»The bible is inaccurate and written by criminals and mad men«

knn:

Because it shows that the usual Christians don't even care for WHETHER it's even WRITTEN in the bible.

They obviously do care. The reformers were martyred because they wouldn't renounce what they found to be true.

knn:

Especially the standardized "political correct" versions are disgusting.

For the sake of this thread, let's leave out "politically correct" versions, and all other versions which intentionally add and take away from the Bible.

If you compare the American Standard Version, and the New International Version, there is very little difference in m meaning. One is merely translated into simpler language than the other.

knn:

GIVE ME A BREAK, stinkz, the sources are bugged in the first place.

My word. And Agent Zero thought HIS religion was based on blind faith.

posted by stinkz

If popular thought feels 'science' to be different from all other kinds of knowledge because science is experimentally verifiable, it is mistaken.

in-my-opinion.org -> Religion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolves -> Religious & Philosophical Topics -> The bible is inaccurate and written by criminals and mad men

Bugged from the very start

stinkz:

Hardly. The best counter-argument is to read the New Testament for yourself. See if it is a mass-murderer talking (Saul) or a changed man in Christ (Paul).

In the Kuran suicide bombers and clitorectomies are not mentioned either. What is WRITTEN is only half of the truth. The fact remains that the New Testament is based on criminals and attracts gays.

stinkz:

Back the original idea, the accuracy of the Bible speaks for itself. No book has been as accurately passed down and translated.

And how do you know it has been accurately passed down? It was 100-300 years after Jesus death that the first writings appeared. They could have been bugged from the very start.

The Old Testament is another story.

posted by knn

ebooks-download.com

Let's talk about politically correct versions

stinkz:

They obviously do care. The reformers were martyred because they wouldn't renounce what they found to be true.

And how many reformers that have been martyred are there? 20?

OK, then let's subtract these 20 and speak for the rest: The rest doesn't care.

stinkz:

For the sake of this thread, let's leave out "politically correct" versions, and all other versions which intentionally add and take away from the Bible.

Why? Such versions are taught in schools.

posted by knn

knn:

Why?

Because...

"I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,

and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book."

knn:

and attracts gays.

I've already proven that this isn't the case. Scripture does not attract gays. And, in fact, it often angers them. The only proofs for this that you present, deal with paganisms which were absorbed into Catholicism during its politicization.

knn:

They could have been bugged from the very start.

This is not what we're talking about. This does not have to do with translation at all. If you wish to claim that Christian writings were "bugged" from the beginning, then do so, and back your claims. But, you are not presenting valid arguments against accurate translation.

posted by stinkz

Translations are secondary

stinkz:

I've already proven that this isn't the case.

Proven? Up to 50% of Catholic priests are gay. Case closed at IMO → The Christian cult: Under gay influence?

stinkz:

"I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,

and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book."

Oh, sure. And that's why Protestant Christians have another old testament than Catholic Christians.

Heck, Luther had even doubts about the validity of some books of the New Testament. In other words: It's not even clear amongst BELIEVERS what parts should be in the bible and what not.

In other words: translation is secondary.

stinkz:

This is not what we're talking about. This does not have to do with translation at all.

As my last sentence: This thread is about the "Love of Christians" for correct translations. But since they obviously don't care WHAT to translate, it's even secondary.

That translations are bugged is already shown at IMO → Argh, Nostradamus' translations#26806

So if you want we can sum the whole thread as:
"Christians love accurate translations of bugged and faked scriptures of criminals, that got written 200 years after Jesus death." Thumb Up

posted by knn

are we done?

knn:

Proven? Up to 50% of Catholic priests are gay. Case closed at

You do not even know what case you are closing. Next time read and understand what I say, instead of repeating your pointless claims.

knn:

Oh, sure. And that's why Protestant Christians have another old testament than Catholic Christians.

Oh really? Well that's news to me, as I'm sure it would be to any Catholic or Protestant. All of Christianity, and Judaism as well, share the same Old Testament. Why must you blatantly lie, constantly?

knn:

Christians love accurate translations of bugged and faked scriptures of criminals, that got written 200 years after Jesus death

Tell yourself whatever you must, knn... but you have conceded the main point of this thread: that the Bible has been passed down and translated accurately. We all know you will continue to spew hatred for Christianity as a whole, and I will continue to confront each of your illogical threads as they come. So far, one down.

posted by stinkz

Re: Bugged from the very start

stinkz:

Hardly. The best counter-argument is to read the New Testament for yourself. See if it is a mass-murderer talking (Saul) or a changed man in Christ (Paul).

Mass murderers are quite capable of writing well. They are also quite able to lie too. (That he was once a mass murderer is not in dispute. It is part of the miracle of Paul's conversion that he persecuted Christians prior to this religious experience which turned his head.)

Even if Paul was truly a changed man it does not mean that he was successful in interpreting Jesus' teachings. How do you know that his writings have any more right to be in the Bible than the missing gospels?

We also have no idea who translated into Greek. How do we know that Jesus' words were successfully represented? There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that Matthew and Luke were both based upon the Gospel of Mark.

stinkz:

Back the original idea, the accuracy of the Bible speaks for itself. No book has been as accurately passed down and translated.

Nietzsche's texts are pretty well passed down and translated. What you meant is that it is remarkably well passed down and translated for a text of that time in history. That's all very well, but that doesn't say much. Texts from that early in history are all very badly passed down.

As a side point, it might also be pointed out that the fact that many of the gospels are missing is also a problem.

posted by fatpie42

"The beauty of the Superman came to me as a shadow. What are the gods to me now!"

Christians care about translation

Damn! I can bet you that for about 50% of Christians the thought that the Bible was translated from an ancient language hasn't even crossed their mind. I'm not talking shit, I've seen this where I live.

posted by Echelon

Well translated nonsense

stinkz:

What are you talking about? Protestants HAVE a different Old Testament. A few books are missing (= the Catholics have them, the Protestants not).

Just check bible "deuterocanonical books" ♣ and this:

en.wikipedia.org…

For Catholics, the deuterocanonical books are Tobit, Judith, 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch, as well as certain additions to Book of Esther and Book of Daniel.

In other words: Catholics accept "Jesus Sirach" as a prophet, while protestants not. It goes even further:

Eastern Orthodox churches sometimes also include 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 3 Ezra and/or 4 Ezra as deuterocanonical books and include Psalm 151 with the Psalms.

and

with the Ethiopian Orthodox there are additional books, such as Jubilees, Enoch, and the Rest of the Words of Baruch.

In other words: Christians don't even know what to INCLUDE in the bible.

stinkz:

And don't accuse me of lying. Contrary to you I am backupping my points. Nothing I said was a lie.

stinkz:

Tell yourself whatever you must, knn... but you have conceded the main point of this thread: that the Bible has been passed down and translated accurately.

No, that is not the topic. The topic is that Christians are CONCERNED with accurate translations.

And as I have shown, they are not even concerened WHO wrote WHEN and WHAT.

stinkz:

We all know you will continue to spew hatred for Christianity as a whole, and I will continue to confront each of your illogical threads as they come.

Please use the terms "logical" more wisely. It's actually a joke that someone who believes that "Maria got pregnant without sex" talks about logic. White laugh

posted by knn

Christians even FORBID to translate the bible - go figure

fatpie42:

What you meant is that it is remarkably well passed down and translated for a text of that time in history. That's all very well, but that doesn't say much. Texts from that early in history are all very badly passed down.

Let's also not forget that much more important than actually passing down and translating is the FORCING.

If supporters of the bible hadn't brutally enforced the scriptures on others then we wouldn't have this talk now.

Thus probably to state it much more accurately: "Christians are concerned with SPREADING the bible no matter what is written there".

Considering that the biggest Christian Chrurch (Catholics) had even FORBIDDEN the translating AND FORBIDDEN the reading of the bible, but was ENFORCING it anyway, then this alone disproves stinkz's point of the "oh-so accurately translating Christians".

And please, no anti-Catholics argument anymore. They were the BIGGEST, they were TYPICAL and they ENSURED that we can have this talk here.

posted by knn

Divine protection is a statistical trick

Please also note that the "Divine protection has ensure that the bible could be passed down accurately" is a mere statistical trick.

How would you know if a holy book has not made it through times?
You wouldn't.

Thus ANY old book could claim divine protection.

posted by knn

i guess we are done...

Keep talking, if you wish. But, everyone here has deviated from the main topic. And, it is the general concensus that the Bible was translated accurately. The only thing left to bicker about is your own hatred for Christianity. If you have any real concernes you wish to address, state them in another thread. We can discuss the pagan influences on Catholicism, if you'd like, so that you can see just how far from Christian teaching they deviated.

posted by stinkz

Catholicism is the greatest protector

stinkz:

We can discuss the pagan influences on Catholicism, if you'd like, so that you can see just how far from Christian teaching they deviated.

As if I knew it: You can't stop to pick on Catholicism, can you?

Without Catholicism you maybe wouldn't even know the bible.

Thus it's cheap to attack the very religion as "deviated" that brought you the bible.

stinkz:

If you have any real concernes you wish to address, state them in another thread.

I addressed all important issues related to this thread. Thank you.

posted by knn

Re: i guess we are done...

stinkz:

We've made perfectly reasonable arguments. If you have no answers to them then it is YOU Stinkz who has given up.

I made a perfectly reasonable argument that we know nothing of the translators of Jesus' words into the Bible and therefore we have NO way of assessing their accuracy. If that isn't a problem for you, then you obviously don't CARE how well translated your texts are.

posted by fatpie42

fatpie42:

we know nothing of the translators of Jesus' words into the Bible and therefore we have NO way of assessing their accuracy.

If we have no way of assessing their accuracy, then we have no way of assessing their innaccuracy either. So, therefore you have sealed this thread.

So far back as it can POSSIBLY be known, the Bible has been translated and recorded accurately.

posted by stinkz

Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

The time now is 12 February 2012, 21:08
php B.B.