»The bible is inaccurate and written by criminals and mad men«
|
|||
 stinkz: 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 What do you mean by general consensus? It seems that the only one who agrees with that is you. posted by Echelon |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical TopicsThe bible is inaccurate and written by criminals and mad men |
|
|||
 Echelon: stinkz: 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 What do you mean by general consensus? It seems that the only one who agrees with that is you. Yeah I wondered that too 
So far the general trend has been Random Poster: Some point regarding the accuracy of the text Stinkz: The text is correct because the Bible Says so Random Poster: Some point regarding the accuracy of the source Stinkz: The source is correct as we have no documents which prove it's not Random Poster: Some point regarding the reliability of the Author Stinkz: The Author was reliable because the Bible Says so Random Poster: Some point regarding the Variations in translations Stinkz: The words may vary but the meaning is the same Random Poster: Some point regarding what is and isn't included Stinkz: The bible can't be changed because the Bible Says so In short the general concensus of one seems to suggest the Legitimacy of the Bible is beyond scruntiny and the accuracy of translation is proved by the lack of contradictory evidence. To me the assumption of proof (rather than the assumption of accuracy until disproven) supports knn's point that the accuracy of translation is unimportant to the majority of Christians. In other words, they would be unlikely to question fully, something they believe to be true. The thread is not dead - the reason I (for one) haven't contributed that much is not because I have no opinion - indeed I think they are well known - but because it's starting to sound like something from the schoolyard - "My God is bigger then your God" And I don't play that game as I have no God at all so it wouldn't work so well
posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marl64: ...I have no God at all... OK, so that's not strictly true - I just have a different concept of what "God" is - Mine doesn't wear sandles and live in the Bible
posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 knn: Yes. Especially I believe that the Old Testament is very accurately passed down. knn: 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." fatpie42: we know nothing of the translators of Jesus' words into the Bible and therefore we have NO way of assessing their accuracy. So, based upon the main posters' own arguments, the Bible (including both Old and New Testaments) has been passed down and translated accurately. PLUS, the idea that the scriptures were "bugged" from the start, despite being offtopic, cannot possibly be proved. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Aren't all the texts of the new testament meant to be translations from the original Aramaic teachings of Jesus? If so isn't there a problem that all the people who knew him were criminals not translators? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: If so isn't there a problem that all the people who knew him were criminals not translators? Some of them could have been into forgery
posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 fatpie42: If so isn't there a problem that all the people who knew him were criminals not translators? The people around Jesus were illiterati = analphabets. Even if they wanted they couldn't write anything. NOONE of the bible writers has met Jesus personally. It is officially believed (by the clergy) that all of the books have been inspired (= the Holy Spirit wrote thru the hand of the writer). However this is a bit offtopic here, since there are different opinions about that. However, if noone had met Jesus, it makes talking about translations a joke. posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
If you sort the New Testament by the age of the books Matthew Mark Luke John you will see an increasing amount of wonders and powers. First: Mathew describes Jesus as a jew. Then: John describes Jesus as a god (practically all the images we have from Jesus being "god" and "the light" and "the path" stem from John). Maybe you don't know it but Matt, Mark & Luke are called "synoptic" because it's basically the same text (= similar/same words, similar/same sentences, same order of sentences, same storyline) but with a little differing words. John is not synoptic. His writings differ completely from the other 3. Now if you compare Matt, Mark & Luke side by side you have an increase in Jesus powers First: Jesus heals 1 guy Then: Jesus heals 2 guys In other words: While the translations might be correct the sources are too bugged to be taken seriously. However, this "synoptic gospels fact" is contested, so we shouldn't care much about it.  posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Echelon: Stinkz brought it into the subject. He stated that there are no "gross inacuracies" on the Bible. I'm replying to what he said. If you begin to create a new topic everytime a topic begins to move in a slightly different direction these threads are going to begin to be very hard to follow. Because there IS already a thread for contradictions: IMO → Inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible You started it yourself posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 knn: Jesus was prosecuted, wasn't he? Paulus was prosecuted, wasn't he? Now Christians jump in and claim "Because they were holy" or something similar. But the fact remains: Christianity was founded on the shoulders of convicted criminals. Thus if you accept the word from such sources then caring about the ACCURACY of translations is marginal. As I mention above St.Paul was a child murderer and Jesus a convicted criminal. In case you didn't know: Moses (who wrote large parts of the old testament, including the so called 10 commandments) was also a murderer (= a murderer writes "you shall not murder"). He killed an Egyptian. Then he gathered his people and fled for 40 years into the desert So it's actually interesting who wrote the sacred texts. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: The point is, it is because many, most, whatever... Christians have this concern, that the Bible is not only the most accurately passed-down, but the most accurately translated text in existance. Let me also add that correct letter-for-letter copies don't mean anything if the first copy is already bugged. Even if you can prove to me that in the last 3000 years the Old Testament has been copied 100% accurate, yet if 3001 years ago someone messed up a copy then your whole argument chain fails. For example the 2 versions (Exodus 20 & Deuteronomy 5) of the so called "10 commandments" ("You shall not murder") differ slightly although both are said to have been written by Moses/God. See IMO → Which version of the ten commandments is correct? Please also note that the Old Testament is said to have been written 700-300 BC (some say 100 BC, and some others claim it has been compiled 70 AD). Moses is said to have lived approx. 1500 BC. The Hebrew language (the language of the old testament) wasn't invented until 1200BC. Thus even the Old Testament is immanently bugged.    posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
||||||||||||||||
 knn: Moses was a murderer, too Let me also add the following
Who were these men?
Now THESE ARE THE founders and writers of the holy scriptures. You are free to pray to them and read their texts. posted by knn |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|||
 This link was provided by Crossfade (I think) on some other thread.  I think it's pretty good for describing the accuracy of the Bible...but of course there are some places where they REALLY suck. For example, on the dinosaur page it says "If you want evidence (for the idea that dinosaurs were actually created one day after mankind instead of billions of years) go to our Creation vs. Evolution page." And then on the Creation vs. Evolution page, it says "Go to the dinosaur page to understand why dinosaurs and humans were alive at the same time." Stupid. 
But, as this page states, the most incredible piece of evidence for the validity of the Bible lies in its prophecies. The Bible is a collection of manuscripts written over a timespan of thousands of years, and there are many prophecies in the Bible that were made many years before they were fulfilled. posted by nocturnal_anonymous |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 except someone else countered that (i think knn), somewhere along, saying that the prophecies were only fulfilled because some bunch of guys just wrote down stuff to fulfill the prophecies. the problem is, that the evidence that prove that the prophecies were fulfilled comes from the bible, unless there is otherwise. i think there is, il check it out posted by sangu |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
sangu: someone else countered that (i think knn), somewhere along, saying that the prophecies were only fulfilled because some bunch of guys just wrote down stuff to fulfill the prophecies. IMO → Have any of the prophecies of the bible been fulfilled? posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 12 February 2012, 21:10 php B.B. |