|
||||||
 |
Recent Posts | Search by username | |
Contact Us | |
Login | |
Register |
 |
 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| Moderated by: 24HourNut | Page:   1 2 3 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member 
|
  |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24hn "I find it very hard to buy that God was telling some writer hundreds of years later which word to use or which part of which story to write. So, your comments make a lot of sense to me, Sirlamre" Sorry, his comments are NOT accurate as I've highlighted in my previous post.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sirlamre Pioneer100© Member Official Forum Troublemaker
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lest someone think that I'm Bible bashing with my concern for rigor in word-usage, etc. the same standard applies to the Baha'i Writings--- We do not take word usage (for example) as being accurate UNLESS the author of the statement read the recorded words of someone else and says "yes, that's the word I used" For example - Some Answered Questions is the notes taken by a believer when listening to Abdu'l-Baha talk. Later, Abdu'l-Baha Himself reviwed the book, and verified that it was accurately transcribed. This is not the case for other documents -- when Baha'u'llah or Abdu'l-Baha didn't explicitly state that those documents accurately reflect Their statements, we do not consider them to be on the same level of accuracy as verified documents. We might consider such documents to be useful from a certain POV, but NOT certainly to be so accurate that we could say we know for sure what Arabic word was used by Baha'u'llah in a certain statement. I realise there are no documents from Christ --- but the assumption that Christians have long made is that the men who assembled the Bible's 66 books DID have a higher degree of verification available to them -- and that nothing which did not 'pass' a high degree of verification 'made it' into the Bible. My post was simply stating that I find it surprising in a society which memorized such things as Homer's Odyssey, etc -- there was not FAR FAR more material which was completely and accurately remembered by enough people to have "made the grade" to be included in the Bible.
 Armed with the power of Thy name nothing can ever hurt me, and with Thy love in my heart all the world's afflictions can in no wise alarm me. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sirlamre "I realise there are no documents from Christ --- but the assumption that Christians have long made is that the men who assembled the Bible's 66 books DID have a higher degree of verification available to them -- and that nothing which did not 'pass' a high degree of verification 'made it' into the Bible." My understanding is that the validation of the books of the OT is in part related to Jesus useage of the text of those books during His ministry and His attributing to them divine authority. The acceptance of the NT writings as being the inspired "Word of God" is in part based on authorship, consistency with OT scriptures and the validation of those works the early church fathers (contemporaries or close to comtemporaries of the apostles). Another point of validation has been the very survival of the text and the impact on the lives of hundreds of millions of people in a positive and in some respects a miraculous way.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
construct Pioneer100© Member  The Boy Next Door
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Well, if the haggling over word usage isn't bad enough, sirlamre, the conversation in John 21 wasn't likely even to have been conducted in Greek--if it ever occured at all.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Construct The conversaton wasn't conducted in Greek but the earliest manuscripts we have are written in Greek and use the various forms of the word love mentioned in the discourse between Jesus and Peter.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sirlamre Pioneer100© Member Official Forum Troublemaker
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote:
That's the basis for my spiritual support of the Bible. But it's inconsistent to me that the Bible could absolutely completely accurately record the precise choice of a word in one sentence and a slightly different word in a sentence a little later, and then somehow completely lack other far more commonly remembered details that Jesus likely did in His life. The positive impact of the Bible on millions of people I believe is due to the spiritual truths that it contains-- not the accuracy of the historical details of who said what to who, not the degree to which this or that Greek word was accurately transcribed into English later on. Not to mention that I think it's unfair and disrespectful even, to Jesus and the Power He carried to directly affect the souls of those who believe in Him, without the need for any paper Book. The power is in Jesus, not the Bible. Millions of people were affected by Him - not the Bible. Their belief in Jesus gave the words in the Bible the power to be a force for transforming their lives. Had they not believed in Him, the Bible would have remained mere paper in their hands.
Armed with the power of Thy name nothing can ever hurt me, and with Thy love in my heart all the world's afflictions can in no wise alarm me. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sirlamre Pioneer100© Member Official Forum Troublemaker
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: Construct So if we don't even know what language Jesus might have used (Aramaic or Hebrew come to mind)-- how can we guess what various subtlies of nuance in various inflection or word and grammatical choice Jesus might have actually used? If we regard Peter as precisely and accurately remembering the precise differences in words that Jesus used in various parts of a conversation happening up to a half-century beforehand....then how is it we find that Peter has a almost nothing worth mentioning regarding the rest of Jesus life as compared to the number of events and words that Jesus must surely have spoken? Surely if Peter could clearly recall the _exact_ two choices of words that Jesus used, there were also many many other things of vital spiritual and theological interest that Jesus also said in all the many hours and days they spent together? Was Jesus really that silent of a Man, Who said only the things that are recorded, and that anything else He said was so inconsequential that it was not considered worth putting into the Bible? If Peter could so precisely remember those words that we can utterly trust the Greek choices of words Peter used to be completely illustrative of Jesus precise meaning in each turn of the conversation, then Peter MUST have remembered many many other words and doings of Jesus as well.... ..which words and doings of Jesus the Fathers that assembled the Bible did not consider worthy for us to know of...
Armed with the power of Thy name nothing can ever hurt me, and with Thy love in my heart all the world's afflictions can in no wise alarm me. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator  Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sirlamre wrote: pmh1nic wrote:Construct Oh stop complaining. Making people guess about edited archaic text in different languages and study it for decades is an ideal way to write a book for the average modern person.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sirlamre Many of the people in Israel during that period spoke more then one language. Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek were the primary languages. I should not have said the discourse did NOT take place in Greek. It's possible it did but given the nature of the discourse you would think it would have taken place in the language most familar to those involved in the conversation. Peter being a fisherman from Galilee would probably have been most fluent in Aramaic or Hebrew with some knowledge of Greek. Whether or not we can be sure what language the discourse occurred in doesn't take away from the care taken to use the various words for love, with their very different connotations, in this passage whatever the original language of the discourse.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sirlamre Pioneer100© Member Official Forum Troublemaker
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: Sirlamre I can agree with that- Oral communities are far more likely to speak multiple languages than a community of writers that may settle on one written language at a time (as the world pretty much has with English as a business and trade language among 1st world nations) I'm not suggesting that Jesus didn't speak with the care and precision that you claim. Nor am I suggesting that Peter didn't remember the precise wording used-- BUT -- what I'm maintaining is this: If Peter was able to remember and write down the precise Greek words that he and Jesus used at the time of a single conversation occuring 50 or more years earlier-- -- how likely is it that Peter did not also recall and write down many many more things as well --- much of it just as important as this statement, It's true that a lot of what people say and do is trivial -- though I think we often "export" our babbling conversations and over-talkativeness and trivialised lifestyle onto the rest of history - and assume that much of what OTHER people do, or did in the past, contains just as much trivia as we see around us. the likelihood was that in a conquered society full of slaves, life wasn't easy enough to have much time for trivia. My point being that people probably spoke just as much back then as we do today--- except that far more of their conversations centered around the fundamental realities of their lives-- both spiritually and morally and politically. (ergo, they wouldn't have had a 48% turnout for a vote in those days, had they had votes) Thusly -- I believe that Christ in the span of the more than one thousand days and FIFTEEN THOUSAND hours He had to speak to the world --- I believe that Christ actually said MUCH MORE that would be considered spiritually important I believe that based upon the level of detail that the Apostles were apparently capable of recalling precisely, years later, that they remembered most of those other spiritually important lessons Christ must have given. I believe that the Apostles wrote much of that recollection down -- or at least spread the word of those precise recollections so far and wide that many people knew of them and could all testifiy that they'd heard the same thing said by the Apostle in question. Therefore--- the question must be asked-- Did Christ merely state clearly ONLY the ideas and words that we know of Him in the Bible? Or did He say much much more, and the creators of the New Testament chose not to include those other lessons in what we have as the NT?? I believe the latter--- I do not think Christ only said exactly what we know of I do not think the Apostles failed to remember what else He said I do not think "whatever else He said was trivial and meaningless and not worth putting in the Bible" I do not think "it just got lost" I think the men who "assembled" the NT KNEW of other things Christ had said, KNEW that there was as much validity and verification of those other things as anything like the four Gospels that are in the NT. What I want to know is --- given that the other 'material of'Christ" existed with a 90% probability-- why were the other things that Christ said left out of the NT? There were probably many other parables and lessons given -- in the presence of multiple Apostles and believers--- enough of whom recalled those events just as clearly as the Gospels were remembered (to be verifiable)
Armed with the power of Thy name nothing can ever hurt me, and with Thy love in my heart all the world's afflictions can in no wise alarm me. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Aethelred Pioneer100© Member  Ye Olde Dead King
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sirlamre, I believe that what is recorded in the Bible is there because it was Inspired by God and preserved by Him though the ages. There is a very good chance that there were meany other things written about Jesus and the early Church that did not survive. 1. Most ancient writings have been forever lost. 2. The rate of loss in Judaea would have been higher than normal due to the War with Rome that took place from AD 66-70. Titus hit Jerusalem with the ancient version of an A-Bomb. For these reasons there is no reason to assign any motive other than those well known historical facts to the data that we might not have.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Impedimentus Original500© Member  Terricolous Creature
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This thread is a lot of Let's stop speculating and examine some facts. This is my 1111th post. The sum of the first two digits of this post equals the sum of the last two digits. The sum of the first three digits equals the sum of the last three, and the sum of the first four equals the sum of the last four. The SAME is true of the products! WOW Subtract any digit from the next digit or the previous digit and you get ZERO, WOW! The sum and product of the 1st and 3rd digits is the same as the sum and the prodcut of the 2nd and 4th digit, WOW! The product of ... is the same as the the product of ..., WOW! . . . The 1st digit divided by the 2nd digit is equal to the 2nd digit divided by the 1st digit, and the same is true for any pairs of digits, WOW, WOW, WOW! Do some subtractions of the comparative digits of 1111, wowwow. See how much more exciting fact can be than speculation and "what if this", "what if that", heh, heh, heh (now explore the symmetry of "heh"), heh is heh spelled backwards. WOW!  P.S. WOW is "WOW" spelled backwards, wow. Last edited on 02:52 am by Impedimentus |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Site Supporters | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Posts Of The Day | Mock Forums | WowClassic | |
Themes and most mods done in collaboration with: WowClassic - powerful forum software with the best support service.
We are partners with Forum Owner Services
Powered by - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez
We are partners with Forum Owner Services
Powered by - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez