How literal?

[webboffin]

um, you asked me to answer now you don't. Okay I have had more than my spill in this troll thread.

 

[Arikay]

Um, ok.

You still havent answered my question.

So, why did the translators of the KJV get it wrong?

3rd April 2003 at 09:57 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #19



I think you're lying.
If you did know anything of translation, you would not have even have been goofy enough to bring up the ''bird' thing as You would have looked up the hebrew ''oph'' as any normal translator would have done.

In doing this you would have concluded that the word includes ''flying creatures'' of any sort.


H5775
òåó
‛ôph
BDB Definition:
1) flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds
1a) fowl, birds
1b) winged insects

 

[Arikay]

Good web, at least your funny.

 

[Follower of Christ]

4th April 2003 at 01:01 AM Arikay said this in Post #22

Um, ok.

You still havent answered my question.

So, why did the translators of the KJV get it wrong?

I answered your question perfectly.
You have the hebrew definition as I posted.

As I said, if you knew the first thing of translation, you would have accepted the hebrew.

This type of arguement is irrelevant as the KJV is not inspired. It is TRANSLATION.

The greek and the hebrew are not even the originals.
they are copies many generations over.

Do you think God needed to inspire men every time they needed to copy the manuscripts?

God inspired the original authors then left His word to be kept by His followers per Romans;

"What then is the superiority of the Jew? Or what the profit of circumcision? Much every way. For first, indeed, that they were entrusted with the Words of God. "
(Romans 3:1-2 LITV)


This leaves room for human error and poor translation.
In reading it, did you get confused?
If so, maybe you should ask God to help you understand.

 

[Arikay]

although I really dont like the condecending attitude in some posts, I have come to expect it from some here.

You didnt really answer my question. However, it is very interesting that you mention that the KJV isnt completly inspired.

So, just answer this, do you believe snakes eat dirt. Why or why not?

 

[SBfaithful]

4th April 2003 at 04:55 AM Arikay said this in Post #1

Many creationists say they take the bible literally, but I was wondering how literal do they take it.

Creationists, do you believe that:

-Hares (basically rabbits) chew their own cud?

"LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."

-Bats are birds?

"LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomina- tion: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapw- ing, and the bat.

DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the ea- gle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cor- morant,
DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. "

-Snakes eat dirt?

"GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life"


Im sure some of these have been mentioned before, but im just wondering, when a creationist says they take the bible as gods literal inspired word and it must be fact, if they take everything literally or just some of it?

-Ari

I am just going to throw this out there.

Maybe the rabbit did chew its cud at that time. I don't know if this is possible, but then again why not?

Maybe at that time bats were considered birds. Maybe not just considered, but they could have been birds.

A snake that slithers on the ground and finds its prey there perhaps does eat a bit of dirt in the process.

Like I said, I can't back this up and will look into it further.These were just a few of the initial ideas that popped into my head.

 

[Follower of Christ]

4th April 2003 at 01:25 AM Arikay said this in Post #25

although I really dont like the condecending attitude in some posts, I have come to expect it from some here.

You didnt really answer my question. However, it is very interesting that you mention that the KJV isnt completly inspired.

So, just answer this, do you believe snakes eat dirt. Why or why not?

Arikay,
You say you dont like condecending attitudes yet you exhibit one of the worst in here that I have seen.

I already know how this arguement goes,

But just to play this childish little game, heres goes.

God meant that the snake would crawl around the ground on its belly.

Now, YOU ask me if thats not literal, why do I take Genesis 1 literally.

and around and around we'll go..........

 

[Arikay]

Ok Follower.

So basically you only take parts of the bible literally? Is that right?

 

[Arikay]

Thanks Faith, an Actual answer, Yay.

The main question that Pete touched on awhile ago, is that do YEC literalists take Everything literal? Or are parts of the bible open to more interpretation than others? What parts are these?

3rd April 2003 at 10:32 PM SBfaithful said this in Post #26


I am just going to throw this out there.

Maybe the rabbit did chew its cud at that time. I don't know if this is possible, but then again why not?

Maybe at that time bats were considered birds. Maybe not just considered, but they could have been birds.

A snake that slithers on the ground and finds its prey there perhaps does eat a bit of dirt in the process.

Like I said, I can't back this up and will look into it further.These were just a few of the initial ideas that popped into my head.

 

[Follower of Christ]

4th April 2003 at 01:36 AM Arikay said this in Post #28

Ok Follower.

So basically you only take parts of the bible literally? Is that right?

I told you, I know this game.

I take that which is written to be taken literally as such.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

4th April 2003 at 01:39 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #30

I take that which is written to be taken literally as such.

I would think it's pretty obvious the snake thing was meant to be taken literally. I mean, they DO crawl around on their belly, right? So why wouldn't they eat dust, too?

 

[Follower of Christ]

4th April 2003 at 01:42 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #31



I would think it's pretty obvious the snake thing was meant to be taken literally. I mean, they DO crawl around on their belly, right? So why wouldn't they eat dust, too?

I would say that is a obvious assumption

 

[Arikay]

Congrats for knowing the game.

Lets have a go then.

If you take what is written literally, then why do you (aparently) not believe that snakes eat dirt?

3rd April 2003 at 10:39 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #30



I told you, I know this game.

I take that which is written to be taken literally as such.

 

[Follower of Christ]

4th April 2003 at 01:46 AM Arikay said this in Post #33

Congrats for knowing the game.

Lets have a go then.

If you take what is written literally, then why do you (aparently) not believe that snakes eat dirt?

In trying to watch my (so I dont get caught in your trap) words, I believe Pete has answered for me.

 

[SBfaithful]

4th April 2003 at 06:39 AM Arikay said this in Post #29

Thanks Faith, an Actual answer, Yay.

The main question that Pete touched on awhile ago, is that do YEC literalists take Everything literal? Or are parts of the bible open to more interpretation than others? What parts are these?

As you probably already know I am a YEC literalist.

 I take the Bible literal whenever possible. When the prophets speak of the end times it is sometimes difficult to understand. Like when John in Revelation describes the end times as he sees it from heaven. John lived in a time when there were no airplanes or fighter jets and weapons of mass destruction. So when he speaks of these times it was probably hard for him to use the right word that we use in these days to describe it. I do believe that the whole Bible is the inspired word of God. If God had let John or the other prophets on to the terms used in the end days, it would probably be too much for us as mere humans to handle.

Jesus said of his second return that he would come like a thief in the night and no one will know the day or the hour except for the father in heaven. There are lots of secrets yet to be revealed about the end times. So yes it is hard to take everything literal, but I do whenever posiible, not just when I don't have an answer but whenever possible.

 

[Arikay]

IC, thanks for the answer.

Do you believe we are living in the end times?

3rd April 2003 at 10:55 PM SBfaithful said this in Post #35


As you probably already know I am a YEC literalist.

 I take the Bible literal whenever possible. When the prophets speak of the end times it is sometimes difficult to understand. Like when John in Revelation describes the end times as he sees it from heaven. John lived in a time when there were no airplanes or fighter jets and weapons of mass destruction. So when he speaks of these times it was probably hard for him to use the right word that we use in these days to describe it. I do believe that the whole Bible is the inspired word of God. If God had let John or the other prophets on to the terms used in the end days, it would probably be too much for us as mere humans to handle.

Jesus said of his second return that he would come like a thief in the night and no one will know the day or the hour except for the father in heaven. There are lots of secrets yet to be revealed about the end times. So yes it is hard to take everything literal, but I do whenever posiible, not just when I don't have an answer but whenever possible.

 

[Arikay]

Another question would be, do you believe the earth is flat or round?
(Yes I know that a certain interpretation of scripture can make it sound like the earth is round, however you need to interpret the scripture and there are others that back up it meaning flat not round.)

 

[SBfaithful]

4th April 2003 at 07:00 AM Arikay said this in Post #36

IC, thanks for the answer.

Do you believe we are living in the end times?

Yes, by that I don't know if it will happen in my lifetime. But I am waiting for the imminent return of our Lord and Savior.

I am a believer in the pre-trib position also.

 

[SBfaithful]

4th April 2003 at 07:04 AM Arikay said this in Post #37

Another question would be, do you believe the earth is flat or round?
(Yes I know that a certain interpretation of scripture can make it sound like the earth is round, however you need to interpret the scripture and there are others that back up it meaning flat not round.)

Where does it say hat the earth is flat? Just curious.

What in the scripture do I need to interpret?

 

[Arikay]

Do you also believe in the rapture?

Very interesting, Ive only rarely heard people who thought we were living in end time and who werent completly certain that it would happen within their life time.

3rd April 2003 at 11:08 PM SBfaithful said this in Post #38


Yes, by that I don't know if it will happen in my lifetime. But I am waiting for the imminent return of our Lord and Savior.

I am a believer in the pre-trib position also.