# The Bible - Before Man **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 17, 2003, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-before-man/202176 "2003-09-17T17:34:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![RoundGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/90ced4/32.png) [@RoundGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoundGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-before-man/202176/101 "2003-09-21T01:58:20Z")
> [@](#): > > I know the lineage of the KJV, do you? Oh, shit. ---
**Author:** ![CigaretteRepairman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@CigaretteRepairman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CigaretteRepairman)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-before-man/202176/102 "2003-09-21T02:10:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RoundGuy \* > Really? Where? Please use the NIV translation. I explained it in a response to the other guy, scroll up…I did a “play by play” of the verses. The NIV has been around since the 1970’s, the KJV has been around since 1611. No thanks on the NIV offer. > [@](#): > > Why, you most certainly did: > > _“So any interpretation that does not include a time period there is by default, wrong. It is wrong in the context of the Bible itself.”_ It is wrong because you are not taking into account other parts of the text that are included in the canon. Remember my example of: > [@](#): > > For example, if you have a trilogy that is deemed canonical and in the first work you have a passage that says “Event A happened followed by event B”. Then in the 3rd installment you have a passage that reads “In between the time of events A and B, event C happened.” Now if you only ever read part 1 you would have no knowledge of event C, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t apply to the story as a whole. Are you understanding this? Now what if your interpretation of part 1 was that events A and B took place within 1 day of each other but in part 3 it clearly states that event C took 1 week? This would make your interpretation of the events of part 1 **wrong**. I have to ask again, do you understand this? This has nothing to do with whether various parts of the text can contradict itself or not, for instance, in my hypothetical trilogy, let’s say that events P and Q contradict each other. Does that have any bearing on the interpretations of events A and B accounting for Event C? > [@](#): > > You are saying that any interpretation of one passage to another must insure that they are consistent. See above. > [@](#): > > So then I am free to take one passage out of context with another? See, this seems to be your whole argument, yet you go round and round in circles. As I said before, your proclivity and expertise at obfuscation is simply astounding. You are confused. > [@](#): > > So, can they contradict, or not? WTF? See above. > [@](#): > > I think the more appropriate question is, do _you_ even understand your own philosophy? What “philosophy”? I am merely telling you what the text of the Bible has to say on the subject of “Creation”. ---
**Author:** ![RoundGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/90ced4/32.png) [@RoundGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoundGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-before-man/202176/103 "2003-09-21T02:24:24Z")
> [@](#): > > The NIV has been around since the 1970’s, the KJV has been around since 1611. No thanks on the NIV offer. Hopefully, **tomndebb** or **Diogenes** will be able to convince you of the ignorance of your “older is better” philosophy. Frankly, you’re so far out in left field, I don’t think I have the fuel to get there… ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-before-man/202176/104 "2003-09-21T02:31:02Z")
**CigaretteRepairman** , are you arguing this out of personal convictions? Or are you just arguing the “other side” in this debate because there doesn’t appear to be anyone else doing so? In other words, do you really believe the KJV is actually the most legitimate translation and is inerrant, or not? (Prediction: Vague sideslip, accompanied by a demand that we stay on topic, as he defines it…) ---
**Author:** ![CigaretteRepairman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@CigaretteRepairman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CigaretteRepairman)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-before-man/202176/105 "2003-09-21T02:36:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RoundGuy \* > \*\*Hopefully, **tomndebb** or **Diogenes** will be able to convince you of the ignorance of your “older is better” philosophy. > > Frankly, you’re so far out in left field, I don’t think I have the fuel to get there… \*\* What does it have to do with being “better”? The KJV is still the most widely used translation especially taking into account of all the languages that it is available in. Either way, it is the obvious choice for a Bible debate because of its long standing acceptance. The few critical differences between the KJV and the recent translations don’t even come into play in the areas that we are discussing anyway. Are you worried about the language being too difficult for you? Maybe we should be discussing a children’s picture Bible? ---
**Author:** ![CigaretteRepairman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@CigaretteRepairman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CigaretteRepairman)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-before-man/202176/106 "2003-09-21T02:59:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jayjay \* > \*\ ***CigaretteRepairman** , are you arguing this out of personal convictions? Or are you just arguing the “other side” in this debate because there doesn’t appear to be anyone else doing so? This has turned into a separate debate that started when I corrected someone’s “6 days from creation of the universe to Adam” view of the “Creation” account. I was taken to task for it so here we are. > [@](#): > > In other words, do you really believe the KJV is actually the most legitimate translation and is inerrant, or not? My personal beliefs are irrelevant. The facts are available about all of the translations out there and people can decide for themselves which is a translation that is truer to the source. Regardless, in the context of this discussion, there are no critical differences between the KJV and the NIV. The only reason someone would demand the NIV is either because of poor reading comprehension abilities or to be obstinate. The KJV has beautiful flowing text that is enjoyable to read. The NIV seems clumsy and awkward. As far as a Biblical debate goes, the obvious choice would be the most established version, which is the KJV. (Prediction: Vague sideslip, accompanied by a demand that we stay on topic, as he defines it…) \*\* [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-before-man/202176/107 "2003-09-21T03:03:53Z")
I would think the obvious choice would be the better-translated version, or the version which is translated into a more modern form of the language, neither of which is the KJV. KJV English is not modern English. Many of the words used in the KJV are either obsolete or have different meanings (some slightly different, some VERY different) than they did when the KJV was published. Using the most “beautiful” version in a debate over what the damn book actually says is kind of, well…stupid. Using a version with clearer and more immediately comprehensible language would seem to be the more intelligent choice. Oh, and I’d like to note that my prediction has been fulfilled. I wish I’d put a bet down… ---
**Author:** ![RoundGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/90ced4/32.png) [@RoundGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoundGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-before-man/202176/108 "2003-09-21T03:26:30Z")
> [@](#): > > Maybe we should be discussing a children’s picture Bible? Simply profound. You are a true asset to Great Debates. How can I possibly compete with such obviously superior intellect? Say goodnight, Gracie… ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-before-man/202176/109 "2003-09-21T03:36:49Z")
**CigaretteRepairman** , you are basically propounding two excluded middles in your arguments. Firts let’s address the whole KJV thing. Without getting into the accuracy of the KJV (it’s not accurate, it contains a lot of mistranslations and biased interpretations) I’ll just address your strange argument that the fact that the KJV has a long history somehow makes it more dependable. How do you get from long tradition to dependability? That’s an excluded middle. The conclusion does not follow from the predicate. Guess what, the Latin Vulgate has an even longer history than the KJV. Does that make the Vulagate more dependable than the KJV? Perhaps you can also explain why you “lol’ed” **tomndebb’s** remark about the Latin text. The fact is that the vulgate translates the Hebrew phrase _heylel ben shachar_ (“shining star, son of the dawn,” a Hebrew name for Venus) as “lucifer”\*, which is derived from two Latin words. “lux,” meaning “light,” and “ferre,” meaning “to bring.” This gives us “light bringer” which was the term that Roman astrologers used to refer to the planet Venus. What’s so laughable about having that explained to you? Your other continuing fallacy is your insistence that the establishment of a “canon” necessarily imbues that collection of books known as the Bible with any sort of inter-referential consistency. The book of Matthew, for example, can never tell us anything about the intent of the author of Isaiah even though Matthew quotes from it and uses it to support his own theological agenda. Just because Matthew _interprets_ Isaiah a certain way does not mean that Isaiah _intended_ that interpretation and no amount of canonozation can change that. > [@](#): > > Jewish tradition is not relevant, Biblical text is. It wouldn’t be the first time that Jewish tradition misinterpreted their own scriptures. There are several major Messianic Prophecies that they deny the clear meaning of today, such as the extremely descriptive Isaiah 53. This is the dumbest and most insulting thing you’ve said in this thread. I won’t bother trying to tell you why. I have a feeling I’d be wasting my time. I’ll just ask you to name one “Messianic prophesy” which you thing Judaism 'denies the clear meaning of." (The “servant” in Isaiah 53 is a personification of Israel, btw. It’s not a Messianic prophesy. You may interpret it that way if it makes you feel good but it is certainly not the “clear meaning” of the text) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-before-man/202176/110 "2003-09-21T03:44:10Z")
> [@](#): > > None of this matters. I am discussing the text in the way that it is known today. It has been known in the form of the KJV for nearly 400 years under the same compilation and that is the most obvious version to reference when discussing the text. What is with all of these straw man arguments anyway? I don’t care what it originally said, I don’t care what Jewish tradition thought that it said, I don’t care if it mentions Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I am discussing the Bible, as it is known today. > > BTW, I am not validating your claims here (“Latin translation”, lol.) I am stating that it is irrelevant. I know the lineage of the KJV, do you? This is just odd. Why would you discuss that bible “in the way that it is known today” as if it had any relevance to _anything_? Which bible? Neither the NIV, the RSV, not the Jerusalem Bible use the name Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12 _because_ it does not appear in the Hebrew original. Lucifer got into the KJV from the Latin Vulgate when Jerome accidentally used that name in that passage and then Erasmus copied that translated that passage out of the Latin into his Greek recension as a gloss. So, yes, Lucifer did come from the Latin. On the other hand, no Christian Scriptural scholar\*, today, relies on the KJV, regardless how many people may have used it for the last couple of hundred years, so that is an irrelevant argument. (To say nothing of the fact that the KJV has never been used by the Germans, French, Swiss, Italians, Poles, Chinese, Greeks, Malian, etc. peoples of the world. Scholarship today, whether undertaken by Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, Jews, or atheists relies on examining the original languages in which a passage was written. In discussing what “the bible” means, attempting to limit the discussion to one outdated and inaccurate translation is simply silly. > [@](#): > > The KJV is still the most widely used translation especially taking into account of all the languages that it is available in. This is utter nonsense. If a bible is not written in English, it is not the KJV (although it may be a bad translation to another language). I am really curious as to whether you are coming up with your odd interpretations on your own or whether there is actually some school of teaching from which you have taken these notions. - (There are _pastoral_ writers who rely on the KJV, but as they are not scholars of scriptural exegesis, they are irrelevant to this discussion. as well.) ---
**Author:** ![CigaretteRepairman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@CigaretteRepairman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CigaretteRepairman)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-before-man/202176/111 "2003-09-21T03:48:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jayjay \* > I would think the obvious choice would be the better-translated version, or the version which is translated into a more modern form of the language, neither of which is the KJV. You are not going to find universal agreement on which is the “better-translated” version. You will find universal agreement on which is the more established version. > [@](#): > > KJV English is not modern English. Many of the words used in the KJV are either obsolete or have different meanings (some slightly different, some VERY different) than they did when the KJV was published. Is this a reading comprehension issue? It is not my problem if folks can not understand the text of the KJV Bible. I know where the critical (doctrinal) differences lie between the KJV and the NIV and they are not in the area of this debate. In case you are wondering, there are only 2 major translations out there today. The KJV and the “others” which started in 1881 and include the RV, AS, RSV, Berkeley, Amplified, JB, NEB, NASN, LB, TEV, NIV and NKJV. The KJV relied on the Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus and its own heritage (Vulgate [Latin 400 AD], Wycliffe [English 1380], Tyndale [1525], Coverdale [1535], Matthews [1537], Great [1539], Geneva [1560], Bishops [1568], KJV [1611]). The “others” paid little regard to the established lineage of the KJV and concentrated heavily on the Codex Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus with some Dead Sea Scrolls thrown in in the case of at least the NIV. The problem is, these old manuscripts (425, 340, 330 AD respectively) were contrary in many respects to established Judeo-Christian doctrines. To compound things further, the versions used in the “other” translations were themselves translated by **two** (count them, **two** ) Catholic scholars in the late 1800’s. Two people is not good enough, insufficient checks and balances. and the fact that they were Catholic adds to the potential bias (Catholicism had already formed a distinct line for Protestantism by that point and disagreed on major doctrinal issues). Anyway, the claim that the newer translations are “better” translations is not set in stone and is very debatable. For the purposes of this debate, I go with the by far more established version as a given. If you disagree then look up any verses cited in an NIV and if you think that there are meaningful differences then bring them to the table. I will not be quoting for the NIV however. > [@](#): > > Oh, and I’d like to note that my prediction has been fulfilled. I wish I’d put a bet down… You would have lost the bet… ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-before-man/202176/112 "2003-09-21T04:00:34Z")
Why would I have lost the bet? I asked you if you actually believed in your positions in this thread. You sidestepped the issue _explicitly_. I quote: > [@](#): > > My personal beliefs are irrelevant. The facts are available about all of the translations out there and people can decide for themselves which is a translation that is truer to the source. This is a sidestep which incorporates the demand to stay on topic within it. Therefore my prediction was correct. Your understanding of biblical scholarship and translation in the last 100 years is abysmal, sir. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-before-man/202176/113 "2003-09-21T04:06:28Z")
> [@](#): > > If you disagree then look up any verses cited in an NIV and if you think that there are meaningful differences then bring them to the table. A significant portion of your analysis relies upon the erroneous acceptance of “Lucifer” that does not appear in any of the translations that you scorn. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-before-man/202176/114 "2003-09-21T04:14:08Z")
I have just checked out the bibles presented in German, French, Norse, and several other languages, seeking the oldest transation I could find for each language, and _only_ the Latin Vulgate and the KJV and its descendants use Lucifer, so, for the bulk of the Christian world, Lucifer is not appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![CigaretteRepairman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@CigaretteRepairman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CigaretteRepairman)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-before-man/202176/115 "2003-09-21T04:26:16Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\* > This is utter nonsense. If a bible is not written in English, it is not the KJV (although it may be a bad translation to another language)._\* You can buy a Spanish KJV, a French KJV, and English KJV, etc. The KJV is available in more languages than any other translation of the Bible. Why don’t you check out the facts before you make foolish statements? I am going to tell you a secret, when you take the KJV and translate it into another language, you haven’t created a new version of the Bible. It is still the KJV and it says that right on the cover, sometimes in big pretty letters. Would you like to buy your very own Spanish KJV? Here you go [http://www.bibledata.net/bibles/product.asp?pID=343469&cID=996](http://www.bibledata.net/bibles/product.asp?pID=343469&cID=996) This is all red herring anyway. What does the Bible say about Creation? I’m not interested in what the Hebrew texts say (save that for a relevant discussion) or what the NIV says (forunately it says the same thing as the KJV on this subject although you folks have failed to realize that). This debate has nothing to do with “intent” of the authors (how in the hell can you debate “intent”?). Here are some facts. \*The KJV is the most established translation available today (and yes, it is available in other languages than English). \*The most established piece of any work merits the discussion. (When discussing the movie “Psycho” do we talk about the 1960 version or the recent remake? Or do we bring similar movies/stories from before Pyscho came out into the discussion?) \*The works included in the Bible as we know it today have been considered canon for about 1700 years. This is not open for discussion. \*Harping over the translation of “Lucifer” does not change the fact that an obvious being was being referenced other than King Neb. This also changes absolutely nothing about the reference in Ezekiel to the cherub that was in the Garden of Eden. Your “weakest link” arguments are getting you nowhere. ---
**Author:** ![CigaretteRepairman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@CigaretteRepairman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CigaretteRepairman)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-before-man/202176/116 "2003-09-21T04:29:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\*A significant portion of your analysis relies upon the erroneous acceptance of “Lucifer” that does not appear in any of the translations that you scorn. \*\* No, very little of my argument relies on the word Lucifer. You are being selective with your reading. I will repost it: > [@](#): > > Read the passage again: > > ## quote: > > ## Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! > > Nebuchadnezzar was never in heaven, in fact he wasn’t even one of God’s chosen people (he was Babylonian). To say that this is referring to Venus appearing to fall is absurd. > > ## quote: > > ## Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: > > Now, according to you, this whole passage is about King Neb. with just a little name calling at the beginning in jest. How exactly would Neb. plan to “ascend into heaven”? What exactly do you even expect that he knew about heaven, being Babylonian and all? How would he plan to “sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north”? > > ## quote: > > ## Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. > > Once again, “be like the most High”? Neb. didn’t even recognize the Hebrew God as “the most High”. As the passage progresses the details switch to more about Neb. than about Lucifer. This is a parallel between Lucifer’s actions and Neb.'s actions. This is not an entire passage about Neb. with a bit of name calling at the beginning. ---
**Author:** ![CigaretteRepairman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@CigaretteRepairman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CigaretteRepairman)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-before-man/202176/117 "2003-09-21T04:34:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jayjay \* > Why would I have lost the bet? I asked you if you actually believed in your positions in this thread. You sidestepped the issue _explicitly_. I quote: > > This is a sidestep which incorporates the demand to stay on topic within it. Therefore my prediction was correct. There was no demand to stay on topic neither was there a “sidestep”. You asked an irrelevant question and I informed you of it. > [@](#): > > Your understanding of biblical scholarship and translation in the last 100 years is abysmal, sir. You want to point out specific errors or are you content to hand wave? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-before-man/202176/118 "2003-09-21T04:51:26Z")
> [@](#): > > What does the Bible say about Creation? I’m not interested in what the Hebrew texts say The Bible _is_ the Hebrew texts. Are you saying that a translation is more definitive than the original text? Why on earth would you think that? > [@](#): > > \*The KJV is the most established translation available today What do you mean by “established?” It’s not even close to being a scholarly standard if that’s what you mean. > [@](#): > > \*The most established piece of any work merits the discussion. You still have to define what “established” means. > [@](#): > > \*The works included in the Bible as we know it today have been considered canon for about 1700 years. This is not open for discussion. It’s also completely irrelevant. A “canon” proves nothing about anything. > [@](#): > > \*Harping over the translation of “Lucifer” does not change the fact that an obvious being was being referenced other than King Neb. This also changes absolutely nothing about the reference in Ezekiel to the cherub that was in the Garden of Eden. Your “weakest link” arguments are getting you nowhere. No, there is _not_ “another being” in Isaiah. The passage calls Nebuchadnezzar “morning star” in a satirical way. It has nothing to do with Satan. “Lucifer” is not in the Hebrew text and that is the text that matters, regardless of your weird assertion about it somehow being different than the Bible. ---
**Author:** ![CigaretteRepairman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@CigaretteRepairman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CigaretteRepairman)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-before-man/202176/119 "2003-09-21T04:55:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > **CigaretteRepairman** , you are basically propounding two excluded middles in your arguments. Firts let’s address the whole KJV thing. > > Without getting into the accuracy of the KJV (it’s not accurate, it contains a lot of mistranslations and biased interpretations) “Accuracy” is not the issue here. > [@](#): > > I’ll just address your strange argument that the fact that the KJV has a long history somehow makes it more dependable. Dependability is also not an issue and that is a separate debate. > [@](#): > > How do you get from long tradition to dependability? I don’t. There are things that cast a suspicious light on the credibility of the NIV but that is not an issue either. I am discussing what the KJV says. Maybe one day we can discuss what the NIV says or what “War and Peace” says but that is not on the table today. > [@](#): > > Your other continuing fallacy is your insistence that the establishment of a “canon” necessarily imbues that collection of books known as the Bible with any sort of inter-referential consistency. The book of Matthew, for example, can never tell us anything about the intent of the author of Isaiah even though Matthew quotes from it and uses it to support his own theological agenda. Just because Matthew _interprets_ Isaiah a certain way does not mean that Isaiah _intended_ that interpretation and no amount of canonozation can change that. What does “intent” of the author have to do with anything? We are not engaging in a debate in preparation of compiling a new translation. We are discussing what an existing one already says. Think of it this way; if a person with excellent reading comprehension abilities and absolutely no bias or knowledge of the material or history of the material were to sit down and read the Bible as a canonical collection of books, what conclusions would he come to about “Creation”? > [@](#): > > This is the dumbest and most insulting thing you’ve said in this thread. > > I won’t bother trying to tell you why. I have a feeling I’d be wasting my time. I’ll just ask you to name one “Messianic prophesy” which you thing Judaism 'denies the clear meaning of." > > (The “servant” in Isaiah 53 is a personification of Israel, btw. It’s not a Messianic prophesy. You may interpret it that way if it makes you feel good but it is certainly not the “clear meaning” of the text) > [@](#): > > Isa 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. > Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. > Isa 53:5 But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. > Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. > Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. > Isa 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. > Isa 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither [was any] deceit in his mouth. > Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. > Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. > Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him [a portion] with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. Look, it reads like a mini-biography of a certain Jewish carpenter. What a coincidence. > [@](#): > > Mic 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be little among the thousands of Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he come forth unto me [that is] to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth [have been] from of old, from everlasting. Mentioned the birthplace of a certain Jewish carpenter. Must be another coincidence. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-before-man/202176/120 "2003-09-21T05:10:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Nebuchadnezzar was never in heaven, in fact he wasn’t even one of God’s chosen people (he was Babylonian). To say that this is referring to Venus appearing to fall is absurd. “Heaven” in Hebrew is synonomous with sky. This a a metaphor. Her is better rendering of the Hebrew from the [New English Translation](http://netbible.org/cgi-bin/netbible.pl) of the Bible: > [@](#): > > Look how you have fallen from the sky, > O shining one, son of the dawn!22 > You’ve been cut down to the ground, > O conqueror23 of the nations!24 > 14:13 You said to yourself,25 > "I will climb up to the sky. > Above the stars of El26 > I will set up my throne. > I will rule on the mountain of assembly > on the remote slopes of Zaphon.27 > 14:14 I will climb up to the tops28 of the clouds; > I will make myself like the Most High!"29 > 14:15 But you were brought down30 to Sheol, > to the remote slopes of the pit.31 You seem to be severely metaphorically impaired but this passage _is_ in fact _metaphorical_. It has nothing to do with Satan as can plainly be seen with a decent translation. > [@](#): > > Now, according to you, this whole passage is about King Neb. with just a little name calling at the beginning in jest. How exactly would Neb. plan to “ascend into heaven”? What exactly do you even expect that he knew about heaven, being Babylonian and all? How would he plan to “sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north”? met-a-phor: A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles” or “All the world’s a stage” (Shakespeare). ( **American Heritage Dictionary** ) a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity ( **wordnet** ) And it’s translated better as “sky” not “Heaven.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-before-man/202176.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-before-man/202176.md?page=7)