• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is the Bible inspired?

S

Surrealgurl

Member
Hi, I was wondering what everyones opinion here is on this.

If God really did inspire those poeple to write the Bible, then wouldn't he make sure that the people who translated it into different languages would translate it properly so that everybody would understand what it all means? If not, why not? Why should there have to be so much confusion on what this word means and what that word means? :rolleyes:
 
Irenicas

Irenicas

high overlord of sod all
And what do you mean by "properly". The major problems come up when there isn't an exact word for the term originally used. Remember, that you may be thinking of the English version as the "proper" one, but it was undoubtable written down first in aramaeric (eek, can't spell that) or Latin, and before that it was probably handed down orally. But there aren't neccesarily going to be words that express exactly the same ideas in lots of differents languages - translators can only do the best they can, and fill in the gaps as they view the text. This is always a problem, in all translations of everything.
Also, remember that what most people class as the bible, particularly the new testament, is not a "complete" (whatever that means) text. There are hundreds of gospels, as all a gospel is is some persons experience of Christ. Jesus didn't only meet John Paul George and Ringo, or whoever it is, but thousands of people, and hundreds of them wrote down their experiences - some are only a ew pages long, other, epic.
 
Rex

Rex

Founder
Regardless of the translation I think it's the overall lesson or story it tells which is important to most who believe in the bible.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Irenicas said:
The major problems come up when there isn't an exact word for the term originally used.
Click to expand...
No, those are not the "major problems". The "major problems" are that the Bible is a web of myth, folklore, and fabrication.
 
Rex

Rex

Founder
Deut. 32.8 said:
No, those are not the "major problems". The "major problems" are that the Bible is a web of myth, folklore, and fabrication.
Click to expand...
Being that is your opinion that is fine. But you can't argue that the bible does have historical facts that we can prove with science today. Do you account those as myths, folklores, and fabrication?
 
L

Lightkeeper

Well-Known Member
The Bible is written in such a way that it can be understood on several different levels. I think that is why it is always a best seller. Just when you think you understand something you see it in a different way.
 
S

Surrealgurl

Member
No I don't think English is the "proper" one. I think you misunderstood me, Irenicus.

What I mean by translating the Bible "properly" is translating it to mean what God INTENDED it to mean in the first place, in EVERY language.
 
I

iwilliam

Member
Surrealgurl you are correct. Not knowing the original langauge in which the bible was revealed is part of the problem. Let me give you a few examples(The word God in english is some times plural. The hebrew word for god is Eli in singular form, and the plural form is eloheem. In Genisis 1:26 God was falsely translated in singular form.(One last example) Genisis 1:1 where it states in the begining,another false translation. In the original Torah or five books of moses,the hebrew word was bara****h(which does not mean begining, in actuality the word means reconstruction. So in other words that was not the beginning of creations.
 
Irenicas

Irenicas

high overlord of sod all
How can you tell what God intended (not that he exists, but... we'll go with it for a bit, ok)? As pointed out, the Bible means different things on different levels, there is no single meaning. You could not keep it the same book and make it simplistic. If you want simplicity I suggest the Hungry Caterpillar (though, the hierarchal nature of the book... etc, etc.).

Basically, you cannot have any message that just means what the original person intended it to mean. You think all those poets expected classes of high school kids to be discussing whether is was a metaphor for existence or not? It probably was jsut about daffodils.

Also, God MAY have dictated the bible, or inspired it, or whatever, or he may not, but regardless it was actually written by humans. He didn't fit any easy to read intention in it, because he didn't write it.

Oh, and the reason it's always a big seller - there are millions of people indoctrinated by it from birth.
 
I

iwilliam

Member
The bible was plagurized from books such as the egyptian book of the dead,anuma elish, and the ancient sumerian doctrine called the gilgamesh epics. There is actually a flood story in each the text mentioned above!! Proof is in the pudding.
 
S

Surrealgurl

Member
Yes iwilliam, my point exactly. :)
What is the point of God inspiring people to write the Bible in the first place, and then letting other people translate it incorrectly? It doesn't seem consistent to me. Anybody else?
 
S

Surrealgurl

Member
I never said I knew what God intended. It seems as if there is no way to know for sure what God intended, that's probably why there are so many different Christian denominations out there, all believing they have the correct interpretation.

Yes I agree Irenicas, a lot of people believe it is the word of God because they are indoctrinated at birth.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Rex_Admin said:
Being that is your opinion that is fine. But you can't argue that the bible does have historical facts that we can prove with science today?
Click to expand...
The Wizard of Oz and the Planet of the Apes "have historical facts that we can prove with science today", as does most (if not all) fable, legend, and folklore. So what? Suggest one item of theological significance, one item of probative value, that exemplifies one of these "historical facts that we can prove with science today".
 
Rex

Rex

Founder
Deut. 32.8 said:
The Wizard of Oz and the Planet of the Apes "have historical facts that we can prove with science today", as does most (if not all) fable, legend, and folklore. So what? Suggest one item of theological significance, one item of probative value, that exemplifies one of these "historical facts that we can prove with science today".
Click to expand...
Turning the debate around doesn't make you right. I never argued the theological significance, I just generally stated that the bible has some historical facts (i.e. places on a map, people, etc).

Give me any theological book and we can debate whether it has proven as fact or not but the point is you can' t say something is all myths and folklore when it is not.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Rex_Admin said:
Turning the debate around doesn't make you right.
Click to expand...
What do you think we're debating?

Rex_Admin said:
I never argued the theological significance, I just generally stated that the bible has some historical facts (i.e. places on a map, people, etc).
Click to expand...
Well, then, thank you for sharing. It looked very much like you were making a counterposed assertion, but if your intent was simply to offer something of no theological significance, then so be it.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Forgive me, but that impresses me as either irresponsible or disingenuous. If you had a point, I would much prefer that you take responsibility for it and develop it. If not, it's unclear to me why a forum administrator would spam a thread.

Tell me, Rex_Admin, do you think the Bible "inspired" and, if so, why?
 
Pah

Pah

Uber all member
Rex_Admin said:
Turning the debate around doesn't make you right. I never argued the theological significance, I just generally stated that the bible has some historical facts (i.e. places on a map, people, etc).

Give me any theological book and we can debate whether it has proven as fact or not but the point is you can' t say something is all myths and folklore when it is not.
Click to expand...

I agree with Rex. If nothing else, the bible offers a glimpse into the "life and times" of the social structure of the people. It portrays the science of the times (which is as relevant to today as last years "picks" at the Kentucky Derby) but it is history

-pah-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top