[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions Status: Not Logged In; Sign In Bible Study See other Bible Study Articles Title: The Origins of the King James Bible Source: Smithsonian URL Source: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart ... -james-bible-180956949/?no-ist Published: Oct 17, 2015 Author: Erin Blakemore Post Date: 2015-10-17 05:19:05 by Willie Green Keywords: None Views: 19847 Comments: 83 A handwritten draft of the world's most famous bible has been discovered in England When an archive yields an unexpected discovery, it's usually cause for celebration. But when that discovery involves the world's most famous bible, scholarly excitement mounts to ecstastic levels. The earliest known draft of the King James Bible has been unearthed at the University of Cambridge, writes Jennifer Schuessler for The New York Times, and it’s being lauded as a critical find for historians. The draft was discovered by Jeffrey Alan Miller, an American scholar conduct in the Cambridge archives. It contains the handwriting of dozens of authors, dating from 1604 to 1608. That handwriting is a crucial find, Schuessler writes, because it reveals how they translated and assembled the text. "There's a strong desire to see the King James Bible as a uniform object, and a belief that it's great because of its collaborative nature," Miller tells Schuessler. "It was incredibly collaborative, but it was done in a much more complicated, nuanced, and at times individualistic way than we've ever really had good evidence to believe." Forty-seven translators and scholars produced the King James Bible, which was first published in 1611. The project dates back to 1604, when King James I decided a new version could help consolidate political power, writes NPR's Barbara Bradley Hagartay. A popular Puritan bible had downplayed the divine right of kings — greatly offending James — and James manipulated different Christian sects until they agreed to produce a different translation. The result became an incredible, long-lasting success. The King James Bible has influenced language, literature and culture for more than 400 years. In the Times Literary Supplement, Miller writes that his discovery suggests that the text may be "far more a patchwork of individual translations — the product of individual translators and individual companies working in individual ways — than has ever been properly recognized." Perhaps there is always more to discover after all. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-12) not displayed.       .       .       . #13. To: Vicomte13 (#10) In its highest, best form, KJV-Onlyism gives us the only text certain to be complete and point perfect, right down to the period. You really are LF's premiere KJV-Onlyist.     : ) Tooconservative  posted on  2015-10-19   10:16:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: TooConservative (#13) You really are LF's premiere KJV-Onlyist. : ) I respect KJV-Onlyists for their devotion to a principle. I love the principle because it limits all religious discussion to one specific text as the sole source of authority. Obviously once things are limited to a single text, then the person with the strongest reading ability and best memory has the advantage. And that would be me. Of course I don't really believe in Sola Scriptura. Literacy is not a requirement for salvation. Still, as a tool for instruction and resolution of issues among literate, litigious moderns, there's nothing like a text. And KJV-Onlyism settles utterly the question of the Battle of the Texts, although it then opens up the problem of 17th Century upper-class British English versus 21st Century middle class American English. Permit me an example: I know that what John actually wrote, translated into English, is this: 'This is the way that God loved the world: he gave his only begotten son...". I know that the KJV says that too. "God so loved the word that he gave his only begotten son..." means just exactly that, in 17th Century English - he did it "just so". But I also know that 20th and 21st Century English speakers misread this and think it says "God loved the world so much that he gave his only begotten son...", which is not what the Greek OR the KJV English really mean. I know that, but I also know that trying to use a translation that says "This is the way God loved the world: he gave his only begotten son..." would provoke howls of "Heresy!" from middle class American traditionalist Christians because the words are different from what they're used to, and so seem to be an attempt to "twist" Scripture. The real twisting has been done by the change of language and time and culture, but I know that the earnest, faithful, suspicious middle American will never accept that from a Catholic. He will smell sulfur. I'm pleased, then, to stay with the KJV text, for two reasons: It actually says, in its 17trh Century idiom: "This is the way God loved the world...", so by accepting the 17th Century "God so loved the world..." language I am not compromising anything on my side - what I wrote in 21st Century American English is exactly what that 17th Century British English says. But I also know that Americans who have invested "THIS MUCH" theology into that "so" aren't going to accept any change of the language. So by accepting the KJV text I can compromise and leave