General discussion

  • Creator
  • #2193113

    Is the King James Bible the true Word of God?


    by jardinier ·

    Now please do not even THINK of posting until you have thoroughly read this article:

    And a quick note to the resident atheists: this discussion is NOT about whether or not there is a God or whether Christianity is a good religion.

    It IS about how a document can become corrupted or altered during almost two millennia of translating, copying, and comparison with more recently discovered manuscripts.

All Comments

  • Author
    • #3109508

      No it’s not.

      by jaqui ·

      In reply to Is the King James Bible the true Word of God?

      The True word of God would have to be what Jesus wrote.

      everything else is some human beings interpretation.

      and Jesus never wrote anything down, because he didn’t know how to write.

      * Just for the sake of arguement accepting that Jesus is god, since I’m not christain, he isn’t god to me.

      • #3109498

        Me neither, Jaqui

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to No it’s not.

        I have been associated with various Christian churches all my life but have never really considered myself to be a Christian.

        However because I know so much about that religion I can readily pass myself off as a Christian and as a change of pace from TR I have been participating in theological discussions at two Christian websites.

        You are quite correct of course in that none of the books of the New Testament were written until 40 years or more after the “death” of Jesus.

        How could anyone remember accurately detailed conversations after 40 years?

        The same applies to Hinduism and Buddhism. Everything was transmitted orally for centuries before being written down.

        However I am sure you have heard of the story tellers of various “primitive” societies, and so perhaps without all the distractions of modern society they could in fact pass on precise records of what was done and said.

        • #3109492


          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Me neither, Jaqui

          the “traditional” means of passing on information was verbal, and most religions actually beleive that any religion that is written down has been killed.
          all religous ceremonies become dead rituals when it is hard copy, as the soul of the person performing it can’t be expressed. a living religon isn’t written and is followed differently by each persaon, as they hear the words and understand them differently than the person beside them does.
          that difference is not a cause of friction, it’s a reason to celebrate, as by discussing the different understandings you have you can increase your understanding.

        • #3109468


          by protiusx ·

          In reply to yup

          So I guess the Jewish Torah which has existed for thousands of years is untraditional. Is this just your belief or did you pick this up some where?

          From this we can say that all the Jewish feasts are dead rituals. I think the Jews might have something to say about this.

        • #3109460


          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Hmmm

          you are correct, any religion that has written the beleif structure down has taken the soul out of the ceremoonies and turned them into DEAD RITES.

          the soul[s] of the person[s] performing the rites are not in them, since there is no deviation from what is written allowed.

        • #3109422

          Where does this come from ?

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to yup

          Is this your personal belief or did you read this somewhere. I disagree with you of course but I think you already knew that.

        • #3109409

          From the

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Where does this come from ?

          person that I studied my religion under, it’s actually her phrasing. [ gotta love eidetic memory sometimes ]

        • #3108298

          Christianity and judaism are not pagan religions, therefore pagan principle

          by jacksonian ·

          In reply to yup


          Your statement that “any religion that has written the beleif structure down has taken the soul out of the ceremonies and turned them into DEAD RITES” may apply to pagan beliefs such as wicca, but not christianity or judaism.

          Can I take this a step further and imply that since you believe this way (“the soul[s] of the person[s] performing the rites are not in them, since there is no deviation from what is written allowed”) you dont realize the nature of God? Why would there be a deviation if the content is the truth? Since the truth is the claim, there isnt any room, nor was there intended to be, for deviation.

          On top of that, “since there is no deviation from what is written allowed”, does that mean that our country is a dead country? Since none of the constituational framers are still alive, I guess we are not really living in America anymore …

          (And put in this context, things are beginning to make sense …)

        • #3109417

          Israelite festivals

          by computab ·

          In reply to yup

          The feasts of Israel were instituted by God 3500 years ago, and portray the future. At Passover, they were to kill a perfect lamb, and cook and eat it. Later Jesus told the people that unless they eat his flesh they have no part in him, he fortold his own death and was killed at Passover. Jesus is the lamb of God. At Atonement, they were to take two perfect lambs, one to be killed the other to be released in the desert, away from the people. The one to be killed represented Jesus, the other Satan. The book of Revelation describes how Satan will be put in the ‘bottomless pit’ for 1000 years.

        • #3109406


          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Israelite festivals

          so someone had nightmares and kept a journal of them and you include them in your religion?

          sorry, but if it’s been written down the soul is gone from it.
          there is no soul in the written word.

          and get me the original documents, in the original language to prove that what you say is what was originally written.

        • #3108291

          logical statemements …

          by jacksonian ·

          In reply to book?


          Can you “get me the original documents, in the original language to prove that what you say is what was originally written” about the soul being gone from it?

          I get the feeling though that if you provided me such a document about what your female teacher wrote you, its probably in Microsoft Word format.

          I am in no way being condescending about your beliefs, but realize that the statements that you are making are not founded on principles that apply to followers of Judaism or Christianity …

        • #3108304

          Be more specific …

          by jacksonian ·

          In reply to yup


          When you state a fact, please be sure you use the correct terminology.

          If you say that:
          (A) “all religous ceremonies become dead rituals when it is hard copy”,


          (B) the jewish and christian religions are not founded on such principles

          Then A is considerd a false statement…

        • #3109469

          Why on earth?

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Me neither, Jaqui

          Why on earth would you “associated with various Christian churches all my life” if you are so convinced that the very foundation of the Christian Church is not true? How utterly ridiculous.
          As for the books of the New Testament – How did Peter die? How did Paul die? How did Thomas die? Could there be anything in life so dramatic and life altering that one would be compelled to remember it for the rest of their lives? How about WWI veterans? I think they remember vivid details of their experiences well beyond the forty year mark.

        • #3109458

          “the very foundation of the Christian Church is not true?”

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Why on earth?

          Protius, the KJV is not “the very foundation of the Christian Church.”

          In fact as you would know there were many translations of the Bible prior to 1611, as there have been many since. At the websites where I have the discussions, the term “KJVO” is used to refer to Christians who accept the KJV as the only legitimate copy of the Bible.

          These websites by the way are dominated by American evangelicals but there are many members who are devout Christians and who are very scholarly and they DO NOT feel that the foundations of their faith depend on one particular translation of the Bible. Quite the contary actually, except for the KJVOs.

          Many of the evangelical Christians assert that the closest version to the truth lies in the original manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.

          [b]VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE[/b]

          Several Aramaic targums (free translations or paraphrases) of the Old Testament exist; some of them may be older than the Christian Era. The Greek Septuagint, whose canon was not strictly defined, was gradually produced during the last three centuries BC. An Old Latin version of both Testaments was revised by Jerome, producing the Vulgate. Ancient versions exist in Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and other languages.

          During the Middle Ages, parts of the Bible were put into Anglo-Saxon and Middle English. The first English versions of the entire Bible were made (1380-93) by John WYCLIFFE and his associates who used the Latin text. The REFORMATION gave further impulse to translations into modern languages, notably that of Martin LUTHER in German and William TYNDALE in English. Among later versions are the following: Miles COVERDALE’s Bible (1535), Matthew’s Bible (1537), the Great Bible (1539), Geneva Bible (1560), Rheims-Douai Bible (1582, 1609), King James, or Authorized, Version (1611), English Revised Version (1881-85), American Standard Version (1946-57), New English Bible (1961-70), Jerusalem Bible (1966), New American Bible (1970), Today’s English Version (1966-76), and the Revised Standard Version (1946-1971).

        • #3109436


          by protiusx ·

          In reply to “the very foundation of the Christian Church is not true?”

          I said the Bible. I did not make a reference to any particular version. I happen to enjoy the King James Version but I also study the original text in Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek. Understand that the foundation of Christendom is the Word of God. That is the Bible. You are arguing semantics and that is because you are not a Christian. I look for as close as a literal translation as I can to the original text. Have you faith? No? Then why is this important to you?

        • #3108582


          by jardinier ·

          In reply to BIBLE

          No Protius, you did not mention the Bible in that post, you mentioned only the New Testament.

          Do I have faith? Yes, I have a very strong faith, but I doubt that you would understand it.

        • #3109265

          I doubt you would understand …

          by jacksonian ·

          In reply to Bible?


          Having faith does not always equate to being faithful (to God)…

          2 Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”

          Which brings me to Matthew 7:3

          “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

          Lets play fair …

        • #3108938

          Replying to JacksonMN@..

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Bible?

          As I have not described my faith, or the source(s) of it, then obviously you are not in a position to comment on it.

          To further baffle you, my faith stems initially from the Bible (as distinct from any particular denomination or interpretation of the Bible) but is greatly enhanced because of a much more profound understanding of the Scripture than would be understood or accepted by most Christians.

        • #3108663

          Reply to your Reply

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Bible?

          You’ve said that your faith comes from a deep understanding of the scripture but in a previous post you said you haven’t studied the scripture all that much. Which is it?

        • #3133460

          Study of Scripture

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Bible?

          It is not necessary to make a detailed study of the Bible in order to learn the more pertinent parts on which my faith is based.

          I have a fair knowledge of the Gospels and Epistles, but have not found any need or reason to explore the Old Testament in detail.

          You should also take into account that “faith” is not an attribute exclusive to Christianity. For all you know I may have faith in Krishna or Buddha.

          I may have faith in the same God as you do, but have an entirely different concept of what that God is like.

        • #3108444

          This you will LOVE

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to “the very foundation of the Christian Church is not true?”

          A guy at one of the Christian websites has just posted the following:

          Thank you all for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your this website, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

          When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

          I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

          I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

          Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

          I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

          A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

          Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

          Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

          I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

          My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

          I know you all have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you all can help. Thank you all again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

        • #3108311


          by jellimonsta ·

          In reply to This you will LOVE

          Too funny!! 😀
          …and I AM a Christian!

        • #3109273

          The word of god

          by jacksonian ·

          In reply to “the very foundation of the Christian Church is not true?”


          What you are doing is arguing semantics and legalism.

          Regardless of the translation (since many concepts and ideas require different verbage in different languages), the POINT of the matter is the inspired word of god. Unless you believe that the bible is true in the first place, it doesnt really matter what version you read. You are already predisposed to disbelief.

          The equation goes something like this:

          IF there is a God AND IF the bible is the word of God, THEN the bible is true.

          If you are going to participate in the battle of the translations, stand in line. There are tons of books, forums and debates dedicated to such a topic. It is really an exercise in futility. If you believe in the God of the bible, you realize that God took the whole issue of translations into account.

          But here is where I stop (before I get into legalism myself and start talking about “predestination”)

        • #3108997

          Logic Please

          by gregk ·

          In reply to The word of god

          A basic syllogism goes
          If a=b and b=c then a=c
          You have
          If God = true and bible = attribute of God then bible = true
          This is equivalent to
          if a=b and c=d then c=b. This simply does not wash!

        • #3108956

          I beg to differ

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Logic Please

          a = b = a

          If is not allowed.

        • #3092824

          I’m a Free Will doctrine guy myself

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to The word of god

          Free Will started in the Garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, bringing sin and death into the world. We also have Free Will to accept or reject the gift of salvation from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

          Just had to get that in since you mentioned “predestination”. 🙂

        • #3109419

          who wrote the Bible?

          by computab ·

          In reply to Me neither, Jaqui

          The words came from God, eg see Jeremiah, ‘Write this for these words are trustworthy and true’. Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible, but he was only the emanuensis!

        • #3109221

          You’ve convinced me

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to who wrote the Bible?

          It’s god’s words because the words say it god’s words.

          Wait a minute !

          Nearly had me there !


        • #3134490


          by computab ·

          In reply to You’ve convinced me

          You don’t believe it because you’ve told yourself you will not believe. But no man could have fortold what the bible fortold, The Roman Empire, the destruction of Tyre – it is still as the Bible said; Sidon is also as the Bible said, a small busy market town; and wars in the middle east, and the one that has not happened yet, nuclear war over Jerusalem. It is all because man cannot live at peace with his neighbours. The best thing you could do is go to a private room, get on your knees and pray for God to reveal these things to you, and ask his forgiveness.

        • #3134479


          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to faith

          I don’t believe because I can find no convincing reason to do so. Your reasons will never suffice, because they are built on your faith. With me there is nothing for them to sit on, no foundation.
          One of the main reasons man can’t live with his neighbours is religion all those foolish heathen infidels who cast doubt threatening your own belief system.

          You need god, I don’t.
          You need me to need to god to bolster your own belief, I don’t care whether you hold the same opinion as me or not.

          You don’t challenge my belief system, you validate it.

          A tip don’t bet anything you value on seeing me on my knees begging. If you really really want to see that bring friends, guns, dogs and sneak up behind me while I’m asleep.

        • #3134440

          Something we are all forgetting

          by gregk ·

          In reply to Wrong

          Faith is belief without proof. No christian needs to “prove” anything about the KJV or anything else about their faith. One needs only believe: “Jesus saith unto him, Thomas because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, yet have believed” John 20:29

        • #3134342

          I have n’t forgot that

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Wrong

          In fact that’s basically my argument against faith.
          Tell me for you it’s rewarding, satisfying, comforting … fine, don’t tell me it’s logical though, the latter is taking me for an idiot and I don’t tolerate that.

        • #3134143

          It is not mine

          by gregk ·

          In reply to Wrong

          The reason religion is not science is that it CANNOT be disproved.

          It is perfectly valid to say that God created the fossils 6000 years ago. In fact it is perfectly valid to say that God created me yesterday, and all my memories are part of God’s marvellous creation. Statements like these can be neither proved nor disproved. That does not alter the fact that they may be true, or for that matter false.

          My reason for not believing (or at least not worshipping) the Christian God is the problem of Suffering.

          If we define God as all powerful, all knowing, all loving and interventionist as I was brought up to believe*, then I simply cannot believe in a God that can allow such things as the Boxing Day Tsunami. To stand by and do nothing when you know about such an event, and are capable of doing something about it, even want to do something about it, but do nothing is not consonant with that definition.
          It is, I suppose, valid to argue that we cannot understand His ineffable purpose, but I choose NOT to worship a being that would allow that event to happen.

          The problem of evil itself just barely squeaks under the wire on the free will argument.

          * The first three were explicitly stated. The fourth is implicit in the very concept of miracles and the Messiah.

        • #3134046

          Suffering pigeons, content cats

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Wrong

          It is necessary that we suffer, without suffering we would not grow. If there is a god and we are operating on a half way intelligent plan, of course we suffer.
          As far as evil goes, that’s necessary too after all evil is not good, if god is a personification of all that’s good then the devil is a necessity.
          Evil must be as powerful as good or at least powerful enough to be a factor otherwise how can good(god) continue to be defined ?

          Eternal life, eternal love, relief from suffering. I’m sure this was a significant goal and worth a bit of begging for the ignorant. I don’t consider that a heaven though, no growth, no progress, an eternity of now, I’d rather just cease than face that.

          So I didn’t decide on faithlessness because I suffer, but because I believe that without suffering I would be in hell. The fact that the church would have be kneel and beg for entry to such an estate just proves how f’ing stupid they think I am.

        • #3135083

          Sorry, I don’t buy that

          by gregk ·

          In reply to Wrong

          Why do pigeons have to suffer to make cats content?
          The way we ARE made we need suffering/sadness/misery as a juxtaposition to happiness/joy/wellbeing in order to appreciate them. An all powerful all knowing god (refer my definition) would not have to make us that way. A loving god would not choose to do so. That fact that he did indicates that one or more of the necessary attributes of god is missing. There whatever created us is either not God as defined or not something I want to worship.
          Even if we allow your pigeon/cat argument which I don’t, where is the “cat” in the brutal death of a baby by tidal wave?
          I do not buy the “Adze blows” of CS Lewis either.
          This is now well and truly off topic.

        • #3134920

          Way off topic?

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Wrong

          Who cares? I am enjoying hearing the different points of view.

          Besides TR needs a religious discussion every few months or certain people start to suffer withdrawal symptoms.

          The discussions are usually started by Protius — a fair dinkum American fundamentalist evangelical, or myself — a hybrid who no-one has yet been able to “pigeon” hole.

        • #3097015

          Off topic, but continued

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Wrong

          Evil to know good was one argument.
          Suffering a requirement for progress, one argument.
          The complete an utter stupidity of the idea that anyone who loved you would choose to make your existance an unrewarding blur of non-events another.
          Sorry I was so unclear you managed to mix them up.

        • #3097011

          I like the religious or the political myself

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Wrong

          Makes me think about it. Explaining my position, without insulting people is challenging, occasionally descending into name calling when someone insists on pressing my buttons even more so.
          Just off to go into a dark room, get on my knees ….

          and harvest some mushrooms now.

        • #3096852


          by jardinier ·

          In reply to faith

          to a large extent is a ploy used by organised religion to induce people to accept the teachings regardless of glaring contradictions, omissions or absurdities.

          I accept that there is “real” faith based on an individual’s personal experience.

          But in the context in which it is normally used, it is just a con to get people to accept illogical, irrational and unprovable doctrines.

          You may pause for a moment and think about when do you get your reward or punishment for good or bad deeds.

          Universally — across all religions — it is after you die. Be it eternal heaven or hell, or reincarnation, you simply are promised NO proof in this lifetime.

          As I have never met anyone who has returned from the afterlife to inform me of what I may expect, then I stake no faith in promises of reward or punishment AFTER I shed this mortal shell.

          Many years ago a Professor Emeritus of Biology who was also a committed Christian made the following observation:

          “Life after birth is more important than life after death.”

          Well I have no argument with that. If there IS an afterlife, the only way to prepare for it is to live the most honest and ethical life that I can in this corporeal realm.

        • #3096842

          Top Matey

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to FAITH

          If there IS an afterlife, the only way to prepare for it is to live the most honest and ethical life that I can in this corporeal realm.

          Practice what you preach, should be the first principle. Break that one you’re a liar. Where there’s one lie, there is always another. The church has done more to damage itself than any number of people like me has done to it.

        • #3134429

          Actually Tony

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to You’ve convinced me

          there is quite a lot of archaeological evidence that supports the HISTORY of the Hebrew peoples.

          And yes, some of this evidence supports events that were in fact prophesied in the Bible.

          The Old Testament contains history, law, prophesy and poetry as well as specific theological teachings.

          I regard it as simply all that was recorded by these people in every facet of life. It is a library. You can read the history, enjoy the poetry, (and laugh at the prophecy if you wish).

          However the various parts cannot be separated from the religious theme that is woven through it.

          If you don’t believe in God, you can at least acknowledge that it is a fairly trustworthy history book.

        • #3134298

          That wasn’t my point BUT

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Actually Tony

          It’s as trustworthy as any ‘history’ book, the older the history the more suspect.
          Archaelogical evidence does not account for motive.

          Tell me why was David lauded for cowardly shooting an honourable opponent from a distance ?

          Because Goliath was a bit dead.

          How come Soddom and Gommorah, got such bad press, because everyone except the git who ran out on them was a bit dead.

          History is written by the victors. Book are paid for by the victors. Writing bad things about them was very very bad for your health. It’s a historical document but if it’s history it’s a poorly written, overly subjective, disjointed and massively biased.

          So no I don’t acknowledge it as a history book, I’ve read a lot of proper ones.

        • #3134921

          History book?

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to That wasn’t my point BUT

          Of course it is biased. It was not written by a third party.

          But do you know of any other document written in the BC era that gives such a detailed account of a particular race of people and their culture?

          Estimated years of authorship of the various books of the OT are from 1445 BC (Genesis) through to 450 BC (Chronicles 1 and 2, and various others).

          I’m no historian so I am asking you the question.

        • #3097004

          Well that’s not my forte

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to That wasn’t my point BUT

          I’m afraid 14 – 17th century english history is my favourite. Particularly Good Queen Bess’ reign.

          However from what I do know, the BC stuff were translations censored by a political process by vested interests at the time. Subsequently the bible has gone through more translations, again by people with a particular bias. On top of that, it’s been revised to be more current in terms of society. So I think if you built a time machine and zipped back to BC days, the people around at the time would not know what you were talking about.
          There again if I was to don my tights and ruffle , and trundle back to see the greatest british monarch of all time, how much would my books help me, certainly not as much as their various authors would claim.
          Historians can’t even agree on how WWI was conducted. The only difference now is the ones who conform to the view of the state and or church don’t get to set their detractors on fire.

        • #3092820

          I get your point but

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to That wasn’t my point BUT

          The Bible is noteworthy for presenting its “heroes” as having flaws, not as perfect heroes and supermen. Most ancient history and legends sugarcoated events and made their heroes look perfect, but not the Bible.

          Moses (who wrote the first 5 books) wrote about himself that he was timid and a bad speaker, and that he disobeyed God on occasion. His brother Aaron, the High Priest, was shown to be complicit in the construction and worship of the golden calf.

          David, the great king and hero of Israel, was portrayed as a murderer and adulterer, not as a perfect role model. David did not have his history sanitized, he admitted he was wrong to sleep with Bathsheba and have her husband Uriah killed, and repented, and he and his kingdom suffered for his transgression. All the kings and queens of Israel and Judah were shown to be imperfect and flawed. This makes the Bible unique as a history book from ancient times. The writers were more than willing to write down bad things about their rulers.

          Other kings and societies in ancient times left out the bad, ignoble parts of their history, but the history of Israel and Judah as recorded in the Bible did not whitewash anything. The good, bad, and ugly were recorded for all time in the Bible. This makes the Bible more trustworthy as a historical document than the writings of the Egyptians, Babylonians, and other ancient people from the same time.

          PS. Yes, David did knock down Goliath from a distance using a sling, but at least he had the guts to face Goliath in battle, when no one else was willing to answer his challenge. And, if you were in David’s situation, I would think you would do the same thing rather than fight Goliath up close. David showed intelligence in that matter in that he knew the only way he could defeat Goliath was to trust in God and knock Goliath down from a distance, then rush up and behead the sucker before he could regain consciousness. David was lauded for trusting in God, being the only one in Israel willing to face Goliath, and having the wisdom and intelligence to knock down his enemy at a distance.

        • #3092756

          Thanks Tom

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to That wasn’t my point BUT

          Very accurate and very pertinent observations.

        • #3092721

          Guts ?

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to That wasn’t my point BUT

          He couldn’t lose, his opponent was completely blindsided.
          I pity Goliath, it never occurred to him, that this coward was going to do him in such a fashion.
          When you hear the ‘uplifting’ stories about David it’s always, him vs Goliath, and why because he won. The historians at the time were hardly going to start
          Then King David who has the honour of a starving rat and the courage of a paedophile …
          were they. I’d have a lot more faith in humans as a group, if his own side had tore him to pieces and ceded victory, that would have been courage.
          Gut’s, I’ve wiped my arse on harder material.

