Why Literal?

quote:

---

There are 2 translations to the Bible: the King James version ... was officially produced in 1611. It is written in Rennassiance English, but still understandable to the modern person.

---

Actually there are many translations of the Bible. Do you mean just English translations?Before the Authorized version (As you seem picky about these things, you perhaps should not call it the "King James" version as I know many Christians who are offended by having the Word of God associatied with a flagrant homosexual) we have the following at least:Wyclif's Bible of 1382;
Tyndale's New Testament of 1526;
The Great Bible of 1539, drawing on Tyndale's NT and OT work and the basis of much of the Book of the Common Prayer;
Coverdale's Bible of 1537;
The Matthew Bible of 1537;
The annotated Genevan Bible of 1560, the preparation of which was much influenced by Knox and Calvin;
The Douai Bible of 1582-1609;

quote:

---

Also, "God" is referred to 831 times in the Bible, so we'd better believe it if we are to believe in God.

---

You cannot be serious! Have you ever read Nietzche? It would be amusing to count how many times "God" is referred to in his works. Perhaps if it is >831 you might convert to his view that "God is dead" ?As for the trustworthiness of the Authorized Version, we should get into that. Why do you say it is "closest to the original ancient Hebrew scrolls" ? Which scrolls? Why those scrolls and not others? How do we decide which of the many versions on ancient scrolls are best? How do we decide which translation is closest to the original intent? So much fallible human judgement required to reach an "infallible" conclusion!

quote:

---

First, I was referring to King James and "the interpreted modern versions" as the "2 basic" translations.

---

How was I supposed to know from your post that you took this particularaly position of thought? Call me an arithmetical dunce, but "one version" plus "versions" adds up to more than 2 "versions." Of course, I'm sure you can resolve this contradiction without word games or twisting the meaning of simple words to suit your meaning.

quote:

---

Second, you need to brush up on Israeli history... You see, the gospel was written in by St. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, spanning (the original documents) from 50-70 AD, and was written in Palastine and Syrian Antioch (modern Lebanon).

---

Oh I'm sorry. For some silly reason I thought you were referring to ancient Hebrew scrolls. Why? Because you mentioned "ancient Hebrew scrolls", didn't you? How foolish of me to take you at your word. So now we're talking about Greek manuscripts? Or speculated Aramaic versions?

quote:

---

Every several hundred years, the scrolls would be copied as the originals wore out. By 1611 King James' version was out there. On the other hand, Alexandria (northern Egypt) was using THEIR OWN interpretations and alterations to the scripture of the original Gospel.

---

Sources for unsupported assertions please.

quote:

---

Alexandria formed a cult (a perversion of the original) out of what they wrote and 'deleted' from scripture.

---

Source for this unsupported assertion please.

quote:

---

Also, who told you King James was homosexual?

---

Nobody told me. I read it in documents from his time.

quote:

---

Besides, he is not Jesus, therefore it would not destroy the Christian faith to find out that a scholar may be sexually impure.

---

I don't think it would. Rather like you worrying about people writing bible, I think it might be more a question of showing some tolerance and consideration for the sensibilities of others. You know - the way you ask others to go along with your foibles.

quote:

---

You need to be more open-minded and contientious of EVERYTHING I write.I have noticed that many people on this forum are taking ONLY A FRACTION of what I write and then picking it apart, while ignoring the big picture of what I was trying to say (again, focusing on the wrong, or irrelevant, part of the argument).

---

The problem is, booboo, that you are often so hopelessly - often laughably - wrong on the details that you draw attention to them. Your "big picture" is purpotedly supported by these details: there is no reason to even consider your big picture if it is build on such lamentably weak foundations.Look at your last paragraph in message 9 - a string of largely unconnected assertions, totally unsupported by any apparent reasoning. What your opinion about Darwin's faith - somewhat mistaken, anyway - has to do with "scientific evidence" for evolution you do not make clear. It's just two sentences thrown together apparently at random, with no connecting argument clearly called out.I think you need to take more care to construct arguments that follow from their premisses, and you need to do a bit more research to ensure that your assertions of fact are supported by evidence. Until then, your personal version of the big picture is not going to get much attention.

quote:

---

Trust me, evolution is built on weaker foundations

---

So far I see no reason to trust you on any issue whatsoever. Almost every substantial point you have made has been in error and every argument clumsily constructed.

quote:

---

I could go for days on the scientific, legitimate, perfectly-sound evidence that seems to conflict with your theory.

---

Please do - that is the purpose of this forum, which has been going on for years. Just ensure your assertions are supported, your facts are correct and your logic sound.

quote:

---

C-14 is based on many assumptions, and doesn't work. K-ar dating is based on similar assumptions,

---

So, once you have dealt with many outstanding issues you still have to deal with, take this issue to the Dates and Dating forum and discuss it in detail.

quote:

---

Also, if you think the Bible says the earth was a flat circle, look again!!! ... (yet again you ignorrance to the Bible scairs me).

---

I do not think the Bible says the earth was a flat circle. I have not discussed this issue with you on any post, so I am at a loss as to why you accuse me of being ignorant. I think that is what you were doing, wasn't it? It's difficult to tell as your parenthetical clause does not appear to be in English, but some sort of pidgin or idiolect.

Booboo is the only literalist posting on this topic, sorry. Only he is in a position to answer your original questions. Good luck with him.

quote:

---

There are too many hits on Google to even guess what serious historians think.

---

For my part, in addition to your reasonable links, all I can add is that in 22 years of active research - 12 of those professionally - in medieval and early-modern Scottish history, I have never met a Scots historian who doubted for a moment that James VI and I was an active homosexual. There are numerous open references to his affairs in contemporary documents, and intelligence reports from ambassadors to the courts of France and Spain rarely failed to include the names of his latest lovers.Actually your links provide sufficient detail for a reasonable researcher, but if you need more, I could dig out some primary source references when I next get back to my libary.

For someone supporting literalism, you don't appear to follow your own precepts.The Psalm refers to (in translation) law, statutes, precepts, commands and ordinances. In Hebrew: Torah, 'eduth, piqquwd, Mitsvah, mishpat. All these words have a strong legalistic frame of reference which is clearly captured in the translation. It is the perfection of these to which the Psalm refers.To extend these clear and unambiguous terms to cover the poetry, history, biography, prophecy and narrative found in the Bible is not to be a literalist at all, but to add to the Psalm's plain meaning. After all, when this very Psalm refers to "word" in a more general sense, it uses the terms 'emer or millah - see verses 3, 4 and 14.BTW, the same is true of James 1:22-25 which makes reference to the perfection of "nomos" - meaning a regular ordinance or law.Both of these passages indicate the belief that the "Law of God" is perfect, not the bundle of miscellaneous texts which comprise the canon of some of the western branches of Christianity.

quote:

---

The Bible doesn't verify "itself". As I pointed out, it's a divinely inspired co-authored book with over 40 participants, and "they", through inspiration and personal experience, all verify the same thing.

---

Er ..... no. It's a co-authored book by participants who claim, with varying degrees of mutuality, inspiration.The fact that you persistently turn to your chosen scripture for validation of your chosen scripture is really all that needs to be pointed out. Call it circularity, call it mutuality, call it consistency, but one thing is sure - you can't call it evidence!

quote:

---

There is no legitimate reason that the Bible CAN'T be trusted.

---

Depends what you mean by trusted. This isn't a question of trust, but a question of using the Bible as a some sort of absolute standard of objective truth for every aspect in every sphere of reference for every statement it makes. Your assertion, for all its bombast, only appears to be supported by ...

quote:

---

I have been studying the Bible for all the years that I've been a Christian and all those "Contradictions" and "Inconsistencies" are just the product of the reader's imagination.

---

... which is no support at all. In my long experience of Bible study I can certainly say that the claimed consistency and lack of contradiction are just the product of imagination. There - so what? Such an assertion adds nothing, but it appears to be all you have. The sum of your statement is nothing more than that in your imagination, the inconsistencies are resolved, while in another's they are not.

quote:

---

If one holds the Bible for the truth about God and the history of the world, and reads every word of it, then there is no confusion found.

---

Of course - if one takes any document whatsoever to be absolute truth, and then, as David does, put any discrepancy down to a failure of understanding, then all it requires is the "right" exegesis. What is the "right" exegesis? Why the one that resolves the discrepancies you perceive, of course! It's all very easy if only you will trust in the truth of text.

quote:

---

Evolutionists know that they can't PROVE evolution, so they try to discredit the Bible for it's truth about God.

---

There is no attempt here, so far as I am aware, to discredit the Bible - only to discredit the flawed logic of those who seek to mould its message to their narrow and extremist view of what a holy text should be.

quote:

---

You keep saying that there are contradictions in the Bible...
Show me an irrefutable, definite contradiction in the Bible in your next comment, and I'll show you a misconception.

---

There are five open topics which you started but to which you have not posted a single reply. That demonstrates, as clearly as can be, your utter inability to respond to issues. There is no reason to believe that you are either intellectually capable of responding, or of good enough faith to make it worth anyone's while discussing with you.

quote:

---

I'm going to believe the Bible because of the risk.

---

I see. Your principal motivation in these matters is fear. Now that does explain your lack of replies when your unsupported assertions are challenged.

quote:

---

Also, there is not much of a point in defending some of my other threads--the evolutionists there are just coming up with excuses and "propositions of science" that go against creation.

---

I see. So you joined an Evolution v Creation forum and posted over 10 threads, but you will not reply because the answers "go against creation." So now we have fear and bad faith. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for a while, but now I have good reason to believe my initial gut feeling.

Ah, unbeliever. Follow thgis link ...http://members.truepath.com/vitaC/question.htmlI expect to hear of your conversion in the next couple of days.

In no way is this post a debating "reply" to booboocruise, or a comment on his post. But it is deadly serious.If anyone is tempted to try apricot seeds, or to try them with others, please be aware of the dangers which are very real. One hundred milligrams (mg) of moist, crushed apricot seeds can produce 217 milligrams of cyanide.Apricot seed poisoning is a serious issue in Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan, where apricots grow wild and are cultured.You can check some information at these sites:THE NEW YORK HOSPITAL-CORNELL MEDICAL CENTER, MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER: CURRENT CONCEPTS AND PERSPECTIVES IN NUTRITION A Nutrition Information Service for the Medical Profession Vol. 6 No. 2 July 1987 http://www.getty.net/texts/herbs.txtGenesis Health System
ERROR: Page Not Found - Genesis Health System I repeat that this is in no way inteded as a "debating" post, but I regard it as important information for anyone who might be tempted.[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-30-2003]

quote:

---

As for the apricot seeds; yes, they DO contain cyanide, but the cyanide won’t harm you if you keep your apricot-seed intake no more than 14 - 16 per day.

---

As you know, I wasn't making a debating point. I am, however, well aware that some people can take some of these supplements with a lack of discrimination and care. That was the basis for the warning.