Is the Bible 100% truth?

[elder999]

Here we go again...

The King James Bible, or, officially, the Authorized Version, is one of the worst translations of a lot-it was, given the circumstances, still quite an accomplishment-especially for the purely poetic quality of its prose. It's beautiful.

It's also completely and dreadfully wrong, in several key places in the New Testament. These are chiefly due to the Oxford Company (the committee responsible for translation of the Gospels, Acts and Book of Revelation) being dependent upon two earlier English translations, the Great Bible and the Bishops Bible, along with the terms of the commission by James VI, and having truly execrable Greek, no Hebrew and no Aramaic knowledge.

1) The Gospels repeatedly speak of Jesus as being "of Nazareth," or "from Nazareth." Archaeologically speaking, it's unlikely-Nazareth was not only a place of no particular account at the time of the Gospels, it was, at that time, a necropolis-the home of a funerary cult of pagan origins. Such a place would be unclean to Hebrews at the time, and it's likely that no Jews lived there until after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. If one remembers, though, that the Gospel writers were Hellenized Hebrews, and looks to the Koine Greek of the time, each time the phrase mistranslated as "Jesus of Nazareth" appears, it really reads "Jesus the Nazarene," or Nazarite. Rather than a person from Nazareth-a place which essentially did not exist in the Hebrew world at that time-a Nazarite was a member of a Hebrew sect who voluntarily took the vows described in Numbers 6:1-21, essentially, to not become ritually defiled by contact with the dead, to refrain from grapes, wine and vinegar, and to not cut one's hair. After following these vows, they would make several sacrifices in the Temple, including cutting off their hair and burning it.

I won't get into the specific exegesis, but it's likely that, in addition to being a Pharisee, Paul took a Nazirite vow.

Jesus was almost certainly a Nazir himself.

2) Very little Aramaic remained in the New Testament-it was likely originally written in Greek, though some argue that it was translated to Greek from Aramaic-but what Aramaic does remain is kind of important:

Jesus repeatedly refers to the Creator as Abba, including in the Lord's Prayer. Unfortunately, rather than translating it properly, the committee translated it as Our father. What abba really means, though, is daddy, which is simply beautiful: Jesus refers to the Creator not as "my Father," or "our Father," but in very familiar and intimate terms, and encourages His followers to do the same.

Jesus also cries out on the cross, Eli,Eli, lama sabacthani, commonly translated as My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? In addition to meaning "forsaken," though, the Aramaic verb form shabacthani also means several other things in addition to forsake or divorce, including bequeath , bestow, forgive, and, most especially for our purposes here, entrust-the translation used in the Syriac and Coptic Bibles. Lest we remain thoroughly Eurocentric, the Syriac and Coptic Bibles are the oldest extant translations in continuous use of ANY translation of the Bible, and Syriac is, essentially, Aramaic-at least, its relationship to Aramaic is analogous to modern Greek's relationship to Koine Greek.

In any case, I put it to you: which makes more sense? That a man-who is more than simply a man-on a mission from God-should cry out at the fulfillment of that mission, My God, my God! Why hast thou forsaken me? In seemingly utter despair?

Or, a cry of triumph, My God. My God! This is WHY I was FORSWORN!!

I actually could go on....and on...and on.....but I think all get the point: as full of beauty and truth as it is, the King James Bible kinda sucks-especially as a translation, full of fabrications and errors.

 

[Hong Kong Pooey]

I guess you mean for your beliefs, not others?

Nope, I meant that whichever version of the bible you ask the question of, the correct answer will always be no.

That's a fact, regardless of what anyone else chooses to believe.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Super busy day for me. I think I am missing something in your reply. Can you help me out here?

"It tends to be much more of an inherited trait than an actual choice."

I think he means that most people get their religious views/beliefs from their parents/family/community rather than coming by them on their own.

 

[RTKDCMB]

I do believe the Holy Ghost inspired the Bible writers to use the words God intended, and then inspired the King James Bible translators to use the English words they used. I understand not everyone believes that, and that is each person's choice.

Then here's a question; why would an all powerful, all knowing, all seeing being who created the whole entire Universe need someone else to write his book for him? Couldn't he have just poofed it into existence?

 

[elder999]

Then here's a question; why would an all powerful, all knowing, all seeing being who created the whole entire Universe need someone else to write his book for him? Couldn't he have just poofed it into existence?

Why would a mother carry a toddler, rather than let him walk for himself?

 

[RTKDCMB]

Why would a mother carry a toddler, rather than let him walk for himself?

