Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So using his works as a reason not to believe, is really not a good reason.
So, given that Constantine did what he did, should we trust the translations that came from his efforts? More than that -- given that the Bible has been translated and re-translated, should we trust any translation other than the very first?
I mean, with all the additions, alterations, emendations, and adjustments (not to mention the syntactic and linguistic changes that inevitably accrue over the span of two thousand years), the Bible as it was originally written is probably a significantly different work than the 'modern' versions, in tone if not content.
If only we could speak the language as it was when the Bible was written -- I'd love to know specifically what it said, without all the translation errors and such.
Tell me something good about your religion -- religion gives me an impression of being nothing but hell, tell me your ideas of the good part it.
When the people left ancient Babylon they took with them their non-biblical religious concepts and ideas and spread them world wide into a greater religious Babylon or Babylon the Great. That is why we see so many similar or overlapping religious ideas and practices spread throughout the Earth. One of which is a false teaching about a permanent hell fire.
KJV translated the word Gehenna into English as hell fire thus promoting the idea of forever burning after death.
Since the dead know nothing but unconscious sleep according to Jesus at John 11:11-14, and the old Hebrew Scriptures at Psalms 6:5; 13:3; 115:17; 146:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5 and Daniel 12:2,13, then the dead are Not aware of the passing of time.
Jesus has the keys to unlock death and temporary biblical hell ( grave ) for us according to Revelation 1:18.
Another ' good part ' is that mankind will see the return of the Genesis ' tree of life ' according to Revelation 22:2.
The leaves will be for the healing of earth's nations. This is in fulfillment of God's promise to father Abraham that ALL families of Earth will be blessed, and ALL nations of Earth will be blessed according to Genesis 12:3; 22:18.
Blessed with the benefit of food and healing for earth's nations right here on Earth when the humble meek people will inherit the Earth just as Jesus promised.
So, given that Constantine did what he did, should we trust the translations that came from his efforts? More than that -- given that the Bible has been translated and re-translated, should we trust any translation other than the very first?
I mean, with all the additions, alterations, emendations, and adjustments (not to mention the syntactic and linguistic changes that inevitably accrue over the span of two thousand years), the Bible as it was originally written is probably a significantly different work than the 'modern' versions, in tone if not content.
If only we could speak the language as it was when the Bible was written -- I'd love to know specifically what it said, without all the translation errors and such.
The ancient manuscripts can be checked.
The internal harmony among the ' 66' Bible books of Bible canon shows the internal harmony among its many writers.
The Bible is unique in its corresponding cross-reference verses and passages which Jesus often referred to.
So, that means the apocryphal books simply exclude themselves being out of harmony with the '66'.
A Greek Interlinear translation can be consulted, and so can the Hebrew/ English be compared.
Clergy often teach church customs or church traditions and people don't bother to see if those teachings line up with Scripture.
That does Not make the Bible as wrong, but makes church teachings outside of Scripture as wrong.
Tell me something good about your religion -- religion gives me an impression of being nothing but hell, tell me your ideas of the good part it.
No hell fire (If you are curious you can search another post about hell fire for a detailed explanation why the Bible doesn't teach it)
Earth is being ruined but in the end not destroyed
Many who have died in the past are resurrected
In the future...Return to paradise. No wicked people, peace at last.
In the present... keep neutral and keep out of political and social controversies. Respect and be at peace with all even those whose lifestyles you don't agree with.
Tell me something good about your religion -- religion gives me an impression of being nothing but hell, tell me your ideas of the good part it.
Unitarian Universalism - makes me want to be a better more loving person. Inspires me to get more involved in my community and appreciate diversity - especially with religious beliefs. There is no dogma and no hell. Because of the lack of dogma, many traditional religious people may not consider it a religion. Regardless I find it peaceful and surprisingly really enjoy going to church.
The ancient manuscripts can be checked.
The internal harmony among the ' 66' Bible books of Bible canon shows the internal harmony among its many writers.
The Bible is unique in its corresponding cross-reference verses and passages which Jesus often referred to.
So, that means the apocryphal books simply exclude themselves being out of harmony with the '66'.
A Greek Interlinear translation can be consulted, and so can the Hebrew/ English be compared.
Clergy often teach church customs or church traditions and people don't bother to see if those teachings line up with Scripture.
That does Not make the Bible as wrong, but makes church teachings outside of Scripture as wrong.
Okay -- as a linguist (by hobby), I feel compelled to point out that language changes significantly over time. It's entirely probable that what we think the Bible says has been distorted over two thousand years of linguistic development. We can cross-reference all we want, and we can consult the Greek Interlinear translation, but it's still likely to be significantly different from the 'original' manuscript, in at least its context.
I'm not suggesting that the Bible is wrong, but it may not actually be saying what we think. So, how fully can we trust that a translation will be accurate?
So, given that Constantine did what he did, should we trust the translations that came from his efforts? More than that -- given that the Bible has been translated and re-translated, should we trust any translation other than the very first?
I mean, with all the additions, alterations, emendations, and adjustments (not to mention the syntactic and linguistic changes that inevitably accrue over the span of two thousand years), the Bible as it was originally written is probably a significantly different work than the 'modern' versions, in tone if not content.
If only we could speak the language as it was when the Bible was written -- I'd love to know specifically what it said, without all the translation errors and such.
Any given translation (well, the credible ones, anyway, not, for example, the Jehovah's Witness-sponsored New World Translation) is from the best original manuscripts available at the time of translation. Even the paraphrases like The Living Bible consult the best available original manuscripts, if more informally. In other words there is no such thing as "translations of translations". This is an increasingly common red herring by that subset of atheists who don't understand the process. It's not an accurate or fair critique.
Frankly, even the problem of the best available manuscripts generally being copies of copies of copies is not as bad as it sounds. We generally have multiple manuscripts from different generations of copies to compare and the drift is not all that remarkable as some want to make it out to be. We actually know exactly what passages, such as the closing verses of the Gospel of Mark, are forgeries / pious frauds. Even fundamentalist theologians acknowledge these.
The problem with the OT and NT is not the accuracy with which they come down to us so much as their fantastical, unsubstantiated content. It's totally unnecessary to get bogged down in minutia like textual criticism in order to debunk it. After all, believers accept the translations they have, so all skeptics have to do is point out the logical inconsistencies / impossibilities in the texts they cite.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Peace
