Doubt in the Bible Behind Cultural Decay

[DisgruntledTunaFan]

Doubt in the Bible Behind Cultural Decay

A recent study indicates that there is a growing number of people who call themselves Christians yet don’t really believe the Bible to be God’s Word. News makers have labeled them the “Christian left,” or “progressives.” Research indicates that they are very short on beliefs that match the biblical doctrines. Over 82 percent of those who identified themselves as conservative or the “Christian right” opposed same-sex marriage; 59 percent of the progressives were in favor of it.

.................................................

 

[apple strudel]

I took a class on the Bible as Literature in college and it contained the most intelligent things I've ever come across with respect to the bible. How do we know not to take language literally? Besides the obvious, 100 years of language theory and linguistics have shown us that one to one mappings of words and meaning are simply not true.

The reason somebody might call this cultural decay is that as people begin to think for themselves they start breaking off the chains that institutions place on them, and that's bad news for institutions.

 

[DisgruntledTunaFan]

I took a class on the Bible as Literature in college and it contained the most intelligent things I've ever come across with respect to the bible. How do we know not to take language literally? Besides the obvious, 100 years of language theory and linguistics have shown us that one to one mappings of words and meaning are simply not true.

The reason somebody might call this cultural decay is that as people begin to think for themselves they start breaking off the chains that institutions place on them, and that's bad news for institutions.

Even today's bible seminaries are pretty corrupt - I used to live in New Orleans, and my mom was good friends with the NOTBS President's family(both he and they attended our church) - he's a nice and friendly guy, but even HE admitted that students in seminary classes should stand down while the professors have sole authority. I mean even Acts 17:11 states the Boreans searched the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Plus today's seminaries do NOT teach about our attacks and battles with spiritual warfare(Ephesians 6:10-19), and give a very muddled view of Daniel and Revelation(i.e. both have a literal Futuristic view, but they will teach Preterism and AMillenial garbage).

Ultimately, the 1611 King James Bible is THE only one that is the true Word of God. The NIV in 1881 was made by 2 high level occultists(Wescott and Hort), who were Club of Hermes members, and had close ties to Charles Darwin. They cut out 64K words from the original text, and numerous verses have had their meanings changed(i.e. in Isaiah 14:12 - in the KJV, Lucifer who was cast down from heaven is described as "the son of the morning", However, in the NIV, Lucifer is described as "the morning star"...in Rev 22, the Morning Star is ************ - this is a HUGE difference).

The NIV also spawned many other worse corrupted versions - NLT, the Scofield bible(this guy really pushed the false pre-trib rapture theory, and was also a convicted criminal over forgery), Good News bible, Green Bible, and now Rupert Murdoch's Zonderfan is coming out with the New NIV. Hagee, Falwell, and Robertson used Scofield bible verses to justify how the Iraq war was prophecied(for example), but the KJV doesn't even come close.

So yes, ultimately, it DOES matter what bible version you're reading - it's no surprise that a "Christian Left" has formed.

 

[Nikolai]

Learn Hebrew and Greek and give up the translations if you really want purity of scripture.

 

[TBradyOwnsYou]

Ultimately, the 1611 King James Bible is THE only one that is the true Word of God. The NIV in 1881 was made by 2 high level occultists(Wescott and Hort), who were Club of Hermes members, and had close ties to Charles Darwin. They cut out 64K words from the original text, and numerous verses have had their meanings changed(i.e. in Isaiah 14:12 - in the KJV, Lucifer who was cast down from heaven is described as "the son of the morning", However, in the NIV, Lucifer is described as "the morning star"...in Rev 22, the Morning Star is ************ - this is a HUGE difference).

Could you expand a bit on why the 1611 version in your eyes is the best? Did the bible not change at all in the previous 1600 years before that? As I understand it, it did, so I am curious what makes the 1611 version superior.
I am not a bible thumper nor an anti-bible thumper looking to argue your view, I'm just curious!

 

[apple strudel]

Ultimately, the 1611 King James Bible is THE only one that is the true Word of God.

Not even close - being the most poetic also means taking a lot of license in translation. Beyond that, of course, I can't believe anybody in 2010 believes any ancient text that has been thoroughly translated and re-translated with hilarious results is the true word of God. And even if it were, knowing what we know about language you have the problem of interpretation. There is no such thing as a literal text that tells stories. If you want literal writing read science journals.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Oh how delicious, to have this thread title juxtaposed with this developing conversation about biblical translations; it occurs to me that you've misplaced a couple of abstract nouns here...

Decay in the Bible Behind Cultural Doubt may be more appropriate.

As to your contention as regards the KJV of the bible, how good is your Koine, Aramaic, and Hebrew? I assume they are excellent, given your so-certain endorsement of one specific version. Is that the case?

I do have one favorite interpretation of the good book of late... here's the first bit of Genesis, or Bere****, its proper Hebrew name...

Genesis 1 - LOLCat Bible Translation Project

Boreded Ceiling Cat makinkgz Urf n stuffs
1 Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem.

2 Da Urfs no had shapez An haded dark face, An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz.

3 At start, no has lyte. An Ceiling Cat sayz, i can haz lite? An lite wuz.4 An Ceiling Cat sawed teh lite, to seez stuffs, An splitted teh lite from dark but taht wuz ok cuz kittehs can see in teh dark An not tripz over nethin.5 An Ceiling Cat sayed light Day An dark no Day. It were FURST!!!1

No doubt some clown will come along and "fix" the spelling, punctuation, and other delightful flourishes... but for now, the Word of Ceiling Cat can be known to all...