|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jan 31, 2009 19:52:40 GMT -4
Actual people who can actually read the original texts think you're wrong, you know. You can do research on the fact. Since the original manuscripts are no longer in existence, I find that difficult to believe.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 31, 2009 20:01:54 GMT -4
Since the original manuscripts are no longer in existence, I find that difficult to believe. What Gillian is referring to is that the body of writings that Biblical critics have decided is the most authentic given the available manuscripts doesn't match up very well with the King James Version in many areas. How closesly this "authentic" version matches up with what was originally given and written is open for debate, and is probably something we will never know without God's assistance or a time machine. Of course, the flip side of that is how Dead Hoosiers can know that the original texts were infallible, since they are no longer available for perusal.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jan 31, 2009 20:28:58 GMT -4
Since the original manuscripts are no longer in existence, I find that difficult to believe. What Gillian is referring to is that the body of writings that Biblical critics have decided is the most authentic given the available manuscripts doesn't match up very well with the King James Version in many areas. How closesly this "authentic" version matches up with what was originally given and written is open for debate, and is probably something we will never know without God's assistance or a time machine. Of course, the flip side of that is how Dead Hoosiers can know that the original texts were infallible, since they are no longer available for perusal. Oh, you mean how accurate the translation is. Naturally that depends upon the manuscripts used and the skill of the translators. What version do either of you propose might be more accurate, and why? On the flip side, I was speaking of inspired, therefore infallible and what I mean by that is what the author (such as Isaiah) wrote with his own pen under the inspiration of God. That would be an original manuscript. No longer in existence. The most ancient copies are still in existence. Note I said copies, not versions, as well as the ancient copies. Everything else is a translation or version of an ancient copy or most ancient copy of the original. Whether or not these ancient copies are infallible is a matter of belief. Whether or not the ancient copies are accurate is a matter of fact. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and many other finds of ancient fragments prove that the manuscripts from which we get our translations were dead on accurate--about 99.3% accurate.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 31, 2009 21:27:15 GMT -4
DH, you have yet to answer my questions about what is scripture.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 31, 2009 23:00:47 GMT -4
On the flip side, I was speaking of inspired, therefore infallible . . . . So, wait. Are you by this suggesting that God chose to inspire a bunch of men who were known to be working under the directive of a secular authority?
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 1, 2009 2:55:49 GMT -4
DH, you have yet to answer my questions about what is scripture. I know. We went back to the previous questions and answers. Let me organize my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 1, 2009 3:04:37 GMT -4
On the flip side, I was speaking of inspired, therefore infallible . . . . So, wait. Are you by this suggesting that God chose to inspire a bunch of men who were known to be working under the directive of a secular authority? No. The writers of the original manuscripts were inspired by God to write them. Everything else is either a copy or a translation.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 1, 2009 3:18:56 GMT -4
DH, you have yet to answer my questions about what is scripture. Scripture is any writing inspired by God.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Feb 1, 2009 6:37:52 GMT -4
Lots of people claim that their writings are inspired by God, and they don't agree as to what God says. How would you know if a writing was really inspired or not? The author could have been deluded or even a deliberate fraud.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 1, 2009 15:16:38 GMT -4
Lots of people claim that their writings are inspired by God, and they don't agree as to what God says. How would you know if a writing was really inspired or not? The author could have been deluded or even a deliberate fraud. Prophesy. The books of the bible contain detailed information about the future--a future only the true God could foretell. No other religion's holy books do this. The prophecies in the bible are detailed and of the ones which have already been fulfilled, they were fulfilled with amazing accuracy. That's a very strong indication that the books of the bible were inspired by God.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 1, 2009 16:12:15 GMT -4
Prophesy. The books of the bible contain detailed information about the future--a future only the true God could foretell. No other religion's holy books do this. The prophecies in the bible are detailed and of the ones which have already been fulfilled, they were fulfilled with amazing accuracy. That's a very strong indication that the books of the bible were inspired by God. This is unbelievable. Much of the "prophecy" of the Bible is vague enough so that it could be used to predict anything. If you're referring to the "prophecies" of Isaiah that were "fulfilled" in Jesus, you're going to be in for a great surprise if you actually look into the circumstances involved in the writing of Isaiah. (As in, he was referring to the pregnancy of a woman at the time.) The "prophecies" were written into that particular Gospel--you'll note they're only in one of them--so that Jews would say, "Oh, wow! He fulfilled the prophecies! He must have been the Messiah!" You'll note that it didn't work on most educated Jews. Besides, if I were to find a fulfilled prophecy in any other religious work, would it actually change your mind as to the validity of that religion over your own?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 1, 2009 18:17:00 GMT -4
Which is it, DH, is the condition only that it be inspired by God, or that it be inspired byGod and also contain prophecy? Or is it only that it contain prophecy?
There are several books in the Bible that don't contain any prophecies. Are they scripture?
Also, the LDS scriptures contain several prophecies that have been fulfilled. Are they therefore scripture?
What about the books mentioned in the Bible but missing from it, as I mentioned earlier?
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 1, 2009 21:38:14 GMT -4
Prophesy. The books of the bible contain detailed information about the future--a future only the true God could foretell. No other religion's holy books do this. The prophecies in the bible are detailed and of the ones which have already been fulfilled, they were fulfilled with amazing accuracy. That's a very strong indication that the books of the bible were inspired by God. This is unbelievable. Much of the "prophecy" of the Bible is vague enough so that it could be used to predict anything. Please give me some examples of prophecies you find vague Why don't you explain what you mean about the circumstances involved in the writing of Isaiah? Including why you think he was referring to a woman living in his time? I'm interested in your sources. Also, what gospel are those written into?
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 1, 2009 21:53:27 GMT -4
Which is it, DH, is the condition only that it be inspired by God, or that it be inspired byGod and also contain prophecy? Or is it only that it contain prophecy? There are several books in the Bible that don't contain any prophecies. Are they scripture? Also, the LDS scriptures contain several prophecies that have been fulfilled. Are they therefore scripture? What about the books mentioned in the Bible but missing from it, as I mentioned earlier? It isn't just one thing. THE condition is that the writing be inspired by God. One of the proofs that an author is speaking for God is fulfilled prophecy. These prophesies are not contained in every book, as you very well know. The books of the bible are an integrated message that spans centuries, yet the writers are in agreement with one another--and sometimes they don't have access to one another's writings. Would you like to discuss one of the books that doesn't contain prophecy to see why it is considered inspired? Go ahead, tell me about the LDS scriptural prophecies and I'll let you know what I think. Give me a list of the missing books. I'll go through them with you, to the extent I'm able.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 1, 2009 22:02:35 GMT -4
This thread is for the discussion of faith v. works. It's natural that other topics will be touched upon in that discussion, but gillian, you are going into an area that isn't dealing with the faith/works topic. Why don't you start a new thread?
|
|