BINGO. Its not about religion at all. Its about power.
Split from Christianity and Self-Defense article topic
- Thread starter Tez3
- Start date
BINGO. Its not about religion at all. Its about power.
Brother John
Senior Master
VERY interesting points Carol.
I'm not understanding your illustration about Hillel's instruction on Mitzvah.
You seem to be comparing the six hundred and thirteen Mitzvah to the Ethical Decalogue. The 316 Mitzvah are written in the Mishnah in the Talmud, which is essentially a commentary on Rabinical law. Hillel and his commentary on that commentary came about much later. The Ethical Decalogue came about by the very hand of God on Mount Sinai to Moses.
That Mitzvah of Hillel's doesn't equate to the ones given by God thousands of years before Hillel's birth. So....I'm not seeing how Hillel's most famous Mitzvah (which I like a LOT) COULD have made it into the "10 Commandments". Could you help me understand?
Thanks
Also: Are you saying that Christian's (some/many/all...etc.?) say or imply that the Christian new testament is "All the Same"...as the Talmud?? Or the scholarly works of Hillel?? OR....the "10 Commandments"? Just wondering. I personally think that the latter IS closer to the mark, that Christ claimed to come to fulfill "the law". His thinking on the importance of the law and the prophets is very clear.
but to say that Judaism and Christianity is "all the same" would be ludicrous, I agree.
BTW: Happy Hanukkah to you and yours too!
Your Brother
John
It's a misunderstanding. Hillel never stated that as a Mitzvah. The story goes:
A man came to Shamai and asked him to recite the entire Torah while standing on one foot. Shamai replied that it was impossible.
The man then went to Hillel and asked the same question. Hillel replied: That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. The rest is commentary. Now go and study it.
Brother John
Senior Master
That's not anything at all like the process through which we have obtained the Christian scriptures. Not at all. That 'filter, re-filter.....re-re-filter' process would be ridiculous to the extreme. Thank God it's not even close to that. You should research the subject, it's very interesting to say the least. I'm glad I did, and it Really reaffirmed my faith!
Your Brother
John
Brother John
Senior Master
That's the way I'd always heard it too. Thanks.
By the way, interesting "New Testament" parallel...
I always thought that THAT and the story of Hilell on one foot were an awesome pair worth pondering!
Hope you don't mind me sharing some Christian scriptures with you.
Your Brother
John
OP
- Thread Starter
- #46
Really? So there weren't many versions of the Bible written in different languages? King James didn't command a new translation into English because of all these different versions and he didn't want want he called a Popish version?
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html
and it's still not being translated into what the translator wants it to say?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iZyBIAPhMelK-xjJBRw_gw6nq_qQD9CBP6JG2
Dear old Wiki's view on the translations of the Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations
If you are reading the Bible in English how do you know it says what the original does?
TKDHomeSchooler
Green Belt
From my experience, Preacher's kid, I can say that the real issue is the heart. Are you defending yourself, hating the fact that you have to do this to survive? Or, are you defending yourself enjoying the fact that you may get to kill someone?
God sees the heart, He knows if you are surviving or thriving in this situation.
celtic, you are right, there are many examples in the Bible of God using violence through others to glorify Him. But to support my previous statements any time someone did things on their own they lost, big. If they waited for God's instructions they were protected and were the victor.
Brother John
Senior Master
Yes, Really.
Here's the issue, when you talked about the New Testament going through multiple permutations.....from one language, to the next, to the next...finally ending up in English...... that's not accurate at all. It's not as though it was first written in Greek, then translated to Latin, then translated from there to French and from there to German and from German to English. No. It did not go from language A to langauge B, to C, to D.....and we're reading it now in Language H. It was written predominantly in Greek. We have many very early greek manuscripts that cooborate that, something over 2000 manuscripts. And they agree as to what was said. So....we HAVE it in language A. BUT....what's more.... in the very early days of the Christian Church, as it's numbers grew exponentially, these thousands of agreeing Greek manuscripts were translated:
From Greek to Latin
From Greek to Syriac
and
From Greek to Coptic
A little while later it was translated
From Greek to Armenian
From Greek to Gothic
From Greek to Georgian
and
From Greek to Ethopic
All of these weren't kept in ONE place, but were thousands of miles apart. EVEN IF we didn't have the text in the original language Before translation (Which we do, as I said.....2000+ times over).... we have all of these other languages that were 2nd generation translation......and they all agree. We KNOW what the original said because we have it in the original tongue AND a cooborating direct translation in Multiple other tongues....and they all agree.
The bible that I study from the Most, the NASB (New American Standard Bible) is a direct/Literal translation from the Greek. It is not taken from it's original language into others....and yet others....and finally into English.
My own favorite Bible is an "Inter-linear" Bible in which every sentence has 3 lines:
1st: The original Hebrew & Greek IN their original characters.
2nd: The transliteration of the original language (the phonetic characterization in Romanized lettering)
3rd: The word for word Literal translation of each word.
So for ME, personally...How can I know that what I'm reading is identical to the "Original"?? Because it's right there on my shelf, IN the original.
Now: The next part of your questions.
King James Version, 1611.
YES, King James had different motives for wanting a different translation than the Latin Vulgate.
From the link that you provided on the KJV it says in the 4th paragraph:
See, it was translated by scholars from the "original Hebrew and Greek".
as for their being different wordings: That's true. There are different wordings and I don't agree with all of them. Some of them, I think, are too far from the truth. But this has happened to every holy book of the world... paraphrased versions crop up. That still does not invalidate those that are a literal translation. Also: Those paraphrased ones that I do not disagree with, though they didn't go for a literal translation, their intent by and large was to be a faithful transmision of the message, the meaning. Again, not my favorite, but several have gotten it down right...so I personally don't have a problem with them.
I hope some of this is helping you understand why Christians CAN be fully assured that what they have is what Christ and the Apostles themselves gave.
Your Brother
John
Other than being libeled an anti-Semitic this thread has turned about rather nicely with some decent information in it. Bob, if you are still monitoring this thread good job on splitting of the thread and putting this part of the discussion into the proper area of the forum. Thank you.
I think it is a mistake, either out of assumption, ignorance, arrogance or bigotry, thinking that because we are English speaking Christians that we are ignorant. I cannot speak for Christians in Britain and from what Tez3 wrote above it sounds like an awful place to be and I have read studies about the spiritual decline in Western Europe in general so perhaps the characterizations might have more merit for Christians over in Britain I dunno, but, thank God it has not been my experiences over here.
I hardly think that I am unique in my Christian studies. I am often lazy, too busy, or otherwise occupied and in my opinion I am not yet particularly well read or educated. Yet even I have Greek references that I try to work my way through. I have multiple Bibles that I read from including study Bibles that include both Greek and Hebrew verses and studies.(As an aside with the internet now it is easier than ever and there are many online study aids that allow you to read side by side English Greek and Hebrew and also compare different versions of the bible also side by side). I have an Orthodox Rabbi that gives me casual Hebrew lessons and applications from those lessons for my daily life health and prosperity that has been to my benefit. I have attended different local Christian churches when they have had Israeli and Arab and African speakers of other faiths also to my benefit. I have attended studies that have had many immigrants (most notably Greeks, Russians/Slavs and Africans) who freely shared their understandings and experiences. I meet and discuss with so many Christians from many denominations that have even deeper studied theological and scriptural understandings than I. I agree with Tez3 that language understanding can make a huge difference, writtten Hebrew for instance is very interesting and to my mind complicated with each letter or omission or recurrences making a difference and I was surprised at how often numbers have very deep meanings. All the various studies and exposures have deepened my still limited understanding of the Bible and my Christian faith but I hardly think that I am unique in the above and in fact consider myself a rather poor example of a Christian...but am working on it.
Warmest regards
Brian King
Brother John. A great post sir and well written.
I think it is a mistake, either out of assumption, ignorance, arrogance or bigotry, thinking that because we are English speaking Christians that we are ignorant. I cannot speak for Christians in Britain and from what Tez3 wrote above it sounds like an awful place to be and I have read studies about the spiritual decline in Western Europe in general so perhaps the characterizations might have more merit for Christians over in Britain I dunno, but, thank God it has not been my experiences over here.
I hardly think that I am unique in my Christian studies. I am often lazy, too busy, or otherwise occupied and in my opinion I am not yet particularly well read or educated. Yet even I have Greek references that I try to work my way through. I have multiple Bibles that I read from including study Bibles that include both Greek and Hebrew verses and studies.(As an aside with the internet now it is easier than ever and there are many online study aids that allow you to read side by side English Greek and Hebrew and also compare different versions of the bible also side by side). I have an Orthodox Rabbi that gives me casual Hebrew lessons and applications from those lessons for my daily life health and prosperity that has been to my benefit. I have attended different local Christian churches when they have had Israeli and Arab and African speakers of other faiths also to my benefit. I have attended studies that have had many immigrants (most notably Greeks, Russians/Slavs and Africans) who freely shared their understandings and experiences. I meet and discuss with so many Christians from many denominations that have even deeper studied theological and scriptural understandings than I. I agree with Tez3 that language understanding can make a huge difference, writtten Hebrew for instance is very interesting and to my mind complicated with each letter or omission or recurrences making a difference and I was surprised at how often numbers have very deep meanings. All the various studies and exposures have deepened my still limited understanding of the Bible and my Christian faith but I hardly think that I am unique in the above and in fact consider myself a rather poor example of a Christian...but am working on it.
Warmest regards
Brian King
Brother John. A great post sir and well written.
Last edited:
OP
- Thread Starter
- #51
Yes, Really.
Here's the issue, when you talked about the New Testament going through multiple permutations.....from one language, to the next, to the next...finally ending up in English...... that's not accurate at all. It's not as though it was first written in Greek, then translated to Latin, then translated from there to French and from there to German and from German to English. No. It did not go from language A to langauge B, to C, to D.....and we're reading it now in Language H. It was written predominantly in Greek. We have many very early greek manuscripts that cooborate that, something over 2000 manuscripts. And they agree as to what was said. So....we HAVE it in language A. BUT....what's more.... in the very early days of the Christian Church, as it's numbers grew exponentially, these thousands of agreeing Greek manuscripts were translated:
From Greek to Latin
From Greek to Syriac
and
From Greek to Coptic
A little while later it was translated
From Greek to Armenian
From Greek to Gothic
From Greek to Georgian
and
From Greek to Ethopic
All of these weren't kept in ONE place, but were thousands of miles apart. EVEN IF we didn't have the text in the original language Before translation (Which we do, as I said.....2000+ times over).... we have all of these other languages that were 2nd generation translation......and they all agree. We KNOW what the original said because we have it in the original tongue AND a cooborating direct translation in Multiple other tongues....and they all agree.
The bible that I study from the Most, the NASB (New American Standard Bible) is a direct/Literal translation from the Greek. It is not taken from it's original language into others....and yet others....and finally into English.
My own favorite Bible is an "Inter-linear" Bible in which every sentence has 3 lines:
1st: The original Hebrew & Greek IN their original characters.
2nd: The transliteration of the original language (the phonetic characterization in Romanized lettering)
3rd: The word for word Literal translation of each word.
So for ME, personally...How can I know that what I'm reading is identical to the "Original"?? Because it's right there on my shelf, IN the original.
Now: The next part of your questions.
King James Version, 1611.
YES, King James had different motives for wanting a different translation than the Latin Vulgate.
From the link that you provided on the KJV it says in the 4th paragraph:
See, it was translated by scholars from the "original Hebrew and Greek".
as for their being different wordings: That's true. There are different wordings and I don't agree with all of them. Some of them, I think, are too far from the truth. But this has happened to every holy book of the world... paraphrased versions crop up. That still does not invalidate those that are a literal translation. Also: Those paraphrased ones that I do not disagree with, though they didn't go for a literal translation, their intent by and large was to be a faithful transmision of the message, the meaning. Again, not my favorite, but several have gotten it down right...so I personally don't have a problem with them.
I hope some of this is helping you understand why Christians CAN be fully assured that what they have is what Christ and the Apostles themselves gave.
Your Brother
John
Well not really because as Canuck posted there was a basic error changing the meaning of a sentence, there's a world of difference between 'mind and might' but to me the New Testament is your concern and what you make of it or how you use it is none of my business. I was never concerned with the New Testament and I've never said it was any concern of mine. I think people assume that when I talk about the Bible I mean both parts of the Christian one, they then take offence where none was given. It's the use of the old Testament that worries me.
I've been told on here that the Old Testament is also part of everyone's history and everyone has a right to it. I can't see how that can be tbh. Take America, there are obviously a great many descendants of immigrants, each with their own original countries history behind them. The Scots have things like the Glencoe Massacre, the Highland Clearances, the Irish the Potato Famine, the Huguenots have persecution, each nation has it's own history. The Greeks and Italians both have had great empires. Other may look on or read with sympathy and understanding but it's not their history so why is it that things like the Fall of Jericho, the Exodus etc belong to everyone? Isn't that the history of Israel and belongs to the Jews, the race of and from Israel? The history is written down in the Bible along with much more I admit but why does the history not just belong to us the way the Civil War and the War of Independance belongs to America?
Yes world civilisations are interesting and we should learn about them for many reasons but the Egyptian empire still belongs to the Egyptians, the Roman empire is still that and the civilisations of Athens, Sparta etc are still Greek.
When people discuss the Old Testament and mull over it's meanings, whys and wherefores they forget this is a history of a people, a still living people. They give out pronouncements based on what they think and read (and despite what you say there are still enough translations there and miscopyings to not be sure of the words) and forget that the people of the book, the living descendants of those people in the book are still around and living according to the Laws and ways in that book. The Levis and the Cohens are still here, the ways are the same. I've heard it said that if Jesus were to come back today he would walk straight into a synagogue, pick up a prayer book and follow the service. Yet so many times we are told that what our ancestors wrote, what we believe is wrong, that we are misguided and well, you've read the other stuff directed at me.
I'm not anti Christian, I'm anti those who think they are so right and everyone else is so wrong. My favourite Christians as I've said before and who I'm always glad to worship with are the Quakers, they are the best example of the best type of religious believers I know.
I dont honestly know Tez3. A little mental rambling thoughts before I go outside and do the chores and thanks for making me think about it.
Perhaps it is because the Jews are the chosen of God and not allowed to be selfish? You call it Jewish history and it truly is but it is also Gods lessons to man (His history so to speak) and everything happens according to Gods plan and all things are His. I am not wise enough to question His plans and say I know better. Asking God why did You allow their/my Book to be shared? is perhaps a legitimate question for you to ask in your prayers, for me I just know that I am SO grateful that He did and then did so much more. I sometimes get to share the stories and the lessons with others (as commanded to me) and it benefits both in the sharing. I dont think history belongs to anyone but is a shared experience. I may not be a Cohen but both the old and new testament speak to me and my experiences, I may not have been to Egypt physically as the Jews were but I have been to Egypt spiritually and with His guidance found the way out. Sorry bout the rambling but literally have one foot in the shoe and must run. Must say I am looking forward to this part of the discussion. Thanks again.
Off to do the chores
Good luck to you
Regards
Brian King
Not to harp on it, but it is also well to remember that there are no vowels in Hebrew. There are vowel indicators used in some texts, but that is a rather recent invention. This is where context and serious knowledge of the language.
Take Tez's example earlier of the confusion in just English: I'm walking down the street with a fag.
That is confusing enough depending on where you live. Now try this:
'm wlkng dwn strt wth fg
That can be interpreted in so many ways. Assume you can accuratly fill in everything but the last word. now, is it fag, fig or fog?
I'll make it even more confusing for you. Have a look at a Torah scroll, there are no spaces between the words.
It gets confusing.
It's getting better, at least for places where it would not cause a shift in doctrine. Last time I looked at a Gideon bible, it had accurately translated the Commandment as No Murder.
