• 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!

Trusting the Bible

savagewind

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
jojom said:
But doing it with some agenda in mind defiantly precludes it from being arbitrary. As for being fair or right, this would depend on whose fairness and rightness one is talking about. And in this case, in as much as we're talking about the circumstances surrounding the actual translation, to not be fair and right would to be so in regard to the translators' "contract": to go against the wishes and expectations of whoever is sponsoring the translation. That you or anyone else may think a particular piece of translation isn't right is beside the point. What matters is that in translating a piece, the translator(s) was not purposely doing so without any concern for doing it right or fairly. And from what I've read this was never the case.
.
Click to expand...
You have no proof that any translation was done with righteousness in mind. It even takes faith to believe the writing of it was with righteousness in mind. I am certain there are some very serious mistakes in it. Thus, I can conclude with personal certainty that it was not done with rightness as the goal. I believe the true sponsor is God. God makes no mistakes.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Jayhawker Soule said:
I am fascinated by the use of acrostics in Lamentations.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is the great weakness in most modern translations. It's very difficult - and maybe impossible - to accurately translate poetry. Poetry truly only exists in the original language, and even then it takes a fairly educated reader to recognize it.

Now it is possible with a really good commentary to get some approximation of what is going on in the poetry, but it cannot be done with a translation alone without brutalizing one language or the other.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
jojom said:
In any case, this whole exchange is getting wearisome, so I'll let you and savagewind have the last say.
.
Click to expand...

I agree. You'd have to be quite weary to try and use a dictionary as a straw man. That's more than a little bit pathetic.


And it doesn't count if you simply repost muppet videos that I've already posted.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I trust Lamentations.

(Sorry, Lamentations is read as part of the observance of Tisha B'Av so it's particularly relevant today.)​
 
jojom

jojom

Active Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
One should not judge too harshly. He's also apparently entertained by you.
Click to expand...
"Harshly"? I was crediting him with having that much sophistication. As for being entertained by me, he just thinks that by having a dialog with me will lend him some cred.


.
 
H

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
It's not about accuracy as you perceive. It is about how valid human witnessing is, say, in a human court. If a witness A says that the crime occurred at 10:31 am sharp on Thursday because he was by then timing a clock. While another witness B says that it's 10:45 am on Wednesday because usually by that time and day he's in a location near the crime scene.

The both wrote separately about their witnessing. So are they considered valid in the court. What's behind the scene is that B is usually near the crime scene on every Wednesday, but in that particular week during the crime and for a reason he forgot, he went there on Thursday instead. Will a judge validate his witnessing for the crime or invalid his witnessing at all?
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Hawkins said:
It's not about accuracy as you perceive. It is about how valid human witnessing is, say, in a human court. If a witness A says that the crime occurred at 10:31 am sharp on Thursday because he was by then timing a clock. While another witness B says that it's 10:45 am on Wednesday because usually by that time and day he's in a location near the crime scene.

The both wrote separately about their witnessing. So are they considered valid in the court. What's behind the scene is that B is usually near the crime scene on every Wednesday, but in that particular week during the crime and for a reason he forgot, he went there on Thursday instead. Will a judge validate his witnessing for the crime or invalid his witnessing at all?
Click to expand...

This kind of appeal would make sense if the Gospels had been written by witnesses... or if we had access to their original testimony.
 
Brickjectivity

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
It's My Birthday!
Stealing has a very bad meaning where I live. 'Preserved' is a more accurate statement than 'Stole'. I'd like to think that Christians have preserved ideas gotten from Jews rather than stolen them and that USA preserved the ideas of freedom rather than that we stole them. Anybody else is perfectly welcome to have them, too.
 
M

Michaelthearchangel

Member
I say stole because you never admit that you goth the information from other cultures that predates Judaism Christianity and Islam, they just say that there Gods gave them the information.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Michaelthearchangel said:
I say stole because you never admit that you goth the information from other cultures that predates Judaism Christianity and Islam, they just say that there Gods gave them the information.
Click to expand...

Finally! One of the few people who admit this.

It's refreshing to see how folks ignore almost 300 years of Christian scholarship and pretend like they have found something new.

Enterprising scholars like Bart Ehrman have made a cottage industry out of 'uncovering' what has been abundantly obvious and openly admitted by Christians for hundreds (and I'm very tempted to say thousands - while technically accurate, that would pre-date critical historical methods).

This is what we get for being illiterate morons. Crap like this. Gobble it up, ye miserable wretches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top