Of unicorns, bad translations, and inerrancy

[nois forme]

As anyone involved in discussing the inerrancy of the bible probably knows, in the King James version there are nine references to unicorns. I am aware that this has been remedied in translations since, and am fully willing to accept that it was simply an error in translation.

This point - the translation error itself - I am not specifically concerned with, but more what may have followed from this error. Namely, that for the hundreds of years that the King James version of the bible reigned supreme, did followers of Christianity in fact believe in unicorns? It was, for that period of centuries, understood by its readers to be the inerrant word of god, no?

To give an idea of the time line*, The King James version was published in 1611. The English Revised Edition (the "first English language Bible to gain popular acceptance as a post-King James Version modern-English Bible") arrived not until roughly 1880, and the American Standard Version in 1901. I'm not certain if the unicorn was omitted from the E.R.V. (as I can't find an online version), but it was gone by the A.S.V. (replaced with a wild ox).

So for nearly 270 years the inerrant, unquestionable 'word of God' affirmed repeatedly the existence of unicorns. Of course this doesn't even touch on the 14 books that were simply discarded after the King James' version (can you just do that with the word of God?!) or the fact that many still use the King James version today, but I'll leave that for you to ponder for now.

Thoughts?

*a condensed history of the bible can be found at 'greatsite' under the English bible history tab

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Of course unicorns exist!

Geez.

What's your problem? :D

[Safe-Keeper]

Why not, really? There are talking snakes and angels with swords, why not talking donkeys and unicorns, too?

[gdnp]

As anyone involved in discussing the inerrancy of the bible probably knows, in the King James version there are nine references to unicorns. I am aware that this has been remedied in translations since, and am fully willing to accept that it was simply an error in translation.

This point - the translation error itself - I am not specifically concerned with, but more what may have followed from this error. Namely, that for the hundreds of years that the King James version of the bible reigned supreme, did followers of Christianity in fact believe in unicorns? It was, for that period of centuries, understood by its readers to be the inerrant word of god, no?

To give an idea of the time line*, The King James version was published in 1611. The English Revised Edition (the "first English language Bible to gain popular acceptance as a post-King James Version modern-English Bible") arrived not until roughly 1880, and the American Standard Version in 1901. I'm not certain if the unicorn was omitted from the E.R.V. (as I can't find an online version), but it was gone by the A.S.V. (replaced with a wild ox).

So for nearly 270 years the inerrant, unquestionable 'word of God' affirmed repeatedly the existence of unicorns. Of course this doesn't even touch on the 14 books that were simply discarded after the King James' version (can you just do that with the word of God?!) or the fact that many still use the King James version today, but I'll leave that for you to ponder for now.

Thoughts?

*a condensed history of the bible can be found at 'greatsite' under the English bible history tab
Well, I think that the obvious explanation is that from 1611 to 1880 there were unicorns during biblical times, and since 1880 they never existed. It's simple, really. George Orwell explains it quite nicely in 1984.

[NobbyNobbs]

Of course unicorns exist. However, since they all fly and are pink and invisible, they are extremely hard to take a picture of.

[gentlehorse]

A god who has to become a man, then have himself killed, and then come back from the dead in order to protect his own creation from his own wrath... Makes perfect sense...

Unicorns? I ain't buyin'.

[nois forme]

Well, I think that the obvious explanation is that from 1611 to 1880 there were unicorns during biblical times, and since 1880 they never existed.
That's kinda' beautiful. :D

George Orwell explains it quite nicely in 1984.
"We've always never believed in unicorns"? Heh.

[nois forme]

Of course unicorns exist. However, since they all fly and are pink and invisible, they are extremely hard to take a picture of.

I can't believe I didn't make that connection as I typed. Nice.

[nois forme]

Why not, really? There are talking snakes and angels with swords, why not talking donkeys and unicorns, too?

And sadly, they seem pretty sure they have the translation nailed now, so the snake, angels (giants, water-walkers, virgin births, oh, and gods) are staying. Pity it couldn't be tweaked just a tad more 'fore they call it a day.

[Hokulele]

I have always had a soft spot for Leviathan as well.

[nois forme]

A god who has to become a man, then have himself killed, and then come back from the dead in order to protect his own creation from his own wrath... Makes perfect sense...

Unicorns? I ain't buyin'.

Yes, you do have to draw the line somewhere.

[Safe-Keeper]

Someone que the comic in which that guy comes before God and proclaims that he believes in everything from life after death to unicorns to seas being split to water turning into wine... but thought the command to give all he had to the poor was so outlandish it had to be a metaphor:D.

[LarianLeQuella]

You mean this one:

http://russellsteapot.com/images/comics/2007/Image043.jpg

Edited for Rule 4. Do not hotlink images.

And there is lots of good indicators for errors: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ine_none1.htm Make sure to read the full dozen. And I still think that list is incomplete.

[nois forme]

Ha! Well there you go. Perfect.

[Beerina]

As anyone involved in discussing the inerrancy of the bible probably knows, in the King James version there are nine references to unicorns. I am aware that this has been remedied in translations since, and am fully willing to accept that it was simply an error in translation.

So for nearly 270 years the inerrant, unquestionable 'word of God' affirmed repeatedly the existence of unicorns.


Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about the King James version:

The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Bible begun in 1604 and first published in 1611 by the Church of England

Well, Hell, there's your error right there in the first sentence.

Since the Church of England is a fraud based on a thug wanting to get a divorce, it is not the legitimate church of God on the Earth. And hence, whatever "Authorized" means in that official name, it wasn't God doing the authorizing, and hence that particular translation fails to maintain the purity that is guaranteed in officially-accepted Roman Catholic translations, said acceptance including the concept that God's Guiding Hand influenced the translators, just as it did the original authors.



Ahh, I wish all logical problems were this easy! :)

[gdnp]

Since the Church of England is a fraud based on a thug wanting to get a divorce, it is not the legitimate church of God on the Earth. And hence, whatever "Authorized" means in that official name, it wasn't God doing the authorizing, and hence that particular translation fails to maintain the purity that is guaranteed in officially-accepted Roman Catholic translations, said acceptance including the concept that God's Guiding Hand influenced the translators, just as it did the original authors.


Hmm...I wonder when the first Roman Catholic english language version was published, and its views on the subject.

[Fiona]

Wycliffe translation, 1380. per the catholic encyclopaedia

[gdnp]

Wycliffe translation, 1380. per the catholic encyclopaedia

It would appear not: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyclif%27s_Bible)

Although unauthorized, the work was popular.... The Wycliffite Bible, and its popularity, caused the kingdom of England and the established Roman Catholic Church to undertake a drastic campaign to suppress it.

So although the first English translation, it was not authorized and therefore does not have the RC church Seal of Infalibilitytm

[Fiona]

It is well known that Venerable Bede was finishing a translation of St. John's Gospel on his deathbed. But the history of the English Bible as a whole does not go back nearly so far; it dates from the so-called Wyclif Version, believed to have been completed about the year 1380. The translation was made from the Vulgate as it then existed, that is before the Sixtine and Clementine revisions, and was well and accurately done. Abbot Gasquet contends confidently (The Old English Bible, 102 sqq.) that it was in reality of Catholic origin, and not due to Wyclif at all; at any rate it seems fairly certain that he had no share in any part of it except the Gospels, even if he had in these; and there is evidence that copies of the whole were in the hands of good Catholics, and were read by them. The version, however, undoubtedly derived its chief importance from the use made of it by Wyclif and the Lollards, and it is in this connection that it is chiefly remembered.

Some dispute about it but the use made of it does not obviate the fact that it was a translation of the vulgate I think.

However the use made of it did lead to a wish for a different avowedly catholic version and so you may prefer the Douay version of 1609?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes, you do have to draw the line somewhere.


Pity the drew the line on the wrong side of bats that were birds:


These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

[Breckmin]

As anyone involved in discussing the inerrancy of the bible probably knows, in the King James version there are nine references to unicorns. I am aware that this has been remedied in translations since, and am fully willing to accept that it was simply an error in translation.

This point - the translation error itself - I am not specifically concerned with, but more what may have followed from this error. Namely, that for the hundreds of years that the King James version of the bible reigned supreme, did followers of Christianity in fact believe in unicorns? It was, for that period of centuries, understood by its readers to be the inerrant word of god, no?

To give an idea of the time line*, The King James version was published in 1611. The English Revised Edition (the "first English language Bible to gain popular acceptance as a post-King James Version modern-English Bible") arrived not until roughly 1880, and the American Standard Version in 1901. I'm not certain if the unicorn was omitted from the E.R.V. (as I can't find an online version), but it was gone by the A.S.V. (replaced with a wild ox).

So for nearly 270 years the inerrant, unquestionable 'word of God' affirmed repeatedly the existence of unicorns. Of course this doesn't even touch on the 14 books that were simply discarded after the King James' version (can you just do that with the word of God?!) or the fact that many still use the King James version today, but I'll leave that for you to ponder for now.

Thoughts?

The correct meaning of the Hebrew word "re'em" was "wild ox." You can find this correct
translation in any New American Standard or NIV. The word was originally wrongly
translated "unicorn" or even "rhinoceros" instead of "wild ox" because of a linguistic
error of Hebrew scholars when they mistakenly translated "re'em" as "monoceros" in
the Septuagint which meant single-horned instead of "aurochs" which meant wild, long
horned ox which had become extinct in the area surrounding the Holy Land.

It doesn't really matter, because the verses are just in reference to a strong animal
that has a horn or two horns. It doesn't change anything about what the verses were
trying to convey regarding the strong animal "re'em." It is not considered an error in
the bible because it was just an issue of translation that occurred sometime between
the 3rd and 1st Century BC when they were translating the Septuagint. LXX The wild
ox had become extinct so "re'em" got mistranslated into "monoceros" instead of
"aurochs."

It is really that simple. It has nothing to do with theology, or what the text is
trying to communicate about the strength of such an animal. Most translations
have been corrected to "wild ox." No big deal.

M

[Breckmin]

So for nearly 270 years the inerrant, unquestionable 'word of God' affirmed repeatedly the existence of unicorns. Of course this doesn't even touch on the 14 books that were simply discarded after the King James' version (can you just do that with the word of God?!) or the fact that many still use the King James version today, but I'll leave that for you to ponder for now.

Thoughts?

The English translation was never considered inerrant by any reputable
scholar. No translation has ever been considered inerrant by any scholar
that I'm aware of. In fact, most scholars in textual criticism always turn
to a different position than what is held by evangelical conservative
fundamentalists who hold to verbal inspiration and inerrancy. Perfect
examples are guys like Bruce Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman. Scholars
almost always reject particular issues of inerrancy because of textual
evidence. So what? It is important to understand the difference
between canonization (which "bible" is THE Bible) and biblical inerrancy.
They are two completely different subjects.

To discuss biblical inerrancy you have to discuss the different beliefs
regarding "inspiration." For instance there is "mechanical inspiration,
verbal plenary inspiration, (the esoteric) capides "God-breathed" inspiration,
infallibility subject to error position, and conceptual inspiration which
often just deals with relating moral truth rather than historical accuracy.

In conservative circles, for years it was verbal plenary vs. infallibility
subject to error (some would claim "minor" error depending on the
theologian), whereas in liberal circles it was conceptual inspiration vs.
pretty much no inspiration at all...

For many Christians "canonization" is an issue of what was historically
agreed upon in the creeds. So you have the Council of Jamnia vs. the
Council of Trent for the Tanakh (O.T.) In all fairness, I believe the
Council of Nicea sided with the Catholics and the Council of Trent, whereas
Martin Luther sided with the Jewish Council of Jamnia which is why
Protestants don't have those books (Apocrypha) in their translations.

No big deal. We can all read them, just like we read all of the different
New Testament Apocrypha that didn't make it to the Council of Nicea or
the Nicene Creeds. (both 325 and 381)

I believe in the esoteric "scriptura congruus" anyway rather than the
doctrine of "sola scriptura" which I believe is illogical. So to me, it is
all about "testing" what is true from all of the different writings of the
early church fathers. I like the seven authorized letters written by Ignatius
of Antioch. I find them to be "scriptura congruus" and contain the Perfect
Holy Word of God, except when he seems to assert the idea of Transubstantiation
in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans which is illogical.

M

[gdnp]

It has nothing to do with theology, or what the text is trying to communicate about the strength of such an animal. Most translations have been corrected to "wild ox." No big deal.

MBut it is a big deal. Either the bible is the perfect, inerrant, eternal holy word of God, as many Christians claim, or it is not. If it is not, it is simply a book put together by a bunch of fallible men. If that is the case, how can we use the bible as justification for beliefs such as masturbation being a sin, homosexuality being an abomination, or slavery being OK? All those practices then become suspect.

The English translation was never considered inerrant by any reputable
scholar. No translation has ever been considered inerrant by any scholar
that I'm aware of. We aren't just talking about scholars. We are talking about religious leaders, who at least in the US have much more influence than scholars.

I like the seven authorized letters written by Ignatius
of Antioch. I find them to be "scriptura congruus" and contain the Perfect
Holy Word of God, except when he seems to assert the idea of Transubstantiation in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans which is illogical.

So they are perfect except for the parts where they are wrong. :boggled:

Once again, if we just take these texts as a bunch of writings of a bunch of men with their own prejudices and opinions and subject to the ambiguity of language, confounded by additional inaccuracy brought about through serial translation, rather than the inerrant word of god regarding historical events or morality, we can read any writings we wish and learn whatever lessons we can glean from them. Just don't try to argue that these writings are the perfect word of god.

[Ocelot]

I see so it's not an error - just a mistake. At least now we know that an inerrant bible can still be full of mistakes.

That bit about the virgin birth by the way - was that a mistake in translation too?

[tsig]

That's kinda' beautiful. :D


"We've always never believed in unicorns"? Heh.

Why strain at a unicorn then swallow a flood?

[tsig]

The English translation was never considered inerrant by any reputable
scholar. No translation has ever been considered inerrant by any scholar
that I'm aware of. In fact, most scholars in textual criticism always turn
to a different position than what is held by evangelical conservative
fundamentalists who hold to verbal inspiration and inerrancy. Perfect
examples are guys like Bruce Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman. Scholars
almost always reject particular issues of inerrancy because of textual
evidence. So what? It is important to understand the difference
between canonization (which "bible" is THE Bible) and biblical inerrancy.
They are two completely different subjects.

To discuss biblical inerrancy you have to discuss the different beliefs
regarding "inspiration." For instance there is "mechanical inspiration,
verbal plenary inspiration, (the esoteric) capides "God-breathed" inspiration,
infallibility subject to error position, and conceptual inspiration which
often just deals with relating moral truth rather than historical accuracy.

In conservative circles, for years it was verbal plenary vs. infallibility
subject to error (some would claim "minor" error depending on the
theologian), whereas in liberal circles it was conceptual inspiration vs.
pretty much no inspiration at all...

For many Christians "canonization" is an issue of what was historically
agreed upon in the creeds. So you have the Council of Jamnia vs. the
Council of Trent for the Tanakh (O.T.) In all fairness, I believe the
Council of Nicea sided with the Catholics and the Council of Trent, whereas
Martin Luther sided with the Jewish Council of Jamnia which is why
Protestants don't have those books (Apocrypha) in their translations.

No big deal. We can all read them, just like we read all of the different
New Testament Apocrypha that didn't make it to the Council of Nicea or
the Nicene Creeds. (both 325 and 381)

I believe in the esoteric "scriptura congruus" anyway rather than the
doctrine of "sola scriptura" which I believe is illogical. So to me, it is
all about "testing" what is true from all of the different writings of the
early church fathers. I like the seven authorized letters written by Ignatius
of Antioch. I find them to be "scriptura congruus" and contain the Perfect
Holy Word of God, except when he seems to assert the idea of Transubstantiation
in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans which is illogical.

M

So you just pick and choose what you want from the Bible then slick it up with lots of scholarly sounding words.

Any reason we should give your words any more authority than say the Pope, the Dali lama or the guy who delivers pizza?

[nois forme]

"The correct meaning of the Hebrew word "re'em" was "wild ox." You can find this correct translation..."

I am aware of all of this and wouldn't dispute it for an instant. In fact, in the first paragraph of the post I said;
"I am aware that this has been remedied in translations since, and am fully willing to accept that it was simply an error in translation."
and;
"This point - the translation error itself - I am not specifically concerned with, but more what may have followed from this error."

What naturally followed, was the for hundreds of years, Christians either believed in unicorns, or did not believe the bible. Do you really not see the implications here?


"It doesn't really matter..."

That you think it doesn't matter, that for hundreds of years, the book that Christians relied on as absolute truth included several mentions of a mytholgical creature astounds me.


"It doesn't change anything about what the verses were trying to convey regarding the strong animal "re'em."

Except the fact that it was a non-existent creature they were speaking of.


"It is not considered an error in the bible..."

I scarcely know how to respond to this. Of course it was an error. The options are 1)it was correct, or 2) it was an error. It certainly wasn't correct.


"It has nothing to do with theology, or what the text is
trying to communicate about the strength of such an animal."

Again, the animal used was a mythological creature. It had everything to do with theology for that period of time, for Christians that took the word of the bible as utterly true.

[nois forme]

"The English translation was never considered inerrant by any reputable
scholar...by any scholar that I'm aware of...most scholars...Scholars
almost always reject particular issues of inerrancy..."

And I wouldn't dispute this - though they might have wanted to get that word out to the 'common folk' ("Memo to all Christians from the Scholars; The book you rely upon as the inerrant word of god - not so much").
It wasn't the 'scholars' that I was concerned with in making this post. It was more the millions of Christians that read this text daily for those centuries, and excepted as truth, the idea that there were once unicorns.


The rest of your post, I actually enjoyed and have no quibble with. Good information, and I appreciate you posting it. Except...

"No big deal."

But that would be a matter of opinion. So be it. I suggest we get the word out that the bible is NOT the inerrant word of god as so many proclaim, as it's really causing a bit of confusion.

[nois forme]

Pity the drew the line on the wrong side of bats that were birds:

Yes, someone must be kicking themselves. I mean, it has wings, must be a bird, right? Silly, silly primitive men.

[nois forme]

But it is a big deal. Either the bible is the perfect, inerrant, eternal holy word of God, as many Christians claim, or it is not.

And that's the crux of it.

Thanks - great post. You said many things I just didn't have the energy to. Need to inject a bit more coffee.

[gdnp]

Yes, someone must be kicking themselves. I mean, it has wings, must be a bird, right? Silly, silly primitive men.

This doesn't bother me much. To the people at the time a bird was probably any creature with wings that fly. We could therefore say that the word we translate as "bird" really refers to any flying creature (other than insects, I suppose) and that since the purpose of the text was to tell people what not to eat, I'm willing to allow that we and they had slightly different definitions of what a "bird" is.

[Silentknight]

It goes without saying that the Bible has a lot of weird creatures in it. I used to draw the line at talking donkeys. Then I came to the JREF forums and well...

[Beerina]

In all fairness, I believe the
Council of Nicea sided with the Catholics and the Council of Trent, whereas
Martin Luther sided with the Jewish Council of Jamnia which is why
Protestants don't have those books (Apocrypha) in their translations.


It's been pointed out, that in the world of theology, it's mighty odd that Christians accept as cannon a set of books approved as cannon by Jews who had already rejected Jesus. :confused: :rolleyes:



Fifty eight!


























Fifty eight angels can dance on the point of a pin!

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
So for nearly 270 years the inerrant, unquestionable 'word of God' affirmed repeatedly the existence of unicorns. Of course this doesn't even touch on the 14 books that were simply discarded after the King James' version (can you just do that with the word of God?!) or the fact that many still use the King James version today, but I'll leave that for you to ponder for now.

Thoughts?One more logical paradox to add the the countless others regarding an inerrant Bible.

*a condensed history of the bible can be found at 'greatsite' under the English bible history tabHere are two sites for searching the Bible:

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/), good for categories and comparison of passages, and Bible Gateway (http://www.biblegateway.com/), good for specific passages.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
And there is lots of good indicators for errors: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ine_none1.htm Make sure to read the full dozen. And I still think that list is incomplete.

From the SAB:

Contradictions (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html)

Absurdities (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm)

Science and History (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html) where you can find a lot of bad science and bad history.

[JoeTheJuggler]

From the SAB:

Contradictions (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html)

Absurdities (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm)

Science and History (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html) where you can find a lot of bad science and bad history.

Another good site on this topic (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/index.html).

I bought his book. It's good scholarship, and good reasoning, but--like the website--desperately in need of a proofreader.

[Breckmin]

It's been pointed out, that in the world of theology, it's mighty odd that Christians accept as cannon a set of books approved as cannon by Jews who had already rejected Jesus.

I make this point also, but it is really irrelevant to biblical inerrancy itself.

Canonization does not determine "God breathed." The issue becomes,
WHICH books and WHICH bible?

The logic in accepting the canon of Jamnia in all fairness is that the
Jews knew their own sacred books. That's all.

All of the Christians that I know who are educated have those Apocrypha
books somewhere on their shelves and read them. No big deal. They are
not lost books of the bible. They just are not part of two particular
canons. The canon for the N.T. books at Nicea in 325, and the canon
for the O.T. in 99 AD at the council of Jamnia. You can read the
books that the council of Trent canonized. It doesn't change any
theology, that is the whole point.

M

[Breckmin]

And I wouldn't dispute this - though they might have wanted to get that word out to the 'common folk' ("Memo to all Christians from the Scholars; The book you rely upon as the inerrant word of god - not so much").
It wasn't the 'scholars' that I was concerned with in making this post. It was more the millions of Christians that read this text daily for those centuries, and excepted as truth, the idea that there were once unicorns.

Yes, but unicorns is a human mistake made in translation. It has nothing
to do with the original Autographa. And those Christians who read the
Bible and believe that it is word perfect do so in an orderly fashion. It is
actually a good thing that they all agree even though they may not think
it all of the way through. Why?

Because those mistakes in the text have nothing to do with theology.
For instance, it doesn't matter whether Judas hung himself or jumped off
of a cliff, the point that is communicated is that "he killed himself."

Nitpicking at Matthew's possible mistake is meaningless. The whole
account bears testimony to God becoming a Man and dying for the sins
of the world. If you seek to find mistakes you will find them. but you
will miss the TRUTH that is communicated.


I suggest we get the word out that the bible is NOT the inerrant word of god as so many proclaim, as it's really causing a bit of confusion.

The Holy Word of God is Perfect. It has to be discovered. It is indeed
contained in the imperfect medium of the koine Greek language. This is
important to understand. It is consistent with scripture.

The Bible DOES contain the inerrant Word of God, but that Perfection is
not something that exists in the imperfect language of koine Greek. It is
something that the Spirit of God has to open your eyes up to.

This is why nitpicking at so called "errors" is so meaningless. It has nothing
to do with what God is communicating perfectly through imperfection.

God has always worked perfectly through our imperfection.

M

[arthwollipot]

I find the Skeptics Annotated Bible to be very useful for locating specific verses (I can go to the "science and history" page and use Ctrl-F to search for "bat" to locate the passage that says that bats are birds. It's quite convenient. And there's also a link at the bottom of the main page to a great search engine. I also use Bible Gateway when I want to copy a specific passage without getting all of the annotations that the SAB gets.

The other reference site I use is The Brick Testament (http://www.thebricktestament.com/). Because it has things like this (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/beastiality/lv18_23a.html).

[Breckmin]

"This point - the translation error itself - I am not specifically concerned with, but more what may have followed from this error."

What naturally followed, was the for hundreds of years, Christians either believed in unicorns, or did not believe the bible. Do you really not see the implications here?
People make mistakes. To be human is to error. The crusades were a
huge mess and VERY unChristian and against the teachings of Christ.
So? That is the actions of men NOT following God's Word.

The fact Isaiah 40:22 talks about the sphere of the earth and the fact
that so many scholars say that the scriptures clearly teach that the earth
is round, did this stop the induction of "four corners of the earth" or "to the
ends of the earth" and this sort of nonsense which led the Catholic church
to wrongly believe that the earth was flat, when the O.T. taught it was
a sphere???

You are dealing with "people" here. They make mistakes. But God works
in spite of their imperfection to bring His Perfect Word and that points to
Christ and Christ being crucified on the Cross for salvation of sinners.




That you think it doesn't matter, that for hundreds of years, the book that Christians relied on as absolute truth included several mentions of a mytholgical creature astounds me.

They believed that the earth was flat for goodness sake. Does that
mean that the scriptures were in error? Or THEY were? They made
mistakes because they used inductions which lead to error, and they
are accountable before God for their mistakes.




Except the fact that it was a non-existent creature they were speaking of.
Translational error. NOT a textual error.




"I scarcely know how to respond to this. Of course it was an error. The options are 1)it was correct, or 2) it was an error. It certainly wasn't correct.

It doesn't change the Masoretic Text or the Dead Sea Scrolls. It only
was an issue in the Septuagint LXX which was a translation.

Besides, unicorn is an English word for what we discribe as a single horned
horse. This was discribing a wild beast with either a horn or two horns.

It was a "translational" error, NOT an error in the original text. If you
want to discuss errors in the original text that is a different subject.

"Again, the animal used was a mythological creature. It had everything to do with theology for that period of time, for Christians that took the word of the bible as utterly true.

There is a difference between recognizing imperfect languages which
translate from one language to another, and talking about something
the original writer wrote.

M

[Breckmin]

So you just pick and choose what you want from the Bible then slick it up with lots of scholarly sounding words.

Any reason we should give your words any more authority than say the Pope, the Dali lama or the guy who delivers pizza?

You should TEST what I say, with the practicality of scripture. You should
understand the difference of the "authority" of prophets and apostles, and
the guy who delivers your pizza. Test what he says, test what I say, test
what the Dali Lama says. Pray to your Heavenly Father, the God of Abraham
and ask Him to reveal the truth to you.

This is logical.

M

[Hokulele]

That is the actions of men NOT following God's Word.


At that is the whole problem. How can one tell what exactly God's word says without studying the original languages? How can one tell whether or not other errors have been introduced in the copying process?

For example, there are several translations that see homosexuality as fine, and that the original Leviticus was discussing practices in war, rather than personal relationships.

If people cannot trust the various transcriptions/translations of "God's word", how do they know which actions are correct?

[Breckmin]

I see so it's not an error - just a mistake. At least now we know that an inerrant bible can still be full of mistakes.

It was about an animal that was extinct in the area. It was an error in
translation, NOT an error in the original text. I would expect people to see
the clear difference.

That bit about the virgin birth by the way - was that a mistake in translation too?

Clearly that is not about an animal that was extinct. PLUS, they corrected
the wild ox problem. The virgin birth is quite different, because the virgin
birth was NECESSARY in order to have a Perfect Sacrifice to take away
the sins of the world.

Sounds like apples and oranges to me, because we have the exegetical
chapter to explain the virgin birth. They didn't have that with wild oxen.

