Inherency of the bible

[DavinMochrie]

What is exactly Inherency of the bible of the bible?

Now I'm talking it terms of communication.

Poeple say it's the word of God, but it's not him saying it direct, it's a recording or transcribing by the authors of the books etc? Like the Gospels which are named after their authors.

Also it's been translated a couple of times. Even modern christian use different translations.

Also all communication involves a link between two parties and in human communication we use symbols and emotions and expressions.

From what I see teh bible is not written in machine code, especially becaus ehumans are not machines, and God made us this way right? We made machines, not God.

Can you explain what Inherency of the bible means to me? [Please no snappy one liners, please explain it to me]

 

[ContentInHim]

Can you post a reference to the phrase Inherency of the Bible? I'm still not sure what you are looking for.

 

[Elijah2]

What is exactly Inherency of the bible of the bible?

Now I'm talking it terms of communication.

Poeple say it's the word of God, but it's not him saying it direct, it's a recording or transcribing by the authors of the books etc? Like the Gospels which are named after their authors.

Also it's been translated a couple of times. Even modern christian use different translations.

Also all communication involves a link between two parties and in human communication we use symbols and emotions and expressions.

From what I see teh bible is not written in machine code, especially becaus ehumans are not machines, and God made us this way right? We made machines, not God.

Can you explain what Inherency of the bible means to me? [Please no snappy one liners, please explain it to me]

G'day mate, I'm on the Gold Coast, and His Word is no different where I live and where you live, it is inherent.

But, if you pick up The Message, or any other paraphrased versions, such as the Living Bible, CEV, they are not translations, but someone's personal belief in what His Word should be saying, and not HIS INSPIRED INHERENT WORD, such as the Geneva Bible, and KJV.

All other translations or interpretations have watered-down, deleted, added, distorted, and misrepresented HIS INHERENT WORD.

PM me if you wish.

 

[DavinMochrie]

and not HIS INSPIRED INHERENT WORD, such as the Geneva Bible, and KJV.

What about the New King James version, is that good?

 

[DavinMochrie]

Can you post a reference to the phrase Inherency of the Bible? I'm still not sure what you are looking for.

I think it's when people say that the bible is the direct word of god. No debate.

 

[ContentInHim]

I think it's when people say that the bible is the direct word of god. No debate.

Gotcha! Thanks!

Well, I have read quite a few translations and paraphrased versions of the Bible. Each is useful in it's own way and there are whole websites devoted to the pros and cons of each. I happen to really like the NKJV except for the fact that because it was copyrighted, some changes to the wording seem to be just to be changes. iow, some clear meanings in the KJV were changed just to be different words. That's messy!

I happen to use different versions for different things - one to read just for the pleasure of reading, one for study, one to explain another, etc.

Have you used Blue letter Bible on the internet yet? It allows you to compare one version's wording with another.

And for the record, I believe that the Bible is God's instruction for us. It's what he left us to use until Jesus returns. I believe that every word is true - whether historical, spiritual, physical, allegorical, whatever .... I also believe that there are only a handful of scribal errors - like numbers not being the same, etc. Not enough to worry about!

 

[heymikey80]

What is exactly Inherency of the bible?

Translations are a red herring. You can get massive support to reach back to the original languages and understand the truth being said.

The inerrancy of the Bible is based on what it claims for itself. It means the Bible isn't committing errors telling you what it's telling you.

I tend to tell new Christians this: distrust yourself more than you distrust what the Bible says. You'll find what the Bible intends to say is more truthful than you are.

After awhile, if you have good teachers, you'll discover the Bible is more truthful than the teachers helping you learn about what the Bible's saying.

Finally you'll reach the conclusion I reached -- it doesn't commit errors. Rather it's we who commit errors trying to understand it, or worse trying to conform it to what we think.

We could get into the epistemological implications of this view. Let's not. It's unhelpful. The Bible proposes to communicate the truth to you. Start by assuming it has something to tell you about yourself and God.

 

[Yekcidmij]

What is exactly Inherency of the bible of the bible?

Now I'm talking it terms of communication.

Poeple say it's the word of God, but it's not him saying it direct, it's a recording or transcribing by the authors of the books etc? Like the Gospels which are named after their authors.

Also it's been translated a couple of times. Even modern christian use different translations.

Also all communication involves a link between two parties and in human communication we use symbols and emotions and expressions.

From what I see teh bible is not written in machine code, especially becaus ehumans are not machines, and God made us this way right? We made machines, not God.

Can you explain what Inherency of the bible means to me? [Please no snappy one liners, please explain it to me]

Ah-ha.....i suggest a book to you. "Can we trust the Gospels?" by Mark D. Roberts. Easy to get from amazon.

 

[Bobinator]

I like the original King James Bible. It's been tried and tested throughout the centuries. I would encourage you to do a little research on its history, and how it came to be.

If I'm not mistaken, it started sometime in the 1600's when there were a number of bible versions floating around, causing a lot of confusion. Under the blessing of King James, a group of around 47 to 49 of the country's brightest scholars of the Hebrew and Greek language was formed to come up with one universal bible everyone would use and be comfortable with. The team was separated into smaller teams of 5-6 people. Each team had to provide interpretations of designated scripture. The exact interpretation of each scripture had to be unanimous among the team. If one member disagreed, the team had to hash it out until everyone agreed. The team would then have to present their interpretations to the rest of the 47-49 scholars. If one person responded with a legitimate disagreement regarding the interpretation, the small group had to reconvene and address that particular concern to the satisfaction of all. In other words, the KJV was under the scrutiny of 47-49 scholars.

It is difficult to understand the KJV sometimes, because it uses such high level English, and doesn't always convey the message with exact precision. It's also important to note that the original manuscripts may not have been that precise either, and the interpreters merely interpreted what was written. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's a good thing to cross reference. I like using the NIV for this. There are also other books that offer commentary in another column, which often share on the social and cultural values of the time to get a context of what is being said and why.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I like the original King James Bible. It's been tried and tested throughout the centuries. I would encourage you to do a little research on its history, and how it came to be.

If I'm not mistaken, it started sometime in the 1600's when there were a number of bible versions floating around, causing a lot of confusion. Under the blessing of King James, a group of around 47 to 49 of the country's brightest scholars of the Hebrew and Greek language was formed to come up with one universal bible everyone would use and be comfortable with. The team was separated into smaller teams of 5-6 people. Each team had to provide interpretations of designated scripture. The exact interpretation of each scripture had to be unanimous among the team. If one member disagreed, the team had to hash it out until everyone agreed. The team would then have to present their interpretations to the rest of the 47-49 scholars. If one person responded with a legitimate disagreement regarding the interpretation, the small group had to reconvene and address that particular concern to the satisfaction of all. In other words, the KJV was under the scrutiny of 47-49 scholars.

It is difficult to understand the KJV sometimes, because it uses such high level English, and doesn't always convey the message with exact precision. It's also important to note that the original manuscripts may not have been that precise either, and the interpreters merely interpreted what was written. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's a good thing to cross reference. I like using the NIV for this. There are also other books that offer commentary in another column, which often share on the social and cultural values of the time to get a context of what is being said and why.

Good post. Although "original manuscripts" may not be the exact term since if original they couldn't be inaccurate,

 

[Bobinator]

Good post. Although "original manuscripts" may not be the exact term since if original they couldn't be inaccurate,

You also have to remember, there are distinct challenges to interpreting one language to the other. There are some words in languages that do not have the exact equivalent in another. I notice a lot of oriental people use English terms when speaking their own language because their native tongue doesn't have one for it.

Another example is that the Hebrew word for "son" has seven different meanings or categories that reflect the age of the child- all the way from infancy to mature adult male. However, the translators had to determine what the real meaning was, as opposed to sticking with just using the word "son".

 

[Bobinator]

Good post. Although "original manuscripts" may not be the exact term since if original they couldn't be inaccurate,

You also have to remember, there are distinct challenges to interpreting one language to the other. There are some words in languages that do not have the exact equivalent in another. I notice a lot of oriental people use English terms when speaking their own language because their native tongue doesn't have one for it. These same oriental languages also have different sentence structures where the noun goes before the verb. So instead of saying, "pick up that ball", another language would structure the sentence as, "that ball, pick it up." So as one might imagine, the translators had quite a challenge.

Another example is that the Hebrew word for "son" has seven different meanings or categories that reflect the age of the child- all the way from infancy to mature adult male. However, the translators had to determine what the real meaning was, and often resorted to just sticking with using the word "son".

Granted, there are minor discrepancies in the translation that can be rather subjective at times.

 

[AQUAg33k]

I read recently that KJV uses the word meat which translates 15 Hebrew or Aramic words and 8 Greek. Many refer to food even food thats not flesh.

 

[Elijah2]

I read recently that KJV uses the word meat which translates 15 Hebrew or Aramic words and 8 Greek. Many refer to food even food thats not flesh.

In Mattew 5:22 it says, "...whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgement" (Geneva, KJV & NKJV).

But the NIV comes along and deletes "without a cause".

Therefore, they are now saying that the spiritual anger that our Lord Jesus Christ expressed when HE went through the temple throwing chairs, etc., is now going to be judged, because HE didn't have a "cause or reason" for HIS actions.

Interesting?

 

[abigale]

You also have to remember, there are distinct challenges to interpreting one language to the other. There are some words in languages that do not have the exact equivalent in another. I notice a lot of oriental people use English terms when speaking their own language because their native tongue doesn't have one for it.

Another example is that the Hebrew word for "son" has seven different meanings or categories that reflect the age of the child- all the way from infancy to mature adult male. However, the translators had to determine what the real meaning was, as opposed to sticking with just using the word "son".

Like Roberto/Bobinator? jk

 

[AQUAg33k]

Anyone hear that 666 is now 616?

 

[Elijah2]

Anyone hear that 666 is now 616?

Why do you ask?

 

[AQUAg33k]

Just wondering. This topic just brought it to mind.

 

[JPPT1974]

Anyone hear that 666 is now 616?

Not that I am aware of!

 

[Christian Soldier]

What is exactly Inherency of the bible of the bible?

I believe the term you're referring to is "inerrancy", which is defined as "Freedom from error or untruths; infallibility".

As originally rendered by the Holy Spirit to the first human transcribers, the Bible is without error. Some very minor grammatical errors may have sneaked in over the years, as the Bible was translated into dozens of other world languages.

But there are NO translational errors, questions or debates regarding the major tenets of Christianity as laid down by the Bible. The divinity of Christ, His saving grace bestowed upon us, eternal life in Heaven etc., are NOT in question.