The Bible is totally mistranslated
- Thread starter bigbear31
- Start date
First of all, there is no “original” text. All that exist are copies of copies...
Secondly, which translation are you referring to? There are quite a few.
Third, historical linguists can also translate Hebrew, and ancient Aramaic, as well as Greek and Latin and probably quite a bit more accurately than your average Israelite. Whom, exactly, do you think was responsible for the various translations?
This is true of most languages, not just Hebrew. There are always difficulties in translating from one language to another or even translating one language between historical periods.
I concur.
~Raithere
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
What would it mean to say that the bible, or some version of it, was reliable? Is the main issue with the bible textual corruption or the fact that it is predicated upon the supernatural?
I suspect that the bible is far less textually corrupt than many would like to believe, but that makes it no less a piece of fiction.
I suspect that the bible is far less textually corrupt than many would like to believe, but that makes it no less a piece of fiction.
Re: bigbear's big boo boo NOT
I noticed you quoted what I said, I also noticed that nowhere in my quotes did I ever state any dates. Now you just restated what I stated earlier. THE OLD TESTAMENT was translated from Hebrew to Greek which you have stated. Now the English Crusades occured later "yes" so when that happened it was translated to English. So I DID NOT indict the wrong people. You have to remember that when we talk about the OLD and NEW testaments, they are totally different. Also remember the TORAH (as you have stated) is only the first five books of the Bible, not the entire Old Testament. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, the New Testament was written in Greek although Whomever was writing it was writing about people who spoke Hebrew!!
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
With all due respect to your wife, your point is embarrassingly wrong. For example, the Torah "was first translated from Hebrew to Greek" by Hellenistic Jews at Alexandria during the period 275 - 100 BCE, while the English Crusades occurred in 1095-1500 CE. Not only did you 'indict' the wrong people, you were off by more than a millenium - that's pretty bad for 2 short sentences.
I noticed you quoted what I said, I also noticed that nowhere in my quotes did I ever state any dates. Now you just restated what I stated earlier. THE OLD TESTAMENT was translated from Hebrew to Greek which you have stated. Now the English Crusades occured later "yes" so when that happened it was translated to English. So I DID NOT indict the wrong people. You have to remember that when we talk about the OLD and NEW testaments, they are totally different. Also remember the TORAH (as you have stated) is only the first five books of the Bible, not the entire Old Testament. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, the New Testament was written in Greek although Whomever was writing it was writing about people who spoke Hebrew!!
Last edited:
Re: Re: The Bible is totally mistranslated
Good point, there are so many copies of copies. Who would know if there where an original copy?? Which one?? Yes there are quite a few, so I guess the further away you get away from the so called original or copy of the further it gets from what they were actually trying to say was the so called truth.
There is so much speculation as to exactly who translated the different books especially the New Testament since it wasn't originally written in Hebrew.
I was just reading about the Dead Seas Scrolls, it seems that they don't have alot of funding right now.
The scrolls comprise, among other things, the oldest copies of the Bible in existence. The Qumran scrolls date from approximately 250 B.C. to about 65 A.D., and at some other locations to about 135 A.D. This means that the Dead Sea Scrolls give us texts of the Bible which were copied more than 1000 years earlier than any others now in existence!
It still seems like people are still more interested in making quotes from the Bible and telling people they are going to Hell if they don't go to church.
Good point, there are so many copies of copies. Who would know if there where an original copy?? Which one?? Yes there are quite a few, so I guess the further away you get away from the so called original or copy of the further it gets from what they were actually trying to say was the so called truth.
There is so much speculation as to exactly who translated the different books especially the New Testament since it wasn't originally written in Hebrew.
I was just reading about the Dead Seas Scrolls, it seems that they don't have alot of funding right now.
The scrolls comprise, among other things, the oldest copies of the Bible in existence. The Qumran scrolls date from approximately 250 B.C. to about 65 A.D., and at some other locations to about 135 A.D. This means that the Dead Sea Scrolls give us texts of the Bible which were copied more than 1000 years earlier than any others now in existence!
It still seems like people are still more interested in making quotes from the Bible and telling people they are going to Hell if they don't go to church.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Re: Re: bigbear's big boo boo NOT
Let me ask you a few questions:
BTW: as for what Jesus purportedly said when he purportedly rose from the dead, you're reading a fairytale as if it's real.
Let me ask you a few questions:
- Who first translated the Tanach?
- When was the KJV developed?
- At that time, was the OT translated from the Greek Septuagint or the Hebrew Massoretic text, and by whom?
BTW: as for what Jesus purportedly said when he purportedly rose from the dead, you're reading a fairytale as if it's real.
Here's a nice example of mistranslations:
"The Hebrew word "har" occurs 649 times in the Old Testament. In 212 instances, the word is translated "hill" or "hills" or "hill country". In Genesis, it is translated "hill" in 10 out of 19 occurrences. Of course, 4 out of 9 times that it is translated as "mountain" is in the flood passage (the translators were wearing their global glasses when they did that translation!). In every instance in Genesis, the text could be translated "hill". Since no specific mountain range is mentioned in this verse, it is likely that the word refers to the hills that Noah could see."
If a large detail such as this is mistranslated, one has to wonder what else in the Bible has been botched over the years.
"The Hebrew word "har" occurs 649 times in the Old Testament. In 212 instances, the word is translated "hill" or "hills" or "hill country". In Genesis, it is translated "hill" in 10 out of 19 occurrences. Of course, 4 out of 9 times that it is translated as "mountain" is in the flood passage (the translators were wearing their global glasses when they did that translation!). In every instance in Genesis, the text could be translated "hill". Since no specific mountain range is mentioned in this verse, it is likely that the word refers to the hills that Noah could see."
If a large detail such as this is mistranslated, one has to wonder what else in the Bible has been botched over the years.
Re: Re: Re: bigbear's big boo boo NOT
First off you did not prove that what I said earlier was wrong. So I wonder why you are saying I am wrong when you haven't stated anything. Secondly it's seems funny that you are getting angry and asking me new questions when you didn't say anything the first time around. So you have to try and patronize me with name calling.
Are you Jewish?? Ma kore??
As far as Jesus is concerned he is not a big part of my life, I don't believe he is the son of God.
Do you read Hebrew?? Can you speak Hebrew?? My wife's family goes all the way back to ancient Israel, they are not european Jewish so most of the information I have learned I believe to be accurate!! But what is exactly accurate when it comes to the BIBLE??
Now you ask, who first translated the Tanach?? To what?? It was originally in Hebrew.
I really don't care about the KJV since like I said I think it is nonsense, but here is the answer.....
The King James translators (54 men altogether) were scholars, as proficient in the Biblical languages as any who have come after them. They were familiar with the great body of manuscript evidence, as well as all the previous translations. They worked diligently on the project (assigned to them by King James) for over seven years (completed in 1611), with the result that the "Authorized" version eventually displaced all those that had gone before.
It is significant that almost all of the new versions of the New Testament are based on what is known as the Westcott-Hort Greek text, whereas the King James is based largely on what is known as the Textus Receptus. As far as the Hebrew text is concerned, the King James is based on the Masoretic text, while the modern versions rely heavily on Kittel's revised Masoretic text.
The Masoretic text was compiled from the ancient manuscripts of the Old Testament by the Masoretes Hebrew scholars dedicated to guarding and standardizing the traditional Hebrew text as "handed down" (the basic meaning of Masoretic) from the earlier Hebrew scribes, who had in turn meticulously copied the ancient Hebrew manuscripts, scrupulously guarding against error. As far as the Hebrew text developed by Rudolf Kittel is concerned, it is worth noting that Kittel was a German rationalistic higher critic, rejecting Biblical inerrancy and firmly devoted to evolutionism.
All of this information goes further to prove that the Bible is basically a riddle and should NOT be taken literally!! AGAIN.
So if you need anything further please tell me.
Also no name calling this time okay??
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
Let me ask you a few questions:Frankly, little bear, you haven't a clue what you're talking about. I recommend that you stop before you further embarrass yourself.
- Who first translated the Tanach?
- When was the KJV developed?
- At that time, was the OT translated from the Greek Septuagint or the Hebrew Massoretic text, and by whom?
BTW: as for what Jesus purportedly said when he purportedly rose from the dead, you're reading a fairytale as if it's real.
First off you did not prove that what I said earlier was wrong. So I wonder why you are saying I am wrong when you haven't stated anything. Secondly it's seems funny that you are getting angry and asking me new questions when you didn't say anything the first time around. So you have to try and patronize me with name calling.
Are you Jewish?? Ma kore??
As far as Jesus is concerned he is not a big part of my life, I don't believe he is the son of God.
Do you read Hebrew?? Can you speak Hebrew?? My wife's family goes all the way back to ancient Israel, they are not european Jewish so most of the information I have learned I believe to be accurate!! But what is exactly accurate when it comes to the BIBLE??
Now you ask, who first translated the Tanach?? To what?? It was originally in Hebrew.
I really don't care about the KJV since like I said I think it is nonsense, but here is the answer.....
The King James translators (54 men altogether) were scholars, as proficient in the Biblical languages as any who have come after them. They were familiar with the great body of manuscript evidence, as well as all the previous translations. They worked diligently on the project (assigned to them by King James) for over seven years (completed in 1611), with the result that the "Authorized" version eventually displaced all those that had gone before.
It is significant that almost all of the new versions of the New Testament are based on what is known as the Westcott-Hort Greek text, whereas the King James is based largely on what is known as the Textus Receptus. As far as the Hebrew text is concerned, the King James is based on the Masoretic text, while the modern versions rely heavily on Kittel's revised Masoretic text.
The Masoretic text was compiled from the ancient manuscripts of the Old Testament by the Masoretes Hebrew scholars dedicated to guarding and standardizing the traditional Hebrew text as "handed down" (the basic meaning of Masoretic) from the earlier Hebrew scribes, who had in turn meticulously copied the ancient Hebrew manuscripts, scrupulously guarding against error. As far as the Hebrew text developed by Rudolf Kittel is concerned, it is worth noting that Kittel was a German rationalistic higher critic, rejecting Biblical inerrancy and firmly devoted to evolutionism.
All of this information goes further to prove that the Bible is basically a riddle and should NOT be taken literally!! AGAIN.
So if you need anything further please tell me.
Also no name calling this time okay??
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
bigbear31:
Okay I want to say that the Bible is mistranslated way too much and should NOT be taken literally!!
Which part of the Bible was "mistranslated way too much" by whom? The Septuagint translation was done by Jewish Hebraic scholars far more versed in Hebrew and Aramaic than you or your wife.
What, specifically, did they mistranslate "way too much"?
bigbear31:
There are too many people going around quoting bible scriptures and such which are totally misunderstood.
You have clearly dempnstrated that fact.
bigbear31:
I speak some Hebrew and my wife is from Israel. She knows Hebrew because she grew up in Israel, she also knows Aramaic Hebrew which is slightly different.
How nice for you.
bigbear31:
The old testament was written in Hebrew and some of the New Testament was written in Aramaic, any Israeli can read the original texts of the bible.
I would be curious to know which parts of the New Testament you believe to be written in Aramaic?
bigbear31:
My point is the bible was first translated from Hebrew to Greek.
Parts of it were "first translated from Hebrew to Greek" by Jewish scholars. Other parts were originally written in Greek.
bigbear31:
The first English crusaders translated from the GREEK TEXT NOT THE HEBREW TEXT!
The "first English crusaders" translated nothing. The English translation (the KJV) was a 17th century effort by a team of language scholars, including Hebrew scholars. The Old Testament was translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text, not Greek. The New Testament was translated from the Greek because there was no Hebrew original.
bigbear31:
For instance Mary (the mother of Jesus) was referred to as an "ALMAH" in hebrew this means "Young woman." When the Greeks translated it to Greek "Young Woman" became "Virgin." No where in the original text does it state Mary was ever a virgin!!
