Bible Questions?

you're not claiming your version of the bible to have been translated from the original manuscripts, are you ?

 

You are right.Many of them are difficult to understand,and every person has different explanation.

 

Samuel

22:9 There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it.

22:10 He bowed the heavens also, and came down; and darkness was under his feet.

22:11 And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly:

Is a Cherub a type of flying pig or a winged humanoid, what is its armor class and hit points?

 

John, for one.

 

Sorry, It's not a video game.

 

2000 years ago, according to OWB, people lived much longer. Despite all evidence pointing to our lifespans being longer now than they ever were.
Note to OWB: 'the bible said so' is not evidence.

 

No. Why?

 

Well Christ was supposed to have died in the year ad30 or so. John's Gospel is widely thought to have been written around ad90-100. So in reality it was probably only around 70 years after the events.

There are beginning to be some discussions about Luke-Acts and whether it was written in about ad80 or more into the second century (ad120 to ad150).

By the mid-second century, the four gospels we regard now had already been widely distributed. This is not a quick process because to acquire the means and time to copy out a book took a lot of resources.

 

No, what is longer now is the average lifespan, individuals 2000 years ago still could live as long as we do now.

A remarkable statement mentioned by Diogenes Laertius (c. 250 AD) is the earliest (or at least one of the earliest) references about plausible centenarian longevity given by a scientist, the astronomer Hipparchus of Nicea (c. 185 – c. 120 BC), who, according to the doxographer, was assured that the philosopher Democritus of Abdera (c. 470/460 – c. 370/360 BC) lived 109 years. All other accounts given by the ancients about the age of Democritus appear, without giving any specific age, to agree that the philosopher lived over 100 years. This possibility is likely, given that many ancient Greek philosophers are thought to have lived over the age of 90 (e.g., Xenophanes of Colophon, c. 570/565 – c. 475/470 BC, Pyrrho of Ellis, c. 360 – c. 270 BC, Eratosthenes of Cirene, c. 285 – c. 190 BC, etc.).

Note to Grim: in this thread it is.

 

I am lost as to what you are saying. On the one hand, Gods word is perfect. On the other hand, the KJV is insufficient. How does this work waterbrother?

 

Yes, God's word is perfect. As for the KJV being insufficient, I never said that. I have always maintained that the truth can be found in it but it is just not a very good translation and so to search out the deeper things of God it would be good to find a better translation, that would be more helpful for that.

 

"Not a very good translation", and the word "insufficient", have identical meanings in this context. You may not have said specifically the word, insufficient, but to say not very good in relation, is the same definition. You have a genuine delinquency in distinguishing form from content. I alert you to this because it makes you difficult to take seriously. You are better off making no statement, rather than a self contradictory statement.

 

Actually no, you have not said in what way the KJV is insufficient, the KJV is sufficient to find the truth.

No, it isn't, it just means as I said it means, it is not good for searching for the deeper things of God.

Same to you.

As I have explained the statement is not contradictory, so take it anyway you want.

 

I am not claiming that KJV is insufficient, you are. You are claiming it is
insufficient in that it is not good for searching for the deeper things of God. You say KJV is sufficient to find the truth, but not the deeper things of God. Does this mean that the "deeper things of God", are not true?

 

Once again, I have not said that the KJV is "insufficient". I have only said that it is a poor translation.

No, just that the deeper things of God are harder to discern, and a poor translation, like the KJV, just makes it more difficult.

 

Why would God create a poor translation. If there is a poor translation in one instance, why are not all translations stricken with poverty?

 

He wouldn't.

Only some who who have translated the Bible are spiritually poor.

 

Can you identify these some spiritually poor? If such translators exist, what is to preclude them from being original authors?

 

Lancelot Andrewes, John Overall, Hadrian à Saravia, Richard Clarke, John Layfield, Robert Tighe, Francis Burleigh, Geoffrey King, Richard Thomson, William Bedwell; Edward Lively, John Richardson, Lawrence Chaderton, Francis Dillingham, Roger Andrewes, Thomas Harrison, Robert Spaulding, Andrew Bing; John Harding, John Rainolds (or Reynolds), Thomas Holland, Richard Kilby, Miles Smith, Richard Brett, Daniel Fairclough, William Thorne; Thomas Ravis, George Abbot, Richard Eedes, Giles Tomson, Sir Henry Savile, John Peryn, Ralph Ravens, John Harmar, John Aglionby, Leonard Hutten; William Barlow, John Spenser, Roger Fenton, Ralph Hutchinson, William Dakins, Michael Rabbet, Thomas Sanderson; John Duport, William Branthwaite, Jeremiah Radcliffe, Samuel Ward, Andrew Downes, John Bois, Robert Ward, Thomas Bilson, Richard Bancroft.

They weren't authorized by God to be original authors.

 

No. This forum is for Christians. There is no requirement that we be unable to differentiate allegory from literal fact. Neither is it necessary to believe that everything ever written by people is the word of God.