Evidence for God from Science

i recently got in a debate with a skeptic over some contradictions. after a little argument, i found out what he was trying to say. It wasnt really about the contradictions but instead the question was:
Should an English translation of the Bible be considered the infalliable Word of God?
it became clear that we were in agreement that an english translation should not be considered the infalliable Word of God. my reasons for this is that very slight changes would have to be made in translations to account for idioms in both languages and that a lot of what the writers originally ment is lost in translation and the vast culture differences. i do not hold that any of these changes or ideas lost in translation affect any major salvation doctrine.

what do you guys think?

bob2010 wrote:i recently got in a debate with a skeptic over some contradictions. after a little argument, i found out what he was trying to say. It wasnt really about the contradictions but instead the question was:
Should an English translation of the Bible be considered the infalliable Word of God?
it became clear that we were in agreement that an english translation should not be considered the infalliable Word of God. my reasons for this is that very slight changes would have to be made in translations to account for idioms in both languages and that a lot of what the writers originally ment is lost in translation and the vast culture differences. i do not hold that any of these changes or ideas lost in translation affect any major salvation doctrine.

what do you guys think?

I feel that it really depends how much theory will be hung on a very small part of scripture. IOW, it depends on how deeply crutinized the particular passage is.

Clearly when the Bible says we are given Grace through Faith 30 times (or whatever) it's beyond reproach. And there isn't much ambiguity in "thou shalt not kill."

As much as we shouldn't attempt to construct whole new doctrines on a modern English translation, I feel that the entire text can still be trusted as the unfallable Word of God. The Word of God is Truth by very definition. Further, we are promised that His truth will be revealed to us, so based upon that I'm prepared to accept that any sincere translation would be sufficiently preserved by God so that it can definately be taken at face value. The people doing this work are filled with the Holy Spirit after all, and I honestly feel that God would work through them to spread His true Word throughout the world and ages, rather than spreading a distortion of that Word.

In fact, couldn't we argue that the very nature of God would make it impossible for the Holy Spirit working through anyone to actually cause distortion to His Word?

English is now a common language. There are differences in the way we use this medium to communicate what we mean to communicate. I've had difficulty understanding what some English speaking people meant when they said what they said. That's why we can look at the same passage of scripture and interpret it differently.

My conclusion - English Bible is the Word of God but its interpretation may or may not be inspired.

"And there isn't much ambiguity in "thou shalt not kill." "

I was under the impression that it should be "thou shalt not murder". That's how the bible is translated in my original language anyway.

Mastermind wrote:"And there isn't much ambiguity in "thou shalt not kill." "

I was under the impression that it should be "thou shalt not murder". That's how the bible is translated in my original language anyway.

There are translations that say murder, and others say kill. (KJV for instance) Most say murder.

But that goes to show my point. The meaning of the verse is unambigious, and anyone sincerely reading it will understand the point, despite the possible variation inherent in the transalation to English.

Actually, no. Forbidding killing out of nowhere with no clear target would mean not to kill ANYTHING, including food(which must be killed if we are to survive). Murder, on the other hand, refers to either unlawful or unjust killing(I prefer the second one since the law can make mistakes). So what would murder consist of is another debate altogether...

Mastermind wrote:Actually, no. Forbidding killing out of nowhere with no clear target would mean not to kill ANYTHING, including food(which must be killed if we are to survive). Murder, on the other hand, refers to either unlawful or unjust killing(I prefer the second one since the law can make mistakes). So what would murder consist of is another debate altogether...

See, this is exactly what I'm saying. Now you're trying to use one small passage as justification for killing people! You're on the road to creating a whole new doctrine of war in the name of the Lord. To do so would be invalid for a number of reasons, one of which is the accuracy lost in translation.

Rather, let's form some more reasonable conclusions about the passage.

1) The passage refers to killing other people and not to killing animals or trees. Why? Well later on in that very chapter Exodus 20 God extoles them to sacrifice their livestock.

2) 'Just' killing is very debatable, esspecially given that Jesus explained the entire set of commandments (the whole law) rested upon "love the Lord" and "love your neighbour." So killing justly (for instance killing an enemy?) is not just because you should be loving your enemies also.

Felgar wrote:

Mastermind wrote:Actually, no. Forbidding killing out of nowhere with no clear target would mean not to kill ANYTHING, including food(which must be killed if we are to survive). Murder, on the other hand, refers to either unlawful or unjust killing(I prefer the second one since the law can make mistakes). So what would murder consist of is another debate altogether...

See, this is exactly what I'm saying. Now you're trying to use one small passage as justification for killing people! You're on the road to creating a whole new doctrine of war in the name of the Lord. To do so would be invalid for a number of reasons, one of which is the accuracy lost in translation.

Rather, let's form some more reasonable conclusions about the passage.

1) The passage refers to killing other people and not to killing animals or trees. Why? Well later on in that very chapter Exodus 20 God extoles them to sacrifice their livestock.

2) 'Just' killing is very debatable, esspecially given that Jesus explained the entire set of commandments (the whole law) rested upon "love the Lord" and "love your neighbour." So killing justly (for instance killing an enemy?) is not just because you should be loving your enemies also.

Whoa, slow down with the fanaticism Barbarossa. Might I remind you that God does indeed command people to kill? Love thy neihgbour and love thy enemy might not necessarily outlaw any killing. For example, if I went insane or possessed, I would hope for the love of God that somebody does kill me before I can cause any harm. Now, about your two points. The first one is even more proof backing up MY point, since the commandment does not exclude any type of killing. The logical conclusion would be that it refers to murder. Any other conclusion would be placed either on guessing (like you are doing) or result in gross contradictions, like the sacrifice example. The second one, like I explained, does not automatically ban all killing. Hate and love do not have to be a part of killing. For example, let's take a hitman. He gets paid to kill somebody. Does he hate the person? No. Does he kill him? Yes. You can't use Jesus's words in the context of something that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I don't want to turn this into a killing debate thread, but i think my initial point about the issues with building doctrines upon deep meaning of the English translation is valid. I was really only making those points to try to demonstrate to what level that I feel we might reasonably infer meaning into the English translation. One way to do that is to seek reinforcement from elsewhere in the Bible.

Also I wasn't quoting Jesus out of context.. The quote was VERY much IN context because Jesus specifically said that the Law hangs on those 2 commandments. Jesus Himself was refering to the very passage we are debating.

I think RGeeB hit the nail on the head: "My conclusion - English Bible is the Word of God but its interpretation may or may not be inspired." Indeed, our understanding of the Word may be flawed while I can trust that the Word itself is not. To truly understand even the English version at the very deepest level probably requires going back to the original language.