A Book You Can Trust

Post Reply New Topic

I'd say it is a bit more reliable than the bible.

Reliable for what, precisely?

For history?

For science?

For philosophy?

For religion?

For sociology?

And which version of the Bible? I think we CAN say with some assurance that the First Folio is more reliable as a record of the English language of the time than is the first edition of the KJV.

I'd like to add that the old testament and new testament are different. The old believes in demons and angels and the new believes in peace love and happiness.

Finally, we believe that there are some truths left in the bible, but the BOM is completely true.

chrissyrun -

at the risk of stirring up some of the demons [and if you prefer to keep silent or go private no problem], I would be interested to know at what level "completely true"?

Factual account of events, portrait of the man / god relationship, statement of life principles, or ....?

WoW, I'm assuming that we aren't referencing the king james version here or am I wrong. King James was cited as burning people at the stake for publishing anything not authorized by the kingdom of England. I mean to say the bible as a fact along with anything else that wasn't "authorised"

Na, it's fine.

I don't have a testimony of all of it yet (that means I haven't prayed about the factual events, and such) but I know the principles of life and the man/god relationship are true for a few reasons:

Lets take a simple concept (maybe not simple but plain).....God lives.
*I have prayed about it.
I remember praying about it and feeling a confirmation in my heart
*I have asked family about it.
Active members, not active, my parents, my grandparents (some of the most trustworthy and kind people I've ever met in my life) my brother, even my siblings
*I have asked strangers about it.
In different times of my life at different places (like people in school, on vacation, online)
*I have asked leaders about it.
Not just during the lesson, but aside. But, there is a point to make that they testify during the lesson also
*I have listened in meetings and felt the spirit witness that he is real.
When they speak, I feel the spirit. This is what I believe I feel
*I have read about it
In the scriptures, it testifies, in other books people talk about stuff, and even online I've talked to people
*I have thought about it.
This means, I have taken all of this information, sorted through it in my brain, and felt that it is correct. I am not proclaiming by any means to be the most intelligent person in the world...but for me, I feel that it is correct.

That is how I verify if principles are true.
Now, I haven't done all of that for everything in the book.
But for every principle in there, I have done at least one of these steps and I continue to try and do more because I am always on the quest for knowledge.

Well, that is just the one that my church uses, but in reality, all versions are incomplete and it is a miracle that christianity survived BECAUSE there were so many different versions being taught.

I could edit my previous post, but I want to make sure I'm clear in declaring that I love people of all religions, I believe in my spirituallty, and I abhor the destruction of any ones personal beliefs. If it includes pushing ones personal belief in a religion on others, then it is an atrocitie to me. I think of my spirituality being at risk at your push to persuade others of their wrongness as it were.

I think most religions are fine (as long as they don't preach violence because that will ALWAYS be wrong).

Sorry if it feels like I am trying to push my religion onto ya'll. I was just responding to the post in the best way I knew how.

Personally like to thank Chrissyrun for standing on her beliefs. I however stand on personal spirituality. W/O people like Chrissyrun however, some would never discover a personal spirituality. Thx girl!

Thanks! Don't mistake that I don't believe in personal spirituality too. That is why I pray, read my scriptures, and constantly search for information from many different sources. However, I differ from you because I think that some people can benefit from the aid of a religion to even discover it in general....which you pointed out (thanks for that!). Also, the reason (why I think) many aspies don't like religions is because churches are very social. I sometimes get antsy being in church and become less social because it is hard for an aspie too. But, for each their own way, it'd just be cool if the whole world could discover spirituality, whether through religion or on their own, or a combination of both.
Again, thanks so much for not getting mad at me, and wish you luck with your endeavors.

Shakespear Julius Cesar is more reliable than the bible in that at least we know something its author. The translation from old English to new English is probably a lot more reliable than translating old camel language to modern English. And at least we have documentation of some of the figures that participate in the fictionary tale.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 05 Jul 2011, 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thank you.

That confirms your level.

No wonder you think the Associated Press is a gilded source.

I'm not a Mormon. Neither am I a big fan of the "Authorized" King Jimmy.

HOWEVER...

For it's time, the King Jimmy Bible was truly a magnificent work. It was compiled by the top scholars and language experts of the time. It used ancient manuscript sources--the same ones used in Biblical translation today: The Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, and the Vulgate. The only "fault" might be the use of the Vulgate, though I'm not sure why this would be aside from the fact that the Vulgate is just a Latin translation from ancient source documents. So the only real issue is that the King Jimmy could not at the time it was written have double-checked itself with older manuscripts than the MT and the LXX. Archeology in modern times has actually confirmed MOST of the King Jimmy to be an accurate translation, though, and the changes--while they need to be made to assure accuracy--really are trivial.

The New King Jimmy is largely unchanged with the exception of modernized language usage making it easier to read. Some issues one might have with the New King Jimmy is that by simplifying the language, some meaning is lost. But again, if you aren't an English language scholar and don't know when to properly use "do," "doeth," "did," and "dost," you aren't really going to notice the difference, anyway. The plain fact is language conventions are continually changing and it is necessary to convey the meaning of the text in current usage. It is certainly possible to balance translating the meaning of the original text and giving the literal "word-for-word" translation.

For example: The euphemism "everyone who urinates up a wall" might for some people seem confusing or even mildly offensive despite it being word-for-word in the original source text. For those who might not get the joke, the translator might just say "men." A lot of things might make perfect sense in the context of the original Hebrew or Greek usage, but idiomatic language is difficult to translate.

What fascinates me is that Mormons are apt to say "correctly translated." Well, the thing is that the last writing in the Tanakh dates to somewhere in the neigborhood of 500 BC, give or take 100 years. The various component books of the Tanakh have survived copying for up to hundreds of years by that point, and relatively recent archeological evidence has proven the Biblia Hebraica to be faithfully copied for a LONG period of time. Parts of the New Testament have been found in various forms since the second century AD, and they match source texts for the Greek NT as we know it.

So it's a mistake to somehow say that modern Bibles are mistranslated. Yes, SOME are--I'm not fond of the NWT or the Good News translation. The 2011 NIV, I think, makes TOO MANY language concessions, like with its attempt at gender neutrality. I think once you stray too far from the original meaning of something like that you risk compromising what was intended. So I would say the 2011 NIV and the TNIV are also not very good translations at all. I do like to read the Message from time to time, but I wouldn't recommend it for serious reading and study. Personally, I prefer the HCSB. There's also the ASV, the Amplified, ESB, NASV, and several others that are just fine.

The bible discribes a flat earth.

Book of Genesis also say land and sea, night and day created on Day One. Sun, Stars, moon created on Day Four.

It is nonsense.

ruveyn