So are you saying the Human race are akin to infants or that the Human race needs to be carried? Or maybe you are saying the Human race is getting carried away?

 

[oftheherd1]

Here we go again...

The King James Bible, or, officially, the Authorized Version, is one of the worst translations of a lot-it was, given the circumstances, still quite an accomplishment-especially for the purely poetic quality of its prose. It's beautiful.

It's also completely and dreadfully wrong, in several key places in the New Testament. These are chiefly due to the Oxford Company (the committee responsible for translation of the Gospels, Acts and Book of Revelation) being dependent upon two earlier English translations, the Great Bible and the Bishops Bible, along with the terms of the commission by James VI, and having truly execrable Greek, no Hebrew and no Aramaic knowledge.

1) The Gospels repeatedly speak of Jesus as being "of Nazareth," or "from Nazareth." Archaeologically speaking, it's unlikely-Nazareth was not only a place of no particular account at the time of the Gospels, it was, at that time, a necropolis-the home of a funerary cult of pagan origins. Such a place would be unclean to Hebrews at the time, and it's likely that no Jews lived there until after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. If one remembers, though, that the Gospel writers were Hellenized Hebrews, and looks to the Koine Greek of the time, each time the phrase mistranslated as "Jesus of Nazareth" appears, it really reads "Jesus the Nazarene," or Nazarite. Rather than a person from Nazareth-a place which essentially did not exist in the Hebrew world at that time-a Nazarite was a member of a Hebrew sect who voluntarily took the vows described in Numbers 6:1-21, essentially, to not become ritually defiled by contact with the dead, to refrain from grapes, wine and vinegar, and to not cut one's hair. After following these vows, they would make several sacrifices in the Temple, including cutting off their hair and burning it.

I won't get into the specific exegesis, but it's likely that, in addition to being a Pharisee, Paul took a Nazirite vow.

Jesus was almost certainly a Nazir himself.

2) Very little Aramaic remained in the New Testament-it was likely originally written in Greek, though some argue that it was translated to Greek from Aramaic-but what Aramaic does remain is kind of important:

Jesus repeatedly refers to the Creator as Abba, including in the Lord's Prayer. Unfortunately, rather than translating it properly, the committee translated it as Our father. What abba really means, though, is daddy, which is simply beautiful: Jesus refers to the Creator not as "my Father," or "our Father," but in very familiar and intimate terms, and encourages His followers to do the same.

Jesus also cries out on the cross, Eli,Eli, lama sabacthani, commonly translated as My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? In addition to meaning "forsaken," though, the Aramaic verb form shabacthani also means several other things in addition to forsake or divorce, including bequeath , bestow, forgive, and, most especially for our purposes here, entrust-the translation used in the Syriac and Coptic Bibles. Lest we remain thoroughly Eurocentric, the Syriac and Coptic Bibles are the oldest extant translations in continuous use of ANY translation of the Bible, and Syriac is, essentially, Aramaic-at least, its relationship to Aramaic is analogous to modern Greek's relationship to Koine Greek.

In any case, I put it to you: which makes more sense? That a man-who is more than simply a man-on a mission from God-should cry out at the fulfillment of that mission, My God, my God! Why hast thou forsaken me? In seemingly utter despair?

Or, a cry of triumph, My God. My God! This is WHY I was FORSWORN!!

I actually could go on....and on...and on.....but I think all get the point: as full of beauty and truth as it is, the King James Bible kinda sucks-especially as a translation, full of fabrications and errors.

First, I don't want anyone to think Iam a Bible scholar. I am not. Things that I say below are my wordsfor which I alone am responsible, but taken from reading several books on the subject. Do not take what I say as if I were an expert. I believe what I say is correct, but do look things up for yourselves.


There are something like 21 verses thatare translated “Jesus of Nazareth,” not “Jesus the Nazarene.” That is true of numerous translations, KJV, NIV, NKJV, Douay-Rheims, Reina Valera, Wycliffe, and others. The translation I accept, as I have mentioned many times, is the King James Version (KJV). I don't know what translation you have used Elder, to try to make your case. Below are several verses you can look up in other translations. Note that even Pilate is reported to have ordered a sign saying Jesus was from Nazareth, not a Nazarene (one who had taken a vow).


Matthew 21:11, Mark 1:9, Mark 1:24,Mark 16:6, Luke 4:34, John 1:45, John 19:19, Act 22:29


I believe that considering that Wycliffe was translated from the Catholic Latin Vulgate, and that apparently, from the Bibles shown to Constantine, they and those Greek verses from the Textus Receptus were close enough to biblical times to have known if Nazareth was a place, and if the writings meant Jesus was from Nazareth rather than a person who had taken a specific vow.


