none.

Like I keep saying....only the originals were inspired.  Only the originals.  So while the copies I believe are protected by the Holy Spirit as the word of God, only the bible in it's original language is the real inspried word of God and we don't have the originals only original copies of the originals.  Unless, that is, we find the ark of the testimony.  Then we'll have an original.  I betcha we'll find that sooner or later. 

Have you ever heard of a man named Dr. Robert Dick Wilson?  He mastered 45 languages and dialects in the 1800-1900's.  His testimony stands as a remarkable testimony to the reliability of the bible.  He stands unsurpassed in his scholarship.  One of the schools he attended was at the University of Berlin in Germany where he made a decision to dedicate his life to the study of the OT.  He said this:

"I was twenty five then and I judged from the life of my ancestors that I should live to be seventy; so that I should have forty-five years to work.  I divided the period into three parts.  The first 15 years I would devote to the study of the languages necessary.  Fo the second 15 years I was going to devote myself to the stufy of the text of the OT and I reserved the last 15 years for the work of writing the results of my previous studies and investigations so as to give them to the world." 

He did exactly that almost to the very year he had projected.  His scholastic accomplishment were amazing.  He read the NT in nine diff languages including a Hebrew translation which he had memorized syllable for syllable.  He also memorized large portions of the OT in the original Hebrew.  He was called the "the outstanding authority on ancient languages in the Middle East." 

He answered why he did all this when asked.  He said this:

"Most of our students used to go to Germany, and they heard professors give lectures which were the results of their own labours.  The students took everything because the professor said it.  I went there to study so that there would be no professor on earth that could lay down the law for me, or say anything without my being able to investigate the evidence on which he said it.  Now I consider that what was necessary in order to investigate the evidence was, first of all, to know the language in which the evidence is given.  So I determined that I would learn all the languages that throw light upon the Hebrew and also the languages into which the Bible had been translated down to A.D. 600, so that I could investigate the text myself. 

Having done this I claim to be an expert.  I defy any man to make an attack upon the OT on the ground of evidence that I cannot investigatge.  I can get at the facts if they are linguistic.  If you know any language that I do not know, I will learn it." 

As a professor at Princton, Wilson won international fame as a scholar and defender of the Christian faith.  The emphasis of Wilson's teaching ws to give his students such an intelligent faith in the OT Scriptures that they will never doubt tham as long as they live. 

Leauki,

check this out...it's a piece of work written in 1922 by Wilson.  It's quite long and thought provoking but worthy of your time and attention. 

http://www.christianbeliefs.org/articles/wilson-hc.html

I can live and agree with that.

But it does mean that even the Bible cannot tell us what G-d really wanted, no matter how literal we take it, since we don't know whether any copy we have is true to the original. (Perhaps the Samaritans got it right? Or the Muslims?)

Thanks, I'll read it tomorrow.

I know nothing about the Samaritan's copies or versions without going on a hunt.   How many original copies of either fragmented or complete copies do we have?   How does that compare with the copies we have of the other?  How old are they? 

It seems to me that the Hebrew Version that goes all the way back to Moses has to be the correct version as it's the older version.  We have old Hebrew fragments dating way back on skins and paprus.  Which is older?  I'd have to say the Hebrew text is because of the timing of the whole Samaritan era. 

And the Muslims?  No.  They didn't even show up until 600's with Mohummed  and their writings were deveoloped way later than that.   I believe the Muslims were a spin off from the Hebrews and the Christians using a bit of both OT and NT in their own writings. 

The oldest Hebrew version we have is the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain parts of the Jewish Torah and the Samaritan Torah. There is no obvious reason to assume that one of the two is "older" than the other, they both go all the way back to Moses (if they do).

Both the Jewish and the Samaritan Torah are the "Hebrew text" that "goes all the way back to Moses" and both have been found among the oldest writings we found.

The Quran ("recitation") was based on Muhammed's understand of those same holy scriptures. His reading of scripture is just as important as anybody else's understanding of it. As an Aramaic-speaking trader with Syria he was a very good position to interpret a Hebrew and Aramaic text, even though he could not read.

And the Dead Sea Scrolls contradict both the Christian Bible and the Masoretic Bible in parts.

Christian Bible: KRV ("they dug")

Masoretic Bible: K'RY ("like a lion")

Dead Sea Scrolls: K'RV (means nothing)

Which of the three is the word of G-d?

The Dead Sea Scrolls do not contradict but authenticate what we already had. 

Ps 22:16-Pierce is:

from 717 (in the sense of violence); TWOT - 158a; n m

AV - lion 79, untranslated variant 1; 80

1) lion

1a) pictures or images of lions

How about this one Leauki which we didn't bring up before:  Zech 12:10 and means.......

a primitive root; TWOT - 449; v

AV - thrust through 8, pierced 1, wounded 1, stricken through 1; 11

GK - 1991 { rq'D;

1) to pierce, thrust through, pierce through

1a) (Qal) to pierce, run through

1b) (Niphal) to be pierced through

1c) (Pual) pierced, riddled (participle)

The whole point of our earlier discussion (I think) was I was trying to show that way before it was done, it was predicted (in the OT scriptures)  that Christ would be pierced in his death.  As you know stoning was the only death sentence handed down by the Jews during the writing of the above.  Crucifixion was something the Romans brought in not the Jews.  Just another proof that the OT scriptures were inspired.  Prophecy is nothing more than history written ahead of time.  If it doesn't come 100%  true then we should dismiss it.

KFC, that is completely non-sequitur. Where did you copy that?

DQR is indeed the root for "pierce" but it's not the word we were discussing here.

The root for "lion" ('RY) is indeed correct, but the root DQR doesn't appear in the statement I was referring to.

Christian Bible: KRV ("they dug")

Masoretic Bible: K'RY ("like a lion")

Dead Sea Scrolls: K'RV (means nothing)

Those are three letter combinations that are relevant here. DQR is a different root and has nothing to do with KRV ("they dug").

You say the Masoretic Text is like a lion correct?  Well the version I use (Christian) is taken from the masoretic text is it not? 

I get my words from the Strong Concordance and my lexicons.  So it's looking like my Christian bible is the same as the Masoretic Text which is like a lion. 

So what's your point anyhow? 

They are two diff scriptures written by two diff men but both were translated "pierced" in the English.  One means dug and the other means thrust through.  Both were speaking about Christ and his crucifixtion which wouldn't come for another 500-700 years. 

My KJV version says wounded instead of pierced for Ps 22:16 but in the notes it says "pierced."  I guess they might have been thinking if a lion bites it would be the skin being pierced?  So when it says "a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet"   We could translate that to say "like a band of hungry lions, they have dug into my hands and feet."  What's the diff? 

My point is we are seeing a prediction of a death unknown to the writers who wrote this down.  I'm not exactly sure what your point is tho. 

You are not getting it.

It is the word translated as "dug" that really means "like a lion". No word in the sentence means "pierce". And no word means "dig".

"Dogs surround me, a pack of evil ones closes in on me, like a lion they are at my hands and feet."

The "diff" is that the sentence might mean a lot of things, but it simply doesn't mention "piercing" or "digging".

Again:

Christian Bible: KRV ("they dug")

Masoretic Bible: K'RY ("like a lion")

Dead Sea Scrolls: K'RV (means nothing)

The Douay Rheims has verses 16 and 17 as.....

"My strength is dried up like pottage, and my tongue hath cleaved to my jaws: and thou hast brought me down into the dust of the earth. 17 For many dogs have encompassed me: the council of the malignant hath beseiged me. They have dug my hands and my feet."

Kfc posts:

Yes, it's true. David lived more than a 1,000 years before our Lord's birth.

David was endowed with the gift of prophecy and he composed the Psalms under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God. He foretells in detail the the future crucifixation with all its sorrowful scenes and circumstances. In the one you're discussing, if you read the entire passage, it's as though David heard the Divine Redeemer utter these words as recorded in St.Matthew....."All they that saw me have laughed me to scorn, they have spoken with their lips and wagged their heads (in token of their scorn). They have pierced my hands and my feet. They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture they cast lots." 

Beside the lance that pierced Christ's side, David's Psalms mention the the gall and the vinegar and the nails that held Him to the Cross.

There were two stories when I read it.  I don't remember the specifics but one had one progression like man, beast, woman, and the other had a different progression like man, woman, beast.  There was also the issue of plants being created before the sun which we all know from science class that plants can't survive without the sun to do photosynthesis.  Then there's the notion that in a literal interpretation of the bible the earth is roughly 10,000 years old which according to science is way off.  Why does the bible make no mention of the dinosaurs which we know existed because of all the fossil evidence, we also know that dinosaurs and humans didn't exist at the same time.

This what I mean by inconsistencies.  Some of it is how the bible seems to be inconsistent with itself but a lot of it is that the bible doesn't mesh with science and I am more willing to believe in science (and I'm not lumping theoretical physics in with this) since it is based on emperical evidence.

What "experts"?  I'm sorry but it is completely impossible for Noah to have loaded two of every species onto the boat plus food and water for all of them enough to last the entire duration.  Not to mention that it would be impossible for only 1 family, no matter the size, to care for that many animals.  And that doesn't even consider how you stop the carnivores from eating all the herbivores.

Noah didn't have the construction techniques that we have today, and even with todays construction there is no way you could construct a boat to hold two of every species, there is just no way even if they were all babies. 

I don't believe this based on someone else any more than you believe what you believe based on what someone else has said.

The basic assumption by anyone taking a critical look at any work is to have that work prove itself to you not to go into it with a major assumption like there is a god going into it.  You don't go into a critical analysis of the theory of gravity with the assumption that gravity exists do you?  Of course not because if you did then the argument is easy: "gravity exists because it is assumed that gravity exists."

But if God wanted everyone to believe one thing and only one thing don't you think something as powerful as God (as you describe him) could have created language so that there was only one possible interpretation of the text so that there wouldn't be any differences?  Just a thought.

Maybe that'll be Indy's next big adventure.  Sorry I couldn't resist.

Or perhaps no one got it right.

There are no such "experts" and Noah also didn't rescue two of each type of animal on the world. Plus he was (obviously) not the only one to survive the flood with his family. And the Bible doesn't say that he did or was.

See this for a beginning of an explanation:

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/320746/Noahs_Flood_the_Beginning_and_the_End

In short:

There was no world-wide flood and the Bible doesn't mention one.

"Noah" is not a name but a word that means "landed".

There are many legends about floods, some are set in Iraq. Noah's flood is set in northern Iraq, in the region that the Hebrew Bible calls "Aram Naharain" in ("high land of the two rivers" in Aramaic). Some flood stories put the flood into southern Iraq.

The idea of a world-wide flood came up when messianic sects (including early Christianity) needed a concept of grave sins and redemption. It was reinforced when the Latin and Germanic (English and German) words for "land" came to mean "planet Earth" due to changes how people used those words.

Muslims, who received the story of Noah from the same sources as Christians, traditionally understood the flood story to be about a local flood.

I hope that explains it.

It seems to me to be a bit, arrogant to assume that (your) God is male. It would seem reasonable to assume that if God is all, and all is he, then that would entail being feminine. Unless that is where Mary falls, even though Mary was never a deity.

~Alderic

My Douay Rheims version has the name of the man that found favor with Almighty God as NOE.  It's here that God tells Noe that the earth is filled with iniquity and He will put an end to ALL flesh which is one indication that it was indeed a worldwide flood.

Genesis 6:8-13, 17 "But Noe found grace before the Lord. 9 These are the generations of Noe: Noe was  a just and perfect man in his generations, he walked with God. 10 And he begot three sons, Sem, Cham, and Japeth. 11 And the earth was corrupted (for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth.) 13 He said to Noe: the end of all flesh is come before me, the earth is filled with iniquity through them, and I will destroy them with the earth." 17 Behold I will bring the waters of a great flood upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, under heaven. All things that are in the earth shall be consumed."

The phrases,  the earth is "filled" with iniquity and "all" flesh was corrupted blow away the idea of a local flood. For probably as much as a thousand years before leading to the time of Noe, religious life was just about non-existent. It wasn't only the local northern Iraq area where the earth was filled with iniquity..it was life (all flesh) all over the world that had corrupted its way upon the earth.   

The other proof comes in the single verse of 7:20 which if taken at face value proves indisputably that the flood was universal.

you know, if you want to be credible AND take the bible literally you should quote the original hebrew (or... latin? for new testement) instead of the translation of a translation of a...