/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christian.pentecostal, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / Date > 24 Feb 2000 / Topic >
> On 12Feb00 vince garcia wrote: Mike Bugal has given a decent answer to this question.
> I would only add that yes, there first manuscripts were Uncials, without punctuation.
.
erasmian say: Dear vince, I would only add that yes the Uncials *do* have an impact on translators by making things
generally more difficult for them. Greek was the most precise language available to the ancient believers (that is one
reason why the NT authors used it), but it was still growing, changing, and developing ...
.
As was the Faith of the early Greek churches.
.
> Also, some books of the NT we can assume were probably written
> in "the hebrew tongue" before being translated into Greek.
.
When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me!
.
> Matthew supposedly started out that way,
.
"supposedly" is right!
.
> which may explain why it and Mark are so similar.
.
You wish!
.
> Rather than Matthew supposedly borrowing from MArk's supposed earlier Gospel, more likely Mark borrowed
> from an earlier still Aramiac manuscript of Matthew which no longer exists
.
Yeah, gee vince, ain't it a cryin shame that there is, like, literally NO physical OR textual evidence *whatsoever*
to back up your grossly unfounded and stupidly pious *ASSUMPTIONS*!!!
/ Topic > Re: Bible translations / Forum > Theology OnLine - Stupid Bible Questions / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Date > 10 Sept 2000 /
.
] On 30Aug Turk wrote: What Bible translation is the most viable to study and attempt to learn
] and live in God's word?
.
textman answers: Dear Turk, there are several goodly English translations available to True Believers who are serious about bible study. The New International Version is a very readable text. The New American Standard Bible is grossly deficient in formatting and readability, but is perhaps the best overall text. And the Revised Standard Version (an improved KJV) is still one of the best texts for study and devotion. Any one of these will do, but because there is no such thing as "the best translation", I would recommend you use all three. Each version has its own strengths and weaknesses, but by comparing and contrasting versions these shortcomings can usually be overcome.
.
] I am very concerned about many of the alterations that have been made in these translations
.
Me too! For the bible-makers theological and political considerations outweigh fidelity to the Word of God and concern for the People of God.
.
] and also concerned about the sources of many of these translations that have the 'net' effect of changing
] the meanings and turning facts around 180 degrees.
.
The only way around this is to learn the Koine Greek such that you can bypass the translators and their biased interpretations. Really, there is no substitute for drinking the pure waters of the best Greek text! All translations are but a poor and pale shadow of the power and polish of the original Greek.
.
] Am I 'off base' here?
.
Heck no!
.
] Is this a 'legitimate concern' on my part?
.
Yes, it is. In fact, we have a long way to go before *any* English version can be considered even adequate to the needs and concerns of believers today. For example, the canonical format is very much in need of drastic revisions; but because that format is somehow considered 'perfect and final' (it is neither) bible-makers slavishly follow it to the detriment of the Text; and it is the Reader who must pay the price for their pious stupidity and intellectual laziness!
.
] Please help me on this.
.
OK ... :)
.
>> Jefferson replied: I mostly use (for study) the LITV. The Literal Translation of the Bible.
.
> Turk say: Jefferson: I have not heard of this translation before.
.
Me neither.
.
> What can you tell me about it and why would it surpass the KJV for instance?
.
Actually, I'm willing to bet that Jefferson is just yanking your chain, Turk. Most likely, there is no such thing as the LITV.
.
> On 10Sept Navey Sealed replied: There is too such a thing as the LITV! Here's a link:
> http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm -- Sealed <www.opentheism.org>
.
textman answers: Dear Navey, thx for the info. I stand corrected. I've been browsing the LITV at the web-site you provided, and I must say that it certainly is an interesting translation. However, it did not take much time to find some errors. For example, consider these verses:
.
"But let him ask in faith, doubting nothing. For the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, being driven by wind and being tossed; for do not let that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-souled man, not dependable in all his ways." -- James 1:6-8 / LITV
.
"a double-souled man"!? What in tarnation is that supposed to mean? In my favorite version of the NT (ie. The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament) the Greek word 'dipsychos' is rendered as 'double-minded', which (of course) makes much more sense than 'double-souled'. That's a big boo-boo there on Green's part. Frankly, I can't imagine what he was thinking when he translated that verse.
.
Another passage that struck me as very odd comes from the Gospel of John. I went there hoping to find 'born from above' rather than the Fundy-preferred 'born again'. Imagine my surprise when these words greeted my eyes:
.
"Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, if one is not generated from above, he is not able to see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus said to Him, How is a man able to be generated, being old? He is not able to enter into his mother's womb a second time and be born? Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, if one is not generated out of water and Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God. That having been generated out of the flesh is flesh, and that having been generated out of the Spirit is spirit. Do not wonder because I said to you, You must be generated from above." -- John 3:3-7 / LITV
.
Now that's just plain weird! According to my lexicon, 'gennetos' means 'begotten' or 'born'. So while 'generated' may be *almost* technically correct, it certainly isn't very reader-friendly ... :)
.
"Answered Jesus and said to him, truly, truly I say to you, unless someone is born again, he is not able to see the kingdom of God. Says to him Nicodemus, how is able a man to be born being old? [Surely] he is not able into the womb of the mother of him a second time to enter and to be born? Answered Jesus, truly, truly I say to you, unless someone is born of water and spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God. The thing having been born of the flesh is flesh, and the thing having been born of the spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, it is necessary [for] you to be born again." -- John 3:3-7 / New Greek-English Interliner
.
Now that's what I call a *literal* translation! But obviously the NGEI is *also* flawed and *also* not much reader-friendly. Therefore the wise bible student will prefer the cyber-prophet's own Prophet Version over both of these literal translations:
.
So Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born from above, s/he is unable to see the Kingdom of God." And Nicodemus says to him, "How is an old man able to be born again? Surely he is not able to enter the womb of his mother a second time and so be born again?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born of the Spirit, s/he is not able to enter the Kingdom of God. For anything that is born of the flesh is flesh, but the thing that is born of the Spirit is spirit. So do not marvel that I said to you, 'It is necessary for you to be born from above'." -- John 3:3-7 / PV
.
Now isn't that just *sooo* much better? ...
/ Topic > Re: Bible translations-3 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - Stupid Bible Questions / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Date > 14 Sept 2000 /
.
> On 13Sept interested observer observed: The s/he thing is distracting.
.
erasmian replies: Dear observer, yes, but one gets used to it ... :) Actually, I was rather expecting you to take me to task for daring to omit the words 'water and' in v.5. I left out those words because they are very clearly a foreign intrusion into an otherwise perfect passage. They were added to the text to the end of making it seem that baptism is essential for entry into the Kingdom; (and this suggests a priestly origin for this addition). But it is obvious from the way that Jesus is speaking here that baptism is utterly irrelevant to the matter of being 'born from above'. Indeed, the probability that 'water and' represents a priestly corruption of the text is so high, that I have no qualms whatsoever about removing this particular addition from the PV.
.
For those of you who may remain unconvinced on this point, I suggest that you consult Bultmann's humongous commentary on the Gospel of John for confirmation and clarification. Now I know that for some believers this way of treating the Sacred Text verges on blasphemy, but I hasten to assure you that this is not the case. The first thing that anyone wishing to study the Gospel of John must be well aware of is that this most unfortunate NT book is undoubtedly the most "worked over" book in the entire Holy Bible! [Picture, if you will, a gang of ordained chimpanzees armed with neolithic hand-axes having at the Gospel of John with great gusto, and much relish, amidst a chorus of zealous hootings and howlings ... Poor John!]
.
Yeah, this prophetic Gospel [ie. see how many times the word 'prophet' is used here; as compared to the other three gospels] is a veritable feast for textual critics; but the downside is that it is extremely difficult to get a clear picture of what the original autograph may have looked like. Thus Bultmann goes to unhealthy extremes in his commentary, I think, but even so, there can be no doubt that in many cases such as this he is right on the money.
/ Topic > Re: Bible translations-4 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - Stupid Bible Questions / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Date > 15 Sept 2000 /
.
> On 15Sept interested observer replied: Erasman, whether or not "water and" in verse 5 is a corruption, I
> don't know as I have not studied that item particularly. However, I think being baptized in water is
> something the first century disciples understood as being necessary.
.
erasmian answers: Dear observer, you may well be right about that; (although Paul may be a significant exception to the rule). In general, any body of believers requires some rituals. For myself, baptism represents an external and visible action that is symbolic of an invisible and internal event (ie. conversion and the birth of faith). Baptism without faith is an empty and senseless ritual devoid of all meaning and value (eg. infant baptism). But faith/conversion can exist apart from baptism (as the existence of the Quakers demonstrates).
.
> Acts 8:36 - Now as they were going over the road, they came to a certain body of water, and the eunuch
> said: "Look! A body of water; what prevents me from getting baptized?"
.
This verse strikes me as being largely irrelevant, and therefore serves no purpose.
.
> Acts 10:44-48 - 44 While Peter was yet speaking about these matters the holy spirit fell upon all those hearing
> the word. 45 And the faithful ones that had come with Peter who were of those circumcised were amazed,
> because the free gift of the holy spirit was being poured out also upon people of the nations. 46 For they
> heard them speaking with tongues and magnifying God. Then Peter responded: 47 "Can anyone forbid water
> so that these might not be baptized who have received the holy spirit even as we have?" 48 With that he
> commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they requested him to remain for some days.
.
If anything this passage only confirms my contention that being 'born from above' is a separate and distinct (spiritual) reality from the visible and material reality of baptism. For example, a few days after I was born, I was "dipped in the Romish bath" and thereby co-opted for the Whore of Babylon. But since I was then incapable of any choice, or faith, or even a single rational thought, I do not consider that event to be a valid baptism in any way, shape, or form. My faith/conversion came about many years later, slowly and gradually, and so here I stand, a prophet of the Word without the benefit of ever having been baptized! Who'd a thunk it?!
.
> Erasman, do you disagree with this translation of these scriptures. If so, how do you translate them in your Bible?
.
I don't disagree with this translation (whichever it is?). One reason being that I have no real interest in translating Lk-Acts; owing to the fact that that book contains a goodly chunk of the NT, such that I'd be busy translating it for the next ten years! Such a project would leave me no time at all for my online ministry, and the fruits of such a labor would be dubious in any case.
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,
/ alt.religion.christian.ywam, alt.religion.christian.baptist / Date > 13 Oct 2011 / Topic >
>> On 8Oct Elder(:)Child wrote: All 'biblical' Translations Are Biased!
.
> On 9Oct-2011 duke say: How can you explain that?
.
wurm say: All translators and bible-makers are merely human beings, and
hence are just as limited and error-prone as anybody else. Furthermore,
since almost all translators and bible-makers are believers of one sort or
another, they are also biased by creeds, traditions, customs, and most of
all by theology! Furthermore, all translators are bound, as if by chains of
gold, to the canonical format, which has long since served its purpose (ie.
preservation), and is no longer either necessary or useful. In fact, it is
(today / many centuries later) a positive impediment to a better understanding
of the sacred texts. All of this together means that even the best bibles
currently available are woefully inadequate to meet even the most basic
needs of the vast majority of 21st century believers. Check it out.
>>> On 8Oct Elder(:)Child wrote: ... All 'biblical' Translations Are Biased! <snip>
.
>> On 9Oct-2011 duke say: How can you explain that?
.
> On 13Oct wurm say: All translators and bible-makers are merely human beings,
> and hence are just as limited and error-prone as anybody else. <snip>
.
] Duke replies: But a translation is not an interpretation. Interpretations are
] subject to the writers thoughts and beliefs, but not translations.
.
On 19Oct cybrwurm say: Actually, translation IS a form of interpretation; at least
in part. It too is subject to the translators ideas and preconceptions. Take, for
example, the opening verse of Jm, Jude, and 2Peter, where the Greek word 'doulos'
(which means 'slave') is most often mis-translated as 'servant' or 'bond-servant'
so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of modern believers who have no idea
that 'slave' is a christian word with a specific christian meaning (ie. it means
'prophet'). But since both the translators and readers are utterly ignorant of this
original christian meaning of 'slave' they prefer not to see the word 'slave' used,
even when it is obviously the best translation. This is but one example of how
translation is also a form of interpretation.
] duke previously said: But a translation is not an interpretation. Interpretations
] are subject to the writers thoughts and beliefs, but not translations.
.
>> wurm said: Actually, translation IS a form of interpretation; at least in part.
.
> duke replied: But translations don't change the statement.
.
wurm say: But of course they do indeed change the statement. The example I
gave is proof that the change is anything but minor or meaningless.
.
> What God said, God meant, not what an interpreter thinks
> and passes on to others.
.
And if the translator / interpreter is NOT inspired by the holy-spirit, but IS
inspired by the spirit of compromise and politics, then the scripture no longer
says what god meant.
.
>> wurm: It too is subject to the translators ideas and preconceptions. Take,
>> for example, the opening verse of Jm, Jude, and 2Peter, where the Greek word
>> 'doulos' (which means 'slave') is most often translated as 'servant' or
>> 'bond-servant'
.
> duke: Which is not a change.
.
It IS a change! A rather BIG change, in my humble opinion; as it is part and parcel
of the general christian program of doing away with the prophets, and minimizing
their contributions to the scriptures and the true nature of the christian
religion. Let there be no doubt about it: the corruption of Christianity began
the moment that the prophets were expelled and replaced by priests ...
/ Newsgroups > alt.bible, alt.christnet.philosophy, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Fantastic Forum > Fantastic Pub > Religion & Metaphysics / 3 Jan 2012 / Topic >
] Doctor Gene Getz sayeth: To avoid being influenced by false doctrine is, number one: Be on guard against a
] loner when it comes to Biblical interpretation.
.
wurm say: In other words, trust in the ancient episcopal councils, and their modern counterparts (the ecumenical committees), for they obviously have a better grasp upon the "true" christian traditions than any one man could have. And I certainly agree that believers should be "on guard ... when it comes to Biblical interpretation", but why stop at this "loner" person? *Always* be on guard, I say. *Always* question the ancient traditions and received understandings of scripture! If you truly love the word-of-god, then you have to *think* about what you read. You have to be critical ... Not just about the texts themselves, but be critical of ALL the bible scholars, and scribes, and sundry authorities who want to 'explain it all to you' ... I really don't see how being a loner somehow requires *more* caution and skepticism from the average bible-student. There's plenty enough third-rate thinking about the scriptures to go around! :(
.
] GG: People who say that they have the truth and they're alone in it and they're creating new ideas.
.
Yeah, gee, like that has *never* happened before in church history ... No wait, new ideas happen all the time! Just ask the thousands upon thousands of individual, loner believers and saints and prophets and heroes of the faith who took the time out of their doubtless busy lives to write their thoughts down on paper so that they could be accessed by other believers far far away in space/time. This is how our collective traditions formed in the first place; for example, Paulos was very much a "loner" who perfectly fits GG's description. Individuals contributing to the greater fund of christian literature, then (much later) others picking and choosing which writings have merit and which don't! Leaving all this picking and choosing to the so-called "traditional authorities" sounds to me like a very extremely bad idea ...
.
] GG: A lone individual who claims to have some kind of revelation which is actually false doctrine
] blended with truth.
.
Well, that's a fine thing to accuse me of, Herr Doktor. Have not important words (such as 'apostle', 'christos', 'slave', 'brother', etc etc) been *emptied* of their original biblical meanings? Emptied and replaced by *other* meanings? Yet all of these words were *very* significant to the Faith of the early greek-churches. You remember them, surely; the very ones who wrote the documents that were later collected into a book under the title of 'The New Testament'. But I am not the one who has emptied the sacred-texts of their meaning. All I'm trying to do is to *restore* the original meanings of these faith-heavy-words (and the texts around them) ... Meanings (the true biblical ones, I mean) that have obviously been forgotten in the centuries since ...
.
] GG: We have to be careful of these individuals who claim to have the Holy Spirit, but they are out of
] harmony with historic true doctrine.
.
"historic true doctrine" being, of course, the teachings that the bishops of the many and various churches of the Roman Empire developed through the centuries. Episcopal-Teachings that are so top-heavy with theology that they leave no room for reason, let alone wisdom. So I will indeed agree that the prophetic-spirit of the divine Logos is out of harmony with these traditional doctrines and teachings ... BUT I will NOT agree that prophetic teaching is out of harmony with true biblical teachings. No indeed, for christian prophecy is for believers, not unbelievers! So those who believe god is a Trinity will not believe in the divine Logos (or his prophetic spirit), because THEY are the ones who have been seduced away from the scriptures, and are out of harmony with the true biblical doctrines ...
.
] GG: Second, become a good student of Scripture ...
.
So then we *do* agree on something, after all! :)
.
] with other Bible studying Christians. Not alone only. It's not wrong to study the Scriptures alone,
.
Nobody with internet-access does that anyway, GG.
.
] but studying with other Bible studying Christians, interacting with other Bible studying Christians, mentors, on
] full time regular basis, in order to avoid some kind of strange interpretation of Scripture.
.
Well, surely the only way to avoid "strange interpretations of scripture" is to find the best gosh-darn bible-scholar in the whole entire world and see if his teachings conform to the Way-of-Love-&-Reason. IF they do, then maybe we can learn something that might be relevant to a *living* and *active* Faith that wants to not just change, but also improve, our collective life on this tiny little shared-planet!
/ Newsgroups > alt.bible, alt.bible.prophecy, alt.religion.christian, alt.christnet.philosophy, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ was thread > Re: Trinity and the end of the time of the gentiles / Date > 12 Jan 2012 / Topic >
"Man
was made a likeness and imitation of the Logos, when the
Divine
Breath was breathed into his face." Philo in 'On the Creation'
] On Jan11 Mordecai! sayeth: <snip> So what is trinity? On one level it is trying to define WHAT
] IS G_d. <snip> On another level it is about language. You cannot discuss Trinity in our language.
] Our language is predicated upon his name, and his authority. Your language is predicated upon
] him being a species, true G_d from true G_d.
.
wurm say: The NT does in fact do much in the way of trying to define he general features of god. It
covers the basics rather well, I think: God is Cosmic-Father, Creator, Love, Spirit, and the primal source of all Light and Life. I see no great contradiction here between the hebrew scriptures and the greek- scriptures. The real contradictions arise in earnest only when theology moves away from the broad brush-strokes of biblical language and makes a "project" out of attempting to define *exactly* what god (or the god-head) is in all its glorious theological details.
.
Any such project smacks of blasphemy and arrogance right from the get-go; and these sins are what the bishops of the Roman Empire excelled at. Indeed, it was by far their greatest talents; as their creeds and other documents show. They were also utterly oblivious to the rather obvious fact that their ignorance greatly outmatched even their vanity! Surely the mystery of god can never be violated by creatures as puny and dumb as these episcopal muffinheads. :)
.
] M: Which is why trinity is true ... IN YOUR LANGUAGE.
.
But it's NOT true in *my* language, mordecai; which is english. Of course, english theological language is a huge and complicated mess, to be sure ... BUT if we deliberately restrict our god-talk to the terms and conditions set forth in the scriptures (OT & NT) then we never have to make the dumb mistakes that the churches love to make! :D
.
] M: It just happens to be false in OUR LANGUAGE and also the language of the bible.
.
Exactly. And the language of the bible CAN be translated into english. But only if the translating includes editing the canonical text so as to remove all the uninspired additions that corrupt and distort the vision of the inspired authors. It's just too bad that the bible-makers are so committed to doing such a third-rate and piss-poor job of responsible translating to the end of cleaning up the texts, re-arranging them, and presenting them in a user-friendly form; which the canonical format is NOT! :(
.
] M: <snip> So trinity has much fruit ... Of contention, of enmity, of exaltation of Gentiles
] over Jews, of rejecting the language of the bible, and replacing the goal of worship in
] spirit and truth to a goal of knowledge of G_d.
.
Just so. The bishops elevated the importance of "proper" theology over everything; giving it primacy over the Faith itself, and even over Love itself. The theological warfare that so characterized the history of the churches prior to the fall of the Empire often led to actual bloodshed in the streets of the cities. People took their theology very seriously in those days. Obviously, far too seriously; for once theology puffs itself up with the sin of unrestrained pride it immediately falls victim to an army of irrationalities.
.
] M: Not ... good fruit. You can see this in the jews here - the natural division. You can even
] see this in history. It is near to the time of reaping. How is your fruit? When words and
] actions disagree, believe actions. When rhetoric and reality disagree, either rhetoric is wrong
] or reality is wrong, and reality is Never wrong.
.
Just so. It is when theology parts company with reality that the void is immediately filled with vanity and hubris, thus making theology useless to believers and the Faith in general! Therefore it is my considered opinion that a relevant and realistic theology should be firmly based upon a biblical theology, and NOT stray very far from biblical language (ie. the original biblical meanings of actual biblical words and concepts). This way theology will remain rooted in wisdom/prophetic literature, rather than getting carried away with its own awesome cleverness. And this involves taking a long second-look at ALL the texts (sacred and otherwise), and then re-evaluating the *quality* and/or levels of inspiration therein ...
