Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Open Forum => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Colin Michael on March 15, 2009, 03:55:44 AM
-
http://www.israelofgod.org/lucifer.htm (http://www.israelofgod.org/lucifer.htm)
I didn't read the whole thing, only mostly skimmed it. It came from a post on a very "liberal" forum so be weary.
And yes, I know that I like to drive the point that Lucifer is not Satan.
-
Hence why I dislike most modern commentators, because almost all of them accept flawed translations as 100% accurate.
The only inspired Word of God is the original Hebrew OT and Aramaic NT. Anything else is subject to the bias of the translators.
-
The only inspired Word of God is the original Hebrew OT and Aramaic NT. Anything else is subject to the bias of the translators.
Most Christians would agree with that statement. However, I believe that God has protected the accuracy and authority of the Bible even to today by also inspiring the copyists and translators who have been involved over the years in producing the Bible's that we all know and love.
If He didn't, then almost no one in the world would be able to REALLY know what God's message was. After all, most people don't have access to Hebrew OT and Aramaic NT, and even if they did, they couldn't read them. God's whole purpose in sending the Bible was to have a written record that wouldn't change over the centuries, and that could be available to all.
God wants us to come to him like little children. That means reading the Bible for its plain meaning, not tearing it apart like a literary critic.
-
The only inspired Word of God is the original Hebrew OT and Aramaic NT. Anything else is subject to the bias of the translators.
Most Christians would agree with that statement. However, I believe that God has protected the accuracy and authority of the Bible even to today by also inspiring the copyists and translators who have been involved over the years in producing the Bible's that we all know and love.
If He didn't, then almost no one in the world would be able to REALLY know what God's message was. After all, most people don't have access to Hebrew OT and Aramaic NT, and even if they did, they couldn't read them. God's whole purpose in sending the Bible was to have a written record that wouldn't change over the centuries, and that could be available to all.
God wants us to come to him like little children. That means reading the Bible for its plain meaning, not tearing it apart like a literary critic.
This article would prove your fantasy wrong. Also, I might point to the countless varying translations.
-
This article would prove your fantasy wrong. Also, I might point to the countless varying translations.
Countless English translations. There are far fewer greek or hebrew translation and since we have no avaliable aramaic translations, we rely on the greek. All responsible english translations are based on the best hebrew and greek texts. so we do the best we can
-
This article would prove your fantasy wrong. Also, I might point to the countless varying translations.
Countless English translations. There are far fewer greek or hebrew translation and since we have no avaliable aramaic translations, we rely on the greek. All responsible english translations are based on the best hebrew and greek texts. so we do the best we can
I agree. Mark, however, is suggesting that all translations are protected from error.
What would you say about the different books in the Bibles of the Catholics and Ethiopian Orthodox churches? Are those valid as well?
-
That article doesn't surprise me, because after really looking at the chapter, long before the article, I have been wondering why it sounds so much like an arrogant HUMAN king.
-
That article doesn't surprise me, because after really looking at the chapter, long before the article, I have been wondering why it sounds so much like an arrogant HUMAN king.
Yeah, I've notice that too as well as well as that Lucifer is a latin word and no explaination is given as to why it is capitalised.
-
So I guess from now on, if I say that I "bow my knee to Lucifer", I basically mean I'm bowing my knee to Jesus.
-
This article would prove your fantasy wrong. Also, I might point to the countless varying translations.
I read the article, and it doesn't prove anything.
As for varying translations, I wouldn't say that all of them are 100% accurate. There are some translations that are only the work of 1 man (The Message for instance), and don't even claim to be accurate translations. However, there are other translations that are developed very carefully over years by many people who are dedicated to God. I believe that these "major" translations are the ones that God protects so that they are accurate and authoritative.
These would include KJV, NKJV, NAS, NIV, NRSV, etc. And as for the extra books in the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Bibles, I don't have a problem with them. From what I hear, they don't contradict anything in the regular Protestant Bible, so it's a moot point to me.
-
This article would prove your fantasy wrong. Also, I might point to the countless varying translations.
I read the article, and it doesn't prove anything.
As for varying translations, I wouldn't say that all of them are 100% accurate. There are some translations that are only the work of 1 man (The Message for instance), and don't even claim to be accurate translations. However, there are other translations that are developed very carefully over years by many people who are dedicated to God. I believe that these "major" translations are the ones that God protects so that they are accurate and authoritative.
These would include KJV, NKJV, NAS, NIV, NRSV, etc. And as for the extra books in the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Bibles, I don't have a problem with them. From what I hear, they don't contradict anything in the regular Protestant Bible, so it's a moot point to me.