What "original text ". The author(s) of Matthew, always trying to make Jesus appear as the fulfillment of prophesy, misunderstood Isaiah 7:14, where the LXX uses the term parthenos. The New Testament clearly asserts the Virgin Birth.
bigbear31:
When Jesus rose from the grave he said to Mary Magnalene "Don't touch me!" In english we would assume this means,"Don't touch me." Actually in the hebrew text it is "Don't hold on to me with your heart!"
'Jesus' never rose from the grave. It's a piece of fiction.
bigbear31:
In these translations chapters were reordered by the crusaders leading up to the birth of Jesus. (Do your research all of this info is available.)
What does that sentence mean? Or are you just babbling?
bigbear31:
Unfortunately Hebrew is the only language that cannot be scientifically translated to English. They have alot of words with double and triple meanings and some of their words do not exist in our vocabulary!!
No, Hebrew is not the only language with those characteristics.
bigbear31:
The Israelis do NOT believe that Jesus ... was the son of God only that he was a great Prophet of God like Moses.
Except, of course, for Christian Israelis. There is a difference between "Israeli" and "Jew". How sad that you don't know this.
bigbear31:
I believe in God and follow my heart because I believe God will put the answers there if you ask him to, I believe you can call on Jesus and he will help you also. I think prayers are answered when you ask.
Ask your God(s) to help you with your understanding of history.
bigbear31:
But as far as the bible is concerned I would not take it literally.
Except where you do. For example, you apparently believe that there existed some guy named Moses. You also believe that some dead guy had a conversation with Mary. That's pretty silly.
Okay I want to say that the Bible is mistranslated way too much and should NOT be taken literally!!
Which part of the Bible was "mistranslated way too much" by whom? The Septuagint translation was done by Jewish Hebraic scholars far more versed in Hebrew and Aramaic than you or your wife.
What, specifically, did they mistranslate "way too much"?
bigbear31:
There are too many people going around quoting bible scriptures and such which are totally misunderstood.
You have clearly dempnstrated that fact.
bigbear31:
I speak some Hebrew and my wife is from Israel. She knows Hebrew because she grew up in Israel, she also knows Aramaic Hebrew which is slightly different.
How nice for you.
bigbear31:
The old testament was written in Hebrew and some of the New Testament was written in Aramaic, any Israeli can read the original texts of the bible.
I would be curious to know which parts of the New Testament you believe to be written in Aramaic?
bigbear31:
My point is the bible was first translated from Hebrew to Greek.
Parts of it were "first translated from Hebrew to Greek" by Jewish scholars. Other parts were originally written in Greek.
bigbear31:
The first English crusaders translated from the GREEK TEXT NOT THE HEBREW TEXT!
The "first English crusaders" translated nothing. The English translation (the KJV) was a 17th century effort by a team of language scholars, including Hebrew scholars. The Old Testament was translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text, not Greek. The New Testament was translated from the Greek because there was no Hebrew original.
bigbear31:
For instance Mary (the mother of Jesus) was referred to as an "ALMAH" in hebrew this means "Young woman." When the Greeks translated it to Greek "Young Woman" became "Virgin." No where in the original text does it state Mary was ever a virgin!!
What "original text ". The author(s) of Matthew, always trying to make Jesus appear as the fulfillment of prophesy, misunderstood Isaiah 7:14, where the LXX uses the term parthenos. The New Testament clearly asserts the Virgin Birth.
bigbear31:
When Jesus rose from the grave he said to Mary Magnalene "Don't touch me!" In english we would assume this means,"Don't touch me." Actually in the hebrew text it is "Don't hold on to me with your heart!"
'Jesus' never rose from the grave. It's a piece of fiction.
bigbear31:
In these translations chapters were reordered by the crusaders leading up to the birth of Jesus. (Do your research all of this info is available.)
What does that sentence mean? Or are you just babbling?
bigbear31:
Unfortunately Hebrew is the only language that cannot be scientifically translated to English. They have alot of words with double and triple meanings and some of their words do not exist in our vocabulary!!
No, Hebrew is not the only language with those characteristics.
bigbear31:
The Israelis do NOT believe that Jesus ... was the son of God only that he was a great Prophet of God like Moses.
Except, of course, for Christian Israelis. There is a difference between "Israeli" and "Jew". How sad that you don't know this.
bigbear31:
I believe in God and follow my heart because I believe God will put the answers there if you ask him to, I believe you can call on Jesus and he will help you also. I think prayers are answered when you ask.
Ask your God(s) to help you with your understanding of history.
bigbear31:
But as far as the bible is concerned I would not take it literally.
Except where you do. For example, you apparently believe that there existed some guy named Moses. You also believe that some dead guy had a conversation with Mary. That's pretty silly.
Last edited:
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: bigbear's big boo boo NOT
Perhaps you could help me with this:
- What is the Hebrew word for 'plagarism'?
Compare with:
And ...
Compare with:
Plagarism is dishonest.
You are an incompetent plagarist who sucks his information from the ICR and doesn't know the first thing about tectual criticism. I suggest you sit down with a good book by Emanuel Tov before further exposing your ignorance.
Last edited:
Re: Re: The Bible is totally mistranslated
FIRST OFF YOU SAID:
Which part of the Bible was "mistranslated way too much" by whom? The Septuagint translation was done by Jewish Hebraic scholars far more versed in Hebrew and Aramaic than you or your wife.
Yes I do not doubt they are more versed than ourselves. By whom that's a good question because so many have translated it up until the KJV which I believe alot of Bible thumping Christians use!!
The old testament was written in Hebrew and some of the New Testament was written in Aramaic, any Israeli can read the original texts of the bible.
Yes you are correct, that is a mistake, it was information that was spoken in Aramaic, not written. The New Testament was written first in Greek.
Parts of it were "first translated from Hebrew to Greek" by Jewish scholars. Other parts were originally written in Greek.
Yes the New Testament was definetly written in Greek.
The "first English crusaders" translated nothing. The English translation (the KJV) was a 17th century effort by a team of language scholars, including Hebrew scholars. The Old Testament was translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text, not Greek. The New Testament was translated from the Greek because there was no Hebrew original.
The KJV is NOT the only English translation. There were translations done at the time of the crusades. Yes I have already stated Old Testament -Hebrew to Greek, New- Greek to English, you are correct.
What "original text ". The author(s) of Matthew, always trying to make Jesus appear as the fulfillment of prophesy, misunderstood Isaiah 7:14, where the LXX uses the term parthenos. The New Testament clearly asserts the Virgin Birth.
Word actually used in Hebrew scriptures is "almah" (="young woman").
Hebrew word which could have been used, but wasn't, was "bethulah" (="virgin").
IF you happen to have information that shows the New Testament shows a virgin birth you must remember that it was written in Greek, Greek is different from Hebrew, these events did not occur in Greece.
This is from a website by the way, so you don't accuse me of plagarism again. Go to :
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cach.../virgin.shtml+mary+bible+almah&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
I do alot fo research on the internet as well as books, from now for you I will make reference as to such if you like.
'Jesus' never rose from the grave. It's a piece of fiction.
I would have to say I am torn on this subject being that I was raised in a strict Christian family. But after I have been exposed to alot of the research I have been doing I am having doubts. Plus being married to a Jew I have learned alot also since they don't consider the New Testament or Jesus. I guess when you have been exposed to it all your life it's difficult to change although I am feeling it happen.
In these translations chapters were reordered by the crusaders leading up to the birth of Jesus. (Do your research all of this info is available.)
What does that sentence mean? Or are you just babbling?
It is true I have read it many times that chapters were reordered:
3. History of Israel
We can also examine the Bible looking at the history of Israel, the life of the Lord Jesus, and the history of the New Testament church. Taking up the Hebrew printing of the Old Testament, we notice very quickly — well it takes a few months to learn how to read it — but I can tell you that in the Hebrew Old Testament the books are in a different order from the order in the English Bible. It was the Greek translation, the Septuagint that reordered the books. The Old Testament in Hebrew is called TANAKH from the first letters of Torah, Nevi'im, and Kethuvim. The Law, Prophets and Writings. In the TANAKH the order of the books is very different.
Go to:
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cach...ers+reordered+bible+christians&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
No, Hebrew is not the only language with those characteristics.
You are correct, there is the oriental, arabic which I believe stems from Hebrew.
The Israelis do NOT believe that Jesus ... was the son of God only that he was a great Prophet of God like Moses.
Except, of course, for Christian Israelis. There is a difference between "Israeli" and "Jew". How sad that you don't know this.
Now I have to say you are wrong on this point because, in order to become a citizen of Israel you HAVE TO BE JEWISH. To become a citizen of Israel is a very grueling process. You need to study Jewish law, study and learn Hebrew and put in your time at the Kibuttz, then after a few years they might except you as a citizen. If you are already Jewish you have to prove it by showing your family has been Jewish, the longer your family has been Jewish the better chance you have of actually becoming a citizen after a few years. I could NEVER be a citizen because my family was christian and I would not want to go through the years of prayer and hard labor to become one.
Now there are a few Arabic Israelis that have lived in Israel for decades since the state started to evolve that are Christians, that would be the ONLY exception.
Also American Jews are different from Israeli Jews and European Jews, but if they are of true Jewish families, that is they can prove so, they are all citizens of Israel. In fact when you leave Israel you are always a citizen even if you become a citizen of another country.
Ask your God(s) to help you with your understanding of history. CUTE. Just curious, what do you believe?? What is your background and where do you get your information?? Are you a teacher?
Except where you do. For example, you apparently believe that there existed some guy named Moses. You also believe that some dead guy had a conversation with Mary. That's pretty silly.
Okay I am starting to understand, it's okay to believe what you want, I would not think any less of anyone who believed in other Gods or Gods or lack of. Again I have told you I have my doubts about Jesus. I think all the technical BS doesn't matter as long as you treat people how you want to be treated. Yes Moses either said or didn't say or never existed. But if you get something out of it, I think that's the bottom line here. If you don't then look for what does. I like business, nutrition and doing research on history those are the things that make me happy, I don't base my life on Moses, in fact this is really the only time I think about things like this unless I am doing research again. People like you keep me on my feet.
Hope that answers your questions.
FIRST OFF YOU SAID:
Which part of the Bible was "mistranslated way too much" by whom? The Septuagint translation was done by Jewish Hebraic scholars far more versed in Hebrew and Aramaic than you or your wife.
Yes I do not doubt they are more versed than ourselves. By whom that's a good question because so many have translated it up until the KJV which I believe alot of Bible thumping Christians use!!
The old testament was written in Hebrew and some of the New Testament was written in Aramaic, any Israeli can read the original texts of the bible.
Yes you are correct, that is a mistake, it was information that was spoken in Aramaic, not written. The New Testament was written first in Greek.
Parts of it were "first translated from Hebrew to Greek" by Jewish scholars. Other parts were originally written in Greek.
Yes the New Testament was definetly written in Greek.
The "first English crusaders" translated nothing. The English translation (the KJV) was a 17th century effort by a team of language scholars, including Hebrew scholars. The Old Testament was translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text, not Greek. The New Testament was translated from the Greek because there was no Hebrew original.
The KJV is NOT the only English translation. There were translations done at the time of the crusades. Yes I have already stated Old Testament -Hebrew to Greek, New- Greek to English, you are correct.
What "original text ". The author(s) of Matthew, always trying to make Jesus appear as the fulfillment of prophesy, misunderstood Isaiah 7:14, where the LXX uses the term parthenos. The New Testament clearly asserts the Virgin Birth.
Word actually used in Hebrew scriptures is "almah" (="young woman").
Hebrew word which could have been used, but wasn't, was "bethulah" (="virgin").
IF you happen to have information that shows the New Testament shows a virgin birth you must remember that it was written in Greek, Greek is different from Hebrew, these events did not occur in Greece.
This is from a website by the way, so you don't accuse me of plagarism again. Go to :
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cach.../virgin.shtml+mary+bible+almah&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
I do alot fo research on the internet as well as books, from now for you I will make reference as to such if you like.
'Jesus' never rose from the grave. It's a piece of fiction.
I would have to say I am torn on this subject being that I was raised in a strict Christian family. But after I have been exposed to alot of the research I have been doing I am having doubts. Plus being married to a Jew I have learned alot also since they don't consider the New Testament or Jesus. I guess when you have been exposed to it all your life it's difficult to change although I am feeling it happen.
In these translations chapters were reordered by the crusaders leading up to the birth of Jesus. (Do your research all of this info is available.)
What does that sentence mean? Or are you just babbling?
It is true I have read it many times that chapters were reordered:
3. History of Israel
We can also examine the Bible looking at the history of Israel, the life of the Lord Jesus, and the history of the New Testament church. Taking up the Hebrew printing of the Old Testament, we notice very quickly — well it takes a few months to learn how to read it — but I can tell you that in the Hebrew Old Testament the books are in a different order from the order in the English Bible. It was the Greek translation, the Septuagint that reordered the books. The Old Testament in Hebrew is called TANAKH from the first letters of Torah, Nevi'im, and Kethuvim. The Law, Prophets and Writings. In the TANAKH the order of the books is very different.
Go to:
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cach...ers+reordered+bible+christians&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
No, Hebrew is not the only language with those characteristics.
You are correct, there is the oriental, arabic which I believe stems from Hebrew.
The Israelis do NOT believe that Jesus ... was the son of God only that he was a great Prophet of God like Moses.
Except, of course, for Christian Israelis. There is a difference between "Israeli" and "Jew". How sad that you don't know this.
Now I have to say you are wrong on this point because, in order to become a citizen of Israel you HAVE TO BE JEWISH. To become a citizen of Israel is a very grueling process. You need to study Jewish law, study and learn Hebrew and put in your time at the Kibuttz, then after a few years they might except you as a citizen. If you are already Jewish you have to prove it by showing your family has been Jewish, the longer your family has been Jewish the better chance you have of actually becoming a citizen after a few years. I could NEVER be a citizen because my family was christian and I would not want to go through the years of prayer and hard labor to become one.
Now there are a few Arabic Israelis that have lived in Israel for decades since the state started to evolve that are Christians, that would be the ONLY exception.
Also American Jews are different from Israeli Jews and European Jews, but if they are of true Jewish families, that is they can prove so, they are all citizens of Israel. In fact when you leave Israel you are always a citizen even if you become a citizen of another country.
Ask your God(s) to help you with your understanding of history. CUTE. Just curious, what do you believe?? What is your background and where do you get your information?? Are you a teacher?
Except where you do. For example, you apparently believe that there existed some guy named Moses. You also believe that some dead guy had a conversation with Mary. That's pretty silly.
Okay I am starting to understand, it's okay to believe what you want, I would not think any less of anyone who believed in other Gods or Gods or lack of. Again I have told you I have my doubts about Jesus. I think all the technical BS doesn't matter as long as you treat people how you want to be treated. Yes Moses either said or didn't say or never existed. But if you get something out of it, I think that's the bottom line here. If you don't then look for what does. I like business, nutrition and doing research on history those are the things that make me happy, I don't base my life on Moses, in fact this is really the only time I think about things like this unless I am doing research again. People like you keep me on my feet.
Hope that answers your questions.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bigbear's big boo boo NOT
Nice work, you do your research. Yes I do use information from the internet, it's the best place to learn, along with debating with you.
And as I said before I will direct you to the correct place if you wish no problem.
I noticed you used the word:
tectual criticism
But I think you meant TEXTUAL.
I think I will look into some of Professor Tov's findings. The word "TOV" means "good" in English.
All of the information I have learned has come from written material, I have not just made things up out of the top of my head here. But I still stick to my guns and say there is alot of BS in the Bible and I know you agree with me because you have stated so in earlier quotes. That was the purpose of this topic, I wrote earlier in quotes that all of this information is available in your local book store and the internet. There are always different opinions but I think we can all gauge the fact that the BIBLE itself shouldn't be taken literally, which I think most people would concur. (Except for the people that give you a hard time for not going to church and say you are going to hell!)
If you have anything else to contribute to that I would like to see it, it's interesting to know. I can see you know your information, I don't doubt that and "yes" I am interested in Emmanuel Tov.
Nice work, you do your research. Yes I do use information from the internet, it's the best place to learn, along with debating with you.
And as I said before I will direct you to the correct place if you wish no problem.
I noticed you used the word:
tectual criticism
But I think you meant TEXTUAL.
I think I will look into some of Professor Tov's findings. The word "TOV" means "good" in English.
All of the information I have learned has come from written material, I have not just made things up out of the top of my head here. But I still stick to my guns and say there is alot of BS in the Bible and I know you agree with me because you have stated so in earlier quotes. That was the purpose of this topic, I wrote earlier in quotes that all of this information is available in your local book store and the internet. There are always different opinions but I think we can all gauge the fact that the BIBLE itself shouldn't be taken literally, which I think most people would concur. (Except for the people that give you a hard time for not going to church and say you are going to hell!)
If you have anything else to contribute to that I would like to see it, it's interesting to know. I can see you know your information, I don't doubt that and "yes" I am interested in Emmanuel Tov.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bigbear's big boo boo NOT
I encourage you to use all the resources at your disposal, but do not present another person's work as if it was your own.
To copy without reference is intellectually dishonest and possibly illegal.
I encourage you to use all the resources at your disposal, but do not present another person's work as if it was your own.
The convention we use here is to either use quotations or the HTML quote tag to offset referenced material.
It is also polite to reference the URL if you have it handy as many people here are rather dilligent in their research and will examine the site for themselves.
I'm sure you weren't intentionally plagerizing but we do have some sticklers here.
~Raithere
Transiendal thought is not scientific.
Why try to find scientific fact in a document first prepared long before the scientific method was in use? Until the start of the modern era the meaning rather than the facts were important.
In John's gospel, the construction is in specific numbers. The ministry of Jesus was completed in one telling, perhaps one year. Is it truth? See Pilate's sarcastic question.
The thing is, Christanity is about faith. Both extremes seem to be trying to prove a current, hands-on undeniable truth. Matters of faith cannot be proven, or else where is faith.
I believe some things, trust in a few more, and doubt most things. But I really don"t know much. I an just honest enough to admit it. Hairyb
Why try to find scientific fact in a document first prepared long before the scientific method was in use? Until the start of the modern era the meaning rather than the facts were important.
In John's gospel, the construction is in specific numbers. The ministry of Jesus was completed in one telling, perhaps one year. Is it truth? See Pilate's sarcastic question.
The thing is, Christanity is about faith. Both extremes seem to be trying to prove a current, hands-on undeniable truth. Matters of faith cannot be proven, or else where is faith.
I believe some things, trust in a few more, and doubt most things. But I really don"t know much. I an just honest enough to admit it. Hairyb
Originally posted by Raithere
The convention we use here is to either use quotations or the HTML quote tag to offset referenced material.
It is also polite to reference the URL if you have it handy as many people here are rather dilligent in their research and will examine the site for themselves.
I'm sure you weren't intentionally plagerizing but we do have some sticklers here.
~Raithere
Understood, thanks.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bigbear's big boo boo NOT
See Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible.
Is this relevant or are you trying to impress us?
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
From the Israel Yearbook and Almanac 1995, p. 248:
- "The vast majority of Israeli Muslims are Sunni, including some 3,000 Circassians. More than half the Christians are Greek Orthodox or Greek Catholic. Many of the Christians are not Arabs; the non-Arab Christians include European, Ethiopian, and Coptic clergy and monastics, the small Armenian community in Jerusalem, and, increasingly, Christian relatives of Jews."
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
- To suggest that events occurring in one country cannot be accurately conveyed by the language of another country is totally absurd.
- To ignore the fact that any relevant 'translation' error could only be attributed to the Jewish scholars who created the LXX is remarkably disengenuous.
- To speak of the virgin birth as if it were a factual event rather than an element of myth is entirely unwarranted.