|
Post by Satori on Sept 1, 2004 2:35:15 GMT -5
except they have the greek and hebrew versions of the bible which have been writen and rewriten many times until that gutenburg guy inveted that printing press maybe you should research the process these monks went through to make copys of the bible, very impressive It was very impressive, but it was still imperfect and a lot was lost in translation. That's why philologists spend so much time researching this stuff and trying to sort it out. It's all part of the discovery process - as our understanding of language improves so does our ability to make accurate translations. That's a good thing isn't it? Don't we want to increase our understanding of these things? Well certain parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls matched what they already knew, but other areas differed quite significantly. If the 'Teacher of Righteousness' mentioned in the scrolls is Christ, then it is the best evidence for the existence of Christ that we have, but it is also certain that he was only a 'mere mortal'. That would be handy, but as we can't do that we just need to keep researching and investigating in the best way we can. That is how we learn. Surely that's better than just following the religious dogma promoted by the church who have just shaped religion to suit their own political ends over the years?
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Sept 1, 2004 19:12:59 GMT -5
true dat - there's no denying the fact that the Bible's meanings HAVE changed over time, and to claim otherwise is extremely simplistic and ignorant.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Sept 2, 2004 3:34:23 GMT -5
true dat - there's no denying the fact that the Bible's meanings HAVE changed over time, and to claim otherwise is extremely simplistic and ignorant. Yes, it happens and unfortunately it can lead to different interpretations of things. For example, Luke 11:41 says: But give for alms those things which are within; and behold, everything is clean for you... and the corresponding verse in Mathew 23:26 says: You blind Pharisee! first cleanse the inside of the cup and of the plate, that the outside also may be clean.So one is telling us to make charitable donations and the other is telling us to cleanse. The etymology demonstrates how easy it can be to mistranslate as the Aramaic for 'giving alms' is zakkau and the Aramaic for 'cleanse' is dakkau. If one can imagine this sort of mistake happening as it's translated to many languages over 2000 years, and couple that with the deliberate changes that will have been made to satisfy a particular audience, then one is left with something that needs to be greatly untangled. Does this mean the Bible's rubbish? No, of course not - it just means that we have to be aware of how things can be easily misconstrued as we try to interpret them. In terms of what Jesus said, the Gospels are fairly consistent; it's in terms of what Jesus did (where, when and how) that they differ. The general scholarly opinion here is that the Gospels began life just as a list of Jesus' sayings, and the story of how he delivered those sayings was given some poetic license by each of the Gospel writers.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Sept 2, 2004 20:28:25 GMT -5
I am not sure what point you are making because these are 2 different things that jesus said during his life, these are not the same instance
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Sept 2, 2004 21:37:20 GMT -5
I am not sure what point you are making because these are 2 different things that jesus said during his life, these are not the same instance Well it seems pretty obvious to me that these are both reports of the same parable. If you can't see that then I guess you can't. Taken in the context of the versus around those I mentioned, I'd say it was fairly obvious. From Luke 11: (39) And the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of extortion and wickedness. (40) You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also? (41) But give for alms those things which are within; and behold, everything is clean for you. (42) "But woe to you Pharisees! for you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
From Mathew 23: (23) "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. (24) You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! (25) "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of extortion and rapacity. (26) You blind Pharisee! first cleanse the inside of the cup and of the plate, that the outside also may be clean. (27) "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. (28) So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
The places and locations of various sermons in the Bible differ throughout the Gospels, as do descriptions of a lot of the situations where key Christian events took place (birth, crucifiction, resurrection etc.). That's perfectly understandable as it is unlikely that they were written exactly when Christ said what he did. It is the preaching of Christ that was probably best remembered and the rest was woven into a story either as it was passed on to the Gospel writer or as a product of some poetic license. However, what I was trying to point out was how easy it is to lose something in translation and that's neither a pro-Christian nor an anti-Christian stance; it's simply the way things are when it comes to translating ancient texts. I have no vested interest in this in any particular way - I am just keen to find out more about it. I don't believe that Christ was the Son of God and it isn't important to me even whether or not God exists, but I do believe Jesus was a very enlightened individual whose original message was a virtuous one. I also happen to believe that the message we've been getting from the NT may not be the whole story. I think it's an interesting pastime to pursue the roots of it. Most church scholars find it interesting too. Quite why the Christian layman often objects to this sort of searching is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Sept 3, 2004 0:26:06 GMT -5
Yeah I was looking at the things surrounding these passages. Either they are different events or Matthew places them in a different order then Luke. However after i replyed I looked at some other verses and compaired them. The verses are come from Matthew 19 and Luke 18. From reading it, it is clear that it is the same conversation. There is very slight differences. Matthew quotes Jesus saying "Why do you ask me about what is good?" while Luke has him saying "Why do you call me good?" I guess its possible Jesus said both lines and Matthew and Luke only record what they remember. I asked my roommate about that who had New Testament Survey a few years ago and he said something about them not quoting Jesus directly but trying to right down the general idea of what he said. I really was not satisfied with that answer. What I do find interesting is that in my NIV the heading at the top is different. Just like in the verse you quoted the headings are "7 Woes" and "6 Woes" The one I quote has "Rich Young Man" and "The Rich Ruler." Maybe these really are different situations but I sure get the feeling that the translators were trying to hide something here. There are a lot of theorys about the synoptic gospels and that the book of Mark was written first and Matthew, Luke, and John used his to write their books. Im not sure about it all but thats why i am at a Bible college. And I guess thats why Christians need faith.
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Sept 3, 2004 8:10:33 GMT -5
OK lets get something straight Luke 11:41 and Matthew 23:26 are NOT corresponding passages. They are seperate! Luke 11:41 has no corresponding passage at all. That story only exists in the Gospel according to Luke. In Luke, Jesus is having lunch with a pharisee who is surpised that he had not ceremonially washed before the meal. In Matthew 23, Jesus is speaking to the multitudes and to his disciples about the pharisees. The corresponding passage for Matthew 23 can be found in Mark 12 and Luke 20. Therefore, these are two seperate events, and therefore, your points are absolutely worthless.
P.S. By the way, did I mention that the New Testament was written in Greek, and so your skill with Aramaic, Satori, matters not.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Sept 3, 2004 19:14:13 GMT -5
OK lets get something straight Luke 11:41 and Matthew 23:26 are NOT corresponding passages. They are seperate! Luke 11:41 has no corresponding passage at all. That story only exists in the Gospel according to Luke. In Luke, Jesus is having lunch with a pharisee who is surpised that he had not ceremonially washed before the meal. In Matthew 23, Jesus is speaking to the multitudes and to his disciples about the pharisees. The corresponding passage for Matthew 23 can be found in Mark 12 and Luke 20. Therefore, these are two seperate events, and therefore, Sorry but I couldn't disagree more. You are mixing up what Jesus did with what Jesus said. It is clear to anyone of reasonable intelligence who reads them that both passages relate to the same parable as told by Jesus. We wouldn't expect the locations and specifics of what Jesus was doing and who he was talking to to match between Mathew and Luke because: (a) It is likely that it was only Jesus' sayings that were originally recorded (and I'm going on popular scholarly opinion here), and that these sayings were woven into stories that may be part truth and part fiction when they were presented in 'formal' editions of the NT. (b) The Gospels were written sometime after Jesus' life and were then embelleshed to by others. One wouldn't expect an exact memory of where various parables took place due to the point mentioned in (a) above. Well you're entitled to an opinion, even if it is the wrong one. I'm perfectly aware that the NT was written in Greek, but Jesus was not Greek and what's in the NT would have been passed down from something of Aramaic origin (either written or verbal). However, my original point here (which seems to be lost now) was about how easy it is to lose something in translation, and that this provides a challenge for anyone interested in Biblical studies (Christian or not). If I was trying to make a point about the inconsistency of the Gospels I could have chosen dozens of other more appropriate examples.
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Oct 5, 2005 15:44:30 GMT -5
Sorry but I couldn't disagree more. You are mixing up what Jesus did with what Jesus said. It is clear to anyone of reasonable intelligence who reads them that both passages relate to the same parable as told by Jesus. We wouldn't expect the locations and specifics of what Jesus was doing and who he was talking to to match between Mathew and Luke because: (a) It is likely that it was only Jesus' sayings that were originally recorded (and I'm going on popular scholarly opinion here), and that these sayings were woven into stories that may be part truth and part fiction when they were presented in 'formal' editions of the NT. (b) The Gospels were written sometime after Jesus' life and were then embelleshed to by others. One wouldn't expect an exact memory of where various parables took place due to the point mentioned in (a) above. Since I am hoping that these message boards will be alive again, I went through a few old posts and found that I never responded to this post. First off, Satori, it is not clear how those two passages are the same since, as I stated, what is found in Matt. 23 is found in Luke 20. Luke 11 is a different event. The problem lies in your contention that the "Q" document exists (a view that has absolutely no historical documentation to back it up, only very contrived theories), and that the gospel writers were unfaithful in their accounts. You assume they embellished. Why? Rather than give the writers the benefit of the doubt, you choose to reject solely because you disagree with the inevitable conclusion. Lastly, let me say that I do expect the gospel authors to remember where the parables took place. How bad do you think people's memories are? I recall where I was when 9/11 happened. Other people recall where they were when JFK was shot. When people write about their days on the road with some famous person, they don't seem to have terrible trouble remembering where they were. You are forced to assume that the stories are embellished because you hate what they make a person conclude. This is actually in dispute, I hope you realize. It is likely that Christ did speek in Greek actually, since Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman world, rather than Aramaic, as was previously thought.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Oct 28, 2005 23:18:34 GMT -5
I am pretty sure most people agree that Jesus was trilingual-speaking Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Almost all people at this time spoke Greek because Alexander the Great had just come through with Hellenism. Satori, are you saying the authors of the New Testament said things that were false?
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Nov 10, 2005 11:25:57 GMT -5
I'm not sure if anyone still reads this...but I'm looking for some authors who write books disproving the existence of God. Any suggestions?
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Nov 21, 2005 17:49:42 GMT -5
Hi, everyone! It's sure been a while since I've visited the old mindset boards! Let's keep them alive! The problem lies in your contention that the "Q" document exists (a view that has absolutely no historical documentation to back it up, only very contrived theories), and that the gospel writers were unfaithful in their accounts. You assume they embellished. Why? Rather than give the writers the benefit of the doubt, you choose to reject solely because you disagree with the inevitable conclusion. Well, obviously, since the gospels weren't written until about 30 years after Jesus' death, one would not expect them to be perfectly accurate or consistent. Memory is subject to decay over time. Lastly, let me say that I do expect the gospel authors to remember where the parables took place. How bad do you think people's memories are? ... You are forced to assume that the stories are embellished because you hate what they make a person conclude. Actually, human memory is a much more malleable thing than most people realise. There have been some really interesting experiments in cognitive psychology on common memory biases, even concerning recent events. And when you consider the huge gap of time between the actual events in the gospels and the time at which they were written, fuzzy and inaccurate recall of events is inevitable.
|
|