Faith and belief + BKB babbling about free will (Split from "Mormon Church" thread)

[muffler dragon]

Best-selling Bible to undergo revision - Yahoo! News

Oh well we don't like what god originally said so we're changing it again.

In what direction do you mean this exactly? The changes discussed in your linked article have very little to do with manuscript revisions. It's more a matter of becoming PC.

Now, if you want to discuss the legitimacy of the NIV as a whole when it comes to how things are portrayed from the original Hebrew in the "Old" Testament; then I'll try to refresh or at least find the proper source material. The NIV is better than the KJV in that regard, but still not "right on".

FWIW, I think publishers should have the right to make any cosmetic changes that they want.

Pfft..another reason for one to be skeptical about religion.

Once again, I'm not quite sure what direction you're taking with this, but even as a former-Christian, I find this statement to be way off the mark with regard to Christianity.

As far as religions as a whole, I follow a more Judaic doctrine; and I will say that it is one of the most organic belief structures I've ever known. Changes can and do get made. This doesn't diminish the ability of that religion, but instead, shows that G-d doesn't make something that's plastic and inflexible.

Different perspectives.

 

[Gatorubet]

I'll give you my summary (from some time ago in a galaxy far, far away...)

KJV: rubbish.

While certainly parts of the translation are not as accurate as newer Bibles, which only makes sense due to the greater degree of knowledge and more ancient textual sources available now than 400-500 years ago, the KJV does have a beautiful, lyrical, almost poetic quality about it. It's language in many passages provides a message that is not merely literal factual content, but the eloquent language used gives an added almost spiritual dimension in many instances.

If the purely factual content of Churchill's "finest hour speech" were a Biblical passage from two thousand years ago, a different but totally accurate way to say it would be:

"Hitler knows that he must win. If we successfully resist, then Europe and the world may be free and things better off in the future. But if we lose, then the whole world and the United States and our friends and family will fall to the German forces"

But it might be translated like this:

"Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. "

So even if the first version were found to be the most accurate literal translation, the spirit and essence of the passage would be, IMO, better represented by the latter version, even if it was taking some artistic license in the use of phraseology.

In a similar way, the KJV has a certain gift of poetry that is superior in some ways than the new stark, blunt and non-poetic translations.

I, of course, do not mean that an acutal incorrectly translated version, no matter how beautiful, should win out over an accurate one. But a more articulate and less literal (in the sense of "all night it snowed" is about the same "while they slept that night the silent snowflakes covered the land in white", but may not convey the better essence of the thing as well) is not junk because it takes a grander than lessor linguistic approach. The "majesty" of the word of God is a part of it I guess, and I would hope that God could reach us in a manner that was more than mere rigid, sterile translations from human Babblefish computers, one that is more than something technically correct but spiritually bankrupt.

 

[muffler dragon]

While certainly parts of the translation are not as accurate as newer Bibles, which only makes sense due to the greater degree of knowledge and more ancient textual sources available now than 400-500 years ago, the KJV does have a beautiful, lyrical, almost poetic quality about it. It's language in many passages provides a message that is not merely literal factual content, but the eloquent language used gives an added almost spiritual dimension in many instances.

By reading the above paragraph, I realize that I should have qualified my statements when I placed judgments upon the different translations and versions. I was judging them according to their doctrinal substance and how they are used/not used in defense of the Christian theology. I was not indicting them upon presentation or anything else. I'm sorry that I didn't specify before.

You are correct. The KJV was a pleasant read for me. I found that it flowed quite well. As for the spiritual effervescence (first word that popped in my mind), I will simply leave this as subjective and highly personal. There was one word in a passage in the Gospels in the KJV that I still remember today. It was "unperfect". I don't recall the passage, but I recall just how much of a difference it made in my particular understanding at the time.

So even if the first version were found to be the most accurate literal translation, the spirit and essence of the passage would be, IMO, better represented by the latter version, even if it was taking some artistic license in the use of phraseology.

In a similar way, the KJV has a certain gift of poetry that is superior in some ways than the new stark, blunt and non-poetic translations.

I, of course, do not mean that an acutal incorrectly translated version, no matter how beautiful, should win out over an accurate one. But a more articulate and less literal (in the sense of "all night it snowed" is about the same "while they slept that night the silent snowflakes covered the land in white", but may not convey the better essence of the thing as well) is not junk because it takes a grander than lessor linguistic approach. The "majesty" of the word of God is a part of it I guess, and I would hope that God could reach us in a manner that was more than mere rigid, sterile translations from human Babblefish computers, one that is more than something technically correct but spiritually bankrupt.

Very well said, and I understand completely what you mean.

FWIW, part of my "disagreement" with the KJV comes from the moronic KJV-only crowd. They've forever left their imprint on my subsequent judgment; however, you have reminded me of some very simple facts and I'll keep them in mind before I make such an "off the cuff" statement again.

 

[scarletandgrey]

In what direction do you mean this exactly? The changes discussed in your linked article have very little to do with manuscript revisions. It's more a matter of becoming PC.

Now, if you want to discuss the legitimacy of the NIV as a whole when it comes to how things are portrayed from the original Hebrew in the "Old" Testament; then I'll try to refresh or at least find the proper source material. The NIV is better than the KJV in that regard, but still not "right on".

FWIW, I think publishers should have the right to make any cosmetic changes that they want.



Once again, I'm not quite sure what direction you're taking with this, but even as a former-Christian, I find this statement to be way off the mark with regard to Christianity.

As far as religions as a whole, I follow a more Judaic doctrine; and I will say that it is one of the most organic belief structures I've ever known. Changes can and do get made. This doesn't diminish the ability of that religion, but instead, shows that G-d doesn't make something that's plastic and inflexible.

Different perspectives.

Sorry to just getting back to you on this.

I understand my post was some what vague. In a nutshell I'm merely saying it's very hard for some to believe in a religion that has a "Guide Book" that has been changed dramatically over a long period of time. I do understand that this small revision was mainly to make the text more PC, but this is just one of many changes that have been made over a period of 2000 years.

Over a period of time many stories have been altered or removed altogether to benefit society. Some branches of the religion refute parts of the bible as a whole while other branches embrace them. I do however believe the ideology of Christianity is still there. But find that most don't follow it anyways.

Who is right and who is wrong? I guess that's why it's called faith. I personally find it very hard to have faith in any religion.

 

[muffler dragon]

Sorry to just getting back to you on this.

No worries.

I understand my post was some what vague. In a nutshell I'm merely saying it's very hard for some to believe in a religion that has a "Guide Book" that has been changed dramatically over a long period of time. I do understand that this small revision was mainly to make the text more PC, but this is just one of many changes that have been made over a period of 2000 years.

Indeed, it's just one of many reasons that some do not believe in a/any religion or a/any deity. Just a matter of personal perspective.

Over a period of time many stories have been altered or removed altogether to benefit society. Some branches of the religion refute parts of the bible as a whole while other branches embrace them. I do however believe the ideology of Christianity is still there. But find that most don't follow it anyways.

Quite a boatload of discussion topics within that one.

Ultimately, I agree with your premise regarding contradictions, not in agreement regarding Christian theology, and am apathetic with regard to adherence.

Who is right and who is wrong? I guess that's why it's called faith. I personally find it very hard to have faith in any religion.

For me, personally, my faith has moved beyond right or wrong. I'm only concerned with my immediate concentric circle. As far as I'm concerned, others can believe as they see fit and it doesn't bother me. That's NOT something I could have said a decade ago.

 

[scarletandgrey]

As far as I'm concerned, others can believe as they see fit and it doesn't bother me. That's NOT something I could have said a decade ago.

Others can believe what they want, It's not my job to tell someone what is right and wrong or try to convert them to my beliefs. Hmmm...only if religion would take this stand point.

I find most annoying the people that believe they can "Help/Save you" by preaching you their religion. I find that most of the new people to a religion seem to be the worst.

 

[muffler dragon]

Others can believe what they want, It's not my job to tell someone what is right and wrong or try to convert them to my beliefs. Hmmm...only if religion would take this stand point.

I know of a few...

I find most annoying the people that believe they can "Help/Save you" by preaching you their religion. I find that most of the new people to a religion seem to be the worst.

Indeed. OCBW had a horrible experience with a relative who was a n00b in Christ. The problem with evangelistic and soteriological considerations are that they often don't take into account the other's actual perspective. It's very one-sided in that regard, and that immediately causes issues.

 

[scarletandgrey]

I know of a few...



Indeed. OCBW had a horrible experience with a relative who was a n00b in Christ. The problem with evangelistic and soteriological considerations are that they often don't take into account the other's actual perspective. It's very one-sided in that regard, and that immediately causes issues.

Sucks to be him...or should I say "God bless him"

 

[Taosman]

"As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities." Voltaire

 

[jwinslow]

"As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities." Voltaire

You stay classy, san diego.

 

[Taosman]

You stay classy, san diego.

Well. It's good to know you would be accepting of those who believe different than you. :tongue2:

 

[jwinslow]

Well. It's good to know you would be accepting of those who believe different than you. :tongue2:

If your idea of acceptance means ridiculing people for their absurd beliefs, then I want no part of that.

 

[Deety]

"As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities." Voltaire

You stay classy, san diego.

Well. It's good to know you would be accepting of those who believe different than you. :tongue2:

Foul on the play.

Taos, by inference, calls people who don't agree with him absurd and prone to committing atrocities.

Jwins calls Taos san diego.

Verdict: Taos is the one showing a lack of acceptance of those with different beliefs. Jwins is merely geographically and capitalizationally challenged. :p

 

[Taosman]

I bow to your exceptional geographic knowledge!
Drinks are on me!

 

[jwinslow]

I bow to your exceptional geographic knowledge!
Drinks are on me!

Enough to believe absurdities and commit atrocities?