Can someone be Charismatic and believe the Bible has errors?

[Student of Yah]

Those are NOT originals. Those are COPIES.

those are SCRIBE exerts, you should learn the difference.

but nonetheless, all of the Hebrew (3200 years older), the Aramaic (2,100 years older), and the Greek (1700 years older) than the 5th Language translation of the KJV.


a ? for you =

if the Church Fathers had access to the Hebrew Torah, the Aramaic and Greek, and were able to create the Latin Vulgate Bible resembling exactly what the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek state.

so, we have 4 (FOUR) templates before the KJV.

if we have access to the first 4 (FOUR), then the KJV coming literally 1,200 years LATER, should be word for word as the four previous, Correct?

so, why is the KJV not the SAME and why does it have the 27 ADD INS that are not found in the versions OLDER than the KJV?

those add ins to the KJV and English ARE NOT FROM GOD!!

like Lucifer is Latin Vulgate...the language of Latin Vulgate was created 1,200 AFTER the Book of Isiah.

so, why does Isaiah (HEBREW/ARAMAIC) have "Lucifer" (Latin Vulgate) in it, that is of a language NOT INVENTED YET?

Lucifer is clearly an ADD IN by man, not by GOD!!

and there are literally 26 more examples within the KJV!!

that is Maliciously trying to TRICK future READERS!!

 

[Concord1968]

those are SCRIBE exerts, you should learn the difference.

but nonetheless, all of the Hebrew (3200 years older), the Aramaic (2,100 years older), and the Greek (1700 years older) than the 5th Language translation of the KJV.


a ? for you =

if the Church Fathers had access to the Hebrew Torah, the Aramaic and Greek, and were able to create the Latin Vulgate Bible resembling exactly what the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek state.

so, we have 4 (FOUR) templates before the KJV.

if we have access to the first 4 (FOUR), then the KJV coming literally 1,200 years LATER, should be word for word as the four previous, Correct?

so, why is the KJV not the SAME and why does it have the 27 ADD INS that are not found in the versions OLDER than the KJV?

those add ins to the KJV and English ARE NOT FROM GOD!!

like Lucifer is Latin Vulgate...the language of Latin Vulgate was created 1,200 AFTER the Book of Isiah.

so, why does Isaiah (HEBREW/ARAMAIC) have "Lucifer" (Latin Vulgate) in it, that is of a language NOT INVENTED YET?

Lucifer is clearly an ADD IN by man, not by GOD!!

and there are literally 26 more examples within the KJV!!

that is Maliciously trying to TRICK future READERS!!

Dude. I'm not a KJV Onlyist. I consider them a cult. That being said, you're STILL confusing copies with originals. By definition, copies are NOT ORIGINALS!!!!!

 

[Major1]

the universites my Grandfather taught Theology have preserved Papyrus.

the KJV is the 5th Language translated.

that is 4 Languages the Bible existed in before the English version.

those Language Translations from Hebrew to Aramaic/Greek, and then to Latin Vulgate are still in existence and Valid.

you just don't want to accept that the KJV had words ADDED TO IT that aren't from the Direction of God!!

you will just have to get over it, because it is a FACT!!

They had COPIES my brother.

I love you brother but IMO you need to expand your horizons.

 

[Major1]

those are SCRIBE exerts, you should learn the difference.

but nonetheless, all of the Hebrew (3200 years older), the Aramaic (2,100 years older), and the Greek (1700 years older) than the 5th Language translation of the KJV.


a ? for you =

if the Church Fathers had access to the Hebrew Torah, the Aramaic and Greek, and were able to create the Latin Vulgate Bible resembling exactly what the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek state.

so, we have 4 (FOUR) templates before the KJV.

if we have access to the first 4 (FOUR), then the KJV coming literally 1,200 years LATER, should be word for word as the four previous, Correct?

so, why is the KJV not the SAME and why does it have the 27 ADD INS that are not found in the versions OLDER than the KJV?

those add ins to the KJV and English ARE NOT FROM GOD!!

like Lucifer is Latin Vulgate...the language of Latin Vulgate was created 1,200 AFTER the Book of Isiah.

so, why does Isaiah (HEBREW/ARAMAIC) have "Lucifer" (Latin Vulgate) in it, that is of a language NOT INVENTED YET?

