RE: Book of Contradictions: A Challenge
May 12, 2011 at 10:14 am
(This post was last modified: May 12, 2011 at 10:17 am by Doubting Thomas.)
(May 12, 2011 at 12:37 am)Godschild Wrote: I tried to show you that rested in this case meant cease doing which in no way means resting because one is tired. You have to go back to the original languages it's just that simple. Also at my church we do go through the Hebrew and Greek to understand what was originally written.
Ah yes, the old "lost in translation" defense that apologists love to use to make a bible passage mean something other than its apparent, literal meaning. I don't know how many times I've heard fundies say that you have to go back to the original languages in which the bible was written to get the true meaning. Why is it that certain words and phrases always mean some other, obscure meaning rather than what is actually written? Got any evidence that's what the authors really meant, other than the fact that the literal meaning makes the bible look bad?
And frankly, if you have to go back to the original languages in which the bible was written, then what good is an English language bible? You're in fact admitting that the bible is full of translation errors and therefore flawed.
Christian apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.