studiot Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 If someone wants to talk about the actual topic, then I'm still in, but I don't have time to waste endlessly commenting on manifestly absurd claims that aren't remotely related to the topic. Well I actually found your responses to my comments unprofessional and dismissive.
afungusamongus Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 The Muslims like to tell us that the Bible got corrupted over time. Kinda ironic then that the Sunni and Shia do not have the same Hadith. Through the process of translating from one language to another, how likely is it that the Bible maintained it's original meaning entirely to how they were in Hebrew (as is the case with the Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament)? Why would translating a work make it less likely to be accurate? Bible translators go to great lengths to give us accurate Bibles. Has the Bible been constantly changing and will it continue to change? No the Bible does not change. Updating translations does not change the message. What is the position of the scientific community regarding possible corruption of the Bible during the translation process from the original languages they were in? What could the scientific community possibly have to say about the historicity of the Bible. Why is their opinion on the Bible more important to you than New Testament scholars?
Moontanman Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 Kinda ironic then that the Sunni and Shia do not have the same Hadith. They have no more support than the bible does, they are equally suspect. Through the process of translating from one language to another, how likely is it that the Bible maintained it's original meaning entirely to how they were in Hebrew (as is the case with the Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament)? The bible has been edited added to and translated differently many times. I'd say it is irrelevant if it retained it's original meaning or not. Why would translating a work make it less likely to be accurate? Bible translators go to great lengths to give us accurate Bibles. That maybe true but it is also true the bible had been edited and added to. No the Bible does not change. Updating translations does not change the message. Editing the translations does. What could the scientific community possibly have to say about the historicity of the Bible. Why is their opinion on the Bible more important to you than New Testament scholars? New testament scholars have added to, removed from, and changed the text to suit the purposes of the people who translated it. I do not see the scientific community caring one way or another as long as religion stays out of science.
iNow Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 Why would translating a work make it less likely to be accurate? Bible translators go to great lengths to give us accurate Bibles. Because the act of translation is inherently one of interpretation. The translator is forced to guess at the authors meaning and then use their personal judgment to choose words within the new language that they think appropriately reflect the authors intent. This introduces error and changes regardless of how great the lengths translators in attempting to give accurate bibles. Two translators reading the exact same passage will often put forth two completely different interpretations, and this is true regardless of their good intentions and skills as interpreters. 2
ydoaPs Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 Why would translating a work make it less likely to be accurate? Bible translators go to great lengths to give us accurate Bibles. No the Bible does not change. Updating translations does not change the message. These are both factually incorrect. There are multitudes of differences between ancient manuscripts. Even the end of Luke is a later addition. What could the scientific community possibly have to say about the historicity of the Bible. They say that it is historically and archaeologically false. Why is their opinion on the Bible more important to you than New Testament scholars? You act as though the NT scholars agree with you. They don't. In fact, their jobs depend on these differences in the manuscripts. 1
Sergeant Bilko Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 (edited) Through the process of translating from one language to another, how likely is it that the Bible maintained it's original meaning entirely to how they were in Hebrew (as is the case with the Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament)? Why would translating a work make it less likely to be accurate? Bible translators go to great lengths to give us accurate Bibles. What could the scientific community possibly have to say about the historicity of the Bible. Why is their opinion on the Bible more important to you than New Testament scholars? Well, of course this is not entirely accurate. Much of the old testament was written in the Hebrew of the time, and some was written in Aramaic. The new was a sort of Greek which was not considered classical, and that is the point, if we cannot even agree in which language the original texts were in how on earth can we agree on the interpretation of the translations. I'm sure that you must be aware that scholars of today are still trying to decipher the meaning of the dead sea scrolls, discovered many years ago. Lets face it, the Bible is not one book, its a collection of Political manifestos from a long time ago, the meanings have been interpreted, corrupted, reinterpreted and screened to give a carefully managed message which used to have a lot of relevance to the society it controlled, but that time passed a long time ago. Edited October 26, 2012 by Sergeant Bilko 1
Phi for All Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 Because the act of translation is inherently one of interpretation. The translator is forced to guess at the authors meaning and then use their personal judgment to choose words within the new language that they think appropriately reflect the authors intent. This introduces error and changes regardless of how great the lengths translators in attempting to give accurate bibles. Two translators reading the exact same passage will often put forth two completely different interpretations, and this is true regardless of their good intentions and skills as interpreters. Consider also why versions are attempted in the first place. The King James version was the third translation into English, and it was commissioned because the Puritans felt there were problems with the earlier two versions, which were deemed perfect by the people who commissioned them at the time. Different sects are changing the meaning with each new translation, because they didn't like the way the other guys did it. How could there not be corruptions? 1
ydoaPs Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 Consider also why versions are attempted in the first place. The King James version was the third translation into English, and it was commissioned because the Puritans felt there were problems with the earlier two versions, which were deemed perfect by the people who commissioned them at the time. Different sects are changing the meaning with each new translation, because they didn't like the way the other guys did it. How could there not be corruptions? And then there's the Conservapedia Bible
iNow Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 Nope... No room for interpretation here. Move along. Nothing to see, folks. 2
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now