Why does Psalm 14 appear in the Bible twice?

[Eon]

Warning: Regarding last link...

I should point out that the guys who run that website are a bunch of racist kooks. I found their site by way of a Google on Biblical errors, and found the errors themselves sufficiently compelling that I used the link.

If I were you I'd read the study bit and forget about the race politics.

 

[the_great_eskimo_pie]

One part still bothers me. As a lay man, one not schooled in Greek, Hebrew or ancient theology, how does one know which translation to use? How do you judge which one is better than another?

How do you tell? I look for full translations to start. Like the NKJV, KJV, NIV as a few examples. I make sure that the wording is not paraphrased at all.

This is a common, logical mistake Christians make. Why does it matter if we have indesputable proof of God's existence? Look at how many people had evidence, true evidence of God's existence in the Bible that made NO difference to them. Here's a quick list: 1/3 of the angels, Lucifer, Adam, Eve, Moses, Pharaoh and countless Egyptians and Israelites.

Ah, The Bible never says that Lucifer does not beleive in God. we know that he does.(Job 1:6-12) Lucifers sin was wanting to become God. (Isaiah 14:12-15)

Adam and Eve did beleive in God, They simply disobeyed him.
Same with the Isrealites. They knew and know the One True God, yet they choose/chose to disobey.

God set everything in motion to facilitate the fall of Man. From creating Lucifer, knowing he would fall to allowing him access to the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve.

You are talking about predestination.

When God created man in His image, He gave man the ability to make his own choices. For good or evil. In order for God to allow man his Autonomy, God had to give man the choice as to whether or not to eat of the forbidden fruit. Without the choice, there is no autonomy.

Let me further your analogy...it's like telling your daughter not to touch the pretty flame on the stove because it would burn her. Then turning the stove on, sitting her on a chair in front of the stove and locking her, alone, in the kitchen.

Your analogy is flawed. Just because someone "locks" their child in the kitchen with a stove going does not mean that the child is going to touch the pretty flame. You make a rather large assumption that all children do not do as their parent suggest. Even I know that a brick (or in this case pretty flame) is hard without someone having to throw it at me to prove it.



I just realized we are sliding a bit off topic. Lets get back on shall we?

 

[Goose62]

Anyone want to comment?

This article has really made me question which version/translation to purchase next. Although some of the compare verses seem minor, I'd still like a true translation from a trusted source. The Homan CSB seems like a good buy as well.

 

[Berean Todd]

This article has really made me question which version/translation to purchase next. Although some of the compare verses seem minor, I'd still like a true translation from a trusted source. The Homan CSB seems like a good buy as well.

If you want the answer from a theologian, pastor and seminary student at one of the leading conservative (biblically speaking) seminaries around ... and that would be me I am referring to ... the best translation on the market is the NASB, followed closely by the NKJV. If you want to read something that is a little easier for the modern reader ... well first I would suggest sticking to the NASB or NKJV, but if not then I would say that the ESV is an excellent translation and is much preferable to the "nearly inspired version" (i.e. the NIV).

 

[Dark Virtue]

How do you tell? I look for full translations to start. Like the NKJV, KJV, NIV as a few examples. I make sure that the wording is not paraphrased at all.

What sets those translations apart from the rest?

What, exactly, do you look for to make a judgement on the translation?

Ah, The Bible never says that Lucifer does not beleive in God. we know that he does.(Job 1:6-12) Lucifers sin was wanting to become God. (Isaiah 14:12-15)

Adam and Eve did beleive in God, They simply disobeyed him.
Same with the Isrealites. They knew and know the One True God, yet they choose/chose to disobey.

Eskimo, you are only serving to underline my point.

You just proved that people can believe in God and still have the free will to choose whether or not to follow him.

So in light of that, please explain why God doesn't simply prove himself to all of us.

You are talking about predestination.

When God created man in His image, He gave man the ability to make his own choices. For good or evil. In order for God to allow man his Autonomy, God had to give man the choice as to whether or not to eat of the forbidden fruit. Without the choice, there is no autonomy.

No, I'm not talking about predestination, that's a completely different topic. I'm talking about God proving his existence to Man and Man's ability to still have a free choice to believe in him or not. You're dancing around this crucial point in the argument.

Your analogy is flawed. Just because someone "locks" their child in the kitchen with a stove going does not mean that the child is going to touch the pretty flame. You make a rather large assumption that all children do not do as their parent suggest. Even I know that a brick (or in this case pretty flame) is hard without someone having to throw it at me to prove it.

Again, you only underline my point. You are correct that not all children would touch the flame, or as the analogy goes, Adam and Eve could very well have not eaten of the forbidden fruit. Here's where it gets devious. Remember the serpent? Who created the serpent? For what purpose? Who let him into the Garden of Eden? By letting the serpent into the Garden, God pretty much sealed the deal. The Bible says, "the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made." Not only does the Bible say that God made the serpent, but also that God made him more crafty than any other animal. Now, you're not implying that God made a mistake by letting him into the Garden, are you?

