The bible was written by men.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Language does change but not necessarily to the degree you are portraying.

Additionally linguists are able to look to antiquities and see how those words were used

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:

[Ferd]

What we should be able to agree on is that God breathed on a select group of men who from that inspiration, penned the most increadable document the world has ever known.

We should be able to stand together in awe of a book that was penned thousands of years ago, that speaks accross the eons to a people who likely could not even survive a week in the world during the time the book was written but who are inspired, directed, convicted, bolstered, built up, broken and above understand LOVE because of this one miraculous book.

Sadly, as much as we should all be able to agree on this, we cannot.

[Austin]

It doesn't make any difference what people think. The word is still here, it still causes faith to act, and it still saves souls. The only ones that the word of God does not work for are those who are in consistent debates because their faith wavers.
Always learning, but never able to come to the truth.
Then again there are those who are reprobate to the faith. Those who had a vast knowledge of the word of God even knowing the mystery of the Godhead, which is a great mystery, have gone away by the error of their lusts.

[NotforSale]

Originally Posted by Stephanas

True.

Not true.

All of the resources necessary to decipher a passage written in Old English are readily available to us - just as they are for Biblical languages.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to identify a significant Bible doctrine that is based "off a word" that we have misunderstood.

Problem is, those resources are not the originals. Not a single, original Book in the Scripture is available; they are all copies.

And, the language of those copies that we use to verify the New Testament are all Greek, the expressive tongue of the Romans. We can slice it, dice it, and ignore this fact, but the bottom line is, Cultural ideals undermine every language. Slang, interpretation, meaning, these all play out differently when walking into another Nation.

For instance, the word, Present; Present, as in a gift. Present as in, here and now. Present, as in, “We will now present”. This word play is present (no pun intended) in all forms of communication.

Other problems; we don't know who the Author's are in any of the 66 Books of the Bible; the Gospels were written 60-100 years A.D., and none of them were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John; the Canon is up for debate, including the addition of the Book of Revelation, which wasn't included in the New Testament Canon until 400 A.D.; language barriers do pose a problem, as expression, idea, and communication in other Cultures are far different than English Tradition and lifestyle.

If we don’t think language is a problem, just reflect on the Tower of Babble. I also see this obvious conflict in modern Christendom, where the Church model isn’t even close to the original format of the early Church. We claim we are Apostolic, but in reality, we are culturally locked up in a method that is bound by an idea, formed through our current language of thought and feeling.

[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

[Ev. Duane Williams]

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:

The Lord's Prayer?

[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.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by crakjak

God has revealed Himself in the scriptures thru the words written by men. Do we have a perfect canon today, I don't think so, but God is assuredly found in the text, and He further reveals Himself to us by His Spirit.

bump

[Amanah]

I trust that God has preserved his word for us and that we are able to find eternal life through his words.

I know that we don't have perfect understanding and that we see thru a glass darkly.

I believe that we are to pray and study his word and let him lead us and guide us thru prayer and study.

I continue to pray and search the scriptures to come to a fuller and better understanding of my Lord and Savior.

and while I earnestly contend for the faith as I have believed it, I don't discount others who believe differently then I do, or suggest they are on their way to hell, for I am not the judge.

ok, maybe I have suggested a few might be on their way to hell, but if I did I was provoked, lol.

[Timmy]

Throughout human history, some people have believed God spoke to them. Some of those people wrote things down. It's possible that some of these written things really did come from God and some did not. It's also possible that some people can tell which is which. It's also possible that Christians are the ones who can tell, and others can't.

Possibly.