It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ask a Bible-believer

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   
excuse me, but why the original KJV translation and not the original greek and hebrew as the perfect word of god?




posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Isaiah 24:21
JungleJake,

I'm about to go to sleep so I'll keep it as simple as I can for now, but which other Bible would you suggest and why?

If none, then the words were not preserved.

I know the argument might sound simplistic, but it's deeper than meets the eye. That and simplicity is commended by Paul



EDIT: I personally like several translations. The reason being, the translators of each translation went to translate with a purpose. The New American Standard Bible, for example, tries to be as true as possible to the individual words of scripture without much care towards making the text flow. The New Living Translation or The Message, on the other hand, try to translate the greater story using modern idioms and phrases to do so that make the larger concepts more understandable. Others like the New International Version try to find a balance between this readability and true to the individual words. The King James version was the original English translation of the text, making the Bible accessible to the multitudes who did not know Latin. I, personally, while finding the way the text flows beautiful, find it hard to understand at times because the words used in it have different meanings today than they did when it was originally translated.

So the choice for translation I would make would depend on what I was studying. If I'm studying all the times fear is mentioned in scripture, I would use the NASB to delve into them and discover their meaning in their context. If, on the other hand, I were studying a group of verses, or a scripture unit (a group of verses in a chapter that all pertain to the same topic, such as Numbers 6:24-26), I would probably use something along the lines of the NIV. If an entire chapter, I would start with something like The Message.

All are the inerrant Word of God, but they all have strengths and weaknesses. Being someone who knows at least 3 languages, I'm sure you can understand how it is difficult sometimes to find words in other languages that have the same meaning in another.

[edit on 11/14/07/14 by junglejake]



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I think the interesting point is that it's all a matter of belief. There is no, NO, 100% proof of anything really.

The bible is not the only book God has spoke through.

That Christianity has taken a vital turn for the worse in the last 100 or so years.

That all religions think that they have the right church is interesting enough.

That all of it boggles the mind.

The only people that know for sure whats going on aren't living, and I am not sure they know what the truth is.

The bible is good guy vs bad guys, punishment and prizes, rape, murder, stealing and the good guy ends with the oscar. Really does sound like a movie if you think about it...



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 07:31 PM
link   
i was saved by jesus but i dont consider myself a christian or a bible believer. theres a better series of books called conversations with god that is an actual dialog spoken with god. god tells the man that powerful forces will try to push clinton from office before it happened. god talks about more advanced civilizations and says ours is still primative. its a really eye opening book. it doesnt create judgemental ppl like the bible has. i hope you all try reading the conversations with god series. you say you believe in god so why not read a book where you can hear god talking plain and simple, clear and insiteful?



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by CPYKOmega
If god is all knowing, then why did he even tell Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit, when he already knew the answer? Wouldn't that mean God was just testing his own omnipotence?


This is a popular one. God told Adam and Eve because they themselves didn't know... why is this constantly brought up.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by amitheone
Any Christian can read the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit.


Yes, but to assume we can have as much insight into the scriptures as anyone else is haughty and not in conjunction with what scripture says. We are all part of a body, part of the Bride of Christ. We are made to be dependent on one another. True, we should not be spoon fed what we believe, but at the same time we should not simply dismiss the wisdom and knowledge God has given others because the Holy Spirit did not directly communicate it to us. Granted, man can fail, but that means that you and I can fail in our interpretation of what we believe the Holy Spirit to be communicating to us. As Proverbs 12:15 states,


The way of a fool seems right to him,
but a wise man listens to advice.


Ask God for wisdom and understanding, He will freely give it to anyone who asks Him. Ask God for discernment, He will give it you. If anyone asks this in his/her prayers, God knows your heart that you are sincerely searching for truth. He will give it to you all that you need.

A wise man listens carefully and weighs the words that he hears. He also tests what he has studied, and accepts corrections, if found to be in error. It is part of training. The more you train yourself, the better you become in understanding the scriptures.


