Toto

The word "miseo" in the Greek clearly means hate. If that is a "mistranslation" from the original (missing) Hebrew or Aramaic, who made that error? Certainly not modern atheists.

This passage in Greek has been part of the sacred Christian scripture for close to two millennia. Are you trying to tell us that Christians have been following a mistranslation for all this time? What else has been mistranslated?

Or do the mistranslations only clear up problems that modern readers have? How convenient.

Toto

Doug Krueger from the II library:

rickP

Maybe they all mean "love a little less". But then again, maybe the word for "evil" should be "a little less good" and "light" should be "a little less dark".

JoeWallack

YV:
Ahtah medabare evrete?



YOSEPH

spamandham

Moving to the thread established for discussion of the bibleLuke 19:1 is the story of Zacchaeus. It has nothing to do with Herod. Nothing in Luke 19 has anything to do with Herod.

But I can see why you feel the need to claim it does, because otherwise Jesus is revealed as a petty jerk.

If you wish to claim atheists know nothing of the Bible (and I really wouldn't expect atheists to know anything about the Bible anyway), at least use good examples.

bacht

You don't have to learn Greek or Hebrew to get the basic Christian teachings: God have His law to the Jews, who disobeyed to the point of destruction. Christ brought the New Covenant, freely available to any and all who believe.

For those of us who reject supernaturalism there's not much else to bother with. There's no life after death imo so the whole resurrection thing doesn't work for me (nor did it for the ancient Hebrews either). The Christian interpretation of Hebrew prophecy is arbitrary and obscures the original historical situation before and after the Exile.

The Bible is probably the most intensively studied book in human history. Both theistic and non-theistic scholars have picked it apart and compared it with archeological and linguistic evidence, trying to clarify the ancient context. But the subject matter is mostly supernatural, which makes it impervious to scientific scrutiny. In a sense it doesn't matter whether we have decayed scrolls or manuscripts to examine, because the claims can't be proven anyway.

rizdek

I'm guessing what they are talking about is the parable, Luke 19:20-28 where it really reads as if Jesus himself is saying "27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me." That statement is not part of the parable, but an explanation of the parable.

spin

The Hebrew bible.

Unsubstantiated conjecture, based on a Greek text with a few strained Aramaisms.

Back translations are unconvincing. And is this SAMEK-NUN-AYN-HE? What are the actual Hebrew letters?

Stick with what you know:

The last letter is an omega, not an omicron. Strongs isn't very trustworthy.

When you cite something, be it biblical verses or pagan writers or whatever, you are obligated to provide a reference to the cited material. This is common courtesy. How can someone see wtf you are talking about?

Using Strongs and not citing your references makes your comments obscurant.

If you are wondering why you don't get understood, you aren't helping your readers to understand you.

If I look up the first nt use of misew (I find Lk 14:26) and see the Peshitta, the equivalent is SAMEK-NUN-ALEF. The word doesn't exist in Hebrew, but it's there in Syriac Aramaic. And it's found in the Peshitta everywhere misew's found in Greek. For SN) my Peshitto dictionary provides "hate, oppose / stand separate, stand straight / reject, refuse". HTH.


spin

mrunicycler

How dare you be so rude as to not only disagree with Ibelieve, but also show that he's wrong in both his idea that atheists don't no nothin' 'bout the babble and his own understandings of his own babble.

You sir (or madam) are going to hell.

Well, you might, if it existed...

Keith&Co.

That's not true. Steve has removed comments that have been shown to be wrong. For example, a long passage of Paul's was highlighted as cruel, evil, etc. Until someone showed that the passage was speaking sarcastically.

Of course, 'errors' aren't the only thing on the SAB. A lot of posters come to assert that the cruelty isn't really cruel, or certain troublesome passages are metaphors or whatever.
They don't always prove it, or even attempt to in some cases.

But the whole point of the SAB is not to correct errors or answer problems. It's to bring out verses that some people don't seem to know about.


Well, that's funny. In a discussion of Noah's Ark and the Flood, i mentioned the year spent on the Ark. More than one christain in the discussion who KNEW that the Flood only lasted 40 days/nights accused me of just making shit up. Funny.