Ponder This!

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Translations were done by the masoretic scholars 900A.D.

What do you think the word "translation" means?
What do you think occured in 900 A.D.?

And we all wonder why there are so many denominations, each one firm that the bible is consistent to their interpretation.

And yet, despite all that disagreement, despite all 20,000 protestant denomiations, we all hold the same basic beliefs, and, by-and-large, we refer to each other as brothers in Christ.

If you want real disagreement sit down with a bunch of lit. majors discussing Kafka

Regardless of what fragment has been found and in what script, I had a single point in my original post that can not be argued, that is the translation done by Esdras around 548 B.C.
[]
we rely on one man to interpret from a lost ancient Hebrew to a new Babylonian Hebrew. This language was entirely different, words and their meanings can very well have changed drastically. So we rely on the fact that he properly translated and interpreted to this new language.

And your bases for these statements is?

To answer a question the oldest entire bible text dates to around 1400 and is held in Russia. Anyone that tells you there is an entire text or even a compilation of writings to form a complete text, it is a lie. We have fragments, the Dead Sea Scrolls have portions of Leviticus and Deuteronomy and many non biblical scripts. As far as decifering these we rely on the work that was essentially done by Esdras and continued by the Masoretic scholars.

Boy, who is feeding you all this?

The God that consumes all of my existence, I happen to know that if it was "his" words. They would be so perfect, we would not have the diversity of interpretation that plagues this world.

A bit of cut and paste from below..

Wouldn't it be arrogant to say that God chose you to interpret "him" correctly?

I thought the juxtaposition of those two was interesting.

So caught up in seeing your interpretation of the words you revere as the word of God as correct, you fail to realize the magnitude of other beliefs. So many cultures, so many different religions, so many do not except Jesus as their savior.
Then you have a man that lacks the presence of mind to contemplate...... Hmmmm, suppose I was born under different circumstances. Suppose I was raised without Christianity where another religion was dominant and my life's views on religion were drastically different. Suppose my heart was filled with hate for Christians. Welcome to the real world!

It is especially amusing/galling/astounding to see this posted in the Liberal Theology section.

Such utter ignorance of Christian thought I have rarely seen. (Mind you, I do my best to avoid the anti-Christian sites)

Wouldn't it be foolish to say that God had contempt for another that they were born into a religion that failed to find enlightenment.

Do you have any clue what recent Popes have said about that?

(I won't even get into the views of less conservative Christian theologians.)

 

[tulc]

God appears in the truest form as a realization. The unity of man free from belief would allow you to witness this.
If God is truth, truth will find a realization of God without belief.

Hmmm I'm a little confused. When you say "realization" what do you mean? It's defined as:

n 1: coming to understand something clearly and distinctly; "a growing realization of the risk involved"; "a sudden recognition of the problem he faced"; "increasing recognition that diabetes frequently coexists with other chronic diseases" [syn: realisation, recognition] 2: making real or giving the appearance of reality [syn: realisation, actualization, actualisation] 3: a musical composition that has been completed or enriched by someone other than the composer [syn: realisation] 4: a sale in order to obtain money (as a sale of stock or a sale of the estate of a bankrupt person) or the money so obtained [syn: realisation] 5: the completion or enrichment of a piece of music left sparsely notated by a composer [syn: realisation] 6: something that is made real or concrete; "the victory was the realization of a whole year's work" [syn: realisation, fruition]

where as belief is:

(b

-l

f

)
n.

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

Care to explain?
tulc(just wondering!)

 

[TScott]

Why worry if Satan has encouraged the Bible to be translated this way or that if Satan is an agent of God's anyway. Also it all seems moot when you consider that most of the Pentateuch is just a retelling of older Babylonian and Sumerian myths in the first place.

 

[CaDan]

Cosmo (can I call you Cosmo?)

Shorter, simpler posts would really help us out here. I'm not automatically opposed to your argument here, I'm just kind of unsure what your argument is.

NT text criticism is more my bag, so I don't know as much about OT criticism as I would like. I am vaguely familiar with the JEDP hypothesis and the theory of redaction by Esdras/Ezra. I'd like to know more.

Short simple posts (with links to scholarship or original documents, if possible) would be helpful.

 

[Cosmowisdom]

Hmmm I'm a little confused. When you say "realization" what do you mean? It's defined as:

where as belief is:
Care to explain?
tulc(just wondering!)

