(July 23, 2012 at 12:16 am)Drich Wrote:

(July 23, 2012 at 12:02 am)Cinjin Wrote: I read Drich's copy and paste:


You'd think your almighty, all knowing, perfect god could keep his authors from confusing the shit out of everyone and leave absolutely no room for theories, conjecture and the inevitable (and painfully obvious) contradictions.

It's the same ole same ole from you and your kind: "This is what god really meant, and all you need to do is trust me that THIS particular interpretation is the one true explanation." "Oh and uh, an extensive knowledge of ancient Hebrew and Greek, a library of ancient manuscripts, a Doctorate in Theology and a healthy dose of 'creative phrasing' is also very helpful in understanding what god REALLY meant."

There is no confusion for one willing to do just the tinest bit of research. It took me all of 2 mins to put that post together. The problem lies when one put all of his eggs into the english translation and ignores the fact that everything that is being discussed happened in a different time, culture and language. so yeah there are going to be some areas where things get lost in translation. It seems every other area of the world understands this except english speaking countries. This should be a bit of a wake up call in the the world, more over God does not revolve around you or what you think you understand. We have been commanded to seek God. looking past the english is apart of that 'seeking' process.

We have access to all translations at a click of a button and it is a button we click often to ensure our knowledge of them is accurate. If you did not consider this you should have.
Might I also add its rather convenient you are allowed to switch between translations whenever you please basically changing the definition of whatever passage you choose. If this is not the case then there would be little point in switching between translations and you would just settle on the one you believe to be the closest to what is true.
You do not and this is a mistake that needs to be corrected right now. Which translation do you completely buy into Drich? Please don't insult our intelligence by saying they are all equal in terms of accuracy and clarity, you just made a case against this.

[quote='Cinjin' pid='314263' dateline='1343018169']
[quote]That's awesome. YOU have the internet and someone else's research and yet have the audacity to proclaim, "Hey it only took me 2 minutes to do the tiniest bit of research." Screw all those people who don't have the internet and someone else's extensive research. How obtuse can you possibly be??? [/quote]Your arguement is a double edged sword. I pointed out that it took me only two mins to refute a popular 'internet contradiction/arguement.' No internet then most likly no contradiction, that leaves one where the internet version does. For if anyone where to dig that deep to find such a contradiction it would take very little to find the solution using the same reference material that dug this hole to begin with.

[quote] If you wanted to know what god meant prior to 1993 and you didn't have access to a library of Hebrew and Greek and/or you simply weren't willing to take a fundy researcher's word for granted, you were screwed. Which equals BILLIONS of people. Your god's more impotent and pathetic than fat Elvis.[/quote]20.00 dollars and a little effort to learn how to read a strongs or Bullingers lexicon and concordance (I still have mine from 95) (The bullingers was a gift and it is a 1974 printing. it was 35.00 back then.) Again before now and instant access to supposed 'contradictions' people took the bible at face value. and unless one was committed to study he would have never seen these 'contradictions.' If he were committed to study then most likly He would have been serious enough to invest in at least a few other books.

[quote]God: "Hey I want them to seek me ... and I'm going to make it a brutal son of a bitch to do just that."[/quote]God expects the effort, and does not demand that we all yeild the same result.

Quote:What exactly was it that Caesar Augustus decreed, according to Luke 2:1?

He decreed nothing, asshole. It's phony shit just like the rest of it.

As it so happens Augustus left a written record of the 3 times in his reign when he conducted a lustrum which was a count of Roman citizens and would have had nothing to do with a bunch of peasant poopers from Galilee which was part of the independent kingdom of Galilee and Petraea at the time.

Unfortunately, for you and your bullshit ( and there really is no point in reading the rest of what you wrote because your premise is fucked up) in the Res Gestae Divi Augustus http://classics.mit.edu/Augustus/deeds.html

Quote: and in my sixth consulate (28 B.C.E.) I made a census of the people with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague. I conducted a lustrum, after a forty-one year gap, in which lustrum were counted 4,063,000 heads of Roman citizens. Then again, with consular imperium I conducted a lustrum alone when Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius were consuls (8 B.C.E.), in which lustrum were counted 4,233,000 heads of Roman citizens. And the third time, with consular imperium, I conducted a lustrum with my son Tiberius Caesar as colleague, when Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius were consuls (14 A.C.E.), in which lustrum were counted 4,937,000 of the heads of Roman citizens.

So nothing matches but again, it would hardly matter because what appears in Luke is nothing but horseshit.

What Josephus recounts is an assessment of the newly-formed prefecture of Judaea - nothing about "the whole world" which seems like typical xtian self-aggradisement for the so-called god. Wake up.

[quote='RaphielDrake' pid='314271' dateline='1343019845']
[quote]We have access to all translations at a click of a button and it is a button we click often to ensure our knowledge of them is accurate. If you did not consider this you should have.[/quote]Then please tell me what proper consideration implies.

[quote]Might I also add its rather convenient you are allowed to switch between translations whenever you please basically changing the definition of whatever passage you choose.[/quote]How is it you still do not know what I am doing? I am not switching between translations. I am taking the orginal greek or Hebrew text and then translating the words indivisually, by using a lexicon and concordance.

