Those contradicting Gospels!

[Muffled]

Love it!

Come up folks!
Take your pick!
Choose some truth about God. Pick any bible and maybe you'll find the diamond in the sands of deception.

The King James translation seems fairly accurate as far as I read from specialists, but John's Gospel is TOTALLY different from Mark's..... the evidence shows that he had a bundle of accurate accounts which he then spun in to his dreams.

There was a Jesus, but there was no Saviour, no Christ, imo.

I believe that must be in your dreams.

 

[Muffled]

Good thing is we only need to know the Spirit behind the stories, the reason they were told.

Then we have the Quran which clears up some Bible interpretation issues and then the Messages of the Bab and Baha'u'llah and it can all become much clearer.

I know that is not how you choose to see it, but I see that is so.

Regards Tony

I believe the B men muddy the waters more than clear things up. I also find Muslims tend to misinterpret the Qu'ran in a way to make the Bible authors liars. I don't believe the actual text does that.

 

[Muffled]

So God needed to edit his letters to us, eh?
Changes his mind?

This 'spirit' ........ I don't think Baha'is have much to do with spirits, Tony.

I believe Jews managed to get some erroneous concepts that Jesus had to clear up. It isn't a failure of the text but the failure of people to understand it that has to be cleared up.

 

[oldbadger]

I believe that must be in your dreams.

Like you say, that's your belief.

 

[oldbadger]

I believe Jews managed to get some erroneous concepts that Jesus had to clear up. It isn't a failure of the text but the failure of people to understand it that has to be cleared up.

I believe that early Christians got some erroneous concepts.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The King James translation seems fairly accurate as far as I read from specialists

Good post. I only want to comment on this one remark.

The KJV is probably one of the worst translations.

First, like all the Christians translations I know of save the New American Bible, it uses the LXX, which is a translation -- translations by nature are inferior to the original language, since something is ALWAYS lost from the original. First of all, to translate from a translation is like making a xerox of a xerox. There are simply mistakes in the LXX that get passed on. For example, the LXX says, "A virgin shall conceive." That's not what it says in the Hebrew. The Hebrew not only does not use the word for virgin, it is also in past tense: "A young woman has conceived."

Secondly, the KJV also uses as a source the Vulgate, or Latin translation. The vulgate itself is aready a translation of the Septuagint, a translation of a translation, which would make the KJV a translation of a translation of a translation. Jiminy Cricket!!!!!

Third: the KJV uses more recent manuscripts to translate from, which include passages that were added much later in time, such as the Johannine Comma. The earliest manuscripts which we now have today show that something else was written entirely. What is the Johannine Comma? In the earliest manuscripts 1 John 5:7-8 says "For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree." But in the later manuscripts that the KJV uses to translate from, it says, "For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." IOW later Christians added a Trinitarian blurb. This is just one example of later manuscript editing that is included in the KJV. Other examples include the story of the woman caught in adultery, and the end of Mark.

 

[oldbadger]

Good post. I only want to comment on this one remark.

The KJV is probably one of the worst translations.

First, like all the Christians translations I know of save the New American Bible, it uses the LXX, which is a translation -- translations by nature are inferior to the original language, since something is ALWAYS lost from the original. First of all, to translate from a translation is like making a xerox of a xerox. There are simply mistakes in the LXX that get passed on. For example, the LXX says, "A virgin shall conceive." That's not what it says in the Hebrew. The Hebrew not only does not use the word for virgin, it is also in past tense: "A young woman has conceived."

Secondly, the KJV also uses as a source the Vulgate, or Latin translation. The vulgate itself is aready a translation of the Septuagint, a translation of a translation, which would make the KJV a translation of a translation of a translation. Jiminy Cricket!!!!!

Third: the KJV uses more recent manuscripts to translate from, which include passages that were added much later in time, such as the Johannine Comma. The earliest manuscripts which we now have today show that something else was written entirely. What is the Johannine Comma? In the earliest manuscripts 1 John 5:7-8 says "For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree." But in the later manuscripts that the KJV uses to translate from, it says, "For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." IOW later Christians added a Trinitarian blurb. This is just one example of later manuscript editing that is included in the KJV. Other examples include the story of the woman caught in adultery, and the end of Mark.

Ah.... yes, I know that the stretches, manipulations and additions are many, but I only select info out of the gospels with care. If one dismisses everything which refers to Christ, Trinity or extreme miracles, what is left an be reviewed on a totally different light.
I ignored trinity resurrection and Lazarus etc as far back as 1994. And if G,-John is read thru as if a book one can sense changes in style, expression, etc
John is full of useful incidents, info not mentioned else but the timeline and length of mission is totally crank. Apostle John was never there for sure.