Christians can you be certain your bible is trust worthy?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

As far as I know, science has no problem with the Bible.

Science is indifferent to religion, but frequently contradicts the ones with wrong ideas that have been disproven

It's usually atheist and evolutionist that are scientists.

Have you ever wondered why?

It's usually atheist and evolutionist that are scientists - not science

Agreed, Science is rarely a scientist - perhaps never.

The so-called internal contradictions are another matter of human opinion, for which w can argue "until the cows come home".

No need. The contradictions are self-evident.

Millions, not even thousands - but millions agree that many Bible prophecies have come to past, even those seeing a Bible for the first time

"Since when does most of the world become a moral compass"? (see below)

Since when does most of the world become a moral compass?

Never mind.

If I misread, or misunderstood the Bible, I too might think I am right in saying that God makes mistakes, and therefore it's wrong. However, I would be the one who is wrong, as you are.

Do you think that creating man sinful despite abhorring sin, regretting that choice, exterminating most of mankind as well as most of the rest of terrestrial life in a global flood, and then repopulating the earth using the same breeding stock wasn't a colossal error?

 

[nPeace]

This is all too elliptical for me. I'll leave you to your unicorn and cockatrice hunt.

No problem.
I'v seen this before. I'm patient.

However, I'll still post the results of my hunt.

1. Cockatrice
The Hebrew words tsepha' and tsiphʽohniʹ are understood by lexicographers to refer to poisonous snakes, the Hebrew pronunciation perhaps representing in sound the hissing noise made by such snakes when they are approached. Both may refer to some variety of viper, but identification is uncertain. The King James Version incorrectly translated these words as referring to the mythical “cockatrice,” at Isaiah 11:8; 14:29; 59:5; and Jeremiah 8:17.

The first use of the word in English was in John Wyclif's 1382 translation of the Bible to translate different Hebrew words. This usage was followed by the King James Version, the word being used several times. The Revised Version - following the tradition established by Jerome's Vulgate basiliscus - renders the word "basilisk", and the New International Version translates it as "viper". In Proverbs 23:32 the similar Hebrew tzeph'a is rendered "adder", both in the Authorized Version and the Revised Version.

2. Unicorn
Biblical
An animal called the re’em (Hebrew: רְאֵם‎) is mentioned in several places in the Hebrew Bible, often as a metaphor representing strength. "The allusions to the re'em as a wild, un-tamable animal of great strength and agility, with mighty horn or horns (Job xxxix. 9–12; Ps. xxii. 21, xxix. 6; Num. xxiii. 22, xxiv. 8; Deut. xxxiii. 17; comp. Ps. xcii. 11), best fit the aurochs (Bos primigenius). This view is supported by the Assyrian rimu, which is often used as a metaphor of strength, and is depicted as a powerful, fierce, wild mountain bull with large horns." This animal was often depicted in ancient Mesopotamian art in profile, with only one horn visible.

The translators of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible (1611) followed the Greek Septuagint (monokeros) and the Latin Vulgate (unicornis)[30] and employed unicorn to translate re'em, providing a recognizable animal that was proverbial for its un-tamable nature. The American Standard Version translates this term "wild ox" in each case.

Does the Bible support the existence of unicorns, which are mentioned in some versions?
The King James, Douay, and other versions, mention unicorns. But that is not so with modern versions that accurately render the Hebrew. - Psalm 22:21; 29:6; 92:10 (21:22; 28:6; 91:11, Douay).

...the Bible does not support the idea of unicorns as renowned in legend. It does draw an accurate, though limited, picture of the massive and fear-inspiring aurochs, or wild bull, that existed in Biblical times and down into the not-too-distant past.

There you go.
I await the next poke at the Bible, whenever it comes.
I hope you are getting a better picture of what I mean when I mentioned the actions of those who misrepresent the Bible.

 

[nPeace]

Science is indifferent to religion, but frequently contradicts the ones with wrong ideas that have been disproven

Such as?

Have you ever wondered why?

There is no need to wonder. Who doesn't know?

No need. The contradictions are self-evident.

Opinion acknowledged. Air.

Do you think that creating man sinful despite abhorring sin, regretting that choice, exterminating most of mankind as well as most of the rest of terrestrial life in a global flood, and then repopulating the earth using the same breeding stock wasn't a colossal error?

Who did that? No one I know.

 

[shmogie]

The majority of the bible, the OT, is selectively based on bronze age Hebrew scripture, the parts included in the bible are fairly accurate to the original excepting translation and copying errors and chapter/verse numbering

The 15% which is the NT was compiled by committee some 350 years after events. Multiply copied and edited changed over 1300 years until king james said 'enough, too many different versions, i will commission a new bible to supercede all others' so he gathered a committee of 40 odd guys to pick and choose from the 6 most popular bibles of the time and create a definitive book. Since that time several hundred different versions have been created, each subtly different from the other.

Edit : there is no original to compare, the oldest complete bible is the Vulgate.

Is it trustworthy? Many people think so, but i ask, would you trust a book of such provence if it weren't he bible?

You are a little confused here. The original documents in Koine Greek of most of the NT can be established to have been in circulation from 100-200 AD. All copies of the NT stem from these. The Church council to determine the official canon was established because of a plethora of alleged Biblical writings, None of which were before 200 AD. The council established the canon based upon those books in circulation and verified in the writings in the early church fathers in the immediate post apostolic church. King James called his scholars together to write a modern translation, including up to date material, since Tyndale translated the Bible into English originally.
The versions, as you refer to them, were written to reflect changes in idiom. Further they include translations, where each word is literally translated, or paraphrases, where the meaning of each sentence is stated.

All are consistent, all are compared to the original Greek.

The provence is exhaustive, and ensures that what the immediate Post Apostolic Church had as scripture is the same we have today.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Christianity derive from Judaism. Islam derive from Christianity and Judaism. These 3 religion got the same god and is the only 3 religion that believe there is only one god. The 3 religions believe its god is one and only true god and believe their god is always right and all other gods are lying evil demonic false gods pretending to be god AKA Satan. However, what if there is a plot twist and those other gods are the real gods and the god of Christianity, Islam and Judaism Yahweh, is actually the one that is truly a lying evil demonic false god pretending to be god? This is especially considering the bible got many disturbing teachings which is why we need the Protestant Reformation and even after that there are still many problem, due to not been able to change the bible itself (it is no wonder the Mormons threw the bible out and write up a new book of Mormon.

**Hyperlinks removed by moderator**

If that God was false, the real God or Gods would come and inform us. Is God powerless, or ignorant to leave everyone in falsehood?

 

[joelr]

Christianity derive from Judaism. Islam derive from Christianity and Judaism. These 3 religion got the same god and is the only 3 religion that believe there is only one god. The 3 religions believe its god is one and only true god and believe their god is always right and all other gods are lying evil demonic false gods pretending to be god AKA Satan. However, what if there is a plot twist and those other gods are the real gods and the god of Christianity, Islam and Judaism Yahweh, is actually the one that is truly a lying evil demonic false god pretending to be god? This is especially considering the bible got many disturbing teachings which is why we need the Protestant Reformation and even after that there are still many problem, due to not been able to change the bible itself (it is no wonder the Mormons threw the bible out and write up a new book of Mormon.

**Hyperlinks removed by moderator**

In terms of faith one can choose to simply have faith that the bible is correct.

The historicity is absolutely considered extremely sketchy.
Moses and the patriarchs have been accepted as mythology and Jesus is believed to have been a man by the history field. That is not in question by historians with the exception of fundamentalist scholars. There are no secular scholars who find any convincing evidence.
Although there is now good Ph.D evidence that Jesus was a myth.

 

[exchemist]

No problem.
I'v seen this before. I'm patient.

However, I'll still post the results of my hunt.

1. Cockatrice
The Hebrew words tsepha' and tsiphʽohniʹ are understood by lexicographers to refer to poisonous snakes, the Hebrew pronunciation perhaps representing in sound the hissing noise made by such snakes when they are approached. Both may refer to some variety of viper, but identification is uncertain. The King James Version incorrectly translated these words as referring to the mythical “cockatrice,” at Isaiah 11:8; 14:29; 59:5; and Jeremiah 8:17.

The first use of the word in English was in John Wyclif's 1382 translation of the Bible to translate different Hebrew words. This usage was followed by the King James Version, the word being used several times. The Revised Version - following the tradition established by Jerome's Vulgate basiliscus - renders the word "basilisk", and the New International Version translates it as "viper". In Proverbs 23:32 the similar Hebrew tzeph'a is rendered "adder", both in the Authorized Version and the Revised Version.

2. Unicorn
Biblical
An animal called the re’em (Hebrew: רְאֵם‎) is mentioned in several places in the Hebrew Bible, often as a metaphor representing strength. "The allusions to the re'em as a wild, un-tamable animal of great strength and agility, with mighty horn or horns (Job xxxix. 9–12; Ps. xxii. 21, xxix. 6; Num. xxiii. 22, xxiv. 8; Deut. xxxiii. 17; comp. Ps. xcii. 11), best fit the aurochs (Bos primigenius). This view is supported by the Assyrian rimu, which is often used as a metaphor of strength, and is depicted as a powerful, fierce, wild mountain bull with large horns." This animal was often depicted in ancient Mesopotamian art in profile, with only one horn visible.

The translators of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible (1611) followed the Greek Septuagint (monokeros) and the Latin Vulgate (unicornis)[30] and employed unicorn to translate re'em, providing a recognizable animal that was proverbial for its un-tamable nature. The American Standard Version translates this term "wild ox" in each case.

Does the Bible support the existence of unicorns, which are mentioned in some versions?
The King James, Douay, and other versions, mention unicorns. But that is not so with modern versions that accurately render the Hebrew. - Psalm 22:21; 29:6; 92:10 (21:22; 28:6; 91:11, Douay).

...the Bible does not support the idea of unicorns as renowned in legend. It does draw an accurate, though limited, picture of the massive and fear-inspiring aurochs, or wild bull, that existed in Biblical times and down into the not-too-distant past.

There you go.
I await the next poke at the Bible, whenever it comes.
I hope you are getting a better picture of what I mean when I mentioned the actions of those who misrepresent the Bible.

Not really.

I was the one who explained to you where "unicorn" and "cockatrice" appear, in widely used versions of the bible, and that unicorn is translated as wild oxen in the Jerusalem bible.

I think you would be better advised to help people learn about the subtleties involved in interpreting the bible than accusing them of being wolves and vipers, when they may simply not be as familiar with it as you and I are.

My approach in these discussions is, where possible, to try to show that the bible need not make unreasonable demands on our intelligence and critical faculties, if sensibly interpreted. I commend that approach to you.

 

[ObjectOfMercy]

Not the same god. There is only one God, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, who Himself is God the Son. He is the true God and eternal life. All the others are false gods.

 

[exchemist]

Not the same god. There is only one God, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, who Himself is God the Son. He is the true God and eternal life. All the others are false gods.

So you are 100% right and everyone else is 100% wrong, yes?

How likely is that? Honestly?

 

[ObjectOfMercy]

So you are 100% right and everyone else is 100% wrong, yes?

How likely is that? Honestly?

Are you questioning my interpretation of the Bible? The doctrine didn't originate with me. It's God's doctrine. Both Old and New Testaments declare this very thing.

 

[exchemist]

Are you questioning my interpretation of the Bible? The doctrine didn't originate with me. It's God's doctrine. Both Old and New Testaments declare this very thing.

Yes, the books of your religion say so.

Just as the books of all the others say that theirs is right.

So why are your books better than their books?

 

[ObjectOfMercy]

Yes, the books of your religion say so.

Just as the books of all the others say that theirs is right.

So why are your books better than their books?

The Bible is better because God's Spirit is the Author of it, and He is upright. His truth does not do harm to men as the doctrines of the other religions. The Bible teaches us that God alone saves sinners and He deserves all the glory for it. The other religions teach no such thing. They preach the works of men save them. They preach that their god is for them because of something they do. Not so with the true God. Religions masquerading as Christianity also do this and these have much in common with those who don't name the name of Jesus. But there are many false christs gone out into the world. The true Christianity seeks to glorify God in everything, because He is the true Savior and therefore worthy of being worshipped.

 

[exchemist]

The Bible is better because God's Spirit is the Author of it, and He is upright. His truth does not do harm to men as the doctrines of the other religions. The Bible teaches us that God alone saves sinners and He deserves all the glory for it. The other religions teach no such thing. They preach the works of men save them. They preach that their god is for them because of something they do. Not so with the true God. Religions masquerading as Christianity also do this and these have much in common with those who don't name the name of Jesus. But there are many false christs gone out into the world. The true Christianity seeks to glorify God in everything, because He is the true Savior and therefore worthy of being worshipped.

On what basis do you say God's Spirit is the author of your books but not theirs?

 

[ChristineM]

You are a little confused here. The original documents in Koine Greek of most of the NT can be established to have been in circulation from 100-200 AD. All copies of the NT stem from these. The Church council to determine the official canon was established because of a plethora of alleged Biblical writings, None of which were before 200 AD. The council established the canon based upon those books in circulation and verified in the writings in the early church fathers in the immediate post apostolic church. King James called his scholars together to write a modern translation, including up to date material, since Tyndale translated the Bible into English originally.
The versions, as you refer to them, were written to reflect changes in idiom. Further they include translations, where each word is literally translated, or paraphrases, where the meaning of each sentence is stated.

All are consistent, all are compared to the original Greek.

The provence is exhaustive, and ensures that what the immediate Post Apostolic Church had as scripture is the same we have today.

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?

 

[ObjectOfMercy]

On what basis do you say God's Spirit is the author of your books but not theirs?

God's Word is living. It is called the Living Word. Why? Because when men are brought by God to seek His face in the Word, His Spirit communes with them and God Himself teaches them. They become aware of His presence, and know that they have met with God. His promises ring true. His Word is proven pure and unbroken. He fulfills His promises right before our eyes. And the Author of the Bible, the Holy Spirit, takes up residence in His people (which God promised beforehand in the Scriptures) and they become living stones in the house of our God. For God does not dwell in temples made with hands. But He dwells in His people.

 

[exchemist]

God's Word is living. It is called the Living Word. Why? Because when men are brought by God to seek His face in the Word, His Spirit communes with them and God Himself teaches them. They become aware of His presence, and know that they have met with God. His promises ring true. His Word is proven pure and unbroken. He fulfills His promises right before our eyes. And the Author of the Bible, the Holy Spirit, takes up residence in His people (which God promised beforehand in the Scriptures) and they become living stones in the house of our God. For God does not dwell in temples made with hands. But He dwells in His people.

So you say. But on what grounds?

People from other faiths could make just the same sorts of claims for their own religion, with equal eloquence. Why should any impartial person believe you rather than them?

 

[ObjectOfMercy]

So you say. But on what grounds?

People from other faiths could make just the same sorts of claims for their own religion, with equal eloquence. Why should any impartial person believe you rather than them?

God's Word is enough for them weighed down with the great weight of their own sin. It is a heavy burden to carry about this knowledge of one's own sin, knowing that God is just to send you to hell on account of your great many sins. To then hear of this message from God that Christ has borne the weight and taken it to His cross and buried it there - it is the best news one could ever hear! That I am freed from my sins, because Christ died for them, to save me and preserve me for all eternity, to live with Him in glory, because He is kind and gracious. This seems too good to be true. But having this on the Authority of God Himself, it is settling, and ushers in a peace that is lasting. And God does not leave us orphans. But He comes to us and abides with us. He gathers us together and gives us a family, and brings us home. He gives joys unspeakable and full of glory. He gives life and breath and all things. He feeds us with the Bread of heaven, and has promised to never leave us nor forsake us. Why should I quibble over words and arguments? I need no other argument. I need no other plea. It is enough that Jesus died and that He died for me.

 

[exchemist]

God's Word is enough for them weighed down with the great weight of their own sin. It is a heavy burden to carry about this knowledge of one's own sin, knowing that God is just to send you to hell on account of your great many sins. To then hear of this message from God that Christ has borne the weight and taken it to His cross and buried it there - it is the best news one could ever hear! That I am freed from my sins, because Christ died for them, to save me and preserve me for all eternity, to live with Him in glory, because He is kind and gracious. This seems too good to be true. But having this on the Authority of God Himself, it is settling, and ushers in a peace that is lasting. And God does not leave us orphans. But He comes to us and abides with us. He gathers us together and gives us a family, and brings us home. He gives joys unspeakable and full of glory. He gives life and breath and all things. He feeds us with the Bread of heaven, and has promised to never leave us nor forsake us. Why should I quibble over words and arguments? I need no other argument. I need no other plea. It is enough that Jesus died and that He died for me.

I'm sorry for labouring this but I hope you can see my point. You make the assertion that everyone but followers of your faith worships false gods, but the only reason you can give is that this is what your holy book says, while their holy books make the same claim for them too!

And now you have wandered off into reciting what you personally believe - from your chosen holy books. This is simply not a persuasive argument, to anyone impartial, as to why it should be only your God that is not false.

It strikes me as an arrogant and silly claim to make, in fact, based on a completely circular argument that your religion is the best because that is what your religion says! I mean, could it possibly say otherwise?

This is what struck me forcibly when I, as someone with a Christian upbringing, lived for some years in the Middle East and travelled a fair bit in the Far East. It was evident that very similar teachings and attitudes to life are taught by other faiths, even if the details are different. If you see Buddhist monks in Thailand for instance, you are struck by the same sense of contemplative quiet and spirituality you get in a Christian monastery.

So I have to say that, though my cultural allegiance is to Christianity, I find it absurd to claim there is no inspiration or truth in other faiths.

 

[ObjectOfMercy]

And now you have wandered off into reciting what you personally believe - from your chosen holy books. This is simply not a persuasive argument, to anyone impartial, as to why it should be only your God that is not false.

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." You say that confessing the truth is not a persuasive argument, but God says otherwise. He says the preaching of the gospel is the means He uses to enlighten the minds of them that believe not, to make them to understand. Of course, the preaching itself has no power to do this, but God gives the increase. Just as when a man sows seed and doesn't know which one will grow, this or that or both together. So it is with the kingdom of God. God causes His preached Word to grow and flourish as pleases Him. Some grow for He blesses it, and others He does not bless. He does whatsoever pleases Him.

 

[exchemist]

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." You say that confessing the truth is not a persuasive argument, but God says otherwise. He says the preaching of the gospel is the means He uses to enlighten the minds of them that believe not, to make them to understand. Of course, the preaching itself has no power to do this, but God gives the increase. Just as when a man sows seed and doesn't know which one will grow, this or that or both together. So it is with the kingdom of God. God causes His preached Word to grow and flourish as pleases Him. Some grow for He blesses it, and others He does not bless. He does whatsoever pleases Him.

Wrong. I do not say that confessing the truth is not persuasive.

I say that confessing what you assert is the truth is unpersuasive, unless you can show why it really is the truth, as opposed to what someone else says is the truth.