them their language intact, avoiding an unnecessary conflict, while still being correct. And then I can go find piles of Shakespeare and Marlowe and Bacon and others writing in that period to demonstrate that "so" means - "just so" - "in this way", and not "this much" - when written by a hand holding a pen in 1611. That, then, turns out to be an edifying discussion, for Shakespeare and Marlowe and Bacon have been invoked as contemporary demonstrations (as there was no dictionary in 1611), and then my interlocutor can keep his precious traditional language while coming away with a different point of view. KJV-Only Sola Scripturalism is a TOOL that makes a conversation possible between a Catholic and an evangelical Protestant. DOCTRINALLY he believes it, and I think it's nonsense, but I'm willing to use his text to avoid dispute. That's why I like it. As TRUTH? No. But as a medium of communication between hostile brothers and sisters that need to reconcile, it's a good tool. Incidentally, there's a Catholic form of KJV-Onlyism we might call "Vulgate- onlyism", and an Orthodox form of it we could call "LXX-Onlyism". And we should remember that the Massoretic Text tradition, which comes out the post- Christian revolution, post-Temple, Jewish "Council of Jamnia" is itself a "Hebrew-text-Onlyism" that stands directly opposed to LXX-Onlyism for the Old Testament. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   11:46:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: A K A Stone (#9) God translated the KJV as promised. So your God only loved the English speaking people on earth, and only those born after 1611 or better yet 1769? "A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is... A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness. They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in.” ― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity GarySpFC  posted on  2015-10-19   12:11:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: Vicomte13 (#7) " I personally use several, for different purposes. " Thanks for the reply Vic. You are educated enough to use all the versions you discussed. I guess I will just stick with the KJV. I would guess that I cannot go wrong with that. I have considered acquiring a copy of The Torah. Just for curiosity. I assume it is available in english. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Stoner  posted on  2015-10-19   13:25:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: GarySpFC (#15) Do you think God wasn't behind the King James Bible? Psalm 37 Don  posted on  2015-10-19   13:31:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: GarySpFC (#15) So your God only loved the English speaking people on earth, and only those born after 1611 or better yet 1769? I don't see how you get that silly notion out of what I said. When was the first Bible? Did your god only love people born after whenever you say the first Bible was published? I don't think so and I doubt you do either. So why do you jump to silly conclusions based on what I said? Did or did not God say he would translate his word for I believe all tongues or something of that order without looking it up directly. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-19   14:14:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: Vicomte13 (#12) Do you think that the KJV translation itself is Scripture, inspired by God. Put differently, does the KJV have greater authority than an ancient manuscript such as the Codex Vaticanus or the Massoretic Text, does it have the same authority, or does it have lesser authority? I don't think the KJV is of greater authority than the text on which it was based. I think they would be equal. I think that the Holy Spirit worked behind the scenes as God promised and no matter what the King wanted Gods word came out. As it did in other languages for other people. If someone says that they are intrepreting the Bible from the ancient texts such as Codex Vaticanus or whatever. If they say the King James is wrong and their intrepretation is correct. I'll go with the King James and not some other fellow telling me something contrary. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-19   14:18:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: Stoner (#16) I have considered acquiring a copy of The Torah. Just for curiosity. I assume it is available in english. You already have the Torah. The Torah is Genesis + Exodus + Leviticus + Numbers + Deuteronomy. The first five "books" of your KJV is the Torah. Perhaps you meant the Talmud. Don't bother. It's 26 volumes long - a veritable encyclopedia of Jewish law. And what it mostly consists of is endless detailed discussions and debates about stuff that is mostly in Leviticus. The oldest part of the Talmud, the Mishnah, was written closest in time to Jesus, but it's still hundreds of years later. To know what Judaism was in the First Century, the best source outside of the New Testament is Josephus. Get his complete works. You will find them tedious and boring, and very long. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   14:30:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: Vicomte13 (#20) " You already have the Torah. " Thanks for the clarification! Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Stoner  posted on  2015-10-19   14:41:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #22. To: A K A Stone (#19) I don't think the KJV is of greater authority than the text on which it was based. I think they would be equal. If someone says that they are intrepreting the Bible from the ancient texts such as Codex Vaticanus or whatever. If they say the King James is wrong and their intrepretation is correct. I'll go with the King James and not some other fellow telling me something contrary. Ok. "Equal" here means that you think that the KJV has the same authority as the particular ancient manuscripts upon which it was based. And because you think that the KJV translation was itself inspired, you think it has greater authority than any other English translation. Others will debate you on this, but I won't, because the debate will be fruitless. I'm fine using the KJV, alone. The original KJV translation included the Apocrypha, so I assume that you accept that the Apocrypha are good for reading and instruction, but that no new doctrine should be asserted from those books, yes? In effect, this means that for our discussions, we don't refer to the Apocrypha. That's fine by me, for discussion purposes. I see that you will not accept any argument that contradicts the KJV language if it is based on a different translation of the texts, so the KJV English text is definitive. Ok. This narrows the field to a single text we all can use. I can accept that for discussion purposes. My acceptance doesn't mean that I believe the things I accept them - it means that for our discussions I will only use the KJV as Scripture, I won't use the so-called "Apocrypha", and I won't resort to Greek or Latin or Hebrew. We've narrowed the field to one text, in English. This is why I like KJV-Onlyism: it greatly simplifies discussion. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   14:46:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: Vicomte13 (#20) The Talmud is full of Jewish mysticism. I always liked the advice to walk half a mile after visiting the privy so you can shake off the privy demon. Almost like the burning of fish guts we see in Tobit to ward off evil spirits. There's a superstitious mystical side of Judaism many do not consider. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6 redleghunter  posted on  2015-10-19   16:32:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #24. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#23) (Edited) The Talmud is full of Jewish mysticism. There's a superstitious mystical side of Judaism many do not consider. I always thought superstitious and mystical were two different things. My view is that when Judaism lost the temple priesthood their religion fell into the caretaker hands of local holymen and some were smart educated men but others were barely literate country bumpkins who dealt with stuff like bathroom demons and what not. There was no one to say what was right or wrong. In fact Talmud Judaism is probably best classified as an offshoot religion from Judaism. Judaism ended when the temple was destroyed and in its place arose Rabbinic aka Talmudic Judaism and Christianity. Modern Judaism is in fact YOUNGER than Christianity. Pericles  posted on  2015-10-19   16:42:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: Pericles (#24) In fact Talmud Judaism is probably best classified as an offshoot religion from Judaism. Judaism ended when the temple was destroyed and in its place arose Rabbinic aka Talmudic Judaism and Christianity. Modern Judaism is in fact YOUNGER than Christianity. I believe you have the historical context correct. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6 redleghunter  posted on  2015-10-19   16:46:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: A K A Stone (#18) My 2 cents. The KJV is an excellent translation given what manuscripts were available at the time. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6 redleghunter  posted on  2015-10-19   16:49:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: Vicomte13 (#22) you think it has greater authority than any other English translation. I never said that. I would say it has greater authority then the NIV. I can't speak for all translations. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-19   17:01:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: redleghunter (#23) I always liked the advice to walk half a mile after visiting the privy so you can shake off the privy demon. Almost like the burning of fish guts we see in Tobit to ward off evil spirits. Or the shedding of blood to atone for sin... Or the burning of animals on the altar to make a "sweet smell to the Lord"... Or the pouring out of libations onto the ground, or mixing of salt into grain. Or circumcision, for that matter. The things that God is said to have told them to do, when one thinks about it, are just baffling things that would be dismissed as superstitious tribal traditions and nonsense if they didn't appear in black and white in Scripture. Or consider the arduously detailed description of each and every implement, article, curtain and board in the Tabernacle, how God Himself, the Almighty, lavished time and energy giving explicit details on how the bells were to be sown on the ephod, with what sort of thread, or what sort of stones were to be on the ephod, in what order. It reads like the sort of minute description of things that a daydreaming teenager would write. There is so much in the Scriptures themselves that seems to be nonsensical superstition. Consider baptism. If baptism of faith is all that is really needed, why the insistence - without explanation - on this not-strictly- necessary water ritual? Or consider the brazen serpent. People get bitten by venimous snakes, they have to look at a brazen serpent in order to be saved. Then they begin to treat the brazen serpent as an idol, so one of the kings destroys it. Or the Ark of the Covenant with all of that ornament...to be hidden away unseen. Why is it necesssary to eat bread and drink wine for salvation? God's reasoning in Scripture is also very strange, and contradictory. In one place he warns that sin will be visited down the generations. In another he says that men are accountable only for their own sins. Scripture Alone, if that's all I had, would persuade me that the Judaeo- Christian God is a myth like all of the others. But of course Scripture was written by men. The miracles are what make me stand up and notice the Christian God in particular. Not the miracles that are written down, because those could just as well be myths - anybody can write anything, and all religions have - but the actual physical miracles that can be studied. But I'm not doing the examination of those things either, am I? All of that evidence could be falsified. I don't think that it is, but it COULD be. And the artifacts themselves are as baffling as any of the written things. Why would God do it this way? What is important? In the end, I know what I was shown. That those things happened is true, which means that there are indeed spirits and powers. The miracles tell me which one to look at as true. The sweeping changes to the world that the Church has done show the power of change. And then there are the Scriptures, which purport to tell us things unseen. There are problems and weaknesses in every one of these sources, which is why no two people have exactly the same beliefs. But there's still a "there" there. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   17:05:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #29. To: A K A Stone (#27) I never said that. I would say it has greater authority then the NIV. I can't speak for all translations. OK. I will stick to the KJV when writing to you. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   17:06:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: Vicomte13 (#22) and I won't resort to Greek or Latin or Hebrew. If you know those languages then use them. Or if you trust the translations then use them. I just don't know those languages. So I can only know what people say those languages say. So I would have to accept that someone is telling me the truth when I don't know if they are or aren't. I understand English. No one has been able to show me anything in the King James that makes me think it is contradictory or incorrect. I have seen things in the NIV that seem to contradict other verses. So I just stick to the KJV because that is what I understand. So if someone quote A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-19   17:07:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: Pericles (#24) In fact Talmud Judaism is probably best classified as an offshoot religion from Judaism. Judaism ended when the temple was destroyed and in its place arose Rabbinic aka Talmudic Judaism and Christianity. Modern Judaism is in fact YOUNGER than Christianity. You are correct. Modern rabbinical Judaism is a sort of "oral tradition alone" Judaism. The Church is the continuation of the Temple under a new covenant Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   17:10:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: A K A Stone (#30) (Edited) No one has been able to show me anything in the King James that makes me think it is contradictory or incorrect. I'll show you several things in the KJV that are contradictory, but those contradictions are in the Hebrew also, so the translation is not the issue, but the words of Scripture themselves. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   17:12:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: Vicomte13 (#32) I'll show you several things in the KJV that are contradictory, but those contradictions are in the Hebrew also, so the translation is not the issue, but the words of Scripture themselves. Do you speak Hebrew? Oh you don't. So someone told you it said something and you believed them. Or you read it somewhere and you believed it. I haven't seen any contradictons or incorrect things in the Bible. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-19   19:10:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #34. To: A K A Stone (#33) Oh you don't. So someone told you it said something and you believed them. Or you read it somewhere and you believed it. I haven't seen any contradictons or incorrect things in the Bible. I am going to show you plenty of contradictions in the KJV. That way we don't have to speak Hebrew. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   19:26:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #35. To: Vicomte13 (#34) I am going to show you plenty of contradictions in the KJV. You are going to show me what you think are contradictions. But if you pray on it and seek the truth you will see that there aren't any contradictions. Just misunderstandings. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-19   19:27:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #36. To: A K A Stone (#35) You are going to show me what you think are contradictions. But if you pray on it and seek the truth you will see that there aren't any contradictions. Just misunderstandings. They are real contradictions. Some are glaring. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   19:40:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: Vicomte13 (#28) Or the shedding of blood to atone for sin... Or the burning of animals on the altar to make a "sweet smell to the Lord"... Or the pouring out of libations onto the ground, or mixing of salt into grain. Or circumcision, for that matter. The things that God is said to have told them to do, when one thinks about it, are just baffling things that would be dismissed as superstitious tribal traditions and nonsense if they didn't appear in black and white in Scripture. Not even in the same ball park as privy demons. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6 redleghunter  posted on  2015-10-19   22:54:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #38. To: redleghunter (#37) Cicumcision is a lot worse than a privy demon! Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-20   1:15:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: Vicomte13 (#34) I want to see these contradictions. ebonytwix  posted on  2015-11-08   15:34:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: redleghunter (#37) (Edited) The things that God is said to have told them to do, when one thinks about it, are just baffling things that would be dismissed as superstitious tribal traditions and nonsense if they didn't appear in black and white in Scripture. They are tribal traditions arising out of conjecture, ignorance, and fantasy in men's erroneous attempt at understanding the creation, lawfullness and tragedy of the physical world. Some cultures created multiple gods and even contests between Gods in their attempt to devise explanations. We attempt to dignify ours by calling it Scripture. rlk  posted on  2015-11-08   18:05:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #41. To: redleghunter (#37) The things that God is said to have told them to do, when one thinks about it, are just baffling things that would be dismissed as superstitious tribal traditions and nonsense if they didn't appear in black and white in Scripture. They are tribal traditions arising out of conjecture, ignorance, and fantasy in men's erroneous attempt at understanding the creation, lawfullness and tragedy of the physical world. Some cultures created multiple gods and even contests between Gods in their attempt to devise explanations. We attempt to dignify ours by calling it Scripture. rlk  posted on  2015-11-08   18:07:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #42. To: ebonytwix (#39) Alright. Then I'll point out some that are glaring, and some that are subtle. There are plenty of things that are not contradictions internal to the Bible, but that contradict with Christian traditions. Those AREN'T contradictions - they're examples of the differences between the written tradition and the oral traditions. Here, I'll stick to the actual contradictions. One of the most glaring is the fact that Abraham used the name YHWH and referred to God as YHWH. And yet later, when YHWH is speaking to Moses, He says that he is revealing his name, YHWH, for the first time, that Abraham knew him as El Elyon, but not as YHWH. This is a flat contradiction. The contradiction exists in Hebrew too, but the Hebrew lets you sidle away from it by the fact that the name YHWH is also a verb tense of the verb to be. And if you do that in the Hebrew, you know you're taking some leaps to try to avoid a contradiction that is really there. In English there isn't a way past it though:it's a contradiction. God said to Moses that Abraham didn't know his name YHWH, but Abraham used that very name, and even named a place "YHWH". It's a contradiction. Does that fact MATTER, that it's a contradiction? It matters to "every word dictated" literalists, yes. Doesn't matter to Catholics and Orthodox, though. THere's one. I didn't get the citations because I don't have a Bible in my hand where I am. This is not hard stuff to find, though, if you know your way around the text. Just open Genesis, page to the sections regarding Abraham, and read the story. Note each interaction with God. Use a highlighter. Note that Abraham calls God YHWH, names a place YHWH-something (and the text tells us, helpfully, that it's still called that "to this day"). Now skip over the story of Jacob and Joseph to the story of Moses, early in Exodus, and read Moses' encounter with YHWH in the burning bush. Chapter and verse are not part of Scripture. The stories are. It's better for you to read the stories, so that you have the fuller context. I'm going to restrict my posting to answering you, because you asked. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-08   18:55:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #43. To: rlk (#40) The comments you responded to are not mine. "Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near"---Isaiah 55:6 redleghunter  posted on  2015-11-08   19:03:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #44. To: Vicomte13 (#42) One of the most glaring is the fact that Abraham used the name YHWH and referred to God as YHWH. And yet later, when YHWH is speaking to Moses, He says that he is revealing his name, YHWH, for the first time, that Abraham knew him as El Elyon, but not as YHWH. This is a flat contradiction. The contradiction exists in Hebrew too, but the Hebrew lets you sidle away from it by the fact that the name YHWH is also a verb tense of the verb to be. And if you do that in the Hebrew, you know you're taking some leaps to try to avoid a contradiction that is really there. In English there isn't a way past it though:it's a contradiction. God said to Moses that Abraham didn't know his name YHWH, but Abraham used that very name, and even named a place "YHWH". It's a contradiction. Would you post the actual verses to make it more clear? Then explain your position with references to what verses you are talking about. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-11-08   20:47:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: Vicomte13 (#42) So why does such contradictions exist? Is it written by two different people and does it invalidate the Bible? ebonytwix  posted on  2015-11-08   22:10:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #46. To: rlk (#40) They are tribal traditions arising out of conjecture, ignorance, and fantasy in men's erroneous attempt at understanding the creation, lawfullness and tragedy of the physical world. As in a human reincarnated as a butterfly or chimpanzee? Sorry you walked right into that one. "Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near"---Isaiah 55:6 redleghunter  posted on  2015-11-09   2:55:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #47. To: ebonytwix (#45) So why does such contradictions exist? Is it written by two different people and does it invalidate the Bible? To what extent does a contradiction "invalidate" something? I would say that only the thing that is contradicted is rendered unclear. Did Abraham know the name YHWH or not? Unknown. The Scripture clearly shows that he did, but then says he didn't. So, as to the question itself: did Abraham know the name YHWH or not, the correct answer is: we don't know, because the Bible contradicts. But then we can go on and ask: Does it MATTER? And the answer to the question itself is that it does not. It makes no difference to anything of importance about the Biblical story whether Abraham knew or did not know the specific name "YHWH", that name, versus the others, doesn't make any difference to us in our way of thinking about God. All that the contradiction does is create a massive impediment to those who would make an idol of the Bible by claiming that IT is letter perfect, written by God, and that therefore people can suspend their own reason, and ignore the evidence of their own eyes, ears, hands and minds in favor of what somebody else says about an old book. I think that the old book is very important, because it's the only place where what God said and did at key times in history is recorded. That remains true even if the factual details of the book are not totally reliable. What THAT means, for example, is that people who believe in Young Earth Creationism and people who believe in Very Old Earth Directed Evolution, should not be excommunicating each other regarding God. To use a famous quote: "The Bible teaches how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go." Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-09   11:29:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #48. To: Vicomte13 (#47) Well, usually people will held up standards of truth to have no perceived invalidating information (which is usually found in a contradiction as you said, or a lack of source, ect) since truth is supposed to be wholly objective and flat out there. With contradictions, it puts out a rise of suspicion of the legitimacy of the source since it made an error, especially the legitimacy of other texts as well. Many people in America who are Christians certainly believe the Bible is perfect, and the Bible itself states that I believe. So did we really evolve from monkeys or was Adam and Eve all a metaphor for us to understand more? By the way, I agree with you completely, just up for a little debate :) ebonytwix  posted on  2015-11-09   17:54:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #49. To: ebonytwix (#48) With contradictions, it puts out a rise of suspicion of the legitimacy of the source since it made an error, especially the legitimacy of other texts as well. A mathematical hypothesis is refuted by a single counterexample. Life isn't math. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-09   18:05:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #50. To: ebonytwix (#48) Christians certainly believe the Bible is perfect, and the Bible itself states that I believe The Bible doesn't state that about the Bible, because the Bible never references itself. Within the Scriptures there are references to "Scripture", but of course "scripture" just means "writing". Undoubtedly it referred to writings that Jews and Christians considered to be sacred, set apart, holy, but there was never, and still is not, full agreement on what set of writings really ARE "THE Scriptures" - books are in or out of different canons. And even within a given canonical tradition, there is not agreement on which ancient manuscripts are the most reliable. Every single ancient manuscript is handwritten - the printing press wasn't invented until the 1400s - and no two ancient manuscripts are alike. There are differences between every one of them. So, what exactly is "Scripture"? And what does "perfect" mean? The real answer to the whole question is this: don't make idols out of books and specific pieces of paper, or languages: the letter kills but the spirit gives life. God had a pretty short set of GENERAL PRINCIPLES for guiding human life, so that humans could be healthy and happy and harmoniously fill their role of world dominion. And that is what the Bible is: a collection of histories - of what God said, the "pointed out path" - pointed out by God - THAT is what "Torah" really means. It doesn't mean "law", it means "pointed out path" - the marked path through the howling desert for the safety of the shepherd and his flock. Step off the path and you might survive, but then again, you might not. So here's the path. "Law", especially in the minds of Gentile half-pagans, is a think that is ENFORCED, it is the RIGHT to power, to dominate. But the path pointed out by God for us is that path through a dangerous desert pointed out by a loving Father. The Law punishes. But the real world hurts and harms because of its nature, and the Pointed Out Path is the way THROUGH the world with all of its risks and pitfalls, so that one arrives safely with one's sheep at the oasis. Even the mindset of God and men is different. Men restlessly seek power, dominion and the power to judge. And they twist God into that image, because God judges. He DOES judge, but everything that happens -for good or ill - is his judgment. He doesn't think like us. The Bible is a RECORD of some of the things that God said, the important ones. God repeats himself, a lot, because in the Scriptures he is talking to a bunch of different people at different times, and he is speaking to them in their condition - and he knows their hearts - so sometimes the things he said that are recorded really had MEANING to the one hearing it, but those bystanders also hearing it heard words without the inner context of the target hearer, and formed their own conclusion. "None comes to the Father except through me" is true, but it doesn't mean "Nobody but non-Catholic Christians makes it into the City of God". Men STRAIN to turn a written set of oral histories into a LAW book, because they crave LAW, COMMAND, AUTHORITY. Then, having a book, they put verse numbers and chapters into it that God never put there, and try to turn a loose oral history, written down, into a tight set of legal principles and statutes. The Pharisees did not less, and Jesus didn't like them much. Truth is, the oral histories written down convey a GENERAL MESSAGE from God, a GENERAL SET OF PRINCIPLES, and give a GENERAL view of whence we came (from God) and whence we are going (back to God), and then a few very specific things that really, REALLY make God angry. This means that people have to be guided by the Holy Spirit in all things, and just have the written-down oral history as a BACKSTOP. If the "Holy" Spirit is urging you to go on a tear of killing people, you know that's not really the HOLY Spirit doing that, because God spoke long and loud about that. And so forth. The Bible can lead you to God, to walk on the pointed-out-path, but it can lead you away from God pretty fast too, if you read it as a lawbook and read into it that YOU are the law enforcer. You're not. No matter who you are. And you never, ever will be. If that is what you crave, then the path you're walking is not the Pointed- Out Path from God, Crave something different instead. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-09   18:34:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #51. To: Vicomte13, ebonytwix, redleghunter, don (#50) To: ebonytwix Christians certainly believe the Bible is perfect, and the Bible itself states that I believe The Bible doesn't state that about the Bible, because the Bible never references itself. First I will give you the full chapter King James version to refute Vics ridicuout ascertation. Then I will highlight a few points. 2 Timothy Chapter 3 1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. 10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, 11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-11-09   19:44:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #52. To: Vicomte13, ebonytwix, redleghunter, don (#50) To: ebonytwix Christians certainly believe the Bible is perfect, and the Bible itself states that I believe The Bible doesn't state that about the Bible, because the Bible never references itself. 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: A K A Stone  posted on  2015-11-09   19:45:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: Vicomte13, ebonytwix, redleghunter, don (#50) To: ebonytwix Christians certainly believe the Bible is perfect, and the Bible itself states that I believe The Bible doesn't state that about the Bible, because the Bible never references itself. 2 Timothy 3 1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-11-09   19:47:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (54 - 83) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com