rockpile Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 More people should read "The Prophet."325611[/snapback] I agree. It can be read online at The Prophet. I especially treasure what he says about Marriage and Children. Be careful, like fine wine or rich food, it should be savored in small portions to be really appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkwwjd Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 You are right in that there is no such thing as taking the Bible literally in the pure sense. Latin is not an original language of the Bible. The New Testament was originally written in "Koine" or "common" Greek. Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, though some parts, including the Book of Daniel were written in Aramaic, a dialect of Hebrew. Your depiction of the Bible as having been changed via "Russian telephone is not very accurate. Scholars working at translating the Dead Sea scrolls, many dating from several hundred years before Christ reveal remarkably few changes in comparison with manuscripts dating from hundreds of years later. Great care was obviously exercised in the work of copying in those days before the printing press. Different translations have more to do with different ways of interpreting words that occur in the original language than variations in manuscripts from which they were translated. The same challenge exists in translating modern works from one language to another. One word in German might be rendered a half dozen different ways in English. Sometimes I do word studies in the original language when there seems to be a word or phrase like that. If doing serious study, it's often good to have several translations available to catch those cases where there are multiple meanings in the original language. One of the problems with the King James Version, as opposed to modern versions is that the English language has changed. King James English can mislead those who arent' familiar with it. "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. . ." Why shouldn't we want the Lord? What it means is that trusting in the Lord we will not have unmet needs. That is, we shall not be in want. 325674[/snapback] I was going to respond again, Tiger, but you did well. Thank you. On the topic of transcribing (copying) Scriptures through time. You definitely have a much better chance of reading the book of Isaiah and getting the original wording and intent than you have of reading a copy of Hamlet and being sure of its origin and intent. People have more meticulously copied the Scriptures and we have more streams of copies (like roots spreading out from under a tree) that we can check against than any other literary work in history. Also the earliest editions of those scripts are closer to the original work than any other ancient work (Iliad, Odysee ...) by huge amounts. The Dead Sea Scrolls date just after Isaiah wrote them (a couple hundred years) while the earliest dates for Homer are (IIRC) at least 1200-1500 years after he wrote -- and there are not many streams of copies, just a few. The Bible currently has several thousand streams, most ancient works are pleased to have a couple or a dozen. That may be an oversimplification, but you get the idea. As far as updating language, we read the Bible to understand it. If language changes, we need to change how we communicate it. I know ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek. I do studies in the original languages and it enhances my understanding. Part of my calling as a Pastor is to be able to communicate the Word of God -- not in any particular version -- as to the original intent of the author of Scripture (the human and Divine). And yes, all translation includes interpretation. We must rely on the translation work of many, many people who have come before us. That is how we relate all things, spiritual or otherwise. We need to trust those who have come before us, or where in a different location than us. If we were not part of the episode in question, we must rely on those who were there. Yes, Paul wrote in Greek because it was the commercial language of the world in the first century AD. Latin didn't take over until (IIRC) the third or fourth century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 And, just for the record, God doesn't hate anybody ; ) 325777[/snapback] Not even Esau? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 In other words...God's like a circle if you take away every single concrete identifiable property of a circle. May as well say God's like a bowl of Jell-o...minus the water, gelatin, artificial colors and flavors, and the bowl. 325650[/snapback] ... but it IS a rather Taoist thought, wouldn't you say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 ... but it IS a rather Taoist thought, wouldn't you say? 325839[/snapback] Very much so. I distinctly heard the sound of one hand clapping when I read it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 The "new" editions, where they try to translate it into every modern English argot short of ebonics, bug the living hell out of me... 325616[/snapback] believe it or not...they have done that too. when i find the link i will add it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 Latin didn't take over until (IIRC) the third or fourth century. 325825[/snapback] Picking nits, but while I think Jesus probably would have known Aramaic and Greek and not too much Latin, I'm thinking it was much, much earlier than the the 3rd or 4th century that the lingua latina was widely used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 when i find the link i will add it. 325846[/snapback] Oh, I don't know that that's REALLY necessary. But thank you anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkwwjd Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 Picking nits, but while I think Jesus probably would have known Aramaic and Greek and not too much Latin, I'm thinking it was much, much earlier than the the 3rd or 4th century that the lingua latina was widely used. 325852[/snapback] That may be correct (that's why I put IIRC). I do know for sure that the commercial language of the first century was Koine Greek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 That may be correct (that's why I put IIRC). I do know for sure that the commercial language of the first century was Koine Greek. 325864[/snapback] I know you're much better versed in such things than I, so I will happily defer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 I know you're much better versed in such things than I, so I will happily defer 325874[/snapback] Deference? Here? You sure you're on the right board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 Deference? Here? You sure you're on the right board? 325877[/snapback] This isn't the forum for my anger managment group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Britbillsfan Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 Deference? Here? You sure you're on the right board? 325877[/snapback] Just checked. OT on Football board. It is allowed. It is on the PPP that deference is a hanging offence........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Striker Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 I was always puzzled by people that would jump out of a perfectly good airplane. 325409[/snapback] It's an entirely different kind of flying...altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 It's an entirely different kind of flying...altogether. 325918[/snapback] "It's an entirely different kind of flying." Kinda hard for that to be funny on a message board, but it's funny to me anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 Believe in reincarnation and homework. Especially in NJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 I don't believe in religion. I don't know whether there is a God or not, but I can't imagine a diety micromanaging everyone's life. I think people feel more important if they believe that God is watching over them, I don't believe God does, if he exists. I believe there is an afterlife, and it is only slightly different than life. I believe when you die that you do not join any diety of your choice and you do not learn whether or not God exists, because if he does, he doesn't mingle with people-alive or dead. Since I believe in an afterlife, which is close to but different than life, it is your dead friends and relatives who work to answer your prayers, not any diety. So in effect, prayer does work, the dead acting as the angels who answer those prayers. I believe that most of religion as it currently exists on Earth is the result of alien visits and the misinterpretation of those aliens as divine figures. I don't believe in Heaven or Hell. While there may be a God, the idea of Satan's existance (other than the hockey player) is absurd to me. Basically someone looked up in the sky to devise their idea of heaven, and hell comes from the heat that you get from going towards the center of the earth, hitting lava etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 I don't believe in religion. I don't know whether there is a God or not, but I can't imagine a diety micromanaging everyone's life. I think people feel more important if they believe that God is watching over them, I don't believe God does, if he exists. I believe there is an afterlife, and it is only slightly different than life. I believe when you die that you do not join any diety of your choice and you do not learn whether or not God exists, because if he does, he doesn't mingle with people-alive or dead. Since I believe in an afterlife, which is close to but different than life, it is your dead friends and relatives who work to answer your prayers, not any diety. So in effect, prayer does work, the dead acting as the angels who answer those prayers. I believe that most of religion as it currently exists on Earth is the result of alien visits and the misinterpretation of those aliens as divine figures. I don't believe in Heaven or Hell. While there may be a God, the idea of Satan's existance (other than the hockey player) is absurd to me. Basically someone looked up in the sky to devise their idea of heaven, and hell comes from the heat that you get from going towards the center of the earth, hitting lava etc. 326090[/snapback] I hope you like surprises! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 Going on up to the Spirit in the Sky- Norman Greenbaum Jesus is just alright with me - Dobbie Brothers 40 - U2 If nothing else, God has been putting out some good licks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greybeard Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 Since we are on this topic, can someone explain how Carl Sagan can believe in the "Big Bang" theory yet not believe in a supreme being? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts