And the greatest of these is charity

This, as was discovered, was what Jesus said. The statement was deliberately mistranslated by the church 1800 years ago.

Originally posted by caissad4
This, as was discovered, was what Jesus said. The statement was deliberately mistranslated by the church 1800 years ago.

I wonder if there are any christians out there who are prepared to admit the bible is disinformation?
For if this simple quote was followed, indeed there would be no poverty or hunger

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I wonder if there are any christians out there who are prepared to admit the bible is disinformation?
For if this simple quote was followed, indeed there would be no poverty or hunger

What does that have to do with the possible mistranslation in question? Surely if Christians loved their neighbor then there would equally be no poverty or hunger. So it is a matter of implementation not misunderstanding. (and the fact that Paul gave them a get out of jail free card).

Originally posted by twhitehead
What does that have to do with the possible mistranslation in question? Surely if Christians loved their neighbor then there would equally be no poverty or hunger. So it is a matter of implementation not misunderstanding. (and the fact that Paul gave them a get out of jail free card).

"What does that have to do with the possible mistranslation in question?"
Pride and the resulting arrogance. Borne of fear and disinformation.
Charity/love of neighbour. A general interpretation of these 2 points is basically the same.

Originally posted by caissad4
This, as was discovered, was what Jesus said. The statement was deliberately mistranslated by the church 1800 years ago.

First inaccuracy is that these are not the words of Jesus, but the words of Paul.

(1 Corinthians 13:13) . . .Now, however, there remain faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

See the letter, its 1 Corinthians, written after Christ was dead, by Paul.

the term Love, is translated from a Greek word, agape, meaning principled love.

Of the noun agape and the verb agapao, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words says: “Love can be known only from the actions it prompts. God’s love is seen in the gift of His Son, I John 4:9, 10. But obviously this is not the love of complacency, or affection, that is, it was not drawn out by any excellency in its objects, Rom. 5:8. It was an exercise of the Divine will in deliberate choice, made without assignable cause save that which lies in the nature of God Himself, cp. Deut. 7:7, 8.”—1981, Vol. 3, p. 21.

thus its perfectly consistent to translate this as love, for the Greeks had four words for the English equivalent of love and would be in no doubt that this type of love was governed by principle and action.

In a footnote in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, it states this,

“Love.” Greek, agape; Latin, caritas, Hebrew, ha ahavah, “the love.”

You will note the Latin reference, caritas, meaning charity, which is not the Greek word employed in the original manuscripts, and is itself an interpretation. Now you shall need to explain why the Latin is to be preferred to than the original Greek and why this constitutes a deliberate mistranslation.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Pride and the resulting arrogance. Borne of fear and disinformation.
Charity/love of neighbour. A general interpretation of these 2 points is basically the same.

So what does disinformation have to do with it when you fully admit that there is really no difference between love and charity?
Where does fear come into it?
What does pride have to do with it?

Surely the only reason why Christians do not help the poor is because they are selfish? ie their love for the poor if they have any does not exceed their love for their own time and goods that they would have to part with to assist the poor.

Before anyone jumps on me I am not saying all Christians are unusually selfish, I am just querying karolys reasoning as to why poor people exist. I must also not that I have met Christians who do do an awful lot for the poor (I went to a Catholic school for example)

Originally posted by twhitehead
So what does disinformation have to do with it when you fully admit that there is really no difference between love and charity?
Where does fear come into it?
What does pride have to do with it?

Surely the only reason why Christians do not help the poor is because they are selfish? ie their love for the poor if they have any does not exceed their lov ...[text shortened]... ave met Christians who do do an awful lot for the poor (I went to a Catholic school for example)

Imo fear of a material end to life ,which is inevitable,holds people back from fully extending their ability to love and be charitable. How much is enough? Is 1 million dollars enough? Should there be a law in place that no one shall have more than 1 million dollars? (After the value of their possesions, of course😛)

It has been said that pride blinds us. Here we need to make a distinction between different sorts of pride.(some types of pride are obviously good and character building and such)
I just saw a philosopher on tv saying that the voting christians in america were defined as 'church going'. (since america is said to have 90% of the worlds wealth, I think its a relevant angle).
As has been demonstrated to me on this forum many times,(and off it), a lot a christians certainly dont identify with church going.
Again,I'm not really going anywhere with this. Its just up to the reader to make if it what they will.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I wonder if there are any christians out there who are prepared to admit the bible is disinformation?
For if this simple quote was followed, indeed there would be no poverty or hunger

"I wonder if there are any christians out there who are prepared to admit the bible is disinformation?"

I wonder if there are any non-Christians out there who are prepared to admit the Bible is God's word, and that if there is misinformation it is promulgated by the misinformed.


