This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SW-User
Maybe if a few people here could refer to the writings of someone like Karen Armstrong then the level of debate could rise. Karen Armstrong is by no means some desperate defender of the Bible as some sort of inerrant/infallible Word of God, she simply traces its history and explains the intentions of the Biblical writers.
A simple example is the two totally irreconcilable accounts of "creation" recounted in Genesis. When the version of the Old Testament we now have was finalised around 600-800 bc [i]no attempt was made[/i] to amend the accounts so as to make them compatible. The redactors of the OT knew and recognised that historical/scientific accuracy was not the purpose of the words that had survived the passing of time. The stories they dealt with had another intent - I'll leave this to anyone who might be interested to refer to Karen Armstrong's fine book "The Case for God" (and others)
Sadly, since the Bible was placed into the hands of the general public (this a development of the printing press, the Protestant Reformation and mass literacy) many [i]did[/i] begin to look for the type of knowledge which was then becoming the vogue - verifiable history. Also expecting a Word of no "contradictions", perfect, as befitted the type of God they saw as having written it!
Really, picking put contradictions in order to demean the Bible is in part only to demonstrate a lack of knowledge of its history and of its intent.
A simple example is the two totally irreconcilable accounts of "creation" recounted in Genesis. When the version of the Old Testament we now have was finalised around 600-800 bc [i]no attempt was made[/i] to amend the accounts so as to make them compatible. The redactors of the OT knew and recognised that historical/scientific accuracy was not the purpose of the words that had survived the passing of time. The stories they dealt with had another intent - I'll leave this to anyone who might be interested to refer to Karen Armstrong's fine book "The Case for God" (and others)
Sadly, since the Bible was placed into the hands of the general public (this a development of the printing press, the Protestant Reformation and mass literacy) many [i]did[/i] begin to look for the type of knowledge which was then becoming the vogue - verifiable history. Also expecting a Word of no "contradictions", perfect, as befitted the type of God they saw as having written it!
Really, picking put contradictions in order to demean the Bible is in part only to demonstrate a lack of knowledge of its history and of its intent.
JSul3 · 70-79
@SW-User During the course of the many translations from the original Hebrew text, errors are bound to be made.
Why exactly is the King James version considered any type of authority, that so many profess as 'the Word of God' and is not to be questioned, under any circumstances?
Why exactly is the King James version considered any type of authority, that so many profess as 'the Word of God' and is not to be questioned, under any circumstances?
SW-User
@JSul3 I have no argument with that. I was making another point.
There are some now who claim that there was once an inerrant version which has now become corrupted. Which to me misses the main point, which I tried to make.
As far as the KJV, I suppose some have the need to have a "rock" to support them, to depend upon, to cling to. (This in contrast to the [i]Living Word[/i] which is the only support)
Personally I see [i]everything[/i] as "revelation". Each of us being unique, maybe we can give pre-eminence to different books. But that is as far as it goes.
There are some now who claim that there was once an inerrant version which has now become corrupted. Which to me misses the main point, which I tried to make.
As far as the KJV, I suppose some have the need to have a "rock" to support them, to depend upon, to cling to. (This in contrast to the [i]Living Word[/i] which is the only support)
Personally I see [i]everything[/i] as "revelation". Each of us being unique, maybe we can give pre-eminence to different books. But that is as far as it goes.
Axeroberts · 56-60, M
@SW-User the other thing she talks about is how the scribes had the previous versions so it enabled them to have constancy but many people now use that consistency as a way of proof of the bible being the word of God without realizing this important fact
Lionehaza · 31-35, M
@Axeroberts Cruci -fiction Jesus never died on a cross.
after the deciples flee far from jesus and they heard that jesus was crucified and dead.They gather together and started to talk about what they here not see.And while they were talking Jesus comes towards them....They were so frightened that jesus could not come closer to them.
The question is ,why they were frightened?
Because they tought he had escaped from the dead world and he is the spirit of death.....since they couldnt belive him that he is not spirit he said do you have something to eat and dring...So he ate and drink to prove them that he was not dead.... Jesus was not crucified as the the word implies its cruci fiction.He prove that he is in blood and flesh and that he never died.His God heard his prayer and took him alife.The one they crucified was the Juda .God gave juda the face of jesus and the faracies took juda thinking he was jesus.Since Gave juda the face of jesus ,juda was made unable to talk.So when he was asked if he claim that he is God he never spoke becouse he was juda the traitor....They think that they crusifyied jesus but never rather God took jesus to the heavens and juda was crucified.That is why if you read the end of juda in the bible there is different storry.Contradicting storry.They never kill him with certainityJesus prayed had been saved by God from thier torment like he save Abraham from fire.
after the deciples flee far from jesus and they heard that jesus was crucified and dead.They gather together and started to talk about what they here not see.And while they were talking Jesus comes towards them....They were so frightened that jesus could not come closer to them.
The question is ,why they were frightened?
Because they tought he had escaped from the dead world and he is the spirit of death.....since they couldnt belive him that he is not spirit he said do you have something to eat and dring...So he ate and drink to prove them that he was not dead.... Jesus was not crucified as the the word implies its cruci fiction.He prove that he is in blood and flesh and that he never died.His God heard his prayer and took him alife.The one they crucified was the Juda .God gave juda the face of jesus and the faracies took juda thinking he was jesus.Since Gave juda the face of jesus ,juda was made unable to talk.So when he was asked if he claim that he is God he never spoke becouse he was juda the traitor....They think that they crusifyied jesus but never rather God took jesus to the heavens and juda was crucified.That is why if you read the end of juda in the bible there is different storry.Contradicting storry.They never kill him with certainityJesus prayed had been saved by God from thier torment like he save Abraham from fire.
Abbenthewarwolf · 18-21, M
@SW-User ur username would make a cool race 🏇 I like that.