[quote] If this is not the case then there would be little point in switching between translations and you would just settle on the one you believe to be the closest to what is true.[/quote]

[quote]You do not and this is a mistake that needs to be corrected right now. Which translation do you completely buy into Drich? Please don't insult our intelligence by saying they are all equal in terms of accuracy and clarity, you just made a case against this.[/quote]

here this is an on line version I use.http://www.blueletterbible.org/ This isn't a bible persay. it is the KJV tied to a lexicon and concordance with a full greek and hebrew libary tied to every single word in the bible (that is what the numbers are next to each word.)

Ralphie seriously i talked about this for like the first month and a half I was here. Do you not remember any of this?

Quote:Ralphie seriously i talked about this for like the first month and a half I was here. Do you not remember any of this?

And you were no more convincing then. An argument built on a foundation of sand will not stand.

I can always tell when Drich copy/pastes, because it's spelled correctly.

(July 23, 2012 at 1:17 am)Drich Wrote: [quote='RaphielDrake' pid='314271' dateline='1343019845']

Quote:We have access to all translations at a click of a button and it is a button we click often to ensure our knowledge of them is accurate. If you did not consider this you should have.

Then please tell me what proper consideration implies.

Quote:Might I also add its rather convenient you are allowed to switch between translations whenever you please basically changing the definition of whatever passage you choose.

How is it you still do not know what I am doing? I am not switching between translations. I am taking the orginal greek or Hebrew text and then translating the words indivisually, by using a lexicon and concordance.

Quote: If this is not the case then there would be little point in switching between translations and you would just settle on the one you believe to be the closest to what is true.

Quote:You do not and this is a mistake that needs to be corrected right now. Which translation do you completely buy into Drich? Please don't insult our intelligence by saying they are all equal in terms of accuracy and clarity, you just made a case against this.

here this is an on line version I use.http://www.blueletterbible.org/ This isn't a bible persay. it is the KJV tied to a lexicon and concordance with a full greek and hebrew libary tied to every single word in the bible (that is what the numbers are next to each word.)

Ralphie seriously i talked about this for like the first month and a half I was here. Do you not remember any of this?

I've seen multiple arguments where you were *perfectly* willing to use fundamentalist passages so don't you *dare* try that bullshit with me.
If thats what you're committing to then thats what you're committing to and fair enough. We have a ball game but you have not been committing to it in the past and you should not quote from any other version from now on if thats what you choose to do.

Is this understood or do I have to voice it in even more simplistic terms so I don't get another snarky remark in response?

Dirch, exactly how are you translating this? Like which lexicon are you using?

EDIT: Furthermore, are you trained in the languages you're translating from?

(July 23, 2012 at 12:55 am)Drich Wrote:

(July 23, 2012 at 12:28 am)KnockEmOuttt Wrote: Most of those places you're talking about follow the bible very literally and blindly.

..And you know this because you been to "Most of those places" or are you relying on a sterotype?

I don't know, have you? I don't know what places it is you were talking about to begin with. If you mean anywhere in Europe, chances are they're either extremely traditional or secular. If you mean Latin American, chances are they're devoutly Catholic. Anywhere else, chances are they're something other than Christian. I'm not off base here.

Quote:Things are perhaps "lost in translation", but it doesn't change the fact that the bible as we know it to be written is mostly true to the original translation, and the translated texts are what the religion is based on. The whole picking and choosing thing is just how Christians get around the fact that their "infallible" book is heavily flawed so that they can justify it. It doesn't change anything.

ahhh, no.

the bible (Or rather most verions of it in the English) are what as known as a literal translation where they take a word in the greek or Hebrew and contextually translate and place it so it read smoothly to english readers. However inorder to do this a great deal is lost to translation. History, Cultural meanings, poetry, and a great majority of it is cast aside to maintain literal continuity, (closest thing to a word for word translation as possiable) rather than interject commentary. That said there are many bibles out there in the english that have commentary. But these are considered to be influenced by which ever brand of Christianity/or other faith has included the commentary.
[/quote]

Do you read the bible in ancient Greek and Hebrew often? The translation argument might account for slights, but not the bigger inaccuracies. There are a lot of massive contradictions and inconsistencies in the bible which can't just be explained away by "oh, it's a translation error."

Quote:but it doesn't change the fact that the bible as we know it to be written is mostly true to the original translation

Umm,not quite. There is not now and has almost certainly never been a single accurate translation of the original texts since they were written,nearly 2000 years ago.

The New Testament known today is replete with mistranslations, later insertions, censorship, errors and forgeries. (especially the Epistles)
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Reference:

'Misquoting Jesus' Bart Ehrman.

Quote:Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why is a book by Bart D. Ehrman, a New Testament scholar at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.[1] The book introduces lay readers to the field of textual criticism of the Bible. Ehrman discusses a number of textual variants that resulted from intentional or accidental manuscript changes during the scriptorium era. The book, which made it to the New York Times Best Seller list, is available in hardcover and paperback.[2]

Quote:Summary

Ehrman recounts his personal experience with the study of the Bible and textual criticism. He summarizes the history of textual criticism, from the works of Desiderius Erasmus to the present. The book describes an early Christian environment in which the books that would later compose the New Testament were copied by hand, mostly by Christian amateurs. Ehrman concludes that various early scribes altered the New Testament texts in order to deemphasize the role of women in the early church, to unify and harmonize the different portrayals of Jesus in the four gospels, and to oppose certain heresies (such as Adoptionism). Ehrman contends that certain widely-held Christian beliefs, such about the divinity of Jesus, are associated not with the original words of scripture but with these later alterations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misquoting_Jesus