Christians can you be certain your bible is trust worthy?

[Faithofchristian]

Right.

So the passage you quote cannot be applied to every case, clearly.

Only those after Christ Jesus death and Resurrection.
So that leaves Joseph Smith a false Prophet

 

[Faithofchristian]

Sorry, but you really don't understand what the Bible was saying. Anybody who reads your post will tell you the same thing.

Many have tried, but failed

 

[Katzpur]

Many have tried, but failed

And that should make you stop and consider that it might just be you who's wrong and not everybody else.

 

[viole]

I rather agree.

The Christian faith I was brought up with survived both my teenage years and taking a science degree, but what gave it a real knock was my encounter in the Middle East and Far East with other religions (mainly Islam and Thai Buddhism). I came to see it as absurd that any one religion claims a monopoly on truth, at the expense of all the others. I suspect the more thoughtful theologians nowadays recognise that we all have an imperfect picture and it pays to show a degree of tolerance and respect towards those of different persuasions, from whom we can often learn.

Imperfect picture? That is an euphemism.

It is like saying we have an imperfect picture of X, because some see it as a car, others as an elephant, others as planet, others as a pair of shoes, etc, for thousands of similar related comparisons.

But I admire you for showing tolerance for alternative beliefs, like the belief that humans should be divided in castes because some god said so. I myself cannot do that. Even though I strongly believe that all relligions deserve the exact amount of respect.

Ciao

- viole

 

[exchemist]

Imperfect picture? That is an euphemism.

It is like saying we have an imperfect picture of X, because some see it as a car, others as an elephant, others as planet, others as a pair of shoes, etc, for thousands of similar related comparisons.

But I admire you for showing tolerance for alternative beliefs, like the belief that humans should be divided in castes because some god said so. I myself cannot do that. Even though I strongly believe that all relligions deserve the exact amount of respect.

Ciao

- viole

Ciao.

 

[viole]

Ciao.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shmogie]

And some those early documents were selected for use in compiling the bible, as i said.

Nonsense, try a comparison of the kjv and niv.

The oldest bible in existence is the vulgate written 80 years after the bible was compiled. Can you definitively say that it agrees with the original, can you say all other later bibles agree?

The issue is meaning, not, dogmatic word by word consistency.There are words in the original Koine Greek for which there are no corresponding English words.,We have one word for love, "love". The Greek has six, at least. It is up to the translator to get the right meaning across in English for the correct meaning of the type of love in in the Greek.

The KJV was written centuries ago by a committee of scholars. They translated the Greek into the English of those hundreds of years ago, not the English we use today, that is why there are modern translations. Modern translations go back to the Geek documents as source, not the previous English Bible.

Serious Bible students use more than one translation, I use a parallel Bible, Each page and opposite page has two different translations, and two different paraphrases that can all be compared word for word side by side verse for verse. Those that can read the original Greek have it, along wit X translations to compare.

I have a total ten different English translations. I can do a pretty comprehensive search if required.

 

[Katzpur]

The KJV was written centuries ago by a committee of scholars. They translated the Greek into the English of those hundreds of years ago, not the English we use today, that is why there are modern translations. Modern translations go back to the Geek documents as source, not the previous English Bible.

So are the Geek documents pretty similar to the Greek ones?

Serious Bible students use more than one translation, I use a parallel Bible, Each page and opposite page has two different translations, and two different paraphrases that can all be compared word for word side by side verse for verse. Those that can read the original Greek have it, along wit X translations to compare.

Can you recommend a good parallel Bible?

 

[ChristineM]

The issue is meaning, not, dogmatic word by word consistency.There are words in the original Koine Greek for which there are no corresponding English words.,We have one word for love, "love". The Greek has six, at least. It is up to the translator to get the right meaning across in English for the correct meaning of the type of love in in the Greek.

The KJV was written centuries ago by a committee of scholars. They translated the Greek into the English of those hundreds of years ago, not the English we use today, that is why there are modern translations. Modern translations go back to the Geek documents as source, not the previous English Bible.

Serious Bible students use more than one translation, I use a parallel Bible, Each page and opposite page has two different translations, and two different paraphrases that can all be compared word for word side by side verse for verse. Those that can read the original Greek have it, along wit X translations to compare.

I have a total ten different English translations. I can do a pretty comprehensive search if required.

So you say what is written is not what you want it to mean so you interpret it differently than how it is written. Thats your prerogative.

The KJV was written a little over 4 centuries ago. The scholars selected to craft the KJV used (i believe) 6 versions of older bibles. It has been through several revisions, the book in use today was last majorly revised in 1769.

Ok, compare Matthew 17:21 in the KJV and NIV
Or Mark 7:16
John 5:4
Acts 24:7

 

[Faithofchristian]

Sorry, but you really don't understand what the Bible was saying. Anybody who reads your post will tell you the same thing. As a matter of fact, I can remember your having a similar conversation with several different people a few months ago. They all told you the same thing, and you didn't pay any attention to them. Why should I repeat what they said, only to have you ignore me, too?

Nope not at all, this is first time that I brought this up. Nice try though.

What made me think of what Christ Jesus said Luke 13:33-34.
Is back in post #1, when a person made mention of the Mormon's. That's when it click to me about what Christ Jesus had said.
The Mormon's are not alone, the seventh day Adventist also claim their prophet Ellen G.White as their Prophet.
The Seventh day adAdventi also lost it, When I showed them this to them. Talk about having a bad hair day.

But the bottom line is, the seventh day Adventist just like the Mormon's. It wasn't me they were on the attack of, I only gave what Christ Jesus had given in
Luke 13:33-34.
So actually both parties are not in reality attacking me, their were attacking Christ Jesus.
But thats all typical of certain sects of Christians, they go about preaching in the name of Christ Jesus, but when Christ Jesus rain's on their little parade, They come all on glued on Christ Jesus.

What it all comes down to. Is that
Luke 13:33-34, are the words of Christ Jesus and are not my words.

 

[Katzpur]

Nope not at all, this is first time that I brought this up. Nice try though.

What made me think of what Christ Jesus said Luke 13:33-34.
Is back in post #1, when a person made mention of the Mormon's. That's when it click to me about what Christ Jesus had said.
The Mormon's are not alone, the seventh day Adventist also claim their prophet Ellen G.White as their Prophet.
The Seventh day adAdventi also lost it, When I showed them this to them. Talk about having a bad hair day.

But the bottom line is, the seventh day Adventist just like the Mormon's. It wasn't me they were on the attack of, I only gave what Christ Jesus had given in
Luke 13:33-34.
So actually both parties are not in reality attacking me, their were attacking Christ Jesus.
But thats all typical of certain sects of Christians, they go about preaching in the name of Christ Jesus, but when Christ Jesus rain's on their little parade, They come all on glued on Christ Jesus.

What it all comes down to. Is that
Luke 13:33-34, are the words of Christ Jesus and are not my words.

Well, we will apparently have to agree to disagree that a requirement of a true prophet is that he must die in Jerusalem.

 

[Faithofchristian]

And that should make you stop and consider that it might just be you who's wrong and not everybody else.

Let's see, if I'm not wrong the majority everyone were yelling to crucify Jesus and nailed Jesus to the cross.

But it was only a very,very small group of people that stood by Jesus.

So was the majority of everyone right or wrong?
Was the very,very small group of people right or wrong?

So that should tell you that the majority of everyone could very well be wrong.

 

[Katzpur]

Let's see, if I'm not wrong the majority everyone were yelling to crucify Jesus and nailed Jesus to the cross.

But it was only a very,very small group of people that stood by Jesus.

So was the majority of everyone right or wrong?
Was the very,very small group of people right or wrong?

So that should tell you that the majority of everyone could very well be wrong.

They most certainly could be. If I believed it was size that mattered, I'd convert to Catholicism.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Well, we will apparently have to agree to disagree that a requirement of a true prophet is that he must die in Jerusalem.

Well then my guess would be, that you take it up with Christ Jesus on Judgement day, that you don't agree with him.

In Luke 13:33-34, those are the words of Christ Jesus. So take it up with Christ Jesus on Judgement day.and not with me.

 

[Faithofchristian]

They most certainly could be. If I believed it was size that mattered, I'd convert to Catholicism.

You convert to Catholicism, and I'll convert to the smallest group of people that there is,
It was a small group of people that believed in Christ Jesus and the biggest majority of people who had Christ Jesus crucified.

 

[Katzpur]

Well then my guess would be, that you take it up with Christ Jesus on Judgement day, that you don't agree with him.

Please don't be condescending and judgmental. It's not at all becoming.

In Luke 13:33-34, those are the words of Christ Jesus. So take it up with Christ Jesus on Judgement day.and not with me.

You need to understand the reason for Jesus' statement and not jump to conclusions about it, which is what you're doing right now. Jesus had professed to be a prophet. Someone professing such a thing could be tried only by the Sanhedrin, which resides in Jerusalem. Outside of Jerusalem, there was no one in a position to try Jesus for blasphemy, and He knew that. He knew that He was going to be put to death and that the decision to do so had to come out of Jerusalem. In knew, for instance, that Herod had no right to condemn Him to death.

 

[Katzpur]

You convert to Catholicism, and I'll convert to the smallest group of people that there is,
It was a small group of people that believed in Christ Jesus and the biggest majority of people who had Christ Jesus crucified.

I'm sorry... Did you understand my comment to mean that I am considering converting to Catholicism. If you did, rest assured that I am not (though I'm sure I could find worse choices).

 

[Faithofchristian]

Please don't be condescending and judgmental. It's not at all becoming.

You need to understand the reason for Jesus' statement and not jump to conclusions about it, which is what you're doing right now. Jesus had professed to be a prophet. Someone professing such a thing could be tried only by the Sanhedrin, which resides in Jerusalem. Outside of Jerusalem, there was no one in a position to try Jesus for blasphemy, and He knew that. He knew that He was going to be put to death and that the decision to do so had to come out of Jerusalem. In knew, for instance, that Herod had no right to condemn Him to death.

No your the one who don't understand,

It all still comes down to, For it cannot be that a prophet perish outside of Jerusalem.
That is what Jesus is implying.

So no matter how you try and cut it, It still implies that no prophet will die outside of Jerusalem.
Well that makes even more solid to have Jesus imply himself as a prophet.

I do see what your trying to do, your trying in anyway possible to get out of what Jesus is saying, but it's not going to work
What Jesus said stands as is.
That no prophet will die outside of Jerusalem. When Jesus said that, Jesus was including all his prophets. And not just himself as your trying to do. Nice try though.

 

[Katzpur]

No your the one who don't understand,

It all still comes down to, For it cannot be that a prophet perish outside of Jerusalem.
That is what Jesus is implying.

So no matter how you try and cut it, It still implies that no prophet will die outside of Jerusalem.
Well that makes even more solid to have Jesus imply himself as a prophet.

I do see what your trying to do, your trying in anyway possible to get out of what Jesus is saying, but it's not going to work
What Jesus said stands as is.
That no prophet will die outside of Jerusalem. When Jesus said that, Jesus was including all his prophets. And not just himself as your trying to do. Nice try though.

Whatever. There's no point in our discussing it any further.

 

[metis]

I'm not sure precisely what you mean. Perhaps you mean that the language of scripture is vague and subject to personal interpretation. If so, how useful is that?

When we read scripture, we are reading various people's take on supposed events even though they usually weren't there themselves. Plus, we shouldn't expect objectivity as these were "true believers" pushing a true believer's agenda.

For my personal use, I don't much get into the "Did this really happen?"-approach. Instead, I pretty much deal with all narratives as allegory, try to decipher what the message(s) is/are, and then use that which seems to be reasonable. Needless to say, admittedly an imprecise art.