What!! Will the real Sonny please log on.

Love ya and praying for ya,

Nancy

Lord, does this mean you planned for only Heath and me to get this…

Very nicely presented…

Can all of the people who ‘read between the lines’ please come forward!!!

fore•knowl•edge n.
Knowledge or awareness of something before its existence or occurrence; prescience.

fore•or•dain
To determine or appoint beforehand; predestine.

foresee
to see or know beforehand

What is the difference??? To see (know what happens), determine (plan what happens), have knowledge or be aware (know what happens).

Did I tell you I do not like the topic of foreknowledge.

The reason I prefer the King James Version of the Bible is that I believe other versions make slight changes that are not immediately noticeable but they alter the true meaning of the text. Satan, in the garden of Eden, made small changes to God’s word to distort God’s meaning and Eve was deceived. I don’t think Satan has given up after that worked so well. If someone produces a Bible that is very good in almost all instances then they throw in a little that is wrong it can be very detrimental to our understanding of God.

In this case, the nature of God is altered. In the KJV, God says: “Thou shalt call me, My father; and shalt not turn away from me.” This is a command that Israel was to perform. They did not do what God told them to do. They were wrong, not God.

In the ESV as you quoted, God says: “And I thought you would call me, My Father, and would not turn from following me.” It sounds like God was admitting that he was wrong.

These are obviously two different statements. It sounds as if the translators of the ESV decided to make God wrong. I don’t think God is ever wrong.

By the way, there are many other places like this in the newer versions. For example, Micah 5:2 says Jesus is eternal in the KJV. NIV says Jesus had an origin long ago. It totally undermines the deity of Jesus if he had a beginning. The list goes on.

I have read many instances of minor changes that are contradictory to the KJV but I don’t recall seeing the one you mentioned pointed out before. I will add that to my list.

Maybe there are other points similar to this in the KJV. I would like to see them if you have more examples.

Justin,

First off, Satan is never in the garden of Eden. In fact, Satan (hasatan, literally, “the advasary”) does not appear in the bible until 1 Chronicles 21:1, where he opposes Israel and incites David to take a census. Ooooh! Scary stuff! hehe..

But I digress…

Let me ask a serious question, because your last comment has me wondering: does it matter to you what the original text actually says, or is it most important to you that what you think about God is upheld by your translation?

The Hebrew text actually says (caps for emphasis, not shouting), “I USED TO THINK you would call me ‘My Father,’” which does not imply that God was wrong, but that God was uncertain about what Israel would actually do and has now changed his mind based on the actual actions of the Israelites. It is not that surprising that the KJV gets it wrong since it relies so heavily on Latin translations of the Hebrew. But why should we accept a translation error as “Truth” simply to uphold a certain view of God? Should we not instead deal with what was actually written?

When translators depart for the blessed KJV, it is usually not because that are trying to distract their readers from the true God but because they are being faithful to the actual text. It is not a conspiracy. It is good scholarship.

What is the point of scripture anyways if it is not to provide us a picture of the nature of God? Shall we all choose the picture of God we prefer and then shop around until we find a translation that is biased towards that image? No thanks!

Concerning Micah 5:2, the Hebrew text translates literally: “whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.” But since theis passage is relating to the Messiah and focuses on Bethlehem as well, why should we not assume from it that Micah is refering to the Messiah’s linage to King David, who would in fact be an origin from of old, not eternal as the KJV once again mistranslates?

I know the KJV is what Saint Paul read in prison and all, but honestly whoever has you convinced that the KJV is the inerrent word of God has you bamboozeled. It is just simply an unreliable and error prone text…. It is not evil… Just not all that good.

Sonny perhaps Heath needs you to show him how Satan was in the garden of eden

Heath,

I am not a Greek or Hebrew scholar so I have to go by what I read about the Greek and Hebrew scholars. I have also noticed that many Greek and Hebrew scholars also disagree among themselves on meanings. So, I’ll have to base my comments on the judgment of what I have read.
I’ll try to address most of the issues you raised.
I suppose there are a few reasons people think that Satan was in the garden of Eden. The Devil is referred to as a serpent elsewhere in the Bible. The passage in Ezekiel 28, as far as I can tell, is believed to be referring to Satan. Since it is obviously not referring to the human King it is assumed to be referring to the spirit controlling the human King. That passage says he was in Eden.

