The Bible, are we looking at it from the right angle?

Originally posted by lightseeker
Correct me if I am getting this wrong, but it sounds to me as if what you are saying is that you have been given a "better Spirit' than anyone else in the world.

How did you get that from what I wrote? I said

God sent the Spirit to each of us, He didn't send men with Spirit to guide us. The Spirit is our direct guidance.

You say you know more from what the Spirit tells you than what He tells others who have received Him; or are you saying you are the only one the Spirit has decided to trust with the whole truth?

No I said

God sent the Spirit to each of us, He didn't send men with Spirit to guide us. The Spirit is our direct guidance.

Sounds a bit superior and self-important if you ask me.

You're hearing what you want to hear. I said

God sent the Spirit to each of us, He didn't send men with Spirit to guide us. The Spirit is our direct guidance.

The bible calls itself the word of God, but you have the real truth; you have the true meaning of god's word but those "suits" who also are brothers and sisters in Christ and have the same Spirit do not. Is that about what you mean?

It's probably closer to what you want me to mean--but I'm not biting. Suits are not brothers and sisters in Christ--they are something altogether different. I don't mean suits as in literally wearing suits. I mean the 'establishment.' The 'man.' You know--those who are Ceasar's, so to speak.

So from what I gather, the angle all are looking at is that the Bible was written by man and is flawed so there's no point in putting one's Faith in a flawed record anyway, does that about cover it?

It would seem to me that this argument is shooting the messenger.

The message is still derived if you have Faith.

Originally posted by lightseeker
The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament
A defense of the reliability and cannon of The New Testament
I am giving you all a link to a tremendously well written and logical exposition on the reliabilty of New Testament Cannon by B.B. Warfield...

Originally posted by FlyersFan
No point really. The title of this thread is to look at the bible
from a different angle. If we are taking a look at the bible then
we should know when and where the texts became 'approved'
and actually made into the bible. Dontchya' think it's a good idea
to understand what we are looking at while we discuss it?

Why can't we just read the bible, itself? And believe it at its word?

That's the problem with people's understanding of the bible, no one actually reads it.

It is better understood with the perspective of the time and place it was written--and of the people who wrote it and the things that drove their actions, their priority, in other words.

Some things, though, are pretty straightforward:

For You are my lamp, O Jehovah.
And Jehovah will lighten my darkness.
For by You I have run through a troop.
By my God I have leaped over a wall.
As for God, His way is perfect.
The Word of Jehovah is tried.
He is a shield to all those who seek refuge in Him.
For who is God, except Jehovah?
And who is a rock except our God?
God is my strength and power, and He makes my way perfect.
He makes my feet like hinds' feet, and causing me to stand on my high places.
He teaches my hands to war, so that my hands may bend a bow of bronze. You have also given me the shield of Your salvation, and Your gentleness has made me great.
You have enlarged my steps under me, so that my feet did not slip.
(2 Samuel 22:29-37)

Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his Maker? Behold, He puts no trust in His servants, and His angels He charges with folly!
(Job 4:17-18)

It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
(Psalms 118:8)

Does anyone know where you can find a direct un-altered translation of the bible from the original texts?

Troy





[edit on 30-7-2005 by cybertroy]

What do Egyptian records depict of the Hebrews/Jews? Where did the Jews come from before Ur? There is a belief amongst some that they continued to migrate west in order to settle their own land which would allow them to live a life of beliefs that wouldn't allow them to be persicuted, they may have been derived from India. Are we really to believe that the Hebrews came from Ur?

Originally posted by cybertroy
Does anyone know where you can find a direct un-altered translation of the bible from the original texts?

Troy

I'm not sure if it's possible--if so I haven't come upon any such thing. So I just use a myriad of sources, and am learning Hebrew in order to not require so much translation, which is often actually 'interpretation.'

This organization came to my attention recently, and I'm interested in checking out their bible. It seems like it might be one of the more faithful to the original text translations:
Concordant Publishing Concern

The only thing is--the only complete one is the NT--the OT is in parts and incomplete. But as I said, I am learning Hebrew and so this might suit me, but as far as Hebrew, some swear by the masoretic and others scorn it. I don't have an opinion, myself, on the masoretic.

Originally posted by Frosty
What do Egyptian records depict of the Hebrews/Jews?

Where did the Jews come from before Ur?

I don't think there was a 'before' prior to UR--it was an ancient Mesopotamian city, in a fertile area, near the outlet of the Euphrates river, and on what was the coast of the Persian Gulf.

Abraham was a descendant of Shem, Noah's son--and the area around the Tigris and Euphrates is all we know to be the general area of occupation of the 'shemites' before Abraham's time.

This area became Babylon, and is now Iraq.

The harrapan language, discovered and believed to be the precursors of the modern Indian culture/language, shows no resemblance at all to the ancient language that evolved into Hebrew. Egyptian heiroglyphics have their own unique characteristics, too. These three are thought to be the origins of all language--in 3 different areas among 3 differentiations of peoples/tribes/cultures.

It is believed by some that the Harrapan came from the descendants of Ham, Hebrew from Shem's line, and Mizraim (we now know as Egypt) was a descendant of Japheth.

From what I've seen and understood, all three follow closely each culture's respective predominant religion, according to the symbolization in their alphabetic characters.

Originally posted by jake1997
Certainly parts of Exodus and Revelation were written directly by God

Nope. Written by MEN. Compiled by MEN. Sifted through by MEN.
Accepted (or rejected) at councils by MEN.

At no time did God come down from Heaven, sit at a table, pick up
a feather pen and papyrus, and write down exactly what happened.

EVERYTHING has been filtered and written by MEN who are always
capable of error. We just have to hope that through God's Grace
these men didn't make any mistakes in their writings, in their
deliberations, and in their acceptance/rejection of texts back in
the first 400 years of Christianity.

Originally posted by queenannie38
It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
(Psalms 118:8)

Absolutely. BUT ... (there is always a 'but') if you have 'absolute trust'
in the bible (as you said that you have in the New Testament), then
you already have put your confidence in men. MEN wrote the texts.
MEN sifted through to pick and choose what they thought was 'of God'.
If someone has confidence in the bible, then they have confidence in
the men that put the bible together ... CATHOLIC men in councils.

The bible was inspired by " those who came from the sky" ...

In English we say,"GOD" ,,,,

God is no different than 22nd century man .....

The god everyone is worshipping that is ...

The father of the Christ conscience spoken of in the new testament is the Universe itself ....
a living , thinking entity ....

" in the beginning was the word ..."
word= vessel that launches thought ....
word= verbal thought
" in the beginning was THOUGHT .....

Without thought nothing would be ....
Even the ones who thought to make you in their image would not be ..


People who blindly follow silly doctrine are by definition GODLESS ....

" you have NEVER known my FATHER" ..... - Jesus

That is how I interpret the bible ....

~peace

For those of you who have doubts about the accuracy of the Bible and the New Testament in particular, find a book called The Case for Christ by Lee Stroebel I think it was. He's supposed to be a pretty big reporter over there in the US.

Edit : Found a link! Bits of the book in there and there's lots of good stuff on the site:

The Case for Christ

And for those of you who might want to read the book:

Case for Christ by Lee Stroebel on Amazon.com

[edit on 30/7/05 by D]

Originally posted by queenannie38
I am learning Hebrew and so this might suit me, but as far as Hebrew, some swear by the masoretic and others scorn it. I don't have an opinion, myself, on the masoretic.

I'll ask the Rabbi his opinion - He's rather open minded about things, We all know about opinions , maybe his could shed some light on it.
(Gut feeling on it is that he'll say I use ___ although [shhhhh - waving finger] I never figured out why they argue over it - what do they know? They can't even rationaly explain the reason you can't keep meat and milk in the same refrigerator)

We're scheduled for Coffee and Chess tonight.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by queenannie38
It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
(Psalms 118:8)

Absolutely. BUT ... (there is always a 'but') if you have 'absolute trust'
in the bible (as you said that you have in the New Testament), then
you already have put your confidence in men. MEN wrote the texts.
MEN sifted through to pick and choose what they thought was 'of God'.
If someone has confidence in the bible, then they have confidence in
the men that put the bible together ... CATHOLIC men in councils.

The confidence I have in the NT, as well as the OT--and even in some extant and apocryphal writings which are just as valid (just as some are completely worthless as far this application goes) rests not on the men who wrote and compiled them, but on the Holy Spirit who was sent to us for the purpose of discerning fact from fiction.

I have confidence that God makes good on each and every promise He gave us all, and in so doing, do not trust in men to fulfill these promises, but in God, Himself. No matter what arguments can be made to support men's so-called determinations--the way I see it and fully believe it to be, is that God is in ultimate control, and as He wills to use men to perform His will ranges a broad spectrum, all the way from such as Moses, who did His will directly and knowingly to such as the Pharoah of the same period, whose heart God 'hardened' and who did the will of God while completely unaware he was doing such--all the time believing, no doubt, that he was doing what he personally wanted to do. Neither is God above 'using' man to His own ends. However inappropriate it may seem to some, His knowledge is perfect and His end will justify His means with no injustice at all, in regard to every soul that ever existed.

The people in the bible were never rewarded for following a man who followed his own will. Only when we follow the will of God, according to the bible, will all our 'ways' be right.

Originally posted by lightseeker
For Queenannie, who believes the church is a man made institution.

Lightseeker

Have you ever looked up the origins of the word 'church', compared to the translation of the word 'ekklesia' in the NT, and also the words 'miqra' and 'qahal' in the OT Hebrew?

Church comes from 'kirke', a germanic word, which, in turn is derived from a name of a Babylonian diety named 'Circe'--a goddess associated with the power of the sun. This is where we get our word circle, and all its variations. A kirke was a place which was circularly constructed for the express purpose of pagan worship of the sun. Example: stonehenge

Ekklesia means 'called out ones.' 'Qahal' means the same thing and is translated 'assembly'. Mirqa means a 'holy congregation of called out ones.' So the people are the qahal, and when they gather to worship the LORD it is miqra. In the NT, the 'saints' or the 'elect' gather as an ekklesia to worship the same LORD.