Key word there being advice, not dictation. As First Thessalonians 5:21 states, we should test everything and keep that which is good. We should test other's knowledge against scripture. But we should test it, not ignore it.


Yes, I fully agree with you.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Isaiah 24:21
I'm a Bible-believer, not a Hebrew manuscripts believer.
I believe that the Lord preserved all the words he wanted to me to have, the way he wanted to have them, in the King James Bible.
(Yes, the King James Bible is a translation. So what's your point?
God didn't die in 90 A.D.)
I therefore have no use for Hebrew and Greek when it comes to a better understanding of the Bible.
I avoid using the terms "original Hebrew" and "original Greek" because we don't have "the original hebrew" and "the original Greek."

The biggest conspiracy has been to destroy man's faith in the words of God.


[edit on 14-11-2007 by Isaiah 24:21]


By the mouth of two or three witnesses, the truth will be established.

It will be a hinderance if we stick to one translation only, the KJV. We also need the NIV, RSV, NKJV, to help assist us in our study. You will be able to detect which one doesn't have a continous flow with different chapters of the Bible and you can cross reference it with another translation which agrees with the other chapters of the Bible. Each translations has it's own weaknesses and it's own strength, and by equipping ourselves with several translations, we are able to understand scriptures with a clear perspective.

Comparisons of chapter by chapter, verses by verses, OT by NT, translation by translation, should be the flow if we are really serious in understanding the Bible. I can assure you it is not perplexing at all, but you will be more perplexed if you are stuck in a chapter and you don't have other translation to better assist you.

So, by the "mouth" or "translations" of two or three witnesses, the truth will be established. I am currently using KJV, NKJV, RSV, NIV, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   
video.google.com...


nuff said...


:shk:



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 01:47 AM
link   
The thread is veering off course.

To keep this short:

A) As I've already said, "the original hebrew" doesn't exist. That's why.
Seems like an open/shut case to me.

B) As I've already said, the Bible specifically mentions the preservation of the "wordS" of God, not "word".

C) Arabic is my native tongue, French my second. I have no problem understanding the King James Bible. And when I don't understand a word, I research it. Big deal.

D) Various translations make for conflicting authorities. Who's the ultimate arbitrer? You. Congratulations to the scholars, they've helped people take over the role of the Holy Spirit.

Oh and here's a nugget. There are also false witnesses.
And oddly enough, the false witnesses lied about the "Word of God"...
food for thought.

E) Who spoke about one church? I spoke about one book.

F) The answers you give from "conversations with God" are strangely similar to the teachings of the devilish "aliens".
Apparently, you forgot that the Bible teaches that Satan is "the god of this world" in 2 Corinthians 4:4.
So which god was your author conversing with? Certainly not the Lord Jesus Christ.

I'm looking for people, especially non-believers, who want some clarifications on what a Bible-believer believes.

Anybody?


[edit on 15-11-2007 by Isaiah 24:21]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Isaiah 24:21
The thread is veering off course.

C) Arabic is my native tongue, French my second. I have no problem understanding the King James Bible. And when I don't understand a word, I research it. Big deal.


Bro, I do have problems understanding some parts of the KJV and English is my first language. That's why it helps me to have different translation as a reference. I can see some words and meanings were changed in NIV and other modern translations as well, it is well noted, but it doesn't bother me, becasue I have the RSV and KJV or the dead sea scrolls to back up the truthfullness of the translation so I can better assess it and avoid it.

It's a good practice though to get acquainted with many translations so that you can very well discern which is true and false. You are able to gauge it because you gain an experience through that.

If you are well verse in the KJV, kudos to you, at least you won't have to be burderned trying to understand it.



I'm looking for people, especially non-believers, who want some clarifications on what a Bible-believer believes.

Anybody?


If I am qualified, I would like to know more about the 144,000 tribes of Israel which Revelations has mentioned. I would also like to know whether they have references in the Old Testament as well.

Thanks.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 05:04 AM
link   
That's a good question.

For one thing, you're already ahead of others in that you actually believe what you read: that they are indeed of the 12 tribes of Israel (though the tribe of Dan is conspicuously absent) and therefore, are literal Jews.

You're also right to associate them with the Old Testament because during the tribulation the setting reverts to the law.
The Old Testament is overwhelmingly concerned with Israel.
After Israel rejected the Lord Jesus Christ as King, God temporarily set them aside and turned to the Gentiles, out of whom he is gathering a body: the church.
After the church is raptured, Israel will come back to God's center-stage.
He will choose 144 000 Jews to preach the gospel of the kingdom, which is different than Paul's gospel.
The gospel of the kingdom is basically the news that the Lord Jesus Christ is returning as the Lion of the tribe of Judah and the son of David, to kill the antichrist, judge the nations, and establish a physical, visible, earthly, potitical, Israelitish kingdom over the earth.
Their ministry will reach and lead to the salvation of many Gentiles also.

Revelation 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

Those are saved Gentiles under the ministry of the 144 000.
Notice those Gentiles got raptured for they stand "before the throne".
The 144 000 are up in heaven by Revelation 14. So they too get raptured.

Yes, there is more than one rapture in the Bible.
It is only the Gentile conceit that Paul warned us about back in Romans 11 that has lead us to believe that the church is the only one to ever get raptured.
There's more than one rapture, and that's the only key that solves the pre-tribulation/post-tribulation rapture debate.

There are only a few Old Testament associations that I can think of off the top of my head but here they are

A) You have a bunch of Jews being sealed just like the 144 000 in Ezekiel 9. (No doubt the antichrist will use that passage to convince some Jews to get his mark)

B) Psalm 45:14 She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needlework: the virgins her companions that follow her shall be brought unto thee.

The 144 000 are said to be virgins. In this verse you can see the church who has already been raptured, and "the virgins...follow her" because they get raptured after her to attend her wedding.

This view is confirmed by

C) Matthew 25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

Again "virgins".

Notice the context. It is before the crucifixion, therefore still Old Testament technically.

It is "the kingdom of heaven", not "the kingdom of God". The kingdom of heaven is Israel blessed as head of nations with Jesus Christ on the throne of David.

The bridegroom is not marrying them, but someone else: the church.

You have something similar to Psalm 45:14 in

D) Song of Solomon 6:8 There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number.

Where the context again is the union of the church to Christ.
At a wedding, you have many classes of people, and the 144 000 will be a class of their own at the marriage supper of the Lamb.

Hope that helps a bit



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Isaiah 24:21
The thread is veering off course.


I wouldn't say off course so much as seeking clarification on some assumptions made and delving into some of the original question/answers provided a bit deeper



A) As I've already said, "the original hebrew" doesn't exist. That's why. Seems like an open/shut case to me.


So you've said, but I don't understand how that can be true. The scriptures the Jews currently have is the same as that discovered with the dead sea scrolls. In addition to that, the Septuigent, though written in Greek, corroborates what the Old Testament contains in its Hebrew as well. Granted, the original copy of the Torah that Moses wrote is probably lost, this doesn't mean the original text, the original words, have been lost.


B) As I've already said, the Bible specifically mentions the preservation of the "wordS" of God, not "word".


The Word is another name for the Bible; it's not meant to be considered singular, but rather refers to the Bible as a whole as a single, unified message from God. Could you explain your distinction between word and words? It reads as though you're trying make a point regarding this, but I'm not understanding it as it's stated...


C) Arabic is my native tongue, French my second. I have no problem understanding the King James Bible. And when I don't understand a word, I research it. Big deal.


I prefer to read through in my native language. Granted, my native language is English, but that's part of the problem. For example, when the angel comes to Mary and says, "hail Mary, full of grace". In modern English, hail implies an act of worship, bowing before someone. However, in Elizabethan English, the English the King James is written, "hail" simply meant, "Hello". So without even realizing I'm reading the context incorrectly I could be getting an impression that wasn't supposed to be made. If you can read the King James version and God speaks to you through that, I think that's awesome. I prefer other translations, and often multiple translations. It doesn't mean you have to, too



D) Various translations make for conflicting authorities. Who's the ultimate arbitrer? You. Congratulations to the scholars, they've helped people take over the role of the Holy Spirit.


Not really. If you're being true to the scripture, you're using multiple translations to get the full meaning. God is creative; He doesn't say, "This is the only way my Holy Spirit will communicate knowledge of My Scripture to you", He uses people, He uses circumstance, and He uses supernatural understanding to make the truth known. There are times I've read the same verse over and over, yet only after experiencing something in this life did that verse suddenly come to life and have a brand new meaning. Other times, I've read and not understood something, pondered over it, prayed over it, and finally asked someone wiser than myself what they believed it to mean. At times, I believe they were right on. At other times, God used that humility of going to someone and seeking counsel to open a door to the beginning of the understanding He wants me to have regarding that verse. And still other times I have read a scripture, prayed, and seem to simply have an understanding of its meaning and context.

I don't think being disciplined (research) and humble (seeking other counsel) is mocking, replacing or grieving the Holy Spirit at all.


E) Who spoke about one church? I spoke about one book.


God spoke about one church in Revelation regarding His bride who had made herself ready for Him to return to her



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Concerning point E I was answering Zaimless and the point he was making behind the words.
I should've been clearer.

Just out of curiosity are you familiar with manuscript evidence?

As for preservation: there's a difference between the word of God and the words of God. One is singular, the other plural. I really don't mean this in a mean tone, I'm just at a loss about where you're at a loss...
He didn't just promise to preserve the message intact, he promised to preserve every single word used to convey the message.
Incidently, the Bible is not "the Word of God", it is "the word of God".
"Word of God" with a capital always and exclusively refers to the person of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I understand some people might require clarification, but my point was just to present how a Bible-believer reads, believes and understands his bible.
You wrote a nice paragraph about how to discover Biblical truth, and it all could a apply using one Bible. You don't need multiple translations. When you're using that, you are in the Holy Spirit's position when it comes to which words you will choose to consider. And no, they're not all valid because versions contradict eath other. The argument that you can use many versions to discover the truth was intellectually forced upon Christians in order to sell more bibles and make more $$$.
Did you know that for a "bible" to qualify as a version and therefore merit a copyright there's a minimum number of changes to the text that must be effected before it qualifies? So our beloved scholars sit and keep messing with the words until they reach their quota of changes and what may technically be termed as a "version" and hola dineros...
Those are the versions you're wasting your eyes comparing...

The argument that one can use many versions to discover "the true" sense (which job the Lord had already freely and graciously done for you through the King James Bible translators) appeals very strongly to the "intellectual" Christian and the flesh revels in it.
Satan never outright denied the accuracy of God's words (which is the first thing he ever attacked) he, brillantly, simply and ever so insidiously planted doubt in the mind, and with a positive spin
"yea, hath God said?" Genesis 3:1
Are you sure that's what the word is supposed to mean?
Are you sure that's a correct translation, hmm?
My my how subtle...
And my friend, what worked on human nature 6000 years ago, still works today.

If you wish I'd be more than happy to discuss this with you in another setting. Just let me know, but I'd rather not address this subject anymore here. I don't mean to have the last word publicly so please feel free to reply here once more.


[edit on 15-11-2007 by Isaiah 24:21]

[edit on 15-11-2007 by Isaiah 24:21]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   
One great example of the beauty of the original Hebrew and the flaw or shortcoming of the English can be found by looking at Psalms 119.



Psalm 119 is acrostic in its structure; in that each of its 22 sections begins with a different letter in the 22 letter Hebrew alphabet.... In other words all 8 verses in the first section begin with the Hebrew character Aleph (equivalent to our A) and in the next section all 8 verses begin with Beth (equivalent to our B) and so on. This alphabetical pattern of A followed by B is lost when translating to English
source


The flow, and beauty of the original text is gone once you translate it from Hebrew to any other language. That said there's nothing wrong with the King James version. It's one of my favorites but I wouldn't go so far as to say it was "the" translation.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Zeitgeist has been shown to have false information... so the logic of putting faith in something which has a fractured truth applies to this film. You are quick to believe the minds of men too, you who posted the zeitgeist clip, as am I, believing the Bible.

Edit: I forgot the important part. As one who follows Jesus, I hold the Bible to be the word of God, not man.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by depth om]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   
To Isaiah 24:21 -

Thank you for the ellaboration. What about the 2 witnesses? What role do they play in revelations?

[edit on 15-11-2007 by amitheone]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   
I believe they will denounce the false one for a certain time right? Then they are killed, paraded through streets, mocked on tv etc, only to come back to life.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 12:37 AM
link   
First let's identify them.

Since the Old Testament law comes back into play during the tribulation (because Israel is once again at the center-stage of God's dealings) then so do the 2 witnesses which stand for the law and the prophets:
Moses and Elijah.

The standard teaching and the one I believed for years is that the 2 witnesses will be Enoch and Elijah, not Moses.
The meat of the argument is based on 1 verse

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

But what we've failed to realize is that this is a comparative statement. By adding the next verse this becomes clear

Hebews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

There's a comparison being drawn between the fact that just as men are supposed to die once, so Christ died once for our sins.
(there go re-incarnation and the mass out the window)

Obviously, some people in the Bible died twice:

the man who was revided by Elisha's bones,
the son of the widow of Nain
Lazarus
etc...

So Moses dying twice: once in Deuteronomy and once in Revelation, would not be anything new to scripture nor would it contradict Hebrews 9:27.

The standard argument has also been that Moses represents "the dead in Christ" at the rapture, and Elijah "those who are alive and remain".
But Moses and Elijah stand for the law and the prophets, not the church. There's an incongruity there.
This interpretation presents itself naturally when one doesn't realize that there's more than one rapture in the Bible.
Tribulation Jews also get raptured.
Moses stands for those who die during the tribulation and are raptured and Elijah for those who are alive during the tribulation and are raptured.

The other facet of the standard argument is that evey man must die at least once. Again this is due to the failure to realize that Hebrews 9:27 is a comparative statement as is born out by the context and the rest of the Bible.

Enoch does not have to come back and die for the simple reason that he is only a temporary exception as a man who never died. Why?
Because all those raptured alive at the end of the church age will never die.
So soon heaven will end up with millions who never died.
Those are the ones who can shout
"O death where is thy sting?"

The man who stands as the picture of the church's rapture is Enoch.

A) he was before the law and the church is not under the law
B) he never dies, just like those who are raptured alive
C) he is raptured at the age of 365: the Gentile year has 365 years instead of the Jewish 360, so the Holy Spirit was already establishing a connection between Enoch and the Gentile church back in Genesis.

There are too many evidence that the witnesses will be Moses and Elijah to list here but it's an impressive list.

If you want to know what these 2 witnesses will be doing just go back and read Moses' role vis-vis Pharaoh and Elijah's role vis-a-vis Ahab and you will get a clear idea.
Notice also that the miracles listed in Revelation 11 that the 2 witnesses perform match the miracles of Moses and Elijah in the Old Testament.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by depth om
I believe they will denounce the false one for a certain time right? Then they are killed, paraded through streets, mocked on tv etc, only to come back to life.


I agree with you.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 05:27 AM
link   
To Isaiah 24:21 -

Thanks for the info.

Can you specifically tell me what they did in Revelations? What they did in their 3.5 years ministry? What was their warning and what did they do to people who did not heed the warnings?

Revelation 11:10

And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

..

With regards to the verse above, how come the people of the world were so overjoyed? What did the 2 prophets tormented them with in order for the whole world to celebrate when they were killed by the beast?



[edit on 16-11-2007 by amitheone]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join