Why does Psalm 14 appear in the Bible twice?

[Avesther]

You may also want to look at Psalm 40 & Psalm 70





You may also want to examine Psalms 57, 60 and 108

Variations of songs. Proves nothing, nor leads creadance to any arguement against the innerancy of the bible.

 

[Avesther]

Are you saying God needed a better editor?

That is not what he is saying at all.

 

[Avesther]

It would seem to me that if I were an omnimax being and I put my sacred word in the hands of my mistake prone creation to pass on to future generations...that would be a mistake.

Deut 9:10 And the LORD delivered unto me the two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the LORD spoke with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.

Who PHYSICALLY wrote the ten commandments? GOD

Why do you think HE wrote them? Maybe so they wouldn't get mistranslated or misinterpreted?

Why didn't he write the Bible?

Why was it necessary to filter it through so many levels that it is now impossible to tell whether it is divine or if it's a myth? Why was it necessary to put a fallible, human, political committee in charge of deciding what writings made up the Bible? Why didn't God do it himself, so there would be no margin of error?

Are you saying that the Bible, written, composed and edited by Man, contains errors and mistranslations? Because if you are, that my friend, is a mistake on the grandest of scales.

What does any of this, praytell, have anything to do with the topic of this thread? Seriously, if you wanted to discuss this, why not create a new thread altogether instead of hijacking it?

 

[Avesther]

Gen, I've agreed that I won't say that Yahweh is deliberately cruel or that he has lied to you all (which is easy, because I don't believe that), but I never agreed that the Bible was the inerrant word of Yahweh. I thought we came to an agreement that questioning the authenticity of the bible was legitimate on this forum? I thought it wasn't so much ideas that were forbidden on here - more the way that they are expressed is controlled?

Now, .s3k3r. here is an interesting website on the subject.

http://www.christianseparatist.org/sixth/errancy.html

Still waiting for your discussion on how the bible is errant based on differing versions of a song.

 

[Avesther]

Hmmm.

What's the point in writing down, or as you claim, to transcribe a perfect document only to lose that document and be left with incomplete, mistranslated works?

Do these perfect documents still exist somewhere?

How do you address Christians that claim the Bible as we know it, is the inerrant, perfect work of God?

If portions of the Bible are less than perfect, is it possible that they are outright wrong? Could portions of the Bible be prejudiced or slanted by human editors?

And more importantly, how do you know which portions are correct? I don't see how you can take this view and claim the Bible is anywhere near a perfect book.

Please DV and Eon, I really want to read why you think the bible is errant based on differing versions of some songs and poetry. So please stop going off on tangents.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Variations of songs. Proves nothing, nor leads creadance to any arguement against the innerancy of the bible.

Why would there need to be variations of songs included in the Bible.

Are they SO important that someone felt it necessary to add multiple versions?

 

[Dark Virtue]

I believe the bible is errant, but not on the basis of song choice. YOU are the one that came to that conlusion, I wasn't the one offering that interpretation.

However, I am very curious as to why Christians such as Eskimo believe the Bible to be the word of God AND errant at the same time.

 

[Eon]

Still waiting for your discussion on how the bible is errant based on differing versions of a song.

Sorry - I thought it was self evident.

If the bible is the perfect word of a perfect God then it will be perfectly clear and present it's perfect arguments perfectly.

There will be no redundance.

 

[kraniac]

It would seem to me that if I were an omnimax being and I put my sacred word in the hands of my mistake prone creation to pass on to future generations...that would be a mistake.

This is a good point. But if you were God you would probably have given a much louder, clearer proof of existence, wouldn't you? I don't know you specifically, but most of the athiests I know say that they don't believe in God because, if God existed, He would want to give specific, irrefutable proof of His existence. And He didn't.

Why didn't he write the Bible? Why was it necessary to filter it through so many levels that it is now impossible to tell whether it is divine or if it's a myth? Why was it necessary to put a fallible, human, political committee in charge of deciding what writings made up the Bible? Why didn't God do it himself, so there would be no margin of error?

I can't claim to know exactly why God does anything. But I think it's because that would be giving direct proof of His existence. If you saw the actual tablets of the 10 commandments, written out before you, wouldn't that make you an instant believer?

Are you saying that the Bible, written, composed and edited by Man, contains errors and mistranslations? Because if you are, that my friend, is a mistake on the grandest of scales.

DV defending the accuracy of the Bible... it warms the cockles of my heart!

But no, I don't think there are errors or mistranslations. I wouldn't say that two almost-identical copies of the same psalm or proverb is an error. It's just like two different pictures of the same object. They will undoubtedly vary slightly in their angle or lighting but the subject matter is the same thing.

Besides, the Psalms were songs. If you were updating the song or speaking in a different dialect or language, you might pick a near-synonym that rhymed better or fit the appropriate number of syllables. It doesn't change the idea behind it.

 

[Genesis1315]

Sorry - I thought it was self evident.

If the bible is the perfect word of a perfect God then it will be perfectly clear and present it's perfect arguments perfectly.

There will be no redundance.

And if we, as humans, would have listened to God the first time and obeyed Him, we would not be having this discussion.

Gen

 

[the_great_eskimo_pie]

And if we, as humans, would have listened to God the first time and obeyed Him, we would not be having this discussion.

Gen

Hehe Too true too true. I agree with Gen.

Now on to other stuffs...

Are you saying God needed a better editor?

God did not need an editor. When the Bible was originally written, it was given directly to men who wrote it down. It was not for many hundreds of years that man tried combining all the works of the Bible into One volume. The Bible was not made into 66 books until much later.

A tidbit on the Bible.
The Song of Solomon had a PG-30 rating on it years ago. No one under 30 was allowed to read it.

Why was it necessary to filter it through so many levels that it is now impossible to tell whether it is divine or if it's a myth? Why was it necessary to put a fallible, human, political committee in charge of deciding what writings made up the Bible? Why didn't God do it himself, so there would be no margin of error?

Ah, No one ever said that it had been filtered. I said that man is imperfect. However, according to scholars who have studied both the scriptures we have now and the original hebrew/greek/arabic scriptures that they were translated from and have found no errors.

However, I am very curious as to why Christians such as Eskimo believe the Bible to be the word of God AND errant at the same time.

A, I never said I believed the Bible to be errant. I said I believe that certain paraphrases are. Like the Rap one.

Honestly I do not agree with any Bible that paraphrases the Word of God.
however, with as many translations or paraphrases that have been distributed today, it would not surprise me if there are errors.

See the differance? I was not referring to all translations. There are some I do not agree with and others that I do.
I was incorrect in how I stated my opinion there and did not make myself very clear. I apologize for that.

Why do you think there are people who have devoted their entire life to making sure that the translations into other languages are correct?


Anyway, enough of my tirad.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Why do you think there are people who have devoted their entire life to making sure that the translations into other languages are correct?

People have devoted their lives to some pretty strange things, that doesn't make it right.

Thanks for the clarifications, but your link does not work.

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?

And to clarify, are you saying that the bible IS inerrant?

You say that scholars have found no errors, but what do you define an error as being?

 

[Dark Virtue]

And if we, as humans, would have listened to God the first time and obeyed Him, we would not be having this discussion.

Gen

How many young children listen to their parents the first time?

The bottom line is God WANTED Man to fall. He set all the pieces into place.

 

[Dark Virtue]

This is a good point. But if you were God you would probably have given a much louder, clearer proof of existence, wouldn't you? I don't know you specifically, but most of the athiests I know say that they don't believe in God because, if God existed, He would want to give specific, irrefutable proof of His existence. And He didn't.

The question is...why didn't he?

I can't claim to know exactly why God does anything. But I think it's because that would be giving direct proof of His existence. If you saw the actual tablets of the 10 commandments, written out before you, wouldn't that make you an instant believer?

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.

Didn't Moses have the actual 10 commandments IN HIS HAND? What did that do for him? Didn't he even see God's rear parts? Refresh my memory, did Moses make it into the promised land?

DV defending the accuracy of the Bible... it warms the cockles of my heart!

Eh, are you sure you know what a cockle is?

But no, I don't think there are errors or mistranslations. I wouldn't say that two almost-identical copies of the same psalm or proverb is an error. It's just like two different pictures of the same object. They will undoubtedly vary slightly in their angle or lighting but the subject matter is the same thing.

Before I waste any effort on this discussion, what is your definition of a biblical error?

Besides, the Psalms were songs. If you were updating the song or speaking in a different dialect or language, you might pick a near-synonym that rhymed better or fit the appropriate number of syllables. It doesn't change the idea behind it.

What does this have to do with including multiple copies of the same psalm?

 

[Genesis1315]

The bottom line is God WANTED Man to fall. He set all the pieces into place.

That would be like someone saying I want my daughter to get burned because I use a stove when she is in the house.

How many young children listen to their parents the first time?

Exactly my point

 

[Dark Virtue]

That would be like someone saying I want my daughter to get burned because I use a stove when she is in the house.

That is precisely what I'm saying.

God wanted Man to get burned.

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.

God set A&E (daughter) in the Garden of Eden (locked kitchen) and told them not to eat the fruit (touch the flame). Hmm...we're missing something aren't we? If that weren't enough, he put the serpent in the Garden to talk them into eating the fruit! That's like putting a talking puppy in the kitchen telling your daughter how nice and pretty the flame is.

Exactly my point

No, that was MY point

No parent in their right mind would tell their young child something so important and expect them to actually do it. The child doesn't know right from wrong and they don't have enough experience to understand the implications. That describes A&E to a t. They may have had adult bodies, but their minds were just like children.

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.

If God didn't expect the serpent to deceive A&E, WHY would he allow him into the Garden in the first place?

God wanted Man to fall, it's just that simple. God has a plan and works in mysterious ways right? If so, why is this so hard to accept?

 

[kraniac]

"warms the cockles of my heart" is just an expression, though I have been told that it is a synonym for wrinkles.

 

[Watcher]

Why would there need to be variations of songs included in the Bible.

Are they SO important that someone felt it necessary to add multiple versions?

You answered your own question. To put it quite simply, yes, and that someone was God.

Redundancy doesn't equate to errancy. I hope you're not suggesting that, and if so, what is your justification?

 

[Watcher]

Let's review the highlights of biblical inerrancy:

1. Biblical inerrancy only refers to the original autographical texts, not the copies.

2. The copyist errors are minor (e.g. numeric errors) which have no affect on any doctrine in the Bible

3. There are very few copyist errors. (check out "Are the Biblical Documents Reliable?" by Jim Williams)

4. We are able to determine what the error is, usually by content or through other verses.

5. The original meaning is completely preserved. In other words, no copyist error is so substantially bad that the meaning of the text is lost.

Some ask, "Why didn't an Omnimax being inspire the copyists as well, and enable us to have infallible, inerrant Bibles today?" If God truly intended to protect the tansmission of Scripture from error, this means He would have had to prevent both deliberate errors and honest mistakes. This would make it impossible to produce deviant copies of Scripture (see modern translations). This would have been quite obvious and equivalent to providing proof of God and the veracity of the Scriptures. Providing proof instead of evidence is something that He has chosen not to do. (See Why doesn't God prove His existence?)

 

[Eon]

I don't think you're clear enough on the errors in the bible. I've provided a link, oh I don't know how many hundreds of times, that says that the bible you're using today is based on a flawed version of the original text.

Here it is again...

I found a couple of real howlers in this website. Anyone want to comment?