Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/19/2004 5:47:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/19/2004 5:58:12 PM EST by usma89]
When I was in CCD(Catholic) the nuns taught us that much of the Bible is symbolic not literal.
When I talk with my "Born Again" friends they always say the Bible is the Word of God and should be taken literally. They quote the Bible, and quite well.
If the Bible was not orignally written in English, how can we be sure that there were some things that just do not translate? My mother spoke 7 languages and said that somethings just to not translate.
What language was the Bible orignally written in anyway? And if not English, how can you say that the Bible should be taken literally?



Not that it matters, but I go to a Methodist church now.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 5:53:10 PM EST
Aramaic
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 5:53:10 PM EST
If you believe somebody lived in the belly of a whale, then I guess you take it literally. I am Catholic and I believe that Scripture is there for us get the "point of the story". My sister is a fundamentalist and she believes everything in the Bible, literally.



thanks,
Ron
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 5:54:29 PM EST
Don't forget Hebrew....

thanks,
Ron
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 5:56:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/19/2004 6:00:06 PM EST by TheRicker]
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 5:57:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By alloy6061:
Aramaic



The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, the New Testament was written in Greek.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 5:58:19 PM EST
OT = Hebrew
NT = Greek

It's a nice work of fiction...
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 5:58:33 PM EST
I grew up UPC.

Start an argument with them at your peril (As to wether the Bible is literal or not) lol

Greek translations of ancient Hebrew texts mean about SH*T to them.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 5:58:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By TheRicker:
Greek and Hebrew were the original languages.




+1

I believe God (Jehovah) is way big enough to make sure His written Word is kept true to the intended meaning despite man's intervention.

The Word of God is 100% true and correct.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 5:59:23 PM EST
The Bible is written in many differant ways. As parabale, history, sybolic, and literal.


The key is knowing what is what and that takes study.


SGtar15
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 6:00:16 PM EST
Apes evolved from creationists.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 6:04:21 PM EST
Some of it was written in Hebrew, and some of it in Greek.

What you just stated here is partially responsibly for the numerous denominations that exsist in the world today.

Also remember that the bible wasn't assembled in it's current form until at least a century or more after it was written.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 6:11:49 PM EST
Dr. Laura on Abominations



Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according toLeviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a Florida resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative - and applicable to any issue in which a literal interpreter of the Bible cites the Old Testament to back his/her conservative position.




Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev. 15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination, in Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan,

marty

Link Posted: 10/19/2004 6:13:10 PM EST
Might as well throw a sack full of snakes on the table as ask this question here.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 6:24:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By DScott:
Dr. Laura on Abominations



Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according toLeviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a Florida resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative - and applicable to any issue in which a literal interpreter of the Bible cites the Old Testament to back his/her conservative position.




Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev. 15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination, in Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan,

marty




So the Bible cannot be taken literally...
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 6:28:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/19/2004 7:35:10 PM EST by ajm1911]
I speak only two languages but taught the Gospel in a foreign tongue and can tell you that their are problems in the many translations. In English there are many references to unicorn in the OT and in Spanish the word is translated oxen. There are many problems with the translations but the Bible is the word of God.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 6:31:48 PM EST
Toung?

So you speak two languages. Too bad you can't spell tongue.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 6:39:03 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/19/2004 6:40:17 PM EST by Planerench]

Originally Posted By usma89:
When I was in CCD(Catholic) the nuns taught us that much of the Bible is symbolic not literal.
When I talk with my "Born Again" friends they always say the Bible is the Word of God and should be taken literally. They quote the Bible, and quite well.
If the Bible was not orignally written in English, how can we be sure that there were some things that just do not translate? My mother spoke 7 languages and said that somethings just to not translate.
What language was the Bible orignally written in anyway? And if not English, how can you say that the Bible should be taken literally?



Not that it matters, but I go to a Methodist church now.



First, 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."

The original languages are irrelevant. God promised to keep his words and that His word would be preached to all people. English is the language of the planet and the 1611 King James Version happens to be the seventh translation from the original.

Second, II Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

To put it simply, not all scripture is your mail. The Old Testament was written to the Jews and was their mail until the time of the gentiles. It is still useful to show the mind of God and the futility of working toward salvation (the law) but is not current for salvation. Currently, we are living in the church age and salvation is by grace and is relatively free. You are saved instantly by faith by trusting in Christ's finished work on the cross. This will not always be the case. At the beginning of the tribulation (last days) the system goes back to the old way of prooving yourself worthy to the point of death.

