[Conqueror]

Originally Posted by Aggressive Bill

Things aren't so distorted that its considered drastically changed. Greek does have tenses that English doesn't. Greek has some ways of explaining things that English doesn't. I'm sure your friend had a hard time reading some of the Greek. Its a tough language. However, just because he had a hard time does not prove that the bible is messed up. It just shows that, although M. Div is a great thing to attain, translating the bible isn't his thing. It takes a lot to be able to do that. I know M. Div is a lot so don't think I'm bashing your friend at all. There are many scholars who can translate it.

I'll give you another example, one with which I am quite familiar as a martial artist. There is a book called the Bubishi (literally, "manual of military preparation") which was written sometime around 1800 in Japan or China by an unknown martial arts master. This book was passed down from master to best student along his martial arts lineage and was kept completely secret until it surfaced in the mid-1900s. Between the original writing and then, it had been hand-copied by each top student from his master's copy. Only 10-20 copies existed in the world, and you can be damn sure that each copier was trying for the utmost in accuracy. And STILL, in just 150-200 years, parts of it are completely unintelligible even to modern scholars and professional translators. If that happens with a closely guarded book after just 200 years, then I can't even imagine the corruption of the bible, a widely-used document copied for ten times as long.

And you seem to be under the impression that minor chanes can't completely destroy meaning. You are SO wrong. What if Saddam Hussein said "I'm going to invite Kuwait next month" and his translator wrote "I'm going to invade Kuwait next month." Small error, HUGE difference.

CQ

[JoshGrrrr]

Originally Posted by Aggressive Bill

No offense man, but its easy to say all that from America. You might wanna get off of your butt and see just what they do in before making light of it. They do just what you said and more as well as talk about God with them. I know you are trying to be funny, but right now you look like an comfortable American idiot. Go out and visit them and then come back and say the same stuff. I gurantee you won't be able to.

I was being funny. But I was being honest as well. Everyone knows that the main purpose of these missions is to spread the word of God. If the bible is true (just being hypothetical) they very well may be causing people to go to hell who otherwise wouldn't. I never said they didn't do other stuff while they were over there. What does that have to do with the point I was making? How does saying that make me look like a "cofortable American idiot"? I know a lot of people who go on missions. I'm sure some of them help the people in some long lasting way other than religion. I'm sure most don't. Every mission I know of locally has people go over there, give the kids dolls and teddy bears and ****, and then they preach to them. Most missions are just a way for Christians to make themselves feel good about themselves. Do you honestly expect me to fly to Africa and personally attend one of these missions before having an opinion on them? Get real. You are coming across as a comfortable American idiot as well.

Originally Posted by PhantomGhost

I am so sorry...I thought I was talking to someone who would know that we (at the Concordia Publishing House) don't go over to book shelf and grab "original" scolls that were hundreds of years old, roll them out, and start scribbling translations on them I am so sorry that I didn't spell that out. Next time I will make sure I don't assume I am talking to someone who has a little common sense. My bad.

God forbid we believe what you say. From now on we will use our common sense and assume you are just making up the things you say. Wait, that's what we did. We used our common sense and assumed that you were full of it about translating the original texts.

Listen, your whole point was "If you haven't read the ORIGINAL bible then you can't talk". You then claimed to have read it. Now you are saying "common sense should have told you I didn't mean the things I typed". If you translated anything it was pre-trasnlated copies of the originals, so for all you know they could have flaws and errors just like the new versions do. Either way you've done the exact opposite of proving the point you were trying to prove.

[JoshGrrrr]

Originally Posted by Aggressive Bill

And thanks for the links Josh. I like reading those differences about translations. I will agree with the Message bible being a pain in the butt. I dislike that version very much and would not care if it disappeared. But the rest aren't usually all that different. Some get all bent out of shape if its not King James and look into things way more and so jaded that they miss the point. I've read through some of those arguments and the dude is going a little too far. Some of them made me laugh. The message behind the words are not lost. They are changed a bit, but not to where it changes the message of the text.

I like what you all are saying. Good stuff. However, don't base the bible's validity off of the fact that some people misuse the bible to fit whatever they want. This is a big part of why people can't believe the bible. Too many people making it out to fit their own beliefs. The guys going around telling people they are going to hell and quote scripture to back it up miss some basic things. There are a lot of dumb Christians out there who give the bible a bad rep. When using the bible, you have to use the previous paragraph, the following paragraph, the book as a whole, and then in the bible as a whole. If a lot more people did this, there wouldn't be half of this crazy stuff going on.

Like it or not, some of the changes do change the message of the text. You can say it doesn't. But substituting "God" with "He" at the beginning of a sentence can easily leave it open for interpretation. That is why so many Christian organizations have their panties in a bunch over them. Go tell them the message's aren't changed.

BTW, those "dumb Christians" would probably say you were just a dumb Christian giving the bible a bad rep. You have your idea of how to use the bible. Other's have theirs. There is no right way to interpret a book that talks of miracles and countless impossible feats.

Also, I don't base the validity of the bible on how a few people misuse it. There are countless reasons why I think the bible is just a book written, edited, and misused by man.

[blueshifty]

Do you believe in the Bible?

Thats a terribly vague question...
The bible exists, yes I believe that.
Your question would have better been written "Dou you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible?" or something like that.

[Aggressive Bill]

Most of those he issues can be solved by simply reading around the surrounding text. Its not that big of a deal. Common sense solves a lot of those little issues.

There really aren't tons of Christian orginizations that are upset over this. Very few in fact. Its the example of the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

How I just suggested in reading the bible would do anything but make me look dumb. The method I just said prevents many, many errors. There aren't any dangers or controversial stuff in reading around the text. Its all common sense. When you read a book, you don't just read one sentence and base everything off of that sentence. You read the book to find out the entire story. Same thing.

[JoshGrrrr]

I'm not saying it makes you look dumb. I'm just pointing out that the same people you call dumb Christians may very well feel the same way about you and they could be just as correct in saying so as you are.

[MarkParris]

I believe it, gotta have faith.

[Aggressive Bill]

True true. I do wonder though why relativity plays such a strong role in what we deem as truth now. If I don't think the sky is blue, you can't say that I'm wrong. I see it as something else. So now we are both right.

Perception is reality. That's what I hear a lot of people going for now. There's no longer truth, but ideas of truth. It all sounds nice until your truth gets in the way of someone else's truth and then things break out. This makes things too shakey. Too unstable. It really makes threads like this hard to find common ground since everyone is right in their own mind, ya know?

[RamboPreacher]

Originally Posted by Razzy

But do you believe that the Bible is the direct word of God? The reason I believe what I believe is that I do not believe it is the direct word but rather an interpretation.

I believe that "the Bible" (many letters, and books by many writers), as it was originally given was inspired and in some cases directly revealed to the writer from God. so in the generic sense, yes, I believe in "the Bible". The versions we now have available are translations, and in some cases translations of translations.

There are some interpretive versions as well. I have some of those, and refer to then on occasion for reading and such, but would not use them as authoritative necessarily.

No, as mentioned there are no real autographs (original manuscripts), what we have are copies and copies of copies. However, that does not refute their "originality" or authority.

[drigerV88]

I can believe the bible to an extent. First off how can we really belive the bible if it was written 2000 years ago? Second i can belive it for its precious values on in life

[RamboPreacher]

Originally Posted by Truthiness

Absolutely not. What a load of crap.

can't believe that these kinds of things said are being allowed. I may not believe in a particular religion, but to belittle and be caustic? how childish.

Just another reason to stay away from PBN.

[PaInTbAlLFrEaK17]

I use it as a story of my people and little more

[christianballer4life]

I believe every word of it. All these people are saying that it contradicts itself but I go to a Christian school and after a thousand religion classes and tests and asking bible teachers all these questions it doesn't. People just don't understand the meanings of some things.

[fuhrer325 (Banned)]

Originally Posted by JoshGrrrr

The translations I have read are not what is actually written? That doesn't make sense at all.

Believe it or not, some of us aren't (stereotypical) Lazy Americans that only know their language.

It does make a lot of sense. Many Languages (Especially Greek) don't translate well.

Also, the best translated Bible's are NIV, NASB, and KJV... From what I've seen.

Please show me contridictions from THESE translations. - Major ones. Obviously, there will be minor differences.

How many times do I have to tell you this?

[RamboPreacher]

Originally Posted by fuhrer325

...It does make a lot of sense. Many Languages (Especially Greek) don't translate well.

The "common" Greek, Koine -that was used in writing the New Testament is a very highly inflected language. nearly the opposite of the English language in etymological use. the Koine has a hand full of words that in the english get translated as love or charity, as example. Hebrew and Aramaic is also very highly inflected.

...Also, the best translated Bible's are NIV, NASB, and KJV... From what I've seen.

The KJV is not a very good translation, though depends on point of view. the Elizabethan English is proper, but difficult to read and reinterpret, especially in todays vernacular and common slang. Most Christians use the KJV, because it is the oldest English version and therefor the most common reference.

The NIV, while much easier read, has some flaws in translations and skipped words and references that are in the textus receptus and other ancient manuscripts. The NASB is the most commonly accepted standard for theologians and Bible scholars.

...Please show me contridictions from THESE translations. - Major ones. Obviously, there will be minor differences.

How many times do I have to tell you this?

there are no contradictions in God's Word, "the Bible". there may seem to be some, but are usually found to be problems in translation, context, ditography and other grammetical type issues.

[fuhrer325 (Banned)]

Originally Posted by RamboPreacher

The "common" Greek, Koine -that was used in writing the New Testament is a very highly inflected language. nearly the opposite of the English language in etymological use. the Koine has a hand full of words that in the english get translated as love or charity, as example. Hebrew and Aramaic is also very highly inflected.

Right.

The NIV, while much easier read, has some flaws in translations and skipped words and references that are in the textus receptus and other ancient manuscripts. The NASB is the most commonly accepted standard for theologians and Bible scholars.
there are no contradictions in God's Word, "the Bible". there may seem to be some, but are usually found to be problems in translation, context, ditography and other grammetical type issues.

You're agreeing with me, correct?

I actually haven't tired to read the KJV (I just said that based on what I have heard. ) because, as I have said, I didn't grow up reading regular English, and have no clue what the KJV is saying...

[Aggressive Bill]

I did a lil research to help with the bible thing.

- over 5,300 ancient manuscripts of the Greek NT, more than 10,000 Latin and 9,300 early various versions. Nearly 25,000 manuscripts attesting to the same thing with only slight changes. Pretty solid as far as any book goes.

- 99.7% of the changes have been easily accounted for such as punctuation, spelling, or misplaced words. The remaining .3% does not affect the message at all.

- Archaeological evidence of King David, Paul, and even some of the Exodus have been found. The Exodus stuff is really cool.

- the bible was written by 40 different people yet with a unity that is pretty much impossible to fake throughout the years. People say there are contradictions, but usually its due to language, lack of understanding how the OT and NT relate, writing styles, and just plain not knowing what the heck they are talking about.

This is just a bit of stuff about the bible. As far as historical and archaeological evidence, the bible is pretty stacked with it.

[RamboPreacher]

Originally Posted by fuhrer325

You're agreeing with me, correct?

I actually haven't tired to read the KJV (I just said that based on what I have heard. ) because, as I have said, I didn't grow up reading regular English, and have no clue what the KJV is saying...

yes, with the possible exception of your comment about the KJV being a good interpretation. I like it for some things and not for others. but yup - essentially I just repeated what you said.

[JoshGrrrr]

Wasn't the KJV the version where they actually had poets help out with the translation to make it sound pretty?

[fuhrer325 (Banned)]

Originally Posted by JoshGrrrr

Wasn't the KJV the version where they actually had poets help out with the translation to make it sound pretty?

haha, I wouldn't be surprised.

[JoshGrrrr]

I'm not trying to be funny. I really read that somewhere.