Is the paper the bible printed on the word of God?

[Guest]

But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. James 3:17

[Guest shiloh357]

2

Samuel 8:13 (King James Version)

13And David gat him a name when he returned from smiting of the Syrians in the valley of salt, being eighteen thousand men.

1 Chronicles 18:12 (King James Version)

12Moreover Abishai the son of Zeruiah slew of the Edomites in the valley of salt eighteen thousand.

Who was slain, the Syrians or the Edomites?

To be fair, the Syrians were Edomites and v. 14 of 2nd Samuel confirms that Syrians referenced were from Edom.

Ezra 2:5 (King James Version)

5The children of Arah, seven hundred seventy and five.

Nehemiah 7:10 (King James Version)

10The children of Arah, six hundred fifty and two

What was the number of the Children of Arah?

This was the number of those going back to the land. It does not include those who stayed behind. Again, this can be accounted for by the fact that these numbers represent a long interval between counting and some may have died who were enrolled and intending to go to back to the land. So given the period of time between counting, about 90 years, it is not surprising that the numbers differ.

Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

Did they really celebrate Easter at that time?

Yes, they did. Easter was in full swing among the pagans, though not called Easter. Easter is an anclicized version of Ashtar or Ashtaroth.

And lastly...

Isaiah 45:7 KJV: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

do you think that God created evil?

What is not being spoken of is moral evil, (sin). "Evil" often refers to calamaty, judgment, natural disastors, etc.

I am not defending the KJV, as some of these "errors" occur in modern translations and are not translation issues, but rather a simple misunderstanding of the texts.

[OnetrueGod]

I am a late comer to this thread, but just want to make my own statement here from my own study of the scriptures and about the scriptures themselves and how we obtained English translations in the first place. This is for what it is worth and my opinion as God's word (yes the Bible) can speak for itself.

The scriptures about the word of God being preserved through the ages for us is comforting and reassuring. Thank you to all the posters who presented those. This promise of Jesus has been tested by centuries and has not failed "The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord abides forever" (I Peter 1:24-25).

We know the word of God is accessible to English-speaking people in many translations. Some translations are good, others are better. None of the major translations are so bad and no Greek text is so faulty, as to lead one from "The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." But remember that they are translations from one language to another...by men... and therefore are always subject to improvements as the persons who translate are limited to only the textual base (original language) available to them at the time of translation. They are also limited to use of the English words and vocablulary of their time as the English language morphs with every generation (we no longer speak in the thees, thous, etc... of 1611 England KJV or the language used in 1855 ERV or even 1901 ASV) and even the most prominant and learned Ancient Greek scholars do not always agree upon the correct rendering of certain phrases and passages in order to translate them to English.

Actually as older "copies" of greek text which were written earlier than the ones we now have are unearthed in the future, I would think that improvements to translation ought to be welcome and even appreciated, just as many have been used since the KJV was first translated. I would think that using several of these solid translations to reference along with a good Greek-text and lexicon would be advisable for serious texctual studies. this includes the KJV, which is a very trustworthy and well translated document...however, it is not the hallmark to compare to... the oldest "copies" of the original language is... Thus the real delimma here.

If you want to get a good laugh... ask a Greek scholar if a spanish translation is the KJV? If the KJV is the 100% correct version... then all other people of the world would have to learn English to have access to the 100% correct version... because the KJV is only found in English, see my point?

The real point of all of this is that we have God's word...yes in paper and ink form. but rather than throw stones at each version, lets concentrate on actually using the book! A modern farmer has a variety of new equipment, however, this does not guarentee for him to have a successful crop...the equipment must be used.

Likewise, we live in a time where God's grace has given us a supply of new and better helps for Bible study. yes, we need to be skeptical and suspicious of "paraphrases versions" and versions that follow doctrinal lines rather than an honest translation of original language texts. But let us not presume that the presence of the equipment can substitute for the use of it.

May God grant that we shall continue to be a people of one book...and that book the Bible.

O.K. I'll get off my soapbox now...phew!

[nebula]

OK, I am compelled to make a statement about the acts 4:12 (KJV) issue.

Acts 12

1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. 2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. 3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. * (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) 4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

This would claim that the Jews honored Easter, does it not?

