*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8999
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #20 on: July 02, 2021, 02:44:41 AM »
Maybe it is. As someone with no knowledge of Hebrew, I have to rely on translators with a professional understanding of the language rather than reading a website for 5 minutes that says what words might have meant in some unspecified contexts, at some unspecified time in the Hebrew language's 3000-year history.

Those people with a 'professional understanding' are inherently biased though. They probably think God is good and stuff, so they interpret it as trees shouting for joy. Satanists and some scholars interpret the Bible as saying that Satan is God, so they might say that the places of evil and alternative worship (which we saw had some kind of synonym with trees) shouted for joy when the true God returned.

Your Bible Says Satan is God! What's Going On? | Dr. Gene Kim

« Last Edit: July 02, 2021, 02:59:05 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7792
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #21 on: July 02, 2021, 03:05:18 AM »
Those people with a 'professional understanding' are inherently biased though. They probably think God is good and stuff
So did the people who wrote it in the first place.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8999
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #22 on: July 02, 2021, 03:24:22 AM »
Quote
They probably think God is good and stuff
So did the people who wrote it in the first place.

Some people don't think that is what they were writing:

https://www.fayobserver.com/entertainment/20170316/ruler-of-this-world-god-or-satan

Quote
Ruler of This World: God or Satan?

Many people are surprised by the evil in this world. Do you ever wonder, “If God is good or even exists, why is there so much pain and suffering? Why is it that bad things happen to me even when I work hard and try to be a good person?” I’ll tell you why. The Bible records that while God gave Adam authority over the world, Adam gave it over to Satan.

That’s right; Satan is the temporary ruler of this world:

“Satan, the ruler of this world, will be cast out.” (John 12:31)

“Jesus said, ‘The ruler of this world approaches. He has no power over me.’” (John 14:30)

“Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe the Gospel.” (2 Corinthians 4:4)

“We are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil spiritual rulers and authorities, and against mighty powers in this dark world.” (Ephesians 6:12)

“We know that the world around us is under the control of the evil one.” (1 John 5:19) “Who can win this battle against the world? Only those who believe that Jesus is the Son of God.” (1 John 5:5)

God is using Satan’s rebellion to reveal the hearts of men and women. Those who put their faith in God’s salvation will be raised from death and live for eternity with him.

“Jesus gave his life for our sins, just as God our Father planned, in order to rescue us from this evil world in which we live.” (Galatians 1:4)

“The world offers only a craving for physical pleasure, a craving for everything we see, and pride in our achievements and possessions. These are not from the Father, but are from this world. And this world is fading away, along with everything that people crave. But anyone who does what pleases God will live forever.” (1 John 2:16-17)

Why do I say that Satan is the temporary ruler of this world? Because the Bible tells us that Satan’s end has already been determined: “The devil was thrown into the fiery lake of burning sulfur, joining the beast and the false prophet. There they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. This lake of fire is the second death. And anyone whose name was not found recorded in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire.” (Revelation 20:10-15)

Rev. Dr. J. Robert Kretzu is pastor of Hope Mills United Methodist Church

Perhaps the Bible is saying that there is a good God somewhere, but the God of this world isn't it. When God, or the 'Lord', is present and doing things in our world in some passages it's possible that it's not the good one.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2021, 07:33:43 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7792
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #23 on: July 02, 2021, 05:13:58 AM »
Some people don't think that's what they were writing
Great! I look forward to their published translation based on their interpretation, which I imagine is forthcoming any day now, if they know so much better than the experts.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8999
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #24 on: July 02, 2021, 07:10:26 AM »
Some people don't think that's what they were writing
Great! I look forward to their published translation based on their interpretation, which I imagine is forthcoming any day now, if they know so much better than the experts.

Well, there are entire books exploring the concept.

The Two Gods in the Bible
Andrew Scrima
https://books.google.com/books?id=g11PDwAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Quote
You know, as much as we want to believe in the Bible in its entirety, so many curiosities and questions manifest and develop after even the most cursory reading that it makes any reconciliation between the Old Testament and the New virtually impossible. Why would God spend six days and six nights of his precious time creating mankind and the earth, only to realize he made a mistake? That’s right. It seems this God made a mistake. Scripture tells us “he was grieved” that he made man, and by page 6, he’s ready to destroy the earth and us both within what seems like moments of their creation?

~

The “God” in the Old Testament is angry, hateful, vengeful, murderous, and jealous; but the one in the New Testament is loving, kind, compassionate, and forgiving. Theoretically, and theologically, “the Lord” in the Old Testament “chose” the Hebrews “out of all the peoples” on earth to be his “children,” his “prized possessions,” but if we are all from Adam and Eve, what “choice” did he have? According to the Bible, they were supposedly and allegedly the only people on the planet.

Why would God “choose” a people “out of all the peoples on the earth” that even according to his own observations and admissions were “a brood of evil doers” (Is 1:4) and “they do all the evil they can” (Jer 3:5)? Right up front in chapter 6 of Genesis, the author tells us, “The Lord saw how GREAT man’s wickedness had become, and that EVERY INCLINATION of the thoughts of HIS HEART were only evil ALL THE TIME” (Gn 6:5). I guess he didn’t see that coming. Or did he?

How can so much evil and wickedness come from a loving and righteous “God”?

~

Is it purely coincidental that all the prophetic books call the “Hebrews” Jews, Israelites, whatever, evil, wicked, and according to Jeremiah 3:5, “They do all the evil they can”? If these men were so evil and wicked and their God said they were, why did he “choose” them, and why would he constantly command these “evil people” to kill, slaughter, and maim men, women, even children and infants? In some cases, they even killed the animals.

Why would he command them not to kill then command them to “destroy everything that breathes”? Why would he command them to kill “everything that breathes” then dictate “anyone who kills a human being must be destroyed,” all the while killing his own “children” by the tens of thousands at a time? If God made all mankind, why would he instruct one group of people, his “chosen” people, to exterminate all the other people who were apparently not “his people”? Theoretically, aren’t we all “his children”? Why would the Lord send Moses to ask Pharaoh to “set my people free,” all the while “Hardening” Pharaoh’s heart not to let them go? (Exodus 7:3). Why would this “God” instruct the Hebrews to plunder (rob) the Egyptians or all their silver and gold and then once out in the desert, have them pay him a “Ransom” for their freedom and their very lives? Did he need the money to pay bills or something? Why would he extricate the Hebrews from enslavement to the Egyptians, only to sell them “to their enemies ALL AROUND ...,” according to Judges 2:14? Then in turn, turn around and sell them again in Ju 3:8 and again inJu 4:2 and again?

Why was this “God’s” power apparently limited to the point where he couldn’t defeat a people that had “iron chariots” in Judges 4:3? Why does the Bible tell us “God” doesn’t lie or change his mind in Numbers 23:19 then supply dozens of examples where the Lord changes his mind and seemingly lies? Why does the Bible only date Adam and Eve back 5,777 years when we know for a fact that mankind existed long before that? Heck, we’ve found pottery older that that!

Why does the Bible tell us Jesus said, “no one has ever seen God,” when in the adverse opposite, it repeatedly tells us he “appeared” and plenty of people have claimed to have seen him?

Why does the Bible tell us in 2 Samuel 24:1 that it was “the Lord” that incited David to take a census of the people, but then in 1 Chronicles 21:1, it says, “Satan rose up AND INCITED David to take a census”? Yes. It was the same census. Compare the two.

All these questions should invariably lead to the quintessential query: Was “the (Old Testament) Lord” really God, the Creator? You may be surprised at the most obvious, absolute, and unequivocal answer.

This one doesn't appear call him out as Satan specifically like the above, but goes to lengths to show that there are passages showing that there are multiple managing Gods in Abrahamic scripture:

Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity
Peter Schäfer
https://books.google.com/books?id=E4ivDwAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA6&pg=PA6#v=onepage&q&f=false

Quote
The title of this examination, Two Gods in Heaven, is pointedly based on the rabbinic phrase “two powers in heaven” (shetei rashuyyot), which clearly implies two divine authorities side by side. This does not refer to two gods who fight each other in a dualistic sense (“good god” versus “evil god”), as we are familiar with primarily from Gnosticism, but rather two gods who rule side by side and together—in different degrees of agreement and correlation. Scholarship has developed the term “binitarian” to describe this juxtaposition of two powers or gods, analogous to the term “trinitarian” associated with Christian dogma.”

The theme of two divine authorities in the Jewish heaven is not new. Almost all pertinent studies follow the key rabbinic concept of “two powers,” concentrating on the period of classical rabbinic Judaism. After the pioneering work of R. Travers Herford, the revised dissertation of Alan Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, is con- sidered a milestone in more recent research.10

A theologian of middle ages wanted to interpret the scriptures as professing that Satan was a co-equal to God, and was subsequently condemned as heretical by Church authorities who 'set the record straight' for us:

Satan: A Biography
P. G. Maxwell-Stuart
https://books.google.com/books?id=S2uoAwAAQBAJ&lpg=PT90&ots=En_mbqBjz3&pg=PT90#v=onepage&q&f=false

Quote
It is clear from this catalogue of creedal points that, according to Andreas — Pietro seems to have been puzzled by a number of things Andreas was telling their interrogators, either because he was poorly instructed in his creed or because Andreas’s beliefs were more singular than those of other Cathars — there were two gods of equal status and equal eternity, and that one of them, the Devil, is constantly distinguished from a persona called ‘Lucifer’. Even though both share a history which was recounted by orthodox Catholic theology as that of a single entity, they act partly as though they were confederates on a number of enterprises — the creation of the world, the creation of Adam and Eve — and partly as though they were separate and individual powers. The Devil wanted Adam to be immortal, Lucifer did not, and Lucifer got his own way. The Devil sent the Flood; Lucifer rescued Noah and his family. The Devil created Babel and a cacophony of languages; Lucifer began to pretend he was the good god and issued laws and prophecies via Moses and the prophets. In other words, we are presented with two personifications of evil, one the equivalent of God and the creator of evil and darkness, the other a fallen angel who repents of his sin and begins to intervene in human history in a number of ways not altogether wicked.

So unorthodox are these views that, even if Cathars apart from Andreas did not necessarily subscribe to every jot or tittle of theirs, we can scarcely be surprised they were condemned as heretical, as indeed happened at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, which made it clear that the Devil was not a co-equal with God, but a creation of His, which turned bad of its own free will. ‘There is no doubt that the Devil and the other demons were created by God with a good character, but became wicked through their own actions. Humankind [literally, ‘the Man’, to Adam] sinned at the Devil’s prompting Let them receive according to what they have done, whether this be good or evil — those who keep company with the Devil, everlasting punishment: those who keep company with Christ, eternal glory’. Increasing episodes of this kind of heresy and of a variety of others throughout the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, thus caused the Church not only to address herself to those criticisms of clerical behaviour which provided fodder for many of these deviations, but also to return to the central problem of evil and its manifestations in the world.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2021, 05:00:32 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8999
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #25 on: July 02, 2021, 08:16:08 AM »
Here's an article by a Professor of Religion at Roanoke College:

THE BIBLE’S MANY GODS
by Gerald McDermott

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/01/the-bibles-many-gods

Quote
The idea that there are other “gods” who exist as real supernatural beings, albeit infinitely inferior to the only Creator and Redeemer, pervades the Bible. The Psalms fairly explode with evidence. “There is none like you among the gods, O Lord” (86:8); “For great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised; he is to be revered above all gods” (96:4); “Our Lord is above all gods” (135:5); “Ascribe to Yahweh, [you] gods, ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength” (29:1, my trans.); “He is exalted above all gods” (97:7); “For Yahweh is a great god, and a great king above all gods” (95:3, my trans.). And so on.

But it’s not just the Psalms. In Exodus Yahweh predicts that he will execute judgments “on all the gods of Egypt” (12:12). The author of Numbers then declares that that is indeed what happened: “Yahweh executed judgments against their gods” (33:4). There is no hint that Yahweh is the only God. Instead it is clearly implied that Egypt has her own gods, and Yahweh will defeat them.

When Yahweh gives his people the Ten Commandments, the first commandment implies the existence of other gods: “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exod. 20:3; see also Deut. 5:7). In Exodus 23:32–33 Israel is told not to covenant with or worship other gods; there is no suggestion that the gods of Israel’s neighbors do not exist.

In Deuteronomy 4:19 the Israelites are forbidden from worshipping “the sun, the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven . . . [which] Yahweh your god has allotted to all the peoples everywhere under heaven.” In other words, they were told not to worship other gods, not because those gods did not exist, but because they were supposed to rule other peoples, not Israel.

Yahweh himself, who created and rules the other gods, would rule Israel directly. He would rule the nations indirectly through the delegated authority of other gods. This, apparently, was the original intent behind the strange passage regarding the “prince of Persia” in Daniel 10: “The prince of Persia withstood me [perhaps the angel Gabriel] twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me” (v. 13).

Something had gone terribly wrong in Psalm 82. The supernatural beings He had appointed to rule the nations justly had failed to perform. They were supposed to rule with justice, executing judgments on behalf of the poor, the widows and the rest of the nations. But because they did not judge properly, Yahweh would judge them. And the punishment was ferocious.

[Yahweh] has taken his place in the divine council,
In the midst of the gods he passes judgment. . . .
And all of you, sons of Elyon [God Most High]
Instead like Adam you shall die,
And like one of the ‘Shining Ones’ you shall fall.”
“Arise, O Yahweh; Judge the earth!
May you take possession of all the nations!”

If these “gods” were really human beings, verse 7 would not make sense, for all humans die like Adam. Why would this be a special punishment? Instead, there is a hint in this verse of cosmic rebellion against Yahweh. It calls to mind Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, where the king of Babylon and prince of Tyre are condemned for their rebellious pride. In Isaiah 14:13–14, the rebellion is explicit. The “Shining One, son of Dawn” (the same phrase used here in Ps. 82:7) tried to place himself above “the stars of El [the highest God, or Yahweh]” to “sit enthroned in the Mount of Assembly (of the gods),” to “be like Elyon [the fuller name for the Most High God].”

The drift of these passages is that the gods—which are sometimes regarded in the Hebrew Bible as fallen angels and arguably are the genesis of Paul’s “principalities and powers”—are condemned to death not simply because of their failure to rule with justice, but more importantly, for their rebellion against their Maker, Yahweh. Their unjust rule of the nations was simply one of many expressions of their rebellion, which was the principal reason for Yahweh’s discipline.

Christians later came to see these two stories in the prophets as allusions to Satan’s fall from grace. Once created as God’s most gifted and beautiful supernatural being, Satan abused his authority and then led a rebellion against Yahweh. God punished him by limiting his authority on earth; he is still the “god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4) but his authority is checked by God’s sovereign purposes, and his final destruction is decreed.

N. T. Wright calls this “creational monotheism,” which means that Yahweh rules over a cosmos thick with not only good angels but also fallen angels masquerading as the true God. Wright insists that “we have very few examples of ‘pure’ monotheism anywhere, including in the Hebrew Bible.”

For the biblical authors, these weak and beggarly “gods” helped explain why this cosmos seems to be at war, both spiritually and politically. They believed the ancient pagan religions were animated by powers hostile to Yahweh, actively fighting Yahweh’s control of the cosmos. It was no surprise to them that history is full of conflict, because its driving animus is conflict between supernatural forces, which are visibly represented by both religious and political communities.

In other words, wars between nations were really only the shadowy surface of the deeper and more fundamental combat between spiritual powers. So Samuel Huntington, the Harvard political scientist whose Clash of Civilizations claimed the real inspiration for modern wars would be cultural and religious, was making what might be seen as a biblical argument.

Gerald McDermott is the Jordan-Trexler Professor of Religion at Roanoke College. He is the co-author of A Trinitarian Theology of Religions (forthcoming from Oxford University Press).
« Last Edit: July 02, 2021, 08:22:15 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #26 on: July 02, 2021, 12:31:11 PM »
Not a big fan of the Good News, the language is too simplistic for me, almost childish.
Good for when you're young or I guess if you're reading in a second language.
I don't like The Message much, more of a paraphrase and tries to be a bit too cool for school.
On the other end of the scale, I don't understand people who insist on the King James, as though that's the "original" - which is wrong in multiple ways, one of which being it wasn't even the first English translation.

More of an NIV man, myself. Although I agree with jackNumbers that looking at a range of translations and commentaries is a good idea.
Gives you a more rounded view of things and helps deal with the inherent difficulty of translation.

I quite like it when preachers who have looked into this explain more about what the original Greek or Hebrew words mean.
So in the famous "seek and you should find", the sense of the word "seek" is an imperative, and it's in the present continuous tense.
So it's more of a command to do it urgently and keep doing it. I believe the same goes for "ask" and "knock" in the same passage.
Gives a much more rounded view than the plain English ever can.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2021, 12:33:10 PM by AllAroundTheWorld »
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8999
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #27 on: July 02, 2021, 06:14:22 PM »
The 'Two Gods in the Bible' book had an interesting example:

Quote
Why does the Bible tell us in 2 Samuel 24:1 that it was “the Lord” that incited David to take a census of the people, but then in 1 Chronicles 21:1, it says, “Satan rose up AND INCITED David to take a census”? Yes. It was the same census. Compare the two.

Okay. Lets take a look.

For the first one there are at least 27 translations of the Bible, which all say LORD or God.

http://biblehub.com/2_samuel/24-1.htm

Quote

International Standard Version

Later, God's anger blazed forth against Israel, so he incited David to move against them by telling him, "Go take a census of Israel and Judah."

New American Standard Bible

Now the anger of the LORD burned against Israel again, and He incited David against them to say, “Go, count Israel and Judah.”

King James Bible

And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

...

For the second one, there are at least 27 translations, which all say Satan:

https://biblehub.com/1_chronicles/21-1.htm

Quote
International Standard Version

Then Satan attacked Israel by inciting David to enumerate a census of Israel.

New American Standard Bible

Then Satan stood up against Israel and incited David to count Israel.

King James Bible

And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

...

Maybe these are different events.

From NIV:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2024&version=NIV

Quote
2 Samuel 24

David Enrolls the Fighting Men

24 Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.”

2 So the king said to Joab and the army commanders[a] with him, “Go throughout the tribes of Israel from Dan to Beersheba and enroll the fighting men, so that I may know how many there are.”

3 But Joab replied to the king, “May the Lord your God multiply the troops a hundred times over, and may the eyes of my lord the king see it. But why does my lord the king want to do such a thing?”

Again, from NIV:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Chronicles+21&version=NIV

Quote
1 Chronicles 21

David Counts the Fighting Men

21 Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. 2 So David said to Joab and the commanders of the troops, “Go and count the Israelites from Beersheba to Dan. Then report back to me so that I may know how many there are.”

3 But Joab replied, “May the Lord multiply his troops a hundred times over. My lord the king, are they not all my lord’s subjects? Why does my lord want to do this? Why should he bring guilt on Israel?”

Two different books of the bible interchangeably use Satan and Lord for the same event.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2021, 07:05:55 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7792
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #28 on: July 02, 2021, 06:41:08 PM »
None of this is relevant to translations of the Bible. Do you have any evidence that these inconsistencies don't exist in the original Hebrew?
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8999
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #29 on: July 02, 2021, 06:46:45 PM »
None of this is relevant to translations of the Bible. Do you have any evidence that these inconsistencies don't exist in the original Hebrew?

If the translators across the ages of Bible translation are translating some specific words to the same thing it kind of suggests that there isn't a translation issue on that narrow area. The original writers are sometimes saying that Satan is the Lord.

Some passages suggest that Satan is the 'god of this world'. Fairly interesting. There could be a fundamental issue with what some people think the story of the Bible says. Anyone biased to think that the 'Lord' is the good God would shape their interpretation of other passages as appropriate. Happy trees when the Lord comes to rule, for example.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2021, 06:53:46 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7792
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #30 on: July 02, 2021, 07:08:19 PM »
If all translators across the ages of Bible translation are translating the words to the same thing it kind of suggests that there isn't a translation issue. The original writers are sometimes saying that Satan is the Lord.
That is one possible interpretation, but not the only one, nor the most likely one.

It is possible that the authors of Samuel and Chronicles simply have different versions of events. Neither can be dated with certainty, but it is thought that they were written more than a century apart. To the author of Chronicles, Samuel was probably as old as 19th-century literature is to us.

Alternatively, the Hebrew word שָׂטָן ("satán") originally meant "adversary", and my New Oxford Annotated Bible suggests that that is its intended meaning in 1 Chronicles 21:1. The anger of the Lord certainly sounds adversarial. You'll notice that I didn't need to learn Hebrew to establish this, because I have a Bible translation produced by experts that explains the ambiguity.

Another possibility relates to the fact that monotheism was a relatively late development in the Old Testament chronology. Early Jews were polytheistic, and later merged their various gods together into one. This is why the Bible refers to God by many names, and it is possible that in this process of deity merging, some events became reattributed between God and Satan.

These are just a few possibilities I found in about 10 minutes of thinking and reading about the issue, as someone with no knowledge of Hebrew and little knowledge of the Bible. You are jumping to conclusions.

There could be a fundamental issue with what some people think the story of the Bible says. Anyone biased to think that the Lord is the good God would shape their interpretation of other passages as appropriate. Happy trees when the Lord comes to rule, for example.
Yes, there could be, and the entirety of the Hebrew Bible could be the ramblings of drunken lunatics. Why care about what the Bible says at all, if you're going to speculate wildly about possibilities for which you have no evidence?
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

Offline scomato

  • *
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #31 on: July 03, 2021, 04:55:24 PM »
Arguably the oldest relevant literature pertaining to the Bible will be found on the cuneiform tablet originals of the Epic of Gilgamesh (2100 BC), predates the Hebrew Bible by a few hundred-a thousand years. Since the stories were poems, intended to be sung to music, the history of the Bible and all translations of the relevant stories, originates here.



The Epic of Gilgamesh predates many of the narratives present in the Bible, making the Hebrew Bible a sort of mega anthology of cultural stories present at that time and place. Noah's Ark and the flood story, the garden of eden and loss of innocence caused by a snake story, beings created by gods from ribs, all originated from ancient Sumerian poetry.

Kind of crazy if you think about how Noah's Ark is likely a story that has survived in social and cultural circulation for over 5000 years.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8999
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #32 on: July 03, 2021, 05:39:45 PM »
Quote from: xasop
It is possible that the authors of Samuel and Chronicles simply have different versions of events.

Your explanations all involve the writers being wrong about what they said in the Bible. My explanation is what the Bible is saying, which is quite different.

Theologians accept the axiom that the writers of the Bible wrote it through the hand of God. A writer of the Bible believing that Satan is the God or the 'Lord' in some parts of the Bible is fairly significant to Biblical scholars.

Bill Donohue also thinks that the Bible is saying that God is Satan:

856 Is God of Old Testament Satan Part 2.



Bill Donohue is the president of the Catholic League and sits on the board of the National Association of Scholars:

https://www.catholic.com/profile/bill-donohue

Quote
William A. Donohue began his teaching career in the 1970s working at St. Lucy’s School in Spanish Harlem.  In 1977, he took a position as a college professor teaching at La Roche College in Pittsburgh.  In 1980, Bill was awarded his Ph.D. in sociology from New York University.

~

Bill is currently the President and CEO of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization.  The publisher of the Catholic League journal, Catalyst, Bill is also an adjunct scholar at The Heritage Foundation and serves on the board of directors of the National Association of Scholars and the New York State chapter of NAS.

The Catholic League is an organization treated favorably with endorsement from the Catholic Church:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_League_(U.S.)#Association_with_the_Catholic_Church

Quote
Association with the Catholic Church

The Catholic League is a lay Catholic organization that is independent of the Catholic Church. However, it is listed in The Official Catholic Directory (see the Miscellaneous section under the Archdiocese of New York). According to a New York Times interviewer, the organization "maintains close ties to the New York Archdiocese leadership. Several bishops make personal donations. Cardinal O'Connor spoke at the group's 25th anniversary reception in 1998 and vacated part of his suite for its expanding operations, said Joseph Zwilling, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York."[1] The League includes on its website endorsements from many prominent clerics.

So scholars do believe or follow this line of thought.

Maybe that's why the Catholic Church seems to use a lot of questionable symbolism in its designs -

https://newagora.ca/inside-popes-reptilian-audience-hall-vatican-city/

The Pope's Audience Hall looks like a snake's head:



The Pope speaks from the mouth of a Snake:



At center stage behind the Pope is a statue of Christ arising from the ashes of apocalypse. Christ's head looks suspiciously like a snake:



« Last Edit: July 03, 2021, 06:35:18 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7792
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #33 on: July 03, 2021, 05:56:19 PM »
Your explanations all involve the writers being wrong about what they said in the Bible.
No, they don't. If you are going to make up nonsense, there is really no point in continuing the discussion.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

Offline scomato

  • *
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #34 on: July 03, 2021, 07:37:20 PM »
Quote from: xasop
It is possible that the authors of Samuel and Chronicles simply have different versions of events.

Your explanations all involve the writers being wrong about what they said in the Bible. My explanation is what the Bible is saying, which is quite different.

Theologians accept the axiom that the writers of the Bible wrote it through the hand of God. A writer of the Bible believing that Satan is the God or the 'Lord' in some parts of the Bible is fairly significant to Biblical scholars.

Bill Donohue also thinks that the Bible is saying that God is Satan:

856 Is God of Old Testament Satan Part 2.



Bill Donohue is the president of the Catholic League and sits on the board of the National Association of Scholars:

https://www.catholic.com/profile/bill-donohue

Quote
William A. Donohue began his teaching career in the 1970s working at St. Lucy’s School in Spanish Harlem.  In 1977, he took a position as a college professor teaching at La Roche College in Pittsburgh.  In 1980, Bill was awarded his Ph.D. in sociology from New York University.

~

Bill is currently the President and CEO of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization.  The publisher of the Catholic League journal, Catalyst, Bill is also an adjunct scholar at The Heritage Foundation and serves on the board of directors of the National Association of Scholars and the New York State chapter of NAS.

The Catholic League is an organization treated favorably with endorsement from the Catholic Church:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_League_(U.S.)#Association_with_the_Catholic_Church

Quote
Association with the Catholic Church

The Catholic League is a lay Catholic organization that is independent of the Catholic Church. However, it is listed in The Official Catholic Directory (see the Miscellaneous section under the Archdiocese of New York). According to a New York Times interviewer, the organization "maintains close ties to the New York Archdiocese leadership. Several bishops make personal donations. Cardinal O'Connor spoke at the group's 25th anniversary reception in 1998 and vacated part of his suite for its expanding operations, said Joseph Zwilling, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York."[1] The League includes on its website endorsements from many prominent clerics.

So scholars do believe or follow this line of thought.

Maybe that's why the Catholic Church seems to use a lot of questionable symbolism in its designs -

https://newagora.ca/inside-popes-reptilian-audience-hall-vatican-city/

The Pope's Audience Hall looks like a snake's head:



The Pope speaks from the mouth of a Snake:



At center stage behind the Pope is a statue of Christ arising from the ashes of apocalypse. Christ's head looks suspiciously like a snake:





That is the most convincing argument I ever saw proving that the Catholic Church is actually an army of demons, and that the pope is Satan. That would explain the atrocities committed by the Catholic Church throughout history.

I mean, think about it. An organization that is responsible for the following:

- Pope Pius XII Denying Eyewitness Reports Of Mass Execution During The Holocaust
- Systemically Covering Up Tens Of Thousands Of Cases Involving Sexual Misconduct
- Terrorizing Jews And Muslims For 300 Years
- Pope Boniface VIII who raped women and children and destroyed an entire city for no reason.
- Executed Joan Of Arc For Dressing Like A Man
- Executed William Tyndale For Making a Bible For The Masses
- Absolving Sins For Cash Payments, Including Sins Not Yet Committed
- Orchestrated The Fall Of The Knights Templar
- The Joust Of Whores Organized By Pope Alexander VI
- Imprisoning Galileo In His Home For Years Because He Suggested Science Was Greater Than God
- Literally dozens of massacres with death tolls in the thousands
- Actively directed the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Indigenous populations in Canada and Australia
- Actively covered up the systematic raping of 100,000 total victims of clerical sexual abuse.

And this is just a short list of atrocities and crimes against humanity that can be attributed to the Catholic Church. It doesn't exactly sound like what a house of God would go about doing - but it does make a lot of sense if the Catholic Church is actually an army of child-raping genocidal snake demons.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8999
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #35 on: July 04, 2021, 07:21:42 PM »
Do you know who else thought the Catholic Church was worshiping Satan and who interpreted the Bible as describing God to be Satan?

Look no further than the Cathars. The Cathars were a large sect in the middle ages with castles and communities who believed that the Bible described two Gods; an evil God who is God of the Earth and physical and material life, and a good (or sometimes called benign) God who is God of the spiritual world.

The people with the 'professional understanding' in the Roman Catholic Church didn't like their herecy and so they slaughtered them during the Crusades.

https://www.cathar.info/cathar_beliefs.htm

Quote
Cathars clearly regarded themselves as good Christians, since that is exactly what they called themselves.  On the surface, their basic beliefs seem unremarkable.  Most people would have difficulty in distinguishing the principle Cathar beliefs from what are now regarded as conventional orthodox Christian beliefs. However, pursuing their fundamental beliefs to their logical conclusion revealed surprising implications (for example that Roman Catholics were mistakenly following a Satanic god rather than the beneficent god worshipped by the Cathars.)

~

The Cathar view was that their theology was older than that of the Roman Church and that the Roman Church had corrupted its own scripture, invented new doctrine and abandoned the beliefs and practices of the Early Church.  The Catholic view, of course was exactly the opposite, they imagined Catharism to be a badly distorted version of Catholicism.   In addition to accusing the Cathars of faulty theology, they imagined a range abominable practices which would have been amusing except that, converted into propaganda, they led to the death of countless thousands through the Cathar Crusades and the Inquisition.

The Roman Church seemed to have successfully extirpated Cathars and Cathar beliefs by the early fourteenth century, but the truth is more complicated.  For one thing, modern historians have shown that many Catholic claims were false, while they have vindicated many Cathar claims; and there is a case that the Cathar legacy is more influential today than has been at any time over the last seven hundred years.

Cathars were Dualists.   That is, they believed in two universal principles, a good God and a bad God, much like the Jehovah and Satan of mainstream Christianity.   As Dualists, they belonged to a tradition that was already ancient in the days of Jesus.   (The revered Magi in the nativity story were Zoroastrians - Persian Dualists).  Dualism came, and still comes, in many flavours.   Even the Cathar variety came in more than one flavour, but the principal one was this:   The Good God was the god of all immaterial things (such as light and souls).   The bad God was the god of all material things, including the world and everything in it.   He had contrived to capture souls and imprison them in human bodies through the process of conception.   As Cathars put it, we are all divine sparks, even angels, imprisoned in tunics of flesh. 

~

"The Bad God filled humankind with temptations to frustrate souls from ever making that reunion. They could be tortured by disease, famine and other travails, including man's own inhumanity to his fellow man. Yet the Bad God had no power over the soul - a divine spark of the Good God. His remit was confined to material things. Any hell that existed was here on this material earth."

So Satan is the 'God of this world' who the Catholic Church worships and we are actually living in the closest thing to hell. Makes sense to me.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2021, 05:17:35 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7792
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #36 on: July 04, 2021, 11:33:52 PM »
It is also interesting to compare some translations into languages other than English. Genesis 2:23 is especially interesting, which the GNB renders as (emphasis mine)
Quote from: Genesis 2:23
Then the man said, “At last, here is one of my own kind — Bone taken from my bone, and flesh from my flesh. ‘Woman’ is her name because she was taken out of man.”
The English words "woman" and "man" resemble each other in form, just like the Hebrew words "אִשָּׁה" and "אִישׁ" that they are used to translate, but this is not true of their equivalents in every language.

The Septuagint has
Quote from: Genesis 2:23
καὶ εἶπεν ᾿Αδάμ· τοῦτο νῦν ὀστοῦν ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων μου καὶ σὰρξ ἐκ τῆς σαρκός μου· αὕτη κληθήσεται γυνή, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς ἐλήφθη αὕτη·
which makes somewhat less sense. There is no connection between the words "γυνή" and "ἀνήρ", even though the text seems (to my amateur Greek eyes) to imply one.

The Vulgate restores the connection between these words.
Quote from: Genesis 2:23
dixitque Adam hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis et caro de carne mea haec vocabitur virago quoniam de viro sumpta est
"Virago" is not the usual Latin term for a woman (Genesis 2:22 uses the more common "mulier"), but in this case it is substituted to convey the meaning of the Hebrew. I am curious how Symmachus dealt with this in Greek, but sadly his translation is lost.

Then we come to modern translations, which deal with this in a variety of ways. I will start with Dutch, because it is the only language other than English I can read fluently. One translation, Het Boek, has
Quote from: Genesis 2:23
‘Ja, dit is wat ik nodig had!’ riep Adam uit, ‘zij is echt een deel van mijn lichaam. Ik zal haar mannin noemen, omdat zij is genomen uit de man.’
This follows the original Hebrew, but in an extremely awkward and jarring way. "Mannin" is not a word anyone has ever used or will ever use outside this context. It is an artificial formation from the word "man" and the feminine suffix "-in", comparable to saying "manness" in English, which strains credibility to breaking point in order to preserve the Hebrew correlation.

Another Dutch translation, De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling, instead removes the implied connection between the commonplace words "vrouw" and "man".
Quote from: Genesis 2:23
Toen riep de mens uit: 'Eindelijk een gelijk aan mij, mijn eigen gebeente, mijn eigen vlees, een die zal heten: vrouw, een uit man gebouwd.'
This has a footnote explaining the connection between the Hebrew words. This is a much more natural way to translate the verse, without leaving any information out.

In French, La Nouvelle Bible Segond handles things similarly.
Quote from: Genesis 2:23
L’homme dit : Cette fois c’est l’os de mes os, la chair de ma chair. Celle-ci, on l’appellera « femme », car c’est de l’homme qu’elle a été prise.
This also comes with a footnote to explain the original, but unlike De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling, the French word "car" still implies a link where there is none between "femme" and "homme".

Compare, however, Bible en français courant, which rephrases the verse entirely.
Quote from: Genesis 2:23
En la voyant celui-ci s'écria: « Ah! Cette fois, voici quelqu'un qui est plus que tout autre du même sang que moi! On la nommera compagne de l'homme, car c'est de son compagnon qu'elle fut tirée. »
This is saying that she is called "companion of man", because she was taken from "her companion". Again, it also has a footnote explaining what the original says.

Finally, let's take a look at An Bíobla Naofa, the only complete modern translation of the Bible into the Irish language.
Quote from: Genesis 2:23
Dúirt an duine ansin:
“Is cnámh de mo chnámha-sa í seo ar deireadh,
Agus is feoil de m'fheoilse í.
Tabharfar bean (ís-seá) uirthi
Mar gur baineadh as an bhfear (ís) í.”
The Irish words "bean" and "fear", which have no connection with each other, are accompanied by the non-words "ís-seá" and "ís". These are actually Irish phonetic spellings of the Hebrew words "אִשָּׁה" and "אִישׁ", respectively. This technique serves the same function as the footnotes in the Dutch and French translations.

So, while none of Greek, Latin, Dutch, French or Irish has any resemblance between their usual words for "woman" and "man", they have tried various strategies to convey the meaning of the original Hebrew. Some of these are more literal, others are more natural, as is typical of Bible translations in general. But I do find the diversity of approaches fascinating.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2021, 12:26:11 AM by xasop »
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8999
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #37 on: July 13, 2021, 02:50:55 PM »
The Gospel of Judas is an interesting non-cononical scripture that didn't make it into the Bible by the Church authorities. This one goes into detail, explaining that there are multiple gods and the evil/mischievous God is the one people are praying to. Coincidence?



It is also interesting to compare some translations into languages other than English. Genesis 2:23 is especially interesting, which the GNB renders as (emphasis mine)
Quote from: Genesis 2:23
Then the man said, “At last, here is one of my own kind — Bone taken from my bone, and flesh from my flesh. ‘Woman’ is her name because she was taken out of man.”
The English words "woman" and "man" resemble each other in form, just like the Hebrew words "אִשָּׁה" and "אִישׁ" that they are used to translate, but this is not true of their equivalents in every language.

Why is it that the concordance dictionaries have 'marry' as a synonym for 'taken'

Lexicon for Genesis 2:23:

https://biblehub.com/lexicon/genesis/2-23.htm

Click on 'she was taken':

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3947.htm

Quote
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a prim. root
Definition
to take
NASB Translation
accept (8), accepted (3), accepts (2), bring (18), brought (13), buy (1), buys (1), capture (2), captured (2), carry (3), caught (2), exact (1), find (1), flashing (1), flashing forth (1), get (25), gets (1), got (2), has (1), keep (1), married (9), married* (6), marries (1), marry (5), obtain (1), placed (2), procured (2), put (1), raise (3), receive (20), received (12), receives (3), receiving (1), seize (3), seized (2), select (1), selected (1), sent (1), supply (1), take (355), taken (74), takes (15), taking (2), took (352), took away (1), use (1), used (1), wins (1).

Since this very specific man-woman connection is in there it seems that the translation could be 'woman was her name because she married man', and the sexist Church authorities interpreted it as taken from man, like they reframe everything else to manipulate the story to suit themselves.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2021, 09:34:27 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 931
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #38 on: July 31, 2021, 09:57:39 PM »
It all becomes clear when you receive the Holy Spirit. Until then you haven't given yourself to God and walk in darkness, fog.
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.