Outraged Muslims....OH MY!!!!!

[TwistedCU]

Very astute. And probably true for many more militant folks...but try not to lump all secularists as such, and I'll spread the word that not all Christians are hypocrites! See? We CAN all get along.

All of my posts in this thread are to dispel "lumping" :lol: , and that was really more to make my point by comparison, nothing more.

As for my asking if you want to go into it - no, no intention of arguement. Not what I meant at all. I just know that it could draw out lengthy discussion, and much of my arguement would be based on what I believe and what is written in the Bible. This may not be worth persuing if you hold no stock in either. That's why I wrote that, not drawing a line in the sand. Sorry I assumed you would have seen that, my bad.

I'm assuming that you have no interest in references to scripture?

I believe that every word in the original writing of the Holy Scriptures is inspired of God and without error (Mat. 5:18; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21).

These scriptures are what we read today. Not much more I can add. I guess I could do some searching to prove they are intact, but they were kept by the... gasp... catholic church :shock: urple:

 

[Sparky-Watts]

Main Entry: Cath·o·lic
Pronunciation: 'kath-lik, 'ka-th&-
Function: noun
1 : a person who belongs to the universal Christian church
2 : a member of a Catholic church; especially : ROMAN CATHOLIC

So.....Catholics are Christians.......(emphasis mine)

 

[mingez]

That's why I wrote that, not drawing a line in the sand. Sorry I assumed you would have seen that, my bad.

Ah see? More internet misunderstandings. I should have known...the bad was mine.

I'm assuming that you have no interest in references to scripture?

Well, I'll hear it, but my problem with scripture is that it's been translated several times over across several languages, cultures, dialects, etc.

Even English versions of the bible depending on age have been skewed to "Translate" old English dictation. Imagine Aramaic being filtered through Latin, Greek, Arabic, Turkish, Assyrian, Thracian, Macedonian(Greek), Italian, Spanish, German, etc etc. There is know way you can accurately translate such verbiage. Keep in mind...each and everyone of those languages have dialects within each region. To make matters worse, ancient people had exponentially less mass communication available to them. So, ideas spread by very fallible means.

Heck, much is lost in translation when I post responses to Ants and Craig...crazy Canucks. "Cencored" for example ...LOL JK Ants! I love ya! :lol: :lol:

 

[jay79cj7]

oops

 

[jay79cj7]

"However, I will say that to suggest that Catholics aren't Christians is ludicrous."

Thanks Mingez. I'm Catholic and I was pretty darn sure that the guy nailed to that cross at church was Jesus!

 

[TwistedCU]

my problem with scripture is that it's been translated several times over across several languages, cultures, dialects, etc.

Even English versions of the bible depending on age have been skewed to "Translate" old English dictation. Imagine Aramaic being filtered through Latin, Greek, Arabic, Turkish, Assyrian, Thracian, Macedonian(Greek), Italian, Spanish, German, etc etc. There is know way you can accurately translate such verbiage. Keep in mind...each and everyone of those languages have dialects within each region. To make matters worse, ancient people had exponentially less mass communication available to them. So, ideas spread by very fallible means.

The original books of the gospel are in the possession of the Vatican and translations can be drawn from them.

 

[Sparky-Watts]

The original books of the gospel are in the possession of the Vatican and translations can be drawn from them.

Unfortunately, there are many words, phrases, and passages for which there is no direct (or even close) translation, so the original idea is "lost in translation". I studied under a professor who spoke both Greek and Hebrew, and he often could not translate what he was reading in a way that we as a class could understand the whole meaning.







Unfortunately, at this time of morning, with less than an ample dosage of coffee, nothing I have written can be translated by my eyes to my brain to make any sense, so please forgive me if the above paragraph makes no sense or has no bearing on this discussion.

 

[TwistedCU]

Unfortunately, there are many words, phrases, and passages for which there is no direct (or even close) translation, so the original idea is "lost in translation". I studied under a professor who spoke both Greek and Hebrew, and he often could not translate what he was reading in a way that we as a class could understand the whole meaning.

The books of the new testament were put into written form in Latin approx. 150 A.D. The Jewish Canon (what Christians refer to as the Old Testament) was written in it's present form (Hebrew) around 70 A.D.

These are relatively short time periods after Christ. I have heard from people and read claims of there being gaps in translation due to various reasons, but none are known to exist. Latin and Hebrew are both very easily translated to English. There may be some words that do not have exact matches, but the teachings, parables, etc. all have been conveyed in English. This accuracy of truth is a foundation that Christianity stands on.

 

[Sparky-Watts]

The books of the new testament were put into written form in Latin approx. 150 A.D. The Jewish Canon (what Christians refer to as the Old Testament) was written in it's present form (Hebrew) around 70 A.D.

These are relatively short time periods after Christ. I have heard from people and read claims of there being gaps in translation due to various reasons, but none are known to exist. Latin and Hebrew are both very easily translated to English. There may be some words that do not have exact matches, but the teachings, parables, etc. all have been conveyed in English. This accuracy of truth is a foundation that Christianity stands on.

Agreed, however, the stories of the Old Testament have been passed down largely by word of mouth and translated through several languages prior to being written as The Bible (as we know it). Also, Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic, not Latin, and there are known phrases and words that cannot be accurately translated from Aramaic to Latin or English, although the general ideas are believe to be relatively accurate. And, I believe you will agree, the main idea of Jesus teachings is very, very well understood when he says that "no man shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven except through me." Right?

 

[TwistedCU]

Agreed, however, the stories of the Old Testament have been passed down largely by word of mouth and translated through several languages prior to being written as The Bible (as we know it). Also, Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic, not Latin, and there are known phrases and words that cannot be accurately translated from Aramaic to Latin or English, although the general ideas are believe to be relatively accurate. And, I believe you will agree, the main idea of Jesus teachings is very, very well understood when he says that "no man shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven except through me." Right?

In the 4th century (approx 350 A.D.) they were compiled together as the Bible. The New testament was already in Latin, and the Hebrew Canon was translated into Latin at that time. The original Bible was and is still preserved by the Roman Catholic Church and has not been altered. The finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls supports the documents to be authentic and unaltered. The Scrolls are the only known Biblical documents that date prior to 100 A.D.

So... The New Testament portion of the Bible was written by several authors between 40 AD to 95 AD (approx.)

The oldest (earliest) copy of a portion of the New Testament is dated 130 AD. That's less than 50 years after the original writing. It is a copy of John's Gospel, written about 85 AD.

Other copies date back to 150 AD, 200 AD, 350 AD, and 400 AD. All within 100 to 300 years from the original.

What I am trying to show here is that there were not such largs gaps in time as it is commonly believed. As for trying to translate Aramaic into Latin, that task would, of course, be more difficult today than in that era. Obviously someone being fluent in both isn't possible today. This was not the case back when the languages were common.

The accuracy of the Bible has been challenged and defended by historians and scholars with a much greater knowledge of the history and linguistics of that era than any of us on this board has. Thus far the evidence of accuracy as opposed to "bastar*ization" as Mingez put it is strong.

 

[mud4feet]

OK, I'm chiming in and figuring I'll regret it, but here goes. TC, the earliest reference you quote to the "writing" of the Bible is 40 AD.........that's 40 years after the witnessing of the life of Christ. That's a LONG time!!!! I can't even imagine witnessing what those folks witnessed and not have a pen and paper (or computer!!:lol: ) to put down what I heard/saw/lived. Not really arguing with you, but Mingez does have a point about the bast**dization of the TRUE word. Unfortunately, we're all humans and subject to all our own biases......and we struggle daily to find the real TRUTH (I know I do). We have great discussions on these matters in our church (are you familiar with the "Disciple Study"?). I have a New English Version Bible and I have to tell you, I can read it very easily, but of course, lots of things raise questions (as I know they do in the King James and every other version). The main thing is that they DO raise questions and we are all seeking!! That is a very good thing! Not really sure of the point I'm trying to make, but I'm enjoying reading this thread...........good to know that people are wondering!!

Keep the faith,
mud

 

[TwistedCU]

Good grief! First we doubt the accuracy of translation, and now doubt the original works' accuracy too?

Inspired by God, Written by Man. Ring a bell??? I can't believe that Christians would refer to the word of God as anything other than perfect. I'm not judging you, or anything like that. No offense meant. I am just truly shocked.

How, might I ask, would you believe anything in the Bible if you think it is flawed? What I mean is I would have a hard time believing any of it if I thought there were flaws. How easy it would be to justify to yourself actions that go against what is taught in the Bible.

Example: "Well, I am sure that isn't what he meant... that must have been distorted over time. There's really nothing wrong with that."

You get the idea.

You see, when I wrote earlier that the accuracy of the bible is a foundation that we stand on it was an understatement. How can we have faith without the reassurance of absolute truth? The above example shows clearly how a lack of faith would deteriorate Christian beliefs.

Well I have tried to show my point via time periods, but what I really want to convey is what I began this part of the thread with:

Every word in the Holy Scriptures is inspired of God and without error. It is therefore the final standard of faith and practice for the believer in Jesus Christ and for His Church.

This is what I know. I can not convince you to believe it, you would have to do so on faith and trust in the Lord. You can not convince me to not believe it as I do so under the conditions just mentioned.

 

[Sparky-Watts]

TC, I'm not doubting the truth of the Bible at all. I believe it to be the word of God and the word of Jesus, and the ultimate handbook for life. All I was saying was that some of the original words and phrases had meanings that cannot be conveyed quite as accurately as they were originally written. The phrases for which direct translation are not accurate do not alter the truth and the reality of the Bible in any way. I'm not suggesting at all that God meant one thing and we take it another way, that would be blasphemy, and that's one sin I won't commit (I'm not perfect, and sin daily).

Does that make what I'm saying more clear? I'm not disagreeing with your idea that the Bible is the truth, only that some of the translations are not accurate, but that they do not alter the truth in any way.

 

[Sparky-Watts]

BTW, thanks for the history lesson on the Bible in your previous post! Very interesting, indeed!! I always enjoy learning more of the history of the Bible from folks who know more about it than I do (which isn't as much as I should know).

 

[TwistedCU]

BTW, thanks for the history lesson on the Bible in your previous post! Very interesting, indeed!! I always enjoy learning more of the history of the Bible from folks who know more about it than I do (which isn't as much as I should know).

Actually, I have learned a good bit about the history through an ongoing discussion between myself and a Catholic co-worker and friend. We have had some really in-depth discussions about what he calls Protestant and Catholic tradition and history. Amazingly enough they have not gotten spirited - yet urple:

 

[dekies]

Dekies,

I agree with alot of what you said and fully understand where you are coming from,

BUT

Although I, too, am not comfortable with some Catholic beliefs, I can not and would not in any way say they are not Christians. I know many Catholics. Some of which I would find it very easy to question their faith if it were my place to do so, just as I could with members of my own church - or most likely any church for that matter. I do, however, have a co-worker who is a Catholic. He, no doubt in my mind, has a strong relationship with Christ. Jesus taught against focusing on tradition and "religion". He made a point that it is easy to have a heart of sin and follow traditions and laws. Throughout the new testament he makes reference to the heart being the true target for judgement. He will judge us all the same no matter what traditions we practice. Although you (as do I) do not agree with Catholisicm, there is no doubt in my mind that there are Catholics going to heaven one day and there are Catholics who are not as fortunate. One thing I have been unfortunate enough to be a witness to is that hypocrites can be found almost everywhere. In Churches and out.

I feel that judging the Catholic church in the way you could be viewed as akin to how many secularists consider all Christians hypocrites. It is neither fair nor true.

twisted, I have several friends who used to be catholic, and some who still are and yes the discussion gets interesting. By your comments it appears by my saying that catholics do not fall under the title of Christian (in general) I have predetermined their place??? I apologize if it came across that way. The intent was to get back to the core of what a Christian is, based upon its initial use, not what it has come to mean. Do I beleive catholisicm teach doctrines that are contrary to what Christ taught, yes. Do I believe individuals in that “church” can "seek" for themselves and find truth? Yes. I have the privilege to know several. Do I believe they will remain in that “church”, No. It is not an easy thing; I say this from personal experience. This is as probably as far as I’ll go with this (judging the Catholic church) in open forum. We can email to discuss farther if you desire.

I agree with most of your comments. Judging is a difficult topic, the NT is pretty specific on the how and what and most importantly what not to judge. My guess is we probably agree in the judging issues and how the NT applies it? My view is all are probably hypocrites to some degree. Most just aren't honest with themselves, which is the most important element.

Bible history can become a pretty fierce discussion, and most of the time fruitless. I'm sure I would come across as ignorant on this one as well, but one does not have to rely soley on a "translation" if he/she wishes not do.

mingez, you and I are not going to get there, on the Christian specifics.

But again, I'm open to either of you "Proving" to me that Christian teachings are exactly practiced as they were during the time of Christ. Show me... you can change my mind with sufficient proof.

I go back to a previous post, if you believe Christ came and imparted his teachings, then “seek”. If you do not believe this, even if Christ was you next-door neighbor it wouldn’t make a bit of difference. My belief on this revolves around the definition of a Christian, someone can talk about his teachings (which there has been very little, if any in this topic), but it also needs to be shown. Difficult for me, not so difficult it you come across a Christian in your locale.

Did anybody else find his statement here intresting?