Do you have a Bible at home and What version is it?
- Thread starter Zip
- Start date
The idea of having different versions is more than laughable! 
The only way to know what it truely says is to learn Koine Greek and try and get your hands on a 1st edition!
So many translations and 'versions' must make the Bible the most inaccurate book in the world.
The fact that people took the inital version seriously amazes me, but how people take the 'new' versions seriously is beyond belief.
In my opinion obviously.
The only way to know what it truely says is to learn Koine Greek and try and get your hands on a 1st edition!
So many translations and 'versions' must make the Bible the most inaccurate book in the world.
The fact that people took the inital version seriously amazes me, but how people take the 'new' versions seriously is beyond belief.
In my opinion obviously.
The idea of having different versions is more than laughable!
The only way to know what it truely says is to learn Koine Greek and try and get your hands on a 1st edition!
So many translations and 'versions' must make the Bible the most inaccurate book in the world.
The fact that people took the inital version seriously amazes me, but how people take the 'new' versions seriously is beyond belief.
In my opinion obviously.
Top tip: do some research before you make flippant posts.
The reason the bible has multiple versions is that it isn't written in English, its written in Hebrew and Greek, and there is often no direct literal translation. Different translations occur where people try to translate old language into modern idiom. It's no different from, say, Canterbury Tales which is more often read translated into modern English from it's original 14th century Middle English. It doesn't diminish the book at all, just brings it to a new audience and promotes understanding of the original text. There are multiple different translations of Canterbury Tales into modern english too, some done as time leaves the old translations no longer relevant to a modern generation, others where scholars disagree with the translation and chose to do their own. That can be down to subtleties like political and life views that have an impact at that level.
Going back to the bible and translations, consider the use of the word love in the bible, which appears 258 times in the New Testament (in the NIV translation). Each of those occasions the original greek word would be either Agapē, Eros or Philia. I'm not aware that Storge appears in there but it might. Each of those three words means "love" but different types (read this link for detailed descriptions).
The famous passage from Corinthians "If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal." etc. etc, the word love there is actually Agape, or God's love, a compassionate love, not Eros the love between a husband and wife. It's use at weddings is kind of stupid if you understand the subtext.
Different translations will phrase the concept in different ways, however the translator feels conveys the meaning of the original text best. The case with love is probably one of the easiest translations.
A more controversial passage that will change from version to version is 1 Corinthians 6:9.
From the NIV, first published in 1978:
Switch over to the old King James Version, from the early 17th century:
That last bit is key here. In the NIV they think the passage refers to homosexuality, in older times they thought it referred to masturbation. The problem is the original greek phrase: malakoi arsenokoitai
No one knows exactly what that phrase means anymore. Malakoi means soft, arsenokoitai is the unknown word. The early church belief (and probably the most accurate) was that it referred to people of soft morals. It's only later translations where translating scholars have looked at the context of the phrase and decided that it refers to some form of sexual immorality, and have gone with what they perceive to be that age's biggest sexual deviation.
Without having seen different translations, not being a biblical scholar, I would have only been able to take that original passage at face value. Instead I'm conscious that it needs to be taken with serious consideration for other possible interpretations.
So no, different translations does not mean Insta-fail, it just means that a) The English language is always changing and growing with the meaning of words changing, and b) People's world views impact how they translate.
Hardly news, hardly shocking.. except possibly to you?
Probably the best post on the forums in a thread about religion.
I've just dug this out, printed in 1794 so quite young for a bible, it's part of a set, this is vol 1, not sure what version it is though.
strangely im sure my parents have the same one.. does it have clips on the side?
No, it's a tired old argument, usually deployed by Christians in an attempt to attack the character of an atheist rather than their views. It wilfully (I hope it's wilful - the alternative is ignorance) distorts what atheists think and why, essentially by attempting to undermine their central stance by implying that atheism is actually a form of religion and therefore - guess what - atheists are actually atheists.
There's a long and rather dull thread on what the phrase means in SC if it worried you, but to recap: the real difference between atheists and religious folk is simple: it's part of the nature of religions that people believe in things without proof (or at least good evidence) - that's why it's called "faith". Atheists believe only in things for which there is proof or at least good evidence. And certainly not in things for which there is no evidence at all.
M
If you're not going to read it then why do you want one just for the sake of having one?
I used to have one when I was a born again christian, but I didn't bring it to Scotland with me. I think it was the NIV.
I may bring it out every now and then too look something up quickly.
But to have it in the house is just more of a comfort thing
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 13,334
- Location
- The Orion Spur
Mines standard leather bound, no clips on the side, that sides kind of cool.
Yes they are, it's just a shame most of them don't know what atheism means, where it came from or how it came about, or if they do they claim one thing and behave in another way, as seen in the thread referred to in SC. It's not an attempt to attack the character of an atheist, and I for one resent the implication that it is, it's simply evaluating atheism with the same standard I evaluate theism, removing the assumptions and seeing how it holds up, and finding it requiring things that cannot be proven. The other key point is, and it's very important. There is nothing wrong with faith. I don't care what atheists believe, I care when they try and elevate their beliefs above other faiths. Ironically, it's one of the areas where atheists are often among the most evangelical of preachers, especially on the internet. What makes atheism different to christanity is the assumptions the believer has chosen, nothing more, so behaving in the ways that most atheists claim they dislike about religion by trying to convert people to their faith is somewhat hypocritical.
For the avoidance of doubt. Atheism = The -ism of Atheos (godlessness), Not a-theism (theism as a term was developed after atheism, not before), meaning not a theist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Etymology
Therefore atheism is an explicit disbelief or denial of the existance of gods. There have been attempts over the last hundred years or so by some atheist scholars to redefine the term as meaning 'an absence of belief in gods' (implicit atheism), but as this definition includes agnostics, buddhists, taoists by most defintion and so on, as well as allowing atheists to make statements such as 'all children are atheist', it's not very well accepted outside of atheist circles. Furthermore, even if you do use that definition, the moment you move to an explicit 'I don't believe in god', you move back to the traditional definition anyway.
This brings us to the unopened box anaolgy, where we have a sealed box, and what is a logical statement about the contents of the box. The box contains X and the Box is empty are both equivilent statements, they assume or claim knowledge of the contents of the box, despite not having any evidence to support it. The only logical position that you can take is that the contents of the box is unknown.
That's a rather strange interpretation of the thread, I recall it being lots of semantic wriggling by most of the atheists, presenting definitions that didn't fit their arguments, or claiming that they have exclusive rights to define the term atheism as they see fit, irrespective of what they actually give, followed by people claiming that the axioms of science aren't faith based assumptions (despite a distinct lack of supporting evidence for them) when applied outside the model.
Thread here
The idea that atheism is the product of rational, logical thought is fundamentally flawed, because most religious thought is rational too (remember, rationality only requires consistancy with the evidence and assumptions of the person making the conclusion) and logic doesn't lead to atheism unless you start with a set of unproveable assumptions about the world in the first place...
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 11,297
I think there is a lot of word picking going on here, and dolph all due respect matey you have gone out of your way to 'prove' subtle differences in the meaning of the words of athiesm and agnostic, but not really getting at the point, what there all about, words are just words.
Can you go out of your way as thoroughly to prove god exists? Id guess not...
This is what intrigues me about religious followers, they will go on an almighty word hunt for things such as the above, in some attempt.....well to look like they have read up properly, to be scientific you might say ?......why not just say something and say its the truth 'just because I say so' in a similar vane to religion ?
Just a few thoughts there.
Oh and forget specific wording and the history of it, any half intelligent person knows what athiests and agnostics are, and saying athiests are the product of rational logical thought, no matter how flawed in your opinion is still a mindset of thinking with a lot more consideration of the actual world around us than just saying god exists, no matter how 'jumping to conclusion' in your opinion an athiest is.
Can you go out of your way as thoroughly to prove god exists? Id guess not...
This is what intrigues me about religious followers, they will go on an almighty word hunt for things such as the above, in some attempt.....well to look like they have read up properly, to be scientific you might say ?......why not just say something and say its the truth 'just because I say so' in a similar vane to religion ?
Just a few thoughts there.
Oh and forget specific wording and the history of it, any half intelligent person knows what athiests and agnostics are, and saying athiests are the product of rational logical thought, no matter how flawed in your opinion is still a mindset of thinking with a lot more consideration of the actual world around us than just saying god exists, no matter how 'jumping to conclusion' in your opinion an athiest is.
but thats hypocritical unless you can show me some evidence that God doesn't exist, remember God doesn't have to be attatched to religion.
Well your clearly misguided here since Dolph isn't religious. It's also important to remember that how religious people act on the web and in the media is often not representative of the majority.
Back to the point though, it's not just about words, not if someone is claiming to have evidence that a god/gods doesn't existance, that's just a ludicrous claim
Not that old chestnut. You cannot prove something doesn't exist ffs! The onus is on the deluded to prove the existent of the root of their superstitions.
So therefore to have a strong disbelief in God not existing is faith based. You have to remain agnostic to it. Just like I don't disbelieve in fairies, because you couldn't say for certain that they don't exist and there's no good reason to actively believe they don't.
Got a children's Bible around somewhere, but I have never read it. Like a normal Bible, but with less violence and more pretty pictures.
The plot is inconsistent, the authors are biased and delusional, and it is too long. Lord of the Rings makes more sense, and for that reason, I do not want to read it =]
The plot is inconsistent, the authors are biased and delusional, and it is too long. Lord of the Rings makes more sense, and for that reason, I do not want to read it =]
It is those that believe in a god that think atheists have a strong disbelief, no faith is involved at all. 'God doesn't exist' is a statement of fact at this present time and will remain so forever. No faith is required.
This is the problem, the requirement for 'faith' is a manifestation of the inherent weakness of a person that they require a belief in a god in the first place. It is also a defence mechanism of those in power against awkward questions that undermine their position.
This is the problem, the requirement for 'faith' is a manifestation of the inherent weakness of a person that they require a belief in a god in the first place. It is also a defence mechanism of those in power against awkward questions that undermine their position.