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
$1,048.00
Goal
$1,038.00
ronnie have you ever tried to learn greek/hebrew and or even arabic. if so take notivce of the words they have that we dont?

ie love

dumb idiotic english has one word for love

koine greek has these:

phileo
agapao
eros
storge.

each of them tells what type of love is and can be used only for that type unlike english.

spanish: simple spanish seperates love better then we do

amar:romantic love
desear: to like and or love a thing or a person but not in deep love as man and wife in general, can also mean to lust.
gustar: to like, as apreciate or to have a taste.

in english we have to use a context to get the meanings, we do have desire which is related to desear.

hope:
english to wait in desperation

in the orignal greek i bet its more then that

spanish: hope:

buscar:to wait as waiting for a ride
esparar to hope

buscar is closer to what hebrews 11:1 says its knowing that its coming and just waiting.

so theres some wiggle room in this. this is why prayer is important. i have never had any problems with the kjv as i asked God to teach me what it says.
 
ronnie have you ever tried to learn greek/hebrew and or even arabic. if so take notivce of the words they have that we dont?

ie love

dumb idiotic english has one word for love

koine greek has these:

phileo
agapao
eros
storge.

each of them tells what type of love is and can be used only for that type unlike english.

spanish: simple spanish seperates love better then we do

amar:romantic love
desear: to like and or love a thing or a person but not in deep love as man and wife in general, can also mean to lust.
gustar: to like, as apreciate or to have a taste.

in english we have to use a context to get the meanings, we do have desire which is related to desear.

hope:
english to wait in desperation

in the orignal greek i bet its more then that

spanish: hope:

buscar:to wait as waiting for a ride
esparar to hope

buscar is closer to what hebrews 11:1 says its knowing that its coming and just waiting.

so theres some wiggle room in this. this is why prayer is important. i have never had any problems with the kjv as i asked God to teach me what it says.


None of this has anything to do with my concerns, I'm not concerned with translations and language barriers.


There are many people here who call the Bible the Word of God, and yet they don't seem to believe that they actually do have the Word of God available to them.

That's not so hard to understand is it? I mean think about it. Is the Bible the Word of God if it was written by men? If the Word was given by God, and then if the men who tended to it took liberties with it, and also some of it was lost in translation, then how can anyone say that we have the Word of God? How can we trust the Bible at all, any bible.


Can someone please help me to understand this?
 
So the Bible is not the Word of God because men penned it?

The Scriptures are the Word of God . Yet any one who has read them knows full well even satan is quoted in the Word of God.
 
So the Bible is not the Word of God because men penned it?

The Scriptures are the Word of God . Yet any one who has read them knows full well even satan is quoted in the Word of God.


If you believe that the scriptures are the Word of God, but you don't believe that they are the pure Words of God, then how do you know what is truly the Word? How are you able to discern what God said from what some guy got wrong, or what some one else added? I really would like to know how you do it.
 
If you believe that the scriptures are the Word of God, but you don't believe that they are the pure Words of God, then how do you know what is truly the Word? How are you able to discern what God said from what some guy got wrong, or what some one else added? I really would like to know how you do it.
Look at the earliest most reliable manuscripts and try to understand the original meaning of the words. There is no guarantee the other verses are wrong at all. God may have wanted their inclusion for us. Dont worry dude I am not in the business of correcting people. Its kind of embarrassing if an atheist points out irregularities and you have no answers for them.
 
Look at the earliest most reliable manuscripts and try to understand the original meaning of the words. There is no guarantee the other verses are wrong at all. God may have wanted their inclusion for us. Dont worry dude I am not in the business of correcting people. Its kind of embarrassing if an atheist points out irregularities and you have no answers for them.


Are these early manuscripts written by men? If so, what men? And again, how do you know that it's the actual Word's of God, and not the word's of men, that's found in those manuscripts?
 
Are these early manuscripts written by men? If so, what men? And again, how do you know that it's the actual Word's of God, and not the word's of men, that's found in those manuscripts?

Do you take issue with the English translations or the original Hebrew/Greek manuscripts themselves?

In other words, do you doubt the translation of the Book of Revelation or the recorded accuracy of what the apostle John observed?
 
