One Of The Reasons I Find It Difficult To Take The Bible Seriously

[leov]

I believe that happens with the Greek also. The word paraclete gets translated lots of ways but I use the word paraclete when talking about the third member of the Trinity.

Think over 1 Cor 1:2

 

[Muffled]

And we know that is BS because there is no widespread consensus among believers. It is only a weak excuse used by believers when they run into non-believers that understand the Bible better than they do.

I believe there is no such thing as an unbeliever who understands the Bible better than me.

 

[leov]

I believe there is no such thing as an unbeliever who understands the Bible better than me.

Unbeliever in NT is not the same as in today's world, they basically had no atheism then .

 

[Wandering Monk]

.

Lack of consistency among it various translations.


Take the four Bible verses below, which should make any student of the Christian religion tear their hair out in exasperation.


9 different translations of Philippians 3:8, "Because of Christ, I lost all these things, and now I know that they are all worthless trash. . . ."

Substitutes

Refuse
Garbage
Rubbish
Filth
Worthless
Less than nothing
Manure
Sewer trash
​

So, which is it?


10 Different versions of John 14:2 "In My Father’s house are many mansions;"

Substitutes

Places
Dwellings
Dwelling places.
Room
Room to spare
Rooms
Abodes
Places-to-stay
Homes​

So, which is it?


11 different translations of Isaiah 45:7 ". . .I make peace, and create evil; "

Substitutes

Disaster
Calamity
Doom
Woe
Sorrow
Trouble(s)
Bad times
Discords
Hard times
​

So, which is it?

12 different translations of Psalm 10:5 "His ways are always grievous;"

Substitutes

Firm
Prosper
Secure
Twisted
Successful
Succeed
Prosperous
Endure
Well
Defouled
Pain​

So, which is it?


Then there are reference in one Bible that are simply omitted in another. Take Mark 9:46 where the KJV says: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Now, quite a few translations (26) do include references to the worm, but quite a few do not. Their version of Mark 9:46 reads:

CEV
You would be better off to go into life lame than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.

TLB
Better be lame and live forever than have two feet that carry you to hell.

NIRV
It would be better to enter God’s kingdom with only one foot than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.

MSG
You’re better off maimed or lame and alive than the proud owner of two hands and two feet, godless in a furnace of eternal fire.

Phillips
It is better for you to enter life maimed than to keep both your hands and go to the rubbish-heap,​

Other verses also disappear . Take Matthew 18:11 where in the KJV it says “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” But in some translations the verse is missing altogether , although it may make mention of the verse and its source in a footnote. Translations such as

(CEV) Verse removed
(NIV) Verse removed.
(NWT) Verse removed.
(NCV) Verse removed.
​

Personally, any book that has so many inconsistency would be extremely difficult to take seriously no matter what else it has to say. Of course there's always the up side in that a person can choose whatever version best fits one's theology and be comfortable that it's backed up by the Good Book.

.
.

Gosh, I would have included talking snakes and donkeys in the list somewhere!

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Synonyms. I learned about them in the 1st grade.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Gosh, I would have included talking snakes and donkeys in the list somewhere!

Talking snakes and donkeys have nothing to do with consistency.

 

[sooda]

Unbeliever in NT is not the same as in today's world, they basically had no atheism then .

LOLOL.. That makes no sense.

 

[leov]

LOLOL.. That makes no sense.

of course, normal for spiritually dead. What exactly does not make sense?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe there is no such thing as an unbeliever who understands the Bible better than me.

I sincerely doubt that. In fact I am sure that you cannot support that claim. For example I understand Genesis better than you do since you think that it actually happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

of course, normal for spiritually dead. What exactly does not make sense?

Now now, no personal attacks. You can't claim that someone is spiritually dead unless you can support that claim. And a book of myths is not a reliable source. I could just as well call you spiritually dead with just as much authority.

 

[leov]

Now now, no personal attacks. You can't claim that someone is spiritually dead unless you can support that claim. And a book of myths is not a reliable source. I could just as well call you spiritually dead with just as much authority.

That is true Christian classification, no personal attack of any sort. Well, you can do it, sure. It is not an attack, it is biblical. Everyone is on a certain spiritual level. Some are on basic literal level.

 

[sooda]

of course, normal for spiritually dead. What exactly does not make sense?

The claim that there were no atheists.

 

[leov]

The claim that there were no atheists.

I thought I used word 'almost' or something similar, world was 99.9% theistic then. A few followers of Greek philosophy movement?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is true Christian classification, no personal attack of any sort. Well, you can do it, sure. It is not an attack, it is biblical. Everyone is on a certain spiritual level. Some are on basic literal level.

Sorry, but that is a lame excuse. Unless you can support your claims it is pure personal attack. And your claims of only the spiritual can understand the Bible is refuted by the constant disagreements between sects.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Of course you don't.

.

Probably because it's totally irrelevant.

 

[sooda]

Sorry, but that is a lame excuse. Unless you can support your claims it is pure personal attack. And your claims of only the spiritual can understand the Bible is refuted by the constant disagreements between sects.

The main argument here seems to be that if you don't believe in a global flood or the creation myth or that Jonah lived inside a whale, you aren't a Christian.

 

[leov]

Sorry, but that is a lame excuse. Unless you can support your claims it is pure personal attack. And your claims of only the spiritual can understand the Bible is refuted by the constant disagreements between sects.

it is up to you , you free to think what you want. I did not mean any personal attack. look up 1 Cor 2. "psychic spiritually dead".

 

[leov]

The main argument here seems to be that if you don't believe in a global flood or the creation myth or that Jonah lived inside a whale, you aren't a Christian.

absolutely not.

 

[sooda]

absolutely not.

OK.. That's good. So what is this crap about "spiritually dead"?

The pagan cuneiform inscriptions containing these myths are up to two and a half thousand years older than the earliest possible date of the origin of Genesis.

Ex-Christadelphians: The Pagan Origins of the Book of Genesis - Part 1: The Spirit of God

 

[leov]

OK.. That's good. So what is this crap about "spiritually dead"?

The pagan cuneiform inscriptions containing these myths are up to two and a half thousand years older than the earliest possible date of the origin of Genesis.

Ex-Christadelphians: The Pagan Origins of the Book of Genesis - Part 1: The Spirit of God

In Gnostic view there three natures of souls. Hylic, psychic and pneumatic. look up 1 Cor 2. Psychic (natural) is spiritually dead, resurrection of the dead is when natural becomes spiritual. Check
1 Cor 15 . follow Greek.