The Bible is reliable

Can we perhaps agree to use the KJV for future references? You state: . .. by "reliable," the instigator is suggesting the Bible ought to be interpreted literally. . .. That is false. " Something can only be reliable if all aspects pertaining to what is to be determined as reliable is taken into consideration. Saying that reliable suggests that ONLY a literal interpretation is intended is therefore a wrong assumption because it obviously is biased by singling out one aspect of numerous things that will determine reliability. Any language contains elements of figurative, literal, metaphoric elements etc. that must be interpreted in order to establish what the intended message is. The intended message can be true or false, factual or not factual etc. All of these different ways of interpretation provides a basis to make reliable interpretations based on what is understood regarding the intended message. A message is what gives meaning to words. What do you understand by: Will car cat porky side grave? It's just mumbo jumbo because there is no message. I can say it is mumbo jumbo because I am able to interpret each word literally and see that it does not make any sense no matter how you arrange the words. I can translate those word to my native language which will be written as follows: Sal motor kat vark kant graf. That is a literal translation and it still does not make any sense, even if you change the word order in any way you like. The Bible is not different from any other language process used by the different nations that uses different genres to convey reliable understandable information, and therefore the claim that it is false to interpret the Bible literally is false. This is quite easy to demonstrate: The Bible says there is a nation called Israel. That is obviously a literal reference and intended to be interpreted literally. Is this false because it is literally interpreted as you claim? Obviously not. Any meaningful interpretation cannot be done ONLY in a literal way, if this is what you were suggesting. It is also important to distinguish between literal translation and literal interpretation. Literal TRANSALTION is a must to determine the message. It's a basic translation principle. You say: "First, the Bible cannot be translated literally. " The article you refer to basically says the same but in the translation process you first have to translate the message literally into the desired language of your choice to get an idea of what the message says. You then have to change the word order and tenses to comply with the language you translate into. You may then use certain expressions, although different in wording, to convey the same intended message. The end result will be a message that matches the original message literally. An example of this is the Hebrew expression of may the King live long. The KJV translators used the expression "God save the king". It is obvious that if God saves the king's life that he will live long. If this was not possible then no one would be able to translate anything. Again, an example using my native language: I kicked the ball. In my language the exact same message will be: Ek het die bal geskop. A literal translation back into English will be: I had the ball kicked. Are you going to tell me even with the literal translation back into English that you cannot understand that I kicked the ball? My only advice to the writer of the article you refer to is not to take up a career in translation. This statement is incorrect: "In translating the Bible, the translators first translated it from Hebrew and Aramaic to Greek. Then, later, they translated the Greek version to Latin. Finally, they translated the Latin version (with help from the Greek version and the Hebrew version) to the Early Modern English version. " The New Testament was written in Koine greek. The New Testament was not translated from Greek, it WAS written in Greek. The Bible (as a whole because you make no distinctions) was not written in Hebrew in its entirety and then translated into Greek and then to Latin and then Modern versions started using it. Most Modern versions uses the Vaticanus and Sinaiticanus Manuscripts, both written in Classical Greek not Latin. "And there were hundreds of years between these translations; plenty of time for language drift" This is also not true. Many translations were made into different languages, but let's examine your drift claim. This is a verse from the original KJV1611 compared with the KJV available today. It uses the same language and 400 years of "drift" should be enough to determine if the message changed and if errors crept in. John 3:16 - For God so loued "e world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life. " and now for the KJV available today in any bookstore: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. " Are you able to read that and see that the message did not change at all? You state: "For example, Genesis claims that God provides all plants for human consumption, yet science has shown that many plants are dangerous for us to eat. " If you are referring to the first humans, Adam and Eve, then you are obviously taking what God said out of context. God said that they can eat of anything in the GARDEN. and all the food in the GARDEN was good for human consumption. After the fall the ground was cursed and some things was not so good to eat anymore, and remember, after the fall they were kicked out of the GARDEN. They had to eat what was available in the rest of the world outside of the GARDEN. Further: "According to Leviticus 11:5-6, rabbits chew their cud and because of this they are unclean. But rabbits don't actually chew cud. " Cud is a word used to refer to food that was PARTIALLY digested and then re-used by the same animal. Modern science have invented numerous words that was not available back then to distinguish between various and SPECIFIC types of functions today. The definition of eat is as follows: 1: to take in through the mouth as food : ingest, chew, and swallow in turn (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...). Chewing or swallowing refers to the process of eating. The meaning of "Chew the Cud" is: (Of a ruminant animal) further chew partly digested food (. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...). Rabbits do eat their Cud. The difference between a Cow and a Rabbit is that the Cow's cud comes back up through his throat and the Rabbits out the back side. Some say the Rabbit swallows it but if the Cud is too big he or she chews it or else it will be death by Cud for the Rabbit. You may use special scientific words to distinguish between the integrates of the different processes but the bottom line is, the message says that the Rabbit eats partially digested food just like a Cow does etc. although through a different process. The verses does not address the processes used and therefore the message remains reliable. Further: "The Bible claims that some patriarchs, such as Adam and Noah, lived to be over 900 years of age. Quite obviously that is impossible according to what we know about the lifespan of humans" Yes the Bible does state that but the Bible also states that because of the fall men will not live that long anymore. Comparing people back then with people today, when it is stated in between that the long life span will end, is not very logical. I followed the link and will briefly answer what I found there. You stated: "It contains a lot of mythology [3]" The not so wise Sloth starts with comparing a supernatural being with the evolution of people in the Bronze age because of a sword and then concludes that it must be a myth? Do you really think a supernatural being with powers beyond human capabilities would need a man made sword? He then states that Noah's story was stolen from other sources. The Book of Job mention that Job only heard of the God of the Israelites so it is clear that the oral tradition of the Israelites were well known through Asia. The people who claim that the Bible plagiarized from other stories fail to realize that the other stories could be plagiarized from the Israelite Biblical traditions. But in the end the Sloths conclusion fails because even a plagiarized story can be true and therefore not a myth like the so called wise sloth claims. The mention of Job is again a comparison between what is supernaturally possible and what is humanly possible. The sloth should realize that these type of comparisons contains obvious flaws. Natural vs. SUPERnatural. The rest of the examples is about how woman and slaves were treated and said to be treated. This was the biggest fail I noticed. These type of things are still going on today, the slave trade is still alive, certain religions still treat woman bad (and if your an Atheist you probably get drunk just like a lot of other men and probably treat your wife just as bad anyway). This is going on today, it is not a MYTH. Yet the all wise sloth mention this to prove the Bible is a myth. People should stop fighting for woman's rights, it's all a myth according to the sloth. Then my favorite, the scripture regarding the quarrelsome wife is NO MYTH. Ask any man married longer than 5 years. But there is a scripture I am reminded of reading what the Sloth (I do not want to insult wise people anymore by calling a SLOTH wise), professing to be wise they became fools (my paraphrase).