Forgery in the Bible

[snr5557]

How do you know?

Quantrill

Because I love Him so much. He made everything, and in my eyes, is the ultimate scientist. He created everything scientifically, he made atoms and cells and weather patterns and ecosystems and much more.

"The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go in it, but the way the atoms are put together."

It's all beautiful, if you would take the time to look at it carefully. But, I've seen this line of questioning before (having used it myself before ) so what is it that you want to say?

 

[Quantrill]

Because I love Him so much. He made everything, and in my eyes, is the ultimate scientist. He created everything scientifically, he made atoms and cells and weather patterns and ecosystems and much more.

"The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go in it, but the way the atoms are put together."

It's all beautiful, if you would take the time to look at it carefully. But, I've seen this line of questioning before (having used it myself before ) so what is it that you want to say?

How do you know?

You say you love Him. Who is Him?

The basis of your 'foundation' is you. Because 'you' love.

I am saying what I want to say.

Quantrill

 

[Wormwood]

Hi Wormwood,

I have a question for you in this regard:


In most translations, Daniel 9:25 cites "seven and sixty-two" to an anointed one, as though it were the value of ~sixty-nine~.

NKJV

25 “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; the street[c] shall be built again, and the wall,[d] even in troublesome times. 26 “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;


Newton says this does "violence" to scripture, "a way of numbering used by no nation".



However, the RSV says "seven" to an anointed one, and then a second time span of "sixty-two" to a second anointed one.

RSV
25 Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. 26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing;



Which text is authentic?



With Best Regards,
DaDad

Unfortunately, my computer is down currently so I am on my iPad. Sorry for the delay. This is an issue of translation, not inspiration. Certainly there are good translations, and poor translations. Some translations more effectively communicate a passage than another translation. Sometimes this is because one translation is using more reliable textual evidence, and sometimes it is because the translators do a better job of communicating what the original language was communicating. This is not always an easy task.

So, to answer your question, "which is authentic" I would say, "Neither." Both are translations. I think the question you should be asking is, "Which of these most closely communicates the Hebrew?" I'd be happy to give my opinion on that matter if you are interested.

 

[DaDad]

... to answer your question, "which is authentic" I would say, "Neither." Both are translations. I think the question you should be asking is, "Which of these most closely communicates the Hebrew?"

Hi Wormwood,

I disagree with your parsing given the Newton context, but if you want to answer the question in any rendering -- please feel free.


With Best Regards,
DaDad

 

[Wormwood]

No one can add or take away from the Bible. To do so is never acceptable to me. However for you to say, certain verses were added, because they are not in the oldest doesn't prove they were added. The oldest are not original either. It just proves they were not in the oldest that we have.

Quantrill

You are working of some assumptions here that you are missing. First, you argue that you cant "add or take away from the Bible." Then you say that because we don't have the original autographs, we cant prove what actually belongs in the Bible (or doesn't belong).

It sounds to me like circular reasoning. You have already determined what is in the Bible (regardless of textual evidence) and claim that because we lack the originals, you cant be proven wrong. Very convenient, but also very unconvincing.

 

[snr5557]

How do you know?

You say you love Him. Who is Him?

The basis of your 'foundation' is you. Because 'you' love.

I am saying what I want to say.

Quantrill

I wouldn't say that, did I not say He was the creator of everything?

I figured that you were saying what you were going to say, that's kind of the point of a forum board.

I assumed that you were going to try and make some point, unfortunately you missed mine.

 

[Quantrill]

I wouldn't say that, did I not say He was the creator of everything?

I figured that you were saying what you were going to say, that's kind of the point of a forum board.

I assumed that you were going to try and make some point, unfortunately you missed mine.

Yes, you said that. But I asked how you know that. You said because of your love. Is that all? The basis of your foundation, your faith in God, is 'your love'?

Quantrill

You are working of some assumptions here that you are missing. First, you argue that you cant "add or take away from the Bible." Then you say that because we don't have the original autographs, we cant prove what actually belongs in the Bible (or doesn't belong).

It sounds to me like circular reasoning. You have already determined what is in the Bible (regardless of textual evidence) and claim that because we lack the originals, you cant be proven wrong. Very convenient, but also very unconvincing.

Because we lack the originals means that the oldest manuscripts, though valuable because they are old, are not the final authority. Therefore, I am not impressed with 'texual critics and evidence' of modern day that says passages such as the woman caught in adultry, shouldn't be there.

Quantrill

 

[Wormwood]

Yes, you said that. But I asked how you know that. You said because of your love. Is that all? The basis of your foundation, your faith in God, is 'your love'?

Quantrill


Because we lack the originals means that the oldest manuscripts, though valuable because they are old, are not the final authority. Therefore, I am not impressed with 'texual critics and evidence' of modern day that says passages such as the woman caught in adultry, shouldn't be there.

Quantrill

Well, your lack of being impressed does not mean it should be in there either.

Hi Wormwood,

I disagree with your parsing given the Newton context, but if you want to answer the question in any rendering -- please feel free.


With Best Regards,
DaDad

Disagree with my parsing? I didn't parse anything. I'll try to get to the text itself later when time permits.

 

[snr5557]

Yes, you said that. But I asked how you know that. You said because of your love. Is that all? The basis of your foundation, your faith in God, is 'your love'?

Quantrill

What am I going to do with you Quantrill?

It's the belief that a higher being created this universe. But, I suppose you're just going to restate what I said again.

All I said was that I was a Christian even though others didn't think so. I was hoping that people would realize that others may approach God in a different way, and I get this again.

And since when did love become such a small thing?

Why do you keep signing your name at the end? On the left side we can tell who it is who wrote the reply so why do you keep putting your username? Not being mean, just wondering why.

What's with the confederate flag? Just curious.

 

[Quantrill]

Well, your lack of being impressed does not mean it should be in there either.

It is there already.

Quantrill

What am I going to do with you Quantrill?

It's the belief that a higher being created this universe. But, I suppose you're just going to restate what I said again.

All I said was that I was a Christian even though others didn't think so. I was hoping that people would realize that others may approach God in a different way, and I get this again.

And since when did love become such a small thing?

Why do you keep signing your name at the end? On the left side we can tell who it is who wrote the reply so why do you keep putting your username? Not being mean, just wondering why.

What's with the confederate flag? Just curious.

Yes, I know what you said you believed. I asked how do you know? You said your 'love'. Which means the basis or foundation of your belief is you.

The basis or foundation for the Christians faith is Jesus Christ, as given in the inspired word of God, the Bible. We know that because that is what is written.

I asled you how you know, but you only know because you say of your 'love'. So how is your foundation stronger?

The questions you asked about the flag are in my introduction to this forum. Which led to a debate later.

I sign my name out of habit I guess.

Quantrill

 

[Wormwood]

Yes, in a footnote.

 

[snr5557]

Yes, I know what you said you believed. I asked how do you know? You said your 'love'. Which means the basis or foundation of your belief is you.

I wouldn't say that. I just did a poor job explaining is all. But reading it from an outside point of view I can see how that might read to others, so I'm not upset about it.


The basis or foundation for the Christians faith is Jesus Christ, as given in the inspired word of God, the Bible. We know that because that is what is written.

I asled you how you know, but you only know because you say of your 'love'. So how is your foundation stronger?

I was saying my foundation can in a way be stronger than most because I can believe that parts of the Bible shouldn't be taken literally and believe in evolution, yet still believe in God. From what I've gathered here and on other sites, for someone to not take the Bible literally or to believe in evolution would make being a Christian impossible, that they would loose their faith. To be honest, the more I look into it as non-literal the stronger my faith grows. And isn't that we should be doing? To continuously grow spiritually so that we can grow closer to God? That's what I'm doing, so it feels odd that when people saying that my faith is weak because of my way of doing things, when to me it's only getting stronger because of how I do things. Hopefully I did a better job explaining this.


The questions you asked about the flag are in my introduction to this forum. Which led to a debate later.

I sign my name out of habit I guess.

Quantrill


Ok

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Intelligent design proponents postulate a designer as the ultimate purpose and reason for life in the cosmos.

Creationists hold to a literal and historical interpretation of Genesis.

 

[Quantrill]

Yes, in a footnote.

No, in the Bible.

If it's been taken out of your Bible, then some have taken away from the Word of God.

Quantrill

Yes, I know what you said you believed. I asked how do you know? You said your 'love'. Which means the basis or foundation of your belief is you.

I wouldn't say that. I just did a poor job explaining is all. But reading it from an outside point of view I can see how that might read to others, so I'm not upset about it.


The basis or foundation for the Christians faith is Jesus Christ, as given in the inspired word of God, the Bible. We know that because that is what is written.

I asled you how you know, but you only know because you say of your 'love'. So how is your foundation stronger?

I was saying my foundation can in a way be stronger than most because I can believe that parts of the Bible shouldn't be taken literally and believe in evolution, yet still believe in God. From what I've gathered here and on other sites, for someone to not take the Bible literally or to believe in evolution would make being a Christian impossible, that they would loose their faith. To be honest, the more I look into it as non-literal the stronger my faith grows. And isn't that we should be doing? To continuously grow spiritually so that we can grow closer to God? That's what I'm doing, so it feels odd that when people saying that my faith is weak because of my way of doing things, when to me it's only getting stronger because of how I do things. Hopefully I did a better job explaining this.


The questions you asked about the flag are in my introduction to this forum. Which led to a debate later.

I sign my name out of habit I guess.

Quantrill


Ok

That is exactly what you say when you say your 'love' is the basis of your foundation for what you believe. You don't want to believe it, but that is the only conclusion. Once you abondon the Bible as the source of your beliefs, then you are always left only to yourself. And you have abondoned the Bible, the Word of God.

Yes you can tell me you believe parts of the Bible are to be taken liteally and others not. But who decides which? Why you do of course. And what is the basis for what you decide is literal or not? Back to you again. What ever fits what you already believe is literal. The rest is to be explained away through either allegorical language, or mistakes from the human writers.

In other words, your faith is of yourself. Not from God. Jesus said in Matt. 4 at least three times, " it is written". There we have the example to follow. Jesus Christ trusted the written Word of God completely as the Word of God.

Quantrill

 

[snr5557]

No, in the Bible.

If it's been taken out of your Bible, then some have taken away from the Word of God.

Quantrill


That is exactly what you say when you say your 'love' is the basis of your foundation for what you believe. You don't want to believe it, but that is the only conclusion. Once you abondon the Bible as the source of your beliefs, then you are always left only to yourself. And you have abondoned the Bible, the Word of God.

Yes you can tell me you believe parts of the Bible are to be taken liteally and others not. But who decides which? Why you do of course. And what is the basis for what you decide is literal or not? Back to you again. What ever fits what you already believe is literal. The rest is to be explained away through either allegorical language, or mistakes from the human writers.

In other words, your faith is of yourself. Not from God. Jesus said in Matt. 4 at least three times, " it is written". There we have the example to follow. Jesus Christ trusted the written Word of God completely as the Word of God.

Quantrill

I don't really see it that way. If the Bible wasn't meant to be taken literally in the first place, then aren't I just following what the original writers wanted in the first place? I wish I could remember who said this, it might have been on this site or another, but that the people who read the Bible in the time it was written didn't interpret it as we do.

Who decides that all of it is literal?

I don't see how that specific phrase means that it's literal. I could easily say, "It is typed" on any sentence on this forum. But if there is more to that actual section of the Bible I'd be glad to hear it.

I'm trying to learn from others who know the Bible better than I do, Biblical Scholars. They dedicate their lives to understand the meaning and history behind the text, so I trust their experience over mine. Isn't it wise to listen to those who know more, so that we can grow to understand? I guess that's just how my education from school has ingrained into me: only trust credible sources. Not to say that the thoughts on this website are not credible.That's also part of why I go to this site, to see where people who take the Bible literally view things.

If anything is vague let me know.

 

[Quantrill]

I don't really see it that way. If the Bible wasn't meant to be taken literally in the first place, then aren't I just following what the original writers wanted in the first place? I wish I could remember who said this, it might have been on this site or another, but that the people who read the Bible in the time it was written didn't interpret it as we do.

Who decides that all of it is literal?

I don't see how that specific phrase means that it's literal. I could easily say, "It is typed" on any sentence on this forum. But if there is more to that actual section of the Bible I'd be glad to hear it.

I'm trying to learn from others who know the Bible better than I do, Biblical Scholars. They dedicate their lives to understand the meaning and history behind the text, so I trust their experience over mine. Isn't it wise to listen to those who know more, so that we can grow to understand? I guess that's just how my education from school has ingrained into me: only trust credible sources. Not to say that the thoughts on this website are not credible.That's also part of why I go to this site, to see where people who take the Bible literally view things.

If anything is vague let me know.

It is not vague to me. Is it you?

Bible scholars are not always 'Christian'.

The Bible is to be interpreted literally. Jesus said, 'it is written'. But of course if you don't take it literally then you can make that say whatever you like. Which again means your faith is based on 'you'.

Were the Pharisees Bible scholars? Did they know the Greek and Hebrew? Of course. Did they kill Jesus Christ? Of course.

Quantrill

 

[snr5557]

It is not vague to me. Is it you?

Bible scholars are not always 'Christian'.

The Bible is to be interpreted literally. Jesus said, 'it is written'. But of course if you don't take it literally then you can make that say whatever you like. Which again means your faith is based on 'you'.

Were the Pharisees Bible scholars? Did they know the Greek and Hebrew? Of course. Did they kill Jesus Christ? Of course.

Quantrill

I was asking if it was vague because I know I don't always explain things fully, and I didn't want people to be confused by what I said.

I don't see how the phrase, "it is written" means anything. I can write a random story and say, "It is written", so if you could explain how that phrase has any meaning I'd appreciate it.

True, not all Biblical Scholars are Christian, but some are. And even if they aren't, it doesn't mean that they cannot understand the history of when it was written, or how people at that time used and interpreted the Bible.

 

[Quantrill]

I was asking if it was vague because I know I don't always explain things fully, and I didn't want people to be confused by what I said.

I don't see how the phrase, "it is written" means anything. I can write a random story and say, "It is written", so if you could explain how that phrase has any meaning I'd appreciate it.

True, not all Biblical Scholars are Christian, but some are. And even if they aren't, it doesn't mean that they cannot understand the history of when it was written, or how people at that time used and interpreted the Bible.

I don't think anyone is confused about what you say. It is quite clear.

"it is written'" means nothing to you I know. As I said, why should it when you are the one who determines if something is literal in the Bible or not. Jesus Christ said 'it is written' meaning He trusted the written Word as the Word of God and to be taken literally. I don't expect you to get anything from it. I do want you to know that your foundation, your faith, is only 'you'.

A Christian is one who believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Saviour. Thus he comes to the Bible as the Word of God, not the word of men, which you ascribe to it.

Quantrill

 

[snr5557]

I don't think anyone is confused about what you say. It is quite clear.

"it is written'" means nothing to you I know. As I said, why should it when you are the one who determines if something is literal in the Bible or not. Jesus Christ said 'it is written' meaning He trusted the written Word as the Word of God and to be taken literally. I don't expect you to get anything from it. I do want you to know that your foundation, your faith, is only 'you'.

A Christian is one who believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Saviour. Thus he comes to the Bible as the Word of God, not the word of men, which you ascribe to it.

Quantrill

But if what's in the Bible are forgeries, or if the original use of the Bible has been lost, or if there are other parts of the Bible that were actually important but got left our or were lost, aren't we missing important aspects of being a Christian?

I don't see how the phrase, "it is written" is equal to "take this literally"

When did I ever say that Jesus wasn't the Son of God and Savior? Please only debate what I've written.

 

[Quantrill]

But if what's in the Bible are forgeries, or if the original use of the Bible has been lost, or if there are other parts of the Bible that were actually important but got left our or were lost, aren't we missing important aspects of being a Christian?

I don't see how the phrase, "it is written" is equal to "take this literally"

When did I ever say that Jesus wasn't the Son of God and Savior? Please only debate what I've written.

What is in the Bible isn't forgeries. Nothing is left out. Nothing is lost. We arn't missing anything.

Because Jesus Christ said 'it is written'. Which means He took it literally. He is the Son of God and should know. Right? That is a question.

Well, please clarify, is Jesus Christ the Son of God and Saviour?

Quantrill