Scripture is not the final authority for Roman Catholism. It is final authority for Protestants. That is the reason for the discrepancy between your nun-teachers and your friends. Planerench out.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 6:40:11 PM EST
It is either the spoken word of God or...



The party starts at my house!

I happen to believe it is God breathed.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 6:59:06 PM EST
God's word does not change and is absolute. Jonah WAS in the belly of a big fish and survived. All things are possible with GOD.

Dont forget that He created the Heavens and the Earth.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 7:01:21 PM EST



Main Entry: al·le·gor·i·cal
Pronunciation: "a-l&-'gor-i-k&l, -'gär-
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of allegory
2 : having hidden spiritual meaning that transcends the literal sense of a sacred text


I don't think so....It's all about Literal.....Not Allegorical


Link Posted: 10/19/2004 7:14:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/19/2004 7:20:50 PM EST by Kacer]

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
The Bible is written in many differant ways. As parabale, history, sybolic, and literal.

The key is knowing what is what and that takes study.

SGtar15



Absolutely, +1!

edited to add: Oh, and yes Hebrew and Greek. As others have noted. ;)
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 7:28:08 PM EST

Originally Posted By Kacer:

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
The Bible is written in many differant ways. As parabale, history, sybolic, and literal.

The key is knowing what is what and that takes study.

SGtar15



Absolutely, +1!

edited to add: Oh, and yes Hebrew and Greek. As others have noted. ;)





How odd is it that it is you that agrees with me!


Sgtar15
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 7:50:39 PM EST
I believe the Bible to be the literal, factual Word of God and should be taken literally. For example, I believe the story of Jonah is a factual, real event that took place. Also, if God gave us the Scriptures to begin with, He can cause it to be translated accurately. I believe the KJV and NKJV are quite accurate. Just my beliefs and two cents worth.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 7:50:41 PM EST
If I'm not mistaken, the Bible was first written in German. The gospels and books of the Bible were in themself written in Hebrew and Aramaic, but the first Bible(all books and gospels)was translated and written in German. At least thats what my mom told me. Worth looking into, put that on my To Do list.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 7:57:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By DoctorCheney223:
If you believe somebody lived in the belly of a whale, then I guess you take it literally.



Actually it was a fish, for the truely literal amongst us.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 8:03:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By UPD415:
I believe the Bible to be the literal, factual Word of God and should be taken literally. For example, I believe the story of Jonah is a factual, real event that took place. Also, if God gave us the Scriptures to begin with, He can cause it to be translated accurately. I believe the KJV and NKJV are quite accurate. Just my beliefs and two cents worth.



But there are DIFFERENT translations into English, beyong the KJV and the NKJV (and there are known errors that are now acknowledged in the original KJV translation) - AND different version of the originals, so how do you know which ones to choose.


Plus, there are factual errors in history and chronology in numerous places, including the Gospels (that are relatively well documented).

The "literal" interpretation is easy to say, but gets harder and harder the closer you actually read the bible.


Sgtar15 is right - some is symbolic, some is literal - and it's important to be able to distinguish the two - IMO.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 8:09:25 PM EST
this is the biggest trap of the day and yet noone has posted the IT'S A TRAP pic yet.


i am very dissapointed.

Link Posted: 10/19/2004 9:43:09 PM EST
The bible was first written in Hebrew then translated to Greek. There are many many fallacies in all the different translations. The best thing to do is study it in depth, then study the texts of every different religion you can get your hands on and then you will reach enlightenment---

IT’S ALL BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 9:58:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By usma89:
When I was in CCD(Catholic) the nuns taught us that much of the Bible is symbolic not literal.



Mostly because according to the Catholic Church, the Pope is God's hand on earth. He has absolute authority over doctrine and interpretation. I know the Catholic Bible is slightly different from the Protestant one, but we Protestants don't see any Biblical foundation for such authority.


When I talk with my "Born Again" friends they always say the Bible is the Word of God and should be taken literally. They quote the Bible, and quite well.


Some of it is parables. Some is symbolism. Some of it is literal. The key is in knowing the difference.


If the Bible was not orignally written in English, how can we be sure that there were some things that just do not translate? My mother spoke 7 languages and said that somethings just to not translate.


Sure. How many words in the Greek Language exist that can be expressed by the english word love? More than a few, each with different subtle meanings, like the difference between "I love my new toaster" and "I love my children." There are many people who devote lots of hours translating from the original texts to English and verifying the meaning and context. It's as accurate as it can be, and certainly more scrutinized now than it ever has been.


What language was the Bible orignally written in anyway? And if not English, how can you say that the Bible should be taken literally?


The original languages are Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament and Greek for the New Testament.


Not that it matters, but I go to a Methodist church now.


I'm a Methodist right now by marriage, so don't take this the wrong way, but I've found that most Methodists don't even believe the Bible is relevant, even as they say "This is the Word of the Lord. Thanks be to God" after the scripture reading in Church. My old church believed it wasn't that important at all. The new one here in DFW is more conservative and so far seems to believe it is the inspired Word of God.

Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 10:00:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By DoctorCheney223:
If you believe somebody lived in the belly of a whale, then I guess you take it literally. I am Catholic and I believe that Scripture is there for us get the "point of the story". My sister is a fundamentalist and she believes everything in the Bible, literally.



thanks,
Ron



What are your feelings on Communion and Transubstantation? Do you believe the bread and while literally turn into the body and blood of Christ during the ceremony, or is it symbolism?

Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 10:13:16 PM EST

Originally Posted By chewbacca:
The bible was first written in Hebrew then translated to Greek. There are many many fallacies in all the different translations. The best thing to do is study it in depth, then study the texts of every different religion you can get your hands on and then you will reach enlightenment---

IT’S ALL BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!



As compared to Secular Humanism? Socialism? Communism?

Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 10:14:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By UPD415:
I believe the Bible to be the literal, factual Word of God and should be taken literally. For example, I believe the story of Jonah is a factual, real event that took place. Also, if God gave us the Scriptures to begin with, He can cause it to be translated accurately. I believe the KJV and NKJV are quite accurate. Just my beliefs and two cents worth.



But there are DIFFERENT translations into English, beyong the KJV and the NKJV (and there are known errors that are now acknowledged in the original KJV translation) - AND different version of the originals, so how do you know which ones to choose.


Plus, there are factual errors in history and chronology in numerous places, including the Gospels (that are relatively well documented).

The "literal" interpretation is easy to say, but gets harder and harder the closer you actually read the bible.


Sgtar15 is right - some is symbolic, some is literal - and it's important to be able to distinguish the two - IMO.



I agree it's important to distinguish btwn symbolic and literal. I disagree with you about any factual errors in history or chronology as contained in the Scriptures. The Gospels were written detailing different aspects of Christ and His Ministry through the eyes of different men inspired by the Holy Spirit. If there is error it comes from man not from God (including His Word). And, not all english translations are good translations, for example- The Living Bible (paraphrased) and the NIV are works of garbage.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 10:26:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By sgtar15:

Originally Posted By Kacer:

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
The Bible is written in many differant ways. As parabale, history, sybolic, and literal.

The key is knowing what is what and that takes study.

SGtar15



Absolutely, +1!

edited to add: Oh, and yes Hebrew and Greek. As others have noted. ;)





How odd is it that it is you that agrees with me!


Sgtar15



Well actually I agree with both of you
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 10:47:54 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 11:20:57 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 1:47:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By chewbacca:
The bible was first written in Hebrew then translated to Greek. There are many many fallacies in all the different translations. The best thing to do is study it in depth, then study the texts of every different religion you can get your hands on and then you will reach enlightenment---

IT’S ALL BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!




Please name one or two of the "Fallicies" in the bible.

I believe that the bible is the perfect, inerrant word of God. It is very literal. It is very symbolic. But the main thing taht gets me is that people will spend their entire life studying the bible and they will still be learining more about it to the day they die.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 2:17:48 AM EST
Wow.... There seems to be only one person who understands that there is more between the two ends of the spectrum here. I didn't see who posted the definition of allegory, but kudos to you!

"Mythology may, in a real sense, be defined as other people's religion. And religion may, in a sense, be understood as a popular misunderstanding of mythology." --- Joseph Campbell, Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor

I'm going to try to avoid a really long post here because I want people to actually read what I have to say. But I will say this. Mythology (or religion if you will) serves a purpose within any given society. Each mythological system (including Christianity) has more in common with every other mythological system than differences. The purpose of these systems is not to build a relationship with the divine, but to help humanity identify with the divine.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 2:46:53 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/20/2004 2:50:07 AM EST by EricTheHun]
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 3:10:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:


But there are DIFFERENT translations into English, beyong the KJV and the NKJV (and there are known errors that are now acknowledged in the original KJV translation) - AND different version of the originals, so how do you know which ones to choose.





So which Bible is the correct one, the KJV or the HKJV?

