They're Marching Against God - Your .02
07-25-2002, 09:42 PM
#531
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Redlands
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by chroot
Since when has the concept that translations rarely convey the complete message of the original been reserved only for the "elite" biblical scholars?
- Warren
Since when has the concept that translations rarely convey the complete message of the original been reserved only for the "elite" biblical scholars?
- Warren
07-25-2002, 09:49 PM
#532
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Santa Clara
Posts: 1,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Garyj,
The only fundamental "standard" I hold is that people should not say things that they unprepared to support. I didn't intend to say that Duszenko didn't know quantum physics because he's not a "qualified" physicist. Instead, I intended to said Duszenko didn't know quantum physics because he made a statement which would make just about any physicist laugh. His concept that physicists abandoned the scientific method and began treating physics as philosophy is so incorrect as to be comical. In addition, he provided no references, examples, or supporting evidence for this view that would be widely criticized.
On the other hand, despite my lack of "biblical scholar" credentials, I am fully aware of the history of the Bible's translation from the original (missing) texts. My statement that the Bible has been translated, abridged, edited, and retranslated many times is distinctly not so incorrect as to be comical. I can provide references, examples, and supporting evidence for my statement.
The Truth is the Truth, no matter what paper hangs on the wall of speaker. Similarly, lies are lies.
- Warren
The only fundamental "standard" I hold is that people should not say things that they unprepared to support. I didn't intend to say that Duszenko didn't know quantum physics because he's not a "qualified" physicist. Instead, I intended to said Duszenko didn't know quantum physics because he made a statement which would make just about any physicist laugh. His concept that physicists abandoned the scientific method and began treating physics as philosophy is so incorrect as to be comical. In addition, he provided no references, examples, or supporting evidence for this view that would be widely criticized.
On the other hand, despite my lack of "biblical scholar" credentials, I am fully aware of the history of the Bible's translation from the original (missing) texts. My statement that the Bible has been translated, abridged, edited, and retranslated many times is distinctly not so incorrect as to be comical. I can provide references, examples, and supporting evidence for my statement.
The Truth is the Truth, no matter what paper hangs on the wall of speaker. Similarly, lies are lies.
- Warren
07-25-2002, 10:08 PM
#533
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Redlands
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You said,
And,
What? You have made a statement about the translation, handling, and validity of a text without knowing the language and history of the documents. Quoting someone I'm sure you have the highest regard for...
[QUOTE][B]I certainly don't "accept" a theory without understanding every single concept of it.
...the Bible is a book that's been translated, abridged, edited, and retranslated so many times that now it's only just a book of fables?
Since when has the concept that translations rarely convey the complete message of the original been reserved only for the "elite" biblical scholars?
[QUOTE][B]I certainly don't "accept" a theory without understanding every single concept of it.
07-25-2002, 10:47 PM
#534
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Santa Clara
Posts: 1,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What? You have made a statement about the translation, handling, and validity of a text without knowing the language and history of the documents.
God, I hate amateur "biblical scholars". (Edited and retranslated).
Point of fact -- the Bible has been translated, edited, and retranslated several times in becoming its current form. This is not conjecture, or the ramblings of an "amateur biblical scholar." It's a fact. Whether or not I'm an amateur or professional theologian has no relevance to the factuality of my statement. Give it up.
Keep in mind that the only reason I bothered to type "Duszenko" into google was because the statement you quoted was so preposterous that it warranted some research. If a ten year old child got on s2ki and posted that "the momentum and position of a particle are complementary quantities in quantum mechanics, exemplified by the fact that they have a non-zero commutator" I would have no reason to research his education. Once again, fact is fact, regardless of the speaker's credentials.
I have already stated that I don't care about someone's credentials, so long as they know what they're talking about. Many people have knowledge of things well beyond their formal training. You apparently do feel that credentials are important. If you'd like to believe that the Bible has not been translated, edited, and retranslated, well -- that's your choice. If you'd like to believe I don't know anything about the Bible because I don't have the Theologian certificate -- that's your choice.
Either way, fact is fact.
- Warren
07-26-2002, 08:16 AM
#537
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Redlands
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]Originally posted by chroot
[B]
...unless you've got the Theologian degree on your wall, you don't have the credentials to tell me that I don't know the history of the Bible.
Point of fact -- the Bible has been translated, edited, and retranslated several times in becoming its current form.
[B]
...unless you've got the Theologian degree on your wall, you don't have the credentials to tell me that I don't know the history of the Bible.
Point of fact -- the Bible has been translated, edited, and retranslated several times in becoming its current form.
07-26-2002, 08:35 AM
#538
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Santa Clara
Posts: 1,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes you do what? You're a pro theologian?
What versions am I talking about? All of them: KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, the Alexandrian texts, Textus Receptus, etc. They're all tainted. Especially the Alexandrian texts, which you know are the basis for all english versions except the KJV.
Am I wrong?
And no, for the third and final time, not once did I ever argue anything about qualifications.
- Warren
What versions am I talking about? All of them: KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, the Alexandrian texts, Textus Receptus, etc. They're all tainted. Especially the Alexandrian texts, which you know are the basis for all english versions except the KJV.
Am I wrong?
And no, for the third and final time, not once did I ever argue anything about qualifications.
- Warren