 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2066
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I read these comments and I ask myself "Where are the people who claim to be rational and logical? I read nothing but entries from childish idiots."
| makuranososhi wrote: | | I'm being lazy, and I acknowledge beforehand that Wiki is not gospel (...) and may have errors and omissions. The gist of the differences remains the same. There are several translations, and several variations depending on various sects and selections over centuries. The question remains: which Bible are we talking about? Something more productive than letters, words and pages would be appreciated... as that seems to be pretty consistent between them all. |
Dear makuranososhi, first I would advice you not to rely too much on wikipedia for religious articles. The reasons should be obvious. I read statements in the articles which were inserted by people from different sects who want to discredit the belief and even remove comments which contradict theirs.
Second, the best version of the bible is the one written in Greek. Translations, in my opinion, are unreliable and are not even translations; they are interpretations. This can even be seen in the KJB where in the old testament it is written that a young girl will give birth, but in the English it states that it is a virgin who will give birth revealing itself as a prophecy of Mary's virgin birth. The person "translating" will insert his own point of view. Another example was in a Quran that I was reading which was wrought with sectarian bias and antisemitism/christianity. Another example is the translation of the Gita by A.C. Bhaktivedanta who attempts to reflect his sect as being the proper interpretors of the Gita, disparaging others in his commentaries.
So in short, rely not on "translations". Being fully aware that metaphors, parables, etc. cannot be fully translated, it shouldn't be considered a translation.
_________________
I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN! |
|
| Back to top |
|
makuranososhi
Purple Monkey Dishwasher
Joined: May 13, 2008
Posts: 2252
Location: Arizona
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oscuria, I have missed your responses.. *laugh* In this case, I think we're getting the same point. The original documents, which were still written centuries after the fact, by disparate individuals and with many localized and sect-influenced books written, and later edited and refined to its current state, are the best resource over any translation. However, I admit that I cannot read in Greek at this time. The point is in part to ask the question how something so maligned by the hand of man would even be considered the word of god.
M.
_________________
He thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
From my heart and from my hand, why don't people understand my intentions...?
Why choose a lesser evil? Vote Cthulhu 2008! |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2066
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| makuranososhi wrote: | Oscuria, I have missed your responses.. *laugh* In this case, I think we're getting the same point. The original documents, which were still written centuries after the fact, by disparate individuals and with many localized and sect-influenced books written, and later edited and refined to its current state, are the best resource over any translation. However, I admit that I cannot read in Greek at this time. The point is in part to ask the question how something so maligned by the hand of man would even be considered the word of god.
M. |
Theres a wonderful mythology in some scriptures, if you like to call it wonderful. The vedas for example are said to have been the first utterance in the world, the pervading aum; even the first words from the mouth of Brahma. In this sense it is the literal eternal word (if you can call it a word) of God and we have only just received the message. Others state that it does not have a beginning and has always been, without existence. The Muslims believe that the Quran was recited by the Angel Gabriel unto Muhammad. The word recited is of great importance here. In this sense the Quran (which itself means recitation) came from the mouth of God, on which Gabriel recited it to Muhammad who recited it to his people. In the Tanakh, both Abraham and Moses had close experiences with God. Abraham was visited by God himself upon which he told Abraham that he and Sarah were to have a child (where Sarah laughed and when she had a child named him Isaac which means "he will laugh"). Moses was visited by God in the form of the Burning Bush and kept "visiting" him in Mount Sinai. So in this sense, the Tanach also came from God, literally. The Gospels are being told from people who are said to have had first-hand contact with Jesus, God personified. They recount and in their quotes, they are retelling the words of the personified God.
Whether you believe or not (that it came from God), it is all a matter of faith. I am of the opinion that all things come from God. Everything that is to be known is known, everything that is to be said has already been said. We are just catching on to these sounds. The problem is with how people begin to interpret these utterances. And as you know, everything is open to interpretation.
Now if you're wondering if there are interpolations, I am not going to touch that subject. 
_________________
I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN! |
|
| Back to top |
|
MR
Deinonychus
Joined: Jun 25, 2008
Age: 39
Posts: 392
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Original documents written centuries after the fact? That's not what I've read. From what I've read the copies we have are not the originals, and are copies from, yes, several centuries after the fact, but the original documents on the New Testament books are believed to have been written in the first or 2nd century. (Estimates vary some, and different books have different estimates, but they are all in that range). |
|
| Back to top |
|
slowmutant
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 8640
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It's amazing how many Bible scholars come out of the woodwork on WrongPlanet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Voltaire
Blue Jay
Joined: Jul 07, 2008
Age: 53
Posts: 90
Location: At the back of your mind.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MR wrote: | | Original documents written centuries after the fact? That's not what I've read. From what I've read the copies we have are not the originals, and are copies from, yes, several centuries after the fact, but the original documents on the New Testament books are believed to have been written in the first or 2nd century. (Estimates vary some, and different books have different estimates, but they are all in that range). |
Mostly based on hazy eyewitness testimony, and not actually written til about 30 or 40 years after the event (at least). The Abrahamic stuff was passed on through generation to generation and is myth and legend at best; therefore good story-telling, but no basis for fact. It seems to me that Matthew, Mark and Luke were trying to corroborate each others' accounts, but couldn't because their memories became dodgy and they couldn't agree who was where and when, so they made it up. John's Revelations and his accounts were written close to death, so he may well have had Alzheimers by that stage, and thus can be discredited totally. Also, given that the gnostic stuff was left out for political gain, means that the Bible in itself is not literal, and at best compares to Hamlet.
_________________
I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it.
Machiavelli, Dante, Sideshow Bob - now THAT'S a trinity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
slowmutant
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 8640
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I can't believe you actually knew those guys, Voltaire. Way back then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
MR
Deinonychus
Joined: Jun 25, 2008
Age: 39
Posts: 392
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not a Bible scholar, someone who has read up on what Bible scholars think.
And I agree with the first part of what Voltaire says (before the "seems to me").
However, the Bible is not supposed to be history. That never was the purpose of the books. Regarding the gospels, the point isn't to tell the life story of Jesus. The point is to convey a spiritual method.
My interest in the Bible is because Christianity is my spiritual path. It doesn't mean I take it all literally. About the only thing where the literal truth matters to me is with the letters of Paul (or, some of them) that they really are letters from this person Paul to various Christian communities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2066
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am surprised by the manner in which people think here. They would not denounce, not even for a second, the memory of Homer who was blind, but they would denounce those who memorized scripture and would hold the latter as being of faulty minds.
Before there was writing, how were scriptures containing thousands and thousands of verses transmitted generation after generation? Does anyone imagine the person reciting stumbling on a word and asking questions like "Now was it Son of Light or Sun of Light?"?
You would think that they would have developed something that would insure the integrity of the scripture, considering that religion is an oral tradition--one committed to memory.
_________________
I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN!
Last edited by oscuria on Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
slowmutant
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 8640
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think the Bible should be taken word-for-word, but that doesn't make it bunk. The stories and parables and whatnot probaby had their basis in earlier works, but I'm too lazy to look up the entire history of mankind on Wikipedia. That would be a pretty big file. Funny how the peolpe on WP have more faith in Wikipedia than the Bible.
Is Wikipedia the Bible of Aspies? |
|
| Back to top |
|
slowmutant
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 8640
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I disagree. The Gospels explicitly chronicle the life of Jesus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
MR
Deinonychus
Joined: Jun 25, 2008
Age: 39
Posts: 392
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think we shouldn't make suppositions about what others think. We shouldn't assume we understand the point precisely and the thinking behind the point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
slowmutant
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 8640
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MR wrote: | | I think we shouldn't make suppositions about what others think. We shouldn't assume we understand the point precisely and the thinking behind the point. |
I strongly agree, and I thank you for making this point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
traveller011212
Velociraptor
Joined: May 27, 2008
Age: 28
Posts: 476
Location: Right here!!
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Random point about the OT
Many of the events have been shown to have an archaeologically counterpart. As a non-Christian I wont say that it confirms the stories, but it is fuel for debate if you want it. I don't know if you can find the actual references online, but the History Channel does do a lot of stuff on these findings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Voltaire
Blue Jay
Joined: Jul 07, 2008
Age: 53
Posts: 90
Location: At the back of your mind.
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Like Sodom and Gomorrah met their fate due to a volcano and earthquake, and the flood that Noah experience was the development of the Black Sea at the end of the Ice Age. Also, the 'parting of the Red Sea' was due to tidal flow, and they escaped using reeds, and the tidal wave that killed the armies chasing them was the result of a volcanic eruption off the Greek Isles. However, the Egyptians never used Jewish slaves to work on the pyramids, as they were built in homage to the pharoahs by their own people; also, the stones for the pyramids were floated up the Nile from Aswan, and the so called 'Blood of the Nile' is actually Ferrous Oxide or rust ftom the digging of the sites for the pyramids and the oxidization of the ore in the rocks. It leeched into the river, killing off the fish, and was then washed downstream to the ocean. Example being the Rio Tinto in Spain.
_________________
I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it.
Machiavelli, Dante, Sideshow Bob - now THAT'S a trinity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