"For if this simple quote was followed, indeed there would be no poverty or hunger."

Followed by who? Christians? There are far too few Christians in the world to feed all the hungry.

It is you who is misinformed karoly, because if you knew the facts you would retract your statement maligning Christians. It is because of Christians that there aren't more starving people in this world.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"I wonder if there are any christians out there who are prepared to admit the bible is disinformation?"

I wonder if there are any non-Christians out there who are prepared to admit the Bible is God's word, and that if there is misinformation it is promulgated by the misinformed.


"For if this simple quote was followed, indeed there would be ...[text shortened]... istians. It is because of Christians that there aren't more starving people in this world.

Now, now josephw. Surely you are not going to tell me all christians are united.
I can see your point of view. yes there are many well-meaning christians out there. So are you saying its the non-christians that are the reason millions are hungry and homeless? C'mon. Surely this is an issue that is a humanitarian one and above whether you are christian or not. This is precisley the sort of preciousness I was hinting at. Stop trying to convert people and start trying to help them and I'll stop telling you what to do also😉 (and I realize you think that converting them is helping them,which it may well be in SOME cases)

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b]First inaccuracy is that these are not the words of Jesus, but the words of Paul.

(1 Corinthians 13:13) . . .Now, however, there remain faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

See the letter, its 1 Corinthians, written after Christ was dead, by Paul.

I guess the Jehovahs Witnesses are going to stick to their guns on this known and admitted mistranslation. The truth be damned! This was uncovered by historians in the past few years and even admitted to by the Roman Catholic Church , who were responsible for this "adjustment". The Mormons even changed their New Testament to reflect the change. (And jehovah is still a made up word)

Originally posted by caissad4
I guess the Jehovahs Witnesses are going to stick to their guns on this known and admitted mistranslation. The truth be damned! This was uncovered by historians in the past few years and even admitted to by the Roman Catholic Church , who were responsible for this "adjustment". The Mormons even changed their New Testament to reflect the change. (And jehovah is still a made up word)

it has nothing to do with Jehovahs witnesses, its simply a matter of a correct understanding of the Greek terms. All you have proffered is an opinion, unsubstantiated and to be quite frank, tenuous to say the least. I have provided you with the actual Greek word, in context, its understanding and why it is translated in the way it is. My goodness, you could not even attribute the quote to the right person, what hope is there that anything else you say is accurate?

Originally posted by caissad4
I guess the Jehovahs Witnesses are going to stick to their guns on this known and admitted mistranslation. The truth be damned! This was uncovered by historians in the past few years and even admitted to by the Roman Catholic Church , who were responsible for this "adjustment".

Well how about giving us a reference to support those claims.
So far what you have said has been unsubstantiated and I think Robbie has shown that your claim is false on several points and yet you provide no defense.

The Mormons even changed their New Testament to reflect the change. (And jehovah is still a made up word)
What do you mean by 'made up'? What is your theory on the origin of the word?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well how about giving us a reference to support those claims.
So far what you have said has been unsubstantiated and I think Robbie has shown that your claim is false on several points and yet you provide no defense.

[b]The Mormons even changed their New Testament to reflect the change. (And jehovah is still a made up word)
What do you mean by 'made up'? What is your theory on the origin of the word?[/b]

1. Christianity is unsubstamtiated and, by your logic, is entirely false. I agree.
2. Since you question my stating that jehovah is a made up word you surely know when the name first appeared. I wonder how many times the name jehovah appears in the Kings James Version ?
3. I am not a search service. If you truly seek the truth then you must put your own effort into it.
4. I do agree that robbie is a master at knowledge of word origins.

Originally posted by caissad4
1. Christianity is unsubstamtiated and, by your logic, is entirely false. I agree.
2. Since you question my stating that jehovah is a made up word you surely know when the name first appeared. I wonder how many times the name jehovah appears in the Kings James Version ?
3. I am not a search service. If you truly seek the truth then you must put your own effort into it.
4. I do agree that robbie is a master at knowledge of word origins.

Hi, it appears only four times in the King James version. 🙁

Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18 and Isaiah 12:2 and 26:4.

Originally posted by caissad4
2. Since you question my stating that jehovah is a made up word you surely know when the name first appeared.

All words are either directly made up or come from previous words. I did not say it was not a made up word, I asked what you meant by the claim. Are you saying it was made up recently?
I do not know what its origin is, but I was under the impression that it came from Jewish.

3. I am not a search service. If you truly seek the truth then you must put your own effort into it.
I don't particularly care. I did assume however that since you were making a claim about it, you actually knew something and wouldn't mind sharing. However it seems that the one making stuff up is you.