Trusting the Bible

[savagewind]

But I hear everyone else say, "it fits my preconceived notion, it must be right". OK?

I realize my blog is called "Is Truth a Real Thing?" But I do believe truth is real. If scripture does not match the truth, it isn't right. I am not the truth fyi.

You might meet Jesus for that.

 

[savagewind]

I have posted about scripture which I believe is wrong and they believe is right. It is OK to believe it is right but not OK to believe it is wrong, which is weird. I have given reasons for the changes. They have NEVER, EVER given any reason to keep it the same. Not once. Impossible, but true.

 

[savagewind]

What does seek righteousness mean? Zephaniah 2:3

 

[savagewind]

Proverbs 18:24 How about?

A man's friends will come and go, but [true] love will make brothers of them.

 

[leibowde84]

Proverbs 18:24 How about?

A man's friends will come and go, but [true] love will make brothers of them.

Seems true. It's like the difference between a casual friend and a life-long best friend.

 

[Tumah]

Taking Proverbs 18:24

KJV
A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.

NASB
A man of many friends comes to ruin, But there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.​

we know that both can't be accurate, which means at least one of them is not right, all of which has nothing to do with a reader's comprehension.

Not necessarily. The word that is causing the discrepancy is "להתרעע", which is composed of the passive form ("להת" "to be") and the root רע.
Depending on context, the word can mean either "evil" or "friend".
Ex. 5:23 "And since I came to Pharaoh to speak in your name, he has harmed (הרע) this nation..."
Lev. 19:18 "...And you shall love your friend (לרעך) as yourself..."

One of the great things about Biblical Hebrew is the plethora of double innuendos that can be found in so many verses.

 

[Tumah]

Why do you think this? It seems more likely that any book written by men thousands of years ago with far less understanding of the natural world and was translated multiple times throughout history by many different people might be inaccurate in certain specifics.

That's true. but obviously I don't think that's what happened. So for me at least, that's not relevant here.

 

[leibowde84]

That's true. but obviously I don't think that's what happened. So for me at least, that's not relevant here.

I know that is not what you think happened, but why is that? Why do you discard/ignore this possibility? Would you say that it is a confirmation bias that you are OK with, or is there something that provides you objective reasoning?

 

[jojom]

Not necessarily. The word that is causing the discrepancy is "להתרעע", which is composed of the passive form ("להת" "to be") and the root רע.
Depending on context, the word can mean either "evil" or "friend".
Ex. 5:23 "And since I came to Pharaoh to speak in your name, he has harmed (הרע) this nation..."
Lev. 19:18 "...And you shall love your friend (לרעך) as yourself..."

One of the great things about Biblical Hebrew is the plethora of double innuendos that can be found in so many verses.

Doesn't matter what the cause of the discrepancy is. What matters is what is presented to the reader, and in the case of Proverbs 18:24 the presentations are at odds. The King James Version says

A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.​

And the New American Standard Bible says:

A man of many friends comes to ruin, But there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.
​

We know that both can't be accurate, which means at least one of them is not right.

 

[Tumah]

No. I say if it doesn't match anything else in scripture (or history) it is wrong. Not me. I do not have any preconceived notions. Also, I do not have a human leader like you say, "ask him".

Don't you think thought, that if no once else sees a discrepancy between this and other verses, that the problem is either how you are viewing the other verses or how you are understanding this verse? Why do you assume the problem is external to you? I see no contradiction between this and any other verse in the Bible. So if you do, isn't it possible that the problem is in your understanding somewhere?

 

[savagewind]

Don't you think thought, that if no once else sees a discrepancy between this and other verses, that the problem is either how you are viewing the other verses or how you are understanding this verse? Why do you assume the problem is external to you? I see no contradiction between this and any other verse in the Bible. So if you do, isn't it possible that the problem is in your understanding somewhere?

Yes, it might be internal. But numbers does nothing to prove anything right or wrong. Do you agree with this?

If there exists a truth, but nobody knows it, is it still true?

On the other hand, if everyone believes a falsehood does it make it true?

 

[Tumah]

I know that is not what you think happened, but why is that? Why do you discard/ignore this possibility? Would you say that it is a confirmation bias that you are OK with, or is there something that provides you objective reasoning?

Probably a confirmation bias. If its not broken, why fix it?

 

[savagewind]

Probably a confirmation bias. If its not broken, why fix it?

