Search the scriptures

[Tambora]

I do not know if I can satisfy your question but I will say to you that the context of this Scripture lies in the fact that Jesus has just healed a demon oppressed man who could not see or speak, likely by removing the demon from him.
Suddenly, the man spoke and saw. The change was dramatic, because Matthew reports that the crowd was amazed.

Right, He did.

They ask each other, "Can this be the Son of David?" The name "Son of David" was a title reserved for the Messiah. It came from God's promise to David to establish his throne over Israel forever in 1 Samuel 7:16)

Right, Jesus the Messiah cast out a demon.
So since they looked for a Messiah to fulfill what was said about Him in their scriptures, where did they get the notion that the Messiah could exorcise demons?
That notion had to come from somewhere.

 

[Tambora]

I disagree.

If we read the Bible at face value, without a preconceived bias for finding errors, we will find it to be a coherent, consistent, and relatively easy-to-understand book. Yes, there are difficult passages.
Yes, there are verses that appear to contradict each other.

I didn't say the KJV had contradictions, I said it wasn't without error.
The KJV does have grammar errors.

However, we must remember that the Bible was written by approximately 40 different authors over a period of around 1,500 years. Each writer wrote with a different style, from a different perspective, to a different audience, for a different purpose. We should expect some minor differences. However, a difference is not a contradiction or an error! It is only an error if there is absolutely no conceivable way the verses or passages can be reconciled.

You don't have to convince me since I'm not one that believes "inspired" means it was "dictated" to them what to write word for word.

 

[Clete]

I disagree.

If we read the Bible at face value, without a preconceived bias for finding errors, we will find it to be a coherent, consistent, and relatively easy-to-understand book. Yes, there are difficult passages.
Yes, there are verses that appear to contradict each other.

However, we must remember that the Bible was written by approximately 40 different authors over a period of around 1,500 years. Each writer wrote with a different style, from a different perspective, to a different audience, for a different purpose. We should expect some minor differences. However, a difference is not a contradiction or an error! It is only an error if there is absolutely no conceivable way the verses or passages can be reconciled.

The statement was about the KJV, not the bible generally.

The King James Bible is very obviously not without error (to continue the use of the double negative).

Just two examples of incorrect translations that pop into mind...

Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.​

Deuteronomy 5:17 Thou shalt not kill.​

​

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.​

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.​

"Kill" in Exodus 10:13 & Deuteronomy 5:17 should be "murder" for obvious reasons.

"The word" in John 1 is a completely meaningless way to translate "logos" into English. "Word" is simply not used in this manner in English and thus it conveys no meaning at all. It should be translated "Logic" or "Reason", which is the concept that John intended and that John's audience would have had in mind when reading it. ("Wisdom" while not a direct translation of the word "logos" would have been a reasonable translation into English (see Proverbs 8:22-31). Certainly far superior to "the Word".)

LOGOS . The noun logos is as old as the Greek language itself. It has acquired, over the course of time, a large number of different meanings, which only with difficulty can be drawn into a simple unity. "Reason" is the translation that causes perhaps the least trouble, but "reason" itself is of course far from unambiguous. Perhaps it will help to carve up the vast semantic field covered by the word logos if the three principal meanings are distinguished, even though this entails considerable simplification. First there is an objective meaning: the rational ground or basis (Ger., Grund ) for something. This is often of a numerical or logical nature and functions as a principle of explanation. Second, there is a subjective meaning: the power or faculty of reasoning (Ger., Vernunft ) or thought. Third, there is what shall be called an expressive meaning: thought or reason as expressed in speech or in writing (the "speech" may be either vocalized or purely cerebral). - Encyclopedia.com​

 

[Rodger]

The statement was about the KJV, not the bible generally.

The King James Bible is very obviously not without error (to continue the use of the double negative).

Just two examples of incorrect translations that pop into mind...

Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.​

Deuteronomy 5:17 Thou shalt not kill.​

​

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.​

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.​

"Kill" in Exodus 10:13 & Deuteronomy 5:17 should be "murder" for obvious reasons.

"The word" in John 1 is a completely meaningless way to translate "logos" into English. "Word" is simply not used in this manner in English and thus it conveys no meaning at all. It should be translated "Logic" or "Reason", which is the concept that John intended and that John's audience would have had in mind when reading it. ("Wisdom" while not a direct translation of the word "logos" would have been a reasonable translation into English (see Proverbs 8:22-31). Certainly far superior to "the Word".)

LOGOS . The noun logos is as old as the Greek language itself. It has acquired, over the course of time, a large number of different meanings, which only with difficulty can be drawn into a simple unity. "Reason" is the translation that causes perhaps the least trouble, but "reason" itself is of course far from unambiguous. Perhaps it will help to carve up the vast semantic field covered by the word logos if the three principal meanings are distinguished, even though this entails considerable simplification. First there is an objective meaning: the rational ground or basis (Ger., Grund ) for something. This is often of a numerical or logical nature and functions as a principle of explanation. Second, there is a subjective meaning: the power or faculty of reasoning (Ger., Vernunft ) or thought. Third, there is what shall be called an expressive meaning: thought or reason as expressed in speech or in writing (the "speech" may be either vocalized or purely cerebral). - Encyclopedia.com​

Those are not errors or mistakes. God first offered the Torah to all the nations of the world, but they rejected it. Thus, the version in Exodus is what the Torah would have looked like had all the nations wished to accept it, and the version in Deuteronomy is for the Jews alone. Thus, the first version only speaks about sanctifying the Shabbat, but not about the prohibitions.

By starting out his gospel stating, in John 1:1.....“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” John is introducing Jesus with a word or a term that both his Jewish and Gentile readers would have been familiar with. The Greek word translated “Word” in this passage is Logos, and it was common in both Greek philosophy and Jewish thought of that day.

In the Old Testament the “word” of God is often personified as an instrument for the execution of God’s will which is seen in Psalm 33:6; 107:20; 119:89; & 47:15-18. So, for his Jewish readers, by introducing Jesus as the “Word,” John is in a sense pointing them back to the Old Testament where the Logos or “Word” of God is associated with the personification of God’s revelation.

Also......in Greek philosophy, the term Logos was used to describe the intermediate agency by which God created material things and communicated with them. In the Greek worldview, the Logos was thought of as a bridge between the transcendent God and the material universe. Therefore, for his Greek readers the use of the term Logos would have likely brought forth the idea of a mediating principle between God and the world.

So we can clearly see that what is thought to be an error in the KJV is nothing more thank a lack of understanding the Context of the Scriptures.

 

[Rodger]

I didn't say the KJV had contradictions, I said it wasn't without error.
The KJV does have grammar errors.


You don't have to convince me since I'm not one that believes "inspired" means it was "dictated" to them what to write word for word.

I appreciate your responce but my job is not to convince anyone of anything.

All I am saying is that If we read the Bible at face value, without a preconceived bias for finding errors, we will find it to be a coherent, consistent, and relatively easy-to-understand book.

There has always been those who say......“Look, here is an error in the Bible!”

Admittedly, some of the things people bring up are difficult to answer. However, it is my opinion after 60 years of study that there are viable and intellectually plausible answers to every supposed Bible contradiction and error.

There are books and websites and blogs available that list “all the errors in the Bible.”

Most people simply get their ammunition from these places and they do not find supposed errors on their own. There are also books and websites available that refute every one of these supposed errors. The saddest thing is that most people who attack the Bible are not truly interested in an answer. Many “Bible attackers” are even aware of these answers, but they continue to use the same old shallow attacks again and again.

 

[Rodger]

Right, He did.



Right, Jesus the Messiah cast out a demon.
So since they looked for a Messiah to fulfill what was said about Him in their scriptures, where did they get the notion that the Messiah could exorcise demons?
That notion had to come from somewhere.

Excellent question.

In a possible foreshadowing of Christ, David caused an evil spirit to depart from Saul multiple times by playing the harp in1 Sam 16, 18, 19)
hence the phrase........."Is this the Son of David".

Some view the NT exorcism accounts as evidence of an increased attempt by Satan to thwart God's plan to redeem the world through Jesus.

Then....... Jesus said this in Matthew 12:27 .......
"And if I am empowered by Satan, what about your own exorcists? They cast out demons, too, so they will condemn you for what you have said."

So by that, it seems as if casting out of demons already was practiced before Jesus started doing so.

Thanks for asking!!!!

 

[Clete]

Those are not errors or mistakes.

Yes, they are, Rodger. Don't be stupid, Okay?

God first offered the Torah to all the nations of the world, but they rejected it.

Utterly irrelevant.

Thus, the version in Exodus is what the Torah would have looked like had all the nations wished to accept it, and the version in Deuteronomy is for the Jews alone.

Also, completely irrelevant.

Thus, the first version only speaks about sanctifying the Shabbat, but not about the prohibitions.

Irrelevant!

רָצַח​

rāṣaḥ
to murder, slay, kill

1. (Qal) to murder, slay
   1. premeditated
   2. accidental
   3. as avenger
   4. slayer (intentional) (participle)
2. (Niphal) to be slain
3. (Piel)
   1. to murder, assassinate
   2. murderer, assassin (participle)(subst)
4. (Pual) to be killed

So the word CAN mean "kill" but the context DEMANDS "murder" because, on the very next page, God talks about putting people to death (i.e. killing them) for having violated certain laws, including murder! Therefore "kill" in any list of the Ten Commandments, regardless of what book of the bible it is in, or what that book's overall purpose is, is an incorrect translation of the word "rāṣaḥ" into English. It should have been translated "murder" - period!

The same Hebrew word, "rāṣaḥ" is used in Psalms 94:6, Jeremiah 7:9 and Hosea 6:9 and is translated correctly as "murder".

By starting out his gospel stating, in John 1:1.....“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” John is introducing Jesus with a word or a term that both his Jewish and Gentile readers would have been familiar with. The Greek word translated “Word” in this passage is Logos, and it was common in both Greek philosophy and Jewish thought of that day.

Yes, I already addressed this.

In the Old Testament the “word” of God is often personified as an instrument for the execution of God’s will which is seen in Psalm 33:6; 107:20; 119:89; & 47:15-18. So, for his Jewish readers, by introducing Jesus as the “Word,” John is in a sense pointing them back to the Old Testament where the Logos or “Word” of God is associated with the personification of God’s revelation.

The word "Logos" is Greek and therefore does not appear in the Old Testament.

What are you even talking about?

Also......in Greek philosophy, the term Logos was used to describe the intermediate agency by which God created material things and communicated with them. In the Greek worldview, the Logos was thought of as a bridge between the transcendent God and the material universe. Therefore, for his Greek readers the use of the term Logos would have likely brought forth the idea of a mediating principle between God and the world.

Yes, although it wasn't as esoteric a term as your comments here would suggest. It was a common Greek term. The idea which it gives name to is in no way conveyed by the English phrase, "the Word", as I explained in my previous post.

So we can clearly see that what is thought to be an error in the KJV is nothing more thank a lack of understanding the Context of the Scriptures.

No, the King James Bible got it wrong - period. Translating John's use of the word "Logos" as "the Word" does precisely NOTHING to communicate the concepts associated with that word in the Greek speaking mind. Words mean things, Rodger, and if you're going to translate something from one language to another, then the concepts being communicated have to survive the translation or else your translation is in ERROR!

 

[Clete]

I appreciate your responce but my job is not to convince anyone of anything.

All I am saying is that If we read the Bible at face value, without a preconceived bias for finding errors, we will find it to be a coherent, consistent, and relatively easy-to-understand book.

Which no one has said anything against.

There has always been those who say......“Look, here is an error in the Bible!”

She didn't say "...the bible", she said, "...the KJV".

"KJV" being an abbreviation of "King James Version" which is a 400+ year old English language translation of the bible.

Get it?

Admittedly, some of the things people bring up are difficult to answer. However, it is my opinion after 60 years of study that there are viable and intellectually plausible answers to every supposed Bible contradiction and error.

There are books and websites and blogs available that list “all the errors in the Bible.”

Most people simply get their ammunition from these places and they do not find supposed errors on their own. There are also books and websites available that refute every one of these supposed errors. The saddest thing is that most people who attack the Bible are not truly interested in an answer. Many “Bible attackers” are even aware of these answers, but they continue to use the same old shallow attacks again and again.

It's a lot easier to answer objections when you pay attention to what the objection actually said so that you don't spend all this time responding to a point that was never made.

 

[Rodger]

Yes, they are, Rodger. Don't be stupid, Okay?


Utterly irrelevant.


Also, completely irrelevant.


Irrelevant!

רָצַח​

rāṣaḥ
to murder, slay, kill

1. (Qal) to murder, slay
   1. premeditated
   2. accidental
   3. as avenger
   4. slayer (intentional) (participle)
2. (Niphal) to be slain
3. (Piel)
   1. to murder, assassinate
   2. murderer, assassin (participle)(subst)
4. (Pual) to be killed

So the word CAN mean "kill" but the context DEMANDS "murder" because, on the very next page, God talks about putting people to death (i.e. killing them) for having violated certain laws, including murder! Therefore "kill" in any list of the Ten Commandments, regardless of what book of the bible it is in, or what that book's overall purpose is, is an incorrect translation of the word "rāṣaḥ" into English. It should have been translated "murder" - period!

The same Hebrew word, "rāṣaḥ" is used in Psalms 94:6, Jeremiah 7:9 and Hosea 6:9 and is translated correctly as "murder".


Yes, I already addressed this.


The word "Logos" is Greek and therefore does not appear in the Old Testament.

What are you even talking about?


Yes, although it wasn't as esoteric a term as your comments here would suggest. It was a common Greek term. The idea which it gives name to is, in no way conveyed by the English phrase, "the Word", as I explained in my previous post.


No, the King James Bible got it wrong - period. Translating John's use of the word "Logos" as "the Word" does precisely NOTHING to communicate the concepts associated with that word in the Greek speaking mind. Words mean things, Rodger, and if you're going to translate something from one language to another, then the concepts being communicated have to survive the translation or else your translation is in ERROR!

Obviously we are not going to agree on this.

Thank you for your "Christian" way of communication! Did you learn it or just discover it???

I have to wonder what your motives are? Human beings can operate from a variety of motivations, often negative. Pride, anger, revenge, a sense of entitlement, or the desire for approval can all be catalysts for our actions. Yours seem to be really negitive and seem to be a need for some kind of approval.

Something for you to think about.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Obviously we are not going to agree on this.

Thank you for your "Christian" way of communication! Did you learn it or just discover it???

Nicer than God | KGOV.com

kgov.com

 

[Clete]

Obviously we are not going to agree on this.

Agree on what?

Thank you for your "Christian" way of communication! Did you learn it or just discover it???

It's some unchristian of me to simply point out that you're arguing against a point that no one has made?

I have to wonder what your motives are?

Intelligent two way conversation about interesting topics related to God and His word.

Human beings can operate from a variety of motivations, often negative. Pride, anger, revenge, a sense of entitlement, or the desire for approval can all be catalysts for our actions. Yours seem to be really negitive and seem to be a need for some kind of approval.

That's very judgemental of you. I'm offended!

Something for you to think about.

I wish it were! It would be far less boring.

 

[Rodger]

Agree on what?


It's some unchristian of me to simply point out that you're arguing against a point that no one has made?


Intelligent two way conversation about interesting topics related to God and His word.


That's very judgemental of you. I'm offended!


I wish it were! It would be far less boring.

You are offended????.......LOL!

Maybe you do not realize what you are posting my dear friend, but you are not coming across as someone wanting a two way conversation on Bible doctrine. You are coming across as a "Skeptic".

I am not looking for confrontation or arguments but it does seem to me that is what you are wanting.

What say we take a step back and focus on being friendly to each other!

 

[Clete]

You are offended????.......LOL!

That was sarcasm, hypocrite!

Maybe you do not realize what you are posting my dear friend, but you are not coming across as someone wanting a two way conversation on Bible doctrine. You are coming across as a "Skeptic".

This is a debate forum. I challenge what you say. The idea is for you to defend what you believe, if you can.

I am not looking for confrontation or arguments but it does seem to me that is what you are wanting.

I was not being hostile toward you. I was pointing out, MORE THAN ONCE, that you were ARGUING against a point that no one had made!

What say we take a step back and focus on being friendly to each other!

I'll be friendly when you earn back any reason for me to respect you enough to be friendly. So far, you've been an irrelevant blow hard and a thin skinned cry baby who can't even bother to pay attention enough to what he's reading to notice when he's gone off topic even after someone has pointed it out to him and who then gets his panties all wadded up when someone gets the least bit frustrated with perfectly reasonable posts repeatedly being ignored and/or responded to with one irrelevancy after another.

If you want to get along with me then respond to substantive arguments with equally substantive rebuttals and be man enough to admit it when someone points out that you've made a mistake and misunderstood something that someone else had said. You can start by acknowledging that pointing out that there are translation errors in the King James Bible is not the equivalent of saying that there are errors in the bible itself.

 

[Rodger]

You can call it whatever you want to.

I view the Canonized books as being a compilation of the manuscripts they had available to them at the time.
And I think declaring the Canon closed way back then may have been a bit premature.
Tons of manuscripts have been found since then.



And the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Paul knew those names from somewhere.




The Talmud is basically just various commentaries on scripture.
I don't think any of those guys considered it to be scripture.




Sure.
But where did they get the notion that the Messiah (a type of David) would have power over demonic possession?
The NT verse seems to indicate that they expected the promised Messiah to do just that.
What was it that made them expect that particular thing of Him as verification that He was the Messiah?

Do you know of any productions found that correct or change any Scriptures in the Canon?

 

[Rodger]

The KJV is not without error.

Although the original texts of the Bible were inspired by God and are without error, the same cannot be said for later copies of the texts or translations made from them. Translators are human, and many have allowed their own religious biases to influence their work. Usually such mistranslations are relatively minor.

 

[Tambora]

Although the original texts of the Bible were inspired by God and are without error,

That is an assumption.
Since we have no originals there is no evidence to verify that statement.
Copies are all we have and copies are all we can go by.
And frankly I don't why anyone would have the absolute need to INSIST that the stories men wrote about HAD TO BE without error in order for people to understand the gist of what they wrote.

 

[Rodger]

That is an assumption.
Since we have no originals there is no evidence to verify that statement.
Copies are all we have and copies are all we can go by.
And frankly I don't why anyone would have the absolute need to INSIST that the stories men wrote about HAD TO BE without error in order for people to understand the gist of what they wrote.

That is not the case. Only the original autographs (the original manuscripts written by the apostles, prophets, etc.) are under the divine promise of inspiration and inerrancy. The books of the Bible, as they were originally written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit , were 100 percent inerrant, accurate, authoritative, and true. There is no biblical promise that copies of the original manuscripts would be equally inerrant or free from errors. As the Bible has been copied thousands of times over thousands of years, some copyist errors have likely occurred.

 

[Tambora]

That is not the case. Only the original autographs (the original manuscripts written by the apostles, prophets, etc.) are under the divine promise of inspiration and inerrancy. The books of the Bible, as they were originally written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit , were 100 percent inerrant, accurate, authoritative, and true.

That is all wonderful thinking and should make it very easy for you to show the evidence that is true.
I'll wait for you to post the evidence.

There is no biblical promise that copies of the original manuscripts would be equally inerrant or free from errors.

And I'll wait for you to post the evidence of the biblical promise which states that only originals were free from errors.

 

[Rodger]

That is all wonderful thinking and should make it very easy for you to show the evidence that is true.
I'll wait for you to post the evidence.



And I'll wait for you to post the evidence of the biblical promise which states that only originals were free from errors.

2 Tim. 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

2 Peter 1:20-21
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Tambora]

2 Tim. 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

2 Peter 1:20-21
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

If a strict interpretation is to be taken, shouldn’t actual, empirical evidence match these claims?
Where in those verses do you see any mention of " only originals"?
Are not the copies of scripture we have now profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness?