[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish:
Sorry, I edited my post and didn't get finished with it before you replied. In my view, this ends the challenge because Jesus performed compassionate healings, feed hungry people, kept moving to other towns to spread the good news, taught people to love each other, and ultimately died for everyone (you and I too).

Ish, your view is influenced by extreme bias. Please point out where in "Mark" Jesus performed "compassionate" healings. The fact is, the text clearly shows that Jesus performed his magical healings to show his supposed superiority over demons and his fellow Jews. The "good news" that Jesus spread was the imminent arrival of the Day of Yahweh that was to be ushered in by the son of man who would come with the clouds (as per Daniel and Jewish Pseudepigrapha). Jesus did not constantly teach people to "love one another." The text indicates he was confrontational with many of the people he came in contact with, including his family and disciples. Finally, Jesus was executed as a troublemaker. He didn't die for anyone and that includes you and me. Anyone who reads the text of "Mark" can see the truth of my statements.

rodahi

Umm... rodahi?

Why are you ignoring the Gospel message offered by Paul in this discussion and focussing on Mark alone, as if it was the only Christian text of its time?

The first message of Christianity is one of love, and all of the NT focuses on this fact. Now, if you equate "love" with always doing what others want, or always being nice to them no matter what, then that is another matter. But then that only exposes your fallacy in that you do not understand the definition of the word love. It is possible to love a person, yet not always give them what they want, and to rebuke them when they deserve it. One can even love a person and be angry with them. Love is not just about being a nice person.

Nomad

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad:
Umm... rodahi?

Umm... Nomad?

Nomad: Why are you ignoring the Gospel message offered by Paul in this discussion and focussing on Mark alone, as if it was the only Christian text of its time?

I am focusing on "Mark" because it is the narrative that most likely depicts the most primitive picture of Jesus. I am not interested in the hypothetical Q or the "gospel" attributed to Thomas--neither is a narrative and neither can be proven to depict a Jesus more primitive than the one painted by "Mark." Paul says very little about the historical Jesus.

Nomad: The first message of Christianity is one of love, and all of the NT focuses on this fact.

It would be great if this were so, but it isn't. The fact is, the first message of Jesus and his earliest followers was the imminent coming of the "son of man" who was to judge the inhabitants of the known world as the End of times arrived.

Nomad: Now, if you equate "love" with always doing what others want, or always being nice to them no matter what, then that is another matter. But then that only exposes your fallacy in that you do not understand the definition of the word love.

No, Nomad. I equate love with being peace-loving, kind, and compassionate with ALL people. "Mark's" Jesus is arrogant, angry, confrontational, and extremely judgmental--and this is with his own Jewish people. He is also confrontational at times with his own family and disciples.

Nomad: It is possible to love a person, yet not always give them what they want, and to rebuke them when they deserve it.

I don't think Jesus had any right to think of himself as superior to anyone. His family, disciples, and fellow Jews did not "deserve" his angry, arrogant, and confrontational attitude. Ultimately, it was Jesus' arrogance and anger that caused him to be executed as a troublemaker.

Nomad: One can even love a person and be angry with them. Love is not just about being a nice person.

A person can better express his love for his fellow human beings WITHOUT expressing anger and arrogance, and without confrontation and a judgmental attitude.

Ish claimed, "Jesus main message was one of love for one's neighbor which he demonstrated constantly." I say Ish is wrong. If you agree with Ish's claim, then present textual evidence from "Mark" that supports the claim.

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited June 08, 2001).]

Thanks Nomad. What you say is true. Therefore, I still believe that Jesus' message in Mark is one of love and compassion. I provide solid argumentation for Jesus "feeling compassion" above. Jesus flat out said "Love your neighbor like yourself." Would people have "listened to him with delight" if he hadn't practiced what he preached?!

Rodahi must think I'm looking at Mark through rose-colored glasses, but he his looking through opaque rose-colored glasses and missing the best parts fo the gospel.

Rodahi has shown that he likes translations colored with anti-Christian bias. I have provided a solid refutation of them above, which if denied, undermines or at least weakens his stance in other threads because of his dependence on Aland and Metzger.

Rodahi doesn't want the text to say anything good about Jesus and that's why he has to go digging to find bad translations that support his point.

Mark presents a compassionate Jesus for all to read. What this really has to do with the overall topic of this thread, I do not know, because there are plenty of other views within the Bible as Nomad points out. Regardless, I consider Rodahi's "challenge" over.

Ish

Ish: Thanks Nomad. What you say is true. Therefore, I still believe that Jesus' message in Mark is one of love and compassion. I provide solid argumentation for Jesus "feeling compassion" above. Jesus flat out said "Love your neighbor like yourself." Would people have "listened to him with delight" if he hadn't practiced what he preached?!

No, Ish. You have offered your own biased spin, nothing more. This does not qualify as "solid argumentation."

1. You failed to quote more than a single phrase out of the WHOLE 16 chapters of "Mark." That doesn't cut it.
2. MOST people DID NOT listen to Jesus "with delight." Even his family and hometown did not believe him to be anything other than a misguided person. Read the text of "Mark" and see.

Ish: Rodahi must think I'm looking at Mark through rose-colored glasses, but he his looking through opaque rose-colored glasses and missing the best parts fo the gospel.

I know how to read, Ish. That is all it takes.

Ish: Rodahi has shown that he likes translations colored with anti-Christian bias.

Let's see. When someone reads what the text of "Mark" actually says, then he is "anti-Christian." This is an example of illogic, Ish.

Ish: I have provided a solid refutation of them above, which if denied, undermines or at least weakens his stance in other threads because of his dependence on Aland and Metzger.

No, Ish. Nothing has been undermined or weakened. I agree with Metzger and Aland on some things (they do offer expert opinion on paleographic matters) and do not agree with them on some things (they are devout Christians with all the biases that most Christians have). That is a very reasonable thing to do. Metzger makes no bones about his bias. For example, in the Preface to The New Testament: It's Background, Growth, and Content, he states, "Understanding the New Testament...involves far more than studying the several books as pieces of ancient literature; it involves also an appreciation of the testimony of those who experienced and recorded what God had accomplishedin man's behalf in and through his Son, Jesus Christ."

You see, Ish, a historian views the works known as the NT as ancient literature, nothing more and nothing less. Anyone who wishes to make them more than ancient literature is biased.


Ish: Rodahi doesn't want the text to say anything good about Jesus and that's why he has to go digging to find bad translations that support his point.

This is amusing commentary, Ish. I quoted what "Mark" wrote. I didn't have to dig around to find something "bad" about Jesus. It is there for all to see. What is interesting is the fact that you still have not quoted more than a phrase from "Mark." Are you that uncomfortable with it?

There are no "bad" translations, Ish. There are literally hundreds of variants in the extant MSS. There is no unanimity among experts as to the most correct reading. Some scholars see the variants one way and some see them in another way. Neither way is "bad" or "good." Only Christian biase would cause someone to think some are "bad."

Ish: Mark presents a compassionate Jesus for all to read.

No, Ish, "Mark" does not present a "compassionate Jesus." That is what you have been taught. Read the text for yourself.

Ish: What this really has to do with the overall topic of this thread, I do not know, because there are plenty of other views within the Bible as Nomad points out.

If you don't see the relation, Ish, you haven't been paying attention. IF Jesus was an arrogant, angry, confrontational man (the way "Mark" depicts him), then it is understandable why his fellow Jews, his family, and some of his disciples did not think of him as THE SAVIOR OF MANKIND or MESSIAH.

Ish: Regardless, I consider Rodahi's "challenge" over.

You have every right to "consider" what you wish, Ish. The problem is, though, you never presented more than a phrase from "Mark" to support your claim that "Jesus main message was one of love for one's neighbor which he demonstrated constantly."

First, you said you didn't have the time to support your claim. Then you spent an inordinate amount of space making disparaging remarks about the Scholar's Version, the Jesus Seminar, Dennis MacDonald, and Bart D. Ehrman.
Next, you gave your biased opinion of what you believe "Mark" said about Jesus in a few passages. Now, you say you "consider" the challenge to be "over." This is laughable.

rodahi

Baloney. I proved above why your translations can't be trusted. You have not replied substantially as to why anyone should trust your translations. Since you have only presented biased translations, you have no case. Mark speaks of a "compassionate" Jesus as I prove above. If you don't think I'm right, then please tell me exactly why you are championing the other poorly supported Greek variant.

Perhaps because I feel that people can crack open most translations, except for the the Scholar's Version and the handful of verses erroneously translated by Ehrman and MacDonald, and find a compassionate Jesus.

Pure opinion. After all, the crowds followed Jesus nearly everywhere he went. If he was so angry and mean, then why did they do this Rodahi? I do not see that he was rude to his family. I see him proving his points to his disciples. After all, Jesus' family came to take him home because they thought he was unbalanced. So, was Jesus supposed to just say in this situation, "Oh, ok, just a minute Mom, I'm coming..." No, he used it as an opportunity to teach. His family was obviously not too mad at him (if they were at all) because his brother is mentioned as a leader of the Christians in Josephus and Jesus' mother seems to have continued beside him. No, Rodahi, I think the spin is all yours and all negative.

Very blindly. As if you're looking through a welder's mask, your view is darkened.

I have no idea where you are coming from because I said no such thing. When someone reads a biased version, they get a biased view. That is exactly what you have done and what you have presented.

So, then you do agree on the paleographic opinions of Aland and Metzger that Codex Bezae is an inferior "Western" text type of the 5th or 6th century. If so, then since Ehrman's translation relies upon this as his earliest witness, why do you use his translation??

Here we go again... I don't think you're even trying to see your own biases...

Pretty admirable in a scholar, huh? I admit my Christian bias as well. What about you, Rodahi? Can you admit that you might have the slightest tinge of bias against Christianity? I bet others can see it. Why not be admirable too and admit your bias?

I don't see how you got this out of Metzger's quote.

Yes. Dig. First, you provided the "Scholar's Version" which is hopelessly biased toward grabbing the attention of both the public and the media with it's choice of controversial (and unfortunate) english words. BTW, can you produce a link to the actual Greek text underlying the "Scholar's Version", variant choice and all like I can for most modern translations? Anyway, then you went "digging" to find the biased translations by Ehrman and MacDonald (which are not from full scholarly versions of the NT, just lone individual translations). Yes. Dig.

Aside from your rhetoric, no, I am not at all uncomfortable with Mark. I simply see no reason to reproduce the book after giving references to the very places that prove my point. As a matter of fact, I'd like every one to read the book instead of taking quotes out of context. Only then will people understand what I'm saying. So, no. I want people to read the book for themselves.

Ok. I'll come up with my own tonight, but you will probably think it is "bad"! Actually, this assertion is just purely fiction. Of course there are bad translations. Only if you want to destory the Bible's message do you say "There are no 'bad' translations", because then anything is fair game no matter how poor! This was pretty bad logic on your part, Rodahi.

Now that was rhetoric to the Nth degree, not to mention bad logic.

Yes, there are hundreds of greek variants. However, unless you're dishonest or unlearned on the subject, you would know that for many variants there is unanimity or at the very least a majority support! This is because of the various factors involved: date, text type, and the most likely explanation.

Also, even if you use the most likely greek variant, you have the problem of choosing the correct English word or phrase. A translation can intentionally pick an English word that sort of reflects the meaning of the greek word but gives the translation an intentional controversial flair. Bad!

So, indeed, there are bad translations, and not only in the mind of a theist. Or do you really want me to make my own translation, since you seem to think one is as good as another?

As usual, Rodahi, I find myself saying to you "I HAVE read it!" And I have come to quite the opposite decision.

What I believe Mark said? Well, after all, my very own translation of Mark is as good as the others by your standards...

This whole thing is only laughable to you, Rodahi, because you just don't get it. You sir are also biased.

Once again, you can spin this all you want, but unless you can refute my problems with the quotes from your biased translations (which will be pretty hard given the evidence against them), then I have nothing left to say.

Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited June 09, 2001).]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
No, Ish. You have offered your own biased spin, nothing more. This does not qualify as "solid argumentation."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Baloney. I proved above why your translations can't be trusted.

You proved nothing of the sort.

Ish: You have not replied substantially as to why anyone should trust your translations.

What I have presented are numerous passages from "Mark" demonstrating the falseness of your claim. I chose a translation that I think best represents what Jesus said and did. I could have chosen ANY translation and my argument would still be just as valid.

Ish: Since you have only presented biased translations, you have no case. Mark speaks of a "compassionate" Jesus as I prove above.

Once again, you have proven nothing, Ish. You have given the typical Christian apologetic opinion. That DOES NOT mean it is correct. Werner Georg Kummel, a Christian scholar, supports the "angry" Jesus passage. See Introduction to the New Testament, P. 76. So does Frank W. Beare, another Christian scholar. See The Earliest Records of Jesus, P. 72. Are you going to argue that they are wrong because they are atheists or because they are members of the Jesus Seminar or because they are out to turn NT textual criticism upside down? I don't think you would be that foolish.

Ish: If you don't think I'm right, then please tell me exactly why you are championing the other poorly supported Greek variant.

I welcome the opportunity to explain why the "compassionate" Jesus cannot be the correct variant reading. (I will say upfront that I do not expect you to accept my explanation because it would require you to change your mind. I really don't think that happens, Ish.)

1. The earliest variant MUST have been "moved with anger" rather than "moved with compassion," for no Christian scribe would have changed the reading to make Jesus angry instead of compassionate.
2. Both "Matthew" and "Luke" omit the embarrassing moved with angerand the equally embarrassing verse 43. I will quote the texts of all three to illustrate my point:

MARK
"And a leper came to him beseeching him, and kneeling said to him, 'If you will, you can make me clean.' And moved with anger, he stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, 'I will; be clean.' And immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean. And he severely rebuked him, and cast him out. And he said to him, 'See that you say nothing to any one; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to the people.' (1:40-44)

MATTHEW
"a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, 'Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.' And he stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, 'I will; be clean.' And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. And Jesus said to him, 'See that you say nothing to any one; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to the people." (8:2-4)

LUKE
"there came a man full of leprosy; and when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and besought him, 'Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.' And he stretched out his hand, and touched him, saying, 'I will; be clean.'And immediately the leprosy left him. And he charged him to tell to tell no one; but 'go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for your cleansing, as Moses commanded, for a proof to the people.'"
(5:12-14)

If "Mark" had originally said "moved with compassion" instead of "moved with anger," there would have been no good reason for either "Matthew" or "Luke" to have omitted the phrase. However, there would have been very good reason for both writers to have omitted "moved with anger" and the angry rebuke in verse 43.

rodahi

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
1. You failed to quote more than a single phrase out of the WHOLE 16 chapters of "Mark." That doesn't cut it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Perhaps because I feel that people can crack open most translations, except for the the Scholar's Version and the handful of verses erroneously translated by Ehrman and MacDonald, and find a compassionate Jesus.

Perhaps it is because you know that most people won't crack open any translation and find out that your claim is false. I will ask it again, Ish--Quote "Mark" and prove your claim. You said, "Jesus main message was one of love for one's neighbor which he demonstrated constantly."


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
2. MOST people DID NOT listen to Jesus "with delight." Even his family and hometown did not believe him to be anything other than a misguided person. Read the text of "Mark" and see.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Pure opinion.

No, Ish. My statement is supported by the text of "Mark." Read the quotes.

Ish: After all, the crowds followed Jesus nearly everywhere he went. If he was so angry and mean, then why did they do this Rodahi?

This is an easy one. The crowds followed Jesus around to get him to perform his prophet/magician duties, i.e., heal the sick.

Ish: I do not see that he was rude to his family.

Then you have not read the text of "Mark."

Ish: I see him proving his points to his disciples.

Okay, quote "Mark."

Ish: After all, Jesus' family came to take him home because they thought he was unbalanced.

Yes! And why would that be, Ish? Would the family members of a peace-loving, kind, and compassionate man who went around teaching everyone to love one another say that the man was out of his head? I don't think so.

Ish: So, was Jesus supposed to just say in this situation, "Oh, ok, just a minute Mom, I'm coming..."

You have ignored the problem, Ish.

Ish: No, he used it as an opportunity to teach.

He shunned his own family and said his followers were more important. What kind of teaching is that?

Ish: His family was obviously not too mad at him (if they were at all) because his brother is mentioned as a leader of the Christians in Josephus

Then his brother must have changed his mind about Jesus. There is evidence in the narrative of "John" proving that his brothers DID NOT consider Jesus to be who he said he was. You have not shown that Jesus did not shun and insult his family.

Ish: and Jesus' mother seems to have continued beside him. No, Rodahi, I think the spin is all yours and all negative.

To my knowledge, there is zero evidence in the synoptic tradition indicating that Jesus got along with his mother or any other member of his family, let alone loved them. I haven't put a negative spin on anything, Ish. What I have done is quote passages from "Mark" which support my argument. So far, you have done nothing but give your biased opinion.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
I know how to read, Ish. That is all it takes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Very blindly. As if you're looking through a welder's mask, your view is darkened.

Keep your day job.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
Let's see. When someone reads what the text of "Mark" actually says, then he is "anti-Christian." This is an example of illogic, Ish.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: I have no idea where you are coming from because I said no such thing. When someone reads a biased version, they get a biased view. That is exactly what you have done and what you have presented.

No, Ish. That is precisely what Christian apologists do. Virtually ALL translations soften Jesus' harshness and anger.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
No, Ish. Nothing has been undermined or weakened. I agree with Metzger and Aland on some things (they do offer expert opinion on paleographic matters)...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: So, then you do agree on the paleographic opinions of Aland and Metzger that Codex Bezae is an inferior "Western" text type of the 5th or 6th century.