And it is not a trap, I would really like to know the views of others on this subject.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 4:57:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By usma89:
When I was in CCD(Catholic) the nuns taught us that much of the Bible is symbolic not literal.
When I talk with my "Born Again" friends they always say the Bible is the Word of God and should be taken literally. They quote the Bible, and quite well.
If the Bible was not orignally written in English, how can we be sure that there were some things that just do not translate? My mother spoke 7 languages and said that somethings just to not translate.
What language was the Bible orignally written in anyway? And if not English, how can you say that the Bible should be taken literally?



Not that it matters, but I go to a Methodist church now.



Let me explain Bible history.

When Christ was on the earth, the Jewish people had a collection of works they trusted as scripture. These works included the 5 writings of Moses, (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), the book of Joshua describing the history of Israel as led by Joshua, the book of Judges (talking about the history of a pre-king Israel) the Books of Kings, Chronicles and Sammuel detailing the history of the last judge of Israel and the Kings of Israel, the works of history written after the return from Babylonian Captivity (Nahum, Ezra, Esther, etc...) and then the writings of the prophets like Daniel, Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah (who also wrote Lamentations), and additional writings like Psalms, Proverbs, Job, etc.

These works were all written by men, but the central tennent of the Jewish faith was that all of these works were insipired by God, and were the revelation of God to the people. Just as God gave Moses the 10 commandments, it is believed that God gave the rest of scripture through men. Now each of these writings was not ALWAYS considered to be scripture. Prophets like Isaiah, for instance, were killed for preaching what they did, but their writings survived. But once the prophecies made by men like Isaiah and Jeremiah had come true, their writings were viewed in a whole different light than when they were preaching the messages contained in those writings.

As time went on, more books were added to the Jewish canon of scripture. By the time of Jesus, what we now know as the Old Testament was the completed canon of Jewish Scripture. After the death, resurrection and Glorification of Jesus, His disciples (Peter, Andrew, James, John, etc...) began to go throughout Israel and preach the Gospel.

In so doing, people were converted and churches were founded throughout Israel, Samaria, and other territories. No sooner had they begun to preach the Gospel than false teachers and doctrines began to spring up. So the disciples wrote the synoptic Gospels, (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) that covered the history of Jesus, the history of His ministry, the history of His death, and the essence of His teachings. Matthew, Mark and John were written by the Apostles Matthew, Mark and John, who were eye witnesses of Jesus and His work on earth. Luke was an early convert who was an educated man (a Doctor, I believe) that set about to gather the history of Jesus and the early church from eyewitness accounts given by those who walked with Jesus. The Gospels are not COMPREHENSIVE, meaning that they do not cover ALL that Jesus said or did, because it would be impossible to do so. John's gospel says that:

" 24This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

John 21

The Gospels give a foundation to the faith, a sufficient compilation of the life and ministry of Christ upon this earth, as well as offering the proofs of His status as Messiah. (His lineage, the fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus, etc...)

The Gospels were written to provide an authoritative source for true information about the life and teachings of Christ to combat the many false doctrines (like gnosticism) that were rising up. These works formed the basis of Christianity even from the 1st century of the church. Luke (who wrote the book of Luke) also wrote another book called Acts. This book covered the history of the church AFTER the resurrection of Christ, detailing Pentecost, and the subsequent ministries of the Apostles to the Jewish people and to the gentiles, and recording some of the miracles done through the name of Christ.

In the book of Acts, we see the ministries of the Apostles, but the book spends the most time speaking of the ministry of Peter and Paul. Paul was originally named Saul, and was present at the death of the first Christian martyr, Stephen. Later on Saul (who persecuted Christians relentlessly) had a vision of the Lord on the road to Damascus and became a Christian, and then began ministering to the Gentiles. After a while Luke joined him and recorded his own eyewitness account of Paul's ministry.

By the middle of the first century after Christ's resurrection, the Gospel had spread througout a very wide area. (Christians were forced to flee persecution in Israel, and took the Gospel with them when they ran, making converts wherever they went) Churches (localized groups of believers) had been founded in lots of different places by the missionary work of men like Peter, Paul, and John. After the churches were founded in such a wide area, it became impossible for the Apostles to govern them all by being with them. They simply could not be everywhere at once.

So they wrote letters to the churches instructing them in proper doctrine and correcting error and even giving discipline at times. Some of these letters were considered to be very valuable and were dutifully copied and then sent to other churches for their benefit too. A constant stream of correspondence was established between the Apostles and the churches, and also between the churches. Churches would send out letters to the Apostles by way of church members, who would then bring back the answers from the Apostles.

