Versions of the Bible

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
User avatar
2dimes
Posts: 13129
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Re: Versions of the Bible

Post by 2dimes »

tzor wrote:
2dimes wrote:What do you make of it without using a translator? I ask because you and tzor seem to be debating which greek bible is better. You obviously read greek, right?


I don't think I'm debating which "Greek" is better; it's all "greek" to me. ;)

Ok. I'm probably wrong to implicate you there.

Obviously if a person is afraid of translational errors you'd need to go to the origional language. Further you seemed to be correcting her in that none of the Old Testament was origionally Greek.

I think if you read lots of translations you'll probably increase your understanding of what the author's were trying to say. Unless you can read the origional language to a high level of comprehension they are useless. aMiRite?
Army of GOD
Posts: 7192
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:30 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Versions of the Bible

Post by Army of GOD »

WHAT THE HELL YOU GUISE

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE DR. SEUSS VERSION

GET ON TOPIC BEFORE I BAN ALL OF YOU
mrswdk is a ho
User avatar
2dimes
Posts: 13129
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Horton chooses death.

Post by 2dimes »

Many will go there.
Very soon in a dash.
Where there is weaping.
Their teeth they will gnash.

To miss nasty things.
Not such a big deal.
Instead they complained.
Insisting it's not real.

In forum debates they hasted.
They typed and they pasted.
Much time they had wasted.
Until death they had tasted.

Forgetting the time when they had been so proud.
The aithiests shouted, they shouted quite loud!

"You told me he loved me.
Now I will cry.
He should let me in heaven.
Your daddy of sky."

"He shouldn't have let me.
Go proving you wrong.
Telling you I was too smart.
To believe dances and song."

"I just do not get it.
Someone turn down the heat.
I didn't have any choice.
Watch me yell and stamp feet."
User avatar
squishyg
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 11:05 pm
Gender: Female

Re: Versions of the Bible

Post by squishyg »

that's it, i'm just going to go dance naked for the summer solstice instead.
Image
There is no fog rule and I am no gentleman.
Robinette wrote:
Kaskavel wrote:Seriously. Who is the female conqueror of CC?

Depends on what metric you use...
The coolest is [player]squishyg[/player]
Army of GOD
Posts: 7192
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:30 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Versions of the Bible

Post by Army of GOD »

Pics plox
mrswdk is a ho
User avatar
2dimes
Posts: 13129
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Re: Versions of the Bible

Post by 2dimes »

*video
Army of GOD
Posts: 7192
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:30 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Versions of the Bible

Post by Army of GOD »

*Hi def 3-d video
mrswdk is a ho
User avatar
b.k. barunt
Posts: 1270
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:33 pm

Re: Versions of the Bible

Post by b.k. barunt »

Night Strike wrote:
pimpdave wrote:
bradleybadly wrote:
2dimes wrote:Is this that "fruit" Dave?


:lol:

Night Strike is alright as long as he doesn't start preaching


No, he's really not. You weren't subjected to his bullshit like many of us were when he was a mod, but he's never had to be subjected to the same.


Why don't you take my bullshit (that you've never shown/proven) to another thread instead of hijacking this one?


A good example of the hypocrisy Dave's talking about. Here he accuses Dave of "hijacking" the thread while making a post that's completely off topic. WTF? And Dave's right - nightstrike was a stereotypical example of a little tin god mod that liked to over exert his authority.

Back on topic, as to nightstrike's allegations to "be sure you get a translation that was published after the Dead Sea Scrolls . . ." i still say WTF? Could you name a translation with changes in the Old Testament text provided from the Dead Sea Scrolls? To my knowledge there is no such translation. Link maybe?


Honibaz
User avatar
2dimes
Posts: 13129
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Re: Versions of the Bible

Post by 2dimes »

Army of GOD wrote:*Hi def 3-d video

Ding ding ding ding ding. Now we're talking!
Army of GOD
Posts: 7192
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:30 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Versions of the Bible

Post by Army of GOD »

Woah.

How cool would that be? 3-d porn...
mrswdk is a ho
User avatar
2dimes
Posts: 13129
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Re: Versions of the Bible

Post by 2dimes »

b.k. barunt wrote:
2dimes wrote:Is this that "fruit" Dave?



A good example of the hypocrisy Dave's talking about. Here he accuses Dave of "hijacking" the thread while making a post that's completely off topic. WTF?


Honibaz

Sowwy.
Last edited by 2dimes on Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PLAYER57832
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Gender: Female
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Versions of the Bible

Post by PLAYER57832 »

pimpdave wrote:Point to where I claim to be a pious and righteous Christian. Then talk about "fruit".

Besides, didn't Jesus call out the Pharisees?

amd the sadduces, but he sat down with the sinful gentiles, tax collectors and others.
PLAYER57832
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Gender: Female
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Versions of the Bible

Post by PLAYER57832 »

bradleybadly wrote:Not an expert obviously but aren't the basics that the old testament was written in Hebrew because it was written by the Jews, and the new testament was written in Greek? One guy I argue with during lunch break says that some parts are written in Aramaic (sp?) I don't know what Aramaic is.

To get back on topic, B.K. is more an expert than I. However, all of the books were written in various languages. The oldest written version of the Old Testament is believed to be in Hebrew. (the scientist in me insists on leaving an opening for an unkown discovery/language..lol). The New Testament was written in several languages over the course of several years. Aramaic is often thought to be the tongue that Jesus spoke, or one of them.

The oldest complete, full Bible is generally said to be the Greek one. As I and tzor both said (even though some apparently thought we were disagreeing), the Greek church did not believe that any translation could be fully accurate. The latin or western church did, and used Latin, which was then the common tongue. It is a big ironic then that later the Roman Catholic (or latin or western) church then decided only the Latin version was "OK".

Personally, I like the Revised Standard Version. However, that is because it is the one I was brought up using and it is just most comfortable for me. I think anything truly important comes through in each text. If you are concerned, the best thing is to compare at least the 3 major versions (King James, NIV and RSV).
User avatar
squishyg
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 11:05 pm
Gender: Female

Re: Versions of the Bible

Post by squishyg »

2dimes wrote:This might be helpful. It has a verse from many of the versions.

http://www.allbibles.com/bibleversions.asp


This link was incredibly helpful! Thank you so much! I'm going to give KJV a whirl, I like Shakespeare and the comparison allbibles.com made to the Bard's language and that used in KJV appealed to me. If I need help understanding anything, I'll definitely turn to NIV, I really liked the snippet of provided translation.

What a big difference between "answer" and "defense"! Seeing the choices the translators made was truly informative.
Image
There is no fog rule and I am no gentleman.
Robinette wrote:
Kaskavel wrote:Seriously. Who is the female conqueror of CC?

Depends on what metric you use...
The coolest is [player]squishyg[/player]
tzor
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Long Island, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Versions of the Bible

Post by tzor »

PLAYER57832 wrote:The oldest complete, full Bible is generally said to be the Greek one. As I and tzor both said (even though some apparently thought we were disagreeing), the Greek church did not believe that any translation could be fully accurate. The latin or western church did, and used Latin, which was then the common tongue. It is a big ironic then that later the Roman Catholic (or latin or western) church then decided only the Latin version was "OK".


Sorry, I have a bad habit of not completing a thought. The original point of my disagreement involved not the modern Greek but the anchient Greek. The Septuagint named for the number of translators involved was a Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew books of the Old Testament in the 3rd to 2nd century BC. (Or BCE if you are so inclined.)

Note that most of the "quotes" in the New Testament often come from the Septuagint.

We then come to the Western Church, typically centered around Rome (because, gosh darn it, the only western "Patriarch" as established under the original ecumencial councils was from Rome) who translated the "Greek" scriptures into the common tongue. Then they got stuck on that common tongue while it no longer became common. (They are not the only ones, the Church of England, as well as the Anglican Church continued to use Old Engligh in their liturgies into well into the 1970's ... I used to tease my Uncle about that all the time, especially after the Roman Catholic Church permitted English, which meant the more modern usage.) In fact most of the liturgical stubbornness came after the reformation, as a result of the counter reformation. It was also during this time a number of very sloppy translations were made, the worst involved a case of "suffer the little children" as "kill the children." I know I'm going to get a lot of flack for the next sentence, but even the King James Bible was not immune to political sloppiness; the classic hebew prohibition against people who used poisons "thou shall not permit a poisoner to live" was adjusted to "witch" to justify the various witch trials across most of Europe, both in Protestant and Catholic locations.

Biblical translations to common languages was common in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches. In general all churches tend to go to the most reliable translation available. Note that most of the oldest texts we have today were only discovered in the past century. So you have to go with the best you got.
Image
User avatar
squishyg
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 11:05 pm
Gender: Female

Re: Versions of the Bible

Post by squishyg »

2dimes wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:*Hi def 3-d video

Ding ding ding ding ding. Now we're talking!


not until I lose the last 5 pounds of baby weight. or make captain.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=119956
Image
There is no fog rule and I am no gentleman.
Robinette wrote:
Kaskavel wrote:Seriously. Who is the female conqueror of CC?

Depends on what metric you use...
The coolest is [player]squishyg[/player]
User avatar
2dimes
Posts: 13129
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Re: Versions of the Bible

Post by 2dimes »

You may want to choose something else for your back up. The new international version seems like it's missing things if you're used to reading the king james. I think it's meant to be a slightly easier translation to read.

I lost 30 pounds a couple of years ago. It found me.
PLAYER57832
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Gender: Female
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Versions of the Bible

Post by PLAYER57832 »

tzor wrote: I know I'm going to get a lot of flack for the next sentence, but even the King James Bible was not immune to political sloppiness; the classic hebew prohibition against people who used poisons "thou shall not permit a poisoner to live" was adjusted to "witch" to justify the various witch trials across most of Europe, both in Protestant and Catholic locations.

.. and some translate it as "physician".
tzor wrote:
Biblical translations to common languages was common in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches. In general all churches tend to go to the most reliable translation available. Note that most of the oldest texts we have today were only discovered in the past century. So you have to go with the best you got.

Yes, ergo inspiration.
And of one thing it is clear. The Bible has been translated with far more accuracy than any other book in existance.
User avatar
b.k. barunt
Posts: 1270
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:33 pm

Re: Versions of the Bible

Post by b.k. barunt »

tzor wrote: . . . but even the King James Bible was not immune to political sloppiness; the classic hebew prohibition against people who used poisons "thou shall not permit a poisoner to live" was adjusted to "witch" to justify the various witch trials across most of Europe, both in Protestant and Catholic locations.


First of all i never heard of any "classic Hebrew prohibition" against poisoning or poisoners. I don't believe poisoning was that big of a problem in the Hebrew culture to warrant such - maybe you could provide a link?

Secondly the Hebrew word for witch in the Mosaic law "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is kashaph. It's a primary root word that means "to whisper a spell, i.e. to enchant or practice magic." There is nothing to do with the use of potions with that word, so for someone to confuse it with "poisoning" would be highly unlikely. I don't know where you're getting your info but it's very inaccurate.


Honibaz
User avatar
FireStar
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:34 pm
Gender: Female

Re: Versions of the Bible

Post by FireStar »

Night Strike wrote:
pimpdave wrote:Good to see that Night Strike hasn't, and never will, stop with the egregiously obvious backpedaling demonstrating he has no idea what he's talking about.


I specifically said that NONE of the errors found by comparison to the Dead Sea Scrolls had any impact on the major truths of the Bible, so there was no backpedaling. :roll: And I did take a semester of Biblical Interpretations, so I do have some basic knowledge in the subject.

It did not remove any of the major truths, but there are several passages missing in them.

The new greek text is disputed as to it's accuracy, as two men put it together... just throwing it out there.

But anyhow... If you are looking for a bible to read NightStrike said it right choose the NASB or NIV or even KJV
Image
tzor
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Long Island, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Versions of the Bible

Post by tzor »

b.k. barunt wrote:Secondly the Hebrew word for witch in the Mosaic law "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is kashaph. It's a primary root word that means "to whisper a spell, i.e. to enchant or practice magic." There is nothing to do with the use of potions with that word, so for someone to confuse it with "poisoning" would be highly unlikely. I don't know where you're getting your info but it's very inaccurate.


b.k., Currently it is 11:30 PM in my time zone so I will try to find a good reference for this in the morning, but all the references I have seen imply that the Hebrew word relates to poisoning or the use of herbalism to produce an ill effect. I will post more tomorrow ... if I remember.
Image
User avatar
Ray Rider
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:21 pm
Gender: Male
Location: In front of my computer, duh!

Re: Versions of the Bible

Post by Ray Rider »

FireStar wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
pimpdave wrote:Good to see that Night Strike hasn't, and never will, stop with the egregiously obvious backpedaling demonstrating he has no idea what he's talking about.


I specifically said that NONE of the errors found by comparison to the Dead Sea Scrolls had any impact on the major truths of the Bible, so there was no backpedaling. :roll: And I did take a semester of Biblical Interpretations, so I do have some basic knowledge in the subject.

It did not remove any of the major truths, but there are several passages missing in them.

Yeah, isn't the end of the book of Mark missing from some of them?

But anyhow... If you are looking for a bible to read NightStrike said it right choose the NASB or NIV or even KJV

The NASB and NIV (along with all new translations, including the NKJV) were translated from the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts, while the KJV came from the Textus Receptus. Although the KJV isn't perfect (as a couple of people have already pointed out), I do believe it to be more accurate than the other alternatives. I only wish someone would take the time to modernize the words and sentence structure within it without removing text or changing the meaning of verses.
Image
Image
Highest score: 2221
User avatar
demonfork
Posts: 2257
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:52 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Your mom's house

Re: Versions of the Bible

Post by demonfork »

Before you start to seriously study any version of the bible I would suggest that you first read Bart D. Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus: The story behind who changed the bible and why".

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060738170

Then once you have done that and realize how flawed the bible is, I would suggest that you start reading a more accurate account of the teachings of Jesus Christ by picking up a copy of The Book of Mormon.
Image
tzor
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Long Island, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Versions of the Bible

Post by tzor »

tzor wrote:
b.k. barunt wrote:Secondly the Hebrew word for witch in the Mosaic law "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is kashaph. It's a primary root word that means "to whisper a spell, i.e. to enchant or practice magic." There is nothing to do with the use of potions with that word, so for someone to confuse it with "poisoning" would be highly unlikely. I don't know where you're getting your info but it's very inaccurate.


b.k., Currently it is 11:30 PM in my time zone so I will try to find a good reference for this in the morning, but all the references I have seen imply that the Hebrew word relates to poisoning or the use of herbalism to produce an ill effect. I will post more tomorrow ... if I remember.


OK ... department of the lazy ... I'm using Wiki

The King James Bible uses the words "witch", "witchcraft", and "witchcrafts", wherever the masoretic text, from which it is translated, has כשף (kashaph or kesheph) and קסם (qesem), and the Septuagint has φαρμακεια (pharmakeia); similarly in the New Testament it uses 'witch', 'witchcraft', and 'witchcrafts' to translate the φαρμακεια (pharmakeia) of the underlying Greek text. Traditional translations of verses such as Deuteronomy 18:11–12 and Exodus 22:18 therefore produce "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" which was seen as providing scriptural justification for Christian witch hunters in the early Modern Age (see Christian views on witchcraft).

However, Kashaph more literally means either mutterer (from a single root) or herb user (as a compound word formed from the roots kash, meaning herb, and hapaleh, meaning using); the equivalent pharmakeia of the Septuagint means poison. As such a closer translation would be potion user (additionally, pharmakeia implies further malevolent intent), or more generally one who uses magic to harm others, rather than a very general term like witch.
Image
User avatar
b.k. barunt
Posts: 1270
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:33 pm

Re: Versions of the Bible

Post by b.k. barunt »

tzor wrote:
tzor wrote:
b.k. barunt wrote:Secondly the Hebrew word for witch in the Mosaic law "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is kashaph. It's a primary root word that means "to whisper a spell, i.e. to enchant or practice magic." There is nothing to do with the use of potions with that word, so for someone to confuse it with "poisoning" would be highly unlikely. I don't know where you're getting your info but it's very inaccurate.


b.k., Currently it is 11:30 PM in my time zone so I will try to find a good reference for this in the morning, but all the references I have seen imply that the Hebrew word relates to poisoning or the use of herbalism to produce an ill effect. I will post more tomorrow ... if I remember.


OK ... department of the lazy ... I'm using Wiki

The King James Bible uses the words "witch", "witchcraft", and "witchcrafts", wherever the masoretic text, from which it is translated, has כשף (kashaph or kesheph) and קסם (qesem), and the Septuagint has φαρμακεια (pharmakeia); similarly in the New Testament it uses 'witch', 'witchcraft', and 'witchcrafts' to translate the φαρμακεια (pharmakeia) of the underlying Greek text. Traditional translations of verses such as Deuteronomy 18:11–12 and Exodus 22:18 therefore produce "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" which was seen as providing scriptural justification for Christian witch hunters in the early Modern Age (see Christian views on witchcraft).

However, Kashaph more literally means either mutterer (from a single root) or herb user (as a compound word formed from the roots kash, meaning herb, and hapaleh, meaning using); the equivalent pharmakeia of the Septuagint means poison. As such a closer translation would be potion user (additionally, pharmakeia implies further malevolent intent), or more generally one who uses magic to harm others, rather than a very general term like witch.


As you can see here, "poison" or "poisoner" is a stretch. The Greek word pharmakeia is the word that we use for "drugs" - not "poisons". Like i said, kashaph is a root word meaning to "whisper" or "mutter" a spell. In order to make it relevant to "poison" you have to play fast and loose and make a compound word out of it by joining the root with another word. WTF?? "Kashapaleh" ("herb user") is not the same as "kashaph" - they are two different words and "kashaph", not "kashapelah" is the word in the Hebrew text. This is a good example of a "mistake of translation" that's so often offered up by pseudointellectual wankers who simply make shit up and pawn it off on the ignorant.

Pharmakeia is translated into "sorcery" in the New Testament. To say that it was translated as such in order to provide "justification" for killing witches is ridiculous. New Testament Christians are not under Mosaic Law and so to kill witches, homosexuals or rowdy children has no scriptural basis in their religion. Christians are under a law of mercy and grace - there are no New Testament commands or exhortations to kill anyone.


Honibaz
Post Reply

Return to “Acceptable Content”