M

[Hokulele]

Clearly that is not about an animal that was extinct. PLUS, they corrected
the wild ox problem. The virgin birth is quite different, because the virgin
birth was NECESSARY in order to have a Perfect Sacrifice to take away
the sins of the world.

Sounds like apples and oranges to me, because we have the exegetical
chapter to explain the virgin birth. They didn't have that with wild oxen.

M


There are number of scholars who dispute the translation of the original Greek. They claim that the correct reading is "young woman" rather than "virgin".

[arthwollipot]

There are number of scholars who dispute the translation of the original Greek. They claim that the correct reading is "young woman" rather than "virgin".I've had it explained to me once (by the daughter of a theological librarian) that although the translation was off, the meaning is pretty much the same because societally the pregnancy of a young unmarried woman would have been as unthinkable as the pregnancy of an actual virgin.

[JoeTheJuggler]

There are number of scholars who dispute the translation of the original Greek. They claim that the correct reading is "young woman" rather than "virgin".

I think that's also the scholarly consensus.

In Matthew 1:22-23, the author is quoting Isaiah 7:14.

In the Greek Bible the word used is parthenos, which explicitly means virgin. In the original Hebrew, from the masoretic text, the word is almah, which is more accurately translated as "young woman" or "handmaiden" or possibly "slave girl". In other places, the word is used when it clearly does not mean virgin.

For example, Genesis 20:17-18
Then Abraham prayed to God, and God healed Abimelech, his wife and his slave girls [almah] so they could have children again, for the LORD had closed up every womb in Abimelech's household because of Abraham's wife Sarah.

And Genesis 21:12-13
But God said to him, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant [almah]. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. I will make the son of the maidservant [almah] into a nation also, because he is your offspring."

Here, the almah is Hagar, and God is referring to the fact that her son was fathered by Abraham.

[Hokulele]

I've had it explained to me once (by the daughter of a theological librarian) that although the translation was off, the meaning is pretty much the same because societally the pregnancy of a young unmarried woman would have been as unthinkable as the pregnancy of an actual virgin.


Societally? Yes.

Medically? Well...



ETA: And I would be willing to argue that societal norms aside, there were probably as many pregnant, young, unmarried women then as now, at least at the socio-economic level inhabited by Jesus' parents.

[tsig]

Yes, but unicorns is a human mistake made in translation. It has nothing
to do with the original Autographa. And those Christians who read the
Bible and believe that it is word perfect do so in an orderly fashion. It is
actually a good thing that they all agree even though they may not think
it all of the way through. Why?

Because those mistakes in the text have nothing to do with theology.
For instance, it doesn't matter whether Judas hung himself or jumped off
of a cliff, the point that is communicated is that "he killed himself."

Nitpicking at Matthew's possible mistake is meaningless. The whole
account bears testimony to God becoming a Man and dying for the sins
of the world. If you seek to find mistakes you will find them. but you
will miss the TRUTH that is communicated.




The Holy Word of God is Perfect. It has to be discovered. It is indeed
contained in the imperfect medium of the koine Greek language. This is
important to understand. It is consistent with scripture.

The Bible DOES contain the inerrant Word of God, but that Perfection is
not something that exists in the imperfect language of koine Greek. It is
something that the Spirit of God has to open your eyes up to.

This is why nitpicking at so called "errors" is so meaningless. It has nothing
to do with what God is communicating perfectly through imperfection.

God has always worked perfectly through our imperfection.

M

If the Spirit of God opens your eyes up why do you need the Bible when you can go directly to god?

[Lord Emsworth]

The fact Isaiah 40:22 talks about the sphere of the earth and the fact
that so many scholars say that the scriptures clearly teach that the earth
is round, did this stop the induction of "four corners of the earth" or "to the
ends of the earth" and this sort of nonsense which led the Catholic church
to wrongly believe that the earth was flat, when the O.T. taught it was
a sphere???

1. Isaiah 40:22 does not say that the earth is round. It probably doesn't even talk about earth at all. The circle of the earth is about the skydome. (Although the simile "like a tent" does give a little more than just a hint that the earth was not thought to be spherical.)
2. The Catholic church hardly ever believed that the earth was flat. Most, by far most of it, was about geocentrism vs heliocentrism. (There was one Cosmas, but that's it pretty much.)

ETA: Oh, and you misspelled "fundy apologist."

[tsig]

You should TEST what I say, with the practicality of scripture. You should
understand the difference of the "authority" of prophets and apostles, and
the guy who delivers your pizza. Test what he says, test what I say, test
what the Dali Lama says. Pray to your Heavenly Father, the God of Abraham
and ask Him to reveal the truth to you.

This is logical.

M

You keep saying test, can you tell me a logical way to test the truth of islam, Buddism, Christianity, ect.

The difference between the pizza delivery man and all of the apostles and prophets is that the pizza man actually delivers something.

[tsig]

It was about an animal that was extinct in the area. It was an error in
translation, NOT an error in the original text. I would expect people to see
the clear difference.



Clearly that is not about an animal that was extinct. PLUS, they corrected
the wild ox problem. The virgin birth is quite different, because the virgin
birth was NECESSARY in order to have a Perfect Sacrifice to take away
the sins of the world.

Sounds like apples and oranges to me, because we have the exegetical
chapter to explain the virgin birth. They didn't have that with wild oxen.

M

Are you saying that god couldn't forgive unless the sacrifice was perfect?

If translators made a small mistake about unicorns could not the verse about virgins be a mistake?

[tsig]

I've had it explained to me once (by the daughter of a theological librarian) that although the translation was off, the meaning is pretty much the same because societally the pregnancy of a young unmarried woman would have been as unthinkable as the pregnancy of an actual virgin.

Any society where young unmarried women do not sometimes become pregnant seems more like a heavenly kingdom than an earthly one.

[tsig]

1. Isaiah 40:22 does not say that the earth is round. It probably doesn't even talk about earth at all. The circle of the earth is about the skydome. (Although the simile "like a tent" does give a little more than just a hint that the earth was not thought to be spherical.)
2. The Catholic church hardly ever believed that the earth was flat. Most, by far most of it, was about geocentrism vs heliocentrism. (There was one Cosmas, but that's it pretty much.)

ETA: Oh, and you misspelled "fundy apologist."

The bible didn't say the earth is round until science discovered it.

[gdnp]

I think the question about whether there are errors in the bible because the original authors got it wrong, or the translators got it wrong, or that language is ambiguous and imperfect, is moot. When all is said and done, once one acknowledges that there are errors in the bible of any source, no passage can be accepted uncritically, as fundamentalists would like us to do.

As to the question of whether Judas hanged himself or threw himself off a cliff: If the authors can't even get such a basic detail straight, how are we to know that he killed himself at all?

[nois forme]

I'd begun going through your recent replies, started with the cut and paste, formulated some answers...and stopped myself when I came to this;

"The Bible DOES contain the inerrant Word of God, but that Perfection is not something that exists in the imperfect language of koine Greek. It is something that the Spirit of God has to open your eyes up to."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this what you are essentially saying? -

The 'word of god' is in fact in the bible, but not (simply?) in 'the words'.

Because if that is your meaning, we are arguing something very different here. Something that, frankly, can not be argued. 'I have faith that it is true' is hardly a counter argument I'd spend much time with.

[nois forme]

The fact Isaiah 40:22 talks about the sphere of the earth...

Could you perhaps show me which translation supports this?

After perusing that chapter and verse in the
New International,
New American,
Amplified, New Living,
King James,
English Standard,
Contemporary English,
New King James,
New Century,
21st Century KJ,
American Standard,
Darby's,
Holman Christian,
New International Reader's and
Today's New International versions, I found circle. Not once a mention of a sphere. Or is this more of the knowledge that only scholars are privy to, that never makes it into the actual bible that actual Christians rely on as truth?


And as Lord Emsworth mentioned,

...the simile "like a tent" does give a little more than just a hint that the earth was not thought to be spherical.

I would tend to agree. Not to sound like an apologetic Christian, but you have to read that bit in context. :D


Besides, unicorn is an English word for what we discribe as a single horned horse.

Mythical single horned creature resembling a horse. Mythical. Very important distinction, especially in a book that many believe to be packed full of mythical creatures.

[godless dave]

The English translation was never considered inerrant by any reputable
scholar. No translation has ever been considered inerrant by any scholar
that I'm aware of.

We're not talking about what scholars thought, we're talking about what Christians believe. Many American Christians think the King James Version is the innerrant word of God. They don't care what scholars think.

[Breckmin]

For example, there are several translations that see homosexuality as fine, and that the original Leviticus was discussing practices in war, rather than personal relationships.


I'm sorry, but someone is misleading you on this point. Homosexuality has
always been condemned by all historical texts. You can't come along almost
two thousand years later and make up a claim that would have any merit.

The burden of proof is never on Orthodoxy.

M

[Breckmin]

We're not talking about what scholars thought, we're talking about what Christians believe. Many American Christians think the King James Version is the innerrant word of God. They don't care what scholars think.

Why does that bother you so much?

M

[Breckmin]

Are you saying that god couldn't forgive unless the sacrifice was perfect?