          Question, how many times do you think this sort of behaviour would have to be lauded, until wars decided by combat of champions were replaced by the mechanised mass murder that warfare became.

        • #3092823

          Thems are fighting words

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to who wrote the Bible?

          How dare you call the greatest prophet of the Old Testament, who talked to God face to face, and author of its first 5 books of the Bible, an amanuensis, whatever that is!! Remember that Moses is the guy that did take dictation from God!!

          Then there was Baruch, who wrote down what Jeremiah told him, and Jeremiah got the words from God.

        • #3093405

          Tongue in Cheek?

          by gregk ·

          In reply to Thems are fighting words

          I hope you were:
          Amanuensis \A*man`u*en”sis\, n.; pl. Amanuenses. [L., fr. a,
          ab + manus hand.]
          A person whose employment is to write what another dictates,
          or to copy what another has written.
          That makes both both Moses and Baruch Amanuenses!

          Of course it also makes Jeremiah guilty of hearsay (literally) 😛

        • #3093123

          Of course!!

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Tongue in Cheek?

          Have you ever been called a Homo sapiens?
          I bet you have been known to masticate in public!!

          (see the apocryphal story of the Senate campaign in Florida between Smathers and Pepper over 50 years ago) 🙂

        • #3108309

          History lesson

          by jacksonian ·

          In reply to Me neither, Jaqui


          If you think you can readily pass yourself off as a christian, I could spot you easily as a wolf in sheeps clothing.

          The early biblical teachings, that predate the printing press and other such means of mass media production, didnt need to rely on afformentioned methodologies to ensure that knowledge was passed on. The septuagint (ancient Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures) and contents of the torah was passed on orally from generation to generation. Since the jewish people are the bearers of the law of moses, their ability to memorize, recite and pass on this knowledge is beyond reproach. Its a spritual obligation that non-spiritual people would have a hard time understanding the importance or the relevance of being able to inerrantly speak the words and the laws of God.

          The same can be said about the apostles. They knew the early jewish traditions and the importance of ensuring that Gods work was recorded, preserved and passed on.

          ?Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.? 1 Peter 3:15

        • #3109016

          Even if the words were passed

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to History lesson

          down without changing over generations, which I doubt, languages change. They pick up new concepts, new forms , words change meaning over time. On top of words written or spoken are symbols, their exact meaning is unique to each and every one of us in individual terms, and in context (sentence or social) ambiguous at best.

          Some languages are more stable than others, english is one of the least stable for instance and it’s definitely changed since the 1600’s.

          If I said someone was queer, for instance, what do I mean ?
          If you said it, what would you have meant.

          If we both had a different interpretation of the word and we both translated into the same foreign language, what would the native speaker of that language think? Which one of us would be right?

          A spiritual obligation ? No a necessity, otherwise your current belief structure would have to adapt or crumble.

        • #3108923

          “I could spot you easily as a wolf in sheeps clothing.”

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to History lesson

          Could you have spotted me if I had not stated that I am not a Christian?

          Then you must be very insightful my friend because at the Christian websites in which I participate in discussions, not only has no-one queried my religion, but I have in fact become a respected member whose views are taken seriously.

          I participate in these discussions for two reasons:

          To stimulate people to assess and vindicate their beliefs, and to learn. Although I am fully au fait with all the essential doctrines of Christianity, I have not actually studied the Bible in detail and so I am learning quite a lot.

          The Sermon on the Mount is the basis for my ethics and I have attempted to live my life according to the maxims contained therein.

          I also like 1 Corinthians Chapter 13, and Galatians 5:22-23

          I often feel the need to refer Christians to these passages when they become judgmental, argumentative or rude.

        • #3108796

          Answer to your original question

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to “I could spot you easily as a wolf in sheeps clothing.”

          The article posted at

          Written by Dr. David R. Reagan is a good synopsis of why the Bible has been reduced to mere literature. The fundamental question is whether or not the Bible is the ?Inspired word of God? as stated by the Apostle Paul.

          Dr. Reagan explains that a good portion of the Church today is apostate, worldly, and apathetic because they have rejected the Bible as God?s revelation to Man and believe, instead, that the Bible is a product of Man?s search for God. This rejection of the Bible as God?s Word is a product of the German School of Higher Criticism.

          Dr. Reagan also details several different versions of the Bible that attempt to detract from the reality of the Bible and its message. He goes on to say that the bible itself claims its own origins as stated in over 3000 scriptural references. Now one might think this is using circular reasoning but Dr. Reagan goes onto say that this is not the case. The Bible is a collection of 66 books written by more than 40 authors over a period of 1,600 years. Therefore, if one quotes Jeremiah or Isaiah to substantiate Daniel, one is quoting altogether independent sources that happen to be bound together between the covers of the same book.

          So to answer the original question of whether I believe the King James Bible is the word of God ? Yes I do. The translations have been painstakingly copied over the millennia and when referenced against the original documents the lack of error is astounding.

        • #3133233

          “I could spot you easily as a wolf in sheeps clothing.”

          by jacksonian ·

          In reply to “I could spot you easily as a wolf in sheeps clothing.”

          Yes I could have spotted you …

          As soon as you decided to turn this topic into a forum where you could tout your super-spiruality and your ultra-insight in regards to Chrisitianity (despite the fact that you pride yourself on your “non-christian” denomination and participate in Christian discussions).

          And as far as referring Christians to Chrisitian principles if they are “judgmental, argumentative or rude”, I see what your strategy is …

          Expecting other to live by their rules, while you are bound by none. I state that I am a Christian, not perfect. When topics like these come up, the gloves come off …

        • #3107649

          “I see what your strategy is”

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to “I could spot you easily as a wolf in sheeps clothing.”

          No you don’t see what my strategy is because I don’t have one. There is no hidden agenda but if you choose to read one into my posts, then so be it.

          It was OTHER PEOPLE who challenged me to discuss my beliefs.

        • #3134526

          “I am a Christian, not perfect.”

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to “I could spot you easily as a wolf in sheeps clothing.”

          Nor am I perfect.

          I don’t lay claim to “super-spiruality.” You would be pushing uphill to read that in my posts.

          What I am STATING (absolute) not CLAIMING is that through studying other sources I can see simple and clear meanings in certain parts of the Bible which Christians will be debating about until they are called up to heaven. If the literal meaning were clear, there would be no need for debate.

          But doctine is NOT clearly set out in the Bible. It has been extrapolated (by men — with more than a little help from the Holy Spirit if you like) and there will always be controversy about the meanings of various passages because the meaning is NOT CLEAR on a literal reading.

          Ecclesiastes 12:6 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.

          Can you interpret the meaning of this verse?

        • #3092821


          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to History lesson

          Much of the Bible was written down as it happened, or within a few years. The events in Genesis was passed down from generation to generation until Moses wrote them down for the first time, but Moses wrote down the events he was involved with in Exodus through Deuteronomy pretty much as they happened (except for the first part of Exodus recording his birth and early part of his life up to his return to Egypt to liberate his people). The Torah (or Law, the first 5 books written by Moses) were placed next to the Ark of the Covenant as Moses instructed (Deuteronomy 31:26). Only the last chapter of Deuteronomy, recording his death, was written by someone else (probably Joshua).

          The writings of the prophets, from Isaiah through Malachi, were written down by each individual prophet that each book is named after.

          The scribes of ancient Israel and Judah were dedicated to faithfully transcribing each letter perfectly and accurately of Holy Scripture to preserve it over the generations.

      • #3109473


        by protiusx ·

        In reply to No it’s not.

        Your first statement is that the “true word of God” would be the writtings of Jesus and yet you say your not a christian. These two statements conflict with one another. If he is not God then he could not have spoken nor written the word of God.

        • #3109461

          I see you don’t read everything

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Logic

          this in specific.

          * Just for the sake of arguement accepting that Jesus is god, since I’m not christain, he isn’t god to me.

        • #3109435

          To What end?

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to I see you don’t read everything

          I did read your post. My point is that you are arguing about something that you don’t care about. So what is the point? What are you attempting to accomplish?

        • #3109256

          Question …

          by jacksonian ·

          In reply to I see you don’t read everything

          What exactly are your beliefs then?

        • #3108966

          based on

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Question …

          both the Native american traditions and those of my celtic hertiage.
          heavily influenced by my complete lack of mercy.
          I only have one penalty for wrong-doing, death.
          forgiveness is not part of my life. [ it’s not a “natural” thing to forgive, killing those that attack you is natural ]

        • #3108676

          Well Alrighty then

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to based on

          No forgiveness at all? You must be a very lonely sad person. Forgive lest ye not be forgiven. Forgiveness is about mercy and love. Does love exist in your world?

      • #3109420

        Jesus could write

        by computab ·

        In reply to No it’s not.

        jesus wrote in the sand at the arrest of the ‘woman taken in adultery’ He was trained in carpentry which required some measurement & writing.

        • #3109405

          then why

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Jesus could write

          is the entire christain faith based on other people’s writing?
          if it’s about jesus, use the words he wrote only.

          what each of the people who heard him speak is different, as no two people will hear something the same.

        • #3109244


          by jacksonian ·

          In reply to then why


          What you speak of is actually one of the strengths of the “testament” of Christ.

          To answer your question “is the entire christain faith based on other people’s writing”.

          Basically, yes.

          Without Christ present, we are basically in a cave looking for a candle that was blown out over 2000 years ago.

          It IS about Jesus. Using his words alone would not help people who didnt believe. They need to see how he impacted those around him (those who believed he was who he said he was and those who did not). How amazing his Paul’s testimonty? If you have ever read it, you would know. If you read it like you would read an “Aesops Fable” dont even bother. Read it for the account that it gives and it may suprise you what you find there. Christ chose his disciples for a reason. How can you (a non-christian) tell me “if it’s about jesus, use the words he wrote only”.

          A testament is “a profession of belief” or “strong evidence for something”, hence the term NEW testament. How much could we get from a bible with only one author? The fact that many different people contributed, the fact that there were many different accounts of the occurences and the happenings dealing with Christ (to include non christians such as Pontius Pilate and Josephus) helps solidify the case for Jesus Christ.

          If one person sees a shooting star and describes it, you have his account. If many people see that same star, you get detail AND corroborating evidence. Food for thought.

        • #3108968


          by jaqui ·

          In reply to EXACTLY!!!

          if it’s Jesus as god, only HIS OWN WRITTEN WORDS are the “WORD OF GOD” everything else is hearsay and should be thrown out of the word of god.

          cannot have it both ways, one or the other.

          if the bible is the word of god, then it is what god wrote, not what any human wrote.

        • #3108905

          I can’t agree

          by gregk ·

          In reply to WRONG

          If you take your reasoning to the extreme, then only the words God wrote in G’s own hand could be counted as the word of G. Transcriptions would not be permitted. This when applied to the greater world would mean that only Terry Pratchett’s original manuscripts are the word of TP. The printed books I read are not his words. Therefore any copyright claimed in his name in invalid. I can copy anything I like anytime. Clearly this reasoning is invalid.

          Now let’s get back to G.
          Anything written by G is the word of G. Agreed. but also any fair transcriptions of those writings may also be regarded as the WOG. This would also include directly inspired god works such as the Koran. Translations are trickier. If we look at, for example, multiple translations of Nietzche, there are often wide discrepancies. This is partly the bias of the translator, partly the incomplete knowledge of the translator, partly simple errors and partly differences in understanding of the original intent.
          The same can be said here of translations of WOG. It is interesting to note here that Muslims do not regard as translation of the Koran as the real thing. If you want to read the REAL Koran, learn Arabic and read the genuine article.
          Of course it is possible to claim (and it is!) translations – or a particular one – are also guided directly by G, and therefore be regarded as WOG. We then need to look at the internal evidence. Are all the WOG translations consistent? If not then they cannot all be WOG (though one still can) Is the one that is deemed to be WOG consistent with the original language source? If not again it is not WOG.
          Of course none of this touches on changes in language and culture which can dramatically alter our perception of the meaning (Should we REALLY make little children suffer? Should we really keep slaves?)
          We also need to ascertain whether the original really is the WOG, and if so, was G telling the truth any way?

        • #3108327

          It is our modern arrogance…

          by rknrlkid ·

          In reply to Jesus could write

          That makes us assume that anyone in other than our “modern” time is ignorant and illiterate. This is patently untrue. The Roman Empire had written records, and children went to school to learn to read, write, and to learn math and science. In the Jewish culture, children also went to local schools. Jewish males HAD to know how to read and write in Hebrew in order to take their place in their religious society. Just to live in the occupied Palestine, Jesus was probably tri-lingual (Koine Greek, Latin and Hebrew).

          I think Jesus didn’t write anything because of different reasons. For one, the teacher didn’t write things down, the disciple did. Plus, he wasn’t stupid. An autograph (i.e., original hand written manuscript) in his own hand would have been worshiped in the later years, which was distinctly forbidden in the 10 commandments. So it makes perfect sense to me.

          Most of the arguments against Christian writings assumes (knowingly or unknowingly) that the Judeo/Christian God is pretty ignorant and is unable to be consistent within His own principles. But that isn’t reasonable. Context is everything.

        • #3109286

          Excellent points about

          by old guy ·

          In reply to It is our modern arrogance…

          the writing, especially a hand written manuscript written by Jesus being worship instead of the One whom He was speaking about.

      • #3108467

        Jesus certainly could write

        by waterstone ·

        In reply to No it’s not.

        The argument regarding his being an aspect of deity aside, the historical Jesus would most certainly know how to write. He was a well-schooled individual in both his Judaic studies and his business studies.

      • #3108415

        Writing in NT Times.

        by michael_orton9 ·

        In reply to No it’s not.

        Its almost certain that Jesus would have been able to both read and write.
        After all he is mentioned as being called up to read in a Syangogue.
        The standard of eduction amongst middle class Jews in Israel was only reached in the UK in the late 1800s.
        Apart from Hebrew, he probably had some understanding of Greek and Latin and of course the local dialect of Aramaic, which was written in Hebrew letters.
        The only difference between then and a modern Shule would be the paper and the pointing for the vowels, these cam about after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

      • #3108328

        You should know what you are talking about before you post …

        by jacksonian ·

        In reply to No it’s not.


        I know I shouldnt even comment on your post, but I cant let you wallow you in your ignorance …

        from John 8:7-8

        8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

        8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

      • #3092829

        He did know how to read and write

        by montgomery gator ·

        In reply to No it’s not.

        The gospels report that Jesus read from the book of Isaiah in the synagogue, and that he wrote in the dust of the ground when the woman who committed adultery was brought before Him. But, you are right, as far as we know, that He did not leave any writings behind, but we do have records left by His closest followers.

    • #3109470

      There is no other document that has been so strictly compiled

      by protiusx ·

      In reply to Is the King James Bible the true Word of God?

      My friend this horse has been beaten, pulverized, pur?ed, and spread over toast along time ago.

      I think what you?re after is the authenticity of the Christian Scripture and there have been huge tomes written about the subject.

      Ultimately for one to believe that a written document is in fact the ?word of God? one needs to first believe that there is a God and then one must believe that he inspired the writing of his Word. The Bible itself is a work of faith. Simply put if you choose not to believe then it can not be rationalized to you.

      Pearls before swine.

      • #3109466

        “Pearls before swine”

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to There is no other document that has been so strictly compiled

        I think that Julian’s question is not on the authenticity of the Bible at all. I read it that the article writer feels that King James Version, one of the most popular and most quoted, is full of errors and differences from the “original” works.

        Not an act of faith in any way – unless you believe that the translator and typesetters were guided by God also.

        But then, you God-botherers can manage that sort of thing with your eyes closed, can’t you?

        • #3109427

          Title of the post

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to “Pearls before swine”

          The title of the post is “Is the King James Bible the true Word of God?” It doesn’t get much clearer than that. The linked article does talk about different versions of the Bible but the author explicitly states his beliefs at the beginning of the article.

          Answer this though; why would someone who as admitted they are not a Christian care about the different versions of their holy book?

        • #3109423

          Well, they don’t of course

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Title of the post

          Your question doesn’t actually make sense as written – I assume “why would someone who as admitted they are not a Christian care about the different versions of [their] someone else’s holy book?

          Why did I post what I did despite the title? Well,
          Julian asked us to read the article before we posted and I drew, as I am allowed to, my own inferences. I am at work and excruciatingly bored else I wouldn’t have bothered with it at all because, as you say, we’ve been here before and I, at least, have no wish to do it again.

          Signing off.

        • #3109231


          by jacksonian ·

          In reply to Title of the post

          Great question.

          It seems that non-believers just like to ruffle feathers.

          Knowing that someone cares deeply about something (like ones own mother) and commencing to spit or criticize it (aka slapping owns own aforementioned maternal unit) raises a certain degree of satisfaction in some people.

          At least thats how I usually take it. You can argue the “facts” or the “fictions” all you want.

          It is not a mental pursuit anyway … Take it or leave it.

          Tha answer will be found at the foot of a great white throne.

        • #3108973

          “non-believers just like to ruffle feathers”

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to ProtiusX

          Non believers just wonder [b]why[/b] you believe.

          And why so many people believe.

          And why so many people believe in something different.

          And why so many people believe in nothing.

          And why you’re all so scared of debate.

          Yes. It [b]is[/b] a mental pursuit. That is [b]exactly[/b] what it is and if you cannot see that then I’m sorry for you. Man is a rational animal. Man is the only rational animal. If you choose not to use the mind that you have to the maximum that you are able then I’m sorry for you. No doubt, though, you do not want my pity. continue to wallow in your irrational belief and be happy.

          Anyway, I’ll leave it, thank you.

          Just one thought for you to ponder on. I think you are mistaken in your belief. For that mistake I condemn you to the same fate for eternity as I expect for myself. You believe me to be mistaken in my lack of belief. You reward yourself with eternal happiness and me with eternal damnation. Bit extreme, isn’t it? Rather nasty, in fact. (That’s British understatement, by the way).

          I’m actually quite a nice person – at least as nice as any Christians that I’ve met and considerably less judgemental. Can you wonder why I sometimes get a little annoyed? Ruffle your feathers? I think you sometimes deserve a little more than that!

        • #3108947


          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to “non-believers just like to ruffle feathers”

          I like that one Neil, but I’ll remember it’s provenance, being a minimally honest spawn of satan.

        • #3133292

          A dog chasing his tail …

          by jacksonian ·

          In reply to “non-believers just like to ruffle feathers”


          You could care less WHY I believe (you have made up your mind already about God).

          You wonder why so MANY people believe. Since you are on the other side of the why fence, I guess you think all Christians are delusional?

          Why so many people believe in nothing? That I cant answer when there is so much to believe in.

          I am in no way scared of debate. God wants me to give an account as to why I believe the way I do. I have debated this issue (and many like it) plenty of times. But why debate an issue someone already has a preconceived notion about?

          Once again, it is NOT a mental pursuit. Since you cant see it otherwise, I am the one sorry for you. I am extremely rational, and logic based (hence the career path I have chosen). And in regards to your other comments about my “mind”, your pity and my irrational beliefs, thank you for the persecution and the condescention.

          Here is a thought for you to ponder. I KNOW that you are mistaken in your belief. And its not me that will condemn you. I dont reward you with anything but the hope that one day you realize the truth.

          Neil, I posted to this topic because of my beliefs. I am a “nice” person myslef, and I cant help the fact that many Christians have been judgemental towards you. It may annoy you, but we are not perfect.

          So you think I deserve more than feather ruffling? Can you justify? You feel I should be persecuted because of my faith? Thats exactly what Christ said would happen, so persecute away.

          On a side note, fot those that read this post and are open to explore the possibility of God and the truth contained in the bible, check out a book titled “I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist”. Its a good book for Christians and non-Christians alike. It touches on alot of things spoken about here in the past few days …

        • #3133232

          “Preconceived notions” and “persecution”

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to A dog chasing his tail …

          “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

          I thought that I’d quote the KJV as it was the original theme of this discussion and, of the Bible versions that I’ve read, has the most turgid, least comprehensible and least relevant language. The point still stands, though. I don’t believe in [b]any[/b] gods, yours included and it’s not a “preconceived notion” but a decision arrived at rationally. Nobody “taught” me to be an atheist and I was not brought up as one. Given that, I find your comment a tad patronising but, alas, not uncommon when coming from the righteous. I think that you should examine your own “preconceived notions”. At least mine are my own.

          You did not address my point that your religion of “Love” practises blackmail of the first rank in the fate that it allots for unbelievers. Jesus wasn’t [b]that[/b] nice, either: “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”
          ? Luke 19.27

          You do not [b]know[/b] that I am wrong. You [b]believe[/b] to the point of accepting no alternative. You also believe contrary to the beliefs of the 4,000 million of the Earth’s population who are not even nominally Christian.

          In no way am I persecuting you – “persecution: punishment or harassment usually of a severe nature on the basis of race, religion, or political opinion in one’s country of origin”. I am debating with you if you wish it or I am winding you up if you do not take it in the manner that I intended. Perhaps your grip on the reality of what is going on in this thread is indicative of the grip that you have on the reality of your existence and your religion.

          This is an Internet forum. No-one is going to get stoned or burned at the stake.

          Oh, I forgot. That’s what [b]your[/b] lot did to [b]my[/b] lot.

          Standard treatment for a heretic – the Holy Trinity: an Iron mask is heated in a fire until red hot, then put upon the heretics head. A red-hot scourge (that’s a rake, by the way) is then applied to his back. After the mask had cooled, it is removed from the sinner, taking skin (and usually eyeballs) with it. Finally, red hot pincers are used to remove the prisoner’s tongue.

          It is interesting to note that the Holy Trinity was designed not to cause death, so that the maimed, blinded and mute prisoner could live out his days as a burden to his family and as a testimony to what happens when one lets his tongue wag too freely.

          Nobody’s doing that here.

        • #3133213

          Dear Pot

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to A dog chasing his tail …

          Kettle is busy right now he’ll get back to you.

          On a side note for those that read this post and are open to learning the fundamentals I suggest reading

          Calculus of Logic By George Boole.

          Preconcieved notion


    • #3109467

      You’ve missed the point

      by protiusx ·

      In reply to Is the King James Bible the true Word of God?

      The title of the article you referenced is ?Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today?

      His first sentence states ?First, I want to affirm with all evangelical Christians that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant, inspired, and our final authority for faith and life.?

      So why did you post this question if the article you site indicates that the author believes the bible to be the Word of God?

