It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Testament original texts, where are they?

page: 13
7
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   
I like to believe God speaks to us directly and doesn't require a book to know. God was around before books, and if they weren't divinely protected from copy 1, well, that's not so inspired. God is good, Yahweh is evil.
The New Testament is an edited, re-edited, and written by men who had intentions of controlling the masses, book.
The New Testament is fiction.




posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: areyousirius360
I like to believe God speaks to us directly and doesn't require a book to know. God was around before books, and if they weren't divinely protected from copy 1, well, that's not so inspired. God is good, Yahweh is evil.
The New Testament is an edited, re-edited, and written by men who had intentions of controlling the masses, book.
The New Testament is fiction.


The only problem is you are not Holy enough for God to speak to you directly.

God needs not to preserve his word from one copy to another but only at the time when holy men gather in each generation he will us them to preserve his word unto them in the trade language of the day, today that is English.

No Bible controls masses of people. The Quran does but not the Bible. People manipulate and control people.

It is easy to say such things as "the NT is fiction" but harder to prove.

But coming from you such lies are expected.


edit on 4-2-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
That's your opinion but I don't have any problems as you say. I am confident that God is good and the New Testament is not history just mythology based off constellations.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohnYour insults mean nothing you are obviously a disturbed individual prone to grudges and hatred.
You should learn the new testament better because you don't act like a christian you seem to just like to cause trouble.
I'm going to say that the real gospel was found at Nag Hammadi, that it was God who revealed the hidden wisdom within. That sounds like God's doing. Im satisfied with that. You do what you do and stop trying to bait me I won't stoop to your level.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: areyousirius360

There is no insult unless truth is insulting then so be it. I am so glad you know my heart so well to draw such accurate discriptions of hatred and disturbances. NOT!!!

But your disingenuous post that the NT is fiction leaves everyone wondering why you want to know what happened to the ORIGINALS.

One moment you are saying parts of the many papyrus and older NT text are correct but with many omissions and corrupt to an whole new point of it being nothing but FICTION. And Now it is based on the Stars.

So you can see why I state your threads are nothing more than bait threads meant to engender strife not a fruitful discussion. That is what a Troll does.


edit on 4-2-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   
The New Testament is fiction. Where are the originals?
They were found at Nag Hammadi.
Thanks everyone!!!



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

The word of God -- is a LIVING word, and living people speaks living languages. Feel free to call me thou or thee and be all Shakespearian and feel the rush of Arcadia and sense the underlying spring of the Rose-crux while words long written down are spoken without you sensing anything but the music and poetry of the 17th century. Or you can simply read it in understandable modern language. KJV NT is based on one single document for the most part, a highly faulty text written down in Greek in the 16th century, called Textus Receptus. A modern bible like ESV is based on thousands of documents, some more than 1000 years older, even some from the first century, all material available to us today. Not one text, but more than 10 000 texts, some fragments were written down when st. Peter and Paul roamed the Roman Empire. You can say what you want about science and archaeology, but their damn good at finding old stuff in the ground and make sense of stuff that is invisible to the naked eye. The word of God is a living word. We know far more about biblical texts today than 400 years ago and we about a dozen thousand more ancient texts to rely on, that Bacon and James had in 1611.
edit on 4-2-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohnSo basically you are the troll, I make good threads and it pleases me that it upsets you to the point of hurling insults, which is the action of a defeated Christian.
You have not contributed anything but complaints about me. Just get off my case and stop trying not be a nuisance.
Have you noticed how little people care about what you have to say? Go away.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: Utnapisjtim
I loath admitting this but modern Catholic bibles like the Jerusalem bible and the NRSV are the most accurate to the originals.


NRSV isn't whether Catholic or Protestant really. They only call their expanded version (including a few extra books) Catholic because the Catholic canon or list of books included in the Bible is longer than Luther's. It's an update of the American Standard Version. I've seen some study material for the NRSV, but I'm not impressed. The two best pillars for studying the Bible in translated shape as per today, is by far the English Standard (ESV) and the New International Versions (NIV) measured in available study material and the quality of it all. However, you'd always wanna have a few more versions on your shelf, including KJV and NRSV. Don't carry all the eggs in one basket. The «true Catholic Bible» would be the latest version of the Vulgate in Latin. Conservative Catholics often cling to Jerome's Latin Vulgate which actually is one of the oldest NT bibles about.


I've looked into it quite diligently and say this knowing though it is my opinion, I am confident enough to say it is true.
I heard the Oxford annotated something or other bible is good too. But the Jerusalem bible is something special and hard to get. That's why I recommend the NRSV because it's almost as good.


