Do not trust your bible

[Zzyzx]

.
Over and over in these threads Christians attempt to defend bible story inconsistencies or errors by claiming "translation error" or occasionally "transcription error." They often go into long explanations of the Latin or Greek words and give their opinion on "the real meaning" of words in the bible.

Not only that, but there are considerable differences in word use (or translation or interpretation) between the many different versions of the bible.

In a current thread a religionist complains that when opponents take statements from the bible to mean exactly what they say, they are attempting to apply modern usage to ancient texts. Are bibles in general use NOT using (or attempting to use) modern language? Are they written / edited for ancients or for modern people?

If bibles in common use cannot be trusted to say what they mean and mean what they say, WHERE are bible believers supposed to learn truth? Not many are linguists fluent in ancient languages.

[Zzyzx]

.

Yes, I have seen that and have done that myself. In fact, that is what I have done with your post. I quoted you and asked for your sources. This is good and proper exegesis.

Should I reject what you have said, because you did not present what was specifically said in posts you can not specifically identify?

Pardon me all to heck for forgetting the location of one post to which I referred. What a terrible sin. Yes, of course, that should invalidate anything I say.

Are you serious?

I retract that part of my post which refers to a specific post. Thus:

Over and over in these threads Christians attempt to defend bible story inconsistencies or errors by claiming "translation error" or occasionally "transcription error." They often go into long explanations of the Latin or Greek words and give their opinion on "the real meaning" of words in the bible.

Not only that, but there are considerable differences in word use (or translation or interpretation) between the many different versions of the bible.

Remove: In a current thread a religionist complains that when opponents take statements from the bible to mean exactly what they say, they are attempting to apply modern usage to ancient texts.

Are bibles in general use NOT using (or attempting to use) modern language? Are they written / edited for ancients or for modern people?

If bibles in common use cannot be trusted to say what they mean and mean what they say, WHERE are bible believers supposed to learn truth? Not many are linguists fluent in ancient languages.

NOW can you debate the topic as it stands? Notice that the removal makes little or no difference in what was presented.

Yet, you insist that people not believe what is in their bibles, even though their are manuscripts that can be examined to verify what they say.

It is not only me who says the the bible cannot be trusted to mean what it says and say what it means – but religionists who claim that words that appear in common use bibles do not mean what they are defined to mean in modern use dictionaries but must be re-translated, explained, or "interpreted" by those who claim to know such things.

[OnceConvinced]

He is a trustworthy dependable Fatherly figure to His children.

Has this trustworthy and dependable God ensured all HIS children have a reliable properly translated version of the bible?

Adonai has provided sufficient manuscripts, a remnant of His people and Ruach HaChedosh to guide His people into an understand how they should live.

But they are not sufficient. Nobody seems to be able to agree on how they should be translated.

The differences do have some significance with regard to how His people should then live, but in conjunction with a Torah submissive community and Ruach HaChedosh, one can learn and grow in that understanding.

There are many huge difference in doctrines between Christian sects. So much so that many of them accuse the others of not being "true Christians".

[bluethread]

.

Yes, I have seen that and have done that myself. In fact, that is what I have done with your post. I quoted you and asked for your sources. This is good and proper exegesis.

Should I reject what you have said, because you did not present what was specifically said in posts you can not specifically identify?

Pardon me all to heck for forgetting the location of one post to which I referred. What a terrible sin. Yes, of course, that should invalidate anything I say.

Are you serious?

I retract that part of my post which refers to a specific post. Thus:

Over and over in these threads Christians attempt to defend bible story inconsistencies or errors by claiming "translation error" or occasionally "transcription error." They often go into long explanations of the Latin or Greek words and give their opinion on "the real meaning" of words in the bible.

Not only that, but there are considerable differences in word use (or translation or interpretation) between the many different versions of the bible.

Remove: In a current thread a religionist complains that when opponents take statements from the bible to mean exactly what they say, they are attempting to apply modern usage to ancient texts.

Are bibles in general use NOT using (or attempting to use) modern language? Are they written / edited for ancients or for modern people?

If bibles in common use cannot be trusted to say what they mean and mean what they say, WHERE are bible believers supposed to learn truth? Not many are linguists fluent in ancient languages.

NOW can you debate the topic as it stands? Notice that the removal makes little or no difference in what was presented.

Well, the topic is about whether or not we should trust something that requires an understanding of the context and sources. The need to take context and sources into account is a common practice when interpreting anything. I was just using your post as an example. Sorry, if you were offended at the inquiry, but the Scriptures encourage the study of sources and context. As Paul said to Timothy, 2 Tim 2:15 "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

Yet, you insist that people not believe what is in their bibles, even though their are manuscripts that can be examined to verify what they say.

It is not only me who says the the bible cannot be trusted to mean what it says and say what it means – but religionists who claim that words that appear in common use bibles do not mean what they are defined to mean in modern use dictionaries but must be re-translated, explained, or "interpreted" by those who claim to know such things.

If your argument is that people should not just accept what is said in a translation as definitive and leave it at that, I would agree. However, if you are saying that one should have no trust at all in a translation, I would beg to differ. As I pointed out above, Adonai's people are instructed to consult the whole council of Adonai, the Scriptures, one another, and Ruach HaChedosh.

[Zzyzx]

.

If your argument is that people should not just accept what is said in a translation as definitive and leave it at that, I would agree.

My argument is that since people are told that many words in the bible are translated incorrectly, and since most people are not translators or linguists, they cannot trust their bible to say what it means and mean what it says.

If one must use other sources to "interpret" the bible for them, they are trusting the other sources, not the bible. So you are saying the same thing I say but making it sound religious.

However, if you are saying that one should have no trust at all in a translation, I would beg to differ.

Can you (or anyone) identify the words that are translated correctly and those that are not? If, for instance, the word "day" can mean a thousand years, one would be foolish to trust a bible when it said "day" because there is no telling what that simple a term means.

As I pointed out above, Adonai's people are instructed to consult the whole council of Adonai, the Scriptures, one another, and Ruach HaChedosh.

Do all "Adonais' people" or worshipers of the Jewish God do as you claim they are instructed to consult those four sources -- on every issue that comes up? If they do, they are NOT trusting the bible, but rather what various people say the bible means.