Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   There is no such thing as The Bible
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 16 of 305 (58034)
09-26-2003 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Joralex
09-26-2003 2:46 PM


Perhaps you would like to explain why it is impossible to be undecided on the existence of spirits.
If you really want to make such assertiosn you had better be prepared to back them up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Joralex, posted 09-26-2003 2:46 PM Joralex has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 305 (58103)
09-26-2003 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Brian
09-26-2003 1:16 PM


quote:
It seems that many Bible's do not claim to be 'Holy'.
.........But none of them has the title of simply, "Bible," as you were implying. They all have a descriptive title, discriptive enough to identify them individually so as one can determine that the collection of books, i.e 'bible' is something specific.
They are all pretty much considered by and large as Holy Biblesby those who own and love them. Of course imo, the less literal they get the less holy they become and most on your list weren't perticularly literal in many of the texts within them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Brian, posted 09-26-2003 1:16 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by nator, posted 10-06-2003 8:42 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 305 (58106)
09-26-2003 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Asgara
09-26-2003 12:16 AM


quote:
I was under the impression that "Bethlehem Ephratah" referred to the clan of Bethlehem (from Caleb's second wife Ephrathah) not a town called Bethlehem.
The "prophesy" also seems to be referring to a military leader who will defeat the Assyrians. How do you get that a virgin will give birth to the Christ in Bethlehem out of this?
According to Matthew 2 about verses 4,5, Herod inquired of the chief priests and elders as to where the messiah was to be born and they referred to this reference that according to the prophet he was to be born in Bethlehem. Thus Herod issued the order to slaughter the little children of that area. I believe this source would trump your opinion and choose to go with it.
Also in Genesis 35:19, we read that Rachael was burried in the way of Ephrata which is Behtlehem. So we see the name not only refers a person by the name of Bethlehem who was the son of Ephrata, but that this location was evidently named after Ephrata's son, Bethlehem. The Jewish scribes and priests whom Herod questioned surely knew that as common knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Asgara, posted 09-26-2003 12:16 AM Asgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by doctrbill, posted 09-26-2003 11:39 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 25 by Amlodhi, posted 10-07-2003 9:09 PM Buzsaw has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 19 of 305 (58116)
09-26-2003 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Buzsaw
09-26-2003 12:01 AM


Isaiah 7:14 - 8:10 Contextual Considerations
"Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and ... before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, ... The LORD shall bring upon thee, ... the King of Assyria." Isaiah 7:14-17 KJV
"By the time this child is weaned ... the mighty king of Assyria will come with his great army!" vss. 16,17 Living Bible
By the time he is weaned, (age 3 to 4 in that culture) the Assyrians "will come."
You gots to think in context Buzz!
The prophecy is repeated but this time the child's name is Mahershalalhashbaz.
"... before this child is even old enough to say 'Daddy' or 'Mommy,' the king of Assyria will invade ... and carry away their riches." 8:4 Living Bible
Isaiah is so sure about this that he has his prediction recorded by "faithful witnesses."
In his first prediction Isaiah had said, "the virgin shall conceive" (Modern language Bible). In the second go around he says,
"I went in unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son."
The holy spirit tells me that both of these kids were Isaiah's children. In one instance he calls their mother, the "young woman" (almah) and in the other he calls her the "prophetess" (nebiah). I cannot say whether they were married. I doubt it. But they did work the same profession. Isaiah already had one son (by her?); a son who went with him when he visited Ahaz to make the famous prediction concerning the Assyrian invasion. Imma', his second son, and Maher', his third, were merely incidental to the point of the prophecy; objective examples of how shortly the invasion would begin. ("before he is weaned" "before he can talk")
The names of all three sons are political statements!
Son #1 -Shearjashub- means a remnant returns i.e. "POW's Come Home"
Son #2 -Immanuel- means God with us i.e. "Our Side Wins"
Son #3 -Mahershalalhashaz- means Speedy-spoil-quick-booty i.e. "Easy Pickin's"
Further evidence of the contemporary nature of Isaiah's prediction is found in verses 7 through 10 of chapter eight. He compares the Assyrian army to the Euphrates saying,
"This flood will overflow all its channels and sweep into your land of Judah, O Immanuel, submerging it from end to end.
Do your worst, O Syria and Israel, our enemies, but you will not succeed--you will be shattered. Listen to me, all you enemies of ours: Prepare for war against us--and perish! Yes! Perish! Call your councils of war, develop your strategies, prepare your plans of attacking us, and perish! For God is with us." Living Bible
The last four words, 'God is with us' are a translation of the word Immanuel.
Isaiah is already talking to his son Immanuel.
To make a long story short, the Assyrians did come, and did kick butt; and Isaiah's prediction did come true. Considering the fact that the Assyrian empire was long dead by the time JC arrived, He could not have fulfilled the requirements of this prophecy, even if he had wanted to do so.
I stumbled upon this in my reading many years ago and it angered me that I had been so gullible. I was horrified at the ignorance of my Bible instructors. I could accuse them of lying but I think they were merely unwitting parrots of a Roman Catholic tradition.
Need I say more?
------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 09-26-2003 12:01 AM Buzsaw has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 20 of 305 (58118)
09-26-2003 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Buzsaw
09-26-2003 9:59 PM