Please look again at the world around you! The Bible is a book of love and wisdom. Please tell us why it isn't working for love and wisdom.

 

[Tumah]

Doesn't matter what the cause of the discrepancy is. What matters is what is presented to the reader, and in the case of Proverbs 18:24 the presentations are at odds. The King James Version says

A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.​

And the New American Standard Bible says:

A man of many friends comes to ruin, But there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.
​

We know that both can't be accurate, which means at least one of them is not right.

But what I'm telling you is that the nature of Biblical Hebrew is such that both can be accurate.

Also, I'm actually not sure what you are arguing exactly. Are you saying that people can mistakenly interpret information?

 

[Tumah]

Please look again at the world around you! The Bible is a book of love and wisdom. Please tell us why it isn't working for love and wisdom.

I don't understand what you are saying.

 

[Tumah]

Yes, it might be internal. But numbers does nothing to prove anything right or wrong. Do you agree with this?

If there exists a truth, but nobody knows it, is it still true?

On the other hand, if everyone believes a falsehood does it make it true?

I don't exactly agree. If a lot of people are saying something is true, the first step would be to double check oneself, rather than the majority.

 

[jojom]

But what I'm telling you is that the nature of Biblical Hebrew is such that both can be accurate.

"Can be" is a far cry from "are." And certainly doesn't pertain to all the various renderings of Isaiah 45:7.

Also, I'm actually not sure what you are arguing exactly. Are you saying that people can mistakenly interpret information?

I'm saying that the Bible is a fallible book and untrustworthy. Not only do some of its passages blatantly conflict with each other, some come off as high fantasy, and some of have been interpreted, reinterpreted, and re-reinterpreted, that god only knows what they're actually suppose to say. I would think that any god worth his salt would make certain that what he had to say to his people would be unequivocal. It would stand the test of time and leave absolutely no room for misinterpretation. If he could inspire the original writers to write down exactly what he meant, why abandon the project and let translators down the line botch it up. Last count is 105 English translations of the Bible.
(Source: Wikipedia)

 

[savagewind]

"Can be" is a far cry from "are." And certainly doesn't pertain to all the various renderings of Isaiah 45:7.

I'm saying that the Bible is a fallible book and untrustworthy. Not only do some of its passages blatantly conflict with each other, some come off as high fantasy, and some of have been interpreted, reinterpreted, and re-reinterpreted, that god only knows what they're actually suppose to say. I would think that any god worth his salt would make certain that what he had to say to his people would be unequivocal. It would stand the test of time and leave absolutely no room for misinterpretation. If he could inspire the original writers to write down exactly what he meant, why abandon the project and let translators down the line botch it up. Last count is 105 English translations of the Bible.
(Source: Wikipedia)

Why let them? Describe for us how translating can be done perfectly. Would The Lord not have to enter the person, take away his freedom for a time, control his thinking and his writing, at the same time making no mistakes in penmanship. And how many times and with how many people would this need to happen?

 

[savagewind]

It is what the Christian Nation, for the most part, believes in. And then some wonder why we are not getting anywhere.

 

[Tumah]

"Can be" is a far cry from "are." And certainly doesn't pertain to all the various renderings of Isaiah 45:7.

Not such a far cry. And as I don't use Christian translations, I'm not familiar with the various renderings of Isaiah 45:7. The verse itself is pretty straightforward in the Hebrew, so I'm not sure how many ways there could be to read that.

I'm saying that the Bible is a fallible book and untrustworthy. Not only do some of its passages blatantly conflict with each other, some come off as high fantasy, and some of have been interpreted, reinterpreted, and re-reinterpreted, that god only knows what they're actually suppose to say. I would think that any god worth his salt would make certain that what he had to say to his people would be unequivocal. It would stand the test of time and leave absolutely no room for misinterpretation. If he could inspire the original writers to write down exactly what he meant, why abandon the project and let translators down the line botch it up. Last count is 105 English translations of the Bible.
(Source: Wikipedia)

I'm not really sure where you're coming from. I'm Jewish. I believe that G-d meant the Bible for the Jews and that's why it was given to them and is about them. And I don't have any problems with translations as I use the original Hebrew as do the vast majority of my co-denominationlists. So as far as I'm concerned, He accomplished exactly what He intended.
The problem of 105 translations is a Christian one. And they were not meant to have our Holy Book. So if they have a problem with interpretation, well, that's fine with me.