NationStates Jolt Archive

Assuming my earlier post was borked by Jolt going down rather than Mod censorship, I'm going to repost.

Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/02/opinion/edeconick.php)

How could these serious mistakes have been made? Were they genuine errors or was something more deliberate going on? This is the question of the hour, and I do not have a satisfactory answer.

The new Da Vinci Code yay!

Several of the translation choices made by the society's scholars fall well outside the commonly accepted practices in the field. For example, in one instance the National Geographic transcription refers to Judas as a "daimon," which the society's experts have translated as "spirit." Actually, the universally accepted word for "spirit" is "pneuma " - in Gnostic literature "daimon" is always taken to mean "demon."

Likewise, Judas is not set apart "for" the holy generation, as the National Geographic translation says, he is separated "from" it.

Essentially the translation by Nat Geo is the opposite of what it actually says...

So what does the Gospel of Judas really say? It says that Judas is a specific demon called the "Thirteenth." In certain Gnostic traditions, this is the given name of the king of demons - an entity known as Ialdabaoth who lives in the 13th realm above the earth. Judas is his human alter ego, his undercover agent in the world. These Gnostics equated Ialdabaoth with the Hebrew Yahweh, whom they saw as a jealous and wrathful deity and an opponent of the supreme God whom Jesus came to earth to reveal.

Note the bolded, new to me :confused:

Whoever wrote the Gospel of Judas was a harsh critic of mainstream Christianity and its rituals. Because Judas is a demon working for Ialdabaoth, the author believed, when Judas sacrifices Jesus he does so to the demons, not to the supreme God. This mocks mainstream Christians' belief in the atoning value of Jesus' death and in the effectiveness of the Eucharist.

So...

Thoughts?

I suspect this will have little affect on Christianity. The die hard 'Bible is literal word of God' crowd have always been very selective about which parts of the bible they read(mainly the old testament, with the smiting and the hating people). The lip-service Christians will just keep on mumbling along through mass every Sunday and holy day of obligation. The sensible 'I like what the Jesus fella thinks' Christians will carry right along liking what the Jesus fella thought and going with that whole 'love one another thing'.

There Is No National Geographic!

I think the idea is that when this gospel was actually newsworthy, as in last year, it was entirely misrepresented so any effect it might have initiated was, only possibly, squashed.

I'm also genuinely surprised by the idea that Yahweh is a demon, never heard this before - has anyone?

I suspect this will have little affect on Christianity. The die hard 'Bible is literal word of God' crowd have always been very selective about which parts of the bible they read(mainly the old testament, with the smiting and the hating people). The lip-service Christians will just keep on mumbling along through mass every Sunday and holy day of obligation. The sensible 'I like what the Jesus fella thinks' Christians will carry right along liking what the Jesus fella thought and going with that whole 'love one another thing'.

We've had people on here argue that Jesus was pro military, pro-gun, anti-taxes, and anti-gay.

People who want to call themselves Christians prefer to change Jesus' beliefs to match their own rather than the other way around.

Well they still haven't taken on board the whole 'virgin' instead of 'young woman' mistranslation.

We've had people on here argue that Jesus was pro military, pro-gun, anti-taxes, and anti-gay.

People who want to call themselves Christians prefer to change Jesus' beliefs to match their own rather than the other way around.

It's been a long time since being Christian meant you follow the teachings of Christ. A very VERY long time.

Well they still haven't taken on board the whole 'virgin' instead of 'young woman' mistranslation.

That one is centuries old..it was around before the formation of the Christin church. It was made while translating the Hebrew bible from Hebrew to Greek. The assumption was that a the overwhelming majority of young woman were virgins. Hence the "error".

Just wondering... for those of you of the opinion "Christians will just ignore it because they're selective about what they believe in the Bible anyway," I'm just wondering... Why do you accept the authenticity of these writings without question? Because from where I sit, you're trying to have it both ways. You want to question the validity of the known Biblical writings yet you have faith enough in the validity of these new ones to criticize Christians who may not accept them. Seems to me anything that paints Jesus in a light counter to what's taught in the Bible certifies itself for you just by virtue of its content.

How do you reconcile that?

Just wondering... for those of you of the opinion "Christians will just ignore it because they're selective about what they believe in the Bible anyway," I'm just wondering... Why do you accept the authenticity of these writings without question? Because from where I sit, you're trying to have it both ways. You want to question the validity of the known Biblical writings yet you have faith enough in the validity of these new ones to criticize Christians who may not accept them. Seems to me anything that paints Jesus in a light counter to what's taught in the Bible certifies itself for you just by virtue of its content.

How do you reconcile that?

There's a difference between not accepting what's written and mistranslating the message.

It's nothing to do with their veracity as fact - so, in context of questioning the mistranslations, it's pefectly consistent to point out that it wouldn't make a difference anyway.

In this case, the position of not accepting them as, for want of a better word, gospel is valid yet still allows questions to be asked.

Just wondering... for those of you of the opinion "Christians will just ignore it because they're selective about what they believe in the Bible anyway," I'm just wondering... Why do you accept the authenticity of these writings without question? Because from where I sit, you're trying to have it both ways. You want to question the validity of the known Biblical writings yet you have faith enough in the validity of these new ones to criticize Christians who may not accept them. Seems to me anything that paints Jesus in a light counter to what's taught in the Bible certifies itself for you just by virtue of its content.

How do you reconcile that?

Simple, there is nothing to reconcile. I've already explained why most Christians will ignore this. I have no idea if it's accurate or not, and it makes no difference. You know who's going to care about this? Historians and Dan Brown-esque conspiracy theorists. Christians will, by and large, go on believing what they believe.

Just wondering... for those of you of the opinion "Christians will just ignore it because they're selective about what they believe in the Bible anyway," I'm just wondering... Why do you accept the authenticity of these writings without question? Because from where I sit, you're trying to have it both ways. You want to question the validity of the known Biblical writings yet you have faith enough in the validity of these new ones to criticize Christians who may not accept them. Seems to me anything that paints Jesus in a light counter to what's taught in the Bible certifies itself for you just by virtue of its content.

How do you reconcile that?

You're saying, if you question the bible, why do you accept the non-canonical sources?

That's not the position you see - what is actually going on is that people are looking at the cherry-picked scriptures, and comparing them to those that were not accepted into the canon.

If the Christian argument is that biblical texts must all be true.. well then, to the skeptic, it is hard to see why a book that was argued over and finally made it 'in' would be any more reliable than one that was argued over and didn't make the cut. If all scripture is inspired... why is 'all scripture' sucha narrow selection of (literally) ALL scripture?

It's not a matter of picking non-canonical OVER canonical - it's a matter of judging the texts as equal (which, from an objective point of view, isn't a stretch), and discussing the conflicts between texts.

Simple, there is nothing to reconcile. I've already explained why most Christians will ignore this. I have no idea if it's accurate or not, and it makes no difference. You know who's going to care about this? Historians and Dan Brown-esque conspiracy theorists. Christians will, by and large, go on believing what they believe.


Because they are stupid.

The text in question, is of Gnostic origin, not "Christian". The Gnostic's didn't really care for the Christians.
..Serious Gnostics could use various forms of teaching as spiritual resourses; they are syncretists, blending elements of philosofy pagan religions and Christianity. But despite the many differences [between the different kinds of Gnosticism] Gnosticism usually exhibits certain family features
I added in the bit in brackets


1. There is an ultimate spiritual being, variously named Father, or Man (father of the Son of Man), or Great Invisible Spirit, or Abyss (so for instance Ireneaus, Adv. Haer. 1.1.1 [NE 79-80]). In Basilides he is the nameless and non-existent God; non-existent in the sence that to say he existis is to say more than one can know (Hippolytus, Refutation 7.21-2 [NE 73]). This being is supirior to the physical universe and its creator, who is often called the Craftsman (Demiurge), (Great) Ruler, or God, and may have a hebrew sounding name like Ialdabaoth or Saklas. This creator is ignorant of the supirior world, until enlightenment comes, usually as part of the process of salvation, when he may learn and repent. The physical world and the god and angels associated with it are at best inferior to the spiritual, if not absolutly evil.Flesh is evil.


Cite for both quotes:
Hall, Stuart G. Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church. London:Ashford Colour Press, 2005. 2nd Edition. p41

So...

Thoughts?

If theres no God, then theres no divine inspiration, then it doesn't matter a shite, simply put. You can go through life trying not to fuck over others in the hope that in turn they will not fuck over you, and giving a bit of assistance to ones fellows, and do far more good than opening the whole bible can of worms. It had its day, now its best consigned to the past.

The text in question, is of Gnostic origin, not "Christian". The Gnostic's didn't really care for the Christians.

Yeah, I think my next book purchase is on the Gnostics.

Thanks for the responses.

But what I'm thinking is, here was have some writings, translated by some linguist. Assuming for the sake of argument that their age makes them authentic writings from the relevant period, it seems as if some of you guys want to sort of hold this up as something to criticize Christans with, and I"m not seeing the connection. Whatever your opinion may be on Christianity or the way in which it's practiced, why would their refusal to accept this new writing as gospel be an indicator of some kind of inconsistency?

Think of it this way: Suppose you were an archaeologist and had a set of writings describing the construction of a ship. Perhaps one of the features of this ship was that it was a square-rigged vessel. Now let's suppose that National Geographic finds and translates a treatise on building ships th at suggests that a well-rigges ship should be lanteen (triangle sails).

The question: Would you be obligated, for the sake of consistency, to accept these new writings as being not only authentic, but valid and relevant to your own discovery? In otherwords, how do you know the author of these found writings knew any more about shipbuilding than the author of your existing documents? Would it matter? If they were clearly from a separate organization or school of thought from the ones you're working with, why SHOULD you pay any attention to them?

Think of it this way: Suppose you were an archaeologist and had a set of writings describing the construction of a ship. Perhaps one of the features of this ship was that it was a square-rigged vessel. Now let's suppose that National Geographic finds and translates a treatise on building ships th at suggests that a well-rigges ship should be lanteen (triangle sails).

The question: Would you be obligated, for the sake of consistency, to accept these new writings as being not only authentic, but valid and relevant to your own discovery? In otherwords, how do you know the author of these found writings knew any more about shipbuilding than the author of your existing documents? Would it matter? If they were clearly from a separate organization or school of thought from the ones you're working with, why SHOULD you pay any attention to them?

To get a well-rounded picture of ship-building at the time in question, rather than to just focus on the form that you first discovered? It would be very unscientific to disregard the second document altogether, but if you have doubts about its veracity you would go and see if you can find archeaological evidence for ships with lanteen sails (illustrations, digs of sunken ships, further accounts from the time, etc.). Until you have further evidence, you would usually treat the second account as one-off, possibly relevant but not fully reliable.
Much the same way we're treating scripture here.

Yeah, I think my next book purchase is on the Gnostics.

They are interesting. I didn't know much about them till we covered them a few weeks ago in a class at uni.

What I don't get is how some see this as contradicting the Bible as it stands now. Basically, the article (to me) said that Judas was a bad person, was not enticed by Jesus to do his bidding, and had no place in heaven. As a Christian, this is already what I believe.

Of all the old texts, some are for the Bible...others simply confirm the Bible.

To get a well-rounded picture of ship-building at the time in question, rather than to just focus on the form that you first discovered? It would be very unscientific to disregard the second document altogether, but if you have doubts about its veracity you would go and see if you can find archeaological evidence for ships with lanteen sails (illustrations, digs of sunken ships, further accounts from the time, etc.). Until you have further evidence, you would usually treat the second account as one-off, possibly relevant but not fully reliable.
Much the same way we're treating scripture here.

Ok good. I think you and I agree. Problem is there seems to be an undertone of "Christians ought to stop in their tracks and be ready to incorporate this." in this thread. Now don't get me wrong, this isn't hurting my feelings because I'm well aware of the difference between words and sticks & stones, but I'm honestly curious as to how people who think themselves such paragons of objectivity justify this.

If the writing is Gnostic, then why would Christians be interested in it in either case? We in the modern age have this weird tendency to put a lot of trust in the motives and intelligence of people who write stuff down back in the classical period. It could be completely made up, or it could be a very detailed and accurate account of Gnostic belief. How can we know? And in any case, if the wirtings aren't for or about Christianity, then why should they care?

Shall we also demand that Jews, Muslims, and everybody else stop and incorporate this as well, or is it only fun when Christianity is the focus of the arcasm and snide remarks?

Just asking. I want to see if the people who are using this to be critical of Christians are really as scholarly and objective as they'd have us believe.

Ok good. I think you and I agree. Problem is there seems to be an undertone of "Christians ought to stop in their tracks and be ready to incorporate this." in this thread. Now don't get me wrong, this isn't hurting my feelings because I'm well aware of the difference between words and sticks & stones, but I'm honestly curious as to how people who think themselves such paragons of objectivity justify this.

If the writing is Gnostic, then why would Christians be interested in it in either case? We in the modern age have this weird tendency to put a lot of trust in the motives and intelligence of people who write stuff down back in the classical period. It could be completely made up, or it could be a very detailed and accurate account of Gnostic belief. How can we know? And in any case, if the wirtings aren't for or about Christianity, then why should they care?

Shall we also demand that Jews, Muslims, and everybody else stop and incorporate this as well, or is it only fun when Christianity is the focus of the arcasm and snide remarks?

Just asking. I want to see if the people who are using this to be critical of Christians are really as scholarly and objective as they'd have us believe.

Absolutely, the interest in this stems from my dislike of religion - because I'm not disputing any validity of the documents themselves but more of possible wilful mistranslation.

I think its convenient for Christians to ignore any peices of canonical scripture, or early christian works that dont convey the message they are on at the time.
If they are preaching against homosexuality, they will quote Leviticus, forgetting that the very same book condones rape, murder, slavery, and a host of other deeds that we in the modern world would consider babaric.

Its the notion that one "word of God" is better than another.
You cant use a scientific method with theology, becuase the whole premise breaks down, and looks untrue. No Christian wants thier basis of faith to appear like a silly fallacy or legend like Bigfoot, or Cabrachupa.

So, they adhere to one set of books, wich corresponds to the beliefs they have set up.
Anything else is beyond the scope they are willing to accept, not out of better judgement, but out of stubborness.

The idea that Mary was Jesus' wife, and that children were born, including a daughter named Sarah, isnt information they want to hear.
Nor is the possibility that the oldest text from that period does not support miracles, or Jesus' supposed divinity, or ressurection.

Ive also heard, but have not read Judas myself, that it implies that Jesus had to CONVINCE Judas to sell him out, and that his martyrdom was planned.

Point is, that once you believe a set of ideas as truth, no matter how silly, any information that may contradict that belief, you will view with hostility.

Ok good. I think you and I agree. Problem is there seems to be an undertone of "Christians ought to stop in their tracks and be ready to incorporate this." in this thread. Now don't get me wrong, this isn't hurting my feelings because I'm well aware of the difference between words and sticks & stones, but I'm honestly curious as to how people who think themselves such paragons of objectivity justify this.

If the writing is Gnostic, then why would Christians be interested in it in either case? We in the modern age have this weird tendency to put a lot of trust in the motives and intelligence of people who write stuff down back in the classical period. It could be completely made up, or it could be a very detailed and accurate account of Gnostic belief. How can we know? And in any case, if the wirtings aren't for or about Christianity, then why should they care?

Shall we also demand that Jews, Muslims, and everybody else stop and incorporate this as well, or is it only fun when Christianity is the focus of the arcasm and snide remarks?

Just asking. I want to see if the people who are using this to be critical of Christians are really as scholarly and objective as they'd have us believe.

Me, I'm critical about Christians just as I try to be critical about everything else. I've read their book as it is now and sincerely dislike a lot of what it says, from a philosophical and moral point of view.
From a historical point of view, I tend to be more than a little amused at the drastic lack of archealogical evidence, either in physical form or in the form of other writers of the time, to support the accounts, even after Western civilisation has literally spent centuries trying to find supporting evidence for it. That doesn't mean that I dismiss all accounts straight-out, but I would estimate their probability somewhere around the same level as the probabilty of my cat one day catching and eating a monkey. Possible, but very slim.

As for believing writers of the classical period, I don't really share your impression. Many of Julius Cesar's accounts about the Gallic wars used to be dismissed as fantastic until recent archeological evidence supported them.
Historians will usually compare accounts of various writers (if available) to find the consense between them, and will assume only this consense to be the most likely historical reality. Writers that deviate too much are studied, but not considered accurate.

Personally, I don't care who incorporates what into their beliefs, as long as they don't try to push them on me in any way. But I am interested in all ancient accounts regarding the life of Christ and everything Christians these days base their beliefs on, mostly for the simple reason that there is next to no other evidence apart from biblical texts. As a amateur historian, I'd like to have as many accounts as possible to get as close to reality as possible. As it is, we have accounts that were written way too late (from a historian's point of view, the best accounts are accounts from the same date as the events recorded) and that were filtered through generations before they were fixed in a political climate that had clear motives with the texts.
I would mistrust such texts in any circumstances.

Absolutely, the interest in this stems from my dislike of religion - because I'm not disputing any validity of the documents themselves but more of possible wilful mistranslation.

Just out of curiosity, why do you assume the National Geographic translation to be reliable? Are you operating under the assumption that their objevtivity and competence are both beyond reproach? (Just wondering.)

You said you dislike religion- so this thread is your way of expressing it? (Again, just trying to get an accurate understanding.)

I think its convenient for Christians to ignore any peices of canonical scripture, or early christian works that dont convey the message they are on at the time.
If they are preaching against homosexuality, they will quote Leviticus, forgetting that the very same book condones rape, murder, slavery, and a host of other deeds that we in the modern world would consider babaric.


Just out of curioisty (again) why do you limit these remarks to Christians alone? Leviticus is based on some of the same writings that drive Judaism. Some of them are also found in Islamic scripture.


Its the notion that one "word of God" is better than another.
You cant use a scientific method with theology, becuase the whole premise breaks down, and looks untrue. No Christian wants thier basis of faith to appear like a silly fallacy or legend like Bigfoot, or Cabrachupa.


Certainly not. By extension, that's a good reason not to simply accept any document dug up from an urn in a cave somewhere in Judea.


So, they adhere to one set of books, which corresponds to the beliefs they have set up.
Anything else is beyond the scope they are willing to accept, not out of better judgement, but out of stubborness.


I think yu've got the cause and effect reversed here. Remember that modern Evangelical Christian belief derives from the King James Bible. Now, I would concede that at the time there may have been an agenda there that affected what texts were to be included and what to be left out of it, but in any case, that's the source of modern Christianity, not the product.


The idea that Mary was Jesus' wife, and that children were born, including a daughter named Sarah, isnt information they want to hear.

In fairness, the reliability of sources that suggest these things are in question.

Now, for the record, I do happen to agree that Jesus married, but that can be proven from existing New Testament contexts anyway. (as well as writings by Josephus.) But I've seen nothing to suggest there was such a daughter. (Dan Brown is a hack.)


Nor is the possibility that the oldest text from that period does not support miracles, or Jesus' supposed divinity, or ressurection.

Ive also heard, but have not read Judas myself, that it implies that Jesus had to CONVINCE Judas to sell him out, and that his martyrdom was planned.


So what does that mean, to you? And what do you feel it should mean to a Christian?


Point is, that once you believe a set of ideas as truth, no matter how silly, any information that may contradict that belief, you will view with hostility.

But that's human nature. You'll find that sort of mentality among Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Bhuddists, or people that think the Detroit Red Wings are God's gift to professional hockey. You do it. I do it. Averybody reading this post does it. What's the point of holding Christians up to this ridicule when we're all in the same boat? What's to be gained?

Why would scriptures about Judas be relevant to anyone except Christians(and historians)? I mean, is the whole Jesus being betrayed by Judas a big feature in any other religions? The Jews don't care too much. To them Jesus was just a nice guy, but no messiah. The Muslims don't care too much either. To them Jesus was just another prophet before the last prophet, Muhammed.

Me, I'm critical about Christians just as I try to be critical about everything else. I've read their book as it is now and sincerely dislike a lot of what it says, from a philosophical and moral point of view.
From a historical point of view,... any circumstances.

Fair enough.

But what I'm trying to establish is first, an understanding of not only people's point of view, but also what they're willing to admit and commit to. There are a lot of people on here who are just "out to get" particular groups and philosophies, and Christianity is a favorite. People are within their rights to do that, mind you... But what I'm trying to do is ferret out those who do it but won't admit it, and hide behind this kind of thing to provide them an excuse to bash Christians while trying to look scholarly when doing it.

You seem to be pretty upfront with your point of view, and I respect that. There are many who aren't.

As a Mormon, I consider myself to be a Christian although there are plenty who would dispute that. I defend them anyway when I see bashing because I'm more interested in truth than in trying to see them get hammered by others.

Why would scriptures about Judas be relevant to anyone except Christians(and historians)? I mean, is the whole Jesus being betrayed by Judas a big feature in any other religions? The Jews don't care too much. To them Jesus was just a nice guy, but no messiah. The Muslims don't care too much either. To them Jesus was just another prophet before the last prophet, Muhammed.

But my question to you is, why should it be relevant to Christians either, if it's a Gnostic text, or if it's authenticity is in question (Like it it were purporting to be a Christian text)

Just out of curiosity, why do you assume the National Geographic translation to be reliable? Are you operating under the assumption that their objevtivity and competence are both beyond reproach? (Just wondering.)

You said you dislike religion- so this thread is your way of expressing it? (Again, just trying to get an accurate understanding.)

I read the article at lunch and it interested me, more academically to be honest over religious dislike. I had taken Nat Geo to be reliable.

