WAIT... WAIT! So can we right now hear it from your mouth that the King James Version of the Bible is not the infallible word of God. Would you please say that, once and for all? That is EXACTLY what you just agreed to.

I've been saying that all along Baker. YES, ONLY THE BIBLE IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES IS INFALLIBLE. Look above in my first response here to ParaTed. I said the same thing.

I also said the two versions that are the closest to the original is the ESV and the NASB. I've said that many many times. I've also said the KJV is not the BEST translation but I like it because I grew up on it and I like the language. It's old and we don't use the same lingo anymore so yes, that's why Love is used in the modern versions instead of Charity. So this whole discusion is really a moot one.

I noticed you did not put in any definition of charity/love from modern dictionaries. .....so I'll put up for you....

char‧i‧ty  /ˈtʃærɪti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[char-i-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun, plural -ties. 1. generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless: to devote one's life to charity.
2. something given to a person or persons in need; alms: She asked for work, not charity.
3. a charitable act or work.
4. a charitable fund, foundation, or institution: He left his estate to a charity.
5. benevolent feeling, esp. toward those in need or in disfavor: She looked so poor that we fed her out of charity.
6. leniency in judging others; forbearance: She was inclined to view our selfish behavior with charity.
7. Christian love; agape.

another from an old source:

Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary - Cite This Source
Charity

(1 Cor. 13), the rendering in the Authorized Version of the word which properly
denotes love, and is frequently so rendered (always so in the Revised Version).
It is spoken of as the greatest of the three Christian graces (1 Cor.
12:31-13:13).

Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

My Websters I have here on my desk combines pretty much both of these sources even using 1 Cor 13 in their definition.as well.

Need I say more?

So, I think we are finally agreed then. The Bible is not the inerrant word of God. Perhaps at one time the inerrant word of God was spoken through people, or written down by them, but what we have is either translations of it, or fragmentary parts of it written in languages that don't translate perfectly into our own modern language, or second, third or more hand versions of it.

So what we have is our fallible, man-made approximation of God's word. Thanks, finally, for your honesty.

So what we have is our fallible, man-made approximation of God's word. Thanks, finally, for your honesty.

you know what? You're a turd!!!

I've been saying all along that the bible is inerrant. All along. IT IS INERRANT IN IT'S ORIGINAL LANGAUGE. What we have in our hands is a very good representation of it. NO, it's not perfect in our English but we have no meaning lost in the translating of it whether we use love or whether we use Charity, whether we use eagle or whether we use vulture. A good student that wants to go deep tho should use the original langage as their guide but is not necesary for most Christians because they can read the scriptures in English and know that it's pretty darn close.

The NASB for instance out of all the translations is as faithful to the original language as you can get. It presents a clear, readable style with the translators paying special attention in their rendering of the Gk tenses in order to clarify the meaning of the writer. So while it can't be perfect because scriptures were not written originally in English, it's about as close as you can get, therefore, we can accurately say what we are reading is what God intended us to read. As I showed you above, the versions are not that far off from each other. Most of the time we're just dealing with outdated wording.

What? No response on the dictionary definition of love under the word "Charity?"







So we are not in agreement. You don't believe in the inerrancy of the bible...I do.

"NO, it's not perfect in our English but we have no meaning lost in the translating of it whether we use love or whether we use Charity, whether we use eagle or whether we use vulture."

lol, backpeddling. What does this have to do with being a "good student"? Poor people in third world countries that are reading the Bible translated into yet ANOTHER language are somehow less important then? Since they don't have the benefit of a bookstore to go to so that they can worm out the inerrant word amidst all the flaws.

No, you've not been saying it was errant all the time. You've been giving us supernatural reasons that a book that isn't inerrant is. It's like God hating Esau. Sure, it says He did, but he really didn't. But then it didn't really MEAN He did, even though it says He did, and we know this through...

So the Bible isn't perfect, but it isn't inerrant, either... so long as you are a "good student". Why can't you just be honest?

"So we are not in agreement. You don't believe in the inerrancy of the bible...I do."