      P.S. Sorry for the confusion ? I was in somewhat of a hurry.

      • #3109385

        The point seems to be rather blunted

        by gildawie ·

        In reply to You’ve missed the point

        “So you do you post the question if the article you site indicates that the author believes it to be?”

        Could you please rephrase that – or is it your intention to be unintelligible?

    • #3109451

      Don’t know perhaps you should

      by tony hopkinson ·

      In reply to Is the King James Bible the true Word of God?

      ask him, god not King James.
      What do you mean by true anyway, accurate or conformimg to your own or anyones else’s belief?
      Very iffy word true, bucket loads of semantic freight.

      Whether it’s true or not depends on belief, anyone who believes it’s accurate has a negative IQ. No transaltion from one language to another or from one culture to another or from one historical period to another can ever be 100% accurate. On top of that because written language is interpreted by the reader, it’s going to mean something slightly different to every reader even if the words were exactly the same.

    • #3109445

      (Looking around for lightning)

      by neilb@uk ·

      In reply to Is the King James Bible the true Word of God?

      A quotation from the famous “Buggre Alle This Bible”

      “Ezekiel Chapter 5, verse 5: Buggre Alle this for a Larke. I amme sick to mye Hart of typefettinge. Master Biltonn if no Gentelmann, and Master Scagges noe more than a tighte fisted Southwarke Knobbefticke. I telle you, onne a day laike thif Ennywone withe half an oz. of Sense shoulde bee oute in the Sunneshain, ane nott Stucke here alle the liuelong daie inn thif mowldey olde By-Our-Lady Workefhoppe. @ *”?@;!*”

      With huge appreciation to Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett.


      • #3109444


        by jellimonsta ·

        In reply to (Looking around for lightning)

        Where’d you pull that from Neil?

        Also, you ever taken a gander at this site?

        • #3109443

          One of my favourite books of all time

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to LMAO

          “Good Omens” by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett. Storyline mostly by Gaiman and jokes by Pratchett.

          One of the characters is Agnes Nuter, a witch who really [b]can[/b] see into the future. The paragraph of her death had me snorting tea down my nose…

          The English, by and large, being a crass and indolent race, were not as keen on burning women as other countries in Europe. In Germany the bonfires were built and burned with regular Teutonic thoroughness. Even the pious Scots, locked throughout history in a long-drawn-out battle with their arch-enemies the Scots, managed a few burnings to while away the long winter evenings. But the English never seemed to have the heart for it.

          One reason for this may have to do with the manner of Agnes Nutter’s death, which more or less marked the end of the serious witch-hunting craze in England. A howling mob, reduced to utter fury by her habit of going around being intelligent and curing people, arrived at her house one April evening to find her sitting with her coat on, waiting for them.

          “Ye’re tardie,” she said to them. “I shoulde have beene aflame ten minutes since.”

          Then she got up and hobbled slowly through the suddenly silent crowd, out of the cottage, and to the bonfire that had been hastily thrown together on the village green. Legend says that she climbed awkwardly onto the pyre and thrust her arms around the stake behind her.

          “Tye yt well,” she said to the astonished witchfinder. And then, as the villagers sidled toward the pyre, she raised her handsome head in the firelight and said, “Gather ye ryte close, goode people. Come close untyl the fire near scorch ye, for I charge ye that alle must see how thee last true wytch in England dies. For Wytch I am, for soe I am judged, yette I knoe not what my true Cryme may be. And therfore let myne deathe be a message to the worlde. Gather ye ryte close, I saye, and marke well the fate of alle who meddle with suche as theye do notte understande.”

          And after that strange blasphemy she said no more. She let them gag her, and stood imperiously as the torches were put to the dry wood.

          The crowd grew nearer, one or two of its members a little uncertain as to whether they’d done the right thing, now that they came to think about it.

          Thirty seconds later an explosion took out the village green, scythed the valley clean of every living thing, and was seen as far away as Halifax.

          There was much subsequent debate as to whether this had been sent by God or by Satan, but a note later found in Agnes Nutter’s cottage indicated that any divine or devilish intervention had beem materially helped by the contents of Agnes’s petticoats, wherein she had with some foresight concealed eighty pounds of gunpowder and fourty pounds of roofing nails.

        • #3109440

          She’s a witch….

          by jellimonsta ·

          In reply to One of my favourite books of all time

          She turned me into a newt!

        • #3093120


          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to She’s a witch….

 a nose like a witch.
          ..she has a wart!! (everyone pointing) 🙂

          I assume you got better!!

        • #3109334

          Yes, I read that site

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to LMAO

          while researching for the EL thread. Like all such sites, it tries so very, very hard. The thing that strikes me most of all is the tortuous logic in, for example, “Statements Consistent with…”. What, however, puzzles me most is why bother? What are they frightened of?

        • #3108603

          Fear of the unknown, perhaps? Therein lies the rub!!!

          by sleepin’dawg ·

          In reply to Yes, I read that site

          Neil we are evil, evil men; except you are probably more evil than me.LOL :^O

          That means I get to do fewer laps in the lake of fire than you do but after the first million or so who’ll be keeping count. Like you, I can think of a few that might and you know what that will mean??? Don’t you??

          [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

        • #3108573


          by jellimonsta ·

          In reply to Fear of the unknown, perhaps? Therein lies the rub!!!

          Dawg, how can anyone be any more Evil than yourself? :p

        • #3108566

          Neil has me beat and maybe so do you.

          by sleepin’dawg ·

          In reply to Evil


          [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

        • #3108306


          by jellimonsta ·

          In reply to Neil has me beat and maybe so do you.

          Dawg, how could one so lowly as myself, even compare with a person of such malignant stature as yourself? 😀

        • #3108288


          by gadgetgirl ·

          In reply to Neil has me beat and maybe so do you.

          want to say now exactly what it is you’re after from Dawg?

          (ohboy! I bet your knees are hurting from all that crawling!)


        • #3108268


          by jellimonsta ·

          In reply to Neil has me beat and maybe so do you.

          I am not after anything from Dawg. I am merely illustrating how I am no match his ‘His Royal Evilness, Lord Dawg Humptingtonstandiglesworth of The NetherWorld’ 🙂

          Heck, I couldn’t even bring myself to burn ants with a magnifying glass as a kid! 😀

    • #3109412

      The story of LIFE

      by mjd420nova ·

      In reply to Is the King James Bible the true Word of God?

      I used to teach a programming class, and one of
      the fun things I used to do was take a program
      I had written, provide a discription of what
      it was supposed to do and ask the students
      to either modify or rewrite the program with
      out changing the outcome and make it either
      easier to use or quicker to run. Few of the
      programs I got back resembled the original
      and more than a few dumped the whole thing and
      rewrote it completely. Most still kept the
      outcome or product intention intact, just took
      different paths to get there. Some abandoned
      everything and decided that this was better
      and easier, and the outcome wasn’t what was
      really wanted but something else was and this
      was how to achieve it. Does that sound like
      religion??? We all have our own demons so in
      respect we all must have our gods and each
      an individual way to reach atonement.
      Starting to sound familiar??
      It’s a bit like being at a party, lining
      everyone up and starting a joke at one end and
      each passes it one to the next. The joke that
      comes out seldom even remotely resembles the
      original. But it some cases the intent, or
      the implied intent, is intact.
      Is there a morale to this story??


      • #3109222

        God is not a software engineer …

        by jacksonian ·

        In reply to The story of LIFE

        Your point may be true for some religions, but not Christianity.

        According to the Bible, there is but one way to heaven, not many. If you have a map, there may be many way to get to the same destination. But choice (which is the true moral of the story) is not without consequences.

        Again, according to the bible to get to the final destination on the map, one must pass through or over a certain bridge. Depending on the driver, some may be able to cross that bridge (not dependent on having the correct change, but having a pass (signed in red ink)). Without that pass, you cant cross the bridge, but are faced with a detour with not so pleasant scenery.

    • #3109380

      It is a Translation

      by ljdavy ·

      In reply to Is the King James Bible the true Word of God?

      When something is translated from one language to another there is always potential for interpretation according to personal persuasion to creep in. However by use of a panel of translators most of this can be minimised. In the case of Scripture there is also the element of inspiration and revelation by the Holy Spirit to bring truth and the intent of the Word of God to the fore. Then of course with out the revelation of the Holy Spirit when reading the Bible it makes a fairly mundane sort of read.

    • #3109371

      The Word of God

      by old guy ·

      In reply to Is the King James Bible the true Word of God?

      First, after reading all the posts up to it?s amazing how some of the atheists have to try and throw their barbs and personal opinions into the mix, although Jardinier specifically stated in his initial post: ?And a quick note to the resident atheists: this discussion is NOT about whether or not there is a God or whether Christianity is a good religion.? I agree with ProtiusX since this discussion was started and directed at believing Christians then the others really should have left it to them.

      Jardinier?s original question was: Is the King James Bible the true Word of God? The King James is a translation of the Word of God. NIV, New American Standard, New King James, etc are translations of the Word of God. The Word of God is inspired by God through the Holy Spirit. It is a Living Word. Can these translations have some inaccuracies? Yes, they can. Does that mean that we Christians can?t use them? Absolutely not. How does one study a subject or object. Do you take one aspect and call your study a complete study. I certainly hope not. Would it be helpful to take several of these translations and study what they say to learn more about the Word of God? Absolutely. Does that mean that is the only way to discern God?s Word? A resounding, ?No!?

      Now here is where the atheists will probably love to devour me but it won?t matter because it doesn?t affect nor concern you since you don?t accept any aspect of Christianity. We are instructed through the Scriptures, that we accept and believe are inspired by God, to study those scriptures. We are also instructed and explained to that when we belong to Christ that the Holy Spirit will instruct you. (John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”)

      So, how do we study the Word of God? We believe that God, through the Holy Spirit, inspired the writers to write down what they saw and were taught for other people to study and follow Christ. We must also trust the Holy Spirit to direct us in our studies to learn more and to enlighten us through our spirits.

      I do like that Daniel Wallace hit on a very valuable observation. In essence he stated that the translation, be it KJN, NIV, ASB, or whatever, is not what saves us. It is by God?s Grace through the blood of Jesus Christ, who is the Living Word of God, that we are saved.

      • #3108583

        “this discussion was started and directed at believing Christians”

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to The Word of God

        I don’t know how you read this into my post because I did not state, declare or imply such a purpose.

        EVERYBODY was invited to comment, with the disclaimer that the discussion was not about whether or not there is a God, or whether Christianity is a good religion.

        • #3108563

          I was referring to

          by old guy ·

          In reply to “this discussion was started and directed at believing Christians”

          these statements: “Just for the sake of arguement accepting that Jesus is god, since I’m not christain, he isn’t god to me”

          “But then, you God-botherers can manage that sort of thing with your eyes closed, can’t you?” Of course they certainly have a right to believe or feel whatever they wanted to.

          In essence, it sounded like Jaqui and Neil, although I do enjoy reading their posts and ideas even when different from mine, still sounded like were taking pot shots, although small ones toward Christianity.

          Whether correct or not I assumed since you were asking about the Word of God and placed your statement, ?And a quick note to the resident atheists: this discussion is NOT about whether or not there is a God or whether Christianity is a good religion? that you were asking the opinions of those who believe in and live by the Word of God.

          If this was incorrect then I apologize and retract my initial statement. In any instance, it still seems that there was some detraction from the question.

          I certainly hope this is not all that you read from my post. Whether I read into some statements or whether I misunderstood some statements then I may have done so. I guess if every post has to be absolutely perfect to get the full meaning then I will probably miss the boat again somewhere down the line?probably more often than not. I am by no means perfect.

        • #3108545

          No-one is excluded from participation

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to I was referring to

          Your post from a Christian point of view was, in my opinion, nothing short of EXCELLENT.

          I included the disclaimer regarding “resident atheists” because I know from long experience that they seem to enjoy trying to disrupt and destroy any serious discussion in the general area of religion.

          And now I will give them an opportunity to attack me. Why are atheists so eager to disrupt any discussion about religion? I suggest it is because they have some tiny niggling doubt as to the possibility of the existence of “something” that is innately intelligent in the universe.

          You will not see agnostics arguing in these discussions because they keep an open mind to the possibility that there may be a “God” of some kind.

          Atheists cannot prove their point of view by logical argument, and so they strike out at anyone who in any way threatens their totally subjective and unprovable stance.

          As to your understanding that my post was directed only a Christians, all I can say is that this is not what I had in mind. The essence of the topic is how a document (any document) can be so readily accepted by people without knowing anything about how that document evolved into its present form.

          I would hope that people of other faiths as well as agnostics AND atheists would find this an interesting exercise. In fact Neil himself said in an early post (addressed to someone else) that he quite understood the premise of the discussion.

          The attitude of KJVO devotees would suggest that God (or the Holy Spirit) personally oversaw that translation and gave it His stamp of approval as the only inerrant and valid version.

        • #3108419

          Logical argument

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to No-one is excluded from participation

          Nope. You’re right of course.

          “Religious zealots cannot prove their point of view by logical argument, and so they strike out at anyone who in any way threatens their totally subjective and unprovable stance.”


        • #3108900

          Touche !!

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Logical argument

          Actually Neil you would have a snowflake’s chance in hell of becoming a Christian even if for some obscure reason you decided to.

          Your intellectual integrity would immediately disqualify you.

          In order to become a Christian of the American evangelical kind, a prerequisite is to lock your mind and throw away the key.

          As I have hung around churches all my life, I know a great many Christians who just want to live decent lives and are not at all concerned with doctrines or dogmas.

          Speaking generally, Americans take their religion much more seriously than Australians — and I would assume also Brits — and so they get very emotional about it.

          It is, however, quite possible for a highly intelligent person (like myself for example :))to believe in some form of God — expressed in my case as an innate intelligence in the universe.

          While I draw heavily on the ethical teachings of Jesus, Paul and the other gospel writers, I consider the fundamental doctrines of Christianity to be quite absurd.

          It goes something like this. God created humans, but they were imperfect, so he caused a flood to drown all but a handful of them (as well as the unfortunate animals and plants which had not committed any sin).

          However humans — being imperfect creations of God — did not repent and so he sent his Son to die on the cross to absolve the sins of those who accepted Him (read that as pay out their bad karma from an Eastern perspective).

          As the majority of humans remain unrepentant, at Armageddon most of those still alive and all those who have rejected the “gift of salvation” will spend eternity in a very, very hot place.

          Now the point of all this is that if God is indeed omniscient, he should have known that the humans He created were bound to sin.

          So GOD created us imperfect, but WE cop all the blame and associated “cruel and unusual” punishment.

        • #3108629


          by jellimonsta ·

          In reply to Touche !!

          As I am a Christian, does that make me unintelligent? 😮

        • #3133459

          Intelligent Christians

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Touche !!

          If you knew some of the rubbish posted at the Christian websites at which I participate,
          then you would perhaps say that the term: “intelligent Christian” is an oxymoron.

          I am currently participating in a discussion (started by myself) “How old and how large is the universe?” Some of these people are insisting that the universe is 6,000 years old, and that science is a “false religion” and ….

          American evangelicals seem to be in a class of their own, and thankfully Australia has not yet been infected by this fanatical, close-minded version of Christianity.

          However my personal friends (mainly through association with one church or another) include a number of retired professors in various disciplines, as well as persons who hold a PhD.

          Ad nauseam in these threads, I refer to my cousin Professor Sir Gustav Nossal, who is chairman of the committee which oversees the Bill and Melinda Gates program to immunise several million children in poor countries.

          Gus is Professor Emeritus of Pathology at Melbourne University.

          He is, and always had been, a practising Catholic.

        • #3133174


          by jellimonsta ·

          In reply to Touche !!

          My wife actually prefers not to question anything, in her faith and is happy following the herd.

          I personally, have always questioned everything. I was not actually raised Christian, and in fact came to Christ myself at around the age of 22.

          Some of the brightest people I know are Christian (a number of friends who have PhD’s are Christian). I imagine I can also go the other end of the spectrum too though. 🙂

    • #3109370

      KJV is the Word of God, but not exclusively

      by marcato15 ·

      In reply to Is the King James Bible the true Word of God?

      What I mean by that is, the core doctrines and beliefs that God inspired the human writers to write down have been perserved through God’s Providence through time. As far as versions go though, no English translation, or any translation for that matter can be doubly inspired as its what it says, “a translation”. You’ll never capture every last thing that was meant when translating between languages.
      What matters is, is the fact that the KJV,and the other translations we have today as well, can still can be regarded, and should be, as God’s Word and our Highest authority.(Even if its not excatly, word for word what the authors wrote, because all the major doctrines vital to Christianity are still contained therein).

      • #3108575

        I fully agree with you

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to KJV is the Word of God, but not exclusively

        However, as I am not a Biblical scholar, I was amazed to learn how complex was the process of producing the most widely read (I think) version of Scripture.

        And of course I fully agree with your statememt:

        “Even if its not exactly, word for word what the authors wrote, because all the major doctrines vital to Christianity are still contained therein.”

        • #3108518

          Cake and eat it

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to I fully agree with you

          His statement is that the King James Version of the Bible is the ?Word of God? but not exclusively. I would ask you again how you can agree with him when you have stated that you are not a Christian.

        • #3108466

          Not a Christian

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Cake and eat it

          Protius, you are groping. You will never understand my faith, so save yourself the effort of trying to pigeon-hole me.

          Anybody who was fully familiar with Christianity and the Bible could agree with the findings of the author of the article.

          How many thousands of commercial travellers and drifters do you think there might have been who know the Bible inside out and backwards because they have read the Gideon Bible in hotels?

          How many times do I have to repeat myself? This discussion is NOT about the validity of Christianity, but about the amazingly complex history of the King James Bible.

        • #3108800

          Not Groping

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Not a Christian

          The title of this post is asking if the King James Bible is the ?true word of God?. To believe this one must first believe in God. You stated in the first post that you were not a Christian so how can you believe that a book is the word of something you have no faith in? it doesn?t make sense.

          The only thing you have shared about your religious leanings is that I could not understand it. That doesn?t give me a lot to go on.

          This is the same as me asking if the Koran is the true word of Allah. I neither believe in Allah nor do I believe that the Koran is a holly book at all.

          If this is not about Christianity then change the original post to say something like ?Is the King James Version of the Bible the exclusive word of God according to Christians??

      • #3108724

        According to whom?

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to KJV is the Word of God, but not exclusively

        …”because all the major doctrines vital to Christianity are still contained therein”

        The compilers were much like the press of today. They chose what the readers would see … and not see.

        • #3108670

          The only problem is

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to According to whom?

          That there were 60 different books written by over 40 different writters over 2000 years.

        • #3134670

          60 books, 40 writers

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to The only problem is

          at least!

        • #3133418

          So you agree with Evolution!

          by gregk ·

          In reply to 60 books, 40 writers

          There are well over 60 book and 40 writers that support Darwinian evolution, so by this “logic” it must be true.

        • #3133373


          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to So you agree with Evolution!

          The point I was making was that, at best, the Bible is not a complete book because of what the editors left out!

          It just goes to show that liberals ran the media even back then 🙂

        • #3107688


          by gregk ·

          In reply to Huh?

          That wasn’t clear to me.
          The post before yours seemed to be saying that using the bible to prove what the bible says is valid because it actually was a compendium. You seemed to be agreeing with that post, only disagreeing with his figures.
          I simply pointed out that evolution which many christian fundamentalists disagree with, or any other topic where many people agree in print can be “proved” by the same method if it is agreed this is a valid proof.
          What I now understand you were really saying was that they agree because the editors only chose the texts that agreed with their stance and that is why they are consistent. I agree with you on this point.

    • #3109322

      The operative word here is “true”. Hi there, Protius and Jardinier. At ….

      by sleepin’dawg ·

      In reply to Is the King James Bible the true Word of God?

      it again; are we??

      If we are talking in the strict sense of linguistic or literary accuracy, then it is ovbviously not the [b]true[/b] word of god. Too many things have been lost in translation on so many different levels, the least of which are historical, cultural and linguistic. What truth there is, in the document, will be found in the mind of the reader and even there you will find differing views of the [b]true[/b] truth as perceived by different readers, whether they be Christians or unbelievers. The reader is placed in the same position as Sisyphus, who upon nearing his goal, is condemned to have the stone roll down to the bottom of his pit. Each day we live and each experience we endure cannot but help in acquiring new interpretations of our perceptions of truth, whether believer or non-believer. Beyond the individual, why should it matter?

      This urge or impetus to have others believe as we, as individuals do, has been the cause of more strife in the world than from any other cause. This thread shows all the indications of becoming another EL and to what point? Why should we care [b]exactly[/b] what others believe? Isn’t it enough to know their beliefs are similar to your own if not precisely the same. When you observe any congregation do you really think each and every adherent believes identically? If so, then you are sadly in error and are doomed to constant disappointment.

      Is the KJV of the bible the [b]true[/b] word of God? Only if the reader wishes it to be because each and every reader will, assuming he is capable of thought, impose his own [b]personal[/b] beliefs on the matter, whether he be unbeliever or not.

      I do not think we are in need of another reiteration of EL. We should move on. Nobody’s personal beliefs or thoughts will be altered here today, except for the stirring up of a lot of fruitless and useless acrimony. Leave others to believe as they will; why pursue this further??? It won’t accomplish or change one iota of anything!!! What’s the point, unless you have an undeniable urge for flogging dead horses, in which case flog away. I, for one, am rapidly losing interest.

      Note : At no point have I criticized anyone’s views or beliefs here. All I have said is that we each have our own personal views on the matter and that [b]I, feel[/b] after EL they’ve been overstated to a fare-thee-well; my own views included.

      Enough!!! Move along!!! There’s really nothing here you haven’t seen, read and agreed or disagreed with here before.

      Jardinier, you addressed the resident atheists but I couldn’t help but notice, you left out the agnostics. Are you some kind of bigotted theogonist??? :^O

      [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

      • #3108540

        Another EL thread? Heaven forbid

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to The operative word here is “true”. Hi there, Protius and Jardinier. At ….

        As I abandoned that one by about post number 500, I would not know if any viewpoints are recurring in this discussion.

        Incidentally jd’s divorce thread is a close runner-up at somewhat more than 2,000 posts.

        So what can we deduce from this? That the top two topics which people like to talk abut are religion and relationships. As these are the two areas of human life that people feel most passionate about, this is not surprising.

        So if the people want to talk, let them talk.

      • #3108516

        Poor horse

        by protiusx ·

        In reply to The operative word here is “true”. Hi there, Protius and Jardinier. At ….

