Roman Catholicism is an unscriptural cult

[glockmail]

There are differences between contemporary Hebrew and biblical Hebrew. And, frankly, if you knew Hebrew, you'd know that there are mistakes in the translation of the Bible. Not earthshattering mistakes, but mistakes that absolutely change the meaning of the text.

One is the translation of the term "B'reishis"... which is generally translated as "In the beginning". Apparently, in the actual old Hebrew, the true translation is "In A beginning. A subtle difference, but one which given different constructions can explain the world seen by the literalists and new earthers and reconcile it with scientific concepts to correct their misconceptions.

Another is the translation of Ehyeh asher ehyeh ... אהיה אשר אהיה
or "I am that I am" as it it commonly translated. That implies a set form to the creator. However, in Hebrew, there is no first person present for the verb "to be", therefore, the correct translation is "I will be what I will be" which implies a far more expansive form.

Now, minor points? Maybe. Or maybe the difference between seeing a tiny universe with tiny beginnings and seeing an expansive universe that is more in keeping with a great G-d, rather than a pedestrian, manlike G-d... something more in keeping with Stephen Hawkings view of the universe, perhaps?

Just saying... cause my feeling is, if the Bible is inerrant, then G-d should have made sure it was translated properly.

Of course the meaning of an active language has changed over time. That's why scholarly translations are important. Do you think that Bible scholars don't know the nuances that you have only a rudimentary understanding of?

 

[glockmail]

BTW Crock, can you provide more than 5 sources? I don't think you can. You're too much of an idiot.

You're too much of an idiot to see that I provided you with over 30 in the post that you responded to, and that was the second time that I linked to that source.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Actually Crock, most of the people who have translated the Bible from its original Hebrew tend to get it mixed up quite a bit. You ought to watch GLC and the show "Hidden in the Hebrew" to get a better understanding.

Oh wait.....I forgot....you wouldn't understand. You're brain dead.

 

[jillian]

Of course the meaning of an active language has changed over time. That's why scholarly translations are important. Do you think that Bible scholars don't know the nuances that you have only a rudimentary understanding of?

If "active language" has changed, then anyone who thinks English translations of the Bible should be taken literally aren't bible scholars and aren't applying the proper meaning to the passages.... which was pretty much my point.

I was actually hoping for a more scholarly response. I'm afraid I overestimated you by assuming you could give a reasoned response.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You're too much of an idiot to see that I provided you with over 30 in the post that you responded to, and that was the second time that I linked to that source.

Second hand information from right wing blogs and other unscrupulous sources don't count Crock.

 

[jillian]

Interesting.

Thanks! It interested me when I learned about it.

 

[Anguille]

You know, if you'd like to see how much you're wrong Glock (I just think I'm gonna start calling you Crock, cuz you're full of it), then tune in to Universal Torah Network - Teaching and Relating Torah Principles, Views and Understanding To The World and see how much you are in error.

Face it Crockmail, you're more full of shit than most on this board.

Hey, I already named him that! It does fit, doesn't it!

 

[glockmail]

If "active language" has changed, then anyone who thinks English translations of the Bible should be taken literally aren't bible scholars and aren't applying the proper meaning to the passages.... which was pretty much my point.

I was actually hoping for a more scholarly response. I'm afraid I overestimated you by assuming you could give a reasoned response.

What the ****? When have I ever touted literal translation? Nice attempt at a straw man though- you had me going for, like, 0.2 seconds or so.

 

[Anguille]

Of course the meaning of an active language has changed over time. That's why scholarly translations are important. Do you think that Bible scholars don't know the nuances that you have only a rudimentary understanding of?

As conscientious and erudite as Bible scholars might be, they didn't live in the time that the bible was written and can never know the exact meanings and references.
We can't even agree on language in our own contemporary times, mush less on dead languages from millenniums ago.

 

[glockmail]

Second hand information from right wing blogs and other unscrupulous sources don't count Crock.

Wow the skeptics annotated bible is right-wing? And a blog?

