The Problem with Canonizing Peoples Words.

Discuss the Christian Faith.
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

The Problem with Canonizing Peoples Words.

Post by sheep »

When Jesus was here on the earth he allowed his words to be challenged and I highly doubt we would be talking about him today if he did not.

To often people don't allow their beliefs to continually be challenged and they end up ceasing to learn and grow.

Most cults forbid people from challenging the words of their leaders and it is only through fear that they maintain their followers allegiance. But if a person's beliefs prevent them from accepting others based upon what they think, then not only do they live wrong, but they act wrong by doing so and it is a persons actions that we judge as good or bad and which makes a person guilty or innocent of doing wrong.

People, learn to love and do no evil no matter what the cost: or else you are the problem not the solution.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
Mark Aspam
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am

The Problem with Canonizing Peoples Words.

Post by Mark Aspam »

sheep;1468594 wrote: To[o] often people don't allow their beliefs to continually be challenged and they end up ceasing to learn and grow.sheep, it sounds to me as if you are referring to yourself here.

In previous threads I have referred you to two excellent, extensive, and completely non-denominational sources of Bible research and redaction:

1. The "Biblical Literature" section of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, about 100 very large pages in very small type.

2. The Anchor Bible Commentary from Yale University.

There are many other excellent sources, but these will at least get you started. They have both sold MILLIONS of copies.

If you continue to base your rhetoric on your claim that all of these experts are wrong and you are right, then I suggest that you write and publish your own commentary and see 1. how many publishers are interested and 2. If published, how many copies you are able to sell.
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

The Problem with Canonizing Peoples Words.

Post by sheep »

Mark Aspam;1468653 wrote: sheep, it sounds to me as if you are referring to yourself here.

In previous threads I have referred you to two excellent, extensive, and completely non-denominational sources of Bible research and redaction:

1. The "Biblical Literature" section of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, about 100 very large pages in very small type.

2. The Anchor Bible Commentary from Yale University.

There are many other excellent sources, but these will at least get you started. They have both sold MILLIONS of copies.

If you continue to base your rhetoric on your claim that all of these experts are wrong and you are right, then I suggest that you write and publish your own commentary and see 1. how many publishers are interested and 2. If published, how many copies you are able to sell.


Selling millions of copies of something doesn't make a position right. As well, holding to a position that few people hold to doesn't make you wrong.

I don't have the luxury of dialogue with books, but if you are willing to argue a point they are making, I am willing to discuss it. But stating that a book says something and trying to solidify the argument on the bases of it having sold millions of copies, is like saying McDonald's sells better food than anyone else and it has over 100 billion burgers sold to prove it. One sells food the others intellectual content, so using that logic maybe we should all just eat at McDonald's. Maybe all that is better is the taste and the content of both might be very harmful to you.

P.S. you stated that one of the books above (if not both), that you mentioned, claimed that Genesis 1 and 2 contradicted each other and while you may believe that, the Hebrew does not actually bare that out and while I didn't want to discuss that with you on a different thread, I am willing to do so here: so make your argument and let's see if it is true.

I will say that the English translation appears to offer a contradiction as it is written, but the Hebrew does not support the English translation at all, as the words "and the" are not at all supported from the Hebrew texts and so while the way the verses are written in English in chapter 2 appear as a contradiction to chapter 1's account, the err was in translation, not in the manuscripts themselves.

P.S.S. All the experts allow for their writings to be challenged, or they wouldn't be considered experts, and that is how knowledge increases. The problem isn't normally with the experts, but with the sheep that don't allow their thinking to be challenged.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6485
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

The Problem with Canonizing Peoples Words.

Post by FourPart »

sheep;1468659 wrote: Selling millions of copies of something doesn't make a position right. As well, holding to a position that few people hold to doesn't make you wrong.


This is very true. I understand the Bible is the World's Best Seller (under the category of Fiction, no doubt).
Mark Aspam
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am

The Problem with Canonizing Peoples Words.

Post by Mark Aspam »

sheep;1468659 wrote: Selling millions of copies of something doesn't make a position right. As well, holding to a position that few people hold to doesn't make you wrong.Selling millions of copies is a pretty good indication.

But poster FourPart also makes an excellent point. Why can the experts be mistaken but the Bible not be so? The Bible is filled that things that are obviously unfactual, and other matters that are contradictory from one book to another.

