Opk.
Printable View
Opk.
I don't think they edited it, I just think they chose what to and what not to include.Quote:
Are you saying the original books of the bible were edited? Im really skeptical about this...
The books themselves were not edited, although they may not have always been copied or translated faithfully. Decisions were made about which books should be in the canon and which should not. Had the gospels been systematcially edited we might expect them to be more consistent with each other.
As for the old testament, try reading the account of the flood from Genesis (Gen 6:5 to 8:22). It is clearly taken from different sources (possibly 4) and is not even self-consistent. Compare 7:2 with 7:8 and 7:15. How many pairs of clean animals were taken on board? Look at 7:17 and 8:4. How long did the flood last? If the actual texts were purposely edited to make them "work better", we might expect a better job to have been done.
The Bible is not meant to be a history book like the textbooks u find a uni. Its a book of faith, not of science. And yet, it has been a boon to archaeologists who once thought cities mentioned in the Bible did not exist...like Ur.Quote:
The books themselves were not edited, although they may not have always been copied or translated faithfully. Decisions were made about which books should be in the canon and which should not. Had the gospels been systematcially edited we might expect them to be more consistent with each other.
As for the old testament, try reading the account of the flood from Genesis (Gen 6:5 to 8:22). It is clearly taken from different sources (possibly 4) and is not even self-consistent. Compare 7:2 with 7:8 and 7:15. How many pairs of clean animals were taken on board? Look at 7:17 and 8:4. How long did the flood last? If the actual texts were purposely edited to make them "work better", we might expect a better job to have been done.
I agree, the Gospels we have now is a product of what is included and excluded. The ones that were included have a pretty much compliment each other theologically. Obviously, those excluded don't...Its funny cos there are some groups out there trying to have theological debates with Christians by using the book of Barnabas even though it is not recognised by most Christians today.
Choosing what to include and what to not include is editing :oops:Quote:
I don't think they edited it, I just think they chose what to and what not to include.
Merely that the Christians don't recognise a theological book only shows how narrow minded they are. If it were a Christian debate, then they can concentrate all the inconsistencies present today.Quote:
Originally Posted by kataphraktoi
~:smoking:
No one (on this thread) is claiming the bible was not edited. The discussion was about whether individual books were edited "to make them work better".Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Exactly, and the lack of internal consistency within, for example, the story of the flood shows that the authors may have had the same view.Quote:
Originally Posted by kataphraktoi
You are not being reasonable here, Rory. By recognise we mean "recognise as canonical" rather than accept that these books exist. Acceptance of books as canonical is not a measure of open-mindedness, otherwise Catholics are more open-minded than Protestants and Mormon's are the most open-minded of all. You can't expect Christians to allow any book about religion to be in the bible or we would have to have the "Da Vinci Code" in there as well. I am not saying that there are no examples of Christians having closed minds, just that this is not one of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Apologies, I misunderstood that the issue was not the historic accuracy of the works, but the fact that they are not canonical.
I would still say that a theological debate should not be based on what one person views as admissable. A debate requires two points of view. Rarely works are made canonical by Churches, and the first step to accepting is discussing their validity.
Some versions of the bible are edited. Jehova's witnesses believe that Jesus was not hung on a cross for example, and their "translation" reflects this.
As we do not have access to the origional texts, we can not dismiss the possibility that there was editing of the work. A low level priest would not admit this, nor would a senoir figure who has decided to do so.
The fact that the Bible contradicts itself, differs widely between the old and the new testament, has had books removed and added over the years does not mean that many have thought )and still do think) that the Bible is the literal word of God. Thousands have been killed for saying otherwise.
~:smoking:
Yes on several levels. When they (the old and new testaments) were translated from Aramaic to Greek they were edited. Not to include or exclude passages but to make the books "work" in the Greek language. When the latin translation was finished in the 300's it was full of innaccurate translations. Then 13 or the 39 books in the new testament were removed and the 13 left were made the official book of Christ.Quote:
Originally Posted by holybandit
I want someone to read the Aramaic books and then the latin (Or any other translations) and tell us how big the translation problem is. Probaly been done..just havent seen a blog or something describing it.
Hope that makes sense.
btw wouldnt the first books of the bibles be in Hebrew?
No one (on this thread) is claiming the bible was not edited
Duke .....I don't think they edited it, I just think they chose what to and what not to include....can you see why that statement got the reply it did ?.......Sooooooo....... "I don't think they edited it , I think they just chose to edit it " :no: :oops:Quote:
Choosing what to include and what to not include is editing
All depends what you mean by "it", although if you are talking about books, "them" is a better pronoun.
Yes and No. The Torah (or old testament) would have been written in Hebrew, but copies would be in Aramaic. The spoken language of Judea after kicking out the Seleucids and Roman rules was Aramaic (it's still not uncommon in Palestine). It's what Jesus (if he existed) spoke in day to day life. Honest to Yaweh Hebrew was a language of the priests of Solomons temple. In fact some groups of Jews consider pure Hebrew sacred and only to be spoken by the priestly tribe of Israel. They speak yiddish.Quote:
Originally Posted by holybandit
Okay, call that editing, but that's not what I meant, I considered "editing" in this case was to change the material not just selecting what should be included, I call that selecting not editing.
Don't some groups of those jews also oppose the existence of Israel on the grounds that Israel shall not exist again before the end times or something like that?Quote:
In fact some groups of Jews consider pure Hebrew sacred and only to be spoken by the priestly tribe of Israel. They speak yiddish.
This is a semantic point and utterly superfluous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
In fact we do have evidence that parts of the Bible were individually edited. Specifically, the resurection of Lazarus was originally contained in the gospel of Mark, but was removed because some heratics saw homosexual references in it. In fact there aren't any, but it was removed anyway, and this was before the formation of Bible.
The Bible is a late invention which is only authorative if you follow the Nicean Creed.
Not all those who call themselves Christians do.
You might be interested in the work the Jehova's Witnesses have done in building a concordance to the several versions/editions of the bible. Sadly, there's not a lot of info on the 'net about it, but your local library would probably have some of their work. They go back to original sources as much as possible, trying to re-translate more accurately.Quote:
Originally Posted by holybandit
Lots of folks dislike the Witnesses for their "knock-on-the-door" prostelytizing, but their research efforts are nothing to sneeze at.
I thought they were great. A few quotes such as "the last shall be first and the first last" showed them that I'd rather keep on sinning for many years, thank you. The lost sheep is the most important. So if they could keep me a place at the front of the que, I'll be right over. Just need to sin a bit more... :devil:
~:smoking:
There have been several attempts at direct, accurate translation. The traditional Catholic Bible (forgot the name of the text) is actually largely defunct.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
It's just no one tells the masses.
Gah, I hate to consider myself "The masses".
Im upper middle class damnit!!
:laugh4:
Ah, but are you part of the intellectual elite? Anyway, I remembered to tell you, didn't I?
Umm...Intellictual elite. :book:
I'm Dyslexic. I spell phonetically. Ridicule me and I shall sue you under the dissabilities discrimination Act!
:laugh4:
\\Quote:
You might be interested in the work the Jehova's Witnesses have done in building a concordance to the several versions/editions of the bible. Sadly, there's not a lot of info on the 'net about it, but your local library would probably have some of their work. They go back to original sources as much as possible, trying to re-translate more accurately.
Lots of folks dislike the Witnesses for their "knock-on-the-door" prostelytizing, but their research efforts are nothing to sneeze at.
Raymond V Franz, a former high ranking JW admitted the deliberate bending of "translations" from Greek, Latin and Aramaic to support their own beliefs. A secular non partisan Greek (New Testament language) scholar could easily point out the poor translative work of the Watchtower crew. How is it that they are the only "Christian" denomination that has a Bible translation which is textually and contextually different from all the other Christian sects?
Catholics and Protestants may use different Bibles, but the meanings of the scriptures are essentiallly the same, but the New World Translation of the JWs changes the meanings of the scriptures.
A famous example is John 1:1
The "Orthodox" version
"IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
The New World Translation:
"IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god"
See how the meaning is different? So either, the majority of Christians translations are wrong (yet the Greek translation can be verified by Greek scholars of no particular religious background) or the JWs are wrong and have deliberately twisted the Greek to suit their own purposes. :wall:
Do u mean the individual books of the Bible or the canonical composition of the Bible?Quote:
The Bible is a late invention which is only authorative if you follow the Nicean Creed.
If either...how late?
Early manuscripts of Mathew have been found within a century of the existence of the historical figure of Jesus. While this manuscript is clearly not an autograph, its contents compared to other later copies of Mathew indicates a serious and unbroken textual integrity in the transmission of the Gospels.
Yet others are far later, and indeed later than many works that were ommitted.
~:smoking:
~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/ch..._sequence.html
First of all you make the mistake of thinking that Surah 9 is the last revealed surah, when in reality its 21 (surah 20 is second last) and for the record even surah 9 does not imply forced conversions:
Chapter 9, verse 4] Except those of the Mushrikûn (See V.2:105) with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them for the end of their term. Surely Allâh loves Al-Mattaqûn (the pious - See V.2:2).
[Chapter 9, verse 5] Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islâmic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikûn (See V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât), and give Zakât, then leave their way free. Verily, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
you see that the direct above verse before the 5th verse constitute respecting treaties with non-Muslims. So verse 5 talks really about when there is war with non-Muslims. It says, after the holy months passes, fight them again and resume the war that you were already fighting before the holy months.
Now, do they get to keep their religion when they lose? or they must convert? that verse is not so clear about it. In fact, under Ibn Katheer interpretation it says:
ثُمَّ اِخْتَلَفَ الْمُفَسِّرُونَ فِي آيَة السَّيْف هَذِهِ فَقَالَ الضَّحَّاك وَالسُّدِّيّ هِيَ مَنْسُوخَة بِقَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى " فَإِمَّا مَنًّا بَعْد وَإِمَّا فَدَاء " وَقَالَ قَتَادَة بِالْعَكْسِ .
in English it says: Then, the interpreters have disagreed on this verse of the sword (the 5th verse of Chapter 9). Al Dahak and Saddi said it is abrogated by the verse of "Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islâm), until the war lays down its burden " Chapter 47,verse 4. Qatadah said the opposite.
On another note, make sure to include the entire Aya/Ayet, individual surahs don't convey the proper meaning.
kataphraktoi, the new world translation isn't that reliable. But there are several obvious boobs in the New Testemant.
For example, Jesus almost certainly wasn't born in Nazareth because the place doesn't appear to exist before the rebellion on 69 AD. However, many early texts refer to him being a "Nazarine" a particular Jewish sect. He would therefore be "Jesus the Nazarine."
Then there's the whole Inn and stable thing, when the original Greek refers to "lower" and "upper" rooms. Terms which can still be applied to traditional Palastinian Houses, as they have two levels, with the animals on the lower one.
The editing of what went in and what didn't is far more important than a slightly flawed translation. Why are there only four Gospels. What about the Gospels of Peter and Thomas, the rumoured Gospel of the Magdaline?
These are the questions which cause me to doubt Orthodox Christianity.
Apparently the Muslims don't agree with you regarding Sura 20 being the last!Quote:
Originally Posted by Leet Eriksson
In fact, even the website you have posted doesn't agree with you!
http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/ap...clamation.html
According to the website you are utilizing Sura 9 was in fact the last Sura, or the second to last. Others also say it was the second to last. Whichever it was is beside the point as the principle of abrogation would remains the same in either case.
"During the re-arrangement process, the scribes who idolized the Prophet added two verses at the end of Sura 9, the last sura revealed in Medina."
If you will look in the left column Sura/Chapter and then go down to Sura 9. Look over into the right hand column and you will see a number. The number is 113. There are 114 Sura/chapters in the Quran. So no, Sura 9 according to the exact link you posted is not the last chapter, it is the second to last chapter in the Quran.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leet Eriksson
This is your link, not mine, but it proves my point, and I thank you for it!
You might also note that Sura 2 (the love and cuddles quote) is listed as 87th, Sura 109 is 18th, Sura 20 is listed as 45th, and Sura 21 is 73rd.
http://www.islamia.com/surah_009.htm
Regarding Sura 9;
"Logically this Surah follows up the argument of the last Surah (8)"
The verse is absolutely crystal clear!Quote:
Originally Posted by Leet Eriksson
"if they repent and perform As-Salât"
http://i-cias.com/e.o/salat.htm
This IS forced conversion!
"if they repent and perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât), and give Zakât"
http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/Zakat/
"Zakat is the amount of money that every adult, mentally stable, free, and financially able Muslim, male and female, has to pay to support specific categories people."
This means they ARE MUSLIMS.
Forced conversion!
They must make the Muslim prayer and make the payment THAT ONLY MUSLIMS MUST PAY, or they get their heads cut off. What is your definition of force? It is clear they are being made Muslims and that force is being used. How much more clear does it have to be?
First Sura 47 (the quote being from Sura 47:4) is according to your link 95th, so it would be abrogated by Sura 9 (113th) in any case, if there is any conflict.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leet Eriksson
Second, there is no conflict with verse 9:5, as well as other verses, saying much the same thing.
How many hours could the Backroom go without talking about muslims or jihad?
Seriously, its an obsession.
We should all just bury our heads in the sand and forget.
or just go for Sensitivity training
The more I read about Islam and the actions of muslims. The more the religion starts to disqust me.
If you want a break from it, just start up an abortion or gun thread. That will divert attention for a while. :idea2:Quote:
Originally Posted by ezrider