|
Hey SS
Jul 11, 2009 14:38:48 GMT
Post by The Sonar Chicken on Jul 11, 2009 14:38:48 GMT
Okay , SS, you're a Christian who is deeply interested in Christian theology, no? Do you mind explaining basically, what Christianity is all about? 'Cos I've realised that my understanding of most faiths, religions and beliefs revolves too much around the details, than the "basics" and "roots" of them. I know that there're the Ten Commandments and the Bible but a problem, if I remember correctly, is that the meaning and concept of a word can evolve over the few thousand years. Therefore, my knowledge and understanding of certain things of the ancient past might thus, be inaccurate? And I also know that Christianity was originally formed from over 100 Abrahamic texts(many now lost), each of which belonged to 1 sect, and those texts were uhhh... Hebrew or some other language like Greek? And there're all the different branches of Christianity: Protestianism, Anglo-Christian(I think?), Catholic, etc., etc. Eerrr I just realised my brains are a bit empty right now so this is all you're going to get. Oh right... I wanted to ask: why are the branches there? Why no singular branch of Christianity? And please... fashion your answers for the dumbest person possible. ;D
|
|
|
Hey SS
Jul 11, 2009 16:09:30 GMT
Post by kilgoretrout on Jul 11, 2009 16:09:30 GMT
So many branches because the bible like all works of art aer open to interpretation.
|
|
|
Hey SS
Jul 11, 2009 17:34:53 GMT
Post by Glance A'Lot on Jul 11, 2009 17:34:53 GMT
Why no singular branch of Christianity? OH! That question is asked by the popes for at least 1.000 years - though they strongly contributed to the cause(s). In general, you are posing a tremendously difficult question - there is not a lot ALL branches of Christianity agree on, though some of the 'fundamental' differences are - - - let's say very human... Some separations are not only in differences of faith, belief or interpretation, as some must be understood in their historic context (the reason may well be redundant by now, though the separation persists) - Luther, for example, did not intend to found a new church, he wanted to reform his, which was catholic. Only the power struggle and the arrogance of the established hierarchy, and the political support of anti-papal princes led to the protestant separation. The cases of Zwingli and Calvin are somewhat different, though contemporary. The Anglican church is the result of politics - if you can call a king's ego that... (I say that as a Non-English, of course ) And please... fashion your answers for the dumbest person possible- There is only one god (Ok, that's not exclusive, but basic) - You can be redeemed of your earthly sins - Jesus is his son. - Jesus was flesh and spirit I think the last three is when the separations begin... You're right that Sam is the better source to define the common basics - I'll defer to him
|
|
|
Hey SS
Jul 12, 2009 3:25:40 GMT
Post by ss on Jul 12, 2009 3:25:40 GMT
Okay , SS, you're a Christian who is deeply interested in Christian theology, no? Do you mind explaining basically, what Christianity is all about? 'Cos I've realised that my understanding of most faiths, religions and beliefs revolves too much around the details, than the "basics" and "roots" of them. I know that there're the Ten Commandments and the Bible but a problem, if I remember correctly, is that the meaning and concept of a word can evolve over the few thousand years. Therefore, my knowledge and understanding of certain things of the ancient past might thus, be inaccurate? And I also know that Christianity was originally formed from over 100 Abrahamic texts(many now lost), each of which belonged to 1 sect, and those texts were uhhh... Hebrew or some other language like Greek? And there're all the different branches of Christianity: Protestianism, Anglo-Christian(I think?), Catholic, etc., etc. Eerrr I just realised my brains are a bit empty right now so this is all you're going to get. Oh right... I wanted to ask: why are the branches there? Why no singular branch of Christianity? And please... fashion your answers for the dumbest person possible. ;D Without any fanfare at all, the basis tenent of Christianity, the one that is of soul (sic) importance, is to ask the question "How is a man (woman) justified before God?" (in relation to the question of Sin).. The plain and unambigious answer is. -- By faith/belief in the death, burial, and ressurection of Christ as a sacrifice for sin (that God