:beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Printable View
:beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It does not matter whose religion is worse.
Humans have a built-in sense of what is right and what not. Both mentioned cases, the Islamic and the Catholic one, are wrong.
Religion manages to mess up with our inate sence of justice and leads to such barbaric acts...
I'd say it's not religion; it's ideology as a whole or more precisely the fact that such things tend to remove our own personal responsibility for such acts through the notion that a higher power has taken authority and will be accountable. Thus we are freed from the burden of culpability and morally are satisfied, regardless of how barbaric the act may actually be.Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
[/Ramble, Ramble, Ramble, Waffle, Waffle, Waffle]
The Geneva and KJV largely follow the Latin, not the Greek so much. Anyway, you siezed on that and ignored my larger point. No Gree or Hebrew, ergo no direct access to scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
About as often as English Puritans, probably. Salem is just the worst example, the fact that the judges gave such credence to wide-ranging and absurd accusations says a lot.Quote:
Really? How often did they do that?
Are you sure? One of the problems Obama had was the charge that he was not a Christian and he had to plug into the Black Church community in Chicago to get elected. Religion is big buisness in America, it has determined the election of the last two presidents at least.Quote:
Which of course it is not and has never been on the same scale as Saudi Arabia and only existed as a small problem before America, as a country, was ever formed! That statement is completely wrong.
Sorry if this discussion on Puritanism seems off topic, I'll leave it up to the mods if they think it deserves a thread of its own.
I don't know why you would not consider an English Bible to express the scipture effectively. In any case, the Reformed doctrines which the Puritans followed were created by theologians who could read Greek and Hebrew perfectly well. While checking the meaning of a word in Greek here or there can be helpful when seeking to understand a passage, I cannot think of one mainstream Protestant doctrine which could not be derived either from an English or Hebrew/Greek translation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Which mainstream branch of Christianity did not burn witches? Puritanism outlasted the witch-burning craze just as any other denomination did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Well I was just responding to a point someone made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Puritans were not 'conservative', they were really pretty radical, and made religion something that every individual can participate in equally. Also, the Puritans didn't see themselves as a beacon of light in a sea of sin, if anything they were harder on themselves than any non-Christians, that's why they became so puritanical in the first place. The idea of not judging non-believers, but at the same time judging each other to ensure they were working out their own salvation, was pretty central to their beliefs. And again, the witch hunts were carried out by all branches of Christianity. The more sober Puritans were more condemning of such supersitious practices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
The Puritans did not support a theocracy, they believed in the seperation of church and state, although they thought that both had their role in society. Certainly, they would not enforce Beliefs as the Wahhabists do, neither would they be irresponsible as Christians in allowing any belief to go unchecked (see my sig). Also, the Pilgrims that went to New Plymouth were not Puritans, nor were they recognise as such at the time, as unlike the Puritans, they refused to take part in the Anglicanised Church of England in the wake of the Restoration in 1660, hence their fleeing to America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Anyone that views a book that had more excluded from than included, was finalised hundreds of years after the event and hasn't added any new information that has been found over the years is highly suspect where reliability is concered. The apocrypha is many times longer than what is included. And even this is miniscule considering the levels of literacy at the times being addressed and the spread of Christianity from the Middle East to first Italy and then further afield.
Of the 12 apostles we have 3 books under their names, and one compilation. Far more time is spent pandering to St Paul's ego with the letters than anything approaching contemporary works.
It is a good insight into seeing what the Roman Emperors wanted to be known, but little more.
~:smoking:
:whip: :whip: :whip:
Whip it! Whip it Good! Whip it! Whip it Good!
:whip:
Religion is a factor of course but what we have here is a (religiously inspired) juridical system in a society with laws that are highly unfair towards women.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
As a Greek speaker let me tell you one thing...
...not only have they not translated it properly (i.e word for word) but you can even see phrases added and missing allover the place. The New Testament translations are pretty much worse than the subtitles you find in an illegal Chinese made movie DVD...
He's not excommunicated unless this formal step was taken by the church. By removing himself from communion with the church, he has initiated a state of de facto excommunication by choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
He is most probably an apostate, possibly a heretic as well depending on adherence to a non-sanctioned doctrine or the specific denunciation of some accepted doctrine.
Also, Kukri seems to be a standup fellow with whom I'd enjoy the chance to chat whilst consuming an adult beverage.
You speak Greek like they did in 70 AD? Must be hard for you in everyday communication...Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
On tops the writer of the english Bible could speak ancient Greek as well as Hebrew, he was a converted jew if I am not mistaken. Edit, nope. William Tyndale, not a converted jew but proficient in the old languages including hebrew, not that hebrew matters for the new testament, nor Greece.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Ah, more incorrect smugness.Quote:
It is a good insight into seeing what the Roman Emperors wanted to be known, but little more.
Oh please. The differences are not so great that the people didn't have access to the scripture.Quote:
The Geneva and KJV largely follow the Latin, not the Greek so much. Anyway, you siezed on that and ignored my larger point. No Gree or Hebrew, ergo no direct access to scripture.
So you're just assuming here? And that's supposed to be the foundation for your argument?Quote:
About as often as English Puritans, probably.
You're comparing our tendency to elect Christians to whipping a 75 year old woman for getting bread delivered by a man?Quote:
Are you sure? One of the problems Obama had was the charge that he was not a Christian and he had to plug into the Black Church community in Chicago to get elected. Religion is big buisness in America, it has determined the election of the last two presidents at least.
What crazy, moral relativist world are you coming from? How could those things be compared?
It always amazes me the lengths moral relativists will go to.
And adult beverage, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
https://img136.imageshack.us/img136/...500665full.jpg
Sorry :sweatdrop:
CR
I decided I wasn't going to point out my doubts about rasforos being a biblical scholar. Didn't seem fair.
You speak Greek like they did in 70 AD? Must be hard for you in everyday communication...
You wouldn't be able to read english from 70 AD ?
Sure its changed a bit but with a little knowledge im sure people could make something out of it...
Ah, more incorrect smugness.
Was it not Constantine who held the (forgetting the right word) 'convention' at nicea ?
Like when the Roman Catholic Church only officially incorported 12 of the apocryphal books at the Council of Trent in 1546 because they backed up their teachings?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Before then, those apocryphal books were usually printed in Catholic Bibles (as with the early KJVs), but in a seperate section from the OT and NT, and were not considered useful for doctrine.
Nope. Especially considering that English did not exist at that time. Don't need to go that far though, just try reading Chaucer in his original writing. Late 14th century.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Council. What about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Nope. Especially considering that English did not exist at that time.
I suspected as much... point stands all the same...
Don't need to go that far though, just try reading Chaucer in his original writing. Late 14th century
I have seen some fairly old texts in english and it seemed mostly readable with a little knowledge, now ill admit im not sure when these works date from....
Council.
I was so close with convention! thanks.
What about it.
It shows a roman emporer having a big influence in the construction of the bible..
You will be surprised how little Hellenistic Greek differs from modern Greek...Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
The Greek language has very good continuity so anyone with a good enough vocabulary and knowledge of the slightly different grammatical rules can read the New Testament. Classical Greek and Homeric Greek are a different story though.
So yes I can read it from the prototype.
And it is very different from the English translations. You can accept it or you can not accept it but I would appreciate it if you were not trying to be ironic.
Must be hard for you in everyday communication...
Hmmm bait...pass.
Did little to the bible only church hyrarchy.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
edit: that is total bull shame on me
My dad, who lives in Greece, can read ancient Greek writing. AFAIK the alphabet has changed marginally since ancient times. One or two extra letters added and others in which the pronuniation had changed. So yes, modern Greeks can read and talk, more or less, as they did when Jesus was a lad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Hope that helped clear things up for you.
What doctrine interpreted through the KJV does not stand in the Greek translations?
Ok, look there's a lot of mis-information going on here.
Firstly, Constantine did not influence the formation of the Bible himself, Nicea was concerned with doctrinal matters and the Old Latin Bible was already in existence. With that said, the first systematic expression of canon which was accepted universally was the Vulgate. This is why I mentioned Latin, the decisions of canon and attendent arguements are recorded in Latin.
As far as translation goes, any translation is a misrepresentation. So you cannot derrive doctrine from a translation. You can read it, but you can't do serious theology with it.
It doesn't matter, though many of the passages on homosexuality etc. are corrupt. The text itself was produced from what are now known to be faulty manuscripts and is also corrupt in that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Consider one example, the difference between WORD and LOGOS.
Are you implying that God's word is so shallow that it can only be properly expressed in one language?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
One small example I unearthed really quick messing up with Revelations. The last verse reads:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
'The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.'
Now look at the prototype:
'Ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων· ἀμήν.'
The grace of Lord Jesus Christ with all the saints, amen. <--- Direct translation word by word
Now you can see that, even if you translate saints as 'the christians' or 'the faithful' (and that is fine since the word 'αγιος' did not have the meaning it used to) the verse is quite badly, and not word to word, translated.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Considering that verses 22:18 and 22:19 are copyright notices sentencing to eternal damnation whoever adds or removes words from the book then you can see that something is amiss here. I will be the Devil's advocate here and think that the word was omitted to comply with the protestant view about saints.
There are other discrepancies that you can find online but I do not want to plagiarize.
Are those discrepancies present in the Latin translation?Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
Sorry but I cannot speak Latin :no:
It is odd that a Protestant denomination would do that, since the literal translation is much more Calvinistic (and the message is more consistent with the rest of the scripture). What denomination removed the Greek word?Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
When it says 'book', is it not referring to the book of Revelation as a whole? That is one argument used by the churches which use the apocrypha, and they are correct in that sense. Although I still believe the apocrypha are not divinely inspired. As I said, both Protestants and Catholics acknowledged the apocrypha, they were just polarised after Trent, eithering incorporating them more fully or removing them completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos