Political Crossfire Forums

Clarino · Joined: 29 Oct 2006 Posts: 3344 Location: Oop North

mr.snruB wrote: God = Omniscient

Man = made in God's image

Made in God's image means that we look the same as God does.

No, or we'd all look the same. Duh! We resemble God.

mr.snruB wrote:
If our body is in Gods bodies image, and our brain is part of our body, then our brain would be made to be the same as gods brain. So if our brain is the same, then the capability of both would be equal, correct?

It probably has the potential to become a great deal more capable than it currently is, but to suggest that man could become God just because God made us to resemble Him is a little foolish.

mr.snruB wrote: Does that mean that man has the mental ability to become omniscient?

No, of course not. Not unless that's what God wants anyway.

mr.snruB wrote: How did God become omniscient?

How did the sea get wet?

eynon

Narvik wrote: zMtLlC wrote: mr.snruB wrote: zMtLlC wrote: mr.snruB wrote:
Man = made in God's image

I don't think this necessarily means physical image.

What else would image mean? As simplistic as that sounds (I'm sure you're thinking "ha ha, what a simpleton. He only thinks image applies to physical features. Ha ha"), is there really anything else? Anything like spirit or thoughts or philosophy or morals is not an image
It means that we were made perfect, like God, with a free will. You have to remember that the bible has been translated so many times that it's probably not a perfect translation.
and yet 2 billion people follow it..

(shrug)it's close enough..........

Narvik · Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 607 Location: Orsa

eynon wrote: Narvik wrote: zMtLlC wrote: mr.snruB wrote: zMtLlC wrote: mr.snruB wrote:
Man = made in God's image

I don't think this necessarily means physical image.

What else would image mean? As simplistic as that sounds (I'm sure you're thinking "ha ha, what a simpleton. He only thinks image applies to physical features. Ha ha"), is there really anything else? Anything like spirit or thoughts or philosophy or morals is not an image
It means that we were made perfect, like God, with a free will. You have to remember that the bible has been translated so many times that it's probably not a perfect translation.
and yet 2 billion people follow it..

(shrug)it's close enough..........
yeah? It's misinterpreted so you shouldn't take it to seriously and yet you let your eternal souls destiny rest on it's teachings? Is that really wise?
Isn't it evil of God to not give us a fresh copy of the bible?

eynon

Narvik wrote: eynon wrote: Narvik wrote: zMtLlC wrote: mr.snruB wrote: zMtLlC wrote: mr.snruB wrote:
Man = made in God's image

I don't think this necessarily means physical image.

What else would image mean? As simplistic as that sounds (I'm sure you're thinking "ha ha, what a simpleton. He only thinks image applies to physical features. Ha ha"), is there really anything else? Anything like spirit or thoughts or philosophy or morals is not an image
It means that we were made perfect, like God, with a free will. You have to remember that the bible has been translated so many times that it's probably not a perfect translation.
and yet 2 billion people follow it..

(shrug)it's close enough..........
yeah? It's misinterpreted so you shouldn't take it to seriously and yet you let your eternal souls destiny rest on it's teachings? Is that really wise?
Isn't it evil of God to not give us a fresh copy of the bible?

misinterpreted is a bit harsh.........some parts are fairly open though, leaving room for different interpretation.

I mean I read a copy of the OT translated directly from the Hebrew(sometimes I read one translated from Greek on points I feel are unclear)......it by in large the same.

I read a NT translated from the ole'Greek.........so really, my English translation has only been interpreted once.

as to a fresh copy? no thanks........so far the people of our century seem about as deep as a kiddie-pool.

Narvik · Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 607 Location: Orsa

eynon wrote: Narvik wrote: eynon wrote: Narvik wrote: zMtLlC wrote: mr.snruB wrote: zMtLlC wrote: mr.snruB wrote:
Man = made in God's image

I don't think this necessarily means physical image.

What else would image mean? As simplistic as that sounds (I'm sure you're thinking "ha ha, what a simpleton. He only thinks image applies to physical features. Ha ha"), is there really anything else? Anything like spirit or thoughts or philosophy or morals is not an image
It means that we were made perfect, like God, with a free will. You have to remember that the bible has been translated so many times that it's probably not a perfect translation.
and yet 2 billion people follow it..

