Quoting from the Bible - DPChallenge Forums

07/31/2008 03:05:33 PM · #201

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by dahkota:
Now, if all versions of the bible are so similar that the differences mean nothing, why the argument?

I think some of the subtler differences do mean something; for example, the interpretation of a particular Greek word may substantially alter the meaning, and thus the intent, of a given verse. This is of most importance to literalist interpretations of the bible.

It's reminiscent of revisionist history, where neo-nazis dispute the meaning of the German word "aussrotten" (to exterminate). They contend it actually means "to upend" or "root out", and thus exonerates the Nazis of the self-implicated "extermination" of undesirables. This interpretation may be of etymological interest, but flies in the face of (past and current) German usage.

So differences tend to matter, especially when dogmatic interpretations are at stake. :-)

It would probably be cool to offer some examples of what kind of differences we're talking about...

07/31/2008 03:10:00 PM · #202

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It would probably be cool to offer some examples of what kind of differences we're talking about...

Yeah... :-P I had one on the tip of my tongue but it escapes me at the moment. I'll have to be at home to look this up. I am not currently at home. :-P

07/31/2008 03:18:56 PM · #203

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It would probably be cool to offer some examples of what kind of differences we're talking about...

Yeah... :-P I had one on the tip of my tongue but it escapes me at the moment. I'll have to be at home to look this up. I am not currently at home. :-P

Would be cool to see one. Don't be disappointed if I don't reply. I'm headed down to Eugene this evening and will be out of DPC contact for probably 24 hours...

Other people are welcome to show me some of these variations that really change what a Christian believes in. I'm throwing the gauntlet down. Let us all see what's up. I'll look the fool if suddenly someone can show that there are lots of texts which show that Jesus didn't really rise from the dead or that God requires us to still sacrifice goats. I'm not too worried though...

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/31/2008 03:21:09 PM · #204

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'll look the fool if suddenly someone can show that there are lots of texts which show that Jesus didn't really rise from the dead or that God requires us to still sacrifice goats. I'm not too worried though...

Erm.. I don't think it's that dramatic. As I said, the differences are subtle, but important to a literalist interpretation of the bible.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

07/31/2008 03:27:40 PM · #205

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll look the fool if suddenly someone can show that there are lots of texts which show that Jesus didn't really rise from the dead or that God requires us to still sacrifice goats. I'm not too worried though...

Erm.. I don't think it's that dramatic. As I said, the differences are subtle, but important to a literalist interpretation of the bible.

If I'm at fault in a car accident which causes you to lose vision in one eye, would your insurance company (possibly a religion in itself) really demand that I be likewise blinded in return?

07/31/2008 03:31:22 PM · #206

I didn't know they had insurance back then.... ;-)

07/31/2008 03:37:17 PM · #207

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll look the fool if suddenly someone can show that there are lots of texts which show that Jesus didn't really rise from the dead or that God requires us to still sacrifice goats. I'm not too worried though...

Erm.. I don't think it's that dramatic. As I said, the differences are subtle, but important to a literalist interpretation of the bible.

If I'm at fault in a car accident which causes you to lose vision in one eye, would your insurance company (possibly a religion in itself) really demand that I be likewise blinded in return?

Is there a difference of interpretation due to textual variability of the passages?

07/31/2008 03:56:46 PM · #208

1 Corinthians 6

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Good News Bible
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous [2] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

New International Version
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

King James
9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

New King James
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,

American Standard
9Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,

Just as reference. I haven't much time, but this is one that I know of. You may not think it means much... Seems masturbation is a problem too... For me at least, there is a difference between homosexuals and abusers of themselves with men. Maybe I just see it differently not being a man...

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/31/2008 03:57:48 PM · #209

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I guess Sam kept pleading early in the thread that he was merely bringing up a video of a guy offering a scholarly view of the reliability of the New Testament. "Did YOU watch the video?" :) Now the goalposts are moved and I am somehow saddled with proving that the Bible is now the Word of God.

Well, the thread has "evolved," but it's also a natural extension of the OP's historical findings. For many people, the Bible defines how you are supposed to live your life, so the the veracity of the text is important. Here's a satirical example of why small discrepancies matter.

There are several possibilities (none of them palatable):

1. The Bible is the literal, infallible Word of God... in which case obvious discrepancies, apocrypha and historical changes are a problem
2. The Bible was the Word of God, since corrupted and changed by imperfect humans... in which case we don't know which parts are to be followed and which aren't
3. The Old Testament has been corrupted by imperfect humans, but the New Testament is the Word of God... (same problem as above)
4. The Bible does not define my faith... in which case your belief and knowledge of Christianity is based upon what exactly?
5. The Bible is the work of humans inspired by God, and our inner faith determines which parts to follow... in which case you simply believe what you want to believe and ignore the rest
6. The Bible is just another work of Greek literature written by regular people borrowing pieces of history and traditional mythology exactly like other Greek works... (blasphemy!)

There may be other variations, but most of the above could apply equally to any other historical text for any other religion. The only difference is that this is the religion you've learned (those who claim to have found faith after reaching out to God never mention reaching out to Buddha).

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

07/31/2008 04:00:58 PM · #210

Originally posted by Louis:

I didn't know they had insurance back then.... ;-)

I don't know for sure about insurance, but AFAIK the very earliest known written records of any kind concern inventories and taxes -- and where you find taxes you find bankers, lawyers, and probably insurance agents. I suppose that's why (at least in the USA) we strict fundamentalists worship money above all ...

07/31/2008 04:18:44 PM · #211

One more:

1 Corinthians 1
21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe.

the difference here is key - is it the message preached or the act of preaching that is foolishness?

07/31/2008 04:19:08 PM · #212

Originally posted by dahkota:

For me at least, there is a difference between homosexuals and abusers of themselves with men.

I think the latter-day term "homosexual" is supposed to supplant the charmingly archaic "abusers of themselves with men".

07/31/2008 04:24:13 PM · #213

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by dahkota:
For me at least, there is a difference between homosexuals and abusers of themselves with men.

I think the latter-day term "homosexual" is supposed to supplant the charmingly archaic "abusers of themselves with men".

I'll buy that. Except that I wouldn't be a homosexual if I was an abuser of myself with men. I thought the abusers of themselves with mankind was more fitting in a gender neutral/politically correct sort of way. But then you're back to the intent of the original - were they singling out homosexuals or was that added later?

07/31/2008 04:29:18 PM · #214

Originally posted by dahkota:

Someone was pleased enough to point out to me that the bible wasn't written in English. Do I get the same pleasure to point it out to you? Are these differences in translation because they used different texts as their greek base or are they differences in translation because the translators felt the words more closely followed the undisputed greek text?

So far we have two examples (Paul's and Dahkota's) which are not even close to what we're talking about. They are interpretations or translations of what would be accepted as the reliable greek words.

And where's Sam in all this? I'm basically calling out his man Erhman saying he really doesn't have too much to say and he's all silent. I miss him asking me if I watched the video...

Message edited by author 2008-07-31 16:31:35.

07/31/2008 04:33:53 PM · #215

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by dahkota:
For me at least, there is a difference between homosexuals and abusers of themselves with men.

I think the latter-day term "homosexual" is supposed to supplant the charmingly archaic "abusers of themselves with men".

I'll buy that. Except that I wouldn't be a homosexual if I was an abuser of myself with men. I thought the abusers of themselves with mankind was more fitting in a gender neutral/politically correct sort of way. But then you're back to the intent of the original - were they singling out homosexuals or was that added later?

According to wiki, the word "homosexual" didn't appear at all ANYWHERE until 1869 in a German pamphlet, long after the KJV was written. You can't print a word if it hasn't been invented yet...

Message edited by author 2008-07-31 16:34:17.

Sam94720

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/31/2008 04:44:34 PM · #216

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

And where's Sam in all this? I'm basically calling out his man Erhman saying he really doesn't have too much to say and he's all silent. I miss him asking me if I watched the video...

Did you?

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

07/31/2008 04:58:37 PM · #217

Originally posted by dahkota:

I took the liberty of merging all of those interpretations into one passage and came up with this:

9 [Or] do you not know that the unrighteous ( i.e., the wicked ) will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be ( i.e., be not ) deceived: neither the sexually immoral ( i.e., fornicators; male prostitutes ), nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality ( i.e. effeminate; homosexual offenders; sodomites; abusers of themselves with men ( mankind )),

The reason that "effeminate" is included with homosexual practitioners is because the word translated as 'effeminate' is, in the Greek, the word "malakos", which Strong's concordance lists as meaning "a catamite" - a term used to refer to the younger male in a pederastic relationship between two males - hence, it's inclusion in the list equating to homosexual relationships.

The reason that male prostitutes are included with the sexually immoral rather than with homosexual practitioners is because the term male prostitute is not restricted to prostitution with male clients. In the Greek, the word is "pornos", which Strong's lists as meaning male prostitute, or libertine, or fornicator, or whoremonger.

So, while I agree that the choice of words varies ( compliments of the richness of the English language ), I don't see any difference in the meaning of the passage in the various translations.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

07/31/2008 05:04:40 PM · #218

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm basically calling out his man Erhman saying he really doesn't have too much to say and he's all silent. I miss him asking me if I watched the video...

Statements like that are exactly why Sam keeps asking if you've watched the video. The examples Erhman gives are the sorts of differences that matter, so you wouldn't need to ask for examples if you had watched the presentation. Mark 16:9-20 does not exist in the oldest copies of that gospel (they all end at Mark 16:8), yet people have died from snakebite by adhering to faith in the additional verses.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

07/31/2008 05:16:16 PM · #219

Originally posted by dahkota:

Again, let me merge the translations:

21 For since ( i.e., after that ) in the wisdom of God, the world through ( i.e. by ) [its] wisdom did not know ( i.e., knew not ) Him ( i.e., God ), God was pleased ( i.e., it pleased God; God decided ) through ( i.e., by ) the foolishness of what was preached ( i.e., preaching ( in the Greek, it's a noun ); the message preached; our proclamation ), to save those who ( i.e., them that ) believe.

Again, no difference in meaning, that I can detect.

Sam94720

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/31/2008 05:22:16 PM · #220

DrAchoo, we are standing here outside the prison and talking about what we see here. You keep yelling out from behind the window and tell us what you think of what is out here, but you refuse to actually look out the window.

We had several people here in the thread refusing to watch the video because they thought they already knew exactly what it contained. They all turned out to be wrong and one even acknowleged that later.

What are you afraid of? And don't tell me you don't have the time, you have plenty of time to discuss here. I think it's a question of basic decency and respect (both for Ehrman and the other forum participants) to actually watch the video before you criticize it.

Did you watch it?

And by the way: The English translations you are comparing completely miss the point. They were (probably) all translated from a Greek manuscript. The question is where that Greek manuscript came from and how many times it had already been copied, what errors were introduced etc.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

07/31/2008 06:37:18 PM · #221

The Qur'an is a far more reliable a historical religious text than the Bible.

It is "literally" the word of god (as recited by Mohammed) and only valid in the original language in which it was spoken and recorded. The purity of the text has been a central tenet of the religion resulting in substantially no significant differences in any historical version.

In case it is persuasive to anyone for whom logic is insignificant, the Qur'an also frequently asserts its divine origin and infalliblity - far more often and more vigourously than the Bible.

The Qur'an also post-dates the Bible by 650 years. If the Bible can be said, say, to supersede the Torah, then the Qur'an supersedes the Bible.

In summary, if it is of any persuasive relevance that a religious text be accurately recorded, that it supersedes previous texts, and asserts in the strongest terms that it is divinely inspired and infallible, then the Qur'an is the clear winner.

Well - that is except for scientologist texts, which are divinely inspired and being religious texts in the post-printing press era are very reliably recorded and backed up by a full suite of multimedia records, the testimony of the living etc etc etc,

07/31/2008 06:46:21 PM · #222

Originally posted by Sam94720:

And by the way: The English translations you are comparing completely miss the point. They were (probably) all translated from a Greek manuscript. The question is where that Greek manuscript came from and how many times it had already been copied, what errors were introduced etc.

Tell that to Dahkota, because she was making the point, not me. I totally agree with you.

Nope, I still haven't watched the video. If I have internet access next week, I'll have time to sit down and listen. I'm really telling you though, he's not going to say anything earth-shattering. Let me pose it back to you. Have I missed some major point that Erhman makes? Am I having a completely different discussion from him? Please let me know if I am and at least give me a taste of what Erhman has to offer otherwise. That might coax me to watch. ;)

Basically I have been in enough of these arguments on Rant to know when I'm arguing from a position of strength and when I am not. Currently, as long as I don't stray from my main point, I am arguing from strength. A wealth of evidence supports my position. Our current knowledge of the New Testament is very likely to be very accurate to the original. Where differences occur, they are typically small and they are annotated in most modern Bibles. I know there is controversy as to how Mark ends. I know there is controversy as to the story of Jesus and the prostitute ("let him without sin cast the first stone"). It says it right in my Bible. Nobody is trying to hide these things. Despite them, a robust, strong, reliable doctrine can be established based on the greek texts.

Nobody has tried to attack my position head-on. They are all changing what I am arguing or arguing a different point altogether.

Message edited by author 2008-07-31 18:47:05.

07/31/2008 07:03:07 PM · #223

okay, here is one (now that I have more time to look):
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. John 5:7

This was added in the 1500s by Erasmus. (found in Textus Receptus but not in earlier versions)

Previously, there was nothing that specifically mentioned the Trinity. This was such a problem that the council of Nicea met in 325 to end the disagreements over whether there was a trinity (Arian controversy). In fact many then and still do believe that it is not a trinity but rather a Unity (Unitarian, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormon, etc). So, it was about 300 years after Jesus that the Trinity was decided and it was an additional 1500 years before it was added to the bible. It has been subsequently removed due to the fact that it is a known alteration of the original text. However, because a group of Priests got together in the middle ages, we now have the trinitarian belief in most of Christianity.
******
Additionally it was decided that Easter (and hence the resurrection) should occur on a Sunday. this is impossible as the day should change every year but the council of Nicea decided they wanted to separate the resurrection from the Jewish Passover. There are some christian faiths, if I remember correctly - Russian Orthodox, which do not have Easter on the same day. So when did Jesus rise? that is another point of contention as it is not yet settled on when he died because the gospels don't point out the same date for the last supper.

These are just a couple of points made by Ehrman...

Sam94720

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/31/2008 07:08:13 PM · #224

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Tell that to Dahkota, because she was making the point, not me.

It was meant for her and

RonB. I should have made that clearer.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Nope, I still haven't watched the video. If I have internet access next week, I'll have time to sit down and listen.

I'm sorry, my bad. I wasn't aware of the fact that you don't have Internet access at the moment.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm really telling you though, he's not going to say anything earth-shattering.

Of course, no need to look out the window, you already know there's nothing interesting out there. Then what's the danger in risking a peek?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Let me pose it back to you. Have I missed some major point that Erhman makes?

Yes. For instance, you keep asking for examples that he actually provides in the video.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Our current knowledge of the New Testament is very likely to be very accurate to the original. Where differences occur, they are typically small and they are annotated in most modern Bibles.

Again, you ignore some of my previous posts. For example the one with the dog/frog example:

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Someone writes a text: "Peter had a dog." Someone then copies it, but makes a mistake and writes "Peter had a frog.". Someone reads this and thinks "Peter was rich, he must have had more than one frog!", so he changes it to "Peter had many frogs." in his copy. If this copy is now copied a hundred times and some of these copies say "Peter had many frogs." while others say "Peter had a lot of frogs.", you could say that they all agree 100% in terms of content. Still, they are different from the original sentence about the dog, which is no longer accessible. That's the basic phenomenon.

The difference between "[...] a lot of frogs" and "[...] many frogs" may be in your footnote. Maybe even the difference to "[...] a frog.". However, since nobody knows about the original sentence with the dog, you cannot claim that the frog version is closer to the original than ever.