Matt. 25:31-46

BARK · #61 (**permalink**) 08-24-2006, 03:53 PM

Quote:

You have asked me to use simplicity. This I shall try and I am sorry if it seems I am trying to hide behind words. You are right when you say there are thousands of Bible versions. For example, the Message version of the Bible uses very different words than the King James Version. This has to do with the point of the books though. For example, the Message is directed at a younger generation and so it uses basic terms and lingo that younger people will understand. Meanwhile, the King James Version uses Older English. While the words are different, the message behind the words is the same. I fail to see what the problem is. If I say Jesus ascended into heaven versus he rose into heaven it makes no difference. If I’m missing something here Bark, please let me know. I’m truly interested in what you are saying here. Ok, on to the canonization. First, there needs not be any question on the Old Testament cannon for the simple fact that those books were included in the cannon as soon as they were written. If they were not included, there was a reason the Jews did not included it. I guess we can discuss this point further, but I’m not as well versed in the history of the Old Testament compared to the NT. I can and will say that the same Bible at the time of Luther and Calvin is the same Bible from the fourth century. The councils of Hippo and Carthage acknowledged 27 books of the New Testament. They were the same books included in our Bible today. Yet, like I said earlier, those councils were only convened to reject the heresies being taught at that time. The NT cannon goes back much further then those councils though. We positively know that all for Gospels were in existence before160 A.D. This is known because Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho, written in 160 A.D., specifically states that the Gospels Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John were being read and used in worship at his time. In fact, no document written after 120 A.D. was considered for inclusion in the canon. That is why there were so many books not included in the New Testament such as the Gnostic gospels (which disagreed so much with other scripture that they were never seriously considered anyway). As far as the Epistle of Barnabas goes I would like to quote http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02299a.htm

A while back I did a project. It was a concrete poem. I wrote out simple easy to translate stanzas that I thought represented different cultures. I then took these stanzas and translated them into the native language. I put the words over pictures that embodied the culture I was speaking of. I had not problem finding people to translate the verses for me. It was simple curiosity that made me go to the same people and ask them to translate it back. Not from what they remebered, but from the words themselves. I always came back with nothing like what I began with. This is one of those things I don't know how to prove, but lost in translation is real. I will grant that much of what I say is personal education and it can be hard to cite that. I have spent months with the bible, in different translations and it always read different to me. Maybe I wanted it to, but maybe it simply did. This is one of those things that can be asserted, but not proven. If you feel any of it to be true try it yourself, not in this forum. Don't use the web. Sit down with a nice cigar and cognac and start reading for months. This is true education and sometimes it can be hard to cite that. It also doesn't happen over night. Take my word for it though, it is worth it.

BARK · #62 (**permalink**) 08-24-2006, 04:16 PM

Quote:

There are many translations to the bible, this is true and inevidable. Translating a book into a different language is sure to change some verbiage, but not necessarily the message.

I beg to differ. And we will have to rest at that. I don't have the time to do the things it would take to prove that in my experience I have seen it change the message as well.

Quote:

Words may be changed and this lends itself to misinterpretation, but the focus has not always changed. Some stories may vary slightly between versions, but it would be irresponsible to take that fact and discount the entire story. Would you omit the book of Luke if one version spoke of a Zacchaeus in an olive tree? Lastly, I don't believe the focus has changed with every version. Not having scoured over every story of every version, I can't say with 100% certainty, but I am very confident in this statement and look forward to you proving otherwise

This is one of those things that I proved to myself and I'll be damned if I can prove it to you. Some things you have to take the intiative in. I don't know how it came to me but I questioned the validity of a book that had been translated so many times. I did alot of work to find some patterns. I found them and applied them and came back believeing that the bible has lost a great deal of meaning. I also think that losing the original meaning is one of the things that has given Christianity its long life span.

BARK · #63 (**permalink**) 08-24-2006, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Bark, I would like to point out some things regarding to the flood and creation. The first one is adapted and the second one is from

The relativity of time is a thing I have argued here before. I have used that in my own work. But still this is a school of thought that is not mine. I subscribe to another. I will never be able to offer a view that is conducive to what the creationist believe, neither will they offer me one that I believe. We have two schools of thought.

Quote:

But if we deny that the Flood was a real event, then logically the future Judgment must be denied as well. And if the Flood was merely a local Mesopotamian flood, then people could have escaped simply by emigrating. Logically, sinners could escape the future wrath of the Son of Man just by keeping out of Iraq!

I do deny it. Human remains and refuse have been found all over the world before the time of the flood. Durring the time of the flood. And after the time of the flood. One side will argue on faith another on fact. Truth be told I have more respect for those who argue on faith, but I attribute more validity to those who argue on fact.

BARK · #64 (**permalink**) 08-24-2006, 04:31 PM

Quote:

as the Iliad, are commonly accepted as truth

No it is not. There are a few whack jobs who think they can go island hopping to prove the story, but those whack jobs do not give the credibility of "commonly accepted" No the oddesy and the Illiad are two books that are considered by more to be historic references. General outlines.

BARK · #65 (**permalink**) 08-24-2006, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Wow this is great intelligent discussion. I for one refuse to take the Bible literaly and I am a Christian. I don't have a problem with the story in Genisus about the world being created 6 days, even though science has proven that the world is millions of years old. Who can say what a day is to God. Also when you look at the stories of how long people lived in Old Testmant days. If Methusula was indeed the longest lived man of his time, why are people still living that long today?

I am well aware that to beleive in anything outside of what we can see, requires a certian amount of faith.

God is a loving God, otherwise why would he have created or allowed man to be created?

I must say that I am impressed Rob.

Politicon · #66 (**permalink**) 08-24-2006, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BARK

I do deny it. Human remains and refuse have been found all over the world before the time of the flood. Durring the time of the flood. And after the time of the flood. One side will argue on faith another on fact. Truth be told I have more respect for those who argue on faith, but I attribute more validity to those who argue on fact.

I fail to see what your point is behind the discovery of human remains. People would have died before the flood, people definitely would have died during the flood, and people are still dying after it. I'm really sorry, but I think I'm missing something.

BARK · #67 (**permalink**) 08-24-2006, 10:15 PM

You are missing the point about two schools of thought. Nothing I say will sway you to this side and nothing you say will sway me to that side. This is a circular argument.

Politicon · #68 (**permalink**) 08-24-2006, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BARK

You are missing the point about two schools of thought. Nothing I say will sway you to this side and nothing you say will sway me to that side. This is a circular argument.

No, I understand what you were saying about the 2 schools of thought. I’m not sure HOW much I agree with it, but it’s something I’ll have to accept. As far as this discussion goes, perhaps we have beaten this horse to death for the moment…unless there is anything I am missing.

Eternal Footman · #69 (**permalink**) 08-25-2006, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BARK

Some things you have to take the intiative in. I don't know how it came to me but I questioned the validity of a book that had been translated so many times. I did alot of work to find some patterns. I found them and applied them and came back believeing that the bible has lost a great deal of meaning. I also think that losing the original meaning is one of the things that has given Christianity its long life span.

You've taken initiative and I applaud you. Curiosity is the catalyst of discovery. However, your argument will be devoid of meaning if you tell a Christian you questioned the validity of "a book", found patterns of error and applied that template to the Bible. To you the Bible is a collection of stories, poems, and songs. To a faithful Christian it is the book, written by the God. It is this faith of absolute truth that sets it apart from other literature. It's not so hard to believe the focus/meaning remains static if one believes it is the work of the God. I'm afraid this is yet another perpetual thread.

BARK · #70 (**permalink**) 08-25-2006, 05:14 PM

Politicon, just because you don't agree with a school of thought, that does not mean it is any less valid. Science has come up with many theories that are as of yet undisproven. The validity in science comes from being able to set up a system by which you always attain the desired result after changing the factors. No matter can not be created from nothing, but also, we used to believe light had no mass. The fact that light can be sucked into a blackhole disproves that theory. It is not fair to combine two mutually exclusive schools to prove a point. Creationists rebut science with faith and then go to science to say that matter can not be formed from nothing. That is easy to break apart. All you have to do is to get your opponent to choose a side. By proving the validity of certain scientific theories and the inadmissiblity of faith in the argument science becomes one and faith another. The opponent then can not rely on science for his faith based argument. This is standard technique nothing fancy and you should choose a side. I'm using the generic "You" But it is not fair to try to argue your point with both faith and science. You may try to bridge them, but God basically created matter from nothing. The bible says he spoke and it was. So to use the argument that matter can not be created from nothing is blantantly contridictory to the bible which says that that is exactly what happened.