The true word of God walks in between all these versions. There is not one which is entirely correct, you must compare and use sense and allow yourself to think and be critical and rational. You have to do science when dealing with written artefacts up to nearly 3000 years old.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: UtnapisjtimSo what it's the Catholic book they use at mass. Did you really need to point out that tiny fact, when Catholics bibles, Apocrypha aside, really are the best translations. That's in the realm of opinion but I have really looked into it and the two translations I mentioned are both Catholic and excellent translations. You don't need to correct every minute detail like this one that wasn't really relevant.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: UtnapisjtimI never even said they were perfect I said they were the best. My opinion, but a well researched one. You are suggesting that each bible is needed to get the full picture, but many could be justly discarded. Knowing or seeking God would be the way to use your theory, learning the wisdom of the world, all the faiths, as they all have their own eternal truths. God can't be confined to a book, or our idea of him. I guarantee you we are all wrong about something when it comes to God.
Likewise sometimes we are right. But don't be surprised when you meet him and he is not what you thought he'd be.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: areyousirius360

Theological there is nothing different between say ESV and NRSV, so they could very well use the ESV at mass in England, but since it is written in British English and doesn't include the Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books -- what I wanted to point out is that NRSV is the major modern American translation of the Bible, it's an updated (from RSV the Revised Standard Version) revision of the American Standard Version (ASV). Since I'm European and slightly royalist when I'm drunk, I prefer the ESV.

If you study to become a Catholic priest, I guess you would still do so studying the Vulgate, at least that was how it was done earlier. NRSV is a modern good bible and most likely the result of tedious research and the best of textual criticism and may for all I know be the version chosen by the American Catholic Church for mass. Since it is «The American Bible».
edit on 4-2-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim
Very well. It's translated using Greek, Masoretic, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, so I bet it was very tedious.
What is the ESV translated from?



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: Utnapisjtim
Very well. It's translated using Greek, Masoretic, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, so I bet it was very tedious.
What is the ESV translated from?


Like I expect NRSV also is-- ESV is a translation that is the result from studying and comparing ALL available source material, more than 10 000 documents (including a few hundred Dead Sea scrolls relating to OT), written mostly in Hebrew and Greek, but other ancient languages as well (like Aramaic, Latin and Syriac), it generally follows the Hebrew Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) for the OT and the Greek Nestle-Aland (currently in its 28th edition, NA28) as well as the United Bible Societies (UBS5, current is 5th edition) text for NT, which (NA28 and UBS5) are more or less identical, but have slightly different critical apparatus and a few other things. A modern text critical Bible, that's the important thing when you choose a bible, without a serious critical apparatus there is no way to validate the texts. There are soooo many documents that all claim to be the word of God, and in one way or the other they are all different.

ESV is a typical Protestant or Lutheran bible. I said it was British english, but I just realised it seems to use American orthography.
edit on 4-2-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: UtnapisjtimWhat's orthogrophy? That sounds like a good reliable translation. Most American churches I know use the niv or kjv, in my area at least it's between those two, and the King James while fairly accurate, has never addressed newly discovered translation errors, the nkjv is just plain sickening I even saw a triqueta on one it is a disguised 666 and doesn't represent the trinity as is alleged.
The niv is agenda based and the translators had no problem " making adjustments" to the text if it made explaining things easier. Very subtle, very devious.
I recommend the 2 Catholic bibles because they are accurate, same as the ESV. I love the JB and the NRSV because I have them, found one and bought one on both accounts. It's meaningful to me that I found them being that they are so good and I found them at random. I don't use any other bibles unless it's on the internet and Im looking for inconsistencies. The footnotes in the JB are so thorough it's tedious sometimes. But revealing and could fill a small book.
edit on 4-2-2016 by areyousirius360 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: areyousirius360

Orthography? Look it up. Enter google write orthography def or orthography wiki and you'll get plenty definitions or the wikipedia page for it. Here's one page showing what I was referring to, different spellings in British and American: en.wikipedia.org...

I own quite a few bibles meself, though I have no real experience with the American Standard and its offsprings, other than a red '52 Revised Standard I've picked up along the road. I tend to dislike NIV, mostly for its more loose language (ESV is strictly word-by-word, and loyal to the BHS and the UBS in most cases). The UBS/NA Greek texts seems to rely on mostly Alexandrian-type manuscripts. I like that, Arius of Alexandria is one of my heroes. I have no faith-rocking considerations as to different translations, people typically use the one their church recommends. As I said I am not really a member of one. I'm baptised twice, but aren't even really religious. I'm just in it for the free funeral deal.
edit on 4-2-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim
Thanks, you could have just told me it isn't like I can't operate a search engine but I will live. The niv sucks I agree.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: UtnapisjtimThanks for the link, I need to expand my vocabulary.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: areyousirius360

Yes, that, and can you please drop all the drama and arbitrary passive aggressive BS while you're at it? That's sort of a rhetorical question btw. You were obviously unable to look up "ortography" yourself, you asked me, so I showed you how to do it quick and simple. I suggest you'd buy a dictionary to put beside your latest revision of the Bible. And warm up a drop of lavender oil for the calming experience and do some yoga or something, you're ranting, mate.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: areyousirius360

Yes and sorry about that last one, bet I really pissed you off now. Nice to be at service. Let's both behave eh?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join