OK, so what was the Greek word here used that was translated as "Easter"?

**Lexicon look-up**

pavsca - which would be Passover.

So, yes, there is an error in the KJV translation here.

[georgedrw81]

Some of like to discover the original text whilst others do not. To read the Bible when we have completely accepted God and Jesus it is very clear no matter what. We can even instantly know if there is something not right in that version. We like to analyse words or sentences but they have no meaning if ourselves do not fully accept Him. The Bible is a record of what God can do and to remind us to love,thank and praise Him every moment.

Blessings

[Guest]

OK, I am compelled to make a statement about the acts 4:12 (KJV) issue.

Acts 12

1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. 2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. 3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. * (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) 4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

This would claim that the Jews honored Easter, does it not?

OK, so what was the Greek word here used that was translated as "Easter"?

**Lexicon look-up**

pavsca - which would be Passover.

So, yes, there is an error in the KJV translation here.

Amen!

[~candice~]

Sam, that appears to be PART of what Isaiah is saying, but I simply cannot agree with the following

You see the Bible is only a record of His words. It is no Him.

(snip)

Many versions of the Bible and they all agree. The Word is not the Bible.

(snip)

The Bible really is the Word.

But what is "The Bible" is it the pages ink and cover...... or is it what it carried into your mind when you read it or someone else reads it to you. I'm just saying that the pages ink and cover are just that........ pages ink and covers... It's what's represented by the ink on the pages that is the word of God. If I dropped a Bible when I was a kid, my dad would give me hades.....

He put way way too much into paper and ink. My great grandfather didn't need a Bible. If you ask him something he could quote any scripture from memory...... that didn't make him holy, just someone with a weird memroy.

I also disagree with the statement that they all agree, for they don't. And the King James versions that I personally have does not always agree with the Hebrew.

Sam, I still don't think you see my point. I agree, it's not the ink nor the paper that is holy. But the actual words used and the message it conveys, is. The whole thing, every single word. I don't like this idea that it is just the message behind it that is the Word, because it is every single word that makes up the Word. But Isaiah seemed to go further, and say that because Jesus is the Word, the Bible (the words, not the ink and paper) cannot be the Word. What I quoted was part of his argument.

I think we should stone Isaiah for at least ten minutes with big Styrofoam rocks for starting a thread like this and running away.

I hope he's OK.

*Praying*

[Isaiah 6:8]

Other One

I think you are all missing Isaiah's point here

http://courses.cit.cornell.edu/nes263/stud...k_and_novel.jpg

This is a pciture of a Bible.

It is simply a book and is neither good or bad until you pick it up and read it. You can get the same information from these and never really need the Book at all.

http://g.christianbook.com/g/product/3/362748.gif

http://g.christianbook.com/g/product/1/18633.gif

It's not the actual physical book itself that is special or holy or whatever........ it's the knowledge held within it that is holy and important. Sometimes that is within someone's head. None of this is of any use until it's read or heard. Whatever words are used to get these thoughts and bits of knowledge known really doesn't matter as long as the information itself isn't changed. Modern language or 15th centure English, or German, French or Lower Swaheli, it doesn't really matter. There are many ways to get a thought across to people, as long as the complete thought isn't changed.

Don't make a demigod out of the physical book itself as my dad did all his life.

I think this is where Isaiah was coming from and getting to........ and if it wasn't it should have been LoL

As for translations, if they change the thoughts and ideas from the origional manuscripts, they are not good. Different translations do change these thoughts and they do make a difference. John 3:16 is a very good example of this.

I am a late comer to this thread, but just want to make my own statement here from my own study of the scriptures and about the scriptures themselves and how we obtained English translations in the first place. This is for what it is worth and my opinion as God's word (yes the Bible) can speak for itself.

The scriptures about the word of God being preserved through the ages for us is comforting and reassuring. Thank you to all the posters who presented those. This promise of Jesus has been tested by centuries and has not failed "The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord abides forever" (I Peter 1:24-25).