Gen 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
Gen 3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

Here we have the Word of God .. this is a true statement

Here we have the words of God this is true

We have here the words of Adam this also is a true statement

How can that be? The word of God is the whole the complete not only the words of God.
 
please. if the bible has good sources for translation then what does it matter.

no bible is perfect, each of them will have issues.

What i find ironic is that Christians will be anti-catholic and then not realize that there Modern Bible Version comes partly from Catholic and Gnostic manuscripts.

Here is my proof: http://www.born2serve.org/images/kjvchartbig.gif

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." —Deuteronomy 4:2


Dr. Jack Hyles (1926-2001) believed that the King James Bible is inspired. The following quote is taken from his book, The Need for an Every-Word Bible, page 54...
“I'm tired of colleges and universities advertising that they use the King James Bible. Tell the whole story! Tell everyone that you do not believe that it is inspired word for word.†—Dr. Jack Hyles

“I must have every Word if I speak His message. If I didn't think I had a perfect Bible I'd close this one, walk out that door, I'd never walk in the pulpit again.â€
— Dr. Jack Hyles
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." — 1 Peter 1:23

 
so what i was hispanic? akjv would bible should i read? and what sources should it come from.

uh and the word baptism wasnt in english in king james day. it a transliteration from the greek. james was into sprinkling water not immmersion. if they used immersion in water as that is implied with the word baptism in context in what is stated. then the king might not be happy.

but it really doesnt negate the word at its usefullness. thus an issue.
 
Gen 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
Gen 3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

Here we have the Word of God .. this is a true statement

Here we have the words of God this is true

We have here the words of Adam this also is a true statement

How can that be? The word of God is the whole the complete not only the words of God.



You keep saying that you believe that we have the Word of God, but it's not in its pure unadulterated form. Since that's what you believe then please do tell me how you are able to discern what God said from what some joker thought would be a good idea to place in the scriptures. How do you know what God said and what God did not say?

How do you know that the Word of God has been completely given to you? Is it because men told you that is the case?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not really getting any straight answers here.


If you guys are trying to help me undwerstand then you'll have to bear with me and answer my questions in a more direct manner.
 
What i find ironic is that Christians will be anti-catholic and then not realize that there Modern Bible Version comes partly from Catholic and Gnostic manuscripts.

Here is my proof: http://www.born2serve.org/images/kjvchartbig.gif

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." —Deuteronomy 4:2


Dr. Jack Hyles (1926-2001) believed that the King James Bible is inspired. The following quote is taken from his book, The Need for an Every-Word Bible, page 54...
“I'm tired of colleges and universities advertising that they use the King James Bible. Tell the whole story! Tell everyone that you do not believe that it is inspired word for word.” —Dr. Jack Hyles

“I must have every Word if I speak His message. If I didn't think I had a perfect Bible I'd close this one, walk out that door, I'd never walk in the pulpit again.”
— Dr. Jack Hyles
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." — 1 Peter 1:23


Are the inclusion of Unicorns throughout the OT divinely inspired?
 
I'm not really getting any straight answers here.


If you guys are trying to help me undwerstand then you'll have to bear with me and answer my questions in a more direct manner.

You have someone close to you maybe a wife.

When she talks to you you know what is in her heart. You grasp the depth of her words.

If some came to you and said " She said XYZ" You would know if that person was speaking the truth or not. Because you have a personal relationship with your wife.

Well i have a personal relationship with God. His Word is the whole of Scripture.

I dont have a fancy vocabulary I doubt i can think of anything else to make my thoughts more clear. The more time you spend with Lord the more you knowHis heart, His Word, Words. Same as the more time you spend with your wife the more you know her thoughts her heart.
 
Ronnie,

What is at the heart of your confusion? That there might not be any current "perfect" Scriptures or that the originals weren't perfect?

I don't have a problem with the multiple versions of the Bible out there. I know that there are some versions that are out and out corruptions of the original texts. Then there are just some various textual differences that come when we translate archaic languages into modern English.

However, the Bibles that we can hold in our hands, unless they are clearly corruptions of the original texts are reliable enough to be called "God's inspired and inerrant word".

How to tell the clear corruptions from reliable translations?

Most of the truly reliable texts are so close in their translations that the differences are the "gnat" variety.