 

[Dark Virtue]

If you want the answer from a theologian, pastor and seminary student at one of the leading conservative (biblically speaking) seminaries around ... and that would be me I am referring to ... the best translation on the market is the NASB, followed closely by the NKJV. If you want to read something that is a little easier for the modern reader ... well first I would suggest sticking to the NASB or NKJV, but if not then I would say that the ESV is an excellent translation and is much preferable to the "nearly inspired version" (i.e. the NIV).

I am by no means questioning your choice, but could you explain WHY it's the best translation on the market?

 

[Berean Todd]

I am by no means questioning your choice, but could you explain WHY it's the best translation on the market?

There are really only two translations out there that go strictly word-for-word (or extremely close to it) in the translation. All others interpret things in order to make it easier to read. Those two that go word-for-word are the NKJV and the NASB.

Now between the two of them there are questions of which manuscripts are the best to use. Obviously we have more numbers of the newer manuscripts, so is the majority of the MSS the preference for translation, or are the earlier manuscripts more reliable being written closer to the time of the original? (Realize that we are only talking about a small amount of material that this affects, as the MSS are in roughly 98% harmony).

The NKJV leans heavily towards the "majority" while the NASB leans slightly towards the "early" or "Alexandrian" texts. Thus my preference for the NASB. Both are very good word-for-word translations though.

Now of the other "modern" or "easier" to read translations, most of them (including the NIV) make major errors in multiple points. The ESV is the best of them, because allthough written to be easy to read, it still maintains a close relationship to the word-for-word style, and thus compromises less than some others.

 

[Berean Todd]

How do you tell? I look for full translations to start. Like the NKJV, KJV, NIV as a few examples. I make sure that the wording is not paraphrased at all.

Just for your info though, the NIV is heavily paraphrased (not in the same manner or to the same extent as 'the Message' or others like it of course), and it often compromises the real meaning in the Greek.

 

[the_great_eskimo_pie]

What sets those translations apart from the rest?

What, exactly, do you look for to make a judgement on the translation?

I ask my parents, Pastor and people I trust their opinions.

Eskimo, you are only serving to underline my point.

You just proved that people can believe in God and still have the free will to choose whether or not to follow him.

So in light of that, please explain why God doesn't simply prove himself to all of us.

why doesn't God strike down everyone who says "May God strike me with lightening if I am lying?" Your asking me to answer a question I can not fathom the answer to.

People beleive in God yes. You however, if you truely are an atheist, do not.
So I have a question for you. Why do you bother with these posts when you do not believe in God?

No, I'm not talking about predestination, that's a completely different topic. I'm talking about God proving his existence to Man and Man's ability to still have a free choice to believe in him or not. You're dancing around this crucial point in the argument.

Ummm. yes you are. You are saying that God should not have given Adam and Eve the Choice whether or not to sin.
God has proven His existence many, many, many times.
Psalm 19:1 "The Heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork."
DV, all you have to do is look around and you can "See" God. He has placed Himself in open view for all to see. I pray that someday you do.

Again, you only underline my point. You are correct that not all children would touch the flame, or as the analogy goes, Adam and Eve could very well have not eaten of the forbidden fruit. Here's where it gets devious. Remember the serpent? Who created the serpent? For what purpose? Who let him into the Garden of Eden? By letting the serpent into the Garden, God pretty much sealed the deal. The Bible says, "the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made." Not only does the Bible say that God made the serpent, but also that God made him more crafty than any other animal. Now, you're not implying that God made a mistake by letting him into the Garden, are you?

Ah, you are assuming then that all creatures could speak before the fall?
many theologians believe that the serpent was really Lucifer taking on Corporeal form. If this is true, was it not Lucifer who tempted them?
Again I will re-itterate my point. God had to allow the serpent into the garden in order for Adam and Eve to truely choose.

I never implied anything.

 

[the_great_eskimo_pie]

Just for your info though, the NIV is heavily paraphrased (not in the same manner or to the same extent as 'the Message' or others like it of course), and it often compromises the real meaning in the Greek.

yeah. I realized that after my post. I have not used the NIV in a long while.

 

[Dark Virtue]

There are really only two translations out there that go strictly word-for-word (or extremely close to it) in the translation. All others interpret things in order to make it easier to read. Those two that go word-for-word are the NKJV and the NASB.

Now between the two of them there are questions of which manuscripts are the best to use. Obviously we have more numbers of the newer manuscripts, so is the majority of the MSS the preference for translation, or are the earlier manuscripts more reliable being written closer to the time of the original? (Realize that we are only talking about a small amount of material that this affects, as the MSS are in roughly 98% harmony).

The NKJV leans heavily towards the "majority" while the NASB leans slightly towards the "early" or "Alexandrian" texts. Thus my preference for the NASB. Both are very good word-for-word translations though.

Now of the other "modern" or "easier" to read translations, most of them (including the NIV) make major errors in multiple points. The ESV is the best of them, because allthough written to be easy to read, it still maintains a close relationship to the word-for-word style, and thus compromises less than some others.

Is there a problem with the KJV?

Do scholars see problems with it?

What do you think of "King James only" Christians?

 

[Dark Virtue]

I ask my parents, Pastor and people I trust their opinions.

Hmmm.

I noticed you didn't say anything about your personal research or study.

Interesting answer.

why doesn't God strike down everyone who says "May God strike me with lightening if I am lying?" Your asking me to answer a question I can not fathom the answer to.

There are many questions people don't have the answer to, that doesn't mean we can't strive to answer them. Sometimes the answer isn't the destination, it's the journey.

People beleive in God yes. You however, if you truely are an atheist, do not.

You are either missing the point or are puposefully avoiding it.

You already admitted that there were people in the Bible that believed in the existence of God WITH proof. That is all I ask for, proof. I understand you don't know why God doesn't choose to prove himself to us today, and I appreciate the honest answer. But I want you to see where we are in this discussion. You, and others like you, have claimed that free will can't exist while having proof that God exists. I have proven that this is not so, and you have personally defended my position with your recent posts. This is what I want you to understand.

So I have a question for you. Why do you bother with these posts when you do not believe in God?

Because I personally do not believe that belief in God is logical. Christians do. Therefore, I am trying to understand if belief in God is, indeed, logical. Do my questions bother you? If so, why? Is it really that difficult to question your beliefs? Prove all things, hold onto that which is good, remember?

[auote]Ummm. yes you are. You are saying that God should not have given Adam and Eve the Choice whether or not to sin. [/quote]

WRONG. Do not put words in my mouth. Sure, God gave A&E the ability to choose, but he stacked the deck to make sure they fell.

God has proven His existence many, many, many times.
Psalm 19:1 "The Heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork."
DV, all you have to do is look around and you can "See" God. He has placed Himself in open view for all to see. I pray that someday you do.

You and I obviously have different definitions of the word PROOF. If there was truly PROOF, there would be no need for these discussions, would there? There wouldn't be hundreds of different religions would there? Psalm 19:1 does not offer up proof for God, I'm sorry.

Ah, you are assuming then that all creatures could speak before the fall?

NO, I'm not making that assumption and I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

many theologians believe that the serpent was really Lucifer taking on Corporeal form. If this is true, was it not Lucifer who tempted them?

There are also many theologians that believe Satan was not Lucifer and many that believe that the serpent was NOT Satan/Lucifer, but that's beside the point. For the record, I was working under the assumption that Satan was the serpent.

God had to allow the serpent into the garden in order for Adam and Eve to truely choose.

WRONG! What do you mean by TRULY choose? They could just have easily chosen without outside interruption. Instead, God let the serpent into the Garden for one reason and one reason only...TO TRICK MAN INTO FALLING. This has nothing to do with "truly" choosing. By introducing the serpent, God voided A&E's free will, they had will, but they were no longer free. Obviously, the serpent was far more crafty than A or E, so what chance did they possibly have? Again, they may have had human bodies, but their minds were simple and trusting, like that of a child.

I never implied anything.

Just clarifying. Since God didn't make a mistake, then everything he did was for a reason. That reason being the Fall of Man.

 

[Genesis1315]

So in light of that, please explain why God doesn't simply prove himself to all of us.

So what about those who have previously known God and then walked away?

and

Who is to say that He didn't make Himself known and the individual person chose not to pay attention?

Gen

 

[Berean Todd]

Is there a problem with the KJV?

On several levels, yes. First off just the problems of extremely outdated English. Language changes over time, and much of the original KJV is just plain hard to follow, even for intelligent people. Secondly, the translators of the KJV did not even have original language versions for all of the letters, some of their translation came from the Latin Vulgate, or in other words ... was a translation of a translation.

Then you have the problem of a couple of passages in the KJV for which there is no MSS evidence prior to about 1100-1300 somewhere.

Do scholars see problems with it?

See above. Now don't let me knock it too much, because it is a decent version, that attempts word-for-word translation, and was used for centuries to do great things. But compared to the editions we have today, yes scholars do have problems with it.

What do you think of "King James only" Christians?

Extremely narrowminded and lacking in understanding. Also many/most who are KJV-only types are also extreme legalists, so another problem there as well.

 

[kraniac]

Personally I like the KJV... I wouldn't go so far as to say that KJV was the only good translation, and it's not the translation that I read every day (that's NJKV) but I think especially that its renditions of the poetry sections of the Bible are really eloquent sometimes. It's sort of Shakespearean, actually.

 

[Dark Virtue]

So what about those who have previously known God and then walked away?

and

Who is to say that He didn't make Himself known and the individual person chose not to pay attention?

Gen

Good points, but you're skirting the issue.

I'm talking about REALLY making himself known, like the examples in the Bible, where there is no room for error or misinterpretation, which nullifies your second question.

As to your first question, that's not what this discussion is about, that's a whole other subject.