Realization, understand something clearly and distinctly. You do know what (syn.) means in definitions? If you are confused with the REAL that is contained within realization, I am sorry, but word games will only make you appear foolish. There is TRUTH as a basis of REALIZATION, belief consists of acceptance as a truth or confidence or faith in another, and is still independant to the believer or group of believers as the truth. Although belief might find an acceptance of truth in the definition, truth defined will never find belief within it's definition. Are we done playing word games?
If you look into the validity of a mans words free from the arrogance of your own beliefs, you may come to realize the love he expresses within those words, regardless of how they may fit into your belief. Hint Hint!
There is a overwhelming presence within most of us that points to a God or Creator. It exists in a very true form within our emotions.
Straying from this you dive into defintions guidlines and parameters of life and death and it's meaning.
The God I REALIZE is free of any definition and or belief, "he" only exists within the truths I find in my own existence and the existence of mankind. I choose to REALIZE God free from the constraints of BELIEF, that I might witness the pure beauty of God in truth and discovery.
God gives us all clues to discover "him" within our own existence yet some of us choose to find him in another mans words, primitive man's words at that.
The God discovered in the brilliance of your own mind far exceeds any written word, to explain it to another it becomes a task to find the words worthy of the REALIZATION that you find. The attempt to explain in words the perfection witnessed falls short of the emotion that envelops your entire being.
The search for answers to worldly problems will find Truth, that TRUTH is where I find God.
I see my existence as a test to discover the path towards discovering God. Don't think that I don't ponder how it all works, yet I find no need to adhere to a belief or definition. Honestly, right now reincarnation seems to be a more responsible theory of religion, if you fail to see God and and your path you are reincarnated until you find that path. The truth remains that reincarnation is only a BELIEF, just like the BELIEF in the return of Christ. All of mens religious hypothesis cloud the ability to truly seek God in TRUTH.
If you were to say that you know every word in the bible is the word of God, that is a lie. If you were to say that you know that we are all reincarnated until we reach a certain level of enlightenment, that is a lie. If you were to say any statement contained in any religious teaching pertaining to God is known to be the TRUTH, that is a lie. So why is it that we feel the need to indulge in any of these BELIEFS? Isn't it absolutely absurd that we kill one another over these BELIEFS?
Ask yourself what does God teach you personally from what you see, witness and experience on earth. TRUTH, diversity in religious BELIEF is responsible for most of the worlds death. The answer tells you that eliminating that diversity ends all those struggles. The answer, will find the realization of God without a need for definition or BELIEF. If I could make you understand how free this feeling is, you would REALIZE you no longer have any need for your BELIEF. Harmony, is achieved and we will only seek to find TRUTHS within our lives.
If you wish to purely seek the TRUTH of God and the TRUTHS he shows you, this is how it is done. No matter what you currently believe or whatever religion you might follow, someone else is calling you a liar. On the contrary everything they believe or religion they follow you call them a liar. There is validity in both these statements, for in no reason does BELIEF constitute it is of any TRUTH. This brings us to the conclusion that whatever anyone believes concerning religion makes them a liar.
If we wish to seek the TRUTH of God religion fails to exist. Wait just a second, I'm not an athiest, athiests BELIEVE there is no God and someone is calling them a liar as well. If God wishes us to see the TRUTH about him why does "he" wish religion to not even exist, how does this work? Lets simply look at things objectively, if religion failed to exist what would this world be like?
These religious wars would cease to exist:
In Afghanistan the Muslim terrorism against non-Muslim.
In Bosnia the conflict and very fragile peace among the Serbian Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Muslims. In Cote D'lvoire the Muslims, Indigenous and Christians.
In Cyprus, East Timor, Indonesia provinces of Ambon and Halmahera, Kurdistan, and Philippines; the Christians and Muslims.
In India the Animists, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs.
In Kashmir the Hindus and Muslims.
In Kosovo the Serbian Orthodox Christians and Muslims. In Macedonia the Macedonian Orthodox Christians and Muslims.
In the Middle East the Jews, Muslims and Christians. In Nigeria, Sudan and Uganda; the Animists, Christians and Muslims.
In N Ireland the Protestants and Catholics. In Pakistan the Suni and Shi'ite Muslims. In Russia, Chechnya the Russian Orthodox Christians and Muslims. In S Africa the Animists and "Witches".
In Sri Lanka the Buddhists and Hindus. In Tibet the Buddhists and Communists.
All these people use the same words as you, and say it is not their fault that the other doesn't understand or interpret God correctly.
Without individual religious BELIEFS we would find a peace and a harmony unknown in the History of man. If it is your first time, congratulations you have witnessed the TRUTH of God.
If we choose only to seek the TRUTH within the clues given to find God, "he" will be discovered by all. If we stay within that path of TRUTH what other miracles can we witness? Don't even get me started!
Freedom is the most powerful thing we know, and the same thing many do not. Is it not God that gave us "free will", that same free will that even allows us to ponder his existence in different ways. Regardless of the imaginative ways to see God and to BELIEVE "he" exists, truth and the clues given in our existence shows us that freedom. The freedom to except everyone for their beliefs and the resulting love. When you except and love everyone for the beauty and brilliance contained within their belief you realize you have no need for your own. That emotional freedom is beyond any words I could use to describe it, that freedom allows me to witness God.
Imagine a God free from individual belief, a God that crosses all cultural barriers. Is it to difficult to imagine a realization of God so poignant that any definition, belief or written word becomes unneccessary and foolish. What is it that confines you to your definition and belief of God?

