Originally posted by Marchello
***I agree with you that you are "not" the world's leading authority on "CHirstian mythology"...nor are you an authority on True Christianity. In point of fact, you are not an authority on much of anything.
Wow... what a rebuttal (sarcasm.)
Incidentally there is no such thing as "true Christianity." Just as there is no such thing as "true swimming" or "true bowling clubs." Because there a multitude of different versions, different approaches, different styles. It is both erroneous and disingenuous to make out there is a true version. You might believe there is, but any kind of study of religion shows it is impossible to make such a claim.
As it is the most accurate labelling like that is usually used for the original, the first example of something. As such the closest to "true Christianity" would be Catholicism - since it was closet to the founding, closest to the original interpretations, closest to the founder - Jesus. Those that came hundreds or a thousand years later are much more different from the original Church.
It is impossible to be true to the "originals" because they have long been lost...in fact, we NEVER had them! We should, however, put as much value on the "originals" as God does.
Then there you go - you can not argue complete accuracy of validity if access to the originals is not available. The reality is that you are accepting someones translation/interpretation of the text.
So there are two very big problems for those of you who overemphasize the "originals." (1)Every Bible ever printed with a copy of Jeremiah in it has a text in chapters 45-51 which is translated from a copy of the "second" original, or ORIGINAL #3. (2)Secondly, NO ONE can overlook the fact that God didn't have the LEAST bit of interest in PRESERVING the "originals" once it had been COPIED and it's message DELIVERED. So WHY should we put more emphasis on the "originals" than God does?...an emphasis which is PLAINLY unscriptural.
Ever heard of historical forgeries? Things that claim to have access to the originals, or claim are such things?
The Greek language as found in the NT and the modern Greek language are so vastly different from each other as to be non-interchangeable one with the other. The faulty assumption that a "Greek" would be equipped to change or better the English Bible is humorous at best and arrogant at worst.
Of course because meaning doesn't change in translation. How many history course have I done reading from translations of ancient texts where the lecture has gone "Now this section here fails to truly impart the authors meaning as revealed in the original Latin." This isn't a fault of the translator, but it often happens that another language might very well be incapable of truly capturing tone or intent from the original.
And then there is the fact that Greek is highly interpretive. Ancient Greek is a complex language, the implication that an English Bible, or a French Bible or German or whatever is identical to the original copy is laughable at best.
No man, Greek or otherwise, has been inspired by God to change the Bible. Teaching "from the Greek by a Greek" may sell many books and lead to a rich Greek, but it certainly doesn't lead to a better understanding of God's word.Marchello
You do realise it isn't about a modern day Greek doing it, don't you? It is about the original Greek, the ancient Greek in which it was penned?
And you say "no man has ever been inspired to change the Bible" - no, simply to put it together. Oh wait, there was no sign of divine inspiration there. It just was an intellectual/political formation of the Bible. Just think if the council had decided some of the Gnostic texts should have been included! What a change that would have been.