accepted as atonement,) and when anyone repents of said sin, and confesses Christ as Lord and Saviour, that person is thereby "converted", "born again", saved" regenerated" (or any of the other words used to imply the same thing). When that happens, one is "adopted" into the family of God. God transfers the righteousness of Christ to you and transfers your unrighteousness to Him where it was dealt with on the cross. You can then know that when you die, you go to be with the Lord. This does in no wise deal with all the questions that arise with every "what if?" that man can think of to try and negate it or try and justify why they don't believe it, or why they think so and so, but it is the truth--according to Scripture. As to why all the different sects and cults...Glance pretty well hit that one...and he could have probably (as I might post shortly) a history of the "crap" that has went on in the name of Christ that has nothing at all to do with the fundamental belief of Christianity. I have always said that Christianity, althought understandably labled as such, is not really a "religion" as much as a belief in a person and that person being God manifested in the flesh, dying for sin, and reconciling those who believe to Himself" It is midnight here so I will cut it here and add more tomorrow. Sam
|
|
|
Hey SS
Jul 12, 2009 17:10:20 GMT
Post by The Sonar Chicken on Jul 12, 2009 17:10:20 GMT
Tenet: do you mean "principle" or an absolute rule? Oh boy... I apologise. I'm all rusty in terms of religion. And thus, you said "soul". So, Christianity has a huge emphasis on soul and uhm, yeah... that means Gnosticism and all that stuff about Trees and paths(when or IF they mix it with Kabbalah ) simply takes the concept of “soul” a bit further? "question of Sin": Do you mean "Why do we sin?" , "we" meaning "humans"? Please do define “Sin”. And thanks for that explanation about justifying before God. I will do my best to understand that. Soo... you mean that: All humans(faiths, beliefs, ethnicities, etc.) have sinned in life. To be accepted as “believers” in God involves a list of steps: a) state of ignorance: to step forth from this state, they must first recognise the causes leading to that very sin, the act of sin and then they have to repent their sin b) but what’s this “Confess God as Lord and Saviour” thingy? How do you confess? <--- I don’t understand. c) transformation, attaining a certain basic level/state of enlightenment: “converted”, “born again”, “regenerated” etc. Basically, one is transformed from being ignorant to possessing a basic understanding of Christianity where “understanding” is defined as “knowing a bit about Christianity, whether it’s God or Jesus Christ or something else”. d) “Acceptance”: upon attaining enlightenment, one is accepted into God’s Family. e) “Cleansing of sin”: uhm, why doesn’t it come before A? Basically, by being accepted, one agrees to be cleansed of sin. In this stage, okay... boy, my mind is bursting. ;D Okay, in this stage, Jesus Christ’s righteousness is transferred to the New Family Member and then the Member’s sins are transferred to Jesus Christ who will suffer and repent for your sins as though he was on the Cross? I assume “Him” refers to Jesus Christ? And the “where it was dealt with on the cross.” is a bit confusing to me, sorry. Do you mean you uhm... travel back to time, to that state where uhh... Christ was on the cross? And then your sins are transferred during that time? Sorry, I'm confused! ;D Scripture: the uhh Bible? Or something else? My confusion stems from the reason that I hear people talking about “Scriptures” but there’s a huge emphasis on the Bible as though it’s the only thing that exists? I vaguely recall there were many, many Scriptures written by various Popes and stuff? However, uhh... I think some of them are no longer applicable and were rejected/destroyed or something? Definition of religion: do you mean holding Christianity to be absolute(religion and not humans comes first) and to be the law which should be applied to everyone whether they're believers or not? And that one attempts to act as God himself, thus trying to define what a certain sin is or trying to decide how a person should be judged, without judging oneself’s own behaviour and thoughts, etc. first? And that any action is justifiable in the name of religion as long as you mention the word "God", "Christ" or any of "common Holy terms" (Mary, various Saints, Angels, etc.) associated with Christianity? And that questions aren’t allowed but instead, to ask is often derided as blasphemy and blah blah? Or do you mean something else? My former thought comes from all the horrors associated with all the wars and atrocities justified under the name of an "system"/”idea”/”concept”/etc.