vonkaar wrote:Ganzo wrote:p.s. Vonk, I need a jew emoticon
I could probably find a hasidic jew smiley... would this offend?
would be exactly what i want, don't worry about offending me it's NT
Moderator: Dictators in Training
vonkaar wrote:Ganzo wrote:p.s. Vonk, I need a jew emoticon
I could probably find a hasidic jew smiley... would this offend?
Narrock wrote:Yup, I ... was just trolling.
Narrock wrote:I wikipedia'd everything first.
vonkaar wrote:Mindia wrote:I will no longer point my finger and say, "This is how it is" and "This is definitely why your religion is wrong." I will try to use more tact, respect, and sensitivity. On the other side of the coin, I urge many of you to open the Bible and start reading, and get into discussions, and really delve into Scripture like you never have before. Let's discuss things on a rational level.
Swear by this?
Seriously... cuz I'll hold you to it.
vonkaar wrote:Mindia wrote:I will no longer point my finger and say, "This is how it is" and "This is definitely why your religion is wrong." I will try to use more tact, respect, and sensitivity. On the other side of the coin, I urge many of you to open the Bible and start reading, and get into discussions, and really delve into Scripture like you never have before. Let's discuss things on a rational level.
Swear by this?
Seriously... cuz I'll hold you to it.
Drem wrote:Okay, could you please answer my question then?
Drem wrote:
Not to start a big thread again on biblical translation (since I'm taking a course on translation, I do kind of have a handle on this topic), but I have a question.
Mindia,
Don't you feel that whichever translation of the bible you're relying on for teachings affects your overall interpretation of its teachings? We've studied a few sections briefly of the bible (mainly in Genesis) and there are a lot of word choice and idea inaccuracies due to its translation over the years. As in, older English translations vary a lot from current translations as our language changes over time.
Of course the general points still come across the same, but little discrepancies can change how someone interprets things.
Like I stated in another thread, I don't honestly feel that you're reading the real bible if you're not reading it in Latin, Greek, or Aramaic.
Mindia wrote:I am not contesting the fact that different interpretations can be ascertained from the Bible. Obviously that is the case, because we have so many different Christian denominations. I have 3 study Bibles that show at the bottom of the page what certain Hebrew words mean translated into English. But some sects r e a l l y s t r e t c h that interpration excuse.
Narrock wrote:Yup, I ... was just trolling.
Narrock wrote:I wikipedia'd everything first.
Lyion wrote:Except thats not really applicable for us who follow the New Testament, Ganzo.
Lyion wrote:Not to mention Saint Jerome owned the best translation of the Old Testament, IMO.
Lyion wrote:Much was also written in Aramaic, although I'm not sure if the Jews recognize it.
Lyion wrote:Interestingly enough, the Hebrew Bible used I believe is about 700+ years NEWER than the Catholic bible penned by St J.
Narrock wrote:Yup, I ... was just trolling.
Narrock wrote:I wikipedia'd everything first.
Popularity of a book is not a sign of it's truth. The DaVinchi Code is hugely popular, yet you would not think that theories it shows are true. Catholic Bible was most published book for centuries, yet You argue it is wrong.Mindia wrote:I know you think the NIV is a poor translation Ganzo, but I would highly disagree with you. The NIV is probably the most popular translation in the world, having been put together by worldwide religious leaders, top scholars, educators, and historians. It didn't get to become the most popular translation by being inaccurate.
Narrock wrote:Yup, I ... was just trolling.
Narrock wrote:I wikipedia'd everything first.
Lyion wrote:For Christians the New Testament completely supercedes the old testament for law and direction in life. It's not that we don't follow the whole bible, it's just moreso the Sermon on the Mount is more important for us than what was taught before.
Did it incompas all posibilities of reading each portion? As i said few times already you can't have 1 meaning out of Torah.Lyion wrote:Saint Jerome was a master at languages and worked with Rabbi's to ensure he had an excellent translation of the Old Testament from the scattered Hebrew texts. He had no bias and worked in Bethlehem around 385 AD on his works.
Lyion wrote:And my understanding is part of the Tanakh was written in Aramaic. Given the Jews primarily switched to Aramaic from Hebrew 3000 years ago it makes sense much of what we have from them is written in it. There is Aramaic in the Talmud, Zohar, Book of Ezra and Book of Daniel.
What do you base that on?Lyion wrote:I understand there are older scrolls, Ganzo, but much of what was done 2000 years ago by the Catholic Church is much older and better preserved than many of the Jewish documents.
This can be discussed all you want but 1000 of other books throuout 3000 years quote Torah and those quotes always mach with original text. You think someone deliberatly edited every religious text Judaism has?Lyion wrote:although there are some discussions about the date and methods of copying the Torah, unlike the Catholic Bible.
Narrock wrote:Yup, I ... was just trolling.
Narrock wrote:I wikipedia'd everything first.
Ganzo wrote:Why not just omit it than, if it's just legends, that been superceded by new laws.
Talmud is book of comentary on Mishna(codex of religious laws) and not part of Tanakh(hebrew with some comentaries in Aramaic). Zohar is book of comentaries on meanings behind Torah's words, also knows as Kabalah, and is not part of Tanakh(in hebrew). Ezra and Daniel are both in Hebrew as well and are part of Khtuvim, 3rd part of Tanakh. As i said before Tanakh is not Holy Book for Judaism, only Torah is.Lyion wrote:I understand there are older scrolls, Ganzo, but much of what was done 2000 years ago by the Catholic Church is much older and better preserved than many of the Jewish documents.
What do you base that on?Lyion wrote:although there are some discussions about the date and methods of copying the Torah, unlike the Catholic Bible.
This can be discussed all you want but 1000 of other books throuout 3000 years quote Torah and those quotes always mach with original text. You think someone deliberatly edited every religious text Judaism has?
Lyion wrote:I don't think anyone edited every religious text, however my point that the Catholic Bible is older than the Torah you are using is simple fact.
Lyion wrote: Also, OLDER documents have been invalidated because they are not in Hebrew or not what Jews agree upon.
Lyion wrote:What is the oldest copy of the Torah that the Jews have?
Narrock wrote:Yup, I ... was just trolling.
Narrock wrote:I wikipedia'd everything first.
Ganzo wrote:Popularity of a book is not a sign of it's truth. The DaVinchi Code is hugely popular, yet you would not think that theories it shows are true. Catholic Bible was most published book for centuries, yet You argue it is wrong.Mindia wrote:I know you think the NIV is a poor translation Ganzo, but I would highly disagree with you. The NIV is probably the most popular translation in the world, having been put together by worldwide religious leaders, top scholars, educators, and historians. It didn't get to become the most popular translation by being inaccurate.
Mindia, trust me on this at least because i do speak multiple languages. YOU CAN NOT EVER PERFECTLY TRANSLATE FROM ONE LANGUAGE TO ANOTHER. You will always change something to make it make sence in the language you translating into. And this is just one aspect. As i said it's also has to do with multiple variations of reading same words in hebrew and because in ancient hebrew same words could mean multiple things. Does NIV encompas all posibilities and interpritations?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests