Presbyterian Church U.S.A recognizes gay marriage

[Retro Rob]

You're welcome to believe whatever you want, but it is pretty impossible to say the bible is always consistent.

The Bible is consistent...in a number of ways.

Internally, it conveys a message all the way up until its climax (the Fall of Man, the climax being the second coming of Jesus to restore what Adam lost) and restoring God's rulership on Earth.

Secondly, many of the Bible writers were not contemporaries, had different personalities and backgrounds, but their writings built on each others rather well.

You mentioned Genesis -- well, it starts with the order of Creation, and then jumps onto a topical consideration. If you're looking for the Genesis account to go in order, then you'll be disappointed as the Bible isn't arranged Chronologically anyway. You'd have to study it to understand what happened when and why.

Lastly, the "contradictions". Sometimes, you have several people recording the same account and all the information isn't the same. Well, do four people who were eye-witnesses to the same car accident give you the exact same information?

Hardly! Some leave out certain details, others provide irrelevant details, and I've seen passages where writers share information based on their own knowledge.

Most of the "disharmony" can be easily resolved if people stop trying to get a "gotcha!" with the Bible, and research to see if an account simply lacks certain details that are shared in another account. I've done this, and I see no contradictions.

People scour the Bible, looking for contradictions, and as soon as they find even one, they claim the entire book is self-contradictory.

I don't have any interest in debating "contradictory" passages, just wanted to show why I have found it to be completely harmonious.

 

[fskimospy]

I think if I believed in the bible most of the contradictions wouldn't bother me either, but that's different than saying they don't exist.

 

[Retro Rob]

I think if I believed in the bible most of the contradictions wouldn't bother me either, but that's different than saying they don't exist.

lol, I poke holes in stuff I don't want to be true too, so don't feel bad.

 

[mikeymikec]

Lastly, the "contradictions". Sometimes, you have several people recording the same account and all the information isn't the same. Well, do four people who were eye-witnesses to the same car accident give you the exact same information?

Hardly! Some leave out certain details, others provide irrelevant details, and I've seen passages where writers share information based on their own knowledge.

In a historical document, contradictions can exist. People aren't perfect, however they (hopefully) stated what they witnessed accurately even if it was biassed by their emotional state and general perspective.

The problem begins with the fact that the Bible is considered to be the word of God, infallible, despite the fact that one cannot expect perfect translations for languages in how they were used 2000 years ago. It isn't treated like a historical document either. Religious texts such as the Bible are unique in how they get treated - impossible (or just extremely difficult) to revise in any meaningful (to the average person) way. I can't think of a single non-religious text that is treated like this.

If it is considered (by a large enough group of people, and it is) to be the word of God, and therefore infallible, then finding a contradiction in it proves that not to be so. Just one is needed.

People use this "infallible word of God" to justify their behaviour towards others centuries after it was written, despite the possibility that the context has become utterly irrelevant, and the fact that it actually isn't fallible because it was written by imperfect people and translated by more imperfect people.

What do you suppose would happen if a group of respected and skilled people found that the passages regarding the Bible's position on homosexuality was incorrectly translated, and the new translation provides a different enough message?

 

[Retro Rob]

The problem begins with the fact that the Bible is considered to be the word of God, infallible, despite the fact that one cannot expect perfect translations for languages in how they were used 2000 years ago.

You don't need perfect translations as long as the thought isn't changed. A literal, word-for-word translation is even more confusing.

We may as well not translate any work outside of the original language it was written...but that's nonsense, because, again, as long as the thought isn't changed, one is free to translate into any language he wants, using words that are available in his language that keep the same thought(s) consistent.

It isn't treated like a historical document either. Religious texts such as the Bible are unique in how they get treated - impossible (or just extremely difficult) to revise in any meaningful (to the average person) way. I can't think of a single non-religious text that is treated like this.

That's true, but the Bible isn't a secular document open to revision (meaning, reinterpreting it to fit modern thinking).

The issue is you don't believe in God, and you sure in hell don't think the Bible is the word of God...so you an I would have a different POV on it.

If it is considered (by a large enough group of people, and it is) to be the word of God, and therefore infallible, then finding a contradiction in it proves that not to be so. Just one is needed.

Not really, if what you find isn't a contradiction. But you're illustrating my point from a post ago -- you're (generic) trying to find a contradiction to PROVE your view...that the Bible isn't the word of God.

People on a mission to prove their views to be correct always end up ignoring evidence to the contrary, or whitewashing contrary evidence.

People use this "infallible word of God" to justify their behaviour towards others centuries after it was written, despite the possibility that the context has become utterly irrelevant, and the fact that it actually isn't fallible because it was written by imperfect people and translated by more imperfect people.

The Bible is tool people use equally to love their neighbor, and treat others as they want to be treated, but I don't think you want to give it any credit on that end.

The only time you all seem to care about what the Bible says is when someone uses it to do harm, then it's the fault of the book, but when people use it to do good, its "human nature".

Talk about inconsistency....

What do you suppose would happen if a group of respected and skilled people found that the passages regarding the Bible's position on homosexuality was incorrectly translated, and the new translation provides a different enough message?

LOL, every time social change happens, the Bible is magically "mistranslated", or "misinterpreted". When whites wanted to keep blacks segregated, they use Noah's son as a justification that blacks were cursed and were inferior as a result.

To deny gays their Civil Rights, they used the Bible to justify that. Now, since gays are getting their rights (and rightfully so), now the Bible is "misinterpreted".

What next? If we take an evolutionary "wrong turn" back to barbarism, is Jesus words to "love thy neighbor" to be reinterpreted to fit ONLY the time in which is was written?

This happens generation in, generation out. Religious leaders are always willing to reinterpret something when people are threatening to leave, or are leaving the Churches.

 

[mikeymikec]

You don't need perfect translations as long as the thought isn't changed. A literal, word-for-word translation is even more confusing.

How does one go about translating a document and ensuring that the "thought" hasn't changed? If you don't know the writer, their intentions and their writing style, all you have to go by is the text which needs translating.

We may as well not translate any work outside of the original language it was written...but that's nonsense

Straw man.

as long as the thought isn't changed, one is free to translate into any language he wants, using words that are available in his language that keep the same thought(s) consistent.

Sometimes some words do not have direct translations, sometimes an expression is used which has more meaning to the native listener perhaps due to a context from their time and place.

If the translator is lucky (especially lucky given that many religious texts are a thousand years old or more), such expressions and use of words from a particular dialect are used in completely unrelated texts with enough context for a translator from another time to correctly divine the meaning.

That's true, but the Bible isn't a secular document open to revision (meaning, reinterpreting it to fit modern thinking).

Or any revision that might upset the status quo, despite possible mistakes in translation, despite possible improvements in the ability to translate due to supporting sources (in a translation context, not historical), or humanity's questionably diminishing ability to effectively translate ancient texts due to gradual erosion of context.

The issue is you don't believe in God, and you sure in hell don't think the Bible is the word of God...so you an I would have a different POV on it.

My beliefs have nothing to do with this argument, I can believe in the existence of God and have faith just the same without believing that the Bible is infallible.

Not really, if what you find isn't a contradiction.

Then it wouldn't be a contradiction and that point wouldn't make any sense... so, can you try tackling that point again without revising it to suit your point of view please?

But you're illustrating my point from a post ago -- you're (generic) trying to find a contradiction to PROVE your view...that the Bible isn't the word of God.

No, I put forward a hypothetical premise that you appear to be having difficulty with.

People on a mission to prove their views to be correct always end up ignoring evidence to the contrary, or whitewashing contrary evidence.

I agree, as long as you apply that statement to everyone regardless of their religious views, whether they hold them or not, etc.

The Bible is tool people use equally to love their neighbor, and treat others as they want to be treated, but I don't think you want to give it any credit on that end.

I think you're perceiving my post as a personal attack. I think you should heed your own advice (the sentence starting with "people on a mission").

The only time you all seem to care about what the Bible says is when someone uses it to do harm, then it's the fault of the book, but when people use it to do good, its "human nature".

Please point out where I've said that the Bible has only ever been used for evil.

To deny gays their Civil Rights, they used the Bible to justify that. Now, since gays are getting their rights (and rightfully so), now the Bible is "misinterpreted".

I believe you are putting "misinterpreted" in quotes because you mean that some people decided that it says something different because that suits their point of view rather than actually having any evidence (which I would agree is wrong, because it's dishonest), yet you harbour an illogical fallacy that somehow all the stuff that you regard to be important in the Bible must have been accurately translated.

 

[Retro Rob]

How does one go about translating a document and ensuring that the "thought" hasn't changed? If you don't know the writer, their intentions and their writing style, all you have to go by is the text which needs translating.

As far as the bold is concerned, you simply select words that convey the same meaning. I'm no translator, but I do know that for instance, if there isn't a Hebrew word for "deception", but the text is actually saying that, we can use the English word and "deception" will not alter the point the text was trying to make.

I hope I answered your question.

Sometimes some words do not have direct translations, sometimes an expression is used which has more meaning to the native listener perhaps due to a context from their time and place

This is precisely the reason a word for word translation is futile, and why translating old and dead languages into modern ones is so darn hard.

This is also why the entire context of the passage needs to be considered, and why translators use other passages to explain other passages instead of putting their own meaning into them.

I believe you are putting "misinterpreted" in quotes because you mean that some people decided that it says something different because that suits their point of view rather than actually having any evidence (which I would agree is wrong, because it's dishonest), but you still truly believe that all of the "important stuff" in the Bible has been miraculously 100% accurately translated.

I have to skip down to this due to time, but as far as your last statement, I believe that we either accept the Bible, or we don't.

Putting too much water in your alcoholic drink dilutes it, putting too much "modern thinking" into Bible interpretations does the same thing.

 

[thraashman]

Leviticus 18:22

King James Version (KJV)

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1


I'd bet the church that does that fails.

Mark 12:28-31

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? 29And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: 30And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. 31And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

So Jesus said the most important commandments were to love. Therefore Jesus would feel that the love felt between two men or between two women is of far greater importance than anything stated in the Old Testament.

 

[mikeymikec]

As far as the bold is concerned, you simply select words that convey the same meaning. I'm no translator, but I do know that for instance, if there isn't a Hebrew word for "deception", but the text is actually saying that, we can use the English word and "deception" will not alter the point the text was trying to make.

I hope I answered your question.

No, you failed to see the point.

When a foreign language is translated for the first time, the meaning of the words is derived from educated guesswork, context, and lingual similarities if they exist to languages that the translator is fluent in (something may appear to be a similarity yet isn't). Problems arise with regard to dialect, misuse of words, incorrect spelling, and differences in spelling. Assistance can be found in literature from the same era and language if those exist. More problems arise because knowledge of older languages is subject to revision thanks for example to the "assistance" I described. Are the most ancient surviving texts actually 'originals', intentionally but not actually identical copies, translations, revisions, or perhaps a combination? Perhaps a portion was destroyed and re-written from memory by someone else?

As I understand it, for example, there's a tribe that has been found that apparently has no words for counting beyond four. Any more than four is 'more'. What if there wasn't a direct translation for a word like 'consent' in a given language, (or perhaps the language it was translated to didn't/doesn't have that word), and yet if the text is to be used as a moral base, isn't that somewhat problematic?

That's aside from the possibility of actual sabotage of the truth due to people believing what they want to believe. For example, as I understand it, the idea that lemmings have suicidal tendencies is a myth, perpetrated by someone "documenting" an incident of lemmings collectively jumping off a cliff. The footage was faked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemming#Misconceptions

You've said that the Bible isn't subject to revision, but what if it already has been, many times (which IMO is almost guaranteed (though perhaps not 'many times'), partly due to the common wisdom that history is whatever the victor decides it should be - or political pressure might have been applied by someone with an agenda and sufficient influence to alter wording)?

I have to skip down to this due to time, but as far as your last statement, I believe that we either accept the Bible, or we don't.

Which is part of the problem I originally described regarding the fact that the vast majority of religious followers regard texts such as the Bible to be infallible.

 

[manimal]

The problem is the bible is very clear about homosexuality, so any church or religion accepting it as ok needs to find another book to base their beliefs on.

Can you direct us to your blog?


Since your such an absolutist have you cut your eye out for looking at that porn yesterday or have you cut off your hand as well for playing with your vagina?


How do you feel about divorce? How many people in your family have been excomunicated?


If you cant figure this one out for yourself then god speed


I sang at a same sex marriage at a church and nobody cought fire and exploded.


Oh lastly.. do you tithe 10 percent cuz the bible says you should do that too.

 

[Retro Rob]

You've said that the Bible isn't subject to revision, but what if it already has been, many times (which IMO is almost guaranteed (though perhaps not 'many times'), partly due to the common wisdom that history is whatever the victor decides it should be - or political pressure might have been applied by someone with an agenda and sufficient influence to alter wording)?

Which is part of the problem I originally described regarding the fact that the vast majority of religious followers regard texts such as the Bible to be infallible.

If what you say is true about political agendas and the other "guarantees", then there should be plenty of proof and not your mere incredulous speculating.

If the Bible has been changed at the whim of some ruler, then show me the earliest copies, and compare that with later translations executed by these rulers and the changes will stick out like a thumb if they're there.

We can end this now if you can do that. I am not taking about the "books" rejected as uninspired by the Early Church, but the changes that were allegedly made to our current bibles.

 

[mikeymikec]

By your lack of comment regarding what I said about the difficulties of translation, do you acknowledge that what I'm saying there has merit?

If what you say is true about political agendas and the other "guarantees", then there should be plenty of proof and not your mere incredulous speculating.

I was not stating what has happened, I was merely pointing out the number of difficulties in ensuring that the "infallible word of God" makes it to the modern age unscathed.

Why should there be plenty of proof? How many documents do you suppose have survived that many centuries, let alone the ones providing the proof (which would be highly sought after by people wanting such hypothetical revisions), you're asking for?

If there isn't something that you would regard as proof, do you regard that as a declaration of fact that what I'm saying must be impossible?

If the Bible has been changed at the whim of some ruler, then show me the earliest copies, and compare that with later translations executed by these rulers and the changes will stick out like a thumb if they're there.

That would surely depend on when such hypothetical changes were made. I don't know why you're getting so twisted up about this, it's a known phenomenon, why on earth would you think such a powerful piece of literature such as the Bible would be an exception to such revisionism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_%28negationism%29#Examples

Those are simply examples that are vaguely known about (and it's not exactly brimming with citations is it?), probably thanks to the prolific nature of information flow in modern times. Back in the days when reading and writing were significantly less common, and so less people feeling the need to document events for future generations, information manipulation as a general rule would have been an absolute cinch.

Depending on the agenda, it might not necessarily have been the alteration of existing text, but the addition or removal of text. Various countries over the course of history have imposed severe restrictions of the practice of certain religion or denominations of Christianity, more accurate translations thanks to access to more useful source material or lingual reference sources might have been available once then destroyed.

However, once the Bible started being produced en masse (1400 years after the birth of Jesus, my assumption based on the history of the printing press), its safety in numbers increased (I logically assume), increased further still as literacy among the masses improved.

