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.