Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So did the Devil. And the Priests (Pharisee's/Sadducee's)
If that that's the best you can do, what can I say.
Yeah, I guess I'd throw up my hands too.
And, of course, I didn't say you did.
It doesn't matter what the regret revolved around, but that it made god sorry he started it all. A person doesn't regret the things he's done right, but rather the things he did wrong; his mistakes.
Sorry, but mere assertion doesn't do it. If you you're going to contend the Genesis stories are nothing more than myth then one can also make the same claim for the Jesus story. But maybe you do.
Can you give me some examples of what is irrevocably twisted?
Yes I know. If cherry-picking a bible doesn't work then cherry pick the translation that does.
Then why do these inconsistencies arise? Nope, the reliability is no better than the reason we have so many translations. They were often put together so as to please their sponsors; a monarch, religious poo bah, or sponsoring organization. As I clearly pointed out in my example of Isaiah 45:7, what god created after he made peace in the verse is clearly up for grabs. Don't like the notion that he created evil, by far the most common option, then you can choose between bad times, disaster, calamity, woe, doom, troubles, discords, adversity, or hard times. Kind of nice to have a do-it-yourself Bible isn't it.
I have no reason to be concerned with resting assured, but I can see why you need to convince yourself to do so; asserting that "No textual variant has any impact whatsoever on any important biblical doctrine." I know you don't know this to be a fact, but desperately require it to be true.
Evidence and source please. Mere assertion doesn't cut it.
The issue isn't man's perfection, but god's.
And still passed off today as the correct meaning.
Thank you for sharing. You're one a few who's taken the time to bother.
I mean, you seem to have gone from 'it' to 'it and a few others' to 'everything except the KJV.' Neverminding that there are plenty of arguments against the KJV being the most accurate English translation ( Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today "KJV Only" advocates refuted! Are There Mistakes in the King James Version of the Bible? ) Your complaint just seemed oddly specific against a fairly well respected translation. If it were the NWT I'd be totally there with you and I'm not a 'version purist' either. I use parallels.
I agree, there are mistakes in all English translated bibles. Probably in all modern Greek bibles too. What I haven't seen is that the KJV inherently conveys the message better, or has less errors, then NIV or NASB. The former of which is pretty well respected and the latter seen as the most literal you can get. Cross references make understanding easier, I agree. But moreso with parallels than single translations.
These "mere assertions" are the result of scholars' years of study of the scriptures. You may be willing to throw that aside, I am not.Sorry, but mere assertion doesn't do it. If you you're going to contend the Genesis stories are nothing more than myth then one can also make the same claim for the Jesus story. But maybe you do.
.
They're only problematic to people who insist the Bible is some magical inerrant book, rather than a collection of human authored books compiled across thousands of years.
Your last quotations of my material is of material I quoted from the website link given. As to your "So which one is correct, and how do you know?" about the problem of J.'s age, 8 or 18, how does this really matter? From my standpoint that problem is not even important. If the error arose from a copyist's pen, or from some secondary unknown reason as speculated, matters not at all from me. The fact of the matter that J. has been historically verified as a real person is the important fact to me. This tells us that the historical people in the Bible were real. Higher Bible Criticism has been proven wrong time upon time, but never do we hear of their ever owning up to the fact that gradually, more and more Biblical individuals come to light through other non-Biblical sources.Yes I know. If cherry-picking a bible doesn't work then cherry pick the translation that does.
So which one is correct, and how do you know?
Then why do these inconsistencies arise? Nope, the reliability is no better than the reason we have so many translations. They were often put together so as to please their sponsors; a monarch, religious poo bah, or sponsoring organization. As I clearly pointed out in my example of Isaiah 45:7, what god created after he made peace in the verse is clearly up for grabs. Don't like the notion that he created evil, by far the most common option, then you can choose between bad times, disaster, calamity, woe, doom, troubles, discords, adversity, or hard times. Kind of nice to have a do-it-yourself Bible isn't it.
I have no reason to be concerned with resting assured, but I can see why you need to convince yourself to do so; asserting that "No textual variant has any impact whatsoever on any important biblical doctrine." I know you don't know this to be a fact, but desperately require it to be true.
Evidence and source please. Mere assertion doesn't cut it.
.
EXACTLY, like the scientist who says "there is absolutely no free lunch, except the universe". A totally clueless self contradictory statement, believing its fully reasoned!!!!! That's HOW !!!! BTW Skwim it's called normal!.
