Juve wrote:
Remember your goal posts - "perfect and infallible" is a pretty high goal. "flawed book" sounds like a flaw that would make a human embarrassed. That's not what I mean. I mean that any work by a human, unless controlled by God, is a human work - by definition. Is not even a "perfect" human book miles below the most trivial utterance of God?
These Bible scholars, they are human, right? And God obviously is not controlling all the Bible Scholars, because they come to different conclusions. See above.
Is the lexicon God?
What I'm doing, is refusing to engage in Bibolatry - the act of elevating the Bible above the other revelations of God, those directly seen and present today, in the natural world.
Let's save that for later, under the tag name "verse".
Let's save that for later, under the tag name "mix".
Hey, didn't you just accuse atheists of disagreeing on verses? On one hand you accuse me of doing what the Atheists do, and in the next breath you say this same thing is what good Christians do? See the tag name "verse", above. While your statement is certainly true, it undercuts what you just said.
Oh yeah, I forgot. Everyone has their own truth, because their is no absolute truth. Truth is relative, and so all the different theologies that Bible believers (like the Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses you mentioned earlier, who are Christians who base their beliefs on the Bible), are correct. Sounds like relativism to me.
And how do you know what it says? Oh yeah, you just said that Christians disagree on what it says, and that everyone's truth is correct. Are the 3,000 added words of the KJV compared to the NIV "adding something"? If not, then why not? If so, then why don't you care about "translations"?
Tell me, how would various Christians interpret Acts 8:37 from the NIV?
Didn't you just finish explaining to me that Christians don't agree on what it says?
Papias
Translation problem should not be a reason which renders the Bible into a "flawed book".
Remember your goal posts - "perfect and infallible" is a pretty high goal. "flawed book" sounds like a flaw that would make a human embarrassed. That's not what I mean. I mean that any work by a human, unless controlled by God, is a human work - by definition. Is not even a "perfect" human book miles below the most trivial utterance of God?
That is why Bible scholars need to study Hebrew and Greek.
These Bible scholars, they are human, right? And God obviously is not controlling all the Bible Scholars, because they come to different conclusions. See above.
For lay people in language, the lexicon is the next best alternative.
Is the lexicon God?
If you are not comfortable with translations, you should study language (and culture), instead of doubting the content of the book.
What I'm doing, is refusing to engage in Bibolatry - the act of elevating the Bible above the other revelations of God, those directly seen and present today, in the natural world.
Basically, I see your reason is not that much different from one usually given by atheists: the Bible is written (and collected) by man, and we can, as a consequence, question and argue on every verse of it.
Let's save that for later, under the tag name "verse".
You read the Bible as a source of idea, then mixed it with your own. This is not new. Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, even Islam, are successful few who are doing this. It is called Cults.
Let's save that for later, under the tag name "mix".
Very rarely that two faithful Christians will have a 100% agreement on any issue described in the Bible.
Hey, didn't you just accuse atheists of disagreeing on verses? On one hand you accuse me of doing what the Atheists do, and in the next breath you say this same thing is what good Christians do? See the tag name "verse", above. While your statement is certainly true, it undercuts what you just said.
This is 100% normal and is a result of the wonderful design of human by God. The fact that we do not agree on the interpretations does not mean one of us must be wrong, or only one among all can be right. We could all be right, because we are different person.
Oh yeah, I forgot. Everyone has their own truth, because their is no absolute truth. Truth is relative, and so all the different theologies that Bible believers (like the Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses you mentioned earlier, who are Christians who base their beliefs on the Bible), are correct. Sounds like relativism to me.
The critical thing is do not add any word to the Bible when we interpret it.
And how do you know what it says? Oh yeah, you just said that Christians disagree on what it says, and that everyone's truth is correct. Are the 3,000 added words of the KJV compared to the NIV "adding something"? If not, then why not? If so, then why don't you care about "translations"?
Tell me, how would various Christians interpret Acts 8:37 from the NIV?
Stick with what It says.
Didn't you just finish explaining to me that Christians don't agree on what it says?
Papias
Upvote
0