(shrug)it's close enough..........
yeah? It's misinterpreted so you shouldn't take it to seriously and yet you let your eternal souls destiny rest on it's teachings? Is that really wise?
Isn't it evil of God to not give us a fresh copy of the bible?

misinterpreted is a bit harsh.........some parts are fairly open though, leaving room for different interpretation.

I mean I read a copy of the OT translated directly from the Hebrew(sometimes I read one translated from Greek on points I feel are unclear)......it by in large the same.

I read a NT translated from the ole'Greek.........so really, my English translation has only been interpreted once.

as to a fresh copy? no thanks........so far the people of our century seem about as deep as a kiddie-pool.
The bible is indeed misintepreted, or otherwise changed.
In all old bibles in sweden it says that God hate f**s and that they should be killed. After 1960, or whenever it was, it was changed. Nowadays God just don't like f**s all that much.

That's probably a change to make the bible more morraly correct (but shouldn't god´s morals be the highest moral), thing about all the changes that has been made during the last 2000 years. It has been translated and fixed more than two times during 2000 years. have you studied language history or whatever it's called? You probably wouldn't be able to understand an englishman from the 1700 century. Do you really think that you would understand a book that was translated 1000 years ago?

eynon

Narvik wrote: eynon wrote: Narvik wrote: eynon wrote: Narvik wrote: zMtLlC wrote: mr.snruB wrote: zMtLlC wrote: mr.snruB wrote:
Man = made in God's image

I don't think this necessarily means physical image.

What else would image mean? As simplistic as that sounds (I'm sure you're thinking "ha ha, what a simpleton. He only thinks image applies to physical features. Ha ha"), is there really anything else? Anything like spirit or thoughts or philosophy or morals is not an image
It means that we were made perfect, like God, with a free will. You have to remember that the bible has been translated so many times that it's probably not a perfect translation.
and yet 2 billion people follow it..

(shrug)it's close enough..........
yeah? It's misinterpreted so you shouldn't take it to seriously and yet you let your eternal souls destiny rest on it's teachings? Is that really wise?
Isn't it evil of God to not give us a fresh copy of the bible?

misinterpreted is a bit harsh.........some parts are fairly open though, leaving room for different interpretation.

I mean I read a copy of the OT translated directly from the Hebrew(sometimes I read one translated from Greek on points I feel are unclear)......it by in large the same.

I read a NT translated from the ole'Greek.........so really, my English translation has only been interpreted once.

as to a fresh copy? no thanks........so far the people of our century seem about as deep as a kiddie-pool.
The bible is indeed misintepreted, or otherwise changed.
In all old bibles in sweden it says that God hate f**s and that they should be killed. After 1960, or whenever it was, it was changed. Nowadays God just don't like f**s all that much.

That's probably a change to make the bible more morraly correct (but shouldn't god´s morals be the highest moral), thing about all the changes that has been made during the last 2000 years. It has been translated and fixed more than two times during 2000 years. have you studied language history or whatever it's called? You probably wouldn't be able to understand an englishman from the 1700 century. Do you really think that you would understand a book that was translated 1000 years ago?

well the part about stoning Homosexuals is in the OT, and it's still in there, Jews are very serious about preserving their holy-scriptures as is.

They still copy them by hand in many places, one mistake, and the book is burned and the Rabbi starts over. My OT is Jewish, the same publication my best friend uses in his synagog.

anyways I can't speak to the changes to the book Swedish Lutherans may have made........but many around the world are very serious about keeping the book as accurate and close to the origonal as possible. Many congregations still use the King James Version, translated from Latin and Greek in the early 17th century.

But as I said, my prefference is towards a book with a NT from the ancient Greek and an OT from the Hebrew, translated into modern American English.

It may not be word for word the same, but the ideas, events, and spirit crosses over, even into a lousey lingo like English.

The gap between anicent Greek and English is smaller then the gap between modern Chinese and English.....yet we still communicate and translate(even technical and legal documents) just fine.

Narvik · Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 607 Location: Orsa

eynon wrote: Narvik wrote: eynon wrote: Narvik wrote: eynon wrote: Narvik wrote: zMtLlC wrote: mr.snruB wrote: zMtLlC wrote: mr.snruB wrote:
Man = made in God's image

I don't think this necessarily means physical image.

What else would image mean? As simplistic as that sounds (I'm sure you're thinking "ha ha, what a simpleton. He only thinks image applies to physical features. Ha ha"), is there really anything else? Anything like spirit or thoughts or philosophy or morals is not an image
It means that we were made perfect, like God, with a free will. You have to remember that the bible has been translated so many times that it's probably not a perfect translation.
and yet 2 billion people follow it..

(shrug)it's close enough..........
yeah? It's misinterpreted so you shouldn't take it to seriously and yet you let your eternal souls destiny rest on it's teachings? Is that really wise?
Isn't it evil of God to not give us a fresh copy of the bible?

misinterpreted is a bit harsh.........some parts are fairly open though, leaving room for different interpretation.

I mean I read a copy of the OT translated directly from the Hebrew(sometimes I read one translated from Greek on points I feel are unclear)......it by in large the same.

I read a NT translated from the ole'Greek.........so really, my English translation has only been interpreted once.

as to a fresh copy? no thanks........so far the people of our century seem about as deep as a kiddie-pool.
The bible is indeed misintepreted, or otherwise changed.
In all old bibles in sweden it says that God hate f**s and that they should be killed. After 1960, or whenever it was, it was changed. Nowadays God just don't like f**s all that much.

That's probably a change to make the bible more morraly correct (but shouldn't god´s morals be the highest moral), thing about all the changes that has been made during the last 2000 years. It has been translated and fixed more than two times during 2000 years. have you studied language history or whatever it's called? You probably wouldn't be able to understand an englishman from the 1700 century. Do you really think that you would understand a book that was translated 1000 years ago?

well the part about stoning Homosexuals is in the OT, and it's still in there, Jews are very serious about preserving their holy-scriptures as is.

They still copy them by hand in many places, one mistake, and the book is burned and the Rabbi starts over. My OT is Jewish, the same publication my best friend uses in his synagog.

anyways I can't speak to the changes to the book Swedish Lutherans may have made........but many around the world are very serious about keeping the book as accurate and close to the origonal as possible. Many congregations still use the King James Version, translated from Latin and Greek in the early 17th century.

But as I said, my prefference is towards a book with a NT from the ancient Greek and an OT from the Hebrew, translated into modern American English.

It may not be word for word the same, but the ideas, events, and spirit crosses over, even into a lousey lingo like English.

The gap between anicent Greek and English is smaller then the gap between modern Chinese and English.....yet we still communicate and translate(even technical and legal documents) just fine.
The part about stoning homosexuals isn't in many new swedish bibles at least.

Yes, i know that it's no problem to translate ancient Greek and English, but there's probalby words that existed then that doesn't exist now and new words that means almost the same thing but not exactly, therefore is impossible to make a perfect translation. When you translate something to one language to another the same problem exists, but it's worse.

eynon

[quote="Narvik"] eynon wrote: Narvik wrote: eynon wrote: Narvik wrote: eynon wrote: Narvik wrote: zMtLlC wrote: mr.snruB wrote: zMtLlC wrote: mr.snruB wrote:
Man = made in God's image

I don't think this necessarily means physical image.

What else would image mean? As simplistic as that sounds (I'm sure you're thinking "ha ha, what a simpleton. He only thinks image applies to physical features. Ha ha"), is there really anything else? Anything like spirit or thoughts or philosophy or morals is not an image
It means that we were made perfect, like God, with a free will. You have to remember that the bible has been translated so many times that it's probably not a perfect translation.
and yet 2 billion people follow it..

(shrug)it's close enough..........
yeah? It's misinterpreted so you shouldn't take it to seriously and yet you let your eternal souls destiny rest on it's teachings? Is that really wise?
Isn't it evil of God to not give us a fresh copy of the bible?

misinterpreted is a bit harsh.........some parts are fairly open though, leaving room for different interpretation.

I mean I read a copy of the OT translated directly from the Hebrew(sometimes I read one translated from Greek on points I feel are unclear)......it by in large the same.

I read a NT translated from the ole'Greek.........so really, my English translation has only been interpreted once.

as to a fresh copy? no thanks........so far the people of our century seem about as deep as a kiddie-pool.
The bible is indeed misintepreted, or otherwise changed.
In all old bibles in sweden it says that God hate f**s and that they should be killed. After 1960, or whenever it was, it was changed. Nowadays God just don't like f**s all that much.

That's probably a change to make the bible more morraly correct (but shouldn't god´s morals be the highest moral), thing about all the changes that has been made during the last 2000 years. It has been translated and fixed more than two times during 2000 years. have you studied language history or whatever it's called? You probably wouldn't be able to understand an englishman from the 1700 century. Do you really think that you would understand a book that was translated 1000 years ago?

well the part about stoning Homosexuals is in the OT, and it's still in there, Jews are very serious about preserving their holy-scriptures as is.

They still copy them by hand in many places, one mistake, and the book is burned and the Rabbi starts over. My OT is Jewish, the same publication my best friend uses in his synagog.

anyways I can't speak to the changes to the book Swedish Lutherans may have made........but many around the world are very serious about keeping the book as accurate and close to the origonal as possible. Many congregations still use the King James Version, translated from Latin and Greek in the early 17th century.

But as I said, my prefference is towards a book with a NT from the ancient Greek and an OT from the Hebrew, translated into modern American English.

It may not be word for word the same, but the ideas, events, and spirit crosses over, even into a lousey lingo like English.

The gap between anicent Greek and English is smaller then the gap between modern Chinese and English.....yet we still communicate and translate(even technical and legal documents) just fine.
Quote: The part about stoning homosexuals isn't in many new swedish bibles at least.

that's very interesting, who publishes them?

Quote: Yes, i know that it's no problem to translate ancient Greek and English, but there's probalby words that existed then that doesn't exist now and new words that means almost the same thing but not exactly, therefore is impossible to make a perfect translation. When you translate something to one language to another the same problem exists, but it's worse.

they try........the word that cause the most problem are actually terms related to farming........but their meaning can still be conveyed. We just have to be reminded of our pastoral past.

More-over many bibles contain explanations of the trickier Greek and Hebrew phrases.......or differing interpretations of what the greater meaning is. As I said before some things are open.........the book of Revelations for example has 4 major schools of thought in regards to it's meaning. But remember that some books are more open then others.....the bible contains different style of literature:

You have narratives(books of history or stories), book such as Joshua or Exodus.......

You have books of wisdom, such as James, Romans, or Proverbs

Books of poetry, like Lamentations or Psalms

and books of apocalyptic writing, like Revelations

and some that mix it up.....the gospels are both narratives and books of wisdom, Daniel is a narrative with apocalyptic writings.......

Translation isn't so much an issue, but interpritation can be..........

Narvik · Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 607 Location: Orsa

eynon wrote: Narvik wrote: eynon wrote: Narvik wrote: eynon wrote: Narvik wrote: eynon wrote: Narvik wrote: zMtLlC wrote: mr.snruB wrote: zMtLlC wrote: mr.snruB wrote:
Man = made in God's image

I don't think this necessarily means physical image.

What else would image mean? As simplistic as that sounds (I'm sure you're thinking "ha ha, what a simpleton. He only thinks image applies to physical features. Ha ha"), is there really anything else? Anything like spirit or thoughts or philosophy or morals is not an image
It means that we were made perfect, like God, with a free will. You have to remember that the bible has been translated so many times that it's probably not a perfect translation.
and yet 2 billion people follow it..

(shrug)it's close enough..........
yeah? It's misinterpreted so you shouldn't take it to seriously and yet you let your eternal souls destiny rest on it's teachings? Is that really wise?
Isn't it evil of God to not give us a fresh copy of the bible?

misinterpreted is a bit harsh.........some parts are fairly open though, leaving room for different interpretation.

I mean I read a copy of the OT translated directly from the Hebrew(sometimes I read one translated from Greek on points I feel are unclear)......it by in large the same.

I read a NT translated from the ole'Greek.........so really, my English translation has only been interpreted once.

as to a fresh copy? no thanks........so far the people of our century seem about as deep as a kiddie-pool.
The bible is indeed misintepreted, or otherwise changed.
In all old bibles in sweden it says that God hate f**s and that they should be killed. After 1960, or whenever it was, it was changed. Nowadays God just don't like f**s all that much.

That's probably a change to make the bible more morraly correct (but shouldn't god´s morals be the highest moral), thing about all the changes that has been made during the last 2000 years. It has been translated and fixed more than two times during 2000 years. have you studied language history or whatever it's called? You probably wouldn't be able to understand an englishman from the 1700 century. Do you really think that you would understand a book that was translated 1000 years ago?

well the part about stoning Homosexuals is in the OT, and it's still in there, Jews are very serious about preserving their holy-scriptures as is.

They still copy them by hand in many places, one mistake, and the book is burned and the Rabbi starts over. My OT is Jewish, the same publication my best friend uses in his synagog.

anyways I can't speak to the changes to the book Swedish Lutherans may have made........but many around the world are very serious about keeping the book as accurate and close to the origonal as possible. Many congregations still use the King James Version, translated from Latin and Greek in the early 17th century.

But as I said, my prefference is towards a book with a NT from the ancient Greek and an OT from the Hebrew, translated into modern American English.

It may not be word for word the same, but the ideas, events, and spirit crosses over, even into a lousey lingo like English.

The gap between anicent Greek and English is smaller then the gap between modern Chinese and English.....yet we still communicate and translate(even technical and legal documents) just fine.
Quote: The part about stoning homosexuals isn't in many new swedish bibles at least.

that's very interesting, who publishes them?
To my knowledge many versions are changed. My version of the bible is published by a religous movement called the Gidenoites (Gidenoiterna on Swedish)

Quote: Yes, i know that it's no problem to translate ancient Greek and English, but there's probalby words that existed then that doesn't exist now and new words that means almost the same thing but not exactly, therefore is impossible to make a perfect translation. When you translate something to one language to another the same problem exists, but it's worse.

they try........the word that cause the most problem are actually terms related to farming........but their meaning can still be conveyed. We just have to be reminded of our pastoral past.

More-over many bibles contain explanations of the trickier Greek and Hebrew phrases.......or differing interpretations of what the greater meaning is. As I said before some things are open.........the book of Revelations for example has 4 major schools of thought in regards to it's meaning. But remember that some books are more open then others.....the bible contains different style of literature:

You have narratives(books of history or stories), book such as Joshua or Exodus.......

You have books of wisdom, such as James, Romans, or Proverbs

Books of poetry, like Lamentations or Psalms

and books of apocalyptic writing, like Revelations

and some that mix it up.....the gospels are both narratives and books of wisdom, Daniel is a narrative with apocalyptic writings.......

Translation isn't so much an issue, but interpritation can be..........
Interpretation and translation can mix up. If you try to translate something that you misinterpret you might translate it into something which it wasn't supposed to be.

I really doubt that a book that's 2000 years old is almost 100% accurate.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22954

Quote: Interpretation and translation can mix up. If you try to translate something that you misinterpret you might translate it into something which it wasn't supposed to be.

I really doubt that a book that's 2000 years old is almost 100% accurate.

The logic is simple.

If God isn't really responsible for the texts then it really doesn't matter if it is accurate or not. It's all in vain anyway.

But if God really is responsible for the texts...then it CAN be trusted 100%.

It's as simple as that...no need to develop a nose bleed thinking about it.

Narvik · Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 607 Location: Orsa

John wrote: Quote: Interpretation and translation can mix up. If you try to translate something that you misinterpret you might translate it into something which it wasn't supposed to be.

I really doubt that a book that's 2000 years old is almost 100% accurate.

The logic is simple.

If God isn't really responsible for the texts then it really doesn't matter if it is accurate or not. It's all in vain anyway.

But if God really is responsible for the texts...then it CAN be trusted 100%.

It's as simple as that...no need to develop a nose bleed thinking about it.
If God is not responsible for the texts, why follow them when you know that they can have been changed?

If God is responsible for them, how do you know that he's not trying to fool you?

feederband · Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 3938 Location: Florida

Narvik wrote: zMtLlC wrote: mr.snruB wrote: zMtLlC wrote: mr.snruB wrote:
Man = made in God's image

I don't think this necessarily means physical image.

What else would image mean? As simplistic as that sounds (I'm sure you're thinking "ha ha, what a simpleton. He only thinks image applies to physical features. Ha ha"), is there really anything else? Anything like spirit or thoughts or philosophy or morals is not an image
It means that we were made perfect, like God, with a free will. You have to remember that the bible has been translated so many times that it's probably not a perfect translation.
and yet 2 billion people follow it..

Yet 4 to 5 billion don't...

eynon

feederband wrote: Narvik wrote: zMtLlC wrote: mr.snruB wrote: zMtLlC wrote: mr.snruB wrote:
Man = made in God's image

I don't think this necessarily means physical image.

What else would image mean? As simplistic as that sounds (I'm sure you're thinking "ha ha, what a simpleton. He only thinks image applies to physical features. Ha ha"), is there really anything else? Anything like spirit or thoughts or philosophy or morals is not an image
It means that we were made perfect, like God, with a free will. You have to remember that the bible has been translated so many times that it's probably not a perfect translation.
and yet 2 billion people follow it..

Yet 4 to 5 billion don't...

I never was a big fan of popularity contests.........

sparsely · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2087

zMtLlC wrote: mr.snruB wrote: We're perfect?
We were sinless. Remember the whole Garden of Eden thing?

Up until the point where we took up the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil...judgment, in an attempt to make ourselves like what we already were (divine). It was a serpent of course who accused man of imperfection. Eve just bought the lie.
But that's allright...by the time it's over, no snakes alive.

Lumina · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 16207

Just in case anybody should care:

http://www.readbookonline.net/read/608/10159/

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22954

Narvik wrote: John wrote: Quote: Interpretation and translation can mix up. If you try to translate something that you misinterpret you might translate it into something which it wasn't supposed to be.

I really doubt that a book that's 2000 years old is almost 100% accurate.

The logic is simple.

If God isn't really responsible for the texts then it really doesn't matter if it is accurate or not. It's all in vain anyway.

But if God really is responsible for the texts...then it CAN be trusted 100%.

It's as simple as that...no need to develop a nose bleed thinking about it.
If God is not responsible for the texts, why follow them when you know that they can have been changed?

If God is responsible for them, how do you know that he's not trying to fool you?

It's amazing just how much the Bible hasn't changed (haven't you ever looked into the comparisons of modern day translations of the book of Isaiah and what was found with the Dead Sea Scrolls?)...in fact; you know how the Bible doesn't have particular sections on any certain doctrine. That is because it is designed in the same way that the military will transmit a code to resist hostile jamming. The entire message in told in full thought the book and in done in a way that slight changes here and there will not corrupt the code. The Bible is kinda like a self correcting message. Tempering is pretty evident when it is attempted.

As for God trying to "fool" me...I don't think God would have to try really hard...and If He is God and wants to fool me...then so be it...He must have a good reason.

MJB · Joined: 14 Apr 2006 Posts: 594

mr.snruB wrote: What do you mean "No"? What does "made in Gods image" mean, then?

im·age
n.
1. A reproduction of the form of a person or object, especially a sculptured likeness.
2. Physics. An optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of an object, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror.
3. One that closely or exactly resembles another; a double: He is the image of his uncle.

like·ness
n.
1. The state, quality, or fact of being like; resemblance.
2. An imitative appearance; a semblance.
3. A pictorial, graphic, or sculptured representation of something; an image.

Genesis 1:26-27
26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...

Genesis 5:3
3 ¶ And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.

It means just what you think it does.

MJB · Joined: 14 Apr 2006 Posts: 594

LostSoul3412 wrote: mr.snruB wrote: He may be a shape shifter, but it says that it's in his "own image". So he's got to have one main image that he copied humans with.

No... Genesis 1:26 says "The God said, 'Let us make man in our image'".

God never says that man is made in His image.

Yes he does - in the very next verse:

Genesis 1:27
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

(unless you think that doesn't count because it's not quoted in the first person)

Narvik · Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 607 Location: Orsa

John wrote: Narvik wrote: John wrote: Quote: Interpretation and translation can mix up. If you try to translate something that you misinterpret you might translate it into something which it wasn't supposed to be.

I really doubt that a book that's 2000 years old is almost 100% accurate.

The logic is simple.

If God isn't really responsible for the texts then it really doesn't matter if it is accurate or not. It's all in vain anyway.

But if God really is responsible for the texts...then it CAN be trusted 100%.

It's as simple as that...no need to develop a nose bleed thinking about it.
If God is not responsible for the texts, why follow them when you know that they can have been changed?

If God is responsible for them, how do you know that he's not trying to fool you?

It's amazing just how much the Bible hasn't changed (haven't you ever looked into the comparisons of modern day translations of the book of Isaiah and what was found with the Dead Sea Scrolls?)...in fact; you know how the Bible doesn't have particular sections on any certain doctrine. That is because it is designed in the same way that the military will transmit a code to resist hostile jamming. The entire message in told in full thought the book and in done in a way that slight changes here and there will not corrupt the code. The Bible is kinda like a self correcting message. Tempering is pretty evident when it is attempted.

As for God trying to "fool" me...I don't think God would have to try really hard...and If He is God and wants to fool me...then so be it...He must have a good reason.
I'm starting to think that i'm wrong now, I better shut up before I say something that has nothing to do with reality.