Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

is the Bible preserved?

jimcave
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 5:01:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
To a degree. The autographs are not extant. The Greek text that is used for most English translations was pieced together from thousands of biblical texts and documents. This patchwork text is then translated into English using one of several translation theories. The translators must decide how to treat questionable verses that were probably added by copyists. The end result will always be a translation with errors, some serious. Consider the fact that the KJV OT has some 30 occurrences of the word "hell", while nearly all other translations have completely removed this word from the OT (and rightly so).
.
There is always a possibility that we are wrong.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 5:17:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 5:01:51 PM, jimcave wrote:
To a degree. The autographs are not extant. The Greek text that is used for most English translations was pieced together from thousands of biblical texts and documents. This patchwork text is then translated into English using one of several translation theories. The translators must decide how to treat questionable verses that were probably added by copyists. The end result will always be a translation with errors, some serious. Consider the fact that the KJV OT has some 30 occurrences of the word "hell", while nearly all other translations have completely removed this word from the OT (and rightly so).

Pffffft. At the time the KJV was made (1611), "hell" was proper translation, meaning "hidden". As time passed the meaning of the English word gradually changed, rendering such a translation less accurate. The Greek hades, however, means the same thing it always did.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Kerfluffer
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 5:28:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I can only speak for the New Testament.

The discrepancies among the manuscripts we have available are better than what people give them credit for. Most of the differences are things like misspellings, duplicated or omitted lines, etc. The major discrepancies are noted in almost all physical modern Bibles, and you can even get study Bibles that contain multiple variations of the same passage if you're a NT nerd.

As for the translations, they're also not bad at all. ESV is an excellent almost word-for-word translation that is still coherent English. For questionable words, there are usually footnotes that give more insight to the original meaning of the words.

Like Anna said, the KJV was not a bad translation - it was a good translation for its time. Language evolved and so the translations needed to evolve, too.

I personally use a New Testament with koine Greek on the left page and modern(-ish) Greek on the right, but also have an ESV for Church and studying with other people.
jimcave
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 5:34:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Hebrew word translated "hell" in the OT actually means "the grave", which is how most modern translations render it. The equivalent Greek word "hades" is frequently translated grave in the NT for the same reasons. As far as I know the English word hell has always meant the place of eternal torment.
There is always a possibility that we are wrong.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 6:15:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
As a Muslim, I don't. But lets think about it:

-Modified and edited.
-Written by mysterious men, and an unknown number of men.
-Written in unknown places and unknown dates.

Doesn't sound credible to me.
bulproof
Posts: 25,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 4:27:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
An angel ordering an illiterate camel trader to read and then strangling him because he couldn't is much more believable.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 4:48:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 5:28:15 PM, Kerfluffer wrote:
I can only speak for the New Testament.

The discrepancies among the manuscripts we have available are better than what people give them credit for. Most of the differences are things like misspellings, duplicated or omitted lines, etc. The major discrepancies are noted in almost all physical modern Bibles, and you can even get study Bibles that contain multiple variations of the same passage if you're a NT nerd.

As for the translations, they're also not bad at all. ESV is an excellent almost word-for-word translation that is still coherent English. For questionable words, there are usually footnotes that give more insight to the original meaning of the words.

Like Anna said, the KJV was not a bad translation - it was a good translation for its time. Language evolved and so the translations needed to evolve, too.

I personally use a New Testament with koine Greek on the left page and modern(-ish) Greek on the right, but also have an ESV for Church and studying with other people.

For sheer beauty and diction, I prefer the old KJV and do not believe that it will ever be surpassed. It, coupled with the writings of Shakespeare, are the two grandest examples of English literature. Aside from that, I consider the ASV to be more accurate on some particulars (and less so on others). Most of today's "New English" versions are a farce, with some indeed being deliberate perversions. Unfortunately, the NIV is one of these. I am not as familiar with the ESV.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 4:56:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 4:27:11 AM, bulproof wrote:
An angel ordering an illiterate camel trader to read and then strangling him because he couldn't is much more believable.

i know
Never fart near dog
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 5:02:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 6:15:55 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
As a Muslim, I don't. But lets think about it:

-Modified and edited.
-Written by mysterious men, and an unknown number of men.
-Written in unknown places and unknown dates.

Doesn't sound credible to me.

So i cant understand why people believe in things that written by anonymous people....
Never fart near dog
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 8:20:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 1:08:51 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...
Discuss (credit to NiamC) :D

The Bible was never intended by God to lead His people to the Truth. It was meant to carry the prophecies to me and deceive all Christians who read it. God wanted His last saint to read the prophecies for Him to interpret and incorporate it into the knowledge of the past, present and future that we saints possess. Not one Christian was taught the deeper meanings of the prophecies by God.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 11:20:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 1:08:51 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...
Discuss (credit to NiamC) :D

The Bible is preserved, the scribal errors made are so small, they can be ignord. Some such as the Masoretes tried to change the doctrine, but ended up failing as older manuscripts fixed their changes.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 11:49:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 1:08:51 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...
Discuss (credit to NiamC) :D

It is simply unknown. The earliest complete manuscripts are centuries removed from the originals, and was at a time when preserving the text was not a high priority among scribes at the time. The condition of the text between this period is indeed highly contentious. Even after this period, we see hundreds of thousands of mistakes between the manuscripts, and while most are minor and don't even translate, there is a portion of them which are very signficsnt, such as the forged last twelve verses of Mark, and numerous classic biblical stories, such as the woman to be stoned.

Those are known major discrepancies which were made at a time when preservation of the gospels was already at a higher level of importance than in early Christianity, we simply don't know how much of the original is preserved. What is missing, what is included, what is forged, what's meaning has been reversed via minor errors etc. The earliest complete manuscripts are copies of copies of copies etc.. All the errors of one gospel will be replicated in the next generation, along with the cumulated errors all the generations before it.

And that is only considering textual transmission, the oral transmission is even more contentious...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 3:30:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 11:20:49 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 8/29/2014 1:08:51 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...
Discuss (credit to NiamC) :D

The Bible is preserved, the scribal errors made are so small, they can be ignord. Some such as the Masoretes tried to change the doctrine, but ended up failing as older manuscripts fixed their changes.

"There are more errors than there are words in the NT" (Erhman), and every surviving manuscript contains variants to every other. If the original manuscripts were the actual inspired word of god, which are not extant, and the copies of copies of copies are all different, how can we know the Bible represents what god actually inspired? We know there are added verses in Mark and the story of the woman taken in adultery in John was not original. I think it is plain the Bible has not been preserved in the form it was originally submitted.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 11:31:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 3:30:09 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/6/2014 11:20:49 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 8/29/2014 1:08:51 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...
Discuss (credit to NiamC) :D

The Bible is preserved, the scribal errors made are so small, they can be ignord. Some such as the Masoretes tried to change the doctrine, but ended up failing as older manuscripts fixed their changes.

"There are more errors than there are words in the NT" (Erhman), and every surviving manuscript contains variants to every other. If the original manuscripts were the actual inspired word of god, which are not extant, and the copies of copies of copies are all different, how can we know the Bible represents what god actually inspired? We know there are added verses in Mark and the story of the woman taken in adultery in John was not original. I think it is plain the Bible has not been preserved in the form it was originally submitted.

What Bart Ehrman doesn't tell you is that those "errors" are nothing more than small mistakes (1). Textual criticism seeks to reconstruct what the originals said from the existing manuscripts (2). There's actually many witnesses and evidence for the woman of adultery to be original (3).

It's impossible for doctrinal errors to occur in the Bible. By cross-examining earlier and later manuscripts, scholars can correct minor changes made. God caused an ingenious system to preserve the Bible making it impossible for the originals to be corrupted.

Sources:

1. http://blog.ancientlives.org...

2. http://en.wikipedia.org...

3. http://www.bible-researcher.com...
bulproof
Posts: 25,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 12:20:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 11:20:49 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 8/29/2014 1:08:51 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...
Discuss (credit to NiamC) :D

The Bible is preserved, the scribal errors made are so small, they can be ignord. Some such as the Masoretes tried to change the doctrine, but ended up failing as older manuscripts fixed their changes.

So you are saying that Joshua could see god and live as he allegedly claimed and yet god declared that no man could see him and live?

Who was lying? Joshua or god? Or whoever declared the bible to be the word of god?

Who was that, BTW?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 1:01:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 11:31:05 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/7/2014 3:30:09 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/6/2014 11:20:49 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 8/29/2014 1:08:51 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...
Discuss (credit to NiamC) :D

The Bible is preserved, the scribal errors made are so small, they can be ignord. Some such as the Masoretes tried to change the doctrine, but ended up failing as older manuscripts fixed their changes.

"There are more errors than there are words in the NT" (Erhman), and every surviving manuscript contains variants to every other. If the original manuscripts were the actual inspired word of god, which are not extant, and the copies of copies of copies are all different, how can we know the Bible represents what god actually inspired? We know there are added verses in Mark and the story of the woman taken in adultery in John was not original. I think it is plain the Bible has not been preserved in the form it was originally submitted.

What Bart Ehrman doesn't tell you is that those "errors" are nothing more than small mistakes (1). Textual criticism seeks to reconstruct what the originals said from the existing manuscripts (2). There's actually many witnesses and evidence for the woman of adultery to be original (3).

(1) Actually, Erhman does acknowledge many of the errors are small mistakes. The fact that there are known mistakes seems troubling to me, even if they qare small. If I agree the originals were the inspired word of god and then consider they no longer exist, and the copies of them are not identical illustrates we no longer have the pure message of god. This is only speaking of the small mistakes.
(2) Textual criticism seeks to reconstruct the originals from copies of copies with out the benefit of the autographs. That is an extremely difficult task and unfortunately relies on humans to fix the mistakes of other humans. There is no such thing as a god-inspired interpretation.
(3) John 7:53-8:11

For a long time, biblical scholars have recognized the poor textual credentials of the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53"8:11). The evidence against its authenticity is overwhelming: The earliest manuscripts with substantial portions of John"s Gospel (P66 and P75) lack these verses. They skip from John 7:52 to 8:12. The oldest large codices of the Bible also lack these verses: codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both from the fourth century, are normally considered to be the most important biblical manuscripts of the NT extant today. Neither of them has these verses. Codex Alexandrinus, from the fifth century, lacks several leaves in the middle of John. But because of the consistency of the letter size, width of lines, and lines per page, the evidence is conclusive that this manuscript also lacked the pericope adulterae. Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, also from the fifth century, apparently lacked these verses as well (it is similar to Alexandrinus in that some leaves are missing)

I shortened this. Here is the rest of the article.

https://bible.org...

(3a) Mark16:9-20

Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126.

16:9-20 The Ending(s) of Mark. Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it k), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913).

I shortened this, but he has another 3 points to make from this source.

http://www.bible-researcher.com...

It's impossible for doctrinal errors to occur in the Bible.

Probably most textual critics today fully embrace the doctrine of the Trinity (and, of course, all evangelical textual critics do). And most would like to see the Trinity explicitly taught in 1 John 5:7-8. But most reject this reading as an invention of some overly zealous scribe.

It has been a while since I have looked over the problems associated with the doctrine of the Trinity, but I believe Dr. Wallace makes the arguments much better than I could.

https://bible.org...

By cross-examining earlier and later manuscripts, scholars can correct minor changes made.

Well it is not quite that simple. The textual critic must determine which manuscript contains the "correct" translation which is a fairly subjective task. Also, determining the more accurate manuscript is not simply a matter of choosing the oldest one.

God caused an ingenious system to preserve the Bible making it impossible for the originals to be corrupted.

The originals are non existent. I would consider that to be fairly corrupted. To you point, though, we have no way of knowing if the original message is properly preserved since the orignals are gone.

Sources:

1. http://blog.ancientlives.org...

2. http://en.wikipedia.org...

3. http://www.bible-researcher.com...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 8:07:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 5:17:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/29/2014 5:01:51 PM, jimcave wrote:
To a degree. The autographs are not extant. The Greek text that is used for most English translations was pieced together from thousands of biblical texts and documents. This patchwork text is then translated into English using one of several translation theories. The translators must decide how to treat questionable verses that were probably added by copyists. The end result will always be a translation with errors, some serious. Consider the fact that the KJV OT has some 30 occurrences of the word "hell", while nearly all other translations have completely removed this word from the OT (and rightly so).

Pffffft. At the time the KJV was made (1611), "hell" was proper translation, meaning "hidden". As time passed the meaning of the English word gradually changed, rendering such a translation less accurate. The Greek hades, however, means the same thing it always did.

Do you actually believe the translators of the original writings of the saints knew who God was? God used chosen saints and prophets to write for Him, not religious people who believed in hell and other religious ideas.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 9:10:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 8:07:25 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 8/29/2014 5:17:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/29/2014 5:01:51 PM, jimcave wrote:
To a degree. The autographs are not extant. The Greek text that is used for most English translations was pieced together from thousands of biblical texts and documents. This patchwork text is then translated into English using one of several translation theories. The translators must decide how to treat questionable verses that were probably added by copyists. The end result will always be a translation with errors, some serious. Consider the fact that the KJV OT has some 30 occurrences of the word "hell", while nearly all other translations have completely removed this word from the OT (and rightly so).

Pffffft. At the time the KJV was made (1611), "hell" was proper translation, meaning "hidden". As time passed the meaning of the English word gradually changed, rendering such a translation less accurate. The Greek hades, however, means the same thing it always did.

Do you actually believe the translators of the original writings of the saints knew who God was? God used chosen saints and prophets to write for Him, not religious people who believed in hell and other religious ideas.

What one believes or does not believe has but little effect on accurately translating a Greek text.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 4:51:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 11:31:05 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/7/2014 3:30:09 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/6/2014 11:20:49 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 8/29/2014 1:08:51 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...
Discuss (credit to NiamC) :D

The Bible is preserved, the scribal errors made are so small, they can be ignord. Some such as the Masoretes tried to change the doctrine, but ended up failing as older manuscripts fixed their changes.

"There are more errors than there are words in the NT" (Erhman), and every surviving manuscript contains variants to every other. If the original manuscripts were the actual inspired word of god, which are not extant, and the copies of copies of copies are all different, how can we know the Bible represents what god actually inspired? We know there are added verses in Mark and the story of the woman taken in adultery in John was not original. I think it is plain the Bible has not been preserved in the form it was originally submitted.

What Bart Ehrman doesn't tell you is that those "errors" are nothing more than small mistakes (1). Textual criticism seeks to reconstruct what the originals said from the existing manuscripts (2). There's actually many witnesses and evidence for the woman of adultery to be original (3).

It's impossible for doctrinal errors to occur in the Bible. By cross-examining earlier and later manuscripts, scholars can correct minor changes made. God caused an ingenious system to preserve the Bible making it impossible for the originals to be corrupted.

Sources:

1. http://blog.ancientlives.org...

2. http://en.wikipedia.org...

3. http://www.bible-researcher.com...

http://listverse.com...

here todays article... a coincidence
Never fart near dog
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 1:34:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 9:10:12 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 8:07:25 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 8/29/2014 5:17:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/29/2014 5:01:51 PM, jimcave wrote:
To a degree. The autographs are not extant. The Greek text that is used for most English translations was pieced together from thousands of biblical texts and documents. This patchwork text is then translated into English using one of several translation theories. The translators must decide how to treat questionable verses that were probably added by copyists. The end result will always be a translation with errors, some serious. Consider the fact that the KJV OT has some 30 occurrences of the word "hell", while nearly all other translations have completely removed this word from the OT (and rightly so).

Pffffft. At the time the KJV was made (1611), "hell" was proper translation, meaning "hidden". As time passed the meaning of the English word gradually changed, rendering such a translation less accurate. The Greek hades, however, means the same thing it always did.

Do you actually believe the translators of the original writings of the saints knew who God was? God used chosen saints and prophets to write for Him, not religious people who believed in hell and other religious ideas.

What one believes or does not believe has but little effect on accurately translating a Greek text.

Christians who translate the old Greek text will translate it much different than an atheist translator.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 2:56:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 1:34:24 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/7/2014 9:10:12 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 8:07:25 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 8/29/2014 5:17:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/29/2014 5:01:51 PM, jimcave wrote:
To a degree. The autographs are not extant. The Greek text that is used for most English translations was pieced together from thousands of biblical texts and documents. This patchwork text is then translated into English using one of several translation theories. The translators must decide how to treat questionable verses that were probably added by copyists. The end result will always be a translation with errors, some serious. Consider the fact that the KJV OT has some 30 occurrences of the word "hell", while nearly all other translations have completely removed this word from the OT (and rightly so).

Pffffft. At the time the KJV was made (1611), "hell" was proper translation, meaning "hidden". As time passed the meaning of the English word gradually changed, rendering such a translation less accurate. The Greek hades, however, means the same thing it always did.

Do you actually believe the translators of the original writings of the saints knew who God was? God used chosen saints and prophets to write for Him, not religious people who believed in hell and other religious ideas.

What one believes or does not believe has but little effect on accurately translating a Greek text.

Christians who translate the old Greek text will translate it much different than an atheist translator.

LMAO. No, they don't, ya dimwit.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 3:30:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 2:56:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/8/2014 1:34:24 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/7/2014 9:10:12 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 8:07:25 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 8/29/2014 5:17:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/29/2014 5:01:51 PM, jimcave wrote:
To a degree. The autographs are not extant. The Greek text that is used for most English translations was pieced together from thousands of biblical texts and documents. This patchwork text is then translated into English using one of several translation theories. The translators must decide how to treat questionable verses that were probably added by copyists. The end result will always be a translation with errors, some serious. Consider the fact that the KJV OT has some 30 occurrences of the word "hell", while nearly all other translations have completely removed this word from the OT (and rightly so).

Pffffft. At the time the KJV was made (1611), "hell" was proper translation, meaning "hidden". As time passed the meaning of the English word gradually changed, rendering such a translation less accurate. The Greek hades, however, means the same thing it always did.

Do you actually believe the translators of the original writings of the saints knew who God was? God used chosen saints and prophets to write for Him, not religious people who believed in hell and other religious ideas.

What one believes or does not believe has but little effect on accurately translating a Greek text.

Christians who translate the old Greek text will translate it much different than an atheist translator.

LMAO. No, they don't, ya dimwit.

How many atheists do you know who translate the scriptures from old Greek?
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 4:26:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 3:30:43 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/8/2014 2:56:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/8/2014 1:34:24 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/7/2014 9:10:12 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 8:07:25 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 8/29/2014 5:17:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/29/2014 5:01:51 PM, jimcave wrote:
To a degree. The autographs are not extant. The Greek text that is used for most English translations was pieced together from thousands of biblical texts and documents. This patchwork text is then translated into English using one of several translation theories. The translators must decide how to treat questionable verses that were probably added by copyists. The end result will always be a translation with errors, some serious. Consider the fact that the KJV OT has some 30 occurrences of the word "hell", while nearly all other translations have completely removed this word from the OT (and rightly so).

Pffffft. At the time the KJV was made (1611), "hell" was proper translation, meaning "hidden". As time passed the meaning of the English word gradually changed, rendering such a translation less accurate. The Greek hades, however, means the same thing it always did.

Do you actually believe the translators of the original writings of the saints knew who God was? God used chosen saints and prophets to write for Him, not religious people who believed in hell and other religious ideas.

What one believes or does not believe has but little effect on accurately translating a Greek text.

Christians who translate the old Greek text will translate it much different than an atheist translator.

LMAO. No, they don't, ya dimwit.

How many atheists do you know who translate the scriptures from old Greek?

Actually, quite a few atheists are scholars of ancient Greek, and are perfectly capable of translating passages, and have done so.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 7:45:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 4:26:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/8/2014 3:30:43 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/8/2014 2:56:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/8/2014 1:34:24 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/7/2014 9:10:12 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 8:07:25 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 8/29/2014 5:17:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/29/2014 5:01:51 PM, jimcave wrote:
To a degree. The autographs are not extant. The Greek text that is used for most English translations was pieced together from thousands of biblical texts and documents. This patchwork text is then translated into English using one of several translation theories. The translators must decide how to treat questionable verses that were probably added by copyists. The end result will always be a translation with errors, some serious. Consider the fact that the KJV OT has some 30 occurrences of the word "hell", while nearly all other translations have completely removed this word from the OT (and rightly so).

Pffffft. At the time the KJV was made (1611), "hell" was proper translation, meaning "hidden". As time passed the meaning of the English word gradually changed, rendering such a translation less accurate. The Greek hades, however, means the same thing it always did.

Do you actually believe the translators of the original writings of the saints knew who God was? God used chosen saints and prophets to write for Him, not religious people who believed in hell and other religious ideas.

What one believes or does not believe has but little effect on accurately translating a Greek text.

Christians who translate the old Greek text will translate it much different than an atheist translator.

LMAO. No, they don't, ya dimwit.

How many atheists do you know who translate the scriptures from old Greek?

Actually, quite a few atheists are scholars of ancient Greek, and are perfectly capable of translating passages, and have done so.

It doesn't matter who translates the Greek scriptures because they don't understand the prophecies anyway. Not ONE Christian or atheist understands the prophecies that only us saints were taught by our Creator.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 9:03:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 7:45:11 PM, bornofgod wrote:

It doesn't matter who translates the Greek scriptures because they don't understand the prophecies anyway. Not ONE Christian or atheist understands the prophecies that only us saints were taught by our Creator.

That's true. I certainly don't understand them and it's obvious Christians don't. So if you claim to be a saint and claim to understand the "p r o p h e c i e s", then it must be true.

(They say it's best just to humor them.)
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 9:16:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 7:45:11 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/8/2014 4:26:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/8/2014 3:30:43 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/8/2014 2:56:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/8/2014 1:34:24 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/7/2014 9:10:12 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 8:07:25 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 8/29/2014 5:17:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/29/2014 5:01:51 PM, jimcave wrote:
To a degree. The autographs are not extant. The Greek text that is used for most English translations was pieced together from thousands of biblical texts and documents. This patchwork text is then translated into English using one of several translation theories. The translators must decide how to treat questionable verses that were probably added by copyists. The end result will always be a translation with errors, some serious. Consider the fact that the KJV OT has some 30 occurrences of the word "hell", while nearly all other translations have completely removed this word from the OT (and rightly so).

Pffffft. At the time the KJV was made (1611), "hell" was proper translation, meaning "hidden". As time passed the meaning of the English word gradually changed, rendering such a translation less accurate. The Greek hades, however, means the same thing it always did.

Do you actually believe the translators of the original writings of the saints knew who God was? God used chosen saints and prophets to write for Him, not religious people who believed in hell and other religious ideas.

What one believes or does not believe has but little effect on accurately translating a Greek text.

Christians who translate the old Greek text will translate it much different than an atheist translator.

LMAO. No, they don't, ya dimwit.

How many atheists do you know who translate the scriptures from old Greek?

Actually, quite a few atheists are scholars of ancient Greek, and are perfectly capable of translating passages, and have done so.

It doesn't matter who translates the Greek scriptures because they don't understand the prophecies anyway. Not ONE Christian or atheist understands the prophecies that only us saints were taught by our Creator.

Oh, sure ... it's all about Brad, isn't it? I forgot about that!

Don't forget this: your statement, "Christians who translate the old Greek text will translate it much different than an atheist translator" is yet another of your flat-out lies. You can take entire chapters from the Greek NT to an atheist scholar of ancient Greek, and his translation will be substantially the same as a Christian scholar's. Yet another lie from the pen of .... Saint Brad.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 9:32:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 12:20:17 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 11:20:49 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 8/29/2014 1:08:51 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...
Discuss (credit to NiamC) :D

The Bible is preserved, the scribal errors made are so small, they can be ignord. Some such as the Masoretes tried to change the doctrine, but ended up failing as older manuscripts fixed their changes.

So you are saying that Joshua could see god and live as he allegedly claimed and yet god declared that no man could see him and live?

Who was lying? Joshua or god? Or whoever declared the bible to be the word of god?

Who was that, BTW?

It must have been that anonymous unanimous group who all knew what all of the others believed without any of them ever asking or telling. Chalk it up to the NiceneDon'tAskDon'tTell Spontaneous Knowing miracle.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 10:14:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 9:03:51 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/8/2014 7:45:11 PM, bornofgod wrote:

It doesn't matter who translates the Greek scriptures because they don't understand the prophecies anyway. Not ONE Christian or atheist understands the prophecies that only us saints were taught by our Creator.

That's true. I certainly don't understand them and it's obvious Christians don't. So if you claim to be a saint and claim to understand the "p r o p h e c i e s", then it must be true.

(They say it's best just to humor them.)

I understand them all without guessing like all Christians have to.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 10:16:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 9:16:59 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/8/2014 7:45:11 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/8/2014 4:26:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/8/2014 3:30:43 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/8/2014 2:56:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/8/2014 1:34:24 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/7/2014 9:10:12 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/7/2014 8:07:25 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 8/29/2014 5:17:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/29/2014 5:01:51 PM, jimcave wrote:
To a degree. The autographs are not extant. The Greek text that is used for most English translations was pieced together from thousands of biblical texts and documents. This patchwork text is then translated into English using one of several translation theories. The translators must decide how to treat questionable verses that were probably added by copyists. The end result will always be a translation with errors, some serious. Consider the fact that the KJV OT has some 30 occurrences of the word "hell", while nearly all other translations have completely removed this word from the OT (and rightly so).

Pffffft. At the time the KJV was made (1611), "hell" was proper translation, meaning "hidden". As time passed the meaning of the English word gradually changed, rendering such a translation less accurate. The Greek hades, however, means the same thing it always did.

Do you actually believe the translators of the original writings of the saints knew who God was? God used chosen saints and prophets to write for Him, not religious people who believed in hell and other religious ideas.

What one believes or does not believe has but little effect on accurately translating a Greek text.

Christians who translate the old Greek text will translate it much different than an atheist translator.

LMAO. No, they don't, ya dimwit.

How many atheists do you know who translate the scriptures from old Greek?

Actually, quite a few atheists are scholars of ancient Greek, and are perfectly capable of translating passages, and have done so.

It doesn't matter who translates the Greek scriptures because they don't understand the prophecies anyway. Not ONE Christian or atheist understands the prophecies that only us saints were taught by our Creator.

Oh, sure ... it's all about Brad, isn't it? I forgot about that!

Don't forget this: your statement, "Christians who translate the old Greek text will translate it much different than an atheist translator" is yet another of your flat-out lies. You can take entire chapters from the Greek NT to an atheist scholar of ancient Greek, and his translation will be substantially the same as a Christian scholar's. Yet another lie from the pen of .... Saint Brad.

Of course Christians are going to translate Greek scriptures differently than atheists will when it comes to the new testament that they believe is the word of God. They have no idea that antichrists produced the new testament by stealing the words of the saints for their benefit to control the masses of Christians who have no clue who God is.