Billiards Ball Posted March 8, 2019 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,502 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 662 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted March 8, 2019 24 minutes ago, Still Alive said: I don't think the bible is "off". I think english translations are all flawed in one way or another, but that is ok. Our english translations are not "the word of God" except when they explicitly say so, e.g. "and God said..." or it's in red ink. And it's ok because you don't have to have a bible to be a Christian. Heck, the early church didn't. They had a Septuagint, which we avoid today, even though it is directly quoted in the new testament books. That's just odd. The example of the rooster crowing is a perfect example of how even the original text is not the word of God, but the words of men inspired by God. Otherwise we would only need one Gospel. I agree we must be careful in English. I disagree, respectfully, but in the strongest terms possible, that the original text IS God's Word. "We'd need only one Gospel" is not a proven or provable statement. Clearly, God intended four gospels, for example, the catch of 153 fish--now be fishers of people--matches the 153 individuals Jesus touched in all four gospels! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still Alive Posted March 8, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,024 Content Per Day: 1.33 Reputation: 1,224 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted March 8, 2019 1 hour ago, Billiards Ball said: HOW DO YOU KNOW this about the rooster? Magic? Psychic power? A counter-document from the period? I should have addressed this directly. I "know" because I'm simply talking about what is in the bible. Matthew recalls it as: Jesus said that before the rooster crows, Peter would deny him thrice. Mark recalls it as: Jesus said that before the rooster crowed twice, Peter would deny him thrice. Luke recalls it as: Jesus said that the rooster would not crow until Peter denied him thrice. John recalls it the same as Luke. So, the one consistency is how many times Peter denied him. All the rooster crowing is saying that VERY early on, Peter would deny him. If I took it literally, I'd have to argue that Mark contradicts the other three. But I don't. I understand the point. Like the people of that day, I own laying hens and a Rooster. I understand the point and ignore the contradiction. And if I took it literally while arguing apologetics with intelligent non-Christians, I'd get my butt handed to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still Alive Posted March 8, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,024 Content Per Day: 1.33 Reputation: 1,224 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted March 8, 2019 12 minutes ago, Billiards Ball said: I disagree, respectfully, but in the strongest terms possible, that the original text IS God's Word. "We'd need only one Gospel" is not a proven or provable statement. Clearly, God intended four gospels, for example, the catch of 153 fish--now be fishers of people--matches the 153 individuals Jesus touched in all four gospels! Yes, I think we need four gospels. In fact, as is argued in some apologetics books, the fact that they don't speak in lockstep is a proof that they are not lying. If they are making it up, they would align much closer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiards Ball Posted March 8, 2019 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,502 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 662 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted March 8, 2019 54 minutes ago, Still Alive said: I should have addressed this directly. I "know" because I'm simply talking about what is in the bible. Matthew recalls it as: Jesus said that before the rooster crows, Peter would deny him thrice. Mark recalls it as: Jesus said that before the rooster crowed twice, Peter would deny him thrice. Luke recalls it as: Jesus said that the rooster would not crow until Peter denied him thrice. John recalls it the same as Luke. So, the one consistency is how many times Peter denied him. All the rooster crowing is saying that VERY early on, Peter would deny him. If I took it literally, I'd have to argue that Mark contradicts the other three. But I don't. I understand the point. Like the people of that day, I own laying hens and a Rooster. I understand the point and ignore the contradiction. And if I took it literally while arguing apologetics with intelligent non-Christians, I'd get my butt handed to me. And we also agree--no contradiction: all four conditions were filled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still Alive Posted March 8, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,024 Content Per Day: 1.33 Reputation: 1,224 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted March 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Billiards Ball said: And we also agree--no contradiction: all four conditions were filled. Exactly. The words "contradict", but the point does not. Just as honest witnesses to a crime will vary somewhat in their recollection, but get the points right. One said it was raining cats and dogs. The other said it was a monsoon. We can say for certain that it was raining hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplejeff Posted March 8, 2019 Group: Mars Hill Followers: 12 Topic Count: 12 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 7,689 Content Per Day: 2.39 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 20 Joined: 06/30/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted March 8, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Still Alive said: Every english translation is not just a translation. It is also an interpretation - by definition. Not by definition . By common usage perhaps, but incorrectly almost always (online, etc, et al) when referring to Scripture re Yahweh's Meaning which Rests with Yahweh, just as also for comparison does the meaning of dreams - it rests with Yahweh. A dream of 7 cows eating 7 cows can be translated from one language to another accurately, and not at all reveal the interpretation. And Yahweh can easily reveal the meaning of something to a little child (as He is well pleased to do, and does) who cannot even read yet. Edited March 8, 2019 by simplejeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still Alive Posted March 8, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,024 Content Per Day: 1.33 Reputation: 1,224 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted March 8, 2019 15 minutes ago, simplejeff said: Not by definition . By common usage perhaps, but incorrectly almost always (online, etc, et al) when referring to Scripture re Yahweh's Meaning which Rests with Yahweh, just as also for comparison does the meaning of dreams - it rests with Yahweh. A dream of 7 cows eating 7 cows can be translated from one language to another accurately, and not at all reveal the interpretation. And Yahweh can easily reveal the meaning of something to a little child (as He is well pleased to do, and does) who cannot even read yet. By definition in that one must always interpret the original language correctly to translate into a different language, since no two languages can be completely translated precisely word for word. Aeon means both age and world. Those translating from Greek to English get to choose which it means. Honestly, I think that it is too often translated world, or eternity, when it should be age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiards Ball Posted March 8, 2019 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,502 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 662 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted March 8, 2019 43 minutes ago, Still Alive said: Exactly. The words "contradict", but the point does not. Just as honest witnesses to a crime will vary somewhat in their recollection, but get the points right. One said it was raining cats and dogs. The other said it was a monsoon. We can say for certain that it was raining hard. Yessir. Collusion would be obvious if the accounts were too similar among the amanuenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplejeff Posted March 8, 2019 Group: Mars Hill Followers: 12 Topic Count: 12 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 7,689 Content Per Day: 2.39 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 20 Joined: 06/30/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted March 8, 2019 4 minutes ago, Still Alive said: By definition in that one must always interpret the original language correctly to translate into a different language, No. This appears to be a common but wrong use of the meaning of interpret when used related to Scripture. A computer can translate , see? Using flash cards and a dictionary(-ies) anyone can roughly "translate" , simply. "Interpret" CAN and IS (wrongly, often) used to mean close to what you are saying about translating, but that does not correctly convey the difference in translating vs interpreting, especially when discussing Scripture and Yahweh's Explanation-Meaning which is reserved for Yahweh to give.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still Alive Posted March 9, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,024 Content Per Day: 1.33 Reputation: 1,224 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted March 9, 2019 18 hours ago, simplejeff said: No. This appears to be a common but wrong use of the meaning of interpret when used related to Scripture. A computer can translate , see? Using flash cards and a dictionary(-ies) anyone can roughly "translate" , simply. "Interpret" CAN and IS (wrongly, often) used to mean close to what you are saying about translating, but that does not correctly convey the difference in translating vs interpreting, especially when discussing Scripture and Yahweh's Explanation-Meaning which is reserved for Yahweh to give.... I can only say I disagree. As you said, a computer can translate. To make a translation that makes sens, one has to interpret what the original language was trying to say. That makes it, by definition, an interpretation as well as a translation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts