Conceptional thoughts.... where are we headed? - Page 2 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: Conceptional thoughts.... where are we headed?
Saturday, March 05, 2005 4:52 AM on j-body.org
Jbody, by that same token, You're open to being wrong too. the difference, I'm willing to accept whatever happens equally, No let-downs. I just wonder what you're going to do if you die, and on the otherside you happen to meet Krishna, Buddha, or whomever other than St. Peter...

Agree to disagree? First time you've used that phrase. I'm willing to accept that you can do whatever you want and say whatever you want as long as you don't try to ask me to buy into it as well. That's the difference between yourself and I. I know that there's a good probability I'm wrong and we could just be one small part of a universe that was created so someone could go on an intergalactic cruise in their office. I'd rather that than ostensibly believe in something that is known and reproven numerous times to be incorrect, in accurate, and a patchwork of images from other cultures used to turn political power in one man's favour.





Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.



Re: Conceptional thoughts.... where are we headed?
Saturday, March 05, 2005 10:37 AM on j-body.org
Quote:

Anyhow, to make a circle into what Jive is saying: How are the things not comprehensible? How do you know that there are not people out there that comprehend it already? After all, there are how many genes that we don't yet know what they do--could some of them be for tepeathy, astral projection, psionics, and psychic ability? I can't answer that, but you're taking all humans on the same level--which we are not.


Good point, but that's like saying becuase we only use 10% of our brain, who knows what we could do if we could use even five more percent. Religious people live by faith, the understanding that we believe in something that is not proven, something that we can't see or touch, but is possible, this we know. Thinking about genes that we don't yet know what they do, of what we could do if we could use more of our brain, sounds pretty close to useing faith of what could be, kind of like faith in the possibility of there being a God. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, if you are going to use that arguement, then you must be prepared to use faith in order to justify your reasoning for useing ideas that haven't happened yet, or that we don't even know will happen at all.

And yes, I do believe that all humans are on the same level, being we came from the same creator, we made everyone with the same method, thus making everyone on the same level.

Quote:

I'd rather that than ostensibly believe in something that is known and reproven numerous times to be incorrect, in accurate, and a patchwork of images from other cultures used to turn political power in one man's favour.


I have to say, that is one of the strongest opinions about what christianity is that I've ever heard. Two things, ultimately it is only an opinion, and you could use the whole thing to describe marcoevolution as well.



Re: Conceptional thoughts.... where are we headed?
Saturday, March 05, 2005 2:55 PM on j-body.org
Jive:

EVERYTHING take a measure of faith--because of the nature of perception. Here's an intresting question for you to get how i'm coming onto this: Is the man at the psychiatrist afflicted with an illness that makes him hear voices, or is he really hearing the voices, and the psychiatrist and the rest of humanity not able--or not willing to hear what is being said.

As such, humans, are all NOT on the same level because like in the mental and physical realms, we're all very different. Not better or worse, just diffferent.

However, in the existential, faith is somewhat of a misnomer: You, Hahaha, JB4JC, pretjah, and a lot of others don't really take God and Jesus on faith--they are simply truths of existance. You don't need to prove it because to you there needs to be no proof--your sensory inputs tell you that He esists. On the same token, in my case, Astral projection, Telepathy, psionics, spectres, and psychic ability exist--i can't prove it but to me they are de-facto truths of existance because i have.

So thus, in a logical explanation...there may be some gene turned on that makes it so that i can percieve those things, and the none for God turned off...and vice-versa to yuo all compared to me. Not that there's anything wrong with that. on the base level i look at it like this--i do what it takes to get me throuhg today and experience the splendour of life in all of the way i can percieve it. So do the rest of you--and no one is going to look at it the same way.




Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Re: Conceptional thoughts.... where are we headed?
Saturday, March 05, 2005 3:25 PM on j-body.org
Quote:

Is the man at the psychiatrist afflicted with an illness that makes him hear voices, or is he really hearing the voices, and the psychiatrist and the rest of humanity not able--or not willing to hear what is being said


Ok, I understand where you're coming from. My thought is this, because we don't know whether he is really hearing voices or not, because we can't study a patients mind, does that make it uncomprehensible to us? Does the fact that we can't limit of define the boundries of somethings such as the mind, or a pychological condition, deem those things uncomprehensible and subject to a higher being?

Quote:

As such, humans, are all NOT on the same level because like in the mental and physical realms, we're all very different. Not better or worse, just diffferent.


I can see how from our perspective as humans could see humans as being on different levels. I guess from my point of view (being a christian), believeing that everything is equal under God not only seems physical, but logical as well. I just don't see how being different makes us on different levels. I know the second you read this you are probably going to say, "he just doesn't understand this on the same level as me:". If so, is that what you mean by "different levels? And if we are on different levels, wouldn't that by definition make us either better or worse then the next guy? This question comes about with the assumption that you are refering to "different levels" as the whole human being on a different level, physical aspects, mental aspects, intellectual aspects. if you are just refering to "different levels" on a perception level, such that, "I perceive things on a different level then you". Then my question makes no sense.




Re: Conceptional thoughts.... where are we headed?
Saturday, March 05, 2005 4:11 PM on j-body.org
Keeper, look at the bunch you lumped my in with.. Couldn't it have been Andazzo or someone a little more loving?

Anyway, yes, to me God is as real as the breath of life itself. You have a point, it's not really faith, to me, it is truth. Of course so are all of things you describe, to me, God left some of his tools behind and every once in a while comes a person who can see them. The danger I see is that we don't know how to use them, and really shouldn't be playing with them. We are but children to the Father.


PAX
Re: Conceptional thoughts.... where are we headed?
Sunday, March 06, 2005 12:06 PM on j-body.org
Quote:

Ok, I understand where you're coming from. My thought is this, because we don't know whether he is really hearing voices or not, because we can't study a patients mind, does that make it uncomprehensible to us? Does the fact that we can't limit of define the boundries of somethings such as the mind, or a pychological condition, deem those things uncomprehensible and subject to a higher being?


Actually, we *do* limit it. Look at it this way--whether the universe is a stand-alone entity, or some deity controls/created it, the universe in its entirety is infinite or pretty damned close. As such, it is not impossible--but unlikely that there are dimensions, concepts, rules, powers, energy fields--the like, that one person can tap into and use, that other people cannot. In this method, both Science and Religion stifle that ability; if you look at how the Christians deal with witchcraft (for a representative example of organized religion), and Science stances on psychic phenomina and ESP, you see that there is a segment of the universe that most likely DOES exist, but we prevent ourselves from going there.

However, as I said, everyone is different--doesn't mean better or worse (and in a sense can still mean "all equal in God's eye"), so thus, there is a decent segment of the universe you can percieve that I can't, and a decent segment of the universe I can percieve that you can't. Look at that how you wish--Whether it be that on the genetic level we're different, or that God has a different plan for me than he has for you, all in all it doesn't matter. I, like you, am played what I'm dealt--whether the dealer is a deity, or is a double-helix molecule.

Quote:


I can see how from our perspective as humans could see humans as being on different levels. I guess from my point of view (being a christian), believeing that everything is equal under God not only seems physical, but logical as well. I just don't see how being different makes us on different levels. I know the second you read this you are probably going to say, "he just doesn't understand this on the same level as me:". If so, is that what you mean by "different levels? And if we are on different levels, wouldn't that by definition make us either better or worse then the next guy? This question comes about with the assumption that you are refering to "different levels" as the whole human being on a different level, physical aspects, mental aspects, intellectual aspects. if you are just refering to "different levels" on a perception level, such that, "I perceive things on a different level then you". Then my question makes no sense.


To elaborate on the "difference" Think of it this way--what's the better car? Cavalier or Sunfire? While that debate is STILL going on, quantitively, they're equal--but have key differences to them.

Humans are similar--in the summative quatity, we're all equal give or take a bit--but in the end, we're all just as fragile and weak. But to give a prime example, picture this If everyone was equal, then, I should be able to take Event in a fight, right?? We all know the answer to that question is, "No way in hell."

Your question does make sense, but like your question of the first religion, it leaves out the reference frame--and that can make all of the difference. New York City gets more rain per year on average than Seattle--So why is Seatle called the Rain City? Mostly because Seattle's rainy season is September to June, and it's slow drizzle most of the time. So, where are we headed? Dunno, i'm just enjoying the ride...

Okay, sorry about that hahaha. You are in the more loving category Like Jive and Andazzo

Bit i ask you this--why would God leave his tools behind if he didn't mean for someone to use them?




Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Re: Conceptional thoughts.... where are we headed?
Sunday, March 06, 2005 2:57 PM on j-body.org
I don't know, but.. Just a thought.. Maybe he didn't leave them out, maybe some bad spirit borrowed them and never returned them like so many bad neighbours.

PAX
Re: Conceptional thoughts.... where are we headed?
Sunday, March 06, 2005 6:01 PM on j-body.org
Jive:
Jive wrote:
Quote:

I'd rather that than ostensibly believe in something that is known and reproven numerous times to be incorrect, in accurate, and a patchwork of images from other cultures used to turn political power in one man's favour.


I have to say, that is one of the strongest opinions about what christianity is that I've ever heard. Two things, ultimately it is only an opinion, and you could use the whole thing to describe marcoevolution as well.


I made a mistake in what I typed but I think you got the Jist of it.

I won't break into a lok and nauseting dissertation of all the books to read and digest (because frankly, I know of about 15 of them, and they're about and interesting as watching paint dry), but quite literally, the Catholic church (which, for better or worse is whence all Christian religions have spawned) and the Bible were not merely an organisation of tools and faith, because, frankly, the bible was commissioned by a PAGAN Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great. Reason behind him coallating the Bible of a faith: Political power.

Jesus was a descendant of the house of David, and as such, heir the the throne of Israel. If, as such, he was truly to be hier, he'd have had to be born of a blood relation to the throne (Joseph). Now hold on here... that makes Jesus a mortal. AND the biggest think that you'd notice, the bible describes him as being born immaculately (which is interesting, because the egyptian God Horace was born immaculately of his mother Isis, as well as numerous roman gods being born of Zeus, with no involvement of Hera or others), which is interesting, as there are several Dead sea scrolls as well as other biblical era writings (which I honestly forget) that discount his conception as being immaculate (not like the National Enquirer, these were chronicles of Jews at the time that were given to writing about the life and times of the new King).

Now, irrespective of the fact that there is, in fact, no actual original draft of the bible itself, as well as irrespective of the fact that the bible was originally written in 4 or more languages (respectively, ancient hebrew, mesopotamian, aramaic, and latin), there were over 80 volumes (epsitles, books and gospels) that were originally dedicated to the life, times and trials of Jesus Christ. Here's the rub: they were all written by humans, and they were mostly rejected by Constantine. Why? they bespoke Jesus to be a mortal, and little more. As well, many of the included tomes in the new testament were altered, including pagan iconography such as burial and resurrection after 3 days, and the rite of God-eating (or taking of communion).

Also, some of the most contentious points of alteration were those dealing with Mary Magdalene, the common whore. Actually, she was shown numerous times to have been Jesus' consort, or companion (the Aramaic word for companion in use at the time was equal to spouse), and interestingly enough, she was also of a royal house of Israel, the house of Benjamin. If they had children (also called the children of Zion IIRC) they would have produced heirs to that throne, and as such, Rome would have to contend with another very powerful nation.

Here's the major question: WHY?

Simply, at the time of the coallation of the bible, Jesus had been long dead (IIRC about 80 years) and the roman empire was becoming fractious. There had been a caesar that was Christian, but he hadn't lasted 1 full year, and due to Constantine's advancing age (at the time of the writing of the bible that we most closely know, he was 53-57), he wanted to soldify his hold on the empire, so to make his lineage future Caesars. He made the bible appeal to both sides of the senate, as well as the people. Christians and Pagans could live more or less in harmony because the Pagans wouldn't feel Christians too far separated from their beliefs, and Christians wouldn't see their neighbours as aggressive threats under the reigns of the Emperor.

The major under current is, that at the time of the writing of the Bible, Christian denizens and Pagan denizens of Rome were at about equalibrium, as well, so were the armies of Rome (at this point, no longer expanding, but routinely marching on Rome to install a new General as Caesar every 5-10 years). Constantine had, in the writing, editing and alteration of a historical document, consoldated his line's power over the world for ages (as in, 2000 years).

Constantine, on his death bed, and under (albeit, weak) protest was baptised as a Christian.

Since then, there have been at least 2 major translations, and innumerable minor revisions, rephrasings, and alterations to the bible as it was printed, not the least of which is the fact that when Rome fell to the Germanic hoardes, there were only about 4 complete copies of the bible in scroll form, and the only ones known to have been copied were in Ireland's missions.

Now, fast forward to the King James translation, there are several translations that do not hold from copies of the untranslated bible, and deviate significantly from the Latin text. Which ones, escape me right now... I'll find them if my academic interest tweaks me hard enough .

See, there has been so much in the way of change in the bible itself, and so many interpretations, obfuscations, and mis-readings that it is, without a doubt, a very corrupt religion.

However, I am not saying it's a bad thing. Christianity has helped give decent direction to innumerable people's lives, and has also given structure to many more. I'm not at all disocunting the fact that it has been, for the greater part, a positive force in the world.

I am also stating, that I do not follow what is written in the bible or most Christian teachings as spelled out therein, because it is not something that I can, being enlightened of the facts behind the bible, follow without doubt.

I do (mostly) believe there is a God, but at that point, it ends. Concerning Jesus, I have no doubt at all that he did live, and that he did introduce a value system to the western cultures that has been followed (more or less). I also know that the same kinds of teachings are present in Hindu (particularly Hari-Chrishnan) and Buddhist religions.

I also, don't hate people that decide that I'm going to hell if I don't follow their narrow view on life as dictated by a book whose life has been altered and adulterated for most of it's 2000 some odd years in existence. I just hope that at somepoint, they can learn the facts, and be informed about their belief system. If you choose to believe beyond that is none of my purview. I can only present what facts I have, and my point of view, and if you have a different one, so be it. I don't scacely think I'm going to make other people change their minds, but I do hope that they can do some critical thinking and evaluating of their own ideals.

We are nothing without our own thoughts.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.


Re: Conceptional thoughts.... where are we headed?
Sunday, March 06, 2005 8:09 PM on j-body.org
Gam, if you don't like a Christians narrow view point as you call it, your not going to like the bible's narrow view point either. You can downplay the good book as much as you like, you still seem to miss the whole premise of Christianity. It's not about the people who make up Christianity, it's not about the different translations of the bible. Its all about Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. That's 2000 years of truth, so what difference does it make if you care about a bible written in lay mans terms, when what you really mean to say is you have already chosen.



Smile, Jesus loves you!!!!! <><
Manchild-ProPain, out now, Sphereofhiphop.com
Re: Conceptional thoughts.... where are we headed?
Monday, March 07, 2005 2:34 AM on j-body.org
If you had read the whole thing, you would have read the last part as well. You wouldn't have needed that extra post off your 100 limit.


Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.


Re: Conceptional thoughts.... where are we headed?
Monday, March 07, 2005 2:39 AM on j-body.org
Oh, btw, If you actually HAD read it, I basically pointed out the bible, from the outset wasn't at all a truthful depiction of the World before and during the time of Jesus. If you choose to believe, that's fine by me, I'm just shooting out a little knowledge that Christians should have, Consider it the counterpoint to your misinterings that everyone (not matter how evil, vile and futile) should turn to Christianity.

Just pointing out that the slight turn of a phrase changes a lot if you look at a historical meaning.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.



Re: Conceptional thoughts.... where are we headed?
Monday, March 07, 2005 9:30 AM on j-body.org
Saw this bumper sticker "Firemen don't save, Jesus saves!" on some jackasses bumper yesterday, too bad the firemen infront of him didn't see it I'd bet they'd have something to say to him.







Re: Conceptional thoughts.... where are we headed?
Monday, March 07, 2005 10:11 AM on j-body.org
Hahahaha wrote:I don't know, but.. Just a thought.. Maybe he didn't leave them out, maybe some bad spirit borrowed them and never returned them like so many bad neighbours.

PAX


Well, if he wants me to return them, all he has to do is ask But for now, i'm keeping the rust off of them and in good condition.


Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Re: Conceptional thoughts.... where are we headed?
Monday, March 07, 2005 4:25 PM on j-body.org
Quote:

However, as I said, everyone is different--doesn't mean better or worse (and in a sense can still mean "all equal in God's eye"), so thus, there is a decent segment of the universe you can percieve that I can't, and a decent segment of the universe I can percieve that you can't. Look at that how you wish--Whether it be that on the genetic level we're different, or that God has a different plan for me than he has for you, all in all it doesn't matter. I, like you, am played what I'm dealt--whether the dealer is a deity, or is a double-helix molecule.


I feel you on this one. Everyone precieves and interprets everything differently.

Quote:

Bit i ask you this--why would God leave his tools behind if he didn't mean for someone to use them?


If God left tools behind I would think that He did it for a reason, if we are to follow everything that flows with christianity. Whoever sees them will ultimately use them in a way that God wanted to accomplish whatever God has in mind....
Just my opinion.

GAM: You going to have to give me a day on your post....... lol, that's a lot of imformation. I'll get to it tomorrow......



Re: Conceptional thoughts.... where are we headed?
Monday, March 07, 2005 5:06 PM on j-body.org
Jive: and I gave you the distilled version!

Take all the time ya need



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.


Re: Conceptional thoughts.... where are we headed?
Tuesday, March 08, 2005 11:20 AM on j-body.org
Quote:

the Catholic church (which, for better or worse is whence all Christian religions have spawned) and the Bible were not merely an organisation of tools and faith, because, frankly, the bible was commissioned by a PAGAN Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great. Reason behind him coallating the Bible of a faith: Political power.

It is unclear what exactly Constantine sought more from christianity, political power, or personal act. The population of christians in that time was very small, so sideing with the christians just to gain there confidents doesn't seem likely. It is true that he observed both christianity and pagan worshipers alike, but it is shown that he flavored christianity with acts like preferring the company of christians bishops over pagan priests. And although he didn't get baptisted until just before his death, it was common practice to wait until later on in life to get baptisted in that time. As far as the Bible goes, whatever version of the Bible that Constantine came up with wasn't the only one that made it through to today. The eariest known copies of the old testatment was completed by 500 BC in Hebrew. The New Testatment was completed in Greek by the first century AD. These were the texts that were used to translate in to other languages such as English and German.

Quote:

he'd have had to be born of a blood relation to the throne (Joseph). Now hold on here... that makes Jesus a mortal.

Everything that we known about Jesus is based on the fact that he was perfect, sinless, immortal. Now you are saying that he isn't and are backing that up with "to take the throne he would of had to be a blood relation to Joseph". That's a little light for trying to refute the very foundation of christianity. Jesus was known as the son of God by he followers, Joseph was his earthly father. If you were one that didn't believe that he was the son of God then you would believe that he was the son of Joseph and that he was heir to the throne, either way, doesn't change the belief or disprove the belief that Jesus could of been immortal.

Quote:

AND the biggest think that you'd notice, the bible describes him as being born immaculately (which is interesting, because the egyptian God Horace was born immaculately of his mother Isis, as well as numerous roman gods being born of Zeus, with no involvement of Hera or others), which is interesting, as there are several Dead sea scrolls as well as other biblical era writings (which I honestly forget) that discount his conception as being immaculate (not like the National Enquirer, these were chronicles of Jews at the time that were given to writing about the life and times of the new King).

But Jesus and christianity is still worshiped today, as the other are not. Well, are not that I know of, and even if they are, they're not even close to being on the same scale as christianity, so comparing them today would be tough.

Quote:

as well as irrespective of the fact that the bible was originally written in 4 or more languages (respectively, ancient hebrew, mesopotamian, aramaic, and latin

Ancient Hebrew was the first language of the Old Testament, The New Testament was written in Greek. Latin didn't come until Jerome wrote the "Latin Vulgate" in 382 AD.

Quote:

they were all written by humans, and they were mostly rejected by Constantine. Why? they bespoke Jesus to be a mortal, and little more. As well, many of the included tomes in the new testament were altered, including pagan iconography such as burial and resurrection after 3 days, and the rite of God-eating (or taking of communion).

The Jewish scribes who painstakingly produced each scroll were perfectionists. If they made even the slightest mistake in copying, such as allowing two letters of a word to touch, they destroyed that entire panel (the last three or four columns of text), and the panel before it, because it had touched the panel with a mistake. This demonstrates the level of faithfulness to accuracy applied to the preservation of God’s Word throughout the first couple of thousand years of Biblical transmission. This doesn't prove that the translations were perfect in anyway, but it is good evidences to show that this scribes went to great lengths to make sure it was correct.

Quote:

Now, fast forward to the King James translation, there are several translations that do not hold from copies of the untranslated bible, and deviate significantly from the Latin text. Which ones, escape me right now... I'll find them if my academic interest tweaks me hard enough

The Lain text was corrupt anyways. When scholars sought to translate the Bible in to other languages they went back to the original Greek and Hebrew translations. The first english Bible in America was the King James version, there has been a decent amount of revised Bibles from the King James that are accepted to this day. However almost always the reason for revision was to accomadate each new generation so that we could understand the Bible, so that it would make sense to us. The newer versions were designed for "phrase-to-phrase" accuracy, not so much "word-to-word" accuracy. These were made at a "junior high" level of reading so that more people could understand. Versions that have been make with revsions that give us heretical new translations that attempt to change God’s Word to make it politically correct, are simply rejected. One example of this, which has made headlines recently is the Today’s New International Version (T.N.I.V.) which seeks to remove all gender-specific references in the Bible whenever possible! Not all new translations are good… and some are very bad. This is one way we can tell which versions are corrupt of not.

QUOTE]I am also stating, that I do not follow what is written in the bible or most Christian teachings as spelled out therein, because it is not something that I can, being enlightened of the facts behind the bible, follow without doubt.
The facts about the Bible are obscure at best. We ultimately will never know if the copyers of the original Old and New testaments were writing Gods true word. Me as a christian rely on faith that it is the truth. There are facts in this information that you have presented, I'm not impling that it's all just opinion. I'm simply saying that when it comes down to it, the foundation of christianity (Jesus) can not be thoroughly proven or disproven.



Re: Conceptional thoughts.... where are we headed?
Wednesday, March 09, 2005 6:08 AM on j-body.org
Glad to see ya chewed through the bit of prose.

Jive wrote:
It is unclear what exactly Constantine sought more from christianity, political power, or personal act. The population of christians in that time was very small, so sideing with the christians just to gain there confidents doesn't seem likely. It is true that he observed both christianity and pagan worshipers alike, but it is shown that he flavored christianity with acts like preferring the company of christians bishops over pagan priests. And although he didn't get baptisted until just before his death, it was common practice to wait until later on in life to get baptisted in that time. As far as the Bible goes, whatever version of the Bible that Constantine came up with wasn't the only one that made it through to today. The eariest known copies of the old testatment was completed by 500 BC in Hebrew. The New Testatment was completed in Greek by the first century AD. These were the texts that were used to translate in to other languages such as English and German.



Constantine was, by all accounts a more devout follower of the Pagan Roman Gods than he was of the Christian deity. From what I've read about Constantine, he took the company of Christians as sort of how the president takes council of Muslim clerics...He needed to know how to play them to his own ends. Also, at the time of the first coallation of the Bible (meaning the Old Testament and the New Testatment), was about 80 years hence from the Birth of Christ, so there were as many Romans as there were Christians. I haven't read about the baptism part you say, but I can't see that being a problem, Constantine was baptised about a week before he died.

The Old testament was, definitely in ancient Hebrew, no question, but the New Testament (I'm referring to the 80 or so gospels that originally comprised it) were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin (although if you say it was in Greek I wouldn't argue, close languages) and IIRC Mesopotamian (although, I'm not entirely certain of that also). See, the thing that I'm trying to impress upon is that there is more the to the body of work... The languages are also a serious hurdle, because Jerome's latin vulgate translation took in the other languages and distilled them down to their essence, but there was quite a lot lost in translation. As I pointed out, Mary Magdalene was Jesus' partner, in Aramaic the term partner was synonmous with wife. Jerome, operating on the Catholic ideal of immaculate conception and the subjugation of Mary, would have used the Latin term for partner with merely means "friend". It's subtle, and in the grander scheme (with Mary as disciple) it works, but taken within context, it's akin to a bombshell, because Jesus (who was a Jew to begin with, so having Mary as a wife wouldn't have been a problem at the time) would not have been without sin. There are also passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls that depict Jesus as about a 12-13 yr old boy that killed birds and fish only to resurrect them... Wicked little boy? Or young saviour learning that with great power comes great responsibility? (Gotta love Spiderman for that quote, Thanks Stan LEE!!)

Quote:

Everything that we known about Jesus is based on the fact that he was perfect, sinless, immortal. Now you are saying that he isn't and are backing that up with "to take the throne he would of had to be a blood relation to Joseph". That's a little light for trying to refute the very foundation of christianity. Jesus was known as the son of God by he followers, Joseph was his earthly father. If you were one that didn't believe that he was the son of God then you would believe that he was the son of Joseph and that he was heir to the throne, either way, doesn't change the belief or disprove the belief that Jesus could of been immortal.


Okay, There are other pointers, mainly the relationship to Mary, and that the Bible borrowed heavily from other cultures in order to appease the Pagan groups that inhabited Rome (which, remember at the time of Jesus encompassed most of Europe, the Mid-east, northern Africa and into Asia Minor). Those Pagans were also Greeks, Egyptians, and other nomadic tribes. Make the ideals united in imagery, and you get a united people... it's easier to be president of the American People, than it is the European descendants, the North American Indians, and the European, Asian, Mexican, African and Indian immgrants (for example).

What I'm pointing out is that it's of no small coincidence that Egyptian God-worshiping people were a large part of the Roman empire, as were other Pagan religions.

Jesus being descended from the House of Solomon was another factor behind obfuscating his and Mary's bloodline. Rome didn't need the Jews in the empire to rise up against them.


Quote:


But Jesus and christianity is still worshiped today, as the other are not. Well, are not that I know of, and even if they are, they're not even close to being on the same scale as christianity, so comparing them today would be tough.


So in other words, Christianity should take a back seat to Buddhism and Hinduism? I dare say that at least 1/3 of the world worships a deity other than Christianity.

Also, in context to my comment, Christianity borrows a lot from other religions: The Buddhist philosophy of "do unto others," the hindu philosophy that equates to "turn the other cheek." There are pagan religious instances in the Bible, such as torture, death, and resurrection, 3 days after internment in a stone hovel. The key isn't how things are worshipped today, it's how they were in the days of Jesus.

Quote:

Ancient Hebrew was the first language of the Old Testament, The New Testament was written in Greek. Latin didn't come until Jerome wrote the "Latin Vulgate" in 382 AD.


Already addressed.

Quote:

The Jewish scribes who painstakingly produced each scroll were perfectionists. If they made even the slightest mistake in copying, such as allowing two letters of a word to touch, they destroyed that entire panel (the last three or four columns of text), and the panel before it, because it had touched the panel with a mistake. This demonstrates the level of faithfulness to accuracy applied to the preservation of God’s Word throughout the first couple of thousand years of Biblical transmission. This doesn't prove that the translations were perfect in anyway, but it is good evidences to show that this scribes went to great lengths to make sure it was correct.


The point of the jewish scribes is not in contention. Constantine's alterations are the point. The revelation of the Dead Sea Scrolls (in Hebrew, Aramaic and ancient Latin) are what point to the major flaws of the current bible. They also make Jesus out to be a mortal person, who felt guilt after killing smaller animals, even after resurrecting them. As well, the fact that the scolls (IIRC, they're about 6 feet tall and over 140 feet unrolled) are so large, I wonder about the panels you're referring to, perhaps the Dead Sea Scrolls are transcriptions of them?

Quote:

The Lain text was corrupt anyways. When scholars sought to translate the Bible in to other languages they went back to the original Greek and Hebrew translations.


I thought the only available copies of the original bible were in the Vatican... If the catholic church controls the information, they can also give the information as they see fit. <cue X-files intrigue background music>

Either way, after the Fall of Rome, there were about 4 copies of the Constantine bible (still in unedited form) and only one was being reproduced with any accuracy (in Irish missions) however, that bible was not the complete text, as I said, the body of the gospels are much larger than appear in the current bible.

Quote:


The first english Bible in America was the King James version, there has been a decent amount of revised Bibles from the King James that are accepted to this day. However almost always the reason for revision was to accomadate each new generation so that we could understand the Bible, so that it would make sense to us. The newer versions were designed for "phrase-to-phrase" accuracy, not so much "word-to-word" accuracy.


Understood, however, I would think translating the text and keeping hold of the original ideas is more important. I mean, to be frank, Japanese school-children learn some of the works of Shakespeare (depending on the prefecture) but it's translated into their language instead of the middle-english that most North American and english-speaking Europeans learn it in. The ideals are the same, just the prose is a little different... An English person can speak of the "Undiscovered Country" and "When the wind is southerly, knowing a Hawk from a handsaw," where a japanese person knows about the opportunity of new discoveries, and knowing which way the wind is blowing (figuratively speaking, of course).

Quote:

These were made at a "junior high" level of reading so that more people could understand.


Considering the average North American adult reads at a grade 6 level, I worry about that.

Quote:

Versions that have been make with revsions that give us heretical new translations that attempt to change God’s Word to make it politically correct, are simply rejected. One example of this, which has made headlines recently is the Today’s New International Version (T.N.I.V.) which seeks to remove all gender-specific references in the Bible whenever possible! Not all new translations are good… and some are very bad. This is one way we can tell which versions are corrupt of not.


As I said, Idea for idea is preferential, Phrase to phrase or ever word for word (or literal) translations leave all sorts of wiggle room for different interpretations. If there is fidelity to the ideas, I think the translations would be a lot more solid.

Quote:

The facts about the Bible are obscure at best. We ultimately will never know if the copyers of the original Old and New testaments were writing Gods true word. Me as a christian rely on faith that it is the truth. There are facts in this information that you have presented, I'm not impling that it's all just opinion. I'm simply saying that when it comes down to it, the foundation of christianity (Jesus) can not be thoroughly proven or disproven.


See, I agree with that, and again, if you choose to believe, so much the better. It's notas if I'm trying to chip away at the Christian faith, far from it in fact... I believe there was a guy named Jesus, born in Bethlehem, and he revolutionised an era and espoused a belief system that is more or less a "best-practices" compendium. I just question the bible in that it's deeply flawed as it's not a tome of religion, but of political power. I see it for what it is, and that's a religious guide. I've read the (translated) Qu'ran and I'd debated the (translated) Torah, but I don't think I'm going to get into it too deeply... It's just way too much reading, Forensic ident. books are taking up my time right now

Either way, informed belief is the best path. Temperance and vision, it's something Christ would give a thumbs up for.





Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.


Re: Conceptional thoughts.... where are we headed?
Wednesday, March 09, 2005 9:08 AM on j-body.org
Quote:

Glad to see ya chewed through the bit of prose.

lol, definitely more information then I'm use to at one time, but I enjoy these debates....

Quote:

Constantine was, by all accounts a more devout follower of the Pagan Roman Gods than he was of the Christian deity. From what I've read about Constantine, he took the company of Christians as sort of how the president takes council of Muslim clerics...He needed to know how to play them to his own ends.

Everthing that I've read tends to lean in the other direction, puting Constantine in favor of the christian religion. Seems like it's unclear enough to be a mute point for our purposes.

Quote:

because Jerome's latin vulgate translation took in the other languages and distilled them down to their essence, but there was quite a lot lost in translation.

There is no question that the Lain Vulgate was corrupt, being the the offical Bible of the Roman Catholc Church. But the first English and German translations didn't come from
the Vulgate because of this corruption, they came from the original Hebrew and Greek translations. Hebrew has one thing in common with English: they are both “picture languages”. Their words form a clear picture in your mind. As evidence of this; the first man to ever print the scriptures in English, William Tyndale, once commented that Hebrew was ten times easier to translate into English than any other language. Tyndale would certainly be qualified to make such a statement, as he was so fluent in eight languages, that it was said you would have thought any one of them to be his native tongue. As such, you could say because of the ease of the transition from Hebrew to english that the english translation would be more accurate.

Quote:

Jerome, operating on the Catholic ideal of immaculate conception and the subjugation of Mary, would have used the Latin term for partner with merely means "friend"because Jesus (who was a Jew to begin with, so having Mary as a wife wouldn't have been a problem at the time) would not have been without sin.

Again, the Bibles that we have now did not originate from the Latin text, it was proven false and corrupt by Erasmus in the early 1500's. Here's a reference:
"By the 1580's, the Roman Catholic Church saw that it had lost the battle to suppress the will of God: that His Holy Word be available in the English language. In 1582, the Church of Rome surrendered their fight for "Latin only" and decided that if the Bible was to be available in English, they would at least have an official Roman Catholic English translation. And so, using the corrupt and inaccurate Latin Vulgate as the only source text, they went on to publish an English Bible with all the distortions and corruptions that Erasmus had revealed and warned of 75 years earlier. Because it was translated at the Roman Catholic College in the city of Rheims, it was known as the Rheims New Testament (also spelled Rhemes). The Douay Old Testament was translated by the Church of Rome in 1609 at the College in the city of Douay (also spelled Doway & Douai). The combined product is commonly referred to as the "Doway/Rheims" Version. In 1589, Dr. William Fulke of Cambridge published the "Fulke's Refutation", in which he printed in parallel columns the Bishops Version along side the Rheims Version, attempting to show the error and distortion of the Roman Church's corrupt compromise of an English version of the Bible."

Quote:

There are also passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls that depict Jesus as about a 12-13 yr old boy that killed birds and fish only to resurrect them... Wicked little boy? Or young saviour learning that with great power comes great responsibility? (Gotta love Spiderman for that quote, Thanks Stan LEE!!)

To be honest with you I have never studed the Dead Sea Scrolls thoroghly at all, so I really can't reply to this.

Quote:

Okay, There are other pointers, mainly the relationship to Mary, and that the Bible borrowed heavily from other cultures in order to appease the Pagan groups that inhabited Rome

Again, the Catholic is strong in the US, no doubt about that, but you could argue that chrisitianity is bigger. It just sounds like you are refuting the Roman Catholic religion not christianity. The Geneva Bible was the first Bible brought to America by the Puritans and Pilgrims. Which was made from the first english translations by William Tyndale. Although the first english printed Bible in America was a King James version, that version was textually 95% the same as the Geneva Bible.

Quote:

Also, in context to my comment, Christianity borrows a lot from other religions: The Buddhist philosophy of "do unto others," the hindu philosophy that equates to "turn the other cheek." There are pagan religious instances in the Bible, such as torture, death, and resurrection, 3 days after internment in a stone hovel. The key isn't how things are worshipped today, it's how they were in the days of Jesus.

I have to admitt, I don't have a lot if even the basic idea about other religions, my studies have been strictly of the origin of the Bible and christianity so again I can't reply to these comments, sorry.

Quote:

As well, the fact that the scolls (IIRC, they're about 6 feet tall and over 140 feet unrolled) are so large, I wonder about the panels you're referring to, perhaps the Dead Sea Scrolls are transcriptions of them?

The panels were said to be over 150 feet long once unrolled, so it's a possibility.

Quote:

I thought the only available copies of the original bible were in the Vatican... If the catholic church controls the information, they can also give the information as they see fit.

To be honest I'm not sure about this, in my studies all the references to new translations by way of the original hebrew old testament and the greek new testament were said to be simply acquired. They're not specific on to how they were acquired. But considering how corrupt the Latin Vulgate was known to be in that time, it is unlikely that these scholars that completed the first english translations, translated them from the corrupt Roman Catholic church of that time.

Quote:

Understood, however, I would think translating the text and keeping hold of the original ideas is more important.

Good point, however I think it is worth noteing that without these revised versions only the language academics would beable to read them. Thus creating a situation just like the Latin Vulgate did with only certain people being able to read the Bible, so they could literally say whatever they want and we would have to take them for their word. With the different revisions anyone can put up a Bible and read it, interpret it for themselves,and make their own decisions.

Quote:

As I said, Idea for idea is preferential, Phrase to phrase or ever word for word (or literal) translations leave all sorts of wiggle room for different interpretations.

They are more revisions more than they are totally new interpretations. Most of the time all the authors had to revise were the most obscure words of the Elizabethan age “thee, thy, thou” pronouns, stuff of this natural. Although that still leaves open the possiblities of error, I know this.

Quote:

I just question the bible in that it's deeply flawed as it's not a tome of religion, but of political power.

I agree that the early Roman Catholic church used the Bible and religion as a means for political power. But as stated above, christianity of today did not spawn from Catholic churchs' Bible (the latin Vulgate). Thus we are not following the teaches of that Bible nor the corruptness of that church. Now I'm not saying that there isn't corrupt acts going down in religion today, Lord knows there is, but true intent of our Bible today is that of what Jesus wanted.

Quote:

Either way, informed belief is the best path. Temperance and vision, it's something Christ would give a thumbs up for.

Again I definitely agree, I think an uninformed christian blowing statements out of his mouth about things that they don't know anything about, can be just as bad as an atheist doing the same.



Re: Conceptional thoughts.... where are we headed?
Wednesday, March 09, 2005 9:28 AM on j-body.org
I thought this was a good eassy on Biblical translation, so I thought I'd throw it in here and see what yall thought.

"Formal Equivalence (word for word, as opposed to meaning-based or Dynamic Equivalence) is the term which describes the more cautious approach to biblical translation, because the translator earnestly searches for a target language word that most closely aligns with each manuscript word in the most unambiguous sense. If a Hebrew or Greek word means to “run” then literal translators should render the word “run” in the target language instead of shuffle, amble, move, skip, prance, or stroll, because neither of these verbs convey the most literal sense of running. On some occasions localized colloquialisms, slang, or idiomatic constructions force the translator to be interpretive but most words in the majority of languages have very definite meanings. “Ich werde” in German means “I will” in English - a very simple promise. These words do not mean: “I might, or I could, or I should, or I'll think about it.” Understanding cultural and socialy distinctiveness is also paramount. When being introduced, Americans generally ask: “What's your name?” whereas Germans say “Wie heissen Sie?” - How are you called? Interchanging these expressions into the other language would produce awkwardness. Translators must understand these cultural peculiarities. Formal Equivalence (also called Verbal Equivalence) is a much stricter discipline and there are tumultuous presumptions expected of literal word for word translation. Before the profusion of modern versions utilizing meaning-based methods such as Dynamic Equivalence, Paraphrase, and Theme (discussed below), the general approach to translation was the literal method. Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Douay, Bishops, King James, Revised Version, American Standard, and Revised Standard translations were all produced during the age of Formal Equivalence, and they are still reviewed with a much more critical eye and less forgiveness. One could almost say that during this period, to translate implied that a literal process was involved. Faithfulness and literalness were deemed as common bedfellows and for this reason (with extremely few exceptions) to not be literal was to be unfaithful to the craft. Many scholarly papers have excoriated literal translators over the years for seemingly inconsequential infractions of verb tense, missing a dative, ignoring the genitive, misinterpretation, or inclusion/exclusion of the definite article. Formal Equivalence is an exacting discipline and literal translators should be forewarned - of their peers."





Re: Conceptional thoughts.... where are we headed?
Wednesday, March 09, 2005 11:29 AM on j-body.org
Jive wrote:lol, definitely more information then I'm use to at one time, but I enjoy these debates....
as long as it's civil, it's cool... there's no point in discussing an idea if someone is going to get bent out of shape.

Quote:


Everthing that I've read tends to lean in the other direction, puting Constantine in favor of the christian religion. Seems like it's unclear enough to be a mute point for our purposes.


What I had read was that Constantine was a deft politician, which in my mind (and the text I was using) pointed towards the more sinister application. not to put too fine a point on it, it's the motive behind altering a historical text to one of propaganda. Either way, at least we can agree that the Latin Vulgate was pretty tainted.

Quote:

There is no question that the Lain Vulgate was corrupt, being the the offical Bible of the Roman Catholc Church. But the first English and German translations didn't come from the Vulgate because of this corruption, they came from the original Hebrew and Greek translations. Hebrew has one thing in common with English: they are both “picture languages”. Their words form a clear picture in your mind.<snip>


Image-based languages are interesting... I don't know Hebrew, so I can't say for certain about the quality and fidelity of translation. but you went into more later on in your post...
Sorry to snip your post aq bit, I just want to keep things brief.

Quote:


Again, the Bibles that we have now did not originate from the Latin text, it was proven false and corrupt by Erasmus in the early 1500's. Here's a reference: <snip>


I had read of Erasmus, but I frankly hadn't considered it. I had figured that when the original texts of the bible had been compared against the Latin Vulgate, there was gross mis-translations enough to warrant the abandonment of the latin version.

Quote:


To be honest with you I have never studed the Dead Sea Scrolls thoroghly at all, so I really can't reply to this.


I've read of them in a little detail, but I'm no authority either. Good to have some company in the boat

Quote:


Again, the Catholic is strong in the US, no doubt about that, but you could argue that chrisitianity is bigger. It just sounds like you are refuting the Roman Catholic religion not christianity. The Geneva Bible was the first Bible brought to America by the Puritans and Pilgrims. Which was made from the first english translations by William Tyndale. Although the first english printed Bible in America was a King James version, that version was textually 95% the same as the Geneva Bible.


See, here's the part that I'm not really firm on, and please correct me: I was under the impression that Christ-based worshipping religions were Christian. Now, from that, there are the Catholic-based churches, and Protestant-based Churches; the main line of division being the Idea of the holy trinity where Jesus was the son of God (Catholicism), and where Jesus was God incarnated as a mortal (Protestantism). When I took a (brief) comparitive religion course in University, the curriculum was based on Judeo-Christian ideals and times, Buddhist & Krishnan (Hindu) based religions, Islamic based, and more ancient Paganist religions. The interesting thing is that Catholicism and Protestantism were both lumped together more or less, basically seen as divided factions of the same religion, on different interpretations of the same series of events. That was where I got a lot of the back-story regarding the bible...

To be honest, until that point, I had never really bothered with religion of any type.

More on the topic a little later...

Quote:


I have to admitt, I don't have a lot if even the basic idea about other religions, my studies have been strictly of the origin of the Bible and christianity so again I can't reply to these comments, sorry.


It's an interesting quest. Although, it's not for those with doubts on their religion. Otherwise you'll end up on the other side as cynical as I am (at times).

Quote:


The panels were said to be over 150 feet long once unrolled, so it's a possibility.


Co-inkydinks abound!

Quote:


To be honest I'm not sure about this, in my studies all the references to new translations by way of the original hebrew old testament and the greek new testament were said to be simply acquired. They're not specific on to how they were acquired. But considering how corrupt the Latin Vulgate was known to be in that time, it is unlikely that these scholars that completed the first english translations, translated them from the corrupt Roman Catholic church of that time.


