Do you believe everything the Bible says?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Do you believe everything the Bible says?

  • Yes

    Votes: 31 93.9%
  • No

    Votes: 2 6.1%

  • Total voters
    33

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,778
113
The MT is in error because it has a clear contradiction in it.
The so-called "errors" and "contradictions" in the Bible can all be reconciled. But since the Masoretic Text is the traditional Hebrew text of the Bible, and the Hebrew scribes since the time of Moses were meticulous in copying the manuscripts very carefully, anyone claiming that the MT is erroneous has a hidden agenda. Proof of the faithfulness of the MT was found in the Isaiah scroll discovered with the Dead Sea Scrolls.
 
N

notonmywatch

Guest
The so-called "errors" and "contradictions" in the Bible can all be reconciled. But since the Masoretic Text is the traditional Hebrew text of the Bible, and the Hebrew scribes since the time of Moses were meticulous in copying the manuscripts very carefully, anyone claiming that the MT is erroneous has a hidden agenda. Proof of the faithfulness of the MT was found in the Isaiah scroll discovered with the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The New Testament writers, and Jesus himself, quoted from the Septuagint much more than they did from the Masoretic text.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,778
113
The New Testament writers, and Jesus himself, quoted from the Septuagint much more than they did from the Masoretic text.
Actually I did an in-depth analysis of this idea, and discovered that they "quoted" from the LXX about 10% of the time. Naturally some direct translations from the MT would match those from the LXX. So that is a common fallacy, given the fact that the LXX was a Greek translation being used by Hellenistic Jews outside Palestine, whereas the MT was being used within Palestine. Furthermore there is no question that the LXX was a corruption of the OT and this is spelled out by Alfred Edersheim in The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. So would Christ use a corrupted version of what He regarded as "the Holy Scriptures"?
 
N

notonmywatch

Guest
Actually I did an in-depth analysis of this idea, and discovered that they "quoted" from the LXX about 10% of the time. Naturally some direct translations from the MT would match those from the LXX. So that is a common fallacy, given the fact that the LXX was a Greek translation being used by Hellenistic Jews outside Palestine, whereas the MT was being used within Palestine. Furthermore there is no question that the LXX was a corruption of the OT and this is spelled out by Alfred Edersheim in The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. So would Christ use a corrupted version of what He regarded as "the Holy Scriptures"?
Christ did quote from the Septuagint, and you just admitted yourself that the writers of the New Testament did as well, so why don't you try answering your own question?

Btw, I've noticed that your alleged "facts" are often anything but actual facts.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,176
3,700
113
Actually I did an in-depth analysis of this idea, and discovered that they "quoted" from the LXX about 10% of the time. Naturally some direct translations from the MT would match those from the LXX. So that is a common fallacy, given the fact that the LXX was a Greek translation being used by Hellenistic Jews outside Palestine, whereas the MT was being used within Palestine. Furthermore there is no question that the LXX was a corruption of the OT and this is spelled out by Alfred Edersheim in The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. So would Christ use a corrupted version of what He regarded as "the Holy Scriptures"?
There was no pre-Christian, official and authoritative so called Greek Septuagint. What passes for the LXX today is nothing more than the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus manuscripts, all of which were written some 250 to 300 years AFTER the New Testament was already complete. And they contradict themselves thousands of times.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,778
113
Christ did quote from the Septuagint, and you just admitted yourself that the writers of the New Testament did as well, so why don't you try answering your own question?
I said the exact opposite. There was no need for a Greek OT within Hebrew speaking Palestine. And if you want facts go to the book I mentioned and see them for yourself.
 
N

notonmywatch

Guest
I said the exact opposite. There was no need for a Greek OT within Hebrew speaking Palestine. And if you want facts go to the book I mentioned and see them for yourself.
Which is why the New Testament was written in Greek, right?

Learn something before attempting to teach others.
 
Dec 21, 2020
1,825
474
83
The so-called "errors" and "contradictions" in the Bible can all be reconciled. But since the Masoretic Text is the traditional Hebrew text of the Bible, and the Hebrew scribes since the time of Moses were meticulous in copying the manuscripts very carefully, anyone claiming that the MT is erroneous has a hidden agenda. Proof of the faithfulness of the MT was found in the Isaiah scroll discovered with the Dead Sea Scrolls.
You yourself have recently claimed that the KJV has a translation error in it. I will locate your post if necessary. Do you have a hidden agenda?

What is your explanation for the contradiction between 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chron 22:2?
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,606
13,863
113
I said the exact opposite. There was no need for a Greek OT within Hebrew speaking Palestine. And if you want facts go to the book I mentioned and see them for yourself.
There's something critical that you overlooked: Hebrew wasn't the language of the people by that period, and hadn't been since the Babylonian captivity.
 

Papermonkey

Active member
Dec 2, 2022
724
257
43
The so-called "errors" and "contradictions" in the Bible can all be reconciled. But since the Masoretic Text is the traditional Hebrew text of the Bible, and the Hebrew scribes since the time of Moses were meticulous in copying the manuscripts very carefully, anyone claiming that the MT is erroneous has a hidden agenda. Proof of the faithfulness of the MT was found in the Isaiah scroll discovered with the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Fascinating.Because the KJV translators followed the MT. :)
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,778
113
Fascinating. Because the KJV translators followed the MT. :)
Yes, they did. The OT was available in printed form and called Mikraot Gedolot (Great Scriptures) also called "the Great Rabbinic Bible", produced and edited by the Jewish scholar Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adonyah and published by Daniel Bomberg in Venice (1524-1525). It was based on the Leningrad Codex (1008-1009) which is the complete Hebrew Bible using the Masoretic Text (traditional text). What most people do not know is that the scribes called Masoretes were following the ancient Hebrew scribes in the way they handled their Scriptures. Every letter was counted. So the Isaiah scroll which Jesus read is represented in our Old Testament, and the Isaiah scroll which the Ethiopian was reading while traveling in his chariot was exactly the same (but there are slight variations given by Luke).

