Christian: What portions of the Holy Scriptures do you actually believe and trust?
- Thread starter redleghunter
- Start date
- May 28, 2015
- 14,595
- 7,106
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Nice play on words.....kudos.....Yeah, he is the rock, right?
Upvote
0
yeshuaslavejeff
simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
People find, when seeking the truth, that voters don't represent the truth.
Even if no one else believes the Bible, I do, by sheer grace and God's Revelation thru Jesus His Son our Savior the Messiah.
Upvote
0
SwordmanJr
Double-edged Sword only
The conclusion to which your statement actually leads is that, basically, it's becoming an increasingly harsh reality that putting the two words together "Christian" and "churches" is an oxymoron in those cases.
Why?
Simply stated, when one denies the foundationally defining attributes that go to build up in the text who the REAL Christ Jesus is, then they are found to be following yet another of the many false christs who are nothing more than a creation of men by way of their skepticism.
When I've asked those people WHY they believe what they state, they tend to lapse into a form of pragmatism that says, "It doesn't matter what one believes about those things. This is what I believe, and nothing else matters."
Jr
Upvote
0
yeshuaslavejeff
simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
I don't know about that last one.
The others all are in agreement, when understood from Yahweh. (when Yahweh grants the meaning, as Jesus says He does, as seen throughout the OT and NT)
Upvote
0
If they all agree, why three versions?
When people tell me that the Bible is inerrant, I ask which translation they mean (because they cannot ALL be inerrant - which means it is not protected by God).
Upvote
0
yeshuaslavejeff
simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Ask the Father - He Who Grants Understanding and Wisdom, which no one else can obtain nor grant without Him, nor apart from Him.
Upvote
0
- Oct 7, 2011
- 1,982
- 591
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
No one but a few dozen KJV only folks say translations are inerrant. Where are you getting that information.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- May 28, 2015
- 14,595
- 7,106
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Why so many dictionaries? If words have a certain meaning shouldn't they all say the same thing? Just because they don't use the exact same words to describe a word (exactly what a translation is) does not mean they define a word differently.
Upvote
0
- Jan 28, 2002
- 27,424
- 45,387
- 67
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
Hello Inkfingers, no translation is inerrant in the sense that the autographs are (as @Daniel Martinovich has already mentioned). That said, our languages/the meaning of many of our words are always in a state of flux, so one of the principle reasons that our newer translations are written (and then updated) is to keep pace with what is considered to be the best vernacular understanding/popular meaning and usage of words when the translation is written. (there are other factors too, like the discovery of older manuscripts, for instance)
The AV was written in the vernacular of its day (the English of England in the late 16th to early 17th Centuries), when the word "cute" (for instance) meant "bowlegged"
, so our modern translations (and our paraphrases) are written in the vernacular of their day.The NASB 2020 (for instance) will update the NASB 1995 this year with changes to make it more understandable in light of the 2020 popular understanding of certain words, with the hope/intention that the original meaning of the words/verses/passages, IOW, the meaning that the Author intended to convey to us, can be more quickly and easily and properly understood by its readers.
If you are an Amazon Prime member, there is a recent, superb movie/documentary about the Bible that I believe is very much worth watching. Its only downside is the fact that it's only 90 minutes long, because it will leave you wanting to know more (and there simply wasn't time for more). It's called, The God Who Speaks, and it can also be rented or purchased in HD streaming format (if you are not a Prime member).
Here's the film's official trailer.
--David
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- May 28, 2015
- 14,595
- 7,106
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Neither did I, we use many words to describe cold: freezing, icy, wintry, snowy,....but it all boils down to the same meaning...it is cold. Ketchup or catsup....both mean the same thing.
Upvote
0
PloverWing
Episcopalian
- May 5, 2012
- 4,384
- 5,079
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
@St_Worm2 and I were having a discussion in another thread about whether demons were literally real or, rather, were a mythological personification of evil. Our side discussion was inappropriate to that original thread (in a non-debate forum), so, with @redleghunter 's permission, we are going to continue our discussion in this thread, because it is somewhat relevant to how one views Scripture.
I posted:
And @St_Worm2 replied:
So that's our context from the earlier thread. Replying to @St_Worm2 :
My default is to believe that the events reported in the Bible occurred more-or-less as written, unless there's reason to believe otherwise. Thus, I'm okay with Jesus' bodily resurrection, the miraculous healings attributed to Jesus, probably the Virgin Birth, maybe even walking on water. (This makes me a bit unusual, in the religious circles I run in. )
I tend to suspect that a story is mythological instead of literal history if one or more of the following are true: 1) The story doesn't fit with what we know of history, based on archaeology, geology, written historical documents, etc. 2) The story has a style that suggests a "once upon a time" story instead of a historical narrative. 3) (and this one we have to be very careful with) The story doesn't fit with our observations of how the world around us works.
My reservations about demons falls under criterion (3): Nothing in my experience looks anything like a demon. There's human evil, and there are human compulsions, but I don't experience anything evil that I can't attribute to human causes. It's a criterion I have to be careful with, because I don't want to dismiss everything that's unusual. Hypothetically, there could be all sorts of beings in the spirit world that I can't perceive or haven't encountered. And if I really needed to believe in demons, I could. Maybe demons exist, but they only interacted with the human world for about 400 years in the Middle East, and then they disappeared from the human world forever. Maybe demons exist, but they never come to New Jersey (because we have enough human evil without them?). And so on. But these feel to me like I'm making excuses for something that I deep-down believe is false, and in my adult life I try hard not to lie to myself about religious matters.
I'll add that it also bothers me that the Jews seemed to have acquired a belief in demons after spending time with the Babylonians and Persians. Sure, maybe God revealed something to the Persians that God hadn't yet revealed to the Jews, but it still seems kinda funny.
I'm skeptical about angels for the same reason as demons, and I think of them in the same category -- a mythological way of describing God's greatness, picturing God as a king with a heavenly court. I'll note, though, that the angel Gabriel by name shows up in Luke's nativity story, which is starting to get really specific. So that could be an argument that I'm wrong about angels.
So that's about where I am. I can elaborate more on some points if you like, but this is already pretty long.
Thanks, @St_Worm2 , for the invitation to dialogue, and thanks, @redleghunter , for letting us step into your thread.
I posted:
And @St_Worm2 replied:
So that's our context from the earlier thread. Replying to @St_Worm2 :
My default is to believe that the events reported in the Bible occurred more-or-less as written, unless there's reason to believe otherwise. Thus, I'm okay with Jesus' bodily resurrection, the miraculous healings attributed to Jesus, probably the Virgin Birth, maybe even walking on water. (This makes me a bit unusual, in the religious circles I run in.
)I tend to suspect that a story is mythological instead of literal history if one or more of the following are true: 1) The story doesn't fit with what we know of history, based on archaeology, geology, written historical documents, etc. 2) The story has a style that suggests a "once upon a time" story instead of a historical narrative. 3) (and this one we have to be very careful with) The story doesn't fit with our observations of how the world around us works.
My reservations about demons falls under criterion (3): Nothing in my experience looks anything like a demon. There's human evil, and there are human compulsions, but I don't experience anything evil that I can't attribute to human causes. It's a criterion I have to be careful with, because I don't want to dismiss everything that's unusual. Hypothetically, there could be all sorts of beings in the spirit world that I can't perceive or haven't encountered. And if I really needed to believe in demons, I could. Maybe demons exist, but they only interacted with the human world for about 400 years in the Middle East, and then they disappeared from the human world forever. Maybe demons exist, but they never come to New Jersey (because we have enough human evil without them?). And so on. But these feel to me like I'm making excuses for something that I deep-down believe is false, and in my adult life I try hard not to lie to myself about religious matters.
I'll add that it also bothers me that the Jews seemed to have acquired a belief in demons after spending time with the Babylonians and Persians. Sure, maybe God revealed something to the Persians that God hadn't yet revealed to the Jews, but it still seems kinda funny.
