27 Apr 09
Originally posted by jaywillIf there is a “God” then why should “he” ever work in mysterious ways (mysterious if you assume he is BOTH kind AND all powerful) specifically to give the impression that either he is so cruel as to allow suffering of innocent humans despite having the power to stop this suffering (so isn’t kind) or he doesn’t have the power to stop such suffering (so isn’t all powerful)?
What problem do you have with God working sometimes in mysterious ways?
Have you ever read about the life of Joseph in Genesis?
28 Apr 09
Originally posted by jaywillMy biggest problem isn't with the crux of the argument. God, if he were to exist, certainly has every right to work "in mysterious ways." I just find the way that Bible-philes go about saying it very tedious and full of BS. Very Pangloss if you will.
What problem do you have with God working sometimes in mysterious ways?
Have you ever read about the life of Joseph in Genesis?
"God works in mysterious ways" = "I don't know, but I'm going to assume things will turn out for the best." No need to make it into a Sunday sermon (for example, I don't need to hear the story of Joseph again to get the point. Yes, I've both heard and read the story many times).
28 Apr 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterLet us assume that Jesus did actually say something in Aramaic and years later it was written down by a gospel writer in Greek. The gospel writer almost certainly did not witness Jesus saying it so heard it second hand.
So which of these applies to the verses above? Could Jesus have been using a word that meant "all" sins (in an all encompassing sense)? Or did such a word exist? I think Jesus spoke Aramaic so that might complicate things - anybody know? - answers welcome from Atheists and Theists.
At the end of the day we are really only left with two possibilities:
1. The gospel writer was inspired by God and thus the intended message is what the Gospel writer wrote regardless of what Jesus said in Hebrew.
2. The gospel writer was not inspired and was thus probably not directly quoting Jesus but putting forward his own views or those of a previous writer that he was copying from.
Whatever the case, it is not very important what Jesus said in Aramaic. If we assume that 1. is the case then we are faced with the question of whether God thinks ahead and ensures that whatever he says will be translated correctly at later dates. Since the vast majority of Bible readers in the History of the Bible probably read it in English one could almost expect God to ensure that that was the best representation of what he wanted to say.
28 Apr 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou think the rest of the world (the non-english world) should be satisfied with an bible written in a foreign language? Do you really think that the English translation is more holy than any other language?
Since the vast majority of Bible readers in the History of the Bible probably read it in English one could almost expect God to ensure that that was the best representation of what he wanted to say.
Moreover: Do you really think King James translation is a good translation?
28 Apr 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasI think you missed my point. My point is that if God can see the future and inspired the gospel writers then one would expect him to inspire them to write something that would be useful to the maximum number of recipients of the message even after translation. So even if the King James translation is a terrible translation, the translated text might actually be what God intended and not the original Greek.
You think the rest of the world (the non-english world) should be satisfied with an bible written in a foreign language?
Moreover: Do you really think King James translation is a good translation?
Do you really think that the English translation is more holy than any other language?
I am of course an atheist so I don't think any language is holy. I am merely pointing out one of the issues that Theists must deal with once they make the claim that the Bible was inspired by God - and they must especially deal with it if they want to nitpick over every individual word and its dictionary meaning.
In addition I would like to point out that a large number of Christians seem to think that the New Testament provides good historical evidence of Jesus' life whilst simultaneously claiming it is inspired. I find the two claims somewhat contradictory.
28 Apr 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadPerhaps I misunderstood you.
I think you missed my point. My point is that if God can see the future and inspired the gospel writers then one would expect him to inspire them to write something that would be useful to the maximum number of recipients of the message even after translation. So even if the King James translation is a terrible translation, the translated text might actua ...[text shortened]... e whilst simultaneously claiming it is inspired. I find the two claims somewhat contradictory.
This is a funny game we're doing. We often discuss with christians as if the christian god really existed. Like discussing as a scientist with people actually believeing tat you could travel in the speed of light or could divide with zero, and argue that *if* we could divide by zero then this and this could be calculated, or *when* we travel in the speed of light, then time stops and we see everything in bright yellow. Rubbish. We cannot divide by zero, we cannot travel in the speed of light.
Now we're saying that "If the bible is inspired by god (the christian god does not exist), then it would be translated to English (or Swahili or whatever) because the holy spirit (there is no such thing) will hold his hand over it and make it as god intended." We actually say so, playing by the rules of christians. We should say more often: "Rubbish. Your god does not exist!".
Never I hear some fundamental christian say: "As Darwin is a genius, it's a fact that all the primates have the same ancestor." They just wouldn't. No way.
Does this mean that we (who don't believe in the christian god) are more out-of-the-box thinkers, or more tolerant? Yes, I actually think so.
28 Apr 09
2 edits
what are you muppets talking about? listen to you? 'we played the flute but you would not dance', the Bible was written in Hebrew for that portion was specific to the Hebrews, the latter part was written in Greek, for that was the international language of the day, now it is the most widely translated book in the entire history of humanity, it being accessible in whole or part to some 95% of the population of the entire planet, and listen to you guys winging on about this version or that version, you are truly pathetic in the original meaning of the term, not its modern connotation. imagine the most widely translated book in the entire history of humanity and you cannot understand nor appreciate it significance, losers with a capital L 😛
28 Apr 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs usual you choose to insult rather than address the issue. In your opinion, if different translations have different meanings which translation if any should be taken as authorative?
what are you muppets talking about? listen to you? 'we played the flute but you would not dance', the Bible was written in Hebrew for that portion was specific to the Hebrews, the latter part was written in Greek, for that was the international language of the day, now it is the most widely translated book in the entire history of humanity, it bein ...[text shortened]... humanity and you cannot understand nor appreciate it significance, losers with a capital L 😛
And just a little correction there: Greek was not, and has never been, 'the international language of the day', at best it might have been what was considered by the writers to be the scholarly language of the area, though it is more likely that they were more concerned about who their audience was or what language they knew how to write in.
28 Apr 09
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadoh guys loosen up, im only messing around, dont take it personally, if you do you have missed the point. As to the point of translation, are you unaware of the thousands of manuscripts which are available for cross referencing and checking thus making interpolations and spurious texts obvious?, if you google them you will find lots with which to fulfill youre 'desire', for 'accurate knowledge', and Whitey you are wrong, Greek was indeed an international language, not to the same extent that English is, but certainly for the immediate vicinity in which the Bible was initially translated and distributed in its original form, such pettiness is reminiscent of your complete failure to grasp its significance and that is not an insult my friend but a simple statement of fact!
As usual you choose to insult rather than address the issue. In your opinion, if different translations have different meanings which translation if any should be taken as authorative?
And just a little correction there: Greek was not, and has never been, 'the international language of the day', at best it might have been what was considered by the write ...[text shortened]... y were more concerned about who their audience was or what language they knew how to write in.
28 Apr 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDon't worry, I didn't take it personally as I know perfectly well that it is your standard way of trying to avoid questions you don't like the answers too.
oh guys loosen up, im only messing around, dont take it personally, if you do you have missed the point.
As to the point of translation, are you unaware of the thousands of manuscripts which are available for cross referencing and checking thus making interpolations and spurious texts obvious?
I am aware of them, but what I am not aware of is a reliable way of deciding what the verse was originally, meant originally, should mean now etc. If you know of a way then please tell knightmeister as he is asking.
And if by interpolations and spurious texts, you mean stuff that wasn't in the oldest known versions then I agree with you, they are mostly obvious to all but a large percentage of Christians who flatly refuse to accept that there could be so much as one full stop out of place.
and Whitey you are wrong, Greek was indeed an international language, not to the same extent that English is, but certainly for the immediate vicinity in which the Bible was initially translated and distributed in its original form, such pettiness is reminiscent of your complete failure to grasp its significance and that is not an insult my friend but a simple statement of fact!
It was not pettiness, I was merely pointing out that a language that was used internationally does not amount to 'the international language of the day'. The implication in your post was that it was the most widespread language at the time and therefore most suitable, when in reality (as you now concede) it was really only restricted to a rather small part of the globe.
28 Apr 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI guess Christians love 'testing' because thats what God does to them. It is not 'out of Character' but rather just hypocritical. On this forum I would say Christians are given to insults just as much as atheists, agnostics and Muslims.
you see how out of character such emphatic statements are for those who are perceived to be Christians, you yourself have demonstrated this for me, i was just testing that was all 🙂
29 Apr 09
Originally posted by knightmeisteri dont know if it was already mentioned and i apologize if it was but,I find a Strong's concordance very helpful in these matters
"...everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever...if you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
"Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father w ...[text shortened]... at might complicate things - anybody know? - answers welcome from Atheists and Theists.