Religion

[formerly known as hf]

I know the Roman Catholic rippings of the Bible have, in large, been corrected by the KJV - but it was not just that to which I refer.

I was aware that the Latin Vulgate (I haven't heard that term, but I know of the situation) version was seen as abhorrent by more later scholars, but some of the changes seeped through - not least the portrayal of women in the KJV version as compared to older texts.

But even the KJV version seems dubious to me. The only copy of the Bible I own and refer to is the KJV text - and, to me, it reads as very much of its time, rather than of as an ancient text - albeit that may well be, in part, due to the style of translation.
Even so, it can not be assumed that the scholars were completely impartial, and it is quite clear, in places, that certain excluions, changes of focus, indicate that the KJV version is in-keeping with the norms of the time.


There is something to be said for the Qu'ran, and that any formal interpretation must initiate from the original Arabic texts - which are almost to the letter as that of 1500 years ago.

The Bible, unlike the Qu'ran, evolved over a large number of years - there is no 'original version' as such.
(Although the Qu'ran, as pie rightly (and often) points out, was written a fair few years after the events, and as such just a dubious in its accuracy, but was, at least, written in a single sitting)
Certainly none which is contemporary with the events portrayed.
As such, any version is, at best, an almalgamation of ancient and not-so ancient texts, with a dash of 'flavour of the time'.

[Elros]

There is something to be said for the Qu'ran, and that any formal interpretation must initiate from the original Arabic texts - which are almost to the letter as that of 1500 years ago.

Yes but the thing to be remembered is that the Qu'ran has been copied from arabic to arabic, not from hebrew and grrek to latin and then from all three to english. So what I m saying is that yes the Qu'ran might be almost letter for letter, but it wasn't translated to another language. At least I don't think so. i am very ignorant when it comes to the Qu'ran. I have not studied much about, so correct me if I am wrong on the above statement. Anyone who has some experience with foriegn languages would know that a book can not be translated word for word to another language. That is called "Transliteration" aand it would not make any sense in the language that it was transated into. I am sure you know that *smiles* , so I am not going to explain anymore. The english version could not be "transliterated" word for word from the originals and still made sense, or been written in proper english.

But even the KJV version seems dubious to me. The only copy of the Bible I own and refer to is the KJV text - and, to me, it reads as very much of its time, rather than of as an ancient text - albeit that may well be, in part, due to the style of translation.
Even so, it can not be assumed that the scholars were completely impartial, and it is quite clear, in places, that certain excluions, changes of focus, indicate that the KJV version is in-keeping with the norms of the time.

Could you please explain this point a little more, maybe with some examples or something? I get kind of what you are saying, but I don't see modern times written in the Bible where it should be more ancient. I do not speak Hebrew or Greek, so I can't refer to the older writings to see what you mean. So, could you please explain a little more?

[Pie]

I know the Roman Catholic rippings of the Bible have, in large, been corrected by the KJV - but it was not just that to which I refer.

I was aware that the Latin Vulgate (I haven't heard that term, but I know of the situation) version was seen as abhorrent by more later scholars, but some of the changes seeped through - not least the portrayal of women in the KJV version as compared to older texts.

But even the KJV version seems dubious to me. The only copy of the Bible I own and refer to is the KJV text - and, to me, it reads as very much of its time, rather than of as an ancient text - albeit that may well be, in part, due to the style of translation.
Even so, it can not be assumed that the scholars were completely impartial, and it is quite clear, in places, that certain excluions, changes of focus, indicate that the KJV version is in-keeping with the norms of the time.


There is something to be said for the Qu'ran, and that any formal interpretation must initiate from the original Arabic texts - which are almost to the letter as that of 1500 years ago.

The Bible, unlike the Qu'ran, evolved over a large number of years - there is no 'original version' as such.

Yes there is. The tora is exact, I don't want to have to explain myself again.