The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. (Acts 8:32,33)

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. (Isa 53:7,8)

As we can see, there are slight variations in the NT, but since both Acts and Isaiah were given by the Holy Spirit, we can rest assured that God allowed those variations (since the Holy Spirit is interpreting His own words). But the OT is an exact match to the Hebrew MT (making allowance for differences in word order):
נִגַּ֨שׂ וְה֣וּא נַעֲנֶה֮ וְלֹ֣א יִפְתַּח־פִּיו֒ כַּשֶּׂה֙ לַטֶּ֣בַח יוּבָ֔ל וּכְרָחֵ֕ל לִפְנֵ֥י גֹזְזֶ֖יהָ נֶאֱלָ֑מָה וְלֹ֥א יִפְתַּ֖ח פִּֽיו
He was oppressed and He was afflicted yet not He opened His mouth. As a lamb to the slaughter He was led, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so not He opened His mouth.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,778
113
What is your explanation for the contradiction between 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chron 22:2?
Here is John Gill's explanation but it is not entirely satisfactory: "it seems best to acknowledge a mistake of the copier, which might easily be made through a similarity of the numeral letters, forty two, for twenty two..."
אַרְבָּעִ֨ים ’ar-bā-‘îm = forty
וּשְׁתַּ֤יִם ū-šə-ta-yim = and two
--------------------------------------
עֶשְׂרִ֨ים ‘eś-rîm = twenty
וּשְׁתַּ֤יִם ū-šə-ta-yim = and two
-----------------------------------------
In Clarke's commentary on 2 Kings 8:26 here is what we read: "I add, that no mode of solution yet found out has succeeded in removing the difficulty; and of all the MSS. which have been collated, and they amount to several hundred, not one confirms the reading of twenty-two years. And to it all the ancient versions are equally unfriendly. "

There is probably some explanation for this discrepancy but it has not been resolved.
 
Dec 21, 2020
1,825
474
83
Here is John Gill's explanation but it is not entirely satisfactory: "it seems best to acknowledge a mistake of the copier, which might easily be made through a similarity of the numeral letters, forty two, for twenty two..."
אַרְבָּעִ֨ים ’ar-bā-‘îm = forty
וּשְׁתַּ֤יִם ū-šə-ta-yim = and two
--------------------------------------
עֶשְׂרִ֨ים ‘eś-rîm = twenty
וּשְׁתַּ֤יִם ū-šə-ta-yim = and two
-----------------------------------------
In Clarke's commentary on 2 Kings 8:26 here is what we read: "I add, that no mode of solution yet found out has succeeded in removing the difficulty; and of all the MSS. which have been collated, and they amount to several hundred, not one confirms the reading of twenty-two years. And to it all the ancient versions are equally unfriendly. "

There is probably some explanation for this discrepancy but it has not been resolved.
To me, John Gill's explanation is reasonable. A simple copyist's error. God is only responsible for the autographs, and despite their best intentions, people sometimes make simple mistakes.
 
Jun 20, 2022
6,460
1,330
113
Fascinating.Because the KJV translators followed the MT. :)
You mean they followed the Textus Receptus which followed the revised 10th Century Latin Vulgate.

One thing that is fortunate was Jerome redacted the Septuagint by comparing the Septuagint to the Hebrew and made the corrections in his Latin Vulgate.

The unfortunate issue about 4th Century and 10th Century revision of the Vulgate had [[NOTHING]] to do with the Old Testament but rather the New Testament. This is where the majority of errors exist between the KJV and the oldest Greek Text we have in existence.
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,691
113
So you need to investigate for yourself whether the verse belongs in Scripture or not. Assuming it does is just as dangerous as assuming it doesn't.
This one. Do these convey the same message? I don’t think they do.

Revelation 22

NIV
14“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.

KJV
14Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,606
13,863
113
This one. Do these convey the same message? I don’t think they do.

Revelation 22

NIV
14“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.

KJV
14Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
I agree; the wording is different, but is the message different? Do you know, by context, which is correct? No. Assuming either one is (and that the other is not) is silly. It is incumbent upon the reader to do their own homework.
 

Papermonkey

Active member
Dec 2, 2022
724
257
43
You mean they followed the Textus Receptus which followed the revised 10th Century Latin Vulgate.

One thing that is fortunate was Jerome redacted the Septuagint by comparing the Septuagint to the Hebrew and made the corrections in his Latin Vulgate.

The unfortunate issue about 4th Century and 10th Century revision of the Vulgate had [[NOTHING]] to do with the Old Testament but rather the New Testament. This is where the majority of errors exist between the KJV and the oldest Greek Text we have in existence.
No, I actually meant what I said.
 

ForestGreenCook

Well-known member
Jul 8, 2018
8,441
1,213
113
How many times have you been saved? Surely there have been countless of times when you did not walk in the truth and lost it. How many?

Saved, according to Strong's concordance, means delivered. God's born again children are eternally delivered only one time, but are delivered many times as they sojourn here on earth.