(which are all taken to be absolute), whether it's religion, a political system or something else. Oh... midnight! That means you're about 11++ hrs behind my time. ;D Well, btw, if for example... in some country, the Christian churches are tightly controlled by the government, would you say then... that Christianity in that country is no longer a true belief? For to me, with faiths, beliefs, etc. come questions and if certain questions aren't permitted, then won't that impact the depths of one's knowledge about belief in Christianity and in turn, one's surroundings like your society, government, etc.? Glance: You mention the arrogance of the popes, eh? Well, I've heard about many popes/bishops/church figures/etc. being corrupt and why many Christians feel a sense of alienation from their religion 'cos those "religious figures" are part of an institute called "The Church". I know there're many who refuse to attend Church 'cos they feel utterly frustrated by all the controversies throughout the few hundred years(up into the 21st century). And also ‘cos of the emphasis on taking selective phrases out of the Bible to support a huge set of “random ideas”, instead of emphasis on the overall concepts of Christianity. I also recall reading a long time ago, about how the church became a largely corrupt institute and that the Ages of Inquisition was the result of all that greed and emphasis on riches, titles, land, power and being in the /Ruling Christian group’s/King’s/Court’s favour. And that many trials/executions were mainly excuses for grabbing all these “possessions” while the other executions were purely committed to cover up these deeds and to influence the masses into believing/supporting the “reasons” for murdering people. So wait... how do you define “faith” and “belief” in a “universal religious sense”? For me, I’ve got such a frustrating confusion about all these details. Hah? Redundant? Why would it be so? Wow darn... I feel extremely confused after your explanation of all that. Erm... ack! Yeah... I agree that there’re many faiths/beliefs which worship only 1 figure. Wait... you mean there’re branches which argue about whether people are born into sin and that some sins can never be redeemed, that Jesus may or may not be God’s son, oh... and that Jesus might be a “soul” or something else? ;D Sorry everyone, it’s getting very late now(1.10 a.m.) and I need to get up very early the next day. I’ll continue my questions and understanding another time.
|
|
|
Hey SS
Jul 12, 2009 22:33:48 GMT
Post by ss on Jul 12, 2009 22:33:48 GMT
By SIN, I mean "original sin"...the fall of the human race as representated in and by Adam's fall in Eden...not sins that we commit...per se... We only commit them because it is our nature to do so...granted, they need to be forgiven, but the primary reason for Christ going to the cross was to pay the penalty for SIN, (which was the death penalty)...."the soul that sinneth, it shall surely die" and "And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Gen 2:15-17 So when Eve ate of it and gave it to Adam to eat, spiritual death happened immediately, but physical death entered the universe and men now died physically...which was not in the plan of God... (don't ask about how God knows everything and therefore his plan failed....etc...that is not the context I am talking about... ;D) Side note on sin...If you read the scriptures, you will find out what dogs men really are....Here is Eve, (who WAS NOT YET CREATED/FORMED when God told Adam the rules, yet the Serpent/Devil approached Eve and "beguiled" her with a brilliant con job on why she should eat the "fruit". After she ate, (Read Gen Chapt 3) "she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband------WITH HER----; and he did eat." So, this guy apparently waited until she ate to see if she actually would die (he's thinking physical of course) and when she didn't, I guess he figured that God had lied so he ate also.....He should have been protecting his wife from getting into a discourse with a snake in the first place.. ...but he sorta kicked her to the curb to see what would happen. Way to late they realized that they had been conned, because they now realized they were naked and "shame" came into the