Jabba-wocky posted: You're point is technically correct, but obscures things that are important to the discussion. Namely, while there is a distinction between the two words in the English dictionary, in practice they are used as synonymous/interchangeable quite often. Thus, even if people choose to believe one meaning over the other, it is almost certainly improbable that they would somehow be unaware of the validity of the other, as your example would have to require to be meaningful. Even were this not the case, it would be a very misleading example in that most people's understanding of the arrival time of the Magi is derived from popular media depictions, not serious Biblical study, anyway. I'm aware of very few, if any, people, who hold the position that the Bible exclusively supports a scenario where the Magi arrive on the exact date of Jesus's birth.
Jaba-wocky posted: Again, this is a wildly misleading example. Because such an alteration would cause a complete reversal of the meaning of the passage, it's actually one of the less likely mistakes in translation. If nothing else, the incident where it occurred would stick out in glaring opposition to everything else on the subject, and thereby serve as a red flag to the error that has been made. Such gaffes, when they occur, are obvious, and not likely to have withstood centuries of repeated revision and criticism using source documents, and comparing to other passages on the same topic.
Jaba-wocky posted: It's not really a "leap of faith." As a bilingual person, while I can certainly confirm the "lost in translation" phenomenon, I can also say that it is, again, fairly obvious when such a thing has happened. As to the broader question of how important these events are, I'd challenge you to find any doctrinal discrepancy that is rooted, solely or primarily, in a difference in the translation of two different versions of the Bible. While some certainly make an appearance (eg, Christians translate the pasage in Isaiah about Jesus as, " Prince of Peace [. . .] the Mighty God" whereas I understand Jews translate it as angel/spirit) because there is so much other discussion of the same topic in other places, there is no need to make that the only pillar of your argument. More to the point, when someone attempts such a maneuver, they are often dismissed for exactly the issues of uncertainty around translation that you have outlined. In summary, then, your concerns have been accounted for, and in actual practice do not seem to pose much of an issue in effective interpretation of the Bible.
Jaba-wocky posted: Yes, language is flawed. But one of the key elements of language, as opposed to things like animal communication (bird songs, etc)are its generative and dynamic abilities. This means that it can cover new concepts not previously encountered. It is therefore relatively arbitrary to believe that some particular concept would be forever beyond the capacity of any language to understand. On a broader note, if you accept the premise of the Bible--that there is a deity interested in communicating with mankind, and this is his attempt--it becomes somewhat illogical to posit that he should fail to successfully communicate any accurate information about himself. Further, it is a fallacy to suggest that because he perhaps could not convey everything about himself, you'd inevitably end up with an incorrect understanding. Dogs, for instance, know their owners quite well, and not incorrectly, despite having little/no insight into any of the more sophisticated elements of human cognition. Overall, you are grossly overstating the challenges presented by the admittedly legitimate issues you are raising.
henchman24 posted:No one walks up to a mother in a hospital and looks at her newborn and says what a cute toddler. To randomize or dismiss these words as interchangeable is as bad as the initial poster saying translation has no impact on any of the "important" stuff in the Bible.
henchman posted:To say that very few christians beilieve the literal version of the Magi is rediculous.
henchman posted:Its not misleading at all, it illustrating the point of translation and the impact it has on information and belief. I didn't give an example from a specific teaching, simply that one word being misconstrued can have all the relevance in the world.
henchman posted:For you to say that any mistakes of this nature would be too obvious, is itself a mistake. Historically we can't even come to terms on what version or interpretation of the Bible is valid, or even authentic for that matter. So how can we decide what the original message was in the first place, regardless of what particular word was removed/added/changed.
henchman posted:The highlighted statement says it all. Many passages in the Bible have been scientifically and historically discredited over the years, yet this hasn't altered any of the revisions. It isnt a matter of withstanding critisism, its simply ignored by those doing the revisions.
henchman posted:If person has never been exposed to the Greek because they can't read it, how are the differences obvious, how are all of the missing pieces of information related????I am not talking about King James to NIV here. Neither of us has a handle on the Greek, so I guarentee for you to make a statement like "its fairly obvious when this that or the other has been omitted" isnt at all justifiable.
henchman posted:My example of the Wise men arriving when Jesus was several years old instead of the night of his birth is a fine example to differences in what would be the essence of the new testiment. This brings into question not only the validity of the Bible as "Gods word", but also brings in to question the divine nature of Christ, and the pre-ordained nature of his birth.
Exodus 4:21 (New International Version) 21 The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.
J-w posted:Such gaffes, when they occur, are obvious, and not likely to have withstood centuries of repeated revision and criticism using source documents, and comparing to other passages on the same topic.
DarthDogbert posted:First of all, there is a matter of (reasonable) faith that if God is a loving God, and if He revealed His will to us, not only would He reveal it in a way that we could understand it, He would use His sovereignty and providence to maintain its integrity throughout the years.
DarthDogbert posted: Have you stopped to think about all the many quality control layers that are available for confidence in the fidelity of what we have as the Scriptures? 1. Internal consistency for any particular copy or manuscript. Like J-w said, if a copyist, for any reason, were to fundamentally change the meaning of a particular passage, it would be flagged because of the other passages that deal with the same issues. (I'm a preacher and an advocate for the Bible's harmony, and can tell you that no doctrine stands or falls solely on one verse.)
DartDogbert posted: 2. Comparison to other copies and manuscripts of the same passage. There is the danger of a copyist adding his own theological views to the text (of which there are examples), but this is mitigated by the vast multitudes of copies and manuscripts to compare against. If there was a rogue (or mistaken) copyist, then his additions would be flagged by comparing against a large statistical sample. Now, of course that would work with one rogue, but what if the entire organization was inserting their ideas? That's covered as well in the analysis of a text's confidence because not all copies came from the same organizations, and while one organization might have had one agenda, another would often have a competing agenda. This considered with, again, the large sample available makes it possible to highlight the agendas and exclude/correct them. A similar thing is even seen today, as I believe some English translations carry agendas, but they are rooted out in comparison to other translations and to the original Greek.
DarthDogbert posted: 3. After having said all of that above about the possibility of corrupt organizations changing the meanings, it should be noted that historically, while there have been bad apples, those entrusted with making copies of manuscripts were, by and large, very faithful to their work, as evidenced by the agreement of a majority of texts, even on issues of punctuation. There were very detailed processes in place, far surpassing the software quality assurance practices we have here at work on flight-critical software. So it is presumptuous at the least to claim the breakdown of translation in this phase.
DartDogbert posted: 4. Not only do we have manuscripts and copies of the texts in question, we have commentaries of early church members and leaders on these texts. Now, these do not hold authority as do the texts themselves, but they do corroborate what we have in the form of their discussions and especially their quotations. I'm not sure the level of hyperbole present in a statement I have read before, but it said that even if every Bible text was gathered and burnt, that most of the NT could be pieced together from early commentaries.
DarthDogbert posted: Now add all this together with the statement in 1 Pet 1:24-25, and not only do I have faith in what we have today, but I feel it is a most reasonable faith. All flesh is as grass, And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, And its flower falls away, But the word of the LORD endures forever.
henchman24 posted:Your reasoning is that we can abuse the message all we want as humans, except when it comes to altering it, even through accidental misunderstanding or poor translation?
henchman24 posted:You are only covering the modern era of detailed oriented documentation, just as J-w was refering to english to english revisions, not really translations. Do you believe that 1700-1900 years ago when these documents were going through there initial translations(actual language translations) and re-tellings(oral traditions), that footnotes or red flags were a part of that process? I get that you personally "believe" this to be possible because of your comment above on God maintaining its integrity over the years. The quality control that is in place is another issue, and it just doesn't hold up.
henchman24 posted:My only real issue with this comes from the comment on a rogue copyist. Its about who is doing the flagging. Above someone noted the "win the war, write the history" comment, the same goes for who holds sway in the religious community. This would be the Catholic church in one form or another for almost the entire expanse of christianity. You yourself have issue with certain agendas as you say, do you believe the Catholic church never had, or doesn't have one. How many rogue copyists/interpretations/authentic documents etc...got the kibosh because they would hinder a specific agenda.
henchman24 posted:My concern is not corruption in any outside organizations, nor is it the corruption in the internal organization. After the 300+ years of Christianity going through its growing pains, It became a power in the western world. This period is when the "cast was set" as it were. All the doctorines we know today as valid were made so by this institution, and those they chose to dismiss, were denounced here as well. Those entrusted with the details were of course very faithful, and I am sure qualified, but again all having one agenda. If at this point the errors or purposeful omissions have been accepted, the amount of detail in copying already flawed information is irrelivent.
Darth-Ghost posted:Well, since this is the Christianity thread, I thought I'd raise this question on the transference of sin, the real focus and glue of Christianity. According to Christian beliefs, Adam and Eve disobeyed God by listening to Satan and eating the fruit of the forbidden true in order to be more like God. This sin, often called the original sin, is then transferred down to all generations. And apparently it also made all other sin possible because humankind was sinless up until that point. God of the Old Testament also makes several statements saying he will punish people for generations because of the sins of their fathers, it's even in one of the accounts of the Ten Commandments I believe. Sin is given as the reason for death, suffering, the wild evils of the world, the pain of childbirth, the need to work to survive, the subordination of women to men and lust of women for men. Most importantly, sin caused separation of us from God. Why is this "original sin" and its consequences passed down to those innocent, especially for a God who is supposed to be just and loving? (And a further question might be how to we work this idea of original sin into the mostly accepted belief in theory of evolution, since Adam and Eve now probably never physically existed at all and death/suffering were always present in life?)
Darth-Ghost posted:And the second part of that question, Jesus Christ is said to be the "New Adam," the "Son of God" as well as the "Son of Man." He is believed to be the incarnation of God, conceived without sex in Mary's womb, a being who is both fully and truly God as well as fully and truly man, a member of the Holy Trinity. His unneeding suffering and death, experiencing a complete human life with the consequences of sin despite being sinless, is said to have brought all the sins of those who believe in him across space and time. Those sins are said to have died with his body, and not ressurected when Jesus rose from the dead with eternal life. That frees Christians from original sin, and if they continue to live as good Christians they too will have eternity in the afterlife with God, the separation destroyed by the sacrifice of Jesus. Sinners are able to conciously transfer their sin to Jesus, no longer responsible for it. How and why does this atonement with God happen? What exactly did Jesus do in order to accomplish this and be our savior (a ransom to the Devil, appeasement to God, etc.) and why was that the way God chose? And how does belief in Jesus transfer our sins to him, providing the "guilty" with salvation?
Kimball_Kinnison posted:You can cry for mercy, but if your creditor gives you mercy, then he is denied justice. At the same time, if he is given justice, then there can be no mercy for you.
Kimball_Kinnison posted:By paying the price for our sins, Christ has paid the debt that we created through violating God's laws. Justice can therefore be satisfied. Christ then offers us a new deal: repent and follow God's commandments (repenting again when we fail). If we hold up our end of Christ's offer, then our debt to him will be considered paid in full. If not, if we reject the mercy offered to us, then we are left to the demands of justice all over again.