Because of the constant correspondence and the spreading of Apostolic letters to the churches, by the 2nd century the churches throughout the world had a common collection of writings by the Apostles that agreed in content and authorship. The church at Ephesus, for example, had a copy of the letter to the Roman church just like the Roman church did. So if a believer at Epehsus was to visit a Roman church service and hear a sermon based on the Roman letter Paul wrote, the Ephesian Christian would already be familiar with the content of the sermon and could judge whether or not the message was consistent with the writings they held.

After Constantine's conversion, it was decided that a canon of scripture needed to be formed in order to have a common foundation for the Christian faith. Heresies like gnosticism and various other stuff was becoming more and more common, and a need for a common testament of faith was seen. So the cannon of scripture was formed from manuscripts containing the various writings of the New Testament church.

Today we have access to the manuscripts used to form the cannon of scripture. These manuscripts, as I stated before, date back to as early as the 1st century AD, as these works have been preserved . Thus we can judge the Bible we have today against those manuscripts to see what if anything has been changed.

There are over 5,000 seperate manuscripts in existence that contain the writings of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree on content and authorship. To give you an idea of reliability, the Illiad writen by Homer only exists in 60 manuscripts that agree on content and authorship. Many other aincient texts have far fewer existing manuscripts than even the 60 of the Illiad. So we can be more sure about the authorship and the content of the Bible than we can be about any other aincient work.

We also have the benefit of having writings of the early church fathers, the leaders who came to power AFTER the Apostles were gone. In the manuscripts of writings from men like Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria and others, there are numerous quotes from the letters that eventually comprised what we have as the New Testament. Clement of Alexandria, for instance used over 2,400 seperate quotes in the writings we have from him that came from all but 3 books of what we now know of the New Testament.

All of this combines to show us that what we read in the Bible today is the very same as what the Apostles taught and the 1st century believers relied on as the foundation of the faith. In other words, I can be as sure of the Bible's truth and the Lordship of Christ today as the earliest Christians were.

That is a brief history of the Bible as it stands today.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:50:56 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/20/2004 6:06:19 AM EST by John_Wayne777]
To further answer the question, the Bible was orignially written in Hebrew. (The Old Testament...) The earliest manuscripts we have today are written mostly in Greek and Hebrew. The Bible has been translated into many languages in its history, but any worthwhile translation has been taken from the manuscripts in Greek and Hebrew that predate the canon and then converted into other languages.

It is true that sometimes translational problems rise up. There are, for instance, 4 greek words that translate to the rather generic word "love" in English. Philos, eros, Agape, and storge. Each of these Greek words have a very specific meaning that our generic English translation does not get. The Greek word "pornia" which is translated in many versions of the Bible as "fornication" actually has a much broader meaning than merely sex before marriage.

Corruption of the language has also played a part. If we consider the way that most people use the word "awesome" these days is totally different than the way it was used 100 years ago. So too with the word "dreadful". Americans are not careful with language and as such a word on the page can mean one thing to us, but if you research it you find a much deeper meaning.

There are resources available today that will allow you to find every word of the King James Version of the Bible and then find the original Greek or Hebrew word from the manuscripts from which the KJV was taken. Strong's Concordance is the standard tool for most Bible researchers.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:55:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By Treadhead:
Greek translations of ancient Hebrew texts mean about SH*T to them.




Funny, Jesus and Paul quoted the Septaguent (no I don't know how to spell it) more than anything else, and it is a greek translation of the old testament.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:56:59 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:03:24 AM EST
I believe the Bible is to be taken literally in most contexts. Jesus LITERALLY came to this earth, LITERALLY died the death of a criminal, and was LITERALLY resurrected on the 3rd day. This forms the foundation of my faith.

I also believe that sin is LITERALLY an affront to God and that "without Holiness, no man shall see the Lord." I believe that when Jesus said to "take up thy cross and follow Me." That He was not literally speaking that every believer had to be crucified on a cross to obtain salvation, but that He meant that we were to put to death the lusts of the flesh. Further reading in the Bible gives us further proof of this in later passages:

" 1 Therefore, since Christ suffered for us[1] in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, 2that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh for the lusts of men, but for the will of God. 3For we have spent enough of our past lifetime[2] in doing the will of the Gentiles--when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries."

1st Peter 4

"20I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me."

