Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2021 21:11:50 GMT
The bible is obviously a tool for the powers that be (back when it was written that is, IE two or three millennia ago) to control the masses by making them fear the spirits, big kahuna or whatever they called it back then, which isn't important. All the different names with their associated taboos and interdict are just so much confusion added to the mix. The more confusion there is the more the masses will cower in fear and rely on the "people in the know". Remember the KJ version that was written in a language purposely obscure, a language that doesn't exist outside of that bible. Well, that should show you the mindset in which these texts were written.
The bible is no longer so efficient a tool but it's still a bunch of stupid lies and deceptions.
Let's examine a couple of examples. I am no expert but I know enough to be able to formulate a few objections that'll show the whole thing to be filled with nonsense.
The flood:
In the flood they talk about the ark, a big wooden boat that is. One thing that people often fail to realize is that a wooden boat can only get so big... Beyond a certain limit it will tear itself apart the moment you'll try to use it. The ark, as described in the bible is past that limit.
Now if you ignore that first objection, and wonder if all species who would drown in a flood could fit in that boat (a couple of specimens for each that is) well, they can't. That is, even though the ship is already too big to be seaworthy, it's still not big enough to contain all the species as said in the bible.
These two objections alone are already more than enough to show the whole thing to be ridiculous yet there is one that is even more obvious and easier to understand, to the fucking moron who wouldn't get the first ones.
YOU CAN'T START AN ECOSYSTEM with an equal number of individuals in each species!!! It won't work!!
Say if you have one couple of foxes and one of rabbits. By the time it would take the rabbits to reproduce, one of two things will happen.
1) the foxes will have eaten the rabbits causing them to go extinct.
2) The foxes will have failed to eat the rabbits and starved to death.
Either way. Your ecosystem is completely fucked up from the word go!!!
All of this is pretty solid evidence... YET... You still have groups of imbeciles who will spend good money to try to find that impossible Ark. And sometimes even grant money, IOW taxpayers money. If that doesn't irritate you then nothing will!
That example is a good example of stupidity but some would say harmless stupidity. I mean beyond compromising young minds it doesn’t really do any harm…
So let’s see another example that it far more pernicious: Exodus.
It’s been archaeologically proven that Exodus never happened, IE the Hebrews never were slaves. (of the Egyptians that is)
How do we know that? Because of a thing called cultural osmosis.
There isn’t any between the Hebrews (back then) and the Egyptians and after centuries of slavery there should be loads of it. On the other hand there is a lot of cultural osmosis to be found between the Hebrews and the Canaanites, the people the Hebrews replaced when “they got to” the promise land.
So what does it mean?
It means that the Hebrews were never slaves to the Egyptians they were slaves to the Canaanites, they revolted (a la Spartacus), slaughtered them and took their place.
However, the powers that be wanted to involve god in that revolt, so they invented this past (like in the book 1984) of being in some prestigious remote land from where god would have guided them to this new land. This I admit is speculations but I believe I am on pretty solid grounds here.
Now you have modern elected officials who in spite of these objections will say stupid tendentious things like: "The Hebrews built the pyramids". This of course is offensive and will deservedly cause quite a stir but these asshole will say it anyway on the grounds that it's written in their bible!!!
Anyway, as you can see the bible is nothing but a bunch of lies, mistakes due to ignorance, plus exaggerations and distortions. All of which were supposed to work in a world where people were ignorant, fearful and unable to understand even the simplest concepts that we now take for granted.
There you have it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 23, 2021 19:04:31 GMT
The bible is obviously a tool for the powers that be (back when it was written that is, IE two or three millennia ago) to control the masses by making them fear the spirits, big kahuna or whatever they called it back then, which isn't important. All the different names with their associated taboos and interdict are just so much confusion added to the mix. The more confusion there is the more the masses will cower in fear and rely on the "people in the know". Remember the KJ version that was written in a language purposely obscure, a language that doesn't exist outside of that bible. Well, that should show you the mindset in which these texts were written. The bible is no longer so efficient a tool but it's still a bunch of stupid lies and deceptions. If the Bible was intended to be a tool for the "powers that be," they certainly did a bad job writing it, since it consistently affirms the outcast, the disenfranchised, the poor, etc. In fact, it both specifically warns against the mistreatment of the powerless and demonstrates through narrative the negative consequences that do so. I agree with your assessment of the KJV in general, but although the language used was somewhat dated (in 1611), it was not obscure. It's notable that the Christians of that generation tended to prefer the already existing Geneva translation, not only because of its more contemporary language, but because it was not politically motivated as a translation. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 23, 2021 19:05:50 GMT
The flood: In the flood they talk about the ark, a big wooden boat that is. One thing that people often fail to realize is that a wooden boat can only get so big... Beyond a certain limit it will tear itself apart the moment you'll try to use it. The ark, as described in the bible is past that limit. Now if you ignore that first objection, and wonder if all species who would drown in a flood could fit in that boat (a couple of specimens for each that is) well, they can't. That is, even though the ship is already too big to be seaworthy, it's still not big enough to contain all the species as said in the bible. These two objections alone are already more than enough to show the whole thing to be ridiculous yet there is one that is even more obvious and easier to understand, to the fucking moron who wouldn't get the first ones. YOU CAN'T START AN ECOSYSTEM with an equal number of individuals in each species!!! It won't work!! Say if you have one couple of foxes and one of rabbits. By the time it would take the rabbits to reproduce, one of two things will happen. 1) the foxes will have eaten the rabbits causing them to go extinct. 2) The foxes will have failed to eat the rabbits and starved to death. Either way. Your ecosystem is completely fucked up from the word go!!! All of this is pretty solid evidence... YET... You still have groups of imbeciles who will spend good money to try to find that impossible Ark. And sometimes even grant money, IOW taxpayers money. If that doesn't irritate you then nothing will! That example is a good example of stupidity but some would say harmless stupidity. I mean beyond compromising young minds it doesn’t really do any harm… I had no idea that you were such a fundamentalist, demanding a literalist interpretation. You do know that's not essential, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 23, 2021 19:07:20 GMT
So let’s see another example that it far more pernicious: Exodus. It’s been archaeologically proven that Exodus never happened, IE the Hebrews never were slaves. (of the Egyptians that is) How do we know that? Because of a thing called cultural osmosis. There isn’t any between the Hebrews (back then) and the Egyptians and after centuries of slavery there should be loads of it. On the other hand there is a lot of cultural osmosis to be found between the Hebrews and the Canaanites, the people the Hebrews replaced when “they got to” the promise land. So what does it mean? It means that the Hebrews were never slaves to the Egyptians they were slaves to the Canaanites, they revolted (a la Spartacus), slaughtered them and took their place. However, the powers that be wanted to involve god in that revolt, so they invented this past (like in the book 1984) of being in some prestigious remote land from where god would have guided them to this new land. This I admit is speculations but I believe I am on pretty solid grounds here. Now you have modern elected officials who in spite of these objections will say stupid tendentious things like: "The Hebrews built the pyramids". This of course is offensive and will deservedly cause quite a stir but these asshole will say it anyway on the grounds that it's written in their bible!!! Anyway, as you can see the bible is nothing but a bunch of lies, mistakes due to ignorance, plus exaggerations and distortions. All of which were supposed to work in a world where people were ignorant, fearful and unable to understand even the simplest concepts that we now take for granted. There you have it. Your argument is ironic given how many skeptical religious scholars attribute the rise of the Hebrew religion to "borrowing from the Egyptians." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2021 19:41:53 GMT
The bible is obviously a tool for the powers that be (back when it was written that is, IE two or three millennia ago) to control the masses by making them fear the spirits, big kahuna or whatever they called it back then, which isn't important. All the different names with their associated taboos and interdict are just so much confusion added to the mix. The more confusion there is the more the masses will cower in fear and rely on the "people in the know". Remember the KJ version that was written in a language purposely obscure, a language that doesn't exist outside of that bible. Well, that should show you the mindset in which these texts were written. The bible is no longer so efficient a tool but it's still a bunch of stupid lies and deceptions. Let's examine a couple of examples. I am no expert but I know enough to be able to formulate a few objections that'll show the whole thing to be filled with nonsense. The flood: In the flood they talk about the ark, a big wooden boat that is. One thing that people often fail to realize is that a wooden boat can only get so big... Beyond a certain limit it will tear itself apart the moment you'll try to use it. The ark, as described in the bible is past that limit. Now if you ignore that first objection, and wonder if all species who would drown in a flood could fit in that boat (a couple of specimens for each that is) well, they can't. That is, even though the ship is already too big to be seaworthy, it's still not big enough to contain all the species as said in the bible. These two objections alone are already more than enough to show the whole thing to be ridiculous yet there is one that is even more obvious and easier to understand, to the fucking moron who wouldn't get the first ones. YOU CAN'T START AN ECOSYSTEM with an equal number of individuals in each species!!! It won't work!! Say if you have one couple of foxes and one of rabbits. By the time it would take the rabbits to reproduce, one of two things will happen. 1) the foxes will have eaten the rabbits causing them to go extinct. 2) The foxes will have failed to eat the rabbits and starved to death. Either way. Your ecosystem is completely fucked up from the word go!!! All of this is pretty solid evidence... YET... You still have groups of imbeciles who will spend good money to try to find that impossible Ark. And sometimes even grant money, IOW taxpayers money. If that doesn't irritate you then nothing will! That example is a good example of stupidity but some would say harmless stupidity. I mean beyond compromising young minds it doesn’t really do any harm… So let’s see another example that it far more pernicious: Exodus. It’s been archaeologically proven that Exodus never happened, IE the Hebrews never were slaves. (of the Egyptians that is) How do we know that? Because of a thing called cultural osmosis. There isn’t any between the Hebrews (back then) and the Egyptians and after centuries of slavery there should be loads of it. On the other hand there is a lot of cultural osmosis to be found between the Hebrews and the Canaanites, the people the Hebrews replaced when “they got to” the promise land. So what does it mean? It means that the Hebrews were never slaves to the Egyptians they were slaves to the Canaanites, they revolted (a la Spartacus), slaughtered them and took their place. However, the powers that be wanted to involve god in that revolt, so they invented this past (like in the book 1984) of being in some prestigious remote land from where god would have guided them to this new land. This I admit is speculations but I believe I am on pretty solid grounds here. Now you have modern elected officials who in spite of these objections will say stupid tendentious things like: "The Hebrews built the pyramids". This of course is offensive and will deservedly cause quite a stir but these asshole will say it anyway on the grounds that it's written in their bible!!! Anyway, as you can see the bible is nothing but a bunch of lies, mistakes due to ignorance, plus exaggerations and distortions. All of which were supposed to work in a world where people were ignorant, fearful and unable to understand even the simplest concepts that we now take for granted. There you have it. You are Aurhtur_King aren't you? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2021 20:23:20 GMT
The flood: In the flood they talk about the ark, a big wooden boat that is. One thing that people often fail to realize is that a wooden boat can only get so big... Beyond a certain limit it will tear itself apart the moment you'll try to use it. The ark, as described in the bible is past that limit. Now if you ignore that first objection, and wonder if all species who would drown in a flood could fit in that boat (a couple of specimens for each that is) well, they can't. That is, even though the ship is already too big to be seaworthy, it's still not big enough to contain all the species as said in the bible. These two objections alone are already more than enough to show the whole thing to be ridiculous yet there is one that is even more obvious and easier to understand, to the fucking moron who wouldn't get the first ones. YOU CAN'T START AN ECOSYSTEM with an equal number of individuals in each species!!! It won't work!! Say if you have one couple of foxes and one of rabbits. By the time it would take the rabbits to reproduce, one of two things will happen. 1) the foxes will have eaten the rabbits causing them to go extinct. 2) The foxes will have failed to eat the rabbits and starved to death. Either way. Your ecosystem is completely fucked up from the word go!!! All of this is pretty solid evidence... YET... You still have groups of imbeciles who will spend good money to try to find that impossible Ark. And sometimes even grant money, IOW taxpayers money. If that doesn't irritate you then nothing will! That example is a good example of stupidity but some would say harmless stupidity. I mean beyond compromising young minds it doesn’t really do any harm… I had no idea that you were such a fundamentalist, demanding a literalist interpretation. You do know that's not essential, right? Is that how your rationalize these lies? Why would that be less essential than anything else? Shouldn't a book "inspired by god" be at least devoid of lies? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2021 20:24:26 GMT
The bible is obviously a tool for the powers that be (back when it was written that is, IE two or three millennia ago) to control the masses by making them fear the spirits, big kahuna or whatever they called it back then, which isn't important. All the different names with their associated taboos and interdict are just so much confusion added to the mix. The more confusion there is the more the masses will cower in fear and rely on the "people in the know". Remember the KJ version that was written in a language purposely obscure, a language that doesn't exist outside of that bible. Well, that should show you the mindset in which these texts were written. The bible is no longer so efficient a tool but it's still a bunch of stupid lies and deceptions. Let's examine a couple of examples. I am no expert but I know enough to be able to formulate a few objections that'll show the whole thing to be filled with nonsense. The flood: In the flood they talk about the ark, a big wooden boat that is. One thing that people often fail to realize is that a wooden boat can only get so big... Beyond a certain limit it will tear itself apart the moment you'll try to use it. The ark, as described in the bible is past that limit. Now if you ignore that first objection, and wonder if all species who would drown in a flood could fit in that boat (a couple of specimens for each that is) well, they can't. That is, even though the ship is already too big to be seaworthy, it's still not big enough to contain all the species as said in the bible. These two objections alone are already more than enough to show the whole thing to be ridiculous yet there is one that is even more obvious and easier to understand, to the fucking moron who wouldn't get the first ones. YOU CAN'T START AN ECOSYSTEM with an equal number of individuals in each species!!! It won't work!! Say if you have one couple of foxes and one of rabbits. By the time it would take the rabbits to reproduce, one of two things will happen. 1) the foxes will have eaten the rabbits causing them to go extinct. 2) The foxes will have failed to eat the rabbits and starved to death. Either way. Your ecosystem is completely fucked up from the word go!!! All of this is pretty solid evidence... YET... You still have groups of imbeciles who will spend good money to try to find that impossible Ark. And sometimes even grant money, IOW taxpayers money. If that doesn't irritate you then nothing will! That example is a good example of stupidity but some would say harmless stupidity. I mean beyond compromising young minds it doesn’t really do any harm… So let’s see another example that it far more pernicious: Exodus. It’s been archaeologically proven that Exodus never happened, IE the Hebrews never were slaves. (of the Egyptians that is) How do we know that? Because of a thing called cultural osmosis. There isn’t any between the Hebrews (back then) and the Egyptians and after centuries of slavery there should be loads of it. On the other hand there is a lot of cultural osmosis to be found between the Hebrews and the Canaanites, the people the Hebrews replaced when “they got to” the promise land. So what does it mean? It means that the Hebrews were never slaves to the Egyptians they were slaves to the Canaanites, they revolted (a la Spartacus), slaughtered them and took their place. However, the powers that be wanted to involve god in that revolt, so they invented this past (like in the book 1984) of being in some prestigious remote land from where god would have guided them to this new land. This I admit is speculations but I believe I am on pretty solid grounds here. Now you have modern elected officials who in spite of these objections will say stupid tendentious things like: "The Hebrews built the pyramids". This of course is offensive and will deservedly cause quite a stir but these asshole will say it anyway on the grounds that it's written in their bible!!! Anyway, as you can see the bible is nothing but a bunch of lies, mistakes due to ignorance, plus exaggerations and distortions. All of which were supposed to work in a world where people were ignorant, fearful and unable to understand even the simplest concepts that we now take for granted. There you have it. You are Aurhtur_King aren't you? I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 23, 2021 20:26:12 GMT
I had no idea that you were such a fundamentalist, demanding a literalist interpretation. You do know that's not essential, right? Is that how your rationalize these lies? Why would that be less essential than anything else? Shouldn't a book "inspired by god" be at least devoid of lies? That's an extremely narrow perspective. The Bible is full of metaphor and layers of interpretation. When biblical writers suggest that God is a "rock" or "covers us with his wings," those expressions certainly not intended to be taken literally. Even many of the early Church Fathers did not suggest that all of the Bible was intended to be read literally (yes, some even recommending that the early chapters of Genesis not be taken as literal history). There's a lot in there, but reading it "as literal history" would certainly be missing the point if it wasn't intended to be read "as literal history." And there are certainly strong indicators why that must be the case. If you're suggesting that metaphor and symbolism are "lies," well...okay, but if you're suggesting that, then "lies can tell the truth." It just seems a bit silly to suggest that "metaphors and symbols are lies." No? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2021 20:29:09 GMT
So let’s see another example that it far more pernicious: Exodus. It’s been archaeologically proven that Exodus never happened, IE the Hebrews never were slaves. (of the Egyptians that is) How do we know that? Because of a thing called cultural osmosis. There isn’t any between the Hebrews (back then) and the Egyptians and after centuries of slavery there should be loads of it. On the other hand there is a lot of cultural osmosis to be found between the Hebrews and the Canaanites, the people the Hebrews replaced when “they got to” the promise land. So what does it mean? It means that the Hebrews were never slaves to the Egyptians they were slaves to the Canaanites, they revolted (a la Spartacus), slaughtered them and took their place. However, the powers that be wanted to involve god in that revolt, so they invented this past (like in the book 1984) of being in some prestigious remote land from where god would have guided them to this new land. This I admit is speculations but I believe I am on pretty solid grounds here. Now you have modern elected officials who in spite of these objections will say stupid tendentious things like: "The Hebrews built the pyramids". This of course is offensive and will deservedly cause quite a stir but these asshole will say it anyway on the grounds that it's written in their bible!!! Anyway, as you can see the bible is nothing but a bunch of lies, mistakes due to ignorance, plus exaggerations and distortions. All of which were supposed to work in a world where people were ignorant, fearful and unable to understand even the simplest concepts that we now take for granted. There you have it. Your argument is ironic given how many skeptical religious scholars attribute the rise of the Hebrew religion to "borrowing from the Egyptians." The operative word being "religious". It's not a close call they've found plenty of evidence proving that the Hebrews have been influenced by the Canaanites and practically none linking them to the Egyptians. In Archaeology it's about the closest you'll ever get to a certainty. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2021 20:33:13 GMT
Is that how your rationalize these lies? Why would that be less essential than anything else? Shouldn't a book "inspired by god" be at least devoid of lies? That's an extremely narrow perspective. The Bible is full of metaphor and layers of interpretation. When biblical writers suggest that God is a "rock" or "covers us with his wings," those expressions certainly not intended to be taken literally. Even many of the early Church Fathers did not suggest that all of the Bible was intended to be read literally (yes, some even recommending that the early chapters of Genesis not be taken as literal history). There's a lot in there, but reading it "as literal history" would certainly be missing the point if it wasn't intended to be read "as literal history." And there are certainly strong indicators why that must be the case. If you're suggesting that metaphor and symbolism are "lies," well...okay, but if you're suggesting that, then "lies can tell the truth." It just seems a bit silly to suggest that "metaphors and symbols are lies." No? Don't be stupid! There is a world of differences between a metaphor and a story like the flood where you get measurements and all sorts of specifications. You're like these criminal attorneys who try to find a loophole in the law because they can't win their case on the merits. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 23, 2021 21:18:59 GMT
That's an extremely narrow perspective. The Bible is full of metaphor and layers of interpretation. When biblical writers suggest that God is a "rock" or "covers us with his wings," those expressions certainly not intended to be taken literally. Even many of the early Church Fathers did not suggest that all of the Bible was intended to be read literally (yes, some even recommending that the early chapters of Genesis not be taken as literal history). There's a lot in there, but reading it "as literal history" would certainly be missing the point if it wasn't intended to be read "as literal history." And there are certainly strong indicators why that must be the case. If you're suggesting that metaphor and symbolism are "lies," well...okay, but if you're suggesting that, then "lies can tell the truth." It just seems a bit silly to suggest that "metaphors and symbols are lies." No? Don't be stupid! There is a world of differences between a metaphor and a story like the flood where you get measurements and all sorts of specifications. You're like these criminal attorneys who try to find a loophole in the law because they can't win their case on the merits. So you're the one that determines that there is no metaphor because there are measurements? Why are there measurements? You've already said it's not a true story, so why are there measurements? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 23, 2021 21:20:52 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2021 21:23:54 GMT
