So Jesus took a wife

[Galant]

This contradiction discussion can be preempted and defused before it takes place if people want to. It's not anything new.

Most of the contradictions are small numerical contradictions which amount to 'typographic' errors by copyists. The remaining 'favourite' contradictions usually arise from comparisons of the four Gospel accounts which appear, in places to differ, or theological questions where people point out what appears to be a direct contradiction when it isn't at all. Just about all of the contradictions brought up tend to arise from a deep misunderstanding about what the Bible is, how it is properly understood by Christians, and often by the application of very shallow reasoning. Basically, the long lists of contradictions that get presented are just long straw-man arguments formed (perhaps unwittingly) by presenting the Bible as being or saying something which it is or does not, and the claiming contradiction. Again, most of this rests upon an assumption that people who are Christians are unthinking, unreasoning people with shallow minds incapable of critical thought. I've seen or met very few people who have, or have been willing to, consider why reasonable, thinking people can and do hold such beliefs and then probe into those reasons.

[Zak33]

Galant... which bible are we talking about?

I know little Theology, but what I do know is that translation in any era is hard.. but across different era's is's nigh on impossible.

then... finding older texts that ball's up the one you're all working on makes life harder.

then there's a case of who's in power funding the bible writing.

fact is this........

the Bible that 2012 people buy/read/find in a hotel is not the original. There IS no original... so it's a moot point to discuss it's contradictions. Which in itself makes it a moot point.

Hence the internet I guess.... placed here for us to argue our beliefs of non beliefs.

besides....

it has no dinosaur's

[Galant]

Pick a version? NASB; but again, the question comes to mind, do we really believe that so many people today and before us, intelligent, educated people, would fail to notice an impossibility of translation, or even just a great uncertainty? Or that such people wouldn't consider the possibility of yet another authoritarian group attempting have it's way with the world?

To my thinking that consideration alone should give more people pause for thought.

As for translation, I understand the doubt or question, but the truth is you've overstated the position. Translation, even of ancient documents, isn't impossible. Even if we had only limited access to an alien language, languages are just codes, and given a reference point, we could start to make head way. Common languages are inherently intelligible codes. They have to be so that people can communicate with them easily. The Bible was written in primarily two languages, Koine Greek - which was the 'street' language of ancient world (as opposed to Classical Greek a 'higher' form used in literature etc), and Hebrew, a language still largely spoken today. Vocabulary has changed, and a vowel system added, but the interesting fact is that were a figure from Old Testament times to come to today's world and go to modern day Israel, they could pretty much understand the Saturday morning cartoons. So, what we have is two languages which are very translatable. The Hebrew because it is still understood today, and Koine Greek, a very widely spoken language for which we have many points of reference, and about which we are able to be very accurate in translating. I've actually taken a little Hebrew and Greek myself, nothing more introductory classes, but which serve to show just how accessible the languages are. Of course, this isn't to say that translating ancient texts is a slam dunk matter. As with any puzzle of translation there are easier parts and more difficult parts because words can be used in different ways and because the target language for translation may not have equivalent terms. Translation is an interesting and often complex difficult discipline. Nevertheless it must be understood that it is far from impossible. It is in fact very possible. (Remember that there are many other well known ancient Greek documents which have been reliably translated). Again, such translations were impossible, the scholars would be well able to say so.

If you take a look at the variety of different English translations of the Bible available today, what you will find is that the differences tend to come from a desire to simplify the texts, to make them more readable, more accessible to the public. There are translations which aim for greater 'word-for-word' accuracy which as a result don't always flow so well in English. Then there are those who take a more 'idea-for-idea' approach, so that they read more easily but lose more of the nuance in words or readings which don't translate directly.

All told though, pick up almost any English Bible today and you'll find consistency, because at the end of the day, the variance in the ancient texts isn't all that great. That and the fact that thousands of fragments and documents are available to counter check against, and what you end up with is actually a very balanced text.

The greater variety of sources and samples over different times actually build confidence in translation rather than harming it. That's one of the contributions of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It permitted textual critics to compare their current more recent documents against much older ones, and find that the accuracy was astonishing.

As for those who "fund" the translations, again, there aren't one or two groups doing this. There are all sorts of different groups doing translation work, and not just Christian ones. Were any one group 'tilting' things in their favour there are plenty of opposing or neutral scholars to call them on it.

The translation of the Bible is accurate. The methods used for not only translation but interpretation (of which translation is a part), and even historicity, are balanced and scholarly, under taken by many diverse people. There is little to no argument over what the Bible says in the Greek or Hebrew. The translations are accurate. As for the idea that the 'originals' are one thing and the documents and fragments are another, I have again to ask do you really think intelligent, reasoned people would be willing to direct their lives, and found their way of living, upon doubted fairy tales? Honestly? The variety of sources, the consistency within the narrative, the history and the message itself combine to form an impressive testimony which is actually very hard to dismiss. Read what is there, research it if you wish. Arguments against the Bible are nothing new, even today's arguments are simply rehashed version of old ones. The Bible has stood the test of time, truly. If anyone really cares to look, cares to ask why many good, intelligent people have been swayed by its arguments, by its message, they will find that it is solid and good.

[TeePee]

There are so many things wrong with that post I can't even begin. How can you claim critical thinking and then post that?

[MadduckUK]

I have again to ask do you really think intelligent, reasoned people would be willing to direct their lives, and found their way of living, upon doubted fairy tales? Honestly?

Followers of faith are not reasoned, there is no reason in faith.

There are so many things wrong with that post I can't even begin. How can you claim critical thinking and then post that?

People can claim whatever they want, that's how religion works.

I'll tell you when it gets really hilarious, when people aren't satisfied with the one way conversation, and start saying they converse with god. He talks to them - because all of a sudden a silly superstition has turned into a serious psychological condition.

[Zak33]

As for translation, I understand the doubt or question, but the truth is you've overstated the position. Translation, even of ancient documents, isn't impossible. Even if we had only limited access to an alien language, languages are just codes, and given a reference point, we could start to make head way. Common languages are inherently intelligible codes.

text from Zak to Mrs Zak

"I've just screwed a girl, home soon"

Meaning?

I've just had sex with a girl

or

I've just sold a girl a dodgy car and she's paid more for it than it was worth.

Let's not kid ourselves, people can read what they want out of a language that they use daily and have a degree in from Oxford.

The translation of the Bible is accurate

that, I am afraid to say, is not clear enough to be true.

The "translation" of which bible?

Hebrew? 10th Centrury?

Greek? 4th Century?

There is little to no argument over what the Bible says in the Greek or Hebrew

and why believe that something written 1600 years ago, when even a calendar was different.... was correct to be translated in the first place?

Come on Galant... by all means be a devout follower, but also it's vital to believe that it might not be all correct.

Since 1980 when I was a kid at school, a multitude of things I was taught turned out to be wrong.

American's were NOT wrong to call it Aluminum for example. It's not, after all, Aluminium, despite what I was taught. (gits)

Now... 1600 years before that, with no cars, transatlantic sea routes or telephones, it must have been POSSIBLE.. plausible.. that information exchanges were potentially wrong in some context or format. And if they were, surely the wrong thing could be taught/told to scholars who then embuued the incorrect facts into a book....


Without being too horrible..... what is this all about?



now... lets face it.. you can't nail a man up like that and leave him hanging.. he falls off.

It's not the bible.. but it's a religious picture and millions have seen it. 1480 ish... so for getting on for 50 years everyone who saw it thought "poor sod.. that stung" and while it did smart... it wasn't real.. but they showed their kids it. And told them it happened.

If it's wrong, surely it must be admitted to be wrong....? no?

If NO, then you can't debate anything with anyone because they won't believe you are listening and understanding.

and if YES, then possible the Bible has a ... few errors in it.

now.. the New American Standard Bible.....

and I quote

The New American Standard Bible Update - 1995
Easier to read:

Passages with Old English "thee's" and "thou's" etc. have been updated to modern English.

Words and Phrases that could be misunderstood due to changes in their meaning during the past 20 years have been updated to current English.

Verses with difficult word order or vocabulary have been retranslated into smoother English.

Sentences beginning with "And" have often been retranslated for better English, in recognition of differences in style between the ancient languages and modern English. The original Greek and Hebrew did not have punctuation as is found in English, and in many cases modern English punctuation serves as a substitute for "And" in the original. In some other cases, "and" is translated by a different word such as "then" or "but" as called for by the context, when the word in the original language allows such translation.

http://www.biblegateway.com/versions...rd-Bible-NASB/
that's 20 years bud....and WHO decided that THEY were right to change them? huh? God by email? Microsoft by Spell Check?

1900 years or change is MAMMOTH.

Imagine the changes,......

it hurts my head.,... and I don't evenb want to believe it's true.... so for the devoted.. I feel for you all, I really do. I mean... goal posts move but oh my word.

[Zak33]

Teepee... Mad... it's taken me over an hour to create my post and since then you've added your input.

both of your inputs are valid but you canb;t knock a man for faith or devotion.

please.... of all the threads we've had for a long time... make this one be worthy. Debate and by al means compare.. but don't just knock back. Their are too many religious people who do not deserve offending for that.

[MadduckUK]

Their are too many religious people who do not deserve offending for that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02dXAkxbyQg

[Blaidd59]

As a Christian it makes no difference to me whether Jesus was a married man; culture of the day would have suggested he may well have been and also the fact that Mary Magdalene was present at the internment of his body would normally be something a wife would have been involved with.

However the fact that he could have been married has no bearing on the whether or not he was the Messiah.


Irenaeus and other scholars looked at many scriptures and canonized into what was then known as the acceptable scripture of the day.

Since then other codices have been discovered which either add to current bible we use no matter the translation or bring some into to question; and questioning is not a bad thing in any belief system.

[fuddam]

Some very short memories here. No, that's not meant as an insult.
As we all know, this subject (Biblical accuracy) has been debated/argued/discussed many times here. Do you really want me to dredge up all those old posts? lol.

To put it simply, analysis of ancient texts is a field that is far greater than simply the study of Biblical text. As a scholar, you have to apply certain methods/principals/approaches in order to validate (or invalidate) something. Historical context, verification across multiple sources, the study of language itself.

So, in studying the Biblical text, use the same approach(es) one would use to study Platonic writings, those of Aristotle, any of the famous historians etc. To apply a special set of tools to the Bible would be hypocritical - either it stands up to the rigour applied to all other texts, or it doesn't and should be disregarded as unreliable etc.

Having said that, the New Testament is more validated and verified than ANY other ancient text; it can be traced to the exact words of the authors to within 70 or so years of its origin - the closest other text has a gap of 700+ YEARS.

So, anyone wishing to publish a new translation (eg in Zulu, or replacing 'Thou' with 'Your') can refer back to THOSE words, not something that has been through broken down telephones. This is not a matter of compounded errors, which is where many of you mistakenly place your emphasis.

It is also simplistic to compare the record of a simple conversation ('I bought some smokes today') with something that is transcribed with all the care and diligence of writing the Constitution. The Biblical authors took their work as seriously, if not more so.

Ho hum.

[kalniel]

Followers of faith are not reasoned, there is no reason in faith.

While it's possible to take umbrage with both of those statements, there's not even any 'reason' to link them. I'm a scientist - to do science I must be capable of rational thought and careful reasoning. I'm also a man of faith, and believe that you cannot simple reason your way to faith, or it would not be faith. So while you might be able to say that faith cannot be reasoned, it doesn't follow that followers of faith cannot also be reasonable.

It is not only religion that is maybe separate from scientific reasoning - music, arts, love - who knows how many other interesting things we're capable of experiencing, debating and so on, that are also separate from scientific reasoning.

