As AV wrote, if it contradicts the bible, it's wrong.

[tanzanos]

As I expected, a thoughtful, well-expressed and convincing argument dismissed as junk by AV! I'm no expert, but isn't pride a sin? I've never come across a sensible Christian response to The Age of Reason. I'm not going to get one (even of two paragraphs) here, am I?

What did you expect from a person who believes that:

If the original Greek and Hebrew texts disagree with the KJV then the KJV is the correct and the originals are wrong!!

You should know better than to debate with people like AV1.

 

[Archer93]

It's because AV works under the a priori assumption that the AV1611 KJV is 100% inerrant. If reality disagrees with his Bible, then reality is wrong. In theory, if God disagrees with his Bible, then God is wrong.

It is an absurd and indefensible position, but alas one we cannot refute. Just relegate it to the realm of dad's split hypothesis, or Russel's teapot.

But he SAID that the Bible needs interpreting and explaining!

I wouldn't mind so much if the Bible was internally consistant, but it isn't.... Different meanings of 'inerrant', I guess....

REALLY developing a new appreciation for the Tunis Comment....

 

[AV1611VET]

As I expected, a thoughtful, well-expressed and convincing argument dismissed as junk by AV! I'm no expert, but isn't pride a sin? I've never come across a sensible Christian response to The Age of Reason. I'm not going to get one (even of two paragraphs) here, am I?

LOL --- simply unbelievable --- un-stinking-believable.

I HATE SATAN!
​

 

[Archer93]

AV, I don't quite see the difference between David & Paine's conclusions- TBH I don't see how they relate.
If God created the world, then the world is a pure manifestation of God, uncorrupted by flawed human understanding.
The Bible, though inspired by God, still comes to us via humans. So it is separated from the Ideal.

Either that verse from Acts needs some interpreting, or those being spoken of might have been noble but hardly intelligent.
"'X' is true! It says so in this book!"
"Wow! He's telling the truth, it really does say that! It must be true!"

Which scripture is that refered to, BTW?

(Do you really hold that, if the original Greek or Hebrew text of the Bible contradicts the KJV, then the Greek in wrong and the KJV is right?)

 

[thaumaturgy]

LOL --- simply unbelievable --- un-stinking-believable.

I HATE SATAN!​

AV, be fair, someone posted a thought out commentary by Thomas Paine directly relevant to the discussion and you blew it off as "junk".

I don't know what you are on about here with the whole satan thing, but I am pretty sure God knows you hate satan and probably even Satan knows you hate him.

I suspect God knows you love puppies and butterflies too.

If the only response you have to Paine's commentary is that it is "junk" then expect that others may differ with you.

Especially when you can't bother to defend your analysis of it being "junk".

 

[thaumaturgy]

Well, I wouldn't expect a pagan to fully understand, but this is one of the remarks that stood out to me as blasphemy:

Could you point out where it is blasphemous to not consult the gospels in issues around scientific hypotheses?

I'm not too popular here for pointing out that the Bible exposes atheism as a form of worship

Interestingly enough it is usually responded to by actual atheists who, one would assume, know a thing or two about atheism as worship. Funny that.

I wouldn't expect you to understand this, but the author of Luke did:

[BIBLE]Luke 6:31[/BIBLE]

So unless you want us to start telling you what YOU believe and then refusing to listen to your ripostes, I suggest you drop this line.

 

[AV1611VET]

(Do you really hold that, if the original Greek or Hebrew text of the Bible contradicts the KJV, then the Greek in wrong and the KJV is right?)

First of all, Archer, let me ask you this: Why would it contradict? The key word is "if."

 

[Vene]

I'm not too popular here for pointing out that the Bible exposes atheism as a form of worship, but a poster about a month ago posted something Einstein said that supports that fact, as does this post from Thomas Paine.

I have a question, why should I believe the Bible?

 

[Vene]

LOL --- simply unbelievable --- un-stinking-believable.

I HATE SATAN!
​

That's nice, but what does this have to do with anything?

 

[Archer93]

It doesn't always contradict. But in some cases it does because of the changes in language and culture.

Classic example (see many threads in Debates on Homosexuality) Corinthinans 6:9. The Greek word 'arsenokoites' has been translated in a number of ways- the original KJV puts it as 'effeminate' (as you are doubtless aware! ) but later versions translate it as 'homosexual'.
But going back to more contempory sources it appears that the word, whilst certainly describing wrong-doing, has nothing to do with the modern idea of homosexuality. Rather, it referes to a more economic sin- possibly sexual, i.e. bribing people into having sex or using economic coersion, but not freely consentual relationships.
(http://clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html)

But many would say "No, the Bible says 'homosexual', so that's what it means!" without even considering the possibility that 2,000 years and several translations might have resulted in a bit of linguistic drift....

Oh, and 'witch' in the Old Testament. The original word refered to those who made and used potions. In King James' time witches were believed to do this as well. But there wasn't the spell aspect of it, so much, in the OT versions.
But now there are some who think that 'witch' in the OT refers to Wiccans.
Not just neo-pagans- specifically Wiccans.

 

[AV1611VET]

It doesn't always contradict. But in some cases it does because of the changes in language and culture.

Classic example (see many threads in Debates on Homosexuality) Corinthinans 6:9. The Greek word 'arsenokoites' has been translated in a number of ways- the original KJV puts it as 'effeminate' (as you are doubtless aware! ) but later versions translate it as 'homosexual'.
But going back to more contempory sources it appears that the word, whilst certainly describing wrong-doing, has nothing to do with the modern idea of homosexuality. Rather, it referes to a more economic sin- possibly sexual, i.e. bribing people into having sex or using economic coersion, but not freely consentual relationships.
(http://clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html)

But many would say "No, the Bible says 'homosexual', so that's what it means!" without even considering the possibility that 2,000 years and several translations might have resulted in a bit of linguistic drift....

Oh, and 'witch' in the Old Testament. The original word refered to those who made and used potions. In King James' time witches were believed to do this as well. But there wasn't the spell aspect of it, so much, in the OT versions.
But now there are some who think that 'witch' in the OT refers to Wiccans.
Not just neo-pagans- specifically Wiccans.

If this is your answer to my question, Archer, then I'm going to bow out of answering your question to me.

1. Which "original Greek" are you referring to? Classical Greek or Koine? As I understand it, all the Koine Greek manuscripts went back to the Periodic Table. We have Classical [uninspired] Greek manuscripts; but not Koine.

2. It would be hard to believe that a witch in the Old Testament was nothing more than a pharmacist, when the witch at Endor called Samuel up out of Hell, would it not?

 

[HappyCat]

Quote from AV:

"I'm not too popular here for pointing out that the Bible exposes atheism as a form of worship, but a poster about a month ago posted something Einstein said that supports that fact, as does this post from Thomas Paine."

Paine wasn't an atheist, as is perfectly clear from the quotation. He doesn't describe worship of nature, but of the god he believes created it. He had the humility, and honesty, to say that he didn't know or understand the mind of the god he believed in.

I know it's pointless debating with AV, I've read enough threads. I just felt like joining in for a change. There is no reason to believe the Bible is divinely inspired. AV has certainly never provided one.

 

[Chaplain David]

It doesn't always contradict. But in some cases it does because of the changes in language and culture.

Classic example (see many threads in Debates on Homosexuality) Corinthinans 6:9. The Greek word 'arsenokoites' has been translated in a number of ways- the original KJV puts it as 'effeminate' (as you are doubtless aware! ) but later versions translate it as 'homosexual'.
But going back to more contempory sources it appears that the word, whilst certainly describing wrong-doing, has nothing to do with the modern idea of homosexuality. Rather, it referes to a more economic sin- possibly sexual, i.e. bribing people into having sex or using economic coersion, but not freely consentual relationships.
(http://clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html)

But many would say "No, the Bible says 'homosexual', so that's what it means!" without even considering the possibility that 2,000 years and several translations might have resulted in a bit of linguistic drift....

Oh, and 'witch' in the Old Testament. The original word refered to those who made and used potions. In King James' time witches were believed to do this as well. But there wasn't the spell aspect of it, so much, in the OT versions.
But now there are some who think that 'witch' in the OT refers to Wiccans.
Not just neo-pagans- specifically Wiccans.

Certainly, if your Bible is telling you this then one can see why there are such great differences between the interpretations some have about homosexuality and other things, and almost opposite interpretations by those of us using conventional Bibles like NKJV, NIV, NASB, NLT, etc. I like all of these and don't agree that there are the errors you refer to. However I certainly respect your right to disagree.

What Bible do you use and consider the most viable?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I have a little different take on it than most. To me it is saying that in the begining God created the heavens and the earth. Without indication of when this was nor how long it took.

It does say that he created the firmament and called it heaven, Should this be considered to be the heavens spoke of earlier or simply the sky above planet earth.?

If both verses use the same word, "shamayim," I see little reason not to consider them the same.

(Futhermore, it does appear that later on the celestial bodies are placed into "the dome of the sky." )

It also says that he gathered together the waters into one place so that dry land appeared and he called that dry land earth, This should not be cofused as meaning the planet earth but earth as in soil instead.

I would agree. But then again, the planet Earth (as we know it) isn't in there anywhere.

Everything here seems to be written from the perspective of earth the land, the water, the sky[heaven] space [the heavens] the stars sun and moon. The evening and the morning and so on.

It doesn't make a lot of sense given what we now know about the earth, the solar system and life in general unless we look at it as written by a primative people who knew very little of these things.

Of course there are ancient notions of the cosmos found in the text that have very little, if anything, to do with our modern notions.

I'd be very cautious to call these people primitive, though. The author of the first creation account shows his literary capabilities by producing a skillfully structured text.

 

[tanzanos]

Arsenokoites (αρσενοκοίτη&#962 Means he who sleeps with men. One may imply it to mean homosexual, but! The notion of homosexual in ancient Greece was different to contemporary definition.
In Greece the passive male is the homosexual whereas the other is not. Also in ancient Greece sex between males was more inline with the pan-sexual character of the Greeks rather than one being feminine in his desires. To the Greeks sex was not restricted like it is today. Sexual pleasure was between humans irrespective of gender.

When translating ancient texts one must be aware of the norms of the society of the time the text was written.

A good example is the word Gay. When I was in school it meant someone happy. Now it means homosexual. A far cry from its original meaning.

Debating with AV1 is an exercise in futility.

 

[Lakercom]

AV rocks. There is no evidence for evolution and God's Word cannot be contradicted.

Different suppositions carried to this discussion group cannot be reconciled. Those that do not believe in the literal Word of God (and have not committed their lives to serve HIM) decide to "interpert" it to their worldview (long age, uniformitarianism).

 

[AV1611VET]

Paine wasn't an atheist, as is perfectly clear from the quotation.

I don't care what Paine was.

He doesn't describe worship of nature, but of the god he believes created it. He had the humility, and honesty, to say that he didn't know or understand the mind of the god he believed in.

Any wonder why he didn't understand? Hint: "Search not the book called the Scriptures..."

I know it's pointless debating with AV, I've read enough threads. I just felt like joining in for a change. There is no reason to believe the Bible is divinely inspired. AV has certainly never provided one.

If you're not going to believe the claims of the Bible, Itself that It's inspired; you're sure not going to believe my claims, either. Is there anyone who claims the Bible is inspired that you do believe? If not, then what point are you making here?

 

[AV1611VET]

Debating with AV1 is an exercise in futility.

As it should be, if I'm using the Bible as my frame of reference.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

AV rocks. There is no evidence for evolution and God's Word cannot be contradicted.

Different suppositions carried to this discussion group cannot be reconciled. Those that do not believe in the literal Word of God (and have not committed their lives to serve HIM) decide to "interpert" it to their worldview (long age, uniformitarianism).

You don't believe it. AV1611VET doesn't believe it. Nobody - except for a handful maybe - believes it.

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't believe it. AV1611VET doesn't believe it. Nobody - except for a handfull maybe - believes it.

What don't I believe?