122
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
122 points (99.2% liked)
And Finally...
867 readers
174 users here now
A place for odd or quirky world news stories.
Elsewhere in the Fediverse:
- !offbeat@lemmy.ca
- !nottheonion@lemmy.world
- !nottheonion@lemmy.ml
- !nottheonion@zerobytes.monster
- !weirdnews@real.lemmy.fan
- !jingszo@lemmy.world
- !forteana@feddit.uk
- !strangetimes@lemmy.world
- !goodnews@feddit.uk
- !upliftingnews@lemmy.world
Rules:
- Be excellent to each other
- The Internet will resurface old "And finally..." material. Just mark it [VINTAGE]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I have. And the Bible canon was decided upon long before 400ad. And it wasn't old "fables" either. They were rather contemporary accounts of Jesus as well as letters between His followers.
I was baptised less than a year ago. My decision to be a Christian is to do with research that I have already done. Atheist arguments are generally based on alternative theories and argument from silence. Reminds me of the classic argument "The Bible is wrong as there is no evidence of Pontius Pilate existing" until they found a first century tablet with his name on it. Or the "Christianity is wrong as Science says the universe always existed" until they discovered that there actually was a beginning.
Someone might want to inform King James, who published his version in 1611.
Your lack of knowledge is showing in public. You might want to correct that.
I think you just showed your lack of knowledge? The King James translation of the Bible is literally just a translation of the original Greek and Hebrew. That's like claiming that Egyptian hieroglyphics were written in the past 100 years because that was when we were able to translate some of them into English 🤦
It was literally altered to enhance the claim of the divine right of kings, among other changes.
"A popular Puritan bible had downplayed the divine right of kings — greatly offending James — and James manipulated different Christian sects until they agreed to produce a different translation."
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/origins-of-the-king-james-bible-180956949/
This is your religion, I shouldn't have to be telling you this. It's even been altered numerous times since KJV. It is not a literal translation and numerous books were left out because... they didn't like what was said.
Don't get me wrong; Christianity has many laidable tenets - "Don't murder", "Don't steal", etc. - basic rules for having a maintainable civilization, same as other major religions.
But don't pretend it is some static thing. It has been and is manipulated for polical purposes and is used to justify horrific treatment of others (same as other religions).
You might want to look more closely, but beware - studying religion too carefully is often the birth event of athiests.
So is David Cross proposing that the original texts were translated into the Vulgate, then Geneva Bible to KJV, then KJV was translated into the NASB which was then translated into the NIV and then ESV... Or something?
The Bible we have today, let's say the ESV, is translated from the original texts. Meaning any changes made by popes or King James or whatever are gone (you actually can see this as some parts are in the KJV, like the note in 1 John 5:7-8 which was not part of the original text, or the Lord's Prayer doxology in Matthew 6:13) and they are translated from the earliest texts. They don't lie to you either about the parts we cannot be completely sure of such as John 8:1-11 or the ending to Mark's Gospel. So what David Cross is actually saying here is irrelevant - if I were to take a text and badly translated it, then someone comes along and fixes my translation by correctly retranslating from the original text, their translation wouldn't be bad simply because mine exists - which is what you would be arguing for with your logic.
Also if we left out books because we didn't like what they said, we would have left out the Sermon on the Mount and the parts telling you not to have multiple wives.
My last response was unacceptably juvenile so I've retracted it - with my apologies.
I'll stick to the actually important part.
We may differ on matters ecclesiastical but this is all I really care about: If you are a Christian are you the type that actually follows the word of Jesus?
Not churchgoing, I don't care about that. Instead, being someone who forgives others, is charitable and helps those in need, as commanded by Jesus?
If so then you and I have no problems. I like you already - which means it makes even less sense to make enemies with you over the internet.
Enjoy your Friday.
Just can claim things are wrong about anything, doesn't make them true.