Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is the Bible inaccurate?

logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 7:07:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"I am the Lord you God, you shall not have other gods before Me."

Interrogatory:
If the bible is inerrant, and if it is the literal, or revealed, words of God and if this commandment is from God, is not it true that there are many Gods?

Same thing for Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord YOUR GOD in vain.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 7:29:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 7:07:59 PM, logicrules wrote:
"I am the Lord you God, you shall not have other gods before Me."

Interrogatory:
If the bible is inerrant, and if it is the literal, or revealed, words of God and if this commandment is from God, is not it true that there are many Gods?

Same thing for Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord YOUR GOD in vain.

Someone brought up something similar a few months back. I don't see these as tremendously strong examples just because it's based on the perhaps unwarranted assumption that a. "gods" isn't merely being used to describe idols or something similar and b. "Your God" is being used to denote a distinction between existent gods rather than functioning as a title, such as "Your Majesty", where the emphasis rests on the "Majesty" and not the "Your". I don't know, I haven't really researched the use of Elohim though.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 7:38:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago

Someone brought up something similar a few months back. I don't see these as tremendously strong examples just because it's based on the perhaps unwarranted assumption that a. "gods" isn't merely being used to describe idols or something similar and b. "Your God" is being used to denote a distinction between existent gods rather than functioning as a title, such as "Your Majesty", where the emphasis rests on the "Majesty" and not the "Your". I don't know, I haven't really researched the use of Elohim though.

Briefly, the Jews were, early on, were polytheistic. The reference to idols is a fairly recent interpretation. The issue is more about the validity of the belief that "everything" in the Bible is true correct and accurate, not about justifications of theological positions. I don't think the reference to majesty applies as it post dates the referenced text.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 7:48:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Some scholars believe that the Old Testament contains examples of henotheism that have been mistranslated or misinterpreted to combine multiple gods into a single God (see also Wikipedia:Names of God in Judaism), and to remove or obscure the divine status of other gods."
-- http://wiki.ironchariots.org...

"Some interpretations of the Old Testament have included other gods existing, such as Baal as its teachings do not refute other gods' existence, rather teach not to worship them."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 7:57:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 7:38:07 PM, logicrules wrote:

Someone brought up something similar a few months back. I don't see these as tremendously strong examples just because it's based on the perhaps unwarranted assumption that a. "gods" isn't merely being used to describe idols or something similar and b. "Your God" is being used to denote a distinction between existent gods rather than functioning as a title, such as "Your Majesty", where the emphasis rests on the "Majesty" and not the "Your". I don't know, I haven't really researched the use of Elohim though.

Briefly, the Jews were, early on, were polytheistic. The reference to idols is a fairly recent interpretation.

If you would allow me to step into the inerrantist's shoes for a moment, why should I be convinced that the temporal proximity of an interpretation to the original authorship necessarily has anything to do with its accuracy?

The issue is more about the validity of the belief that "everything" in the Bible is true correct and accurate, not about justifications of theological positions.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand. Do you not see how my response was extremely relevant to the following?

"If the bible is inerrant, and if it is the literal, or revealed, words of God and if this commandment is from God, is not it true that there are many Gods?"


If your argument hinges on the interpretation that I mentioned last post, would not a critique of that interpretation's validity be relevant?

I don't think the reference to majesty applies as it post dates the referenced text.

Not to sound overconfident, but I think that you'd be hard pressed to find anything about the concept of focusing on the latter half of phrases of or near the form "Your <Title>" that would be exclusive to the emergence of the more recent "Your Majesty" phrase.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 8:00:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 7:48:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"Some scholars believe that the Old Testament contains examples of henotheism that have been mistranslated or misinterpreted to combine multiple gods into a single God (see also Wikipedia:Names of God in Judaism), and to remove or obscure the divine status of other gods."
-- http://wiki.ironchariots.org...

"Some interpretations of the Old Testament have included other gods existing, such as Baal as its teachings do not refute other gods' existence, rather teach not to worship them."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org...

Yahweh was one of many gods in the days the old testament was written. This included Ba'al and many others. This god was a combination of many of them. This is in very little doubt among most credible scholars.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 8:48:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 7:07:59 PM, logicrules wrote:
"I am the Lord you God, you shall not have other gods before Me."

Interrogatory:
If the bible is inerrant, and if it is the literal, or revealed, words of God and if this commandment is from God, is not it true that there are many Gods?

Same thing for Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord YOUR GOD in vain.

The bible can't be inaccuate it says the same thing everytime you read it. The people who read and interpret it are inaccurate.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 8:50:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 8:48:34 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 10/27/2011 7:07:59 PM, logicrules wrote:
"I am the Lord you God, you shall not have other gods before Me."

Interrogatory:
If the bible is inerrant, and if it is the literal, or revealed, words of God and if this commandment is from God, is not it true that there are many Gods?

Same thing for Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord YOUR GOD in vain.

The bible can't be inaccuate it says the same thing everytime you read it. The people who read and interpret it are inaccurate.

so how many animals did Noah take on the Ark, was it 2 of each kind or 2 of the unclean, and 7 of the clean?

Which of Jesus' birth narratives are true?
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Calvincambridge
Posts: 1,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 4:51:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
no
Trying to figure out women is like trying to solve a Rubik's cube with missing pieces. While blind. And on fire. And being shot.-Agent_Orange
Dude. Shades
That is all.- Thaddeus Rivers
One thing that isn't a joke though is the fact that woman are computers.Some buttons you can press and it'l work fine, but if you push the wrong one you'll get the blue screen of death.
silly, thett. girls are only good for sex. being friends with a female is of no value.-darkkermit
Diagoras
Posts: 187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 4:54:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 7:07:59 PM, logicrules wrote:
"I am the Lord you God, you shall not have other gods before Me."

Interrogatory:
If the bible is inerrant, and if it is the literal, or revealed, words of God and if this commandment is from God, is not it true that there are many Gods?

Same thing for Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord YOUR GOD in vain.

Yes, it is inaccurate, but there are plenty of better examples than that.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 4:56:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 8:50:19 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:48:34 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 10/27/2011 7:07:59 PM, logicrules wrote:
"I am the Lord you God, you shall not have other gods before Me."

Interrogatory:
If the bible is inerrant, and if it is the literal, or revealed, words of God and if this commandment is from God, is not it true that there are many Gods?

Same thing for Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord YOUR GOD in vain.

The bible can't be inaccuate it says the same thing everytime you read it. The people who read and interpret it are inaccurate.

so how many animals did Noah take on the Ark, was it 2 of each kind or 2 of the unclean, and 7 of the clean?

Which of Jesus' birth narratives are true?

Both statements are accurate.

2 of each kind = 1 Male and 1 Female
also
2 "pairs" of unclean and 7 "pairs" of clean animals.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 4:57:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think part of the reason a lot of these stories are patently ridiculous and full of symbolic objects such as "The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" is to highlight the fact that they are meant to be interpreted as parables.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 5:41:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't think the statement is necessarily inaccurate particularly if we make the distinction between God with a big "G" and gods with a little "g". There are better examples of inconsistency and contradiction than this one, e.g. Judas' death, the 4 accounts of the Resurrection etc.
The reason for it being the First Commandment is that any self-respecting psychological virus / meme does not want to compete with any other meme because that would dilute its power and influence and not allow it to spread so .... virulantly!
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 5:43:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Both statements are accurate.

2 of each kind = 1 Male and 1 Female
also
2 "pairs" of unclean and 7 "pairs" of clean animals.

Neither is true correct or accurate as there was no Noah nor an ark.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 5:45:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 5:43:26 PM, logicrules wrote:
Both statements are accurate.

2 of each kind = 1 Male and 1 Female
also
2 "pairs" of unclean and 7 "pairs" of clean animals.

Neither is true correct or accurate as there was no Noah nor an ark.

I'm almost positive that the person he was responding to was trying to show that the text was inconsistent with itself, and that he wasn't discussing an inconsistency with scientific records and such.
Diagoras
Posts: 187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 5:46:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 5:43:26 PM, logicrules wrote:
Both statements are accurate.

2 of each kind = 1 Male and 1 Female
also
2 "pairs" of unclean and 7 "pairs" of clean animals.

Neither is true correct or accurate as there was no Noah nor an ark.

*waiting for the religious to get all up in arms*
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 5:51:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 5:46:01 PM, Diagoras wrote:
At 10/28/2011 5:43:26 PM, logicrules wrote:
Both statements are accurate.

2 of each kind = 1 Male and 1 Female
also
2 "pairs" of unclean and 7 "pairs" of clean animals.

Neither is true correct or accurate as there was no Noah nor an ark.

*waiting for the religious to get all up in arms*

I'm not sure why I would get "all up in arms" about such an out-of-place response. Again, it seems obvious enough that the person was questioning the passage's consistency with itself, not examining whether or not it lines up with scientific data.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 5:51:23 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 10/28/2011 5:46:01 PM, Diagoras wrote:
At 10/28/2011 5:43:26 PM, logicrules wrote:
Both statements are accurate.

2 of each kind = 1 Male and 1 Female
also
2 "pairs" of unclean and 7 "pairs" of clean animals.

Neither is true correct or accurate as there was no Noah nor an ark.

*waiting for the religious to get all up in arms*

I'm not sure why I would get "all up in arms" about such an out-of-place response. Again, it seems obvious enough that the person was questioning the passage's consistency with itself, not examining whether or not it lines up with scientific data.

Being the person referenced above I was questioning the seemingly unreasoned position that the Bible contained the words of God and is both an historically accurate collection of sources as well as the explicit directives of the believed in deity. While the stories may reflect the perceived evolution of a people of faith they are no, nor were they ever intended to be, a verbatim report of events. Does that clarify the issue? PS...No Moses either, at least as depicted in the Bible.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 7:33:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 7:27:10 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 10/28/2011 5:51:23 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 10/28/2011 5:46:01 PM, Diagoras wrote:
At 10/28/2011 5:43:26 PM, logicrules wrote:
Both statements are accurate.

2 of each kind = 1 Male and 1 Female
also
2 "pairs" of unclean and 7 "pairs" of clean animals.

Neither is true correct or accurate as there was no Noah nor an ark.

*waiting for the religious to get all up in arms*

I'm not sure why I would get "all up in arms" about such an out-of-place response. Again, it seems obvious enough that the person was questioning the passage's consistency with itself, not examining whether or not it lines up with scientific data.

Being the person referenced above I was questioning the seemingly unreasoned position that the Bible contained the words of God and is both an historically accurate collection of sources as well as the explicit directives of the believed in deity. While the stories may reflect the perceived evolution of a people of faith they are no, nor were they ever intended to be, a verbatim report of events. Does that clarify the issue? PS...No Moses either, at least as depicted in the Bible.

I think you need to reread my post, paying close attention to who I'm talking about with the bolded part.

Hint: It's not you.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 7:38:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 7:33:28 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 10/28/2011 7:27:10 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 10/28/2011 5:51:23 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 10/28/2011 5:46:01 PM, Diagoras wrote:
At 10/28/2011 5:43:26 PM, logicrules wrote:
Both statements are accurate.

2 of each kind = 1 Male and 1 Female
also
2 "pairs" of unclean and 7 "pairs" of clean animals.

Neither is true correct or accurate as there was no Noah nor an ark.

*waiting for the religious to get all up in arms*

I'm not sure why I would get "all up in arms" about such an out-of-place response. Again, it seems obvious enough that the person was questioning the passage's consistency with itself, not examining whether or not it lines up with scientific data.

Being the person referenced above I was questioning the seemingly unreasoned position that the Bible contained the words of God and is both an historically accurate collection of sources as well as the explicit directives of the believed in deity. While the stories may reflect the perceived evolution of a people of faith they are no, nor were they ever intended to be, a verbatim report of events. Does that clarify the issue? PS...No Moses either, at least as depicted in the Bible.

I think you need to reread my post, paying close attention to who I'm talking about with the bolded part.

Hint: It's not you.

..he said in a totally light-hearted not-mean manner. :)
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 9:08:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 4:56:34 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:50:19 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:48:34 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 10/27/2011 7:07:59 PM, logicrules wrote:
"I am the Lord you God, you shall not have other gods before Me."

Interrogatory:
If the bible is inerrant, and if it is the literal, or revealed, words of God and if this commandment is from God, is not it true that there are many Gods?

Same thing for Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord YOUR GOD in vain.

The bible can't be inaccuate it says the same thing everytime you read it. The people who read and interpret it are inaccurate.

so how many animals did Noah take on the Ark, was it 2 of each kind or 2 of the unclean, and 7 of the clean?

Which of Jesus' birth narratives are true?

Both statements are accurate.

2 of each kind = 1 Male and 1 Female
also
2 "pairs" of unclean and 7 "pairs" of clean animals.

not really he either took 2 of each kind or 7 of the clean, they are not the fvcking same thing. Really intellectual honesty should be a virtue.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 4:45:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago

I think you need to reread my post, paying close attention to who I'm talking about with the bolded part.

Hint: It's not you.

I apologize. I should have understood the use of pronouns absent antecedents method of writing.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 7:24:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 8:50:19 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:48:34 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 10/27/2011 7:07:59 PM, logicrules wrote:
"I am the Lord you God, you shall not have other gods before Me."

Interrogatory:
If the bible is inerrant, and if it is the literal, or revealed, words of God and if this commandment is from God, is not it true that there are many Gods?

Same thing for Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord YOUR GOD in vain.

The bible can't be inaccuate it says the same thing everytime you read it. The people who read and interpret it are inaccurate.

so how many animals did Noah take on the Ark, was it 2 of each kind or 2 of the unclean, and 7 of the clean?

Which of Jesus' birth narratives are true?

Take your pick, someone will contridict it.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 10:33:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The bible can't be inaccuate it says the same thing everytime you read it. The people who read and interpret it are inaccurate.:

If you truly believe that, then reconcile this massive contradiction.

"The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone." -- Acts 9:7

Juxtapose with the following verse

"My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me." -- Acts 22:9

So, did Saul's (Paul's) men see Jesus on the road to Damascus or did they hear him? The bible cannot be inerrant and yet also have obvious contradictions.

Also please note between 3rd and 1st person modes of speech. Did Paul write it, a series of people, or what?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 10:37:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 10:33:48 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The bible can't be inaccuate it says the same thing everytime you read it. The people who read and interpret it are inaccurate.:

If you truly believe that, then reconcile this massive contradiction.

"The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone." -- Acts 9:7

Juxtapose with the following verse

"My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me." -- Acts 22:9

So, did Saul's (Paul's) men see Jesus on the road to Damascus or did they hear him? The bible cannot be inerrant and yet also have obvious contradictions.

Also please note between 3rd and 1st person modes of speech. Did Paul write it, a series of people, or what?

Heard sound.
Didn't see anyone.
Saw the light.
Didn't understand the voice.

You can hear noise but not understand the words, and you can see light but not see the person. Where's the contradiction again?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 11:00:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
You can hear noise but not understand the words, and you can see light but not see the person. Where's the contradiction again?:

That's the NIV version. Other transliterations have it where they saw nothing, but heard the voice, and saw the light but didn't hear anything.

That's a contradiction of the same account, not separate events.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 11:11:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 11:00:44 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
You can hear noise but not understand the words, and you can see light but not see the person. Where's the contradiction again?:

That's the NIV version. Other transliterations have it where they saw nothing, but heard the voice, and saw the light but didn't hear anything.

That's a contradiction of the same account, not separate events.

What translation(s)?
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 11:17:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 11:11:47 AM, Rusty wrote:
At 10/29/2011 11:00:44 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
You can hear noise but not understand the words, and you can see light but not see the person. Where's the contradiction again?:

That's the NIV version. Other transliterations have it where they saw nothing, but heard the voice, and saw the light but didn't hear anything.

That's a contradiction of the same account, not separate events.

What translation(s)?

Because I'm having problems locating that.

http://bible.cc...

I see lots of "no man" and "no one" parts but not too many "nothing" parts.

http://bible.cc...

Similar set up with this verse.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 11:23:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 11:17:44 AM, Rusty wrote:
At 10/29/2011 11:11:47 AM, Rusty wrote:
At 10/29/2011 11:00:44 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
You can hear noise but not understand the words, and you can see light but not see the person. Where's the contradiction again?:

That's the NIV version. Other transliterations have it where they saw nothing, but heard the voice, and saw the light but didn't hear anything.

That's a contradiction of the same account, not separate events.

What translation(s)?

Because I'm having problems locating that.

http://bible.cc...

I see lots of "no man" and "no one" parts but not too many "nothing" parts.

http://bible.cc...

Similar set up with this verse.:

Do you have a Strong's concordance? The best way to find the closest translation is to simply find the exact word (since it's New Testament literature, the original language would be Greek and NOT Hebrew or Aramaic) and get the closest English translation.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 11:39:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 11:23:32 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 10/29/2011 11:17:44 AM, Rusty wrote:
At 10/29/2011 11:11:47 AM, Rusty wrote:
At 10/29/2011 11:00:44 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
You can hear noise but not understand the words, and you can see light but not see the person. Where's the contradiction again?:

That's the NIV version. Other transliterations have it where they saw nothing, but heard the voice, and saw the light but didn't hear anything.

That's a contradiction of the same account, not separate events.

What translation(s)?

Because I'm having problems locating that.

http://bible.cc...

I see lots of "no man" and "no one" parts but not too many "nothing" parts.

http://bible.cc...

Similar set up with this verse.:

Do you have a Strong's concordance? The best way to find the closest translation is to simply find the exact word (since it's New Testament literature, the original language would be Greek and NOT Hebrew or Aramaic) and get the closest English translation.

Actually that's one of the first things that I did, but if you check it out, that doesn't help that much simply because it's not that concise in support of either of our interpretations. Anyhow, I went back to the translations route, since that seemed to be the path you wanted to go down anyhow. Again, what translations word it that way?