• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clearing Up The Christian Confusions About Our Doctrine

Status
Not open for further replies.
Overitall said:
Was the NASB handed down by God and completely free from the influence of man's theology? If so, I shouldn't find any errors, right?
Click to expand...


So - you're saying..................................... no bible is reliable.
 
tosca1 said:
So - you're saying, no bible is reliable.
Click to expand...
You didn’t answer the question.

I’ll move the discussion along anyway.

Were there punctuation in the text which the NASB was translated from? Yes or no, please.
 
Overitall said:
You didn’t answer the question.

I’ll move the discussion along anyway.

Were there punctuation in the text which the NASB was translated from? Yes or no, please.
Click to expand...


You're trying your darndest to show...................no bible is reliable.
 
Overitall said:
www.biblegateway.com

New American Standard Bible (NASB) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com

www.biblegateway.com www.biblegateway.com


So much for your NASB version @tosca1 . Even the publishers acknowledge that it has/had inaccuracies in former publications.
Click to expand...


Here is what your source says:



The NASB does not attempt to interpret Scripture through translation. Instead, the NASB adheres to the principles of a formal equivalence translation. This is the most exacting and demanding method of translation, striving for the most readable word-for-word translation that is both accurate and clear.

After completion in 1971, the NASB was updated in 1977, 1995, and most recently in 2020.
This brand new update of the widely respected NASB 1995 builds upon its strengths by further improving accuracy, modernizing language, and improving readability.
The NASB 2020 is an important update because it utilizes advances in biblical scholarship over the past 25 years and it incorporates changes necessary to keep pace with the ever evolving English language.
This refreshed text is designed to speak accurately and clearly to current and future generations.

The long-established translation standard for the NASB remains the same as it always has been, that is to accurately translate the inspired Word of God from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts
into modern English that is clearly understandable today.

www.biblegateway.com

New American Standard Bible (NASB) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com

www.biblegateway.com www.biblegateway.com



Therefore, I don't know what you're on about.

Btw, I'm still using my old KJV Bible Study.
Haven't gotten around to buying a new one.



Accuracy in NASB​

The NASB has a unique approach to translation that emphasizes preserving the original meaning while making minimal changes to the text.
The NASB results from a project started in the 1950s by the Lockman Foundation, a non-profit Christian ministry dedicated to publishing quality Bibles.
The NASB uses the same Hebrew and Greek texts (Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus) that the translators of the KJV used, but it also incorporates more recent scholarship on the ancient languages.
For example, the NASB uses the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, the standard for modern Greek New Testaments.

The NASB team of scholars did not rely on one single approach to translation but instead used a combination of formal equivalence, which involves translating the text word-for-word, and dynamic equivalence,
which consists of translating the text's meaning instead of the word-for-word. The result is a translation that avoids adding unnecessary words to the text or changing sentences to be more readable.
The translators of the NASB often chose to retain the grammatical structure of the original text, making it a more literal translation.

Another reason why the NASB is considered one of the most accurate translations is because it was based on some of the oldest and most reliable biblical texts available.
In the last two centuries, several important archaeological discoveries have been made, providing new insights into biblical history.
These discoveries have revealed ancient manuscripts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls fragments, which have provided scholars with more accurate readings of ancient biblical texts.

 
tosca1 said:
You're trying your darndest to show...................no bible is reliable.
Click to expand...
And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.

Was there a comma in the text from which this verse was translated from? That one little comma separates truth from error. It's things like this where translators (even those of the NASB) would insert their interpretations of the texts they were translating from. Most versions place the comma before the word "today" which can't be right because Jesus was dead for 72 hrs after the crucifixion. He wasn't in paradise. Plus the Judgement of God hasn't taken place yet so the thief couldn't be there either until he is judged by God. Theologians think that the dead are alive now in paradise. That's erroneous theology. If it's true that those who died are in paradise living it up then Jesus's death was pointless.

What say you. Are punctuations authoritative?
 
tosca1 said:
Here is what your source says:



The NASB does not attempt to interpret Scripture through translation. Instead, the NASB adheres to the principles of a formal equivalence translation. This is the most exacting and demanding method of translation, striving for the most readable word-for-word translation that is both accurate and clear.

After completion in 1971, the NASB was updated in 1977, 1995, and most recently in 2020.
This brand new update of the widely respected NASB 1995 builds upon its strengths by further improving accuracy, modernizing language, and improving readability.
The NASB 2020 is an important update because it utilizes advances in biblical scholarship over the past 25 years and it incorporates changes necessary to keep pace with the ever evolving English language.
This refreshed text is designed to speak accurately and clearly to current and future generations.

The long-established translation standard for the NASB remains the same as it always has been, that is to accurately translate the inspired Word of God from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts
into modern English that is clearly understandable today.

www.biblegateway.com

New American Standard Bible (NASB) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com

www.biblegateway.com www.biblegateway.com



Therefore, I don't know what you're on about.

Btw, I'm still using my old KJV Bible Study.
Haven't gotten around to buying a new one.



Accuracy in NASB​

The NASB has a unique approach to translation that emphasizes preserving the original meaning while making minimal changes to the text.
The NASB results from a project started in the 1950s by the Lockman Foundation, a non-profit Christian ministry dedicated to publishing quality Bibles.
The NASB uses the same Hebrew and Greek texts (Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus) that the translators of the KJV used, but it also incorporates more recent scholarship on the ancient languages.
For example, the NASB uses the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, the standard for modern Greek New Testaments.

The NASB team of scholars did not rely on one single approach to translation but instead used a combination of formal equivalence, which involves translating the text word-for-word, and dynamic equivalence,
which consists of translating the text's meaning instead of the word-for-word. The result is a translation that avoids adding unnecessary words to the text or changing sentences to be more readable.
The translators of the NASB often chose to retain the grammatical structure of the original text, making it a more literal translation.

Another reason why the NASB is considered one of the most accurate translations is because it was based on some of the oldest and most reliable biblical texts available.
In the last two centuries, several important archaeological discoveries have been made, providing new insights into biblical history.
These discoveries have revealed ancient manuscripts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls fragments, which have provided scholars with more accurate readings of ancient biblical texts.
Click to expand...
If the earlier versions of the NASB were entirely God's word there would be no need to improve upon it. Either the word(s) of God are perfect or they aren't. Just concede that even the use of the NASB is a personal preference. It's a version that works for you. Why should that not be true with the use of other versions for others?
 
Overitall said:
The Bible is part of God’s creation in the physical world. Given that versions differ with each other they aren’t perfect. God is perfect. Bibles are not. Thus if you elevate any one of them over another you are worshipping the creation, not the Creator.

Sure, we are to live by every word from God, but none of the various versions can be declared “the Word of God”. That declaration is only true of the words that were originally given to “men of God”. We have only portions of “the Words of God”. Thus, if a particular version builds a relationship between God and a person, how can you judge that relationship null and void based upon the use of a version you decide isn’t good enough?
Click to expand...
The last time I checked, our task was to resist the temptation to judge. ;)

And with that, I'll re-exit the thread. I already understand that whatever I say, if it does not conform with Tosca's opinions, will be wrong and provide her with an opportunity to scold, bait, and mock.

Of course, some might say that rather than an "opportunity," we are providing her with an occasion to sin.
 
nota bene said:
The last time I checked, our task was to resist the temptation to judge. ;)

And with that, I'll re-exit the thread. I already understand that whatever I say, if it does not conform with Tosca's opinions, will be wrong and provide her with an opportunity to scold, bait, and mock.

Of course, some might say that rather than an "opportunity," we are providing her with an occasion to sin.
Click to expand...
I think you hit the bull’s eye with this one. I so desire to have a simple, but civil discussion. A goal that isn’t always easy to achieve when some view this as a game:

[W:168] D E M O N S

Did I say it was? Christians didn't stop sinning after becoming Christians. Surely, you don't claim to have stopped sinning? Our salvation is not dependent on whether we sin or not. It's entirely dependent on our acceptance of Jesus Christ (the Lamb of God) as the atonement for sin. your...
debatepolitics.com debatepolitics.com

I don’t expect agreement among my fellow Christians, but is it too much to expect mutual respect? I try to respect the way others relate to Christian matters. Heck! I’m aware that many of my beliefs/thoughts don’t fit into a tidy orthodox box.