The author mentions similar treatment of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the issue is not that they were mistranslated so much as initially translated under very strict parameters rather than open study. Hence, on publication of those initial results, when the maximum amount of people have interest in the subject, it's false. This makes for difficult discussion when these falsities are embedded in the public mind.

I am genuinely interested in learning more about Gnostics, again, not so much out of looking for flaws in religion but more to have a better overall understanding of context.

I do dislike religion, not as a grouping but as a brake on humanity, on science and on progress.

Yet ultimately it's because I hate anything that obscures factual accounts of any subject.

I understand that even in science, petty jealousies can dismiss good study, but religion, for me, seems an irrational suppression of proper academic study.

It bothers me, it also bother me that I'd never heard of Yahweh being discussed as a daemon, but this seems more out of my own ignorance to be honest.

Enough? :)

Here is a question I have not really seen addressed. "What Is Gnosticism?" Only by identifying what it is that the Gnostics taught can you then evaluate their writings. Does anybody on this forum know what the central teaching of the Gnostics was?

But my question to you is, why should it be relevant to Christians either, if it's a Gnostic text, or if it's authenticity is in question (Like it it were purporting to be a Christian text)

Because they'll question what, if anything, this means to them and their beliefs. Maybe they'll conclude that it means nothing. I dare say most would. I've already pointed out how this will make no difference to most Christians.

But my question to you is, why should it be relevant to Christians either, if it's a Gnostic text, or if it's authenticity is in question (Like it it were purporting to be a Christian text)

Assuming the text is from the same time as the other biblical accounts and not from another period altogether, I think it ought to be considered by serious Christians. The facts that are reported can be just as valid and true as the facts in all other accounts of Jesus' life.
The problem in the approach many Christians seem to have to "new" texts is that unless the texts fall in line with established beliefs, they are automatically dismissed. I find that highly problematic because it shows clearly a certain unwillingness to questioning and learning, and a dogmatisation of an arbitrary selection of accounts.
The fact that ancient Greek philosophers weren't writing Christian texts is for me no reason to dismiss their texts as not philosophically, morally and even spiritually important and worthy of consideration.

I read the article at lunch and it interested me, more academically to be honest over religious dislike. I had taken Nat Geo to be reliable.
...

It bothers me, it also bother me that I'd never heard of Yahweh being discussed as a daemon, but this seems more out of my own ignorance to be honest.

Enough? :)

Thanks for taking the time to lay that out.

It's not you or your opinion I take issue with. (Obviously, we'd disagree in our points of view, but that's beside the point.) It's those who wear a mask of scientific objectivity to hide something much less scholarly and intellectual.


Because they'll question what, if anything, this means to them and their beliefs. Maybe they'll conclude that it means nothing. I dare say most would. I've already pointed out how this will make no difference to most Christians.

You're right that it'll make no difference to most, and that's as it should be. The average person who follows a particular philosophy, whether it be religion, a particular school of scientific thought, historical perspective, etc. will generally defer to acknowledged experts in the given philosopy. If you're a rank & file Baptist you're going to generally follow the advice and teachings of your pastor. If you're a historian you'll generally put a lot of weight on the writings of noted historians who are more experienced and well versed than you. If you're a doctor you'll tend to go by the knowledge contained in journals and references to make decisions in your practice.

The point being, not everybody can be an expert.

Assuming the text is from the same time as the other biblical accounts and not from another period altogether, I think it ought to be considered by serious Christians. The facts that are reported can be just as valid and true as the facts in all other accounts of Jesus' life.
The problem in the approach many Christians seem to have to "new" texts is that unless the texts fall in line with established beliefs, they are automatically dismissed. I find that highly problematic because it shows clearly a certain unwillingness to questioning and learning, and a dogmatisation of an arbitrary selection of accounts.
The fact that ancient Greek philosophers weren't writing Christian texts is for me no reason to dismiss their texts as not philosophically, morally and even spiritually important and worthy of consideration.

Well that is true. That's one of the reasons Christians don't view Mormons as bieng Christian -- we have a good bit of additional reading material and it does impact some of the doctrines and previously established beliefs.

I don't think I'd go so far as to call the original selection arbitrary. There were a great many writings that came out of the period that are just trash, and many contradict each other so clearly they couldn't both be accepted into the same canon. If a new writing is discovered then naturally it should be scrutinized.

The problem is here's where spirituality and archaeology diverge. Not every found writing is Scripture, and that's not evident from any angle when looking at it from a purely archaeological point of view. Some will do exactly what you said: dismiss whatever doesn't fit into existing doctrine. I'll take it a step further and say some will dismiss it whether it conflicts with existing doctrine or not.

Now, someone can ding whatever methods a religion might use for adding new Scripture to its canon, but I think that's where a person oversteps the bounds of reasonable discussion since, if one isn't a member of that religion, it's realy not up to them to say whether those methods are valid.

Assuming my earlier post was borked by Jolt going down rather than Mod censorship, I'm going to repost.

Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/02/opinion/edeconick.php)



The new Da Vinci Code yay!



Essentially the translation by Nat Geo is the opposite of what it actually says...



Note the bolded, new to me :confused:



So...

Thoughts?

why would i care what the gospel of judas says? the article linked to just shows it to be more "non christian" than the national geographic people would have us believe.

its vaguely interesting but has little to do with modern christian beliefs. i dont blame the ancient church for trying to destroy it.

You're right that it'll make no difference to most, and that's as it should be. The average person who follows a particular philosophy, whether it be religion, a particular school of scientific thought, historical perspective, etc. will generally defer to acknowledged experts in the given philosopy. If you're a rank & file Baptist you're going to generally follow the advice and teachings of your pastor. If you're a historian you'll generally put a lot of weight on the writings of noted historians who are more experienced and well versed than you. If you're a doctor you'll tend to go by the knowledge contained in journals and references to make decisions in your practice.

The point being, not everybody can be an expert.

See, this is exaclty what galls me with so many Christians.
Historians will compare their work with the work of others, and they'll contradict other historians when they happen to interpret findings differently. Doctors exchange experience through journals, talks and seminars, they don't take everything said there for the ultimate truths.
Yet Christians - and other religious folks, for that matter, it's just that I happen to see it most with Christians as I happen to see mostly Christians in my daily life - belief in only one authority, only one version of the bible, only one possible idea. The thought of integrating other beliefs, new discoveries, new thoughts is actively discouraged in those communities, and in extreme cases those idea are banned outright.
I find that highly disquieting to say the least.

Now, someone can ding whatever methods a religion might use for adding new Scripture to its canon, but I think that's where a person oversteps the bounds of reasonable discussion since, if one isn't a member of that religion, it's realy not up to them to say whether those methods are valid.

Bullshit it's not. As a thinking, intelligent, rational human being I can analyse certain decisions of certain groups and come up with my own personal opinions regarding those decisions. I can likewise remain critical of methodologies of religion, and refer to them as fundamentally superstitious, irrational, and close minded institutions when they dismiss, out of hand certain texts, and accept others, when they appear from the same time period, referencing the same events, and from a historical and archaeological perspective seem equally credible, but the only difference between them is that one agrees with their world view, and the other does not.

Frankly, what you just said is the coward's approach, used by many who are incapble of supporting their viewpoints in any rational and intelligent mannor, and instead resort to screaching about how we have no right to criticize, since it's not our choice.

Fuck that shit. As a rational, intelligent person, I have every right to examine what I think are flawed methodologies and point out those flaws when I observe them. Trying to say otherwise in some attempt to shame, discredit, or insult me and others because somehow it's not OUR system, is, as I said, a path of cowards.

A side note: This should be titled, as was my initial thread, as Judas wilfully mistranslated - I'll ask the Mods to change.

Yeah, I think my next book purchase is on the Gnostics.

if youre interested in the topic you might try:

lost christianities and misquoting jesus by bart erhman http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-Battles-Scripture-Faiths/dp/0195141830

its a good introduction to the various other christian beliefs and problems in translating the bible from original sources.

i also liked god's secretaries by adam nicolson which is the story of the king james version of the bible and all the literary and political problems associated with it. http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Secretaries-Making-James-Bible/dp/B000GG4LS0/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196698951&sr=1-1

very eye opening.

they might be at your local library.

and if you cant wait here is in interview with bart erhman to whet your appetite
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/150/story_15091_1.html

It's been a long time since being Christian meant you follow the teachings of Christ. A very VERY long time.


Yes, there has been a time of lukewarmness in Christianity. I admit that I am at fault in that too. However, it is amazing, because there seems to be a small movement of Christians that are tired of all the Jerry Falthwells, Pat Robertsons, and so forth and are really taking on what it means to be a Christian, not in words and preaching, but by action as Christ called us to do. So there is slight glimmer of light coming from the darkening church. :)

Jesus wilfully mistranslated
That is an inaccurate and misleading title for the subject of the article you linked to. The article is about the Book of Judas being mistranslated by people working for National Geographic, recently, nothing to do with Jesus being mistranslated.


The new Da Vinci Code yay!
Not if by that you mean to say that you think the Code book had any truth in it. If you mean that you think this modern mistranslation is just as bad as that Code story was for making up a bad story and trying to pretend like it has some historical truth to it, then yeah, the article says that the National Geographic people mistranslated it, it's not saying the historic church mistranslated it, and they might have done so for simple greed and profit.

Essentially the translation by Nat Geo is the opposite of what it actually says...
Exactly right.


So...

Thoughts?
Why did National Geographic mistranslate it? Because it would sell a lot more press IF it was about Judas being a good guy. Everyone already assumes Judas was a 'bad guy' and thus, the book saying that he worked for Demons would hardly inspire interest in the new find by the general public.

I suspect this will have little affect on Christianity. The die hard 'Bible is literal word of God' crowd have always been very selective about which parts of the bible they read(mainly the old testament, with the smiting and the hating people). The lip-service Christians will just keep on mumbling along through mass every Sunday and holy day of obligation. The sensible 'I like what the Jesus fella thinks' Christians will carry right along liking what the Jesus fella thought and going with that whole 'love one another thing'.

The Gospel of Judas has nothing to do with the NT Bible books. Your entire post is a red herring. The Gospel of Judas is dated between between A.D. 220 and 340, a hundred years plus, after the fact. The Christians don’t accept Thomas Jefferson’s translation as authentic, or the Jesus Seminar version as authentic either, the Judas Gospel it is no different in that it was a Gopsel written to change the meaning of the older books to a manner the authors would like it to have said…


I'm also genuinely surprised by the idea that Yahweh is a demon, never heard this before - has anyone?
It doesn’t say Jesus was a demon, it says Judas was a Demon, or rather, a demon’s representative on earth and Judas tried to sacrifice Jesus to/for those demons. The article in question says that the National Geographic people got it backwards when they said Jesus and Judas were in cahoots, they were arch enemies according to this authors translation of the gospel of Judas.

Thanks for the responses.

But what I'm thinking is, here was have some writings, translated by some linguist. Assuming for the sake of argument that their age makes them authentic writings from the relevant period, it seems as if some of you guys want to sort of hold this up as something to criticize Christans with, and I"m not seeing the connection. Whatever your opinion may be on Christianity or the way in which it's practiced, why would their refusal to accept this new writing as gospel be an indicator of some kind of inconsistency?

Think of it this way: Suppose you were an archaeologist and had a set of writings describing the construction of a ship. Perhaps one of the features of this ship was that it was a square-rigged vessel. Now let's suppose that National Geographic finds and translates a treatise on building ships th at suggests that a well-rigges ship should be lanteen (triangle sails).

The question: Would you be obligated, for the sake of consistency, to accept these new writings as being not only authentic, but valid and relevant to your own discovery? In otherwords, how do you know the author of these found writings knew any more about shipbuilding than the author of your existing documents? Would it matter? If they were clearly from a separate organization or school of thought from the ones you're working with, why SHOULD you pay any attention to them?
QFT.

But my question to you is, why should it be relevant to Christians either, if it's a Gnostic text, or if it's authenticity is in question (Like it it were purporting to be a Christian text)

From my point of view (and I admit I haven't done nearly the amount of looking into this that I should), any of the early texts written about Christ should be relevant to a Christian. That's not to say that a Christian should accept anything and everything in those texts - just that, if possible, those texts should be examined. Personally, I see no reason to accept that an ancient political process necessarily came to the correct conclusions about what texts to include and what not to include.

From what I got out of my history of theology class in undergrad, the Gnostics had a very different take on Christ and His relationship to the God of the OT. Whether I accept it as true or not (at this point I do not), it is a different perspective that can help me to examine my own beliefs and possibly, even if I don't accept most of it, inform them.

its vaguely interesting but has little to do with modern christian beliefs. i dont blame the ancient church for trying to destroy it.

I do. An attempt to destroy an opposing point of view demonstrates an intent to keep people from examining it and making their own decisions. In other words, it keeps people from truly having faith by simply telling them what to believe and keeping them from questioning it.

But my question to you is, why should it be relevant to Christians either, if it's a Gnostic text, or if it's authenticity is in question (Like it it were purporting to be a Christian text)

i think its relevant to any christian who wants to understand the origins of the faith.

its fascinating to me that there were dozens of other christianity each with its own emphasis, gospel and sometimes even version of god.

I do. An attempt to destroy an opposing point of view demonstrates an intent to keep people from examining it and making their own decisions. In other words, it keeps people from truly having faith by simply telling them what to believe and keeping them from questioning it.

there is no sense, religiously speaking, in keeping texts that might lead people into false belief.

historically speaking, i wish that we had good copies of every gospel, canon or not.

That is an inaccurate and misleading title for the subject of the article you linked to. The article is about the Book of Judas being mistranslated by people working for National Geographic, recently, nothing to do with Jesus being mistranslated.

Yes, my post 3 up notes that the title is a mistake though I suspect you were writing out this post, therefore did not see :)

EDIT: Note original thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=544445), which Jolt censored!@!

Not if by that you mean to say that you think the Code book had any truth in it. If you mean that you think this modern mistranslation is just as bad as that Code story was for making up a bad story and trying to pretend like it has some historical truth to it, then yeah, the article says that the National Geographic people mistranslated it, it's not saying the historic church mistranslated it, and they might have done so for simple greed and profit.

It's more the concept of suppressing information though, absolutely, it could be Nat Geo though I doubt it - it may just be simple errors but, to be honest, I suspect there's only a handful of people with the ability to translate and I suspect most of them have close ties with the Church

Why did National Geographic mistranslate it? Because it would sell a lot more press IF it was about Judas being a good guy. Everyone already assumes Judas was a 'bad guy' and thus, the book saying that he worked for Demons would hardly inspire interest in the new find by the general public.

I'm not sure I buy this as per my above post but I certainly can't say it's not a valid explanation - hence my question mark (again, re: original thread) as to whether it was mistranslated in the title, I didn't want to assume a statement.

It doesn’t say Jesus was a demon, it says Judas was a Demon, or rather, a demon’s representative on earth and Judas tried to sacrifice Jesus to/for those demons. The article in question says that the National Geographic people got it backwards when they said Jesus and Judas were in cahoots, they were arch enemies according to this authors translation of the gospel of Judas.

Neither did I, I said Yahweh, as in the God of the OT, was a daemon. On further reading of agnostics, it seems that any non-corporeal being is technically a daemon but the article implies that Yahweh was a bad daemon.

if youre interested in the topic you might try:

lost christianities and misquoting jesus by bart erhman http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-Battles-Scripture-Faiths/dp/0195141830

its a good introduction to the various other christian beliefs and problems in translating the bible from original sources.

i also liked god's secretaries by adam nicolson which is the story of the king james version of the bible and all the literary and political problems associated with it. http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Secretaries-Making-James-Bible/dp/B000GG4LS0/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196698951&sr=1-1

very eye opening.

they might be at your local library.

and if you cant wait here is in interview with bart erhman to whet your appetite
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/150/story_15091_1.html

Thanks, and really, I should use the library more often than simply heading to bookstores :)

I'm ok'ish on translation issues, I'm specifically interested in the Gnostics given this thread though the first book (Bart Ehrman), I'll certainly read and, given your recommendation that it's eye-opening, dang it if I won't go read the second as well.

there is no sense, religiously speaking, in keeping texts that might lead people into false belief.

...except for the fact that someone cannot truly have belief without questioning. If you keep people from questioning, you are asking them to have faith in you, not in God. That is the problem with much of organized religion. They ask you to have faith in priests, instead of in God.

It isn't up to human beings to decide what "false belief" is. Only God knows that for sure. We have to try and figure it out - something that is made much more difficult when a group of politicians tries to decide for us and then destroy anything they don't agree with.

historically speaking, i wish that we had good copies of every gospel, canon or not.

As do I. And the fact that the ancient Church tried so hard to get rid of much of it is a big part of the reason that we don't have these things.

It's more the concept of suppressing information though, absolutely, it could be Nat Geo though I doubt it - it may just be simple errors but, to be honest, I suspect there's only a handful of people with the ability to translate and I suspect most of them have close ties with the Church


I think the article explained pretty well why mistakes might not have been caught. In an effort to get an exclusive, Nat. Geo. didn't follow good protocol in translating this. It should have been going back and forth between multiple experts so that they could correct each other and come to a good consensus. Instead, a few translators who were forbidden from discussing it with colleagues did the translation on their own.

See, this is exaclty what galls me with so many Christians.
Historians will compare their work with the work of others, and they'll contradict other historians when they happen to interpret findings differently. Doctors exchange experience through journals, talks and seminars, they don't take everything said there for the ultimate truths.
Yet Christians - and other religious folks, for that matter, it's just that I happen to see it most with Christians as I happen to see mostly Christians in my daily life - belief in only one authority, only one version of the bible, only one possible idea. The thought of integrating other beliefs, new discoveries, new thoughts is actively discouraged in those communities, and in extreme cases those idea are banned outright.
I find that highly disquieting to say the least.

But here's the thing: Not everybody is a scholar. Either through lack of resources, lack of education, lack of time or lack of motivation you can hardly expect every single member of any philosopical school of thought to be as well versed as any acknowledged expert in the field. True, doctors share ideas in journals, but the journals exist as a reference, which most will acknowledge as an authority when making treatment or diagnostic decisions. Each individual doctor isn't going to go out there and analyze each and every treatise on the approach to curing the common cold. It's just not practical.

Now I will acknowledge that among leaders in many religious communities there's a distinct lack of such scholarly objectivity, but again, that's human nature and hardly unique to Christianity. (As you pointed out.)

Bullshit it's not. As a thinking, intelligent, rational human being I can analyse certain decisions of certain groups and come up with my own personal opinions regarding those decisions. I can likewise remain critical of methodologies of religion, and refer to them as fundamentally superstitious, irrational, and close minded institutions when they dismiss, out of hand certain texts, and accept others, when they appear from the same time period, referencing the same events, and from a historical and archaeological perspective seem equally credible, but the only difference between them is that one agrees with their world view, and the other does not.

Frankly, what you just said is the coward's approach, used by many who are incapble of supporting their viewpoints in any rational and intelligent mannor, and instead resort to screaching about how we have no right to criticize, since it's not our choice.

Fuck that shit. As a rational, intelligent person, I have every right to examine what I think are flawed methodologies and point out those flaws when I observe them. Trying to say otherwise in some attempt to shame, discredit, or insult me and others because somehow it's not OUR system, is, as I said, a path of cowards.

You have the right, but not the credibility, nor is it necessarily appropriate to do so.

It seems you still seem to think that peppering a post with profanity somehow makes it stronger.


From my point of view (and I admit I haven't done nearly the amount of looking into this that I should), any of the early texts written about Christ should be relevant to a Christian. That's not to say that a Christian should accept anything and everything in those texts - just that, if possible, those texts should be examined. Personally, I see no reason to accept that an ancient political process necessarily came to the correct conclusions about what texts to include and what not to include.

From what I got out of my history of theology class in undergrad, the Gnostics had a very different take on Christ and His relationship to the God of the OT. Whether I accept it as true or not (at this point I do not), it is a different perspective that can help me to examine my own beliefs and possibly, even if I don't accept most of it, inform them.


But like I said above, you can't expect every individual to make such an examination. They must rely on leaders in the field. Now whether those leaders are any good is the real question.

My sister used to brag about having graduated form a Bible College. That led me to wonder... Who Accredits a Bible College?!?!?!?

i think its relevant to any christian who wants to understand the origins of the faith.

its fascinating to me that there were dozens of other christianity each with its own emphasis, gospel and sometimes even version of god.

It may be relevant, it may not. Islamic texts refer to Jesus but are hardly relevant to most Christians. The Book of Mormon refers heavily to Jesus Christ but is ignored by Evagelical Christianity. Honestly, I don't really blame them. With all the stuff written on Jesus Christ, even in ancient times, you can't trust just anytying that floats your way.

Just out of curioisty (again) why do you limit these remarks to Christians alone? Leviticus is based on some of the same writings that drive Judaism. Some of them are also found in Islamic scripture.

I do not limit them to Christians alone.
Selective quoting of certain scriptures is not a trait of christians alone.
You will find however, oftimes one christian will quote that particular book, when denouncing homosexuality, while one purports that the OT does not apply to modern christianity.
My point, is that one will use it to justify ones own hatred, or any belief, while the other will not.


Certainly not. By extension, that's a good reason not to simply accept any document dug up from an urn in a cave somewhere in Judea.

True. but neither should it be dismissed out of hand, becuase it may shed a different light on beliefs that are supported by carefully edited texts such as the NT.

Remember the "Book of Common Prayer".
It was the first copy of the bible printed in the english language.
This was done so that the common bumpkin could read it.
Most services and bibles then, were conducted in Latin.
Its important to note that the book was not a complete text, but rather select verses and passages, meant to impose certain moral values on the common folk.
Essentially, a passive form of religious behavioural control.



I think yu've got the cause and effect reversed here. Remember that modern Evangelical Christian belief derives from the King James Bible. Now, I would concede that at the time there may have been an agenda there that affected what texts were to be included and what to be left out of it, but in any case, that's the source of modern Christianity, not the product.

The product of modern christianity is the notion that Jesus was not human, but divine.
That he was not married, or had children, and that he was ressurected three days after his execution, and that his sacrifice enabled entry into heaven for his followers, even today.

This is becuase all texts that suggest another side of the actual man, were "banned", and not included in the NT.
The average Christians concept of this man comes entirely from the books of the NT, wich again, are selected for thier congruent viewpoints.

Its not until you look at other texts, like the Gnostic ones, and others, that you get a different side of who this man may have actually been.
For instance, the Gospel of Thomas (whos date of authorship is contested, but a growing number of scholars date it at about 40a.d.) makes no mention of miracles, ressurection, or divinity.
It refers to Jesus not as "Christ", but merely "Rabbi", or "Teacher".




In fairness, the reliability of sources that suggest these things are in question.

In total fairness, the dates of every single book in the bible is in question.
Some say 70-ish ad, some say closer to third century.


Now, for the record, I do happen to agree that Jesus married, but that can be proven from existing New Testament contexts anyway. (as well as writings by Josephus.) But I've seen nothing to suggest there was such a daughter. (Dan Brown is a hack.)

Google it. it can be found.
As for Brown, folks would do well to remember that the man is a FICTION writer.
He just used some popular theories to help him write.

Heres the wiki on Sarah: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Sarah

As for Jesus being married, as a Jewish Rabbi, and a community leader, it would be unseemingly for him to preach about family values and morality, as an unwed bachelor.



So what does that mean, to you? And what do you feel it should mean to a Christian?

It has little value to me aside from the aesthetic. IF its true, it means Jesus planned to have himself martyred, and puts the legitimacy of his divinity in question to the average believer, as they know the story.
To a christian, it should be merely another example of who this person may be.
Certainly such a text should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt, but that same grain of salt, should also be applied to texts wich are accepted as "Canon".



But that's human nature. You'll find that sort of mentality among Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Bhuddists, or people that think the Detroit Red Wings are God's gift to professional hockey. You do it. I do it. Averybody reading this post does it. What's the point of holding Christians up to this ridicule when we're all in the same boat? What's to be gained?

Its not what can be gained, but rather, what can be lost thats important.
To dismiss such a text, becuase it may be contradictory, is to potentially dismiss something wich has the potential to illuminate the truth. Such things can add to the concept of who the man actually was, and if such stock is placed in him, then it would only make sense to reach a full sense of understanding and knowledge about the man.

The trouble is that such learning has the potential to disagree with popular conception.
A Christian, bases his morality on the teachings of a man they may not actually know.
This is particularly troubling, when that same morality, is impressed upon the masses.

I think the article explained pretty well why mistakes might not have been caught. In an effort to get an exclusive, Nat. Geo. didn't follow good protocol in translating this. It should have been going back and forth between multiple experts so that they could correct each other and come to a good consensus. Instead, a few translators who were forbidden from discussing it with colleagues did the translation on their own.

Well I think she leaves her conclusion open enough - the question of the hour, for her, is whether it was wilful or mere error - she points to an actual alteration where a negative is removed.

I feel that mistranslations are fine, but these change the entire direction of the book, and consistently so it seems.

I can imagine, however, an early mistranslation leading to the revelation that Judas was good and this meant the closed translators simply saw the rest in that way - perception can cloud actuality and I think tests have shown that to be true of the human mind.

...except for the fact that someone cannot truly have belief without questioning. If you keep people from questioning, you are asking them to have faith in you, not in God. That is the problem with much of organized religion. They ask you to have faith in priests, instead of in God.


QFT

I may even have to sig that, with your permission.

Yes, my post 3 up notes that the title is a mistake though I suspect you were writing out this post, therefore did not see :)

Sorry, very busy today, took a long time to write that post before submitting it.

It's more the concept of suppressing information though, absolutely, it could be Nat Geo though I doubt it - it may just be simple errors but, to be honest, I suspect there's only a handful of people with the ability to translate and I suspect most of them have close ties with the Church

I'm not sure I buy this as per my above post but I certainly can't say it's not a valid explanation - hence my question mark (again, re: original thread) as to whether it was mistranslated in the title, I didn't want to assume a statement.


See, that conspiracy theory of yours is exactly backwards from the evidence. The mistranslation is the one that is closer to being an anti-church teaching. The actual translation is better for the church than the mistranslation was. The conpiracy this time (if any) would have to be from the anti-church group, not the pro-church group.

QFT

I may even have to sig that, with your permission.


No kidding. That was pretty much a win to any religious argument, ever.

But like I said above, you can't expect every individual to make such an examination. They must rely on leaders in the field. Now whether those leaders are any good is the real question.

Of course you can. Most of us do have to rely on translators and the like (I certainly can't read Hebrew or Greek), but as far as determining which ideas we should incorporate into our religion, we are all qualified. It is guidance from God that we should rely on most in that area.

QFT

I may even have to sig that, with your permission.

Sure thing!

I think this may be the first time I've been asked that. =)

Sorry, very busy today, took a long time to write that post before submitting it.



See, that conspiracy theory of yours is exactly backwards from the evidence. The mistranslation is the one that is closer to being an anti-church teaching. The actual translation is better for the church than the mistranslation was. The conpiracy this time (if any) would have to be from the anti-church group, not the pro-church group.

Yeah, I see this point and it's a good one.

Given my above post, I do now wonder if the over-zealousness came from wanting to see something as opposed to faithfully translating.

Something I myself might be culpable of :)

We've had people on here argue that Jesus was pro military, pro-gun, anti-taxes, and anti-gay.

People who want to call themselves Christians prefer to change Jesus' beliefs to match their own rather than the other way around.

It's been a long time since being Christian meant you follow the teachings of Christ. A very VERY long time.

Yes, there has been a time of lukewarmness in Christianity. I admit that I am at fault in that too. However, it is amazing, because there seems to be a small movement of Christians that are tired of all the Jerry Falthwells, Pat Robertsons, and so forth and are really taking on what it means to be a Christian, not in words and preaching, but by action as Christ called us to do. So there is slight glimmer of light coming from the darkening church. :)

I've always felt that most Evangelical Christians should really be called "Paulists" because they seem more fond of quoting Paul than of quoting Jesus.

I've always felt that most Evangelical Christians should really be called "Paulists" because they seem more fond of quoting Paul than of quoting Jesus.


Hah. I concur, although I do like a lot of what Paul wrote. However though, I only take his words as advice, where as I take Christ's words as a blueprint for life.

It may be relevant, it may not. Islamic texts refer to Jesus but are hardly relevant to most Christians. The Book of Mormon refers heavily to Jesus Christ but is ignored by Evagelical Christianity. Honestly, I don't really blame them. With all the stuff written on Jesus Christ, even in ancient times, you can't trust just anytying that floats your way.

its not religiously relevant. but it is interesting to see the islamic view of jesus and christianity. i wouldnt take the book of mormon as revealed word of god (since im not mormon) but it certainly is interesting.

i would say that anything written about jesus is relevant to a christian. its just not religiously relevant.

You have the right, but not the credibility,

Credibility in the eyes of whom?

nor is it necessarily appropriate to do so.

Appropriate by whose standards? What system of appropriateness have I violated? That i have offended the delicate sensibilities of the faithful?

It seems you still seem to think that peppering a post with profanity somehow makes it stronger.

No, I think peppering a post with profanity makes it more fun to write. The fact that I like to say "fuck" doesn't make my posts strong. However, the fact that you have utterly failed in any way to refute it, and instead try to attack the method of writing (another habit of cowards, I point out), shows to me it's plenty strong enough. I don't need to swear to make my points stronger. They're obviously strong

But like I said above, you can't expect every individual to make such an examination. They must rely on leaders in the field. Now whether those leaders are any good is the real question.

Yes, and examining how those leaders reach their conclusions is a good way to determine that. It's funny how you stress that determining whetehr a leader is good is a necessary question, but you become so adamently against anyone actually trying to examine their methodologies.

We've had people on here argue that Jesus was pro military, pro-gun, anti-taxes, and anti-gay.


Unsucecessfully.


People who want to call themselves Christians prefer to change Jesus' beliefs to match their own rather than the other way around.

True.

Of course you can. Most of us do have to rely on translators and the like (I certainly can't read Hebrew or Greek), but as far as determining which ideas we should incorporate into our religion, we are all qualified. It is guidance from God that we should rely on most in that area.

I agree with you in principle, I just don't think it's practical. I think every Evangelical Christian should be able to make an analysis like that for exactly the reasons you stated. The problem is that we're talking about the masses, and only a fraction of them are even qualified to make such an analysis, let alone motivated. And it's not like people shouldn't have religion just because they can't analyze every archaeological find that may pertain to some element of their beliefs.



Sure thing!

I think this may be the first time I've been asked that. =)

Gonna go do that right after this post :)

its not religiously relevant. but it is interesting to see the islamic view of jesus and christianity. i wouldnt take the book of mormon as revealed word of god (since im not mormon) but it certainly is interesting.

i would say that anything written about jesus is relevant to a christian. its just not religiously relevant.

Okay good point. From a historical, literary or even a general theological standpoint it's relevant, and personally I'd find it interesting to study as well. That being the case we're in agreement. My remarks up to now have been in the religious case.

Credibility ... methodologies.

Yep. Whatever. I'm enjoying this conversation too much to sidetrack into a pissing match with you. I object to your language and I object to your lightning speed at getting into personal attacks and I choose not to engage you in discussion. Clear? I'll respond to you when and if you join the discussion like an adult.

I think the idea is that when this gospel was actually newsworthy, as in last year, it was entirely misrepresented so any effect it might have initiated was, only possibly, squashed.

I'm also genuinely surprised by the idea that Yahweh is a demon, never heard this before - has anyone?

The idea that Yahweh is 'a demon' in Greek should surprise no one.

The problem here, is that we don't use the word 'demon' in the same way the Greek authors would have.

Daimon is literally translated as 'demon', yes but it doesn't mean what we mean.

A 'demon' in Greek scripture (and other Greek text) is not an agency of bad... or of good. Indeed, they had specific terminology to explain if a 'demon' was a good agency or a bad agency - terms that some might have heard today ('eudemon' and 'cacodemaon'), but most probably haven't.

All the 'demon' part means (in Greek), is an all-knowledgeable entity... a wise being or 'divine power'.

National Geographic have not mistranslated - they have chosen terms that explain better in OUR language, the intention of the meaning in Greek. 'Spirit' gives us a better understanding of the word 'daimon', than our modern reading of 'demon' does.

The idea that Yahweh is 'a demon' in Greek should surprise no one.

The problem here, is that we don't use the word 'demon' in the same way the Greek authors would have.

Daimon is literally translated as 'demon', yes but it doesn't mean what we mean.

A 'demon' in Greek scripture (and other Greek text) is not an agency of bad... or of good. Indeed, they had specific terminology to explain if a 'demon' was a good agency or a bad agency - terms that some might have heard today ('eudemon' and 'cacodemaon'), but most probably haven't.

All the 'demon' part means (in Greek), is an all-knowledgeable entity... a wise being or 'divine power'.

National Geographic have not mistranslated - they have chosen terms that explain better in OUR language, the intention of the meaning in Greek. 'Spirit' gives us a better understanding of the word 'daimon', than our modern reading of 'demon' does.

Perhaps you can correct me if I am wrong, but IIRC, I did learn in a theology class that there were some early Christians who did believe that Yahweh was, in essence, an evil being who created the Earth against the wishes of the true God. In that theology, Christ was the earthly representation of the true God who planned to reunite the souls on Earth with Himself - to correct what Yahweh had done.

Yep. Whatever. I'm enjoying this conversation too much to sidetrack into a pissing match with you. I object to your language and I object to your lightning speed at getting into personal attacks and I choose not to engage you in discussion. Clear? I'll respond to you when and if you join the discussion like an adult.

I see, so, instead of responding to my points you "object to my language" and retreat from the conversation. Funny, my language shouldn't affect your ability to come to a counter-argument, thus I am left with the conclusion that you are incapable.

Very clear, you are unable to address the nonsense you threw out there and the massive holes that get poked through it, so you run away. Any you wonder why I consider this the coward's response?

Don't want me to call you a coward? Simple, stand up for your positions, and not flee with your tail between your leg. When you are willing to actually think through your argument and pose them in a way that doesn't leave them easily refuted and you run away rather than admit it, I'll be here, k?

But fine, I'll humor you in such a way where you can't possibly pull one of these lame excuses and run away.

Why as a rational, intelligent individual am I somehow not permitted to criticise religous practice when I see it not as an honest search for the truth, but a desperate attempt to subvert anything that contradicts their dogma? Why, as someone who can see certain practices, should I restrain myself from pointing those practices out when I find them immoral, and fundamentally against the nature of what the religion is supposed to be?

Please, englighten me.

I see, so, instead of responding to my points you "object to my language" and retreat from the conversation....

Please, englighten me.

Do you listen to yourself? Do you read your posts after you write them? I mean, if this is an attempt to taunt me into a debate you're failing.

If you will state your argument in the same civil and reasonable way that everybody else on this thread has been, whether they agree with each other or not, then I'll answer. It's that simple. If you can't do that, don't expect me to accomodate you.

k?

Perhaps you can correct me if I am wrong, but IIRC, I did learn in a theology class that there were some early Christians who did believe that Yahweh was, in essence, an evil being who created the Earth against the wishes of the true God. In that theology, Christ was the earthly representation of the true God who planned to reunite the souls on Earth with Himself - to correct what Yahweh had done.
That reminds me of a similar and rather amusing idea that I first heard about from Bertrand Russell, that some people believe that the world was actually created by the devil when God wasn't looking.
That sure would explain a lot! :D

Do you listen to yourself? Do you read your posts after you write them? I mean, if this is an attempt to taunt me into a debate you're failing.

If you will state your argument in the same civil and reasonable way that everybody else on this thread has been, whether they agree with each other or not, then I'll answer. It's that simple. If you can't do that, don't expect me to accomodate you.

k?

Since I'm interested in what he's asking, too, I'll ask.
Why should I, as somebody who is fairly certain that looking at different pieces of evidence and adjusting your views to fit said evidence not criticize the religious methodology of "discard anything that doesn't fit with what we already believe?"

I'm personally often more interested in reading views (supported by evidence) that disagree with me, because it gives me a chance to analyze their evidence and see if it holds up to scrutiny-- and, if it does, possibly change my own view to accommodate the new evidence. Religious people typically do not do this-- at least when it comes to their religious beliefs. If new writing comes up that contradicts their belief, and there is sound archaeological evidence that it is a valid document from the time period, not a forgery, etc, they'll typically disregard it, when, according to the evidence, there is no rational reason to dismiss it as any less valid than the canonical writings.

On the other hand, if some archaeological find contradicts what I believe about history-- say, somebody finds some evidence that Alexander was actually killed by an assassin, who stabbed him with a knife(very unlikely, I know, but this is just a hypothetical example)-- then I would have to consider adjusting my beliefs if this had strong evidence.

Likewise, if somebody found solid evidence against, say, the theory of evolution, I'd have to adjust my beliefs. I could go on, but I think you can get what I mean.

Now, I am a history major (as of right now. :D), so you could argue that the first point is less valid, with your "everybody can't be experts" claim. But I am no scientist, yet I still try to follow scientific knowledge and new discoveries. I'm no super-genius, just a slightly above-average college age guy. If I can rationally analyze my views like that, then it can't be too difficult. True, most people can't be experts, but anybody should be able to analyze their beliefs.

My point is, I--and, as it seems, Neo Art-- say that my methodology for forming belief-- analyzing evidence-- is inherently better than theirs-- dismissing whatever disagrees with their current worldview.

If you will state your argument in the same civil and reasonable way that everybody else on this thread has been

Do you listen to yourself? Do you read your posts after you write them? I mean, if this is an attempt to taunt me into a debate you're failing.


Ah irony.

You know what I've seen you still not do? Answer the question.

My point is, I--and, as it seems, Neo Art-- say that my methodology for forming belief-- analyzing evidence-- is inherently better than theirs-- dismissing whatever disagrees with their current worldview.

shhh, because you have no say in how a church does something you must obviously be irrational and silly to question how they do it.

Or something.

Since I'm interested in what he's asking, too, I'll ask.
Why should I, as somebody who is fairly certain that looking at different pieces of evidence and adjusting your views to fit said evidence not criticize the religious methodology of "discard anything that doesn't fit with what we already believe?"
...

My point is, I--and, as it seems, Neo Art-- say that my methodology for forming belief-- analyzing evidence-- is inherently better than theirs-- dismissing whatever disagrees with their current worldview.

Thanks for the question.

Wat I was getting at when I said it wasn't apropriate to question the methodology was specifically referencing areas where scientific methods aren't being used anymore, thus only a member of that given religious system is in a position to credibly evaluate the merits of the method.

I'll put it another way, using an example.

Suppose I'm the leader of a religious group that believes that God is ultimately to be found in the Washington Capitals. (Obviously, winning isn't an element of our religion ;) )

Now I have found a treatise on the rules of Hockey that dates back to the 1930s when the NHL was first formed. We use this treatise to govern our hockey games and play a bunch of wonderfly fun games and a good time is had by all.

Now imagine that another writing has been uncovered... it's from about the same period of time but this one has significant differences between it and the treatise we've been using so far as our hockey rules set. This new one has some strange ideas about having two goalies per side and disallowing checking a goon into the sideboards. Clearly, this could shake the foundation of our religion.

So we scientifically analyze the documents, and it's proven that both were indeed written in about the same timeframe about 70-80 years ago. WHat shall we do in terms of our religion? Well, maybe what we need is a very ritualized ceremony in which we hold a good old-fashioned shootout and try to score goals. It's all very complex but at the end of the day we'll have decided whether to incorporate these new rules into our game.

Important points here: Both documents have been scientifically proven to be of the same period. They've been evaluated as having equivalent historical and/or archaeological value. Now keep in mind that none of this has yet told us whether they have value within our little religion.

Now, we have our own way of deciding whether the content of each document has merit. It's our way of doing things. Keep in mind, the source and validity of the documents has been settled. All that remains is whether they have religious value TO US.

Now imagine that you are an atheist and you've noticed our little cult. Would your opinion on our method for determining the religious value of the rulebooks mean much? Remember, you may know some details about our belief but you don't really have an appreciation for the inherent spiritual elements, so can you h onestly say you're qualified to judge the ceremony? Remember you're an atheist so you probably don't believe it has any real value at all. How can you, as a non-member, be in a position to evaluate the religious aspect of this question when you don't even believe in the criteria we're using?

That's where it becomes non-sequitur, and thus inapropriate.

So take this little hockey model and apply it to Christianity. Sure, we all have a similar set of standards for evaluating the age, content, source, etc of the Gnostic document in question, but a non-Christian isn't in a position to judge the process by which the spiritual value of the documents is determined, because they have already rejected the very spiritual system that supplies the criteria for this determination.

It seems like you guys may have gotten the impression that I was saying you shouldn't judge people's approach as it pertains to an objective and non-religious analysis. That's not what I meant and if I gave that impression then I ask your pardon.

Now, having said that, I did point out that yes, there are some who simply dismiss it out of hand regardless. That, I do view as a mistake. In that case they're not employing a process of any kind but are simply ignoring it. I think this is where you and I agree that there's a problem.
Having said that,

Now imagine that you are an atheist and you've noticed our little cult. Would your opinion on our method for determining the religious value of the rulebooks mean much? Remember, you may know some details about our belief but you don't really have an appreciation for the inherent spiritual elements, so can you h onestly say you're qualified to judge the ceremony? Remember you're an atheist so you probably don't believe it has any real value at all. How can you, as a non-member, be in a position to evaluate the religious aspect of this question when you don't even believe in the criteria we're using?

And therein lies the problem. One would hope, that one who holds a religious belief that is predicated on certain beliefs having occured, would believe that those events actually occured, which is an important distinction between spirituality and religion. Religion is far more than simple spirituality, religion is also about events.

For instance, the entire faith of christianity is predicated upon a belief that an individual was a mortal son of god, and that mortal performed a sacrifice to forgive us of sins. As such, a newly discovered document that appears to be authentic (I'm not saying this gospel is authentic, merely hypothesizing) that discusses the life, times, death, and resurrection or lack thereof of Jesus Christ, or Mohammed, or John Smith would be extremely valuable and of great interest to the relevant religions, NOT because it addresses spirituality, but because religions, largely, are based on the belief that actual events occured.

Christianity is based on the belief that there was a Jesus Christ, and he did all the important things that they believe he did. If that is, in fact, not true, that it never actually happened, the belief in factual circumstances that the entire religion is built on, comes undone.

Religion is supposed to be a search for truth, we are not talking about religions dismissing documents for having little spiritual value. Well, perhaps, nobody but you here. In fact, because, as you so point out, because we don't follow the religion, most of us probably don't really care what spiritual value it holds. So I am unsure why you are so quick to point out how bad it is that people outside the religion are criticising the spiritual importance of it, we don't really care about the spiritual importance of it.

We are talking about religions dismissing, out of hand, documents that may call into question the circumstances behind historical circumstances that the religion is based upon.

And to do that is worthy of great criticism. And, I will also point out, you didn't say anything about spirituality, you said, and I quote:

Now, someone can ding whatever methods a religion might use for adding new Scripture to its canon, but I think that's where a person oversteps the bounds of reasonable discussion since, if one isn't a member of that religion, it's realy not up to them to say whether those methods are valid.

"Canon" is defined as: rule or especially body of rules or principles generally established as valid and fundamental. Nothing "spiritual" about that. You said that a person "oversteps the bounds of reasonable discussion" if that person criticizes the methods that a religion uses to create its rules and structure without being in that religion. you said nothing of spirituality. you said quite clearly it is not reasonable for one to criticize the methods that a religion uses to formulate its rules if he is not a member of that religion.

And since those rules, especially in christianity, are based, fundamentally, on the belief that certain events actually happened, if a religious process works to exclude any evidence that they did not, they are not in any way immune from criticism.

And therein lies the problem. One would hope, that one who holds a religious belief that is predicated on certain beliefs having occured, would believe that those events actually occured, which is an important distinction between spirituality and religion. Religion is far more than simple spirituality, religion is also about events.

For instance, the entire faith of christianity is predicated upon a belief that an individual was a mortal son of god, and that mortal performed a sacrifice to forgive us of sins. As such, a newly discovered document that appears to be authentic (I'm not saying this gospel is authentic, merely hypothesizing) that discusses the life, times, death, and resurrection or lack thereof of Jesus Christ, or Mohammed, or John Smith would be extremely valuable and of great interest to the relevant religions, NOT because it addresses spirituality, but because religions, largely, are based on the belief that actual events occured.

Christianity is based on the belief that there was a Jesus Christ, and he did all the important things that they believe he did. If that is, in fact, not true, that it never actually happened, the belief in factual circumstances that the entire religion is built on, comes undone.

You're right about that. But generally documents that contain nothing but historical accounts aren't considered inherently spiritual writings. For example, the writings of Josephus are historically valid and pertain to a great many events in the Bible, but aren't considered scriptural even though they're generally considered to be reliable.

On the other hand, a document like, say, Psalms isn't really useful for establishing historical events, since it's basically a book of poetry. It may hold interest for a historian or archaeologist in terms of it's use of language, or references to cultural ideas and norms and so on, but whether it has religious value can't be evaluated outside of an internal religious context. You can't praise or condemn the scholars who included Psalms in the bible because there are no objective non-spiritual criteria to judge that decision by.


Religion is supposed to be a search for truth, we are not talking about religions dismissing documents for having little spiritual value. Well, perhaps, nobody but you here. In fact, because, as you so point out, because we don't follow the religion, most of us probably don't really care what spiritual value it holds. So I am unsure why you are so quick to point out how bad it is that people outside the religion are criticising the spiritual importance of it, we don't really care about the spiritual importance of it.

We are talking about religions dismissing, out of hand, documents that may call into question the circumstances behind historical circumstances that the religion is based upon.

And to do that is worthy of great criticism.


You're absolutely right. And I have said so a few times in this thread. My point is that the individuals of the masses can't be expected to make a useful judgement on that because they have neother the education nor the resources to make a call whether it be scientific or religious. For that, they need leaders. The problem is when those leaders dismiss out of hand any potential for new Scripture.


And, I will also point out, you didn't say anything about spirituality, you said, and I quote:



"Canon" is defined as: rule or especially body of rules or principles generally established as valid and fundamental. Nothing "spiritual" about that. You said that a person "oversteps the bounds of reasonable discussion" if that person criticizes the methods that a religion uses to create its rules and structure without being in that religion. you said nothing of spirituality. you said quite clearly it is not reasonable for one to criticize the methods that a religion uses to formulate its rules if he is not a member of that religion.


Let's establish a comonality in terms then. When I say canon I refer to the "canon of Scripture" or in other words, works that are considered of value for spiritual study and are believed to be originated from God.

For example, the canon of Scripture for an Evangelical Christian is the King James Bible. (Or maybe some other translation but with the same set of books contained within it.) The canon of Scripture to a Mormon would be the King James Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine & Covenants. (Yeah that's a lot) To a Catholic, the canon of Scripture contains the Catholic Bible which is similar to the KJV but contains a few additional books. To each of those examples, the canon of scripture is different, but such an individual may use a variety of other written sources for the purpose of historical or anthropological study. When it comes to questions of a strictly spiritual nature however, they rely exclusively on the available canon of Scripture.


And since those rules, especially in christianity, are based, fundamentally, on the belief that certain events actually happened, if a religious process works to exclude any evidence that they did not, they are not in any way immune from criticism.

The problem with most systems is that once a canon of Scripture is established, they're no longer open to it EVER changing. That's where there's a flaw. It's not a process of religion making a judgement, it's a refusal to make a judgement and in that we agree there's a problem.

our contention, I thin, then comes from conflicting uses of the word "canon", whereas you implied a spiritual element that I did not. If you talk strictly from a spiritual perspective, this is a different story, though I will say again, that religious spirituality is based on belief of actual events. Now if you are saying that only the religion should be able to speak as to the spiritual value of certain documents...fine. However the spiritual value shoud, at least in theory, be predicated on its historical value.

our contention, I thin, then comes from conflicting uses of the word "canon", whereas you implied a spiritual element that I did not. If you talk strictly from a spiritual perspective, this is a different story, though I will say again, that religious spirituality is based on belief of actual events. Now if you are saying that only the religion should be able to speak as to the spiritual value of certain documents...fine. However the spiritual value shoud, at least in theory, be predicated on its historical value.

That's what I'm saying.

With the side note that not all spiritual elements on historical value. Like, you may be able to prove (or disprove) that there was ever a city called Jericho whose walls collapsed during a siege by Israelites, but it's not practical to try and historically evaluate the Mormon prohibition on consuming alcohol and tobacco. (You could analyze the historical context of the period of time in which this doctrine was given, but the doctrine itself doesn't represent a particular event.)

our contention, I thin, then comes from conflicting uses of the word "canon", whereas you implied a spiritual element that I did not. If you talk strictly from a spiritual perspective, this is a different story, though I will say again, that religious spirituality is based on belief of actual events. Now if you are saying that only the religion should be able to speak as to the spiritual value of certain documents...fine. However the spiritual value shoud, at least in theory, be predicated on its historical value.

If you have several stories about something or someone and they have conflicting points, how do you decide which is correct? If the documents all have the same historical validity, how do we determine objectively whether or not Christ was resurrected or what the actual message was?

For an atheist, the answer would probably be that we (a) can't really know what Christ's message really was and (b) that Christ wasn't resurrected. For a theist however, particularly one who believes in a personal relationship with the divine, that answer is predicated on a spiritual connection. We shouldn't dismiss any given texts out-of-hand, but it will be through prayer and, we believe, guidance from God, that we determine which texts are the most accurate.

So, when it comes right down to it, you can't remove the spiritual from the process.

Well they still haven't taken on board the whole 'virgin' instead of 'young woman' mistranslation.

Or the mistranslation of the word "poisoner" as "witch".

That's what I'm saying.

With the side note that not all spiritual elements on historical value. Like, you may be able to prove (or disprove) that there was ever a city called Jericho whose walls collapsed during a siege by Israelites, but it's not practical to try and historically evaluate the Mormon prohibition on consuming alcohol and tobacco. (You could analyze the historical context of the period of time in which this doctrine was given, but the doctrine itself doesn't represent a particular event.)

I have been following this thread from the very beginning and have watched this debate unfold.

I think what is really important here (and by all means, correct me if I am wrong) is that Neo Bretonnia basically feels that Christians (general term used for all believers in Christ) should not be critized for what we choose to follow if we believe it to not have a spiritual value to our fundamental beliefs.

Neo Art on the other hand thinks it a problem to not consider these things in the building of our fundamental beliefs.

So lets try to put the two together shall we. First off, many of the Bible believing scholars, have found many historical documents that are relevant to the times and the beliefs of Christians. They have weighed those other documents against the current books of the Bible which have no true contradictions. (yes, I know that statement may open a whole can of worms, but bring something to my attention and I will try to explain it...after this:)) If a new text is brought into question such as this Gospel of Judas, many of us Bible-toting, unshakeable, Jesus is the Son of God and you are going to hell (yeah, some people see it that way) do actually weigh the facts and see how it reconciles with our beliefs and the what we hold as our current set of facts.

In the case of the Gospel of Judas, after it was revised into the article that started this thread, I read it and have absolutely no problems with accepting it as a document with at least a large amount of historical fact. And it aligns with my beliefs...First, Judas was not accepted by Jesus into heaven after what he did. Second, I do believe that spiritual powers made Judas do what he did. Third, there are many religions even today that show what they believe and part of this "gospel" must and does stem from that. If some people see Yahweh as a demon in the sense of a spiritual entity that is more than mere human, but does not believe his is THE entity or that he is the ONLY entity, then they would surely use demon to describe him in such a way.

When scrutinizing all parts of my religion, I may have a bias to find how it fits, or can be proven faulty, but I will still look at it earnestly to find the truth. That is really what we are all after and what this whole debate is about (I think). So hopefully this was a perspective that both sides can understand and agree on in a major point sense.

Or the mistranslation of the word "poisoner" as "witch".

Please explain...

That one is centuries old..it was around before the formation of the Christin church. It was made while translating the Hebrew bible from Hebrew to Greek. The assumption was that a the overwhelming majority of young woman were virgins. Hence the "error".


I just recently reread the gospel account of the nativity, and when told that she is going to have a child, Mary reacts by asking the angel, "How can this being, seeing as I know not a man?" She wasn't having sex, but she got pregnant anyway. That's clearly what the Bible teaches.

Please explain...

I believe he's quoting Exodus 22:18.

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live amongst you."

This has been thought to have been mistranslated, on purpose, during the first english translations of the bible, from "Poisoner", to "witch".

Remember at this time, witchhunts were all the rage.

I believe he's quoting Exodus 22:18.

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live amongst you."

This has been thought to have been mistranslated, on purpose, during the first english translations of the bible, from "Poisoner", to "witch".

Remember at this time, witchhunts were all the rage.

Well for better or worse, there are other places in the old Testament where it talks about mediums or spiritists, so I don't know that necessarily leaves witches off the hook under the Law of the Old Testament

Well for better or worse, there are other places in the old Testament where it talks about mediums or spiritists, so I don't know that necessarily leaves witches off the hook under the Law of the Old Testament

Im not sure it does either, but I also wonder how Khabbalism (Jewish Mysticism) fits into all of that as well. Seems like different names for the same thing, if you ask me.

On the other hand, if we use the original term "poisoner", that could very well mean many things.
What would make someone a "poisoner"?

I believe he's quoting Exodus 22:18.

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live amongst you."

This has been thought to have been mistranslated, on purpose, during the first english translations of the bible, from "Poisoner", to "witch".

Remember at this time, witchhunts were all the rage.

Where do you guys get that stuff from? Why would anyone need to invent a subject to attack when the subject is already attacked? Mediums, Sorcerers, Witches, Practitioners of witchcraft, Necromancers, fortune tellers etc., they are all talked about negatively in many places, why would anyone need to mistranslate that one word when there is no need? Look...

Leviticus 19:26
…. You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes.

Leviticus 19:31
"Do not turn to mediums or necromancers; do not seek them out, and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus 20:27
"A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them."

Deuteronomy 18:9-14
"When you come into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD. And because of these abominations the LORD your God is driving them out before you. You shall be blameless before the LORD your God, for these nations, which you are about to dispossess, listen to fortune-tellers and to diviners. But as for you, the LORD your God has not allowed you to do this.

1 Samuel 28:3
Now Samuel had died, and all Israel had mourned for him and buried him in Ramah, his own city. And Saul had put the mediums and the necromancers out of the land.

No, Exodus 22:18 has been correctly translated as either witch, or sorceress, or female users of witchcraft etc., by the many different translations available to us in English.

Exodus 22:18
NRSV
You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live.
NASB
"You shall not allow a sorceress to live.
NIV
"Do not allow a sorceress to live.
ESV
"You shall not permit a sorceress to live.
KJV
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
YLT (Young's Literal Translation)
`A witch thou dost not keep alive.

I believe he's quoting Exodus 22:18.

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live amongst you."

This has been thought to have been mistranslated, on purpose, during the first english translations of the bible, from "Poisoner", to "witch".

Remember at this time, witchhunts were all the rage.

Exactly.

Exactly.

Yah, Ive only heard about that. I couldnt exactly verify it for you.
I have no way of knowing if its true.

Where do you guys get that stuff from? Why would anyone need to invent a subject to attack when the subject is already attacked? Mediums, Sorcerers, Witches, Practitioners of witchcraft, Necromancers, fortune tellers etc., they are all talked about negatively in many places, why would anyone need to mistranslate that one word when there is no need?

Thats kinda what I was trying to say....

So...

Thoughts?
I thought it was funny last year that some of the folks involved believed this "revelation" would actually change the way Christians thought about their religion. First of all, there are at least four other writings which go against it, making it less accurate from a historic perspective. Second, the researchers were under the delusion that the gospels preceded the religion, and the latter was based on the former. This is of course nonsense. If the mere existence of a manuscript defined thought, Christianity would have ceased to exist after the writings of Roman and Jewish opponents to the faith in the first century.
I admit that I don't know enough about translation to be sure that a mistranslation occurred, but I wouldn't be that surprised. I can see how the translators could get caught up in the Da Vinci Code/conspiracy theorist fun, and let that influence their work.

Assuming my earlier post was borked by Jolt going down rather than Mod censorship, I'm going to repost.

Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/02/opinion/edeconick.php)



The new Da Vinci Code yay!



Essentially the translation by Nat Geo is the opposite of what it actually says...



Note the bolded, new to me :confused:



So...

Thoughts?

The so-called "Gospel" of Judas has no place in the Bible. Why would God include in His Book a "gospel" written by a DEVIL (Judas)? The only reason a devil would have for writing a "gospel" is to mislead and deceive people away from the truth.

I suspect this will have little affect on Christianity. The die hard 'Bible is literal word of God' crowd have always been very selective about which parts of the bible they read(mainly the old testament, with the smiting and the hating people). The lip-service Christians will just keep on mumbling along through mass every Sunday and holy day of obligation. The sensible 'I like what the Jesus fella thinks' Christians will carry right along liking what the Jesus fella thought and going with that whole 'love one another thing'.

I am a member of this "die hard 'Bible is the literal word of God' crowd". I believe it means what it says, as it says it, TO WHOM it says it.

It has been said that "all of the Bible is written FOR us," i.e. we can profit from it spiritually, "but NOT all of the Bible is written TO us," e.g. God did not say one word to New Testament Christians about any LITERAL slaughtering of any LITERAL "Philistines" or "Amalekites" or "giants" or any other group of people.

That is not applicable to NT Christians LITERALLY, but SPIRITUALLY.

In fact the Apostle Paul wrote that "we" (meaning NT Christians) "wrestle NOT against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against SPIRITUAL wickedness in high places." [emphases mine] Our warfare is SPIRITUAL; the OT Jews' warfare was PHYSICAL.

The sensible 'I like what the Jesus fella thinks' Christians will carry right along liking what the Jesus fella thought and going with that whole 'love one another thing'.

Yes, Jesus loves people, but don't make the mistake of thinking that that automatically means He condones everything they do.

I think the idea is that when this gospel was actually newsworthy, as in last year, it was entirely misrepresented so any effect it might have initiated was, only possibly, squashed.

I'm also genuinely surprised by the idea that Yahweh is a demon, never heard this before - has anyone?

Ditto here; I always thought "Yahweh" was just a mistransliteration of God's name, Jehovah.

We've had people on here argue that Jesus was pro military, pro-gun, anti-taxes, and anti-gay.

People who want to call themselves Christians prefer to change Jesus' beliefs to match their own rather than the other way around.

Not always true. NOT EVERYBODY who claims the name of Christ does such a thing.

In fact Jesus said "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's". In fact, so far from being "anti-taxes", He even PAID TAXES HIMSELF!

Ditto here; I always thought "Yahweh" was just a mistransliteration of God's name, Jehovah.


Other way round.

'Jehovah' is what you get if you read the tetragrammaton with the vowel points for adonai, meaning lord, which was what you SAY when you see the name.

The name of God is not to be uttered.

The name of God is not to be uttered.

Indeed! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erthun0Pauc&feature=related)

I believe he's quoting Exodus 22:18.

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live amongst you."

This has been thought to have been mistranslated, on purpose, during the first english translations of the bible, from "Poisoner", to "witch".

Remember at this time, witchhunts were all the rage.

The argument has been made that 'kashaph' would be much better translated as poisoner, than as witch. (Of course, the word 'witch' didn't even exist when the Hebrew text was written, coming, as it does, from an Old English word meaning 'wise' (person)).

The problem with that - is that kashaph seems to relate to 'prayer' as it's root article.... thus, a much better translation of "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" MIGHT be "thou shalt not allow to live, anyone that prays" The strong suggestion would be that this refers to OTHER gods.

Thus, Exodus 22:18 is actually condemning those who pray before idols - nothing to do with poisoning - but also nothing to do with any practise of 'witchcraft' - whatever that is.

Exodus 22:18 is actually a calling to 'kill the infidel'.

The argument for 'poisoner' is mainly rooted in the New Testament, where the word we translate as 'witch' is 'pharmakeia', the root of which is to do with the use of drugs (the root of modern words like pharmacy). The use of drugs for harm? The Greek text makes 'poisoner' a pretty clear choice.

Where do you guys get that stuff from? Why would anyone need to invent a subject to attack when the subject is already attacked? Mediums, Sorcerers, Witches, Practitioners of witchcraft, Necromancers, fortune tellers etc., they are all talked about negatively in many places, why would anyone need to mistranslate that one word when there is no need? Look...

Leviticus 19:26
…. You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes.

Leviticus 19:31
"Do not turn to mediums or necromancers; do not seek them out, and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus 20:27
"A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them."

Deuteronomy 18:9-14
"When you come into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD. And because of these abominations the LORD your God is driving them out before you. You shall be blameless before the LORD your God, for these nations, which you are about to dispossess, listen to fortune-tellers and to diviners. But as for you, the LORD your God has not allowed you to do this.

1 Samuel 28:3
Now Samuel had died, and all Israel had mourned for him and buried him in Ramah, his own city. And Saul had put the mediums and the necromancers out of the land.

No, Exodus 22:18 has been correctly translated as either witch, or sorceress, or female users of witchcraft etc., by the many different translations available to us in English.

Exodus 22:18
NRSV
You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live.
NASB
"You shall not allow a sorceress to live.
NIV
"Do not allow a sorceress to live.
ESV
"You shall not permit a sorceress to live.
KJV
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
YLT (Young's Literal Translation)
`A witch thou dost not keep alive.

You're joking, right?

You're going to validate the English translation of words by... referring to other translated words?

'Witch' is a bad translation. Pointing out that the KJV is not the only text to make the same bad translation, is not somehow going to make it more accurate.

The argument has been made that 'kashaph' would be much better translated as poisoner, than as witch. (Of course, the word 'witch' didn't even exist when the Hebrew text was written, coming, as it does, from an Old English word meaning 'wise' (person)).

The problem with that - is that kashaph seems to relate to 'prayer' as it's root article.... thus, a much better translation of "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" MIGHT be "thou shalt not allow to live, anyone that prays" The strong suggestion would be that this refers to OTHER gods.

Thus, Exodus 22:18 is actually condemning those who pray before idols - nothing to do with poisoning - but also nothing to do with any practise of 'witchcraft' - whatever that is.

Exodus 22:18 is actually a calling to 'kill the infidel'.

The argument for 'poisoner' is mainly rooted in the New Testament, where the word we translate as 'witch' is 'pharmakeia', the root of which is to do with the use of drugs (the root of modern words like pharmacy). The use of drugs for harm? The Greek text makes 'poisoner' a pretty clear choice.

Wow. Thanks Grave.
Ive heard that mentioned, but had no idea where from.
As for the particular passage, I was assuming thats what the other guy was reffering to.

Wow. Thanks Grave.
Ive heard that mentioned, but had no idea where from.
As for the particular passage, I was assuming thats what the other guy was reffering to.

Most likely, he (he?) was referring to the Greek scripture, where the 'poisoner' link is really obvious.

A lot of people confuse the two references, and thus there is actually a kind of sub-culture of belief that the Hebrew also refers to a poisoner... but, based on etymology and accepted meanings, the best translation is closer to 'idolator' than poisoner.. or witch.

I agree with you in principle, I just don't think it's practical. I think every Evangelical Christian should be able to make an analysis like that for exactly the reasons you stated. The problem is that we're talking about the masses, and only a fraction of them are even qualified to make such an analysis, let alone motivated. And it's not like people shouldn't have religion just because they can't analyze every archaeological find that may pertain to some element of their beliefs.

You know, the thought of people believing in things they are not able or even motivated to compare, question and re-examine on a regular basis is enough to give me stomach cramps.
You're effectively promoting blind faith in whatever the masses are told here. Aside from the fact that this is a rather arrogant stance, I would also suggest it's rather dangerous in reality. Blind faith is just a step away from fanatism, unwillingness to question authority has led to some horrendous acts in human history, and I for one don't see any value in repeating them.
If people aren't able or willing to examine their religious belief, I for one think they're better of without it. It would be nothing but superstition anyway.

There were several hundred gospels, all written more than 50 years after Jesus' purported death and resurrection. Only four actually appear in the Bible. They were all chosen to support a particular agenda. And the translations of all four of them were biased in favor of that particular agenda. It doesn't surprise me at all if there is a mistranslation of this particular hidden text.

What would make someone a "poisoner"?

Employment at McDonald's?

(couldn't resist :D)

You know, the thought of people believing in things they are not able or even motivated to compare, question and re-examine on a regular basis is enough to give me stomach cramps.
You're effectively promoting blind faith in whatever the masses are told here. Aside from the fact that this is a rather arrogant stance, I would also suggest it's rather dangerous in reality. Blind faith is just a step away from fanatism, unwillingness to question authority has led to some horrendous acts in human history, and I for one don't see any value in repeating them.
If people aren't able or willing to examine their religious belief, I for one think they're better of without it. It would be nothing but superstition anyway.

I'm not promoting it, I'm pointing out how it is. I'm not a fan of behaving like a lemming.

I've run up against that brick wall countless times in debates of a Mormon vs. Evangelical nature. Some of you guys might have seen it here. A lot of the people I've debated against just parrot stuff they've read or heard without thinking about it.

I'm very grateful for the religion I've adopted because we ARE encouraged to think for ourselves and to apply critical thought processes to things. That seems to be rare in the grand scheme of things, but maybe that's understandable. Like I said, not everybody is a scholar. Most people simply don't WANT to think about things, they just want to cruise. I don't like it, but that's how it is.

You're joking, right?

You're going to validate the English translation of words by... referring to other translated words?

'Witch' is a bad translation. Pointing out that the KJV is not the only text to make the same bad translation, is not somehow going to make it more accurate.

Yes, showing how other translators have translated a word similarly is commonly accepted as evidence/proof of the accuracy and intent of a given translation, even in a courtrooms dealing with definitions of words. I’m surprised you would think otherwise.

Most likely, he (he?) was referring to the Greek scripture, where the 'poisoner' link is really obvious.

A lot of people confuse the two references, and thus there is actually a kind of sub-culture of belief that the Hebrew also refers to a poisoner... but, based on etymology and accepted meanings, the best translation is closer to 'idolator' than poisoner.. or witch.

Perhaps you would like define a new English word for the ‘idolater’ - ‘poisoner’ you had in mind here? Of course, this ‘idolater’ should be discernable from other idolaters used elsewhere in the scripture, as other idolaters are defined differently than the subjects being discussed in Exodus 22:18 are thought to be. The new name you come up with for these subjects of Exodus 22:18 should be a word that means to the reader that these are people that use divination through Mediums who talk to the dead, sorcery to accomplish goals (like spells), necromancers, fortune tellers…

Although I think you’re wasting your time, because the words Sorcerer, Wizard and Witch, all seem to be perfectly good and commonly understood by English speakers to accurately meet those definitions.

One such attempt to translate Exodus 22:18 into English without using one of those words would be:

Bible in Basic English
“Any woman using unnatural powers or secret arts is to be put to death.”

Again, calling that person a witch or sorcerer makes perfectly good use of the English language.

There were several hundred gospels, all written more than 50 years after Jesus' purported death and resurrection. Only four actually appear in the Bible. They were all chosen to support a particular agenda. And the translations of all four of them were biased in favor of that particular agenda. It doesn't surprise me at all if there is a mistranslation of this particular hidden text.

Really? Perhaps you could back that up with a source somewhere?

100th post, for the win!

You know, the thought of people believing in things they are not able or even motivated to compare, question and re-examine on a regular basis is enough to give me stomach cramps.
You're effectively promoting blind faith in whatever the masses are told here. Aside from the fact that this is a rather arrogant stance, I would also suggest it's rather dangerous in reality. Blind faith is just a step away from fanatism, unwillingness to question authority has led to some horrendous acts in human history, and I for one don't see any value in repeating them.
If people aren't able or willing to examine their religious belief, I for one think they're better of without it. It would be nothing but superstition anyway.

This leads me to conclude that Atheists have too much faith in human nature.

I can assure you that many people can't question or examine ANYTHING. I've seen some pretty stupid scientific reasoning in my time. In particular, I know of quite a few people who believe that animals "sense" nature and then spontaneously turn in to new animals, as in one minute they'll be a squirrel and the next a fox, and that this is "evolving."

I also know of many people who are so unwilling to question they're own beliefs, even very intelligent people, that while they will very freely espouse them and try to FORCE (but not, in any real sense, persuade) you to agree, they will by no measure present any evidence whatsoever to support their claims, and no real reasoning behind it, and will become incredibly hostile if you approach them with questions. Some of these people hold masters degrees and PhD's.

And even scientists sometimes let their bias get away with them. Einstein discovered most of the basic principles behind quantum mechanics, but rather then accept and study what he had discovered and discover more, as a scientist is supposed to do, he just shouted "I do not believe God is playing dice with the world" and stormed out of the room in a petty temper tantrum.

And lastly, I know that I myself sometimes let my feelings carry me away, and fail to look at the evidence behind my claims. I know that I too can be irrational. I try very hard to not be, and to catch myself when I go there, but sometimes it happens.

So there you have it, evidence from the real world to test your hypothesi. Knock yourself dead.

This leads me to conclude that Atheists have too much faith in human nature.
How did you come to conclude this? Atheism has nothing to do with human nature.

I can assure you that many people can't question or examine ANYTHING.
Can't or don't?
I've seen some pretty stupid scientific reasoning in my time. In particular, I know of quite a few people who believe that animals "sense" nature and then spontaneously turn in to new animals, as in one minute they'll be a squirrel and the next a fox, and that this is "evolving."
Strange. Though I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here.

I also know of many people who are so unwilling to question they're own beliefs, even very intelligent people, that while they will very freely espouse them and try to FORCE (but not, in any real sense, persuade) you to agree, they will by no measure present any evidence whatsoever to support their claims, and no real reasoning behind it, and will become incredibly hostile if you approach them with questions. Some of these people hold masters degrees and PhD's.
Again, what is your point?

And even scientists sometimes let their bias get away with them. Einstein discovered most of the basic principles behind quantum mechanics, but rather then accept and study what he had discovered and discover more, as a scientist is supposed to do, he just shouted "I do not believe God is playing dice with the world" and stormed out of the room in a petty temper tantrum.
Your point. It continues to elude me.

And lastly, I know that I myself sometimes let my feelings carry me away, and fail to look at the evidence behind my claims. I know that I too can be irrational. I try very hard to not be, and to catch myself when I go there, but sometimes it happens.
Point! Where are you point?

So there you have it, evidence
Anecdotes aren't evidence.
from the real world to test your hypothesi. Knock yourself dead.

Hypotheses. And what hypotheses are we meant to be testing?

This leads me to conclude that Atheists have too much faith in human nature.

I can assure you that many people can't question or examine ANYTHING. I've seen some pretty stupid scientific reasoning in my time. In particular, I know of quite a few people who believe that animals "sense" nature and then spontaneously turn in to new animals, as in one minute they'll be a squirrel and the next a fox, and that this is "evolving."

I also know of many people who are so unwilling to question they're own beliefs, even very intelligent people, that while they will very freely espouse them and try to FORCE (but not, in any real sense, persuade) you to agree, they will by no measure present any evidence whatsoever to support their claims, and no real reasoning behind it, and will become incredibly hostile if you approach them with questions. Some of these people hold masters degrees and PhD's.

And even scientists sometimes let their bias get away with them. Einstein discovered most of the basic principles behind quantum mechanics, but rather then accept and study what he had discovered and discover more, as a scientist is supposed to do, he just shouted "I do not believe God is playing dice with the world" and stormed out of the room in a petty temper tantrum.

And lastly, I know that I myself sometimes let my feelings carry me away, and fail to look at the evidence behind my claims. I know that I too can be irrational. I try very hard to not be, and to catch myself when I go there, but sometimes it happens.

So there you have it, evidence from the real world to test your hypothesi. Knock yourself dead.

Subject: Trolling
Examiner: Barringtonia
Student: Plotadonia

Comments: Should try harder

Subject: Trolling
Examiner: Barringtonia
Student: Plotadonia

Comments: Should try harder

It's meant to be trolling? Buh? But trolling who? And how?

100th post, for the win!

Grrr...at least contribute something if you're going to grab a post like that :mad:

It's meant to be trolling? Buh? But trolling who? And how?

It's either poor trolling or good irony...except irony's not the right word, whatever the word for 'overstating something to show the stupidity of the position' is.

Grrr...at least contribute something if you're going to grab a post like that :mad:

Well I thought starting the thread to begin with was enough :)

It's either poor trolling or good irony...except irony's not the right word, whatever the word for 'overstating something to show the stupidity of the position' is.

I'm not sure what the position is meant to be. That people are stupid? Well no shit, Sherlock. Next you'll tell me that the Pope wears a funny hat.

Well I thought starting the thread to begin with was enough :)

*gnashes teeth*

And I believe the word you're looking for is satire.

The person who wrote that article didn't do their homework. The Gospel of Judas was written in Coptic, not Greek. Coptic uses the Greek alphabet and some Greek loanwords, but it is overwhelmingly made up of Egyptian words.

The people who translated the Gospel of Judas were also the worlds' most talented experts in the Coptic language. I'm going to trust their judgment.

I'm not sure what the position is meant to be. That people are stupid? Well no shit, Sherlock. Next you'll tell me that the Pope wears a funny hat.

Reading it again I can see your point - that s/he's simply saying that there are people who believe all sorts of things, rather than implying evolution consists of one animal magically turning into another as their own belief.

The Einstein bit threw me as a corollary, people waver back and forth on whether his instincts were right and I think it's tilting back to him - it was an odd example.

I grant the benefit of doubt, more on my own perception than the poster.

The person who wrote that article didn't do their homework. The Gospel of Judas was written in Coptic, not Greek. Coptic uses the Greek alphabet and some Greek loanwords, but it is overwhelmingly made up of Egyptian words.

The people who translated the Gospel of Judas were also the worlds' most talented experts in the Coptic language. I'm going to trust their judgment.

I think she did:

Perhaps the most egregious mistake I found was a single alteration made to the original Coptic. According to the National Geographic translation, Judas' ascent to the holy generation would be cursed. But it's clear from the transcription that the scholars altered the Coptic original, which eliminated a negative from the original sentence. In fact, the original states that Judas will "not ascend to the holy generation." To its credit, National Geographic has acknowledged this mistake, albeit far too late to change the public misconception.

Not claiming she couldn't be mistaken either, although Nat Geo have acknowldged one error at least.

Really? Perhaps you could back that up with a source somewhere?

There are many. All you have to do is type "History of the Gospels" and hit search. Below is an example. Not, by any means, the only example.

http://www.journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue4/Articles/dating_early_christian_gospels.htm

There are many. All you have to do is type "History of the Gospels" and hit search. Below is an example. Not, by any means, the only example.

http://www.journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue4/Articles/dating_early_christian_gospels.htm

I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear and that's my fault. I wasn't challenging the generalities of your claims, I was addressing the specifics of it. You had said, hundreds and you said within fifty years. By being specific like that you open yourself to being challenged and you will be found lacking in evidence. The claim you should make could be something like, many (if by many you mean dozens or so) and shortly after (if by that you mean up to the end of the second century AD).

Even the source you linked to here says 'many' and ca. 60-150 C.E., and he is specifically arguing that the non-canon gospels can't really be dated at all... (I don't agree with all of his conclusions in that opinion piece, but I'm not against it per-se either, and I recognize that the article there wasn't the main point of our discrepancy with each other.)

Yes, showing how other translators have translated a word similarly is commonly accepted as evidence/proof of the accuracy and intent of a given translation, even in a courtrooms dealing with definitions of words.


You are talking through your arse.

What you are talking about is called 'received translation', and is only one way of performing translation, and certainly not necessarily the best. Etymology is not perfect either, but can give an understanding of the context that 'received translation' might miss.

The problem with received translation is that it is based on how we think a word is supposed to be interpreted (hard enough, sometimes, even with modern languages), and is context dependent.


I’m surprised you would think otherwise.


I'm not surprised you'd be surprised.


Perhaps you would like define a new English word for the ‘idolater’ - ‘poisoner’ you had in mind here?


In the Hebrew? I've pointed out that the word doesn't translate to poisoner. To keep throwing that at my translation is a strawman.


Of course, this ‘idolater’ should be discernable from other idolaters used elsewhere in the scripture,


It is. The root of the word suggests prayer. Thus, the word is either referring to the prayers of Israel to Yahweh (unlikely, given that it is a prohibition), or their prayers to some other entity. Destroying heathen places of worship is hardly uncommon in the Hebrew scripture, so the idea that this refers to people that 'pray to foreign gods' is entirely consistent.


as other idolaters are defined differently than the subjects being discussed in Exodus 22:18 are thought to be. The new name you come up with for these subjects of Exodus 22:18 should be a word that means to the reader that these are people that use divination through Mediums who talk to the dead, sorcery to accomplish goals (like spells), necromancers, fortune tellers…


Why should the word mean all those things? Exodus 22:18 is one item in a list of prohibitions - that doesn't mean it has to encompass all those other prohibitions.


Although I think you’re wasting your time, because the words Sorcerer, Wizard and Witch, all seem to be perfectly good and commonly understood by English speakers to accurately meet those definitions.


Which is irrelevent, for the reason just explained.


One such attempt to translate Exodus 22:18 into English without using one of those words would be:

Bible in Basic English
“Any woman using unnatural powers or secret arts is to be put to death.”

Again, calling that person a witch or sorcerer makes perfectly good use of the English language.

Have you read the scripture in the Hebrew?

Your grasp of how language works in English is shaky enough, I dread to think how you fared with a language as textured as Hebrew.

Is 'witch' a perfectly good word?

No - witch is derived from 'wicce' meaning wise person - when the King James book was translated, the word 'witch' was in the process of being corrupted, ironically - becoming a 'bad word' through it's association with the broken translation of the scripture.

'Witch' now, doesn't mean what it meant a hundred years ago. A hundred years ago, it didn't mean what it meant when the KJV was translated. The word 'witch' didn't even exist when the Hebrew scripture was written. They certainly had no concept that equates with the thousands of years of accumulated crap we know associate with the word.


And - to trump it all, I've shown why the translation of the Hebrew is wrong.

At root, your argument for received translation, is an argument for tradition. "I don't care if it is wrong, it was good enough for my dad".

You are talking through your arse.

What you are talking about is called 'received translation', and is only one way of performing translation, and certainly not necessarily the best. Etymology is not perfect either, but can give an understanding of the context that 'received translation' might miss.

The problem with received translation is that it is based on how we think a word is supposed to be interpreted (hard enough, sometimes, even with modern languages), and is context dependent.
So, in other words, you simply want to disagree with everyone else just to disagree with them, because you don’t like what they have said before you you try to change what it means... all the other translators for hundreds of years must all been wrong and you are right... okay then.

I'm not surprised you'd be surprised. Now that I see how you’ve decided to put on airs, I'm not surprised anymore.

In the Hebrew? I've pointed out that the word doesn't translate to poisoner. To keep throwing that at my translation is a strawman.
I didn’t throw it at all, thus, it's not a strawman, I was using both of your two words, one for the Greek and one for the Hebrew... No strawman from my side then, just a lack of counter argument from your side it seems.

It is. The root of the word suggests prayer. Thus, the word is either referring to the prayers of Israel to Yahweh (unlikely, given that it is a prohibition), or their prayers to some other entity. Destroying heathen places of worship is hardly uncommon in the Hebrew scripture, so the idea that this refers to people that 'pray to foreign gods' is entirely consistent.
Destroying the people that pray to other gods is consistent with the wording, yes, I agree. But just like the quote I used from earlier… witches and sorceresses and wizards ARE the idolaters of other nations in this case…
Deuteronomy 18:9-14
9"When you come into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. 10There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer 11or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, 12 for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD. And because of these abominations the LORD your God is driving them out before you. 13You shall be blameless before the LORD your God, 14for these nations, which you are about to dispossess, listen to fortune-tellers and to diviners. But as for you, the LORD your God has not allowed you to do this.

Why should the word mean all those things? Exodus 22:18 is one item in a list of prohibitions - that doesn't mean it has to encompass all those other prohibitions.
Those are not all different prohibitions, they are descriptions of one prohibition, of one type of person that does those things.

Which is irrelevent, for the reason just explained.
It’s not irrelevant, for the reasons I just explained. The idolaters in this case are the witches and wizards and sorceresses that practice witchcraft…

Have you read the scripture in the Hebrew?

Your grasp of how language works in English is shaky enough, I dread to think how you fared with a language as textured as Hebrew.
More pompous airs, as IF that creates an argument on your part….


Is 'witch' a perfectly good word?

No - witch is derived from 'wicce' meaning wise person - when the King James book was translated, the word 'witch' was in the process of being corrupted, ironically - becoming a 'bad word' through it's association with the broken translation of the scripture.

'Witch' now, doesn't mean what it meant a hundred years ago. A hundred years ago, it didn't mean what it meant when the KJV was translated. The word 'witch' didn't even exist when the Hebrew scripture was written. They certainly had no concept that equates with the thousands of years of accumulated crap we know associate with the word.
Then it’s a good thing that the newer translations of that verse do not use the word Witch anymore isn’t it? As I already quoted the most used word for that verse is sorceresses now. It appears that your objections are already addressed and thus your point is moot.


And - to trump it all, I've shown why the translation of the Hebrew is wrong.
No, no you haven’t.


At root, your argument for received translation, is an argument for tradition. "I don't care if it is wrong, it was good enough for my dad".
At root is your argument that you want to rewrite the words to mean what you want them to mean, “I don’t care if all the other translators disagree with me, my interpretation is better then any of my elders.”

Here is a Hebrew translation of the verse to English by Mechon Mamre … Of course the verse is now 17, not 18, but: “17 Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live.” http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0222.htm

They seem to agree with me, not you, that sorceress is a perfectly good English word for that translation.

So, in other words, you simply want to disagree with everyone else just to disagree with them,


Not at all. I would agree with more people, if they agreed with me.


because you don’t like what they have said before you you try to change what it means... all the other translators for hundreds of years must all been wrong and you are right... okay then.


It's not a matter of 'not liking what they said'. I've read the text in the native tongue, and it doesn't say what the translations say (not just there, but in literally hundreds of places).

What should I do, ignore the truth?

You can do that if you wish. I know the text doesn't say what the translations might chose to present, and I'm not going to pretend to myself that the translators were correct, when they weren't.


Now that I see how you’ve decided to put on airs, I'm not surprised anymore.


So - having read the text, and not agreeing with incorrect translation is now 'putting on airs'?


I didn’t throw it at all, thus, it's not a strawman, I was using both of your two words, one for the Greek and one for the Hebrew... No strawman from my side then, just a lack of counter argument from your side it seems.


You said we need 'a word' to describe two entirely different phrases... idolator and poisoner. They are not presented together, they are not even in the zsame scriptures, so I assumed you were talking about the word translated as 'idolator', and linking it to 'poisoner'.

If not - it's not a strawman - it's just laughable. We don't need 'a word' to describe idolator and poisoner, because they are not the same thing, are not presented as being the same thing, and are not describing the same thing.

Down our way, we refer to such things as 'different things'.


Destroying the people that pray to other gods is consistent with the wording, yes, I agree.


You'd be right.


But just like the quote I used from earlier… witches and sorceresses and wizards ARE the idolaters of other nations in this case…
Deuteronomy 18:9-14
9"When you come into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. 10There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer 11or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, 12 for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD. And because of these abominations the LORD your God is driving them out before you. 13You shall be blameless before the LORD your God, 14for these nations, which you are about to dispossess, listen to fortune-tellers and to diviners. But as for you, the LORD your God has not allowed you to do this.


"Those who pray to false idols" works just as well as the word 'sorcerer' there... and would be more accurate to the native tongue.


Those are not all different prohibitions, they are descriptions of one prohibition, of one type of person that does those things.


No - they are different prohibuitions, that all come under one overarching prohibition. And, as I just said, "praying to idolators" works just as well.


It’s not irrelevant, for the reasons I just explained. The idolaters in this case are the witches and wizards and sorceresses that practice witchcraft…


It is irrelevent. Youw ere just wrong.


More pompous airs, as IF that creates an argument on your part….


How is it pompous airs. I'm asking if you've actually READ the Hebrew text.

Have you?

If not - your arguing something you know NOTHING about. Who is pompous now?


No, no you haven’t.


Are you mad? The word derives from a root that means prayer. The word describes a prayer. That shows that the received translation is, at VERY best, an attempt to find a parallel - not to actually translate.


At root is your argument that you want to rewrite the words to mean what you want them to mean, “I don’t care if all the other translators disagree with me, my interpretation is better then any of my elders.”


I'm not trying to rewrite the words! Are you for real?

I'm presenting the actual meaning of the words in Hebrew, and you are trying to argue that received translation trumps actual meaning!

If ALL the translators disagree with me, they ARE wrong. Stranger things have happened.


Here is a Hebrew translation of the verse to English by Mechon Mamre … Of course the verse is now 17, not 18, but: “17 Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live.” http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0222.htm

They seem to agree with me, not you, that sorceress is a perfectly good English word for that translation.

It's a good enough word for an English (probably Christian) audience. That doesn't make it the RIGHT word. Or even a good one.

If ALL the translators disagree with me, they ARE wrong. Stranger things have happened.

Translators seem to get into a rut if there is an original mistranslation. Even if they go back to the original texts (which most don't, instead just altering the KJV to modernize the English or *maybe* going back to the Septuagint or Latin translations), they tend to translate things in the "traditional" way. Only rarely do they simply look at the words as they are in the original text without the mindset brought in by old translations.

The Red Sea vs. "sea of reeds" translation mishap has gotten propagated the same way.

Translators seem to get into a rut if there is an original mistranslation. Even if they go back to the original texts (which most don't, instead just altering the KJV to modernize the English or *maybe* going back to the Septuagint or Latin translations), they tend to translate things in the "traditional" way.

Would you like to quantify the word "most" in this case? I think rather that 'most' modern translations today do go back to the originals and don't touch the KJV at all. No reason to as there are better originals today than the KJV translators had to work with then, new version through archaeological discoveries have created better 'originals,' so to speak, for us to work with. A person in search of a Bible today can find them with corrections made through Dead Sea Scrolls research, or other versions, or just plain better understanding of the ancient languages.

Here's a partial list of modern Bibles, and who translated them, from the IBS-STL (http://www.ibs.org/bibles/translations/index.php). As you'll notice, many of them consist of scholars and translators who "went back" to the originals, like the THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE (translated from the original languages), NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE(accurately reflects the wording of the original languages), New International Version (original languages done by an international group of more than a hundred scholars), THE JERUSALEM BIBLE(Catholic Bible to be translated from the original languages), THE NEW LIVING TRANSLATION (not a paraphrase but a translation. Every verse has been carefully compared to the most reliable editions of the Hebrew and Greek texts)... Need I go on? The idea that most modern Bibles just reworded KJV is simply a modern day myth.

Only rarely do they simply look at the words as they are in the original text without the mindset brought in by old translations.

The Red Sea vs. "sea of reeds" translation mishap has gotten propagated the same way.

How about some Jewish Versions then?

Judaica Press Complete Tanach (http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/9883/jewish/Chapter-22.htm)
22:17. You shall not allow a sorceress to live.


With Raishi's commentary (http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/9883/showrashi/true/jewish/Chapter-22.htm):
17. You shall not allow a sorceress to live.
You shall not allow a sorceress to live But she shall be executed by the court. [This law applies equally to] both males and females, but the text speaks of the usual, and those who practice sorcery are usually women. -[From Mechilta, Sanh. 67a]

World ORT (http://www.ort.org/asp/article.asp?id=309)'s Navigating the Bible II (http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=2&CHAPTER=22)
22:17 Do not allow a sorceress to live

Would you like to quantify the word "most" is this case? I think rather that 'most' modern translations today do go back to the originals and don't touch the KJV at all.

You would likely be wrong. Most modern day Bibles are simply an update on the KJV. A large proportion of evangelical Christians view the KJV itself as the "infallible word of God" and distrust any and all other translations. The fact that the KJV was a translation of a translation (of a translation, in the case of the OT texts) doesn't seem to phase them. Even many translations that purport to go back to the original texts will stick with tradition - the KJV tradition, generally - on disputed translations.

There are a few translations that go back to the oldest available texts. Some even include footnotes on passages or words that are disputed amongst translators. Unfortunately, such Bibles are used in an academic setting much more so than in personal study. I actually saw classmates who seemed to be offended that we were using the NRSV in class (and it *gasp* had the apocrypha in it!), rather than some version of the KJV.

No reason to as there are better originals today than the KJV translators had to work with then, new version through archaeological discoveries have created better 'originals,' so to speak, for us to work with.

Not to mention the fact that the KJV translators were in danger of being beheaded if they translated anything King James wouldn't like...

A person in search of a Bible today can find them with corrections made through Dead Sea Scrolls research, or other versions, or just plain better understanding of the ancient languages.

You can, yes. But such corrected versions seem to be much less popular in mainstream Christianity.

The idea that most modern Bibles just reworded KJV is simply a modern day myth.

Your link doesn't give much information at all about what texts were used. Meanwhile, there is still the issue I already mentioned - in which traditional translation is often taken into account, rather than taking a fresh look at the texts when translation is carried out.

You can, yes. But such corrected versions seem to be much less popular in mainstream Christianity.

How is mainstream Christianity being defined here?

You would be wrong. Most modern day Bibles are simply an update on the KJV. A large proportion of evangelical Christians view the KJV itself as the "infallible word of God" and distrust any and all other translations. The fact that the KJV was a translation of a translation (of a translation, in the case of the OT texts) doesn't seem to phase them.

There are a few translations that go back to the oldest available texts. Some even include footnotes on passages or words that are disputed amongst translators. Unfortunately, such Bibles are used in an academic setting much more so than in personal study. I actually saw classmates who seemed to be offended that we were using the NRSV in class (and it *gasp* had the apocrypha in it!), rather than some version of the KJV.

Not to mention the fact that the KJV translators were in danger of being beheaded if they translated anything King James wouldn't like...

You can, yes. But such corrected versions seem to be much less popular in mainstream Christianity.

Your link doesn't give much information at all about what texts were used. Meanwhile, there is still the issue I already mentioned - in which traditional translation is often taken into account, rather than taking a fresh look at the texts when translation is carried out.

We may be talking about two different things here. You seem to be talking about the number of people who use KJV bibles and their derivatives, whereas, I am speaking of the number of modern translations that are produced without using the KJV at all.

Additionally, you seem to be 'transposing' your view of your classmates viewpoints onto the translators of these other versions, and very unfairly I might add. You seem to 'assume' the translators frequently fail to successfully take a fresh look, despite their claims and honest efforts to do just that?

How is mainstream Christianity being defined here?


Main Entry:
1main·stream Listen to the pronunciation of 1mainstream
Pronunciation:
\ˈmān-ˌstrēm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1599

: a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence

Main Entry:
1main·stream Listen to the pronunciation of 1mainstream
Pronunciation:
\ˈmān-ˌstrēm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1599

: a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence

I have a dictionary.

I'm just curious as to what branch(es) of Christianity are included in your definition of mainstream.

We may be talking about two different things here. You seem to be talking about the number of people who use KJV bibles and their derivatives, whereas, I am speaking of the number of modern translations that are produced without using the KJV at all.

What does it matter if there are many translations out there if people refuse to use them?

Additionally, you seem to be 'transposing' your view of your classmates viewpoints onto the translators of these other versions, and very unfairly I might add. You seem to 'assume' the translators frequently fail to successfully take a fresh look, despite their claims and honest efforts to do just that?

Not really. Some translators are dishonest, I'm sure, but I doubt that's the norm. Others probably simply get stuck in tradition. If you've always heard a passage a certain way, you're much likely to see it that way again, so long as there is some path from the original to that translation. A different meaning might make sense - perhaps even more sense - if you hadn't already heard it that way.

It's much like the general adherence to Anselmian vs. Abelardian ideas of atonement. Most people have been brought up with the the Anselmian viewpoint. As such, they view all passages in light of that idea, despite the fact that they could be viewed as Abelard viewed them.

It doesn't have to be a willful failure or a matter of dishonesty.

I have a dictionary.

I'm just curious as to what branch(es) of Christianity are included in your definition of mainstream.

Well, if we're talking specifically about the KJV, most evangelical denominations would fall into that category.

If we just talk about general reliance on tradition and old translations, you could also add in Catholicism.

I'm not as familiar with Mormon texts, but from what I understand, part of their theology is that Joseph Smith made the proper changes to the texts himself, so it would be highly unlikely for many Mormons to accept any changes other than his.

And, of course, we're talking about your general adherent, not people who study these things in an academic sense.

What does it matter if there are many translations out there if people refuse to use them?

In the circles I travel in I don't know anyone that uses the KJV at all. Everyone I know uses one modern translation or another. Usually with commentary and archaeological discovery notes etc. I believe that the publishers of modern translations sell enough copies of these corrected bibles for them to be on any Best seller's list by every method of counting book sales. Someone outside of my circles be buying and using them.

Not really. Some translators are dishonest, I'm sure. Others probably simply get stuck in tradition. If you've always heard a passage a certain way, you're much likely to see it that way again, so long as there is some path from the original to that translation. A different meaning might make sense - perhaps even more sense - if you hadn't already heard it that way.

It's much like the general adherence to Anselmian vs. Abelardian ideas of atonement. Most people have been brought up with the the Anselmian viewpoint. As such, they view all passages in light of that idea, despite the fact that they could be viewed as Abelard viewed them.

It doesn't have to be a willful failure or a matter of dishonesty.

Perhaps. But I also begin to wonder, in ragard to this topic anyway, perhaps you have a "'cup is half empty" kind of personality type? Nothing wrong with that though, nothing wrong with requiring proof and having a "show me" mentality in this regard, especially when accepting biblical translations and truths, it is not a bad thing in my book and I certainly have no desire to "talk you out of it." But it can lead to flushing out the good water with the bad as well.

Translators seem to get into a rut if there is an original mistranslation. Even if they go back to the original texts (which most don't, instead just altering the KJV to modernize the English or *maybe* going back to the Septuagint or Latin translations), they tend to translate things in the "traditional" way. Only rarely do they simply look at the words as they are in the original text without the mindset brought in by old translations.

The Red Sea vs. "sea of reeds" translation mishap has gotten propagated the same way.

Absolutely - as I said, it's 'received translation'.

What it means, in real terms is - even when original texts ARE considered, 'precedent' is still a big determining factor. Even if the historical text clearly shows mistranslation, bible translation almost always relies on assuming that the KJV is basically 'inspired' unless you can pursuade your peers that a different interpretation is preferable.

The weight of numbers supports the status quo, even where translation is arguable.

Well, if we're talking specifically about the KJV, most evangelical denominations would fall into that category.

Some would, some wouldn't, from my personal experience. I don't have the statistics showing that a large majority of evangelical denominations rely on the KJV, so I'm reluctant to say.

If we just talk about general reliance on tradition and old translations, you could also add in Catholicism.

It seems to me that the largest group of Christians in the world are Catholic, and that it'd make more sense to say that Catholic is mainstream in terms of Christianity.

If you were just going to pin it down to Christianity in the US, I'd see more reason to call evangelical denominations mainstream.

And, of course, we're talking about your general adherent, not people who study these things in an academic sense.

I kinda figured.

Well, if we're talking specifically about the KJV, most evangelical denominations would fall into that category...

I do believe that the NIV is more popular than the KJV in Evangelical circles now, as to the other examples I have no comment but to mention the New Jerusalem Bible is a Catholic version derived from the original languages and not the vulgate (but I have no idea how many or what percentage of Catholics would use it).

Would you like to quantify the word "most" in this case? I think rather that 'most' modern translations today do go back to the originals and don't touch the KJV at all. No reason to as there are better originals today than the KJV translators had to work with then, new version through archaeological discoveries have created better 'originals,' so to speak, for us to work with. A person in search of a Bible today can find them with corrections made through Dead Sea Scrolls research, or other versions, or just plain better understanding of the ancient languages.


The problem is - anyone who does even the slightest research knows this is simply not true.

For example, the "Great Commission" texts. The oldest texts (especially in Mark, which shows several different 'end-points' for the Gospel) clearly do not have a 'Great Commission', and yet it is still present in 'new' translations.

Why?

Because even new translations work on the assumption of 'received translation' - that is - you basically stick to the accepted version, unless you can force through an editorial change.

I do believe that the NIV is more popular than the KJV in Evangelical circles now,

I grew up in Evangelical circles, and I saw both being used. I still have both, actually.

as to the other examples I have no comment but to mention the New Jerusalem Bible is a Catholic version derived from the original languages and not the vulgate (but I have no idea how many or what percentage of Catholics would use it).

It's pretty small. I'm one of very few who uses it. Most Catholics in the US have the NAB or the RSV.

I'm not as familiar with Mormon texts, but from what I understand, part of their theology is that John Smith made the proper changes to the texts himself, so it would be highly unlikely for many Mormons to accept any changes other than his.

Just to add the Mormon perspective: We use the KJV, unedited. There are then footnotes to a few verses that show re-translations by Joseph Smith.

It's unlikely that any changes would be introduced to the KJV within the Mormon Church at this point, although in theory such changes would come from the Prophet.

(Pope:Catholic Church as Prophet:Mormon Church)

Hope that helps.

Perhaps. But I also begin to wonder, in ragard to this topic anyway, perhaps you have a "'cup is half empty" kind of personality type? Nothing wrong with that though, nothing wrong with requiring proof and having a "show me" mentality in this regard, especially when accepting biblical translations and truths, it is not a bad thing in my book and I certainly have no desire to "talk you out of it." But it can lead to flushing out the good water with the bad as well.

Not really. I tend to be annoyingly optimistic, believe it or not.

In the end, this is just more of an academic discussion for me. I view the Bible - even the original texts used to form it - as useful in a spiritual sense, but I don't see it as the ultimate guide.

Well, that and I do tend to get rather annoyed when someone is trying to tell me that my religious views are wrong and I'm a bad person or something because they don't necessarily line up well with that person's tradition or chosen version of the Bible.


I do believe that the NIV is more popular than the KJV in Evangelical circles now, as to the other examples I have no comment but to mention the New Jerusalem Bible is a Catholic version derived from the original languages and not the vulgate (but I have no idea how many or what percentage of Catholics would use it).

From what I've seen (I admittedly don't have any official statistics on this), something like the NIV is used as an "easier to read Bible", while the KJV is still seen as being a more official source.

Just to add the Mormon perspective: We use the KJV, unedited. There are then footnotes to a few verses that show re-translations by Joseph Smith.

Doh! Joseph Smith. That's what I meant.

It's unlikely that any changes would be introduced to the KJV within the Mormon Church at this point, although in theory such changes would come from the Prophet.

(Pope:Catholic Church as Prophet:Mormon Church)

Hope that helps.

Thanks!

Something I should have added to my post on the Mormon perspective.

Since we're discussing translations and the level of faith placed in them, it might be useful to know that in LDS belief:

8th Article of Faith: We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

The problem is - anyone who does even the slightest research knows this is simply not true.

Are you incapable of posting without snide commentary?

The problem is - anyone who does even the slightest research knows this is simply not true.

For example, the "Great Commission" texts. The oldest texts (especially in Mark, which shows several different 'end-points' for the Gospel) clearly do not have a 'Great Commission', and yet it is still present in 'new' translations.

Why?

Because even new translations work on the assumption of 'received translation' - that is - you basically stick to the accepted version, unless you can force through an editorial change.

No, that's not exactly correct either. Modern translations put the text in the way they think correct, then they add a commentary or footnote and say the other versions or mention that the oldest versions don't have that verse, etc., etc., etc.

As to you specific example though, you mention in a different post that called the KJV a 'received translation' and if you mean the same thing here to say that the KJV somehow added the great commission text, then you are combining half truths with conjecture and coming to the wrong conclusion. For example: in a modern translation of Mark, there would be a footnote like:
Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9-20 immediately after verse 8. A few manuscripts insert additional material after verse 14; one Latin manuscript adds after verse 8 the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Other manuscripts include this same wording after verse 8, then continue with verses 9-20 From the ESV.

Hardly deceptive or reliant on received translation. Or:

Mark 16:8 The most reliable early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark end at verse 8. Other manuscripts include various endings to the Gospel. A few include both the “shorter ending” and the “longer ending.” The majority of manuscripts include the “longer ending” immediately after verse 8.
Mark 16:14 Some early manuscripts add: And they excused themselves, saying, “This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not permit God’s truth and power to conquer the evil [unclean] spirits. Therefore, reveal your justice now.” This is what they said to Christ. And Christ replied to them, “The period of years of Satan’s power has been fulfilled, but other dreadful things will happen soon. And I was handed over to death for those who have sinned, so that they may return to the truth and sin no more, and so they may inherit the spiritual, incorruptible, and righteous glory in heaven.” From the New Living Translation.

AND, nobody claims that the KJV translators inserted the Great Commission in Mark. (I’m not going to defend the KJV though, that’s not my goal. There are many things questionable about he KJV translation, but it is not guilty of adding the Great Commission text to the scripture).

Something I should have added to my post on the Mormon perspective.

Since we're discussing translations and the level of faith placed in them, it might be useful to know that in LDS belief:

8th Article of Faith: We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Just out of curiosity, why is the same caveat not applied to the Book of Mormon? Is it because of how it was received?

Doh! Joseph Smith. That's what I meant.



Thanks!

You know, before I went to college I used to constantly confuse Adam Smith and Joseph Smith.

Damn Smiths, :D.

Just out of curiosity, why is the same caveat not applied to the Book of Mormon? Is it because of how it was received?

I do believe it is because where the Bible and Book or Mormon differ, one is to refer to the Book of Mormon for guidance over the Bible (as it must not have been translated correctly and appears wrong).

Are you incapable of posting without snide commentary?


You take that as snide commentary?

And yet it is clearly true.

"I think rather that 'most' modern translations today do go back to the originals and don't touch the KJV at all."

Is clearly incorrect, because things like the Gospel of Mark carry the 'long version'. They are sticking to a 'received version' of what the text contains - not going back to the earliest text and using that version.


No, that's not exactly correct either. Modern translations put the text in the way they think correct, then they add a commentary or footnote and say the other versions or mention that the oldest versions don't have that verse, etc., etc., etc.


And yet - as I pointed out - they still use the received format. They still put the long version, even though it isn't true to the oldest texts.

Putting a little commentary in.. isn't the translation, it's the commentary.

What they SHOULD do, if they are honestly ignoring KJV protocol and translating direct from earliest sources, is translate the truncated text of Mark, and put the 'long version' text in the commentary, if at all.


As to you specific example though, you mention in a different post that called the KJV a 'received translation' and if you mean the same thing here to say that the KJV somehow added the great commission text,


I don't.


then you are combining half truths with conjecture and coming to the wrong conclusion.


I'm not.

And - what would the 'half-truths' and the 'conjecture' be?


For example: in a modern translation of Mark, there would be a footnote like:
Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9-20 immediately after verse 8. A few manuscripts insert additional material after verse 14; one Latin manuscript adds after verse 8 the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Other manuscripts include this same wording after verse 8, then continue with verses 9-20 From the ESV.

Hardly deceptive or reliant on received translation. Or:

Mark 16:8 The most reliable early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark end at verse 8. Other manuscripts include various endings to the Gospel. A few include both the “shorter ending” and the “longer ending.” The majority of manuscripts include the “longer ending” immediately after verse 8.
Mark 16:14 Some early manuscripts add: And they excused themselves, saying, “This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not permit God’s truth and power to conquer the evil [unclean] spirits. Therefore, reveal your justice now.” This is what they said to Christ. And Christ replied to them, “The period of years of Satan’s power has been fulfilled, but other dreadful things will happen soon. And I was handed over to death for those who have sinned, so that they may return to the truth and sin no more, and so they may inherit the spiritual, incorruptible, and righteous glory in heaven.” From the New Living Translation.


As pointed out - the original text stops at Mark 16:8. Anything in the TRANSLATION that appears after 16:8 is, therefore, an artifact of a received version.

Putting any additional (post 16:8) text in footnotes is good - it shows that that element is entirely additional, and not present in the earliest text. And thus - to carry it IN the translation, is to folow the received version.

And, I'm sure you're aware - the long and short endings of Mark are just one of hundreds of such 'received' editorial choices. And that's just the 'shape' of the document, not whether or not the words are being independently translated.


AND, nobody claims that the KJV translators inserted the Great Commission in Mark. (I’m not going to defend the KJV though, that’s not my goal. There are many things questionable about he KJV translation, but it is not guilty of adding the Great Commission text to the scripture).

We agree on that. But it IS guilty of being the template by which other modern texts are judged. The inclusion of the Great Commission in the KJV sets the precedent for the inclusion of the Great Commission in modern versions. They have no excuse - we KNOW it wasn't in the earliest texts, so why perpetuate the pretence - EXCEPT to maintain the received form traditionalised in the King James?

I do believe it is because where the Bible and Book or Mormon differ, one is to refer to the Book of Mormon for guidance over the Bible (as it must not have been translated correctly and appears wrong).

Just out of curiosity, why is the same caveat not applied to the Book of Mormon? Is it because of how it was received?

Partly. The main thing is that the Bible is a collection of books that have gone through an unknown number of iterations of translations and copies before the copies were compiled by King James' crew to form the KJV. Therefore one naturally expects there to be errors.

On the other hand, the Book of Mormon went through at most 2 iterations. Once to be compiled from its collection of writings, and once to be translated into English. Naturally one would expect it to be more reliable on that basis alone, even if you leave out the spiritual aspect of it having been translated into English by inspiration.

Partly. The main thing is that the Bible is a collection of books that have gone through an unknown number of iterations of translations and copies before the copies were compiled by King James' crew to form the KJV. Therefore one naturally expects there to be errors.

On the other hand, the Book of Mormon went through at most 2 iterations. Once to be compiled from its collection of writings, and once to be translated into English. Naturally one would expect it to be more reliable on that basis alone, even if you leave out the spiritual aspect of it having been translated into English by inspiration.

That sounds fair to me. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity. :)

That sounds fair to me. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity. :)

My pleasure :)

Naturally one would expect it to be more reliable on that basis alone,

No - most people wouldn't.

After all, the only text actually presented as a source material claims that it was translated from (at THAT time, untranslatable) heiroglyphics that we now know bear absolutely no resemblence to the messages (allegedly) divined from them.

Many people demand a degree of accountability in whether or not a translation is 'reliable'. The revelation that the source material doesn't say what is claimed, is usually considered a check mark against reliability.

You'd ahve to attach a whole LOT of spiritual authority to accept such translation as 'reliable'.

You take that as snide commentary?

Yes, because it was snide commentary. Insult the opponent by saying that that they are not educated or haven't done their homework...

And yet it is clearly true.

"I think rather that 'most' modern translations today do go back to the originals and don't touch the KJV at all."

Is clearly incorrect, because things like the Gospel of Mark carry the 'long version'. They are sticking to a 'received version' of what the text contains - not going back to the earliest text and using that version.

The long version(s) existed before the KJV was published, in more than one format.

And yet - as I pointed out - they still use the received format. They still put the long version, even though it isn't true to the oldest texts.

Putting a little commentary in.. isn't the translation, it's the commentary.

The long version material needs to be translated as well, it is not commentary. Commentary explains it’s content and it’s origin as much as possible.


What they SHOULD do, if they are honestly ignoring KJV protocol and translating direct from earliest sources, is translate the truncated text of Mark, and put the 'long version' text in the commentary, if at all.
What they should do is speculative. Obviously you don’t agree with them and they don’t all agree with each other either. That’s why we have so many versions to begin with. However, you seem to assume that the short version is the only good version, but the long version of a text may not be less authentic than the short version of a text. Before answering that question a translator needs to ask “Who added it? When was it added? Was the original author editing his own material, was it a student adding to his teachers work? Was it someone much later adding clarification since the original author is no longer available?” All of these things may have happened at one point or another, but just because one version is longer than the next does not mean that the longer version isn’t the more correct version. A directors’ cut was AS possible in the ancient world as it is today.

As pointed out - the original text stops at Mark 16:8. Anything in the TRANSLATION that appears after 16:8 is, therefore, an artifact of a received version.

Not necessarily true, see above. The other mistake you made here was to call the oldest texts the ‘original’ texts. We most likely do not have the original texts per se, but we do have, older, oldest and estimated ages for other texts. If we had ‘original’ texts, there would be no question. But just because we don’t have ‘original’ texts, this does not mean that we don’t have reliable texts. We do have reliable text, and cross reference-able text, and example after example of different books to compare and get the most reliable text possible by cross referencing different artifacts with other artifacts.


Putting any additional (post 16:8) text in footnotes is good - it shows that that element is entirely additional, and not present in the earliest text. And thus - to carry it IN the translation, is to folow the received version.

No it is not just following the received version. It incorporates ancient material from the ancient scriptures that the early church itself used and inserted and/or made corrections, or otherwise clarified the text, as they understood them.


And, I'm sure you're aware - the long and short endings of Mark are just one of hundreds of such 'received' editorial choices. And that's just the 'shape' of the document, not whether or not the words are being independently translated.

Yes, I am aware of a many editorial choices, and most of these choices have no real bearing on theological teachings whatsoever, but the vast majority are scribal errors corrected, misquotes, sentences out of order etc., and are easily remedied.


We agree on that. But it IS guilty of being the template by which other modern texts are judged. The inclusion of the Great Commission in the KJV sets the precedent for the inclusion of the Great Commission in modern versions. They have no excuse - we KNOW it wasn't in the earliest texts, so why perpetuate the pretence - EXCEPT to maintain the received form traditionalised in the King James?

Again, the long versions are themselves ancient. The Earliest known inclusion of the long ending for Mark was composed by someone other than Mark but before the second century. Hardly a recent addition. Including it is not only traditional, it is the correct and more honest course for translating ancient Mark into modern English.

No - most people wouldn't.


You're saying most people would NOT find a text that had been translated or copied through 2 iterations to be more reliable than one that had been through many more?


After all, the only text actually presented as a source material claims that it was translated from (at THAT time, untranslatable) heiroglyphics that we now know bear absolutely no resemblence to the messages (allegedly) divined from them.


Don't know your source for this assertion, but the facts do not support it. In fact at the time of translation the original text was shown to an archaeologist who certified their authenticity and accuracy of translation.


Many people demand a degree of accountability in whether or not a translation is 'reliable'. The revelation that the source material doesn't say what is claimed, is usually considered a check mark against reliability.

You'd ahve to attach a whole LOT of spiritual authority to accept such translation as 'reliable'.

We do.

Assuming my earlier post was borked by Jolt going down rather than Mod censorship, I'm going to repost.

Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/02/opinion/edeconick.php)



The new Da Vinci Code yay!



Essentially the translation by Nat Geo is the opposite of what it actually says...



Note the bolded, new to me :confused:



So...

Thoughts?

Nothing really new here... The Gnostics equating the OT "Yahweh" with an evil deity is well documented in theologic circles.

You're saying most people would NOT find a text that had been translated or copied through 2 iterations to be more reliable than one that had been through many more?

I think he's saying that the method of translation and the source material matters greatly.

Don't know your source for this assertion, but the facts do not support it. In fact at the time of translation the original text was shown to an archaeologist who certified their authenticity and accuracy of translation.

In most such undertakings, you have multiple translators and multiple archaeologists with a great deal of peer review.

And, alterations might be made much later with new or better archaeological methods or new linguistics insight.

Most people don't take the Book of Mormon as accurate or even the story of how it was obtained as reliable largely because of the secretive nature and lack of anything to back it up but the word of those involved (given that nobody else can examine the tablets).

That isn't to say that one cannot accept it all on faith, of course.

I think he's saying that the method of translation and the source material matters greatly.


THAT Assertion I'd agree with gladly, all other things being equal. But the line of mine that was quoted was focused on the number of iterations, and was intended to be looked at generically.


In most such undertakings, you have multiple translators and multiple archaeologists with a great deal of peer review.

And, alterations might be made much later with new or better archaeological methods or new linguistics insight.

Most people don't take the Book of Mormon as accurate or even the story of how it was obtained as reliable largely because of the secretive nature and lack of anything to back it up but the word of those involved (given that nobody else can examine the tablets).

That isn't to say that one cannot accept it all on faith, of course.

Of course.

Yes, because it was snide commentary. Insult the opponent by saying that that they are not educated or haven't done their homework...


Not at all. I'm sayng anyone who does the research knows better.

If you take that as an insult, that says more about you, than about my comment.


The long version(s) existed before the KJV was published, in more than one format.


It did. I think you might be right about this.

However, the point is - that is the 'received version'. That is what the KJV perpetuated, and what every version since (just about) has dupiclated.

The KJV also made non-stylistic mistakes.. translational mistakes. And those have been similarly preserved. Mark is just an exampe of how the KJV is a template.


The long version material needs to be translated as well, it is not commentary. Commentary explains it’s content and it’s origin as much as possible.


Nope. The long version doesn't need to be translated. It certainly doesn't need to be translated as part of the text. It's place is commentary, at best.


What they should do is speculative. Obviously you don’t agree with them and they don’t all agree with each other either. That’s why we have so many versions to begin with. However, you seem to assume that the short version is the only good version, but the long version of a text may not be less authentic than the short version of a text. Before answering that question a translator needs to ask “Who added it? When was it added? Was the original author editing his own material, was it a student adding to his teachers work? Was it someone much later adding clarification since the original author is no longer available?” All of these things may have happened at one point or another, but just because one version is longer than the next does not mean that the longer version isn’t the more correct version. A directors’ cut was AS possible in the ancient world as it is today.


Th Great Commission doesn't exist in any of the early gospels. It even directly contradicts what IS present in the Gospel of Matthew.

The earliest copies we have, have no commission... it really doesn't matter who added it or when, it wasn't in the earliest versions. Thus - it was added at a later date.


Not necessarily true, see above. The other mistake you made here was to call the oldest texts the ‘original’ texts. We most likely do not have the original texts per se, but we do have, older, oldest and estimated ages for other texts. If we had ‘original’ texts, there would be no question. But just because we don’t have ‘original’ texts, this does not mean that we don’t have reliable texts. We do have reliable text, and cross reference-able text, and example after example of different books to compare and get the most reliable text possible by cross referencing different artifacts with other artifacts.


Actually, Mark may well be an 'original' text. Matthew is almost certainly based on that one, and one or more other sources (Q and or M). Mark may or may not be based on the (so called) M source.

The point is - of what we have, the original versions (that's the problem with a word like 'original...) have obviously been amended in our 'received' version, now.


No it is not just following the received version. It incorporates ancient material from the ancient scriptures that the early church itself used and inserted and/or made corrections, or otherwise clarified the text, as they understood them.


Mybe or maybe not. But the basic template wasn't constructed from wholecloth. All latter versions are being based on received versions, at heart.


Again, the long versions are themselves ancient. The Earliest known inclusion of the long ending for Mark was composed by someone other than Mark but before the second century. Hardly a recent addition. Including it is not only traditional, it is the correct and more honest course for translating ancient Mark into modern English.

We don't even know WHO wrote the Gospel of Mark. Including things we KNOW were added to the text is tradition. A corrupt, dishonest tradition. We KNOW the earliest text is not as we present the text now, but we preserve the lie, because of tradition.

You're saying most people would NOT find a text that had been translated or copied through 2 iterations to be more reliable than one that had been through many more?


No - you said "one would expect.." and I pointed out, most wouldn't.


Don't know your source for this assertion, but the facts do not support it. In fact at the time of translation the original text was shown to an archaeologist who certified their authenticity and accuracy of translation.


At the time of the translations, the text Smith was 'translating' was unreadable - the Rosetta Stone hadn't given us our key into the language yet.

The idea that an archeologist can have vouched for the 'accuracy' is, thus, a joke of the highest order.

We have seen some of the text Smith claimed to translate, and it doesn't say what he says - now we can read the text. (The Sensen text is identifiable from notes/sketches Smith made during his 'translations' - and it certainly doesn't say anything resembling the Book of Abraham, as he claimed).

A quick wiki:

"For many years the original papyri were thought to have been lost. In 1966 eleven fragments of the papyri were found in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Examination of these fragments by both Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists resulted in agreement that they are funerary texts, dating to about the first century BC. Their discovery amplified the long standing dispute concerning the truthfulness and authenticity of the Book of Abraham, which is discussed later in this article... As the Rosetta Stone had been discovered in 1799 and not completely deciphered, translations from the Egyptian language were not widely available until the 1850s."

There are, of course, thousands of bigger problems than the source material... like why this divinely inspired text seems to think the Americas had domesticated horses, silk, and a metal working (steel swords? brass?) culture, when they clearly didn't.


We do.

Good for you. But, as I pointed out, most people wouldn't reach the same conclusions... as you claimed.

I am not sure if this has been said yet. I did not feel like reading through the eleven pages of text.

Christianity does not accept other accounts outside of scripture because of the fact that early Christians dealt with a lot of this already. They had already dealt with the Gnostic question. Whom they regarded as heretics. Here is a quote on Canon.

"In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon, and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them. The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed."
-Christian Canon - Wikipedia

Further, the Council of Nicaea in 325 that was ordered by the Emperor Constantine established a Uniform Christian Doctrine. That outlined the beliefs of mainstream christianity and resulted in the Nicene Creed. Which was further clarified in 381 by the Council of Constantinople to the version known today.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead, his kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

The standardized creed and the Canon of books of the Bible were set at a very early date in Christianity. This was done because of the fact that all these other texts were surfacing from people like the Gnostics and other splinter groups. So, Christianinty had to standardize their beliefs as well as they could. The current canon were the most widely used texts by a majority of the Christian population and were the generally accepted doctrines. So because of this they were made "Canon" and the Canon in Christianity is considered closed. Nothing is to be added or taken away.
I realize there is the whole apocrypha argument. However, the apocrypha are a group of books included in the old testament by St. Jerome when he translated it into Latin. They do not have anything that contradicts Christianity, Portestants just believe they are not Canon. That does not mean that they are any less useful. They are still included in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer as readings from time to time.

Not at all. I'm sayng anyone who does the research knows better.

If you take that as an insult, that says more about you, than about my comment.
No, it says something about you... But fine, we can play that game if you insist.

It did. I think you might be right about this.
Thank you for admitting it

However, the point is - that is the 'received version'. That is what the KJV perpetuated, and what every version since (just about) has dupiclated.

No that is not true... The other stuff you said (some of which I agree with) all revolves around the argument that the oldest documents do not support the long version, thus you argue that it must be nothing but 'received version.' But that is incorrect, it is not just supported by tradition through the KJV. A translator trying to translate the most authentic version of Mark into modern English can work with many different sources, as listed...

Greek Sources with the long version of Mark:
W (5th c. uncial, generally thought to be Caesarean in Mark 5:31-16:20)
Codex Alexandrinus (A) - (5th c. uncial, Byzantine in Gospels)
Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) - (5th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D) - (5th/6th c. uncial, Western)
K (9th c. uncial, Byzantine)
Delta (9th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
Theta (9th c. uncial, Caesarean)
Pi (9th c. uncial, Byzantine)
33 (9th c. miniscule, Alexandrian)
565 (9th c. miniscule, Caesarean)
892 (9th c. miniscule, Alexandrian)
X (10th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
f1 and f13 (total of 16 Caesarean texts, 11th-14th c.)
28 (11th c. miniscule, Caesarean)
700 (11th c. miniscule, Caesarean)
1010 (12th c. miniscule, Byzantine)
The Byzantine textual set
Some of the Greek lectionaries
Syriac versions which contain the long version:
Curetonian (3rd c.)
Palestinian (5th c.)
and most of the Harclean (7th c.).

Now, the other side…
Sources without the long version
Codex Sinaiticus (A) - (4th c. uncial, Alexandrian)*
Codex Vaticanus (B) - (4th c. uncial, Alexandrian)*
304 (12th c. miniscule, Byzantine)
2386 (11th c. miniscule, Byzantine)
Most of the Greek lectionaries
*There is much speculation, which I agree with, that says these two sources come from the same source, thus these two really represent just one source.

Syriac versions without the long version:
Sinaitic Syriac version (4th c.)
one Sahidic Coptic manuscript

3rd long version sources:
0112 (6th/7th c. uncial, a fragment of uncial 083)
099 (7th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
L (8th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
Psi (8th/9th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
The margin of 274 (10th c. cursive, Byzantine)
579 (13th c. cursive, Alexandrian)

As everyone can see for themselves, the evidence in favor of the long version is MORE abundant than the evidence for the short version. The verses can be found in versions whose translations trace back earlier than the age of the oldest Greek witnesses against them (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus). Church fathers quoted the long version directly as early as the second century, Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:19 (ca. 177 AD), and Tatian includs the ending in his Diatesseron, a document which was attempting to combine the four Gospel narratives (ca. 175 AD). And Tertullian refers to Mark 16:19 early in the 3rd century, and Tregelles reports that Hippolytus (ca. 235 AD) quotes Mark 16:18-19 at least twice.

To be fair, some church fathers did argue against full inclusion of the long version for Mark, Eusebius and Jerome from the early and late 4th century come to mind, but this would likely be a reason why the long version is not included in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus in the first place…

But to argue that the long version is less authentic because the ‘age’ of the short version is older is misinformed at best and disingenuous as worse. And if I were to try and argue like you do, now is where I should say something like anyone who has done any honest and non-prejudiced research into the topic would already know this. But unlike you, I think that honest and intelligent people can come to different conclusions with the same evidence presented before them…


EDIT: Wiki seems to have a good little expo for many different sides of the argument about Mark chapter 16: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

So... now we're going from a general discussion on Biblical translations into your need to attack the Book of Mormon which was only mentioned by me in response to a question.

No - you said "one would expect.." and I pointed out, most wouldn't.


You're not making sense here. You want to argue syntax? Semantics? What IS your point, exactly, in challenging my assertion that one would expect a document to be more reliable if its translation and transcription had gone through fewer iterations?


At the time of the translations, the text Smith was 'translating' was unreadable - the Rosetta Stone hadn't given us our key into the language yet.

The idea that an archeologist can have vouched for the 'accuracy' is, thus, a joke of the highest order.

We have seen some of the text Smith claimed to translate, and it doesn't say what he says - now we can read the text. (The Sensen text is identifiable from notes/sketches Smith made during his 'translations' - and it certainly doesn't say anything resembling the Book of Abraham, as he claimed).


The Book of Abraham isn't a part of the Book of Mormon. I haven't mentioned the Book of Abraham. I've made no statements in relation to it. I'm trying to decide whether this argument is a Strawman or a Red Herring. That would probably be a more useful and entertaining debate than this one.

By the way, who is "we"?


A quick wiki:

"For many years the original papyri were thought to have been lost. In 1966 eleven fragments of the papyri were found in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Examination of these fragments by both Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists resulted in agreement that they are funerary texts, dating to about the first century BC. Their discovery amplified the long standing dispute concerning the truthfulness and authenticity of the Book of Abraham, which is discussed later in this article... As the Rosetta Stone had been discovered in 1799 and not completely deciphered, translations from the Egyptian language were not widely available until the 1850s."


Not sure which is worse, the fact that you actually want to use Wiki as a source or the fact that it's irrelevant as the Book of Abraham has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon and was translated much later.


There are, of course, thousands of bigger problems than the source material... like why this divinely inspired text seems to think the Americas had domesticated horses, silk, and a metal working (steel swords? brass?) culture, when they clearly didn't.


Relevance to the discussion of translations?

Answer: None.

(Not to be taken as an acknowledgement of the correctness of GnI's premise.)


Good for you. But, as I pointed out, most people wouldn't reach the same conclusions... as you claimed.

My statement was a general one.

So... now we're going from a general discussion on Biblical translations into your need to attack the Book of Mormon which was only mentioned by me in response to a question.


I don't need to attack the Book of Mormon. I don't need to attack anything. You raised the spectre of the inherent accuracy of Smith's translations, based on the steps as you see them. You said that people would prefer to accept such a translation, and I provided a counterpoint.

You brought up the question of it's accuracy, not me.

As to why I followed that - it's a good example of this question of 'received versions', and the probelms associated with accepting translations.


You're not making sense here. You want to argue syntax? Semantics? What IS your point, exactly, in challenging my assertion that one would expect a document to be more reliable if its translation and transcription had gone through fewer iterations?


Your assertion was not true. The number of iterations doesn't matter if the translator translates wrong. EVen worse, if the translator doesn't actually translate at all.


The Book of Abraham isn't a part of the Book of Mormon. I haven't mentioned the Book of Abraham. I've made no statements in relation to it. I'm trying to decide whether this argument is a Strawman or a Red Herring. That would probably be a more useful and entertaining debate than this one.

By the way, who is "we"?


'We' would be anyone in our collective presence. Anyone who cares to look.

You may not have mentioned this specific text, but you did present the idea of the translator. The translator has been proved to be a fraud (not misled, confused, or somehow led astray - he literally presented a text as saying somethign it doesn't), so his reliablity as a translator for any text is suspect.


Not sure which is worse, the fact that you actually want to use Wiki as a source or the fact that it's irrelevant as the Book of Abraham has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon and was translated much later.


There's nothing actually wrong with using wiki as a source, provided you don't expect it to be definitive. I made a point, and a quick search reveals that wiki was a quick and easy reference that suggests I wasn't just 'making it up'.


Relevance to the discussion of translations?

Answer: None.

(Not to be taken as an acknowledgement of the correctness of GnI's premise.)


What do you mean? You think my premise isn't correct? Since you mentioned archeologists earlier, where is the archeological evidence for steel swords in the Americas nine hundred years before archeological findings suggest metalworking?

Why we're there domesticated horses in the Americas 2000 years ago... but none when the europeans got here?

If you're going to say I'm not right...


My statement was a general one.

And an errant one, more importantly.

A source is not asessed JUST on the number of translations.

I don't need to attack the Book of Mormon. I don't need to attack anything. You raised the spectre of the inherent accuracy of Smith's translations, based on the steps as you see them. You said that people would prefer to accept such a translation, and I provided a counterpoint.

You brought up the question of it's accuracy, not me.

As to why I followed that - it's a good example of this question of 'received versions', and the probelms associated with accepting translations.


Actually, it was brought up when HotRodia asked, out of curiosity, whether Mormons perceived the same issues with the Bible as with the Book of Mormon in terms of translation. My answer was a general one, but in this particular case it applies fine, from the point of view of someone who accepts the validity of Joseph Smith's translation. Since then you've been using that as an excuse to attack Mormon theology even where it had nothing to do with the subject of the thread.


Your assertion was not true. The number of iterations doesn't matter if the translator translates wrong. EVen worse, if the translator doesn't actually translate at all.


My answer is perfectly true within the context of the question. It's you that pried it out of context to give yourself an excuse to go on your little tirade.


'We' would be anyone in our collective presence. Anyone who cares to look.


So now you presume to speak for everybody.


You may not have mentioned this specific text, but you did present the idea of the translator. The translator has been proved to be a fraud (not misled, confused, or somehow led astray - he literally presented a text as saying somethign it doesn't), so his reliablity as a translator for any text is suspect.


Actually, the specific text matters quite a bit since you're the one who introduced dates and times and the Rosetta Stone, none of which have anything to do with the Book of Mormon and I niever said it did. Then you launched an attack on the Book of Abraham as some kind of backdoor strawman proof of issued with the Book of Mormon's translation based on a bunch of premises I never asserted to be true.


There's nothing actually wrong with using wiki as a source, provided you don't expect it to be definitive. I made a point, and a quick search reveals that wiki was a quick and easy reference that suggests I wasn't just 'making it up'.


Yeah, like you'd have let me get away with a Wiki quote.


What do you mean? You think my premise isn't correct? Since you mentioned archeologists earlier, where is the archeological evidence for steel swords in the Americas nine hundred years before archeological findings suggest metalworking?

Why we're there domesticated horses in the Americas 2000 years ago... but none when the europeans got here?

If you're going to say I'm not right...


You're not, but that's a topic for another thread.


And an errant one, more importantly.


In your humble opinion.


A source is not asessed JUST on the number of translations.

Never said it was JUST on the number of translations. You read it that way, presumably as an excuse to attack.

Reading comprehension can be fun, too.

...the validity of Joseph Smith's translation.


There is no validity to Joseph Smith's translation. His claim of a translation that has later been proved to be a categorical fraud is something of a shot in the head to reliance on anything else he claims to 'translate'.


Since then you've been using that as an excuse to attack Mormon theology even where it had nothing to do with the subject of the thread.


I haven't touched Mormon theology. All I've discussed is the fraudulent 'translations' and other textual inconsistencies that prove his 'translations' to be fabrications.

No need to get precious about it - if someone translated the Bible and presented a version that had Jesus downloading porn on his laptop, people would doubt the validity of that translation, too.

On the other hand, the Book of Mormon went through at most 2 iterations. Once to be compiled from its collection of writings, and once to be translated into English. Naturally one would expect it to be more reliable on that basis alone

except for that pesky fact of not being translated at all. and actually copying known mistranslations of, for example, isaiah straight out of kjv. oh, and the alleged translator being demonstrably a fraud when it comes to what he claimed he could translate.

number of textual generations can only count for anything if there is
1) an actual text that is translated and
2) a person that actually does something other than make shit up while 'translating'

There is no validity to Joseph Smith's translation. His claim of a translation that has later been proved to be a categorical fraud is something of a shot in the head to reliance on anything else he claims to 'translate'.

In your opinion.


I haven't touched Mormon theology. All I've discussed is the fraudulent 'translations' and other textual inconsistencies that prove his 'translations' to be fabrications.

Actually, you have attacked the theology, given that it's tied in with Joseph Smith's status as a prophet. By calling him a fraud you ARE making an issue out of the theology.


No need to get precious about it - if someone translated the Bible and presented a version that had Jesus downloading porn on his laptop, people would doubt the validity of that translation, too.

Don't flatter yourself. Your criticisms aren't enough to get under my skin. I've debated against far more formidable opponents than yourself on these issues. I'm only calling a spade a spade because you've been trying to jack the thread into a debate on the validity of the Book of Mormon and the religion in general as a side note.

except for that pesky fact of not being translated at all. and actually copying known mistranslations of, for example, isaiah straight out of kjv. oh, and the alleged translator being demonstrably a fraud when it comes to what he claimed he could translate.


In your opinion.


number of textual generations can only count for anything if there is
1) an actual text that is translated and
2) a person that actually does something other than make shit up while 'translating'

And now you're jumping on GnI's bandwagon. Groupthink is such an entertaining phenomenon.

Anyone ever notice how when it comes to something like this all of a sudden everybody with an axe to grind is an expert in ancient languages, archaeology, anthropology, American History, theology and ancient literature?

Anyone ever notice how when it comes to something like this all of a sudden everybody with an axe to grind is an expert in ancient languages, archaeology, anthropology, American History, theology and ancient literature?
I sympathise with the feeling that you're expressing here, having experienced similar things myself when taking a minority view on topics on other boards, but I think you might (as has been the case with me, in the past) have it the wrong way round.

It's not that "all of a sudden everybody with an axe to grind is an expert", but that the people who do have some specialist or in-depth knowledge of the fields that they're talking about are the ones most likely to take issue with your position.

I sympathise with the feeling that you're expressing here, having experienced similar things myself when taking a minority view on topics on other boards, but I think you might (as has been the case with me, in the past) have it the wrong way round.

It's not that "all of a sudden everybody with an axe to grind is an expert", but that the people who do have some specialist or in-depth knowledge of the fields that they're talking about are the ones most likely to take issue with your position.

The I'd have expected the individual in question to come up with a better reference than Wiki ;)

The I'd have expected the individual in question to come up with a better reference than Wiki ;)

This is a logical fallacy my friend. Down our way, we call it 'poisoning the well'.

Your argument is that the evidence must be wrong, because you don't like the source. Even Wiki is right, some times. If you have a specific response that shows wiki to be wrong, knock yourself out - but you don't get to say the information MUST be wrong, just because of where it was posted from.


As an aside - in my post I explained why I chose wiki - I ran a quick search to see if there was asily accessible support for the points I was making. There was.

If I bring back a non-wiki source, you'll explain how Joseph Smith pretending he could translate heiroglyphics is actually a good thing?

In your opinion.


Not at all.

It was you that brought up the validity of the 'translation'.

I don't think it's a matter of opinion to say that someone who can be proved to be incapable of translating - should probably not be considered the BEST source of translated materials.

"Here, I've translated the Koran into English. And here's my corrected version of your Bible"... "Err, dude... this isn't the Koran, it's the Karma Sutra..."... "Oh well, the Bible thing is probably right, but".


Actually, you have attacked the theology, given that it's tied in with Joseph Smith's status as a prophet. By calling him a fraud you ARE making an issue out of the theology.


Only if you think the basis of the religion was INVENTED by Smith. If you think that his vision was right, it doesn't matter if the guy was a crook.

As I said - I've attacked his 'translation'. I've attacked a couple of textual inconsistencies that prove his translation was a fake. If you take that as a challenge to the theology, well - oh, ye of little faith.


Don't flatter yourself. Your criticisms aren't enough to get under my skin. I've debated against far more formidable opponents than yourself on these issues. I'm only calling a spade a spade because you've been trying to jack the thread into a debate on the validity of the Book of Mormon and the religion in general as a side note.


Nope. I've been trying to debate translation. I've been debating how translations are affected by what went directly before, and by the agenda of the 'translator'.

It just happens that Smith, being a recent and identifiable claimant, is a particularly easy target when it comes to pointing out the big problems in scriptural translation as a whole.

"...far more formidable opponents..." That made me laugh. "Oh noes, I've been emasculated by the Latter Day David!!!"

This is a logical fallacy my friend. Down our way, we call it 'poisoning the well'.

Your argument is that the evidence must be wrong, because you don't like the source. Even Wiki is right, some times. If you have a specific response that shows wiki to be wrong, knock yourself out - but you don't get to say the information MUST be wrong, just because of where it was posted from.


As an aside - in my post I explained why I chose wiki - I ran a quick search to see if there was asily accessible support for the points I was making. There was.

If I bring back a non-wiki source, you'll explain how Joseph Smith pretending he could translate heiroglyphics is actually a good thing?

Hey if you want to use Wiki then knock yourslef out. I love Wiki, myself.

My objection is the double standard that exists. I've been called out a number of times for citing Wiki because, as everyone knows, Wiki is not as reliable as we'd like. I bet if I tried to use Wiki as a source you'd call me out on it.

I haven't said your facts were wrong per se because I've declined to evaluate them one way or the other. The reason? Because it's not relevant to the thread topic.

Your problem is that you've taken my original comments utterly out of context and are now demanding that I give your arguments due attention even though they're off on a tangent. I won't do so. My original comments were in direct response to HotRodia's question. You misinterpreted the point there, I suspect as a result of religious bigotry, since your responses ranged all over the place and weren't simply confined to the topic at hand. Now you want me to humor you by engaging you in that tangent? Nah.

Again, don't mistake this as a sign of weakness. I've debated much better than you and if you really want to debate LDS veracity one-on-one I'll run rings around you and have you for breakfast. Send me a TG if you're up for it. If not, then just keep walkin'.

In your opinion.

and/or observation of the facts of the matter. these facts aren't even disputable by anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty. we know that smith isn't a reliable translator, because we have his 'translations' of egyptian hieroglyphs, and they ain't even close no matter how hard you squint. and we have him 'translating' a book which had allegedly never been translated into english before, and yet he winds up quoting mistranslated parts of the kjv bible instead. along with a pile of other stuff, all of which is impossible to explain without recourse to the idea that smith couldn't translate things. as i said, closeness to source text can only matter if a person is actually capable of making a real translation.

and/or observation of the facts of the matter. these facts aren't even disputable by anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty. we know that smith isn't a reliable translator, because we have his 'translations' of egyptian hieroglyphs, and they ain't even close no matter how hard you squint. and we have him 'translating' a book which had allegedly never been translated into english before, and yet he winds up quoting mistranslated parts of the kjv bible instead. along with a pile of other stuff, all of which is impossible to explain without recourse to the idea that smith couldn't translate things. as i said, closeness to source text can only matter if a person is actually capable of making a real translation.

Do you even have the ability to make a coherent argument?

From what little context you've provided I can only assume you're mixing references to the Book of Mormon with the Book of Abraham. Either that or you, or your source, are completely ignorant of the nature of the actual source material. It's hard totell which but I suspect that you do realize this on some level. That's probably why you're making such adamant assertions... to mask your uncertainty.

But then, who needs coherence when you have empty rhetoric and groupthink?

You're making the very same mistake GnI made, so read my last post to him for my response. I issue the same challenge to you that I issued to him and for the same reason.

Now let's see if you can back your "claims" up.

From what little context you've provided I can only assume you're mixing references to the Book of Mormon with the Book of Abraham. Either that or you, or your source, are completely ignorant of the nature of the actual source material.

i'm actually talking about both works. different problems exist in each.

for a clear example of the king james copying bullshit, check out 2 nephi 23:21-22


21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.
22 And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces; and her time is near to come, and her day shall not be prolonged. For I will destroy her speedily; yea, for I will be merciful unto my people, but the wicked shall perish.

compare to king james' isaiah 13:21-22

21But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.

22And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.

ok, fair enough. but why the hell would greek mythological creatures like satyrs be in the picture? it makes no sense.

and what do we find when we look to newer translation?

21 But desert creatures will lie there,
jackals will fill her houses;
there the owls will dwell,
and there the wild goats will leap about.

22 Hyenas will howl in her strongholds,
jackals in her luxurious palaces.
Her time is at hand,
and her days will not be prolonged.


21 But wild beasts of the desert will lie there,
And their houses will be full of owls;
Ostriches will dwell there,
And wild goats will caper there.
22 The hyenas will howl in their citadels,
And jackals in their pleasant palaces.
Her time is near to come,
And her days will not be prolonged.”


21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and ostriches shall dwell there, and wild goats shall dance there.

22 And wolves shall cry in their castles, and jackals in the pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.

a distinct lack of dragons and satyrs. plenty of wild goats and jackals though.

we have an excellent story for how the kjv came to use 'satyrs' there. what possible explanation could joe come up with that would be even remotely plausible?

as for the book of abraham, well, go read “The Breathing Permit of Hôr” Among The Joseph Smith Papyri" by Robert K. Ritner in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, July 2003, Vol. 62, No. 3: pp. 161-180 to start with.

Hey if you want to use Wiki then knock yourslef out. I love Wiki, myself.

My objection is the double standard that exists. I've been called out a number of times for citing Wiki because, as everyone knows, Wiki is not as reliable as we'd like. I bet if I tried to use Wiki as a source you'd call me out on it.

I haven't said your facts were wrong per se because I've declined to evaluate them one way or the other. The reason? Because it's not relevant to the thread topic.

Your problem is that you've taken my original comments utterly out of context and are now demanding that I give your arguments due attention even though they're off on a tangent. I won't do so. My original comments were in direct response to HotRodia's question. You misinterpreted the point there, I suspect as a result of religious bigotry, since your responses ranged all over the place and weren't simply confined to the topic at hand. Now you want me to humor you by engaging you in that tangent? Nah.

Again, don't mistake this as a sign of weakness. I've debated much better than you and if you really want to debate LDS veracity one-on-one I'll run rings around you and have you for breakfast. Send me a TG if you're up for it. If not, then just keep walkin'.

I don't want to discuss LDS 'veracity'. The Mormon theology that you seem so desperate for me to be attacking - that's your burden, not mine. My personal opinion is that mormonism is no more outlandish or made-up than any of the rest - but that's not what I'm debating - no matter how you try to push me that way.

I'm debating the translation - the fact that the 'translation' is totally unreliable and provably fake. Translation is the subject of the topic.

I was amused by your litte "run rings around you and have you for breakfast" joke.

i'm actually talking about both works. different problems exist in each.

Ah changing your story now. Very nice. If you were the wise scholar you're portraying yourself as, you'd have said so in the first place. Now you're just trying to save face.


for a clear example of the king james copying bull...
and what do we find when we look to newer translation...


All of which makes an unfounded assumption. (Way to try and sneak that in) Namely, that the NIV is demonstrably more reliable than the KJV.

Both of you are chasing your tails. A challenge has been issued. Let's see you put up or shut up.

I don't want to discuss LDS 'veracity'.

Of course you do. Why else would you have made references to elements found in the Book of Mormon that have nothing to do with translation? Why else would you let your 'focus' on translations wander over to a few personal attacks on Joseph Smith?


I'm debating the translation - the fact that the 'translation' is totally unreliable and provably fake. Translation is the subject of the topic.

I was amused by your litte "run rings around you and have you for breakfast" joke.

I'm glad. Now let's see if you can follow through.

Both of you are so tragically trapped in your own tangent you don't even see it, do you?

Why didn't the angel Moroni give us a decent translation of the Bible while he was giving us the Book of Mormon?

Why didn't the angel Moroni give us a decent translation of the Bible while he was giving us the Book of Mormon?

Maybe Joseph Smith lost it.

Double entendre!

Ah changing your story now. Very nice. If you were the wise scholar you're portraying yourself as, you'd have said so in the first place. Now you're just trying to save face.

read what i wrote again. maybe i was unclear, but nothing i wrote shows that i was talking about the same book when i described a textual descent problem and other evidence that the supposed translator is a known fraud when it comes to what he claimed he could translate. assuming i was unclear before, i am clearing it up now.

All of which makes an unfounded assumption. (Way to try and sneak that in) Namely, that the NIV is demonstrably more reliable than the KJV.

you'll note that i quoted more than the niv. got an argument?

Both of you are chasing your tails. A challenge has been issued. Let's see you put up or shut up.

i've got a challenge for you. you put the fuck up or shut the fuck up. this here is a public argument about translation, and so far you ain't put up shit.

not that i have (or want to have) a dog in this fight but

did joseph smith do a translation of the bible?

i thought he only translated items that were given to him by god through his angels that are not available to be translated today.

what was this hieroglyphics talk about? did he translate some known ancient egyptian text that we can look at today?

Yes, he did a "translation" of the Bible, which consists of plagiarism of the King James except for certain verses that he wanted changed. In not one of the verses where Smith changed the KJV is there the slightest basis in the original language for the change he wanted to make.

did joseph smith do a translation of the bible?

i thought he only translated items that were given to him by god through his angels that are not available to be translated today.

the book of mormon contains extensive quotes (and paraphrases and quotes with expansion) from the bible. the kjv specifically. so it carries some of the translation errors present in the kjv.
it also anachronistically has jesus quoting some of paul's letters, which is just odd from a timeline sort of view, though perhaps internally explainable.

what was this hieroglyphics talk about? did he translate some known ancient egyptian text that we can look at today?

yep. he called it the book of abraham. we call it a standard egyptian funerary text for some guy named hor. it still exists, and there are pictures of it all over the place, as well as proper translations. let's just say that it reflects poorly on smith's skills as a translator.

if you have access to peer-reviewed journals, “The Breathing Permit of Hôr” Among The Joseph Smith Papyri" by Robert K. Ritner in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, July 2003, Vol. 62, No. 3: pp. 161-180, covers things pretty well.

Of course you do. Why else would you have made references to elements found in the Book of Mormon that have nothing to do with translation? Why else would you let your 'focus' on translations wander over to a few personal attacks on Joseph Smith?


Most of my focus has been the qualification of the 'translator'. If you can show the 'translator' lacks the skill of 'translating', that can go a long way to raising questions about the accuracy of the 'translation'.

Indeed - if you can show that the 'translator' has completely fabricated one translation - to the extent that he literally picks a text that says one thing, and pretends it says something entirely different - that should introduce more than a little doubt into the proceedings.

As for bringing in the 'elements'... I assume you mean mentioning things like the steel swords, etc? Simple - the text that mentions domesticated horses, silk, and steel weaponry sets itself as being one of two things: either a text detailing events later than about 900 AD (which is not the claim being made), or a fraud.

Personal attacks on Jospeh Smith? Not at all - unless you consider pointing out that his translations were... shall we say... fatally flawed?

I didn't go into his criminal record, his history of fraud in other departments, or any of the other things I could have touched upon. All I discussed was his claim as a translator - a claim that has been shown to be a (shall we be generous and say 'well-meaning'?) lie.


I'm glad. Now let's see if you can follow through.

Both of you are so tragically trapped in your own tangent you don't even see it, do you?

What am I supposed to be seeing? I'm trapped in my own tangent of translation, and that's a problem how?

what was this hieroglyphics talk about? did he translate some known ancient egyptian text that we can look at today?

The Book of Breathings, 'Shait en Sensen" or just 'Sensen' text.

At the point it was discovered, there was no reliable ability to translate hieroglyphic text - the Rosetta Stone having been discovered, but not reallt translated, and certainly not public domain. Effectively - no one could prove Smith wrong. The fact that his own copy of the papyrus turned up again in 1966 (it even has his own diagrams and notes on it), closes the case for once and for all. The text is a fragment of the Egyptian Book of Breathings (a funery text), and a translation of the actual text (which we, unfortunately for Smith, CAN do now) shows it to be totally, utterly, and in all other ways, inconcievable that Smiths 'translation' could have been an actual translation.

A quick websearch brought me this (try to allow for the possibility of bias in the article, due to it's source): http://www.carm.org/lds/ldspapyri.htm

the book of mormon contains extensive quotes (and paraphrases and quotes with expansion) from the bible. the kjv specifically. so it carries some of the translation errors present in the kjv.
it also anachronistically has jesus quoting some of paul's letters, which is just odd from a timeline sort of view, though perhaps internally explainable.



yep. he called it the book of abraham. we call it a standard egyptian funerary text for some guy named hor. it still exists, and there are pictures of it all over the place, as well as proper translations. let's just say that it reflects poorly on smith's skills as a translator.

if you have access to peer-reviewed journals, “The Breathing Permit of Hôr” Among The Joseph Smith Papyri" by Robert K. Ritner in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, July 2003, Vol. 62, No. 3: pp. 161-180, covers things pretty well.


thanks for the info.

as an interesting note...

when the scholars were working on the translation of the bible for the king james version they faced the thorny problem of jesus having quoted the old testament incorrectly. they didnt know if they should fix that or not.

if jesus made strange translation errors, why shouldnt the golden plates contain some too?

no thats not a serious argument.

im not interested in critiquing mormonism except as it illuminates the problems of all religions that claim some inerrant revelation from god.

The Book of Breathings, 'Shait en Sensen" or just 'Sensen' text.

At the point it was discovered, there was no reliable ability to translate hieroglyphic text - the Rosetta Stone having been discovered, but not reallt translated, and certainly not public domain. Effectively - no one could prove Smith wrong. The fact that his own copy of the papyrus turned up again in 1966 (it even has his own diagrams and notes on it), closes the case for once and for all. The text is a fragment of the Egyptian Book of Breathings (a funery text), and a translation of the actual text (which we, unfortunately for Smith, CAN do now) shows it to be totally, utterly, and in all other ways, inconcievable that Smiths 'translation' could have been an actual translation.

A quick websearch brought me this (try to allow for the possibility of bias in the article, due to it's source): http://www.carm.org/lds/ldspapyri.htm


thanks. im looking at the site now.

is "the pearl of great price" part of mormon canon?

thanks. im looking at the site now.

is "the pearl of great price" part of mormon canon?

Not being a Mormon, I can only answer from a technical point of view - since the Pearl of Great Price introduces fundamental concepts (like the pluraility of gods, and 'exaltation'), and since it contains Smith's own list of the thirteen Articles of Faith - it must be considered canon. The Mormon website claims "Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price" as 'Official Scriptures'.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e419fb40e21cef00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD

Not being a Mormon, I can only answer from a technical point of view - since the Pearl of Great Price introduces fundamental concepts (like the pluraility of gods, and 'exaltation'), and since it contains Smith's own list of the thirteen Articles of Faith - it must be considered canon. The Mormon website claims "Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price" as 'Official Scriptures'.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e419fb40e21cef00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD

yeah i see that now. i followed your link and read up on the subject.

its a fascinating story of faith, proof and rationalization.

I'm also genuinely surprised by the idea that Yahweh is a demon, never heard this before - has anyone?Given the persuasion of Jolt frequenters, i am thinking you're not being too honest here. ;)

Given the persuasion of Jolt frequenters, i am thinking you're not being too honest here. ;)

You mean the deep religious academia that's shown - although there's been some nice points in this thread - by all and sundry?

I've taken Ashmoria's recommendation and have Bart Ehrmann's book as well as The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels so I'm sure I'll be back sooner or later with The Book of Barringtonia - Revelations Revisited.

Nice to see you back :)

Personally, I think Yeshuah ben Yosef didn't die at all: I think he went into samadhi, which is a state very like death.

It makes sense: samadhi is an overdose of endorphins driving the body into a suspended animation so the body's healing forces can kick into overdrive, using the freed-up resources. Body does its thing, and three days later he's awake again.

No explanation about the rock being moved and the angel, but humans under the right circumstances have been known to lift cars. Not like Superman, but enough to move them. I've seen a human lifting a full-grown, 1300-pound horse up by his shoulders.

You mean the deep religious academia that's shown - although there's been some nice points in this thread - by all and sundry?In a manner of speaking ... also i'm pretty sure Yahweh has been represented (not unfairly) as demonic in persuasion (on occasion). :p

I've taken Ashmoria's recommendation and have Bart Ehrmann's book as well as The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels so I'm sure I'll be back sooner or later with The Book of Barringtonia - Revelations Revisited.Awesome. That's my Xmas list as well!
I await to spread the word for you, mon capitan.


Nice to see you back :)Thank you. It'll be even better after all the incessant itching subsides.
*bows*