Ish

These NIV "edits" usually have scholarly reasons behind them. It seems to me that you are saying that you think those who wrote the NIV were editing to smooth things over. I do not believe that is the case. I believe that they looked at the evidence and came to an informed decision backed by evidence just as the other translations have done.

Referring to the actually Hebrew text in the BHS, one finds that there is a variant at this spot in the text. The NIV translators picked the variant they thought most correct, i.e. 22.

Versions using the age of 22 years:
New International (NIV)
New American Standard (NASB)
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
New Living Translation (NLT)
New English Translation (NET)

The KJV and RSV are literal translations. However, a literal rendering does not always get the point across. A.T. Robinson's Word Pictures says the following: "Acts 22:9 - But they heard not the voice (ten de phonen ouk ekousan). The accusative here may be used rather than the genitive as in verse 7 to indicate that those with Paul did not understand what they heard (9:7) just as they beheld the light (22:9), but did not see Jesus (9:7)."

The verb used in this verse for hearing (akouo) is used in other places in the sense of understanding...Mk 4:33, 1Cor 14:2, Gal 4:21. etc. (also see entry for akouo in the BAGD Greek Lexicon). Check out the notes on this verse in the NET Bible and see the New American Standard.

This is incorrect. The NIV uses "create disaster" and this is not far off from most other translations:

"creating calamity" - New American Standard (NASB)
"create woe" - New Revised Standard (NRSV)
"create calamity" - New King James Version (NKJV)
"create disaster" - New Jerusalem Bible (NJB)
"creates calamity" - New English Translation (NET)

So, as you can see, it really does not due justice to the translation or the scholarly translators to flippantly say that the NIV has been "edited" to smooth things over. Scholarly decisions were made based on existing evidence and knowledge of the underlying texts.

Ish

[ August 04, 2001: Message edited by: Ish ]

critical thinking made ez

I always like the Highlander Puzzle.

Matt.16:28 "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

This verse just verifies the false teaching by Jesus of the 2nd coming during the early church era.


The Heaven Ascenders are also a puzzle.

Heb. 11:5 "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him..."

John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

So which is it?

Amos

If you or anyone finds a contradiction in the bible could it be possible that your interpretation is wrong?

I say this because I see no contradiction. I always pondered the passages and asked the BVM to show me how to interpet the paasage I pondered.

For example, if Jesus was the reborn Joseph the lineage problem is solved. If this is true, all or nearly all of your understanding of the bible needs to be re-examined and so I can see why you would not like to accept what I wrote. If I can do this with a thousand other passages, such as the resurrection account, the various women at the tomb, what the magi saw, etc. and present this into a logical story you might even conclude that the bible should not be read by believers because it is misleading and therefore dangerous to do so.

Amos.

Someone7

Could it be that those who don’t see the obvious contradictions in the bible are making up silly ad hoc rationalizations so that they can so cling to their idiotic fantasies?

BVM? Blessed Virgin Mary I take it? Is there a number I can reach her at to get her opinion on the bible?

Oh wait, she's either long dead or never existed in the first place...

What? What the hell are you talking about? Reborn Joseph?

The ad hoc rationalizations just keep getting stupider and stupider...

I'd first have to understand what being the 'reborn Joseph' is supposed to mean before I could possibly not like to accept what you wrote.

Idiotic ad hoc rationalizations won't convince anyone but the people who already believe.

Again, I'm not even sure what you're talking about. What do you mean I might conclude believers shouldn't read the bible because it is dangerous and misleading?

Amos

Your reaction does not surprise me and your idea that ad hoc inerpretations will only convince believers is absurd.

That is why I wrote that if you understood what I am talking about you would vote in favor of literary censorship.

Amos

Someone7

Ad hoc interpretations?

Oh yeah, it's really an 'interpretation' when you look at one genealogy, then the other and make up some excuse that would make it not a contradiction that has absolutely no support in the text to justify it...

[ August 05, 2001: Message edited by: Someone7 ]

JFWade

I'm kind of new to this list, but I think the biggest contradiction is this: in several cases the new testament asserts that Jesus "drove out the money changers" from the temple, and used whips to do this. Now, from my reading and studying of the temple, there was about 20,000 employees of the temple, with a Roman garrison of about 600-700 protecting the temple. We're talking a high security religious and financial edifice here that was also the symbol of state: this not a simple corner church. The question I was researching was, "how did Jesus do that?" when I came across an incredible book: Joel Carmichael's "The Birth of Christianity: Reality and Myth". His theory is interesting: that Jesus was leading an armed insurrection that took the temple and held it for about 3 days, then Jesus was arrested for sedition by the Romans. So the "King of the Jews" epitath on his cross wasn't ironic, as the Gospel oddly seems to imply--the Romans meant it.

His evidence is interesting: he points out something I've never noticed about any of the Gospel accounts before: that in a land occupied by Romans (and brutal Romans at that) there is virtually no mention of the daily interations you might expect in the narrative, especially since tons of other conflicts are noted by other writers like Josephus. It's as if the Roman's weren't there in the Gospels much at all. It's uncanny, now that I think about it.

But they were there, in reality. So why are all the Gospel narratives stripped of their context? Because they were written later, and slanted in such a way as to hide the seditious activities of Jesus.

Joel Carmichael's written a really intersting book, I'd recommend it.

Also, I noticed the reference to greek plays. Camille Paglia in her book "Sexual Persona" (p103) points out that Euripedes "Bacchae" strangely prefigures the New Testament. According to Camille, the play, "Bacchae" written 400 years before Christ, dipects the conflit between armed authority and a popular cult. A long haired non-conformist claiming to be the son of God by a human woman, arrives at the capitol city with a band of scruffy porvincials. The demigod is arrested, interrogated, mocked, imprisoned. He offers no resistance. A ritual victim is lofted into a tree, slaughtered, an earthquake levels the royal palace. Like Jesus, this god is beloved by women and expands their rights....

More stuff to think about.

Celsus

Here's an obscure personal favorite I discovered:

In pre-flood times, it was reported:
"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were heroes of old, men of reknown." Genesis 6:4

After the flood:
"Every living thing that moved on the earth perished - birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. ...(blah, blah)... Only Noah was left, and those with him on the ark." Genesis 7:21,23

Everyone?

When exploring the Promised Land, the spies reported:
"We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." Numbers 13:33 (see also verses 22 and 28)

Further passages with Anakites/Anakims (several are repeat reference to the spies' reports and of Caleb driving the Anakites (all 3 of them!) from Kiriath Arba/Hebron):
Deuteronomy 1:28; 2:10-11,21; 9:2
Joshua 11:21-22; 14:12,15; 15:13-14; 21:11
Judges 1:20 (from Strong's concordance)

Hence, you find silly apologetic arguments that Satan's angels were on the earth procreating (wouldn't it be cool to really, physically, be the spawn of Satan? Or if they really were "heroes of old", they might be the spawn of God's angels), or you get Raelians (better known for ET-creationism), or Von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods" BS.

jre

Arrg, it's out of print on Amazon.

That's a great thing to use to piss off Christians, but it's highly odd that records of the time don't mention this happening.

[ August 06, 2001: Message edited by: jre ]

gravitybow

Are you dense? Haven't you ever heard of the Quadrinity?