No, you believe that a person can get the inerrant meaning out of an errant book through being a good student and looking to the leadership of God. I would have SWORN that is what I've been saying all along.

So, I'd have to turn it around and ask you how you can be so sure all this mess you use to make the meaning correct is really of God. I'd have to ask how you know that your or Webster's or anyone else's definition of charity has anything to do with what someone who spoke greek 2000 years ago believed it to mean?

You don't. YOu just fill in the blanks with faith. So do I. I'm just willing to take accountability for my own judgment, and you just say "That's what the book says" whether it really does or not.

What does this have to do with being a "good student"? Poor people in third world countries that are reading the Bible translated into yet ANOTHER language are somehow less important then? Since they don't have the benefit of a bookstore to go to so that they can worm out the inerrant word amidst all the flaws.

No, what I'm saying is the bible is perfectly acceptable being translated for our everyday reading. But for a student who wants to go deeper into the meaning behind it, going to the original languages is helpful not necessary. For instance when you read John 21,when Jesus was conversing with Peter you see the usage of two synonyms for love. But our English versions just show one word love.

In terms of interpretation, when two synonyms are placed in close proximity in context, a difference in meaning, however slight, is emphasized. When Jesus asked Peter if he loved Him, He used a word for love that signified total commitment. (agape) Peter responded with a word for love that signified his love for Jesus, but not necessarily His total commitment, (phileo).

Without going to the Gk we'd have no idea of the difference. Only a student who was interested in going deeper would be so inclined to look into this.

But then it didn't really MEAN He did, even though it says He did, and we know this through...

let me finish for you........."we know this through reading the WHOLE of scripture."

Why can't you just be honest?

I AM being honest. You just CAN'T accept my answers. Can't help that.

You don't. YOu just fill in the blanks with faith. So do I.

Well, this we're in agreement on. I just don't think that you have faith that God would preserve His own word in such a way that we can believe it as we have it now. That you believe somehow, we've lost His real word because of fallible men who messed with it. My God is bigger than that. He made sure we received it. He will also preserve it.

I'd have to ask how you know that your or Webster's or anyone else's definition of charity has anything to do with what someone who spoke greek 2000 years ago believed it to mean?

So they are all wrong going back to the 4th century with the Latin Vulgate.? Have you ever done a study on Jerome? He was a linguistic genuis. This is his Latin Vulgate......taken directly from the Gk texts in the 4th century, not 2000 years later.

Latin Vulgate
13:13 nunc autem manet fides spes caritas tria haec maior autem his est caritas

and the Catholic bible that came from that vulgate in English.

Douay Rheims
13:13 And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity

and the Gk :

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptusnuni de menei pistiV elpiV agaph ta tria tauta meizwn de toutwn h agaph Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptusnuni de menei pistiV elpiV agaph ta tria tauta meizwn de toutwn h agaph
Byzantine Majoritynuni de menei pistiV elpiV agaph ta tria tauta meizwn de toutwn h agaph
Alexandriannuni de menei pistiV elpiV agaph ta tria tauta meizwn de toutwn h agaph
Hort and Westcottnuni de menei pistiV elpiV agaph ta tria tauta meizwn de toutwn h agaph



Notice the last word. I'm sure you can recognize it even if you don't read Gk.

While I'm no Gk expert, I can get around a bit using helps but I do have a friend who reads and speaks Gk and I do go to her from time to time and she has been in agreement with the Gk Lexicons and dictionaries I have been using comparing my sources to the langage itself. Thus far, there has been no discrepancies.

What do I really think?” see Andy this is where you and I part company. I don't think it matters what I THINK at all.

Of course we need to think for ourself KFC – otherwise our beliefs and views will be governed wholly by our cultural roots and upbringing, or by other people's views and opinions.

With this said, you have unwittingly proved this to be the case. If you haven’t considered, “What do I think?”, then you haven’t been thinking for yourself at all, which would explain why you believe the Bible is inerrant. As I’ve said plenty of times before, but still you appear to have a ‘blind-spot’ to the matter, if you had been born into a Muslim household or culture, you’d now believe that the Qur’an was the inerrant word of God and that it was directly dictated by God. This is because it’s written in black and white in the Qur’an.

Unless, of course, you began to think for yourself.

Becoming a Christian doesn't mean we need to suddenly stop thinking for ourself, and this? I totally agree with you here Andy. Right on. That's a fallacy many believe about Christians. We don't think. But it's the opposite. We are thinking. Some of the great thinkers of all time were fundamental Christians. Are you going to accuse them of not thinking?

this contradicts what you’ve just said, and upholds the point I’ve been trying to make. We need to think for ourself in order to discern what might be true and what might not.

We have to get OUR thinking in line with HIS. I don't believe it's subjective at all. Truth is not subjective. Truth is objective. It never changes.

Absolutely. Truth is objective. Yet you have concluded that the Bible is an inerrant depiction of Absolute Truth. And that is a subjective conclusion, believe it or not, just as it's subjective to believe that the Qur'an is the inerrant Word of God.

Yes, I agree that we do need to use our brains. We don't check them at the door when it comes to the spriritual anymore than anything else. God said to love him with our whole heart, soul and MIND. So yes I'd agree with you that we need to use our God given brains.

What I was responding to was when you said our subjective thinking is all that matters. As long as I THINK it's ok then it's ok is what I'm hearing you say. I'm saying yes, we need to use our brains but if we go against God using them, what good is it? If God says go to the right, and I think about it, using my brain power and go to the left.....am I right or is God right?

hahahah Actually I'd be left now wouldn't I? .

Whether a believer is one in the Koran or the Bible, I believe both are sincere. I don't believe both are sincerely right because they contradict each other. Either one is sincerely right and one sincerely wrong or they both are sincerely wrong.

Thanks Andy for responding. I really enjoy chatting with you as always......

i looked at this article and the responses.

if i understand the debate right , kfc contends that the word of God is infallable in the 'orig texts" is that right?

if so, i need to point out that the "orig" texts" are not , in many cases, origional at all. many of them are interpretations and word of mouth ones at that of stories passed down. so therefore, are subject to the same infallabilities as any modern day translations are.

not to mention there are literally thousands of texts that 1 man in the early days of the church ruled invalid." many times because they contradicted other books that the "editor" working for the roman catholic church wanted to include.

for example, when you look outside the biblical texts, you find the "gospels" of mary magdeline, et al...and by many historical accounts, and by accounts contended in other books, not deemed "worthy" by the priest who designed the bible, she was the one closest to jesus. she was by no means a "prostitute." she carried more responsibility than any of the male apostles. yet, all of the christian sects that are big would rather you think of her as a whore and a side player. why? because that's the way ancient man thought of women.

look in the bible. outside of ruth at the top of my head , almost all women even mentioned in the bible are portrayed as "so pure they can't be touched" or a "whore." do you think that's how God sees women? is that infallibility of God or men pompously pretending they knew what God's word is, when the reality is all they wrote was how man wanted "God" to feel, which coincidentally was the attitude they had.

again,,,how convenient.

i'm rambling, but in short, i just think your premise and conclusions are wrong kfc. where there is wisdom in the bible, arguing infallibility on any level is ridiculous imho.

but, if it helps ya sleep at night, far be it from me to rain on your parade.

Thanks Andy for responding. I really enjoy chatting with you as always......

I enjoy the conversation too KFC. It’s good stuff,

Either one is sincerely right and one sincerely wrong or they both are sincerely wrong.

KFC, that’s not actually true. Consider what Truth is, and we'll take it from there.

Truth is ‘What Is So’, regardless of our subjective opinions or interpretations. Truth is objective, and doesn’t change. However, human views and interpretations can change or evolve, and some people’s views will naturally be more aligned with ‘What Is So’ than others.

Now, for argument’s sake, imagine that after death, we learned that non-Christians do not actually perish in Hellfire forever. Rather, they are given a second chance at redemption, maybe? If this were the case, then we could say that a little bit of the Bible is incorrect, but this wouldn’t mean that the other 90% of the Bible is also incorrect.

Or what if 70% of the Qur’an is correct and 30% incorrect? For example, what if Adam and Eve were actually created at the outset in Paradise-Heaven, as depicted in the Qur’an, and not created at the outset on earth, as depicted in the Bible?

