CCCToad on 25/5/2011 at 18:40

---

Because non-atheists are incapable of having a single logical or rational thought....obviously, duh. Not that "Dumb Christians....anyone who would believe in a fairytale must be mentally handicapped" is a particularly logical argument.


Seriously though, this isn't an argument where academic-style logic is the best way to attack the issue because any discussion of religion or (most) ethical schools is an inherently illogical topic. You're talking about the why's and the should be's of life which are entirely subjective. Every ethical consideration could be flipped If I believed that my own benefit is the supreme good. Therefore anything I do that helps me is good regardless of who else is harmed.

For people who believe in the literal translation of the bible, its much more effective to challenge them in their own arena by temporarily accepting their premise and then pointing out that position is invalid by pointing out contrary evidence withing their own belief system.

When you tell people that they're diots and everything they believe is stupid, the usual reaction is that they get offended and just tell you to fuck off. Attack the issue the way Azaran did and you have a much better chance of being heard out.

PeeperStorm on 26/5/2011 at 01:15

---

Who knows what Jesus actually said? The King James Bible was deliberately mistranslated and prettied up to sound more impressive, to conform to the official Church of England party line, and to shut the Puritans up. Some of was translated from earlier translations, which you'll know is loads of fun if you've ever played with Bablefish. Then add to that the fact that our understanding of the resulting translation is based on our modern version of English some 400 years later.

For all we know "This generation may not pass..." might mean that he wouldn't let anyone use the restroom, and "the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven" could mean that he wanted to join the Mile High Club.

fett on 26/5/2011 at 02:46

---

Do you guys seriously think for a moment that seminary educated ministers all over this country are basing the theology they teach each week in their churches on the New English Translation of the Bible? They're not. Most (even partially responsible) Bible teachers utilize a collection of concordances, language dictionaries, and commentaries that reach as far back as possible to get at the closest meaning of the original text.

I appreciate your confusion about the Bible being mis-translated over and over, thus losing the "original meaning" of the text. The FACT is that you're wrong. The Bible is actually the most accurately translated and transliterated work of any ancient text that we possess in modern literature. The accuracy of modern OT manuscripts has been verified by the Dead Sea Scrolls and NT manuscripts by third and fourth generation copies. You can't even say that about Shakespeare of most of the writings of George Washington. The accuracy of the modern OT prophetic writing and poems is actually nothing short of astounding when compared to the oldest copies.

Now, there's the issue of the existing early copies being inaccurate compared the originals. But the span of time from the originals to the existing copies is incredibly short compared to the span of time from the existing copies to our modern copies and believe me when I say - the preservation of the text is shocking when compared to other works.

I only bring this up because talk of the Bible being all messed up because it has been translated so many times is absolute bullshit. Continuing to hold that view in light of modern findings (specifically the Quamran/DSS) is ignorant at best.

What I'm saying is, if you've got a problem with the theology, state your case. But blaming the crazy beliefs of Christians on mis-translations doesn't cut. Most seminarians and preachers have great translations and great tools at their disposal. The problem is with the theology itself - not the accuracy of the text from which they draw that theology.

Specifically, the rapture is part and parcel of Pharasaic theology developed in the "inter-testamental" period and fairly fully developed by the time Jesus and Paul came along. It experienced a resurgence in popularity in the late 1800's because of a British preacher named John Darby (and due to the soon approaching millennium). It has arrived in our day and age as "pre-millennial, dispensational eschatology" (i.e. "rapture immanency") pretty much intact. It was popularized in the 70's by Hal Lindsey's bestselling "Late Great Planet Earth" and LaHaye's "Left Behind" series in the 90's. But it's not recently invented, nor is it a mistranslation. In fact, it's one of the earliest pieces of theology, right after original sin and blood propitiation in the early parts of Genesis.

fett on 26/5/2011 at 02:52

---

Wrong again. George Martin, Chuck Missler, Brad Young, and Marvin Wilson are all considered by theology historians to be on par with St. Thomas and Chrysostom. Chesterton usually doesn't even make the list.

Azaran on 26/5/2011 at 03:23

---

Most Bible translations are fairly accurate, including the KJV. Although the best one and most literal is the NRSV.
I studied a bit of the Bible a few years back, and concerning that verse "This generation may not pass..." (the most embarrassing verse in the Bible according to many) was spun and reinterpreted by the Church to mean "the human era shall not pass" or "the land of Israel", etc., to hide the fact that Jesus was actually predicting something that was to happen in his era (and to explain why no Second Coming took place in the 1st centuries).
Unfortunately for the Church, the word for "generation" in the original Greek text means exactly that, i.e. a few decades or a human lifetime.