So everything in the KJV is true?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using 2+2 Forums

Why does it seem like you're trying to trap me with something? I've already concede that I can't know for sure.

The bible is a reliable source for the historicity of Christ, and presents the foundation for modern Christianity. Is it 100% flawless? Likely not, the gospels differ slightly on peripheral details, but the main message is consistent.

I can't know with certainty that it is accurate, like I can't know with certainty that God exists. I believe the bible is reliable.

You don't need to believe in the bible, that's your prerogative. I don't mean to offend anyone with my beliefs, and I don't believe I'm any better or holier. I'm just a guy who believes in Christ.

Peripheral details being the death of Judas and the genealogy of Christ?

Did christ have a lot to say about homosexuality?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using 2+2 Forums

Sure, those are a couple.

No.

So christ is not on the record suggesting homosexuality is a sin. Where exactly did god state that homosexuality is against his will?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using 2+2 Forums

What would you consider a central detail if the account of Jesus genealogy and Judas death are peripheral?

And I understand that and as I said, I don't think it makes sense in the context of our discussion. The information that you think you’ve been ‘rewarded’ with (presumably the ‘truth’ of god’s existence) itself requires faith, so if you used faith to get to that point then the whole thing is simply an exercise in the application of faith.

I think this is a bit meaningless. You might have applied faith to create and sustain a belief in your god, and that led you to learn more about Christianity but I could do that without needing faith, that knowledge was there anyway. But, if by ‘faith is rewarded with knowledge’ what you’re actually referring to is knowledge of the ‘truth of god’s existence’ then that itself requires faith and is more circular reasoning on your part. I decided to believe in god and the truth of god existing was revealed to me….

Begging the question again in the same way that you insist that you have to be true to your nature and believe in Christ because you have such a strong belief in Christ.

This is essentially a weak appeal to authority and another reference to your subjective interpretation of your personal experiences. You highly respect some people who share your belief system and there are scholars who know a lot about your belief system. I could say the same. WLC is interesting because he’s a bit of a contradiction as are any apologists really. As a Christian I’m sure he understands that he’s required to have faith, and with the next breath he’s proving logically that god exists, thereby removing the need for faith. People who were really faithful would have no need to convince anyone of anything other than that they should also apply faith and just believe. No?

You didn’t address what I thought was the most important point in my last post, that you believe in god whilst I don’t believe that there are no gods. For me to believe that there are no gods I would have to use faith precisely because I don’t have any proof. I would have to just state it as a truth, when in fact I can’t know that it’s true. So, I can consider it unlikely but I can’t believe it. Since you also can’t know that the truth of any god’s existence, do you see how faith is simply a bit of mental trickery and quite dishonest really? You have shed the requirement for proof and decided to just believe.


The implications are that I wouldn't offer my personal experiences as proof on a subject like this, they don't prove anything. Just because I've never experienced anything that I would consider divine doesn't mean that there is nothing divine. The reverse applies though.

When I trust a scientific result it's because science has rules that are intended to prevent personal bias, that's why science is more effective than faith in the acquisition of knowledge.

KJV isn't the closest to the original. Contemporary scholarship on translation today is much better than it was when the KJV was originally published, and modern updates of KJV (including NKJV) made many decisions based on aesthetics and not scholarship.

What about all those situations where you're not trusting scientific results? You know, the ones where you're making various speculations about the role of religion in society? And the ones where you reject empirical evidence because it doesn't support your argument?

OT, and other NT authors.

These are not that important for a couple of reasons. For starters, it has not been proven that these genealogies are errors, but instead are possibly based on different (maternal/paternal) lineages. As for Judas, there is no reason why he could not have hung himself and later on, fell headlong and burst open.

The gospels are written by different authors with different perspectives and purposes. The fact that they don't match on everything is not problematic to historians, as accounts have never been identical.

To steal a popular example, many eye witnesses to the sinking of the Titanic claimed that the ship sunk in one piece, while others claimed it broke in two, and then sunk. These different accounts are expected, and it is no reason to reject that the Titanic actually sunk.

The gospels, while concerned with slightly different things, depending on the authors, focus on who Christ was, what his purpose was, how he lived, and why he died. These are central. Differing accounts present no problems for historians to accept Christ lived and was an important figure, if one were to reject Christ on these alone, one would need to reject a lot of other history.

We are just going in circles at this point. Not an accusation, just pointing out the obvious. The stand you are taking would make it impossible for God to speak and reveal himself to anyone, since you would classify it as circular reasoning and believing unjustifiably. If God can't reveal himself to anyone, then there is nothing I can say, since you will reject it. God can't reveal himself because it requires faith, and since you don't believe in faith, God can't reveal himself. That also seems circular.

Do you think that studying what historians have written is appealing to authority? I have no other connection to history than reading what was written and believing it is reliable. You don't accept faith, but you don't want to accept this either, and call it a "contradiction". How do you know that Augustus existed? Do you have faith, or do you believe the accounts, or a bit of both?

I can't know many things. You can't know if there is a God, but you live your life as if there were no Gods, so in reality, it is irrelevant what you believe. I likewise believe in God, without being able to have certainty. It doesn't mean that I don't have reasons, the historical account for Christ and what he did, is alone a reason to believe in Jesus.

I'm not arguing that science is less reliable, I'm saying that even while applying the scientific method, you are relying on your senses and interpreting the information based on experiences.

I always thought KJV was closest, I believe you've corrected me in the past, which do you believe to be the closes to the originals?

N_R I see the point you are trying to make but you should be much more suspicious of what a group of random people say about Jesus than what a group of random people say about a physical, historical event.

Not sure I follow. Who is this random group of people, RGT? Biblical authors?

Have you looked at them? Luke starts with God - Adam. I don't think historical accuracy is a concern.

I've only delved into this topic a little, and quite a while ago, but textual criticism and evaluation of translations is pretty complicated, both from the standpoint of assembling various fragments of texts, as well as actual translational issues. So for example many modern translations are based on different sources than the KJV. The KJV uses what is called the Masoretic text for the OT, which is a hebrew text that dates from between the 7th and 10th centuries, and a greek text for the NT that's called Textus Receptus, which was compiled in the 16th century from a variety of fragments by Erasmus

A lot of newer translations (I think NIV was among the first?) primarily rely on a couple of codices (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) which are older more complete fragments of an entire greek Bible (NT and OT) They are both I think copies of the Septuagint in the OT, which was originally a greek translation of the hebrew scriptures from the 2nd century B.C.E.

From what I understand, the scope of the differences between say the Masoretic OT sources and versions of the Septuagint is really remarkably small given how old and incomplete many fragments are. I read a book once which highlighted some differences and they seemed mostly inconsequential to me, but I don't recall specifics. So from a source text criteria, I'm not sure it's obvious to me that one is better. There are small differences. I think the argument that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are better is just that they are older, but even in using them they have to be completed by relying on other fragments.

As far as translation, maybe aaron can say more, but I think it's likely to be true that modern lexicography is going to understand the texts better than they were understood in the 17th century. I don't know how much practical difference it makes, because it also seems true to me that translations are also very much conditioned by what Christians already think the text says, again from my experiences the differences tend to be small, although that doesn't mean they are useless

In Wright's book that I just started reading, he bases all his quotations on his own translation of the new testament, and he quoted 2 Cor 5:16 and I didn't recognize it because I'm used to the NJKV: "From now on we regard no one according to the flesh". The NIV and some others say "From now on we regard no one with a worldly point of view". Wright makes it "From now on we regard no one with a merely human point of view". I like his translation better than the KJV, although my "better" is purely subjective of course. But I think it gives an idea of the scope of the differences.

Biblical authors and even those in direct contact with him at the time. There are several quotes from Jesus pointing this out.

From the POV of the author, that may have been "historical". That is, historical accuracy may have been a concern, but the authors idea of history is not modern. Or it may be more accurate to say rather than history in the modern sense: narrative. The point of the genealogies is that the jewish apostles saw Jesus as continuing and bringing a climax to the story of Israel's call as a special people to God, through whom "all the nations will be blessed". The narrative is very much historical to them, it was not purely allegorical, but also in certain ways apocalypic and eschatological. But it's not history in a modern academic sense

Do you believe because the lineage starts with God, that the rest should be discarded?

Well named, have you ever read an inter-linear word-for-word translation?

certain passages yes, but not the entire bible. I am currently trying to learn greek so it's quite likely that I'll be doing a little more of it in the future.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/ is useful

I think the question is ill-posed. Close how? Close as in a literal word-for-word translation? The NASB and ESV are both considered very good literal translations.

http://www.lockman.org/nasb/nasbprin.php

http://about.esvbible.org/about/preface/

I don't think either one is considered clearly stronger than the other. For example,

http://blog.precept.org/home/bid/182...s-the-Question

However, for more dynamic equivalent translations (idea-for-idea), it's really, really hard to say. The NIV is most commonly used:

http://www.niv-cbt.org/niv-2011-overview/

It stays much closer to the original texts than other translations (usually called paraphrases), like the The Message or The Living Bible. Those Bible are built on a philosophy that's closer to "Get the basic point across" and makes it very difficult to see the original language underneath.

I'd like one without the Hebrew or Greek, and just the English. I couldn't get through more than a few chapters, I don't think it's meant to be read like a book.

if it didn't have the original language, it wouldn't be "interlinear"

It sounds like the ESV or NASB might be good for what you are talking about, in that they try to preserve more of the idiosyncracies of the originals in being word for word