Don't you find it odd about bible quotes in English.........

reply to post by JiggyPotamus


A worthy opponent!

I respect your post and offer the following:

"Bible translation has been around for about as long as the Bible itself, and for the most part the translations we have today are accurate. Most scholars agree when it comes to translating the meanings of various pieces of text."

I rest my case.

I've had this discussion many times and the end of the argument is always, "God works in ways we don't understand."

I'm not trying to flame or argue for the sake of argument. I respect your viewpoint and opinion.

Please understand, I am not attacking your faith. I AM attacking the blind subservience to the "intent" of some textual works that may be interpreted in different ways. Please consider Plato's, "Allegory of the Cave".

I respect faith. I understand faith. I believe in something greater than myself. BUT. That belief is based on my interpretation of the world I see.

However, I refuse to let another human being make that determination for me. What possible credibility could ANY human have to interpret any existence?

I know - God works in mysterious ways...

reply to post by JiggyPotamus

...that the Bible was written hundreds of years after the death of Jesus...

Wow- I missed that part!

The Bible was not written at any one time, since it is composed of various gospels or books, some of which were written around the time of Jesus, not hundreds or years later. In fact, the Old Testament was written before Jesus. Long before. And the most important books of the New Testament were written not very long after Jesus' death.

Totally agree!

Biigs
That some people quote verses of the bible and live by the letter of "the holy law" when the bible was written hundreds of years after the death of jesus and in an ancient Hebrew and Greek.

This is incorrect.
The Bible is in fact composed of 66 books, written over a period of ~1500 years.
The entire Old Testament was complete, and already translated into Greek, 300 years before Christ. The New Testament wasn't canonized until "hundreds of years after the death of Jesus", but the books that formed that canon were all written in the first century AD - some as early as the 30's, others (e.g. Revelation) not until later.

Some people are so sworn to the text they take everything literally as was translated, did the people who translated it even care how accurate it was (king James version).

They did care about accuracy, yes - but no human is perfect, and therefore no translation will be perfect. In order to argue that a translation is perfect, you have to suspend all logic and reason. Pointing out translation issues in the KJV isn't a complicated process. Trying to argue that it's flawless, on the other hand... is very complicated.

Its almost amusing when someone quotes an exact English version of a verse, yet if you try to explain that it may not be 100% accurate, YOU (aka me) is the one at fault for questioning it....

You need to make a distinction between imperfect translations and the original text. Very few Christians claim that translations are perfect. Many Christians, on the other hand, will claim that the autographs (the originally written documents) were both perfect, and without error.

The often trumpeted claim around here that the Bible has been "translated hundreds of times" and that it's flawed on that basis is a poor argument. If each translation works from the same original text, then it's still only one generation removed from authenticity. The real question isn't whether or not the translations are accurate (after all, every major translation will agree on the vast majority of doctrines, even if they use different language to explain it), but whether or not the original text is the revealed Word of God. THAT is the important question.

Biigs
That some people quote verses of the bible and live by the letter of "the holy law" when the bible was written hundreds of years after the death of jesus and in an ancient Hebrew and Greek.

Some people are so sworn to the text they take everything literally as was translated, did the people who translated it even care how accurate it was (king James version).

Its almost amusing when someone quotes an exact English version of a verse, yet if you try to explain that it may not be 100% accurate, YOU (aka me) is the one at fault for questioning it....

Im not saying its wrong, im just saying it may not be right.

What do you guys think?

so how about giving us an example
You obviously have a bee in your bonnet

what is taken literally when its obviously wrong, or could be wrong

I think everything has to be questioned

reply to post by borntowatch


Some good reply's thanks.

I dont have a bee in my bonnet.

The bible teaches us many things, all pretty much good, i dont have a problem with christans either, they are nice people. Its just the direct quoting of a possibly mistranslated verse, notice i say possibly. Some accept it may not be 100% but some are totally defiant and think im the devil for even suggesting it! Yet its completely true what im saying, if you had the original bible and could read the old languages, fine quote away if you must.

I think its folly anyway quoting a verse to make a point. but thats just an opinion.

reply to post by Biigs

Biigs
That some people quote verses of the bible and live by the letter of "the holy law" when the bible was written hundreds of years after the death of jesus and in an ancient Hebrew and Greek.

Not true. If Jesus died around 33AD under the roman ruler Pilate as the bible says, and if Paul's letters were written between 40 to 60 AD then it is not that much of a time gap.

Also, in Galatians 2:1 it says that Paul went to the Jerusalem Council 14 years after his conversion to Christianity. So, if this is one of the earliest writings of Christianity (not the earliest but only one of the earliest) and if it is dated to be between 40-60 AD and Jesus died around 33AD under Pilate, then it doesn't seem like so much of a time gap.

Also, only the New Testament was written in Greek. Hebrew (and Aramaic) is Old Testament and was written way before Jesus. The Old Testament was called "The Law (of Moses)" in those days while the New Testament was called "The Good News (The Gospel)" now it is all just called "The Bible".

Biigs
Some people are so sworn to the text they take everything literally as was translated, did the people who translated it even care how accurate it was (king James version).

You make a good point. Even if it was translated with 100% accuracy, we have to keep in mind that The Bible was written in Ancient Jerusalem. Metaphors, cultural understands, symbolism, and even theology was different back then.

Just look at all of the different type of Jews and Christians that exist today even though they all based their beliefs from the Bible (whether Old or New testament).

reply to post by arpgme


Agreed, good points.

Though i think the time between the death of Jesus and the bible being put together is some what vague by any means.

Biigs
reply to post by borntowatch

 

Some good reply's thanks.

I dont have a bee in my bonnet.

The bible teaches us many things, all pretty much good, i dont have a problem with christans either, they are nice people. Its just the direct quoting of a possibly mistranslated verse, notice i say possibly. Some accept it may not be 100% but some are totally defiant and think im the devil for even suggesting it! Yet its completely true what im saying, if you had the original bible and could read the old languages, fine quote away if you must.

I think its folly anyway quoting a verse to make a point. but thats just an opinion.

Well I made the foolish assumption you had an axe to grind, hence the post.

I am a Christian and I have problems with Christians, mostly they are not very nice people, I include myself.
Not saying I deliberately choose to be not nice, its just part of my nature and I am working on bettering myself.
All people have their failings.

As for mistranslation, I dont see to much of that, I have seen deliberate translation errors in some translations.
The biblical writings can still be read in Greek, many theologians read Greek to understand the teachings more clearly.

What a reader must understand is the difference between modern laws and ancient laws and how they related to the day to day living and understandings of the ancient people of the bible.

So if the translations are generally good, what is the problem you hilight.

Simply understanding, application and blind ignorance. The very nice Christian people are mostly lazy and dumb (this includes me).
The issue lies with context. The bible is a book with many strange things written in it, and if not read as a whole can be taken completely out of context.
Say we look at the prosperity gospel "God will give you your hearts desire", this is true, but the prosperity gospel advocates the gifts of happiness and wealth are possible on earth if we just have faith. If we study the word clearer, we read the "sermon on the mount" we will see that the opposite is true.
If we look at the Disciples, all died early, bar one, we see prosperity is elusive if we follow God.
If we look at healings, well who hasnt heard of the "God doesnt heel amputees" group. Healings are not as common as some would like to see.
Jesus Himself, executed on the cross, poor and powerless (meek). Not much prosperity for the leader of Christendom.
But every sunday the prosperity teachers pack their churches. Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer the list is nearly as endless as their followers.
Gods promise is not for the here and now, its in heaven.

So as I see it, its not mistranslation, its interpretation and blind ignorance ( a lot of selfishness and greed as well).
You cant rub Gods belly, and get gifts. You cant quote a verse out of context and expect it to be correct, and when I say you I am not being personal.
I think its about misunderstanding and a lack of proper context application.

I think you are right,its folly to quote a verse to establish a point, I think you are wrong blaming the writer and translator instead of the end user.
I know this is accurate in my case, because I have done this.

reply to post by borntowatch


I think the key word there is interpretation, and i could not agree more.

The bibles existence is some what of a mystery, they know who wrote it sort of and sort of when, so even if a translation was 100% accurate the actual content might be a little off anyway.

Like i said before much of it was written many years after the events, just like story's passed down they are subject to small changes in a "Chinese whispers effect" [is that racist, i hope not].

The good book, is a good book and on the whole the people who support it and live by it are good people. I went to a few alpha course sessions and had some good debates with people and vicars but some in the crowd were so indoctrinated as child they simply wont accept anything other than: "The bible was written by Jesus and his pals and its completely infallible and 100% accurate"

By the way i highly recommend the alpha course, im going to do the whole thing the next time round. You get to talk openly about religion, Jesus God and everything. Its very interesting.

reply to post by Biigs



I am unsure of the alpha course, it sounds good
Dont be fooled though, a good study is best done with out persuasion, I humbly offer you a link

www.meetingwithchrist.com...

Go to catalogues
The teachings are clear simple and very well interpreted, the organisation puts no church above another and leaves the reader the chance for personal reflection

Have a read if you have time.

I don't know what your views towards Catholicism are, but here's a good link some factors to consider when you're deciding upon a translation. It does a fairly good job the pros and cons of each choice.

The reason why I use Catholic references is because that is the Church that put it all together as we know it now. Essentially, if you have a BMW, why would you take it to a Ford mechanic? Go to the source!

I was taught in a Christian church that the English version is flawed because many meanings in the original languages do not have literal translations or vice versa.

i was taught to proper way to study the bible was to try to obtain the writers thoughts .. the meanings of the words he would have used in his own language. You use a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance with the Greek and Hebrew lexicons to look up the words they originally used and look up it's definition. In this manner you understand the meaning of the word closer to the way the author would have used it.

originally posted by: JohnPhoenix
I was taught in a Christian church that the English version is flawed because many meanings in the original languages do not have literal translations or vice versa.

i was taught to proper way to study the bible was to try to obtain the writers thoughts .. the meanings of the words he would have used in his own language. You use a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance with the Greek and Hebrew lexicons to look up the words they originally used and look up it's definition. In this manner you understand the meaning of the word closer to the way the author would have used it.

I was taught this too, but when i have talked to Christians from other churches and they just do not accept any of it, they say that the bible, word for word in English is the exact and only christian text and is to be followed to the letter.

a reply to: Biigs


I have never ever heard anyone say what you are saying
In fact, Christ was recognised as a great teacher because He explained what people could not understand.

The NT is written mostly if not entirely in Greek and the translation issue is prominent. Many scholars study Greek to understand the bible
Different languages, culture and laws.I dont think anybody can really understand the bible in English as we have it today. i guess thats why we have two laws, love God and love each other.
Its that simple

The reason that the Bibles were modified from the Arcanum Hebrew versions, into the Greek version of the Septuagint is because they were trying to prevent anyone from decoding the true meaning from the Hebrew versions with the inflections (vowels) on the lettering.

The were so confident and cocky within that which they stole; that they even displayed this within the title of the 'KING JAMES' version of the Bible.

The name 'James' means; 'supplanter'. One who is in a position which is not theirs. Or 'follower', 'grasp by the heel', one who is 'upon the heels of another', to put it in a modern version of the term.

So the commonly accepted, and incorrectly translated version of the texts is referred to as; "The King Supplanter version".

The one which takes away what is rightfully the Kings; and gives it to another.