Bible question., page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 20-10-2004 @ 07:37 AM by jadestonedoll
Originally posted by ImAlreadyPsycho
One of my biggest problems with the bible and my family trying to push it on me is this problem here. My take is this.

Many men over the course of over 400 years wrote the bible. Not one person. All claimed that this was told to them by a man named god, whom they never saw, just heard. Over they centuries it took to write, many people believed these men were telling the truth. These men also said god would talk to many more in the future and they need but to listen.

Many centuries later, no one has added to the bible. Those who "god speaks to" are labeled insane by shrinks and "normal" folks.

The question now becomes, if people who hear gods voice today are insane, what keeps those from centuries ago from being insane? In other words, why believe some guys from over 1000 years ago that you have never seen or heard on TV or radio (credability) who wrote a book claiming it was god who told them what to write, but not believe someone that wanted to add to it today who you may actually be able to see or hear on TV or radio that could help you determine their credability?

I have many other issues with the bible, but this is one thought that has plagued me for some time.


This has been an issue for me as well. I am bipolar, and if I go into a manic cycle I hear a voice which I believe to be God and I have hallucinated lights in the sky. This voice tells me what to do, what to write, etc. I can't help but see the similarities in the prophets of the OT. I get a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach when I consider that centuries of history and countless lives may have been based on the ravings of some people with mental illness.


reply posted on 20-10-2004 @ 07:53 AM by Misfit
Originally posted by bet555
Originally posted by Amadeus
Hi again Valkeryie:

Then can you explain what you mean when you said, "The Word of God is Perfect, nothing needs to be added" because you have not explained what you mean exactly by the "Word of God", since there are so many conflicting collections of books which different groups call the "Bible..."

Presumably something that is "Perfect" is something that is a "Complete Unity" that has an internal consistency, like for example, a perfect diamond, etc. but and the conflicting morass of jumbled manuscripts that go to make up what some people call the "bible" is not a unity at all, let alone something perfect.

Presumably you would have been able to sense some of this if you have taken a closer look at your English text commentaries?

I'm still waiting for your answer....what do you consider "the bible" and why on earth would you claim it is perfect?





I hate people like this they just ask BUT What if... but What if... Then why this ... Why this. Why this... What if this ... Then why this .. then why this ... well if that then explain this to me... Why in the Dictionary are there words that have definitions that have words that if you go look up that word in that definition it refers back to the other word making an endless cycle to a word that noone really can put into words. Why is the wind not visable by man but fire sees it and moves around it when it comes. ??? Is fire living it dances as if it were.


Seems like a perfectly logical question, - which one is the "perfect" one referred to? Considering one can take the same verse from 2 different Bibles, and they have no similarity whatsoever !!

One can hardly take 'different Bibles' to 'definitions of a word in a dictionary' as any kind of an analogy.

Misfit


reply posted on 20-10-2004 @ 08:10 AM by kinglizard
Most of the books of the Old Testament were originally written in Hebrew (with a few portions in Aramaic), while the entire New Testament was originally written in Greek. The Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek languages don't translate to English perfectly but the translation attempts to stay as close to the originally written word as best it can. In a lot of modern study bibles if a word doesn’t exactly match the English equivalent it is referenced and the reader is shown the alternative meaning of the original text.

We have a couple different Translation Philosophies:


Formal Correspondence Translations

Tries to stick as closely as possible to the original wording and word-order of the Hebrew and Greek texts. Thus they may seem more accurate or "literal," but often require detailed explanations in footnotes to avoid being misinterpreted by modern readers. They are good for in-depth academic study of the Bible, but may be less suited for public proclamation, since they can be difficult to understand when heard or read aloud.

Dynamic Equivalence Translations

Attempts to put the sense of the original text into the best modern English, remaining close to the ideas expressed but not always following the exact wording or word-order of the Hebrew or Greek originals. Thus they may seem less "literal" than the formal correspondence translations, but can be just as "faithful" to the original text, and are therefore generally better suited for public proclamation or liturgical use.

www.zondervanbibles.com...

The NIV Bible (the most recent translation) was translated not by one individual but by 115 different biblical scholars and published in 1978. Translation Philosophy is a balance between word-for-word and thought-for-thought.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



The Truth About the Garden of Eden Story
  Posted 9 days ago with 49 member flags
The Mormon Church is a Cult
  Posted 12 days ago with 23 member flags
Google Earth proves Muhammad-Islam
  Posted 2 days ago with 23 member flags
Where is the gospel of jesus?
  Posted 3 days ago with 18 member flags
Who killed the prophet Muhammad? A 1400 year old murder mystery.
  Posted 17 days ago with 16 member flags
Quake Reveals Day of Jesus\' Crucifixion
  Posted 4 days ago with 12 member flags
Ancient Photographic Evidance of Angels. The Real Anunnaki
  Posted 0 days ago with 10 member flags