I'm skeptical about angels for the same reason as demons, and I think of them in the same category -- a mythological way of describing God's greatness, picturing God as a king with a heavenly court. I'll note, though, that the angel Gabriel by name shows up in Luke's nativity story, which is starting to get really specific. So that could be an argument that I'm wrong about angels.
So that's about where I am. I can elaborate more on some points if you like, but this is already pretty long.
Thanks, @St_Worm2 , for the invitation to dialogue, and thanks, @redleghunter , for letting us step into your thread.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Folks I watched the 90 minute movie David recommended in post #112
Highly recommended. All star scholarship.
Highly recommended. All star scholarship.
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I don’t really want this thread to be about demons. You can imagine what that will attract around here. I’m going to up the tempo a bit in another thread which will build off of this one. It will establish historic, modern and post-modern academic views of what constitutes “The Inspiration of Holy Scriptures.”@St_Worm2 and I were having a discussion in another thread about whether demons were literally real or, rather, were a mythological personification of evil. Our side discussion was inappropriate to that original thread (in a non-debate forum), so, with @redleghunter 's permission, we are going to continue our discussion in this thread, because it is somewhat relevant to how one views Scripture.
I posted:
And @St_Worm2 replied:
So that's our context from the earlier thread. Replying to @St_Worm2 :
My default is to believe that the events reported in the Bible occurred more-or-less as written, unless there's reason to believe otherwise. Thus, I'm okay with Jesus' bodily resurrection, the miraculous healings attributed to Jesus, probably the Virgin Birth, maybe even walking on water. (This makes me a bit unusual, in the religious circles I run in.
I tend to suspect that a story is mythological instead of literal history if one or more of the following are true: 1) The story doesn't fit with what we know of history, based on archaeology, geology, written historical documents, etc. 2) The story has a style that suggests a "once upon a time" story instead of a historical narrative. 3) (and this one we have to be very careful with) The story doesn't fit with our observations of how the world around us works.
My reservations about demons falls under criterion (3): Nothing in my experience looks anything like a demon. There's human evil, and there are human compulsions, but I don't experience anything evil that I can't attribute to human causes. It's a criterion I have to be careful with, because I don't want to dismiss everything that's unusual. Hypothetically, there could be all sorts of beings in the spirit world that I can't perceive or haven't encountered. And if I really needed to believe in demons, I could. Maybe demons exist, but they only interacted with the human world for about 400 years in the Middle East, and then they disappeared from the human world forever. Maybe demons exist, but they never come to New Jersey (because we have enough human evil without them?). And so on. But these feel to me like I'm making excuses for something that I deep-down believe is false, and in my adult life I try hard not to lie to myself about religious matters.
I'll add that it also bothers me that the Jews seemed to have acquired a belief in demons after spending time with the Babylonians and Persians. Sure, maybe God revealed something to the Persians that God hadn't yet revealed to the Jews, but it still seems kinda funny.
I'm skeptical about angels for the same reason as demons, and I think of them in the same category -- a mythological way of describing God's greatness, picturing God as a king with a heavenly court. I'll note, though, that the angel Gabriel by name shows up in Luke's nativity story, which is starting to get really specific. So that could be an argument that I'm wrong about angels.
So that's about where I am. I can elaborate more on some points if you like, but this is already pretty long.
Thanks, @St_Worm2 , for the invitation to dialogue, and thanks, @redleghunter , for letting us step into your thread.
I believe a lot of what you posted above will be center stage for the discussion. Just give me a couple of days as I have been traveling a lot and around a lot of sneezing and coughing people..
Upvote
0
PloverWing
Episcopalian
- May 5, 2012
- 4,384
- 5,079
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
I don't have much more to say about demons anyway -- just "this is why I have my doubts". But we could continue to discuss how we tell which things are mythological/figurative in the Bible. Or, if you prefer, we can move to a different thread.
Stay well!
Upvote
0
Differences in Bible translations can be somewhat more serious in variation than that.
Heck blood has been shed over Filioque.
My point is that if people are going to say that the Bible is inerrant they need to say WHICH Bible (and why that is the protected version).
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