Well then, why was the word Lucifer misstranslated and then capitolised?
-
Well then, why was the word Lucifer misstranslated and then capitolised?
Quite simply, it wasn't mistranslated. This is something that we're just going to have to agree to disagree :)
-
Well then, why was the word Lucifer misstranslated and then capitolised?
Quite simply, it wasn't mistranslated. This is something that we're just going to have to agree to disagree :)
I mean, you have no grounds for that belief; not even Biblical grounds.
-
You seem to operate from this strange perspective that everyone works from the same data set as yours, and if they don't, theirs must be inferior and/or invalid. Just sayin.
-
You seem to operate from this strange perspective that everyone works from the same data set as yours, and if they don't, theirs must be inferior and/or invalid. Just sayin.
I'm sorry, I was just asking him what his grounds for that were.
-
Are we saying that man is not capable of distorting scripture as long as the scripture is in written form? What is wrong with saying that the guy who translated the Latin Vulgate Bible was in error? I don't understand why this would somehow call God's sovereignty into question or make any other translation of the Bible any less reliable. I think that is one of the biggest pitfalls of the church is that when others sin we want to point it out, but when we do we want to push it under the carpet...
-
Are we saying that man is not capable of distorting scripture as long as the scripture is in written form? What is wrong with saying that the guy who translated the Latin Vulgate Bible was in error? I don't understand why this would somehow call God's sovereignty into question or make any other translation of the Bible any less reliable. I think that is one of the biggest pitfalls of the church is that when others sin we want to point it out, but when we do we want to push it under the carpet...
Well, it's that the translator "sinned" (though it was the translation following the Vulgate in which the error was made), he just made a mistake in translation.
However, I think we need to be careful in regards to understanding what the Bible says and what we have been told that it says. In my studies, I have found 90% of Christian demonology and theology regarding Satan to be completely unbacked by scripture. The rapture and the serpent are other good examples of this.
-
I completely agree. When the sin of the original translator led to others sinning, they are all accountable. We need to study the scriptures ourselves otherwise we will be easily swayed by every theological trend that comes along.
-
I completely agree. When the sin of the original translator led to others sinning, they are all accountable. We need to study the scriptures ourselves otherwise we will be easily swayed by every theological trend that comes along.
Why is it a "sin" though? Isn't it more likely a mistake? Also, could we say Luther "sinned" if he hypothetically "left out" Maccabees because he disagreed with doctrine that it presented?
-
I mean, you have no grounds for that belief; not even Biblical grounds.
I have already stated that my primary belief in the accuracy and authority of the Bible is based on three grounds:
- The depiction of God in the Bible matching up with what we can learn about God by studying His creation
- The character of God giving Him the power to protect the Bible, and the desire to do so
- The character of humans giving us the need to have an immutable authority outside of ourselves
We need to study the scriptures ourselves otherwise we will be easily swayed by every theological trend that comes along.
And I would say that it is useless for the majority of the world to study the scriptures if we are going to have such a weak view of them. Imagine telling someone that the Bible is God's Word EXCEPT:
- that it really only USED to be God's Word when it was in Hebrew or Aramaic (which they can't read)
- that it really is only God's Word on spiritual issues, but is messed up when it comes to history, science, etc.
- that it really is only God's Word in parts that still apply to us today, and not all that culturally irrelevant stuff
Once you put all those exceptions on, then suddenly there's no way for any normal person to really understand what God's Word is really saying. So they would have to depend on some scholar of ancient languages, or ancient cultures, or history, or science, etc. to really tell them what it means. Which means that the exact thing that you are trying to avoid ends up happening. The masses are easily swayed by every theological trend that comes along :)
-
I'm sorry, I was just asking him what his grounds for that were.
Asking is a question. You DECLARED that he had NO grounds.
-
is the bible truth no mater what? yes or no?
-
is the bible truth no mater what? yes or no?
To whom are you directing the question?
-
is the bible truth no mater what? yes or no?
To whom are you directing the question?
I'll take it. The Spirit of Truth is the only thing we can trust. The Spirit illuminating a text is what brings life out of it. Ultimately we have a relationship with God, not a book. The Bible is the testimony of different people's relationship with God.
-
The Bible is truth, but if someone distorts it intentionally which is what it sounded like the accusation that was being made in the article then it is sin, not a mistake. If I am reading it wrong then my apologies. God's Word is infallible...period! When you have a book though without a relationship with the Living God then you will not get what is being said anyway. Let him who has ears hear...
-
In spite of my extremely high respect for the accuracy and authority of the Bible, I do agree with my brothers that without the leading of the Holy Spirit a person wouldn't actually be able to understand God's Word. Thankfully, I believe that God gives "prevenient grace" to all people.
And as for the idea that our relationship is with God and not a book...I agree and disagree.
My relationship is with God. He is my Savior and my Lord. He is the most important Person in my life. However, my relationship with Him is affected by many things, including my feelings, my senses, my thinking, etc. All of these things are fallible, and will sometimes lead me in the wrong direction. So what can I depend on to always tell me the Truth? The Bible is the best way to determine whether our relationship with God is where it is supposed to be. So when I think I hear God telling me to do something, the Bible is where I check to see whether what I "think" He is telling me matches up with what I "know" He has already told me. God won't contradict Himself.
-
In spite of my extremely high respect for the accuracy and authority of the Bible,
The Bible is, without question, the most accuratly copied (dead sea scrolls) and authoritative book in the world.
It is awesome, I love it, I trust it. But it is what it is because of the Spirit of Truth. That's all I'm saying.
Everybody turn it down to 5 or so!
-
I obviously don't hold the Bible at the same standard as you guys do, but all the more power to you.
-
I obviously don't hold the Bible at the same standard as you guys do, but all the more power to you.
I would challenge, or at least ask, you to read a book called "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell.
I doubt you would hold that opinion anymore.
-
I obviously don't hold the Bible at the same standard as you guys do, but all the more power to you.
Why not? Do you still believe the bible? Or just don't think God penned it?
-
I obviously don't hold the Bible at the same standard as you guys do, but all the more power to you.
I may be somewhere in the middle. I believe that the Word of God is divinly inspired (God-Breathed) and I beleive it is to be "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). I believe it is inffalible when it speaks to us on spiritual matters. It is God's message to the people of the world. I further believe that God has kept that message intact through the copying process and the translation process.
But I also believe that the bible is not always factually accurate in what it says. I believe that sometimes it gets its history wrong. Some of this has to do with the design and purpose of the human author (John has a different purpose than Mark and Luke has a different purpose than Matthew). They emphasize certain facts and de-emphasize ore exclude others. Sometimes the tell the truth through stories or myth rather than historical fact (Genesis1-12) often beause there is no way to get the historical facts. Sometimes the book has been "altered" to paint one group as totally evil and another group as totally good (1-2 Kings). In those passages the history has been sacrificed, but Gods message of right and wrong, good and evil and his ultimate victory over the enemy has not. We know that God does not "harden" someones heart like Exodous tells us about Pharaoh (Ex 9:12) and he does not send out "evil spirits" to torment king Saul (1 Sam 16:14) but this was the way that the authors described it before they understood the idea of the enemy and a temptor.
I guess what I am saying is that I do not believe that everything the bible says is true. I cannot because I know there are too many things that are contraditory such as when Jesus was even born (was it sometime before 4 BC as Matthew states or was it in 6 AD as Luke states?) But I believe that even if the words are not 100% factually accurate, that they still communiate the truth of God to his people.
To those who say that if one thing is wrong, then how can we trust anything? well I think that is just foolishness. I am not going to hold the message of the cross hostage to some historical detail about the conquest of Jericho. If the wall's fell in..or out or only partially down, I dont care because the gist of the story is still the same. If the temple clearing happened early in Jesus' ministry ( Like John states) or later during the passion week (like Matthew and Mark) who cares? the point is that Jesus's message was radially different than the religion that was going down at the time and his stance against the machinery of religion is communicated in each of those stories.
I welcome any respectful criticism...I will probably get it from both sides but oh well
-
On the history, at least the examples you gave, its the whole "if two people see the same thing and get asked about it, they'll tell different stories." Ever think it was possible that Matthew or Luke couldn't exactly remember? Good example about this: My mom on her birthday last year, thought she was a year older than she was. She even told me the wrong birth year when I asked her when she was born!
Now, before someone jumps down my throat for saying that, here's the thing. If you look at history, how often do they know actual dates (prior to the 19th century... in the 1800's and after, we usually have pretty accurate dates)? Often times, you get a range, because people forget exactly what year it was. And here's the other thing: The BC/AD system wasn't used until almost 500 years after Christ's DEATH. Before that, the Diocletian calendar was used.
But I have ANOTHER point in all of this. What the crap does two years matter? Does that difference of two years totally throw everything out the window? Does it make the fact that Jesus lived, not a fact at all? No.
Here's the problem with people and the accuracy of the Bible. Yes, the Bible is God-breathed. God inspired the men who wrote the Bible to write it. His Spirit was in the writing of it. But we're too darn nit picky. I agree with Travis and Mark... the Bible is the Word of God, it IS infallible. The fact that, hey, maybe Luke was old and had lived a long time and couldn't remember the exact year, made it that much more REAL. If everyone in the Bible wrote the same, wouldn't it pop questions in your mind? Like, was it really different people or one person PRETENDING to be all these people? If the Gospels were parallel, would we have as much of the story we do.
There's a problem here, and I'm going to throw it out there. Where is your wonder and awe? It's great to ask questions, I'm all about asking questions. But when those questions lead to your faith deteriorating, and that your faith is based on logic, thats not faith, that's intellect. There's things that we don't know. And you know what? I'm okay with that. Most of the discussions that I have been reading lately have been starting to break my heart? Why?
Because its becoming more obvious that people don't give a crap about the wonder and awesomeness of God and that all they really want is to add to their knowledge bank and argue and know God in their head. Here's what I have to say... I asked a lot a questions before I knew the Lord... and trust me, I knew a lot about Jesus and God and the Bible, I still do. But guess what? My life was miserable. I was miserable, because I didn't know the power of the living God. Why? Because I thought I had to know everything to have faith. Then, one day I realized that I couldn't understand God's Word, even though I knew all about it, without Him. And I couldn't really know GOD without accepting Him into my life. And I think that maybe, some of you need to take the advice of Jesus Himself, and become like a little child, and get that faith again. Because you know what, without that, there is no way to really know God and His Word.
*steps off soapbox*
~Marti
-
For me, the Old Testament is disputable. There seems to be a lot of subjectivity and different perspectives to sort through, but it is after all the literature and history of a people.
I view the N.T. in this sense: "Hey guys, we're here, Jesus just peaced out, let's figure out what he was really saying so that these new movements have some kind of 'cannon'". I hold Paul and Peter in the same category as the writings of other church fathers; they just have a more objective view (as they were taught directly by Jesus).
As for the infallability, from my progressing studies of Catholicism, I understand the need for the church to make some kind of "final verdict", and I hope to be able to better understand the views of the church. However, there seem to be several pieces missing from the puzzle that need answering before I can fully understand and accept divine word theory (for example, how when Paul writes "all γραφή [scripture] is given by inspiration of God" do we know that he included ἐπιστολή [epistle] in the category of scripture? Also, Paul writes "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" 2Th 2:15, which suggests that we are to hold fast to the teachings passed down, but not that these traditions are "infallable").
I do believe, in faith, that the holy spirit is on the church, and in that, I believe that all errors will eventually surface and be addressed. Because of the former belief, I believe that the church fathers who wrote the Bible were under the guidance of the holy spirit. I also believe that they were capable of error. It would follow that God took their capacity for error into account when they wrote the Bible.
-
I believe that the Word of God is divinly inspired (God-Breathed) and I beleive it is to be "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).
I like those verses. I also like this one: "Every word of God proves true."
-
This is why the Jews all learn Hebrew. To read the Torah in it's original, acurate wording.
-
good, so we should all learn greek and Hebrew!
-
good, so we should all learn greek and Hebrew!
I'm learning hebrew, but somehow I sense you are being cheaply sarcastic.
-
actually no I am not. I actually think that chruches should teach their congregants greek and hebrew just like jews learn hebrew at their synagogues.
-
This is why the Jews all learn Hebrew. To read the Torah in it's original, acurate wording.
Are you speaking of now or in Biblical times (because in Biblical times they would have learned Greek because of the septuigint). If you remember the part in the New Testament when Jesus reads reads the scroll in the synagogue he reads it in Greek (Luke 4:18), as opposed to the Aramiac that Jesus' words are usually spoke in.
I'm learning a basic proficency Greek after Latin and German, but I'm learning classical Greek so it won't be any help. I'll at least have the proficency to read scripture in Greek with some kind of key (I don't know if N.T. Greek uses the same grammar as Classical Greek). I believe that ministers at least should have a proficency in Greek and Hebrew, or at least use Strong's. Then again, there's a lot of things that I think ministers should have a proficency in (philosophy, theology, church history, rhetoric, logic) and I'm proud to say that (with my recently new-found respect for my school's department of religion) I believe it's being offered (at least at Trevecca). I guess that's why my school is supposed to be one of the top schools (as well as one of the most difficult schools) for undergraduate ministers (at least among Wesleyian traditions). Unfortunately, we're lacking everywhere else (no classics department, no philosophy major, a huge music department but no drummers or acessible drumkits). I actually just had a good conversation with one of my philosophy professors about the school of religion; apparently it is designed to really shake the faith of kids from conservative backgrounds (which is why I jokingly call "Intro to Biblical Faith" "Intro to having your Biblical faith destroyed" (not that that is the result of my distaste for inerrant word of God theory).
-
This is why the Jews all learn Hebrew. To read the Torah in it's original, acurate wording.
Are you speaking of now or in Biblical times (because in Biblical times they would have learned Greek because of the septuigint). If you remember the part in the New Testament when Jesus reads reads the scroll in the synagogue he reads it in Greek (Πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ᾽ ἐμέ οὗ ἕνεκεν ἔχρισέν με εὐαγγελίζεσθαι πτωχοῖς ἀπέσταλκέν με ἰὰσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τὴν καρδίαν, κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει Luke 4:18), as opposed to the Aramiac that Jesus' words are usually spoke in.
Where did you get that?
-
This is why the Jews all learn Hebrew. To read the Torah in it's original, acurate wording.
Are you speaking of now or in Biblical times (because in Biblical times they would have learned Greek because of the septuigint). If you remember the part in the New Testament when Jesus reads reads the scroll in the synagogue he reads it in Greek (Πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ᾽ ἐμέ οὗ ἕνεκεν ἔχρισέν με εὐαγγελίζεσθαι πτωχοῖς ἀπέσταλκέν με ἰὰσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τὴν καρδίαν, κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει Luke 4:18), as opposed to the Aramiac that Jesus' words are usually spoke in.
I will have to admit that I am a little weak on jewish society during this time but why would they choose to use the septuagint and not the hebrew scriptures at that time?
-
This is why the Jews all learn Hebrew. To read the Torah in it's original, acurate wording.
Are you speaking of now or in Biblical times (because in Biblical times they would have learned Greek because of the septuigint). If you remember the part in the New Testament when Jesus reads reads the scroll in the synagogue he reads it in Greek (Πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ᾽ ἐμέ οὗ ἕνεκεν ἔχρισέν με εὐαγγελίζεσθαι πτωχοῖς ἀπέσταλκέν με ἰὰσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τὴν καρδίαν, κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει Luke 4:18), as opposed to the Aramiac that Jesus' words are usually spoke in.
I will have to admit that I am a little weak on jewish society during this time but why would they choose to use the septuagint and not the hebrew scriptures at that time?
Hebrew was replaced by Aramaic during the Babylonian occupation. In the Maccabeean period, Greek became a predominant second language (even the Romans spoke Greek during N.T. times, Latin emerged later). The Septuigint was the first "canon", put together by the Sadducees (I'm assuming they left out Maccabees and such because they were Phariseetical texts, and as you know the Pharisees and Sadducees had a long theological rivalry). During Jesus' time, the Sadducees were the political leaders and the Pharisees were the religious leaders (and I have to say, I'm quite a big fan of the pharisees, even though Jesus rightly criticised them).
-
This is why the Jews all learn Hebrew. To read the Torah in it's original, acurate wording.
Are you speaking of now or in Biblical times (because in Biblical times they would have learned Greek because of the septuigint). If you remember the part in the New Testament when Jesus reads reads the scroll in the synagogue he reads it in Greek (Πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ᾽ ἐμέ οὗ ἕνεκεν ἔχρισέν με εὐαγγελίζεσθαι πτωχοῖς ἀπέσταλκέν με ἰὰσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τὴν καρδίαν, κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει Luke 4:18), as opposed to the Aramiac that Jesus' words are usually spoke in.
Where did you get that?
Strongs, I took it out because I felt pompous.
-
During Jesus' time, the Sadducees were the political leaders and the Pharisees were the religious leaders (and I have to say, I'm quite a big fan of the pharisees, even though Jesus rightly criticised them).
I had a professor that believed that Jesus was a member of the Pharisees!
-
During Jesus' time, the Sadducees were the political leaders and the Pharisees were the religious leaders (and I have to say, I'm quite a big fan of the pharisees, even though Jesus rightly criticised them).
I had a professor that believed that Jesus was a member of the Pharisees!
Reminds me of Aristophanes grouping Socrates in with the sophists.
It's very easy to draw that conclusion, Jesus was a Rabbi/religious leader and he did believe in ressurection from the dead. He could have very well been grouped among the pharisees for this reason. He hung out with Pharisees, they worked the same jobs, they held the same beliefs, etc. Most of the anti-pharisee leanings were put in the Bible after the Jewish leaders decided that Christianity was a seperate religion from Judeaism.