I'll tell you when it gets really hilarious, when people aren't satisfied with the one way conversation, and start saying they converse with god. He talks to them - because all of a sudden a silly superstition has turned into a serious psychological condition.

So do you take those of us who have not heard any voice more seriously?

edit: Anyone catch thought for the day this morning on R4? Interesting comment about how much Jesus mixed with women, which was completely unheard of in those times. No doubt people would have assumed he was married even just by some of his behaviour.

[MadduckUK]

While it's possible to take umbrage with both of those statements, there's not even any 'reason' to link them. I'm a scientist - to do science I must be capable of rational thought and careful reasoning.

Capable, sure. It is your choice to excise it or not though, right?

I'm also a man of faith, and believe that you cannot simple reason your way to faith, or it would not be faith. So while you might be able to say that faith cannot be reasoned, it doesn't follow that followers of faith cannot also be reasonable.

And if you could reason your way to it, then it wouldn't be unreasonable. But as you say, then it wouldn't be "faith".

It is not only religion that is maybe separate from scientific reasoning - music, arts, love - who knows how many other interesting things we're capable of experiencing, debating and so on, that are also separate from scientific reasoning.

Music, Arts, Love, God. All man made, although there seems to be a big debate over one of them

So do you take those of us who have not heard any voice more seriously?

I don't take any of you seriously at all.


In other news I am sure they had good reason to put their child's life in the hands of a fantasy. Oh no, wait, then it wouldn't be faith.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-16-dies.html

[nibbler]

All I'll say is that if I was to tell you all that I believed in the Gods of ancient Greece and that I pray to Zeus every morning you might think there was something wrong with me. Why? Because it's just not fashionable these days to follow that particular set of beliefs.

Actually, I'm going to stop there. I could write a long post explaining my beliefs which some Christians would think narrow minded and some athiests would agree with but what would it prove? Has anyone ever been converted because of the evidence presented to them on a forum post? I think it's just interesting to discuss why people need a God rather than try to abolish/spread a certain set of beliefs.

[kalniel]

Capable, sure. It is your choice to excise it or not though, right?

Where it can be exercised, sure, which I do. I'm of course very sceptical by nature, but that doesn't mean I would rule something out because scientific reasoning can't apply - that would be a very narrow-minded approach and leave you in a world devoid of love, music etc.

Music, Arts, Love, God. All man made, although there seems to be a big debate over one of them

Well saying things like love were invented by man doesn't seem very reasonable to me, but hey ho.

In other news I am sure they had good reason to put their child's life in the hands of a fantasy. Oh no, wait, then it wouldn't be faith.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-16-dies.html

Note that just because I'm saying religious people can be reasonable, I'm not saying they necessarily are. Just like anyone could point to the stupidity of plenty of non-religious people and say being non-religious isn't reasonable. I think homeopathy isn't reasonable, but plenty of atheists trust to that instead of medicine.

[MadduckUK]

Where it can be exercised, sure, which I do. I'm of course very sceptical by nature, but that doesn't mean I would rule something out because scientific reasoning can't apply - that would be a very narrow-minded approach and leave you in a world devoid of love, music etc.

Why would it be, what fallacy needs to be believed to enjoy music or art?

Well saying things like love were invented by man doesn't seem very reasonable to me, but hey ho.

It is the name for a mix of emotions, love is a concept and means different things to different people. Of course it is man made.

Note that just because I'm saying religious people can be reasonable, I'm not saying they necessarily are. Just like anyone could point to the stupidity of plenty of non-religious people and say being non-religious isn't reasonable. I think homeopathy isn't reasonable, but plenty of atheists trust to that instead of medicine.

It's good that you can see the similarities between homoeopathy and religion, certainly a step in the right direction.

[kalniel]

It's good that you can see the similarities between homoeopathy and religion, certainly a step in the right direction.

And that you can see the similarities between atheists and religious people? Come on, I thought you were upholding reason here.