|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Belief in Jesus. Easy, innit
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
Christianity largely sets out its stall on the basis that if you believe in Jesus, you will go to Heaven when you die.
If Jesus' death has atoned for sin is a full atonement, then as is so often quoted of him, "It is done".
It is so often said that Jesus died to save sinners, and that we cannot be perfect, and that our moral attempts do not save us.
It seems to me that if God died on the cross to save us, that it would consequently make little sense to be picky about dogma or morality - given the nonjudgmental and forgiving stance.
Therefore, I can't help but wonder why so many Christians find it not only difficult to believe that one need only believe in Jesus to be saved (and nothing more), but are openly hostile to the idea - in the words of the Bible, are they jealous of God's grace?
Putting aside the obvious issue of theodicy (as opposed to ignoring it), I can't help but wonder why 33,380 denominations can't stop tinkering with the idea of the gift of free mercy and grace.
Isn't it enough that we all have to put up with each other for a century or so?
And what is belief? I don't recall ever reading a definition of what belief internally actually is. There is the usual line about faith being the certainty of things not seen, but what is certainty but, again, a faith issue? Personal, subjective, unmeasurable in a human-to-human sense?
Why must adherents of any religion dogmatically assert their beliefs in order to hold them?
Why must dogma be agreed anyway?
What one believes is, after all, what one believes oneself - not what one's next door neighbour believes. It's all internal.
I am reminded of a bumper sticker that says, "I'm a militant agnostic - I don't know and you don't either."
It seems to me somewhat odd to believe that God's decisions should rest on my, or anyone else's, perceptions of them; and altogether more empathic to understand faith in its common, everyday sense:
Do I have faith in God? Do I trust his motives? Do I actually believe that he did it? Do I actually trust that he's OK with me?
It seems to me that none of that is dependent on church, or fellowship with christians, or praise hymns, or bible reading... because it's about internal beliefs.
Given any person X, would person X believe that God is A, B or C?
The historicity and morality etc. of the Bible are issues which have long been discussed, by individuals such as Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason, Robert Ingersoll's excellent works, Bertrand Russell in Why I Am Not A Christian, and more recent individuals such as Ken Humphries.
These issues are well known.
My gut instincts are:
If Christianity is true, then belief in Jesus is all that is required - which is a heart thing and to be subject neither to inquisitions nor to personal guilt or suspicions; it does not require being moral, nor does it require seeing actions as sinful since sin has been atoned for.
Sin would, in my opinion, have been dispensed with on the cross.
One could speak of the morality of issues only with a hypocritical voice, in my opinion. Far better to just be oneself, whomever that might be. If God isn't judging us, why should we need to?
Let us assume for the moment that Jesus set a good moral example.
Then, in my belief, it is not necessary to follow this good moral example; merely to believe in Jesus.
And what a paltry thing this is, belief in Jesus.
Putting aside the usual rational objections to a corpse getting up and walking around, or to a man stepping onto a cloud and whooshing up to Heaven elevator-style like some Baroque Saint,
Christianity is not hard.
It's the Christians that are hard, in my opinion.
When you're on the outside, they tell you Believe and be saved! When you're on the inside, they tell you unless you measure up you're for it - either in terms of loss of rewards in Heaven (which, given the parable of the workers in the field receiving the same wages, as well as plain old common sense, I find laughable) or in terms of going to Hell itself.
Personally I think God dying on the cross should also signify the death of religion and religiousness.
Thoughts? Comments?
[ 27. February 2006, 22:46: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
It seems to me that if God died on the cross to save us, that it would consequently make little sense to be picky about dogma or morality - given the nonjudgmental and forgiving stance.
You're getting it the wrong way round. Once you've met someone as great as Jesus, you'll see the sense in following him. So anyone who acts as if they don't, can be suspected of never really meeting him in the first place (this is probably worth a thread in itself.)
quote:
Why must adherents of any religion dogmatically assert their beliefs in order to hold them?
Well if as you said at the start, you believe in Jesus to get to Heaven, and people think that Heaven is a good place to be, it would make sense to convince other people of Jesus' Godliness as well, so they can go there too.
quote:
What one believes is, after all, what one believes oneself - not what one's next door neighbour believes. It's all internal.
No it's not. Your beliefs are yours, noone elses, but noone's beliefs were formed in a vacuum. The people and events around you will always affect what you believe. I liked what Duck said ages ago, that it's not so much she tries to evangelise on first meeting people, but that she can't help it being obvious to them she's a christian.
quote:
If Christianity is true, then belief in Jesus is all that is required - which is a heart thing and to be subject neither to inquisitions nor to personal guilt or suspicions; it does not require being moral, nor does it require seeing actions as sinful since sin has been atoned for.
So you think it's okay if I decide that because of Jesus' death, it doesn't matter what I do, so I'll start torturing people. Starting with you.
quote:
Sin would, in my opinion, have been dispensed with on the cross.
I don't see why. Explain this, please.
quote:
One could speak of the morality of issues only with a hypocritical voice, in my opinion. Far better to just be oneself, whomever that might be. If God isn't judging us, why should we need to?
Why? As discussed on the Brother Andrew thread, being hypocritical is setting one standard for yourself and another for other people. I set the same standard for both - God's standard. I freely acknowledge that I'm crap at living up to it.
quote:
Christianity is not hard.
It's the Christians that are hard, in my opinion.
Indeed.
[ 05. February 2006, 10:14: Message edited by: dinghy sailor ]
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
If Jesus' death has atoned for sin is a full atonement, then as is so often quoted of him, "It is done".
That's a big "if" mister. Don't expect everybody to agree with you.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
Once you've met someone as great as Jesus, you'll see the sense in following him. So anyone who acts as if they don't, can be suspected of never really meeting him in the first place
Who are you to tell anyone they don't believe what they believe?
That's precisely my point.
It is immaterial what your opinion of another's belief is, although you may hold whatever opinions you wish.
quote:
it would make sense to convince other people of Jesus' Godliness as well, so they can go there too.
It's not required for entry to heaven, though.
And who says that "convincing" others of Jesus works?
quote:
noone's beliefs were formed in a vacuum.
Whether or not someone is willing to accept belief X depends on themselves, and that IS internal, although of course that will be to some extent at least determined by a set of social parameters present since birth.
Whether or not a historical figure Z fits X is another thing altogether, and it is at that point that historicity and morality etc etc can jump in.
quote:
I liked what Duck said ages ago, that it's not so much she tries to evangelise on first meeting people, but that she can't help it being obvious to them she's a christian.
I say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not sure how someone "accidentally" points out to someone that they believe in the risen Christ, but far be it from me to comment on that.
quote:
So you think it's okay if I decide that because of Jesus' death, it doesn't matter what I do, so I'll start torturing people. Starting with you.
Unfortunately, yes. As Martin Luther said, "No number of adulteries or murders can tear someone away from Christ Jesus"
I don't believe that God forgave us as some kind of second chance to be holy.
I believe he forgave us as a free, undeserved gift. Inviting the poor and lame and blind to the feast, as it were, because the princes wouldn't come.
quote:
Sin would, in my opinion, have been dispensed with on the cross.I don't see why. Explain this, please.
I believe Jesus atoned fully for the sins of the world on the cross through his death offering.
So for me, it's done.
Sin is a technical term to do with the breaking of Torah - "chet" in Hebrew, the word for sin, means to miss the mark, as in an arrow missing its target. Sin need not have a moral component, although it often coincides with immorality - for example, touching a priest's candlestick was sinful in Torah.
You may disagree on that - that's your right - but that's what I believe.
quote:
As discussed on the Brother Andrew thread, being hypocritical is setting one standard for yourself and another for other people. I set the same standard for both - God's standard. I freely acknowledge that I'm crap at living up to it.
I don't pretend to be able to live up to God's standard - on this we seem to agree.
You may set God's standard for both, setting up a recipe for failure - yours and others';
I myself do not judge on this basis.
God has forgiven freely. Who am I to ask that anyone measures up when I myself cannot? And if God, who is perfect and measures up to his own standards, nonetheless forgives us when we so demonstrably cannot live up to his standards, we would be like the ungrateful servant were we, who fail so demonstrably, to insist on others' compliance with a morality we ourselves find too great a burden to bear.
Judge not, lest ye be judged.
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
I should clarify that when I wrote, "I don't believe that God forgave us as some kind of second chance to be holy", I was referring to our being holy as the result of our own actions.
I believe that God gives us the righteousness of Christ, his own righteousness, as a free undeserved gift.
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Christianity largely sets out its stall on the basis that if you believe in Jesus, you will go to Heaven when you die.
Does it really? How interesting.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
As a licensed opium dispenser I believe (a.) that people who don't believe in Jesus can get to heaven and (b.) that it is possible to believe in Jesus and, God forbid, not get to heaven. So I think its all a little more complicated than the OP suggests.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Christianity largely sets out its stall on the basis that if you believe in Jesus, you will go to Heaven when you die.
As DoD just said, does it?
quote:
If Jesus' death has atoned for sin is a full atonement, then as is so often quoted of him, "It is done".
As andreas said, that's a big if.
quote:
It is so often said that Jesus died to save sinners, and that we cannot be perfect, and that our moral attempts do not save us.
It's often said, but is it true?
quote:
Thoughts? Comments?
My first thought is that your thesis is founded on several contentious issues that could probably be debated at length. I just picked up the first three (what can I say, all those three point sermons has drummed up the importance of three points).
If those points open up big questions then "belief in Jesus" isn't a simple thing to describe. It may be, and indeed I believe it is, that belief in Jesus is open to all regardless of whether or not they've figured out what it means. But, if you're going to open it up on a discussion forum like this then it can't be simplified.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
The parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew suggests things may be contrary to the OP.
I'll need a double fix this week, DOD.... can you spare a bit?
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
To Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
You might think that, I don't; nor does the existence of your belief necessarily disprove mine.
Just a thought
[ 05. February 2006, 11:50: Message edited by: mrmister ]
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
It may be, and indeed I believe it is, that belief in Jesus is open to all regardless of whether or not they've figured out what it means.
Too right - I believe this too; becoming like children and all that.
I am against dogmatism, although I believe that dogmatism in itself won't get one thrown into the fiery flames if one believes in Jesus...
The idea that God is some nitpicking theological inquisitor is in my opinion crackers.
[ 05. February 2006, 11:53: Message edited by: mrmister ]
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
You might think that, I don't; nor does the existence of your belief necessarily disprove mine.
Although the beliefs are incompatible. So either one is right and the other wrong, or they are both wrong.
mdijon, it'll cost you..
[ 05. February 2006, 11:54: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
mrmister, you started your OP by stating the beliefs of Christianity. Christians here are saying that they believe otherwise.
Whether you agree with either opinion is beside the point, not all christians believe as you think they do.
DOD, is my credit still good?
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
Although the beliefs are incompatible. So either one is right and the other wrong, or they are both wrong.
That doesn't mean you're right and I'm wrong!
Although some belief systems would question the validity of the idea of exclusivity of beliefs, I happen to share it.
Just because you believe something, that doesn't mean that it's true.
I believe that you are right in so far as our beliefs are incompatible;
However, I do not believe you are right about Jesus -
nor do I claim to have the final word on truth, nor need I be such an authority in order to hold my beliefs.
You are welcome to your beliefs; I don't share them though, and that doesn't mean my beliefs are inferior to yours.
Hope that helps clarify things
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Although some belief systems would question the validity of the idea of exclusivity of beliefs, I happen to share it.
Those 'belief systems' being ones without a dim primary school child's grasp on logic...
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
mrmister, you started your OP by stating the beliefs of Christianity. Christians here are saying that they believe otherwise.
Whether you agree with either opinion is beside the point, not all christians believe as you think they do.
No, not all of them share my beliefs.
In fact, most of them don't.
There are 33,380 denominations of Christianity, all of whom squabble over things that are sometimes seemingly important, and at other times are of seemingly trivial importance.
I believe in Jesus.
That's what I believe.
The rest, in my view, is pretty much theological (and sociological) dogmatic banter.
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
quote:
It may be, and indeed I believe it is, that belief in Jesus is open to all regardless of whether or not they've figured out what it means.
Too right - I believe this too; becoming like children and all that.
Perhaps I didn't phrase the sentance that followed that well enough. I'll try again, because that's really the point at which something can be discussed. We agree that intellectual assent to certain dogmas doesn't save us, and that you can "believe in Jesus" without fully understanding what that means.
That doesn't mean that the meaning of "believing in Jesus" isn't important. You can't expect those who teach others about Jesus to not be concerned that that teaching is accurate. And, the Church (like it or not) is the guardian of the truth about Jesus. Thus, although God isn't "some nitpicking theological inquisitor" there are good reasons why the Church should be - if not in regard to the belief of the people in the pews, certainly in regard to what those people are taught by the Church.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
Those 'belief systems' being ones without a dim primary school child's grasp on logic...
I disagree. Taoism for example, which is not exclusive, has among its logical implications that one is happy to suffer, q.v. the famous "vinegar tasters" painting.
It has not escaped my notice that the Bible encourages believers to rejoice in their sufferings.
I do not appreciate the character attack; just because I don't believe what you believe, that does not mean I'm thick.
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
quote:
Those 'belief systems' being ones without a dim primary school child's grasp on logic...
I disagree. Taoism for example, which is not exclusive, has among its logical implications that one is happy to suffer, q.v. the famous "vinegar tasters" painting.
That's not contradictory. That's masochism..
What you were talking about initially was believing both A and NOT-A to be the case. That's just muddled.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
And, the Church (like it or not) is the guardian of the truth about Jesus.
Actually I don't agree. The Holy Spirit would be the guardian of the truth about Jesus, not the Church in all its bumbling, perverse and hypocritical forms.
The Church, that found one of the major codices of the Bible in a dustbin.
The Church, that decided the canon of the Bible by the most arcane of lunacies - e.g. deciding there should be four gospels because there are four winds etc. etc.
And what is the Church, that it should be a guardian? If it is the people, then we are the church - which is made up of individuals in a relationship with God. If not, then what a sorry state this "guardian" really is in...
If I'm looking for truth, I'm not interested in what some horrible, hypocritical priest has to say on the matter.
"Truth is a black cat in a windowless room at midnight." -- Bertholdt Brecht wrote in The Caucasian Chalk Circle
"What is Truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer." -- Francis Bacon
I'd sooner admit my humanity and trust in God than seek some fictional absolute doctrine in the vaults of any number of corrupt institutions.
I do not need to know whether Our Holy Lord favours the colour blue over Thursday lunchtimes, or what sock size Jesus wore;
or his opinion on whether gay sex is preferable to the misery of celibacy;
or whether he approves of priestly hanky-panky on saturday nights;
It simply does not matter to me whether the Thrice High God in the person of Jesus Christ had faith so strong he could walk on water;
because in the absence of all this so-called "knowledge", even as Paul decided to go amid the gentiles preaching "nothing but Christ crucified",
what matters is the free gift. That believing in Jesus saves.
I believe it's that simple.
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
That's not contradictory. That's masochism..
Indeed.
quote:
What you were talking about initially was believing both A and NOT-A to be the case. That's just muddled.
Some belief systems do not hold to that logic; for example, Buddhism.
Personal perception and external truth do not necessarily match;
In still other belief systems, some people believe that people make their own valid truths.
I agree with you that it is nonsensical, but there are those who would believe it - there it is.
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
quote:
And, the Church (like it or not) is the guardian of the truth about Jesus.
Actually I don't agree. The Holy Spirit would be the guardian of the truth about Jesus, not the Church
That would be the Church that in Scripture and Tradition is described as the Body of Christ and Temple to the Holy Spirit. How do you think the Spirit would preserve the truth of Christ if not through the Scriptures the Church preserved and the teachings expounding those Scriptures so that we could know the truth?
quote:
what matters is the free gift. That believing in Jesus saves.
I believe it's that simple.
I believe that for that phrase "believing in Jesus saves" to have any meaning then we need to know at least three things:
- Who is Jesus?
- What is salvation?
- What does it mean to believe?
Not that simple, is it? Especially if you're going to throw out the teaching of the Church.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
Oh, sure it is.
You don't have to be a churchgoer to find out the jist of Christianity.
In any case, there are new translations of the Bible released every year. According to copyright law, I am informed, for a book to be considered new, it has to differ from other existing books by a certain percentage.
Which means that every time a new Bible is published, that's a sure fire sign the thing is being fiddled with -
Just as it was fiddled with in the early church.
Just as it was fiddled with in the Mediaeval ages.
Just as it's still being fiddled with now.
The thing has been changed, fiddled, redacted, chopped up, interpreted, reinterpreted, misinterpreted, mistranslated, paraphrased...
goodness
Take any two versions of the Bible, side by side, and make a concurrent comparison.
The howlers such an approach throws up are often classic
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
You don't have to be a churchgoer to find out the jist of Christianity.
No, you just have to accept at least some of what the Church teaches about Christianity. Including, but not limited to, the Bible itself.
quote:
there are new translations of the Bible released every year. According to copyright law, I am informed, for a book to be considered new, it has to differ from other existing books by a certain percentage.
Which means that every time a new Bible is published, that's a sure fire sign the thing is being fiddled with -
Now that seems to be a big red herring. Each translation is, like any other literary work, covered by copyright. But, all they are is translations. No one is claiming that the Bible is changed in translation. Well, no one but you it seems. Translations aim to make the words of the Bible accessible to all, not just the few who read Greek and Hebrew. New translations happen because of several factors, including better understanding of the original language and changes in the language the texts are translated into. If the only English translation we had was the King James we'd be stuck with the inaccuracies of the translation and a form of English that itself needs translating for most English speakers to understand.
quote:
Take any two versions of the Bible, side by side, and make a concurrent comparison.
The howlers such an approach throws up are often classic
Well, of course, reading in more than one translation is a recommended approach to better understanding the text you're reading. I've not come across any howlers in the last twenty plus years of reading passages in more than one translation.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curious Buddhist
Shipmate
# 10954
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No one is claiming that the Bible is changed in translation.
I'd disagree with that last comment. The Bible has changed dramatically, in translation, since the Septuagint.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I've not come across any howlers in the last twenty plus years of reading passages in more than one translation.
Again, with respect, I disagree. I can think of one particular "howler" (ophthe) as an example but there are many more in the N.T., in particular, grammatical "howlers" which alter the meaning of the original texts.
--------------------
Bearing a grudge is like swallowing a poison and expecting someone else to die.
The Treatment Continues
Posts: 265 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
But even if this is the case, a serious theologian would want to return to the original text in the original language if there was a serious point of doctrine at stake.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curious Buddhist
Shipmate
# 10954
|
Posted
Yes, Ricardus, I agree with you. But how many do?
And this is fairly pivotal when we're talking about "ophthe" since it's the lynch pin of the Christian faith I would have thought. But the mistranslations remain, apparently without people going back to the Greek to see what it actually said.
[ 05. February 2006, 13:04: Message edited by: Curious Buddhist ]
--------------------
Bearing a grudge is like swallowing a poison and expecting someone else to die.
The Treatment Continues
Posts: 265 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I expect most would - at the very worst, if only to cover their backs so that no other theologian with a good knowledge of Greek or Hebrew can call "Bullshit!" on them.
[Cross-posted with your edit. What is the issue with ophthe?]
[ 05. February 2006, 13:06: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curious Buddhist
Shipmate
# 10954
|
Posted
The trouble is Ricardus (and I've had this conversation with Christians countless times), some people aren't interested in the original version.
If you Google on "ophthe" you'll find a plethora of arguments about what, exactly, it means, mostly saying different things. However, if anyone has studied ancient Greek, the meaning is clear, it means "I see" as in "I understand, see, what you mean", it does not mean "I physically see you", however the arguments continue and no doubt will continue to do so.
--------------------
Bearing a grudge is like swallowing a poison and expecting someone else to die.
The Treatment Continues
Posts: 265 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
For those who are interested as to the "ophthe" discussion, check out this page:
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq097.html
The most obvious example of a howler I can think of is the resurrection itself - about which no translation, no matter how "careful", is even internally consistent, let alone consistent with other translations no matter how well fiddled.
There are even "harmonised" gospels which seek to conglomerate all four gospels as if they were ingredients of a cake to be mixed and half-baked;
and the recent addition of a 100-minute bible to this ever-increasing list only proves the point more...
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curious Buddhist
Shipmate
# 10954
|
Posted
Mrmister, good link but I've just had a quick look and I would seriously argue with their claim that "ophthe" meant "appeared to", it simply didn't mean that. It means "I see what you mean" which is different altogether, however, the link is very interesting and I shall read it fully now.
--------------------
Bearing a grudge is like swallowing a poison and expecting someone else to die.
The Treatment Continues
Posts: 265 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curious Buddhist:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No one is claiming that the Bible is changed in translation.
I'd disagree with that last comment. The Bible has changed dramatically, in translation, since the Septuagint.
Well, I don't read Greek. So, I have to rely on the trustworthiness of translators. But, I can't see why commitees of basically honest, intelligent people who are trying their hardest to faithfully convey the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew into English (or whatever the target language is) would deliberately change that meaning. A few unintentional mistakes, maybe - but they wouldn't result in dramatic changes. And, besides, another group of translators would come up with a correct translation. I just don't see any evidence for widespread deliberate mis-translation.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I've not come across any howlers in the last twenty plus years of reading passages in more than one translation.
Again, with respect, I disagree. I can think of one particular "howler" (ophthe) as an example but there are many more in the N.T., in particular, grammatical "howlers" which alter the meaning of the original texts. [/QB]
Again, saying there are examples doesn't help. If the original text has been altered then that alteration appears in all the translations I regularly use because I've not seen them. There are differences, naturally, and there is a great deal to be learnt by reading the differences and seeing how they alter the meanings of passages. But, none that make any significant difference to what I believe to be the message of Scripture.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curious Buddhist
Shipmate
# 10954
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are differences, naturally, and there is a great deal to be learnt by reading the differences and seeing how they alter the meanings of passages. But, none that make any significant difference to what I believe to be the message of Scripture.
But Alan, with respect, the mistranslation of "ophthe" does alter things. Surely there's a very big difference between "I see what you mean, I understand what Jesus was talking about" and "I see Jesus, physically standing before me"? The two things mean something different now, for me, it's not that important, because I believe that to say "I understand" is just as valid, but this is not a physical resurrection and this is problematical from a KJV (or subsequent versions) standpoint.
--------------------
Bearing a grudge is like swallowing a poison and expecting someone else to die.
The Treatment Continues
Posts: 265 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
Well, I don't read Greek. So, I have to rely on the trustworthiness of translators. But, I can't see why commitees of basically honest, intelligent people who are trying their hardest to faithfully convey the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew into English (or whatever the target language is) would deliberately change that meaning. A few unintentional mistakes, maybe - but they wouldn't result in dramatic changes. And, besides, another group of translators would come up with a correct translation. I just don't see any evidence for widespread deliberate mis-translation.
May I suggest you check out The Jewish Publication Society's translation of Torah?
The differences between the Septuagint and the Massoretic are more than "unintentional mistakes" - we're talking huge swathes of text in the Septuagint that don't exist in the Massoretic etc.
Evidence for widespread redaction deliberately abounds; for example, there are about twenty different ends to the gospel of Mark alone, depending on which manuscript one goes on.
And if you're talking about the manuscripts not having changed, my immediate reply would be that we don't have the originals!
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Curious Buddhist
Shipmate
# 10954
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
The differences between the Septuagint and the Massoretic are more than "unintentional mistakes" - we're talking huge swathes of text in the Septuagint that don't exist in the Massoretic etc.
I completely agree with you, this is not unintentional, it is a gargantuan mistranslation.
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Evidence for widespread redaction deliberately abounds; for example, there are about twenty different ends to the gospel of Mark alone, depending on which manuscript one goes on.
It's not only the different ends which I've talked about before, the grammar, the misuse of comma's in the beginning of The Gospel of Mark, fundamentally alters its meaning and this is really important and can't just be brushed aside, it fundamentally alters what the N.T. says. Read the Septuagint and you will find a very different story.
[ 05. February 2006, 13:23: Message edited by: Curious Buddhist ]
--------------------
Bearing a grudge is like swallowing a poison and expecting someone else to die.
The Treatment Continues
Posts: 265 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curious Buddhist:
But Alan, with respect, the mistranslation of "ophthe" does alter things. Surely there's a very big difference between "I see what you mean, I understand what Jesus was talking about" and "I see Jesus, physically standing before me"? The two things mean something different now, for me, it's not that important, because I believe that to say "I understand" is just as valid, but this is not a physical resurrection and this is problematical from a KJV (or subsequent versions) standpoint.
So can you give us chapter and verse as to where this mistranslation happens, as well as two (or more) Bible translations backed by decent scholarship that translate it such that each means something different from the other?
Or are you saying that all bible translations carry the same error in translation? That implies a conspiracy amongst academics to distort the meaning, which is a big claim.
Peronel.
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curious Buddhist:
It's not only the different ends which I've talked about before, the grammar, the misuse of comma's in the beginning of The Gospel of Mark, fundamentally alters its meaning and this is really important and can't just be brushed aside, it fundamentally alters what the N.T. says. Read the Septuagint and you will find a very different story.
Heh? Mrmister, if I'm understanding him correctly, is talking about fundamental differences between Bible translations. A verse saying one thing in Bible A and another in Bible B.
I'm not sure why pointing out inconsistencies between NT and Septuagint has anything to do with that arguement.
Peronel.
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curious Buddhist
Shipmate
# 10954
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
So can you give us chapter and verse as to where this mistranslation happens, as well as two (or more) Bible translations backed by decent scholarship that translate it such that each means something different from the other?
Or are you saying that all bible translations carry the same error in translation? That implies a conspiracy amongst academics to distort the meaning, which is a big claim.
Peronel.
Hi Peronel,
Ophthe has been mistranslated in most versions that I know of, it's mentioned countless times in the Septuagint, most particularly by Paul but also by others.
The grammatical errors at the beginning of Mark are also there in most common translations but are not there in the Septuagint.
--------------------
Bearing a grudge is like swallowing a poison and expecting someone else to die.
The Treatment Continues
Posts: 265 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
But Alan, with respect, the mistranslation of "ophthe" does alter things
If I've understood correctly, this is a discussion about one word translated "appeared" or "was seen by" in verses such as 1 Cor 15:5,8. Now, I'm not too sure what the big difference is. There's a slight difference as to whether it was Christ that was actively appearing, or whether it was those who saw him who were the active party. But that seems an extremely petty difference. The Corinthians passage is entirely clear that after Jesus was executed various people, at different times and places, experienced something that they were very clear about being an encounter with the risen Christ.
quote:
Surely there's a very big difference between "I see what you mean, I understand what Jesus was talking about" and "I see Jesus, physically standing before me"?
Yes, there's a big difference. But none of the English translations I know of have anything other than a physical encounter with Christ. I don't see where the first option comes in - I know "I see" in English can mean "I understand", but it's the sort of idiom that doesn't tend to hold true in all languages.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
Or are you saying that all bible translations carry the same error in translation? That implies a conspiracy amongst academics to distort the meaning, which is a big claim.
Correct.
quote:
I'm not sure why pointing out inconsistencies between NT and Septuagint has anything to do with that arguement.
It has everything to do with it, mainly because there is no such thing as the "NT".
Canon continually changes throughout history.
Where I draw comparisons between bible versions, I can equally draw comparisons between manuscripts.
What is published as one neat book in a christian bookshop is in fact a digested, redacted, translated mix of a number of old manuscripts, whose divine authorship were all hotly debated.
Just consider the inclusion of the deutero-canonical books in the Catholic Bible, whereas they were excluded from Protestant canon!
Then there are the obvious references to pseudepigraphica, e.g. the book of Enoch, as well as to a number of books that simply do not exist, e.g. the book of Gad the Seer - which are also referenced by name in the Bible.
One cannot dissociate Septuagint/Massoretic issues from different version issues as if they were two different debates, because in reality they are one and the same debate:
the bible is now, has always been and will continue to be fiddled according to the needs of its adherents
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curious Buddhist
Shipmate
# 10954
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I know "I see" in English can mean "I understand", but it's the sort of idiom that doesn't tend to hold true in all languages.
Check out ancient Greek, Ancient Greek was a wonderful language, full of nuances of which this is a good example. I would argue (from an academic perspective that to translatate "ophthe" as a physical seeing is wrong, it means "I see what you mean"). In the same way that Ancient Greek had names for shades of different colours, we no longer have these words, neither does modern day Greek by the way, but in Ancient Greek we find these nuances and they are not a secret.
Still, to me, it doesn't alter things as much as the strange grammar at the beginning of The Gospel of Mark, but to some it might make a difference.
[ 05. February 2006, 13:37: Message edited by: Curious Buddhist ]
--------------------
Bearing a grudge is like swallowing a poison and expecting someone else to die.
The Treatment Continues
Posts: 265 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curious Buddhist:
Ophthe has been mistranslated in most versions that I know of, it's mentioned countless times in the Septuagint, most particularly by Paul but also by others.
Sorry to be thick, but what's Paul got to do with the Septuagint?
quote:
Originally posted by Curious Buddhist:
The grammatical errors at the beginning of Mark are also there in most common translations but are not there in the Septuagint.
Mark quotes Isaiah, so I'm assuming that's the connection with the Septuagint. Are you saying that Mark quotes Isaiah incorrectly - that there are grammatical errors in the original (ie untranslated, rather than first manuscript) of Mark's Gospel? Or are you saying that modern translators - when faced with exactly the same words - handle them differently depending on whether they're in Isaiah or in Mark?
And what's all that got to do with deliberately introduced differences intended to distort meaning in different modern translations? Which - if I'm understanding him correctly - is what mrmister is arguing.
Peronel.
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
The differences between the Septuagint and the Massoretic are more than "unintentional mistakes" - we're talking huge swathes of text in the Septuagint that don't exist in the Massoretic etc.
Yes, so? We know that. Nothing new, it's been part of the discussion within the Church for millenia as to whether or not those bits of the OT that are in the Septuagint but not the Massoretic are part of the full canon of Scripture or not. Generally the Orthodox (who use the Septuagint as the OT) accept them fully, the Roman Catholics (who use the Massoretic mostly) accept them as "deutero-canonical" because they're in the Septuagint, and Protestants take them a "useful books, but not canonical".
quote:
And if you're talking about the manuscripts not having changed, my immediate reply would be that we don't have the originals!
Of course no. Again, nothing new there. The question is to what extent are the oldest copies we have different from the originals. And, where there are differences to what extent do they affect the understanding of the Bible? Most translations will footnote where there are differences so we can judge that.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curious Buddhist
Shipmate
# 10954
|
Posted
There must have been a conscious desire, at some point, to mistranslate these things, and also to alter the grammar. That's my feeling, yes, it's a big claim, but that doesn't make it any the less valid.
The mistranslations in the N.T. are gargantuan and very odd, to say the least.
and, P.S. Cross-posted to Peronel, no I'm not talking about Isiah or any comments thereupon, I'm talking about the very first sentence.
[ 05. February 2006, 13:40: Message edited by: Curious Buddhist ]
--------------------
Bearing a grudge is like swallowing a poison and expecting someone else to die.
The Treatment Continues
Posts: 265 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curious Buddhist:
P.S. Cross-posted to Peronel, no I'm not talking about Isiah or any comments thereupon, I'm talking about the very first sentence.
Okay. Then what's that got to do with the Septuagint? And, for that matter, what has Paul to do with the Septuagint?
Peronel.
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
Mark quotes Isaiah, so I'm assuming that's the connection with the Septuagint.
No it doesn't!
Consider Mark 1:2-4.
Its first half misunderstand and misattributes Malachi 3:1-4, a messianic prophecy, as referring to John the Baptist, misattributing it to Isaiah 40:3 - which is not even in Isaiah!
In any case, does John the Baptist refine like fire? No! He called people to repentance. The Messiah was to do those things! Matthew 11:10 says it's John.
Biblical footnotes tend to fess up this blunder by referring to Malachi as well as Isaiah.
quote:
Yes, so? We know that. Nothing new, it's been part of the discussion within the Church for millenia as to whether or not those bits of the OT that are in the Septuagint but not the Massoretic are part of the full canon of Scripture or not.
Otherwise known as fiddling the bible to suit the reigning theology.
[ 05. February 2006, 13:44: Message edited by: mrmister ]
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curious Buddhist
Shipmate
# 10954
|
Posted
Sorry, what do you mean? The original Septuagint Bible has everything to do with modern translations.
--------------------
Bearing a grudge is like swallowing a poison and expecting someone else to die.
The Treatment Continues
Posts: 265 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