Regarding Genesis 1 and 2, have you even read them? In ANY language? It's hardly a matter of transposing a couple of words as you suggest.

In Gen 1, the universe and everything in it is created day by day, from the basic (light) to the more complicated (man, male and female together, no divine organ tinkering involved).

In Gen 2, Man is created first of all, in a world of nothing more than soil and rock, then God furnishes the earth with vegetation and flowing water, then with animals, and finally, from one of the man's body parts, a suitable companion and means of procreation for mankind.

(By the way, there are actually fundamentalist Christians - I know one personally - who really believe that male humans have one less rib than females. Never mind counting, it's in the Bible so it must be true!)

Of course, both creation accounts are plagiarized from separate and much older pagan myths (which are still accessible in more or less their original form), so why should the two accounts be expected to be in agreement?

sheep, there's an old saying that if you point your finger at someone, there are three more fingers pointing back at yourself. Based on your claims, you seem the perfect example of that - well, a GOOD example, nobody's perfect.
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

The Problem with Canonizing Peoples Words.

Post by sheep »

All the bible says is that God created the man and that he placed man in the garden he planted in Eden, but that doesnt tell you if the garden was planted before or after he made man, just that God made man and the garden. You're making an assumption that the garden was made after man: but that is not at all what the text declares.

Here let me put this another way. If I say I drove a taxi and I drove a school bus, which did I drive first? The truth is you don't know and you would be making an assumption if you guessed. You are doing the exact same thing with the text in chapter 2. Actually you have the clear chronological order in chapter 1 and so again I will state that there is no contradiction in the 2 chapters, it is just that you have made an assumption that has caused you to claim a contradiction exists where one does not.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6485
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

The Problem with Canonizing Peoples Words.

Post by FourPart »

I consider the whole Garden of Eden thing to be a simple metaphor for a pair of kids going through Puberty. As prepubescents they would have had nothing to want for & happy to run around naked - just as most kids are. Then, as they get older, their hormones start to kick in & they start asking awkward questions about their bodies (eating of the Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge), at which point they start to get embarassed about their nakedness.

I reckon the chances are that any parent with teenage kids will be able to identify with this. Nothing to do with 'God' whatsoever.
Mark Aspam
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am

The Problem with Canonizing Peoples Words.

Post by Mark Aspam »

sheep;1468692 wrote: All the bible says is that God created the man and that he placed man in the garden he planted in Eden, but that doesnt tell you if the garden was planted before or after he made man, just that God made man and the garden. Utter nonsense. It's possible that, if your Bible really says that, then you are relying on a "cooked" version of Scripture such as the JW Bible or something similar.

Here is what it says, this is from the Anchor, translated by E. A. Speiser, but I'm sure that nearly all authentic translations will agree:

Gen 2:7 "God Yahweh formed man from clods in the soil and blew into his nostrils the breath of life. Thus man became a living being. 2:8 God Yahweh planted a garden in Eden, in the East, and placed there the man whom he HAD formed." (My emphasis.)

The order is clear, first the man, then the garden. Of course, Genesis 1 says just the opposite, that humans were created last of all, male and female together, do you want me to quote that too?
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

The Problem with Canonizing Peoples Words.

Post by sheep »

Mark Aspam;1468697 wrote: Utter nonsense. It's possible that, if your Bible really says that, then you are relying on a "cooked" version of Scripture such as the JW Bible or something similar.

Here is what it says, this is from the Anchor, translated by E. A. Speiser, but I'm sure that nearly all authentic translations will agree:

Gen 2:7 "God Yahweh formed man from clods in the soil and blew into his nostrils the breath of life. Thus man became a living being. 2:8 God Yahweh planted a garden in Eden, in the East, and placed there the man whom he HAD formed." (My emphasis.)

The order is clear, first the man, then the garden. Of course, Genesis 1 says just the opposite, that humans were created last of all, male and female together, do you want me to quote that too?


You clearly are missing the point here. The order is not actually given you are clearly assuming that the statement is in the order of the creating but that is not stated. All that is stated is that God made the man and that God made the garden. You are clearly assuming that the garden was made after the man but it didn't say that. What it does say is that god made the garden and put man in the garden but it doesn't tell you that the garden was not made before the man was or after he was created: you are making that assumption based on the layout of the text.

Let's look at this another way, let's say I stated I made a toy man and I made a toy garden and I placed the toy man in the toy garden that I made. Does that mean I made the toy man before the toy garden? No, all you know is that I made both and you are assuming the order I made them in based on the order of the text, but it is clearly you who is making the assumption: as I never stated the actual order I made the toy garden and man in.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
Mark Aspam
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am

The Problem with Canonizing Peoples Words.

Post by Mark Aspam »

sheep;1468702 wrote: 1. You clearly are missing the point here.

2. The order is not actually given you are clearly assuming that the statement is in the order of the creating but that is not stated. 1. One of us is.

2. Yes, it is. Did you even study the English language in grade school? We have a past (created garden) and a past perfect (HAD created man). The translator makes that - man before garden - clear because it reflects the intent of the original language. There is no assuming involved.

Here is the same text from the Good News Bible: Gen 2:7 Then the LORD God took some soil from the ground and formed a man out of it; he breathed life-giving breath into his nostrils and the man began to live. 2:8 Then [note the two THEN's - in order - M.A.] the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the East, and there he put the man he HAD FORMED [My emphasis].

Of course, no such thing ever occurred, humanity developed gradually over millions of years, so arguing about the fables of Genesis is pretty much a waste of time.

The point is, the translators, unless they suffer from an overriding sectarian agenda, are dedicated to making the translation reflect the intent of the original to the greatest degree possible.
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

The Problem with Canonizing Peoples Words.

Post by sheep »

Mark Aspam;1468711 wrote: 1. One of us is.

2. Yes, it is. Did you even study the English language in grade school? We have a past (created garden) and a past perfect (HAD created man). The translator makes that - man before garden - clear because it reflects the intent of the original language. There is no assuming involved.

Here is the same text from the Good News Bible: Gen 2:7 Then the LORD God took some soil from the ground and formed a man out of it; he breathed life-giving breath into his nostrils and the man began to live. 2:8 Then [note the two THEN's - in order - M.A.] the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the East, and there he put the man he HAD FORMED [My emphasis].

Of course, no such thing ever occurred, humanity developed gradually over millions of years, so arguing about the fables of Genesis is pretty much a waste of time.

The point is, the translators, unless they suffer from an overriding sectarian agenda, are dedicated to making the translation reflect the intent of the original to the greatest degree possible.


Your "then the" is not in the Hebrew text, they are added words: I already made that last point though.



Maybe you need some more time to consider the words I posted above, or maybe you just do not want to hear what is being mentioned. Using the words I did above: prove I made the toy man before the toy garden. I have basically made the same claim as Genesis chapter 2.



Tolstoy well spoke when he said: "the most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."



Originally I made a post that "To often people don't allow their beliefs to continually be challenged and they end up ceasing to learn and grow."

To which you responded: "sheep, it sounds to me as if you are referring to yourself here."

Now I will say: one of us is guilty of not allowing their beliefs to be challenged. I don't know what you are afraid of, that you feel the need to hold on to your position, but there is something keeping you from being honest in the discussion here, the question is what is it.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
Mark Aspam
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am

The Problem with Canonizing Peoples Words.

Post by Mark Aspam »

sheep;1468720 wrote: Your "then the" is not in the Hebrew text, they are added words: I already made that last point though. Obviously not - they are not Hebrew words.

The translators used those words to reflect the intent of the original language. Except for a few 'catch phrases' I know virtually nothing of the Hebrew language, that is why I rely on the translation of experts.

You continue to insist that the experts are all wrong and you have the truth. There are several names for people like that.
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

The Problem with Canonizing Peoples Words.

Post by sheep »

Mark Aspam;1468723 wrote: Obviously not - they are not Hebrew words.

The translators used those words to reflect the intent of the original language. Except for a few 'catch phrases' I know virtually nothing of the Hebrew language, that is why I rely on the translation of experts.

You continue to insist that the experts are all wrong and you have the truth. There are several names for people like that.


I remember once mentioning to a person that I could clearly show that Romans 7 was Paul's pre-conversion experience and his response was "not to me you can't." He didn't want to hear the argument because he wanted to maintain his corrupt interpretation of Paul's teachings. This appears to be where you seem to be coming from also.



Here is the Hebrew text for Genesis 2:7-8, with the Strong's to reference each word; try doing a little reference work, or ask a person that reads Hebrew and they will confirm what I am saying.



וייצרH3335 יהוהH3068 אלהיםH430 אתH853 האדםH120 עפרH6083 מןH4480 האדמהH127 ויפחH5301 באפיוH639 �*שׁמתH5397 חייםH2416 ויהיH1961 האדםH120 ל�*פשׁH5315 חיה׃H2416

ויטעH5193 יהוהH3068 אלהיםH430 גןH1588 בעדןH5731 מקדםH6924 וישׂםH7760 שׁםH8033 אתH853 האדםH120 אשׁרH834 יצר׃H3335



The text neither has the words "then" or "and" in it in the above 2 verses.

There are enough resources on the internet to research this oneself, try availing yourself of them. And using your logic you should have made the assumption that the very fact that most of the English translations don't have the word "then" in it, should have led you to be very skeptical as to its accuracy. But no, instead you are trying to make a point and hold a position that is ignorant to the facts.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
Mark Aspam
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am

The Problem with Canonizing Peoples Words.

Post by Mark Aspam »

sheep;1468727 wrote: Here is the Hebrew text for Genesis 2:7-8, with the Strong's to reference each word; try doing a little reference work, or ask a person that reads Hebrew and they will confirm what I am saying....

The text neither has the words "then" or "and" in it in the above 2 verses.

There are enough resources on the internet to research this oneself, try availing yourself of them. And using your logic you should have made the assumption that the very fact that most of the English translations don't have the word "then" in it, should have led you to be very skeptical as to its accuracy. But no, instead you are trying to make a point and hold a position that is ignorant to the facts.The Hebrew does me no good at all, but I checked several other translations, ALL of which have either "then" or "and" or both. You say that most don't - please name 4 or 5 of those that don't.

It is certainly possible that there is no word for "then" in Hebrew, but there is obviously a word or expression that conveys the concept of sequence.

The New American has "then" twice as in the versions cited earlier. The KJV has "and" twice, clearly indicating sequence.

The online New English Translation has "The Lord God planted an orchard in the east, in Eden; AND there he placed the man he HAD formed.(My emphasis)"

My conclusion is that you are probably using one of the "cooked" translations that I mentioned earlier, either the JW Bible or something equally phony. Why not just name the one you use and while you're at it, mention your affiliation? I've certainly mentioned mine here a number of times.

Apart for that, what is the point? It's just a story.
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

The Problem with Canonizing Peoples Words.

Post by sheep »

Mark Aspam;1468734 wrote: The Hebrew does me no good at all, but I checked several other translations, ALL of which have either "then" or "and" or both. You say that most don't - please name 4 or 5 of those that don't.

It is certainly possible that there is no word for "then" in Hebrew, but there is obviously a word or expression that conveys the concept of sequence.

The New American has "then" twice as in the versions cited earlier. The KJV has "and" twice, clearly indicating sequence.

The online New English Translation has "The Lord God planted an orchard in the east, in Eden; AND there he placed the man he HAD formed.(My emphasis)"

My conclusion is that you are probably using one of the "cooked" translations that I mentioned earlier, either the JW Bible or something equally phony. Why not just name the one you use and while you're at it, mention your affiliation? I've certainly mentioned mine here a number of times.

Apart for that, what is the point? It's just a story.


I stated that most don't use the word "then", the word "and" is used, but again neither is found in the Hebrew text.

The point is that you are trying to make the word "then" replace the word "and" in the text, but it doesn't. Again I will state, if i say I drove a bus "and" a taxi you cannot replace the word "then" for the word "and", but you clearly want to do that in all bibles and then you find a few translators which use the word "then" to prove your point. But just because a few ignorant translators have used the word "then" doesn't make them right. Again, neither the words "and" or "then" are found in the Hebrew text, they are words added to the English text, as is often the case by translators to give structure in English to the Hebrew, but neither the words "and" or "then" exist in the Hebrew text at all.

BTW, before I accept something as a contradiction, in scriptures, I check it with the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts: to see if it is an err in translation. You might want to consider downloading a program like e-sword and then downloading the different free bibles and manuscripts, with links to the Strong's concordance, to do your own homework: before you ignorantly accept someone else's word.

I am glad you don't take my word for granted and are willing to challenge it, but it is too bad you don't take the same precautions with the other resources that you rely on.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
Mark Aspam
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am

The Problem with Canonizing Peoples Words.

Post by Mark Aspam »

sheep;1468750 wrote: I stated that most don't use the word "then", the word "and" is used, but again neither is found in the Hebrew text.

The point is that you are trying to make the word "then" replace the word "and" in the text, but it doesn't. Again I will state, if i say I drove a bus "and" a taxi you cannot replace the word "then" for the word "and", but you clearly want to do that in all bibles and then you find a few translators which use the word "then" to prove your point. But just because a few ignorant translators have used the word "then" doesn't make them right. Again, neither the words "and" or "then" are found in the Hebrew text, they are words added to the English text, as is often the case by translators to give structure in English to the Hebrew, but neither the words "and" or "then" exist in the Hebrew text at all.

BTW, before I accept something as a contradiction, in scriptures, I check it with the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts: to see if it is an err in translation. You might want to consider downloading a program like e-sword and then downloading the different free bibles and manuscripts, with links to the Strong's concordance, to do your own homework: before you ignorantly accept someone else's word.

I am glad you don't take my word for granted and are willing to challenge it, but it is too bad you don't take the same precautions with the other resources that you rely on.You're just taking the thread around in circles, wasting not only my time but that of other viewers.

I have already admitted that I know very little about the Hebrew language, but I know enough to realize that it is not structured anything like the Western European languages.

So I do not doubt that those WORDS do not exist in Hebrew. Hebrew OBVIOUSLY has some way of expressing the same thought, in this case, SEQUENCE. That is clearly expressed by the translators.

Didn't I say that before, and why am I not surprised that your response was nothing more than empty nonsense?

And while we're discussing language, "err" is a VERB, not a noun. There's no such thing as "an err". You might consider spending less time studying Hebrew and more time improving your English.

And how about answering my request - you said that MOST English translations do not have "then". I asked you to name 4 or 5 that don't. I'm asking again. I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just asking. MOST - not all - of the translations I've checked have "then". Those that I've checked that do NOT have "then" express the sequence in some other way, but those translations leave little doubt that the sequence - first the man, then the garden - is intended.

And by the way, relying on experts in their fields, experts acknowledged as such except by oddballs like yourself, is not "ignorantly accepting someone else's word."
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

The Problem with Canonizing Peoples Words.

Post by sheep »

Mark Aspam;1468771 wrote: You're just taking the thread around in circles, wasting not only my time but that of other viewers.

I have already admitted that I know very little about the Hebrew language, but I know enough to realize that it is not structured anything like the Western European languages.

So I do not doubt that those WORDS do not exist in Hebrew. Hebrew OBVIOUSLY has some way of expressing the same thought, in this case, SEQUENCE. That is clearly expressed by the translators.

Didn't I say that before, and why am I not surprised that your response was nothing more than empty nonsense?

And while we're discussing language, "err" is a VERB, not a noun. There's no such thing as "an err". You might consider spending less time studying Hebrew and more time improving your English.

And how about answering my request - you said that MOST English translations do not have "then". I asked you to name 4 or 5 that don't. I'm asking again. I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just asking. MOST - not all - of the translations I've checked have "then". Those that I've checked that do NOT have "then" express the sequence in some other way, but those translations leave little doubt that the sequence - first the man, then the garden - is intended.

And by the way, relying on experts in their fields, experts acknowledged as such except by oddballs like yourself, is not "ignorantly accepting someone else's word."


Here take the time to read what this commentator states on Chapter 1 and 2 in Genesis and you will find he states the same thing I am about the order of creation etc. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 - two creation narratives or one? I am sure I can find a dozen more of these same arguments about the 2 chapters but this one does a good job of explaining the differences in the 2 chapters.

Here are a number of versions and their wording of Genesis 2:7



King James Bible

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

International Standard Version

So the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground, breathed life into his lungs, and the man became a living being.

NET Bible

The LORD God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Jubilee Bible 2000

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

King James 2000 Bible

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

American King James Version

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

American Standard Version

And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Douay-Rheims Bible

And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

Darby Bible Translation

And Jehovah Elohim formed Man, dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man became a living soul.

English Revised Version

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Webster's Bible Translation

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

World English Bible

Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Young's Literal Translation

And Jehovah God formeth the man -- dust from the ground, and breatheth into his nostrils breath of life, and the man becometh a living creature.



Take the time to ask a Hebrew scholar and you will see that the word "then" or "and" does not appear in the text and if there is a contradiction it is not in the original biblical text, but rather in the translation of the text.

Btw, Experts in their field almost always contradict other Experts in the same field. The controversy they create is often done to discredit the other experts and create controversy, not because they care about truth.

As I mention to you before in a private email regarding these texts, I don't see the text to be important, but if you are going to claim a contradiction exists then maybe you should be sure that it is really a contradiction: before you argue a point that is not a valid one.

P.S. Smith Wigglesworth once wrote a letter which referenced a word and used a number of different spellings to do so and the young student which read the letter pointed out his error to him, to which he replied: "did you understand what I was saying?" the boy responded yes, and Wigglesworth then stated, "that is all that is important". Making a point of expressing Paul's error regarding Romans 13 is actually a very important issue and that is why I posted the contradiction to his words verses Samuel's and it is why also I didn't want to engage you in this trivial discussion about a contradiction that actually is nothing more than an error in translating text.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6485
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

The Problem with Canonizing Peoples Words.

Post by FourPart »

I was watching a presentation by some Islamic preacher (formerly a Christian preacher) on YouTube last week (I don't recall his name - Sheik Yusef something or another I think). The thing is that he made a very good point that before Hebrew there was Aramaic, and that the Hebrew Scriptures are, themselves, translations & consequentially interpretations.

Every time someone passes a story onto someone else the information gets paraphrased & interpretted in different ways, be it deliberately or unwittingly, and language translations are the worst cause of this happening. You only need to take a section of text & put it through an online translator, and then put the reuslt through another translator, etc., until eventually retranslating it into English, and the eventual oucome will bear little relationship to the original text - and that is without the emotional bias of an agenda driven motivation.
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

The Problem with Canonizing Peoples Words.

Post by sheep »

FourPart;1468785 wrote: I was watching a presentation by some Islamic preacher (formerly a Christian preacher) on YouTube last week (I don't recall his name - Sheik Yusef something or another I think). The thing is that he made a very good point that before Hebrew there was Aramaic, and that the Hebrew Scriptures are, themselves, translations & consequentially interpretations.

Every time someone passes a story onto someone else the information gets paraphrased & interpretted in different ways, be it deliberately or unwittingly, and language translations are the worst cause of this happening. You only need to take a section of text & put it through an online translator, and then put the result through another translator, etc., until eventually retranslating it into English, and the eventual outcome will bear little relationship to the original text - and that is without the emotional bias of an agenda driven motivation.


All you have to do is look at the fact that the bible has been translated into English over 500 times to understand that after 499 times still there was a group unhappy with all the other translations and felt the need to translate the manuscripts over again, to know that tons of errors probably exist in the English bibles and that is why I like to reference the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, as the variations between them is relatively small verses the English, as the scribes who copied them mainly were interested in preservation of the text not the interpretation of them.

Btw, my problems wasn't with the translators, but rather with the people/experts who ignorantly write articles on the translators works, not knowing the difficulty in translating and yet they make claims to suit their agendas, which others with the agendas then ignorantly quote as errors in the bible, when they are actually errors in translation: but One would not know that if they don't reference the manuscripts themselves.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
Mark Aspam
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am

The Problem with Canonizing Peoples Words.

Post by Mark Aspam »

Well, thanks for the quotes, it must have taken you a long time to dig them up, but in doing so you have ruined your own credibility, if it ever existed, because the verse that FOLLOWS, which you have not quoted but which we both know is there, describes the creation of the garden and the placement of the man therein.

So your position would, unless I am missing something, be that ALL of those translations, along with the ones I cited, and along with the original, have the two events in reverse order, and there is not the slightest indication of that. If you are claiming that they MUST be in reverse order because of the description in Gen 1, that is nonsense because the two accounts are from completely different sources - PAGAN sources - so why should they be expected to agree?

The original redactors of Genesis obviously considered both tales important enough in Hebrew prehistory to leave in more or less their skeletal form, differences not withstanding, and with some editing in order to adapt the tales to seventh-century-BC Judaism.

I suggest that you read the introductory notes (only about 100 pages) of the Genesis volume of the Anchor Bible for a much more detailed analysis. If you claim that you are more knowledgable than Speiser, why not write your own intro and submit it to the various publishers of Biblical material? If you succeed in finding a publisher, I might even buy a copy myself.

But this is my last contribution to this thread, because, as I stated previously, it's just going around in circles, like most of your threads.
sheep
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

The Problem with Canonizing Peoples Words.

Post by sheep »

Mark Aspam;1468807 wrote: Well, thanks for the quotes, it must have taken you a long time to dig them up, but in doing so you have ruined your own credibility, if it ever existed, because the verse that FOLLOWS, which you have not quoted but which we both know is there, describes the creation of the garden and the placement of the man therein.

So your position would, unless I am missing something, be that ALL of those translations, along with the ones I cited, and along with the original, have the two events in reverse order, and there is not the slightest indication of that. If you are claiming that they MUST be in reverse order because of the description in Gen 1, that is nonsense because the two accounts are from completely different sources - PAGAN sources - so why should they be expected to agree?

The original redactors of Genesis obviously considered both tales important enough in Hebrew prehistory to leave in more or less their skeletal form, differences not withstanding, and with some editing in order to adapt the tales to seventh-century-BC Judaism.

I suggest that you read the introductory notes (only about 100 pages) of the Genesis volume of the Anchor Bible for a much more detailed analysis. If you claim that you are more knowledgable than Speiser, why not write your own intro and submit it to the various publishers of Biblical material? If you succeed in finding a publisher, I might even buy a copy myself.

But this is my last contribution to this thread, because, as I stated previously, it's just going around in circles, like most of your threads.


You misunderstand, it is not that I deny the verse that exists in verse 8, but what is in question is the wording... You want the text to read God made man "then" the garden, but that is not what it states in the Hebrew. The Hebrew states God made man, God made the Garden and God put man in the garden, the order is not specified in Chapter 2 in the Hebrew: that is the issue. Again it is like saying, "I drive a car" and "I drive a bus" the order is not specified just because I put one in front of the other, just that I do both. How many ways does a person have to explain this before you will understand that the word then is not a replacement for the word and, and that the Hebrew just states that God did both and just because they are in the order they are doesn't mean it was done in that order, just like my order of driving both a car and bus is not specified: just that I do both. You just actually don't want to hear/understand what is being said/explained to you. The order was previous explained, all that is being stated in chapter 2 is what happened during the event/events (details): not the order.

It is too bad that you failed to hear the challenge against your argument.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

The Problem with Canonizing Peoples Words.

Post by Ahso! »

Mark Aspam;1468807 wrote: But this is my last contribution to this thread, because, as I stated previously, it's just going around in circles, like most of your threads.I learned a long time ago that reasoning with these religious trolls is just a waste of time. For other people who might read the thread you presented your argument fairly. Well done! I lack the patience at this point.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

The Problem with Canonizing Peoples Words.

Post by Ted »

This is an interesting topic. The Bible is first of all a religious book it is not a history book though it does contain some history. As far as translation is concerned I've been trained in both Hebrew and NT Greek. The Bible was written by Jewish folks with maybe the exception of Luke. We do not know who wrote the Gospels but that is an whole other issue. The ancient writers used "Midrash" as a style of writing and interpretation.. It makes a great deal of use of metaphor. In order to interpret the Bible one has to learn to see it through Jewish eyes. The literal reading of the Bible is a product of the past 200 years and is not a bona fide way of reading the text. (My interpretation back up by hundreds of scholars) The Jews never took it literally. Read appropriately it is a book that is a more than book. It does contain much wisdom. God did not dictate the Bible it is a human construction by ancient people trying to make their primitive language explain the inexplicable. Many books have been written about this. And for those who decry Biblical scholarship they forget we would not have the Bible if it were not for scholars. I agree with Hans Kung who put it this way ÈThe Bible is not in and of itself the Word of God but becomes for some The Word of God because God does speak to them through the very human words of the Bible. .
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

The Problem with Canonizing Peoples Words.

Post by AnneBoleyn »

Nicely written Ted.
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6485
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

The Problem with Canonizing Peoples Words.

Post by FourPart »

AnneBoleyn;1480717 wrote: Nicely written Ted.
Hear, hear. An excellent summary.
User avatar
Smaug
Posts: 1599
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 2:44 am

The Problem with Canonizing Peoples Words.

Post by Smaug »

That has definitely "got the ring of truth" about it. Fairly and objectively put.

Better mention it to Frodo...
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.

Return to “Christianity”