Why believe in a religion created by Politicians?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
of course they affected the content! They are men. Politicians. With points of view, and biases, just like all of us on here.

That does not amount to evidence that they actually effected any changes.
You seem to have a very primitive understanding of what constitutes evidence of guilt - "he is the kind of person who would have done it, so that proves that he did it". (I've seen you use that argument on the question of whether Bush said something).
Anyway, there is no suggestion that Constantine went into his study and wrote out the copies personally. He just ordered the work to be done. It would have been carried out by professional scribes.

When I try to type back what another member has just said, and then check it against what they actually said....it is nearly always NOT VERBATIM.

Yes, scribal errors are a well-known phenomenon reported by the people who examine manuscripts.
But it is a big leap from there to deliberate corruption, and an even bigger jump to deliberate corruption for political motives (for which there doesn't appear to be much scope in the New Testament texts).
The controverted point is not whether people made mistakes. It is about whether there is any evidence that political people introduced deliberate changes.

a reply to: DISRAELI

You seem to have a very primitive understanding of what constitutes evidence of guilt - "he is the kind of person who would have done it, so that proves that he did it". (I've seen you use that argument on the question of whether Bush said something).

No. Not a primitive understanding. A rather sophisticated, educated one!! A 'scribe'....a "court reporter" - ANY person, even with the very best and most "spirit-filled" affectations and sincere intentions, is STILL liable to mistranslate something.

So, there's the translation. Now someone reads it.......and begins to interpret it, according to their ingrained bias.......which leads to misinterpretation.....

you haven't said, though - do you know the difference between translation and interpretation?

Any person, not just a "kind" of person - any person who endeavors to pass something on from one language/culture to another is liable to mis-speak, or mis-translate. Idioms, verb forms, word usage.....it's all mixed in.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
ANY person, even with the very best and most "spirit-filled" affectations and sincere intentions, is STILL liable to mistranslate something.

In the case of the books ordered by Constantine, Greek copies were being made of books which were written in Greek, so translation would not have been an issue.
Manuscript copying errors, yes; translation, no.
And I still don't see how this constitutes evidence supporting the claim that changes were deliberately introduced for political purposes.

you haven't said, though - do you know the difference between translation and interpretation?

Since you've asked this irrelevant question twice, I will answer it.
Yes, I do know the difference. Unlike the poster on one of my Revelation threads who demanded to know why I was using "somebody else's translation" (the question had me flummoxed, because I failed to spot that he was using the wrong word).
I also know the difference between translation and transliteration, and the difference between exegesis and eisegesis.
Do you wish to test any other aspects of my vocabulary skills?

a reply to: DISRAELI

Manuscript copying errors, yes; translation, no.
And I still don't see how this constitutes evidence supporting the claim that changes were deliberately introduced for political purposes.

*deep sigh*

I'm sorry you don't see it.
There is no escaping it.

Manuscript errors, yes. "Typos". We are agreed there. See, even the tiniest ones can change the entire word/meaning.

Translation, yes. I have postulated that human beings make errors, and especially when they have the opportunity to "tweak" what someone said or wrote - they will do so - subconsciously and passive-aggressively, but even if not, then out of ignorance and personal bias.

NO HUMAN is immune to this.
That's why detectives wear wires. To have a recording of EXACTLY what the 'unsub' or 'person of interest' utters.
"Paraphrasing" is all too common.

No ancient book is guaranteed to be free of manipulation once it's been introduced to 'translators' and/or 'interpreters.'

Maybe you might consider spending some time watching the dastardly MSM.....fact-checking and investigating - to see how things get manipulated by the press......to be totally out of context (your favorite thing, DIS! Context!) from what was originally stated. Or written. Or intended via statement or writing.

Still - I admire your dedication.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I din I din Buzzy ! And I wadz lmao hard to be true!

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I'm sorry you don't see it.
There is no escaping it.

And as far as I can tell, you are failing to see that there is a difference between unintentional and deliberate.
I agree with everything you say about the possibilities of accidental error.
And I must repeat that these possibilities do not amount to evidence of deliberate change.
The claim "created by politicians" really does require deliberate change, for political motives.

The textual apparatus on my edition of the Greek N.T. offers any number of variations in the text, but it would be hard to find even one that was any use politically.
"Politicians made it" is just an empty charge without any backing.

a reply to: DISRAELI

And as far as I can tell, you are failing to see that there is a difference between unintentional and deliberate.

But, you don't see - you can not separate the two!!!!

A person's interpretation is a subjective thing. Any bilingual person has a selection of "synonyms" - and each of those has a distinct, specific meaning.

I just pulled off of my shelf "Funk & Wagnalls Standard Handbook of Synonyms, Antonyms & Prepositions"
Edited by James C Fernald. copyright 1947.

Much more than a "thesaurus" or a "dictionary", or even a bilingual cross-language dictionary. Much different.

Every. Single. Possible. Synonym/Translation (Interpretation) has its own particular nuance.
Unless you know those nuances in context IN BOTH LANGUAGES (as well as your own - and are on guard to beware regional dialects), you can not pick the perfect word or phrase to match it.

It's a very skillful feat, I'm telling you.
Would you like an example?????

Pick a word. Your choice.
If it's in my book, I'll give you the entries........

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
A person's interpretation is a subjective thing. Any bilingual person has a selection of "synonyms" - and each of those has a distinct, specific meaning.

Have you forgotten, then what I pointed out before?
Constantine was ordering up Greek copies of Greek texts.
No translation involved. No choice of words. Just eye-to-hand co-ordination, nothing more.

I believe everything you say about the difficulties of translation, having nodding acquaintance with a couple of foreign languages myself.
I've often observed how meaning can be changed even when words are reported in the same language.
An example; Boswell tells Dr. Johnson that "I come from Scotland, but I can't help it". Johnson makes an impromptu joke based on the double meaning of "come from". Popular report completely wrecks the joke by quoting Boswell as "I'm Scottish, but I can't help it".
But all this discussion about the subtleties of translation is completely beside the point in a situation where no translation is involved.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Just eye-to-hand co-ordination, nothing more.

So - these 'scribes' were perfect Xerox machines?

But all this discussion about the subtleties of translation is completely beside the point in a situation where no translation is involved.

Would you like me to give you a complex sentence in another language in symbols with which you are unfamiliar to copy EXACTLY?


I don't want to fight with you. I just want you to understand that the human eye/hand are fallible. They are not perfect instruments. When you add in the brain's wiring (whether inborn or learned via culture) you can't escape it.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
So - these 'scribes' were perfect Xerox machines?

I have already acknowledged that they were not, and I have also observed that their imperfections are not evidence for consciously motivated corruption, which is the implication of the charge made in this thread.

Would you like me to give you a complex sentence in another language in symbols with which you are unfamiliar to copy EXACTLY?

Again not relevant to the situation, because these scribes copying a Greek text would have been Greek-speakers themselves. It was the lingua franca. The symbols would not have been unfamiliar.
And if they did make accidental mistakes, please see comment above.

a reply to: DISRAELI

consciously motivated corruption, which is the implication of the charge made in this thread.

Oh. Okay - so, we both agree that mistranslation occurs, and misinterpretation of those mistranslations.

Cool


Now - as for deliberate, consciously motivated corruption - why on earth would they not?

If
it forwards their motives and promotes their goal(s) to mislead people -

and
they are able to do so with subtle changes (which most won't notice) -

then
why would they not? These 'scribes and supervisors were not just slaves. They were (presumably) literate men. And if they weren't literate men, then all the more open to suggestion, miscopying, etc.
Their supervisor comes along and says, "So, Roman Scribe Citizen, let's have a look!"

The copied document is scanned...the supervisor sees a misspelled interpretaion, a handy 'typo", and thinks.....

Internal monologue: "hmmmm. I could correct this -but - on the other hand - why would I? Or should I? It furthers my own agenda!" After some thought, here comes the internally derived solution: "I would not correct it! I shall not!"

Then, out loud to laborers: "Copy wrap! ROLL TO PRESSES!"

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Now - as for deliberate, consciously motivated corruption - why on earth would they not?

But that argument does not add up to evidence that they DID.
If you want to convict somebody of a crime, it is not enough to show "motive, means, and opportunity". It is also necessary to establish that some crime has been committed in the first place.
It all comes down to this point about evidence.
You are saying "People do bad things, and that is proof that THIS particular bad thing has been done". No it isn't.
I ask for evidence, and you offer nothing except "it's possible".
And if that is your understanding of how proof-of-guilt works, I still think it is primitive.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Nope. I'm saying there is a "reasonable doubt" that will never go away.
Despite what you say, or anyone else - there is very reasonable doubt that this "Bible" is not true to the original. You can not claim it is. I can not claim it isn't.

I'm just saying that human behavior, political motivation, ignorance, illiteracy, or outright manipulation of the vulnerable is absolutely possible - you can not rule it out.

Therefore - the evidence is inconclusive, and only remotely connected to the scene of the events anyway.

Sorry.
I just can't buy it. You are clearly well-versed on those items you have examined. But you still can not claim that they are 'originals' - because they are not. And as long as they are not, I consider them to be the ancient equivalent of "Photoshopped", if you will. Nineteenth-generation copies of copies.

Not legal documents.
Nope.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I'm just saying that human behavior, political motivation, ignorance, illiteracy, or outright manipulation of the vulnerable is absolutely possible

"Possible" is not enough to justify the outright claim made in the title of this thread.
It would not be enough in a court of law.

And all I have ever claimed about those documents, in this thread, is that NOBODY has produced or even offered any evidence for deliberate political manipulation.
Nobody with any sense of justice could think that "the motive could have existed" counts as reasonable evidence for such an emphatic claim.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Well, okay.
I guess we have to part ways at this point.

I can never trust those documents. You can never doubt their veracity.
To each our own journey.

These documents are clearly not "originals" - they are clearly centuries-later copies of translated copies. I'm afraid that unless you can show they are 'original', 'primary' documents, then - your suggestion - in the absence of this hard evidence - is insubstantial.
I'm afraid in this case, that of an ancient anthology of even more ancient supposed documents, the accused stand indicted. Guilty unless PROVEN innocent.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
These documents are clearly not "originals" - they are clearly centuries-later copies of translated copies. I'm afraid that unless you can show they are 'original', 'primary' documents, then - your suggestion - in the absence of this hard evidence - is insubstantial.

What suggestion? I repeat, I have made no suggestion in this thread except "absence of evidence for political manipulation".
For that suggestion, "no evidence" is all the evidence needed.

No doubt you would have liked me to claim "the documents are infallible", so that you could triumphantly refute the claim. But I didn't.

I was going to let the discussion drop after the first version of your post, but the amended version obliged me to add this protest.
I don't mind you having the last word, as long as you don't misrepresent what I am saying.

a reply to: DISRAELI

No doubt you would have liked me to claim "the documents are infallible"

No!! No at all!! I would have liked you to admit that they can not be proven to be infallible!

so that you could triumphantly refute the claim. But I didn't.

I don't want to be triumphant. I want to get to the truth. I'm sorry if our conversations make you uncomfortable. An intelligent conversation is always a joy to me....I was born this way. I apologize.

I was going to let the discussion drop after the first version of your post, but the amended version obliged me to add this protest.

What 'protest'? The one that you have above?? - the 'protest' leveled against what you think or imagined I would have liked? A pre-emptive protest to whatever "response" you thought I wanted you to give? Or the response I would have expected and/or liked, so I could win? False.
Doubt. The thing you have imagined - that thing about which you say "no doubt" (being my next move)....... yeah..wrong.

So....."yes doubt".

I don't mind you having the last word, as long as you don't misrepresent what I am saying.

But, I don't want the last word.....! I wan't more words, and more, and then more still...I want communication. I don't want to "win", or feel "triumphant", unless we BOTH FEEL IT TOGETHER. Like a mutual human "AhA!" moment. We can all look each other in the eye, and solemnly exchange a nod, and realize we have - between us - found the truth!

*sigh *

I, too, want to know that you understand (and also don't misrepresent) what I am saying, just like I want to genuinely understand what you are saying'; if we try that on, I think we've a good shot at real intellectual debate!
Depends on whether you're willing to step up, though. It would mean investigating things and listening to/reading ideas that irk you or freak you out.....or even feel "dirty" to your sensibilities.

I know the feeling. Trust me, I do. I pushed past that part....curiosity rabbit cat hole, you know....plus, I deserve any suspicion you might have - I have been confrontational often. I'm growing now.
And as I grow, I realize more and more that by no means do I have any of this stuff figured out.

Like I told you a while back: I'm the one whose hand is in the air, sitting in the front row, asking questions. Outgrowing the attitude, I hope.

I hope we might once again have a chance to chat.
Ta

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
What 'protest'?

I thought it was obvious what I was protesting.
I reacted to the assumption that I was making the kind of "suggestion" which would need to be proved by "original", "primary" documents. The opening words "What suggestion?" should have been the clue.
For someone who wants to understand what I mean, you take remarkably little notice of the words that I'm using. How often, in this exchange, have I had to repeat a point made in a previous post?

Like I told you a while back: I'm the one whose hand is in the air, sitting in the front row, asking questions.

If you're genuinely looking to understand, you should be able to understand my reasons for ignoring those others who have no other purpose than deliberate disruption. You know they exist. I've explained what I'm doing more than once in the past, but on that issue you don't want to understand what I mean.

Look, I've been an atheist. I went through that stage of adolescence. I'm not going to be shocked or scandalised by sceptical ideas. But I'm not in the business of "searching" for alternative world-views. My choice has been made (putting it that way to avoid offending the Calvinists). So any explanations you get from me will be about the contentof the Christian world-view.

a reply to: DISRAELI
Okay - you thought it was obvious. Well, it wasn't.

I reacted to the assumption that I was making the kind of "suggestion" which would need to be proved by "original", "primary" documents. The opening words "What suggestion?" should have been the clue.

Brilliant.

Quite.
Now - let's review:

[You] reacted (correct. You reacted.)... to the assumption that .......



who was making?

?????????????..........The assumption that you were making? Or the assumption that you projected onto me making, and then about how I would respond to whatever you said in a way that would necessitate and/or elicit a "protest" from you?




Which of those is accurate? How can you assume (presume) to know what I am thinking or expecting?
What assumption were you making?
Or, do you mean, you reacted to what you assumed I was going to assume? See?

Not even going to address the "should have been a clue" part. It's up to you to make yourself clear - not to me to decipher it.
I can decipher it however I like, or however best I am able....your "clues" notwithstanding.

Fun. Thanks for playing. Just having some banter with you. I like thinking about words and word usage and the power of the written word....one must be careful to choose not only the perfect WORD, but place it in the sentence in the perfect WAY so that the other can in no way be mistaken about the intentions of the writer.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
And all I have ever claimed about those documents, in this thread, is that NOBODY has produced or even offered any evidence for deliberate political manipulation.
Nobody with any sense of justice could think that "the motive could have existed" counts as reasonable evidence for such an emphatic claim.

Disrael/Deetermined.

I refer to my post at the bottom of page 4. Ill repost it for ease of reference.

From Christianity.com. I repeat from 'Christianity.com.'

www.christianity.com...

'King James Sets the Tone
Like Constantine at the opening of the Council of Nicea, James delivered the opening address. He immediately set the tone and gave clear cues of what to expect.
...
James warmed to a new translation because he despised the then popular Geneva Bible.'

With regards to Constantine creating the Bible. I never said he wrote the manuscripts that the Bible contains.
I will admit he did not sit down and put said manuscripts together to form the Bible but he did arrange it and does take the credit for 'the creation of the Bible'.

Like the Christian website says and ill repeat for the third time.
Like Constantine at the opening of the Council of Nicea, James delivered the opening address. He immediately set the tone and gave clear cues of what to expect.

I gave some evidence but it was obviously rejected. Meaning you reject the Christian.com website.

Coomba98