 

[WelshBloke]

As far as the bold is concerned, you simply select words that convey the same meaning. I'm no translator, but I do know that for instance, if there isn't a Hebrew word for "deception", but the text is actually saying that, we can use the English word and "deception" will not alter the point the text was trying to make.

My wife is a translator. She reckons that she can take a document, translate it correctly twice and give it different meanings each time.

Translation is an art not a science.

 

[schmuckley]

Like TH says, Lesbians are OK then?

<shuddering at the thought that I meet God one day, and he's just like TH!>

Romans 1:26-27 (King James Version)



Show resources


Add parallelRomans 1:26-27

King James Version (KJV)

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Just from my observance:Even Lesbian women use penis-shaped dildoes..

Umm..no.
Female homosexuality is not condoned either

 

[Retro Rob]

By your lack of comment regarding what I said about the difficulties of translation, do you acknowledge that what I'm saying there has merit?

I am not a translator, nor know much about it, so I would be arguing from a position of ignorance.

I was not stating what has happened, I was merely pointing out the number of difficulties in ensuring that the "infallible word of God" makes it to the modern age unscathed.

What difficulties, if I may? Really, the reason why the Bible stayed unscathed is because it was copied. This preventing future additions from popping up in the text unnoticed.

Why should there be plenty of proof?

Because, many people who hold your view of the Bible always say it was "edited, and edited", and if that is the case, we should be able to easily spot these edits since the earliest copies are stored in museums for easy comparison.

Like I said earlier, lets compare the earliest copies we can find with Bibles copied after those manuscripts were produced.

We would spot the edits very easy.

How many documents do you suppose have survived that many centuries, let alone the ones providing the proof (which would be highly sought after by people wanting such hypothetical revisions), you're asking for?

I don't know. You're the one making insinuations that the Bible's been changed, so you tell me.

If there isn't something that you would regard as proof, do you regard that as a declaration of fact that what I'm saying must be impossible?

Just means you're wrong.

That would surely depend on when such hypothetical changes were made. I don't know why you're getting so twisted up about this, it's a known phenomenon, why on earth would you think such a powerful piece of literature such as the Bible would be an exception to such revisionism?

Because it's the word of God. Surely, if that's true, it wouldn't be tainted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_(negationism)#Examples

Those are simply examples that are vaguely known about (and it's not exactly brimming with citations is it?), probably thanks to the prolific nature of information flow in modern times. Back in the days when reading and writing were significantly less common, and so less people feeling the need to document events for future generations, information manipulation as a general rule would have been an absolute cinch

So, if its true about those examples, then it must be true about the Bible!!

Depending on the agenda, it might not necessarily have been the alteration of existing text, but the addition or removal of text. Various countries over the course of history have imposed severe restrictions of the practice of certain religion or denominations of Christianity, more accurate translations thanks to access to more useful source material or lingual reference sources might have been available once then destroyed.

This is the problem with modern "scholarship". The hermeneutic of suspicion, the inability to believe a text and automatically assume that it is not telling the truth has been more of hindrance to effective scholarship than an aid to it.

Truth is, you've likely presumed an agenda, and instead of being humbled enough to allow the Bible to fail you, you've already failed the Bible and have dismissed it.

I have no reason to think anyone with an agenda altered the Bible is anyway. It was copied, in part, to prevent that very thing.

However, once the Bible started being produced en masse (1400 years after the birth of Jesus, my assumption based on the history of the printing press), its safety in numbers increased (I logically assume), increased further still as literacy among the masses improved.

I am not sure when mass production started taking place, but I am fairly sure it was copied and translated many times before that, though.

 

[Retro Rob]

My wife is a translator. She reckons that she can take a document, translate it correctly twice and give it different meanings each time.

So?

 

[WelshBloke]

So?

So a translation is unlikely to carry over the exact meaning of the original text no matter how skilled the translator.

 

[Retro Rob]

So a translation is unlikely to carry over the exact meaning of the original text no matter how skilled the translator.

That's why the Bible is translated in teams:

Wycliffe Global Alliance is an alliance of organisations united in their desire to see the Bible translated for every language group that needs it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wycliffe_Global_Alliance

"...but with many advisors, they will succeed" - Proverbs 15:22.

Having a well-educated team of translators does a good job of combing over and minimizing the "changing of meaning" that can happen if you only have one person.

Your point fails, as usual.

 

[WelshBloke]

That's why the Bible is translated in teams:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wycliffe_Global_Alliance

"...but with many advisors, they will succeed" - Proverbs 15:22.

Having a well-educated team of translators does a good job of combing over and minimizing the "changing of meaning" that can happen if you only have one person.

Your point fails, as usual.

Honestly, translation by committee isn't going to be any better.

Translation is about interpretation and whether you have 1 person or 50 people doing it you still have to settle on a meaning.

And this is translating 2 modern languages.
Translating an ancient text is even more fraught. Words change meanings, and they don't change for everyone at the same time.

Guy one translates text to "everyone should be happy"
Guy two translates text to "everyone should be merry"
Guy three translates text to "everyone should be gay"

Now there's a shism whereby a third of the religion just want to tell jokes, a third want to be permanently drunk and the other third... well... You get the message?

 

[Victorian Gray]

If what you say is true about political agendas and the other "guarantees", then there should be plenty of proof and not your mere incredulous speculating.

If the Bible has been changed at the whim of some ruler, then show me the earliest copies, and compare that with later translations executed by these rulers and the changes will stick out like a thumb if they're there.

We can end this now if you can do that. I am not taking about the "books" rejected as uninspired by the Early Church, but the changes that were allegedly made to our current bibles.

http://www.nola.com/religion/index....re_being_studied_by_new_orleans_scholars.html

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/17/138281522/how-bible-stories-evolved-over-the-centuries

Development of the King James version

"James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.[8] The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

btw, no intention of debating this issue, just providing you with a bit of information. What you want to do with it is up to you.

 

[mikeymikec]

What difficulties, if I may? Really, the reason why the Bible stayed unscathed is because it was copied. This preventing future additions from popping up in the text unnoticed.

I already pointed them out. If you're going to continue trying to ignore that side of my argument, then so be it. Since I'm pretty sure that you and millions of others like you aren't reading the ancient texts, I think we can safely dispense with the "copied" argument, despite my wondering whether you've ever tried "copying" a thousand pages or so by hand.

Because, many people who hold your view of the Bible always say it was "edited, and edited", and if that is the case, we should be able to easily spot these edits since the earliest copies are stored in museums for easy comparison.

I pointed out why there was unlikely to be plenty of proof. My argument is quite logical. You're ignoring it to suit your point of view. This is getting tiresome.

Like I said earlier, lets compare the earliest copies we can find with Bibles copied after those manuscripts were produced.

I already responded to this point as well in quite a few respects, but you've ignored them to suit your point of view.

I don't know. You're the one making insinuations that the Bible's been changed, so you tell me.

I've put forward a logical argument. You seem to be having difficulty with it.

Just means you're wrong.

So if I was to say there's no proof of God, and you can't supply proof that God exists, therefore you must be wrong and God doesn't exist?

Can we skip the logical fallacies and have a sensible discussion?

Because it's the word of God. Surely, if that's true, it wouldn't be tainted.

So the Bible has supernatural protection from the elements I've described? Sorry, I'm just trying to get some sort of logical handle on your argument here.

So, if its true about those examples, then it must be true about the Bible!!

Straw man again. I didn't say that. I gave examples about how things have happened in the past to support my argument.

This is the problem with modern "scholarship". The hermeneutic of suspicion, the inability to believe a text and automatically assume that it is not telling the truth has been more of hindrance to effective scholarship than an aid to it.

So if someone turns up a text with "written by God" on it, we should automatically assume it's true?

Truth is, you've likely presumed an agenda, and instead of being humbled enough to allow the Bible to fail you, you've already failed the Bible and have dismissed it.

That would depend on how I regard the Bible. I've never said that I regard it to be the infallible word of God, so personally I couldn't give two shits whether it is or not. Coming right back to the start of my point however, a lot of people do regard it to be the infallible word of God, including yourself, and I'm trying to point out why that's a dangerous assumption.

Your argument so far (I believe I have this correct), is that the Bible is the infallible word of God, despite multitudes of translations, the availability of supporting lingual text, and education of those doing the translation over the centuries, as well as the safe-keeping of ancient texts, completely accurately reproduced (or at least in a way that miraculously kept its meaning despite a word or two might be changed here and there like your example with 'deception'), and that anyone who questions that logic is wrong because they can't be right because the Bible is the infallible word of God.

That's why the Bible is translated in teams:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wycliffe_Global_Alliance

"...but with many advisors, they will succeed" - Proverbs 15:22.

Having a well-educated team of translators does a good job of combing over and minimizing the "changing of meaning" that can happen if you only have one person.

Your point fails, as usual.

It's interesting how you claim to know about translation when it suits you.

 

[Retro Rob]

I think we can safely dispense with the "copied" argument, despite my wondering whether you've ever tried "copying" a thousand pages or so by hand.

Nope, but they used scribes. No one person would ever have had to copy the entire Bible by hand.

You're just reaching for any vague argument to support your conclusion. You have no evidence that the Bible was edited by those with a political agenda, though you seem to stick to it.

You have no evidence of deliberate tampering
You have no evidence of anything you're saying...just data points, and extrapolation.

I pointed out why there was unlikely to be plenty of proof. My argument is quite logical. You're ignoring it to suit your point of view. This is getting tiresome.

I'm not letting off the hook with your bullshit innuendos...that's why this is getting tiresome.

So if I was to say there's no proof of God, and you can't supply proof that God exists, therefore you must be wrong and God doesn't exist?

We're talking about something totally different, something that we can verify using the natural world.

Stay on topic, please.

So the Bible has supernatural protection from the elements I've described? Sorry, I'm just trying to get some sort of logical handle on your argument here.

What I am saying is that protocols to protect the text from corruption are in place and were put in place a few thousand years ago when the first words of the Bible were written.

I gave examples about how things have happened in the past to support my argument

You're not supporting an "argument". You're trying to reach a false and erroneous conclusion, and you're supporting that.

So if someone turns up a text with "written by God" on it, we should automatically assume it's true?

No, but you don't assume it isn't either. You approach the text with an open-mind, examine the evidence, then formulate a conclusion.

But...too many of us would rather chop up the Bible with our scholarly axe, instead of being excited about digging into the historicity behind it.

Your argument so far (I believe I have this correct), is that it's the infallible word of God, despite multitudes of translations, the availability of supporting lingual text, and education of those doing the translation over the centuries, as well as the safe-keeping of ancient texts, completely accurately reproduced (or at least in a way that miraculously kept its meaning despite a word or two might be changed here and there like your example with 'deception'), and that anyone who questions that logic is wrong because they can't be right because the Bible is the infallible word of God.

So what if the Bible has "a multitude of translations". There are over 6000 language spoken on earth, 2,300 of them have either whole or parts of Bible translations for them. This is nothing short of a miracle.

I guess that since the Origin of Species was translated in languages other than what Darwin spoke, we should disregard that book if we cannot speak English because the "meaning will get lost", and to avoid a "multitude of translations" that would corrupt the book.

Just get over it...the book is here to stay.

EDIT: And that isn't to say that there aren't any bad translations out there because there are. But that's why you translate from the earliest copies, and not from a translation. And by virtue of there being bad ones doesn't mean the original message is lost. It seems that you're trying to say we cannot trust ANY translation because the are many translations. This is not true.

Again, and not to harp on this, that's precisely why there are original copies available, to make sure we get as accurate as possible, and go from there.

 

[justoh]

Because I may be born again, but I wasn't born again yesterday.

 

[mikeymikec]

Nope, but they used scribes. No one person would ever have had to copy the entire Bible by hand.

That makes absolutely no difference to my point, unless you honestly believe a large enough multitude of scholars (to ensure that each had a small enough portion to copy to ensure perfect reproduction) were always on hand to make a new copy.

You have no evidence that the Bible was edited by those with a political agenda, though you seem to stick to it.

You have no evidence of deliberate tampering

You have no evidence of anything you're saying...just data points, and extrapolation.

I think you need this pointing out:

I never made a statement saying that the Bible has been tampered with.

I said that I think it is likely that it has seen some revision, intended or otherwise, honest intentions or otherwise, partly due to the sheer monumental task of bringing it through the centuries, translating and copying it. I described the difficulties of such a task.

You say that it's impossible for revisions to have happened without evidence. You've supplied a few arguments to make your point, but "impossible" is a pretty bold statement where anything that involves humanity is concerned. If you had said "I think it's unlikely because of these arguments I've put forward", then we reach an impasse, because this discussion comes down to points of view with regard to "truth".

I'm not letting off the hook with your bullshit innuendos...that's why this is getting tiresome.

What are you talking about? Every attempt at logic you've employed as already been countered, and you've resorted to ignoring half of what I've got to say.

We're talking about something totally different, something that we can verify using the natural world.

Stay on topic, please.

I was trying to point out the flaw in the logic you employed. Again you've side-stepped.

What I am saying is that protocols to protect the text from corruption are in place and were put in place a few thousand years ago when the first words of the Bible were written.

Citation needed. Furthermore, you've ignored my argument regarding the difficulties of translation which applies here.

No, but you don't assume it isn't either. You approach the text with an open-mind, examine the evidence, then formulate a conclusion.

You've already said that the Bible isn't subject to revision (which I agree that it's what people generally believe), yet you expect scholars to approach any potential 'new material' with an unbiased perspective?

So what if the Bible has "a multitude of translations". There are over 6000 language spoken on earth, 2,300 of them have either whole or parts of Bible translations for them. This is nothing short of a miracle

Yup, so what. Good argument.

I guess that since the Origin of Species was translated in languages other than what Darwin spoke, we should disregard that book if we cannot speak English because the "meaning will get lost", and to avoid a "multitude of translations" that would corrupt the book.

First bold text - one straw man
Second bold text - another straw man
Third bold text - and another one.

I would have liked to try and re-iterate my point using "Origin of Species", unfortunately it isn't anywhere as old as the Bible and it was written after the invention of the printing press, and there is a tonne of text from that time to assist in the task of translation. However, if we wait a thousand years or so, throw some natural disasters and perhaps a nuclear war into the mix, then perhaps there will be some difficulty in faithfully reproducing it, perhaps English won't be a living language by then, or it perhaps will be so far removed from what Darwin spoke.

One important difference though is that Darwin's "Origin of Species" will always be looked back on purely as a historical document (as long as it's in existence at any rate), so therefore there's a lot less emotional investment in its content. Some bits will be pointed out by fellow scientists as inaccurate (there probably has been already). There's no need to revise it because there's no desire for it to be humanity's definitive text book for the rest of time. There won't be anyone claiming that it's impossible for it to have been altered, because things that have been labelled as impossible have a knack of turning out to be not impossible, furthermore, what's the point in arguing that it's impossible?

Just get over it

...the book is here to stay.

Not sure where this came from, I'm guessing you're taking this whole discussion a bit personally.

 

[Retro Rob]

Not sure where this came from, I'm guessing you're taking this whole discussion a bit personally.

I said that because I though you were getting too emotional.