I doubt that 'alma' will ever be translated accurately, to maiden, though.
Take Tez's example earlier of the confusion in just English: I'm walking down the street with a fag.
That is confusing enough depending on where you live. Now try this:
'm wlkng dwn strt wth fg
That can be interpreted in so many ways. Assume you can accuratly fill in everything but the last word. now, is it fag, fig or fog?
I'll make it even more confusing for you. Have a look at a Torah scroll, there are no spaces between the words.
It gets confusing.
It's getting better, at least for places where it would not cause a shift in doctrine. Last time I looked at a Gideon bible, it had accurately translated the Commandment as No Murder.
I doubt that 'alma' will ever be translated accurately, to maiden, though.
dbell
Blue Belt
Sorry I haven't answered this part earlier, got side tracked with life, and work...
I should have said that at least Genesis is all of humanities book. From Exodus on (as labeled in the Christian Bible) it is more the history of the Jewish, but it is also the foundation of the Rules of Life for the Christians of Jesus' time and on. The Old Testament books also foretell the coming of the Messiah, which the Christians believe to be Jesus, and list what one should do to be saved and a servant of God.
For what it is worth, I can trace my ancestry back to two Jewish relatives one 18 and one 14 generations ago.... So, it is part of my history as well, if it wasn't before in your eyes...
Look, the Bible is a historical document. All of this arguing is pointless. All of these translations done by powerful individuals with political agendas have completely erased any meaning this scrabbling of seemingly random documents may have had at one time.
I understand that a lot of folks have bent their entire worldview around the text. This was what it was designed for. Your imaginary friend Jesus (and other various people) says whatever is politically convenient at the time.
Maybe I should write a new version of the Bible that espouses eugenics, murder of children, total obedience to the banks. Whoops! That's already been done!
I understand that a lot of folks have bent their entire worldview around the text. This was what it was designed for. Your imaginary friend Jesus (and other various people) says whatever is politically convenient at the time.
Maybe I should write a new version of the Bible that espouses eugenics, murder of children, total obedience to the banks. Whoops! That's already been done!
Last edited by a moderator:
Whoops, I meant to say isn't. Dang edit function.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow, I read this whole thread and I wonder if the believers here know that the Bible was put together by the Romans in order to create a state religion. That's why Jesus Christ resembles so many of their gods. That's why when one studies these ancient religions, one can see so many parallels. Christianity was a product that was created to unify an empire. As we attempt to discuss which version was best and what was written and translated, you've got to take into account the minds of the men who were doing the writing. There's no way original writings, if they ever existed, survived the test of time. The Bible is a political document and rulers have always taken liberty with it's text. That's why we see so many versions. That's why the book exists in the first place.
Say what??
Dude, I’m an atheist and I don’t believe that. Evidence please? Sources? I may not believe in God or religion but I do find the historical relevance of all this stuff fascinating.
Christianity parallels and was influenced by the gods and beliefs of the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Jews, the Egyptians, the various Celtic groups, the Greeks, the Minions, and yes the Romans.
Shotgun Buddha
Brown Belt
As somsone who has studied Roman mythology, (which in many ways is just studying Greek mythology with a different name) Im gonna have to ask what the hell you're talking about. The background, actions and teachings of Christ as presented in the Bible bear no resemblance to those of the Roman deities, who were essentially capricious jerks. Do you have any specfic similarities to refer to?
And if the Romans were intending to create Christianity as a state religion, why was their such a long period of persecution of Christians by the Roman authorities? Emperor Nero even blamed them as being responsible for the Great Fire in Rome, and used them as scapegoats.
The Romans embraced Xtianity as a State relogion when it became clear that it was growing and could not be suppresed any more.
The closest thing to the Romans 'inventing' Xtianity that I can find is the Council of Nicea in 325 CE coming up with a unified doctrine.
The closest thing to the Romans 'inventing' Xtianity that I can find is the Council of Nicea in 325 CE coming up with a unified doctrine.
Similar threads