The word church was used before the Messiah's visitation, in that same form, to denote places of pagan worship. The word was used as a translation in the Latin Vulgate, more than likely in order to promote the 'conversion' of the world's pagan population to christianity--which was largely performed by attaching familiar labels on new things which had been combined from various parts of old things--part truth and part pagan misrepresentations of what started out as truth. The majority was the mutated 'truth', not the essential truth--a fact which is proven by the universal acceptance and unquestioning attitude of those who didn't know any different and so didn't question. The same remains true in our present time.

The word church first meant a pagan temple. The word assembly meant God's called out people. Always has, and still does. To attach a name derived from a pagan diety to something which is supposed to represent Christ and the Father is something forbidden by God in Exodus 23:13.

This is a classic example of the very thing that this thread is pointing out for discussion. Interpreting the bible from the wrong perspective.

Regardless of what has been posted here, the bible is and always will be base on faith, if you believe it to be truth it most be truth.

Now let me put another two cents here,

The “Old Testament” found in bibles today is not the same translations of the old Jewish Hebrew accounts and texts.

They were translated from the “ Masoretic Hebrew texts” from the 8th to 10th century AD.

When the bible came around in the 15th the ancients original Hebrew texts were already lost, not only the text but most of the meaning of the ancient language that was used.

Nobody today can claim that they know the ancient Hebrew language or the right pronunciation.

The ancient texts was originally compound of an alphabet that had only 22 letters and no vowels.

During 8th and 10th AD the Masorites decided to add vowel signs to the original Hebrew alphabet.

From those translations is what we now call the first “original translation” of the Hebrew texts.

Now taking this in consideration you can pretty much imagine how much the old lost Hebrews accounts and old texts were change when it comes to the meaning of the words or sentences.

How much has the ancient texts has been tampered with? When it comes to meaning of words not longer spoken?

You make your own decision.

In faith the believer takes what is presented to them and in faith the believer trust others to guide their faith.

Yes we may never learn the truth about what really the ancient lost texts of the Hebrews accounts of the historical blood line of the David to the Jewish nation and their understanding with their God will ever be.

But in western civilization that same Jewish God is worshiped alone with the Jewish epic of creation.

Now the difference is that the Christ was added after Christianity branched from the Jewish believes to have its own object of worshiping and separate themselves from Jewish tradition.

www.ancient-hebrew.org...

Even to this day scholars are still trying to "imagine" what really the old texts language real meaning of words are.


[edit on 30-7-2005 by marg6043]

I found this version, I may just check it out.

We see the name Yah Veh, and the word Elohim in this version.

www.bereanbookshelf.com...

Troy

Answer from Rabbi - > Masoretic, He says the Septuagint text was in greek and thusly cannot be trusted as a pure Hebrew text, although he adds it is a personal choice but says why read Greek when the Hebrew is the true language.

I agree with your Rabbi. I had never even understood what the Septuagnt was until lately.

The Catholic church actually translated the bible from Greek and Hebrew into Latin--in the dark ages, just another way to keep people from realizing they were a brood of vipers full of lies and superstition. It's probably the biggest single source of disinformation and bad publicity of both the bible and God.

Not that it's hurting God--it's evidently part of His plan (the strong delusion to test who loves truth and who doesn't) but it certainly doesn't make sense to me to try to hide things that aren't under their control anyway. Hard to trust an organization like that.

Latin is a dead language but God is ALIVE.

The Catholic church actually translated the bible from Greek and Hebrew into Latin--in the dark ages, just another way to keep people from realizing they were a brood of vipers full of lies and superstition. It's probably the biggest single source of disinformation and bad publicity of both the bible and God.

Doesn't suprise you too much I hope.....

but it certainly doesn't make sense to me to try to hide things that aren't under their control anyway. Hard to trust an organization like that.

Their perspective would be that if it is beyond their control - it cannot be tamed therefore it must be feared - and if it is supressedthey don't have to worry about it. Trust? Them!??

Years ago I heard a saying - Never invest in anything that someone else gets to vote on. (referance was to stocks etc.) -
With that in mind, and knowing how corrupt the Church has been in the past, knowing that they have never given me any reason to belive that they have changed. Do you think I would trust them with anything - let alone my soul?

Oh - stumbeled onto this:
Read
Know for sure it is of interest - a bit off thread - but Definately worth looking at.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by jake1997
Certainly parts of Exodus and Revelation were written directly by God

Nope. Written by MEN. Compiled by MEN. Sifted through by MEN.
Accepted (or rejected) at councils by MEN.

At no time did God come down from Heaven, sit at a table, pick up
a feather pen and papyrus, and write down exactly what happened.

~snipped~

In Exodus, God carved it with His finger into the stone.
In Revelation, John was a stenographer for Jesus in the letters to the churches. That is what I was referring to. No council wrote those