What exactly constitutes a sin?

[Annie]

Direct line from what? I can read the bible and interpret what I read. What I 'quoted' is VERY accurate to the message Jesus was teaching. It's 'real language' translation.

sorry, but I don't have access to the very accurate bible you seem to be referring to.

I'd like to buy it, so which version and publisher?

 

[Gabriella84]

So it is not a sin if you pick up the magazine just to read the articles?

 

[Gabriella84]

The reason there are different interpretations of the Bible (as I understand it) is that none of it was written in Biblical times. It was all not transcribed until later.

 

[Gunny]

sorry, but I don't have access to the very accurate bible you seem to be referring to.

I'd like to buy it, so which version and publisher?

The Hustler version, published by Flynt. :dev1:

 

[Annie]

The reason there are different interpretations of the Bible (as I understand it) is that none of it was written in Biblical times. It was all not transcribed until later.

Actually, as much as it pains me, I'll disagree. The transcriptions happened at site. Problem has been, the transcriptions of the transcriptions.

Funniest part, it was the RC monks that fooled with text, but it's the orthodox who will claim 'Christ's quotes.'

 

[Hobbit]

The reason there are different interpretations of the Bible (as I understand it) is that none of it was written in Biblical times. It was all not transcribed until later.

It was written down. However, publishing it as written would be like publishing my physics notes as written. It wasn't formally written, was written in dozens of languages, and didn't have much, if any, organization to it. The reason formalizing took so long was that mere possession of Christian scriptures was punishable by death. Once that ceased, formalizing was possible. However, it was still written in several languages, so only the most educated of linguists could even read a Bible without having to worry about mistranslations. This fact seems to escape many, which is why there are so many people arguing over the definition of 'murder' when all they really have to do is look at the Hebrew word. It's also why parts concering 'witches' and 'sorcerors' seem a bit odd. The original words meant things like poisoners, fortune tellers, and mystical scam artists. Given the already present errors in any English translation, I don't think paraphrasing is such a bad idea in many situations, and I'm especially confused by those who believe that the KJV is the only valid English translation, as it's actually the furthest from the meaning behind the original.

 

[-Cp]

Properly understood, the doctrine of inerrancy—the teaching that the Bible contains no errors—applies only to the original copies of the biblical documents. The original writings came directly from God through human authors.

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic (cf. Genesis 31:46; Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; Jeremiah 10:11; Daniel 2:4-7:28), and the New Testament was penned in Greek. After the Old and New Testament books were written, scribes produced and distributed copies of the original manuscripts. They took painstaking care to craft those copies by hand, long before the days of the printing press.

In God’s providence, we no longer have the original documents. They disappeared over time. What we have available now are copies of those original documents—copies produced over a number of centuries. By comparing and analyzing those copies through a process called textual criticism, we are able to determine what the original manuscripts said and where variations crept into the copies. That process has confirmed that God has accurately preserved His Word for us.

The "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" correctly notes:


Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming…a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free…Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autograph. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach.

While you can’t handle the original documents today, you can have confidence that most English Bibles faithfully represent what was contained in those documents. God has providentially preserved His Word for subsequent generations despite the best efforts of many of His enemies to eliminate it.

 

[Gunny]

It was written down. However, publishing it as written would be like publishing my physics notes as written. It wasn't formally written, was written in dozens of languages, and didn't have much, if any, organization to it. The reason formalizing took so long was that mere possession of Christian scriptures was punishable by death. Once that ceased, formalizing was possible. However, it was still written in several languages, so only the most educated of linguists could even read a Bible without having to worry about mistranslations. This fact seems to escape many, which is why there are so many people arguing over the definition of 'murder' when all they really have to do is look at the Hebrew word. It's also why parts concering 'witches' and 'sorcerors' seem a bit odd. The original words meant things like poisoners, fortune tellers, and mystical scam artists. Given the already present errors in any English translation, I don't think paraphrasing is such a bad idea in many situations, and I'm especially confused by those who believe that the KJV is the only valid English translation, as it's actually the furthest from the meaning behind the original.

