The Bible debate
- Thread starter atomiku
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A parable is a saying or story in which something is expressed in terms of something else, it can be historical or not.
An allegory is the same as a parable.... figurative language, description of one thing under the image of another.
Abraham had 2 sons, real history these 2 sons were an allegory for the 2 covenants.
Gal_4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
An allegory is the same as a parable.... figurative language, description of one thing under the image of another.
Abraham had 2 sons, real history these 2 sons were an allegory for the 2 covenants.
Gal_4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
I didn't want to be a part of this, but the KJV has these tiny T's next old English words to help readers understand. For example, if you were to see a T by the word tarry and you looked at the end of the verse, you would see that tarry means to stay. I don't if they are in all of the KJV Bibles, but they are in mine.
(But I am saying there are words and concepts that can never be translated fully from Greek and Hebrew to any other language.)/QUOTE...........
This statement isn't true at all. Read the Book of Acts beginning on the day of Pentecost ......Everyone heard the same old and new testimony in their own language. Maybe you aren't able to translate words and concepts, but don't ever underestimate what God DOES through men. It would be silly to think that God doesn't want me or anyone else to know His Word no matter what language.
This statement isn't true at all. Read the Book of Acts beginning on the day of Pentecost ......Everyone heard the same old and new testimony in their own language. Maybe you aren't able to translate words and concepts, but don't ever underestimate what God DOES through men. It would be silly to think that God doesn't want me or anyone else to know His Word no matter what language.
So why not read it in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? Do you see the problem of your thinking here? If it's a question not of category, but degree (as it must be if you say reading the Bible in English via the KJV is acceptable compromise, but reading in the original languages is not), then how do you objectively work out what 'degree' is acceptable? The only rational criteria can be those pertaining to what best approximates intent in the original languages, which has nothing at all to do with the 'style' of language, or the kind of English used.
In any case, even in modern translations, there are enough parables and symbols that I don't need to invent any by using archaic(but still translated) language.
In any case, even in modern translations, there are enough parables and symbols that I don't need to invent any by using archaic(but still translated) language.
Not true. Pretty much every bible has been questioned or attempted to be destroyed. And I'm not even just referring to contemporary translations. I mean, jump back only a few centuries to Wycliffe being persecuted by Parliament and the church, who ordered his writings destroyed!
And obviously books being destroyed is no proof at all that a book is of any particular value. Gnostic texts, Arian texts, etc, were destroyed at various points. Would you say that what they taught was of the same value of truth as the KJV?
Oh please. What does that even mean?
I'll point out that I don't have a problem with the KJV. But when people try to elevate to special status as the AUTHORITATIVE, and ONLY AUTHORITATIVE version of God's Word, especially on the back of persecution, it deserves to be refuted. The KJV, as any other translation, is only as authoritative as it is an accurate and comprehensible translation of the words that God gave to his prophets and apostles. No more, no less.
And obviously books being destroyed is no proof at all that a book is of any particular value. Gnostic texts, Arian texts, etc, were destroyed at various points. Would you say that what they taught was of the same value of truth as the KJV?
Oh please. What does that even mean?
I'll point out that I don't have a problem with the KJV. But when people try to elevate to special status as the AUTHORITATIVE, and ONLY AUTHORITATIVE version of God's Word, especially on the back of persecution, it deserves to be refuted. The KJV, as any other translation, is only as authoritative as it is an accurate and comprehensible translation of the words that God gave to his prophets and apostles. No more, no less.
Is any version really authoritative?
The bible was a book decided by committee. Decided be those who had the power, money and belief.
The bible was not ordered by god, no where in the bible does god specify that a bible should be built, what books should go in it and what standards should be met. It was compiled by men.
The New Testament was compiled ONLY as a knee jerk reaction to Marcion's Canon. It was not inspired by god, it was compiled by men to counter what Marcion was planning on doing. I fail to see any divine inspiration for any version of the bible and I fail to see what standards god set to decide which books should and shouldn't be included. It was mans decision to compile a bible and they did it via committee.
The bible was a book decided by committee. Decided be those who had the power, money and belief.
The bible was not ordered by god, no where in the bible does god specify that a bible should be built, what books should go in it and what standards should be met. It was compiled by men.
The New Testament was compiled ONLY as a knee jerk reaction to Marcion's Canon. It was not inspired by god, it was compiled by men to counter what Marcion was planning on doing. I fail to see any divine inspiration for any version of the bible and I fail to see what standards god set to decide which books should and shouldn't be included. It was mans decision to compile a bible and they did it via committee.
It started with the Seminaries.
You can watch this video here given below where Bryan Denlinger teaches and shows how, when and where this new version and Alexandrian philosophy began to enter into Christianity:
[video=youtube;iVgz03agylM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVgz03agylM&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]
R
T
Oh, okay, Void. Sorry for my misunderstanding. As for how the Bible was compiled, why books were kept and others not considered, you'll have to ask someone more knowledgeable than I. I know for a fact though, that it wasn't a case of choosing the books via a game of Eenie meenie miney mo and a matter of trying to censor other books.
No need to apologise. I understand why you would have reacted the way you did.
Let's assume that 1000 books were available to Choose from . And let's say 900 of them were the genuine word of god and the other 100 were just some scribblings of well intentioned believers. I'd love to know what standard they had in place to choose what should be included?
Who knows, there may be some genuine articles that never made it because someone didn't decide it was so.
Let's assume that 1000 books were available to Choose from . And let's say 900 of them were the genuine word of god and the other 100 were just some scribblings of well intentioned believers. I'd love to know what standard they had in place to choose what should be included?
Who knows, there may be some genuine articles that never made it because someone didn't decide it was so.