I find condescending responses childish. God help me if I’m guilty of the childish attitude I’m currently addressing.
 
The OP may find this posting off-topic since she stated that this thread was not about the Bible, but there has been a good deal of discussion in this thread on which Bibles are "reliable" to Christians and why. My husband, a classics scholar, told me over the holidays (by complete coincidence) that the unintelligent monks translated texts more reliably than the more educated and intelligent ones. He said that the latter could not help but be influenced by their perception of the words they saw, which was colored by education.

I will not attempt to defend this statement because I am not an expert on classics or theology. I hope that those of you who are will feel free to comment honestly on it. I am inserting it into this thread because it pertains to a subject discussed in this thread: how reliable are Bibles. Like others who have spoken, I prefer to worship God than to worship a Bible. The topic of Biblical reliability interests me, however.
 
NewfieMom said:
The OP may find this posting off-topic since she stated that this thread was not about the Bible, but there has been a good deal of discussion in this thread on which Bibles are "reliable" to Christians and why. My husband, a classics scholar, told me over the holidays (by complete coincidence) that the unintelligent monks translated texts more reliably than the more educated and intelligent ones. He said that the latter could not help but be influenced by their perception of the words they saw, which was colored by education.

I will not attempt to defend this statement because I am not an expert on classics or theology. I hope that those of you who are will feel free to comment honestly on it. I am inserting it into this thread because it pertains to a subject discussed in this thread: how reliable are Bibles. Like others who have spoken, I prefer to worship God than to worship a Bible. The topic of Biblical reliability interests me, however.
Click to expand...
Hi Newfie.

I'm not a "expert" on theology, nor the classics. Nevertheless . . . .

Since the OP contributed to the offshoot discussion of reliability of bibles I'm sure she wouldn't object to further discussion on it.

Your question goes to the translator's reliability. How reliable were monks in accurately transcribing the texts they were working with? The short answer is -- they were somewhat reliable. Meaning they put their own touch on what the texts actually say in transcribing in the understanding of their intended audience. Thus, no translation can properly/authoritatively be called God's Word.

Yet despite the theological influence of the monks, the translations can be reasonably relied upon. You can, as the parable goes, separate the wheat from the chaff. There are a multitude of studying aids the layperson can utilize to find the words of God and separate them from the words of the men who translated the texts for us. You can even learn the actual text language and work it. Most people aren't interested in spending the amount of time necessary to produce a more reliable Bible. Why should they when what is available is sufficient for them to develop a relationship with God? Most find the translations they use for personal inspiration reliable -- enough.
 
Overitall said:
Ultimately, no translation carries the authority of being declared The Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16 inspiration of/from God) due to attempts by translators to insert their theology into the mix.
Click to expand...


If Jesus had said, it is written

Matthew 4:4
Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”




Where is it written?
In a Book we called Scriptures/Bible.


We refer to the Bible as the WORD OF GOD, because it contains verbal quotes from GOD....................starting on Genesis 1!







2 Tm 3
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,



What is, "GOD-breathed?"







The phrase “word of God” means more than the printed words on a page. God is a communicator and has been speaking into the human realm since the beginning.
He speaks through His creation (Psalm 19:1), through ancient prophets (Hosea 12:10; Hebrews 1:1), through the Holy Spirit (John 16:13; Acts 16:6), through Scripture (Hebrews 4:12),
and through the Person of His Son, Jesus Christ (John 14:9). We can learn to know God better by seeking to hear Him in every way that He speaks.

www.gotquestions.org

How can Jesus and the Bible both be the Word of God? | GotQuestions.org

How can Jesus and the Bible both be the Word of God? If Jesus is the Logos (Word) of God, how can the Bible also be the Logos (Word) of God?
www.gotquestions.org









Overitall said:
A simple comma can make all the difference between truth and false doctrine.
Click to expand...