I am curious who you think was the serpent in Genesis.

To answer one of your questions, it matters greatly what is the correct translation of what God actually inspired to be written in the Bible. If the different translations contradict each other we will have to decide which one is correct. I don’t have access to the original texts, only the translations. I have to rely on the translations and the scholarship of those who do know Greek and Hebrew and who have compared the actual texts with the current versions. I have read several books and articles on the differences in KJV and other translations and I am convinced that the KJV is the best translation available. I am aware of many errors and deception contained in many of the other translations. For example, in my copy of the NIV there is a note concerning the last several verses of the last chapter of Mark saying in effect that these verses were not contained in the earliest and best manuscripts. This clearly implies that the verses were added later and were not in any of the earlier manuscripts. However, there are references to these verses and they are quoted in the correspondence of the early church fathers hundreds of years before the manuscripts referred to as the oldest and best: Papias (c.100), Justin Martyr (c.150), Irenaeus (c.180), etc. I consider the NIV to be purposefully deceptive since it implies that the verses were added when the producers of the NIV knew that the verses were quoted in earlier writings. (My source is “Which Version is the Bible”, p 31.)

You say the Hebrew text says, “I used to think…”. The Hebrew text, of course, was written in Hebrew. I assume you mean that is the best translation of the Hebrew text. So, you believe the KJV and the ESV are both wrong? Upon what basis do you believe this?

My whole point is that we should not accept an incorrect translation as truth. The only question is, “what is the best translation?” I think one good test of a translation is whether it corresponds with truth. I believe that the statement “God is never wrong” is true. Therefore a translation that seems to say otherwise is a translation I would consider as suspect. It could be the case, of course, that I did not understand the meaning. In this case it seems to me that the ESV is saying that God is wrong. Are you saying that God is wrong or that I misunderstood the meaning of the words of the ESV or that the ESV is wrong? Whether or not the KJV is wrong is irrelevant to this question.
You raised another question of whether we should not deal with what is actually written. Of course we should. Since I don’t know Hebrew or Greek I have to rely on translations. I have read that the scholars who worked on the KJV were very good. They could read and write fluently in Greek and Hebrew. I cannot. But I have read about how they checked, cross checked and submitted their translations for review by other scholars and it appears to me that they did a good job when I see the comparison between their work and the newer versions. The meaning of words depends largely on context. Reading a definition in a Greek or Hebrew dictionary does not necessarily give you the actual correct meaning unless you know the context and are familiar with the syntax and rules of grammar of the native language. If you are going to give your own translations of words and phrases maybe it would help if you would offer references. For example, what is your reference for the phrase “I used to think…” in Jeremiah 3:19?

Speaking of references, can you give a reference for your source of the literal translation of Micah 5:2?
You said that perhaps Micah was referring to the Messiah’s linage to King David. The NIV is copied below:
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”
This certainly seems to be referring to Jesus himself. If the translators intended it to refer to the Messiah’s linage to King David they missed a good chance to say so. You didn’t have any trouble saying it. You would think they would be able to get the point across, also. In fact, they were obviously referring to Jesus and they are saying he is not eternal. Therefore, if the NIV is true, Jesus cannot be the third person of the trinity, God manifest in the flesh. This means an imposter died for our sins and we are all lost.

I assume you are being facetious when you refer to St. Paul reading the KJV in prison since the KJV wasn’t available until 1600 years after Paul left prison. However, if the KJV accurately translates the original text of the Old Testament then that would be closer to the truth than you think.

Do you think we have the inerrant word of God today that we can read? If so, which version do you think that is? Do we all have to be Hebrew and Greek scholars to be able to know God’s inerrant word? Should we just trust your translation? Is God’s inerrant word unavailable today?

Seriously, I think we should all have an answer to these questions. We are commanded by God to be able to give a reason for our faith. If we don’t even know which of the contradictory versions is correct or if we don’t have a clue how to give any evidence that what we call the Bible is the actual word of God and not just some man’s errant attempt at translation how can we give a reason for our faith?