While not an expert by any means, I seem to recall that when compared to the Dead Seas Scrolls, the KJV was amazingly accurate. You just have to get through all the begatting ......

 

[Gabriella84]

Thanks for the information. Not being a Bible authority, I always like to have things cleared up.

 

[Hobbit]

While not an expert by any means, I seem to recall that when compared to the Dead Seas Scrolls, the KJV was amazingly accurate. You just have to get through all the begatting ......

The points where it's not, though, have caused more contraversy in the church than is anywhere near logical. The KJV says, "Thou shalt not kill."

Despite numerous passages concerning God commanding that someone be killed, people use this to argue against war and the death penalty. However, the orginal Hebrew word meant an unlawful killing, and was more akin to 'murder' than the more general word 'kill.' Also, King James was paranoid of witches and the like, so he used those terms wherever possible. Most places where the KJV list 'sorcerers' and 'witches,' the word actually has a very specific meaning that sometimes isn't even included in the definition of the word used. In fact, one of those references to witches can actually be translated from Greek as "one who kills with poison," hardly a magic-using hag, if you ask me.

 

[dmp]

sorry, but I don't have access to the very accurate bible you seem to be referring to.

I'd like to buy it, so which version and publisher?

uh? it's no version nor publisher...don't you get that? lol

It's simply 'me' telling 'you' (you = the reader) what Christ said. I don't get caught up on "Well, the ancient text say Jesus said 'Happy' and YOU said 'Glad'!!!"

 

[Annie]

uh? it's no version nor publisher...don't you get that? lol

It's simply 'me' telling 'you' (you = the reader) what Christ said. I don't get caught up on "Well, the ancient text say Jesus said 'Happy' and YOU said 'Glad'!!!"

Not trying to be 'cute' here, but seems that you and some such as Cp and others think they have the 'final word.' I'd like in or is it that Christ only talks verbatim to you guys?

 

[Hobbit]

Not trying to be 'cute' here, but seems that you and some such as Cp and others think they have the 'final word.' I'd like in or is it that Christ only talks verbatim to you guys?

I could be wrong, but I think he was just paraphrasing.

 

[Annie]

I could be wrong, but I think he was just paraphrasing.

Think so?

 

[-Cp]

Not trying to be 'cute' here, but seems that you and some such as Cp and others think they have the 'final word.' I'd like in or is it that Christ only talks verbatim to you guys?

Has nothing to do with "Christ only talking to us" - has a lot to do with knowing scripture...

 

[Annie]

Has nothing to do with "Christ only talking to us" - has a lot to do with knowing scripture...

Again, which version, so I can get it 'right.'

 

[-Cp]

Again, which version, so I can get it 'right.'

There is no "right or wrong" version of the Christian Bible...

Knock yerself out:

King James
NIV
NAS
Living Bible
etc
etc

They all say the same things...

 

[dmp]

Not trying to be 'cute' here, but seems that you and some such as Cp and others think they have the 'final word.' I'd like in or is it that Christ only talks verbatim to you guys?

what possibly gives you that Idea? There's NO way you could logically assume that, from the conversation here. The final word as to what Christ says? there's no mystery...there's no conspiracy...it's (gasp!) In the Bible!!! Yup...sure has shit.

And in MY bible, His words are in Red Text! It helps!

 

[Annie]

what possibly gives you that Idea? There's NO way you could logically assume that, from the conversation here. The final word as to what Christ says? there's no mystery...there's no conspiracy...it's (gasp!) In the Bible!!! Yup...sure has shit.

And in MY bible, His words are in Red Text! It helps!

Fine, what version IS 'your bible?' That was the simple, unextended question awhile ago. What is the big deal?

 

[dmp]

Fine, what version IS 'your bible?' That was the simple, unextended question awhile ago. What is the big deal?

The big deal is you harping on 'publisher' for the 'bible' I used in my relation of how Jesus instructs us on what constitutes 'sin'.

I read www.biblegateway.com