buzsaw writes:
in Genesis 35:19, we read that Rachael was burried in the way of Ephrata which is Behtlehem.
If one continues reading, one sees that "Jacob set a pillar upon her grave: that is the pillar of Rachels' grave unto this day.
Is it still there, 'to this day'?
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Buzsaw, posted 09-26-2003 9:59 PM Buzsaw has not replied

w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6108 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 21 of 305 (58323)
09-28-2003 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
09-25-2003 5:12 PM


Requested Clarifications
Hi Brian,
You seem to be fairly well versed in the textual criticism and Biblical history currently accepted by most universities. However, I am puzzled by a few of your comments. Several of your statements have left me unsure of the extent of your understanding in this area.
For instance, you mentioned several times that certain texts were written before certain other texts.
The Bibles of the 16th and 17th were obviously were translated from earlier texts, but how early were they, how close to the events they describe were they written?
...the RV contains a much shorter version, a version that is supported by texts that were written much earlier than the ones used for the AV.
...The Bibles produced since these discoveries are based on texts that were written much closer to the time of the events that they portray...
...it can be easily shown that the texts used by the Receptus include material that is not in the earlier texts...
These statements are not entirely accurate. If one were to take what you have said at face value, he would be very likely to conclude that we actually have two or more distinct, independent writings of the Bible. Such is not necessarily the case. In reality we have two or more slighty distinct and possibly independent copies of the biblical text. In such a case it is possible to have a copy which may be older than any other while yet being an inaccurate copy of the original. Therefore to make the following statement,
Hence, the AV and the other Bibles that are based on the Textus Receptus are not as accurate as the modern day Bibles.
one must demonstrate how the Textus Receptus is a less accurate copy of the original document.
Secondly, in reference to the different renditions of the Lord's prayer, you stated,
The authors of the AV obviously were using an erroneous text, or they employed poetic license, when they translated these verses into English.
Again this statement is very misleading. It is obvious from the evidence which you have presented that one of these verses was translated from an erroneous text, but you have not provided enough evidence to determine which one is in error and which is correct.
I am also confused about your treatment of what you have deemed the "most infamous variation." You quoted I John 5:7 from the KJV and compared it to the RV rendition of I John 5:8. You then concluded that,
This is quite a significant variation. A totally nave person could quite easily buy a RV of the Bible and be under the impression that the three that bear witness in heaven are the Spirit, the water and the blood, imagine how confused that person could be if a AV user comes along and gives them their check list of the three that bear witness?
I agree that there is a variation between the two texts; however, that variation does not consist of a differences between two renditions of a single list. Rather, the difference between the texts is that the KJV gives two lists while the RV only gives one.
quote:
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (I John 5:7-8 KJV)
Were you aware of this when you posted your statements?
You also stated that,
The reason for these differences is that the AV is a translation of a printed edition of the Greek New Testament that first appeared in Paris in 1550
I must admit that I am very confused about what you are saying here. Are you claiming that the Textus Receptus did not exist before 1550, or are you simply stating that its first popular printing was in 1550? I doubt that you are claiming the first, but the second statement has little to no bearing on your argument. Could you please clarify this for me?
I was rather surprised to see you state,
there isn’t a scholar on the planet who now believes Paul wrote this letter (spelling corrected)
Have you actually asked every scholar on the planet if he believes that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews?
The heading that you chose for this topic is "There is no such thing as The Bible." I understand that you think this to be a valid statement because of the differences between the great number of books claiming to be the Bible today, but I wonder, do you think that there ever was a book which could have been called "The Bible"?
I look forward to your reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 09-25-2003 5:12 PM Brian has not replied

w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6108 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 22 of 305 (59561)
10-05-2003 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
09-25-2003 5:12 PM


The Generations of Genesis
Let me briefly touch on another topic that was mentioned in your original post. You stated
that these are two different accounts of creation has been accepted by critical biblical scholars for well over a hundred years.
However I would contend that chapter two of Genesis simply provides a recap of chapter one and a transition into chapter three.
Most biblical passages are arranged in an order conducive to oral teaching. This arrangement is easily seen in such passages as Psalm 119, Proverbs 31, and Ecclesiastes 3; but it is present to some degree or another throughout every book of the Bible. Many of the narrative passages of the Bible are laid out in an arrangement very common to public speaking. For each main topic, the Bible presents an introduction followed by the major subject matter of the topic and concluded with a recap of the current subject and a transition into the next topic.
An example of this can be seen in the first fifteen chapters of the book of Exodus. These chapters can be broken down into four main topics: the birth of Moses, the calling of Moses, the deliverance of Israel, and the crossing of the Red Sea. The following outline diagrams the arrangement of these topics in an order conducive to oral presentation.
I. The Birth of Moses — Exodus 1:7-2:25
a. Introduction — Exodus 1:7
b. Major content — Exodus 1:8-2:22
c. Recap and transition — Exodus 2:23-25
II. The Calling of Moses — Exodus 3:1-7:7
a. Introduction — Exodus 3:1
b. Major content — Exodus 3:2-6:12
c. Recap and transition — Exodus 6:13-6:27
III. The Deliverance of Israel — Exodus 6:28-12:51
a. Introduction — Exodus 6:28-7:7
b. Major content — Exodus 7:8-12:39
c. Recap and transition — Exodus 12:40-51
IV. Crossing the Red Sea — Exodus 13:1-15:22
a. Introduction — Exodus 13:1-2
b. Major content — Exodus 13:3-14:28
c. Recap and transition — Exodus 14:29-15:22
Now the book of Genesis also has a particular arrangement of content. It is not simply a conglomeration of multiple stories; it can be read as a single, seamless document in which each part is connected to the whole through a series of chronological links. In other words, each section of the book of Genesis is connected to the other sections through the generations presented at the conclusion of each portion. Thus the book can be broken down into five different generations: the generations of the heavens and the earth, the generations of Adam, the generations of Noah, the generations of Jacob, and the generations of the sons of Jacob. The following outline presents the arrangement of these generations within the book of Genesis.
I. The Generations of the Heavens and the Earth — Genesis 1:1-2:25
a. Introduction — Genesis 1:1
b. Major content — Genesis 1:2-2:3
c. Recap and transition — Genesis 2:4-2:25
II. The Generations of Adam — Genesis 3:1-5:32
a. Introduction — Genesis 3:1a
b. Major content — Genesis 3:1b-4:26
c. Recap and transition — Genesis 5:1-32
III. The Generations of Noah — Genesis 6:1-10:32
a. Introduction — Genesis 6:1-4
b. Major content — Genesis 6:5-9:29
c. Recap and transition — Genesis 10:1-32
IV. The Generations of Jacob — Genesis 11:1-37:2a
a. Introduction — Genesis 11:1-2
b. Major content — Genesis 11:3-35:20
c. Recap and transition — Genesis 35:21-37:2a
V. The Generations of the Sons of Jacob
a. Introduction — Genesis 37:2b-37:4
b. Major content — Genesis 37:5-50:26
c. First recap and transition — Genesis 50:22-26
d. Second recap and transition — Exodus 1:1-7
If we were to look at these passages in more detail, we would discover that they all follow the same pattern found in the first two chapters. Genesis 1:1-2:3 presents the major content of the creation account, and the remainder of chapter two presents a review of that account and a transition into the setting for chapter three.
Now, there appears to be some controversy over whether chapter two is a separate and thus contradictory creation account; however, if we do a thorough study of this chapter we will find that it is indeed a conclusion to the account of chapter one.
Most of the arguments for two creation accounts begin with verses 7-9.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
It is argued that these verses have man created before the creation of plants which of course would be a contradiction with the order given in chapter one. A closer examination, however, will reveal that this is not the case. Verse seven does speak of the creation of man, and verse eight does say that God planted a garden, and verse nine does say that God made trees, but this is not all that is said in these verses. These verses do not state that God created man before He created plants. It simply states that God after God created man, He formed a garden for the man to dwell in and caused all the trees that could be eaten from to grow in that garden. These verses are part of a transition from chapter one in which God created man to chapter three which takes place within the garden.
Likewise, verses eighteen through twenty are often incorrectly interpreted as stating that man was created before any of the animals. However, simple logic will reveal that this is not a necessary interpretation.
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
The passage does not state that God created all of the animals after He created man. Instead, it states that He formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air for the express purpose of finding a helper suitable for man. (On a side note, the word made in Genesis 1:25 and the word formed in Genesis 2:19 are translated from two different Hebrew words.) Now if God had created all of the animals on earth before creating man, and if those animals had differing habitat requirements, then it makes sense that He would have created them each within its natural habitat. Thus the animals would not have been created all in one location but would have been created all across the globe. Such a widespread creation would require days of travel for all of these animals to come before Adam in Genesis 2:19. But what if after creating man the Lord formed one of each animal within the garden of Eden and brought each of those animals before man. This would not contradict chapter one, nor does it strain in any way the text of chapter two. It does, however, focus on the creation of Eve who is one of the three central figures in chapter three. In other words, this passage of chapter two is part of a transition from chapter one in which God created both man and woman to chapter three in which the woman is a central figure.
Therefore, if we view the first two chapters of Genesis as parts of a cohesive whole, we find that they fit the pattern of presentation found in other passages in which each passage begins with an introduction followed by the major subject matter of the topic and concludes with a recap of the current subject and a transition into the next topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 09-25-2003 5:12 PM Brian has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 23 of 305 (59679)
10-06-2003 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Buzsaw
09-26-2003 9:35 PM


quote:
Of course imo, the less literal they get the less holy they become and most on your list weren't perticularly literal in many of the texts within them.
Huh?
What do you mean "some Bibles are more literal than others."
They are "literally", what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 09-26-2003 9:35 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Dilyias, posted 10-07-2003 2:55 PM nator has replied

Dilyias
Member (Idle past 1367 days)
Posts: 21
From: Minnesota
Joined: 10-02-2003


Message 24 of 305 (59959)
10-07-2003 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by nator
10-06-2003 8:42 AM


quote:
What do you mean "some Bibles are more literal than others."
It is my guess that he is refering to those that are paraphrased. When it comes to translation, the translators can either translate very close to word for word (literal), or take a complete sentence/theme and paraphrase to make it "easier to understand/better for reading aloud" based on their beliefs or how they see it. This later style is not so good for use when studying the "original" meaning/structure of scripture.
However, the [N]RSV Bibles are very "literal" so I would ask Buz what Bibles he has in mind as far as which are the most accurate.
Eric