Looking forward to your reply.

Heath,

You answered so few of my questions. I really wanted to know what you thought. I don’t see the point in raising new issues without discussing the current ones. By the way, I think it is a little funny that you accuse me of picking the version that presents God the way I like it when I used a version that has been around hundreds of years and you used a commentary, not a Bible. And the translations you used come from two different sources. Who is picking what here?

And since you think we have no way of knowing what is correct, who knows if your translators are translating the correct copies anyway.

Are you saying we do not have the written word of God but only what God puts in our hearts? It is one thing to apply ourselves to understanding what God said and meant. It is quite another thing to say that all we have is what God reveals to us personally.

You wrote:

“What I do believe is that those who worte [sic] the texts were devout followers of God who were insiperd [sic] by God to record their understandings of events and teachings.”

(The spell checker is our friend)

This appears to me to be saying that you do not believe that even the original autographs were the inspired word of God. Is that what you believe? If you believe that God inspired the actual words he wanted to be written do you think he allowed them to be lost?

I believe that they wrote with their own language and style exactly the words that God wanted to be written and I believe God insured through the years that his Word was preserved so we would know what His word was, just as he promised. (Psalm 12:6,7)

Paul said of Timothy that he knew the holy scriptures. Timothy only had “copies of copies”. Was Paul wrong or did God preserve his word so Timothy could really know the holy scriptures. Did Timothy really only know a lot of error filled documents that weren’t even God’s word to begin with?

I know I have added a few questions but I still would like to hear your answers to my original questions.

Thanks for the conversation.

Chris,

One more quick thought about your puzzle analogy. I listed what are, to me, very obvious contradictions. Are you saying that they were not contradictions or are you saying that contradictions are not contradictions?

Hey Sonny,

Instead of just enjoying the dialogue, jump in. I am interested in your thoughts on some of these issues!

Heath,

Thank you for your comments. You have answered enough to let me at least know what we are discussing. Since you didn’t say that you believe the original writings by the prophets were inerrant I must consider that as meaning that you believe even the original was not God’s word. I see no point, then, in discussing whether a particular translation is the best.

I believe we have God’s word as he promised and you do not. I believe there was a literal Adam and Eve and you do not. I believe when Jesus spoke of Genesis as literal history that he was not wrong or deceived.

Are we at liberty to decide that plainly spoken words mean something different? When I read that the flood covered all the high hills on all the earth, the obvious plain meaning is exactly that. God was certainly able to say all the high hills in Mesopotamia or all the high hills of the land but he chose to say all the high hills on all the earth and he even specified the depth. Are we at liberty to say it was not really “all”? As it turns out, modern geology is proving more and more that the Bible is true and that many areas which would not have been considered to be underwater have been found to contain marine fossils which prove that they were indeed once underwater. It turns out that vast multitudes of square miles of water laid sediment have been discovered which would fit with a worldwide flood of Biblical proportions. I believed the Bible was true before the evidence was discovered but it’s nice to know that science is catching up with the Bible.

I notice that Sonny is planning to teach on Judges 19. The event described in Judges 19 certainly does not seem like a realistic event to me. Are we at liberty to say that this is not history but it is just a story that was told and that God is trying to teach us a moral lesson? Or, maybe God was trying to teach us something but the prophet misunderstood.

Should we rely on someone today to tell us which parts of the Bible are real and which are not? How much of the Bible do we consider to be allegory? We are told that one prophet caused an axe head to float. Was that real? We are told that Naaman dipped seven times in the Jordan river. Was that real? We are told that Jesus performed many miracles. Did that really happen?

I believe that when the Bible states something as being historical it is true. For years scholars rejected the Biblical historical account of the Hittite civilization. They said the Bible was wrong because there had been no archaeological evidence uncovered. The first response when a part of a Hittite city was discovered was that it must be a hoax. The discoverer then proceeded to uncover the remainder of the city. As it turned out, the Bible was right and the scholars were wrong.

I also believe that when the Bible states a moral case it is true every time and it is not just a potential misunderstanding.

God said he would preserve his word and I believe he did not lie.

I cannot possibly imagine how you decide which parts of the Bible to reject and which to accept. Jesus said every jot and tittle would be fulfilled. He had the same Old Testament we have today as evidenced by the Dead Sea scrolls. Was Jesus wrong? Was he talking about some other Old Testament that no one else had access to? Or did the translator misspeak about the jots and tittles? Or were Jesus’ original words misunderstood by the writer? Is this one of those books of the Bible that the church did not consider important for a few hundred years? Do you ask these questions about everything each time you read a sentence of the Bible?

By the way, you may consider all questions on this post to be rhetorical.

I hope you can begin to see that the position you are taking is a precarious one. If you could read a good book on the reasons why the Bible can be counted upon maybe it would help. It helped me.

Justin,

I am going to post twice. Once to respond to your comments, then one for you to deal with. Here is my response:

“Since you didn’t say that you believe the original writings by the prophets were inerrant I must consider that as meaning that you believe even the original was not God’s word.”

Incorrect. I do believe that the bible is the Word of God, both in it’s originals and in its translations. I just don’t think you and I mean the same thing when we say “God’s word.” Thank you for allowing me to speak for myself. I will permit you the same courtesy.

“When I read that the flood covered all the high hills on all the earth, the obvious plain meaning is exactly that. God was certainly able to say all the high hills in Mesopotamia or all the high hills of the land but he chose to say all the high hills on all the earth and he even specified the depth.”

Actually, there is only one Hebrew word which can mean either “land” or “earth” and it is often translated according to the context of the surrounding passage. And, what exactly is the obvious and plain meaning to other passages? Do you still have both your eyes and both of your hands?

“Should we rely on someone today to tell us which parts of the Bible are real and which are not?”

No… we should rely on someone 1700 years ago to do that for us.

“I believe that when the Bible states something as being historical it is true.”

Fine by me. But I have serious reservations as to the accuracy of some historical events recorded in the bible. Such as, why is there an unbroken line of Pharoah’s in Egypt both before and following the flood? I suppose the answer to that is that human history lies but the bible’s history is accurate? Just like secular science gets the dating of the earth all wrong, I know!

“God said he would preserve his word and I believe he did not lie.”

I also do not believe God is a liar. Did you intend to imply that I did or just not think through that statement? As I have said, we understand scripture diffrently. That doesn’t mean that one of us thinks God is a liar.

“I hope you can begin to see that the position you are taking is a precarious one.”

Precarious for who? I am actually much more convinced of my faith now then when I was in your shoes. I used to think, talk, and preach along the same lines as you. And I was racked with doubts. I, as all of us do, still doubt some things from time to time, but I am not building for myself a theological tower that comes crashing down when one brick is removed. Much like Sonny, I saw way too many holes in what I was proclaiming. But wisdom comes with age, as they say, and I would like to think I understand the issue very clearly and have come to the position I am at because of its merits. You are free to feel the way you do and fight for your position. But I assure you I am in no precarious position because of my understanding of the biblical texts. In fact, I am much more concerned about your position… When you are exposed to any scholarship on textual criticism that has not been sanitized by the Fundamentalists, it could be a rude awakening to your faith. Either that or you will just dismiss them and live in the bliss of ignorance.

“If you could read a good book on the reasons why the Bible can be counted upon maybe it would help.”

That is perhaps one of the most arrogant things I have read from you. I assure you I am much more well read than you imagine. I assume you have your master’s degree in theological studies as well? Perhaps it is you that needs to read a few good books. You need to know your opponent before you make silly assumptions.

(I did not spell check this one. If there are errors, deal with it!) lol…

“When you skirt an issue as you did in this case ”

I did no such thing.

“You still do not say that you believe the original writings were inerrant.”

I have addressed this issue repeatedly. Let me give you my direct quotes, which you obviously did not read the first time:

- “I will admit up front that I do not believe in either the doctrine of verbal dictation (God dictates the exact words to be written), or the doctrine of inerrancy (there are no errors in the text, such as grammatical, scientific, historical, etc.).” (from comment #17)
- “I used to believe in verbal dictation. But exposure to biblical languages and textual criticism caused me to re-evaluate that position.” (from comment #17)
- “We do not have the original manuscripts, so I do not need to make a faith statement on that which does not exist.” (from comment #27)
- “I do not believe the texts we have are “inerrant,” nor do I believe they need to be to accomplish God’s purposes.” (from comment #27)

“Being facetious again, I see.”

Why let you have all the fun?

Now in regards to your comments on Mark 1:2, here is an issue where you need to understand your own ignorance.

Isaiah is not identified at the author of this quote by only Origen. The manuscripts Aleph, B, L, D, Q, family 1, 33, 205, 565, 700, 892, 1071, 1241, 1243, 2427, Itala MSS (such as a, aur, b, c, d, f , ff2, l, q, Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, Syriac Palestinian, Coptic, Georgian, Armenian, Irenaeus, Origen, Serapion, Epiphanius, Severian, Cyril-Jerusalem, Hesychius, Victorinus-Pettau, Chromatius, Ambrosiaster, Jerome, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Bezae, and Theta all are uniform and identify Mark recording Isaiah as the author of the passage from Malachi. These texts represent the Alexandrian (Origen was from this region), as well as the Western and Caesarean families of texts. They are also the earliest sets of texts that exist from each region, dating to the 2nd century, some less than 100 years after the presumed date of writing of Mark. The change from “Isaiah the prophet,” to “in the prophets,” does not occur in any texts that we have until the 4th century, roughly 300 years after the presumed date of writing for Mark.

While your explanation is quite creative (albeit naive) in its attempt to smooth over the problem, the correlation of numerous texts from far different regions so soon after the original date of writing suggests that they are in fact the most accurate to the original texts.

Textual analysis is certainly not perfect. But which scenario is more reasonable: 1) That all the early manuscripts contain the same error despite their chronological relationship to the original and despite being separated by culture and distance, an error which then dies out 200 years later as the “correct” version is rediscovered/re-established, or 2) scribes noted the obvious error in the text and changed the words to remove the difficulty.

Remeber also that the scribes of 350 AD did not hold the same post-reformation view of scripture as you do. They would have had no predisposition against correcting what they viewed to be an error.

Of course, there is also the possibility that the original manuscript was in error and God inspired the 4th century scribes to change them so as to make them inerrent. But then why did God not just have Mark record it right the first time?

It is most amusing to me that you call these manuscripts “corrupt.” On what basis? Because they do not match up with the KJV? Of course they don’t. The KJV was not translated from the early manuscripts but rather from the later manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate, and the Septuagint. Every single ancient text we have of any significant length varies from every other text. Shall we compare them all to the KJV and find out which ones are corrupt? (let me clue you in… it would be all of them.) I think you have your approach a little backwards…

And to say that “NIV and NAS do not retain the language and obscure that Jesus is in fact God in the flesh. In addition, they add error to the Bible by misstating the reference location of the verse,” completely misses the truth. The NIV and NASB do not use the language of the KJV because the KJV does not follow the early Greek manuscripts, not because they are trying to un-deify Christ. They do not misstate the reference. They record what Mark most likely wrote and what Mark most likely got wrong.

So Mark was human. So Mark made a mistake. Big deal. It is not a big error. It is a small thing. But it is there and you need to deal with it instead of just ignoring it.

Heath, you said

“Now in regards to your comments on Mark 1:2, here is an issue where you need to understand your own ignorance.”

I will say again as I have repeatedly said that I am not a scholar on these issues. But thank you for pointing it out from your perspective.

I was asking for a response from you to the information I have read. Now I can study what you have written. I’ll get back to you.

Before I do I have to ask the question, “If we don’t even know that the original is inerrant and if the original text was not necessarily God’s word but just the writer’s understanding and if we don’t even know what the original said since we are looking at copies of copies what is the point in debating a particular scripture?

Justin,

I have to ask this in all seriousness. It seems to me like you do not understand the basic terms of this discussion. I feel like I am arguing with a home-schooled high school student. So how old are you? How far have you come in school? Honestly… I am not trying to dismiss you. I really would love to know who I am arguing with here. (I am a 32 year old pastor with 12 years of pastoral experience in the Church of the Nazarene. I have a BA in Religion and an MA in Theological Studies. I am telling you this not to boast or say I am more educated than you, but since I am asking who you are I thought it fair to answer the question myself.)

