Contradictions in the Bible

[sooda]

You tried to smoke it up a bit. But all you are saying is your don't believe in the Rapture so 'air' must not mean 'air'.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Its not "AIR".. Its spirit..

Your version of the "rapture" is from Cyrus Scofield..

John Nelson Darby - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nelson_Darby

Overview
John Nelson Darby (18 November 1800 – 29 April 1882) was an Anglo-Irish Bible teacher, one of the influential figures among the original Plymouth Brethren and the founder of the Exclusive Brethren. He is considered to be the father of modern Dispensationalism and Futurism. Pre-tribulation rapture theology was popularized extensively in the 1830s by John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren, and further popularized in the United States in the early 20th century by the wide circulation of the Scofield Reference Bible.

Read more

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Greetings.

You aren't saying that the Bible interprets itself, are you? It clearly doesn't since there are wildly differing religious beliefs, concerning the texts. So, how is that not, interpretation? In fact literalism, itself, does not lend to distinct trinity, it certainly doesn't.

Yes, we use the Bible to interpret the Bible. The different interpretations are to be expected. The important thing is that the Bible is the source of the interpretation. And we work out from there.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Yes there was a Jesus who probably didn't walk on water.

Why is Jesus not a delusional exaggeration like Moses, and the flood, etc, etc.? You just believe the parts of the Bible you like and discard the rest.

May as well just write your own.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes, we use the Bible to interpret the Bible. The different interpretations are to be expected. The important thing is that the Bible is the source of the interpretation. And we work out from there.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Yes, in fact i know how to interpret 'literally', (completely literally.

However that doesn't mean, one can read the Bible, and not get the wrong idea. It's quite easy, really. Miss a few verses, and voila

 

[sooda]

1 Thessalonians 4:17

Why is Jesus not a delusional exaggeration like Moses, and the flood, etc, etc.? You just believe the parts of the Bible you like and discard the rest.

May as well just write your own.

Good-Ole-Rebel

The OT stories were borrowed from Sumer, Egypt and the north coast Canaanites. Collectively they create a history and identity for the Jewish people. They had no such history before the Babylonian exile.

Jesus was a real person although he's been treated to myth making as well. He wasn't supernatural.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Its not "AIR".. Its spirit..

Your version of the "rapture" is from Cyrus Scofield..

John Nelson Darby - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nelson_Darby

Overview
John Nelson Darby (18 November 1800 – 29 April 1882) was an Anglo-Irish Bible teacher, one of the influential figures among the original Plymouth Brethren and the founder of the Exclusive Brethren. He is considered to be the father of modern Dispensationalism and Futurism. Pre-tribulation rapture theology was popularized extensively in the 1830s by John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren, and further popularized in the United States in the early 20th century by the wide circulation of the Scofield Reference Bible.

Read moreView attachment 33126

KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, all say 'air'. It is not about Scofield, or Darby. They were Dispensational, yes. Which I agree with.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[sooda]

KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, all say 'air'. It is not about Scofield, or Darby. They were Dispensational, yes. Which I agree with.

Good-Ole-Rebel

It is about Scofield.. Scofield was hired by Samuel Untermyer to basically hijack Protestantism and promote Christian Zionism. That is where Dispensationalism comes from.

You remember Untermyer, don't you? He was a major fundraiser in the US for Zionism.. He's the guy who declared war on all things German from the safety of Madison Square Garden in 1933.

The same men who wrote and published the Scofield annotated bible went on to found the Dallas Theological Seminary and the Moody Institute. That's your religion.

 

[sooda]

KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, all say 'air'. It is not about Scofield, or Darby. They were Dispensational, yes. Which I agree with.

Good-Ole-Rebel

It is about Scofield.. Scofield was hired by Samuel Untermyer to basically hijack Protestantism and promote Christian Zionism. That is where Dispensationalism comes from.

You remember Untermyer, don't you? He was a major fundraiser in the US for Zionism.. He's the guy who declared war on all things German from the safety of Madison Square Garden in 1933.

The same men who wrote and published the Scofield annotated bible went on to found the Dallas Theological Seminary and the Moody Institute. That's your religion.

 

[sooda]

KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, all say 'air'. It is not about Scofield, or Darby. They were Dispensational, yes. Which I agree with.

Good-Ole-Rebel

It is about Scofield.. Scofield was hired by Samuel Untermyer to basically hijack Protestantism and promote Christian Zionism. That is where Dispensationalism comes from.

You remember Untermyer, don't you? He was a major fundraiser in the US for Zionism.. He's the guy who declared war on all things German from the safety of Madison Square Garden in 1933.

The same men who wrote and published the Scofield annotated bible went on to found the Dallas Theological Seminary and the Moody Institute. That's your religion.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

It is about Scofield.. Scofield was hired by Samuel Untermyer to basically hijack Protestantism and promote Christian Zionism. That is where Dispensationalism comes from.

You remember Untermyer, don't you? He was a major fundraiser in the US for Zionism.. He's the guy who declared war on all things German from the safety of Madison Square Garden in 1933.

The same men who wrote and published the Scofield annotated bible went on to found the Dallas Theological Seminary and the Moody Institute. That's your religion.

The Bibles I listed were not written by Scofield.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[sooda]

The Bibles I listed were not written by Scofield.

Good-Ole-Rebel

I know...

The Bibles I listed were not written by Scofield.

Good-Ole-Rebel

It is impossible to overstate the influence of Cyrus Scofield on twentieth-century Christian beliefs. The Scofield Bible is the standard reference work in virtually all Christian ministries and divinity schools.

Scofield teaching was prevalent during the Dust Bowl and the Depression.. but wasn't accepted by mainstream Protestant churches. Billy Graham changed that somewhat.. Then along came Falwell and Robertson.. and in the 1970s Hal Lindsey.

It was political .. It gave birth to Christian Zionism.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I know...


It is impossible to overstate the influence of Cyrus Scofield on twentieth-century Christian beliefs. The Scofield Bible is the standard reference work in virtually all Christian ministries and divinity schools.

Scofield teaching was prevalent during the Dust Bowl and the Depression.. but wasn't accepted by mainstream Protestant churches. Billy Graham changed that somewhat.. Then along came Falwell and Robertson.. and in the 1970s Hal Lindsey.

It was political .. It gave birth to Christian Zionism.

Sounds like another thread. Go ahead and start one about Dispensationalism. I will participate.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[sooda]

The Bibles I listed were not written by Scofield.

Good-Ole-Rebel

I know...

The Bibles I listed were not written by Scofield.

Good-Ole-Rebel

It is impossible to overstate the influence of Cyrus Scofield on twentieth-century Christian beliefs. The Scofield Bible is the standard reference work in virtually all Christian ministries and divinity schools.

Scofield teaching was prevalent during the Dust Bowl and the Depression.. but wasn't accepted by mainstream Protestant churches. Billy Graham changed that somewhat.. Then along came Falwell and Robertson.. and in the 1970s Hal Lindsey.

It was political .. It gave birth to Christian Zionism.

 

[sojourner]

If it is not accurate, it is not authentic.

Early does carry some weight. But it is not the only factor involved. And just because a manuscript is earlier, doesn't guarantee it is accurate. In other words, if you found an earlier manuscript, that doesn't mean it automatically requires you to disregard later manuscripts.

Good-Ole-Rebel

There is no "accurate." If we transliterate word-for-word, we have little context -- and many times no direct correlation. One has to know cultural context and then "fudge" on the exact wording, in order to retain the authentic meaning.

No, you're right on this point; "earlier" isn't the only factor. Again, though, "earlier" does guarantee "less editorial layers." And that's extremely important. It's not as if the translators disregard all later sources; they merely add in the earlier sources where appropriate, and sometimes favor the earlier over the later. But they usually add a footnote with the alternate translation. The whole point of biblical exegesis and translation is to arrive at a conclusion that is as authentic as possible.

 

[sooda]

The Bibles I listed were not written by Scofield.

Good-Ole-Rebel

I know...

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

There is no "accurate." If we transliterate word-for-word, we have little context -- and many times no direct correlation. One has to know cultural context and then "fudge" on the exact wording, in order to retain the authentic meaning.

No, you're right on this point; "earlier" isn't the only factor. Again, though, "earlier" does guarantee "less editorial layers." And that's extremely important. It's not as if the translators disregard all later sources; they merely add in the earlier sources where appropriate, and sometimes favor the earlier over the later. But they usually add a footnote with the alternate translation. The whole point of biblical exegesis and translation is to arrive at a conclusion that is as authentic as possible.

Well, we are not talking about transliteration. We are talking about translation. That doesn't mean there needs to be any 'fudging'. It means you are giving the accurate translation. You are trying to use 'cultural context' as a means to question the accuracy of the translation. So that you can deny that which you don't like on the basis of 'cultural context'.

Earlier doesn't guarantee less editorial layers. If that which you have is earlier and is a poor translation, or a translation done with extreme bias by the translator, you already start with editorial layers. How do you know? By comparison with the many manuscripts we have.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[sojourner]

We are talking about translation. That doesn't mean there needs to be any 'fudging'. It means you are giving the accurate translation

. There’s always fudging on translation, because “most accurate word” doesn’t always equal “most authentic meaning.”

You are trying to use 'cultural context' as a means to question the accuracy of the translation

No, there are colloquialisms that are not understood outside the cultural context.

If that which you have is earlier and is a poor translation, or a translation done with extreme bias by the translator, you already start with editorial layers

We’re not talking translations. We’re talking manuscripts in the original languages.

Geez!

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

. There’s always fudging on translation, because “most accurate word” doesn’t always equal “most authentic meaning.”


No, there are colloquialisms that are not understood outside the cultural context.


We’re not talking translations. We’re talking manuscripts in the original languages.

Geez!

No, there is no need for fudging. It is part of translation. An accurate translation is giving the true meaning.

A colloquialism doesn't mean the translator gives an inaccurate translation.

No, not always. The oldest manuscripts we have include Greek translations of the Old Testament.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[sojourner]

No, there is no need for fudging. It is part of translation. An accurate translation is giving the true meaning.

A colloquialism doesn't mean the translator gives an inaccurate translation.

No, not always. The oldest manuscripts we have include Greek translations of the Old Testament.

Good-Ole-Rebel

You seem to have a deep need for everything to be “accurate.” Is your faith such that it can allow for no human factor? Is it so obsessed with the Bible that you cannot find God within humanity and the Body of Christ?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

You seem to have a deep need for everything to be “accurate.” Is your faith such that it can allow for no human factor? Is it so obsessed with the Bible that you cannot find God within humanity and the Body of Christ?

I believe the Bible as it claims to be the Word of God. I don't consider it an obsession. I don't allow the 'human factor' to negate any part of the Bible I don't like, as you do.

Good-Ole-Rebel