A verse from the Bible...

[johnny861]

The thing about the Bible is it has been translated and re-written and scripts left out of it, etc, etc, etc... People and the church have taken it and perverted it throughout history. They bible we know it today, is not the bible forged 2,000 years ago...


However, there is a verse I find most intriguing coming from this religious patchwork, that makes some sense about all the religious frauds in history, who have exploited, re-wrote and omitted passages from the bible for their political or power mongering ambitions:

Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
—Proverbs 30:5-6, NIV



Should God exist, I think he's doing an excellent job at rebuking those that have added to his words.

[Xodiac]

I know that the new testament came from a larger collection of gnostic gospels, but I thought that the dead sea scrolls showed that most of the bible was not greatly changed during the middle ages when only the catholic church could read it.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by Xodiac
I know that the new testament came from a larger collection of gnostic gospels, but I thought that the dead sea scrolls showed that most of the bible was not greatly changed during the middle ages when only the catholic church could read it.

The Catholic Church omitted a few Gospels and I believe some other books which were contradictory and/or unfavorable to the early Church's interpretation of events.

The King James Version has omitted books from the original Catholic Bible, and if I'm not mistaken some of the books were edited.

Some of the wording was changed in translation from Hebrew and Greek into Latin as well.

[johnny861]

You right, there was much arguement in the west over the Apocrypha, but not much during the middle ages.

As far as re-written, I think the words I was searching for is, lost in translation. Scripture written in pieces of languages from hebrew to aramaic are not known to translate well in languages such as english and can come across as a little bizarre.



In the eastern Church, the Apocrypha was never a matter of concern, but the western Church had many debates about it. As early as the fourth century, Jerome, who is honored as one of the ‘doctors of the church’ by Roman Catholics, disputed the Septuagint books that were not also present among the books recognized by Palestinian Jews. However, Jerome’s opinion did not prevail, probably because of two factors:

The Bible readings, which were always a feature of Christian worship, gradually excluded the Old Testament during the Middle Ages, so policing the canon of the Old Testament did not seem to be of much importance for several centuries. No church body issued any statement listing the official contents of the Old Testament until the time of the Protestant Reformation.

Many hymns, anthems, and other acts of praise in Christian worship that were used from the very beginning, were taken from the Apocrypha. One good example of this is the passage in the Song of the Three Young Men, verses 29-34, which is still used in the Rite One Morning Prayer of the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A.

Martin Luther resurrected Jerome’s objections to the Apocrypha. He felt, as Jerome did, that it was proper to use the Apocrypha as a liturgical resource or for moral instruction, but not as a source of doctrine. This is the way that fundamentalist churches use the writings of Bill and Gloria Gaither or C. S. Lewis, for example. To this day, Anglicans, Methodists, and Lutherans use the Apocrypha in this way. However, the Pope responded to Luther by proclaiming the Apocrypha to be scripture on a par with the rest of the Old Testament, over the protests of some Roman Catholic scholars. Today, the Roman Catholic Church considers the Apocrypha to be deuterocanonical, which means secondarily canonical. This term refers to the order of acceptance and not to the degree of authority.


Some later Protestant groups, particularly those founded in the United States after American printings of the King James Bible omitted the Apocrypha entirely, reject the Apocrypha for any use or even consider it evil.

This is an overreaction. In fact, 1 Maccabees, which appears in the Apocrypha, is a straight historical account which gives much of the background that is essential to understanding the political tensions during the ministry of Jesus. Much of the same information is available from other but less reliable historical sources, such as Josephus.

[Keith P]

They bible we know it today, is not the bible forged 2,000 years ago...

there was no bible
I believe someone said it
there were various Gnostic Gospels which were later omitted from the King James bible hundreds of years later.
Why?
the early literalist/roman catholic church persecuted the gnostic sects and mystery religions to affirm the center of the faith.

Alot of these weren't omitted just for confliction with events. The ideology portrayed within them was completely contradictory to the literalist christian church.

Book Suggestion:
The Jesus Mysteries and Jesus and the lost Goddess by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy

there is another I'd like to suggest as those books are written from a secular standpoint.
I'll post it when I remember the title and author.

[thumpcbd]

Originally posted by johnny861
You right, there was much arguement in the west over the Apocrypha, but not much during the middle ages.

It sound like you got this from a web site or other source, although I have read on this topic a few times in the past it intrest me and would like to read more...do you have a source?

Thanks
Casey

Originally posted by Xodiac
I know that the new testament came from a larger collection of gnostic gospels, but I thought that the dead sea scrolls showed that most of the bible was not greatly changed during the middle ages when only the catholic church could read it.

A good fried of mine learned greek so he could read the text in the original.

I asked about transliteration and he told me that he was surprised to find how well the translations confromed to the original.

I believe him.

[johnny861]

Originally posted by Keith P
there was no bible
I believe someone said it
there were various Gnostic Gospels which were later omitted from the King James bible hundreds of years later.
Why?
the early literalist/roman catholic church persecuted the gnostic sects and mystery religions to affirm the center of the faith.

Alot of these weren't omitted just for confliction with events. The ideology portrayed within them was completely contradictory to the literalist christian church.

Book Suggestion:
The Jesus Mysteries and Jesus and the lost Goddess by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy

there is another I'd like to suggest as those books are written from a secular standpoint.
I'll post it when I remember the title and author.

I understand that, I was being more symbolic in that comment...

I went on to write: As far as re-written, I think the words I was searching for is, lost in translation. Scripture written in pieces of languages from hebrew to aramaic are not known to translate well in languages such as english and can come across as a little bizarre.

and continued on with clips about the Apocrypha which is the biblical books included as part of the Septuagint.



You can do a google search on Apocrypha, there's a wealth of interesting information out there.

Originally posted by johnny861
I understand that, I was being more symbolic in that comment...

I went on to write: As far as re-written, I think the words I was searching for is, lost in translation. Scripture written in pieces of languages from hebrew to aramaic are not known to translate well in languages such as english and can come across as a little bizarre.

and continued on with clips about the Apocrypha which is the biblical books included as part of the Septuagint.



You can do a google search on Apocrypha, there's a wealth of interesting information out there.

The gospels were written in Greek however (koine I believe). And Greek is not at all difficult to translate into Latin etc.

Regarding how the bible came to be what it is - there are plenty of fine resources to look into to get a background on how the church selected what to include and what to exclude.

As for the gnostic gospels - read them - they are available in English.

[Element4040]

There was a gospel from mary magdeline left out.

Phillip was left out.

gospel of thomas left out.

the Gospel of Thomas is still rejected by the Vatican even though scholars around the world acknowledge it as the “closest record we have of the words of the historical Jesus.” It was found in 1945.

Gospel of Peter

There are many others, but i'm too lazy to find them all.

[Adam D]

What about Hebrew and other languages that the originals were written in?

The problems with translation is that many languages, not unlike our own, have different meanings for different words. It's a compounded problem with languages such as German (I can't say I know if Hebrew or Greek are like this) where a single word posesses different meanings in a way that makes it utterly impossible to translate literally into a single word in say, English.

[johnny861]

Originally posted by Adam D
What about Hebrew and other languages that the originals were written in?

The problems with translation is that many languages, not unlike our own, have different meanings for different words. It's a compounded problem with languages such as German (I can't say I know if Hebrew or Greek are like this) where a single word posesses different meanings in a way that makes it utterly impossible to translate literally into a single word in say, English.

Exactly. and taking into account the customs of the day.

I have a hispanic coworker that answers his cellphone by saying "Bueno"...

while "Bueno Dias" and "Bueno Noches" can translate into what we know as greetings... Bueno itself simply means good.

That's kind of a weak example... I'm trying to think of an example that is better...


In South Africa, using the word, "Shame" conveys both a negative and positive meaning...

"Ag shame, look how cute that baby is!" or "Shame, that's really sad".

"Shame, stop making kak with the chick, man, she's lekker"

so a literal meaning in english without the culture meaning associated with the last sentence might logically suggest that "mean people like to produce feces together"

Talk about a distortion!


If the translator forgets to account the cultural context of a meaning or set of meanings, it can throw the idea off.


There's a contraversial verse in english that talks about if a man rapes a girl, he needs to give 50 shackles to the father and marry her or something along those lines...

but the word rape got derrived from translating texts in aramaic and hebrew...

I not for sure what the words were, but in one of the languages, the word's meaning was essentially the act of copulating.

but it was a combination of both words that rape was derrived.

Paying the father a dowry is a popular custom for marriage in many tribal and ancient cultures...

the true meaning of the word is obscured by the fact that it is derrived from two pieces of scripture, one in aramaic and one in hebrew describing the act.

it could mean forced rape, or consensual sex, or just banging a dirty whore on a saturday night....

[Adam D]

Here's another example. The word "kritik" in German means to critique in the English word sense, but it also means to analyze, which bears a meaning beyond just critizing.

[Keith P]

the Gospel of Thomas is still rejected by the Vatican even though scholars around the world acknowledge it as the “closest record we have of the words of the historical Jesus.” It was found in 1945.

the catholic church aren't the only people that have written it off as heresy.
try holding a convo. about the gnostic gospels with a southern baptist or any other fundamentalist.
I've discussed the gnostic gospels with a Jesuit tho...(a branch of catholicism)
and he was generaly accepting and intrigued by the gnostic gospels
then again...
the jesuit's have been excommunicated quite a few times

Originally posted by Adam D
What about Hebrew and other languages that the originals were written in?

The problems with translation is that many languages, not unlike our own, have different meanings for different words. It's a compounded problem with languages such as German (I can't say I know if Hebrew or Greek are like this) where a single word posesses different meanings in a way that makes it utterly impossible to translate literally into a single word in say, English.

However, there are plenty of scholars who read Hebrew and are fluent in English. This being the case it is not as difficult as many might suggest to translate.

Having said that, it will always remain true that specific words in specific contexts can come into question.

By way of example...

'Ur Kasdim' a city supposedly the place of the birth of Abram (not yet Abraham) and apparently the place of the death of Arbram's brother Haran.

Here comes the issue. 'Kasdim' is identified as Chaldean - or Ur of the Chaldeans who came to control the region and city of Ur in or about the 5th century bc. This arrival postdates Abram by a consderable margin.

Also, 'Kasdim' has been associated with the word for furnace. Haran was bruned alive in a furnace from which Abram had been saved by the grace of God.

So this leaves questions. Is "Kasdim" merely Chaldean? If so why was it that Abram was born in Ur of the Chaldeans before the Chaldean culture existed? One would never say that Constantine the Great was born in Istanbul. One explanation is that the text was written at a time when the audience would understand the old location by its 'new' name.

Alternatively, it is argued that 'kasdim' was the furnace the lead to the death of haran and the rebirth of Abram.

All of this is to say that text is open to some interpretation. But, the weight and value of the interpretation of the word 'kasdim' really doesn't much matter beyond it being a point of interest. it is possible to accept either, neither or both and not be terribly troubled.



And....aramaic is a kind of lingua franca of semitic languages...a common tongue. Aramaic is named for Aram - fifth son of Shem (son of Noah).