- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,727
- 16
- 81
The Three Wise Men are now the Three Wise People
- Thread starter ThePresence
- Start date
- Nov 27, 1999
- 65,422
- 408
- 126
Originally posted by: maziwanka
Originally posted by: Zim Hosein
This is just sad
yep.
agreed, what were they thinkin?
That there was slight shance one of the "wise men" could've been a woman. Fat Chance IMO
- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,727
- 16
- 81
Bah...let 'em. The more they water down religion, the better.
Pretty soon it will be Jesus, offspring of God.
Ryan
Lifer
- Oct 31, 2000
- 27,519
- 2
- 81
The fact is, a lot of the words in any modern bible are not what they originally were when each book of the bible was written. From the translation from Hebrew, to many other languages, it's changed greatly.
Scholars are still trying to accurately translate some of the oldest versions of the bible still in existence, because our knowledge of ancient languages is constantly changing.
The bible as we know it is a product of the Catholic Church. Did you know that there are estimated to be 70 different books that didn't make it into the bible when the first editions were being copied, and that throughout the centuries books have actually been taken out, and the current ones revised heavily. These people are doing nothing more than what biblical scholars have been doing for centuries.
Scholars are still trying to accurately translate some of the oldest versions of the bible still in existence, because our knowledge of ancient languages is constantly changing.
The bible as we know it is a product of the Catholic Church. Did you know that there are estimated to be 70 different books that didn't make it into the bible when the first editions were being copied, and that throughout the centuries books have actually been taken out, and the current ones revised heavily. These people are doing nothing more than what biblical scholars have been doing for centuries.
- Nov 27, 1999
- 65,422
- 408
- 126
Which edition? NIV or KJV? English or some other language.
The Bible is one of the most translated and rewritten books in history. The Iliad and Odyssey may come close though.
EDIT: And as far as women go, there's nothing wrong with refining the translation. The truth is the truth, we shouldn't refuse to believe a more accurate translation simply because of religious inertia. This reminds me of a couple of years ago when the Red Sea was more accurately translated as the Reed Sea. Made a little more sense.
- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,727
- 16
- 81
I never read the Christian Testament, so I wouldn't know. But I spent years in a Rabbinical College, and I'm pretty sure that I can read the bible in it's original language, I can coverse with you in ancient Hebrew (Sefardic or Ashkenazic pronounciations), and I can read and write Ancient Aramaic (though it gets tricky speaking it). I don't think scholars are trying to translate the ancient Hebrew, I may be wrong, but it's pretty well understood if you study it enough. There are pretty clear cut rules in the language. Again, I may be wrong, but I can argue about it in ancient Hebrew (which is different than modern day Hebrew).
It was never mentioned as THREE either!
Yes, the give three items, but it was not mentioned how many people were in the group.
Yes, the give three items, but it was not mentioned how many people were in the group.
Ryan
Lifer
- Oct 31, 2000
- 27,519
- 2
- 81
Originally posted by: ThePresence
I never read the Christian Testament, so I wouldn't know. But I spent years in a Rabbinical College, and I'm pretty sure that I can read the bible in it's original language, I can coverse with you in ancient Hebrew (Sefardic or Ashkenazic pronounciations), and I can read and write Ancient Aramaic (though it gets tricky speaking it). I don't think scholars are trying to translate the ancient Hebrew, I may be wrong, but it's pretty well understood if you study it enough. There are pretty clear cut rules in the language. Again, I may be wrong, but I can argue about it in ancient Hebrew (which is different than modern day Hebrew).
Wow
I still don't see why it bothers you so much, though.
- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,727
- 16
- 81
- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,727
- 16
- 81
Why what bothers me? The fact that they want to change it from Men to "people"? I don't like the pandering to the Feminists, that's all.Originally posted by: rbloedow
Originally posted by: ThePresence
I never read the Christian Testament, so I wouldn't know. But I spent years in a Rabbinical College, and I'm pretty sure that I can read the bible in it's original language, I can coverse with you in ancient Hebrew (Sefardic or Ashkenazic pronounciations), and I can read and write Ancient Aramaic (though it gets tricky speaking it). I don't think scholars are trying to translate the ancient Hebrew, I may be wrong, but it's pretty well understood if you study it enough. There are pretty clear cut rules in the language. Again, I may be wrong, but I can argue about it in ancient Hebrew (which is different than modern day Hebrew).
Wow
First off, the issue of "poor translation" is mainly an issue of semantics, i.e. "great" as opposed to "awesome". The Dead Sea Scrolls are testament to the overall accuracy of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. Remember that in the Biblical days, any transcriptions of the Old Testament (Jewish texts) were done meticulously, letter by letter - not by words. To transcribe the word "to", one would look at the "t", copy it, look at the "o", copy it, and go on. Any err in the transcription would result in the trashing of the copy. The Bible has remained remarkably well-preserved. In addition, the time between the first copy of the Bible (as far as we know), and the oldest copy of the Bible found is a scant 25 years, as opposed to the centuries of difference in the case of the Republic, or the works of Plato, Caesar, or the many other classical scholars, writers, and poets. We don't doubt the validity of The Republic, do we? So why doubt the scriptural validity (not spiritual validity) of the Bible, when it is statistically hundreds of times more reliable than most other classical Greek or Roman works?
Plus, the King James Version of the Bible was created independently of the Catholic Church, by an independent council of the clergymen most educated in Theology of the day. The Bible, in addition, is an anthology of Christian works - records of Christ's life and death (the Gospels), records of church history (the epistles of Paul), and doctrinal texts (Revelation, etc.) - it was not dictated what books were to be in the Bible, and what books are not to be. To make the Bible free from as much unnecessary verbosity as possible, some books which were redundant or superfluous would obviously be cut out. Irregardless, the Bible's own claim that it is inerrant still stands. Any conflict would be an issue of nitpicking on semantics, such as now.
Sorry for any typos, I have a band-aid on my oft-used middle finger, and it's a rather annoying inconvenience.
:wine:
"Wise men" is in the English translation. Other languages use Kings and "Magi", like in the Latin languages Reyes Magos, Rois Mages, Reis Magos... A bit closer.
here they are!
here they are!
Originally posted by: Amorphus
First off, the issue of "poor translation" is mainly an issue of semantics, i.e. "great" as opposed to "awesome". The Dead Sea Scrolls are testament to the overall accuracy of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. Remember that in the Biblical days, any transcriptions of the Old Testament (Jewish texts) were done meticulously, letter by letter - not by words. To transcribe the word "to", one would look at the "t", copy it, look at the "o", copy it, and go on. Any err in the transcription would result in the trashing of the copy. The Bible has remained remarkably well-preserved. In addition, the time between the first copy of the Bible (as far as we know), and the oldest copy of the Bible found is a scant 25 years, as opposed to the centuries of difference in the case of the Republic, or the works of Plato, Caesar, or the many other classical scholars, writers, and poets. We don't doubt the validity of The Republic, do we? So why doubt the scriptural validity (not spiritual validity) of the Bible, when it is statistically hundreds of times more reliable than most other classical Greek or Roman works?
Plus, the King James Version of the Bible was created independently of the Catholic Church, by an independent council of the clergymen most educated in Theology of the day. The Bible, in addition, is an anthology of Christian works - records of Christ's life and death (the Gospels), records of church history (the epistles of Paul), and doctrinal texts (Revelation, etc.) - it was not dictated what books were to be in the Bible, and what books are not to be. To make the Bible free from as much unnecessary verbosity as possible, some books which were redundant or superfluous would obviously be cut out. Irregardless, the Bible's own claim that it is inerrant still stands. Any conflict would be an issue of nitpicking on semantics, such as now.
Sorry for any typos, I have a band-aid on my oft-used middle finger, and it's a rather annoying inconvenience.
:wine:
I was just about to post something similar, but ya beat me to it. The translations of the Bible today are considered VERY accurate especially when considered next to other secular ancient manuscripts. In addition, Greek is considered an inflected langauge which means meaning is not dependent on order or sequence of words, whereas English is. Other variations might include spelling,etc - but nothing significant to indicate that we don't have accurate tranlsations.
yukichigai
Diamond Member
- Apr 23, 2003
- 6,404
- 0
- 76
I doubt it is a matter of semantics. There are some dramatic differences between the King James bible and some of the other editions. (can't remember the names) Not to mention that some books are written in entirely different languages. One of them -- I think it's John -- was written in Ancient Greek... by a non-greek speaker. The opening is very pretty, but one reason why it's like that is because it is the biblical equivalent of "See spot. See spot run. Run spot, run."
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter