Continued theology discussion... Not sure what to call this really.... (1 Viewer)

[scott-atkinson]

Well, there aren't any contradictions in the Bible, it is our understanding of it that is usually wrong, or we have interpreted the scripture without understanding context, or using other scripture to help shed light on the problem.

I'm sorry you can't look at the site. It's for that same reason that I have to provide an answer during the evenings. I cannot surf the internet at work, nor can I peruse my Bible at work. So I will, and have planned on all along, provide the answer here. Just as I have stated in a previous post, I have been very busy lately. It happens to all of us I am sure.

Kryst,

I understand, I will be patient and wait for an answer.

 

[Adam Caramon]

It was inspired by God, the translators of the Bible always go to original texts.

Wouldn't there be only 1 version then? Translated into different languages perhaps, but still only 1 version? That is not the case.

I don't read every version of the Bible available, only those that I know the methods of translation are sound.

What criteria do you use to determine if the methods of translation are sound? Can you give an example of an unsound version?

So you are right, I can only tell you what I have been taught, studied and observed. As do you....

I don't think it is fair to compare your type of learning & studying with mine. Your method starts with the answer, and then searches for the evidence to back it up.

My method (the scientific method) is to look at the evidence and then piece together the answer.

The first is presumptious and biased while the later is humble and free from bias.

 

[Kryst51]

Wouldn't there be only 1 version then? Translated into different languages perhaps, but still only 1 version? That is not the case.



What criteria do you use to determine if the methods of translation are sound? Can you give an example of an unsound version?



I don't think it is fair to compare your type of learning & studying with mine. Your method starts with the answer, and then searches for the evidence to back it up.

My method (the scientific method) is to look at the evidence and then piece together the answer.

The first is presumptious and biased while the later is humble and free from bias.

You can look up on how people translate the Bible and the laborious process used, criteria, etc.

I trust King James, New King James and ESV. Maybe saying other versions are inaccurate is a little much (So my apologies), but some versions use more of a vernacular speech, which can make the meaning of things less clear.

What I meant by comparing methods, is that you were taught, you studied, you perceived things, just as I have, so to claim that I am only following what I have been taught is calling the kettle black, so-to-speak. Everyone is somehow affected by how they grew up. Besides, I know people who are just as committed to Christ as I am who did not grow up as Christians, who were drug dealers, alcoholics, atheists, Jewish, Muslim, gnostics, etc.... As far as bias is concerned, you are biased, just not the way I am, and as far as humility is concerned. Anything I have said has not been to promote myself but to promote God, I don't know how more humility can be obtained. I have done my best to present my views and beliefs in a manner that is least attacking, I have answered questions truthfully, have admitted areas where I don't have all of the answers, and have agreed to seek answers out, for other people. I haven't called anyone names, and have only defended myself and God.

 

[Kryst51]

Wouldn't there be only 1 version then? Translated into different languages perhaps, but still only 1 version? That is not the case.



What criteria do you use to determine if the methods of translation are sound? Can you give an example of an unsound version?



I don't think it is fair to compare your type of learning & studying with mine. Your method starts with the answer, and then searches for the evidence to back it up.

My method (the scientific method) is to look at the evidence and then piece together the answer.

The first is presumptious and biased while the later is humble and free from bias.

Another thought I had on this, is that I have been taught other things too, not just Christianity. I have been to public schools my entire life, and a secular college. I have been exposed to many other belief systems, and have taken the opportunity to learn a little about them, I have had roomates who were other religions, and we discussed such things. So please don't assume that because I was raised a Christian that I have not sought to ensure that my beliefs are my own and not just passed down from my family. Who are only 3rd generation Christians anyway. My grandparents converted a few years into their marriage. My grandmother first, then later my grandfather, and both grew up in very different backgrounds (grandfather is from New Jersey, grandmother is from Louisian and spoke French as her first language.)

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Kryst, you know that you and I will disagree because of our different viewpoints. I am able to live with that fact. But something you just said makes me step up to the plate once more.

I am not familiar with the "New KJV" but the original KJV is one of the WORST translations ever to be made. James II of England was a misogynist of the highest order. He used his influence, which was considerable at the time, to ... push ... the translation in ways that were more demeaning to women.

When I was still a Christian (Methodist), I found that the KJV was nearly useless because I became unable to believe its extremes. I shifted to a "New ESV" that included the Apocrypha. Found it to be far more reasonable as a translation. May I respectfully suggest that, while you CERTAINLY may believe whatever you believe, you might do better by not trusting the older KJV as a good translation. When I did the comparisons, I was almost nauseated at the subtle - but far-reaching - differences.

As to the question of why there are many translations? Bringing any old document, whatever it is, to a modern translation is a static operation against a moving target i.e. modern language. Modern language evolves considerably to the point that simple words can change connotations in a relatively short time.

People don't know meanings. They know meanings plus connotations. Let's take a simple word "GAY" as an example of a word almost NEVER used in its original meaning these days. Oh, the difference between 100 years ago and today in that little three-letter word. Let's try again. Before 1940, the phrases "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" were not incompatible. Now look at the firestorm they engender when you use them too casually. We could go on for weeks on such cases of linguistic drift. But why bother? I think you see the point.

 

[Kryst51]

Kryst, you know that you and I will disagree because of our different viewpoints. I am able to live with that fact. But something you just said makes me step up to the plate once more.

I am not familiar with the "New KJV" but the original KJV is one of the WORST translations ever to be made. James II of England was a misogynist of the highest order. He used his influence, which was considerable at the time, to ... push ... the translation in ways that were more demeaning to women.

When I was still a Christian (Methodist), I found that the KJV was nearly useless because I became unable to believe its extremes. I shifted to a "New ESV" that included the Apocrypha. Found it to be far more reasonable as a translation. May I respectfully suggest that, while you CERTAINLY may believe whatever you believe, you might do better by not trusting the older KJV as a good translation. When I did the comparisons, I was almost nauseated at the subtle - but far-reaching - differences.

As to the question of why there are many translations? Bringing any old document, whatever it is, to a modern translation is a static operation against a moving target i.e. modern language. Modern language evolves considerably to the point that simple words can change connotations in a relatively short time.

People don't know meanings. They know meanings plus connotations. Let's take a simple word "GAY" as an example of a word almost NEVER used in its original meaning these days. Oh, the difference between 100 years ago and today in that little three-letter word. Let's try again. Before 1940, the phrases "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" were not incompatible. Now look at the firestorm they engender when you use them too casually. We could go on for weeks on such cases of linguistic drift. But why bother? I think you see the point.

I agree with your second point. As far as the KJV is concerned, I've read it, and don't find it to be mysoginistic. I currently use ESV however, as it is much easier to understand. But, as you said, this is a definite area of disagreement.

But the discussion is fantastic, and I am enjoying it wholeheartedly.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Anything I have said has not been to promote myself but to promote God, I don't know how more humility can be obtained.

I'm not claiming that you have or are. By humility I am saying that it is humble to admit that you do not know everything. Anyone claiming to know it all is a.) wrong, and b.) not humble.

What I am saying is that if these is something that the bible addresses, but that cannot be proven, you will think you "know" it because it is written in the bible. I will not think so until it can be proven.

I have done my best to present my views and beliefs in a manner that is least attacking, I have answered questions truthfully, have admitted areas where I don't have all of the answers, and have agreed to seek answers out, for other people. I haven't called anyone names, and have only defended myself and God.

I have no complaints on how you have carried yourself in this conversation, as a matter of a fact I believe I stated how impressed I was with your willingness to answer questions.

So please don't assume that because I was raised a Christian that I have not sought to ensure that my beliefs are my own and not just passed down from my family.

I don't assume that. I assume, based on what you have said, that you choose to embrace your religion and that you are very dedicated to it.

My earlier statement is that, based on your belief, you do not need to look for answers that are given to you in the bible, as you believe them to be the truth. If the bible says something, you believe it. And to help you understand what the bible says, you trust your pastor to put it in the correct context for you.

 

[Kryst51]

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification.

 

[ShaneMan]

So let's assume for a moment you are correct, and that this verse means that women should not talk in tongues in church. What does the part about asking their husband mean?

I think there's no doubt that the bible is sexist; you'd be strained to find anyone who has put much time into reading it who would disagree. Taken historically this makes sense, as women have been subservient to men throughout civilization. Heck, in the USA, women have only been able to vote for 80 years. That might seem like along time, but in an overall sense, that's a drop in a bucket.

Hey Adam, experience has taught me, especially on this forum, that the questions asked are really not intended to be answered but rather more like bait to get an answer so that the next question or remark can be given. This usually ends up in the point, counterpoint, and when it is all said and done, everyone is still were they were before it all started. I believe there are answers to your question(s), that for me satisfy that the Bible is not doing what you are accusing it of, for you those same answers will not satisfy you or they will just bring up further questions, so I would rather just stop here rather than go any further with this. I will comment that you have been very civil and polite with your questions and comments. Something that is much appreciated and not exercised very often here. Hope your day goes well, Sir.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Hey Adam, experience has taught me, especially on this forum, that the questions asked are really not intended to be answered but rather more like bait to get an answer so that the next question or remark can be given. This usually ends up in the point, counterpoint, and when it is all said and done, everyone is still were they were before it all started.

That is usually how debate works. Everyone being where they started depends on your perspective though. Is anyone going to radically change their point of view? Very unlikely. But often times we do learn from these discussions. Learning how other people think, or how they interpret things is a valuable experience, even if it doesn't result in changing one's viewpoint.

Hope your day goes well, Sir.

Much appreciated, and same to you.

 

[Rich]

Hey Adam, experience has taught me, especially on this forum, that the questions asked are really not intended to be answered but rather more like bait to get an answer so that the next question or remark can be given. This usually ends up in the point, counterpoint, and when it is all said and done, everyone is still were they were before it all started. I believe there are answers to your question(s), that for me satisfy that the Bible is not doing what you are accusing it of, for you those same answers will not satisfy you or they will just bring up further questions, so I would rather just stop here rather than go any further with this. I will comment that you have been very civil and polite with your questions and comments. Something that is much appreciated and not exercised very often here. Hope your day goes well, Sir.

Is it so wrong to question what's written in stone?

 

[ShaneMan]

Is it so wrong to question what's written in stone?

I guess since you quoted me then you are asking me this question and my first answer would be I never said anything close to that. All I am was trying to say to Adam is these type of conversation usually end in coming full circle and everyone is still pretty much where they were when it started. I find it very difficult to have these type of conversations typing and over the internet, to begin with and then I guess I am just getting too old to "want" to get into a debate. I have been on this forum for sometime now, I pretty much know what each individual thinks about this particular topic and have seen pretty much the same lines of questioning and arguments used many time over. Through the years, I can't remember one time, one person, coming back on and saying "you know, you make really good points and now I am going to change my viewpoint on this topic." I do find it interesting to read and will occasionally throw my two cents worth in (usually regretting that I did) and will admit that there are things said that make me research and think but I always feel like I have conclusions to them that others will obviously not agree with so I just leave them to myself. As long as things say civil, I do find them to be thought provoking. Lastly, as far as "questioning" anything, I personally never find fault in doing that. I think it's what makes us grow and stay with a sharp edge. It also will define us. I agree with Adam about finding out about folks this way. I think it allows us to define the other person. Now you and Col, I still haven't put a finger on with the way you guys act on here is real or a show. I know you a little better than I do Col and I suspect you are putting on some what of a show.

 

[Rich]

I am merely questioning, I really can't get my head around justifiable killing and justifiable war, as I see it according to the bible the only justifiable war is one ordered by god, anyone can claim to be doing so, therefore it has just to be a matter of moral concience and no one is prepared to give an answer

 

[Kryst51]

I am merely questioning, I really can't get my head around justifiable killing and justifiable war, as I see it according to the bible the only justifiable war is one ordered by god, anyone can claim to be doing so, therefore it has just to be a matter of moral concience and no one is prepared to give an answer

Your argument only works if there are no consequences after death. A reckoning will be made upon death, any unjustness is punished then. If you (proverbial you) have accepted Christ, God sees His righteousness instead of your sins and accepts you into His presence. If you have not accepted Christ, God sees your sin, and will not allow you into His presence. So a war that has been claimed to be in God's name, but has not been sanctioned by Him is a sin, and the reckoning for that sin will occur, just not where human eyes can see.

 

[ShaneMan]

I am merely questioning, I really can't get my head around justifiable killing and justifiable war, as I see it according to the bible the only justifiable war is one ordered by god, anyone can claim to be doing so, therefore it has just to be a matter of moral concience and no one is prepared to give an answer

Pretty hard to disagree with you on this. The Old Testament is really pretty much Israel's history and these included their wars, just the same as if there were books written about your country's wars. If others were reading that book then they might not like some of the reasons you gave to go to war. Can't say that I can defend all of that. As far as today, and under New Testament. I get frustrated myself with claims by folks who are suppose to have the faith and belief of any religion saying that they are doing so cause their God told them to. This especially applies to Christians, as far as I am concerned, cause that drags me into that association. I do read The Book but I can't find anywhere in the New Testament, where it gives anyone the green light to kill in the name of God. My personal belief is that people do what they want to do and then use something like their God or their religion to justify their actions.

 

[Rich]

So if Hitler accepted Christ on his deathbed would he be offered eternal Life etc.?

 

[Kryst51]

Pretty hard to disagree with you on this. The Old Testament is really pretty much Israel's history and these included their wars, just the same as if there were books written about your country's wars. If others were reading that book then they might not like some of the reasons you gave to go to war. Can't say that I can defend all of that. As far as today, and under New Testament. I get frustrated myself with claims by folks who are suppose to have the faith and belief of any religion saying that they are doing so cause their God told them to. This especially applies to Christians, as far as I am concerned, cause that drags me into that association. I do read The Book but I can't find anywhere in the New Testament, where it gives anyone the green light to kill in the name of God. My personal belief is that people do what they want to do and then use something like their God or their religion to justify their actions.

I have to agree, excepting that God did command the Israelites to fight certain wars, and to kill. Not only that, judges mentions at least one case that I know of where a nonIsraelite king was killed by the judge (I think his name was Ehud, he was left handed which is why I remember it). I'll have to relook at that particular story to see if God gave any command for him to do so. The New Testament doesn't talk about wars at all does it? I don't remember a place, except maybe revelation which is one book I haven't spent a lot of time in, so am not sure. I believe some wars had to be just now though, I hate to bring it up, but I believe our fight against Nazi Germany was justly fought, as it was fought to end the killing of innocents. But, of course, I can't say for sure what God thought of that war, but knowing God I can guess (So it's only a guess ). I suppose it would have to come down to individual's actions during the war, as we are judged by God as individuals in the end.

 

[Rich]

Pretty hard to disagree with you on this. The Old Testament is really pretty much Israel's history and these included their wars, just the same as if there were books written about your country's wars. If others were reading that book then they might not like some of the reasons you gave to go to war. Can't say that I can defend all of that. As far as today, and under New Testament. I get frustrated myself with claims by folks who are suppose to have the faith and belief of any religion saying that they are doing so cause their God told them to. This especially applies to Christians, as far as I am concerned, cause that drags me into that association. I do read The Book but I can't find anywhere in the New Testament, where it gives anyone the green light to kill in the name of God. My personal belief is that people do what they want to do and then use something like their God or their religion to justify their actions.

Well it's the change of translation from thou shalt not kill to thou shalt not murder. There were many here who during world wars who following the previous definition refused to fight and went on to win a great many bravery awards for their unarmed actions, I just wonder how they'd fare today

 

[ShaneMan]

Well it's the change of translation from thou shalt not kill to thou shalt not murder. There were many here who during world wars who following the previous definition refused to fight and went on to win a great many bravery awards for their unarmed actions, I just wonder how they'd fare today

I have heard this said, on this forum, numerous times and this is one of the statements that I did pursued, at least as good as I could, for what really is the definition. It's been awhile back that I did that so I won't remember all of what I found but after diving into Hebrew lexicons and a few other translation aids, it would seem that "Thou shalt not murder" is definitely in the mix of definitions, but it is not the only definition. Kill is also in the mix. From what I could gather, murder is a stronger definition for the Hebrew word being used. For me, I try to apply hermeneutics also, and I think the definition that fits best is "Thou shalt not commit murder". This is for me, for others it may not fit so good, but I think it is hard to discount it altogether when it is listed as one of the possible definitions.

 

[Adam Caramon]

This is for me, for others it may not fit so good, but I think it is hard to discount it altogether when it is listed as one of the possible definitions.

Feel free not to answer if you feel this will open up a can of worms, but out of curiosity, does it scare you at all that the bible you read today might be radically different from what was written long ago?

I know a lot of people who I consider good people, they also happen to be Christians, but they really don't know much about the bible. They go to church, and they listen to the pastor, and they think of themselves as religious people, but if you mention specific parts of the bible, they rarely know what it is.

If I was a Christian, I think I would study that book every day and every night, even carrying one of those pocket-sized books around with me. I would be terrified that I was missing something otherwise.