Yes. God is bound by Perfect Logic which requires Perfection in the place
of imperfection in order to have consistency with His Holy Nature.

Jesus had to be Perfectly "sinless" or the His Sacrifice on the Cross could
NOT cover our sins and disobedience.

It is the only cosmological way to have forgiveness, otherwise God HAS TO
give consequences for exact trangressions. Not a good thing.

M

[Breckmin]

Could you perhaps show me which translation supports this?


It comes from the Hebrew word "khung" or "chung" which can be translated as "circle" or "horizon" or "roundness" or "sphericity."

Another verse used is sometimes Proverbs 8:27. These verses are used
by Christians that say that the scripture teaches that the earth is round.

You can claim it is a question of interpretation, but clearly the end result
would validate a hidden meaning if there was one that was originally put
in by the Author.

M

[Hokulele]

I'm sorry, but someone is misleading you on this point. Homosexuality has
always been condemned by all historical texts. You can't come along almost
two thousand years later and make up a claim that would have any merit.

The burden of proof is never on Orthodoxy.


How do you translate qadesh?

Please provide a reference condemning homosexuality as opposed to intercourse between two men. I have yet to see any valid translation that condemns lesbianism.

[Breckmin]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this what you are essentially saying? -

The 'word of god' is in fact in the bible, but not (simply?) in 'the words'.


The Holy "meaning" of the Word of God, is a Perfect Logic which is translated
into any imperfect language. Yes, it is indeed in the scriptures. But remember
that the Word of God and the gospel of Christ existed orally for thousands
of years before the printing press among the people.

It was perfectly spread imperfectly. People made mistakes, but that
doesn't stop the Truth of the Word of God from spreading among the
people.

I do NOT believe it is logical to say that koine Greek is perfect. When you
ask "Word of God = in "the words" you are forgetting that so many of our
words have double meanings. Words DO comunicate truth, but Truth is
something you have to seek God for. It is logical to pray to the Creator
for Him to show you the cosmological truth of the universe. I believe
that both natural theology, and oral theology which is based on the
written scriptures are both part of the Perfect Word of God that bears
testimony to Christ and His Sacrifice.

Logic is actually the correct hermeneutic which we use to interpret
the scriptures. But sometimes we need to pray to God's Spirit to open
our eyes to this logic (Logos).

M

[Breckmin]

But it is a big deal. Either the bible is the perfect, inerrant, eternal holy word of God, as many Christians claim,

First, the unicorn issue wouldn't matter because it is NOT in the original
text. It is only a result of the Septuagint translation.

Second, there is a difference between "message"/"meaning" and "medium" here.

What contract or constitution do we have that we can point to and
say it is PERFECT and will not be mistranslated or misinterpreted??? We
always have to try and figure out intent. Either way, we can always
employ "hyper technicalities" or "possibilities in meanings" or invalid
inductions which can lead to error in such "interpretation of those
contracts. That doesn't mean that the original meaning, or the
original intent did NOT exist.



or it is not.

I couldn't disagree more. It is this ALL or nothing attitude that causes
people to forget practicality/pragmatism regarding an application of truth,
or law or authority. What human authority do we have that is Perfect?

If God has ordained certain prophets and apostles to represent the Truth
of God to the Nation of Israel and to the Church "how can they be perfect"
when only GOD is perfect???

If it is not, it is simply a book put together by a bunch of fallible men.

Once again, the all or nothing fails. We see God working through people
all over the world. God works perfectly through our imperfection. The
scriptures are VERY accurate. Does that mean they have to be Perfect?
I would ask "why?" Why can not we not have "authority" without perfection?

How about "it is a collection of various prophets of God and apostles of
Christ that all testifiy to the same thing?" They actually do a pretty good
job. Maybe the Hebrew scriptures ARE perfect in the original language?
I am not saying that the Hebrew can not be. I don't know. I would
question many of the inexactisms in the O.T. but once again this has
NOTHING to do with the "meaning/message" which is contained in the
medium of the Hebrew and Greek texts.

If that is the case, how can we use the bible as justification for beliefs such as masturbation being a sin,

Logic. Is masturbation what God intended? BTW, there is a belief in
Christianity that "if" you can masterbate without "thoughts of adultery"
IOW, if you are just scratching an itch and getting rid of the problem
then it is not a sin (but it is debated based on the concept of the
O.T. of not spilling your seed on the ground).


homosexuality being an abomination,
Logic. Can you look at a man and a woman's body and tell what God
intended? Can you tell who is supposed to be with who?

or slavery being OK?

Logic. Is it logical for one man created in the Image of God to own
another man created in the Image of God, or is it logical for God to
own BOTH of them? There is a difference between being an economic
servant and a slave. Certainly slavery was a problem. Because it existed
it was addressed in scripture how to act if you were stuck in that situation,
but that doesn't mean that God approves of a man/woman owning another man/woman.

All those practices then become suspect.

Logic with proper assumptions from scripture is the greatest hermeneutic.

We aren't just talking about scholars. We are talking about religious leaders, who at least in the US have much more influence than scholars.

Most of the time they are correct, by the Grace of God. And they are
on the side of logic regardless of whether or not they believe the Bible
is perfect.


So they are perfect except for the parts where they are wrong.

The problem is actually with the English word "perfect" itself. How can it
exist in an imperfect language? It is the Perfect Logic of God and the
Perfect language that Christians will some day speak that transcends the
English or any other language we have here on earth. Even now in
communicating with you, we are stuck with classical definitions and words
which can mean more than one thing. It is truly fascinating. "how imperfectly
we communicate with one another."

Once again, if we just take these texts as a bunch of writings of a bunch of men with their own prejudices and opinions and subject to the ambiguity of language,

Which would be illogical to do IF these were truly prophets of God
communicating the Holy Truth of God to the Nation of Israel, and the
Truth of God to the gentiles in the church age through Apostles using
an imperfect language. (note: we need language to communicate)_


confounded by additional inaccuracy brought about through serial translation,

Irrelevant to the original message. Besides those translational errors really
have nothing to do with theology.

rather than the inerrant word of god regarding historical events or morality,

Why can't the historical events be actual? Why can't the morality be
accurate? Because a prophet made a mistake in his speech and then
corrected himself because he is human, does that mean that his message
is no longer from God???

It is the message/meaning that is Perfect, not the medium.

we can read any writings we wish and learn whatever lessons we can glean from them. Just don't try to argue that these writings are the perfect word of god.


The issue is "authority." The issue has ALWAYS been "authority." If
these are TRUE prophets of God, and TRUE Apostles chosen by Jesus
THEN it is by their "authority" that we know that they are communicating
the TRUTH.

Plus, we have not even discussed the issue of "inspiration." The fact
that scripture is "God-breathed" and what that actually means....

M

[Breckmin]

As to the question of whether Judas hanged himself or threw himself off a cliff: If the authors can't even get such a basic detail straight, how are we to know that he killed himself at all?

Maybe he hung himself over a cliff??

It DOESN'T change theology or the message that he killed himself.

That is what "technicality" and the quest for "word perfect perfection" misses.

The message was that he killed himself. Worry about "other possibilities" is
actually one of human kind's worst enemies...."

IOW, the credibility comes with the AUTHORITY not with the perfection.

M

[Breckmin]

There are number of scholars who dispute the translation of the original Greek. They claim that the correct reading is "young woman" rather than "virgin".

That is not written in Greek. You are referring to Isaiah 7:14 which was
written in Hebrew. I have no problem with the translation of a "young
maiden." Because young maidens were almost alway virgins. AND, if she
(Mary) was going to give birth to the Holy Son of God, then why wouldn't
she be pure before God?

M

[Breckmin]

The King James is a very good translation. There are some Christians called "Fundamentalist Baptists" or "Bible Baptists" which believe that either
the KJV of the scriptures are the "best" translation OR some even belief
it is the only "inspired" translation of the scriptures so they DO claim that
the King James version of the Bible is perfect. It is a minority position,
most evangelical conservatives prefer the NIV or the NAS which mirrors
the Greek or the New King James.

Note: Evangelicals do not normally believe any "translation" is inerrant.
They only claim that the "original autographs" are inerrant. Those given
in Hebrew (some Aramaic in the book of Daniel) and in koine Greek.

M

[Hokulele]

That is not written in Greek.


You are right, I should have said "translation to the Greek".

You are referring to Isaiah 7:14 which was
written in Hebrew. I have no problem with the translation of a "young
maiden." Because young maidens were almost alway virgins.


Almost always? You have evidence for this? I think most men wish to believe this about their brides, but the sad fact that such was not always the case led to such a travesty as the chastity belt.

AND, if she (Mary) was going to give birth to the Holy Son of God, then why wouldn't she be pure before God?

M


As fiction, sure. Might as well give her laser-beam eyes as well.

The fact that Matthew was fitting his stories to the prophecies rather than vice versa is evidence that these are stories written by men with an agenda rather than any kind of objective truth. The virgin birth story is far from the only time Matthew was tripped up by translation issues when composing his tales.

[Breckmin]

The virgin birth story is far from the only time Matthew was tripped up...

Matthew was not the only one who bore testimony to the virgin birth.
The belief that Mary was a virgin is a historical belief and is LOGICAL to
believe if Jesus Christ was uniquely God in Human flesh.

There are logical reasons why you do not believe in the virgin birth based
on your uniform and repeated experience which you observe around you.

If you believe in universal common descent, for instance, it is unlikely
that you will believe in the Creator at all, yet alone the supernatural
event of the virgin birth.

However, there are those of us who know this factually, but you will
not understand how we can know this factually unless you have walked
in our shoes and seen what we have indeed seen from that Creator that
you may or may not believe in...

M

[Hokulele]

Matthew was not the only one who bore testimony to the virgin birth. The belief that Mary was a virgin is a historical belief and is LOGICAL to believe if Jesus Christ was uniquely God in Human flesh.


No, it is logical to you. There were many variations of Christianity early on who didn't accept a virgin birth, or any other kind of perfection on the part of Jesus. See the Adoptionists for several excellent examples. I am more than willing to bet there are any number of Christians today who don't see Jesus that way.

There are logical reasons why you do not believe in the virgin birth basedon your uniform and repeated experience which you observe around you.


Bingo.

If you believe in universal common descent, for instance, it is unlikely that you will believe in the Creator at all, yet alone the supernatural event of the virgin birth.


Double bingo.

However, there are those of us who know this factually, but you will not understand how we can know this factually unless you have walked in our shoes and seen what we have indeed seen from that Creator that you may or may not believe in...

M


What about those who have walked in your shoes and do not believe as you do? Why isn't such information so self-evident that all people think the way you do?

[articulett]

Of course unicorns exist. However, since they all fly and are pink and invisible, they are extremely hard to take a picture of.

Perhaps they excised Her Holy Hoofedness because of that part about having "no other gods before me"...

[articulett]

You keep saying test, can you tell me a logical way to test the truth of islam, Buddism, Christianity, ect.

I don't even know how anyone would test to see if a birth was a "virgin birth"...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Maybe they meant "urchin" not "virgin"... it sounds similar and u's look like V's... hence letter "w" pronounced "double u" rather than "double v", but I digress--)

[quarky]

I was going to mention narwhals as unicorn substitutes, but Breckmin has taken the starch out of my caring, one way or the other.

I don't like Bibles. If we ever get a Newer Testament, I'll reject it , too.
I guess God hates me for this. I don't care.

Not caring about God or His holy words gives me spiritual strength, even if it dooms me to hell.

Like, forever.

[articulett]

I was going to mention narwhals as unicorn substitutes, but Breckmin has taken the starch out of my caring, one way or the other.

I don't like Bibles. If we ever get a Newer Testament, I'll reject it , too.
I guess God hates me for this. I don't care.

Not caring about God or His holy words gives me spiritual strength, even if it dooms me to hell.

Like, forever.

The IPU loves you even if you don't believe in her.

[gdnp]

It was perfectly spread imperfectly. People made mistakes, but that
doesn't stop the Truth of the Word of God from spreading among the
people.
Mistakes don't stop the spreading of the truth? What an unusual statement.

When I make mistakes calculating my taxes, this seems to affect the truth of the taxes I owe.

When I make mistakes interpreting a chest x-ray, it seems to affect the truth of the diagnosis I render.

Yet when people make mistakes transcribing or translating the bible, you claim that this does not affect the truth of the word of God from spreading. Are you claiming that no one ever made a mistake that had any theological significance? How would you know?

Somehow the logic of your argument escapes me.



What contract or constitution do we have that we can point to and
say it is PERFECT and will not be mistranslated or misinterpreted??? We
always have to try and figure out intent. Either way, we can always
employ "hyper technicalities" or "possibilities in meanings" or invalid
inductions which can lead to error in such "interpretation of those
contracts. That doesn't mean that the original meaning, or the
original intent did NOT exist. No argument here. However, I would still argue that in the absence of the original texts, written in a language that we understand, the original meaning may be so garbled that we can no longer claim to understand it with any degree of certainty.

I couldn't disagree more. It is this ALL or nothing attitude that causes
people to forget practicality/pragmatism regarding an application of truth,
or law or authority. What human authority do we have that is Perfect?We have none. Including the Bible, which is what I have been arguing all along. Perfection, however, is an absolute. Either something is perfect or it is not. It may be almost perfect, pretty good, only slightly flawed, correct 99.9% of the time, whatever standard you want, but it is not perfect. It's like virginity. You are either a virgin or you are not. If you are not, we can then debate your level of promiscuity, but whether you have had intercourse once or 1000 times with 1000 different men, you are not a virgin.

What does this mean practically? what it means practically is that when the bible condemns homosexuality, I don't know whether that's one of the true parts or one of the parts that got mixed up in translation. When the bible tells me to stone adulterers, or to impregnate my brother's widow, or not to wear clothing of mixed fibers, I can no longer assume that this is truly what God meant.

Once again, the all or nothing fails. We see God working through people all over the world. God works perfectly through our imperfection. The
scriptures are VERY accurate. Does that mean they have to be Perfect?
I would ask "why?" Why can not we not have "authority" without perfection?How do we know that the scriptures are VERY accurate? what is your gold standard?

How about "it is a collection of various prophets of God and apostles of Christ that all testifiy to the same thing?" They actually do a pretty good
job. Maybe the Hebrew scriptures ARE perfect in the original language?
I am not saying that the Hebrew can not be. I don't know. I would
question many of the inexactisms in the O.T. but once again this has
NOTHING to do with the "meaning/message" which is contained in the
medium of the Hebrew and Greek texts.
It has everything to do with the meaning/message. If someone added a book to the bible that was not divinely inspired, or left out one that was, or left out or added a "not," or translated a word incorrectly, the meaning/message may have become hopelessly garbled.


Logic. Is masturbation what God intended? BTW, there is a belief in
Christianity that "if" you can masterbate without "thoughts of adultery"
IOW, if you are just scratching an itch and getting rid of the problem
then it is not a sin (but it is debated based on the concept of the
O.T. of not spilling your seed on the ground).I don't know. Monkeys seem to do it. Humans with mental retardation seem to do it without needing any sort of instruction.


Logic. Can you look at a man and a woman's body and tell what God
intended? Can you tell who is supposed to be with who?Can we logically say that god intended one man to be with one woman for a lifetime? That adultery, fornication, and polygamy are wrong?



Logic. Is it logical for one man created in the Image of God to own
another man created in the Image of God, or is it logical for God to
own BOTH of them? There is a difference between being an economic
servant and a slave. Certainly slavery was a problem. Because it existed
it was addressed in scripture how to act if you were stuck in that situation,
but that doesn't mean that God approves of a man/woman owning another man/woman.
really? so God disapproves of masturbation and kills Onan for it, and God disapproves of sodomy and kills everyone in Soddom and Gomorah for it, and God disapproves of people's behavior and kills everyone on the earth for it (except for Noah and his family), and yet when God disapproves of slavery, he never says so, he just tells people how to act if they are slaves or slaveholders.

Don't you think the stretching of logic this requires is a bit far-fetched?



Irrelevant to the original message. Besides those translational errors really
have nothing to do with theology.Saying so does not make it true. You have admitted there are errors. You have no evidence that there are no errors that affect theology.



Why can't the historical events be actual? Why can't the morality be
accurate? Because a prophet made a mistake in his speech and then
corrected himself because he is human, does that mean that his message
is no longer from God???

It is the message/meaning that is Perfect, not the medium.
The historical events can be actual. I just can't be sure they are actual since the stories contradict each other. I know that they can't both be actual, which raises the question of which (if either) is the true story.

Now, if I don't know that the stories are true, how can I know that Jesus performed miracles? The only evidence I have is stories written by men who did not witness them. If he didn't perform miracles, then perhaps he was a prophet who thought he was God. He would not have been the first, or the last. Or perhaps the stories were entirely mythical. Once you let in the possibility of error, there is no way to know for sure.

The issue is "authority." The issue has ALWAYS been "authority." If
these are TRUE prophets of God, and TRUE Apostles chosen by Jesus
THEN it is by their "authority" that we know that they are communicating
the TRUTH.And if these are not the TRUE prophets of God, and the TRUE apostles chosen by Jesus, then we do not know they are communicating the TRUTH. And even if they did communicate the TRUTH, we do not know if the stories were passed on accurately in the oral tradition or written down, copied, and translated correctly. In fact, we know that in some instances they clearly were not.

Plus, we have not even discussed the issue of "inspiration." The fact
that scripture is "God-breathed" and what that actually means....

Does god have breath? Why? does he need lungs to consume oxygen? :boggled:

On a more serious not, why could he not similarly inspire all the translators to get it right as well?

[JoeTheJuggler]

It was perfectly spread imperfectly. People made mistakes, but that
doesn't stop the Truth of the Word of God from spreading among the
people.
Mistakes don't stop the spreading of the truth? What an unusual statement.
As unusual as the first one where contradictory adverbs are used on either side of the verb.

Sort of like, "He quickly ran slowly."

And yeah--what gdnp said--saying things that are contrary to fact (even if it's by mistake) does prevent the truth from spreading. In fact, it results in untruths being spread.

