Dargo

I guess god didn't forsee this problem when he confused all the languages at the Tower of Bable incident. If we were all still speaking the same language or at least aproximately the same language, we wouldn't have any need for Bible translations. Satan can't take the blame for this screw up since the Bible makes it clear Yahew himself is responsible.

Wayne Delia

It's a common apologetic assertion, which really doesn't address the issue.

Apologists, notably Josh McDowell, argue that extant manuscripts of the books of the Bible are in the sequence x, x+1, x+2, ... n-1, n (where n-x is the known number of "translations" or transcriptions, and x is generally agreed to be a number greater than 1, i.e. the originals are not available). Very late translations of the Bible appear to match up reasonably well with very early manuscripts.

What this supports is the principle that the Bible is generally, but not completely, well translated or transcribed. That it is not completely well-translated is trivially demonstrated in the various English versions of the Bible, featuring significant semantic differences between, say, the King James Version and the 1970's version known as "The Way."

What it should have been supporting (and the apologists allow the reader to make this unsupported leap of faith) is that the events described in the Bible are therefore true. The problem is that well-translated or carefully-transcribed bullshit is still bullshit. Over-enthusiastic apologists (possibly including McDowell, although it's been a few years since I read his material) assert that the text of the Bible is the most carefully-preserved ancient document, but I know from first-hand personal experience that this is not true. The Hamurabi Code, an ancient codification of legal principles, part of which is the basis for certain Bible verses, predates the Bible by quite a few years. It's engraved in a pillar of basalt on display at the Louvre Museum in Paris. I've touched it, so I'm sure it exists. That, to my way of thinking, would be a 100% accurate translation for a longer period of time than the Bible can claim only less than 100% accuracy, so that particular apologetic claim is dismissed as mere cheerleading.

WMD

Doctor X

Argument to Translation:

This is the assumption that somewhere--out there--is a perfect text without contradictions and absurdities, and scholars need merely translate it properly.

Unfortunately, scholars native in the languages recognized the various problems with the texts early on. The whole "created in flesh and created in spirit" rose as an attempt to explain two human creations, for example.

'tis ignorant apology and nothing more.

I deem it "ignorant" because the evidence exists to correct this difficiency. It is not my intention to beat up on poor Magus, but some months ago I challenged him to read a standard basic book on OT scholarship and attack its findings--the Documentary Hypothesis.

He first ignored it then demured. Why? To me this is similar to a practitioner of "traditional Chinese medicine" refusing to look at an anatomy book. At some point, the ignorance becomes willful.

The purpose, I thought, of forums such as this is to analyse and discuss such theories. When an individual resorts to simply blathering denial and running about with his eyes closed, fingers firmly ramm'd in his ears, shouting "I'M NOT LISTENING LA!LA!LA!" it really does not further this purpose.

--J.D.

Amaleq13

This concept clearly demands its own smilie. I think only a minor modification of "not worthy" would do it.

Hazel-rah

There's one here but I can't figure out how to make it go...

Toto

try these:





edited to add the low tech version:

<{- -}>

Kosh

This one should be apropos...

Doctor X

I like them!

Not to derail the thread further . . . but part of the problem is that some feel that any question of their beliefs is "rude." They come to boards like this not to question their beliefs or theories, but to find support for them and to convince others of them.

The irony, of course, is that they do not consider their rude behavior rude!

--J.D.

Ellis14

Yes this is very true. I have come to the conclusion that the religion I used to belong to had no desire for reason or argument, only for conversion. Perhaps this is true for all theists.

Their premise, and I actually heard and read this stated was, 'we already have the truth so beyond a reasonable argument to prove our beliefs, we don't need to listen to opposing arguments'. Of course the infuriating thing is when they "feel sorry for you" because you can't understand.

I am babbling once again now. But further to Doctor X, I don't see what the point of proposing an argument is, whether it be on a forum, face-to-face, or door-to-door, if you're not interesting in hearing the other point of view.

Infidelettante

Hello Jmebob
Jmebob
Not all the time and it's not needed for people to be good people.

You are right Jmebob, religion is not needed for people to be good. But then I did not say it was. I said some religious thought encourages us to be better.

Jmebob
We can reject religions as true and keep them as nice stories (well ok not nice, but entertaining), best of both worlds (well for me).

The mythologies we call religion are collections of symbols and metaphors which still resonate in our unconscious mind. To discover and use them is to tap a source of human wisdom that may stretch back as far as 35,000 years.

Yes, I encourage you to reject religion if it does not work for you. I also encourage you to search out and employ those aspects of religion that do work.


JT