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.

 

Reading the Bible: 'They thought you knew'.

page: 3
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by ZIPMATT
 


Please show me how Paul is an imposter.

By claiming as such, you are doing EXACTLY as the OP is describing.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



You're firing (blanks) already, exactly as I described
Where does one start with this? With Paul the Liar which has been posted to you above. The user gives an eloquent dialogue on the topic. Also correct. As further demonstration to you, or others interested in this pattern of thought which will be repeated here, I give only one example.
His 'inception' as 'employee' of God : how did this occcur? On the road to Damascus, we know the story Paul put it in his own words for us. He was 'struck blind' , just as his followers are.

Was this as the other 'inceptions' of the other 'employees' of God? No, because Paul hasted on to tell his lies as you have likely hasted on to propagate or defend them for him. Pure evil has been bound to what was truly holy in the Bible. I am glad the Nicean Fathers didn't have the balls that Paul who also had multiple murders on his conscience did."Oh but its all about sinners" I hear you say. Well what God will say is "Get to HELL sinners!" unless you're very very lucky indeed, so Lord have Mercy on You and that Liar Paul The Imposter!






posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   
What do people feel the parable of the prodigal son is about?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Badgered1
 


Ok this would be a good example if one were dealing with moron translators. And there is some of that literal word translation that is isolated from the meaning intended and is rather clumsy. But not a whole lot. We do find in the King James some translation that are now thought to be weak but even now it is hard to understand the full meaning of these words in there time to understand just how they were intended to be used in the translation.

But to suggest that the bible is a total work of crap translation is just like the guy said "rubbish". In fact all one does when they study word translation is learn.....all the way around. I personaly consider it very bad taste to say the least to disuade the ignorant from looking into any writen work based on your ideas about how translation works.



I didn't suggest the bible as a total work of crap translation at all. I suggested that some of the stories could contain mis-translations. Very different. Those are your words, and I shall not take ownership of them.
As for "Moron" translators - again, your words, not mine - I would suggest that much of the translation was undertaken by those holding clerical positions rather than scholarly ones. Already you have the possibility of political/religious agenda being included based on contemporary thinking. For a monk etc. to literally translate he would need to have perfect knowledge of both languages. Unfortunately, this is highly unlikely. It is also likely that he was given the task based on his position rather than his ability. Remember that the church considered any contradiction of their version to be heresy and punishable. It is totally inconceivable that a lowly monk would dare to challenge the thinking of the day.

In addition, I fail to see where I tried to dissuade anyone from looking into the written work. I did quite the opposite. I merely suggested that taking the entire book as correct could be a poor choice by which to base ones life. One must look all around to see the world. There has been a lot of water pass under the bridge since the dark ages - where the populace was compelled to live by the words of the priests - and the world has changed. If the meanings of the stories still carry validity, then I believe that to be a fabulous thing. However, there is much in the world that cannot be converted to the thinking of days gone by.

There are many inconsistencies, and blatant contradictions in the bible. These are glossed over by those who would interpret the words. I made an example above with the Genesis verses. Which was it, beasts first or Adam first? Which version is correct? Who translated that? Why did he include both versions? Did he misunderstand the language from which he was translating? How many other errors did he make? If you were to pick up a modern book and the first chapter included two very different versions of the same event, and then continued to throw contradictory statements at you, you would likely dismiss it. It's all about context, and the way in which one translates the book from the written into what feels comfortable for you personally.
If you feel discomfort from people pointing out these errors, your issue should be with what you understand from the book rather than from the messengers.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Badgered1
 





GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. or GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Same book, same story, two different things. Which came first, Adam or the beasts? Which do you preach to your 'flock'? Which is the official story? Which one do Baptists hold to? Which one do Catholics prefer? It simply cannot be both. This means that it is possible that the translation of these verses from the 'original' were performed by two different people and then compiled into one. Maybe the Song of Solomon was better staffed during translation. I'm simply trying to show that the 'word of God' is the product of man - once the processing was completed. Today's Bible cannot be accurate. Maybe the message remains, but a curious game of "Chinese Whispers" occurred along the way.


You're right, the issue is to do wth 'interpreting'.
I believe a correct translation of this is found in Tyndales translation, and funnily enough the NIV version. The nuance is in the verb 'formed' found in Genesis 2:19, which should read 'had formed'. Genesis 2 is by no means meant to be a chronology.
Tyndale and the NIV are correct on this verse because the verb in the sentence can be translated as pluperfect rather than perfect. The pluperfect tense can be considered as the past of the past—that is to say, in a narration set in the past, the event to which the narration refers is already further in the past. Once the pluperfect is taken into account, the perceived contradiction completely disappears.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Badgered1

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Badgered1
 


Ok this would be a good example if one were dealing with moron translators. And there is some of that literal word translation that is isolated from the meaning intended and is rather clumsy. But not a whole lot. We do find in the King James some translation that are now thought to be weak but even now it is hard to understand the full meaning of these words in there time to understand just how they were intended to be used in the translation.

But to suggest that the bible is a total work of crap translation is just like the guy said "rubbish". In fact all one does when they study word translation is learn.....all the way around. I personaly consider it very bad taste to say the least to disuade the ignorant from looking into any writen work based on your ideas about how translation works.



I didn't suggest the bible as a total work of crap translation at all. I suggested that some of the stories could contain mis-translations. Very different. Those are your words, and I shall not take ownership of them.
As for "Moron" translators - again, your words, not mine - I would suggest that much of the translation was undertaken by those holding clerical positions rather than scholarly ones.


Well the example you used to show a development of a bad translation would be an example of very bad method that wouldnt be tolerated in the translation of anything. You do suggest however that this was or could have been a method used to translate the bible a book that has been gone over with a very fine tooth comb for years in a scholarly way. I am just saying that when looked into the issue and the folks that have been translating the bible into english for many many years should be given a high rank for their efforts.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Badgered1

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Badgered1
 


Ok this would be a good example if one were dealing with moron translators. And there is some of that literal word translation that is isolated from the meaning intended and is rather clumsy. But not a whole lot. We do find in the King James some translation that are now thought to be weak but even now it is hard to understand the full meaning of these words in there time to understand just how they were intended to be used in the translation.

But to suggest that the bible is a total work of crap translation is just like the guy said "rubbish". In fact all one does when they study word translation is learn.....all the way around. I personaly consider it very bad taste to say the least to disuade the ignorant from looking into any writen work based on your ideas about how translation works.



IIn addition, I fail to see where I tried to dissuade anyone from looking into the written work. I did quite the opposite. I merely suggested that taking the entire book as correct could be a poor choice by which to base ones life. One must look all around to see the world. There has been a lot of water pass under the bridge since the dark ages - where the populace was compelled to live by the words of the priests - and the world has changed. If the meanings of the stories still carry validity, then I believe that to be a fabulous thing. However, there is much in the world that cannot be converted to the thinking of days gone by.



Well there is really very little in the way of things so out of date from days gone by that cant be translated. And yes we moved out of the days of taking what the priest said at face value long ago durring the reformation. There may be some willingly that still do this sort of thing but for those that want to study for themselves there is just a large amount of study that can be done on line even. And frankly I would be guilty of the same sort of thing if I were to narrow my understand down to your spin on the issue dont you think?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badgered1
Take spoken stories from the Bronze age, then write them down in Aramaic - say 500 years later, then translate them to Greek, then to Latin, then to Middle English, then to 'modern' English, and I dare say that the minutiae and context will be lost, or at the very least diluted. Add to that the 'interpretation' (not the same thing as direct translation), and you end up with a completely different set of stories.



This sounds good to the unlearned but in the case of greek we have greek and we have greek translated from the greek that is within a blink in time of the original....that was in greek. Today we can go back to these greek text and translate strait from them. The English bible of today is not a translation from Middle English. Not a translation made on other translations. If you knew anything about the history of the translation of the bible you would know this.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badgered1
reply to post by Lucius Driftwood
 


GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.


or

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.


Same book, same story, two different things. Which came first, Adam or the beasts?


There is no question to be raised here as far a there being two stories. The second part of this is simply reiteration, a placment of a past event, the making of the beasts and then bringing it up to a time where Adam will name them. This is hardly a contradiction in a time frame of who was made first but a time, an event, when after both were made God brought the beast to Adam to be named.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 





There is no question to be raised here as far a there being two stories. The second part of this is simply reiteration, a placment of a past event, the making of the beasts and then bringing it up to a time where Adam will name them. This is hardly a contradiction in a time frame of who was made first but a time, an event, when after both were made God brought the beast to Adam to be named.


I believe I answered this in my response to badgered1.
It appears you have taken my 'quoting of his quote' in my reply and given the appearance it was mine! I agree, there is no contradiction. It's a past pluperfect verb that wasn't translated as such.
edit on 20-6-2011 by Lucius Driftwood because: correction: Pluperfect verb, not past pluperfect.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join