|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The new teachings of Jesus | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 447 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Plenty more additions to come I presume. The NIV is a good example of the ever so slight evolution of the message of the bible. Many things are "paraphrased" in the NIV in order to blur the inconsistencies in the bible. It is what the writers "meant" rather than what they said. If you met some tribesmen in the jungle, and your only way to keep them from killing was to preach the gospel to them, would you say: a. Jesus came and showed us the way, it is in writing, orb. I know your God, and He has a son, he left carvings on the trail for us to follow. (I give credit to the movie End of the Spear for that line, good movie btw)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4024 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
As a few here and many out in the world at large tell us, they are in contact with the Holy Ghost/Spirit, so I imagine a cheery chat might determine whether any additions might make the cut.
HS: now we are going to set this Book straight, once and for allLiteralist: Huh? HS: turn to page 1462. See the first verse? Add 'and HE did bless them all' Lit: k HS: drop the next verse. Never did like it Lit: right HS: now we ditch 'sheep' in the next line, because I told those first writers that it was 'goats'. Talk about it being hard to find good help Lit: done HS: now we come to the big add-ons----------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
What does that have to do with the immutable and innerrant word of God?
Preaching is different than the issue of the text of the Bible. The NIV IS different. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Cheery chat between truth seeker and skeptic
Skeptic: I have been searching Internet for 10 years and see no difference between the Bible's stories and those about the Tooth Fairy. Truth Seeker: How many debates have you had about the Tooth Fairy? Skeptic: None. Truth Seeker: How many debates have you had on the Bible? Skeptic: About 800! Truth Seeker: But there just the same? Skeptic: That's right. Truth Seeker: Well let me tell you about my exper .... Moderator: OFF TOPIC!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
What makes you think there's any difference between a skeptic and a truth seeker?
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 447 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Preaching is different than the issue of the text of the Bible. The NIV IS different. I did not find any difference in the meaning of the example you gave. I used to get hung up on all the different translations, and why there were so many. Translating from another language, and another time is difficult at best. Some Greek words have five English meanins. There is also 6 billion people in the world, and just maybe we need all these different translations. 2 people could read the same sentence and interpret it differently. So you should just pick the translation that you feel most comfortable with, and start from there. It's what's in your heart, and your desire to seek God that will get you the true word of God. God places a desire for us to know Him. It's just up to you to accept it or not. I think any bible is a good enough plce to start looking for Him. I feel I understand the bible so much more now, with the help of the Holy Spirit. As far as the new teachings of Jesus, I don't even see the need to add something to the bible. There are plenty of books out there, where people relate the word of God to today. Take a look at the Purpose Driven Life, a huge best seller. I think that book is great.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
I did not find any difference in the meaning of the example you gave. One is past tense the other is not. The past tense is used to reconcile the differences between Genesis 1 and 2. God is not recreating the animals if he "had" created them already. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 643 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Because a skeptic doesn't accept Jay's truth unquestioning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 447 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Still doesn't matter to me, it's obvious that it is all past tense.
Gen 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. That pretty much sets the stage for all of Gen 2. It's all past tense. What's the difference if we put had, or not? It's still going to be past tense. I mean are you saying you can't believe in God now because of the word had appearing in the NIV?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
There are several notes stating that "some manuscripts do not have" or "the earliest manuscripts do not have."
The end of the book of Mark is another place. Mark 16:9-20 Some argue that 16:8 was the last line.
Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. My study Bible states:
Serious doubt exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and disply certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost. This carries the part that brings some Christians to handle deadly snakes, although it doesn't really say deadly snakes.
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these sings will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Still doesn't matter to me, it's obvious that it is all past tense. That is because you are starting with the doctrine that it has to be past tense and then interpreting Genesis to fit that doctrine. What Genesis 2 actually says is that he created them which in the context of Genesis 1 means he re-created them.
I mean are you saying you can't believe in God now because of the word had appearing in the NIV? That is just silly. How do you take my posts to mean that the NIV being wrong means I can't believe in God. The NIV was written by man. What does that have anything to do with God? All I am saying is that the NIV is ADDING stuff to the Bible. Many people like to read the NIV and quote scripture. When they do there is potential to be creating doctrine that is not in the "original" Bible. Many Christians like to claim that the Bible is the 100% inerrant word of God. Why then would they accept a Bible like the NIV that has changed that word? Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
What makes you think there's any difference between a skeptic and a truth seeker? A skeptic of course can be a seeker of the truth too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Gen 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. Remember, in the originals (or early copies of originals actually) there are no chapters and verses. It is really just one long run on sentence. All of the Chapters and Verses were added much later, mostly when the transition was made from scroll to folio. The beginning of Genesis 2 to the middle of 2.4 is actually the end of Genesis 1. It is only there that the words used, the descriptions of GOD and other indicators change. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
There are many more subtle differences in the NIV some that change meaning some that do not.
http://alanhorvath.com/bibleNIV.php Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rgb Inactive Member |
Jar writes
quote:Yes, but that was because ancient hebrew didn't have vowels, spaces between words, or punctuation marks. It was more of shorthanded notes for the priests at the time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024