ISIS

Daryl wrote:I'm intrigued ksandgren.
Out of all the sacred texts ever written on every religion, how do you know that the King James version of the kristian bible is the real deal, and how do you know absolutely that "the translators only goal was to bring to the masses God's word"? Why were those translators (presumably male chaste monks living in seclusion) the only ones with no agenda?
I really don't mean any offence when I ask this but, did god come to you in a dream or a daytime vision and tell you that was her preferred version of events? Or was it a preacher in whatever religious group you belong to?

If I read German well, I would be just as accepting of Luther's version. I like the King James because of its accessibility, not because it is the only choice. I respect the work Wycliffe did in the same epoch. My words were meant more along the line that those who translated the King James were less concerned about what the Bible's words would be misconstrued to mean than they were about getting an accurate translation into English for the masses. They and the generations of Oxford scholars that followed published alternate translations of words and phrases in the notes whenever they thought there were other ways to interpret the words they translated - to me their interests were "pure" whether or not successful. I can enjoy the New Jerusalem Bible to get a modern English Bible, if I can get around the Catholic centered view of its authors. I do not get that from the New Inspired Version so many Evangelicals and others use, even though they had the most modern texts available when they made their changes. They were so dogmatic in what they believed it HAD to say that there is no assurance the translation accurately reflects God's intentions in putting forward the history of His dealings with His people.

I am among the many Judeo Christian groups that take seriously God's words to, and covenant with, Abraham, and with the instruction through Moses to have no other Gods before him, so while I can be tolerant of those who follow other gods or no gods, I am not accepting of their "religious texts."

Thanks for that. I still can't get my head around what and why you believe. Doubtless I'd need to be a believer to do so, but thanks anyway.

ksandgren wrote:If I read German well, I would be just as accepting of Luther's version. I like the King James because of its accessibility, not because it is the only choice. I respect the work Wycliffe did in the same epoch. My words were meant more along the line that those who translated the King James were less concerned about what the Bible's words would be misconstrued to mean than they were about getting an accurate translation into English for the masses.

Would you really be accepting of Luther's translation though?

It's not like he restricted himself to simply translating the text (Not to mention that he was working off of a greek translation of the latin translation in the first place); he also did a fair amount of editing.

And it's not like the King James version is free of editorializing: while the inclusion of notes for alternate readings is admirable, it doesn't change the fact that the primary translation was tweaked towards specific, contemporary political goals by the authors.

The thing with translations is that every time one is made, the meaning of the text changes. Sometimes, this happens in major ways, sometimes it happens subtly, but it is pretty much unavoidable. What you see as a good, undogmatic translation was in fact one that was made during a time of doctrinal dispute between two sects.

The King James bible, for all its literary merits, is very definitely a strongly political document designed to favour a particular interpretation of the text over others; Given that the translators used a mix of sources, the possibility that any biases introduced by those translations remained cannot be discounted either.

TL;DR: If you believe that modern translations are the first to introduce meanings or encourage readings that differ from the intended ones, you are sadly mistaken.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Based on no evidence, you claim that gods do not exist

Shows how well you read. When exactly did i EVER claim that? Oh right, i never did.

Imaginos1892 wrote:and anybody who disagrees with you is delusional

No, anyone who claims that writings of questionable origin MUST be divinely inspired because someone said so, might be delusional.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Are you really incapable of understanding a few sentences written in simple English?

Coming from someone who is unable to do exactly what you complain about, that´s pretty damn stupid.

I´ve worked as a proofreader for English and Swedish, and as a translator between the two.
Oh right, i´m also educated as a linguist with focus on those same two languages.

I´m not the one having any trouble with English here.

Imaginos1892 wrote:You misunderstand what I write, misrepresent what I believe, and attempt to ridicule me based on your own bullshit which you falsely attribute to me.

Perhaps you should learn English then, make sure to actually say what you want rather than your usual rants?

As long as you keep saying one thing and then gripe about being called on it, you really don´t have anything to stand on for complaining.

The E wrote:...

TL;DR: If you believe that modern translations are the first to introduce meanings or encourage readings that differ from the intended ones, you are sadly mistaken.

Goodness yes! The first revision came in the 3rd century, and it probably edited A LOT.
(we just know they did a lot of editing, we actually have no real clue what they edited, beyond removing a bunch of material considered not "proper" enough, and too complicated for the common people)

And before that, no "bible" even really existed. And lots of its parts are very uncertain in regards to when they were actually written, or how many times they have been rewritten, or if they were written down from oral tradition only, etc etc etc...

Tenshinai wrote:

The E wrote:...

TL;DR: If you believe that modern translations are the first to introduce meanings or encourage readings that differ from the intended ones, you are sadly mistaken.

Goodness yes! The first revision came in the 3rd century, and it probably edited A LOT.
(we just know they did a lot of editing, we actually have no real clue what they edited, beyond removing a bunch of material considered not "proper" enough, and too complicated for the common people)

And before that, no "bible" even really existed. And lots of its parts are very uncertain in regards to when they were actually written, or how many times they have been rewritten, or if they were written down from oral tradition only, etc etc etc...

If, with all these translation problems, the Bible still has fulfilled prophecies, such as Daniel 12:4 and those we know now can be fulfilled, such as Matthew 24:21>22 ( a few decades back, LIFE magazine had an article explaining about the known weapons which could wipe out all human life), why should we ignore it?

There are also many places where great insistence was made that the Bible was wrong, such as with the Hittites, David's kingdom, Solomon's mines and stables, etc. until the archeologists and other scientists found out the facts.

And above all, no one has proposed any reason for the cosmos to have low energy entropy and low information entropy without a creation by power and understanding, as described in the Bible. We know of many ways entropy can increase (availability degrades), but only one has been proposed for it to start low.

Daryl wrote:"True inerrant word of god"?
Thus the bits sbout stoning adulterous women, having drunken sons slaughtered by the guards at the city gates, and a whole lot of other barbaric practices that mirror sharia law should be enforced?
What about the earlier texts that mentioned Yahweh's wife, that were conveniently dropped as the jewish then kristian religions became more patriarchal?
As to your mentioning what happened to me at a religious school, it wasn't a mix of over zealous good people and satan's minions, it was simply bullies who were drawn to an environment where they could impose their will on those too small to resist.

Ezekiel 16:32>34 speaks of idolatrous Israel being AS an unfaithful wife. If you can provide reference to others, it would be appreciated.

We are told that hypocrites will have a double portion in hell. We are also told that those who offend a little one would have been better off if they'd been tied to a millstone and thrown into the sea. It would be wise to test and see if there is a way to not join them.

DDHv wrote:If, with all these translation problems, the Bible still has fulfilled prophecies, such as Daniel 12:4

Let me stop you right there. Daniel 12:4? You're using Daniel 12:4 as proof of the bible's prophetic power?

"But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase."

Truly, I am overwhelmed by the prophetic power of these words!

and those we know now can be fulfilled, such as Matthew 24:21>22 ( a few decades back, LIFE magazine had an article explaining about the known weapons which could wipe out all human life), why should we ignore it?

Matthew 24:21 is not a prophecy.

"For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.

Now, granted, that sounds like something important and grave, but what is it actually talking about?
Maybe Matthew 24:20 can help?

"But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath.

Oh. It's travel advice. "If you do flee, do not do so in Winter".

Your standards for what constitutes prophecy are abominably low.

There are also many places where great insistence was made that the Bible was wrong, such as with the Hittites, David's kingdom, Solomon's mines and stables, etc. until the archeologists and other scientists found out the facts.

And as we all know, if you can prove a part of something to be true, then the entirety of it must be true!

Oh wait, that's not how anything works.

And above all, no one has proposed any reason for the cosmos to have low energy entropy and low information entropy without a creation by power and understanding, as described in the Bible. We know of many ways entropy can increase (availability degrades), but only one has been proposed for it to start low.

Neither do we have evidence to show that an intelligence was behind the creation of the universe.

And here you go again - misinterpreting, misrepresenting and mis-attributing.

Tenshinai wrote:

Imaginos1892 wrote:Based on no evidence, you claim that gods do not exist

Shows how well you read. When exactly did i EVER claim that? Oh right, i never did.

You seem to have decided that you own it.

Imaginos1892 wrote:and anybody who disagrees with you is delusional

No, anyone who claims that writings of questionable origin MUST be divinely inspired

I have never said or implied anything of the sort. That bullshit is all yours.

because someone said so, might be delusional.

Since I never wrote that, I'm not the delusional one.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Are you really incapable of understanding a few sentences written in simple English?

Coming from someone who is unable to do exactly what you complain about, that´s pretty damn stupid.

I´ve worked as a proofreader for English and Swedish, and as a translator between the two.
Oh right, i´m also educated as a linguist with focus on those same two languages.

I´m not the one having any trouble with English here.

Really? You have certainly failed to understand what I wrote.

Imaginos1892 wrote:You misunderstand what I write, misrepresent what I believe, and attempt to ridicule me based on your own bullshit which you falsely attribute to me.

Perhaps you should learn English then, make sure to actually say what you want rather than your usual rants?

As long as you keep saying one thing and then gripe about being called on it, you really don´t have anything to stand on for complaining.

I will stop "griping" when you stop misrepresenting what I write.

I have never said or implied that anybody should ever believe anything without facts, evidence and logic. That is how this whole thing started -- I made a general statement that Militant Atheists who make absolute claims that gods do not exist are as guilty of faith as the True Believers who claim that they do. Both groups hold beliefs unsupported by facts. You decided the shoe fit and have been all pissy about it ever since.

Imaginos1892 wrote:
snip

I have never said or implied that anybody should ever believe anything without facts, evidence and logic. That is how this whole thing started -- I made a general statement that Militant Atheists who make absolute claims that gods do not exist are as guilty of faith as the True Believers who claim that they do. Both groups hold beliefs unsupported by facts. You decided the shoe fit and have been all pissy about it ever since.

Again: a good process for testing ideas is much more critical than the conclusions. If bad tests are used, poor results will occur.


BTW, shouldn't there be a difference between a faith supported by facts, evidence, and logic, and one that consists of a leap into the dark


PS

Less than a month after a news outfit reported that dozens of airport employees around the country have potential ties to terrorists, officials from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) admit that only three airports in the United States require workers to undergo security checks.

One problem with much of government is the difficulty of firing anyone who doesn't do their work