The bible was written by men.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Really? Ya ever seen anyone puffing on a faggot? I have. But not in the obscene sense in which that can be taken. Also Matthew 6:9-13 (in Old English)

Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum
Si þin nama gehalgod
to becume þin rice
gewurþe ðin willa
on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.
urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg
and forgyf us ure gyltas
swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum
and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge
ac alys us of yfele soþlice

Also:

You just made my point. I never denied language changes. I denied it has changed to the degree you have portrayed.

Go through the KJV and look at the words, most still retain the same meaning

And that word was still in use in Britain not too long ago for a bundle of sticks and as far as I know retains the same meaning. That we use it differently here in the states is beside the point.

Also you have not addressed the point that we can look back historically and see how words are used so that we can have confidence today that we know what the bible should say, that was your point right? The fact that we can see how Old English was used, what the words meant and how their alphabet was formed actually goes against your argument

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You just made my point. I never denied language changes. I denied it has changed to the degree you have portrayed.

Go through the KJV and look at the words, most still retain the same meaning

And that word was still in use in Britain not too long ago for a bundle of sticks and as far as I know retains the same meaning. That we use it differently here in the states is beside the point.

Also you have not addressed the point that we can look back historically and see how words are used so that we can have confidence today that we know what the bible should say, that was your point right? The fact that we can see how Old English was used, what the words meant and how their alphabet was formed actually goes against your argument

I told you with examples to what degree I was talking about language changing in my first post. That you won't accept the examples I gave as illuminating to what degree I was saying language changes isn't anything to argue about. So instead of arguing with me about it you should accept that the examples I gave are examples of what I meant in my first post when I said language changes.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I told you with examples to what degree I was talking about language changing in my first post. That you won't accept the examples I gave as illuminating to what degree I was saying language changes isn't anything to argue about. So instead of arguing with me about it you should accept that the examples I gave are examples of what I meant in my first post when I said language changes.

I guess Im trying to tell you the degree does not see that big a deal or challenge. I don't see how the examples sets a "degree'. You posted 2 words maybe a little more. That, to me, is hardly an issue compared to the many many words that exist in the english language

And since the point was to go towards the reliability of the bible my point remains about our ability to look back in history and see how words were used.
What exactly is your point? Is it that we should not base doctrines off the KJV or is it that we can't know for sure what the original greek means because language has changed so much?

So what does all this mean? It means that we cannot take as fact any doctrine based only off a word in the bible that may have had different connotations in the day in which it was written.