Don't be stupid! There is a world of differences between a metaphor and a story like the flood where you get measurements and all sorts of specifications. You're like these criminal attorneys who try to find a loophole in the law because they can't win their case on the merits. So you're the one that determines that there is no metaphor because there are measurements? Why are there measurements? You've already said it's not a true story, so why are there measurements? To make the lie seem more real, obviously. See the false dichotomy you're trying to foist on me? To you it's either "a metaphor" or "a true story". I am sorry, but in this case, it's obviously neither. And yeah, metaphor don't contain measurements and specifications. The ones you've listed are barely made of a few words. And you have no problem comparing them to a long drawn out story. It's like you're devoid of any nuances. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2021 21:31:03 GMT
This is obviously a very biased site. Try to find something a little more objective. There's absolutely no trace of Hebrew art in ancient Egypt, none whatsoever. How do you explain that? Plus that many people crossing a desert at the same time!!! Do you realize the impossibility of that? There's a reason deserts are sparsely populated and also a reason why they are only crossed by small groups at a time. These people would have all died of thirst before they got to the other side. Or is that a metaphor too? I mean each time we hit an impossibility you call it a metaphor, right? It's your defense for everything!! |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 23, 2021 23:17:17 GMT
So you're the one that determines that there is no metaphor because there are measurements? Why are there measurements? You've already said it's not a true story, so why are there measurements? To make the lie seem more real, obviously. See the false dichotomy you're trying to foist on me? To you it's either "a metaphor" or "a true story". I am sorry, but in this case, it's obviously neither. And yeah, metaphor don't contain measurements and specifications. The ones you've listed are barely made of a few words. And you have no problem comparing them to a long drawn out story. It's like you're devoid of any nuances. I didn't say it is a metaphor. I said there is metaphor. That there are measurements doesn't make it a lie. It's a mythic story. Like The Iliad. Or the Epic of Gilgamesh. It's a story loaded with meaning that provides deep truths without "having to be historical fact." A meaningful story (with detail) that is not "historical fact" is not "a deliberate lie." |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 23, 2021 23:17:39 GMT
This is obviously a very biased site. Try to find something a little more objective. There's absolutely no trace of Hebrew art in ancient Egypt, none whatsoever. How do you explain that? Plus that many people crossing a desert at the same time!!! Do you realize the impossibility of that? There's a reason deserts are sparsely populated and also a reason why they are only crossed by small groups at a time. These people would have all died of thirst before they got to the other side. Or is that a metaphor too? I mean each time we hit an impossibility you call it a metaphor, right? It's your defense for everything!! Offer a better link. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Apr 26, 2021 16:49:24 GMT
The bible is obviously a tool for the powers that be (back when it was written that is, IE two or three millennia ago) to control the masses by making them fear the spirits, big kahuna or whatever they called it back then, which isn't important. All the different names with their associated taboos and interdict are just so much confusion added to the mix. The more confusion there is the more the masses will cower in fear and rely on the "people in the know". Remember the KJ version that was written in a language purposely obscure, a language that doesn't exist outside of that bible. Well, that should show you the mindset in which these texts were written. The bible is no longer so efficient a tool but it's still a bunch of stupid lies and deceptions. If the Bible was intended to be a tool for the "powers that be," they certainly did a bad job writing it, since it consistently affirms the outcast, the disenfranchised, the poor, etc. In fact, it both specifically warns against the mistreatment of the powerless and demonstrates through narrative the negative consequences that do so. I agree with your assessment of the KJV in general, but although the language used was somewhat dated (in 1611), it was not obscure. It's notable that the Christians of that generation tended to prefer the already existing Geneva translation, not only because of its more contemporary language, but because it was not politically motivated as a translation. I agree with what you said in your first paragraph but disagree with the conclusions of your second paragraph. The Geneva Bible was the worst piece of trash in the 16th century. It was a junk translation. The KJV is a major improvement to be sure. However, every serious Bible scholar who has dove deep into translating will agree that the Tyndale Bibles, most notably, the 1537 Matthew's Bible, is the most accurate English translation of all time. But the Geneva Bible was the work of undisciplined Puritans who simply did not have William Tyndale's knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. And just to clarify what a Tyndale Bible is, there are 4 of them: 1. 1535 Coverdale Bible 2. 1537 Matthew's Bible 3. 1539 Great Bible 4. 1568 Bishop's Bible While there are some things the KJV translates better than the Tyndale Bibles, the Tyndale Bibles do outscore the KJV in overall accuracy. I've known a lot of Pastors, Bishops and priests who took the Tyndale challenge and they all came out agreeing that William Tyndale got it right. Its actually a shame that Tyndale was executed for his work. Had he not been executed he would have made all the necessary revisions before his natural death and we would of had a completely flawless translation. At that point, all we English speaking people would need to do is modify the English to fit the times which is easy to do. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 26, 2021 18:03:25 GMT
If the Bible was intended to be a tool for the "powers that be," they certainly did a bad job writing it, since it consistently affirms the outcast, the disenfranchised, the poor, etc. In fact, it both specifically warns against the mistreatment of the powerless and demonstrates through narrative the negative consequences that do so. I agree with your assessment of the KJV in general, but although the language used was somewhat dated (in 1611), it was not obscure. It's notable that the Christians of that generation tended to prefer the already existing Geneva translation, not only because of its more contemporary language, but because it was not politically motivated as a translation. I agree with what you said in your first paragraph but disagree with the conclusions of your second paragraph. The Geneva Bible was the worst piece of trash in the 16th century. It was a junk translation. You disagree that the Geneva Bible was preferred by many Christians over the KJV in the 1600s? Well, you're wrong. In the 1600s the Geneva Bible was the preference over the KJV for many Christians. Regardless of what you think of the quality of the Geneva Bible. EVERY serious scholar? So...if a scholar doesn't agree, that scholar isn't serious? I'm coming across more scholars that seem to prefer the NRSV. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2021 21:28:04 GMT
I agree with what you said in your first paragraph but disagree with the conclusions of your second paragraph. The Geneva Bible was the worst piece of trash in the 16th century. It was a junk translation. You disagree that the Geneva Bible was preferred by many Christians over the KJV in the 1600s? Well, you're wrong. In the 1600s the Geneva Bible was the preference over the KJV for many Christians. Regardless of what you think of the quality of the Geneva Bible. EVERY serious scholar? So...if a scholar doesn't agree, that scholar isn't serious? I'm coming across more scholars that seem to prefer the NRSV. It would be nice if you stopped polluting my thread with irrelevancy. If you're not going to respect the topic and write something in relation to it then your best option would be to shut the fuck up, please! |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Apr 27, 2021 0:46:50 GMT
I agree with what you said in your first paragraph but disagree with the conclusions of your second paragraph. The Geneva Bible was the worst piece of trash in the 16th century. It was a junk translation. You disagree that the Geneva Bible was preferred by many Christians over the KJV in the 1600s? Well, you're wrong. In the 1600s the Geneva Bible was the preference over the KJV for many Christians. Regardless of what you think of the quality of the Geneva Bible. EVERY serious scholar? So...if a scholar doesn't agree, that scholar isn't serious? I'm coming across more scholars that seem to prefer the NRSV. That we can agree with 100%. The KJV didn't gain in popularity until the Geneva Bible went out of print. ANY...scholar who disagrees has absolutely no real knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, Latin or how we got the Bible. Absolutely any scholar who takes the Tyndale challenge agrees that William Tyndale was the best English scholar of all time. The Tyndale Bibles are more accurate to the original languages than all other Bible. There, of course, are exceptional cases. Almost any English translation can score points on the Tyndale Bibles. They just cannot produce the type of overall accuracy the Tyndale Bibles produced, especially the 1537 Matthew's Bible. Back then, translating a Bible was something they took very seriously. Obviously they are not true scholars but people who drifted through Seminary or went to a bad liberal Seminary and never learned anything about the original languages. The NRSV is listed as one of the absolute worst translations ever done. In fact, its so bad, that it is not fit for reading or study. Its only good for starting fires in a fire pit. That's all its good for. You cannot have that many translation mistakes in a single translation and take it seriously. I'm friends with many real serious scholars and some of them are translators. Not one of them has wasted their money buying a false Bible like the NRSV. The RSV is by far a better translation. The NRSV joins the ranks of Bibles obedient Christians won't buy, like the NIV'11 (the Obamacare bible), NRSV, NAB and NABRE. These bibles are for the fire pit. They are false translations by scholars who never learned anything about Hebrew or Greek. |
|
