Bible Translation/Translating...

[WHITE DEVIL]

Christians, have you researched this topic? I just finished that new book Misquoting Jesus, and I had never even considered any of the ideas presented in the book, or even begun to get into thhe concept or possibility of textual criticism while I was a Christian.

Interesting points:
The story of the adulterous woman (let he who is without sin throw the first stone) is generally agreed to not be in most of the original bibles.

Most translators and copiers of the early bible were not scribes. Most of the earliest Bible translation / copying simply fell into the hands of the smartest person in the group or community who recieved a master copy.

Bibles were heavily altered during doctrinal disputes.

The Gospel of Luke, when read in the original language, basically says that Jesus has paid the price and done the work for all Christians, and that basically nothing but faith in Jesus is required to go to heaven.

The guy who wrote it is like the #2 man in the field....good book...I would definitely recommend it.

 

[HERESY]

I'm not a christian, but I've done my own research. Heard about his book, haven't read, doesn't shake me one bit.

For more info refer to this link:

http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/resource/misquotingjesus.htm

 

[VIC]

Christians, have you researched this topic? I just finished that new book Misquoting Jesus, and I had never even considered any of the ideas presented in the book, or even begun to get into thhe concept or possibility of textual criticism while I was a Christian.

Interesting points:
The story of the adulterous woman (let he who is without sin throw the first stone) is generally agreed to not be in most of the original bibles.

Most translators and copiers of the early bible were not scribes. Most of the earliest Bible translation / copying simply fell into the hands of the smartest person in the group or community who recieved a master copy.

Bibles were heavily altered during doctrinal disputes.

The Gospel of Luke, when read in the original language, basically says that Jesus has paid the price and done the work for all Christians, and that basically nothing but faith in Jesus is required to go to heaven.

The guy who wrote it is like the #2 man in the field....good book...I would definitely recommend it.

BLAW, BLAW, BLAW BUT REALLY THOUGH, THE BIBLE WAS WROTE 1900 YEARz AGO TO BE BECOME THE VERSION WE NOW KNOW. IT WAS AND IS INSPIRED BY GOD WITCH IS IN HEAVEN, THE HOLY SPIRIT AND JESUS, IN OTHER WORDz (GOD). I AM SURE THINGz HAVE CHANGED WHILE BEING TRANSLATED BUT NOT ALL THINGz MEAN THE SAME THING IN EVERY LANGUAGE. YOU (PINK DEVIL) AND THE "AUTHOR" ACT AS THOUGH PEOPLE WERE DUMB BACK THEN AND COULDNT TRANSLATE SHIT, HOW DO YOU THINK PEOPLE TALKED WITH DIFFRENT LANGUAGES?, A PATTERN OF STONEz TOSSED AT THERE HEADz? AND BTW, THE PRICE WAS PAID, BUT IT ALSO DOES SAY YOU HAVE TO BE "BORN AGAIN" TO "RECEIVE THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN".

 

[WHITE DEVIL]

YOU (PINK DEVIL) AND THE "AUTHOR" ACT AS THOUGH PEOPLE WERE DUMB BACK THEN AND COULD TRANSLATE SHIT, HOW DO YOU THINK PEOPLE TALKED WITH DIFFRENT LANGUAGES?, A PATTERN OF STONEz TOSSED AT THERE HEADz?

Research 1. the skill level of most scribes in those days. 2. Who exactly it was that transcribed and copied the early bibles. You are speaking out your ass with basically nothing but what any idiot could pull out of Sunday school. The fact that someone can *speak* does not mean that they can *read* or *translate* anything.

AND BTW, THE PRICE WAS PAID, BUT IT ALSO DOES SAY YOU HAVE TO BE "BORN AGAIN" TO "RECEIVE THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN".

Not in Luke.

 

[this1guy]

Pretty interesting topic, White Devil.

 

[Ethereal]

This sounds like my kind of reading. I have always believed that having faith in God/Jesus and simply doing good unto others will get you into heaven. I am also a firm believer in the Bible having lost it's validity through many translations. This is the principal reason that I do not adhere to any religion or follow the Bible in it's modern context.

VIC: It is not about people being "able" to translate, but how they translate. What kind or moral values does the person have? Have they been trained to transcribe in different languages? Does this person believe in the Bible with what it says word for word? Does the person have an agenda? The list goes on..

 

[HERESY]

WD, does the author use deduction or induction to validate his position?

 

[WHITE DEVIL]

@H,
I don't expect the book to shake you, or anyone here....merely that the topic is an interesting one.

Undisputed Bible Facts(Even by fundamentalist Christians):

1. The story of the adulterous woman never occurred in the original Bible (Let he who is without sin throw the first stone)

2. There are anywhere between 20,000 to 400,000 variant (different) readings of the Bible

3. In the time of the early Bible, 95% of the people were illiterate. The Christian community seems to have come from largely the lower classes, of whom could be expected an even lower literacy rating.

I'm not a christian

So you don't believe in the words or ideas of Jesus?

For more info refer to this link:
http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/resource/misquotingjesus.htm

@H, good read. I don't have the time to counter-respond, but what interested me more about this topic is not the particulars and whether everything he discusses is right or wrong, but merely the book's revelations about:

• Scribes at that time
• Responses to Christianity from other writers and faiths
• The way doctrinal issues played out in the text

Alot of the info in the book is something you don't hear as a Christian, or connect in your learning. For example, one author used the fact that many Christians were poor, illiterate, and lower class as a reason why it was a faulty religion.

The Revelation warning (whoever adds one jot or one tittle to this book is doomed or w/e) was written in a time when many were altering and modifying the Bibles of the time.

More interesting examples abound in the book. I'd recommend it.

 

[this1guy]

WD, does the author use deduction or induction to validate his position?

He uses a fuckin' valet....what the fuck else do you use to validate parking, homes?

 

[WHITE DEVIL]

WD, does the author use deduction or induction to validate his position?

Induction / deduction in terms of cognitive approach?

Or in/de meaning adding or subtracting?

 

[HERESY]

Here is an example of deduction:

A. Scribes are prone to error

B. The Bible was written and translated by scribes

C. The Bible has errors

An even simpler example is A is larger than B, B is larger than C, so A is larger than C.

These are examples of deductive reasoning/logic.

Induction would rely on experimental, observational or empiracal evidence. Is the author starting with something we all know and present something that we cannot fully observe or know?

Which does the author use to present his case?

I don't expect the book to shake you, or anyone here....merely that the topic is an interesting one.

Indeed, it is an interesting topic, however when you ask christians if they have researched this topic is it for educational purposes/interest in topic, or are your motives driven by something else? Personal question, why would you expect for christians do ponder the possibilities when you didn't ponder them when you were a christian? This is not to imply that christians have not done this, however I am puzzled by your question and motivation.

1. The story of the adulterous woman never occurred in the original Bible (Let he who is without sin throw the first stone)

This was disputed in the link provided.

2. There are anywhere between 20,000 to 400,000 variant (different) readings of the Bible

These numbers are up for debate (personally I believe they are much higher.)

3. In the time of the early Bible, 95% of the people were illiterate. The Christian community seems to have come from largely the lower classes, of whom could be expected an even lower literacy rating.

Again, this is something that has been debated, however I do believe the majority of people within the community may have been illiterate, and this could have stemmed from relying on oral tradition as the preferred way of recording history, stories, etc.

Alot of the info in the book is something you don't hear as a Christian, or connect in your learning. For example, one author used the fact that many Christians were poor, illiterate, and lower class as a reason why it was a faulty religion.

During those times christianity WAS a poor mans religion, but because it was a poor mans religion that does not mean someone maliciously or haphazardly designed a religion for them.

So you don't believe in the words or ideas of Jesus?

Believing in the words or ideas of Jesus is not exclusive to christianity. A christian is a christian because they believe/interpret a certain way, and because they have a distinct belief system that is often compromised by tradition.

The Revelation warning (whoever adds one jot or one tittle to this book is doomed or w/e) was written in a time when many were altering and modifying the Bibles of the time.

Yes, and evidence has presented on both sides validating and refuting it.

 

[WHITE DEVIL]

Here is an example of deduction:

A. Scribes are prone to error
B. The Bible was written and translated by scribes
C. The Bible has errors

An even simpler example is A is larger than B, B is larger than C, so A is larger than C.

These are examples of deductive reasoning/logic.

Induction would rely on experimental, observational or empiracal evidence. Is the author starting with something we all know and present something that we cannot fully observe or know?

Which does the author use to present his case?

Understood. Both.

Indeed, it is an interesting topic, however when you ask christians if they have researched this topic is it for educational purposes/interest in topic, or are your motives driven by something else? Personal question, why would you expect for christians do ponder the possibilities when you didn't ponder them when you were a christian? This is not to imply that christians have not done this, however I am puzzled by your question and motivation.

There is a wealth of background evidence on Christianity that is not presented to most Christians. Christians don't explore because it could violate their beliefs, and aren't taught for the same reason. I didn't read the book to supprt a refutation of the BIble, only an expansion of my own knowledge base.

This was disputed in the link provided.

The Adulterous woman is possibly the most widely accepted addition in the field. Many Christians simply respond with, "Well it may not have been in the original Bible, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen." One could scrape through anecdotal evidence and find support for nearly any claim one would like to make on a book so old, however as is the case with this passage, a vast majority of those in the know concede that it probably was not in the "autographs". In fact the first place it appears is on the margin of a page.

Again, this is something that has been debated, however I do believe the majority of people within the community may have been illiterate, and this could have stemmed from relying on oral tradition as the preferred way of recording history, stories, etc.

It stemmed from the fact that up until perhaps the 16-1700s, around 75% of people in the world were illiterate.

During those times christianity WAS a poor mans religion, but because it was a poor mans religion that does not mean someone maliciously or haphazardly designed a religion for them.

Not my belief at all. In fact the Gospel of Luke clearly spells out the message of Christ as belonging to the poor. Mark says "poor in Spirit"- Luke says just "poor", and right following that you have "woe to the rich"

 

[VIC]

Believing in the words or ideas of Jesus is not exclusive to christianity. A christian is a christian because they believe/interpret a certain way, and because they have a distinct belief system that is often compromised by tradition.

"CHRISTIANITY" OR BEING A "CHRISTIAN" IS NOT A RELIGION, IT IS A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD\JESUS, AS SAUL\PAUL AND BARNABUS WERE FIRST CALLED IN ANTIOCH-(spell?) THEY CALLED THEM CHRISTIANz BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED IN CHRIST JESUS. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOING TO CHURCH BECAUSE "WE" ARE THE CHURCH.

 

[VIC]

VIC: It is not about people being "able" to translate, but how they translate. What kind or moral values does the person have? Have they been trained to transcribe in different languages? Does this person believe in the Bible with what it says word for word? Does the person have an agenda? The list goes on..

I AM NOT SAYING THAT PEOPLE DIDNT HAVE A PERSONAL "AGENDA" TO ADD OR SUBTRACT SOMETHING TO IT, I JUST THINK "IN GENERAL" IF PEOPLE DID "GAIN" A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD\JESUS THEY WOULD WANT TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT IT. JUST LIKE EVERYTHING YOU WANT TO JOIN OR BE "IN" SO TO SPEAK, YOU OR I WOULD NOT WANT TO WALK BLIND ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE THE MAIN SOURCE OF YOUR\MY LIFE, AND IF YOU ACCEPTED THIS AS "TRUTH" YOU WOULD FOR THE MOST PART HAVE A "TRUE HEART".

 

[HERESY]

"CHRISTIANITY" OR BEING A "CHRISTIAN" IS NOT A RELIGION

It is a religion. Now, if you can offer some logical reasons why it is NOT a religion I would like to hear them.

IT IS A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD\JESUS

You do NOT need christianity to have a personal relationship with God/Jesus.

AS SAUL\PAUL AND BARNABUS WERE FIRST CALLED IN ANTIOCH-(spell?) THEY CALLED THEM CHRISTIANz BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED IN CHRIST JESUS.

1. How does this support your idea that christianity is not a religion?

2. What is your perspective on the word "christian" as a word of scorn and ridicule used by Romans to seperate them from the followers of Judaism?

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOING TO CHURCH BECAUSE "WE" ARE THE CHURCH.

This is a concept I hear from christians 24/7, but truth is this not reality. If christians are the church why is the church lacking in power right now? Why is the church falling to apostasy? Why is the church whoring after Mammon and more 501 c3 churchs popping up everyday?

 

[VIC]

.
Not in Luke.

EVEN JESUS WAS "BORN AGAIN" IN WATER AND IT WAS HIS WORDz THAT SAID

YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN AND BECOME A NEW CREATION TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.

 

[RedStorm]

lol@ "originally posted by jesus"

 

[VIC]

It is a religion. Now, if you can offer some logical reasons why it is NOT a religion I would like to hear them.

You do NOT need christianity to have a personal relationship with God/Jesus.

1. How does this support your idea that christianity is not a religion?

2. What is your perspective on the word "christian" as a word of scorn and ridicule used by Romans to seperate them from the followers of Judaism?

This is a concept I hear from christians 24/7, but truth is this not reality. If christians are the church why is the church lacking in power right now? Why is the church falling to apostasy? Why is the church whoring after Mammon and more 501 c3 churchs popping up everyday?

THAT IS WHAT "CHIRSTAIN" MEANz, IS TO HAVE A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD\JESUS. THERE IS A DIFFRENCE OF FOLLOWING "CHRISTIANITY" AND HAVING A RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD\JESUS, ARE YOU GOING TO FOLLOW A RELIGION WITH RELIGIOUS PEOPLE OR ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE JESUS AS THE ONE YOU LOOK TO? YOU DONT NEED OTHER CHRISTAINS TO HAVE YOUR OWN RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD\JESUS OR A CHURCH. IT DOES SAY TO "GATHER IN FELLOWSHIP" AND THAT "WE ARE THE CHURCH" IT DOES NOT SAY "GO TO A CHURCH". "CHURCHES" LACK POWER BECAUSE OF THE MONEY FACTOR AND FOR THINKING THEY ARE THE "CHURCH".