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by nator, posted 10-06-2003 8:42 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by nator, posted 10-08-2003 8:02 AM Dilyias has not replied
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 10-30-2003 11:39 PM Dilyias has not replied

Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 305 (60008)
10-07-2003 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Buzsaw
09-26-2003 9:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by buzsaw
Also in Genesis 35:19, we read that Rachael was burried in the way of Ephrata which is Behtlehem. So we see the name not only refers a person by the name of Bethlehem who was the son of Ephrata, but that this location was evidently named after Ephrata's son, Bethlehem.
There are alot of misconceptions is this statement. More than I can properly address in one post, however, some points are:
1)Interestingly, the phrase "which is Bethlehem" here in Gen. is an anachronistic reference. I Chr. 2:51 lists Salma as the progenitor of "Beth-lehem". Salma was Caleb's grandson and Caleb was Jacob's great-great grandson. So Ephrath could not have been known as Bethlehem when Jacob's wife (Rachel) died.
2)As mentioned in point #1, Ephratah (Ephrath), wife of Caleb, did not have a son named Bethlehem. Ephratah begat Hur begat Salma (who was the progenitor of the Beth-Lehem).
3)Asgara is correct in stating that in Micah 5:2 (the verse Matthew cites for his Bethlehem birth), the reference is to the clan or house (beit) of Lehem. The relevant phrase is "v'atah beit-Lekhem Ephratah". "v'atah" is the preposition "and" with the 2nd person masculine pronoun "you" (i.e. "and you, house of Lekhem {from}Ephratah). In absence of a neuter pronoun, the masculine is used for clans and lineages and the feminine(v'at) is used for the names of towns or cities.
Also, cf. IChr. 2:54 where it is made clear that the recorded posterity of Salma is referring to clans:
IChr. 2:54 "The sons (progeny) of Salma(are); Beth (house of)-lehem, and the Netophathites, Ataroth (i.e. crowns of) the house of Joab, and half of the Manahethites, the Zorites."
And also, I Sam. 17:12 "And David was the son of this man from Ephrat of the house of Lehem (mibeit-lehem) in Judah . . ."
There are several other problems involving the alleged Bethlehem birth prophecy found in Matthew:
1)In Micah 5:2 , the KJV mistranslates the phrase "from days of old" as "from everlasting". It is intensely interesting that of the six places where this phrase appears in the OT, it is only mistranslated in Micah 5:2, as if to make it appear more in line with Matthew's assertions.
2)Matthew completely reverses the phrase in the OT, "though thou be little among the thousands of Judah", to read "thou art not the least among the princes of Judah" in the NT.
3)The generic title of ruler in the OT is replaced with the specific position of Governor In the NT.
4)The author of the Gospel of Matthew uses a truncated version of Micah 5:1[2] in Matthew 2:6.
For those interested in a more in-depth study, I have included the following link, from which much of the above information was accessed.
Forbidden
quote:
Originally posted by buzsaw
According to Matthew 2 about verses 4,5, Herod inquired of the chief priests and elders as to where the messiah was to be born and they referred to this reference that according to the prophet he was to be born in Bethlehem. Thus Herod issued the order to slaughter the little children of that area. I believe this source would trump your opinion and choose to go with it.
Considering the mistakes Matthew makes and the liberties he takes with the OT text, this un-extrabiblically documented story of the "slaughter of the innocents" is hardly a trump source.
For instance, Matthew has Joseph and Mary fleeing to Egypt from Bethlehem. Whereas, Luke 2:22 says: "And when the days of her (Mary's) purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him (Jesus) to Jerusalem, to present (offer sacrifice) to the Lord." Luke 2:39 "And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth." As opposed again to Matthew who says that upon returning from Egypt, they turned into Galilee out of fear of returning to Bethlehem.
And there is much, much more that time and space will not allow to be presented in this post.
Perhaps we can talk further,
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Buzsaw, posted 09-26-2003 9:59 PM Buzsaw has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 26 of 305 (60062)
10-08-2003 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dilyias
10-07-2003 2:55 PM