world along with death....and they tried to hide themselves from God's presence...dig this...Adam still the guy... God speaking....Did you eat of the tree I told you not to?? Adam speaking...The woman YOU GAVE to be with me...she gave it to me and I ate... He's STILL blaming the woman.... ;D....Like....if you hadn't gave me that woman, I wouldn't be in this mess... ;D Back to it.... That is "original sin".....once Adam and Eve were "spiritually dead", all their offspring were BORN spiritually dead and thereby alienated from God because of sin... and then we sin because it is who we are....sinners... God now has a problem....how does He execute perfect love to His creation without compromising His perfect Justice....which demands a perfect sacrifice and the shedding of blood as an atonement for sin.. Hence the other creeds of the Christian church comes in... the Virgin Birth...Jesus born of a human woman with a divine father and therefore not subject to the "curse" of sin and can not be the perfect atonement for that sin. Blood atonement...."without the shedding of blood, there is no remission for sin" I will stay on this subject, because it is basically about the definition of "sin" and what Christ "paid" for on the cross... has nothing to do, except of course periferraly (sp) with the sins or breaking the law of God that we do on a daily basis... Now isn't that clear as mud// ;D I will address the rest also... Sam
|
|
|
Hey SS
Jul 13, 2009 4:46:50 GMT
Post by janggut on Jul 13, 2009 4:46:50 GMT
maybe u need me to tone the technical language down a bit? ;D
|
|
|
Hey SS
Jul 13, 2009 10:10:22 GMT
Post by Glance A'Lot on Jul 13, 2009 10:10:22 GMT
Hey Jang - Sonar pushed the button to Sam's pulpit and launched Oratory V 'Massive Info' ;D She asked for it! Sonar - keep the questions simple. In this field, answers tend to be complex, to the least - if not diverse, opiniated, contradictive, fuzzy, doctrinal, ... -> 42. On my earlier comment - I had nothing specific in mind. Actually there is probably not a comma in the scriptures that hasn't been 'interpreted' one way or the other - or rather one way AND the other. The basic Christian belief does not need buildings, hierarchies, interpreters - all these are human inventions and prone to human fallacy. While wisdom is the only positive thing attributed to age, it doesn't come automatically with it - like respect it has to be earned to be recognized. Founding the Xteenth 'First Church of ...' because of a difference in opinion, interpretation, petty and futile argument, or because one simply doesn't like the 'other' messias' nose is not a valid approach - to wisdom, at least. I have a dream... - that once upon a time there will be found irrefutable proof ----- that they were ALL wrong!
|
|
|
Hey SS
Jul 13, 2009 10:44:37 GMT
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Jul 13, 2009 10:44:37 GMT
To quote one of my old Vicars- The church is not the building, or the ground, or even the location... It is the people.
He was basically saying that without people a "Church" is just a building, the ground is just a plot of land, and the location could be anywhere.
|
|
|
Hey SS
Jul 13, 2009 12:47:27 GMT
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 13, 2009 12:47:27 GMT
Theology is a massively complex thing, yes. Sam is probably the best Christian Theologian I've ever come across, though, so you're in good hands - if possibly a little enthusiastic! ;D
|
|
|
Hey SS
Jul 13, 2009 23:17:19 GMT
Post by ss on Jul 13, 2009 23:17:19 GMT
maybe u need me to tone the technical language down a bit? ;D Probably wouldn't hurt Jang....my wife came by last night when I was typing and asked me "whatta you doing, writing a book.. @ Glance.. I tend to forget the acronym KISS (keep it simple stupid!) ;D @ DPR....your vicar was totally correct on what the church is.. That is----"Christs Church" -- made up of all believers whever they might be...and whatever denomination they might be...(even if there is error in the doctrine)...the scripture tells me that all who confess/profess Jesus as Lord and Saviour is therefore my brother/sister in Christ....No way out of that one...we may tend to not agree on all points of doctrine, but the fundamental belief is still Christ.....hence "Christian" and "Christianity" I have no doubt that the Coptic Christians, and the Lutherans, and the Calvanists, and the Catholics (Roman that is) and the Greek Orthodox and such all disagree on some point of doctrine, but all remain "Christian"...
|
|
|
Hey SS
Jul 14, 2009 5:30:48 GMT
Post by janggut on Jul 14, 2009 5:30:48 GMT
@ SS -> yep, u're right there. @ Glance -> u're right there! ;D i'm sure she needs some more of that beer of hers after reading SS's posts. ;D @ Sonar Chix -> u might want to peel the onion by the layer.
|
|
|
Hey SS
Jul 14, 2009 16:25:12 GMT
Post by The Sonar Chicken on Jul 14, 2009 16:25:12 GMT
Erm, err... please give me some time to digest all these. The past few days have been a bit rushed. I feel like my head has been overturned.
|
|
|
Hey SS
Jul 14, 2009 17:01:48 GMT
Post by The Sonar Chicken on Jul 14, 2009 17:01:48 GMT
Also, SS, would you mind toning down on the details a little and explaining a little on what they mean? Things like "spiritual and physical death" are all verily confusing. And eh, gimme some time to find a copy of the Bible. -_-;; You're referring to the King James version, right? But you're NOT basing your thoughts on the exact words but the overall concepts, huh? @glance: Hey! I'd forgotten about that button. Uhm, how should one keep the questions simple? I've never posed questions to a theologist before soo... and uhm, the problem is I can't make too much sense of all this. I understand at least part of it, however, do you mean to uhh just listen and only ask a few critical qns? Wow, I feel very confused now. Ahh... you mean they keep nitpicking over the arrangement of sentences and the like, instead of trying to figure out what all the details mean? janggut: Perhaps so... @dpr(After reading SS' comments as well): yep, isn't that the truth of many or almost all faiths/beliefs?
|
|
|
Hey SS
Jul 14, 2009 17:36:32 GMT
Post by Glance A'Lot on Jul 14, 2009 17:36:32 GMT
Sonar - every answer leads to new questions, so the more complex your questions are, the more you will be confused. Note that we don't know what you know and what you know not (well, you basically said, write it for dummies... - Sam, note! ). And yes, as in law, I'm suspicious of people that focus on phrasing of a law or worse of part of a law, without reading it in its entirety, in context and with the intent of the law maker in mind. (Context is something Sam also states as of importance, btw)
|
|
|
Hey SS
Jul 14, 2009 20:14:04 GMT
Post by The Sonar Chicken on Jul 14, 2009 20:14:04 GMT
Sonar - every answer leads to new questions, so the more complex your questions are, the more you will be confused. Note that we don't know what you know and what you know not (well, you basically said, write it for dummies... - Sam, note! ). And yes, as in law, I'm suspicious of people that focus on phrasing of a law or worse of part of a law, without reading it in its entirety, in context and with the intent of the law maker in mind. (Context is something Sam also states as of importance, btw) Glance: "complex questions" okay... any examples of "simple questions"? Yeah... I agree about the "context" issue. ;D It's very dangerous to lift out of context but so many do it these days. I know very very little about Christian Scripture. I've only read a bit of the Bible(Very likely mostly New Testament) 'cos basically, it was nothing but account after account of event, stories, etc., lots of which largely confused me. I do know a little about Adam and Eve, Moses, have heard and read a bit about the Ten Commandments, the plagues, etc., etc. I know that the Christian Bible shares a lot of similarities with the Torah(Jewish holy book). And that at least a few lines in the Quran also speak of some Angels and so forth, the "content" of which is also mentioned in the Christian Bible. I know the Bible was originally translated from Hebrew, Greek, Latin and some other languages 'cos many of the original scrolls/texts were in a few different languages. As to what exactly the Bible was translated from: Jewish texts, Dead Sea scrolls, etc.? I dunno since I haven't read that far yet. Anyways, due to many errors scribes made during translation, there were a lot of subtractions and additions to the texts especially when they interpreted as they wished. And in part, some of the original languages had no gender pronouns(it was all about souls, I think!) so when it went into English, a good part of the translations were "genderised". However, this in no ways means there aren't