I said:However, it does illustrate how different Christian translations can approach the issues in different ways.
Thomas said:Or how the Spirit can assume many different forms without losing its identity.
Another note - from the Second Century on the writings of the Fathers etc. make great use of scriptural reference. If one was to 'edit' scripture to the degree that conspiracy thinkers would have us believe, one would be obliged to edit not only all these references but all the conclusions and commentaries thereof - we are now into conspiracy on a gargantuan scale - made more difficult in that in many cases documents only come to light centuries after they were written.
mikie8 said:i think the word conspiracy is used far too much in regards to religion .
aged hippy said:Dear All,
Thank you kindly for all your responses.
By cross-referencing Genesis, parts of the Koran, and some of the Texts from the Nag Hammadi Library, i have found the answers that i sought.
I am sorry to have stirred up contention.
Once again thank you all, i am most grateful.
no, i'm saying that if you don't understand the text then it is unlikely to appear relevant. the text may make perfect sense in a language you don't speak, or make perfect sense on a level you don't appreciate. in the case of Torah, both are true and at least 70 levels are available. either way, it is not the Text that is lacking.are you saying the text is no good unless someone tells you what it really means and it has no relevance?
quite. these issues are resolved by the commentators. one famous contradiction is between the number of years that the jewish people were enslaved in egypt, which is stated twice and different figures given. the contradiction was resolved by the commentator who noted that one figure counts the years from the revelation of abraham and the other counts from the birth of isaac. the commentator then identifies the textual clue that alludes to this.Arguing over numbers in translation does not equate to a critique of theology.
and, besides, as it is said, from our PoV, "these and those are the words of the Living G!D" - in other words, the perceptual problem is ours, not G!D's.If one was to 'edit' scripture to thedegree that conspiracy thinkers would have us believe, one would be obliged to edit not only all these references but all the conclusions and commentaries thereof
this is just as unfair as saying that the sages of a particular tradition are devoid of rational or scientific insight - and just as inaccurate. respect should prevail- and that means in all directions.Furthermore critics of scripture usually possess only a superficial reading of the text, and are themselves devoid of any spiritual insight.
bananabrain said:this is just as unfair as saying that the sages of a particular tradition are devoid of rational or scientific insight - and just as inaccurate. respect should prevail- and that means in all directions.
by no means. i'm saying that i've understood a *part* of it. i'm not sure that it's possible for a human to understand all of it from every possible perspective.so your saying that if you read the torah and find it relevent your've understood it ?
so then, by your logic, understanding is not dependent upon such things as language (or, dare i say, syntax, grammar and spelling) - that sacred texts should be "understandable" or "relevant". i consider this the theological equivalent of demanding that everything artistic should be censored in case it upsets a child. the Torah and NaKh (the rest of the "OT") were given to the jewish people and it is relevant to *us*. if you don't find it relevant to you it is hardly up to us to make it so! furthermore, 'chosenness' is not a function of understanding, nor is 'worthiness'. both are included in the supervening function of the 'covenant'.I have raed a torah but didnt find it relevant so are you saying that i didnt ubderstand the text , i suppose you are . Sounds the same thing my islamic friend said about jews and christians . Its an old excuse used in religion "if we dont beleive in the scriptures were not worthy" or "if you understand the scriptures you are chosen in some way"
OK, first of all, i have no particular opinion on the NT, because it's not a sacred text for me. secondly, the Torah (at least in its original hebrew text) remains the Torah to this day, regardless of what has happened with its various translations and if you want to know my opinions on the documentary hypothesis, i have explained them elsewhere. other than this, i'm not exactly sure what point it is you're trying to make.The fact is the torah is a form was about in jesus's time but the OT of the bible is not the torah why ? , because of translation and if you compare the two they are very different and if the OT can change so much in time does it not suggest the NT has changed as much also .