quote:
It is my guess that he is refering to those that are paraphrased. When it comes to translation, the translators can either translate very close to word for word (literal), or take a complete sentence/theme and paraphrase to make it "easier to understand/better for reading aloud" based on their beliefs or how they see it. This later style is not so good for use when studying the "original" meaning/structure of scripture.
Oh, I see. Thank you for explaining.
quote:
However, the [N]RSV Bibles are very "literal" so I would ask Buz what Bibles he has in mind as far as which are the most accurate.
I am fairly sure that Buz's Bible is the KJV, which (correct me if I'm wrong) is considered one of the more error-filled and mistranslated of all of the versions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dilyias, posted 10-07-2003 2:55 PM Dilyias has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 10-30-2003 11:25 PM nator has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 305 (63550)
10-30-2003 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by nator
10-08-2003 8:02 AM


quote:
I am fairly sure that Buz's Bible is the KJV, which (correct me if I'm wrong) is considered one of the more error-filled and mistranslated of all of the versions.
As usual, your judgemental comment about ole buz are wrong again, Schraf. I own a KJV and other versions, but as I've stated several times on this forum, my user Bible is the old 1901 American Standard Version, which I consider to be the most literal and best of all translations, bar none. I also own and use both Greek and Hebrew interlinears for use when I want to get exact equivalents to from the Hebrew and Greek to English. You can't get more fundamental than that without a language degree.
Btw, the KJV is older, but was taken from what is known as the Received Text or manuscrips. The 1901 ASB was taken from the Alexandrian texts some of which were older texts and imo, more accurate. But when the KJV was first translated, I believe that's the best they had so prior to the 20th century, it was likely the most accurate translation. There's not enough difference in the two to make a big fuss about though, imo.
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 10-30-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by nator, posted 10-08-2003 8:02 AM nator has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 305 (63551)
10-30-2003 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dilyias
10-07-2003 2:55 PM


quote:
However, the [N]RSV Bibles are very "literal" so I would ask Buz what Bibles he has in mind as far as which are the most accurate.
The RSV is not very accurate. I heard one of the translators speak in Escondido Ca in the 70s while the translating was being done. He basically said the translators were not as concerned about literacy as they were in conveying the message. This bothered me, as imo, it is their job as translators to translate accurately and let the reader do the interpreting as to what the message is. For example they removed the words "monogena" (begotten) in John 3:16 and in five other reference in the NT where it was in the original and replaced these with "one and only" instead of "only begotten"/only born.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dilyias, posted 10-07-2003 2:55 PM Dilyias has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-01-2003 11:08 AM Buzsaw has not replied

ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6239 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 29 of 305 (63799)
11-01-2003 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Buzsaw
10-30-2003 11:39 PM


The RSV is not very accurate.
The question, of course, is, lacking anything verifiably close to an Urtext, how would you know? In fact, weren't you the one who pointed to the DSS as evidence? Would it surprise you to find OT verses where the RSV stands much closer to both the LXX & DSS variants?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 10-30-2003 11:39 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Specter, posted 04-14-2005 12:42 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

Specter
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 305 (170817)
12-22-2004 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
09-25-2003 5:12 PM


Who do you think you are?
First of all, Brian, let me set you straight.
1)I do not approve of evolutionists using my ancient's quote:
"We believe whatever we want to believe." - Demosthenes, 348 B.C.
How very true..that you doubt the obvious. Face the facts, polk. The Bible is true, and there are over 47,000 proofs that support it.
But if you dare to disagree, then you can email me at neoompia@yahoo.com. This isn't my forum site, so I can't stay for long. BUt be sure I'll be back in a couple of days. You can count on it. One more thing, if you actuially believe that it is hard to believe the Bible, the ncome to The domain name americanforum.net is for sale in two days. Enjoy the Demostehnic teory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 09-25-2003 5:12 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by AdminNosy, posted 12-22-2004 2:23 PM Specter has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024