        I concur. This horse has been thrown into the blender and set to frappe.

        Sleepin Dawg! Well met my friend. We meet again.

    • #3108501

      For me, No.

      by gregk ·

      In reply to Is the King James Bible the true Word of God?

      Leaving aside all questions of “”Who is this God person anyway?” as was asked for here…

      1. Any translation is just that. Not all concepts will translate correctly or completely. Translators will have off days. The editors will have off days. The printers will have off days. This applies equally to the “Original” Greek MSS. As I recall, Jesus was a Jew, and thus spoke Hebrew, So even the KJV sources were at best translations themselves, and subject to the same problems. The OT has even more problems as the originals are even older than 2000 years

      2. Since the KJV was written, the English language itself has evolved. What was written then does not mean the same thing now. The Story of English by Melvyn Bragg gives an excellent layman’s account of this process.

      3. The originals must be read within the context of the culture of the writers. At at least 2000 years and half a world’s remove, I find this an intractable problem. I am NOT a Jew. I was NOT alive 2000 years ago and so on.

      For myself, I prefer The New Jerusalem Bible. It at least moves the whole thing into modern, non-colloquial, international English, and therefore reduces mis-understandings based on item 2 above, and by going back to the earliest sources possible, and using multiple editors, helps address the points in 1. I dislike the various colloquial versions I have come across as it “dates” very quickly, both with time and distance.

      Of course I do enjoy the KJV for its glowing poetry, but I always go to the modern english I want to understand what was meant.

    • #3108485

      Complex Question

      by oldmicro ·

      In reply to Is the King James Bible the true Word of God?

      The topic is, as I see it, actually two distinct questions:
      1. Is the KJV an accurate translation of the original manuscripts?
      2. Are the original language manuscripts, the “Word of God”?
      And I will add a third:
      3: Have all the Inspired manuscripts been included?
      The first question is the most easily addressed by scolarship, and the availability of more and more ancient copies of the material copied in the original languages. It is at this point that the accuracy of the translation may be addressed. The selection of one rendering of text from varients in available manuscripts, is a difficult job, and one that provides no definitive answer. Teams of translators attempt to reach a consensus as to the rendering that has the widest acceptance in previous translations, although that is still not a compelling attack for people who require absolute truth.
      Second, aside from the above problems of variations in the available manuscripts, lies the fundamental problem. What is meant by “The Word of God” as it applies to anyting that was actually penned on lambskin by human beings? That the work was “Inspired by God” is a position that has been accepted by the whole of Christiandom from the 4th or 5th decade of the Christian era. The properties of “Inerrancy” and “Divine Authorship” have only recently been included, and then only by the small “Protestant” segment of the Christian faith.
      Lastly, there is still division, and again by the smaller “Protestant” segment, concerning the number of books that are considered “Cannonical.” In its earliest editions the KJV had 73 books, and was later reduced to the current 66.
      In my personal opinion, none of these titles, properties, or disagreements amount to a hill of beans. As the Apostle Paul is reported as saying, “I know nothing except Christ, and Him crucified.” Until a person can receive that, the rest of the mess is just a mess.

    • #3108430

      Why would anyone accept a Government translation?

      by brokeneagle ·

      In reply to Is the King James Bible the true Word of God?

      Would Republicans trust a Bible translated by the Clinton Administration?
      Would Democrats trust a Bible translated by the George W. Bush Administration?
      Why trust the version sponsored by King James? The original settlers of New England who were fleeing religious persecution in England did not use it.

    • #3108350

      Some background info is in order

      by rknrlkid ·

      In reply to Is the King James Bible the true Word of God?

      The crux of the argument in the article is NOT the factualness of Christianity. It is about an internal controvesy within Christian circles called “KJV Only-ism.” The context is everything!

      In a very broad nutshell, hard-core KJV-Only-ists are insisting that not only are the original documents supernaturally inspired, but so are the words of the 1611 KJV edition.

      I think it should be noted, however, that a) no other ancient text in history has as many extant copies or as close to the original time of writing as the documents we call the Bible, and 2) Not one essential doctrine that relates to spiritual matters is affected by these “mistakes.” What is referred to as a “mistake” is often just a misspelling of a name, or a variation of something else that does not fundamentally alter the meaning (i.e., “a” instead of “the,” or vice versa).

      There is more evidence, documentarily, for the factualness of Christianity than for the existence of Plato, Homer, or Julius Caeser. Yet no one challenges THOSE documents.

      • #3108322

        I have to disagree

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to Some background info is in order

        All we know from historical documents is that from around 50 AD there was a religious sect – Christians, if you wish – who seemed to believe that Jesus was a historical person. “Jesus”, at least the Jewish equivalent, was a very common first century name. It’s also been well recorded that various faith healers, baptisers and miracle workers were attracting followings at that time – as is normal in times of persecution. The basic storyline behind the gospels – an itinerant healer and preacher who ran afoul of the authorities and was executed for his trouble – is, again, perfectly reasonable.

        One of the issues that I have with your statement “more evidence, documentarily, for the factualness of Christianity” is that you miss, deliberately or otherwise, the real point. There is very little contemporary documentation that proves the existence of Jesus. Despite this, I have no trouble in accepting, as the simplest explanation for the Gospels and the Christianity, is that it was founded by a person named Jesus. Whether it was [b]your[/b] Jesus, the Son of God, is another matter entirely.

        Much, much more contemporary documentary eveidence exists for the other historical figures that you listed. All of them could write and had some of their writings preserved. There are accounts written by people who met them. There are statues.

        The only reason why the bible has so many copies and versions is that, for a large part of the post-Roman history of the western world, only the clergy could read or write and therefore only Christian texts were available. I won’t go ito the motives, and therefore the morality, of the clergy in keeping the peasants ignorant.


        Sorry Jules. I’d rather not participate in this discussion at all but then it would degenerate into a prayer meeting.

        • #3109267

          Documentary evidence, not hearsay

          by rknrlkid ·

          In reply to I have to disagree

          Big difference, I agree.

          My point is this: there are more (quantity) extant manuscripts of the New Testament than there are of any other in antiquity, and with closer ages to the autographs.

          The existence of Homer has been argued among scholars for decades. He cannot be proven to be a “real person” even by your own standards, because very few, and incomplete, manuscripts exist, and they are from thousands of years after the writing of the original. Socrates wrote nothing, all the evidence that he existed came from Plato, and very few manuscripts of Plato are in existence, and they, too are close to a thousand years after the original writing. Yet who argues against Plato, Socrates or Homer? No one. Why? Because of personal bias. “Scholarship” believes what it wants to believe.

          With thousands of manuscripts in existence, and the earliest within 300 years of original writing, the survival of the New Testament documents is a marvel of history. On top of this, there are contemporaneous accounts of Christianity, and NOT from the Christians too. Remember, the Romans kept records of everything just like we do. There are extant court records of trials of prominent Romans accused of being Christian.

          The reason that there are so many copies of the NT in existence has nothing to do with a priesthood. There was no organized priesthood in early Christianity, because it a common man’s religion. Manuscripts were copied and recopied because people believed it. The clergy system as we know it was a later invention.

          If I was home, I would give you precise numbers on the manuscripts. Most people do not know this about the numbers because its a rather obscure subject.

        • #3109224

          Slightly at cross-purposes, here

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Documentary evidence, not hearsay

          Amongst the things that you aren’t taking into account is that the existence or non-existence of Homer or Socrates as real – rather than composite – figures is, in the great scheme of things, not really very important. The proven existence of Julius Caesar is more significant and, in fact, considerably easier because of his prominence. The proven existence of Jesus in the eyes of Christians – and even in the eyes of an atheist such as myself – would obviously be many orders of magnitude more important than Caesar. I think that it demands a greater burden of proof.

          Jesus, during his lifetime, was not a prominent figure so I would have been surprised if any contemporary writings existed even as scraps. The majority – if not all – of the documents whose subject was the life of Jesus were written long after the event. In my original post, I did not discount either the writings concerning early Christianity or even the link between Christianity and someone called Jesus.

          I simply question whether documents written with the particular motivation of the early Christians could ever be even slightly impartial and factual.

          By the way, the Church hierarchy was very well established by the Third Century. By that time, common man’s religion it was not. It was around that time that the selection of what was and was not to be included in the NT was begun.

        • #3108933

          No, no, no Neil. Please stay

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to I have to disagree

          Not only are your posts totally objective, but I cannot think of anything you have said with which I disagree.

          I especially appreciate the above post with which I can find no fault or point of disagreement.

      • #3108914

        Further Reading for all who are iterested

        by oldmicro ·

        In reply to Some background info is in order

        There exists an article written by one of the founding professors of the Harvard Law School that is facinating reading.
        “Testimony of the Evangelists, by Simon Greenleaf”
        I hope that a few viewers will take the time to read his view on this subject.

        • #3133458

          Further reading?

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Further Reading for all who are iterested

          More like gobbledegook and waffle.

          Now if I was on trial for murder, this is one lawyer I would NOT like to depend on for my defence.

          Although the judge might choose to dismiss the charges rather than listen to more like this.

        • #3133437

          He’s dead, Jules

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Further reading?

          and quite a long time ago, too. That would probably be a plus if he was defending you.

          I dipped into the page but I couldn’t get more than a paragraph in before my brain siezed up. The guy might have had a wonderful revelation to make but I was never going to read it.

          Haven’t these people heard of “Executive Summary”?

        • #3133414

          Neil you will love this

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Further reading?

          I have just been accused by some smart-ass former pastor in a discussion at the Christian website of the horrendous heresy of dialectical thinking.

          I replied in part:

          Thank you for the compliment.

          Above all else I value my intellectual integrity. Yes, I question everything without any preconceived ideas.

          My mind will ALWAYS remain open to new knowledge and insights.

        • #3133404

          Hah! Typical rationalist!

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Neil you will love this

          Taking his intended insult as a compliment.

          They tend to be a little more direct with me, “Servant of the Antichrist”, “Bastard smartarse” – either of which causes me a small glow of “mission accomplished”.


        • #3133165


          by jellimonsta ·

          In reply to Hah! Typical rationalist!

          I do not view you as ‘Bastard Son Of The AntiChrist’. Even though we obviously disagree, I always appreciate your wit, intellect, and discourse.

          I view you as an extremely intellegent peer with whom I very much appreciate conversation.

          Of course, I realize I am MORE intellegent than you, due to the fact that I KNOW I do NOT KNOW anything! :p

        • #3133198

          I love it

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Further Reading for all who are iterested

          Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and headstrong, to bring irresistible evidence to the daring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless and perverse cannot possibly escape. This might go to destroy man’s responsibility. All that Christianity professes, is to propose such evidences as may satisfy the meek, the tractable, the candid, the serious inquirer.”

          meek, tractable, candid, serious enquirer
          perverse, headstrong, daring, profane, proud, scornful and careless.

          It’s always nice to see an unbiased investigation into important issues

          Oh my ribs

    • #3109294


      by protiusx ·

      In reply to Is the King James Bible the true Word of God?

      I have been reading a lot of the replies and it dawned on me that this is one of many threads that have been posted with the expressed intent to discredit the Christian faith. I have not in the past two years seen one thread that questioned the writings or validity of any other religion. It appears that in this forum Wicca, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shamanism, Zoral Asterism, (only to name a few) are perfectly legitimate religions and should never be questioned but (insert deity here) forbid that someone actually be a dreaded Christian!

      I?ve said it before and I will say it again ? I am not going to convince anyone of the authenticity of the Christian scripture. To do so is to throw pearls before swine. I have said my piece and that is that.

      • #3109258

        This not completely fair, Protius

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to Enough

        This an American-based website and, therefore, the majority of people who access it are English speaking and from nominally Christian countries, such as England and others, more demonstrably Christian, such as the USA.

        Under these circumstances you are going to get posts from those Christians who care to post and from atheists from the aforementioned countries who might care to respond. These – and I say this from personal experience – are likely to be more “anti” Christian rather than the other faiths simply because they are exposed more to Christianity.

        If any of your listed “other” religions want to get involved then they can. But they don’t. We will thus end up in a kind of back-slapping prayer meeting with any thread that mentions Christianity or we will end up with what we do, in fact, get and this is a polarised discussion with atheists versus the Soldiers of the Lord.

        I can’t see anything else happening for a long time. Live with it or stop posting. Your faith is surely strong enough to do either. I’m not going to stop posting if I see something that I disagree with.

        I would also like to point out that neither I nor Absolutely – servants of The Antichrist both – have ever started an anti-religious thread. So, if you guys want to lift up the flat rock, don’t get upset if something crawls out.

        I also think that you’re being unfair to Julian in lumping him in with Abs and me. The article referenced in the thread-opener was an article by a Christian commenting on the King James version. The opening sentence “the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant, inspired, and our final authority for faith and life” doesn’t strike me as something that a Christian-basher would point you to “with the expressed intent to discredit the Christian faith”.

        A. Swine

        • #3108805

          I understand

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to This not completely fair, Protius

          I am not angry and I hope I have not offended anyone. I love reading your replies because while we do disagree with one another on a great many things you are always magnanimous and very witty.

          I do see your point about the persons who post to this web site. I will continue to post as well.

          Thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow so to speak. My oldest son loves to flip over rocks and find the bugs underneath. We went to the beach on holiday and he found thousands of tiny crabs and sea creatures under there. When I read your post I got a good mental picture of your small face under the rock smiling saying ?Hello?

        • #3108798

          And poking out my tongue

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to I understand


          Well, of course I’m not offended. I do reserve the right to twist JacksonMN’s leg off and beat him with it, though.

          Where are you at, these days? Still in the land of the exploding camel? You seem not to be posting on Seattle time!


        • #3108657


          by protiusx ·

          In reply to And poking out my tongue

          You are correct my British friend. I am still in Iraq. I will be returning to my beloved drizzle very very soon. Not soon enough however. I have had the great fortune to meet some very nice British friends here and while I can barely believe it myself I have switched to tea rather than coffee. Now coming from a Seattleite that is saying something. I will probably be disowned when I get home but I am sure the Starbuck shamans will cast some spell and make me return to the brown nectar.

        • #3133228

          Neil …

          by jacksonian ·

          In reply to And poking out my tongue


          Curious, at which point during this topic have you beaten me with an appendage?

        • #3133225

          I haven’t

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Neil …

          I just informed Protius that I reserve the right so to do.


        • #3133196

          Are you trying to tell us you’re an appendage beater.

          by sleepin’dawg ·

          In reply to I haven’t

          Or are you just a plain old master baiter??? :^O
          Sorry Neil, I just couldn’t resist but you did post it.

          [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

        • #3133184

          Avaunt, Dawg!

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to I haven’t

          That’s posh-speak from around the time of the KJV Bible for “bugger off”!

          I’m going home now. You’ve upset me. I’ll probably have to go and pig-out on a curry to make myself feel better.

        • #3133170


          by jellimonsta ·

          In reply to I haven’t

          I thought Dawg was the one with the fragile anima? :p

        • #3107733

          Don’t tell anyone.Jelli

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to I haven’t

          but it was just an excuse for a lamb jalfrezi. I don’t do “upset” – except when I want to. I’m supposed to be on a diet…

        • #3107648

          Jelli, damn man, I expected better than that. As for Neil…………..

          by sleepin’dawg ·

          In reply to I haven’t

          Look at Neil he gives me stuff I can work with. Definitely not up to your standards.

          Neil, what’s with the diet business??? Hope it’s only a weight loss thing, I wouldn’t like it to be for medical reasons.

          [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

        • #3134520

          I am, alas,

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to I haven’t

          what we in this country would call a “lardy git”. More than 220lb in American money and a good lump of it put on over Christmas and not lost over the last couple of weeks while we were reorganising all of our storage.

          Pizza? Pizza! Damn. I’ve ordered too much again…

        • #3134480

          don’t you mean

          by gadgetgirl ·

          In reply to I haven’t

          you’re extra cuddly?

          (just spent 10 mins converting your weight back to real money…….!)

          Not that I would know, of course, because….

          [b]YOU STOOD ME UP!!![/b]



          Jules – profuse apologies for hijacking this post in your thread, but the opportunity was way too good to miss….sowwy! 😡 GG

        • #3107995

          Indian Food

          by jellimonsta ·

          In reply to I haven’t

          I actually had my first taste of Indian Food since I have been in the States (eight years). Went to an Indian Buffet with some friends. It was actually very good and I will have to visit there again. I just wish they had some Chicken Korma on hand when I was there. 🙁

    • #3133457

      This discussion is NOT

      by jardinier ·

      In reply to Is the King James Bible the true Word of God?

      nor ever was intended to be about my personal beliefs.

      Protius will never understand where I am coming from.

      While Neil would not agree with my beliefs, I feel sure that he WOULD understand where I am coming from.

      • #3133354


        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to This discussion is NOT

        On one side non-believers who can use the thread to point out that some of the arguments for are a tad illogical. The other, those who view you raising doubt that this bible is the verbatim word of god and therefore challenging their faith.

        Like all such threads, an excuse for people to state their view, logical debate hardly.

    • #3107726

      For jardinier

      by jacksonian ·

      In reply to Is the King James Bible the true Word of God?

      You posted some of the following (which I couldnt respond to in the original thread titled “Replying to JacksonMN@.. (19 of 128)” (The max message depth was exceeded))

      You said that you “have not described your faith or the source(s) of it” and that I was “not in a position to comment on it”.

      I have not described my faith to you either, so how can you be in a position to comment on mine or any other Christians for that matter? Your faith comes from a myriad of sources, and I guess you feel that (like being bilingual) that makes you “hyper-spiritual”.

      I can read a few books and talk to a few people about avionics, but that doesnt make me a pilot ..

      You also noted something about baffling me in regards to the source of your faith. Believe me, you are not baffling me in any way. I wasnt always a believer in Christ, and I know plenty about what the world has to offer.

      I also find it rather amusing that you feel that you have the secret “profound understanding” about God in terms of having a greater understanding of scripture.

      From “Christian meditation” to “osmosis”, its all useless, and so profoundly not Christian. Christ didnt hide the truth, nor did he leave cheat codes to warp straight to level 99. As layed out in the Bible, without the guidance of the Holy Spirit it is not from God but worldy nonsense … (see 1 Cor 2:12-14 & 1 John 2:20, 27).

      With this alchemical approach you have towards “religion”, you are not turning lead into gold.

      Since you stated you based your faith on Christian principles, you started with gold.
      y diluting the truth with different worldy concepts (see the book of Revelation for detail), you are turning gold into dirt …

      You also mention your faith is distinct (from any particular denomination or interpretation). I do not claim a particular denomination, does that make me uber-spiritual?

      Every Christians faith is distinct, that is why encouragement and fellowship is important. To lift up others in areas we are strong in and to be lifted up in areas that others are strong in.

      • #3107666

        Jesus said: “I am the way, the truth and the life …

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to For jardinier

        no-one comes to the Father but by me.”

        For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.

        Well there ya go. That says it all, doesn’t it.

        I have no intention of describing my “profound understanding” because it would fall on deaf ears.

        Re: “The max message depth was exceeded” the answer to that is to post to an earlier thread linked to, but above the one you are answering.

    • #3107712

      The King James Bible is. . . . . .

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Is the King James Bible the true Word of God?

      …..just the right thickness to balance that table with one short leg.

    • #3134380

      My Interpretation

      by dr_zinj ·

      In reply to Is the King James Bible the true Word of God?

      1. I come from a raised as a Roman Catholic background.
      2. The writers were certainly inspired OF God. But I sincerely doubt they were inspired BY God. There are too many differences in translation to convey accurate, original meaning. If God is so great and he inspired the Bible, then he’d have made sure that there was one version, completely accurately translated into any language, that would be accurately and identically understood be everyone that read it. Instead, we have a myriad of “christian” religions that have resorted to bloodshed and pursecution over the millenia; not exactly what I think God intended.
      3. I think the Bible should be a starting point for people to find God. Unfortunately, various organizations and the passage of time have done a terrific job of eliminating conflicting viewpoints or viewpoints that do not reinforce the positions of those already in power.
      4. Jesus of Nazareth was a son of God. One of the best; but we are all sons and daughters of God, at least according to the Bible.
      5. The Popes aren’t and weren’t infallable. Some of them, including the ‘legitimate’ ones, were downright wrong. Neither is the Dali Lama. Buddah made mistakes. Jesus is on record for having his temper get the best of him and trashing a market.
      6. There are many roads to “Heaven”. Christianity can take you there. So can Islam. So can Buddism. So can Hinduism. So can the path of Taoists, animists, etc.
      7. Most of us are totally ignorant of what God really wants us to do. Unfortunately, too many of us don’t know it and are proud of it.
      8. I have yet to find someone who can really tell me who or what God really is. Not saying they don’t know; just that they are incapable of communicating that information.
      9. The 10 Commandments are one of the major bases for our legal system in the United States. No reason to tear copies out of government buildings; but I’d like to see copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (with ammendments) equally prominently posted.
      10. I’m just a voice of a man in the wilderness. I may sound like a howling coyote. If you listen to dogs barking, you’ll go deaf early, and not learn very much.

    • #3134299

      don’t need to read the article

      by jck ·

      In reply to Is the King James Bible the true Word of God?

      I’ve been saying for years…after you see history filled with idiot rulers who manipulated things to their advantage…including the church…how can you not say any Bible is impure?

      Plus the fact, the men who have transcribed it and interpreted it over the centuries probably have not conveyed all the original writings perfectly.

      Humans are imperfect. The Bible has gone through thousands of modifications and transcriptions by humans.

      Therefore, it’s content (or that of any other modern religious tome) should not be considered perfect and should not in any way be considered the “true word of God”.

    • #3096848


      by donkey ·

      In reply to Is the King James Bible the true Word of God?

      Is there any naked chicks in this bible?

      • #3096840


        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to Nudies

        No pictures though so you might struggle.

    • #3092830

      Excellent article

      by montgomery gator ·

      In reply to Is the King James Bible the true Word of God?

      Thanks for the link. The KJV is one of many translations of the true Word of God. As the article points out, it does have its flaws. Those of us who do not know Hebrew and Greek must depend on those who do to translate from the original language. And as the article points out, there is disagreements as to which texts are closest to the original. But as far as differences I have seen and know about, none of them are major enough to make for a difference in orthodox Christian theology.

      I prefer the New King James Version myself. The translators used the general grammar and text of the KJV, updated to modern English, but retranslated from the original Greek and Hebrew, with footnotes pointing out where the various Hebrew and Greek manuscripts now in existence vary, as the article points out.

Viewing 21 reply threads