We know the word of God is accessible to English-speaking people in many translations. Some translations are good, others are better. None of the major translations are so bad and no Greek text is so faulty, as to lead one from "The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." But remember that they are translations from one language to another...by men... and therefore are always subject to improvements as the persons who translate are limited to only the textual base (original language) available to them at the time of translation. They are also limited to use of the English words and vocablulary of their time as the English language morphs with every generation (we no longer speak in the thees, thous, etc... of 1611 England KJV or the language used in 1855 ERV or even 1901 ASV) and even the most prominant and learned Ancient Greek scholars do not always agree upon the correct rendering of certain phrases and passages in order to translate them to English.

Actually as older "copies" of greek text which were written earlier than the ones we now have are unearthed in the future, I would think that improvements to translation ought to be welcome and even appreciated, just as many have been used since the KJV was first translated. I would think that using several of these solid translations to reference along with a good Greek-text and lexicon would be advisable for serious texctual studies. this includes the KJV, which is a very trustworthy and well translated document...however, it is not the hallmark to compare to... the oldest "copies" of the original language is... Thus the real delimma here.

If you want to get a good laugh... ask a Greek scholar if a spanish translation is the KJV? If the KJV is the 100% correct version... then all other people of the world would have to learn English to have access to the 100% correct version... because the KJV is only found in English, see my point?

The real point of all of this is that we have God's word...yes in paper and ink form. but rather than throw stones at each version, lets concentrate on actually using the book! A modern farmer has a variety of new equipment, however, this does not guarentee for him to have a successful crop...the equipment must be used.

Likewise, we live in a time where God's grace has given us a supply of new and better helps for Bible study. yes, we need to be skeptical and suspicious of "paraphrases versions" and versions that follow doctrinal lines rather than an honest translation of original language texts. But let us not presume that the presence of the equipment can substitute for the use of it.

May God grant that we shall continue to be a people of one book...and that book the Bible.

O.K. I'll get off my soapbox now...phew!

Sorry all I got called into work! wow a lot of replies in a few hours!...

OneTrueGod, and One lightmade made my point a lot more clearly then I did.

I am not saying the words of the Bible are not the Gods word. Yes Andy, The Bible is the word of God. I am not debating the words of the Bible. I am saying that the printed paper, the ink, the typed screen the audio versions, are just that. Paper. Books, Computer screens. Our translations have been preserved yes. But Man has translated it, and it is possible that all current translations may have some lost in translation.

Sam Pickens has ignored my post stating I do not want to get into the "What version is better" thread. He has also ignored my statement that if he believes the texts that the KJV were translated from as superior, then perhaps its time for a new translation, using modern English should be created so that people may understand the word.

My point is this. Why argue about what version you prefer. The main thing is this, we need to be more concerned about the lost. Yes, of course be wise about some that openly twist the truth. But what I said is true. A fact. The KJV helped pushed a young man away from Jesus. Sam, you may not think that is possible but this is fact. It was as effective of giving him a Greek Bible and he only speaks modern American English. He tried to read it, and he could not understand all the old terms that are no longer used on a daily basis and so he gave up. This was only a part of it, the other part of it was his super religious grandparents pushing him, and then calling him stupid for not being able to understand the wording of the KJV. Now the only reason I bring this up, is because you keep bringing the subject up.

Also I read Sam's testimony. He did not become a Christian because he realized the KJV was the real word of God, he became a Christian because of the Lord touching his heart. This is my point.

Now since Other One and OneTrueGod have summarized what I have intended to say, I am going to close this thread as it has descended into a "KJV only VS others" Thread.

[Logos Knight]

BTW.. To say that the Bible contains the Word of God but isn't the Word of God puts you above the author. This way you get to decide for yourself what's the Word and what isn't the Word. It makes the whole truth of no effect, and, in that case we don't need a Bible at all.

For reasons known only to Him, Almighty God chose to channel the Word through human scribes and prophets, knowing full well how imperfect and corruptible we are. Why not just beam down instructions for automatic Scripture-writing machines into the brains of mortals? Why did He not just cause the Word to appear in book form without involving us? Was it God's intention that the Word be as imperfect as we are? The main criticism of Scripture is that it's penned by Man (though divinely inspired) and therefore unreliable. As some critics and doubters would ask, What good is a divinely perfect and eternally magnificent Word if humans can't record it correctly? Even though I'm 31 years old and have been raised in a Catholic home, I consider myself still a Baby Christian and thus unable to address these questions. BTW, it's good to posting on a Christian board again. Greetings, all!