In relation to my stated and restated position, do you know what verbal dictation is? Do you understand what is meant by the doctrine of inerrancy? If you knew what either of these things were you would know that I had clearly answered your question a long time ago and it is getting old to have you keep re-asking it.

But since you do not understand what I am saying and need me to restate it according to your language, I will do you this favor. Here is my position, again, in the simplest language I know how to write it in:

We do not have the original manuscripts. I do not know, therefore, if they were inerrant. I believe they are the word of God containing all truths necessary for salvation. I do not believe the bible inerrant in the same way you do. I believe they inerrantly reveal God’s will and God’s plans for all matters of faith and practice. I do not believe they are inerrant in matters of science, history, or grammar. The problem with this discussion is that you want to dictate how I choose to say something, I would guess because you have some pre-planned answer that can “nail” me if I say that the original texts are not inerrant. The problem is, neither you nor I can know whether they are. All we can do is make a faith statement about what we think they are. And in that game, both of us will be fully convinced that we are right.

I am trying to deal with the texts we have. You want me to deal with texts that do not exist.

I do know that the texts that exist that and that are most likely the closest to the originals have a multitude of departures in them from the KJV. I do know that you are approaching this discussion with an either/or mindset (i.e. either it is all true or none of it is). If I were to convince you that there are errors in the text, would you then abandon your faith? Would it really ALL be rubbish if Mark really did misquote a prophet or if an ancient writer recorded an unscientific explanation of creation? (Don’t worry, I know I won’t convince you. I have actually been continuing this discussion for the sake of others who might read it searching for truth).

You want to say it is all literally true (except the parts that you say are not, or course) because that is a nice package and takes the hard work out of understanding difficult passages. But there is no easy position on this. There is no uniform consensus within the Church.

What you might one day discover is that faith is not based on a formula of inerrancy but in God’s word revealed through scripture, but also through reason, tradition, and experience. Your position leaves no room for any understanding of God’s truth except that which is sanctioned by the KJV, a text that has been given a prime position of authority solely based on tradition, despite its poor scholarship. It is a position which can lead to intolerance and judgmental attitudes that freely condemn all those who do not agree with its conclusion. That is how someone who grants liberty can look at a fundamentalist and think, “ah the poor soul, he will figure it out when we get to heaven,” and why the fundamentalist will look at other Christians who see things differently than themselves and say, “ah the poor soul, he will figure it out when he is burning in hell.”

The point of debating a scripture is to come to the best translation we can of the original text. Why settle for less accuracy? It is like saying, “If my AC unit on my house cannot run at 100% efficiency, what difference does it make if it is 80% efficient or 96% efficient?” The answer is, hundreds of dollars every month. And the answer to your question is, accuracy in translation leads us to a more reasonable and accurate faith.

If you choose to continue the discussion on merits or raise other questions, I will be happy to keep this up. If you continue to ignore my answers and demand that I restate my position again and again until I say what you want me to say, then I will be done.

Sonny, sorry I am getting so testy on this. I enjoy the discussion, but get frustrated when it turns into what it is turning into.

Heath,

You have certainly attributed a lot of positions to me that I have not stated and do not believe. I am trying to deal with what you say. You are dealing with what you think I am thinking.

Concerning the scholarship issue I will restate again that I am not a scholar. However, I would like to find out what the truth is about things as important as what is God’s word and what should we believe. I am not sure why you keep bringing up the issue of credentials. I will state for the fourth or fifth time, I have none.

By the way, I am sorry you feel that home schooling is so bad.

You say I want to dictate how you say something. It is fine with me if you don’t want to answer a question. There are some questions that I may decline to answer. Just don’t give a non-answer and then claim that you did answer. I believe the original texts did not contain error in matters of morality, science or history. As you finally answered in your last post, you believe they do contain errors in science and history. I am disappointed that it took three days and pages of text for you to say that. It was rather simple to say.

If God inspired the writers to record incorrect science and history, how do you trust them to accurately record the harder matters dealing with morality? This is not an attempt to “nail” you. This is just another related question to which I would like an answer. Feel free to answer or not.

You said that my position “is a position which can lead to intolerance and judgmental attitudes that freely condemn all those who do not agree with its conclusion.”

