Reverse realm and contradictions of bible translation

-

There are evidences that the translations from a book of 66 books are sophisticated copies of the Catholic bible since all books of the new testament have been carrying precisely the same mistranslations and contradictions which proceeded from the one mastercopy which belongs to the doctrine of the State of Vatican and the Mother church

-

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Your statement about 'Protestant bible translation' is not true. Do you have a particular translation in mind when you make that statement?

Actually all of the 'Protestant' translations that I know of are translated directly from Greek and Hebrew texts. The only exception I know of is John Wycliffe's translation. It was translated from Latin in the 1380s. There is no intermediate translation step between the original language and the English version. I'd like to say something about the Greek text - the text of the New Testament in this post. There has been much study of the Greek manuscripts on whici the current Greek text is based over the last 500 years. There has also been much archeological discovery.

The following is a quote from 'The New Testament Documents - Are They Reliable' by F.F. Bruce, IVP 1985.

The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no-one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. ... There are inexistence over 5000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part. The best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350... Earlier still is a fragment of a papurus codex conaining John 18:31-33, 27 ...dated on palaeographical grounds around AD 130... ... Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar's 'Galic War' (composed between 58 and 50 BC) there are several extant MSS, but only 9 or 10 are good, and the oldest is 900 years later than Caesar's day... The 'History of Thucydides' (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era. The same is true of the 'History of Herodotus' (C. 488-428 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodocus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1300 years later than the originals.

I do not have time to type more, but I recommend that book to you, as it contains a wealth of additional material.

Edited by Richh, : I incorrectly listed William Tyndale as the one who translated the Bible from Latin.

Edited by Richh, : No reason given.

From CrazyDiamond7's reply, he says the problem is with the translation, not the doctrine.

There is much evidence that the Protestant bible translation is a sophisticated copy of the Catholic Bible, because since the Protestant bible had been showing up, all books of the new testament has been carrying precisely the same mistranslations and contradictions which proceeded from the one mastercopy which belongs to the spiritual ordinances that were left to the doctrine of the Catholicism and the [holy] Mother city--congregation, (i.e. Rome and the State of Vatican).

I believe the Douay-Rheims translation of the Catholic Bible are translated form the Vulgate, a Latin translation of the Bible translated by Jerome. That is a two step translation process. Jerome's translation is called the Vulgate because it was translated into 'common' Latin, the language of the people at the time. The New Testament was written in 'Koine' Greek- the common Greek of the people at the time it was written. This shows that the goal of scripture and translation is to be understood.

I want to add another quote from 'The New Testament Document' mentioned in my previous post.

The study of the kind of attestation found in MSS and quotations in later writers is connected with an approach known as teaxtual criticism. This is a most important and fascinating branch of study, its object being to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question. It is easily proved by experiment that it is difficult to copy out a passage of any considerable length without making one or two slips at least. When we have document like our New Testament writings copied and recopied thousands of times, the scope for copyist's errors is so enormously increased that it is surprising that there are no more that there actually are. Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proprotionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording in not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkable small. The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historical fact or Christian faith and practice.

Most Protestant translations are made directly from the text produced by this textual analysis.

The Books of the Bible that were written in Hebrew are well over 2,000 years old. These books date back to well before the printing press, and it was required that men of the time know the Books of Moses inside and out. These Books were generally taught through oral recitation, as was most knowledge of the times; that is, the knowledge was spoken and repeated. Very few had the ability to read or write.

Here the whole idea falls apart. It doesn't matter how many illiterate people there were. The only question is, did an original copy survive? (Even the phone game ends with the original copy being read aloud.)

It's been suggested that your "point" is the reason for 2 versions of the creation story. A rebuttal to that is perhaps there were 2 documents telling 2 sides to the same story. Adam having written one or both of them. Moving to modern times, there are more original copies of the Scriptures to work off of than any other document in history. Something like 20,000 hand written source copies.

there are more original copies of the Scriptures to work off of than any other document in history.

What is an 'original copy' and how does one come to the conclusion that a copy is the 'original copy'?

there are more original copies of the Scriptures to work off of than any other document in history. What is an 'original copy' and how does one come to the conclusion that a copy is the 'original copy'?

Excellent question. I misspoke.
We have no original manuscript (MSS}copies. We only have 24,000 extant copies. (The next highest number is the iliad with about 650) The accuracy of the copies compared to each other gives us a measure of how close the copies are likely to be to the missing original. A comparison of all the Extant MSS has turned up only an occasional letter being miss-copied or transposed.

(I emailed one of the researchers for the Dead Sea Scrolls a number of years back and he told me the fragments found were similarly accurate.)

Edited by Sky-Writing, : No reason given.

Edited by Sky-Writing, : No reason given.

Edited by Sky-Writing, : .

We have no original manuscript (MSS}copies. We only have 24,000 extant copies. (The next highest number is the iliad with about 650) The accuracy of the copies compared to each other gives us a measure of how close the copies are likely to be to the missing original. A comparison of all the Extant MSS has turned up only an occasional letter being miss-copied or transposed.

I tried to find out more about this with a very quick, very general google search, but I was very unsuccessful. I tried lots of variations on keywords like "original" and "manuscripts" and "quantities" but all of them for many, many pages were all entries which were almost entirely identical to each other saying essentially the same thing (paraphrased):

quote:

---

Julius Caeser has only 10 copies of his "Gallic Wars" manuscript which is 900 years later than the original, the new testament has 24000 copies with the earliest being about 150AD

---

.

The veracity of this I have been entirely unable to verify because it is patently obvious that all the religious sites have poisoned the well and real information is the proverbial needle in a haystack made of needles.

But, it occurs to me that this is a blind alley - Julius Caeser has many other pieces of information about him than one manuscript which was, after all, a dry text meant for scholars, not laymen. There's coins, busts, journals and more from third party and wildly remote sources all from the same time which add up together in perfect harmony.

the bible, on the other hand, whilst having 24000 extant copies or what-have-you has only the bible to confirm itself. Big difference.

and come on, in two thousand years, I'm pretty sure there will be more than 24000 copies of starwars - but does that mean that greedo existed? or (heaven forbid) jarjar?

there's even the jedi's own gnostic heresy - the holiday special.

The accuracy of the copies compared to each other gives us a measure of how close the copies are likely to be to the missing original....... I tried to find out more about this with a very quick, very general google search, but I was very unsuccessful. I tried lots of variations on keywords like "original" and "manuscripts" and "quantities" but all of them for many, many pages were all entries which were almost entirely identical to each other saying essentially the same thing (paraphrased).......

So your research skills are poor and all the information you could find is in agreement with me, yet my conclusions are wrong? Uncle. I Give.

So your research skills are poor and all the information you could find is in agreement with me, yet my conclusions are wrong? Uncle. I Give.

That's not what I meant, forgive me for missing out certain details - whilst you missed the obvious stress I was putting on "very very brief" (meaning that it was far from a dedicated search through a mountain of archives supported by conversations with specialists) I didn't make it clear enough that the pages all agreeing with each other were entirely, without fail, all religious and all parroting a single source - as in not only were they undeniably biased to start with but they offered no independant proof and contained no original work save reading the same single book they were all paraphrasing from.

You also offered no thoughts on the rest of the message - as in the fact that the many extant copies are copies of the same source and offer no proof outside of themselves in gauging the accuracy of their account - whilst Caeser's existence is backed up by many related AND unrelated sources of information, and whilst there may only be 10 copies of that one work of his, that is far from the only source of information on the man himself.

So, now I've pointed out what you misunderstood, any new thoughts?

Participants,

Please try to provide an appropriate subtitle to reflect the point of the post.

Thanks
AdminPD

-

-

Leave out the atrium of the court which is outside of the Temple
and do not measure it, for it has been given to the nations.

The atrium of the court is every extension of scripture in the Ancient and New testament that does not refer to the Temple of I AM and is neither related to the altar and the procedure for one to offer a lamb.

-

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

In order to verify what the original Scripture is, there is a measurement verification for one to see first which copies of scripture are false, and it is very easy to prove if one first verifies the evidences that the corrupted ones came from the same source

It is? great, let's hear it!

There is much evidence that the Protestant bible translation is a sophisticated copy of the Catholic Bible since all the books of the new testament that are in the versions of the Protestant bible carry precisely the same mistranslations and contradictions that came from the one mastercopy belonging to the spiritual ordinances once left to the doctrine of the Catholicism and the [holy] Mother city--congregation, (i.e. Rome and the State of Vatican).

Oh brother.

firstly, the protestant bible was a new retranslation of earlier greek texts, not a retranslation of either the catholic version nor the vulgate latin that bore it.

Secondly, how do you know there are "mistranslations and contradictions that came from the one mastercopy"? If all you have is the "mastercopy", you can never know that the "mastercopy" holds "mistranslations"!

Contradictions, perhaps, but is that the fault of the "mastercopy" or the fault of the text itself?

So, you can tell if the copies are "in agreement" with other copies - sure - but that doesn't mean much now, does it?

All these manuscripts and their copies have been locked by the same keys

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Sky Writing,

it was a long long long long long time ago when I went over all this but trust me there are a lot of issues between manuscripts and translations. FYI: Original manuscripts are identified as "autographs".

p.s. I will repost here later with some more info in relation to the errors between biblical translations and manuscripts.

---------------repost-----------------------

Hey, here is the link to one of the other EVC threads discussing the differences between translations and manuscripts.

FYI: This link is just one of many.

Edited by Sasuke, : link

Edited by Sasuke, : edit - link didnt post first time

Edited by Sasuke, : edit

FullCircle,

Excellent post.

Edited by Sasuke, : edit