|
|
Post by Alejandro on Mar 15, 2005 13:10:49 GMT -5
I would like to know some of your opinions, and maybe not opinions but facts, on this: Do you think that since the writing of the Holy Scriptures that there is a possibility that along the way there has been some lost and some mistranslations? Here is my stance: I do believe that the origial Manuscript of the Holy Bible were without flaw and the perfect representation of what Jah wanted. But when you translate something from Hebrew into Old English, and then into Middle, and into New you lose something. And besides that, I do not think every translation of the Bible was God ordained. From the original manuscripts there are 14 translations to get it into the American Standard version, and 11 translations to get it into the King James Version. I think that the original manuscripts, where they are may be a little different than what we have. Also: do you think that is it possible for a fallen angel to have altered, or try to alter the Holy Bible? I am not sure where I stand on this topic as of now. Happy thinkings! Jesus khenoronkhwa be with you, Alejandro Edit: Oops! Wrong forum. I thought it said Holy Scripture. Sorry.  |
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Mar 16, 2005 22:35:55 GMT -5
God said that his word will never go away. Why would God allow his word to be altered? I believe that the Bible is 100% without flaw. What are some of the "flaws" that you believe are in the Bible that we have today?
I believe God is above this and that he has predestined for his word not to change meaning. The Holy Spirit manifests itself in you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alejandro on Mar 17, 2005 18:30:17 GMT -5
I do not mean contradictions. For most of the contradications I have heard a reasonable theological response to it.
What I mean is mistranslations.
I feel that there is something lost when you take a Hebrew word that means some general and translate it into an English word that is specific.
Like, chutzpah. Most would define it as: "outrageous audacity." But then people have further defined it: “the Jewish kid who murders his parents and then pleads for mercy on the grounds that he is an orphan.” There is something lost when you just plainly say: outrageous audacity. I no Hebrew lexicon, and I do plan on studying Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Aramaic, but can anyone else see where I am coming from on this?
Just a side-note Kenny: 'God said God's word will never go away,' is Biblical. You cannot use the Bible to justify the Bible.
God's Word has changed meaning so many times with each Translation. Some translations leave things out, some add, whatever. They cannot all be God-inspired. That is like saying every denomination is God-inspired.
Allos Parakletos be your guide,
Alejandro
|
|
|
|
Post by melinky on Mar 17, 2005 22:48:52 GMT -5
I feel that there is something lost when you take a Hebrew word that means some general and translate it into an English word that is specific. I understand what you're saying, that's why we have Greek geeks! Seriously though, I don't foresee Hebrew, Greek and the other languages of the Bible to become universal languages any time soon, therefore we must rely upon theologians and linguists to translate for us. Just a side-note Kenny: 'God said God's word will never go away,' is Biblical. You cannot use the Bible to justify the Bible. Why not? I can't think of a better frame of reference.  God's Word has changed meaning so many times with each Translation. Some translations leave things out, some add, whatever. They cannot all be God-inspired. I think I have to disagree with you here. I believe that this is where the Holy Spirit comes in. For example, I can read Romans one day and receive one message and on another day get another message. What I mean by this is that different passages will stand out to me at different times. I often check multiple translations when I come across a difficult passage. I believe at these times I am being led by the Holy Spirit to dig for deeper meaning. That is like saying every denomination is God-inspired. I would hesitate to judge specific denominations of not being God-inspired, please note that I am speaking of denominations who adhere to fundamental Christian beliefs. i.e. the Trinity, salvation through the death and resurrection of Christ, etc. Though I don't agree with the doctrines of some denominations, I can usually find people of those denominations that I feel exemplify the teachings of Christ. Through my life, I have been to Baptist, Assembly of God, Church of Christ, Catholic and Methodist churches. It has been my observation that each one of these churches has a doctrine based on the Bible and knowledgeable people of any of these denominations can show you in the Bible scripture to back up their doctrines. Sometimes I can read these scriptures and agree. Other times, I can read them and I just don't get the connection. So what denomination has the "proper" understanding of scripture that would rank it as God-inspired? Personally, I believe all CHRISTIAN denominations are God-inspired. I also believe that the Jewish religion is God-inspired, after all, that's where we came from.  Sorry, I didn't intend to ramble for so long, Melinda |
|
|
|
Post by Alejandro on Mar 18, 2005 8:02:46 GMT -5
We may have the Greek geek, but we do not have the original manuscripts. This is what I am trying to get at. What if something is lost? We may not know if anything is gone, or withheld.
When you use the Bible to justify that the Bible is valid, it is circular reasoning.
I am not judging any specific one denomination, for I do not know any of them all too well. But how can all of them, that believe sometimes radically differnet things be justified by God? (This is a much different argument, though.) The same thing goes with Biblical translations.
|
|
mpethe
Supporting Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by mpethe on Mar 18, 2005 16:20:41 GMT -5
When you use the Bible to justify that the Bible is valid, it is circular reasoning. Well, not really. We tend to think of the Bible as one book - written by one Author (God) ... and that's very true in one sense. On the other hand the Bible is a collection of dozens of books written by dozens of different authors. (I'm just composing this off the top of my head - and forget those numbers). The point is that the many different authors, writing at different times throughout history agree with each other. It's not really circular at all. |
|
|
|
Post by melinky on Mar 18, 2005 17:27:45 GMT -5
We may have the Greek geek, but we do not have the original manuscripts. This is what I am trying to get at. What if something is lost? We may not know if anything is gone, or withheld. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that more was written and lost. I do believe that if God felt it necessary for us to have more of the Bible, it would be discovered. It also wouldn't surprise me if we have all there is, that God has given us all we need. As for the translations, again, I think this is where we have to rely upon the Holy Spirit.  Melinda |
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Mar 18, 2005 17:51:58 GMT -5
It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that more was written and lost. I do believe that if God felt it necessary for us to have more of the Bible, it would be discovered. It also wouldn't surprise me if we have all there is, that God has given us all we need. As for the translations, again, I think this is where we have to rely upon the Holy Spirit. Melinda Oui. |
|
|
|
Post by Soulfyre on Mar 19, 2005 21:30:17 GMT -5
There are actually two ways to approach this issue. I will begin from the more evangelical approach and say that current documentary evidence supporting the text of the Bible (Greek and Hebrew documents) indicate the substantial accuracy of the texts in the original languages as we have received them. In fact, we have far more evidence for the Bible than many other historical records we generally accept. While one can indeed argue that all translations of the Holy Scriptures cannot be fully accurate, we may have a high degree of certainty that the texts from which the translations are made have extremely few errors in transmission, and none which effect major doctrines of the Church. However, in the Orthodox Church we also trust the authority of Holy Tradition (those things handed down through the teaching of Jesus Christ to the Apostles and brought to remembrance by the Holy Spirit, and those decisions into which the Church was guided through the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit). This Holy Tradition serves as a guide by which we may interpret the Scriptures, and a foundation on which to build our belief. Remember, in what is generally referred to as the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20), the risen Jesus Christ said: [/b] and teaching them to observe all that I commanded to you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."[/i][/ul]In the upper room, Jesus told His disciples (John 14:16-17; 25-26): [/b], that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you...These things I have spoken to you, while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."[/i][/ul]Note that the Holy Spirit, the Helper, the Spirit of Truth, is promised to the disciples as an eternal presence that would teach them all things and remind them of what Jesus had taught them. Some consider that this unique ministry belonged only to the time of the Apostles, but that would in fact be difficult to reconcile with the promised eternality of the presence of the Holy Spirit. But the Church was a worshipping Body from the time of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, if we are to believe the record in Acts, although the ministry proper of the Church did not begin until Pentecost. How then did they worship? And what then, after Pentecost, did the Church teach? Certainly the earliest gospels do not seem to have existed in written form until almost 70 A.D. Paul's instruction in his second letter to the Church at Thessalonica (II Thessalonians 2:15) is instructive: [/b], whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."[/i][/ul]. When writing to Timothy, Paul told him twice to guard what had been entrusted to him. And in a manner descriptive of paradosis [lit., "that which is handed down", or "tradition"], Paul instructs Timothy (II Timothy 2:1-2) to "be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus; and the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." Clearly, there was an oral tradition that was considered authoritative--a corpus of teaching and practice to be guarded as a treasure and passed on. It is through this authoritative tradition that the Church functioned even when the only Holy Scriptures the Church possessed were the writings of the Old Testament. And using this deposit of teaching and practice, and being guided into all truth by the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit, the Church validated the New Testament canon (or "rule") or Holy Scripture. I believe that this authoritative corpus of belief and practice, first and foremost contained in God's particular revelation in Holy Scripture, and ratified and kept within the Holy Tradition of the Church as the canon, is ultimately trustworthy, and that we are guided in our understanding of the Scripture by the Holy Spirit, both in His teaching ministry in our lives and through His presence in the Church. Hence we are not left in every generation to rebuild the wheel, but may build carefully upon the foundation that has been left for us by the Apostles and Prophets. God bless and keep you, Matthew (soulfyre) |
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Mar 19, 2005 22:32:23 GMT -5
The fact is that the Bible has not been rewritten. Take the New Testament, for example. The disciples of Jesus wrote the New Testament in Greek and though we do not have the original documents, we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. That means that there is only 1/2 of 1% of of all the copies that do not agree with each other 100%. But, if you take that 1/2 of 1% and examine it, you find that the majority of the "problems" are nothing more than spelling errors and very minor word alterations. For example, instead of saying Jesus, a variation might be "Jesus Christ." So the actually amount of textual variation of any concern at all is extremely low. Therefore, we can say that we have an extremely accurate compilation of the original documents.
So when we translate the Bible, we do not translate from a translation of a translation of a translation. We translate from the original language into our language. It is one step, not a series of steps that leads to corruption. It is one translation step from the original to the English or to whatever language a person needs to read it in. So we translate into Spanish from the same Greek manuscripts. Likewise we translate into the German from those same Greek manuscripts as well. This is how it is done for each and every language we translate the Bible into. We do not translate from the Greek to the English, to the Spanish, and then to the German. It is from the Greek to the English. It is from the Greek into the Spanish. It is from the Greek into the German. Therefore, the translations are very accurate and trustworthy in regards to what the Bible originally said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Soulfyre on Mar 20, 2005 0:28:14 GMT -5
Excellent point, and by-in-large correct. It doesn't address the New Testament issues between the Majority Text (the Alexandrian text, also referred to as the Textus Receptus), on which both the Latin Vulgate and the King James Version are based, or the critical text, on which most modern translations are based. But again, the textual representation for both the critical text and the Textus Receptus are excellent, and you are correct that the errors are largely insignificant. There is occasionally some dispute between the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and its first major translation, the LXX (Septuagint), generally read within the Orthodox Church. Again, however, the variants are largely insignificant. We are blessed by God to have an embarassment of riches concerning the manuscript support for the text of the Bible, so one could accurately say that indeed, we are not using "translations of translations", but translations that hearken back effectively to the "original text", for all intents and purposes. It is, however, helpul to note that this is largely accepted by the Church, through whom we received the canon of Scripture, and it was the people of God in the Old and New Testaments (but especially the Church, now) who have, by the Holy Spirit, been the guardians of the Holy Scriptures, and have carefully kept and transmitted the original texts. God bless and keep you, Matthew (soulfyre) |
|