English passages/text which're accurate in usage of gender pronouns. The problem is: differentiating which ones are accurate and which ones aren't. And then there were all the "supposed meanings" some words/phrases had which could be verily different depending on the time period, historical context and so forth, that may or may not have been taken into account. And fast forward a few thousand years later, after all that translations mess and a good number of versions of the Bible(which had parts rewritten/reinterpreted as commanded by some figure of authority/or which were personally done by the author/translator), I'm left wondering how one would be able to interpret the Bible. I'm not aware though on when the New Testament was added to the Bible or many of other facts concerning the Scriptures. I've not been able to read or understand any of those texts the Christian Bible was translated from. Nor have I read any of the original scrolls(Dead Sea scrolls, etc.): inability to understand dead languages is the problem. ;D I've heard that there're other "Scriptures" besides the bible but I can't remember their names or any other details. Maybe 'cos my brain is so dead atm... haha! About how Christianity came to be: I only know that it was supposedly split across more than 100 Abrahamic religions and that someone(Constantine of Pinus?Pine?) united them(and likely all their texts). When? I dunno. ;D Why? No idea... How Christianity came to use the Bible and other Scriptures: Also no idea. My knowledge of history related to or influenced by certain Christian events is as such: I know how bloody the Crusades were and that they were in response to certain err attacks by uhhh... forces of Muhammed? I know a bit about the Inquisitions in England, Spain, etc. and some of the "colonies" of the European countries and that if you looked over all the events as a "concept", it was nothing more than a "Holocaust"* where tens of millions were systematically slaughtered for all sorts of reasons that'd nothing to do with religion/faith/belief but to do with tribalism, greed, tyranny and power. A few hundred years of purges that blazed a trail of destruction on humans, history and Christianity, the repercussions of which can be felt even today. *I used the word "Holocaust" here 'cos to me, it isn't just about ethnicity but the widespread mass slaughter of humans in a very systematic manner. I've also read a bit about the fall of the Church** where it was said that the institution of the Church was heavily corrupted and that many "trials" were often invented for the sake of land grabs, seizure of possessions, titles or even power. **Church: regardless of denominations, branches, etc. I remember EK or someone else mentioning how the Church played some role towards keeping up the economy/tax system. My mind is just too broken atm to recall. There're many many more possible details I might've missed but it's very late atm! 4.15 a.m. ... Ahhhhhhh.... I want sleep! But my mind wouldn't let me. ------------ As of late, though, I realised my knowledge and concepts of Christianity were probably a bit too negative and biased 'cos of how many people(from layman to the academics or even some scholars) tend to confuse "murder and abuse of humans justified using religions" with "actions, concepts, thoughts, etc. that're in-line WITH tenets, etc. as stated in the religious texts". And knowing so little about Christian scriptures, I was pretty frustrated at my ignorance. And again, I noticed this phenomenon towards many many religious texts: Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.
|
|
|
Hey SS
Jul 14, 2009 22:33:02 GMT
Post by Glance A'Lot on Jul 14, 2009 22:33:02 GMT
Put your mind to rest!
I'm an agnostic history nerd - church history is quite fascinating - so I've read the bible (the Lutheranian one) old and new testament as a history book, a book of tales told for generations before being written down.
Those who compiled the texts certainly were men of great intelligence, with an excellent understanding of the minds of man, and very versed in debating! (Socrates is older than the bible...) That said, I do not believe they were divinely inspired - and most certainly not any translators who also had no access to original texts.
Therefore I can see how one can accept and believe in the philosophical concepts of divinity - but to reduce that to literal interpretations of man made words, is not doing these justice, IMHO.
|
|
|
Hey SS
Jul 15, 2009 19:51:53 GMT
Post by ss on Jul 15, 2009 19:51:53 GMT
Put your mind to rest! I'm an agnostic history nerd - church history is quite fascinating - so I've read the bible (the Lutheranian one) old and new testament as a history book, a book of tales told for generations before being written down. Those who compiled the texts certainly were men of great intelligence, with an excellent understanding of the minds of man, and very versed in debating! (Socrates is older than the bible...) That said, I do not believe they were divinely inspired - and most certainly not any translators who also had no access to original texts. Therefore I can see how one can accept and believe in the philosophical concepts of divinity - but to reduce that to literal interpretations of man made words, is not doing these justice, IMHO. I also find church history quite fascinating Glance... Howeveer (as you know) I do believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures, but the process is interesting to me.. Also, I get on the borderline of getting "excommunicated" when I ask people to explain their "assumptions" on it all... ;D Most people either believe as you do, that it is good history written by very intelligent men, or they believe that those men were "moved" by the Spirit to pen just what God wanted preserved as His written revelation... Then the question is asked "isn't that convienent that you wrote something and declared it to be the word of God" However, that is not the way it was done...they wrote...it was copied, compiled, saved, read in the churches, declared, by a weed out process of sorts, to be "inspired" by the church in general councils....that would be the NT, the OT was "canonized" by 70 AD by the Jews. My personal belief is that God used men as He chose, using their own vernacular...(compare Paul and Peter)..who had no absolute feeling or understanding that they were "writing God's word".. Yet the writers were accepted as spokesmen for God, especially those Apostles who had been with Jesus...(the requirement to be an Apostle was to have been an eyewitness to the ressurrection of Christ.-----Paul fit in with his "Damascus Road" experience, and was accepted as such by all the other 12. So their writtings came to be read in the churches, copies were made and passed back and forth.. Human reasoning would say "mistakes were made", but if God were actively at work, why could He not preserve the work.. We know that multiple translations were made throughout history and some WERE most definitely messed up, but I think I can make a valid case for a truthful, accurate, God inspired bible being preserved throughout history in its translations. Of course I think the last accurate one was the KJV, for multiple reasons...one of course is making money on "translations" via copywrite laws....you have to change, omit, add, or reword at least about a quarter of any book...including the bible...to be able to get a copywrite as a "new" book and make money without paying royalties....thus so many "new" translations... none of which I trust... In fact, I think that they left out around 900 verses when they wrote the New International Version... But I agree, when they say "translated from the original" I find it laughable, because I challenge ANYONE, ANYWHERE to show me an "original" copy of ANYTHING....even a copy 5 times removed from an original.. ....which of course gets me in trouble... ;D
|
|
|
Hey SS
Jul 16, 2009 2:47:03 GMT
Post by janggut on Jul 16, 2009 2:47:03 GMT
your challenge is one of the many questions Christians & non-Christians ask. where is the original? who has it? just how accurate is the translation done by the person(s) who has access to the original(s)? i know this sounds really weird, maybe just plain wrong even, but to justify faith using evidence isn't faith at all. yeah, people would say that's blind faith, but i feel real faith IS blind. ok, that's off-topic.
|
|
|
Hey SS
Jul 16, 2009 8:08:41 GMT
Post by Glance A'Lot on Jul 16, 2009 8:08:41 GMT
Actually IMO it's not - as Sonar asked what the basics are - and fundamental is indeed faith in something that ultimately is not proveable - if it were, there'd be no argument, no question.
In the course of some reading about differences and contradictions within the New Testament (mainly the gospel of John versus the other three) I stumbled upon a fundamental sentence:
Time has not resolved this ambiguity*, and people continue to interpret this passage* to support positions that are poles apart. (* here specifically the 'render unto Cesar...' quote)
Must be an eternal curse on man...
|
|