No....it is mainly religion and the Books it is based on that contradict. How can people apply a contradiction? Really??? Not to my knowledge. Refer to the quotes below: Leviticus 19:18 - You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. Seems pleasant and Humane...... Exodus 32:27 - And he said to them, "Thus says the LORD God of Israel, 'Put every man his sword on his side, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.'" 28 And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses; and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men. Seems to me that this act was very unhumane. Please recognize that this is a direct contradiction of the first quote. And Understand that the Bible sends out many contradictive messages. The contradictions lay within the Bible itself. That's the focal point I'm trying to make. Just for the record I agree and live by the first quote.
I would also like to point, that it didn't take the Bible or Religion to make me realize this. For me, it's just part of being a Human.
THIS IS NOT FRIVOLOUS! VEX'S IMMORTAL SOUL WILL BURN FOR EVER IN A LAKE OF FIRE IF SHE DOES NOT STAY AWAY FROM JESUS AND GOD (the fake guys)!!! To become an Atheist, one must repent for one's sins and banish every trace of Jesus and God from one's heart (satan as well, for those who think this posting is Stanic)!! Then one is a TRUE Atheist! BEWARE, Vex, "They" are trying to ensnare you in demonic bondage. You must rebuke "Them" and come back to Atheism and light! Send me a private message to learn more, but I must be carefull - "They" are watching me. [/B]
Okay, I can't stand it any more. Nelson......... 'sights' means a series of visuals the word you want is 'sigh'
Jesus didn't write the NT. And the OT wasn't written in Aramaic, as Aramaic was nonexistant at the time the OT was written (sort of like saying Lao Zi wrote in Modern English... or in PinYinPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) And if I recall correctly, the Lord's Prayer is in the OLD TESTAMENT. However, there ARE Aramaic versions that do exist, but these were later translations of what you would say to be the word of god. The Aramaic NT you're referring to was a later translation (eg after it was first written) just as the German and English versions are. However, the author of this book probably thought he found the original Aramaic one without checking the date of translation. Jesus' words, on which the NT is based, were in Aramaic, which all of the Apostles knew. Actually, if I recall correctly, one of the Apostles spoke Old English fluently (he took a boat from the Eastern Medeterranian to England and back to trade for nessecities and valuables what he already had, usually these were common in Israel or the other places he got them from but rare in England or the other places he took them to.) All the New Testament was written in Greek because at the time the Apostles judged that the Greeks would be most receptive of the Gospel and also Greek was spoken more in their area than was Latin, and many of them came from Greece so they saw it as fairly interational.
Tyler, A word misspelled... Can you do anything better other than correcting a little mistake caused by fast typing...:bugeye: GB-GIL Trans-global, Yes... Jesus didn't write it... That's the first problem, as the apostles might have done misinterpretations...:bugeye: http://members.aol.com/assyrianme/aramaic/history.html Moses didn't wrote the first books. They were told from Moses to people and then, later, it was written in Aramaic... It is common sense that the Old Testament was told from person to person for centuries until it was written... in Aramaic... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! How do I know that? Well... Jesus' language was Aramaic, so He would have read the scriptures in Aramaic... and it's not coincidence that it has parallels with Eastern Philosophy... Evidence?? See the oldest manuscript (the second one)... http://pw1.netcom.com/~aldawood/aramaic2.htm Labeld... "Syriac (Aramaic) Old Testament MS. - A.D. 464 Oldest dated Biblical Manuscript in existence British Museum, Add. Ms. 14,425." No... it's not correct. Pick up a Bible and search it in Matthew 6:9-15... It seems that some Epistles were written in Greek. Like Philipians... The Gospels weren't.
