God's word is too liberal?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]I agree and have agreed with that. My point is that the motivation for them making those arguments is obviously based in their ideology, not a noble search for the truth.

Obviously. And they are quite candid about the fact that they are conservatives and are acting out of a conservative agenda. If that was really the point of your original post, ...[text shortened]... NT or that feminist scholars have to address other inaccuracies. That would be quite silly.[/b]

However, you said in your first post that the authors are editing God's word. As I have said, time and time again, just because they have a conservative agenda does not mean that they are editing God's word.

If the bible is god's word then changing the translation is inherrently changing that to something you THINK is god's word and not necessarily what god intended when god supposedly uttered it.

If the bible isn't god's word then it can't be infallible, could it?

If they want to admit that the bible isn't directly from god and isn't the inerrant word of god ... then fine.

As I said before, Jewish people will be particularly concerned to rectify inaccuracies about Judaism presented in the NT.

Jewish people don't give a flying crap about inaccuracies in the NT since they don't see the NT as being holy or god's word at all. The NT is about as holy to Jews as Moby Dick, except with a worse plot.

For example, Jews would want to argue against the supercessionalist interpretation of St. Paul which says that the Jewish covenant has been abrogated and take collective guilt in the death of Christ (arguably the basis for anti-Seminitism and pogroms.)

Why would they argue that over say that Capt Ahab superceded the old testament? You think Jesusor St. Paul is at all a significan figure in Jewish theology? Jews don't even acknowledge that Paul was a saint or that there is any such thing as a saint!

But this does not mean that Jews have to correct every erroneous reading of the NT

Jews don't care about readings of the NT in general since it's not a holy book in Judaism.

Originally posted by Conrau K
It does not seem to me that they are actually editing the Bible, but the translation. I do not see any issues there. Most biblical translators will make some modifications in their translation, such as to try to be more gender-inclusive. So when Jesus says 'brothers', the translator writes 'brothers and sisters'. Or when the Bible talks about 'mankind', the ...[text shortened]... to God as 'her'. I wonder why you have not criticised this more obvious corruption.

is it really a corruption to be gender inclusive?

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."
--James 1:5

According to this passage, God is indeed, liberal. Asking if anything about Them is "too" anything seems limiting.

Is is possible that with God, all things are possible...even the limitations of humankind's interpretations of Their Will?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
However, you said in your first post that the authors are editing God's word. As I have said, time and time again, just because they have a conservative agenda does not mean that they are editing God's word.

If the bible is god's word then changing the translation is inherrently changing that to something you THINK is god's word and not necessar ...[text shortened]... t care about readings of the NT in general since it's not a holy book in Judaism.

If the bible is god's word then changing the translation is inherrently changing that to something you THINK is god's word and not necessarily what god intended when god supposedly uttered it.

No; God did not utter the translation. So if you change the translation, you are quite possibly restoring it to its original meaning.

Another thing, most Christians do not believe that God actually uttered the words of the Bible.


If the bible isn't god's word then it can't be infallible, could it? If they want to admit that the bible isn't directly from god and isn't the inerrant word of god ... then fine.

I don't know where any of this is coming from. I don't see anyone making those claims.


Jewish people don't give a flying crap about inaccuracies in the NT since they don't see the NT as being holy or god's word at all. The NT is about as holy to Jews as Moby Dick, except with a worse plot.

This is untrue. The NT makes a number of claims about what the OT means. The gospel evangelists often interpret parts of the scriptures as prophesies of the Messiah. Obviously Jews would want to defend their own scriptures from these misreadings in their eyes. And I should think as well, Jews would be concerned about Christian theologies which result in their persecution and oppression, and readings of the NT which encourage those theologies. Whether the NT is holy or God's word for them is irrelevant.

I also mentioned women and feminist scholars. Obviously a feminist Christian would want to defend herself from misinterpretations and mistranslation which would directly impinge on her life. Do you acknowledge at least then that she is quite justified to correct those inaccuracies and not others?

Originally posted by duecer
is it really a corruption to be gender inclusive?

No. But it could be mistranslation if it does not accord with the meaning of the text.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]If the bible is god's word then changing the translation is inherrently changing that to something you THINK is god's word and not necessarily what god intended when god supposedly uttered it.

No; God did not utter the translation. So if you change the translation, you are quite possibly restoring it to its original meaning.

Another thing, mo ...[text shortened]... east then that she is quite justified to correct those inaccuracies and not others?[/b]

So if you change the translation, you are quite possibly restoring it to its original meaning.

Yes, but how do you know if you are?

This is untrue. The NT makes a number of claims about what the OT means.

No *** sherlock. That doesn't mean those claims are meaningful to jews.

I don't know where any of this is coming from. I don't see anyone making those claims.

I have heard people say that the bible is "the word of god" and claim that it is infallible. I know many/most christians may not, but that doesn't mean the claim isn't made.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]If the bible is god's word then changing the translation is inherrently changing that to something you THINK is god's word and not necessarily what god intended when god supposedly uttered it.

No; God did not utter the translation. So if you change the translation, you are quite possibly restoring it to its original meaning.

Another thing, mo ...[text shortened]... east then that she is quite justified to correct those inaccuracies and not others?[/b]

I'm also not arguing that Jews wouldn't have a reason to know about the NT. I'm saying that they don't have a reason to change the translation and come out with a "jewish new testament"

(ahem)

Do the Hebrew bits of the Bible have gender-specific God-related pronouns?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
So if you change the translation, you are quite possibly restoring it to its original meaning.

Yes, but how do you know if you are?

This is untrue. The NT makes a number of claims about what the OT means.

No *** sherlock. That doesn't mean those claims are meaningful to jews.

I don't know where any of this is coming from. I ...[text shortened]... llible. I know many/most christians may not, but that doesn't mean the claim isn't made.

Yes, but how do you know if you are?

What do you want, a full explanation of the translation process?

No *** sherlock. That doesn't mean those claims are meaningful to jews.

Of course it does. Because to them, the NT completely misrepresents their scriptures. Perhaps some Jews would not care, but for Jewish scholars, this would be a concern. (You seem very selective too. What about feminist scholars who want to correct chauvanistic readings?)

I have heard people say that the bible is "the word of god" and claim that it is infallible. I know many/most christians may not, but that doesn't mean the claim isn't made.

Well, duh. But in your previous post you seem to think that people are denying it. I have no idea what you were responding to when you wrote: 'If they want to admit that the bible isn't directly from god and isn't the inerrant word of god ... then fine.'

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
(ahem)

Do the Hebrew bits of the Bible have gender-specific God-related pronouns?

I think that the discussion here has been entirely focused on the NT. The conservapedia seems to concentrate entirely on it.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I am not arguing that what was originally written down was the word of God. I am only trying to give a faithful representation of what Christians generally believe -- which is that the original writers were inspired, but their copyists down through the ages were not.

Actually, I have met a number of Christians who seem to believe that King James was an inspired translator and that all other translators got it wrong. But then again, a few of them seem to think that King James actually wrote the Bible.

The additions of authors are, I guess, not inauthentic because these obviously are by the author. I do not know how an author can inauthentically author his own work. As for copyists and translators, this is easily proven. Ask a Christian to copy out the Bible in full. If he makes an error (and he certainly will), then we know that God does not make every bible devoid of error.
Although I agree that the introduction of errors is easily proven, some Christians don't seem to accept it. I have met many Christians who believe that every single letter in their favorite translation is the infallible word of God - right down to their own particular understanding of the words.

Even Christians who like you fully admit the existence of copying and translation errors, frequently ignore the other modifications such as additional authoring, political interference, obvious invention etc. Even Bible scholars who fully understand that the various New Testament writers put a lot of their own theology into their work seem to somehow overlook that when it suits them.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually, I have met a number of Christians who seem to believe that King James was an inspired translator and that all other translators got it wrong. But then again, a few of them seem to think that King James actually wrote the Bible.

[b]The additions of authors are, I guess, not inauthentic because these obviously are by the author. I do not know h ...[text shortened]... lot of their own theology into their work seem to somehow overlook that when it suits them.[/b]

Actually, I have met a number of Christians who seem to believe that King James was an inspired translator and that all other translators got it wrong. But then again, a few of them seem to think that King James actually wrote the Bible.

Yes, there are many Christians who invest their translation with special signigicance like this. There were Catholics, and possibly still are, who believed that the Vulgate was the definitive Bible (even though it has been revised several times.) Daniel58 seems to think the same about the Douay-Rheims. Likewise, some Protestants believe the KJV authoritative. I don't know whether other Christian communities experience this same problem. But this is not mainstream Christianity and this kind of ignorance is not found in religious scholars.

Even Christians who like you fully admit the existence of copying and translation errors, frequently ignore the other modifications such as additional authoring, political interference, obvious invention etc.