Galatians 2:20

When the Bible speaks metephorically (as it does frequently, because God relates eternal truths to us through terms and relationships we can understand) it is very clear about doing so. When the Bible speaks about the Bride of Christ, it does not literally mean that there is a woman that Christ will wed. It speaks of our relationship to Him, that we are the beloved of His heart and that He longs for us. It also speaks that He is returning for someone who is comitted to Him and Him alone, not one that entertains other lovers, so we must love Him and Him only.

The Bible is NOT as hard as people make it out to be. They like to make it difficult and complex, but the truths contained in the Bible are often simple enough that a 5 year old can learn them. Surely there is deeper and deeper understanding the more one studies, but you will find that a great many truths can be appreciated with even the most glancing look at the scriptures.

Genuine study of the Bible will produce genuine understanding of it.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:12:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By brasspile:
We cannot define PERFECTLY the military records of Bush or Kerry.

Yet you think we can explain things from over two thousand years ago?

I mean, we are good, but not THAT GOOD.




It had/has nothing to do with us. It is God's Word and therefore His responsibility to keep pure.

I believe He did (is doing) that as we speak.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:13:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By ghengiskhabb:

Originally Posted By Treadhead:
Greek translations of ancient Hebrew texts mean about SH*T to them.




Funny, Jesus and Paul quoted the Septaguent (no I don't know how to spell it) more than anything else, and it is a greek translation of the old testament.



Indeed, because that was pretty much all that was around at the time. The Jewish world of the time was complex. Jews had been scattered all over the world by Babylonian captivity and subsequent conquests. The Jewish faith in Jehovah had spread far and wide. Phillip is shown in Acts witnessing to a Jewish convert from Ethiopia. During Pentecost people from all over the world heard those filled with the Holy Spirit glorifying God in their NATIVE languages.

Jews of the time were both ethnic Jews, and gentile converts to the Jewish religion. They had a court for the Gentiles in the Temple of Jerusalem specifically to accomodate these gentile converts.

So as a result, the scriptures were translated into many different languages all across the world. The funny thing is that at the time nobody was arguing that since the Jewish scriptures could be found in Hebrew, Greek and Latin that obviously it was all bull.

Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:15:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By usma89:
So which Bible is the correct one, the KJV or the HKJV?



According to many Bible scholars the New American Standard Version is the most literal translation.

I like the New International Version myself, followed by the King James and the Amplified.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:21:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By usma89:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:


But there are DIFFERENT translations into English, beyong the KJV and the NKJV (and there are known errors that are now acknowledged in the original KJV translation) - AND different version of the originals, so how do you know which ones to choose.





So which Bible is the correct one, the KJV or the HKJV?

And it is not a trap, I would really like to know the views of others on this subject.



The "correct" version is the one that most closely adheres to the original manuscripts.

The problem is that the KJV was written almost 500 years ago. The English language HAS CHANGED since then. We spell things a bit differently, use words differently than they did then. But you can take a KJV Bible and put it next to a NEW King James Version Bible and the meanings are the same. The only difference is some of the "thees" and "thous" and things like that have been trimmed down to make sentence structure more logical.

To show you what I mean, here is the Sermon on the Mount in both the KJV:


1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."


Now the NKJV:


"3"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.


11"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.


Believers Are Salt and Light
(2) 13 "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men."


There are some people out there who believe that if it is not the old King James Version, that it is wrong. I have yet to figure out how they would handle a Spanish version of the Bible, or a Japanese version, or a Russian version...I guess they think that all God fearing people speak English.

There are some versions that are PER-versions of the orignial scriptures. But the King James Version, the New King James Version, and the New International Version are all accurate. I have checked them with concordances referring back to original manuscripts, and they all check out. The sentence structure is different, but the essence of each scripture is still there.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:27:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By brasspile:
We cannot define PERFECTLY the military records of Bush or Kerry.

Yet you think we can explain things from over two thousand years ago?

I mean, we are good, but not THAT GOOD.



I have given the history of how we have scripture already, and in that we CAN be more certain about what the Bible says than about what Kerry's military records say.

You must remember that there is the element of the Divine in this. Is the all-powerful God unable to keep His word true? Is the Creator of heaven and earth unable to make sure what He says gets written on the page?

Of course not.

The Bible's truth relies on the existence of God and His pre-eminence in all of creation. Without God, the Bible becomes nothing more than a mildly interesting book.

Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:29:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By bvmjethead:

Originally Posted By TheRicker:
Greek and Hebrew were the original languages.




+1

I believe God (Jehovah) is way big enough to make sure His written Word is kept true to the intended meaning despite man's intervention.

The Word of God is 100% true and correct.



plus one.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top