Hi Len,

>>Len,
>>
>>>>God’s word is the Bible. The problem is having mankind interpreting His word and meaning.
>>>
>>>No, the Bible is just one of mankind's interpretations of God's word.
>>
>>What do you base this assertion on if I may ask?
>
>Seems a reasonable assertion, as the Bible was written by man, so it is man's interpretation of God's word. Unless, of course, the Bible was dictated to a person by God himself, in which case there would be 1 definitive version of the Bible & all others would be mankind's interpretations.

Well, the Bible asserts that it was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

As far as there being one definitive version you may need to know that the Bible is a compilation of 66 different individual books. And, even those books are not as they once were. 1st & 2nd Chronicles were at one time one book. There are some who thinkn that the book of genesis is actually a compilation of several authors where the phrase "the generations of" is perhaps the point where authors differ.

I fail to see why there needs to be only one definitive version though? Did you read the link that I gave to Jim? A careful reading of that would perhaps help you. Still, it is a little funny to see you attempt to impose your dictates on what God should or should not do or how He should do it - as though He needs to answer to you... <g>


>
>>
>>>In addition to the problems mankind has in interpreting His word & meaning, it comes from a variety of sources & a variety of languages,
>>
>>Not true. There are three source languages of the Bible; Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek.
>
>How not true ? Do Aramaic, Hebrew & Greek not constitute a variety of languages, albeit small ? You admit below to a large variety of sources (40-50,000).

*chuckle*

So.. How does that make it hard? Or are the experts who have spent their entire lives in these kinds of studies now suddenly devoid of knowledge because you're ignorant of what they know? You're either really smart Len or you think others are really stupid or you're just lazy in that you think that because you haven't researched something then it cannot possibly be true.

I guess the studies and research of the thousands over the last 2000 years or so means nothing to you since you are unaware of it.

I guess that settles that! < BG >

>
>>
>>>so it also suffers the problems mankind has in translating from one language to another,
>>
>>Not true. There are so many more copies of extant documents (something like 40-50,000) of various passages of the Bible vs the next best runner-up (The Illiad by Homer with ~950 etant documents) that it's not even close. We can construct something like 98.5% of the entire New Testament without even looking at copies of it - from the various personal letters between people who quoted passages and so forth.
>
>Have you ever tried translating from one language to another ?

A little. From Spanish to English and back. How about you?

But again, what does that have to do with anything? Are you again suggesting that because it would be hard for you that it must be hard for everyone else? Or are you suggesting that because it's quite a bit of work (as in hard work) that it's not worth doing and as such there's no value or meaning to be derived from the labors of those who undertake such tasks?

I certainly am not an expert in translating languages but that doesn't cause me to disbelieve those whose judgements I have studied and watched for over 30 years. Let me ask you this; Do you understand everything about medicine? Well, if you don't does that mean you do not trust your doctor and that you refuse to believe that with modern medice it really is ok to accept a blood transfusion and not to have to use leaches? If you don't understand all knowledge regarding medice does that invalidate the profession and the aggregate body of knowledge about it? I hardly think so but that's what you're asserting about the aggregate body of Biblical knowledge. I can't help it if you're ignorant of many of the facts that I have learned over the years but your ignorance doesn't invalidate my knowledge - or that of those who are far more intelligent than I am.

> Although you may know the individual meaning of each of the words, reconstituting the words into a passage of text that has the same meaning is not trivial, even in modern day languages.

Ok.. So it's hard work. Again, does this invalidate what has been done by scholars to date? Again, it sounds like you're asserting that your ignorance (in the sense of a lack of knowledge) invalidates the knowledge of others?

I must say that this is unique logic to say the least. <g>

>I have enough of a background in Latin & Ancient Greek to know that we do not know the exact meaning of all of the words in all of the contexts, I think it may be reasonable to assume that the same problem holds for Hebrew & Aramaic, of which I know nothing.

Of course we don't know with 100% certainty. Does that mean we discard what we do know then? Does mankind know 100% about gravity? I hardly think we do. Does that lack of knowledge therefore invalidate what we do know? Again, I hardly think so. With all do respect your logic is incomplete at best.

>
>>
>>>including the subtleties of meanings of words from a different culture.
>>
>>Most of the ignorance here is because we've dumbed ourselves down. <s> There are plenty of great Greek lexicons out there. A.T. Robertson comes to mind. I have several myself. I think the problem is not a lack of information but the dissemination of that knowledge.
>
>It's not a matter of lexicons, it's a matter of culture. There have been discussions here on the differences between American English & British English, we may use the same words, but the meaning of phrases is completely different between our two cultures. What is a common everyday phrase in your language may be totally offensive in my language & vice versa.

Oh for crying out loud. I supopose then that once again you're asserting that because we do not know 100% we therefore know nothing. I guess it's trivial and easy for you then to just discard the entire body of knowledge that mankind has gained regarding all cultures. In one fell swoop you've just invalidated the entire discipline of anthropology I guess. I mean, since we don't know everything about the Peloponesionas we must know nothing about them, right?

It just strikes me how little you really seem to know about Biblical history. There are oodles and oodles of books and commentaries, many quite scholarly, that deal with ancient cultures and Biblical and secular history. All of those may be applied to one's study of Biblical history and of the interpretations of Biblical scriptures. Do we have 100% knowledge? No, no way but that's no argument for discarding what we do know.

Goodness.. There's a small book by the name of "Haley's Bible Handbook" that contains an absolute wealth of cultural and historical information. Here in the States one can pick up a used copy usually for US$3-4. I'd suggest you go find a copy and read it.

>
>>
>>>I would suggest that most versions of the Bible in existence today bear very little resemblence to God's word & his meaning.
>>
>>Some do not. Some do.
>
>My turn - on what do you base that assertion. Are you, personally, in direct communication with God, if so, then let us know which versions of the Bible are the correct ones, so the others can be discarded.

Gosh.. That link I gave to Jim is one example. Again, a careful reading will instruct you that there are indeed differences in manuscripts - something that has never IMO been an issue. There have been thousands and thousands of individuals who have studied these issues over the years and there's plenty of resources available.

I know that in Great Britain that there is something around 1% or less of the population that regularly attends church. Of those maybe 1/2 to less than 1/2 of one percent are those who would fall into the category of Bible believing Christians. I'm guessing that as a result your source of ancilliary information is rather scant and thet your exposure to soem of what I've discussed is essentially non-existent. I can certainly understand why much of what I'm suggesting is foreign to you.

As far as where to start if you're really interested in gaining knowledge I'd recommend Haley's book. It's concise, well written, thorough and pithy. A good and easy read. From there... Wsheww.. IThere are so many choices I honestly don't know where to point you as a good starting place.

OTOH, if you're just looking for a reason to justify 'discarding' Bibles you're on your own and candidly I'm not really interested in your assertions of willful ignorance. If you're interested in gaining knowledge and then making up your own mind I'll be more than happy to help. Otherwise I accept your unbelief on the face of it and I'll pray for you.

As far as directly talking with God. You bet. That's the whole idea of Chritianity. I do directly talk with Him and He in return; mostly through prayer and a careful, thinking , cautious, take-time-to-let-it-sink-in reading of many versions of the Bible. Oh, I've had God speak audibly to me but telling you that is most likely like to casting pearls and will be lost on you, which is a shame.. Do I propose to speak for God? You bet, but only what's in the Bible and in a reasonable manner - always open to my oen tendency for fault and failure.

As such I can absolutely assert to you that God loves you supremely. Why not open your heart to Him and receive that love? <s>

>
>>You may recall that in 1948 or so a young Bedouin goat herding boy who found what are called the Dead Sea Scrolls?? Well, prior to that find the earliest (extant) copy of the Book of Isiah was, oh, somewhere around 700 AD. They found a copy in one of the jars that matched almost perfectly (minor marks differences) with the AD 300 copy. What you most likely do not know is how Jewish scholars made copies of scrolls. It's quite interesting but I'll leave you to dig that one out. <s>
>
>I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Throughout history, people have been employed in making exact copies of "important" texts, very often those in charge tried to ensure that those doing the copying were uneducated & could not understand what they were copying. Partly to ensure that they (those in charge) were the only ones with the knowledge of the text, but partly to ensure a true copy was made, if you don't understand what you are copying there is less likelihood that you will correct any perceived mistakes.

My point was to point out that the texts we have have a huge degree of intrinsic confidence. IOW, as more and more texts show up (many many in the last 500-100 years) one is struck at how similar they all are. Is any one absolutely "perfect"? Probbaly not but with all the scholarship and so forth one can have such a high degree of confidence that we're reading what the authors indended as to essentially make rejecting this notion an exercise in willfull ignorance, not a simple lack of knowledge or availability of knowledge.

>
>>
>>You really need to educate yourself a little better here IMO. <s>
>
>Maybe you could educate me then, please tell me which version of the Bible is God's word, rather than mankind's interpretation of it ?

I think I just did. <g>