Am I to understand that you are neither intolerant nor judgmental and that you will allow that maybe my position is right?

You said:
If you continue to ignore my answers and demand that I restate my position again and again until I say what you want me to say, then I will be done.

I just wanted an answer to my question. I ignored nothing, demanded nothing, and did not wish you to restate your position again. I just wanted you to answer the question. Now that you have answered I am happy to go on.

You said:

“The point of debating a scripture is to come to the best translation we can of the original text. Why settle for less accuracy?”

I think you don’t get very far in debating scripture when you accept all versions as legitimate, even the contradictory ones. The vast majority of people have no way to debate anything about translations. They don’t have the research material or the time. They have to rely on scholars that have studied the issue to give recommendations. That is why it is so bad when scholars confuse the issue by their approval of incorrect translations. Should we just trust the scholars? Many scholars believe the King James Bible to be the best translation. Many scholars believe Genesis to be accurate historically. You do not. Which scholar do we trust? It appears that we all must be judgmental in the real world. The reason Jesus gave for a man marrying a woman is the historical account of Adam and Eve. I raised this issue before and I don’t remember an answer. Was Jesus wrong? Is there a Biblical historical basis for a man marrying a woman? I lean toward believing the scholars who believe that Genesis was historical and really happened.

You said that it seemed to you like I do not understand the basic terms of this discussion.
We have wandered far but I think I remember that what started this exchange was my statement calling into question some versions of the Bible. In particular, according to the ESV, Jeremiah 3:19 has God saying he was wrong. I think that is not true and the ESV is wrong. I will point out that you agreed with me that the ESV was wrong. I am glad that we agree that some versions are wrong. In the last example you gave about Mark 1:2 your position as I understand it is that the King James Bible is right and the modern versions are wrong. This also is my position. I realize you think the KJV is right by being wrong but that sounds a little confusing so I will just accept that you agree with me that the modern versions are wrong when they attribute the wrong verse to Isaiah.

I still plan to do some research on Mark 1:2. I’ll try to get back in a few days.

And where did I ever say that the ESV is wrong and the KJV is right? (But please, answer my other question first. I am dying to know.)

You know for someone who bemoans other people for not answering questions (which they actually did multiple times) I would think mine was easy enough for you to answer. The way you choose to dialogue tells me you are quite young. I would say under 20, although you could surprise me. Maybe you are just really immature for your age.

As far as the rest of the discussion goes, I think my points are pretty clear. Your last comment makes it seem like you are just in it for the pleasure of a fight… You are making no sense whatsoever. Case in point, I have never argued that the KJV is more accurate. I have in fact argued the exact opposite. Your rambling list of questions are of no interest to me because you do not care to discuss them, only to convince yourself that I am some type of heretic that it is ok to dismiss.

I think your age is very relevant to your inability to read, comprehend, and discuss.

Why is that question so hard for you to answer? How old are you?

Heath, you said:

“Case in point, I have never argued that the KJV is more accurate. I have in fact argued the exact opposite.”

I thought I made it quite clear the context in which you said the KJV is more accurate. Here is my quote again:

I still think it is odd, by the way, that you would pick a verse to discuss in which you agree that the King James Bible more accurately states reality than most of the modern versions. In fact, you believe that the King James Bible is more accurate than even the original manuscript.

Heath, you said:

“You know for someone who bemoans other people for not answering questions (which they actually did multiple times)”

You know of course that you finally did answer my question and you know that the multiple times of which you speak were not answering the question and you even gave the reason for not answering, that if you answered the way I wanted you to I would try to “nail” you.

Thanks for the analysis of my character and innermost thoughts.

You have once again moved the discussion away from facts.

You have discounted multiple questions I asked. I would indeed like an answer to those questions. Contrary to your assertion, I would like to discuss them. I asked them for a purpose. I realize they are hard questions.

If you would also like to discuss the issue you raised I will try. I assume you have a particular case in mind. Can we start there?

Are you saying that Malachi 3:1 was really found in the book of Isaiah as the new versions say or are you saying that Malachi was a prophet as the KJV says? I understood you to say that you believed Mark was wrong. This necessarily means that you believe what the KJV said is the truth, that the quote was from “the prophets”, not from Isaiah.

Surely you are kidding about not seeing my point about your belief that the KJV is more accurate about this matter.

We were discussing Genesis and I asked you several questions concerning the age of the patriarchs. You did not answer. Yet you keep asking about my age. I really would like to know what you think about the ages listed in Genesis. Do you believe all of the ages given for the patriarchs from Adam through Abraham? If you don’t, do you believe any of the ages for people in the Bible between Adam and Abraham? It appears to me to be an unbroken chain of events from Adam to Abraham and beyond. I would like to know how you can tell where the “morality tale” ends and where reality begins. If you don’t believe the ages of people in God’s word why are you interested in my age?

Heath,

Surely you understood all along what I was referring to when I said you agreed with KJV about Mark 1:2.

I thought you said you were finished with this issue. Mark 1:2 may appear to be an obvious error to you but it is not an obvious error to many bible scholars. You said the KJV translators decided to change the text. Are you saying that the KJV translators did not have access to the texts that read as the KJV reads? If they did, then they did not “decide it is OK to change the text” as you claim. If they did not have access to texts that read “the prophets” instead of “Isaiah” then you can make the claim that they decided to change the text. If they did have the texts that read “the prophets” then they did not decide to change the text as you claim but instead they decided that the texts which were faithful to reality were the better texts. This is a huge difference. You are the scholar, not me. Do you make the claim that the KJV translators did not have access to the texts which state “the prophets” ?

You said:
“Regarding the age of the patriarchs, I am not sure what I think. I certainly find it hard to conceive of living to 930 years, but maybe that is a result of my own shortened life span. I believe it is possible, so I tend to accept the ages.”

Earlier in this thread you said:
“I do not believe the creation account to be a literal historical account. (And I don’t believe serpents could actually talk, that the earth was formed in 6 literal days, or that the earth is 6,000 years old). The epic story of creation is a morality tale which underscores our need to resist temptation and the catastrophic consequences of sin. It reminds us that each of us is created by God and in His image, that sin separates us from each other and from God, and that God is not the author of evil.”
In another post you said:
Thus, I do not believe in a 6,000 year old earth and many other core beliefs of fundamentalist teaching

Please help me out here. When you said you did not believe the creation account I assumed you included Adam since you specifically mentioned the part about original sin. Now you say you accept the age given for Adam which I thought you said was just part of a morality tale.

You also say now that you tend to accept the ages given for the patriarchs. This means that you tend to accept that it is approximately 6,000 years from Adam until today. Earlier you said twice that you do not believe the earth is about 6,000 years old and now you say that you tend to accept it. I am not certain what you believe now. Could you please enlighten me?

You also say that you do not much care too much if the world is 6,000 years old, etc. You say it is irrelevant. If that is the case, why do you argue against it? And certainly don’t take both sides of the issue then say it is irrelevant.

As before, my age is indeed irrelevant. But of course, as you said, you know my age.

I actually prefaced my comment with, “I am not sure what I think.” After reading your latest comment, however, I think I would like to ammend my previous comment. I am now of the opinion that: “I still am not sure what I think.” If there was an actual Adam, it is possible that God allowed him to live until he was 930, so I accept that. But since I am not convinced of (and tend to doubt) the literal history of Genesis, (you raise a good point) – I guess I probably do not believe Adam lived 930 years old.

Now I have answered your question about the patriarch’s age twice. Will you answer my question about your age just once?

From your last comment I assume was I right? You are under 20? Was I also right about you being home-schooled?

I bet I got the two-fer on that. What do you think, Sonny?

No, what does assume mean, from one Christian to another?

I am a joking around type of person… But I hate that saying and I hear it so much from Christians that it makes me whince… so my comment was indeed intended to bring that to the surface. As followers of Christ, we should never call another person an ass, even in a round about joking manner.

No worries though. I get over things pretty quickly.

Hey Connie, how old are you? I know I am not supposed to ask a lady her age, but it might help me figure out this little mystery I got going…

OK, then how old is Justin? (You kind of owe it to me since you called me a donkey. And don’t say two years younger than you… I want digits.)