I have an illustration I like to use: Once there was a man who wandered through a wilderness. He was dying of starvation and thirst. Close to death, he came across the castle of a mighty king. When the king saw the man, he ordered that the man be brought in, be washed, and be given food and drink. After the man was washed, he was brought to the dining hall of the king where a great feast was laid out on the table before him. Just as the man was starting to eat though, he noticed that there was a gnat sitting on one of the grapes. There was also another one hiding behind a leaf of lettuce. A third was on a glass which held pure, ice-cold water. That was all.

The man shouted, "I can't eat this....it's filled with gnats!" So, he ran out of the king's dining hall, back into the wilderness......and died.

To me, the fact that the KJV mentions unicorns is a gnat. So, the translators back then used unicorn for what is now translated as wild ox...to me, no big deal. To me, that's a gnat on the feast, nothing that should prevent a dying man from receiving salvation.

But, here is an example that is not of the "gnat" variety:

Here are the comparative translations of a key text in Scripture, Hebrews 1:8:

New International Version (©1984)
But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.New Living Translation (©2007)
But to the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever. You rule with a scepter of justice.
English Standard Version (©2001)
But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
International Standard Version (©2008)
But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the scepter of your kingdom is a righteous scepter.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
But God said about his Son, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter in your kingdom is a scepter for justice.
King James Bible
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
American King James Version
But to the Son he said, Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom.
American Standard Version
but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Bible in Basic English
But of the Son he says, Your seat of power, O God, is for ever and ever; and the rod of your kingdom is a rod of righteousness.
Douay-Rheims Bible
But to the Son: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of justice is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Darby Bible Translation
but as to the Son, Thy throne, O God, is to the age of the age, and a sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
English Revised Version
but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Webster's Bible Translation
But to the Son, he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom.
Weymouth New Testament
But of His Son, He says, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and for ever, and the sceptre of Thy Kingdom is a sceptre of absolute justice.
World English Bible
But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your Kingdom.
Young's Literal Translation
and unto the Son: 'Thy throne, O God, is to the age of the age; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy reign;




Now, look at how the New World Translation words this same text:

But with reference to the Son: “God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.


The NWT translators are Jehovah's Witnesses and therefore do not accept Jesus as God so they clearly altered the text to reflect their bias.


This is no "gnat", this is an obvious attempt to change what the original texts stated clearly.


Keep in mind that there is a difference between "translations" and "paraphrases". Sometime paraphrases are nice for reading purposes...and they do contain the power of the Holy Spirit. The Living Bible is a paraphrase, but I came to be a Christian by reading the Gospel of John in the Living Bible. The Message is also a paraphrase and to me, and awful one. However, a paraphrase should never be used as one's only source and they aren't that useful for study.


The "true" Bible is, of course, what the original writers wrote. However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit has kept for us His inerrant, infallible word that He will use to teach us, correct us and bring us to salvation. That there are, after 2000 years and many translations and copies a few "typos" here and there is no big deal. I'm not about to turn my back on the Holy Spirit and reject Him simply for a few "gnats" on the feast.
 
You have someone close to you maybe a wife.

When she talks to you you know what is in her heart. You grasp the depth of her words.

If some came to you and said " She said XYZ" You would know if that person was speaking the truth or not. Because you have a personal relationship with your wife.

Well i have a personal relationship with God. His Word is the whole of Scripture.


His Word is the whole of scripture, that sems kind of vague. There are a lot of documents available to us that people claim to be directly inspired by God. Which of these do you claim give the accurate account, or, do you believe that none are 100 percent accurate? You have confused me further with this. Please forgive me for being hard of understanding and help me out here.


I dont have a fancy vocabulary I doubt i can think of anything else to make my thoughts more clear. The more time you spend with Lord the more you knowHis heart, His Word, Words. Same as the more time you spend with your wife the more you know her thoughts her heart.


You've either got to be a mind reader, or God, to know every thought someone has. As for me, I'm neither a god nor a mind reader.


So, how do you know that it's really the Lord speaking to you? What has He told you is wrong with how men have represented him through the pens of scripture?
 
I dont have a fancy vocabulary I doubt i can think of anything else to make my thoughts more clear.
 
Ronnie,

What is at the heart of your confusion? That there might not be any current "perfect" Scriptures or that the originals weren't perfect?

I don't have a problem with the multiple versions of the Bible out there. I know that there are some versions that are out and out corruptions of the original texts. Then there are just some various textual differences that come when we translate archaic languages into modern English.

However, the Bibles that we can hold in our hands, unless they are clearly corruptions of the original texts are reliable enough to be called "God's inspired and inerrant word".

How to tell the clear corruptions from reliable translations?

Most of the truly reliable texts are so close in their translations that the differences are the "gnat" variety.

I have an illustration I like to use: Once there was a man who wandered through a wilderness. He was dying of starvation and thirst. Close to death, he came across the castle of a mighty king. When the king saw the man, he ordered that the man be brought in, be washed, and be given food and drink. After the man was washed, he was brought to the dining hall of the king where a great feast was laid out on the table before him. Just as the man was starting to eat though, he noticed that there was a gnat sitting on one of the grapes. There was also another one hiding behind a leaf of lettuce. A third was on a glass which held pure, ice-cold water. That was all.

The man shouted, "I can't eat this....it's filled with gnats!" So, he ran out of the king's dining hall, back into the wilderness......and died.

To me, the fact that the KJV mentions unicorns is a gnat. So, the translators back then used unicorn for what is now translated as wild ox...to me, no big deal. To me, that's a gnat on the feast, nothing that should prevent a dying man from receiving salvation.

But, here is an example that is not of the "gnat" variety:

Here are the comparative translations of a key text in Scripture, Hebrews 1:8:

New International Version (©1984)
But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.New Living Translation (©2007)
But to the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever. You rule with a scepter of justice.
English Standard Version (©2001)
But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
International Standard Version (©2008)
But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the scepter of your kingdom is a righteous scepter.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
But God said about his Son, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter in your kingdom is a scepter for justice.
King James Bible
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
American King James Version
But to the Son he said, Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom.
American Standard Version
but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Bible in Basic English
But of the Son he says, Your seat of power, O God, is for ever and ever; and the rod of your kingdom is a rod of righteousness.
Douay-Rheims Bible
But to the Son: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of justice is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Darby Bible Translation
but as to the Son, Thy throne, O God, is to the age of the age, and a sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
English Revised Version
but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Webster's Bible Translation
But to the Son, he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom.
Weymouth New Testament
But of His Son, He says, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and for ever, and the sceptre of Thy Kingdom is a sceptre of absolute justice.
World English Bible
But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your Kingdom.
Young's Literal Translation
and unto the Son: 'Thy throne, O God, is to the age of the age; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy reign;




Now, look at how the New World Translation words this same text:

But with reference to the Son: “God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.


The NWT translators are Jehovah's Witnesses and therefore do not accept Jesus as God so they clearly altered the text to reflect their bias.


This is no "gnat", this is an obvious attempt to change what the original texts stated clearly.


Keep in mind that there is a difference between "translations" and "paraphrases". Sometime paraphrases are nice for reading purposes...and they do contain the power of the Holy Spirit. The Living Bible is a paraphrase, but I came to be a Christian by reading the Gospel of John in the Living Bible. The Message is also a paraphrase and to me, and awful one. However, a paraphrase should never be used as one's only source and they aren't that useful for study.


The "true" Bible is, of course, what the original writers wrote. However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit has kept for us His inerrant, infallible word that He will use to teach us, correct us and bring us to salvation. That there are, after 2000 years and many translations and copies a few "typos" here and there is no big deal. I'm not about to turn my back on the Holy Spirit and reject Him simply for a few "gnats" on the feast.


There is much confusion and division among God's people over this issue, and it's certainly not a new thing by any stretch of the imagination. So my astonishment at this issue ought to be understandable.


I read your post and I have a couple of questions for you.


Are you telling me, that you don't believe that God could deliver His Word to us and keep it preseved in a pure form? And I mean pure like Himself, uncorruptable.


Or, are you saying, that God, did not see fit to intervine in the preservation of His Word after it was given to holy men?


I'm not sure which of these two things you believe but I think that it must be one of them. Would you please explain your position to me?
 
I dont have a fancy vocabulary I doubt i can think of anything else to make my thoughts more clear.


I suppose that you could just give me a direct answer to my question(s), that would clear things up greatly. But I guess it's just you, being you, doing what you see fit to do instead.


Do you believe that the scripture that instructs us to answer every man is another one that ought not have been put in the Bible?
 
Back
Top