• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Theisitic Evolution

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,911
741
78
✟8,968.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I understand all that, Ted. My point is that most people, myself included, would find it very difficult having to read through material with such different spellings. That's why they changed all that. Also, some words have changed their meaning since then. "Then meant "than", ion the KJV; "in stead" meant "in that place," "sith" meant "since." That aside, the fact remains that no one today is using the actual JV 1611 edition.
Gen. 2:12 is not translated in the pluperfect tense, nor needs it be.
Of course, you can have a language without tenses. Didn't I point out earlier that Hebrew is a tenseless language?
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi HH,

Look, I get it! I agree that likely some 90% or more of christians would not use the 1611 KJV as their go to translation of the Scriptures. You wrote:

Incidentally, you do not have a 1611 edition of the KJV. I know it is popular, in some circles, to advertise they go with the KJV 1611. However, nobody today could read the KJV 1611, as the English language has changed that drastically. Therefore, persons toady are using much later editions of the KJV. It was upgraded several times, over the years, due to major changes in the English language.

Friend, that just is not a true statement especially when made in the declarative and absolute language in which you make it. Based on your response, you apparently were able to read it. does that make you a 'nobody'?

You seem to have some rather weird understanding of what it means to be able to read a text in its original form and verbiage. As shown on my site reference, there are people who have been gracious enough to take the time and read the original 1611, the nobodies of the world to you, and then rewrite the archaic words with their newer spellings. One is still reading the 1611 version of the KJ translation even though their copy may have the archaic words respelled.

As to this particular issue, the original Hebrew uses 'et' which is an untranslatable particle. In other words, today, we aren't really sure how that particular 'word' was always understood in the days in which we are reading it from. In the book of Judges, we find an example where it relates to the direct object, but also find an example where it clearly is to be understood as 'with' or 'among' (Judges 1:16). It may very well have been understood by the people actually standing around at the time that Samuel was recounting this event that he was telling them that Elhanan killed someone among the family of Goliath. Or just 'among' as meaning 'with' Goliath. In the book of the Chronicles of Israel, it is made clear that this 'someone' was the brother of Goliath.

You see, the understanding of the people at the time something is written is usually very important to understanding what was written to them. You bring up a perfect example of this in your comments about the 1611 KJV. You say that today people don't understand the intended meaning of what is written because the words are archaic and out of use today. Just imagine that if we have this difficulty with a text written 400 years ago, how that would be magnified in a text written 4,000 years ago. We really don't have any way that with complete assurance we can know how people understood various words in a language that old. We can study other uses and possibly make some inferences as to how the word was understood, but, as has been shown in this case with 'et', there are variations in its understanding and so no, we can't be 100% assured in making such declarative claims that it 'always' means thus.

You are, however, likely correct that the translations that read 'brother of' in the 2 Samuel verse have been written that way by some translators to clear up the issue that seems to arise from the basic understanding of 'et' that we have today. These translators apparently understood that 'et' may well mean 'among' and also having access to the Chronicles account, knew that the 'among' meant of the family of Goliath and more specifically his brother. So yes, to clear this up so that people could get on with reading and understanding what is really important in the Scriptures, they chose to add 'brother of' as the descriptor of who Elhanan killed.

That doesn't make the Scriptures untrue. It apparently was the brother of Goliath that Elhanan killed. It merely makes the translation work not a word for word rendering.

God bless you,
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Incidentally, Teds, the KJV 1611 was in Gothic print, which I know for a fact many today would not want to read through.

Hi HH,

There you go. Now that's likely a true statement.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi again HH,

I made the statement:
Hi HH,


That doesn't make the Scriptures untrue. It apparently was the brother of Goliath that Elhanan killed. It merely makes the translation work not a word for word rendering.

I just wanted to take a moment and make sure that you understood what I mean, I'm not speaking for others here, when I make the claim that the Scriptures are inerrant in all that they convey to us.

First, when I reference the Scriptures, I am referencing the original writings. I am not referencing the later translated works or even the copied works, which sadly is all that we have. When Moses, Daniel, Samuel and the many, many other writers of the Scriptures sat down to write the things that they wrote that were often given them to write by the Holy Spirit of God, what they wrote was inerrant. I wholly agree that there may well be some, my understanding as to quantity would be very, very few, places that copyists and translators took liberties or made errors in their work of copying and translating. However, let me repeat and stress that these examples are very, very few among the some 700,000 words that we find in the Scriptures. I would confidently say that there are no more than a couple of dozen such places.

It is my understanding that in the days of the old covenant writings, the copyists would completely destroy any copy made that they found to have a mistake of any kind. They didn't scratch through and go on as we would likely do today, but destroyed the whole of the work. Unfortunately they didn't have access to 'white out'. However, yes, later translators did, it would seem obvious, on occasion add 'explanatory notes' into a line of translated work. However, even in this example we are discussing here, we find that the questionable words are written in italics in modern copies which does signify to the astute reader that the italicized portion is an addition to the source work. So, there is surely no conspiracy afoot or deceit to be made of the addition.

However, I fully believe and confirm that such actions do not make the Scriptures unreliable as to the intent of what the original manuscripts would have been conveying to those reading them in the days in which they were first written.

Second, inerrant does not translate to 'without grammatical or spelling' errors. Inerrant merely means that the overall thoughts and ideas are the truth as God intends for us to understand. Inerrant does not mean, to me, that every word of every passage of every chapter of one translation must use the same words as every other translation.

As I understand the Scriptures, and I get a lot of flack from the KJV onlyers on this, God gave us the Scriptures that we may understand Him, all that He has done, and what He is asking of us. Those ideas don't have to be conveyed to each successive generation in exactly the same words, but must retain exactly the same intentions and understanding of the original manuscripts.

There are many things written in the Scriptures that are really just historical filler. The Chronicles and book of Numbers are a good example of this. There are, of course, some important facts brought out in these two books, but a lot of it is just an historical account of all that was happening in Israel in the old covenant days. In other words, not particularly important that we understand the 'facts' and 'figures' as regards our understanding of these three points that I feel God gave unto mankind the Scriptures (understanding Him, all that He has done, what He expects of us) but merely just an account of the day to day goings on in Israel. However, I don't paint the old covenant Scriptures with too broad a brush on this issue.

So, for me, yes, the original manuscripts that were written by the hand of the men who wrote them, were and are still, inerrant. Of course, many will ask me, well, how do you know what is or isn't part of the original manuscripts today? My answer: I don't have to know. It isn't necessary to know that this particular word or that particular word or phrase was actually a part of the original manuscript. I look at the Scriptures as an overall work. It's purpose: to give me understanding of God and who He is, an understanding of all that He has done in creating this realm, sustaining this realm, raising up Israel as the people we should look to as his emissaries of truth, and all that He has done through His Son that we might have eternal life and how each one of us might partake of that reward. Finally, the Scriptures fairly clearly delineate how all of this is going to wind up. How God is going to close out this age of life that mankind has lived upon the earth and judge all men and assign them their place in the eternal existence to come. Just as He is going to do in the angelic realm which He also created out of nothing. There is coming a day when both men and angels are going to be separated into two groups.

This overall general message is what God is working to convey to mankind. He wants us to understand who He is and so the Scriptures are replete with reference to His being our Sustainer and Creator. The one who gives life to all creatures and sustains that life through the provision of food and water and shelter. He wants us to understand that among all life that He has created in this realm, mankind is His love and desire. He isn't working to fill the eternal life with dogs, cats, cows and such.

In expressing this, 'all that He has done' issue, yes, He has given us a reliable and trustworthy historical account of what has been going on in the creation since its inception. Yes, there was a time that He was just so angered by the wanton sin and rebellion of mankind that He just destroyed it all and started over. Yes, He worked through a man by the name of Abraham to build up a nation of people who were to be known on the earth as His people who would be trusted to write down and preserve these truths about God that all the nations could trust in their account of things.

However, the real crux of the Scriptures is to tell us, and lead us to, the Savior. So, we find in the new covenant that nearly all that is written is about him. We are clearly told that each and every one of us is a sinner, but that we can repent and find our way to the eternal life for which God ultimately created mankind. A life enjoyed eternally where He will be our God and we will be His people.

That, my friend, is the overarching message of the Scriptures. God created. He sustains. He provides. He loves us. Mankind is the crown jewel of His creative work in this realm and He is today working to create, through faith in His Son, a body of believers who will love and trust Him and believe Him. On the day of God's judgment, those who have done so will be ushered into the eternal life to be with Him forever. Those who haven't will be cast out to live some other way of life, which His Son describes as one of weeping and gnashing of teeth for those who are in it. It will be a way of life in which those who partake in it will find themselves constantly tormented by one another because their lusts will burn within them and they will strive unendingly to satisfy those lusts. It also should be noted that it will not only be mankind tormenting mankind, but also the fallen of the angelic realm will be in and amongst that lot.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,911
741
78
✟8,968.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I think you misunderstood my point, Ted. As I was trying to say then, and will say now is that given the Gothic script, the archaic spelling, and more than one word with a radically different meaning from its usage today, I will guarantee you the average person in the pew would find it extremely awkward and uncomfortable if they had to use only the 1611 edition. They probably would complain that they can't read it. For that very reason, those who proudly profess to be KJV1611 people use a much later edition, and so are presenting a false misconception about the actual 1611 edition.

Your comments on 2 Sam. 21:19 aren't on target. Scholars will tell you that the Hebrew text states clearly Elhanan killed Goliath, period. Et can be used to mean "among," but in most cases is referring to the direct object. Hence, the text says "Elhanan killed et Goliath. There is absolutely no indication here that it means "among." And it is very well known in scholarly circles what et means. I don't know where you got the idea it wasn't.
Yes, it is difficult to study the Bible because we are dealing with an ancient text, in a dead language, from a very alien culture. However, we are certainly not in the dark either. We have a very advanced level of biblical scholarship and also archaeology.
 
Upvote 0

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,911
741
78
✟8,968.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
There is an ancient tradition that only the originals are inerrant, not the later copies, least of all translations. However, we don't have any of the originals to judge by. All you have, for example, is a translation, which, by tradition, is not to be considered inerrant. Remember, if you find just one error in Scripture, you can't claim it to be inerrant. Given the situation with 2 Sam. 21:19, which most scholars see as a scribal error, then, right there, your whole inerrancy theory is shot down. Incidentally, I and a few others don't think this was a scribal error. We believe David had material written to glorify himself and may have taken credit for one of Elhanan's kills. But that is another story.

We know a great deal abut when the various books were written, under what circumstances, and by whom. So we know definitely that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch.

You claim that the Bible gives us a trustworthy account of everything that happened between the beginning of the world and now is way, way off base. There were countless events taking place over millions and millions of years, which the Bible doesn't even scratch on. That's why I see it as more intended to talk about GOd in terms of the Israeli people, rather than providing an account t of nature or creation.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi HH,

Well, you and I have about beaten this dead horse about as far as he's able to stumble on.

In response to your beginning of the post that you think I misunderstood your intentions, I will quote my response to you:

Hi HH,

There you go. Now that's likely a true statement.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I did absolutely agree with your position.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,911
741
78
✟8,968.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
That isn't at all necessarily the case, Radrook. A very traditional teaching is the doctrine of accommodation. In short, God talks "baby talk" (Calvin's term ), at times, because our intellects are too feeble to grasp the plain, unvarnished truth. Calvin pointed out, in his commentary on Genesis, that God did not intend to give us an astronomy lesson. Rather, he spoke in terms of the common understanding of the people, which Calvin took to mea the Bible's flat-earth cosmology, etc. I don't think God ever intended the Bible to be an accurate scientific witness, simply because he was dealing with a prescientific culture. God is like a careful carpenter, who works with the grain, not against it. God can only move as fast as we are ready and able. So God wasn't about to reveal advanced scientific knowledge to the people, as they would not have grasped it. Did God give Columbus a nuclear sub? No, he did not; Columbus would not have known what to do with it.
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,593
Northern Ohio
✟314,607.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
True, you can logically be a theistic evolutionist by simply believing that the creator employed the evolutionary process in order to create mankind. However, you cannot be a Christian theistic evolutionist without being forced to call Jesus a liar because Jesus considered the events described in the Genesis account as 100% historical facts as did the rest of the nation of Israel.

Concerning Jesus' trustworthiness the Apostle Peter wrote:
There is no contradiction between Genesis and evolutionary theory.
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,593
Northern Ohio
✟314,607.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That isn't at all necessarily the case, Radrook. A very traditional teaching is the doctrine of accommodation. In short, God talks "baby talk" (Calvin's term ), at times, because our intellects are too feeble to grasp the plain, unvarnished truth. Calvin pointed out, in his commentary on Genesis, that God did not intend to give us an astronomy lesson. Rather, he spoke in terms of the common understanding of the people, which Calvin took to mea the Bible's flat-earth cosmology, etc. I don't think God ever intended the Bible to be an accurate scientific witness, simply because he was dealing with a prescientific culture. God is like a careful carpenter, who works with the grain, not against it. God can only move as fast as we are ready and able. So God wasn't about to reveal advanced scientific knowledge to the people, as they would not have grasped it. Did God give Columbus a nuclear sub? No, he did not; Columbus would not have known what to do with it.
That is a valid point. The Bible is written for everyone. From the most simple to the most complex the Bible challenges every man, women and child that has ever lived and will ever live.
 
Upvote 0

freezerman2000

Living and dying in 3/4 time
Feb 24, 2011
9,525
1,221
South Carolina
✟46,630.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
True, you can logically be a theistic evolutionist by simply believing that the creator employed the evolutionary process in order to create mankind. However, you cannot be a Christian theistic evolutionist without being forced to call Jesus a liar because Jesus considered the events described in the Genesis account as 100% historical facts as did the rest of the nation of Israel.

Concerning Jesus' trustworthiness the Apostle Peter wrote:

This is from the forum rules..please abide by it.
Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,726
USA
Visit site
✟150,380.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
This is from the forum rules..please abide by it.
Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.
I will erase the post.
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,726
USA
Visit site
✟150,380.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
That is a valid point. The Bible is written for everyone. From the most simple to the most complex the Bible challenges every man, women and child that has ever lived and will ever live.
Very true. The Bible was indeed written for everyone.
 
Upvote 0

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,911
741
78
✟8,968.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
On one hand, yes, the Bible appears to offer something to everyone. On the other, I feel we must be careful here. Much biblical material was intended for an audience other than ourselves. This is especially true of Paul's letters, which have a specific address on them. So we have to be careful here. It's like we are reading someone else's mail. We have to remember this material was not really intended for us.
 
Upvote 0