Huffington Post: Why the Bible Is Not the Word of God
The Holy Bible is a collection of Christian texts that is the result of refinement by men who thought they were led by God to discern his teachings. The early Christian world was diverse and everyone had a different take on the Gospel of Jesus. These disagreements were "settled" in large meetings of high ranking priests called "Councils." The Council of Hippo (one of the African Synods) drew up a collection of texts, which is now the Catholic Bible (including a class of texts I as a Protestant would call Apocrypha), in 393 AD. St. Jerome is credited with creating the Old Latin Vulgate, which was the outcome of the African Synods and was used as the Bible for centuries.
The Bible's last book to be penned was the Book of Revelation of John of Patmos in the late 80's early 90's AD. The first compilation of cannon did not come about until about three hundred years later at the Council of Hippo. The...
I see nothing much has happened on this story in the secular world since I last posted here, not like the Chick Fil-A's founder's comments on marriage some time ago. Which shows you that maybe few people cared about the story, or the sides are settled, so no one is trying to convince another of the worth of the Bible. The only thing left, then, is for posters here to run rabbit trails on their favorite subjects like the KJV (which by the way, contains the word "Easter" in the book of Acts, which many consider to be an egregious error). In fact, I think they could change the name of "Comments" here to "Comments and Rabbit Trails." One thing is sure--if I was an editor of a major metropolitan newspaper, and this story was up for debate by my reporters, I would throw out all those who run down these rabbit trails. I would ask them to stay 'on point' with things that would interest the general public.
1517 wrote: Western Christians wrestling over KJV superiority would seem odd to those whose only access to the Word is at their underground church. Some places only have one copy for one region. ... The desperate need in this world is not translation ( which has importance, but not primary) but is this Word true and Who is its Revealer.
From those nations barely having an underground copy available not much will be required, except to hold on to it as fast as they can. However, such standard cannot be applied in fairness to the English-speaking world, were publishing new Bible translations has become prey to lucre and modernistic agendas.
‚ÄėFor unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.‚Äô Lk 12:48
‚ÄúWhen I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.‚ÄĚ I Cor. 13:11
As for the statement: "The desperate need ... is not translation ... but is this Word true and Who is its Revealer", let us depend on the Holy Spirit to bring conversion to pass, while we work along to preserve his truth. "The works which the Father has given me ... the same ... I do" Jh 5:36
There's a grassroots project on the Internet where the hebrew text is being translated word for word as it's written and it's very interesting. Not easy to read because it's literal word for word, and it's amazing how the original words, examples, stories, etc, were based around agricultural references with different words being used for thr change of times, vocabulary, understanding, etc. I might ha e explained it wrong so will dig up the projects link when I get home today.
Mike re the word fascination - my prayer partner winces on hearing this word...
ThesaurusAntonymsSynonymsLegend: Noun 1. fascination - the state of being intensely interested (as by awe or terror) captivation spell, trance, enchantment - a psychological state induced by (or as if induced by) a magical incantation 2. fascination - a feeling of great liking for something wonderful and unusual enchantment, enthrallment, captivation liking - a feeling of pleasure and enjoyment; "I've always had a liking for reading"; "she developed a liking for gin" 3. fascination - the capacity to attract intense interest; "he held the children spellbound with magic tricks and other fascinations" attractiveness, attraction - the quality of arousing interest; being attractive or something that attracts; "her personality held a strange attraction for him"
The translation debate is a first world problem. Western Christians wrestling over KJV superiority would seem odd to those whose only access to the Word is at their underground church. Some places only have one copy for one region. The Word was spread orally in earlier centuries, way before King James ordered translation. The desperate need in this world is not translation ( which has importance, but not primary) but is this Word true and Who is its Revealer.
Mike wrote: A second fascination is the penchant for making the number of manuscripts evidence of rightness, as if the "correct" manuscript could somehow be determined by "majority rules." Maybe that's just how we think in the democratic West
Brother Mike, here's my take on it. For thousands of years, scriptures were hand written. Copies had to be made because there was no longevity in the materials used. And how do you determine if an error was made in say, four out of every hundred copies? By comparison. Thusly, "majority rules" is the only way to ensure perfect copies. Now I realise you and I don't have the time required, but if we were to spend the next twenty years studying the old greek language, then got together the 6,000 NT mss extant, and produced a new translation based on those mss, it would be very close to the KJV of 1769, but in modern language. __________
NB, interesting points also, especially that you read the Geneva.
For those who are not aware, I have mentioned before that the KJV is a most excellent Bible. But it does have its blemishes caused by the translational requirements of the king, and if these were sorted out and the wording modernised, it would be even more excellent for today.
Dumb founded wrote: I just like sticking to the point of the article, and the way Dee phrases her thoughts. Her irony is ingenious.
Thank you. Adhering to the article in question is not necessarily the only way a thread can enrich people. Deviations might not be desirable, yet this is the benefit of a open forum, in that they indicate areas of interest, need, conflict or contention, yet sharing the truth in love never hurts, except in the case of malice.
B. McCausland wrote: Most Christians will perceive the blatant folly of the article in question, yet it is obvious some struggle with understanding about Scripture-related issues for what there is no harm in sharing perception. "The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens." Pro 3:19 Mike/New York stated: "A second fascination is the penchant for making the number of manuscripts evidence of rightness, as if the "correct" manuscript could somehow be determined by "majority rules." Your impressions about this matter could be further elucidated by the presentation of Mr.Daniel Chamberlin, 'Why I Use the KJV' http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=513101536240 Kind regards
Actually, I use the KJV for the same reasons. I just like sticking to the point of the article, and the way Dee phrases her thoughts. Her irony is ingenious.
Dumb founded wrote: Looks as if your exhortation went unheeded. I like the way you bring a point out though.
Most Christians will perceive the blatant folly of the article in question, yet it is obvious some struggle with understanding about Scripture-related issues for what there is no harm in sharing perception.
"The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens." Pro 3:19
Mike/New York stated: "A second fascination is the penchant for making the number of manuscripts evidence of rightness, as if the "correct" manuscript could somehow be determined by "majority rules."
Your impressions about this matter could be further elucidated by the presentation of Mr.Daniel Chamberlin, 'Why I Use the KJV'
Mike wrote: ... rendering those words into mystery symbolism and allegory.
The issue has to do interpretations, not translation. Let's imagine a statement as: "the sky bloomed with glee"
What is the interpretation of the concept? One can interpret it as the literal blue sky (firmament) shining, or as a description of a given emotional scenario. Then, how do you interpret 'glee'? What color has glee? Does it refer to a fact-related expectation, fulfillment, or exuberant jubilation? Is the verb 'bloomed' continual, or was a single surge of emotion? Was it slow, or instant? Is the thought a figure of speech, a subjective feeling, or something identified with the physical eye?
It is obvious the literal interpretation of such sentence might not be affirmed, neither the symbolical/allegorical.
In the case of Scriptures, appropriate text interpretation comes determined by the context, setting, and the full compendium of the whole revelation. This is the way amillennials derive sense of particular passages. Imposing always literal interpretation one can lack hermeneutical honesty.
Is Christ a door made of wood or is he the way into the realm of salvation? The first interpretation is literal, the second provides the concept.
I'll admit that I haven't studied a lot on kjv only reasoning. I also have not taken the time to thoroughly read thru every comment on this thread. But what does seem to be missing is the classification categories of the modern translations. Not all of them are equal. For instance, there are the paraphrase translations like the "message", thought for thought translations (NIV, NLT), and then word for word translations (ESV, NAS, KJV). I'm not seeing a problem with the word for word translations and honestly, some of the more recent word for words have been translated from earlier manuscripts than the KJV. I haven't noticed any significant difference in the meaning of the texts in those word for word translations I have read. That being said, I currently reading from the 1599 Geneva Bible and enjoying it very much. I never recommend the NIV (esp. since the 2011 revision came out)... Many strong pastors use the modern word for word: Voddie uses ESV, Paul Washer uses NASB, Joe Morecraft uses NASB, etc... I don't want to be disagreeable and I will look more into this issue as I get time... But don't make the mistake of putting all recent translations into the same boat.... They are not all equal..
Mike wrote: claim the KJV is the only right one because only its words are rightly translated from the only right manuscripts,
Clarification: KJV is appreciated by many for its superiority in rhythm, literacy style, accuracy, and reverence for the original text.
Translating limitations exist, due to linguistic difficulties. For instance, not all words have a word for word equivalent from one language to another. Also conceptual figures of speech in a language, especially in poetical sections, lack exact expressions in the new language translated into, to convey the actual meaning without sounding ridiculous or being misunderstood.
AV 1611 translators were among the best ever English-speaking scholars the last 4 centuries had. Their reverential approach to the Word of God comes demonstrated by their consciousness of integrity when dealing with the oracles of God, in that they carefully resorted to the use of italics to indicate the added words needed to make full sense of the meaning in a sentence. These were not 'interpretational' words added at will; they were grammatical pieces of language necessary to convey the meaning perceived in the original without interpreting the text.
Dee Senter wrote: It didn't take long for this thread to turn into a debate over translations (that does have a place) This morning I read the article of this apostate denying the inspiration of scripture, then went to work in my garden. I was trying to keep the people digging the septic tank from running over my flowers with their trucks. Then I saw it.... a DANDELION among my flowers. A dandelion looks like a real flower, but it's a weed. So, I stopped waving the truck off to go get that horrible weed. And I did. Of course the trucks ran over the whole flower garden...but I got that weed thank goodness. Everyone is sure glad I have things in perspective. Got to go. Neighbors kitchen caught on fire. Got to make sure no gnats get in her coffee cups.
Looks as if your exhortation went unheeded. I like the way you bring a point out though.
Dave wrote: Yes and the missing texts I mentioned at the start of this thread can certainly be checked against the original 1st century original gospels and epistles. How else can one verify authenticity?
Sorry, the originals do not exist, only copies of copies. Useful information conducive to the matter in: