Quote:
Anyhow, to make a circle into what Jive is saying: How are the things not comprehensible? How do you know that there are not people out there that comprehend it already? After all, there are how many genes that we don't yet know what they do--could some of them be for tepeathy, astral projection, psionics, and psychic ability? I can't answer that, but you're taking all humans on the same level--which we are not.
Quote:
I'd rather that than ostensibly believe in something that is known and reproven numerous times to be incorrect, in accurate, and a patchwork of images from other cultures used to turn political power in one man's favour.
Quote:
Is the man at the psychiatrist afflicted with an illness that makes him hear voices, or is he really hearing the voices, and the psychiatrist and the rest of humanity not able--or not willing to hear what is being said
Quote:
As such, humans, are all NOT on the same level because like in the mental and physical realms, we're all very different. Not better or worse, just diffferent.
Quote:
Ok, I understand where you're coming from. My thought is this, because we don't know whether he is really hearing voices or not, because we can't study a patients mind, does that make it uncomprehensible to us? Does the fact that we can't limit of define the boundries of somethings such as the mind, or a pychological condition, deem those things uncomprehensible and subject to a higher being?
Quote:
I can see how from our perspective as humans could see humans as being on different levels. I guess from my point of view (being a christian), believeing that everything is equal under God not only seems physical, but logical as well. I just don't see how being different makes us on different levels. I know the second you read this you are probably going to say, "he just doesn't understand this on the same level as me:". If so, is that what you mean by "different levels? And if we are on different levels, wouldn't that by definition make us either better or worse then the next guy? This question comes about with the assumption that you are refering to "different levels" as the whole human being on a different level, physical aspects, mental aspects, intellectual aspects. if you are just refering to "different levels" on a perception level, such that, "I perceive things on a different level then you". Then my question makes no sense.
Jive wrote:
Quote:
I'd rather that than ostensibly believe in something that is known and reproven numerous times to be incorrect, in accurate, and a patchwork of images from other cultures used to turn political power in one man's favour.
I have to say, that is one of the strongest opinions about what christianity is that I've ever heard. Two things, ultimately it is only an opinion, and you could use the whole thing to describe marcoevolution as well.
Hahahaha wrote:I don't know, but.. Just a thought.. Maybe he didn't leave them out, maybe some bad spirit borrowed them and never returned them like so many bad neighbours.
PAX
Quote:
However, as I said, everyone is different--doesn't mean better or worse (and in a sense can still mean "all equal in God's eye"), so thus, there is a decent segment of the universe you can percieve that I can't, and a decent segment of the universe I can percieve that you can't. Look at that how you wish--Whether it be that on the genetic level we're different, or that God has a different plan for me than he has for you, all in all it doesn't matter. I, like you, am played what I'm dealt--whether the dealer is a deity, or is a double-helix molecule.
Quote:
Bit i ask you this--why would God leave his tools behind if he didn't mean for someone to use them?
Quote:
the Catholic church (which, for better or worse is whence all Christian religions have spawned) and the Bible were not merely an organisation of tools and faith, because, frankly, the bible was commissioned by a PAGAN Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great. Reason behind him coallating the Bible of a faith: Political power.
Quote:
he'd have had to be born of a blood relation to the throne (Joseph). Now hold on here... that makes Jesus a mortal.
Quote:
AND the biggest think that you'd notice, the bible describes him as being born immaculately (which is interesting, because the egyptian God Horace was born immaculately of his mother Isis, as well as numerous roman gods being born of Zeus, with no involvement of Hera or others), which is interesting, as there are several Dead sea scrolls as well as other biblical era writings (which I honestly forget) that discount his conception as being immaculate (not like the National Enquirer, these were chronicles of Jews at the time that were given to writing about the life and times of the new King).
Quote:
as well as irrespective of the fact that the bible was originally written in 4 or more languages (respectively, ancient hebrew, mesopotamian, aramaic, and latin
Quote:
they were all written by humans, and they were mostly rejected by Constantine. Why? they bespoke Jesus to be a mortal, and little more. As well, many of the included tomes in the new testament were altered, including pagan iconography such as burial and resurrection after 3 days, and the rite of God-eating (or taking of communion).
Quote:
Now, fast forward to the King James translation, there are several translations that do not hold from copies of the untranslated bible, and deviate significantly from the Latin text. Which ones, escape me right now... I'll find them if my academic interest tweaks me hard enough
Jive wrote:
It is unclear what exactly Constantine sought more from christianity, political power, or personal act. The population of christians in that time was very small, so sideing with the christians just to gain there confidents doesn't seem likely. It is true that he observed both christianity and pagan worshipers alike, but it is shown that he flavored christianity with acts like preferring the company of christians bishops over pagan priests. And although he didn't get baptisted until just before his death, it was common practice to wait until later on in life to get baptisted in that time. As far as the Bible goes, whatever version of the Bible that Constantine came up with wasn't the only one that made it through to today. The eariest known copies of the old testatment was completed by 500 BC in Hebrew. The New Testatment was completed in Greek by the first century AD. These were the texts that were used to translate in to other languages such as English and German.
Quote:
Everything that we known about Jesus is based on the fact that he was perfect, sinless, immortal. Now you are saying that he isn't and are backing that up with "to take the throne he would of had to be a blood relation to Joseph". That's a little light for trying to refute the very foundation of christianity. Jesus was known as the son of God by he followers, Joseph was his earthly father. If you were one that didn't believe that he was the son of God then you would believe that he was the son of Joseph and that he was heir to the throne, either way, doesn't change the belief or disprove the belief that Jesus could of been immortal.
Quote:
But Jesus and christianity is still worshiped today, as the other are not. Well, are not that I know of, and even if they are, they're not even close to being on the same scale as christianity, so comparing them today would be tough.
Quote:
Ancient Hebrew was the first language of the Old Testament, The New Testament was written in Greek. Latin didn't come until Jerome wrote the "Latin Vulgate" in 382 AD.
Quote:
The Jewish scribes who painstakingly produced each scroll were perfectionists. If they made even the slightest mistake in copying, such as allowing two letters of a word to touch, they destroyed that entire panel (the last three or four columns of text), and the panel before it, because it had touched the panel with a mistake. This demonstrates the level of faithfulness to accuracy applied to the preservation of God’s Word throughout the first couple of thousand years of Biblical transmission. This doesn't prove that the translations were perfect in anyway, but it is good evidences to show that this scribes went to great lengths to make sure it was correct.
Quote:
The Lain text was corrupt anyways. When scholars sought to translate the Bible in to other languages they went back to the original Greek and Hebrew translations.
Quote:
The first english Bible in America was the King James version, there has been a decent amount of revised Bibles from the King James that are accepted to this day. However almost always the reason for revision was to accomadate each new generation so that we could understand the Bible, so that it would make sense to us. The newer versions were designed for "phrase-to-phrase" accuracy, not so much "word-to-word" accuracy.
Quote:
These were made at a "junior high" level of reading so that more people could understand.
Quote:
Versions that have been make with revsions that give us heretical new translations that attempt to change God’s Word to make it politically correct, are simply rejected. One example of this, which has made headlines recently is the Today’s New International Version (T.N.I.V.) which seeks to remove all gender-specific references in the Bible whenever possible! Not all new translations are good… and some are very bad. This is one way we can tell which versions are corrupt of not.
Quote:
The facts about the Bible are obscure at best. We ultimately will never know if the copyers of the original Old and New testaments were writing Gods true word. Me as a christian rely on faith that it is the truth. There are facts in this information that you have presented, I'm not impling that it's all just opinion. I'm simply saying that when it comes down to it, the foundation of christianity (Jesus) can not be thoroughly proven or disproven.
Quote:
Glad to see ya chewed through the bit of prose.
Quote:
Constantine was, by all accounts a more devout follower of the Pagan Roman Gods than he was of the Christian deity. From what I've read about Constantine, he took the company of Christians as sort of how the president takes council of Muslim clerics...He needed to know how to play them to his own ends.
Quote:
because Jerome's latin vulgate translation took in the other languages and distilled them down to their essence, but there was quite a lot lost in translation.
Quote:
Jerome, operating on the Catholic ideal of immaculate conception and the subjugation of Mary, would have used the Latin term for partner with merely means "friend"because Jesus (who was a Jew to begin with, so having Mary as a wife wouldn't have been a problem at the time) would not have been without sin.
Quote:
There are also passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls that depict Jesus as about a 12-13 yr old boy that killed birds and fish only to resurrect them... Wicked little boy? Or young saviour learning that with great power comes great responsibility? (Gotta love Spiderman for that quote, Thanks Stan LEE!!)
Quote:
Okay, There are other pointers, mainly the relationship to Mary, and that the Bible borrowed heavily from other cultures in order to appease the Pagan groups that inhabited Rome
Quote:
Also, in context to my comment, Christianity borrows a lot from other religions: The Buddhist philosophy of "do unto others," the hindu philosophy that equates to "turn the other cheek." There are pagan religious instances in the Bible, such as torture, death, and resurrection, 3 days after internment in a stone hovel. The key isn't how things are worshipped today, it's how they were in the days of Jesus.
Quote:
As well, the fact that the scolls (IIRC, they're about 6 feet tall and over 140 feet unrolled) are so large, I wonder about the panels you're referring to, perhaps the Dead Sea Scrolls are transcriptions of them?
Quote:
I thought the only available copies of the original bible were in the Vatican... If the catholic church controls the information, they can also give the information as they see fit.
Quote:
Understood, however, I would think translating the text and keeping hold of the original ideas is more important.
Quote:
As I said, Idea for idea is preferential, Phrase to phrase or ever word for word (or literal) translations leave all sorts of wiggle room for different interpretations.
Quote:
I just question the bible in that it's deeply flawed as it's not a tome of religion, but of political power.
Quote:
Either way, informed belief is the best path. Temperance and vision, it's something Christ would give a thumbs up for.
Jive wrote:lol, definitely more information then I'm use to at one time, but I enjoy these debates....as long as it's civil, it's cool... there's no point in discussing an idea if someone is going to get bent out of shape.
Quote:
Everthing that I've read tends to lean in the other direction, puting Constantine in favor of the christian religion. Seems like it's unclear enough to be a mute point for our purposes.
Quote:
There is no question that the Lain Vulgate was corrupt, being the the offical Bible of the Roman Catholc Church. But the first English and German translations didn't come from the Vulgate because of this corruption, they came from the original Hebrew and Greek translations. Hebrew has one thing in common with English: they are both “picture languages”. Their words form a clear picture in your mind.<snip>
Quote:
Again, the Bibles that we have now did not originate from the Latin text, it was proven false and corrupt by Erasmus in the early 1500's. Here's a reference: <snip>
Quote:
To be honest with you I have never studed the Dead Sea Scrolls thoroghly at all, so I really can't reply to this.
Quote:
Again, the Catholic is strong in the US, no doubt about that, but you could argue that chrisitianity is bigger. It just sounds like you are refuting the Roman Catholic religion not christianity. The Geneva Bible was the first Bible brought to America by the Puritans and Pilgrims. Which was made from the first english translations by William Tyndale. Although the first english printed Bible in America was a King James version, that version was textually 95% the same as the Geneva Bible.
Quote:
I have to admitt, I don't have a lot if even the basic idea about other religions, my studies have been strictly of the origin of the Bible and christianity so again I can't reply to these comments, sorry.
Quote:
The panels were said to be over 150 feet long once unrolled, so it's a possibility.
Quote:
To be honest I'm not sure about this, in my studies all the references to new translations by way of the original hebrew old testament and the greek new testament were said to be simply acquired. They're not specific on to how they were acquired. But considering how corrupt the Latin Vulgate was known to be in that time, it is unlikely that these scholars that completed the first english translations, translated them from the corrupt Roman Catholic church of that time.
Quote:
Good point, however I think it is worth noteing that without these revised versions only the language academics would beable to read them. Thus creating a situation just like the Latin Vulgate did with only certain people being able to read the Bible, so they could literally say whatever they want and we would have to take them for their word. With the different revisions anyone can put up a Bible and read it, interpret it for themselves,and make their own decisions.
Quote:
They are more revisions more than they are totally new interpretations. Most of the time all the authors had to revise were the most obscure words of the Elizabethan age “thee, thy, thou” pronouns, stuff of this natural. Although that still leaves open the possiblities of error, I know this.
Quote:
I agree that the early Roman Catholic church used the Bible and religion as a means for political power. But as stated above, christianity of today did not spawn from Catholic churchs' Bible (the latin Vulgate). Thus we are not following the teaches of that Bible nor the corruptness of that church. Now I'm not saying that there isn't corrupt acts going down in religion today, Lord knows there is, but true intent of our Bible today is that of what Jesus wanted.
Quote:
Either way, informed belief is the best path. Temperance and vision, it's something Christ would give a thumbs up for.
Quote:
I had read of Erasmus, but I frankly hadn't considered it. I had figured that when the original texts of the bible had been compared against the Latin Vulgate, there was gross mis-translations enough to warrant the abandonment of the latin version.
Quote:
I've read of them in a little detail, but I'm no authority either. Good to have some company in the boat
Quote:
The interesting thing is that Catholicism and Protestantism were both lumped together more or less, basically seen as divided factions of the same religion, on different interpretations of the same series of events. That was where I got a lot of the back-story regarding the bible...
Quote:
It's an interesting quest. Although, it's not for those with doubts on their religion. Otherwise you'll end up on the other side as cynical as I am (at times).
Quote:
If the source cannot be identified, I'd be curious about that.
Quote:
is it more unsettling that the Church held the main interpretations to the bible, or that everyperson can read and quite possibly misunderstand?
Quote:
True, but, at what point do numerous revisions a new interpretation make?
Jive wrote:
After the corruption was brought to the public the Latin Vulgate was abandoned for the most part. The Roman Catholic Church tried to keep it in circulation but in the end it just couldn't compete with the Geveva and King James versions. However they did try to make their own english translation that of course failed miserablely, here's an excert:<snip>
Quote:
Maybe in 30 years we can sit down and discuss more on this over a cup of coffee after we trade our methods of viagra use........lolQuote:
Yeah.. we can make like baseball players... If I need Viagra in 30 years, I think I'll have bigger problems than just getting and maintaining a woodrow.
Quote:
Aagain, unfortuniately I'm not versed on the different religions Hahahaha jump in on this one dude........this debate has definitely peeked my interest though.
Yeah, this is pretty interesting alluversudden
Quote:
It's an interesting quest. Although, it's not for those with doubts on their religion. Otherwise you'll end up on the other side as cynical as I am (at times).
I see why you say this, but actually doubt is not always a bad thing. In fact doubt can be a very good thing because it can lead you to look for the answers you seek and in turn make your faith even stronger. It is part of the mysteries of life that we both have searched because of doubt but have (at least as of right now) ended up with different views. But then again I think that is what is so awsome about this life, we do have free will, and with it the ability to think and decide for ourselves. No gift is and will ever be greater.
Well, there's those little things like Fire, the wheel.. Towels... Pan-dimensional Gargleblasters...
I think I ended up where I am because I had no real roots in any church. I have friends in many different religions (hey, even Falun Gong!) and really, I think that the bigger issue outside of just to whom you offer prayer and take guidance from, is tolerance towards your fellow humans. I have to wonder about the state of things when pretty much all religions that are standing now preach tolerance, acceptance, love and peace, yet, there are so many misguided souls that see fit to ignore the teachings they find dear, and get all bent out of shape (at the best of times).
I'm not pointing fingers either, because I'm pretty sure I've been an intolerant ass at sometime in my life.
Quote:
If the source cannot be identified, I'd be curious about that.
Well, after some more studing, I'm pretty much getting the some results. References to the original Hebrew and Greek texts are made but the source of where they got the texts are not disclosed. There even is some instances where the Vulgate was consulted, but not without being cross-referenced with the original text. These scholars who put these translations together where known critics of the Latin Church, so I just can't see them useing anything that they didn't know for sure wasn't the original. Although some translations consulted the Vulgate (as I stated above), the Geneva Bible was made entirely from the original texts, which was considered the authoritative Bible of the Protestants and all the English speaking world until the revised KJV came out in 1611 which was said to be in 95% textually agreement with the Geneva Bible.
Quote:
Quote:
is it more unsettling that the Church held the main interpretations to the bible, or that everyperson can read and quite possibly misunderstand?
Free will is one of the keys to christianity. Giving everyone the possibility to read the Bible and interpret it for themselves is what it's all about. Especially in todays world, we are typically an independent culture and would trust our own interpretations over what someone else says seven days a week and twice on Sundays, but that's besides the point. The main point here is that we as humans all interpret things differently, we all see things from a different perspective (see Keepers posts for more on this...lol).
Quote:
As such, we need to see and experience things for ourselves so that we can grow individually in to what we're suppose to become. To be taught and to interpret for oneselves are two different things. We can be taught what the Bible is saying and then make our own conclusions. Just like school, professors teach us, and we interpret the information as we please, in our own individually ways. Without indenpendence and free will, who are we as a race? What I think is so beautiful is that although everything relates to everybody individually, and eventhough everybody sees things differently, we all see them how we were meant to see them, and in the way that best suits us and our own personalities.
Quote:
Quote:
True, but, at what point do numerous revisions a new interpretation make?
Good point, another point to note, as our society has grown so has our understanding and knowledge of different languages, as well as new discoveres that weren't taken in to consideration during the first translations. So think of it not as just taking an old translations and making it more understandable. We might beable to make a better interpretation then the original author because of heightened knowledge of either the text or original language, or both.