There are new testiments that date back to 150-300 something A.D. To prove this without doing a surch, constantine made bibles for his churches.

[Pie]

Whether or not the bible is true or not is irrelvent since there is so much proof that it can be interpreted in so many different ways. You are applying your own ethics to it the same way the slavers did. The way they read it seemed just as true to them as the way you read it does to you. It is written by a wide spectrum of authors and interpreters each with thier own ethical standings, as such, you will find almost anything can be condoned or condimed by some part of it or another. Even if it is compleately true, you can not know that your interpritation is any more sound than any variety of others, so even if it is true, you may still be false.

the contitution of the U.S. can be translated badly.

The bills of rights, likewise.

science dosen't out right say that we shouldn't have slaves. It could be misinterpereted, as other races being an inferior speces.

And, pleas give me the scriptures to the controdictions that the bible has in it.

[Pie]

(unless God is as forgiving as Jesus claims so I guess there still might be some hope).

If you don't believe in god, you wont automatically just go to hell. No. In fact, it sais in the scriptures (aproximately) "the lake of fire is reserved for the devil, his minions, and all lyers."

There is another place, although, wich is a place of "emptyness, and mashing of teeth"

don't know what that means...

it also sais that there are three levels of rewards, or two, i forget, of heaven. one is reserved for the bride, one for the faithfull(no this isn't a quote) and one for the normal people.

[west]

This thread pleases Eris, the Goddess of Discord.

All Hail Eris!
All Hail Discordia!

The Goddess prevails!

[Nosajimiki]

Whether or not the bible is true or not is irrelvent since there is so much proof that it can be interpreted in so many different ways. You are applying your own ethics to it the same way the slavers did. The way they read it seemed just as true to them as the way you read it does to you. It is written by a wide spectrum of authors and interpreters each with thier own ethical standings, as such, you will find almost anything can be condoned or condimed by some part of it or another. Even if it is compleately true, you can not know that your interpritation is any more sound than any variety of others, so even if it is true, you may still be false.

the contitution of the U.S. can be translated badly.

The bills of rights, likewise.

science dosen't out right say that we shouldn't have slaves. It could be misinterpereted, as other races being an inferior speces.

And, pleas give me the scriptures to the controdictions that the bible has in it.

Yes, science does leave that opening for misinterpritation, but the point of science is not to provide a moral compass as such, it makes no since to use it as a justification for moral dissisions. Evolution (or any scientific princible) does not define what is right or wrong, so if someone makes a moral dissission based on it, it's original truth is uneffected. Ex: If I kill eveyone I rely on b/c I am stronger, I will die, therefore I am unfit to survive and the principle of evolution will still be true.

Religion is ment to provide God's idea of right and wrong for us to follow, so if within the context of a religion there is room to view his commands differntly, then then the truth of religion is useless b/c there is no way of knowing what interpritation is true. Ex: Paul may or may not have condoned slavery. Therefore, we as humans can not say for sure that God did not want slaves.

[formerly known as hf]

There is something to be said for the Qu'ran, and that any formal interpretation must initiate from the original Arabic texts - which are almost to the letter as that of 1500 years ago.

Yes but the thing to be remembered is that the Qu'ran has been copied from arabic to arabic, not from hebrew and grrek to latin and then from all three to english. So what I m saying is that yes the Qu'ran might be almost letter for letter, but it wasn't translated to another language. At least I don't think so. i am very ignorant when it comes to the Qu'ran. I have not studied much about, so correct me if I am wrong on the above statement. Anyone who has some experience with foriegn languages would know that a book can not be translated word for word to another language. That is called "Transliteration" aand it would not make any sense in the language that it was transated into. I am sure you know that *smiles* , so I am not going to explain anymore. The english version could not be "transliterated" word for word from the originals and still made sense, or been written in proper english.

Translation is indeed a difficult process, and you are right that it is impossible to translate and keep the exact meaning of the original. There are words and phrases which do not have comparable examples between languages.
The Qu'ran was, depending on what you believe, recited by Mohammed, handed down orally, then written a couple of Centuries after Mohammed's death. Or, was handed down orally, written into various versions, and more slowly evolving into a single verson. In either case, there exists a single, original version. It is this single original version, a few hundred years after Mohammed's death, which all modern Qu'rans are versions of.

Regardless of the debate behind the origin, there is a singular source. In addition, by acknowledging that meaning can be lost or warped in translation, and ofiicial inferences from the holy text must be from a version which has not been translated to another language.

The lack of an agreed singular source for the New Testament, alongside the countless translations and version over history, does make me wonder if there can be said to be a great deal of resemblence of modern texts to ancient ones.

Pie keeps mentioning the 'ancient greek texts' of the bible, and so I assume he is aware that the 'Textus Recipitus' - the Greek new Testament - was a printed version? Dated during the 16th Century?
The origins of the Textus Recipitus are hotly debated, and it is but one example is a very long line of changes to the New Testament.

Some of the earliest texts which relate to the New Testament can be dated to about 125, and there are numerous related texts between than and 300-500. But the majority of sources used for translation are medieval, or later.

This provides Centuries during which the New Testament has been in the hands of humans, at the will of humans, without necessarily a definitive source.
The cannomnisation of the modern New Testament has similarities to a 140 canonisation, but is the product of many councils and meetings, over Centuries, by Catholic, orthodox and Protestant leaders. These councils have provided ample, and recorded opportunity for details within the New Testament to be adpated, or lost, depending upon the modes of the time.


It is this history of the New Testament which makes me dubious towards any version which claims to be close to the original - because there is no 'original' as such, and what has been passed down has been done so with adaptation. That the KJV version is based on a 16th Century Textus Recipitus/Recieved Text, is my main gripe. An 'original text' dating 1500 years after the events it portrays...?

The Old Testament is a different kettle, there are more complete Hebrew versions which date to pre-BC, and which rightly form the basis of any modern version. In this case, there is a fairly strong case for an original text which can be referred to.

But even the KJV version seems dubious to me. The only copy of the Bible I own and refer to is the KJV text - and, to me, it reads as very much of its time, rather than of as an ancient text - albeit that may well be, in part, due to the style of translation.
Even so, it can not be assumed that the scholars were completely impartial, and it is quite clear, in places, that certain excluions, changes of focus, indicate that the KJV version is in-keeping with the norms of the time.

Could you please explain this point a little more, maybe with some examples or something? I get kind of what you are saying, but I don't see modern times written in the Bible where it should be more ancient. I do not speak Hebrew or Greek, so I can't refer to the older writings to see what you mean. So, could you please explain a little more?

My criticisms of the Textus Recipitus aside, the KJV version itself is very much a product of its time (although I don't necessarily mean that as a criticism). The language is very poetic (and enjoyable to read). But it is an archaic language, compunded by it being designed for Church readings, and thus is exceptionally formal.

I quite like this style, to read, but it is a style which has been brought about arguably at the cost of accuracy in translation.

That being said, the italicisation is especially welcome, to someone like me who is aware of the effects of translation. And the size of the committee is to be commended.


My copy is a KJV, though I can't remember why it is that version, or why I own a Bible at all. I refer to it mostly as that's what I have at hand.

If I was interested in accuracy, and to get closer to 'originals' (which I'm not, as I think such a possibility is difficult, and anything claiming sch a closeness to NT originals is outright untrue, as no such original exists) - I wouldn't select the KJV. More modern translations use texts not known to the KJV scholars, and which date closer to NT times.

What I am interested in is not getting close to a mythical 'original NT' - but in the evolution of Bibloical text as a human construction.
The KJV, by explicitly acknowledging the changes through translation, through the criticisms it receives in regards to accuracy, and because it is arguably the most influential version upon modern protestant doctrine, provides me with a great source if I want to be critical of the origins and style of the Bible...


Pie is right - there are 125-300 AD sources known. But they don't provide even nearly complete NT texts. Any version of the NT, even modern ones, are going to be an amalgamation of a few ancient texts, some medieval ones (which themselves are adaptations), and the whims of the translator.

Whether you believe any Bible version is the word of God, through the translator, is another matter. But that any NT version can be said to be very close to an original, is untrue, as no original exists for it to be close to.

[Nalaris]

This thread pleases Eris, the Goddess of Discord.

All Hail Eris!
All Hail Discordia!

The Goddess prevails!

Heathen fool!

*drowns West, then hangs the body, then burns the doubly dead body at the stake, then drowns the ashes again, just to be sure*

[Elros]

In Regard to Formerly Known as HF's post(didn't want to quote the whole thing and take up another page ):

I see your points, and I agree that the chances of the modern Bible like the KJV being accurate or correct are very slim if you look at it in a human perspective. Even if you had the originals sitting here today, and had a group of men translating it to English, then it still would probably have some arguable errors. Humans make mistakes, this is part of life.

However, the stand that me, and most true christians I know take when it comes to the Bible, is this:

How can the God that created the whole universe, created the earth, created man, all the animals, and every other thing by just speaking it into existance, how can this God not preserve His own Word? He said in the Bible that his word(speaking of the Bible) would last for eternity. So to us it is somewhat a matter of Faith, just like we use Faith to belive in God, in Heaven, in Hell, and we also believe that God has preserved his Word accurately and right.

I know that this is just a bunch of nonsense to you all that do not believe in God or any of the things that we believe in, but believing all these things with your whole heart is not very hard at all if you just exercise a little Faith. Faith is the evidence of things not seen, as the Bible states. There are some things in life that you can not find the scientific evidence for, but Faith makes up for where the evidence is lacking. Actually to us who belive in these things, Faith is the evidence. The Bible say this about Faith:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Actually the whole chapter of Hebrews 11 is all about Faith. It gives example after example of different people in the Old and New Testament and their Faith. It is a good chapter to read if you ever get a chance.

Thanks for all the information about the Qu'ran and stuff. I must say, that is an area that I am pretty unlearned in. However, I am not even 18 yet, so I figuere if God allows me to have a long life then I will have plenty of time to learn more in the areas that I lack. I really have enjoyed disscussing all of these topic in this thread with you all. If anything it has given me a broader understanding of what various different people believe, and has also helped me grow some more in what I believe by forcing me to study out things to argue back with.

[the_antisocial_hermit]

This thread pleases Eris, the Goddess of Discord.

All Hail Eris!
All Hail Discordia!

The Goddess prevails!

Hail Eris!
Hail Discordia!

May the Goddess always prevail!

[saztronic]

This thread pleases Eris, the Goddess of Discord.

All Hail Eris!
All Hail Discordia!

The Goddess prevails!

Eris choked to death on a stale Twinkie about three weeks ago. It happened off the coast of Tierra del Fuego. The investigation has focused on where she managed to find a stale Twinkie in the first place -- it's believed to be the first ever of its kind.

Faith is the evidence of things not seen.

I hear you. I, for one, have faith in Angelina Jolie's breasts. I believe in them as a life-giving, life-altering force of super-nature. I believe in them as a sign of hope; a sign of things to come. They make me sit up a little straighter, take more notice of my surroundings, and inspire me to acts of charity and goodwill.

All this, and I have never seen them. Faith, indeed. A powerful force.

Actually the whole chapter of Hebrews 11 is all about Faith.

I've always preferred Hebrews 10, myself:

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of Grace? For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Yikes! All hail Discordia!

[west]

Fnord.

[saztronic]

Fnord.

Hmm. Reminds me of Bokononism.

[Sicofonte]

God is not a man...
God is not a woman...
Let's read God backwards!