Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Sigh. Siiiiigh. Once again an example of Chick taking things out of context and incorrectly.So now his attacks are against many differen't types of Christians and types of Bibles. Maybe he should make his own Bible.
Why do you call his comparative analysis an attack? Is exposing the truth of something an attack?
Originally posted by debbiejo
I tried to do the same, but it all comes from Latin, which they say is from the originals.......and when I did research that, I found there were not originals,..........the Greek is translated from the Latin......which means there is no original Greek,. and the Hebrew is just the same............I did check it al out............wouldn't put my soul on the line for nothing ya know amongst with other studies...............WHERE IS THE VATICAN WITH THESE ORIGINAL WRITINGS??..............NOT DISPLAYED EVER...YOU KNOW WHY? THERE IS NONE!
From my understanding the oldest surviving complete manuscript is a latin vulgate. We do however have myriad other texts that, while not complete, do give us another view on how to translate the bible. Many scholarly bibles actually give multiple translations in footnotes or point out differences between various ancient manuscripts.
I found an article that says that the oldest surviving New Testament manuscript fragment is a piece of the Gospel of John from about 125 AD. Check here to read the full article.
Heck, even the dead sea scrolls give a more ancient picture than any latin vulgate. They are dated between 400 BC and 200 AD and contain several complete copies of Isaiah. There are lots of Hebrew texts and Greek texts that predate the Vulgate, they just don't exist as a "bible", but rather as separate texts.
There's plenty of info out there for modern translators to work on, but just for day to day use I prefer the KJV.
Originally posted by debbiejo
I tried to do the same, but it all comes from Latin, which they say is from the originals.......and when I did research that, I found there were not originals,..........the Greek is translated from the Latin......which means there is no original Greek,. and the Hebrew is just the same............I did check it al out............wouldn't put my soul on the line for nothing ya know amongst with other studies...............WHERE IS THE VATICAN WITH THESE ORIGINAL WRITINGS??..............NOT DISPLAYED EVER...YOU KNOW WHY? THERE IS NONE!
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Why do you call his comparative analysis an attack? Is exposing the truth of something an attack?
Because if a person were to read it and just accept it they would be far from getting the whole picture. It presents a flawed image of the whole, taken out of conexts and failing to address why this form of the Bible was approached as such.
Basically like all Chick works - light on actual information, heavy on situational material chosen to get his point across (pretty much always wrong.)
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Because if a person were to read it and just accept it they would be far from getting the whole picture. It presents a flawed image of the whole, taken out of conexts and failing to address why this form of the Bible was approached as such.Basically like all Chick works - light on actual information, heavy on situational material chosen to get his point across (pretty much always wrong.)
God's Word should be translated accurately and in keeping with certain guidelines. God has a very stern warning for and has pronounced a very serious condemnaton on those who have added to or taken away from His Holy Word. The NIV as well as other Bible translations are guilty of taken away portions of God's holy text.
[B]Revelation 22:18-19
For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away[c] his part from the Book[d] of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.[/ B]
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
God's Word should be translated accurately and in keeping with certain guidelines. God has a very stern warning for and has pronounced a very serious condemnaton on those who have added to or taken away from His Holy Word. The NIV as well as other Bible translations are guilty of taken away portions of God's holy text.
Am I an authroity on Biblical (or any sort of) translations? No. Or you? I suspect not. I highly doubt Chick is either.
But I know there would be good reasons why the NIV was put together as it was, by such experts. Ultimately unless you are reading from an original copy in its original language most versions will be different in one form or another. Some more then others - it is what happens when something crosses languages. It is mostly unavoidable.
And even amongst "original sources" - don't think the ancients were adverse to to editing. Without looking at the original works as penned by Luke and co. it is just as possible no0 versio of the Bible is true to exactly what they wrote.
Hmmm. Funny about that quote there. Considering that the Bible itself wasn't put together by the Romans until at least a little bit after all the works had been written, and oh the works the Roman's decided as unsuitable for inclusion in the Bible...
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think that if you really believe that "The Bible" is the word of your God, you should read it in the original language as your God intended it to be read. If you can't go through the trouble of learning those languages, you are not a very good believer anyways.
😆 very true.
The Bible was written in other languages for a reason...to make it easy to gain new tax sources.
Originally posted by Alliance
😆 very true.The Bible was written in other languages for a reason...to make it easy to gain new tax sources.
Actually it was originally translated to give the poor (uneducated) access to the teachings in it without having to go to a priest. That reason may not exist now, but in the middle ages you had to either be in the clergy or nobility to gain access to education.
Originally posted by docb77
Actually it was originally translated to give the poor (uneducated) access to the teachings in it without having to go to a priest. That reason may not exist now, but in the middle ages you had to either be in the clergy or nobility to gain access to education.
I think we're on the same page. It was written so you could read it without the education needed to speak Latin, but you were still expected to get the teacheings tehmselves from your Lords priest.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible2.htm
I love this site.
And if you can only get the word of god from the Bishop or priest, then they have control over how it is taught to you.