greymare
Well-Known Member
Whammy.
Has the bible been altered? Not translated, interpreted, but altered?
- Thread starter wil
- Start date
mens_sana
Well-Known Member
Oh? and what image is God to you? And who are you to chastise me, for speaking the truth?
I swear, people can dish it out, but can't take it themselves...
I distrust anyone who tells me that he has the "truth," especially in these days of ideological megalomania.
"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: he is always convinced that it says what he means." -- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
mens_sana
Well-Known Member
M
mee
Guest
very true and its all in the complete bible . thats where we find out instruction from God.
All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.2 timothy 3;16-17
M
mee
Guest
The unique book of Daniel contains two very different threads—one is narrative, the other is prophetic.
Daniel directs our attention to the Kingdom of God in the hands of His appointed King and associate "holy ones," pointing to it as the government that will endure forever. This government will fully accomplish Jehovah’s purpose for our earth and will result in the blessing of all those who want to serve God.—Daniel 2:44; 7:13, 14, 22.
No one asked you to be convinced of anything. Yet you come in trying to convince us? Hmmm...
mens_sana
Well-Known Member
I can't recall ... what is it I have been trying to convince you of?
mens_sana
Well-Known Member
Generally the older the text, the more likelihood that it approaches the "original." Which pretty much blows mee's version, especially since the books of the NT were written somewhere between 70 and 120 (or so). But the Vulgate is not all that close to the "original" either. After all, it is in Latin and all the books of the NT were written in Greek. Ummm, what was the date of the Vulgate anyway? If I had to choose a Catholic version, I would choose the New Jerusalem Bible. It benefits from far more advanced scholarship than the Vulgate did. And with the NJB, I'd pair the New Jerome Biblical Commentary. It is very good within the limitations imposed by the "one volume" format.
try the wine...it is a good vintage.
Says you...and your credentials are?
mens_sana
Well-Known Member
The NJB and the New Jerome both have Imprimaturs, if that means anything to you. Both are the result of Pope Pius XII's Divino Afflante Spiritu. Perhaps that — and reading a bit of Raymond E Brown and John J Collins — gives me a head start.
I see (bows out of the shadow) I'll stick with the likes of Shelley and Joyce...easier for me to digest.
mens_sana
Well-Known Member
I see (bows out of the shadow) I'll stick with the likes of Shelley and Joyce...easier for me to digest.
Out of the shadow?
By the way, how do you like my new avatar? It's a photo of a bronze statue of Achilles — taken on the grounds of the Achillion Palace on the Greek island of Corfu last September.
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
Reality is subjective. The Bible, like all literature, is open to interpretation, as it was written by its authors with a particular intention in mind. There is what they intended it to mean, and what they did not intend it to mean. Sometimes you have to read the Bible like you read any newspaper: imagine that you are in the same reality as the author and its audience, and pretend that the articles/books in the Bible are like newspaper articles. Then we will perhaps understand what they were trying to say. In the meantime, we can make of it what we will, though that would be irresponsible and foolish.
Imagine reading a newspaper written for a Russian or Chinese audience and trying to apply that to American society. That would certainly sound funny. But the idea is to read Russian/Chinese newspapers and try and imagine what the Russian/Chinese are thinking, rather than trying to promote the ideas in the newspaper in American society.
When read like that, newspaper articles can be used for any number of different purposes, and such uses would be useful and appropriate. What you would not use the newspaper for as an example, is proving that Jesus was the Lamb of God, because, quite obviously it wouldn't mention Jesus or a lamb. But if it does mention a lamb . . . you might try . . . if it includes the word "God" and it says that some person got "cross" (angry) about something you might identify certain words and phrases in the article to imply that, in the sense that 1 plus 1 equals a window, you get Jesus equals the Lamb of God.
This is obviously an inappropriate usage of a newspaper article, but my point is that the Bible could be seen as a kind of newspaper for the early Christians. It was news for them just as there is news for us today. Even if the Bible includes the words, "Jesus", "Lamb" and "God" doesn't automatically mean that "Jesus" = "Lamb of God" because, just like a newspaper, the Newspaper-Bible is discussing issues relevant to the early Christians. You have to make certain assumptions, like the city of New York is called "New York City" and the capital of the U.S. is Washington D.C. The newspaper wouldn't say that. You could assume that was the case, but you'd never be 100% sure. Things might be different 1,000 years from now, or perhaps in a parallel universe where things in the same point in history are different.
A truth is only as true as it is useful to its user. A "truth" that is useless is, for all intents and purposes, "false," even if it was true in a particular context or environment (ie. its origins), or in the author's own mind. Consider literature written by people declared clinically insane. They are true in the reality of the madman, but not true in the "real world" where it has little use or has not penetrated the vernacular or local culture. If the madman's ideas were to penetrate the local culture, then yes, it'd be truth if it became useful.
The writings of the New Testament are only meaningful in terms of the vernacular and local culture (in time and place) of the 1st-century Christians. We must desire to have the same experiences as the first-generation to truly know what the Text says. The New Testament in the 21st century is only as useful as it is understood in this century and in your local culture. Because some of us don't understand it, to some of us the New Testament is useless. This is something the fundamentalists would hate, but there is little we can do about it . . . unless someone is willing to "translate" it into the 21st century.
Different groups of Christians around the world possess a different "vernacular" and "local culture" and therefore the "collective psyche" of their beliefs is different. For each "collective psyche" there is a distinct "fellowship" but our aim is to be part of one Fellowship, one of the same Spirit (ie. one collective psyche). Obviously not possible if we discount each other's beliefs . . .
Obviously and paradoxically, the "truth" of what I have just said in this post is only as true as it is useful (according to my view). To all in this thread, a question: Have I contributed something useful?
M
mee
Guest
the only inspired is the original, and getting back to the original meaning is the thing to do, and i am glad to say that the NEW WORLD TRANSLTION does just that so it is verrry gooood .
Daniel 12;4 there has been much roving around the bible in the last days ,and now true knowledge is abundant indeed ,especially when it comes to the bible
mens_sana
Well-Known Member
mens_sana
Well-Known Member
Nice. I notice you got a shot of his "heel"...any reason?
Guess I'm slow. "Heel"? I do have some other views, if you're interested. It's not a particularly good sculpture. It reminds me of the over-done fascist statuary that Mussolini loved — but I thought this angle was decent.