Lucifer is clearly an ADD IN by man, not by GOD!!

and there are literally 26 more examples within the KJV!!

that is Maliciously trying to TRICK future READERS!!

Read post #82!

I am not a KJV only person either.

You are getting excited and arguing with the choir my brother.

KJV "Only" has definite cultish teachings where more focus is appied to Scriptures than to Jesus Christ.

 

[GodLovesCats]

More focus on Scriptures should mean focusing on what they mean, not the words that are used.

 

[Major1]

More focus on Scriptures should mean focusing on what they mean, not the words that are used.

I think I understand what you said.

Have you ever met Cliff Claven or someone like him??? Who is he you ask???

He was the mail carrier on TV's sitcom...…"CHEERS". No matter what was said, he knew something about everything but actually nothing about anything. He was educated beyond his intelligence.

I agree with you and what words mean in context is the only way to understand the Scriptures.

Our brother means well, but is just a little misguided I think.

 

[Concord1968]

And, for the record, I use the ESV. In the past I've used the NASB and NIV heavily.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"CHEERS".

"NORM!" (a chorus of greetings)

"HI NORM! "



I liked that simple show except that it promoted casual alcohol consumption/ drinking....

 

[GodLovesCats]

And, for the record, I use the ESV. In the past I've used the NASB and NIV heavily.

Not that it matters too much, but why did you switch?

 

[Concord1968]

Not that it matters too much, but why did you switch?

Because that's what the church I go to uses. Makes things easier to follow.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I would do the same thing if I did not already have NIV Bibles.

 

[klutedavid]

While researching some Charismatic denominations - Evangelical, Pentacostal, and Baptist - to see if I belong to one, I read those people believe the Bible has no errors and read it literally. I also read they think nothing that contradicts Scripture is true because the Bible is God's Word. The problem here is I know for a fact English versions of the Bible do have errors and all books in every language have chapters and verses that are not meant to be interpreted literally. I am definitely not capable of agreeing the Bible has no errors and must be accepted as final even if Bible scholars are able to disprove the interpretations Charismatic Christians prefer.

One of the main problems with the New Testament is that the authors did not systematically describe the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. They effectively left us without a doctrinal rudder and so we with considerable effort must establish and list the doctrines ourselves.

Look up any church website and usually they will have a link to their doctrines or what they believe. In other words they are advertising how they interpret the scripture, what they see when they read the new Testament. The importance they place on specific ideas in the New Testament.

So nobody can be absolutely sure that the doctrines they hold are the authentic doctrines of Christianity.

One of the reasons that there is so much endless debate on this forum is that the New Testament, directly lends itself to a multitude of interpretations.

The New Testament is a collection of at times unrelated letters and certainly not a systematic description of Christianity.

The New Testament, seriously, is far from a perfect book and contains twists and turns on every corner. You can develop a thousand different church movements from people reading the New Testament.

 

[Student of Yah]

then i will say thank you for being patient with me. i must've misread/understood something, but yes, the fragments became a copy (speaking Aramaic), but there are are only enough fragments of actual and literal Aramaic it can only make one Bible. this is what i mean as being as close to as "original" as it gets. the Greek obvious had several dialect versions and too many fragments to create multiple Bibles. that is not "original," but it is still literally 1,500+ years older than the English translation.

nevertheless, it could also have easily been me not conveying for other readers to get a clearer perspective of my intent.

 

[Student of Yah]

(speaking Aramaic), but there are are only enough fragments of actual and literal Aramaic it can only make one Bible. this is what i mean as being as close to as "original" as it gets. the Greek obvious had several dialect versions and too many fragments to create multiple Bibles.

to further the notion of Greek Fragments being difficult to decipher and make claim as spot on originals. Paul's writings from every Greek Dialect, were even more so scrambled because in the Greek Culture many were educated with the ability to write themselves. it was not uncommon to write/copy your own Bible (which guarantees biasness)...

Where in the Hebrew Culture, it fell upon the Scribes to do handwriting. So the average Jew would be considered uneducated compared to Greek's and even Rome's Cultures.

 

[Student of Yah]

and referring to the Hebrew, in the Book of Amos (who was a Scribe, while the Hebrew Peoples were in Captivity).

what's interesting is the KJV has only 1 Book of Amos and did not add the second one.

(i am not trying to validify the 2nd Book - this is just an example)

within that 2nd Book, Amos wrote, the Library that held the Hebrew Scrolls, up to that time, was purposely destroyed by their captors with fire and destroyed the Scrolls as well.

then Amos goes onto claim that God had ordered him to rewrite those Scrolls (which covered from Beginning to the Prophets).

if that happened, Amos also claimed Scribes could recite word for word on any given Book, verse, or how they structured it by their Language and Dialect. so that would make those Books (now First Copy of Original), if the 2nd Book of Amos has any validity of truth at all...

 

[Major1]

And, for the record, I use the ESV. In the past I've used the NASB and NIV heavily.

I also use the ESV now.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

They effectively left us without a doctrinal rudder and so we with considerable effort must establish and list the doctrines ourselves.

Why?

One of the main problems with the New Testament is that the authors did not systematically describe the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.

(if true),
This is/was/continues just as Yahuweh Planned, so it is good... not "a problem".

 

[Funky Slippers]

While researching some Charismatic denominations - Evangelical, Pentacostal, and Baptist - to see if I belong to one, I read those people believe the Bible has no errors and read it literally. I also read they think nothing that contradicts Scripture is true because the Bible is God's Word. The problem here is I know for a fact English versions of the Bible do have errors and all books in every language have chapters and verses that are not meant to be interpreted literally. I am definitely not capable of agreeing the Bible has no errors and must be accepted as final even if Bible scholars are able to disprove the interpretations Charismatic Christians prefer.

You say you know for a fact that English versions have errors? Please list those facts, which versions? Which Chapters and verses are you speaking of? Which Scholars are you referring too? If your going to post a direct challenge to the validity of the word of God then please state your facts so others can see them, just making statements with no factual back up is wrong and does violence to the word of God.

 

[GodLovesCats]

All versions that use the word "day" in Genesis 1 have that error. Evening and then morning is not a day. God called the light day and darkness night. So a day can't begin at sunset and end at noon, according to Genesis 1 - the same chapter that reads, "There was evening, and then morning, the ___ day."

 

[Major1]

One of the main problems with the New Testament is that the authors did not systematically describe the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. They effectively left us without a doctrinal rudder and so we with considerable effort must establish and list the doctrines ourselves.

Look up any church website and usually they will have a link to their doctrines or what they believe. In other words they are advertising how they interpret the scripture, what they see when they read the new Testament. The importance they place on specific ideas in the New Testament.

So nobody can be absolutely sure that the doctrines they hold are the authentic doctrines of Christianity.

One of the reasons that there is so much endless debate on this forum is that the New Testament, directly lends itself to a multitude of interpretations.

The New Testament is a collection of at times unrelated letters and certainly not a systematic description of Christianity.

The New Testament, seriously, is far from a perfect book and contains twists and turns on every corner. You can develop a thousand different church movements from people reading the New Testament.

You have a point. However have you considered that God gave us a brain and the Holy Spirit?

One teaches us and the other allows us to understand that teaching.

When we use proper CONTEXT the thing that God wants us to learn becomes clear.

A perfect example is the Trinity. No where in the Scriptures is that word found. But the more and deeper we study the meaning becomes obviouse by sheer implications.