bring it back!

Post Reply New Topic

So which is longer? You contradicted yourself.

So far I have seen no evidence that the Bible has been rewritten- certainly not from your grandmother's time. I've seen fairly old Bibles that are identical to today's. I asked for a source- if you know of any evidence that the Bible has been rewritten, yes I would be interested in seeing it. Every piece of evidence I've seen so far has indicated that the Bible we have today is the same as the original. Yes it has been translated many different times, and yes there are a wide variety of English translations available, but we still have the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts to refer back to.

I am not contradicting myself , my grandmothers bible is older and longer. I am not going to argue with you, I don't need to give you any evidence ,look into it yourself. If you chose to believe that it has remained the same since it was written that is your choice.

If it was identical to the original, why did the council of nicaea have to decide what was going into it and what wasn't?

You would think they would have kept all the books. We'd be reading it in its original language. Or the priests would be reading it for us.

Believe it or not, "lost in translation" is applicable here.

How come there is a king james version?

NIV version?

roflmao

And here is a.....


"Bible Version Comparison" Website
http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html



http://bessel.org/bibles.htm
http://www.essortment.com/all/historyoftheb_rwza.htm
http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/bible.txt

And don't try to back up and say you meant that the essence and divine message of the bibles are the same no matter what. WAAYYY too late for that dude. roflmao


Let me repeat: Lost in translation. Not the exact same message. I'm glad you can read the originals, cause I sure can't, and not many other people can either. So you're expected to trust the priest/preacher in this?

I'm trying to make the point that there is no original bible.

Btw...The different books were originally letters and documents of different peoples' experiences with the christian god (persay) that the council of Nicaea decided to bind into a book.

There is no one "original" version, and in that it is faulty.

I could make a book of the experiences of saintly and touched people have had with that god, but that doesn't make it an untouched word. Certainly not if I have it translated 20mil times, to fit the generation and culture.

And besides, it takes one to know one....you need someone who is human to make what god has told somebody understandable to the masses of other people. Again, this leaves even a single word in the bible open to translation and interpretation.

I'm sure the council realized that these were written by mortal men, and decided to "interpret" them and make them into something that could be taught to the common masses by a preacher/priest.

Martin Luther (not king jr.):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

"His translation of the Bible into the vernacular, making it more accessible to ordinary people, had a tremendous political impact on the church and on German culture."

Kinda like the U.S. constitution in its interpretations

Why do people feel the need to worship something, to cower before something they make up. I don't feel I have to. Am I so unusual?

Nomnom Hamster, I am aware that there are multiple English translations available, as I mentioned in a previous post. That's because there can be differences in translation, which admittedly is not always an exact science. I have seen several different translations and haven't noticed any difference in the substance of the text, only in the diction and presentation. The King James Bible was written in a different dialect than, say, The Message Bible, because they were aimed at different times and different audiences. I would say that because of better scholarship in more recent years, there are better translations available than the King James, and the people who produced The Message translation in my opinion put too much of their own interpretation into their new translation, but the substance is still the same, and if you make a side-by-side comparison of the major English translations you won't find any differences in the meaning except possibly in the KJV using outdated word choices that could be misunderstood by a modern reader.

As I said, scholars still have the texts in the original that they base new translations on. These texts have excellent textual evidence to support them. We could have a separate argument about the process of canonization, but there were solid reasons why some books were excluded from the canonical Bible (such as some that were not thought to be authentic). If you really want to, you can still get access to these books and judge them for yourself. Really, you and "just-me" are in a tiny, largely uninformed minority on this issue. In the scholarly community, even the secular one, there is no serious doubt as to the reliable transmission of the Bible through the ages. There hasn't been for a very long time. And that's what you two were claiming- that the Bible has been rewritten. There is no evidence (that I am aware of or that either of you have been willing to present) that it has. If you want to make such claims, you should back them up.

Just-me, could you give an example of where your Bible and your grandmother's differ? It's hard to respond to your claim without any specifics to go on. And I have looked into it myself, and found no reason to doubt the authenticity of biblical texts. I asked you to provide evidence because you apparently have found sources that I must have overlooked, if you have such certain knowledge that the Bible has been rewritten multiple times. However, you consistently refuse to do so, leading me to believe that you really have no sound basis for your claims and are trying to avoid getting caught on it.

My grandmothers bible is very old and is falling apart. I don't really want to handle it because of its frail state.

But if you give me a while I may snap some web cam pictures of my bible and my grandmothers bible so you can compare the two for yourself. But it will take me a while.

well, women weren't exactly equals in those ancient cultures, I believe things were better for women in ancient egypt, than in rome and greece, however they had it better than in ancient judaism, which they were stronger on this issue, being a strong pathriarcal system.


It looks like you were kinda missing his point in which he stated that the view on women in the Bible is inferior due to their culture and their social and political system.

In a pathriarcal system it was clear that they would have to set the rules in which it would favor men superiority over women, and God being a male figure was the best way to implement that system. Historically speaking we can form the hypothesis that this may have been the reason that the only god of the new monotheist religion being male rather than a Goddess.

Women in the Bible don't have it easier actually, if you read the texts from the OT about the menstruation, and the importance of virginity on women, if they didn't bleed in their "honeymoon".....

Not to mention Paul's opinions on what is the place for women in the church and in society.

And Mary, the blessed woman who gave birth to Jesus, at the time when arrange marriages were very common, being about 13 years old, having the obligation to give herself and live with his new middle age husband Joseph, even if she didn't want to. Even though the OT was harsher towards women, NT seems to imply that women should get better treatment from men than in the OT days, however they were not allowed to do many things, and always were seeing inferior, the man always being the head and women had to obey and follow him, otherwise it would be against God's plans, clearly seen this when comparing Jesus to the husband and the followers to the wife.

Ever read Hal Borland's "When the Legends Die"? Sure, all that stuff sounds neat, but I look around and it is not the cultures and peoples who believe in this stuff that are running the planet. If there was any effectiveness in that stuff, then why don't the Native Americans control the Americas? Why don't the Aborigines run Australia? I am not slamming those cultures, I am just pointing out that all their personal power animals, spirit quests, etc. proved to be nothing when matched against determined and technologically superior invaders. One of the saddest delusions I have ever read about is the Ghost Dance of the 1890's which sprung up among the Plains tribes. They honestly believed that if they abandoned the white man's ways and went back to their old way of thinking and danced this dance, everything would be restored to them. Wounded Knee was the result. It is now more than a century later, and the Native Americans still do not control much of anything outside of a few reservation casinos.

So believe in that stuff if you want to, but don't expect it to be of much help if you suddenly find yourself facing someone who is stronger and more able to take whatever they want from you. This is not just my opinion, this is history.

Proverbs 31:10-31

There are so many people who are willfully ignorant and fight tooth and nail to keep their precious ignorance. For their side their sources are unbiased and factually true, but the opposition is lies and propaganda not worth looking into. Any information about the opposition must be gathered from their sides' trusted sources and never from the oppositions' side.

Ben Fournier,
On the Origin and Necessity of Strawmen; or the Preservation of ones' own Beliefs

i generally concur with your position in this thread, however the above remark is interesting, as it appears there is a fair amount of evidence to suggest the existence of many ancient matriarchal cultures.

patriarchy seems to be a historically fairly recent development, perhaps the product of, or at least culminating in, the abrahamic religious traditions.