Here we go, what I was looking for. As I said, there were said to be 4 sets of the full biblical (untranslated) texts at the time of the fall of Rome, and I'm supposing that the Catholic Church had sheltered one set in Irish Monasteries, but the other 3 weren't really accounted for, so I'm guessing that this was where the translations were made from.

If the source cannot be identified, I'd be curious about that.


Quote:


Good point, however I think it is worth noteing that without these revised versions only the language academics would beable to read them. Thus creating a situation just like the Latin Vulgate did with only certain people being able to read the Bible, so they could literally say whatever they want and we would have to take them for their word. With the different revisions anyone can put up a Bible and read it, interpret it for themselves,and make their own decisions.


Good point on the first bit, but the second bit, is it more unsettling that the Church held the main interpretations to the bible, or that everyperson can read and quite possibly misunderstand? Given, that in my last reading of the Bible, I read it as though it were fraught with alliteration and allegory and other literary devices.

Quote:

They are more revisions more than they are totally new interpretations. Most of the time all the authors had to revise were the most obscure words of the Elizabethan age “thee, thy, thou” pronouns, stuff of this natural. Although that still leaves open the possiblities of error, I know this.


True, but, at what point do numerous revisions a new interpretation make?

Just a point of conjecture.

Quote:

I agree that the early Roman Catholic church used the Bible and religion as a means for political power. But as stated above, christianity of today did not spawn from Catholic churchs' Bible (the latin Vulgate). Thus we are not following the teaches of that Bible nor the corruptness of that church. Now I'm not saying that there isn't corrupt acts going down in religion today, Lord knows there is, but true intent of our Bible today is that of what Jesus wanted.


Well the Catholic church still stands, although, it's been a long time since I went to Mass. (btw, I was baptised Protestant, my Dad's side of the family is decidedly catholic)

Quote:

Either way, informed belief is the best path. Temperance and vision, it's something Christ would give a thumbs up for.

Again I definitely agree, I think an uninformed christian blowing statements out of his mouth about things that they don't know anything about, can be just as bad as an atheist doing the same.

There are enough of both to thoroughly nauseate most of teh .Org.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.


Re: Conceptional thoughts.... where are we headed?
Wednesday, March 09, 2005 3:34 PM on j-body.org
GAM, just a couple quick notes because I have to leave shortly but here goes:

If you die and go to Heaven, you cannot meet Budda, he never left Earth (Dali Lama).

The main difference between Protestant sects and Catholocism is recognistion of the Pope and apostlistic succession. There are others, but they agree on Christ. Both accept the Apostle's Creed as true. Christ is the son of man, but God himself. One of three persona of the "Godhead". Not God incarnate, that is different on some very fine points that would get you burned at the stake a few hundred years ago. The real argument is the organsiation of the church itself, not really so much the beliefs.

Gotta go, have a good night.


PAX

Re: Conceptional thoughts.... where are we headed?
Wednesday, March 09, 2005 4:43 PM on j-body.org
Quote:


If you die and go to Heaven, you cannot meet Budda, he never left Earth (Dali Lama).


Then, you'd have never gone to heaven then

If I said that, it was to abide the sensibilities of Christians.

Thanks for the information Hahahaha.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.


Re: Conceptional thoughts.... where are we headed?
Thursday, March 10, 2005 10:44 AM on j-body.org
Quote:

I had read of Erasmus, but I frankly hadn't considered it. I had figured that when the original texts of the bible had been compared against the Latin Vulgate, there was gross mis-translations enough to warrant the abandonment of the latin version.

After the corruption was brought to the public the Latin Vulgate was abandoned for the most part. The Roman Catholic Church tried to keep it in circulation but in the end it just couldn't compete with the Geveva and King James versions. However they did try to make their own english translation that of course failed miserablely, here's an excert:

"By the 1580's, the Roman Catholic Church saw that it had lost the battle to suppress the will of God: that His Holy Word be available in the English language. In 1582, the Church of Rome surrendered their fight for "Latin only" and decided that if the Bible was to be available in English, they would at least have an official Roman Catholic English translation. And so, using the corrupt and inaccurate Latin Vulgate as the only source text, they went on to publish an English Bible with all the distortions and corruptions that Erasmus had revealed and warned of 75 years earlier. Because it was translated at the Roman Catholic College in the city of Rheims, it was known as the Rheims New Testament (also spelled Rhemes). The Douay Old Testament was translated by the Church of Rome in 1609 at the College in the city of Douay (also spelled Doway & Douai). The combined product is commonly referred to as the "Doway/Rheims" Version. In 1589, Dr. William Fulke of Cambridge published the "Fulke's Refutation", in which he printed in parallel columns the Bishops Version along side the Rheims Version, attempting to show the error and distortion of the Roman Church's corrupt compromise of an English version of the Bible".

Quote:

I've read of them in a little detail, but I'm no authority either. Good to have some company in the boat

Maybe in 30 years we can sit down and discuss more on this over a cup of coffee after we trade our methods of viagra use........lol

Quote:

The interesting thing is that Catholicism and Protestantism were both lumped together more or less, basically seen as divided factions of the same religion, on different interpretations of the same series of events. That was where I got a lot of the back-story regarding the bible...

Aagain, unfortuniately I'm not versed on the different religions Hahahaha jump in on this one dude........this debate has definitely peeked my interest though.

Quote:

It's an interesting quest. Although, it's not for those with doubts on their religion. Otherwise you'll end up on the other side as cynical as I am (at times).

I see why you say this, but actually doubt is not always a bad thing. In fact doubt can be a very good thing because it can lead you to look for the answers you seek and in turn make your faith even stronger. It is part of the mysteries of life that we both have searched because of doubt but have (at least as of right now) ended up with different views. But then again I think that is what is so awsome about this life, we do have free will, and with it the ability to think and decide for ourselves. No gift is and will ever be greater.

Quote:

If the source cannot be identified, I'd be curious about that.

Well, after some more studing, I'm pretty much getting the some results. References to the original Hebrew and Greek texts are made but the source of where they got the texts are not disclosed. There even is some instances where the Vulgate was consulted, but not without being cross-referenced with the original text. These scholars who put these translations together where known critics of the Latin Church, so I just can't see them useing anything that they didn't know for sure wasn't the original. Although some translations consulted the Vulgate (as I stated above), the Geneva Bible was made entirely from the original texts, which was considered the authoritative Bible of the Protestants and all the English speaking world until the revised KJV came out in 1611 which was said to be in 95% textually agreement with the Geneva Bible.

Quote:

is it more unsettling that the Church held the main interpretations to the bible, or that everyperson can read and quite possibly misunderstand?

Free will is one of the keys to christianity. Giving everyone the possibility to read the Bible and interpret it for themselves is what it's all about. Especially in todays world, we are typically an independent culture and would trust our own interpretations over what someone else says seven days a week and twice on Sundays, but that's besides the point. The main point here is that we as humans all interpret things differently, we all see things from a different perspective (see Keepers posts for more on this...lol). As such, we need to see and experience things for ourselves so that we can grow individually in to what we're suppose to become. To be taught and to interpret for oneselves are two different things. We can be taught what the Bible is saying and then make our own conclusions. Just like school, professors teach us, and we interpret the information as we please, in our own individually ways. Without indenpendence and free will, who are we as a race? What I think is so beautiful is that although everything relates to everybody individually, and eventhough everybody sees things differently, we all see them how we were meant to see them, and in the way that best suits us and our own personalities.

Quote:

True, but, at what point do numerous revisions a new interpretation make?

Good point, another point to note, as our society has grown so has our understanding and knowledge of different languages, as well as new discoveres that weren't taken in to consideration during the first translations. So think of it not as just taking an old translations and making it more understandable. We might beable to make a better interpretation then the original author because of heightened knowledge of either the text or original language, or both.



Re: Conceptional thoughts.... where are we headed?
Thursday, March 10, 2005 9:10 PM on j-body.org

Before I start off, I've had a hell of a day... If I seem a bit stilited or what not, bear in mind that my job requires me to do harsh stuff sometimes, and tonight was one of those times... I can't elaborate due to pending investigations, but if you're in Law enforcement, you know about what's happened in Mayerthorpe, AB.

Jive wrote:
After the corruption was brought to the public the Latin Vulgate was abandoned for the most part. The Roman Catholic Church tried to keep it in circulation but in the end it just couldn't compete with the Geveva and King James versions. However they did try to make their own english translation that of course failed miserablely, here's an excert:<snip>


Yeah.. I can still remember, though, my Grandparents (my Dad's side, Catholic) taking me to Midnight mass on Christmas, or Easter Mass, and the prayers were in Latin. I was only about 6 at the time, so I wasn't sure what was being said. I don't know for certain, but I think it was something the Bishop of the diocese had decreed.. I haven't been back since... Either way, I find it strange that the church had allowed this, but I may be wrong in that it was only on special occasions that I went.

Quote:


Maybe in 30 years we can sit down and discuss more on this over a cup of coffee after we trade our methods of viagra use........lol
Quote:



Yeah.. we can make like baseball players... If I need Viagra in 30 years, I think I'll have bigger problems than just getting and maintaining a woodrow.

Quote:


Aagain, unfortuniately I'm not versed on the different religions Hahahaha jump in on this one dude........this debate has definitely peeked my interest though.


Yeah, this is pretty interesting alluversudden

Quote:

It's an interesting quest. Although, it's not for those with doubts on their religion. Otherwise you'll end up on the other side as cynical as I am (at times).

I see why you say this, but actually doubt is not always a bad thing. In fact doubt can be a very good thing because it can lead you to look for the answers you seek and in turn make your faith even stronger. It is part of the mysteries of life that we both have searched because of doubt but have (at least as of right now) ended up with different views. But then again I think that is what is so awsome about this life, we do have free will, and with it the ability to think and decide for ourselves. No gift is and will ever be greater.


Well, there's those little things like Fire, the wheel.. Towels... Pan-dimensional Gargleblasters...

I think I ended up where I am because I had no real roots in any church. I have friends in many different religions (hey, even Falun Gong!) and really, I think that the bigger issue outside of just to whom you offer prayer and take guidance from, is tolerance towards your fellow humans. I have to wonder about the state of things when pretty much all religions that are standing now preach tolerance, acceptance, love and peace, yet, there are so many misguided souls that see fit to ignore the teachings they find dear, and get all bent out of shape (at the best of times).

I'm not pointing fingers either, because I'm pretty sure I've been an intolerant ass at sometime in my life.

Quote:

If the source cannot be identified, I'd be curious about that.

Well, after some more studing, I'm pretty much getting the some results. References to the original Hebrew and Greek texts are made but the source of where they got the texts are not disclosed. There even is some instances where the Vulgate was consulted, but not without being cross-referenced with the original text. These scholars who put these translations together where known critics of the Latin Church, so I just can't see them useing anything that they didn't know for sure wasn't the original. Although some translations consulted the Vulgate (as I stated above), the Geneva Bible was made entirely from the original texts, which was considered the authoritative Bible of the Protestants and all the English speaking world until the revised KJV came out in 1611 which was said to be in 95% textually agreement with the Geneva Bible.


Yeah... I had figured as much. Either it's not written, has been forgotten or has been suppressed. I work in definitives, so usually I suspect the latter, but in this case we're too far removed from the original texts to cite exact sources.

Quote:

Quote:

is it more unsettling that the Church held the main interpretations to the bible, or that everyperson can read and quite possibly misunderstand?

Free will is one of the keys to christianity. Giving everyone the possibility to read the Bible and interpret it for themselves is what it's all about. Especially in todays world, we are typically an independent culture and would trust our own interpretations over what someone else says seven days a week and twice on Sundays, but that's besides the point. The main point here is that we as humans all interpret things differently, we all see things from a different perspective (see Keepers posts for more on this...lol).


Yeah, KOTL is one of the voices of reason on WF. I try to be also, but the ass hole switch in the back of my head gets flipped on periodically by some people, and I have a hard time turning it off...

Anyhow...

Quote:


As such, we need to see and experience things for ourselves so that we can grow individually in to what we're suppose to become. To be taught and to interpret for oneselves are two different things. We can be taught what the Bible is saying and then make our own conclusions. Just like school, professors teach us, and we interpret the information as we please, in our own individually ways. Without indenpendence and free will, who are we as a race? What I think is so beautiful is that although everything relates to everybody individually, and eventhough everybody sees things differently, we all see them how we were meant to see them, and in the way that best suits us and our own personalities.


I think along the same lines, but I see it as our past experiences is partly responsible for who we are. Some people can't help how they think, others can think for themselves, and yet some refuse to think for themselves. The first and the last can't be helped, because they don't know that they can think differently, or plain don't want to.

If you want a dissertation on free will and apathy, look at an election turn-out number.

Quote:

Quote:

True, but, at what point do numerous revisions a new interpretation make?

Good point, another point to note, as our society has grown so has our understanding and knowledge of different languages, as well as new discoveres that weren't taken in to consideration during the first translations. So think of it not as just taking an old translations and making it more understandable. We might beable to make a better interpretation then the original author because of heightened knowledge of either the text or original language, or both.


In conjunction with an earlier snippet, something that I've noticed (or rather, it was pointed out, and I twigged it after thinking a little longer on it) is that Protestantism has no central doctrinal dictate that has it's take on the bible entrenched. I think that's because of the lack of a central organisation (due to the innumerable factions). I noticed also, that Islam is also like this, however, the moderate sects are usually at odds with more fundamental sects (almost coming to blows at some points). Islam has no central structure either, and I fear that the more radical sects of Islam will either overpower or outlaw the other sects. One of the things that stod out to me, is that Catholicism has more or less stayed the same over 2000 some odd years because there IS a central structure (through the Pope) and there isn't splintering of opinion or interpretation.

My idea is that should either Protestantism, or Islam (or both) reign in the factional septs by organising, they'd have at least a bit more harmony. Considering they're both forged out of Jewish traditions, they're following the same routes (Judaism broken into Hacedish and non-orthodox sects, and into further septs) of factional idealism.

I just say this as a point, I remember just after 9/11/01, Billy Graham, John O'Connor (Cardinal of New York City), a non-orthodox Rabbai (forget his name... ), and a Moderate Sunni Imam (or Mofti... not sure.. ) were talking on the Today show about religion, fundamentalism, and the fact that fundamentalism crosses all religions, and that the problem is ignoring or down playing parts of their creed's books that pledge understanding, tollerance and love even in the face of a hostile enemy.

Maybe some people oughtta start reading up a little, eh?



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.


Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search