Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Which is the true Bible

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
it works like this, the catholic says my duey rheims with the apohcrya and the interpratations by the magisterium is correct the protestant will say, no the extra books dont line up and they do this by the idea of what luther did in the reformation.


luther was a catholic priest who one day read the book of romans and repented and wrote his 38 thesis and pinned it to the door of the diet of worms. he saw the rcc as corrupt and wanted to change that but instead the protestants came to be. its off my belief that while the rcc has saved members in it, the organasation herself at times has deviated.

the protestants have tried to correct this. either side makes claims by faith.
 
I wasn't going to get involved in this fruitless discussion again but there are some things that need to be addressed.

Incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith and morals, for instance is not what we have in the different bible versions. In fact you have different groups of people that are saying totally different things from one another, teaching different doctrines. This issue is ONE example of this, So logically the fact that there are different bibles causing this issue means that there must be an error somewhere in the scriptures. Many people have been taught by the King James Bible and it's doctrines that there is a problem with these other bible versions. No one can deny that. There was no such division until the revised version came along in 1881 and it has been a controversy ever since. With division and confusion there has to be error. There's no way around it unless there is some crazy thing going on that I don't know about.
Paul addresses divisions that were already happening within the Corinthian Church in 1 Cor 1. Clearly they didn't have Bibles and even had the Apostles around, so we can logically conclude that while some divisions may be due to different Bible versions, most divisions are because of differing interpretations and understanding of the Bible, regardless of which version is being interpreted. There can be any number of reasons for different interpretations of the same text.

Just as you are ignoring what you are being told based on word definitions and want to stick to only the definitions you want, so different definitions for the same word in Greek--not to mention that it is koine Greek--are a large cause for division. So essentially, you are demonstrating one of the main answers to your question.

ronniechoate34 said:
That's right all scripture, but don't some people believe that there is scripture left out of some bibles? If we need all scripture then why is any of it left out of any bible version?
If you are referring to KJVO arguments, then it is an error in logic, a logical fallacy called begging the question which presumes that certain verses are supposed to be in the Bible, and when other versions don't have them, they say they are missing.

But it could be the case that the verses in the KJV are not supposed to be there in the first place. There are passages and verses which are likely to have been added at much later dates. It then becomes a matter of asking if we should leave those in. But these discussions have gone on for centuries and we won't settle them here.

ronniechoate34 said:
The definition of inerrant is simply without error. The definition of infallible that I posted leaves no room for error, or division, of any kind.
Wrong. It was already pointed out to you by Handy that the second and third definitions you gave for infallibility fit what we have said just fine.

2
: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain

3
: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals .

Definitions two and three leave room for copyist errors and such but for some reason you reject those two definitions in favor of the first, without any justification for doing so. This is why this discussion is pointless.

ronniechoate34 said:
No, it ain't rocket science, words have a meaning, and if you are not going to properly use them then it is best if us to, a, learn how to use certain words, or b, don't use them at all because we may mis lead someone
Then you need to start using them correctly. Words can have more than one meaning and if the context determines that a certain meaning is used and not the others, then you need to use that meaning.
 
:lol When I was a baby Christian I wholeheartedly believed that unicorns once did exist and were simply now extinct because of their mention in the Bible. I felt the same way about dragons....and to this day, my mind is opened to the possibility.

BTW...that is the cutest baby!!!

Thank you! Her name is Lucille & she is quite the ham :)

Concerning "dragons", would you entertain the possibility that they are "dinosaurs"?
 
I wasn't going to get involved in this fruitless discussion again but there are some things that need to be addressed.


Originally Posted by ronniechoate34
Incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith and morals, for instance is not what we have in the different bible versions. In fact you have different groups of people that are saying totally different things from one another, teaching different doctrines. This issue is ONE example of this, So logically the fact that there are different bibles causing this issue means that there must be an error somewhere in the scriptures. Many people have been taught by the King James Bible and it's doctrines that there is a problem with these other bible versions. No one can deny that. There was no such division until the revised version came along in 1881 and it has been a controversy ever since. With division and confusion there has to be error. There's no way around it unless there is some crazy thing going on that I don't know about.
Paul addresses divisions that were already happening within the Corinthian Church in 1 Cor 1. Clearly they didn't have Bibles and even had the Apostles around, so we can logically conclude that while some divisions may be due to different Bible versions, most divisions are because of differing interpretations and understanding of the Bible, regardless of which version is being interpreted. There can be any number of reasons for different interpretations of the same text..


Paul also stated in Second Corinthians two seventeen, that even at that time there were many people corrupting the Word of God. I wonder who these people were and wot became of their teachings. Did they write their doctrines down? Were they proselytizing the people?



Just as you are ignoring what you are being told based on word definitions and want to stick to only the definitions you want, so different definitions for the same word in Greek--not to mention that it is koine Greek--are a large cause for division. So essentially, you are demonstrating one of the main answers to your question..


The definitions that I am using are the only definitions that I can find.


Originally Posted by ronniechoate34
That's right all scripture, but don't some people believe that there is scripture left out of some bibles? If we need all scripture then why is any of it left out of any bible version?
If you are referring to KJVO arguments, then it is an error in logic, a logical fallacy called begging the question which presumes that certain verses are supposed to be in the Bible, and when other versions don't have them, they say they are missing.

But it could be the case that the verses in the KJV are not supposed to be there in the first place. There are passages and verses which are likely to have been added at much later dates. It then becomes a matter of asking if we should leave those in. But these discussions have gone on for centuries and we won't settle them here..


So who do you believe is right about this matter? You must have an opinion. Is it those who don't believe that there's any possible way that we could have a perfect Bible and rely on textual critics for their leds? Or, is it those people who do believe that we have been delivered a perfect Bible and do not question its authority?


If you think that the believers are wrong, then what do you think will be the price for their so called heresy?



Originally Posted by ronniechoate34
The definition of inerrant is simply without error. The definition of infallible that I posted leaves no room for error, or division, of any kind.
Wrong. It was already pointed out to you by Handy that the second and third definitions you gave for infallibility fit what we have said just fine..




2
: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain

3
: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals .

Definitions two and three leave room for copyist errors and such but for some reason you reject those two definitions in favor of the first, without any justification for doing so. This is why this discussion is pointless..


So what's all of the huBUB about then, bub? Why has the revision brought about confusion? Why are there people who can point out doctrinal errors among the bible versions? Why were there people who rose up against it from the beginning of it in 1881?


Apparentely there are some descrepancies that have created confusion. Now I don't know where you are from but around here, confusion comes from the devil, and confusion can be mighty tricky at that, it caN BE MISLEADING AND CAUSE SOMEONE TO ERR. Now take a look at those two definitions for infallible again and tell me how that fits.


I just don't see all scripture fitting those two definitions. Where the people are divided and confusion is everywhere, that's a place where something is wrong. There has to be or people would not act that way.





Originally Posted by ronniechoate34
No, it ain't rocket science, words have a meaning, and if you are not going to properly use them then it is best if us to, a, learn how to use certain words, or b, don't use them at all because we may mis lead someone
Then you need to start using them correctly. Words can have more than one meaning and if the context determines that a certain meaning is used and not the others, then you need to use that meaning..





I have shown you how all of these bibles do not fit the definition of inerrant, or infallible.
 
Sorry for dropping by so late in the debate just thought I would mention that there are six! different Bibles:

1. Jewish
2. Catholic
3. Protestant
4. Anglican
5. Greek Orthodox
6. Ethiopian

They contain anywhere from 24 to 81 books. Which is the true Bible (if any) is anyones guess of course.
 
Sorry for dropping by so late in the debate just thought I would mention that there are six! different Bibles:

1. Jewish
2. Catholic
3. Protestant
4. Anglican
5. Greek Orthodox
6. Ethiopian

They contain anywhere from 24 to 81 books. Which is the true Bible (if any) is anyones guess of course.

then tanakh is part of all others. and isnt considered a complete bible to the christian faiths. the anglican? i am unaware of that unless you refer to the kjb with the apochrya and that wasnt canon just for history and to show why they shouldnt be in the bible.they were removed in the 1800s.
 
Do you know that we have lost the text of the original 1611 King James Version?

You can buy a 1611 KJV, BUT...

This book is a 2005 facsimile of the 1833 Oxford University Press rendition of the 1611 first edition, "The Holy Bible, an Exact Reprint Page for Page of the Authorized Version Published in the Year MDCXI." It contains a word for word, line for line, page for page rendition of the 1611 body text of the Authorized Version,
according to the 1833 Oxford consensus.

It seems that different printers supplied the pages, and surviving copies have slight contradictions.
 
then tanakh is part of all others. and isnt considered a complete bible to the christian faiths. the anglican? i am unaware of that unless you refer to the kjb with the apochrya and that wasnt canon just for history and to show why they shouldnt be in the bible.they were removed in the 1800s.

Sorry about the double posting. If you follow the link to Bessel some of the differences are explained there. My point is simply that there are six different Bibles containing different books. If someone say they believe in the Bible they mean that they believe in the books in their particular Bible. Since they contain different books I wouldn't know exactly what it is they believe in unless they specify which Bible. Without such clarification any discussion would be meaningless. Suppose a Greek Orthodox quotes 3 Maccabees to explain why he believes in the Bible? Suppose an Ethiopian quotes 1 Enoch? A protestant could just say: Which 3 Maccabees? Which 1 Enoch? In my true Bible those books don't exist. So about the question which is the true Bible, who knows? It's just a matter of which Bible you were raised to believe in.
 
Another problem with Ruckmanism involves Mark 1:12.

Gather up all your KJV Bibles and New Testaments and check each one to see Who drove Jesus into the wilderness.
 
Do you know that we have lost the text of the original 1611 King James Version?

You can buy a 1611 KJV, BUT...

This book is a 2005 facsimile of the 1833 Oxford University Press rendition of the 1611 first edition, "The Holy Bible, an Exact Reprint Page for Page of the Authorized Version Published in the Year MDCXI." It contains a word for word, line for line, page for page rendition of the 1611 body text of the Authorized Version,
according to the 1833 Oxford consensus.

It seems that different printers supplied the pages, and surviving copies have slight contradictions.
Actually, if you have enough money, there are about 200 surviving copies of the original. Maybe you could get someone to part with one... if you had enough $$$. :biggrin

Tiny church finds original King James Bible – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs
 
I found this old post on another site:

"Sunday at Church we found out that at Mark 1:12 some KJV's have 'spirit' while others have 'Spirit' we found that this is even in KJV's by
the same publisher."

After reading this, I got curious.
1) My parallel Spanish/KJV says "spirit"
2) My New Scofield says "Spirit"
3) My Hyles-Anderson KJV says "Spirit"
4) My Thompson Chain Reference Bible says "Spirit"
5) My 1901 KJV (Bought it at a junk shop; leather-bound, great buy for $1) says "spirit"
6) The 1611 KJV Online says "spirit"
7) The University of Virginia Online Text Center KJV says "Spirit"
8) The 1611 KJV Online from Stewarton Bible School in Scotland says "Spirit"
9) The AV1611 King James Bible Page says "Spirit"
10) The Dewey Library online facsimile of the original 1611 KJV says "Spirit
Matt 5:18 & Luke 16:17
 
You can buy a 1611 KJV, BUT...

This book is a 2005 facsimile of the 1833 Oxford University Press rendition of the 1611 first edition, "The Holy Bible, an Exact Reprint Page for Page of the Authorized Version Published in the Year MDCXI." It contains a word for word, line for line, page for page rendition of the 1611 body text of the Authorized Version,
according to the 1833 Oxford consensus.
I spent $75 on one. I wish I had my money back. I'd buy a new NIV. :yes
Westtexas
 
My friend Vic C. points out that there are about 200 original KJV Bibles in existence. And herein lies a tale:

The first 1611 KJV was a folio, meaning that the pages were printed separately, in large print, to be read in churches. A second edition was also printed in 1611. The British Museum later set out to acquire an original 1611 KJV (Remember, these were not printed as books; they were printed on separate pages). Through donations and purchases, the Museum eventually acquired a complete 1611 KJV, but they cannot tell what edition some of the pages are from.

Later, the Royal College of Scotland did the same thing, and...

There are slight contradictions between these two 1611 Bibles. We have lost the original KJV.
 
The first 1611 KJV was a folio, meaning that the pages were printed separately, in large print, to be read in churches. A second edition was also printed in 1611. The British Museum later set out to acquire an original 1611 KJV (Remember, these were not printed as books; they were printed on separate pages). Through donations and purchases, the Museum eventually acquired a complete 1611 KJV, but they cannot tell what edition some of the pages are from.

Later, the Royal College of Scotland did the same thing, and...

There are slight contradictions between these two 1611 Bibles. We have lost the original KJV.

And there have been several editions but no revisions. The 1611 King James Bible i have is actually the 1769 one with spelling mistakes removed.

THE PRINTING CONDITIONS OF 1611


If God did preserve His Word in the English language through the Authorized Version of 1611 (and He did), then where is our authority for the infallible wording? Is it in the notes of the translators? Or is it to be found in the proof copy sent to the printers? If so, then our authority is lost because these papers are lost. But, you say, the authority is in the first copy which came off the printing press. Alas, that copy has also certainly perished. In fact, if the printing of the English Bible followed the pattern of most printing jobs, the first copy was probably discarded because of bad quality. That leaves us with existing copies of the first printing. They are the ones often pointed out as the standard by which all other King James Bibles are to be compared. But are they? Can those early printers of the first edition not be allowed to make printing errors? We need to establish one thing from the outset. The authority for our preserved English text is not found in any human work. The authority for our preserved and infallible English text is in God! Printers may foul up at times and humans will still make plenty of errors, but God in His power and mercy will preserve His text despite the weaknesses of fallible man. Now, let us look at the pressures on a printer in the year of 1611.

Although the printing press had been invented in 1450 by Johann Gutenburg in Germany (161 years before the 1611 printing), the equipment used by the printer had changed very little. Printing was still very slow and difficult. All type was set by hand, one piece at a time (that's one piece at a time through the whole Bible), and errors were an expected part of any completed book. Because of this difficulty and also because the 1611 printers had no earlier editions from which to profit, the very first edition of the King James Version had a number of printing errors. As shall later be demonstrated, these were not the sort of textual alterations which are freely made in modern bibles. They were simple, obvious printing errors of the sort that can still be found at times in recent editions even with all of the advantages of modem printing. These errors do not render a Bible useless, but they should be corrected in later editions.

The two original printings of the Authorized Version demonstrate the difficulty of printing in 1611 without making mistakes. Both editions were printed in Oxford. Both were printed in the same year: 1611. The same printers did both jobs. Most likely, both editions were printed on the same printing press. Yet, in a strict comparison of the two editions, approximately 100 textual differences can be found. In the same vein the King James critics can find only about 400 alleged textual alterations in the King James Version after 375 years of printing and four so-called revisions! Something is rotten in Scholarsville! The time has come to examine these revisions."

Read more: Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible since 1611?

 
Why would the Holy Spirit mis-guide the translators of the KJV to employ the use of mythical
creatures like "unicorn" for wild ox, "satyr" for "wild goat", "cockatrice" for common
viper, when today we know what the real name of these creatures is?
 
Why would the Holy Spirit mis-guide the translators of the KJV to employ the use of mythical creatures like "unicorn" for wild ox, "satyr" for "wild goat", "cockatrice" for common viper, when today we know what the real name of these creatures is?

Yet the Holy Spirit never misguides anyone nor can because the Holy Spirit is God Himself. These creatures are not mythical at all and there are answers to each one, just a search of startpage.com proposes whole lists of explanations:

Take the answersingensis.org site about the unicorn:

"The absence of a unicorn in the modern world should not cause us to doubt its past existence. (Think of the dodo bird. It does not exist today, but we do not doubt that it existed in the past.). Eighteenth century reports from southern Africa described rock drawings and eyewitness accounts of fierce, single-horned, equine-like animals. One such report describes “a single horn, directly in front, about as long as one’s arm, and at the base about as thick . . . . [It] had a sharp point; it was not attached to the bone of the forehead, but fixed only in the skin.”

The elasmotherium, an extinct giant rhinoceros, provides another possibility for the unicorn’s identity. The elasmotherium’s 33-inch-long skull has a huge bony protuberance on the frontal bone consistent with the support structure for a massive horn.<sup></sup> In fact, archaeologist Austen Henry Layard, in his 1849 book Nineveh and Its Remains, sketched a single-horned creature from an obelisk in company with two-horned bovine animals; he identified the single-horned animal as an Indian rhinoceros.<sup></sup> The biblical unicorn could have been the elasmotherium.<sup></sup>
Assyrian archaeology provides one other possible solution to the unicorn identity crisis. The biblical unicorn could have been an aurochs (a kind of wild ox known to the Assyrians as rimu). The aurochs’s horns were very symmetrical and often appeared as one in profile, as can be seen on Ashurnasirpal II’s palace relief and Esarhaddon’s stone prism. Fighting rimu was a popular sport for Assyrian kings. On a broken obelisk, for instance, Tiglath-Pileser I boasted of slaying them in the Lebanon mountains.
Extinct since about 1627, aurochs, Bos primigenius, were huge bovine creatures. Julius Caesar described them in his Gallic Wars as:

“a little below the elephant in size, and of the appearance, color, and shape of a bull. Their strength and speed are extraordinary; they spare neither man nor wild beast which they have espied . . . . Not even when taken very young can they be rendered familiar to men and tamed. The size, shape, and appearance of their horns differ much from the horns of our oxen. These they anxiously seek after, and bind at the tips with silver, and use as cups at their most sumptuous entertainments.”<sup></sup>
The aurochs’ highly prized horns would have been a symbol of great strength to the ancient Bible reader."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/unicorns-in-bible

About the satyr:

"In Greek and Roman mythology, the satyr was a half-man/half-beast god, a companion of Bacchus. There is absolutely no relationship between this pagan concept and any passage in the Bible.
In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word sa’ir is found about fifty-two times. It is related to the term se’ar (“hair”), which means a “hairy one.” Mostly the word is used of the male goat that was employed as a sin-offering – especially that solemn sin-offering of the day of atonement (Lev. 16).
In two cases, sa’ir is translated “satyr” in the King James Version (Isa. 13:21; 34:14). In those passages it clearly alludes to wild goats of the sort that lived among the ruins of Babylon and Edom. Twice the term is rendered “demon” (Lev. 17:7; 2 Chron. 11:15 — KJV), where it actually signifies a pagan god that takes the form of a goat. And so, once more, careful investigation demonstrates that the writers of the Bible have not lowered themselves to the superstitions of paganism. Critical charges ever destruct upon the shoals of truth."

What About the "Unicorn" and the "Satyr"? : ChristianCourier.com
 
Back
Top