|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Belief in Jesus. Easy, innit
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curious Buddhist:
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").
But, it would be an extremely strange thing to say in the context of a passage of Scripture that is all about the physical resurrection of Christ, and that the Christian faith is meaningless without it. References to people actually seeing the risen Christ support the whole thrust of the argument. References to people not actually seeing the risen Christ, but coming to understand that he had risen, undermine the whole argument Paul is making. If "ophthe" can be translated as you suggest (something I don't deny) doesn't mean that that's how Paul is using the word here, simply because it turns a coherent argument spread across many verses into nonsense.
quote:
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.
I don't really know what this is either. You mentioned something about a comma. Am I mistaken in my understanding that ancient Greek didn't have punctuation as we know it? And, that that is part of the difficulty we have translating Greek because we need to know not only what individual words mean but also how the grammar worked without the sort of punctuation we use. That's before you wrestle with whether or not the Greek used was grammatically good to start with.
--------------------
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
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curious Buddhist:
Sorry, what do you mean? The original Septuagint Bible has everything to do with modern translations.
Yes, the original Septuagint has everything to do with modern translations of it.
It has bugger all to do - surely - with modern translations of Mark, which were never part of it. That's why I assumed you were referring to the stuff attributed to Isaiah (and mrmister I acknowledge your point on the accuracy of that atribution) but that, I'm pretty sure from memory, is part of the Septuagint.
I'm still not sure how you get from that to showing that there are differences between different modern translations designed to further an agenda.
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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
OK: on the subject of ophthe:
I'm not a Greek scholar. However, my college library is only a minute's walk away, has an excellent collection of Ancient Greek dictionaries. I consulted:
- Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon
- Arndt and Gengrich's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
- E A Sophocles' Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods
- S C Woodhouse's English-Greek Dictionary
- Lascarides' English-Greek Lexicon
Only (2) is a "Christian" dictionary; the others are intended for Classicists.
The fruit of my researches is that ophthe is some kind of irregular suppletive past tense form of οραν, which is the normal word to "see", as in "to perceive with the eyes". Generally speaking, it's not a good idea to believe everything Google tells you.
--------------------
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
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
The inclusion of the Johannine Comma - the trinitarian verse in 1 John 5:7 I think - is a perfect example of such fiddling.
Or how about reading the translator's prefaces at the front of any bible?
They indicate clear bias of purpose. The translators translate the bible to correct "defects", to promote messages... heck, listen to this from the RSV:
"Because of unhappy experience with unauthorized publications in the two decades between 1881 and 1901, which tampered with the text of the English Revised Version in the supposed interest of the American public, the American Standard Version was copyrighted, to protect the text from unauthorized changes."
That's just one example. There are loads of others.
Bibles are intended to proselytise the message and agenda of those who put them together, plain and simple.
[ 05. February 2006, 13:56: 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
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You mentioned something about a comma. Am I mistaken in my understanding that ancient Greek didn't have punctuation as we know it? And, that that is part of the difficulty we have translating Greek because we need to know not only what individual words mean but also how the grammar worked without the sort of punctuation we use.
Alan, it's Aramaic that didn't have tenses or very good grammar, Ancient Greek grammar was very particular. Agreed, it was used in a different way to the way that we would currently use grammar, but to try to imply that it didn't have punctuation is wrong.
With regard to Aramaic, you raise another question totally :
Jesus is risen.
Jesus rose.
Jesus is raised.
None of which are possible in Aramaic.
[ 05. February 2006, 13:55: 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 mrmister:
Bibles are intended to proselytise the message and agenda of those who put them together, plain and simple.
Although the closest you've got to showing this happening is that some translations say "God loves the just" and some "God loves justice".
As major distortions of meaning go, it ain't much.
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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
The Johannine Comma has nothing to do with commas as in punctuation.
Also, though it is undoubtedly an interpolation, a.) it was interpolated a few centuries after the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated, b.) it only affected Western manuscripts, c.) it has now been removed from modern translations, except in footnotes.
--------------------
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
|
|
croshtique
Shipmate
# 4721
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
The inclusion of the Johannine Comma - the trinitarian verse in 1 John 5:7 I think - is a perfect example of such fiddling.
Yet the vast majority of modern translations recognise that the 'comma' only appears once or twice in late (medieval?) MSS and do not include it (or at least just relegate it to a footnote with an explanation).
(edit - said almost exactly the same thing as Ricardus... that's what a Cambridge education will do for ya...)
[ 05. February 2006, 13:59: Message edited by: croshtique ]
--------------------
"When man has finished he is just beginning, and when he stops he is still perplexed" - Sirach 18:7
Posts: 165 | From: Sarf Lahndon | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
You quoted Mark, Peronel.
Verse one says,
"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God"
A number of manuscripts don't say "the Son of God".
That's just for starters - I could be here all night.
As for the OT, check out the Massoretic and the Septuagint and read them side by side. You can't miss the huge swathes of text in the Massoretic that just mysteriously disappear in the Septuagint and the huge swathes of text that miraculously appear in the Septuagint that were never present in the Massoretic.
It's like almost every other paragraph in places.
It is shocking. Get a copy of Torah, e.g. from Sinai Publishing or the JPS, and compare with a Christian Bible.
--------------------
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:
The Johannine Comma has nothing to do with commas as in punctuation.
I never claimed it did! There are two conversations going on here - one about grammar, another about political redaction.
It is coincidence the verse is called the "comma" - it is so named because it appears where a comma should!
No relation to the grammatical discourse.
--------------------
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
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
You quoted Mark, Peronel.
Verse one says,
"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God"
A number of manuscripts don't say "the Son of God".
That's just for starters - I could be here all night.
Yes, agreed. I know this because it says so in the footnotes of my bibles (I have a number of translations) and I would guess every reputable bible out there.
So as evidence of a deliberate agenda to distort the meaning of the original it simply doesn't hold water. If the translators wanted to change the meaning of the original (and you'd agree, I assume, that some early manuscripts do include "the son of God") then they wouldn't include the footnote.
Seems like academics giving a likely translation whilst acknowledging differences in different manuscripts. Certainly not convincing as evidence to mislead.
Peronel.
[ 05. February 2006, 14:05: Message edited by: 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
|
|
croshtique
Shipmate
# 4721
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
You quoted Mark, Peronel.
Verse one says,
"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God"
A number of manuscripts don't say "the Son of God".
That's just for starters - I could be here all night.
'tis true; but the point of NT textual criticism is to attempt to work out what the original text said, and at the same time explaining why variant readings may have arisen. For Mark 1:1 it could be merely an oversight in copying (a common result of using abbreviations for Christological titles) or perhaps the natural tendency to expand such titles. In my Greek NT the words 'son of God' are left in square brackets because on the one hand a number of important MSS contain it, but on the other i is hard to explain why a Christian scribe would omit it.
--------------------
"When man has finished he is just beginning, and when he stops he is still perplexed" - Sirach 18:7
Posts: 165 | From: Sarf Lahndon | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
Nonsense - at some point, the phrase appeared, or was excised from the manuscripts depending on how you see it.
At some point, someone fiddled it. The only reason to fiddle such a phrase is agenda.
End of.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Yes, 'cause it's totally impossible that a copyist could ever make a mistake. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
That was to Peronel by the way!
I don't believe that a Christian scribe would leave out "the Son of God" or mistake the abbreviation - this was all they did, every day, all day, as their act of lifelong devotion to God.
I doubt that they would have mistaken such a thing, although it is remotely possible in the lunatic scheme of things - but if that is possible, how much less trustworthy is the whole book!!
--------------------
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
|
|
croshtique
Shipmate
# 4721
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Nonsense - at some point, the phrase appeared, or was excised from the manuscripts depending on how you see it.
At some point, someone fiddled it. The only reason to fiddle such a phrase is agenda.
End of.
What agenda? If they did have such an agenda why would some manuscripts omit 'Son of God' in Mark 1:1 but fail to excise all other references to Jesus as God's son?
--------------------
"When man has finished he is just beginning, and when he stops he is still perplexed" - Sirach 18:7
Posts: 165 | From: Sarf Lahndon | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
But "God's Son" does not necessarily imply divinity.
Israel is referred to as God's Son Hosea 11:1
Angels are referred to as the Sons of God e.g. Job 38:7
Kings of Israel are referred to as Sons of God 2 Sam 7:14
Righteous people are referred to as Sons of God Wisdom of Solomon 2:15
And what of Numbers 23:19, which says that "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent"?
Works both ways, dude
--------------------
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
|
|
croshtique
Shipmate
# 4721
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
But "God's Son" does not necessarily imply divinity.
Israel is referred to as God's Son Hosea 11:1
Angels are referred to as the Sons of God e.g. Job 38:7
Kings of Israel are referred to as Sons of God 2 Sam 7:14
Righteous people are referred to as Sons of God Wisdom of Solomon 2:15
And what of Numbers 23:19, which says that "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent"?
Works both ways, dude
For the purposes of this discussion I'm not interested in what 'god's son' particularly means.
What kind of agenda do you think someone has if they remove 'son of God' from Mark 1:1 yet are perfectly willing to leave in Mark 1:11 ("You are my Son..."), Mark 5:7, Mark 15:38 etc.? It's all very well claiming that they have a hidden agenda, but if that's the case they didn't do a very good job.
--------------------
"When man has finished he is just beginning, and when he stops he is still perplexed" - Sirach 18:7
Posts: 165 | From: Sarf Lahndon | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
Nobody said they were perfect propagandists.
Bodging up was rife in the plagiarist, sensationalist past.
For example St. Augustine of Hippo and his miraculous one-eyed monsters of Ethiopia.
Fake relics, lies, political alignments, you name it, it's all been done.
The divinity of Jesus was hotly debated in centuries past; it may have been a disgruntled monk or a subversive or a political doing.
Who knows. Who cares.
The point is, the book is not exactly a reliable document.
It's a leap of faith to believe the message - one about which one shouldn't really be dogmatic.
--------------------
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
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
Mrmister, lets get back to what you originally said:
quote:
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.
So where's your evidence of "new Bible['s being] published that have been - in your own words - "fiddled with"? Because, on the basis of what you've said so far, I'm not seeing it.
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
So, where are these classic howlers? You've yet to produce one of any significance.
Is there any substance to back up your arguement? Or is it simply that you believe the Bible to be unreliable?
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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
As for the OT, check out the Massoretic and the Septuagint and read them side by side. You can't miss the huge swathes of text in the Massoretic that just mysteriously disappear in the Septuagint and the huge swathes of text that miraculously appear in the Septuagint that were never present in the Massoretic.
Yes, but that's not a translation issue. The OT is essentially a compilation of oral traditions. AIUI the Hellenic Jews who used the Septuagint added some of their own oral traditions. It is no different in principle from the Christians adding the New Testament to the canon of Scripture.
In any case, I'm not sure how much practical difference it makes. What doctrinal issues rest on these additions?
--------------------
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
|
|
croshtique
Shipmate
# 4721
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Nobody said they were perfect propagandists.
I'm saying in this case it's far, far more likely that a couple of copyists made a simple error as opposed to them setting out to wipe out all traces of Jesus's divine sonship and then getting bored after fiddling with the first verse of Mark.
--------------------
"When man has finished he is just beginning, and when he stops he is still perplexed" - Sirach 18:7
Posts: 165 | From: Sarf Lahndon | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
There is lots of substance, but it's not for you to ask me to do your homework for you.
I have a lot of things I need to do as well as on here, and limited time in which to do it in.
The differences are trivially easy to find - if you would care to put a little effort of your own in, the information is easy to find.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
p.s. I also don't take kindly to your tone, implicit to which is the suggestion that unless I furnish perfectly watertight evidence for everything I say on here that I must be talking nonsense. This isn't a postgrad research seminar, it's a bulletin board.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
quote:
The Johannine Comma has nothing to do with commas as in punctuation.
I never claimed it did!
Yes, sorry about that - I thought somebody did, but the conversation was going too fast for me, and I was mistaken.
--------------------
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
|
|
croshtique
Shipmate
# 4721
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
There is lots of substance, but it's not for you to ask me to do your homework for you.
...
p.s. I also don't take kindly to your tone, implicit to which is the suggestion that unless I furnish perfectly watertight evidence for everything I say on here that I must be talking nonsense. This isn't a postgrad research seminar, it's a bulletin board.
It's not about us doing your homework; it's about backing up what appear to be sweeping generalisations with some evidence.
--------------------
"When man has finished he is just beginning, and when he stops he is still perplexed" - Sirach 18:7
Posts: 165 | From: Sarf Lahndon | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
Ah yes, the common ShipOfFools paranoia about "sweeping generalisations" - aka having an opinion of one's own.
Do your own reading! It's not hard, and you'll most likely benefit more from reading it for yourselves than you would from me quoting chapter and verse.
If you choose to utterly dismiss everything I'm saying, it's no skin off my nose.
I will continue to believe in God without the condescending sanctimony of priests, churches - or self-appointed academics - approving of what I believe.
--------------------
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
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
There is lots of substance, but it's not for you to ask me to do your homework for you.
<snip>
The differences are trivially easy to find - if you would care to put a little effort of your own in, the information is easy to find.
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Do your own reading! It's not hard, and you'll most likely benefit more from reading it for yourselves than you would from me quoting chapter and verse.
The thing is, this comes over as you not having any evidence.
After all, how hard would it be - assuming you have the information to hand - for you to produce half a dozen examples where verse X in Bible A says something completely different in Bible B?
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
I also don't take kindly to your tone, implicit to which is the suggestion that unless I furnish perfectly watertight evidence for everything I say on here that I must be talking nonsense.
As a rule of thumb, the more controversial your claim, the more likely you're going to be asked to produce some evidence to back it up.
So if you wanna argue - for example - that Paris is the capital of France, then I doubt anyone will ask you to prove it.
If you want to argue that there's a conspiracy of academics fiddling with Bible translations in order to distort their meaning, then you need rather more evidence to be convincing.
Doesn't mean you have to produce that evidence, of course. But if you don't, don't be surprised when I and others greet your opinions with a certain amount of scepticism.
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
Would that include the controversial claim that some jewish carpenter two thousand years ago was actually god, got crucified to death but rose from the dead so that everyone could live forever in heaven for the rest of forever?
Exactly what evidence would you expect for a claim of THAT magnitude?
I simply have neither the time nor the wish to become an evangelist for sceptics. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I have better things to do with my time, and no offence but it's fairly obvious the bible has been fiddled - a somewhat cursory reading could lead to that conclusion.
If you don't wish to check it out for yourself, fine, but if you're just going to suggest I'm making sweeping generalisations and that I'm a thicko then expect discussion to end.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
"Occasions where The Septuagint Is Quoted in the New Testament against the sense of the Hebrew text"
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/splist1.htm
I don't think anyone would dispute that on occassion NT writers misquoted/misattributed their scriptures. Whether that was ignorance (I know I don't get 100% accuracy in my quoting of the bible, which is one reason I try and avoid proof-texting) or deliberate misuse is less clear, although I have my suspicions with Paul.
I don't see, though, why that has any bearing on whether modern scholars producing today's translations fiddle with the text. It simply isn't relevant.
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
Try reading alongside each other the NIV, the Good News Bible, the New Living Translation, and the RSV side by side.
Then read the JPS Tanach.
You should see what I mean after reading.
But you need to do the reading.
--------------------
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
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
If you don't wish to check it out for yourself, fine, but if you're just going to suggest I'm making sweeping generalisations and that I'm a thicko then expect discussion to end.
I don't think I've suggested either of those things. I've simply asked you to provide evidence for your assertions.
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
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I agree with mrmister that we are assuming too much if we think a term such as "Son of God" necessarily meant the same thing to the people who wrote it as it does to modern people. As N.T. Wright points out in "Jesus and the Victory of God" the terms "Son of God", "King of the Jews" and "Messiah" would likely have been interchangeable references to the anointed of Israel and don't carry the divine connotation later placed on "Son of God".
Though it has a long pedigree in Christianity, dating to Romans 10.9, I've never been able to accept that salvation, however it is understood could be based on mere belief as we use the word in modern English. On a life changing faith which differs profoundly from mere belief, perhaps, so I personally doubt that belief in Jesus on its own can be an authentic part of original Christianity. After all, Satan and the demons believe.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
On a life changing faith which differs profoundly from mere belief, perhaps, so I personally doubt that belief in Jesus on its own can be an authentic part of original Christianity. After all, Satan and the demons believe.
I personally doubt that your life-change can be so profound as to make you perfect.
If you're not perfect, you fall short of God's perfection.
In which case, your righteousnesses are as filthy rags in His sight - whoever is guilty of breaking the Law in its tiniest detail is guilty of breaking the whole law.
Yes, Satan and the devils believe - but the Son of Man died not for angels, but men. They do not benefit from the cross, so that argument doesn't hold water.
Believers are not better than others - they're just forgiven.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
The signifiance of 'ophthe' is much more than whether Jesus 'appeared to' or 'was seen by'. Willi Marxsen's 'The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth' argues that ressurection is a subjective event in the mind of the early church - more of less on the lines of John Brown's body lies a mouldering in the grave but his soul goes marching on - Jesus is dead but his mission is ours to carry on: The Christ WAS Jesus, NOW it's us.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Try reading alongside each other the NIV, the Good News Bible, the New Living Translation, and the RSV side by side.
Mrmister, are you familiar with the concept of "translation loss"? The problem is that it is impossible to translate exactly from one language to another. A word in one language will often cover a slightly different semantic field from its nearest equivalent in another. The challenge is to find the best approximate, not the exact equivalent.
E.g. Latin has two aspects in the past tense - perfect (amaui) and imperfect (amabam.) Spanish has three - perfect (he amado), imperfect (amaba), and preterite (amé). So any translation into Spanish of a Latin past tense will necessarily be making an aspectual distinction that is not present in the Latin, simply because the Spanish language forces such distinctions to be made. I use Latin and Spanish as an example because I am most familiar with Romance linguistics, but similar points hold for any pair of languages.
Different translators will try to minimise translation loss in different ways. Hence different translations exist.
[ 05. February 2006, 15:42: 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
|
|
Fauja
Lesser known misfit
# 2054
|
Posted
mrmister, you have made an important distinction between opinion and faith in your OP.
What we believe is not the same as who we believe. Jesus never said that following him would be easy, you need to count the cost. You will only make the task harder for yourself if you have expectations of other people that you are not prepared to live by yourself. I am trying to say this with respect, not wanting to go beyond what I would say in person to your face - an all too easy cop-out in this internet age!
Posts: 829 | From: uk | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Try reading alongside each other the NIV, the Good News Bible, the New Living Translation, and the RSV side by side.
I've read widely in three out of these four, often bouncing between them to get a different perspective as I study.
I haven't come across anything that strikes me as deliberate "fiddling" by the translators. Difference of phrasing, yes. Occassionally prioritising one source over another, but footnoting the rejected one, then sure. Areas where the exact meaning of the original is problematic - often due to the problems of mapping the origional tenses onto our own - sure. But deliberate distortion?
So, assume I'm stupid. Point me towards a few (say half a dozen?) Bible verses that illustrate your point that modern translations have been fiddled with to push an agenda. Show me the disagreements. Show me the howlers.
Because so far I'm not seeing them.
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:
You will only make the task harder for yourself if you have expectations of other people that you are not prepared to live by yourself.
Whoa. I expect nothing of others' morality, nor do I judge myself; nor do I claim to be good, nor do I deny the gift of imputed holiness, nor do I deserve it.
Do not accuse me of something I've not done.
I believe in Jesus, the resurrected incarnate God who died to save, in the gift of free undeserved mercy and grace, total forgiveness and blessedness in heaven.
I do not say others need be moral to believe, nor is it kind to hurt others, nor will hurting others prevent them from being saved, nor should it.
Justice is what demanded death in the first place.
If God is gracious, so must I be, and so should I be.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
I believe in Jesus.
That's what I believe.
The rest, in my view, is pretty much theological (and sociological) dogmatic banter.
If Jesus' sacrifice does not require from us reaction or change beyond acceptance of truth of the event - what is the point ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
I've read widely in three out of these four, often bouncing between them to get a different perspective as I study.
No. Bouncing between them isn't good enough.
Sit down with a pad of A4 and a pen, and the books in front of you. Make as many columns as there are bibles you're looking at. Turn to, for example the gospels, and read them simultaneously. As you do, notice any differences between the translations. Write them down.
By the end of this exercise, you will have page upon page of problems.
Me sitting here quoting "blah blah blah" will not convince you. All that will happen is I'll provide some texts, you'll refute them, and you'll do that for each case.
But that will be missing the point: you need to see the big picture. You need to see page after page of problems, in your own handwriting, on a page that you've invested effort in making.
You need to actually see that although one problem could feasibly be resolved - or perhaps at a stretch two - the likelihood of these so-called "reasonable" explanations being an acceptable excuse for page after page of problems is vanishingly small.
In fact, I would suggest you attempt this first of all with the resurrection account - with just one Bible. Six columns (four for the gospels, one for 1 corinthians, and 1 for acts) - and write down a blow-by-blow account of what happened on the resurrection.
I really do suggest you try these exercises, as it will show you vividly major problems with the Bible both within the same version, and between versions.
It is worth the investment of effort.
--------------------
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
Even easier, do what I did earlier with the 1 Corinthians verses related to "ophthe" and go to one of the online sources which will highlight the differences between translations. All in a different colour. Which, in the 1 Corinthians case showed no difference whatsoever; some versions calling Peter "Peter", and others "Cephas" being it. Hardly what you are claiming.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Mrmister,
Might I suggest you do a similar exercise with, say, Plato or Aristotle or Virgil or Beowulf or any other text from the ancient world?
--------------------
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
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
In fact, I would suggest you attempt this first of all with the resurrection account - with just one Bible. Six columns (four for the gospels, one for 1 corinthians, and 1 for acts) - and write down a blow-by-blow account of what happened on the resurrection.
I entirely agree that there are significant, unreconcilable differences between the Gospels. Not just the resurrection, by the way, but the sequencing of the events of Christ's life, as well as what he said and when he said it.
But - assuming those differences are present in the earliest manuscripts - I don't see how they illustrate that modern translators are fiddling their translations to promote an agenda.
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:
If Jesus' sacrifice does not require from us reaction or change beyond acceptance of truth of the event - what is the point ?
The point is that you're saved from destruction on Judgement Day by a God who loves you enough to welcome you into Heavenly bliss despite the evil you've done in life that resulted in the death of his only son.
It is not about you being good - you don't stand a chance like that. It's too late. There is a bigger spiritual game afoot. God has stepped in to allow you the chance, should you wish it, of his eternal love. You are of course free to reject it, but rejecting God is not something without consequence.
This is what I believe.
The point of Christianity is that this life is not the point: the gift of life after the resurrection, which we don't deserve given how awful we all are, is where it's at.
--------------------
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
Peronel, I knew you'd try and say I was confusing issues.
That is why I said "exerciseSSSSS" (please note the plural)
In one exercise, you're demonstrating biblical internal inconsistency, which you accept.
In an extension of it, you're demonstrating biblical disharmony between versions.
Look at the GNB, the NIV, and the RSV simultaneously.
It's simple. Go read.
Incidentally most Bibles state their agendas openly in their prefaces, as I stated some time ago.
[ 05. February 2006, 16:19: 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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
I have a lot of things I need to do as well as on here, and limited time in which to do it in.
Yep, we all have other things to do. So what? You started this thread and made the claim. If you don't have the time to follow up on your claims I suggest you might find it helpful to make less claims at once. There's no reason you have to cover everything at once, take your time.
quote:
The differences are trivially easy to find
Good, then it won't take you any time to find some for us. The problem is that most of us here have been reading the Bible in many versions for a long time and not spotted the problems you claim are obvious. I could sit down and read the Gospels in three translations, come back here in a couple of days (assuming I don't actually do any of the other things I'd normally do with my spare time) and still not see the evidence of fiddling by modern translators that you're claiming. So, do us a favour and point us in the right direction. Give us a couple of passages in versions that say something radically different.
--------------------
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
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Peronel, I knew you'd try and say I was confusing issues.
That is why I said "exerciseSSSSS" (please note the plural)
In one exercise, you're demonstrating biblical internal inconsistency, which you accept.
In an extension of it, you're demonstrating biblical disharmony between versions.
LOOK AT THE GOOD NEWS BIBLE. THEN LOOK AT THE NIV. THEN LOOK AT THE RSV.
It's simple. Go read.
If its that simple, then demonstrate it.
You've been arguing for two pages than modern translators have fiddled with their translations in order to push an agenda.
You've said that if you compare the different translations, they're full of howlers.
Yet when asked to substantiate this, you talk about inconsistencies between texts in the septuagint and how those texts are used in the NT. Or about inconsistencies between gospel accounts of the same events. Or about inconsistencies between early manuscripts.
All of which are good and interesting points, but have nothing to do with your original assertion.
Which, so far, you've completely failed to produce any evidence for.
So, if these howlers are so obvious, so widespread and so trivially easy to find, then why not show us some?
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
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