Well, this is kind of a different thing. What I meant by errors would be things like Comma Johanneum or like in John 3 where there is dispute about whether Jesus is talking about those born 'again' or born 'from above'.

Even Bible scholars who fully understand that the various New Testament writers put a lot of their own theology into their work seem to somehow overlook that when it suits them.

But Christians, who truly believe that the scripture authors were divinely inspired, are not free to reject their theology in any case. They may argue that certain words and phrases were later inserted or mistranslated, but they cannot reject passages because they dislike the theology of its author. That would definitely deny the inerrancy of the scriptures.

Originally posted by Conrau K
But Christians, who truly believe that the scripture authors were divinely inspired, are not free to reject their theology in any case. They may argue that certain words and phrases were later inserted or mistranslated, but they cannot reject passages because they dislike the theology of its author. That would definitely deny the inerrancy of the scriptures.

The whole concept of scripture being God inspired or inerrant runs into such problems that a Christian is forced to essentially refuse to deal with the problems. The first and most obvious question that arises is why God would go to the trouble of inspiring certain people to write something, but then fail to ensure that the message is passed on accurately to the majority of its recipients. Once excuse put forward is that Gods inspiration stopped at some date (the date of the last NT book) and for some reason he is unwilling to indulge in the practice any more.
But back to the topic of Authors theology, if the theology of the Author can be determined by careful analysis of his writings, then it is clear that it is not direct dictation from God, but rather a far more complex process, and one wonders why anyone would choose the point of inerrancy to be the point at which the Authors pen first touched paper. Maybe it was only the inspiration that was inerrant and as the author wrote it down, errors crept in.
In the case of the old Testament it is clear that several books have multiple Authors, so one again wonders what sort of inspiration this is that causes authors to add to (or possibly subtract from) books.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Yes, but how do you know if you are?

What do you want, a full explanation of the translation process?

No *** sherlock. That doesn't mean those claims are meaningful to jews.

Of course it does. Because to them, the NT completely misrepresents their scriptures. Perhaps some Jews would not care, but for Jewish scholars, this would be a ...[text shortened]... at the bible isn't directly from god and isn't the inerrant word of god ... then fine.'[/b]

(You seem very selective too. What about feminist scholars who want to correct chauvanistic readings?)

I have said before that I don't care if people make up their own bible and that other groups are retranslating to their own political bias then the same questions apply.

Only an idiot would think that just because I posted a thread on one means that I don't think the others apply also. I don't have time or desire to post on every single possibility.

But in your previous post you seem to think that people are denying it.

Some people are denying it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The whole concept of scripture being God inspired or inerrant runs into such problems that a Christian is forced to essentially refuse to deal with the problems. The first and most obvious question that arises is why God would go to the trouble of inspiring certain people to write something, but then fail to ensure that the message is passed on accurately ...[text shortened]... hat sort of inspiration this is that causes authors to add to (or possibly subtract from) books.

The first and most obvious question that arises is why God would go to the trouble of inspiring certain people to write something, but then fail to ensure that the message is passed on accurately to the majority of its recipients.

This would be a problem for Protestant Christians who believe that the Bible is the sole authority on revelation. However, this is not so for Catholics and Orthodox Christians where the Church is above all the authority. For these Christians, life is somewhat less complicated. There is no need to delve into the Scriptures and locate particular verses when there is a dogmatic crisis. The Catholic can just look up the catechism or consult the bishop.

But back to the topic of Authors theology, if the theology of the Author can be determined by careful analysis of his writings, then it is clear that it is not direct dictation from God, but rather a far more complex process, and one wonders why anyone would choose the point of inerrancy to be the point at which the Authors pen first touched paper.

Well, mature and intelligent Christians accept that the Scriptures were not actually dictated by God nor written by any single author. They emerged over decades, possibly longer (in the case of much of the Wisdom literature), of refinement. The evidence is overwhelming. Matthew and Luke share many stories almost word for word the same. It is unlikely that two authors could coincidentally write a story the same way, same vocab and style. So scholars postulate the existence of a shared text, either written or oral. So there was very likely a plurality of authors.

In the case of the old Testament it is clear that several books have multiple Authors, so one again wonders what sort of inspiration this is that causes authors to add to (or possibly subtract from) books.

But at least for Catholics, this is not a problem. The doctrine of divine inspiration means that the Scriptures were written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. How the Scriptures were written, whether in a single sitting or in a collaborative effort of liturgy experts (which is likely for the Psalms), does not concern this doctrine.