Quote (Dune1 @ Apr 29 2010 03:44pm)
A different interpretation, is not a translational error. There are SOOO many ways to interpret greek and hebrew within its' context. Greek and Hebrew is just that type of language. What you read, means something else to someone else. It's all about context. Even still, there are small changes in the text from one translation to another. ALL the translations agree when it comes to doctrinal text. The groups of people that translate these bibles do this for a living. They are experts in translation, and know what they are doing 10x more than you or I will EVER know. To say that you have it right, and they don't is a pretty big leap there.. Again, these are groups of translators. Not some Joe-Shmoe of the street trying to write what he thinks. I would also like to know what forgeries you speak of. I would love to see concrete evidence of any forgery that has been published in the Christian bible. I'm not talking about assumptions or heresay.. I'm talking about evidence. The fact is, there isn't any.
There is also no evidence of the forgeries in Paul's letters. Historians, scholars, scientists, etc.. Will ALWAYS try to discredit the bible and its' authors. That has been going on since the writings were first presented. If you question the authenticity of Paul's writings.. then you have to question the authenticity of the entire bible. Our culture is radically different than the culture 2000 years ago.. but what does that have to do with translating text the way it is written? Why would they leave some things that were part of culture then, but change others? Women speaking in church for example. Do you think that is part of our culture.. or theirs? They left it the way it was, because that was the way it was written. Society has changed the meaning of that text, not the translators. Some churches do not let women speak in church or have any role in church... while others allow women to be the lead minister.
Again, why would God allow his word to be distorted, misinterpreted, forged, etc..? God has preserved his text just the way it was written. To say he didn't or couldn't, is to say we have a weak God.
Also, this "cultural" changing of the text is a slippery slope. In 200 years when homosexuality and abortions are the norm.. will our bible be changed to fit the ideologies of the culture at the time? I doubt it.
I was not being a jerk about my education response. You guys just came in here sounding high and mighty. Like you have the perfect "denomination" and do things the correct way, and the only way. Then you spoke of your education as if you know what you are talking about, and I do not. I merely stated my credentials so that you know I am educated myself, not to boast in my achievements. If I came off harsh, it was not meant to be and I apologize.
Sorry for the wall of text.
You turned this into a personal vendetta and I've lost interest. My quote of Ejbot's had nothing to do with my own denomination, so quit blowing smoke. And, like post #48 said, you did not "merely" state your credentials. You do know that the people who are viewing you are the ones who decide how you come off, not you, right? I hope this isn't how you present yourself to your congregation in real life. Any disagreement and you act like it is an attack on you personally.
Either way, even if I were to show you any proof of my previous Pauline references, it wouldn't pierce your closed mind. Personally, I believe they are all Pauline. But, there are many scholars who don't, and like you said earlier, they know far more about any of this than you or I ever will. You must not have read what I said anyway. Just because they aren't proven as Pauline, and even if they aren't Pauline, does not mean they are not valid. After all, it's God's word. Why would He let something that doesn't belong in the Bible to be in it? But that does
not mean that they weren't forged. I think you are too hung up on the idea that the word forgery automatically has a negative connotation.
And why would we have to question the authenticity of the whole Bible if the letters aren't Pauline. You do know that Paul was not the only author of the bible, right?
Honestly, I laughed out loud when you interpreted what I said as claiming that scholars have translated the Bible wrong. You do know the difference between translation and interpretation, right? And your reference to women in ministry, disallowing women this is a prime example of
misinterpretation. Obviously you haven't studied much of the Pauline text. You do know that the reason for 1 Tim 2:12 is because the women in that church and city were highly susceptible to false teachings due to their lack of education, right? It was not a good time for women to have a leadership role, especially in the context. But, with the way you are presenting yourself, you take everything in the Bible literally, without considering context, and believe women don't have a role in ministry, right?
And in regards to your snide comment about my thinking that translators are Joe Schmoes off the street, you really didn't read what I said did you?
Quote
You do know that when a new version is created, scholars translate the Greek/ Hebrew/ Aramaic texts, right? They don't just take the NIV or KJV and supplement synonyms in for big words.
I'm glad you aren't a biblical translator because you can't even correctly interpret what I am saying on here. This got stupid really fast, and this will be my last post unless you clean up your attitude. Oh well.
This post was edited by ihavethesniffles on Apr 29 2010 05:47pm