42 replies to this topic

[gamer_pro_2000]

tntoak, on Nov 17 2005, 12:47 AM, said:

Once again, you're basing your opinion on YOUR values.

Uh, actually, many ppl hold these values, they aren't just his. I have similar stances to Red and so does many other ppl. And morals have been known to change in ppl, with cercumstances. If you have set, unwavering guildlines (aka Bible) you don't have to worry about having ppl with different opinions. You look it up, and decide whether it is right or not. Simple and elegant. You have ppl that disagree with interpretations of it, but then you just take the high road and steer clear of confusion.

Another point I'd like to add is this. There are many ppl out there that call themselves christian, and don't live like it. These ppl give Christians a bad image in the world. The REAL DEAL ppl are the ones you'll notice differences in there personality.

Edited by gamer_pro_2000, 17 November 2005 - 08:33 PM.

[ShadowFox]

Even the bible is unstable... you need to go back to the UNTRANSLATED bible in Hebrew and have it read to you... seriously, the bible isn't the same as it was meant to be so I don't see how basing things off of a book that been revised to suit others is the way to go... you need to go WAY back to the first bible with ALL the books and the ORIGINAL words... there was a show on the history channel about it and how there are only 2 remaining people who can read that bible.

[clarky3429]

but your basing what you think of the Bible of a television documentary. they themselves may not have the facts 100%, and you say the Bible is unstable...where is the proof, the examples, the evidence to suggest that it is....?

[ShadowFox]

The guys who can READ the bible stated this, I know but think about it, when you translate something, part of the meaning is lost, the bible was translated to greek then to english right? Then it has been revised for better understanding, not only have some of the words lost meaning, but they have been replaced and changed to better suit people. The same basic concept, yes, the way it's SUPPOSE to be written and understood, no.

[RedInferno]

ShadowFox, on Nov 17 2005, 01:05 PM, said:

I said nice points, then I went on to talk about how being honest is important and how you should be honest despite the fact that it could hurt someone.

There... edited for better understanding

gamer_pro_2000, on Nov 17 2005, 02:33 PM, said:

Uh, actually, many ppl hold these values, they aren't just his. I have similar stances to Red and so does many other ppl. And morals have been known to change in ppl, with cercumstances. If you have set, unwavering guildlines (aka Bible) you don't have to worry about having ppl with different opinions. You look it up, and decide whether it is right or not. Simple and elegant. You have ppl that disagree with interpretations of it, but then you just take the high road and steer clear of confusion.

Another point I'd like to add is this. There are many ppl out there that call themselves christian, and don't live like it. These ppl give Christians a bad image in the world. The REAL DEAL ppl are the ones you'll notice differences in there personality.

Correct..thnx gamer!

ShadowFox, on Nov 18 2005, 08:59 AM, said:

The guys who can READ the bible stated this, I know but think about it, when you translate something, part of the meaning is lost, the bible was translated to greek then to english right? Then it has been revised for better understanding, not only have some of the words lost meaning, but they have been replaced and changed to better suit people. The same basic concept, yes, the way it's SUPPOSE to be written and understood, no.

Well, yes..but most of the bible has been readily and accurately translated by many scholars...

[clarky3429]

exactly, i dont think they would translate the Bible into something different than what it was

[RedInferno]

LOL...keep in mind these are theologians who study the bible for a living....I mean, there are some words in chinese that cannot be exactly translated by ONE word, but with a few, the gist of it can be understood.

[clarky3429]

i agree, but im sure the people who translate them are also quite knowledgable themselves too....

[tntoak]

Quote

exactly, i dont think they would translate the Bible into something different than what it was

King James did exactly that. There were numerous words and phrases that had no English equivalents, so King James replaced then with what he thought would fit. Furthermore, if you look at newer translations (New International Version, Living Bible, etc.) they are based off of the King James version instead of older versions. Also, King James didn't rely on theologians to translate the bible.

Let's not forget that the reason the Anglican Church was formed in England was so that the King could get a divorce and legally remarry, which the Catholic Church prohibited. In that case, an entirely new church was created.

Quote

Uh, actually, many ppl hold these values, they aren't just his. I have similar stances to Red and so does many other ppl. And morals have been known to change in ppl, with circumstances.

You're still mixing the two together. People constantly reassess their value hierarchy, as specific situations may place more worth on a given value than others. For example, if you have to choose between a noght out with the guys playing poker and spending time at home with your family, it's essentially a question of which one (time with friends or time with family) you value more at that particular time. If you've been working long hours all week and have barely seen your family all week, then you might elect to stay home. However, if you've been at home all week, whether a vacation or to take care of a sick family member, you might elect to go out with the guys.

Morals, on the other hand, are not weighed/analyzed in the same manner as values. Please note that I never said morals didn't change, just that it's much more difficult to adjust one's moral code once fully developed.

[gamer_pro_2000]

Values and morals are very similar to each other. Yes they aren't the same, exactly, but they are easily interchangable. Also, King James picked the closest word to the original meaning that he could, and with very good accuracy. Although most ppl can't translate the bible anymore, they do have computer programs that can decompile the original language and pick english equivilents. Although it might not be a perfect translation, even with a few minor debateable meanings, the same basic ideas still hold together. The Bible has been checked, re-checked, and checked again, over and over. If you're trying to say that the translation is wrong, your trying to say that the dozens of ppl that worked on it are idiots, when they probably have more education and experience with it than you ever could hope to have. The Bible has not been editted, it has been revised as the English language has changed. Ppl don't say whom or thee anymore, so they changed them to who and they. Those are the only changes that have been made to the Bible. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say it has been "revised". Mormons revised there "Second Bible" Not Chrisitans.

[tntoak]

Quote

The Bible has not been editted, it has been revised as the English language has changed. Ppl don't say whom or thee anymore, so they changed them to who and they. Those are the only changes that have been made to the Bible. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say it has been "revised". Mormons revised there "Second Bible" Not Chrisitans.

King James was basing his translation off of a Latin Bible, which was a translation from the Greek bible, which was a translation of the Aramaic scrolls. There are numerous article discussing how certain words were actually misinterpreted from translation to translation over the centuries, and how that has changed how certain passages are interpreted.

When you're translating between languages, there is undoubtedly going to be occasions where guesses are made as to what word should go in a given spot. Additionally, it is common that during translation certain words may be mistranslated because contextual nuances are missed by the translator(s) converting the text in question. I would also point out that the difference between the KJV and the NIV is much different than comparing the KJV to the original scrolls.

[Twitchness]

Without getting into biblical translations (I've read it a few times, but still....definitely wouldn't bother reading it again. Paganism found me for a reason.).....a few questions.

1. Assume you're colorblind, and can't see the color green at all. Everything green appears as different shades of gray. You're intelligent, you've gone through school, you know the grass is green because you've been taught....but how do you know for sure?

2. Assume you're in the military. You've decided upon this way of life because you need the money. You've been brought up to KNOW that killing is wrong...but the government says it's ok and hands you a gun. Do you kill?

3. In the previous situation, assume you've gone through 3 of your 4 years in the military (US standards here, I know we've got friends across the pond on here, too) without firing a single shot. All of a sudden, you see your best friend with a gun to his head. His soon to be killer has his back to you, and you're unnoticed. You've got a clear shot. Do you sacrifice your morals to save your friend?

[RedInferno]

Twitchness, on Nov 25 2005, 04:06 PM, said:

Without getting into biblical translations (I've read it a few times, but still....definitely wouldn't bother reading it again. Paganism found me for a reason.).....a few questions.

1. Assume you're colorblind, and can't see the color green at all. Everything green appears as different shades of gray. You're intelligent, you've gone through school, you know the grass is green because you've been taught....but how do you know for sure?

2. Assume you're in the military. You've decided upon this way of life because you need the money. You've been brought up to KNOW that killing is wrong...but the government says it's ok and hands you a gun. Do you kill?

3. In the previous situation, assume you've gone through 3 of your 4 years in the military (US standards here, I know we've got friends across the pond on here, too) without firing a single shot. All of a sudden, you see your best friend with a gun to his head. His soon to be killer has his back to you, and you're unnoticed. You've got a clear shot. Do you sacrifice your morals to save your friend?

1. Because there are people you trust or things you know to be true that tell you so. MANY people have proved the BIBle is not false, and many lives have been changed by it.

2. No, you do not go agaisnt what your consciense tells you. In the BIBe, God made certain provisions for killing, like whne the Israelites went to battle. But if you feel it is wrong the Bible tells you not to go against your consciense, which, as a chrsitian is the holy spirit. The military allows you not to carry a gun, or be put in a position to kill. You could be a cook or someting.

3. Again, similar to the answer to number 2. If he's not a danger, with his back turned and all, why kill him? Just incapacitate him, or something. If he was a danger to killing you, unlessyou had no other choice. The Bibnle does not say do not defend yourself.