Yes.

And, careful analysis is applied by scholars who have done translations of the reputable bibles that have been recommended.
One simple criteria is the CONSISTENCY of the message with the rest of the bible.
It should not conflict with, or be a contradiction against any other verses in the Bible. That's a technique that we do over interpretations too.
If our own personal opinions or interpretations are not consistent with the rest of the bible, then it's wrong.

A comma is displaced if it ends up giving an inconsistent message with the rest.


I'm sure the scholars have more than just that technique to analyze translations.








Overitall said:
Btw, I discovered from the KJV that the Trinity was a lie.
Click to expand...


I've been using the same KJV Bible Study since the day I became a born again.
A lot of the evidences I've given in my thread regarding biblical support for The TRINITY, have come from the KJV!


[W:105] GOD HIMSELF will be with them

I've been quoting verses this past couple of days – verses that show Jesus is God Himself, incarnated, to dwell among the people and to save mankind. I thought I'd exhausted everything...... until this morning. I'm on the Book of Revelation these days, and I just finished reading Chapter 21...
debatepolitics.com debatepolitics.com




I'm still discovering them as I read the bible every day.

I use translations that are easier to read when posting them in the forum.
Like, ESV or NASB or NIV.
 
Last edited:
NewfieMom said:
The OP may find this posting off-topic since she stated that this thread was not about the Bible, but there has been a good deal of discussion in this thread on which Bibles are "reliable" to Christians and why. My husband, a classics scholar, told me over the holidays (by complete coincidence) that the unintelligent monks translated texts more reliably than the more educated and intelligent ones. He said that the latter could not help but be influenced by their perception of the words they saw, which was colored by education.

I will not attempt to defend this statement because I am not an expert on classics or theology. I hope that those of you who are will feel free to comment honestly on it. I am inserting it into this thread because it pertains to a subject discussed in this thread: how reliable are Bibles. Like others who have spoken, I prefer to worship God than to worship a Bible. The topic of Biblical reliability interests me, however.
Click to expand...


Worship of Bible was also mentioned somewhere by another.

How do we define Bible worship?
What is......................Bible worship?
 
nota bene said:
The last time I checked, our task was to resist the temptation to judge. ;)

And with that, I'll re-exit the thread. I already understand that whatever I say, if it does not conform with Tosca's opinions, will be wrong and provide her with an opportunity to scold, bait, and mock.

Of course, some might say that rather than an "opportunity," we are providing her with an occasion to sin.
Click to expand...

I have been tolerating personal attacks all over this thread!
Which btw, a thread that I have created on Theology!

The first issue discussed (Abraham's Justification), should be obvious what kinds of confusions I meant!



I just want to ask:

Why is this thread being made...................................about me?




Why all these personal sniping?
In your case, since you'll promptly re-exit - we call that a, "hit and run."



A "hit and run," is an underhanded way to slam someone.
 
Last edited:
nota bene said:
The last time I checked, our task was to resist the temptation to judge. ;)

And with that, I'll re-exit the thread. I already understand that whatever I say, if it does not conform with Tosca's opinions, will be wrong and provide her with an opportunity to scold, bait, and mock.

Of course, some might say that rather than an "opportunity," we are providing her with an occasion to sin.
Click to expand...




You want me to discontinue this thread?
Is that what these personal attacks are meant to be?


Fine!

LOCK IT!
 
tosca1 said:
If Jesus had said, it is written

Matthew 4:4
Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

Where is it written?
In a Book we called Scriptures/Bible.
We refer to the Bible as the WORD OF GOD, because it contains verbal quotes from GOD....................starting on Genesis 1!

2 Tm 3
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

What is, "GOD-breathed?"


The phrase “word of God” means more than the printed words on a page. God is a communicator and has been speaking into the human realm since the beginning.
He speaks through His creation (Psalm 19:1), through ancient prophets (Hosea 12:10; Hebrews 1:1), through the Holy Spirit (John 16:13; Acts 16:6), through Scripture (Hebrews 4:12),
and through the Person of His Son, Jesus Christ (John 14:9). We can learn to know God better by seeking to hear Him in every way that He speaks.

www.gotquestions.org

How can Jesus and the Bible both be the Word of God? | GotQuestions.org

How can Jesus and the Bible both be the Word of God? If Jesus is the Logos (Word) of God, how can the Bible also be the Logos (Word) of God?
www.gotquestions.org

Yes.

And, careful analysis is applied by scholars who have done translations of the reputable bibles that have been recommended.
One simple criteria is the CONSISTENCY of the message with the rest of the bible.
It should not conflict with, or be a contradiction against any other verses in the Bible. That's a technique that we do over interpretations too.
If our own personal opinions or interpretations are not consistent with the rest of the bible, then it's wrong.

A comma is displaced if it ends up giving an inconsistent message with the rest.
Click to expand...
Your response here is obviously a view of a “fundamentalist”. Naive. It’s a well known fact that the texts from which all versions (including your precious NASB) of the Bible originated from was punctuation free.

www.christianity.com

How Was Biblical Punctuation Decided?

Punctuation assists the reader in understanding the Word of God. As is the case with any translation, we won’t understand the passage 100% the way someone who spoke the original language did. Nevertheless, God speaks to us through translation.
www.christianity.com www.christianity.com

“It’s difficult to say just how much translations differ from the original text, as the original text did not contain spaces (in the case of the Greek), punctuation (including quotation marks), and vowels (in the case of the Hebrew).”

I pointed how Luke 23:43 contained a comma which was inserted by the translator based on their theology. It’s obviously misplaced because it was not available for either Jesus or the thief to be in “paradise“ on the same day as the crucifixion. Both were dead and in the grave. Jesus for 72 hours.

Ignoring the fact that scholars inserted punctuations based upon their theology you won’t be able to know if you are reading the words of God or the words inserted into the bible which didn’t come from Him. Still “Even though the Masorites did make errors, they did an exceptional job.”(see citation above). As I pointed out to @NewfieMom bibles are only reliable as the reliability of the scholars that transcribed the ancient texts into a readable version. Men can make errors due to factors God, Himself, isn’t subject to.
tosca1 said:
I'm sure the scholars have more than just that technique to analyze translations.

I've been using the same KJV Bible Study since the day I became a born again.
A lot of the evidences I've given in my thread regarding biblical support for The TRINITY, have come from the KJV!

[W:105] GOD HIMSELF will be with them

I've been quoting verses this past couple of days – verses that show Jesus is God Himself, incarnated, to dwell among the people and to save mankind. I thought I'd exhausted everything...... until this morning. I'm on the Book of Revelation these days, and I just finished reading Chapter 21...
debatepolitics.com debatepolitics.com

I'm still discovering them as I read the bible every day.

I use translations that are easier to read when posting them in the forum.
Like, ESV or NASB or NIV.
Click to expand...
I only wish you wouldn’t use the C&P method of posting. The formatting makes it difficult to respond to.
 
tosca1 said:
Worship of Bible was also mentioned somewhere by another.

How do we define Bible worship?
Click to expand...
It's very simple. Worship is the devoted following of a thing/being.
tosca1 said:
What is......................Bible worship?
Click to expand...
Placing one version in the status of error free. You worship your version (NASB) of the Bible placing it above all others while denigrating the JW version. The latter because of your blindness to what all bibles say regarding the doctrine of the Trinity. It's a false doctrine of devil spirits.
 
tosca1 said:
You want me to discontinue this thread?
Is that what these personal attacks are meant to be?


Fine!

LOCK IT!
Click to expand...
Oh, no, Tosca; do carry on...as you will regardless. If you think, however, that casting yourself as some sort of "martyr" will be effective, it won't be.

And be sure to use multiple colors and huge bold font, the better to browbeat others with. You know perfectly well how much this irritates others (and wastes bandwidth), and that's what I find so significant--you know this but continue to deliberately attempt to offend others. You have enough planks in your eyes to build an ark.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom