Greetings,

You are probably familiar with this,
You are discussing with a Christian his/her Bible,
then you say for example, 'How can loving God command killing of babies?'
and quote this,
And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
...
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, sic. Numbers 31:7, 16-17

And this theist replies, 'But you know, the Hebrew words does not mean killing. It means giving sweet, honey-flavored milk to the babies!'
Then you probably feel stupid that you don't know Hebrew (as well as Greek and Aramaic).

So, it got me thinking, 'Why are we atheists? Because we speak all these stupid modern languages instead of just one godly language spoken in the good old times. So, many languages, translations, mis-translations of God's word...'
But, wait a sec, was it it God who confused the languages? Was it His intention to create atheists?'
And to watch Christians have arguments with Jews over the Almah word ?

Incoherence extraordinaire.

I can spot your point in there, but how do you want to generate a discussion when you present it like that?

I've always looked at it this way:

1.  God wants everyone to believe and to be saved (says so right in the handbook).

2.  The way to learned how to be saved is a deep and assiduous study of the Bible.

3.  If 1 & 2 are true (ask any Christian, they'll tell you), then God would make sure that the Bible is accurate.

4.  Given 3, all translations of the Bible should read exactly the same to all believers and potential believers.  In other words, there should be absolutely no reasonable confusion over what ANY of the passages in the Bible say or mean.

C.  Since 4 is clearly not true, the Bible is no more or less to be sanctified and believed than the mythos of any other religion.

Boru

(September 18, 2016 at 7:33 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I've always looked at it this way:

1.  God wants everyone to believe and to be saved (says so right in the handbook).

2.  The way to learned how to be saved is a deep and assiduous study of the Bible.

3.  If 1 & 2 are true (ask any Christian, they'll tell you), then God would make sure that the Bible is accurate.

4.  Given 3, all translations of the Bible should read exactly the same to all believers and potential believers.  In other words, there should be absolutely no reasonable confusion over what ANY of the passages in the Bible say or mean.

C.  Since 4 is clearly not true, the Bible is no more or less to be sanctified and believed than the mythos of any other religion.

Boru

It seems to me like you're conflating the Bible with its translations here, so your argument collapses. Unless you meant to do this, in which case I don't know why you felt the need to separate them in the first place.

(September 18, 2016 at 7:42 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(September 18, 2016 at 7:33 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I've always looked at it this way:

1.  God wants everyone to believe and to be saved (says so right in the handbook).

2.  The way to learned how to be saved is a deep and assiduous study of the Bible.

3.  If 1 & 2 are true (ask any Christian, they'll tell you), then God would make sure that the Bible is accurate.

4.  Given 3, all translations of the Bible should read exactly the same to all believers and potential believers.  In other words, there should be absolutely no reasonable confusion over what ANY of the passages in the Bible say or mean.

C.  Since 4 is clearly not true, the Bible is no more or less to be sanctified and believed than the mythos of any other religion.

Boru

It seems to me like you're conflating the Bible with its translations here, so your argument collapses. Unless you meant to do this, in which case I don't know why you felt the need to separate them in the first place.

I'm sure it seems that way to you. I'll try again.

I'm not 'conflating the Bible with its translations', because all we have to work with are the translations - there is no such thing as a complete, original Bible (this is why so many modern Bibles have 'red words' to represent missing bits).

By way of a recent example here on the boards, it shouldn't matter whether a particular passage uses the word 'almah' or 'betulah'; if God wants us all to be saved, then we should all be able to agree on what is meant without the ambiguity of translation. While I happily grant that no translation of anything is going to be perfect, the Bible is alleged to be the word of God and should therefore be unambiguously understood, no matter the language.

Hope this is clearer.

Boru

(September 18, 2016 at 8:01 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(September 18, 2016 at 7:42 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: It seems to me like you're conflating the Bible with its translations here, so your argument collapses. Unless you meant to do this, in which case I don't know why you felt the need to separate them in the first place.

I'm sure it seems that way to you.  I'll try again.

I'm not 'conflating the Bible with its translations', because all we have to work with are the translations - there is no such thing as a complete, original Bible (this is why so many modern Bibles have 'red words' to represent missing bits).

By way of a recent example here on the boards, it shouldn't matter whether a particular passage uses the word 'almah' or 'betulah';  if God wants us all to be saved, then we should all be able to agree on what is meant without the ambiguity of translation.  While I happily grant that no translation of anything is going to be perfect, the Bible is alleged to be the word of God and should therefore be unambiguously understood, no matter the language.

Hope this is clearer.

Boru

It is. It doesn't answer why you felt the need to separate between the two, however, therefore repeating yourself in points 3 and 4.

I've always been told that the red words in the NT, were the words Jesus supposedly spoke.

(September 18, 2016 at 9:58 am)Nymphadora Wrote: I've always been told that the red words in the NT, were the words Jesus supposedly spoke.

Yeah. I had one of those stupid ones too when I was Catholic.

(September 18, 2016 at 7:19 am)mcolafson Wrote: Greetings,

You are probably familiar with this,
You are discussing with a Christian his/her Bible,
then you say for example, 'How can loving God command killing of babies?'
and quote this,
And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
...
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, sic. Numbers 31:7, 16-17

And this theist replies, 'But you know, the Hebrew words does not mean killing. It means giving sweet, honey-flavored milk to the babies!'
Then you probably feel stupid that you don't know Hebrew (as well as Greek and Aramaic).

So, it got me thinking, 'Why are we atheists? Because we speak all these stupid modern languages instead of just one godly language spoken in the good old times. So, many languages, translations, mis-translations of God's word...'
But, wait a sec, was it it God who confused the languages? Was it His intention to create atheists?'
And to watch Christians have arguments with Jews over the Almah word ?

But wait, there's more...

Isn't God also the one who has perserved his word, provided translation and resources like the blue letter bible to help even the dumbest among us to identify the meaning and intent of the Hebrew and Greek?

All we need to bring to the table is the slightest curiosity and only enough follow through to type in a web address and a book chapter and verse.

You do not know, because you do not ask. You do not ask because foolish pride told you, you already know. Then you get huffy because you are corrected???

This is what you douche bags do with 'proof' (Which is why God is not chasing after you all with signs and wonders.) You all trivialize, minimize and mock what you can not refute. "proof" is nothing more than a lazy excuse to live the life you think you want to live.

Because again apologetically, when you have been proven wrong concerning the nature of God... Look what you do with said 'proof' of your theological failures.

(there is no proof of God argument from someone who does not understand what I said here in 3..2..1...)