Originally posted by twhiteheadthe king james is the anglican version. look it up. so i am not contradicting myself
Unless I am badly mistaken, the King James version is and was a Catholic Bible. The Roman Catholic Church and other Catholic Churches however recognize the fact that translation is never perfect and try to improve their translation attempts as more information becomes available.
You seem to be simultaneously admitting that it may be wrong while hanging ...[text shortened]... sio (who I believe knows what he is talking about) then why not look up the Hebrew for yourself?
i also didnt claimed any one of them is wrong or right. i asked for links to opinions and debates. and i don't know if nemesio knows what he is talking about yet. he just made a claim and offer no support for it. so just because he is so sure he is right doesn't mean he knows what he is talking about.
Originally posted by ZahlanziAgain, I believe that the Anglican Church is a Catholic Church but I understand that you were referring to the Roman Catholic Church in particular. I doubt if the Roman Catholic Church has its own unique Bible that it lays claim to. I don't know either whether any translations have been done by them directly. Which version were you referring to when you said "Catholic Bible"?
the king james is the anglican version. look it up. so i am not contradicting myself
i also didnt claimed any one of them is wrong or right. i asked for links to opinions and debates. and i don't know if nemesio knows what he is talking about yet. he just made a claim and offer no support for it. so just because he is so sure he is right doesn't mean he knows what he is talking about.
OK thats fair.
Originally posted by twhiteheadDiscovering the mistake would be all part of the plan.
Then he shouldn't have inspired later translators to discover the mistake.
Also even if he did so inspire them that would make the Holy Spirit wrong wouldn't it?
It doesn't follow that Jerome making an inspired error makes the Holy Spirit 'wrong', if that word can be meaningfully applied to a Spirit.
Does the Bible say the Holy Spirit has to be logically consistent? If not ...
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadthats why i don't put much stock in the bible and in people who take dogma too literally. did a search in my bible (orthodox) and Lucifer is nowhere to be found. so not only satan isn't lucifer but nobody else in the bible is. i don't know who came up with this name. does sound like a name a rebellious cocky jerk angel would have though.
It still leaves us in doubt as to whether or not to use the name Lucifer for whoever it is who runs H.E.L.L. Ltd. 🙂
anyway we are moving away from the subject
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou may have read it, but you didn't understand it. The word in Hebrew is 'light-bearer' or
i did read your post(don't what time i said that)
what makes king james translation wrong? on who's autrhority? what makes the catholic bible right? maybe they are both wrong. after all, they both are translations after a bad text, in an archaic language.
i am saying that you must never be so sure of your statements
post me some arguments to your claims.
'morning-star.' There is no debate about this. However, St Jerome in his Latin translation in the
fourth century rendered this 'lucifer' (which means light-bearer or morning star, coming from the
Latin word 'lux' meaning light). Note that I kept the initial letter of the word in lower-case because
it's merely a noun, not a proper noun. Sometime after that, people saw a connection between
this passage in Isaiah 14 and the passages apparently referring to the devil elsewhere in the book,
and turned 'lucifer' into 'Lucifer,' and preserved the latin noun as a proper noun in various
translations, which became the usage for the KJV. However, this passage doesn't refer to
the devil at all: it's about the King of Babylon, not the metaphorical Babylon but the actual
one that oppressed the Jews for centuries. The one has nothing to do with the other. In the
19th century, scholars doing new English translations realized that the 15/16th-century scholars
were imposing their erroneous viewpoint upon their translation and have universally rendered
the Hebrew as the noun 'light-bearer' or 'morning star,' as the text demands and not as a
proper noun and an an effort to ameliorate confusion between this person and the devil.
I hope this helps you.
Nemesio
2 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
no, you don't get me. external factors do not hinder free will because they are not hard coded into your being. even if you grow up in a nice environment that forbids stealing for example, when you grow up you might still take up stealing as a hobby.
Yes, but a person who grows up seeing stealing done by his parents is more likely to grow
up stealing than one who grows up in an environment in which the child is taught that stealing is
wrong, right? That is, environment contributes to the constraining of the expression of free
will. (Read that part again, or maybe aloud a few times; it's very important.)