Answer this question for yourself and then ask these questions of your answer. Is this my own arrogance? Is this my own fear?

Free your mind from the constraints of belief and you will free your heart to except and love, all of mankind.-ME-

 

[TScott]

Cosmo (can I call you Cosmo?)

Shorter, simpler posts would really help us out here. I'm not automatically opposed to your argument here, I'm just kind of unsure what your argument is.

Ditto

 

[Cosmowisdom]

And yet, despite all that disagreement, despite all 20,000 protestant denomiations, we all hold the same basic beliefs, and, by-and-large, we refer to each other as brothers in Christ.

If you want to speak of basic beliefs why limit it at all, couldn't you say any religious belief that seeks a God or Creator seeks the same ending result?
I guess this only applies to those advantageous enough to realize Jesus Christ as their savior.

 

[Cosmowisdom]

Cosmo (can I call you Cosmo?)

Short simple posts (with links to scholarship or original documents, if possible) would be helpful.

Just my mind, sorry nothing short or simple.

 

[tulc]

The God discovered in the brilliance of your own mind far exceeds any written word, to explain it to another it becomes a task to find the words worthy of the REALIZATION that you find. The attempt to explain in words the perfection witnessed falls short of the emotion that envelops your entire being.

Wouldn't the God I discover in my own mind look...well a lot like me? God is more then I can come up with, more then you or I together can come up with. I'm reminded of a quote:

The god of the cannibals will be a cannibal, of the crusaders a crusader, and of the merchants a merchant.

if the God I worship likes everything I like, and dislikes everything I don't like, it's not God I'm worshiping it's myself.
tulc(IMHO anyway)

 

[Cosmowisdom]

Wouldn't the God I discover in my own mind look...well a lot like me? God is more then I can come up with, more then you or I together can come up with. I'm reminded of a quote:

if the God I worship likes everything I like, and dislikes everything I don't like, it's not God I'm worshiping it's myself.
tulc(IMHO anyway)

We are not a primitive man, discovery within the truth that is known by all.
People are starving in Africa, desertification is a direct result of man's interference and effect on a delicate ecosystem causing drought and death. Regardless we have the ability to feed the world with responsible use of our lands. TRUTH
We empower a socially primitive culture in the Middle East with our greed for oil. We have financed their tyrannical government and then wonder where the terrorists came from. Beyond this our consumption of oil pollutes and the plastics produced scar this paradise we live on. We have the intelligence and ability to eliminate this resource from our use to a responsible and earth friendly one. Subsiquently bringing the fall of the economy in the Middle East causing us to supplement their economy and influence their social growth peacefully without military force. TRUTH
Like I have already said my realization of God is free of individual belief and it seeks only truth, truth also being selfless.
Truth is highly dependant on the collective, like I have said the unity of man unknown in the history of man.
None of us can even fathom at the moment what truths the brilliance of the collective of minds might discover, especially if we sought to educate every mind to it's fullest potential.
Now...... Once again, are we done playing word games?

 

[Cosmowisdom]

Wouldn't the God I discover in my own mind look...well a lot like me? God is more then I can come up with, more then you or I together can come up with. I'm reminded of a quote:

if the God I worship likes everything I like, and dislikes everything I don't like, it's not God I'm worshiping it's myself.
tulc(IMHO anyway)

The funny thing about your statement is that it shows everything that I see wrong with man.
You try and show an arrogance in my words when my words are free by the truth that they seek.
You believe that your vision of God is pure because you worship "him" as a superior being free from your own vanity. All I see is an arrogance in a belief and resulting vanity that creates a passivity in man.
My vision is selfless but very far from passive. I intend to aggressively seek the truth and hopefully inspire others to do the same.
I find a truth in love in the unity of man and woman in it's purest form that explains a unique selflessness.
Love in it's truest form is selfless, without needs or desires. It is given without fear and without hindrance.
When this love finds it's counterpart it is instantly reciprocated and finds itself quenched of all needs and desires. A strange and beautiful way of receiving everything by desiring nothing.
When this love is acheived, there is no need to find love from another. The bond between man and woman overcomes all weakness and becomes a selflessness that finds God.
My point here is that a selfless look at God even free of belief will find itself quenched of all desires.
War, Disease, Famine, etc; they no longer exist and we would find a wealth within the collective of minds unknown.
There is no belief surrounding my God, no definition, no guidelines or parameters. Truth finds me a realization of God. This truth that is sought is far from being seen, only the collective will begin this vision. I have no avenue to exhibit my arrogance in my belief, I have none.
The truth finds no offense.

 

[tulc]

The funny thing about your statement is that it shows everything that I see wrong with man.

LOL! Well I do try and please!

You try and show an arrogance in my words when my words are free by the truth that they seek.

Uhmm where did I do that? I was trying to explain something I saw as an error in what you said. Does that mean you don't want to discuss it, just have us listen to you?

You believe that your vision of God is pure because you worship "him" as a superior being free from your own vanity. All I see is an arrogance in a belief and resulting vanity that creates a passivity in man.

...OR I simply don't agree with what you said? If your goal is to present these things without discussion you should put them in a blog not on a discussion thread.
tulc(have a pleasant night!)

 

[Cosmowisdom]

LOL! Well I do try and please!


Uhmm where did I do that? I was trying to explain something I saw as an error in what you said. Does that mean you don't want to discuss it, just have us listen to you?

...OR I simply don't agree with what you said? If your goal is to present these things without discussion you should put them in a blog not on a discussion thread.
tulc(have a pleasant night!)

I apologize, maybe I was a little harsh.
I do believe you saw an error in what I said, however, I found it to be completely taken out of context, devoid of all it's meaning. I do appreciate your comments, but I was hoping that they would come from the core of the meaning and intent of the words rather than the individual words themselves.
I have no intent to deceive anyone, if I make a statement that does not contain a truth or factual, I would like to know. So far nothing has been posted to the contrary, only questions without answers, as if it discredits anything I posted. I'm not speaking of you tulc.
I do appreciate all posts as long as they are constructive, like I said I seek the truth, if you have something to add or correct, PLEASE!

 

[Merlin]

As a Christian, why should it even matter to me about the Old Testament translations?

My faith is in Jesus and His work at the cross.

 

[CaDan]

As a Christian, why should it even matter to me about the Old Testament translations?

My faith is in Jesus and His work at the cross.

'Cause the phrase "according to the Scriptures" in the Nicene Creed means something.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

If you want to speak of basic beliefs why limit it at all, couldn't you say any religious belief that seeks a God or Creator seeks the same ending result?
I guess this only applies to those advantageous enough to realize Jesus Christ as their savior.

You know, if this were a general Christian website or newsgroup I would be somewhat more sympathetic.

Fundamentalists tend to be louder and get more coverage than mainliners, and the Vatican's most recent declarations on this issue was seriously mangled by the press.

But this is specifically the Liberal Theology section, you have been informed that we don't take the same view as Fundamentalists, and I rather strongly hinted that maybe the recent Popes, hardly flaming liberals, haven't held the views you are attempting to impute to Christianity.

Furthermore your response ignores the point I was making, that ultimately the arguments about interpretation, which you feel are so important, are quite limited.

Now, I ask again,
what exactly do you think occured at 900 A.D.?
What translations from what to what?

I also want to know where in the world you are getting the idea that the earliest complete extant copy of the Bible is from 1200?
(and even if it were true what possible importance would that have given the existance of the Codex Alexandrinus?)
or that the DSS only includes fragments outside of Deut. and Lev.?
Do they really think the Isaiah scroll doesn't count?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

I have no intent to deceive anyone, if I make a statement that does not contain a truth or factual, I would like to know. So far nothing has been posted to the contrary, only questions without answers[]

Oh, my questions all have answers.

But I am hoping you will do a little research and learn something along the way.

Again, what translations do you think were done in 900 A.D.?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

'Cause the phrase "according to the Scriptures" in the Nicene Creed means something.

Thank you.

Please note, I am taking Cosmo to task because he is making bogus arguments and false statements, not because I believe the transmission of the O.T. has been perfect.

All evidence is that the MT has changed almost not at all since it was started, however the time before that is more up to question, or more accurately, it takes a serious leap of faith to claim that significant editting did not take place prior to ~300 BCE.

On faith I believe that much of that editting was done with the same inspiration that the original authors had and, more importantly, that nothing of importance for salvation was changed.

There does seem to be a tendency to not throw anything out and many of the changes can be analyized, so that faith is not a totally blind leap.

 

[CaDan]

And to add to RtP from the NT side . . .

Even though I find a lot of value in text criticism, it seems to me that the evidence is pretty clear that the text of the NT was rock solid except for inconsequential scribal errors by around the end of the third century.

I don't understand this 900 A.D. thing at all.

 

[praying]

Ditto

Double ditto and with some paragraphs thrown in.