 |
Originally posted by Rishodi:
You speak the truth, though your statement was somewhat disorganized. As for the part I bolded - I just wanted to point out that Constantine came quite some time after the 1st century. Anyway, what belief set do you hold a claim to?
Your quite right. What I meant was the people that still believed as the 1st Century Christians did.  Sorry for the mix up. I'm Christadelphian and you've probably never heard of it.
BTW: the king james version is highly INaccurate. If you look into the actual languages, some things have been added to make the bible appear to agree with christianity at large. I have a book, called the Dialglott, that is a exact greek to english translation of the new testament and another book, don't remember exactly what it's called, that is an exact hebrew/chaldean to english translation of the old testament. You would be surprised at how inaccurate the king james, nkjv, etc... is/are. Another good tool for biblical study is a concordance, whether it be Strong's or some other author. They take the words in the references and show you what hebrew/greek (depending on which testament it is) word it actually is and gives you the exact meaning.
-Contour's dead, but is being revived...
Originally posted by CSVT1214:
Originally posted by ford zetec2:
after than, what do i do with the 98 short shifter? do I place it in there like it is?
Stick it in your butt and rotate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 7,012
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 7,012 |
Originally posted by Woodencross:
The point is, is that the Biblical text is VERY accurate to the original documents that we have our hands on.
hahahaaaaaaaaaaa, yeah right. someone has been brainwashed. 
Oo (xxx)oO
o xxxxxxxx o
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 261
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 261 |
I agree with mikey boy. As i stated.
-Contour's dead, but is being revived...
Originally posted by CSVT1214:
Originally posted by ford zetec2:
after than, what do i do with the 98 short shifter? do I place it in there like it is?
Stick it in your butt and rotate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 584
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 584 |
Originally posted by the other davis:
Originally posted by Rishodi:
You speak the truth, though your statement was somewhat disorganized. As for the part I bolded - I just wanted to point out that Constantine came quite some time after the 1st century. Anyway, what belief set do you hold a claim to?
Your quite right. What I meant was the people that still believed as the 1st Century Christians did. Sorry for the mix up. I'm Christadelphian and you've probably never heard of it.
BTW: the king james version is highly INaccurate. If you look into the actual languages, some things have been added to make the bible appear to agree with christianity at large. I have a book, called the Dialglott, that is a exact greek to english translation of the new testament and another book, don't remember exactly what it's called, that is an exact hebrew/chaldean to english translation of the old testament. You would be surprised at how inaccurate the king james, nkjv, etc... is/are. Another good tool for biblical study is a concordance, whether it be Strong's or some other author. They take the words in the references and show you what hebrew/greek (depending on which testament it is) word it actually is and gives you the exact meaning.
I figured that was what you meant, but I wanted to point out the way it read anyway. You're right, I haven't heard of Christadelphian, but I'd be interested in learning more about them based solely on your above post.
And you are right, the King James Version is regarded among scholars to be one of the most inaccurate versions of the Bible. It's not even a direct translation, it's a re-writing of other English translations.
E0 Silver Frost CSVT #3095/6535
Alpine CDA-9851
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028 |
Originally posted by the other davis:
Originally posted by Rishodi:
You speak the truth, though your statement was somewhat disorganized. As for the part I bolded - I just wanted to point out that Constantine came quite some time after the 1st century. Anyway, what belief set do you hold a claim to?
Your quite right. What I meant was the people that still believed as the 1st Century Christians did. Sorry for the mix up. I'm Christadelphian and you've probably never heard of it.
BTW: the king james version is highly INaccurate. If you look into the actual languages, some things have been added to make the bible appear to agree with christianity at large. I have a book, called the Dialglott, that is a exact greek to english translation of the new testament and another book, don't remember exactly what it's called, that is an exact hebrew/chaldean to english translation of the old testament. You would be surprised at how inaccurate the king james, nkjv, etc... is/are. Another good tool for biblical study is a concordance, whether it be Strong's or some other author. They take the words in the references and show you what hebrew/greek (depending on which testament it is) word it actually is and gives you the exact meaning.
I had never heard of the Emphatic Diaglott until tonight. And I just did a quick search on google. Jehovah's Witness! I'll do a little more research. If the Jehovah's Witnesses emphasize it, then that pretty much seals it as a moot point in my book. Jehovah's Witnesses have messed with the Bible text left and right.
If I'm wrong (about this being a Jehovah's Witness thing) let me know. If you want to discuss Jehovah's Witness and Christianity, then start another topic. As for the Emphatic Diaglott, it's considered MOOT in my point of view...
As for being Christadelphian? If you believe the Bible is exact (except for Copy and Translation errors) then do you speak, read and write Greek and Hebrew? Does everybody in your religion?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 388
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 388 |
Quote:
The point is, is that the Biblical text is VERY accurate to the original documents that we have our hands on. In other words, it's not partially accurate, it's not halfway accurate, but very accurate.
what about the gnostics? how about the book of Thomas? None of these are in the bibile, the early christian/catholic hierarchy decided that these didn't "fit" in the main theology of their church. Hundreds of people wrote versions of the new testament and what Jesus' teachings were. We aer supposed to believe that a few (fairly powerful) men in the early millenium knew what was Jesus' actual teachings? What about the need to please the Romans and try to get them on board the Christian wagon, there sure isn't much antiroman stuff in teh new testament even though the were the ones that actually killed Jesus and then destroyed the Jewish nation a few years later. The bible is a large narrative story that has quite a few good points and philosphies in it. It can't be taken literally as time has a way of "changing" the story. On top of that, what theology do you go with? islamic? Catholic? Protestant (what one btw) There are too many versions of even teh "original" Greek and Hebrew to really deterimine what is right/wrong.
However, back to the article, I thought that it had some very good points, why does the most "christian" society on earth give the littlest to countries that have the most trouble. The poor in our country are quite rich compared ot teh poor in eqcuador, bangledesh, etc.
In discussing hte poor here, not all are poor becuase they're lazy. I have a client htat has 2 degrees and tries very hard to get a job but can't becuase "the voices" cause him to behave erratically and bug clients. Many of our poor (around 50% have some type of Mental illness) What about them? They were given a set of genes that causes them great suffering. How many people are helping them? I'll admit I dont' give money to people on the side of the road, I give them cards to the local shelter for a warm bed and food lol they don't really like that. However, I've found that most of my clients don't do this kind of panhandling (some do but those tend to be my not so serious clients). Most try very hard to get somewhere and often end up spinning thier wheels because of lack of transportation (have you ever tried to take a bus when you could hear everyone's thoughts?), lack of housing (try to keep an apartment when you scream, at the top of your lungs mind you, at the relatives you see every day to get out) or lack of adequate health care, somethings wrong when the type/quality of healthcare you get depends on your income, there's a reason why some rich people are "ecentric" and some poor people are "mentally ill"
Anyway now that I got totally off the subject, I think that America really should take a look at itself and what image it's portraing to the world. Are we actually trying to make the world a better place for humankind(the actual christian ideal) or just for ourselves(the capitalistic model)
Jim
Last edited by jlanger; 10/05/05 05:01 AM.
'03 Protege 5
MTX
'02 Mazda Protege LX
MTX
former owner of: 96 Contour GL
2.5 ATX
|
|
|
|
|