For all we know, 70% of the Qur’an might be correct and 30% wrong, and 80% of the Bible might be correct and 20% wrong?

If this were the case, then neither the Qur’an or the Bible would be infallible, but both of them would contain significant amounts of truth and wisdom.

KFC, it’s your own subjective view that the Bible is infallible and inerrant. But it might not be aligned with ‘What Is So’.

i need to point out that the "orig" texts" are not , in many cases, origional at all. many of them are interpretations and word of mouth ones at that of stories passed down. so therefore, are subject to the same infallabilities as any modern day translations are.

Very true!

from SConn1---
if i understand the debate right , kfc contends that the word of God is infallable in the 'orig texts" is that right?

if so, i need to point out that the "orig" texts" are not , in many cases, origional at all. many of them are interpretations and word of mouth ones at that of stories passed down. so therefore, are subject to the same infallabilities as any modern day translations are.

WIth all due respect, SConn1, from what you say here, you do not know much about the Bible or the history of the making and preserving of it. The Bible is an eminently Catholic Book. (and I'll come back to this later.)
God is the principle author because He inspired different human writers over a span of 1,000 plus years to write just what He wanted. Therefore, everything in the Bible is infallibly true. Both the OT and the NT claim to be divine in their origin. Jews always accepted the OT as inspired. Exodus 17:14; 34:27; St. Mark 12:36;St.Matt. 22:31-32. Jesus Himself refers to the OT writings as certain proof that His mission was Divine St.John 5:39; about 150 times the expression in the NT, "The Scripture says", or its equivalent occurs clearly attributing to the Scriptures Divine authority. Jesus expressly refers to all that was written of him in "the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms." 2Tim. 3:16, "All scripture, inspired by God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, and to instruct in justice." KFC has already made these points. These things seem elementary to KFC.
KFC heard over and over that this is circular reasoning. But it isn't. So if you abstract away from that, consider the fact that the BIble is infinitely superior to all other books that has endured the most searching criticism from its very beginning. This has only proved the Gospels to be always historically accurate. They tell us of a historical Person who said He was God and justified that claim by works, death and Resurrection from the dead that no mere man could have done.
Scripture tells how Jesus founded His Church (the Catholic Church) that still exists after 2,000 years and will until the end of time on His promise that He would be with her and the gates of Hell will not prevail against her. The Catholic Church whose very existence in the world today cannot be explained by natural forces. So we argue the realiability of the Bible as history and from that conclude Christ's Church was founded which guarantees the Bible as the Word of God.
On rational grounds, this is really a spiral argument of which the ends do not meet. KFC is quite right in believing the Bible is inspired on the authority of Scripture itself. I believe the Bible's inspired on the the infallible and consistent teaching of the Church.

Now back to the making of the Bible, the original one being an eminently Catholic book. The original texts were written by reeds on parchment and later on papyrus by men who were inspired by God. The OT books were written in Hebrew and compiled (collected in one volume) around 430 BC under Esdras and Nehemiah, and rested on the authority of the famous Jew, Josephus, who lived immediately after our Lord that "no one had dared to add or subtract anything from the Jewish Scriptures or make any changes. These are the very Scriptures that Jesus referred to when we read the New Testament.

The New Testament covers the birth, life and death of CHrist and the foundation of His Church. The Church and the Faith existed before the New Testament. Between 40 and 80 years after Christ's death and Resurrection some members of the early Church, apostles, evangelists, and the prophet, under divine inspiration, wrote mainly in Greek and some in Arabiac, the collected works that would come to make up the NT.

Of course, these apostolic writers weren't the only writers at that time. In the course of the first 3 centuries, there were many other writings...gospels, epistles, letters..floating about. Some were good and some were full of absurd fables, superstitutions, false stories about Christ and the Apostles. How was it decided which of all these books would become the actual canon of the Bible. Who would decide?
It is the Church who would decide which books would compile the New testament and make up what we know as the Bible. It is a fact of history that the Council of Carthage and the will of the pope in AD 397 settled the collection of NT Scriptures as Catholics have them now today in the Douay Rheim Bible. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Rome had fixed the canon of the NT.

The Bible was preserved, and multiplied and diffused throughout the Middle ages and centuries leading up to the printing press by the monks, friars, priests, abbots and even nuns who lived in monasteries which were the center of learning in those days. They were all learned men, scholars, who dedicated themselves to an austere life of prayer and service. They meticulously copied and transcribed word by word of the Holy Scriptures.
Of course, much of the original parchment is long gone. But thanks to men and women consecrated to God by their vows and life saved the written Word of God from extinction by reproducing thousands of hand made copies.

Hey, lulabelle, ask KFC who the whore of babylon is.

SConn1 writes----so therefore, are subject to the same infallabilities as any modern day translations are.

Well,SConn1, you're in luck tonight. I have some more time to help clear up the confusion over translations.

The need for translations developed when the Gospel had been spread abroad to many people who could not understand Hebrew or Greek. Many of the Christians at the time spoke Latin. In 382 AD, Pope Damascus saw the need for the Bible to be tranlated into Latin and he wanted to make sure of getting the best,accurate translation possible. He commanded a monk, St. Jerome to do the job. St. Jerome was Greek speaking from birth, spoke and wrote Latin perfectly, and at 26 studied Hebrew in order to enter the religious order. St. Jerome's Latin version translation is known as the Latin Vulgate was written between 392-404. It took him so long becasue it is an accurate version word for word from the original languages. The Latin Vulgate is the official text of the Catholic Church which has come down through the ages and continues to influence all other versions. The Douay Rheims that I have on my shelf today is the English translation of St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate Bible. I have no doubt whatsoever that it is the inspired Word of God.

For us believers, so long as we have the Word of God, it makes no difference that they are written in different languages hundreds of years after the originals. With translations over time, variations crept in, but not so major as to hinder us from getting the important and substantial meaning of doctrinal matter. KFC has already admitted some authorized versions contain errors, but that doesn't mean the Bible is erroneous or fallible. Where it is not in error is certainly the inspired Word of God.

SConn1 writes---look in the bible. outside of ruth at the top of my head , almost all women even mentioned in the bible are portrayed as "so pure they can't be touched" or a "whore." do you think that's how God sees women? is that infallibility of God or men pompously pretending they knew what God's word is, when the reality is all they wrote was how man wanted "God" to feel, which coincidentally was the attitude they had.

We have to believe in the inspiration and truth of the Bible. The catch is we have to believe in the truth intended by God, not in superficial ideas that come to our mind. The Bible, every word of it is a conveyor of truth. Of various passages, we must ask ourselves whether God intended them to be taken literally or are they meant to convey the truth in a metaphorical way.

God loves His creation in a way that is beyond human understanding. In the Bible God lays down His law as to how we are to treat one another and that is with the greatest of love. We are to love one another as oursleves--- with no distinction..enemy, good, bad, beautiful, ugly, young, old, disabled, . This is a very difficult task and one that we must work on daily.
In women, the world tells us it's all about the superficial exterior.....but that's only vanity and pride working ....God looks at the heart of people and that is what we must try to do. Everyone one of us has a bit of goodness becasue we are made in the image and likeness of God. That bit of goodness is what we look for in people.

For us believers

who said i didn't believe in God? i don't put my faith in fallible men tho.

and i am very familiar with the history you refer to, that's the catholic church's version. but it's hardly the only version. but i didn't come here to get into a religious pissing contest. furthermore, no minds are gonna be changed here. you buy what the church is sellin, i don't. but please don't confuse that with a lack of faith in God.

With translations over time, variations crept in, but not so major as to hinder us from getting the important and substantial meaning of doctrinal matter.

well, there is no consensus here for people who call themselves believers. some believe in literal translations, others more profound ones. some take the text as a whole, some pick out certain versus thy deem "divine" or whatever tag ya wanna attach.

KFC has already admitted some authorized versions contain errors, but that doesn't mean the Bible is erroneous or fallible. Where it is not in error is certainly the inspired Word of God.

wanna buy a bridge?

bless you and have a great day lula:)