Holy shit all those bugs you've swallowed riding your bike must have clogged the arteries going to your brain.

 

[glockmail]

As conscientious and erudite as Bible scholars might be, they didn't live in the time that the bible was written and can never know the exact meanings and references.
We can't even agree on language in our own contemporary times, mush less on dead languages from millenniums ago.

True but words like "abomination" and "shall not" leave little room for misunderstanding. Even Jillian admits that minor differences in some lesser known passages don't make all that much difference.

 

[jillian]

True but words like "abomination" and "shall not" leave little room for misunderstanding. Even Jillian admits that minor differences in some lesser known passages don't make all that much difference.

But your particular example isn't a minor difference.

And THAT was the point..... that mistranslation makes a difference EVEN with little things. Yours is a major leap.

And you seem to think that homosexuality is a greater sin then, say, gluttony. I was always under the impression that sins are sins and there's no particular hierarchy. Yet, no one runs around saying fat people are "abominations" or try to keep them from getting married, do they?

 

[Anguille]

True but words like "abomination" and "shall not" leave little room for misunderstanding. Even Jillian admits that minor differences in some lesser known passages don't make all that much difference.

I think the differences she pointed out in her post are not minor in the least.

 

[Anguille]

But your particular example isn't a minor difference.

And THAT was the point..... that mistranslation makes a difference EVEN with little things. Yours is a major leap.

And you seem to think that homosexuality is a greater sin then, say, gluttony. I was always under the impression that sins are sins and there's no particular hierarchy. Yet, no one runs around saying fat people are "abominations" or try to keep them from getting married, do they?

 

[glockmail]

But your particular example isn't a minor difference.

And THAT was the point..... that mistranslation makes a difference EVEN with little things. Yours is a major leap.

And you seem to think that homosexuality is a greater sin then, say, gluttony. I was always under the impression that sins are sins and there's no particular hierarchy. Yet, no one runs around saying fat people are "abominations" or try to keep them from getting married, do they?

In my opinion they are minor, and you acknowledged that people would take that position when you brought it up.

Homosexuality is a much more egregious sin than gluttony. Minor evidence for that is exactly how you stated- no where does the bible call fatties "abominations". Major evidence is the fact of the major tribal divergence that it caused, dating back to days of Ham and Noah.

 

[jillian]

Wow the skeptics annotated bible is right-wing? And a blog?

Holy shit all those bugs you've swallowed riding your bike must have clogged the arteries going to your brain.

Did G-d do the annotations?

The skeptics annotated bible is described as the King James Bible from a skeptics point of view.

Sounds like a blog to me.

*Edit*... Actually, I went back and looked at it... I might like this skeptic guy...

Sodomy... defined in Ezekiel 16:49

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

Does this mean right wingers are sodomites?

 

[glockmail]

Did G-d do the annotations?

The skeptics annotated bible is described as the King James Bible from a skeptics point of view.

Sounds like a blog to me.

Why not do you and biker dude a favor, avoid further embarrassment and actually read what the author say about himself and his research before y'all go on about a "right-wing blog". SAB, Preface

 

[Shogun]

In my opinion they are minor, and you acknowledged that people would take that position when you brought it up.

Homosexuality is a much more egregious sin than gluttony. Minor evidence for that is exactly how you stated- no where does the bible call fatties "abominations". Major evidence is the fact of the major tribal divergence that it caused, dating back to days of Ham and Noah.

oh rly? can you show me the scripture that suggests that any one sin is worse than another?

 

[jillian]

Why not do you and biker dude a favor, avoid further embarrassment and actually read what the author say about himself and his research before y'all go on about a "right-wing blog". SAB, Preface

Go read my edit... I think YOU should read what the author has to say.... because he sure doesn't support any view of homosexuals as an "abomination" as far as I can see.

BTW... what do you think someone is who sits around describing what HE thinks the bible means?

 

[Anguille]

Does this mean right wingers are sodomites?

hahahaha!