Now, why couldn't genes do exactly the same thing. I'm not saying genes 'make' you
do anything, but why can't they constrain your behavior just like environmental influences?
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesiothat is a matter of free will. those that say "i am a murderer because i was brought up in a harsh environment" are weak. it stops being a matter of free will when that environment screws the person really badly and makes them insane. and then that person loses free will. because of internal factors(insanity). environment being an indirect factor
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b]no, you don't get me. external factors do not hinder free will because they are not hard coded into your being. even if you grow up in a nice environment that forbids stealing for example, when you grow up you might still take up stealing as a hobby.
Yes, but a person who grows up seeing stealing done by his pa ...[text shortened]... but why can't they constrain your behavior just like environmental influences?
Nemesio[/b]
That is, environment contributes to the constraining of the expression of free will. (Read that part again, or maybe aloud a few times; it's very important.)
Please don't speak to me in that condescending matter, i am not a child.
And i don't agree. Environment doesn't contribute to the constraining of free will. It gives information. And we base our free will on that information. You want to go outside and you have the choice of bringing an umbrella. But it is not raining(information). But it is cloudy(information) and your grandma told you always bring an umbrella when its cloudy(information from environment). With all these informations you decide if you take the umbrella or not. If you don't and it starts raining next time you will have one additional info on which to make your choice. Now if there was a gene in your DNA that makes you always take your umbrella then your free will would be violated.(from an outsider's point of view of course)
if you genetically engineer a person to be less prone to violence, how much free will do you take away from him? all? some? why would that be appealing to you?
Originally posted by ZahlanziGenetics/environment/social standards etc. are crutches for why people don't do what they want. The thought that these things effect our free will, is correct, however, it is through free will that we can overcome them.
that is a matter of free will. those that say "i am a murderer because i was brought up in a harsh environment" are weak. it stops being a matter of free will when that environment screws the person really badly and makes them insane. and then that person loses free will. because of internal factors(insanity). environment being an indirect factor
That ...[text shortened]... much free will do you take away from him? all? some? why would that be appealing to you?
Free will is being able to foresee and estimate consequences of actions and choosing between them for the option that makes you the happiest. Without foresight or logic, it is just conditional response.
Originally posted by broblutoFree will is being able to foresee and estimate consequences of actions and choosing between them for the option that makes you the happiest. Without foresight or logic, it is just conditional response
Genetics/environment/social standards etc. are crutches for why people don't do what they want. The thought that these things effect our free will, is correct, however, it is through free will that we can overcome them.
Free will is being able to foresee and estimate consequences of actions and choosing between them for the option that makes you the happiest. Without foresight or logic, it is just conditional response.
sorry but i believe it is nonsense. free will does not depend on logic. if one uses logic to make his choices he is simply acting on and processing informations received. no better than a computer.
free will is best described by the ability of making wrong or random choices as well as good ones. like right now i might choose to insert a smiley here for no reason and no connection to what i am speaking. :'(
Originally posted by ZahlanziAre you not making wrong or bad choices based on information received, which is what you defined as logical?
[b]Free will is being able to foresee and estimate consequences of actions and choosing between them for the option that makes you the happiest. Without foresight or logic, it is just conditional response
sorry but i believe it is nonsense. free will does not depend on logic. if one uses logic to make his choices he is simply acting on and processing ...[text shortened]... might choose to insert a smiley here for no reason and no connection to what i am speaking. :'([/b]
All decisions are made based on the information that we have. We can choose to ignore that information, but that choice is made by reviewing the consequences of that action as well. What makes them bad or good are people's interpretation of the consequences as an effect on their own happiness.
1 edit
Originally posted by broblutonot when you are making random decisions based on instinct or impulse. or when you do have informations on a subject yet you choose to act in a contradicting manner
Are you not making wrong or bad choices based on information received, which is what you defined as logical?
All decisions are made based on the information that we have. We can choose to ignore that information, but that choice is made by reviewing the consequences of that action as well. What makes them bad or good are people's interpretation of the consequences as an effect on their own happiness.