I also believe the translators of the KJV were very learned men. They are reported as men who spoke and taught the languages they were to translate. The Oxford Company you refer to was the 2nd Oxford Company, responsible for translating the Gospels, Acts, and Revelations. You seem to want to blame any other supposed mis-translations on them. They did have the Great (or Chained) Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Textus Receptus, translations of Tyndale, the Bishops Bible, the Latin Vulgate, Vaticanus, and more. They weren't using the Great Bible nor the Geneva Bible for translation per se. Those were already translated.


You did not mention the process of translation and verification. Each person on each committee gave his translation to other members of his committee. If any other disagreed with a translation, they discussed it until they agreed what was correct. It then went to the other committees where the same process was used. All translations were also offered to learned scholars who were not on the committees for comment. Finally, select members made a final check of the translation before it waspublished.


I only know of three verses where the term abba is used. Jesus only used it in one of those. I personally believe the King James Version to be a correct translation. Again, Idon't know what translation you use for your belief.


Again, considering Matt 27:46 and Mark15:34. Numerous translations agree with “My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?” Psalm 22:1, is accepted as prophetic about Jesus. It is translated as “My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?”


I don't know on what you base yourstatement that Jesus had taken a nazarite vow. His first miracle is reported to have been turning water into wine. He shared a cup of wine with His apostles before His death. The Bible doesn't mention Him taking nor completing a nazarite vow, which surely would have been important enough to mention.

EDIT: There are many words above that are stuck together. I don't know why. I have tried to correct them, but each time I do, another set appears. It may have to do with the length of the post, or my browser.

 

[oftheherd1]

Nope, I meant that whichever version of the bible you ask the question of, the correct answer will always be no.

That's a fact, regardless of what anyone else chooses to believe.

That is only from your perspective. If any other person believes any translation of the Bible to be true and correct, their answer would not be in the negative.

Belief or non-belief in the Bible is a personal thing.

 

[oftheherd1]

Then here's a question; why would an all powerful, all knowing, all seeing being who created the whole entire Universe need someone else to write his book for him? Couldn't he have just poofed it into existence?

Maybe you should ask Him.

I can't tell you why God does anything He does, unless He tells us in His word. But as God and creator, He gets to do things the way He wishes.

 

[Hong Kong Pooey]

That is only from your perspective. If any other person believes any translation of the Bible to be true and correct, their answer would not be in the negative.

Belief or non-belief in the Bible is a personal thing.

Agreed that belief is a personal thing, but it doesn't alter the facts.

Even if the bible were 99% truth, then the correct answer would be no.

Just off the top of my head doesn't Genesis say that God created all the animals in one day? We know that is not correct, as evolution is a fact. If some people choose not to believe in evolution then that's their choice, but it doesn't change the fact that they're wrong.

There are countless other examples in this thread from people far more knowledgeable on the subject than I on why it cannot be 100% true.

Same as some people believe the earth is flat (again that's their choice) but the rest of us know for a fact that it isn't.

I'm not saying the bible is 0% true, but 100%? Definitely not.

 

[elder999]

There are something like 21 verses thatare translated “Jesus of Nazareth,” not “Jesus the Nazarene.” That is true of numerous translations, KJV, NIV, NKJV, Douay-Rheims, Reina Valera, Wycliffe, and others. The translation I accept, as I have mentioned many times, is the King James Version (KJV). I don't know what translation you have used Elder, to try to make your case

Not "translations," the way you think of them. Among other sources, the Syriac Sinaiticus-in, you know, Syriac, dating to the 4th century.

I believe that considering that Wycliffe was translated from the Catholic Latin Vulgate, and that apparently, from the Bibles shown to Constantine, they and those Greek verses from the Textus Receptus were close enough to biblical times to have known if Nazareth was a place, and if the writings meant Jesus was from Nazareth rather than a person who had taken a specific vow.

Not only was it mistranslated from the various Greek manuscripts (some of whic I've read in, you know, Greek :lfao: ), but archaeologically, Nazareth was not a Hebrew place at the time of the Gospels-barely closely: they've only recently discovered what's being called a "Jewish house" dating from just after the fall of Jerusalem there-all earlier archaeological finds are decidedly not Hebraic.

I also believe the translators of the KJV were very learned men. They are reported as men who spoke and taught the languages they were to translate. The Oxford Company you refer to was the 2nd Oxford Company, responsible for translating the Gospels, Acts, and Revelations. You seem to want to blame any other supposed mis-translations on them. They did have the Great (or Chained) Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Textus Receptus, translations of Tyndale, the Bishops Bible, the Latin Vulgate, Vaticanus, and more. They weren't using the Great Bible nor the Geneva Bible for translation per se. Those were already translated.

It's here that I need to remind you that my dad was an Episcopal priest. My grandfather was an Episcopal priest. My early education was focused on my becoming an Episcopal priest, and all those men-with the exception of the thre "Greek scholars"- on the Second Oxford Company (the "First Oxford Company" translated some Old Testament books) were bishops or prelates of the Church of England-later to become the Episcopal Church here in America. The three Greek scholars were Sir Henry Savile, John Perrins and Ralph Ravens-all of whom were learned men in Homeric Greek, not Koine Greek. They made mistakes.

You did not mention the process of translation and verification. Each person on each committee gave his translation to other members of his committee. If any other disagreed with a translation, they discussed it until they agreed what was correct. It then went to the other committees where the same process was used. All translations were also offered to learned scholars who were not on the committees for comment. Finally, select members made a final check of the translation before it waspublished.

I'm reminded of a story of another committe, one made up of blind men describing an elephant......:lfao:

I only know of three verses where the term abba is used. Jesus only used it in one of those.

That's 'cause you've only read it in English. Sorry.

Again, considering Matt 27:46 and Mark15:34. Numerous translations agree with “My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?” Psalm 22:1, is accepted as prophetic about Jesus. It is translated as “My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?”

It's tranlated wrong.

I don't know on what you base yourstatement that Jesus had taken a nazarite vow. His first miracle is reported to have been turning water into wine. He shared a cup of wine with His apostles before His death. The Bible doesn't mention Him taking nor completing a nazarite vow, which surely would have been important enough to mention.

The vow of a Nazirite could be taken for a term: if one declared themselves a "Nazirite like Samson," they could even touch the dead-assuming that they made them that way. The vow might be taken for life.....or 30 days........or 40 days and nights in the wilderness...it ended with the sacrifices in the Temple, and the cutting off of one's hair...

That wedding at Cana, and turning water into wine? Likely Jesus's own wedding....

 

[Hong Kong Pooey]

Why would a mother carry a toddler, rather than let him walk for himself?

Just a thought, why did God just give Moses the 10 commandments and not inspire or influence him to get his chisel out?

It's no wonder there's so much debate on the subject when He has such an inconsistent approach.

 

[elder999]

Just a thought, why did God just give Moses the 10 commandments and not inspire or influence him to get his chisel out?
.

Considering that there are, in fact, something like 600 odd mitzvot, or commandments in Mosaic law, you could say that's exactly what happened! :lfao:

 

[oftheherd1]

Agreed that belief is a personal thing, but it doesn't alter the facts.

Even if the bible were 99% truth, then the correct answer would be no.

Just off the top of my head doesn't Genesis say that God created all the animals in one day? We know that is not correct, as evolution is a fact. If some people choose not to believe in evolution then that's their choice, but it doesn't change the fact that they're wrong.

There are countless other examples in this thread from people far more knowledgeable on the subject than I on why it cannot be 100% true.

Same as some people believe the earth is flat (again that's their choice) but the rest of us know for a fact that it isn't.

I'm not saying the bible is 0% true, but 100%? Definitely not.

No.

 

[crushing]

Here we go again...

The King James Bible, or, officially, the Authorized Version, is one of the worst translations of a lot-it was, given the circumstances, still quite an accomplishment-especially for the purely poetic quality of its prose. It's beautiful.

It's also completely and dreadfully wrong, in several key places in the New Testament. These are chiefly due to the Oxford Company (the committee responsible for translation of the Gospels, Acts and Book of Revelation) being dependent upon two earlier English translations, the Great Bible and the Bishops Bible, along with the terms of the commission by James VI, and having truly execrable Greek, no Hebrew and no Aramaic knowledge.

[...]

I actually could go on....and on...and on.....but I think all get the point: as full of beauty and truth as it is, the King James Bible kinda sucks-especially as a translation, full of fabrications and errors.

Here is an interesting website where some people took the time to map out contradictions, historical inaccuracies, and scientific absurdities of the KJV Bible.

BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized

 

[elder999]

Just off the top of my head doesn't Genesis say that God created all the animals in one day? We know that is not correct, as evolution is a fact. If some people choose not to believe in evolution then that's their choice, but it doesn't change the fact that they're wrong.

No.

Pretty much, actually: fish and birds on the fifth, animals and men on the sixth.....of course, Genesis has the sun being created on the fourth day, we can't really say that they're literal, 24 hr. days, can we? :lfao:

 

[oftheherd1]

Not "translations," the way you think of them. Among other sources, the Syriac Sinaiticus-in, you know, Syriac, dating to the 4th century.


Not only was it mistranslated from the various Greek manuscripts (some of whic I've read in, you know, Greek :lfao: ), but archaeologically, Nazareth was not a Hebrew place at the time of the Gospels-barely closely: they've only recently discovered what's being called a "Jewish house" dating from just after the fall of Jerusalem there-all earlier archaeological finds are decidedly not Hebraic.

Syriac Sinaiticus? Thanks. I hadn't heard of that before and had to look it up. Is it in any way related to the Codex Sinaiticus discovered by Tischendorf? Also discovered at the Monastery of Saint Catherine, on Mount Sinai. That Codex doesn't agree with other Alexandrian texts, much less Textus Receptus texts. It was found in a trash can at Saint Catherine's Monastery, so even the monks there apparently didn't think much of it, even though they tried to get money from Tischendorf for it. Perhaps of the same provenance?

Mistranslated from what documents? I am not a Greek scholar, only able to understand a few words, but I can pronounce the alphabet. I looked at Stephanus 1550, Westcott and Hort's 1881, Scrivener's 1894, and the SBL Greek New Testament. You may expect I am not a fan of the last three, but still, all show Nazareth. I have looked at other English translations, Spanish translations, even Vietnamese translations. All show Nazareth. Surely there must have been a Nazareth that Bible-age people were aware of, that was inhabited by hebrews.

It's here that I need to remind you that my dad was an Episcopal priest. My grandfather was an Episcopal priest. My early education was focused on my becoming an Episcopal priest, and all those men-with the exception of the thre "Greek scholars"- on the Second Oxford Company (the "First Oxford Company" translated some Old Testament books) were bishops or prelates of the Church of England-later to become the Episcopal Church here in America. The three Greek scholars were Sir Henry Savile, John Perrins and Ralph Ravens-all of whom were learned men in Homeric Greek, not Koine Greek. They made mistakes.

Readings that I have done indicate that all members of the different committees were Biblical (Koine) Greek scholars. Then before the final check by committee leaders, experts from outside the committees were invited to check the translation. And there were certainly more than just three on the 2nd Oxford committee.

I'm reminded of a story of another committe, one made up of blind men describing an elephant......:lfao:

Your point on the blind men and an elephant fails. The story never talks about the blind men having any animal expertise. They did not consult with other blind men committees on what they understood. They did not resolve differences on what they understood. They did not offer other expert blind men an opportunity to comment on their observations. There was no final committee of committee leaders who painstakingly went over the findings.

That's 'cause you've only read it in English. Sorry.

A search on the onlinebible for "abba" in the KJV shows the below three verses. A search for "αββα" in Stephanus shows the same three verses.

Mark 14:36 in Stephanus: και ελεγεν αββα ο πατηρ παντα δυνατα σοι παρενεγκε το ποτηριον απ εμου τουτο αλλ ου τι εγω θελω αλλα τι συ
Mark 14:36 in the KJV: And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.
Romans 8:15 in Stephanus:ου γαρ ελαβετε πνευμα δουλειας παλιν εις φοβον αλλ ελαβετε πνευμα υιοθεσιας εν ω κραζομεν αββα ο πατηρ
Romans 8:15 in the KJV: For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
Galatians 4:6 in Stephanus:οτι δε εστε υιοι εξαπεστειλεν ο θεος το πνευμα του υιου αυτου εις τας καρδιας υμων κραζον αββα ο πατηρ
Galatians 4:6 in the KJV: And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

NOTE: Abba in the Greek is surprisingly easy to see, but I underlined and bolded it nonetheless.

It's tranlated wrong.

Perhaps you could tell all of us what this verse from Stephanus means: περι δε την εννατην ωραν ανεβοησεν ο ιησους φωνη μεγαλη λεγων ηλι ηλι λαμα σαβαχθανι τουτ εστιν θεε μου θεε μου ινατι με εγκατελιπες

Or even this one from Wescott and Hort? περι δε την ενατην ωραν εβοησεν ο ιησους φωνη μεγαλη λεγων ελωι ελωι λεμα σαβαχθανι τουτ εστιν θεε μου θεε μου ινατι με εγκατελιπες

That wedding at Cana, and turning water into wine? Likely Jesus's own wedding....

Jesus's own wedding? Wow. I don't know how you come to that conclusion. I have never heard anyone say that before, nor have my readings of the Bible suggested any such thing. In John chapter 2, there is mention of Jesus being called to the wedding, not celebrating His own wedding. There is also a bridegroom mentioned, but not identified as Jesus. Not to mention the fact that there is never any mention in the Bible of Jesus having a wife; it would not be consistent with His nature, being God as well as man.

 

[Hong Kong Pooey]

Pretty much, actually: fish and birds on the fifth, animals and men on the sixth.....of course, Genesis has the sun being created on the fourth day, we can't really say that they're literal, 24 hr. days, can we? :lfao:

Apparently some people can.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary

 

[elder999]

Readings that I have done indicate that all members of the different committees were Biblical (Koine) Greek scholars. Then before the final check by committee leaders, experts from outside the committees were invited to check the translation. And there were certainly more than just three on the 2nd Oxford committee.

And yet, it is as I said-the Second Oxford company had three "Greek scholars," all laymen-academics-and none with more than rudimentary knowledge of Koine Greek-their lessons, examinations and dissertations were in Homeric Greek.

Perhaps you could tell all of us what this verse from Stephanus means: περι δε την εννατην ωραν ανεβοησεν ο ιησους φωνη μεγαλη λεγων ηλι ηλια σαβαχθαν λαμι τουτ εστιν θεε μου θεε μου ινατι με εγκατελιπες

.

Around the ninth hour (three o'clock) Jesus called out (loud?), " Eli, Eli, Lama sabachthani-Which (that) means , "My God, My God, why did (have) you leave (left)[ me?"

Interstingly, the transliteration of the verb form, of the past-plu perfect, to have, lama, λαμα , should actually phonetically be more like "lema, " λεμα, and "forsaken" is also all wrong-part of an attempt to tie it to Psalm 20, and thus to prophecy-not only a mistranslation and transliteration, but a bit of possible deliberate revisionism-Left, of course, is completely wrong, though it does get wrangled about in the rather long-winded and ridiculous contortions about God's grace departing because Jesus had to go to hell.......

Now, do you really want to do this dance with me, or try accepting that I at least know what I say I know: I'm the victim, after all, of a classical education-I had to take Homeric Greek and Latin in high school, and I have a facility for languages-I didearn a degree in religious studies. I did drop out of seminary (and M.I.T., later, but what the hell :lfao: )-and, even if those things weren't true, I can use an online Greek concordance as well as you have......probably better...:lfao:

Jesus's own wedding? Wow. I don't know how you come to that conclusion. I have never heard anyone say that before, nor have my readings of the Bible suggested any such thing. In John chapter 2, there is mention of Jesus being called to the wedding, not celebrating His own wedding. There is also a bridegroom mentioned, but not identified as Jesus. Not to mention the fact that there is never any mention in the Bible of Jesus having a wife; it would not be consistent with His nature, being God as well as man.

Interestingly, we now come to Hebrew...throughout all translations, Jesus is referred to as "Master," or rabbi.] "Rabbi" is title reserved for married men, There is no mention of Jesus's beard, sword, or tools anywhere in the Bible, yet these are all things he surely had. As for the nature of God-well, I wouldn't even begin to speculate on the nature of the unknowable here, but Jesus was also a man, and men have wives-in the culture of that time, no one would have taken him at all seriously or called him "Rabbi" if he were not married....there is a bridegroom mentioned, but not identified at all..


As for the wedding at Cana, it's purely speculation,but, if one pays attention, Jesus's Mother (never identified by name in your version of John) is acting more like the mother of the groom-and hostess-than a simple guest when she tells her son they need more wine.

Now, it's bed for me,: 115 degrees or so tomorrow, and I have to be at work by 0530......and arguing about this is pretty boring after eight years-keep your book, and your faith, and get whatever you can from them: believe it to be the undisputed, divinely inspired, one true Bible all you like.

It's not, though. Not even close.

(I mean, honestly?? "it would not be consistent with His nature, being God as well as man???" Talk about a blind man, grasping the tail of an elephant, and telling me that it's nature is that of a snake......:lfao: )

 

[crushing]

If the Bible is 100% true, aliens are going to Hell. Right?

Creationist Ken Ham Says Aliens Will Go To Hell So Let's Stop Looking For Them