Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Bible found to be mistranslated

page: 8
40
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 28 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


You didn't answer my question...

I appreciate your reply but none the less...

Define evil please...





posted on May, 28 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


By definition: Profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Akragon
 


By definition: Profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity


All subjective concepts...

One persons idea of wickedness might be perfectly fine to another.

so were left with society's moral standards i guess.

Or...Evil doesn't exist. Which is more logical




posted on May, 29 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Evil is a descriptive word. Similarly, abhorrent is a descriptive word, it's language, we humans can use it without a belief in the supernatural, and without a belief in absolutism.

*place smug smiley face here*



Sam Harris talks about "good" and "evil".
edit on 29/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by keldas
 





I do think you are being a bit hypercritical, if the initial post had been a stupid post with just the intention of gaining stars or flags or to knock up additional posts then I would say you had some justification for that comment. But as I have been on ATS for a number of years I do not need to claim a minimum number of posts and I am not interested in stars and flags. I may not always debate everything I post, but I am interested in ensuring anything I come across that I personally find interesting gets a wider audience. And ATS does have a wide audience and with a few exceptions on the whole many intelligent and erudite posters.


been on for a number of years ?
Look, I didn't realise you'd take ny comment as a green light to make yourself look even worse.




You are an experienced contributor to ATS. Please be an example for our newer members and make every post matter


Care to add anything else


I'm teasing but if you been here that long. That can't really be any kind of defense

Surely you must concede two paragraphs isn't asking. Never mind. Get over it.
edit on 29-5-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-5-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by keldas
 





I do think you are being a bit hypercritical, if the initial post had been a stupid post with just the intention of gaining stars or flags or to knock up additional posts then I would say you had some justification for that comment. But as I have been on ATS for a number of years I do not need to claim a minimum number of posts and I am not interested in stars and flags. I may not always debate everything I post, but I am interested in ensuring anything I come across that I personally find interesting gets a wider audience. And ATS does have a wide audience and with a few exceptions on the whole many intelligent and erudite posters.


Look, I didn't realise you'd take ny comment as a green light to make yourself look even worse.




You are an experienced contributor to ATS. Please be an example for our newer members and make every post matter


Care to add anything else


i'm teasing


A matter of opinion surely.

Don't you think this line of posting is irrelevant and detracting from the discussion on the chronical project.

You appeared to say that you like ATS would like people to put up some information in order to stimulate debates. You must have been interested in the topic to click on it. What then is your opinion on the information provided by the chronical project.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by keldas
 


The creator of the universe is capable of the universe. I think he can see to it we get the message he wants us to have. K ? Nuff said.

Just what I've already said.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by keldas
 


Its true!! The Bible has been grossly mistranslated in the past... 1880 from Wescot and Hort's revised greek text.... and 1904 with the American standard version.

Thank God (literally) we still have the preserved and inspired word of God today in the form of the King James Bible.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
After reading literally all the material available on the website, short of the material teaching the language itself (I read the dictionaries, though), I can say two things:

One, as another person has already said, it is preposterous to think that a native knows less about its own language than a wannabe scholar living 3 thousand years and some detached of the language and culture. We have two reliable sources to understand ancient hebrew; the jewish oral tradition and the new testament. In many parts, their translations go in direct contradiction to these two.

Two, they are correct that ancient hebrew is more complicated than it should be. Maybe their intentions were good but their efforts were for naught. When you have someone claiming that they know how to translate something and the result is different from a native speaker understanding of the passage, one ought to doubt said person's allegedly ability to translate.

I think we can leave all of this behind us and consider this debunked.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by keldas
 


I will post again here:
The Bible has not been mistranslated. Read the new version:
IT IS THE SAME!!!
There are just a lot more words meaning the same thing.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by seraphnb
reply to post by keldas
 


I will post again here:
The Bible has not been mistranslated. Read the new version:
IT IS THE SAME!!!
There are just a lot more words meaning the same thing.


It is not the same. I've read it all. All four "chronicles" released, all verses, all passages listed on other parts. Their "eleven commandments". Yes, much of it is the same. They have been toiling hard to change the translation only enough that they can claim that they only clarified some things, but they changed it enough that they still get to pass their agenda.

Notable, in example, is the lack of a "do not covet" commandment. Instead, it was replaced by a strange and barely intelligible idea of "do not increase the fear of you." The "do not covet your neighbor's wife" has been replaced by a "do not increase your wife's fear of you." A very interesting take, give our divorce-prone, cheating-ridden society that someone would retranslate the Bible and find out that "coveting your neighbor's wife" wasn't really a sin, at all, it was just a mistake. And "do not increase your wife's fear of you" is surprisingly pro-feminist, isn't it? Are we talking about the same very patriarchal society that spawned from those commandments?

I agree that lots of it is the same, but as the saying goes, "The devil is in the details."



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
The biggest mistake was letting man have a crack at the bible. Of course it has been mistranslated, misused and probably the biggest false prophet of them all. haha.

How can something that is meant for so much good, cause soo much misery and suffering, without it being mistranslated, manipulated....etc.

Remember that "telephone" game you used to play in grade school? Couldn't keep the message the same through 3 minutes and 30 kids. Imagine thousands of years.

Chaos.




posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 


The problem that many of us have is that unless we have knowledge of the language ourselves we are in the hands of the translators.

However, a translation of the bible even if it appears to be different or better does not mean that either the new or old translation necessarily confirm that what the authors of the bible wrote about is true.

That is a another debate in and of itself.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 


I think that this page disputes your claim dramatically. So yeah, millions of native speakers CAN get it wrong.


And BTW the "oral tradition' refers to "Jewish Law", not necessarily what is written in the Torah (although admittedly this is a widely accepted idea, but not necessarily true).
edit on 6/1/2011 by ThreeSistersofLoveandLigh because: to add



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThreeSistersofLoveandLigh
reply to post by Leahn
 


I think that this page disputes your claim dramatically. So yeah, millions of native speakers CAN get it wrong.


And BTW the "oral tradition' refers to "Jewish Law", not necessarily what is written in the Torah (although admittedly this is a widely accepted idea, but not necessarily true).
edit on 6/1/2011 by ThreeSistersofLoveandLigh because: to add


Not millions of native speakers that lived when the language was spoken. Modern Hebrew is quite different than Biblical Hebrew, and the movement for the Revival of Hebrew Language merely desires to return to the use of the Biblical Hebrew under some excuse that it is a sacred language. This link in no way disputes the idea that the people that lived in Biblical times ought to have a much better understanding of the language they spoke themselves than someone detached two thousand years from it.

And Oral Tradition refers to the Mishnah, which together with the Gemara, forms the Talmud.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
This is all well and good, but where can I find a copy of the real translations? I want to see what sorts of things they're claiming. I mean, it's bound to be interesting.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by FatedAxion
 


Their website has four PDF files to be downloaded with their first four "Chronicles" that translate all the way to the end of the Great Flood. It is under the menu section called "Chronicles." They are two part documents that first contain a word-by-word translation, followed by a more verse-by-verse English friendly translation in the end.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


This translation is incorrect.

I'm using www.sacred-texts.com... as my source on the Hebrew, and my own (admittedly limited) knowledge of Hebrew to translate.

The Meshakhad Translation:
1. And spoke Elohim all these words to say:
The "to say" is either extraneous or has a hidden meaning. This being the Bible, I'm guessing the latter.
2. I am YAHWEH your G-d who delivered you from the land of Mitzrayim (Egypt), from the house of slavery.
OK, that matches what I know about the First Commandment. "Beit Av'dim" is sometimes translated as "house of bondage" but that's just a poetic flourish.
3. There shall not be to you other gods on my face.
I think "on my face" just means "in front of me" or "before me".

The rest is beyond my Hebrew. But this on-the-spot translation seems to match the popular account.





new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join