[articulett]

In evolution, mistakes make whole new species... apparently such "mistakes" are also fodder for whole new religions--hence the plethora... with the most virulent memes surviving.

[Breckmin]

In fact, it results in untruths being spread.

Why do you think we have so many different denominations for those
who believe the core Truth???

Yes, untruths do indeed get spread.

Question everything. It just might set you on an imperfect road to perfection.

We are ALL on imperfect roads, btw.

[Breckmin]

What about those who have walked in your shoes and do not believe as you do?

Each person walks in their own life's circumstances... so this is actually a
question with a false assumption.

Those who have walked in my shoes would be "me" as I am referring to
specific revelation and personal experience with the Creator who is an
Incredible Loving Heavenly Father.

I am sorry that you do not know Him as I do.

He is indeed Factual. He is Incredible. He WILL require "faith" from you
one way or another, even when you know He is factual.

[articulett]

Why do you think we have so many different denominations for those
who believe the core Truth???

Yes, untruths do indeed get spread.

Question everything. It just might set you on an imperfect road to perfection.

We are ALL on imperfect roads, btw.

Which core truth is that--the one about the invisible guy in the sky? or the one about "being born again" referring to reincarnation? Or maybe it was the story about the invisible guy telling Abraham to kill his son, Isaac-- or was it Ishmael... virgin birth from Mary of Mary was born of a virgin? Or is the core story the one where this god dude premeditated the murder of his son (who was really him) for the atonement of some garden snake inspired sin?



Which core truth exactly? I get them confused.

[Hokulele]

Each person walks in their own life's circumstances... so this is actually a question with a false assumption.


So your comment regarding "but you will not understand how we can know this factually unless you have walked in our shoes and seen what we have indeed seen from that Creator that you may or may not believe in" was simple grandstanding?

OK.

Those who have walked in my shoes would be "me" as I am referring to specific revelation and personal experience with the Creator who is an Incredible Loving Heavenly Father.


Um, you use a plural in your original quote. Is there more than one of you?

I am sorry that you do not know Him as I do.


Don't be. I am perfectly happy as I am. :)

He is indeed Factual. He is Incredible. He WILL require "faith" from you one way or another, even when you know He is factual.


Um, he still requires faith even after knowledge? Sounds a bit insecure to me...

[Breckmin]

No, it is logical to you. There were many variations of Christianity early on who didn't accept a virgin birth, or any other kind of perfection on the part of Jesus. Virginity of Mary
and unique Deity of Christ go hand in hand.

I am more than willing to bet there are any number of Christians today who don't see Jesus that way.

How can you be a Christian and not know Jesus the way He is indeed???

A Christian is a person who has a personal relationship WITH Him, by
definition. A Christian is also a person who has been "born-again" by
definition. I am more than happy to substantiate these two claims
from the scriptures...

M

[Hokulele]

Virginity of Mary and unique Deity of Christ go hand in hand.


Once again, to you. There are plenty of self-proclaimed Christians who claim(ed) otherwise. Once again, read up on the adoptionist versions of Christianity.

How can you be a Christian and not know Jesus the way He is indeed???

A Christian is a person who has a personal relationship WITH Him, by
definition. A Christian is also a person who has been "born-again" by
definition. I am more than happy to substantiate these two claims
from the scriptures...


All together now...

No True ScottsmanTM!


And I noticed you missed my post regarding the meaning of the word qadesh and lesbianism. Although to be fair, you had a pretty good head of steam going when I posted that.

[Breckmin]

If the Spirit of God opens your eyes up why do you need the Bible when you can go directly to god?

Scripture contains divine revelation. It is wise to read divine revelation.
It is wise to read books ABOUT divine revelation. It is also wise to pray
to the Spirit of God to open up your eyes "to that" divine revelation.

It is logical. What if when we go directly to God, God reminds us of
something in the divine revelation He has already givien us?

I believe divine revelation is much bigger than just what you refer to
as the Bible, but all divine revelation is consistent with the Bible.

I believe in scriptura congruus.

M

[Breckmin]

And I noticed you missed my post regarding the meaning of the word qadesh and lesbianism.

What about the different verses that are claimed by Christians to renounce
lesbianism? Did you read any of those?

Start with Romans 1: 26....

M

[Hokulele]

What about the different verses that are claimed by Christians to renounce
lesbianism? Did you read any of those?

Start with Romans 1: 26....

M


How do you know this is referring specifically to lesbianism and not, say, prostitution, bestiality, or other activities? It is pretty obvious that this is part of a larger diatribe against the reversion of certain Christians to Paganism, so Paul is basically hurling any accusation he can think of at them.

And by the way, if Paul is such a moral authority when it comes to God's will, do you plan to marry?

You shouldn't, you know.

(1 Corinthians, chapter 7)

[Breckmin]

Yet when people make mistakes transcribing or translating the bible, you claim that this does not affect the truth of the word of God from spreading. Are you claiming that no one ever made a mistake that had any theological significance? How would you know?


Well, let's talk about them. Name one. We know what most of those
mistakes were so name one and we will talk about it and see what
theological significance it actually has... The virginity from the New
Testament isn't an issue because we know from various sources that
that is not a transcriptional error, unless you are talking about the
Isaiah reference, and even then, the young maiden/slave girl was
expected to be a virgin.

So name some of the actual mistakes and we can discuss their
theological significance.

M

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why do you think we have so many different denominations for those
who believe the core Truth???
I think it's because there is no core Truth so all the various denominations are arbitrary disagreements. If everyone had the same consistent message, it might argue that they're all talking about the same thing.



Question everything.
Good advice that. It's pretty much what led me to examine the evidence and reject theism.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, let's talk about them. Name one. We know what most of those
mistakes were so name one and we will talk about it and see what
theological significance it actually has... The virginity from the New
Testament isn't an issue because we know from various sources that
that is not a transcriptional error, unless you are talking about the
Isaiah reference, and even then, the young maiden/slave girl was
expected to be a virgin.

So name some of the actual mistakes and we can discuss their
theological significance.

M

OK. I'm not sure how many you care to tackle at once. I'll start with just 2.

I'll assume you're familiar with the mistakes in question. (If not, let me know.)

1) The discrepancies in the lineage of David to Jesus given in Matthew and Luke. Theologically, this signifies that at least one of these gospels is seriously flawed. It leads me to believe that the writers weren't keen on accuracy as much as trying to prove that Jesus was the fulfillment of O.T. prophecy.

2) The fact that the author of Mark (the book that Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from) wasn't familiar with the geography of the region. This and other evidence makes me think that none of the gospels were written by witnesses of any of the events they purport to describe. If the theology of Christianity is ultimately based on these accounts, and the veracity of these accounts is suspect, then the whole structure collapses like a house of cards.

ETA: As someone mentioned earlier, if the scriptures are known to be unreliable and mistaken on issues that you might consider theologically unimportant, might they not also be wrong about the big stuff--like what Jesus said, whether he rose from the dead, etc?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I find the Skeptics Annotated Bible to be very useful for locating specific verses (I can go to the "science and history" page and use Ctrl-F to search for "bat" to locate the passage that says that bats are birds. It's quite convenient. And there's also a link at the bottom of the main page to a great search engine. I also use Bible Gateway when I want to copy a specific passage without getting all of the annotations that the SAB gets.

The other reference site I use is The Brick Testament (http://www.thebricktestament.com/). Because it has things like this (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/beastiality/lv18_23a.html).I love the Brick Testament because it gets to the brass tacks of the text.

Camp Defecation (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/camp_defecation/dt23_09p12-13.html)

:)

[nois forme]

"It comes from the Hebrew word "khung" or "chung" which can be translated as "circle" or "horizon" or "roundness" or "sphericity."

So the answer then is no, there aren't any translations that used the term 'spherical'.
I'm aware that these words can have slightly different (multiple) meanings, roots, etc. Yet not one translation of the numerous that I listed thought that 'spherical' was appropriate in this context. All of them opted for circle.


"Another verse used is sometimes Proverbs 8:27"

Yes, though it would appear that this particular usage involves (the root - chuwg) meaning;

"...To draw a circle, as with a compass", (Strong's)

...which is why once again every translation I listed above describe the 'drawing of a circle', or 'marking out of a horizon', etc. Not one of them mention 'spherical', as that would appear to be an incorrect translation in this case. They very deliberately, and without exception, used the root involving 'using a compass to draw a circle'. As we know, a compass is used on a flat surface.


"You can claim it is a question of interpretation, but clearly the end result would validate a hidden meaning if there was one that was originally put in by the Author."

I found this cryptic.

[gdnp]

Well, let's talk about them. Name one. We know what most of those mistakes were so name one and we will talk about it and see what theological significance it actually has...

So name some of the actual mistakes and we can discuss their
theological significance.

M

You miss my point. We know there are mistakes. You claim that these mistakes have no theological significance. Still, we do not know how many actual mistakes there are.

Let us assume as you claim the original writings were divinely inspired. Do we have any of these original writings, or only copies and translations? I think the latter. We do not know how many errors of translation or transcription exist in these copies, since we lack the gold standard of the original. We do not know if divinely inspired books got left out, nor do we know if books that were not divinely inspired were later inserted.

What we do know is that the bible often gives conflicting information in different verses. One famous such example is the question of personal responsibility, or the sins of the fathers (http://www.carm.org/diff/Deut5_9.htm):

(Exodus 20:5) - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"

(Deuteronomy 5:9) - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"

(Exodus 34:6-7) - "Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."

(Deuteronomy 24:16) - "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."

(Ezekiel 18:20) - "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."

So which is the correct theological interpretation: that the sons will be held accountable for the sins of their fathers, or not? Were some of these passages mistranslated, or not divinely inspired? Or are we to attempt to hold two contradictory beliefs as true simultaneously?

[Piero]

Logic. Can you look at a man and a woman's body and tell what God intended? Can you tell who is supposed to be with who?


AND, if she
(Mary) was going to give birth to the Holy Son of God, then why wouldn't
she be pure before God?

Breckmin, I believe you are somewaht confused regarding sex. Is it a good or a bad thing? You seem to imply that homosexuality is bad because our anatomy suggests the appropriate concavities and convexities. In other words, God created us with a specific anatomical design that we should use as intended. Yet you also claim that if Mary and Joseph had used their genitalia as intended, she would have lost her purity (not Joseph, by the way; but that's another story). I don't understand that. If God gave us penises and vaginas so we could reproduce, why is using them impure? Would it not have been simpler to have us reproduce by cloning, like amoebas do? Besides, if God was hell-bent (no pun intended) on giving us penises and vaginas, why did he have to place them so close the anus, and why should he have designed them so they perform excretory functions in addition to the reproductive ones? It seems like a pretty dumb idea, because it facilitates infection and promotes the association sex-dirtiness. Maybe he had a committee design us?

[quarky]

Heck of a first post, Piero.

[gdnp]

Heck of a first post, Piero.

Yes, let me add my welcome to the forum.

[temporalillusion]

The King James is a very good translation. There are some Christians called "Fundamentalist Baptists" or "Bible Baptists" which believe that either
the KJV of the scriptures are the "best" translation OR some even belief
it is the only "inspired" translation of the scriptures so they DO claim that
the King James version of the Bible is perfect. It is a minority position,
most evangelical conservatives prefer the NIV or the NAS which mirrors
the Greek or the New King James.

Note: Evangelicals do not normally believe any "translation" is inerrant.
They only claim that the "original autographs" are inerrant. Those given
in Hebrew (some Aramaic in the book of Daniel) and in koine Greek.
M

The problem is the autographs ("original autographs" is redundant) don't exist. The original works may have been clearly inspired by God but we have no way of knowing, because the autographs are lost to us (or they are until we find them, highly unlikely).

What we do have are some 5700 odd fragments of the NT in Greek, ranging from full books to pieces the size of a credit card.

And no two pieces agree. Out of 5700 fragments, no one fragment agrees 100% with any other fragment. That's pretty profound.

They haven't even cataloged all the differences, but there's likely more differences between them all than there are words in the NT.

When you look into what's been changed and when it was changed, you can sometimes infer possible reasons as to why scribes changed it. Sometimes it was to harmonize differences in the books. Sometimes it was to make it more difficult for other Christianities that existed in the first few centuries to use the books for their own. Sometimes it was to conform with societal trends. And sometimes it was just mistakes.

And that's just the books that eventually became the Bible hundreds of years later, that's not counting the dozens or even hundreds of other scriptures that were circulating at the time of the early church.

[Piero]

Hello, Quarky and gdnp. And to everybody else too.

[godless dave]

Scripture contains divine revelation. It is wise to read divine revelation.
It is wise to read books ABOUT divine revelation.

So you've read the Koran then?

[quarky]

Hindu scriptures are more colorful. And older.

[Piero]

Where is Breckmin? I was looking forward to his/her reply concerning Mary and Joseph and sex. I love kinky threads...

[articulett]

Try the sex thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113243&page=69)(now on page 69!) or a yrreg thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=133490&page=12).

There's some good stuff in the limerick (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=4522&page=215) thread and other stuff in the "private area" for community members only (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20).

[quarky]

For kinky, you can't beat Jesus's brother.
Evidently, Mary loses her virginity prior to the conception.

Or maybe not. A biblical scholar would know.

[articulett]

Tergiversater.

[gdnp]

Where is Breckmin? I was looking forward to his/her reply concerning Mary and Joseph and sex. I love kinky threads...

Too soon to say. He would not be the first religious poster on the JREF who burned out quickly. I suspect it can be quite a challenge to try to defend against a large group of not always polite skeptics.

I also suspect that it becomes intensely uncomfortable to have to repeatedly face the illogic and contradictions that are part and parcel of most religious teachings. It's easier for most people to surround themselves with those who agree with them. Which is why I don't go to religious web sites and try to convert the people there.

[Piero]

Try the sex thread (now on page 69!) or a yrreg thread.

There's some good stuff in the limerick thread and other stuff in the "private area" for community members only.

Thank you. Not kinky enough for me, though. I was thinking more on the lines of Mary, Joseph, the ass (the four- or rather five-legged one, I mean), the ox, the Magi... well, you get the picture.

[Piero]

I also suspect that it becomes intensely uncomfortable to have to repeatedly face the illogic and contradictions that are part and parcel of most religious teachings. It's easier for most people to surround themselves with those who agree with them.

Yep. I know the feeling. I used to be a fundamentalist marxist, which is not very different from being a fundamentalist anything.

[JoeTheJuggler]

For kinky, you can't beat Jesus's brother.

Wait a second! Are you saying that James is NOT into bdsm and that that's kinky? ;)

[arthwollipot]

Where is Breckmin? I was looking forward to his/her reply concerning Mary and Joseph and sex. I love kinky threads...Breckmin sent me an email saying that he's been having a lot of trouble connecting to the forum recently, but that he really wants to come back and respond to people. I PMed Darat for help, but Darat can't see anything amiss with Breckmin's account - it seems to be merely technical glitches, possibly caused by the recent server issues (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=134768). He hasn't abandoned the thread - not intentionally, anyway - and will be returning when he can.

[Piero]

So breckmin is definitely a "he". Pity.
On the plus side, I won't have to type "he/she" anymore. On the minus side, had he been a "she" I would have enjoyed the kinkiness more... (I'm sorry, I'm only human... and a "he").

[arthwollipot]

Well, he has a stereotypically male name.

[quarky]

Happy birthday, new blood.

Perhaps you could revive my old "celebrity bestiality" thread.
Mary's donkey might qualify as a celebrity.

[Piero]

Thank you, Quarky.
What about Jonah's whale? Nah, too gross.

[quarky]

not for me.

I like whales.

[JoeTheJuggler]

What about Jonah's whale? Nah, too gross.

According to the Bible, it wasn't a whale, but a "great fish". Now that's another kind of kinkiness altogether.

Ask Troy McClure about that. . . . .

[Piero]

According to the Bible, it wasn't a whale, but a "great fish". Now that's another kind of kinkiness altogether.
Well, I wouldn't get into that... nor that into me.

[quarky]

Troy McClure does have the voice of reason.
I will study him more closely.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Troy McClure does have the voice of reason.
I will study him more closely.
Let me put it this way, when he says, "I like fish" it's not at all the same way you meant it when you said, "I like whales."

He knows fish. Not the way an ichthyologist knows fish. But . . . um. . .biblically (to bring this more or less back to the topic).

[trashy]

Breckmin sent me an email saying that he's been having a lot of trouble connecting to the forum recently, but that he really wants to come back and respond to people. I PMed Darat for help, but Darat can't see anything amiss with Breckmin's account - it seems to be merely technical glitches, possibly caused by the recent server issues. He hasn't abandoned the thread - not intentionally, anyway - and will be returning when he can.

How...................convenient.

:cool:

[gdnp]

How...................convenient.

:cool:

Well, if he hadn't had recent troubles connecting, I would have to invoke some sort of divine intervention.

[arthwollipot]

Now that the upgrade has been performed, I'll see if I can dig up Brekmin's email address and let him know.

[Breckmin]

all of the different
New Testament Apocrypha that didn't make it to the Council of Nicea or
the Nicene Creeds. (both 325 and 381)

The canon for the N.T. books at Nicea in 325, and the canon
for the O.T. in 99 AD at the council of Jamnia.

You know I was sleepless in Seattle (or Gresham after driving from Seattle)
back in the days when I wrote this.

It was of course the Council of Carthage in around 397 I think ..clearly NOT
the Council of Nicea which was trinitarian theology. My bad.

I wish I could have edited those posts.

[ZirconBlue]

You know I was sleepless in Seattle (or Gresham after driving from Seattle)
back in the days when I wrote this.

It was of course the Council of Carthage in around 397 I think ..clearly NOT
the Council of Nicea which was trinitarian theology. My bad.

I wish I could have edited those posts.

Alas, the edit window on posts is slightly less than a year.

[Breckmin]

I've known about this mistake since a week or so after I posted it, but I
couldn't log on for several months to fix it for some reason. My wife says
I'm slow at fixing things but this was ridiculous...