Jump to content


Photo

Literal Biblical Interpretations


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
56 replies to this topic

#1 ratrat

ratrat

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Posted 28 October 2005 - 10:20 PM

I've noticed that most of the creationists in this forum take the bible to be literal. I was having a conversation with one of my Christian friends who doesn't take it literally. Asked him why. He told me because the fact that the bible has been translated so many times from so many different languages makes it impossible for it to be the same in English as it was in its original language (Hebrew?).

Now I know from personal experience that languages do not cross over easily at all. Trying to translate French into English and vice versa causes many problems. Also, from the latin that I do know from science classes, it has become quite apparent that a sentence in Latin can be taken to mean many drastically different things.

What I'm curious to know is how do Christians who take the bible literally respond to this??

#2 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 28 October 2005 - 11:05 PM

I've noticed that most of the creationists in this forum take the bible to be literal.  I was having a conversation with one of my Christian friends who doesn't take it literally.  Asked him why.  He told me because the fact that the bible has been translated so many times from so many different languages makes it impossible for it to be the same in English as it was in its original language (Hebrew?). 



Not Hebrew. I think Aramaic was Christ's language.

Now I know from personal experience that languages do not cross over easily at all. Trying to translate French into English and vice versa causes many problems. Also, from the latin that I do know from science classes, it has become quite apparent that a sentence in Latin can be taken to mean many drastically different things.

What I'm curious to know is how do Christians who take the bible literally respond to this??

View Post


(Bible) is the name of a book and should always be capitalized.

I know I will have to research nore because you will want documentation. I will, but . . . I am a power plant operator and work a seven day week (in the middle of one now). So if it takes a while to get back to you sometimes, I appologize. Congrats on starting this thread.

The Bible has many "original" languages. A "literal" reader believes the document to begin about 5 to 7 thousand years ago and record some of our history.

Respond?
Logical - The New Testament originates in several languages. It has been translated several times, through many series of languages. Ever played "telephone" as a kid in Canada? Tell a person at one end of a long line of people and listen to the "translation" at the other end after each relays what they thought they heard. There are nearly 1000 original text portions available of the Bible. The translations from these have been passed through generations and travelled many countries. When these originals are compared to the latest there is no loss in translation. The translators seem to have taken great care. Even with the increasing understanding of languages thought forgotten, there has not been any reason found to doubt the current translations. Try this for yourself. Take a King James (I recommend New English for ease of read) and compare it to an NIV (New International Version). These two have completely different paths of translation. The King James has been retranslated several times through several languages. The NIV is a new translation from orignal texts with new understanding of the original languages. There are differences. But the differnces are like learning math from different publishers. It is still math.

Religious - Of course the obove is true because the Holy Spirit is still in this world and guiding the Church.

#3 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 October 2005 - 01:28 AM

I've noticed that most of the creationists in this forum take the bible to be literal.  I was having a conversation with one of my Christian friends who doesn't take it literally.  Asked him why.  He told me because the fact that the bible has been translated so many times from so many different languages makes it impossible for it to be the same in English as it was in its original language (Hebrew?). 

Now I know from personal experience that languages do not cross over easily at all.  Trying to translate French into English and vice versa causes many problems.  Also, from the latin that I do know from science classes, it has become quite apparent that a sentence in Latin can be taken to mean many drastically different things. 

What I'm curious to know is how do Christians who take the bible literally respond to this??

View Post


People will believe what they want about the word of God. Rumors etc... If someone truly believes in God, they will not disrespect God in the manner of using the excuse of it being translated so many times. Because if you pin them down to prove it, what you would be shown is more opinion than fact.

A pastor I know got fustrated with the issue because he could not answer with a 100% knowing truth about this issue. And it really bugged him. So he went to Israel, and took a Rabi that knew hebrew. Old Hebrew. And they look at the dead sea scrolls. The Rabi could translate from Hebrew to greek. The pastor knew how to translate from greek to english. What he found confirmed what he had been taught all along.

The KJV old testament, near first print, matched the greek to english translation. Even the Rabi was impressed. So he now says, with full authority and truth, that it is a lie what people are saying about the word of God.

Now this could only be done on the parts of the dead sea scroll that were readable. But to fit like that just goes to show that God is not so weak He cannot keep His word true.

Those who would err and say the word is not true. Also need to understand this verse.

1jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

The Holy Ghost is not blasphemed, and God is not mocked. So to continue to claim the word is not true, when it's only opinion that really has no absolute evidence. Is to put yourself into a position to mock God and blaspheme the Holy Ghost. Why? Because these three are one. So what is done to one is also done to the rest.

Blaspheming the Holy Ghost is an unforgivable sin.

lk 12:10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

So even for a Christian, it can put them in danger of hell fire because it only takes one unforgiven sin to put anyone there.

#4 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 October 2005 - 06:14 AM

I was having a conversation with one of my Christian friends who doesn't take it literally.


If he doesn't take the essential truths of the gospels literally,

1) Jesus Christ is the son of God
2) Jesus Christ paid for his sins on the cross.
3) Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

then he is not a Christian.

Asked him why.  He told me because the fact that the bible has been translated so many times from so many different languages makes it impossible for it to be the same in English as it was in its original language (Hebrew?). 


Hebrew is as far as I know not really changed since its origin. So, being able to understand the Old Testament is a matter of either learning Hebrew yourself, or finding a pastor teacher that understands Hebrew.

Koine Greek is a very well understood language, and its also possible to due the same with greek as hebrew, i.e. learn it yourself, or find a pastor teacher that understands it well enough to teach.

In general, there are no problems with most of the good translations.

I have a suspicion that your friend does not like the literal interpretations, that's that's why he rejects them, not because language has anything to do with it.

Now I know from personal experience that languages do not cross over easily at all.  Trying to translate French into English and vice versa causes many problems.  Also, from the latin that I do know from science classes, it has become quite apparent that a sentence in Latin can be taken to mean many drastically different things. 


There are problems sometimes, but that does not mean that they cannot be overcome.

In the end, its God the Holy Spirit that teaches us, and starting off by rejecting God's word as literal truth does is not a great place to start as a christian. You will probably never get very far in the spirritual life.

Terry

#5 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 29 October 2005 - 08:01 AM

Ratrat,

It also is necessary that the Bible is a single work. Read as literal the Bible claims to be the Word of God. A literal reader understands it to be the pen of several authors (note below) but the thoughts of one, God. If this is the base for study then it is studied a a single volume. When so studied everythng is put into the context of the entire work. Most who have trouble accepting the bible in whole, only study it as separate works compiled. many sigle portions of the Bible are meaningless or easliy mis-understood without the context they were wrote within. Jesus once said,". . . you must hate your brother and love Me . . .". However, taken in context of the entire message Jesus said," . . . your love for Me will be so great the love of your brother will seem as hate by comparison".

Several authors also helps verify the accuracy. Though they are from several languages, countries and time periods, there combined effort of solo authorships is in agreement.

#6 ratrat

ratrat

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Posted 29 October 2005 - 11:18 AM

The only thing I can think of to counter this is that if the Bible has been translated without flaw as you all claim, then why is the Vatican still paying people money to toil over it?

And he doesn't not believe in the story of Christ, he just things that some of the details (ie the Flood and age of the earth and some others) are open to interpretation.

I have a suspicion that your friend does not like the literal interpretations, that's that's why he rejects them, not because language has anything to do with it.


This could very well be but the reason he told me was because of the translation issue.

#7 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 October 2005 - 01:10 PM

The only thing I can think of to counter this is that if the Bible has been translated without flaw as you all claim, then why is the Vatican still paying people money to toil over it?


I missed it where anyone claimed that there was a perfect translation. What the Vatican does is irrelavent to Christianity, and the Word of God.

Its really a hollow argument. God at his time decided to create his Word. Koine Greek is considered to be one of the most expressive languages in human history. It makes sene that God wrote the New Testament at the time he did with the language that he chose. I'm truely greatfull that he didn't choose English......

Ask your friend this, why does he trust anything that cannot be demonstrated scientifically, i.e. through emperical testing and observation, when what is true in the eyes of man today, may not be true tomorrow?

Terry

#8 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 October 2005 - 10:28 PM

The only thing I can think of to counter this is that if the Bible has been translated without flaw as you all claim, then why is the Vatican still paying people money to toil over it?

And he doesn't not believe in the story of Christ, he just things that some of the details (ie the Flood and age of the earth and some others) are open to interpretation.
This could very well be but the reason he told me was because of the translation issue.

View Post


The Vatican is the catholic religion. They have their own bible that exalts Mary over Christ. The Vatican has never been interested in the truth, or they would not have done this.

Example: About ten miles from my house is a new Catholic church. It is the wave of where the Catholic religion is turning. This church is called: Mary queen of heaven, Roman Catholic church.

On the back side of this church, they have a room that sticks out from the building itself. This room is all glass, so all that's inside can been seen, Because there are no curtains. There is a huge 8-9 foot statue of Mary in there. And they have candles, and a place were you can pray to her. One night when I was passing this church, they were having a service were all the children were made to gather around the statue with candles. This site gave me the creeps. It was like I could actually feel the evil in it.

Example 2: While listening to a well known preacher on the radio, he was telling a story of where he had gone to another country to visit. One of the main attractions was the catholic church there. Because of the art work, and the things made out of gold. Not being a catholic, but wanting to see this. He went. He said it met every spectation he has ever heard about it. But in one room he was shocked to see what was painted on the ceiling. It was Mary on the cross instead of Christ. Because he had brought his camera. Both video, and pictures. And both filmed this, and took snap shots. They never told him he could not.

Upon reaching the states, he had several copies of each made, and passed them around. Word got back to that church. The head of that church called him and told him he was not supposed to take pictures. And was not even supposed to have a camera in there. And he told him that he had to stop passing those tapes and photos around because they were getting several complaints. And that if he did not, they would send someone to get them.

So the pastor fearing some type of legal action, agreed. The pastor's name is David Jerimiah.

The Vatican has long left the truth. Not what I believe, but more of what's written. They make their own God's, and pray to the saints. I have yet to read one verse that says a saint can do anything when you pray to them.

#9 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 October 2005 - 08:55 PM

Also I'm finding more often that people like to say God's word is messed up because it disagrees with the way they want to live their life. Let's take predestination as an example. There are translations that really support this view. Does that make this doctrine correct? Of course not. But because this is a wanted belief, where man is preselected to be saved or not. Then it is said that God's word is messed up, so their view can be injected into it.

This also applies to sin. I run into so called Christians all the time who believe they can sin and mock God with how they live their life, and all will be well. And they twist the word of God to conform to this. I have even had some say that no translation is correct. But will claim to be Christian if asked.

One person at one forum even uses verses in God's word out of context to make it look like that even God said His word is not true.

So people will twist the word to fit their point of view. And continue to do so.

#10 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 31 October 2005 - 01:59 PM

Example 2: While listening to a well known preacher on the radio, he was telling a story of where he had gone to another country to visit. One of the main attractions was the catholic church there. Because of the art work, and the things made out of gold. Not being a catholic, but wanting to see this. He went. He said it met every spectation he has ever heard about it. But in one room he was shocked to see what was painted on the ceiling. It was Mary on the cross instead of Christ. Because he had brought his camera. Both video, and pictures. And both filmed this, and took snap shots. They never told him he could not.

Upon reaching the states, he had several copies of each made, and passed them around. Word got back to that church. The head of that church called him and told him he was not supposed to take pictures. And was not even supposed to have a camera in there. And he told him that he had to stop passing those tapes and photos around because they were getting several complaints. And that if he did not, they would send someone to get them.

So the pastor fearing some type of legal action, agreed. The pastor's name is David Jerimiah.

View Post


Fascinating - this forum continues to surprise me with facts like this: Mary on a crucifix!

Wow that’s just bizarre, did the pastor explain what the image is meant to represent? Was it supposed to be some sort of metaphor? Or is it some rebellious faction of Catholicism.
That’s one thing about the catholic church that has always puzzled me, i.e. their exaltation of Mary.

#11 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 November 2005 - 01:32 AM

The reason Mary is exalted is to mock Christ. Even though Christ was the one who died for our sins. To also put a woman in the place of authority, as being a type of God. Is occult like. God made man the head authority, and woman in second authority. She can have authority, but only that it is second to man.

Side note: That might sound chauvinist, but really it's not. For I have no problem with women preaching, if God has put such a calling on their life. For you cannot have a gift for ministering unless God blesses you with it.


The mocking of Christ in this manner also denies what Christ did. To pray for healing from Mary, denies why Christ took the 39 stripes. To pray to Mary for forgivness of sin, is to deny the reason Christ shed His blood. To always show Christ on the cross, is to deny that He ever rose from it. To have priest forgive your sins, is to deny the new covenant. etc....

The Catholic religion pretty much denies all the bases for the bible. And is the reason they only read from the new testament. What is written in the old testament exposes this religion for what it is.

Example: What would you say the most important commandment is? The first two of course. The Catholic religion knows this, and is why they pray to idols. The statues of Mary and the saints.

What are the first two cammandments?
1) Thou shalt not have any other god's before me.
2) Thou shalt not make any engraven image.

These two commandments are broken openly everyday in the catholic religion.

Do the Catholics know this? The ones behind this religion do. Most of the followers don't. And to keep them away from anyone telling them the truth, they are told that anyone who does not believe like they do are heretics.

Heretic:
1) a person who holds religious beliefs in conflict with the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church
2) a person who holds unorthodox opinions in any field (not merely religion)
3) a person who believes in one or more heresies

#12 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 01 November 2005 - 02:16 PM

The reason Mary is exalted is to mock Christ. Even though Christ was the one who died for our sins. To also put a woman in the place of authority, as being a type of God. Is occult like. God made man the head authority, and woman in second authority. She can have authority, but only that it is second to man.


Side note: That might sound chauvinist, but really it's not. For I have no problem with women preaching, if God has put such a calling on their life. For you cannot have a gift for ministering unless God blesses you with it.


I must admit I was expecting a different answer, something like: (I’m just making this up you understand) “Mary on the crucifix represents the mother suffering at the execution of Jesus and she is feeling his pain”. Or some similar “artistic” explanation.

I understand perfectly your reason for the ‘side note’ one can easily misinterpret an explanation, and read into it something that was not intended.


<salient points only> The mocking of Christ
To pray to Mary for forgivness of sin, is to deny the reason Christ shed His blood.

The Catholic religion pretty much denies all the bases for the bible. And is the reason they only read from the new testament. What is written in the old testament exposes this religion for what it is.

Example: What would you say the most important commandment is? The first two of course. The Catholic religion knows this, and is why they pray to idols. The statues of Mary and the saints.

What are the first two cammandments?
1) Thou shalt not have any other god's before me.
2) Thou shalt not make any engraven image.

These two commandments are broken openly everyday in the catholic religion.

Do the Catholics know this? The ones behind this religion do. Most of the followers don't. And to keep them away from anyone telling them the truth, they are told that anyone who does not believe like they do are heretics.

Heretic:
1) a person who holds religious beliefs in conflict with the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church
2) a person who holds unorthodox opinions in any field (not merely religion)
3) a person who believes in one or more heresies


I agree with most of this, (not sure about the ‘deliberate' mocking of Christ however, I’m still thinking about that bit). The Catholic religion does seem to be strongly orientated to worshiping (beyond ‘normal’ admiration of their qualities) the minor players in the Christian religion, e.g. Mary, the Saints, Angels etc.

I suspect this fact became more obvious as the general population became more literate and began to read the Bible for themselves, then made the observations you have pointed out. That plus the rampant corruption in the middle ages fuelled the protestant and reformation movements.

#13 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 November 2005 - 05:28 PM

I must admit I was expecting a different answer, something like: (I’m just making this up you understand) “Mary on the crucifix represents the mother suffering at the execution of Jesus and she is feeling his pain”. Or some similar “artistic” explanation.

I understand perfectly your reason for the ‘side note’ one can easily misinterpret an explanation, and read into it something that was not intended.
I agree with most of this, (not sure about the ‘deliberate' mocking of Christ however, I’m still thinking about that bit). The Catholic religion does seem to be strongly orientated to worshiping (beyond ‘normal’ admiration of their qualities) the minor players in the Christian religion, e.g. Mary, the Saints, Angels etc. 

I suspect this fact became more obvious as the general population became more literate and began to read the Bible for themselves, then made the observations you have pointed out.  That plus the rampant corruption in the middle ages fuelled the protestant and reformation movements.

View Post


You should see the film called Martin Luther that came out about six months ago. It's in video stores. It pretty much sums up what the Catholics were doing.

#14 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 01 November 2005 - 07:44 PM

You should see the film called Martin Luther that came out about six months ago. It's in video stores. It pretty much sums up what the Catholics were doing.

View Post


Thanks for the video tip. Actually I’m rather a fan of history so I’ll keep an eye out for it (slight exaggeration – Australia’s usually a good half year behind the rest of the world for such movies releases). Is Matin Luther a recreation or documentary?

Actually now I come to think of it, it seems to be an area of history overlooked for a movie, they’ve done the 10 commandments, life of Jesus (several), the robe, etc. Yet I can’t think of one that covers the life of Martin Luther in the detail a movie would require (other than bit parts in documentaries). Puzzling, as it’s such an important point in European, nay world history.

#15 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 November 2005 - 08:27 PM

Is Matin Luther a recreation or documentary?


Actually it's a little of both. And it was produced by the Lutherian church from what I understand. It's a very well done movie, good actors. It even shows how religion was used to control people through fear (a form of witchcraft). How it was made to believe you could earn your way to heaven. And how Luther brought this to light by translating the word so that everyone could read it. And how many people died to become free from this bondage after learning the truth. And even how close Luther came to losing his own life.

If you like the way this movie was done. I have more to suggest on the bible that were done the same way. With good actors, ones you can also learn from.

#16 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 19 December 2005 - 01:11 PM

Actually it's a little of both. And it was produced by the Lutherian church from what I understand. It's a very well done movie, good actors. It even shows how religion was used to control people through fear (a form of witchcraft). How it was made to believe you could earn your way to heaven. And how Luther brought this to light by translating the word so that everyone could read it. And how many people died to become free from this bondage after learning the truth. And even how close Luther came to losing his own life.

If you like the way this movie was done. I have more to suggest on the bible that were done the same way. With good actors, ones you can also learn from.

View Post


Just finished watching “Luther” staring Joseph Fiennes as Martin Luther.
If this was the movie that you recommended I can only endorse what you have said about it. All the characters are very well acted, sir Peter Ustinov steals the odd scene as one of the German princes. The movie in Australia seems to have bypassed the cinema entirely and gone straight to DVD, a bit of an injustice IMO.

Best of all it explains the injustices Luther was so tormented by, i.e. the Greek Christians and their inability to be saved outside of the Roman church, Holy relics (a huge snake oil trade of the time) and of course the big one, Indulgences.

Politics (church, and state) are not ignored as it plays a pivotal role in the plot. But IMO one must not ignore the central message and that is one of religious freedom, specifically:
a. Being allowed to have a bible in your own language and not be burned for it, and
b. Fire and brimstone being replaced by love.

Any one else seen this movie yet, your thoughts.......

#17 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 23 December 2005 - 05:34 PM

The only thing I can think of to counter this is that if the Bible has been translated without flaw as you all claim, then why is the Vatican still paying people money to toil over it?

And he doesn't not believe in the story of Christ, he just things that some of the details (ie the Flood and age of the earth and some others) are open to interpretation.
This could very well be but the reason he told me was because of the translation issue.

View Post


I was hoping this thread would go further when it started. I was, as it appears others were, side-tracked. SO. . .

The translation is not without flaw if variation on a theme is a flaw. Any translation layed next to any other, should provide a "narrative" so similar to the next that it might seem as though different people are relating a story of a single event from their separate points of view. i.e. witnesses to an auto accident all describe the same event but it seems slightly different with each description. This is one method of discounting inaccurate translations. There have been some. The narrative as a whole should be in agreement. Recently a new NIV was attempted but not widely accepted because it strayed too far in an attempt to widen the scope of some terminology.
The Bible itself limits "interpretation" to fairly rigid standards. This allows little "wiggle room" for those who may not agree with a line or two.

#18 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 10 January 2006 - 07:43 PM

I was hoping this thread would go further when it started. I was, as it appears others were, side-tracked. 

sorry about that.



The translation is not without flaw if variation on a theme is a flaw.


I agree, the principle behind the translation (in addition to making the text readable in ones own language), is to get the meaning accurate. To me the meaning is more important for a casual reader.

The dry and dusty original texts are used by scholars for reference, and research, and is of course the area where debate upon meaning should be targeted.

P.S.
Found a couple of interesting sites re translations etc.

First the time line at http://www.greatsite...story/#timeline

And a description of the translations at http://www.kencollins.com/bible-t2.htm

#19 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 11 January 2006 - 03:49 AM

sorry about that.
 
I agree, the principle behind the translation (in addition to making the text readable in ones own language), is to get the meaning accurate.  To me the meaning is more important for a casual reader.

The dry and dusty original texts are used by scholars for reference, and research, and is of course the area where debate upon meaning should be targeted.


Meaning throughout the various translations is one of the greatest arguments for the authentication of the Bible. Though there have been many translations, take any of them side by side, and you find little difference. Muder is always sin;adultry, blasphemy etc. the list is extensive, but there are certain acts which are always sin.
The story of daily life of Jesus, David, or other figures, does deviate in small amounts but always acceptable given the various authors. Even the dry and dusty originals have been put to this test and found reliable. If memory serves, there are some near 1000 original texts, from the pens of Mathew, Mark etc. Though they are not complete, the portions which offer comparison are remarkably similar, unless they are the work of a single mind (God).
For many, the most compelling evidences of the Bible being "breath of God" are the prophecies. Just in regard to Christ there were hundreds fulfilled by His life, death and resurrection.

Chance, this is a question I ask many of my freinds and aquaintences. What is sin?

#20 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 11 January 2006 - 01:34 PM

Meaning throughout the various translations is one of the greatest arguments for the authentication of the Bible. Though there have been many translations, take any of them side by side, and you find little difference. Muder is always sin; adultry, blasphemy etc. the list is extensive, but there are certain acts which are always sin. The story of daily life of Jesus, David, or other figures, does deviate in small amounts but always acceptable given the various authors. Even the dry and dusty originals have been put to this test and found reliable.


In any translation I would expect ‘the big picture’ to be rather constant, while perhaps some small details debatable. Going off topic to the movie “Luther” I recently viewed, this point was made quite clear as Luther translated the Bible in to his native German.

If memory serves, there are some near 1000 original texts, from the pens of Mathew, Mark etc. Though they are not complete, the portions which offer comparison are remarkably similar, unless they are the work of a single mind (God).


Ill take your word on that, as Biblical authorship is an area I’m no expert on. however I do remember watching a documentary on the subject, a single authors text was analysed (can’t remember which) using word style association (I believe is was a police tool used to authenticate authorship by comparing phrases and style), their conclusion was that this particular section had more than one author.


For many, the most compelling evidences of the Bible being "breath of God" are the prophecies. Just in regard to Christ there were hundreds fulfilled by His life, death and resurrection.

Chance, this is a question I ask many of my freinds and aquaintences. What is sin?


What is sin? IMO it is breaking the law.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users