GB-GIL Trans-global, Yes... Jesus didn't write it... That's the first problem, as the apostles might have done misinterpretations...:bugeye: Definetly. First of all, Jesus never claimed to be god. Nor did he claim to be your saviour. He claimed to be the saviour of the Jewish people. http://members.aol.com/assyrianme/aramaic/history.html Moses didn't wrote the first books. They were told from Moses to people and then, later, it was written in Aramaic... It is common sense that the Old Testament was told from person to person for centuries until it was written... in Aramaic... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! How do I know that? Well... Jesus' language was Aramaic, so He would have read the scriptures in Aramaic... and it's not coincidence that it has parallels with Eastern Philosophy... If I recall correctly, there weren't any Aramaic scriptures yet. Also, that website doesn't say any part of the Bible was written originally in Aramaic. Why did you give a link? Evidence?? See the oldest manuscript (the second one)... http://pw1.netcom.com/~aldawood/aramaic2.htm Labeld... "Syriac (Aramaic) Old Testament MS. - A.D. 464 Oldest dated Biblical Manuscript in existence British Museum, Add. Ms. 14,425." OH MY GOODNESS! If you had thought about it, you would realise that the date was <i>WELL AFTER JESUS' DEATH</i>! They quite obviously mean the oldest dated biblical manuscript IN ARAMAIC in existance, not the oldest one altogether! No... it's not correct. Pick up a Bible and search it in Matthew 6:9-15... Maybe later. Right now, I think I'm too tired to hold back the evil monster inside that book that tries to suck me in and kill me by wrapping my instestines around my leg, making me eat my own penis, then drink my blood. Then he'll eat me (first he'll filet my skin, then he'll grind my bones and use them as flour to make bread) It seems that some Epistles were written in Greek. Like Philipians... The Gospels weren't. I just thought of something. Who's the ameteur linguist here? Who has read hundreds of essays, websites, and books on linguistics? You! Oh wait. No fuck! That's me! I know things like this. (you haven't even proved your point yet, or even presented a valid arguement for that matter, as all of the sites you gave had information that was quite correct, but you got confused and thought it said something it didn't)
Bad dates Originally posted by TruthSeeker See the oldest manuscript (the second one)... Labeld... "Syriac (Aramaic) Old Testament MS. - A.D. 464 Oldest dated Biblical Manuscript in existence British Museum, Add. Ms. 14,425." Get your evidence right TS, that is not the oldest dated Biblical manuscript. New Testament http://biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html The two oldest Complete New Testament Manuscripts: Codex Sinaiticus - Dates from the mid fourth century and originally included both Old and New Testaments plus the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, all in Greek. Codex Vaticanus - Fourth century Greek codex of the Old and the New Testaments. The codex was brought to the Vatican from Constantinople as a gift to the pope in the fourteenth century. Old Testament "The earliest extant biblical texts are two inscribed sheets of silver foil found in a 600 BCE tomb at Ketef Hinnom, outside the walls of Jerusalem. They were inscribed with identical passages, close to the "priestly benediction" in Numbers 6:24-26: ... The next earliest group of biblical texts are the 250 BCE-70 CE Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in 1947 near Khirbet Qumran in Israel. Of approximately 825 extant documents, only one was complete. They contain sections of every Old Testament book except Esther and include more than 600 non-biblical texts. The scrolls reflect both the Masoretic and the Septuagint textual traditions." http://www.museum.upenn.edu/Canaan/Bible.html ~Raithere
Yeah... it seems that you are right... But have you ever tried to translate something from an old language to other? You see... much is lost in translations. Besides that, we are talking about Greek written in Middle East more then 2000 years ago...:bugeye: If I remember well... Greek was (and is...) spoken in Greece... am I right?:bugeye: Well... you know how much a language can change from one place to another, don't you? Mainly in those times where information traveled really slowly from one place to another... Then, mistranslations should be really common... In this sense, the language they used to speak among themselves would be the best one to translate from... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Originally posted by TruthSeeker But have you ever tried to translate something from an old language to other? No, but I have read and know something of the process. You see... much is lost in translations. Of course; this is always the case even with contemporary translation. One must know the entire cultural background of the words used to have a perfect understanding; even then there are problems. There are many amusing incidents regarding translations: One I can quickly recall was between an American complementing a Japanese man on his T-shirt… the translation didn't fit well into Japanese terminology and came across as if the American was complementing the man on his underwear. The Japanese man was quite upset at the comment. Think of the current vernacular and what some linguist 2000 years from now might think was meant if I call someone a bad-ass-mother-f***er. This is why I get suspicious of anyone claiming to have a perfect translation of a 2000 year old manuscript. If I remember well... Greek was (and is...) spoken in Greece... am I right? Greek was used by educated people in Roman times the way that Latin was used during the Renaissance and how English is used by Scientists today; as a common language. In this sense, the language they used to speak among themselves would be the best one to translate from. Perhaps not. A writer using Greek was likely to be doing so as a more formal communication, expressing their thoughts in a more formal and obvious manner than if they were using their common language. Think of the difference in your sentence structure and composition when you are writing for class or business as compared to when you jot a quick letter to a friend. When do express yourself more clearly? In which situation would you be likely to use ephemeral colloquialisms? Which would be clearer in meaning to an outsider with your meaning more carefully elucidated? ~Raithere
Yeah... it seems that you are right... But have you ever tried to translate something from an old language to other? Yes. If you have little record of this language, it's quite difficult (proto-indo-european) to translate accurately. However, if you have much record (ancient greek + NT greek for example) then it's much easier to decode. People translated Homer's texts long ago into other languages so his text offered a key into ancient Greek. People translated the NT at the time Greek was still that way, and that offered a key into the grammar of the language and vocabulary (as did other literature from the time) so that modern translators can be accurate. You see... much is lost in translations. Well DUH. But the amount lost in the NT is probably about the same lost in modern translations with modern languages as both the source and target languages. Besides that, we are talking about Greek written in Middle East more then 2000 years ago...:bugeye: If I remember well... Greek was (and is...) spoken in Greece... am I right?:bugeye: So what? First of all, Greek was a colonial language. Do not many Americans speak perfect English? While it is admittedly a different variety, the two varieties are more than 99.999% mutually intelligible, and I can't remember when I've ever gotten confused with a Brit text or speech. Second of all: modern translators of the MT (from Greek to English) do not assume that the Greek in the text is the same as that spoken by the people of Greece today. In fact, they're very, very, very diffferent languages. Even more different if you compare Modern and Ancient Greek instead of Modern and NT Greek. They actually had to hire a separate translator for an Ancient Greek translation of Harry Potter (they did this with Latin as well, in hopes that more people would study classical languages. whatever happened to Vedic Sanskrit?) Well... you know how much a language can change from one place to another, don't you? Mainly in those times where information traveled really slowly from one place to another... If I recall correctly, the apostles were mostly written IN GREECE. Even so, how different were British and American English during colonial times? People wouldn't mistranslate one much if they assumed it was the other. And information took even longer to go between Britain and the New World than it did to go from Greece to Israel (or Egypt for that matter). Much shorter distance in fact. Then, mistranslations should be really common... In this sense, the language they used to speak among themselves would be the best one to translate from... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! OK, uhm... No, mistranslations aren't really common. You seem to think you know everything about this. In fact, these languages were 100% the same. The Spanish you learn as a foreign language in school that is claimed to be Mexican Spanish should be the same as what they speak in Mexico. And you think they translate from Modern Greek for the NT? NO! They use the Greek from the times.
GB-GIL Trans-global, ?? What do you mean? That if I speak in Portuguese or English it won't make any difference?? That's exactly my point...
GB-GIL Trans-global, ?? What do you mean? That if I speak in Portuguese or English it won't make any difference?? NO! I mean the Greek in the Middle East was the exact same as the Greek in Greece. Sort of like British English and American English, but less different (I already gave this example, and now you go portugengling me! gawd.) That's exactly my point... Well, if that's your point, then your point is against your point because if this is true then the translation would be a lot better than you seem to say.
GB-GIL Trans-global, Not realy... The distance between Greece and the Middle East is sufficient great to create a pretty different dialect...:bugeye: And if you consider the time when this took place, when communications were really slow, then, you will get an even greater difference...:bugeye: Then, there is the mixing of culture and languages... Well... that's enough... What do you mean by "portugengling"...?:bugeye: No. I meant that they know well the Modern Greek, but they can't know the Ancient one as well...
"No. I meant that they know well the Modern Greek, but they can't know the Ancient one as well..." Why not.
You are talking about 2000 years of difference in a language that is completly different then yours and for its difficulty it must had a lot of different dialects, depending on the region. Do you know how much a language changes from one place to another? Even today with all the fast communications we have, the English from Australia is somewhat different from the American one. And that if you don't count the difficulty of Greek characters...
Originally posted by TruthSeeker GB-GIL Trans-global, Not realy... The distance between Greece and the Middle East is sufficient great to create a pretty different dialect...:bugeye: And if you consider the time when this took place, when communications were really slow, then, you will get an even greater difference...:bugeye: Then, there is the mixing of culture and languages... Well... that's enough... Not really large enough. Also, consider how far away the US was from Britain. Greek was a language of colonisation, and the disciples felt as well that the Greek peoples would be most receptive of the Gospel, and at the time Greek was the lingua franca of the Mideast and Southeast Europe (think Greece, Macedonia, Albania) What do you mean by "portugengling"...?:bugeye: You were stupid enough to liken my expression to saying that Portuguese and English are the same. Well, XQQ me, but I think I know quite a bit more about this than you and you're acting a little bit too authoritative for your degree of competence in the area. No. I meant that they know well the Modern Greek, but they can't know the Ancient one as well... Yes, they can. There is so much left over-- notes, literatures, tons and tons of stuff, that they know basically every word that existed in the language. New Testament Greek isn't Ancient Greek-- it's Koiné Greek (the é is supposed to be e+tonos) and that is attested quite extensively as well, although there isn't as much material on it. But there are many surviving texts in Koiné Greek, and most of them were already translated into languages like Latin and they're at least a little similar to Modern Greek. As for translation of the Bible-- there's some new edition that somebody made of the OT + NT that's 100% literal-- no real translation, word-for-word with translations of Greek/Hebrew homonyms listed and tense and aspect of each verb as well as declension for each noun, right down to the most minute of grammatical features. I'll look for an online copy for ya, buddy Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I don't recall it being very much different from KJV or other modern versions as far as general meaning goes, but it's more like reading the original Greek and Hebrew without actually having to know those languages.