Quote me where I said I agreed with what Aland and Metzger have said about Codex Bezae. When one has nothing to support his claim, he grasps at straws. Right, Ish. I agree with some of their opinions and disagree with some of their opinions. That goes for the scholars of the Jesus Seminar, Bart D. Ehrman, Dennis R. MacDonald, Werner Georg Kummel, and every other scholar.

Ish: If so, then since Ehrman's translation relies upon this as his earliest witness, why do you use his translation??

I don't agree with Ehrman BECAUSE he relies on a particular MS and I don't disagree with Aland and Metzger because they rely on other MSS. I think Ehrman is correct to think that Jesus was angry (in "Mark") BECAUSE of the reasons I gave earlier.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
and do not agree with them on some things (they are devout Christians with all the biases that most Christians have).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Here we go again... I don't think you're even trying to see your own biases...

Is it a bias to read what the text SAYS in "Mark?" Is it a bias to want to know what actually happened in history?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
Metzger makes no bones about his bias.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Pretty admirable in a scholar, huh?

It is only admirable to biased Christians.

Ish: I admit my Christian bias as well.

Great! I knew you were biased. Just because you and Metzger are and admit it, it does not follow that everyone else is, at least to the same degree, Ish.

Ish: What about you, Rodahi? Can you admit that you might have the slightest tinge of bias against Christianity?

The ONLY people who say that are biased Christians. For the hundredth time, I view the NT as ancient literature. I read it precisely the same way I read Josephus, Caesar, Tacitus, Homer, Plutarch, Philostratus, Plato, Thucydides, Lucian, Aristotle, Enoch, the Zend Avesta, the Koran, Herodotus, Suetonius, Pliny, et al. For some reason, many Christians think that just because they are biased and admit it, everyone else is and to the same degree. That is BS!

Ish: I bet others can see it.

Yes, the Christian apologists I have debated. If you think I am biased AGAINST the JC Bible, that is only because it is predominantly the only ancient work we discuss and you have a vested interest in EVERY discussion. If you were to find something you think is absurd in an ancient document other than the JC Bible, would that suggest that you are biased against that work? That is precisely what you are saying about me.

Ish: Why not be admirable too and admit your bias?

Are you implying that I am not "admirable" because I do not admit to being "anti-Christian?" How biased of you.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
You see, Ish, a historian views the works known as the NT as ancient literature, nothing more and nothing less. Anyone who wishes to make them more than ancient literature is biased.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: I don't see how you got this out of Metzger's quote.

I am not surprised.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
This is amusing commentary, Ish. I quoted what "Mark" wrote. I didn't have to dig around to find something "bad" about Jesus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Yes. Dig.

No, not dig.

Ish: First, you provided the "Scholar's Version" which is hopelessly biased toward grabbing the attention of both the public and the media with it's choice of controversial (and unfortunate) english words.

This is a bunch of crap that is continually promulgated by conservative Christian apologists and conservative theologians to discredit and misrepresent the scholarship of the Jesus Seminar. I DFO NOT agree with much of what the JS says about Jesus. However, I see little or nothing wrong with their translation of the NT. For one thing, it contains less Christian bias. If you want to argue that the Scholar's Version is
somehow inaccurate BECAUSE the JS wants the attention of the public, you have no argument, at least not to reasonable people.

Ish: BTW, can you produce a link to the actual Greek text underlying the "Scholar's Version", variant choice and all like I can for most modern translations?

I think the Scholar's Version is more accurate than most, if not all, other translations because it has less Christian bias. BTW, Are you suggesting that the WHOLE translation is inaccurate? If so, prove it.

Ish: Anyway, then you went "digging" to find the biased translations by Ehrman and MacDonald (which are not from full scholarly versions of the NT, just lone individual translations). Yes. Dig.

No, not dig. Neither Ehrman nor MacDonald have been shown to be biased against Christianity, so you have no point.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
It is there for all to see. What is interesting is the fact that you still have not quoted more than a phrase from "Mark." Are you that uncomfortable with it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Aside from your rhetoric, no, I am not at all uncomfortable with Mark. I simply see no reason to reproduce the book after giving references to the very places that prove my point.

You have not proved your "point." You have done a great deal of talking.

Ish: As a matter of fact, I'd like every one to read the book instead of taking quotes out of context.

It would turn a great number of Christians into non-Christians if they actually read the NT. That is precisely what changed my mind. BTW, I took no quotes out of context. If you think I did, prove it.

Ish: Only then will people understand what I'm saying. So, no. I want people to read the book for themselves.

I guess this means that you are not going to produce one iota of evidence to support your (false) claim. So be it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
There are no "bad" translations, Ish.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Ok. I'll come up with my own tonight, but you will probably think it is "bad"! Actually, this assertion is just purely fiction. Of course there are bad translations.

Who is to judge translations, Ish? YOU? Keep your day job.

Ish: Only if you want to destory the Bible's message do you say "There are no 'bad' translations", because then anything is fair game no matter how poor!

Let's see, Ish. If anyone points out what the text ACTUALLY SAYS and provides quotes, he must be wrong if he disagrees with your biased interpretation and/or uses a translation that does not meet with your biased approval. To be blunt, Ish, What evidence have you presented to support your original claim, Ish? I think reasonable readers can see what you are trying to do here.

Ish: This was pretty bad logic on your part, Rodahi.

I stand behind my logical argument and the evidence I supported it with.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
There are literally hundreds of variants in the extant MSS. There is no unanimity among experts as to the most correct reading. Some scholars see the variants one way and some see them in another way. Neither way is "bad" or "good." Only Christian bias would cause someone to think some are "bad."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Now that was rhetoric to the Nth degree, not to mention bad logic.

I simply stated facts.

Ish: Yes, there are hundreds of greek variants.

We agree!

Ish: However, unless you're dishonest or unlearned on the subject,

Let's see, I must either be dishonest or ignorant. Gosh, what if I am honest AND well-informed? Where would that leave you, Ish?

Ish: you would know that for many variants there is unanimity or at the very least a majority support!

The fact is, there are around 300,000 variations (some are minor; some are not) in the extant texts. No two MSS are precisely the same. There is no unanimity on the correct reading of any MS BECAUSE of the numerous variant readings. I hope you knew this. Surely you are not dishonest or unlearned or otherwise.

Ish: This is because of the various factors involved: date, text type, and the most likely explanation.

Why didn't you mention intentional scribal changes?

Ish: Also, even if you use the most likely greek variant, you have the problem of choosing the correct English word or phrase. A translation can intentionally pick an English word that sort of reflects the meaning of the greek word but gives the translation an intentional controversial flair. Bad!

A group of Christian translators can make the English translation conform to their own presuppositions, rather than reflect the intended meaning. I guess you are right after all, Ish. That would mean that ALL Christian translations would be BAD.

Ish: So, indeed, there are bad translations, and not only in the mind of a theist. Or do you really want me to make my own translation, since you seem to think one is as good as another?

I have to admit you are right on this one, Ish. The translations that reflect Christian bias are indeed BAD.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
No, Ish, "Mark" does not present a "compassionate Jesus." That is what you have been taught. Read the text for yourself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: As usual, Rodahi, I find myself saying to you "I HAVE read it!" And I have come to quite the opposite decision.

I HAVE read it as well. And the TEXT proves the falseness of your claim. Oddly enough, you don't think highly enough of the TEXT to quote any of it (beyond one little phrase.)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
Next, you gave your biased opinion of what you believe "Mark" said about Jesus in a few passages. Now, you say you "consider" the challenge to be "over." This is laughable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: What I believe Mark said? Well, after all, my very own translation of Mark is as good as the others by your standards...

I think the Scholar's Version meets my standards. Who knows about yours?

Ish: This whole thing is only laughable to you, Rodahi, because you just don't get it. You sir are also biased.

You claimed that "Jesus' main message was one of love for one's own neighbor which he demonstrated constantly." Thus far, you have not produced more than a single phrase from "Mark" to back up you claim. EVERYTHING else has been Yak, Yak, Yak.

Ish: Once again, you can spin this all you want, but unless you can refute my problems with the quotes from your biased translations (which will be pretty hard given the evidence against them), then I have nothing left to say.

You claimed that "Jesus' main message was one of love for one's own neighbor which he demonstrated constantly." Thus far, you have not produced more than a single phrase from "Mark" to back up you claim. EVERYTHING else has been Yak, Yak, Yak.

rodahi

Huzbilla,
From what I have read, most Jews also feel that Jesus did not fit the description of the messiah as was prophesised.
In terms of his lineage and deeds.

Please read the following:

"For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;"


This exactly describes the state of Israel today. The Jewish rejection was foretold in Scripture many times. While it would seem strange that the Jews rejected Christ en masse, the fact that we were told in advance that this would happen is eye opening.