Do you believe that 2007 will have the second coming of Jesus Christ?

[afleitch]

No.

[afleitch]

I've just written down on a piece of paper that I just ran five miles in under five minutes.  This is surely a miracle of epic proportions, especially since I'm disabled.  Perhaps if this piece of paper survives for two thousand years, people living then will believe it to be true.

Actually thats a good example. If people followed the 'Almighty Joe' in his lifetime and after his death they would collect as much information about him. Much of that would be lost or change hands or be edited throughout the years or would be collected by people who had never met him, including that scrap of paper, into a book. The people would then say Joe ran a mile a minute. Anything to the contrary would be deemed as heresy and any references to his disability would be destroyed.

In two thousand years people would no doubt say that Joe existed and have evidence for his existance, but certain people would say it was physically impossible at the time (who knows about the future) to run a mile a minute yet still believe in the Almighty Joe while other would insist to their dying breath that Joe did what he or others said he did.

[afleitch]

I've just written down on a piece of paper that I just ran five miles in under five minutes.  This is surely a miracle of epic proportions, especially since I'm disabled.  Perhaps if this piece of paper survives for two thousand years, people living then will believe it to be true.

Actually thats a good example. If people followed the 'Almighty Joe' in his lifetime and after his death they would collect as much information about him. Much of that would be lost or change hands or be edited throughout the years or would be collected by people who had never met him, including that scrap of paper, into a book. The people would then say Joe ran a mile a minute. Anything to the contrary would be deemed as heresy and any references to his disability would be destroyed.

In two thousand years people would no doubt say that Joe existed and have evidence for his existance, but certain people would say it was physically impossible at the time (who knows about the future) to run a mile a minute yet still believe in the Almighty Joe while other would insist to their dying breath that Joe did what he or others said he did.

There is no evidence for said editing. All copies we have of new Testament Texts say the same, except for three small passages (1 John 5:7-8; John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20). All you have left is appeal to conspiracy theory.

Actually there is considerable historiographial evidence that there has been editing, both of the greek text and of course examples of papal edicts resulting in changes in translation alongside numerous existing and losts texts that never made the 'final cut' so to speak of the NT. And it is ludicrous and historically false to suggest otherwise (I have earned a qualification in historiography from a biblical context this gained at Jesuit college so I'm not saying this for the sake of argument!)

[afleitch]

What is that evidence. Sources please?

If you're looking for a long list of online texts then I don't have any, it's not where I get information from. Most of what I know of this subject and studied was within books which I would have re-locate to give the correct source (and since I used about 20 seperate books for my examination essay on this it might take some time!)

Secondly, you cannot assume that the books not contained within the NT are 'trash'- the collected NT, as in terms of the collection of books chosen, is very much the hand of Constantine (who also gave us the 25th Dec as the Birth of Christ) The hierarchy of the church and of it's relationship with the state is also very much down to Constantine and his desire to strengthen his own personal power through what was little more than an extension of imperial tradition; the promotion of the faith of the emperor whatever that may be at any given time. He then proceeded to 'gut' the 600 or so books that composed the bible at the time to less than a hundred then down towards 80 (or 66 in the Authorised KJB which purged books from the bible at the Synod of Dordrecht in 1618) So the Bible and the NT has been consistantly re-organised. That's about as short as I can keep things.

Secondly translation is important. If you pick up a modern leatherbound bible it does not directly translate from the ancient greek. You are right that the greek exists but purposeful mistranslation is 'editing' - editing to suit the whims of whatever competing theological tradition is in vogue (or basic personal prejudice towards one direction or the other)

EDIT: Examples of which have been argued to death on here https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=50044.0

[afleitch]

That is a lie, pure and simple. Ever since the auspices of the Reformation, the Bible has been translated from the original Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew text, and not from the Latin Vulgate--at least in the protestant publication world. Maybe things are different in the romanist church.

Read through the link I posted here; that describes what I mean And don't bite my head off because I dare to use an argument based on (but not convergent with) 'romanist' theologic teaching and study. Taking side ways snipes at Catholic theology should be beneath you.

[afleitch]

Well I wouldn't doubt it. The world is wicked enough for his return, much like Noah and his time.

What makes you think the world is more wicked today then it was, say, two hundred years ago? If anything, it's less, since the percentage of Christians to the total population is much greater than ever.

How does being Christian alone reduce 'wickedness'? Do the wicked actions of those who call themselves Christians have no relevance, you simply have to be part of the 'tribe' and thats okay no matter what you do, how you treat others or how many wars you wage?

[afleitch]

I did several weeks- or do you have a short memory? I don't see a need to tread through old debates simply so you can air your lungs.

[afleitch]

No, what you did was argue modern TRANSLATION of the ancient Greek, not the EDITING of the original Greek text.

if you look back you will realise I said two things. The Bible has been 'edited' (a loose word to use I admit) 1. The books of the Bible have altered due to human choice; ie what books are considerd 'canon' and what are considered 'heretic' changed considerable right through to the Reformation. 2. The Greek has been mistranslated. I did not say the Greek text has ever been edited.

So, I will ask you again….

Please name an example of editing (or even mis-translation) of scripture which has altered my doctrine in any way, shape, or form.

Making this question redundant (and I did offer a referal back to mistranslation argument) It is evident that you rarely read into what people are saying and instead jump to conclusions and then demand they answer questions.

[afleitch]

if you look back you will realise I said two things. The Bible has been 'edited' (a loose word to use I admit) 1. The books of the Bible have altered due to human choice; ie what books are considerd 'canon' and what are considered 'heretic' changed considerable right through to the Reformation. 2. The Greek has been mistranslated. I did not say the Greek text has ever been edited.

Ok, but my question was “how exactly has mistranslation led me into doctrinal error?”, for my doctrine is NEVER the product of translation, rather my doctrine if a product of overall cohesion.

First of all you say that you are referring to your doctrine. Which is a pleasant admission, I hope, that there are many doctrines both universal and personal regarding the understanding of the Bible. I have my own, enforced by years of education and self education and learning (which I understand you refuse to don't think highly of or take seriously possibly due to the fact you see me as a liberal, because I'm gay, because I'm Catholic, or Jesuit or educated in Greek or not a biblical literalist or whatever) and you have yours which may be the product of the same, but with a different conclusion.

Secondly you ask how mistranslation has led you to doctrinal error. I don't know specifically what your 'doctrine' is. Indeed if I were aware of the entire spectrum of your ideology than it may not be guilty of mistranslation; it may be guilty of misunderstanding of imagery or symbolism for example. You are therefore asking me an open ended question which has no answer, because I cannot proceed to adress your doctrine if I am not aware of what that doctrine is.

[afleitch]

Anyways, I challenge you to make a case for why any of the excluded books deserved inclusion in canon.

I have never argued for their inclusion and certainly not on this thread if you read back. So please don't make presumptions. I simply stated that they were excluded due to various philisophical (and personal) reasons.

[afleitch]

Anyways, I challenge you to make a case for why any of the excluded books deserved inclusion in canon.

I have never argued for their inclusion and certainly not on this thread if you read back. So please don't make presumptions. I simply stated that they were excluded due to various philisophical (and personal) reasons.

No, they were excluded because they didn't meet the criteria for canonicity,  namely because they were forgeries or lacked apostolic authority.

Even at the time of Constantine? Did he have the liturgical authority to decide which of the many early church books to include or exclude? Or, did he simply empower himself with that authority in order to construct and establish a church structure and set of teachings that complemented his view of his own imperial power and the relationship of his chosen religion with the Roman state?

[afleitch]

I have never argued for their inclusion

^^^^^^^^

Though other people may and do so.

[afleitch]

I have never argued for their inclusion

^^^^^^^^

Though other people may and do so.

Then why are you arguing that point. If you agree with me that the excluded books weren't inspired, why are you raising all those conspiracy theories about supression of other views?

Everything other than your expressed view or understanding of things now appear to be regularly dismissed as 'conspiracy theories.' If you do not believe other views have been supressed in the history of Christian thought and teaching from the early church to pre-renaissance heretics  through to the present day then i'm intrigued to wonder what you believe the Reformation to be a response to!

Just because I am willing to entertain notions of other theological interpretations and historiography doesn't mean I agree with them. I simply allow them a forum

EDIT: I've cut out another notion I had posted as I believe it would cause the topic to digress

[afleitch]

Anyways, if you think that way, why did you use people believing in predestination as an excuse for them not preaching the gospel a few months ago?

Of course some genuinely don't pre occupy themselves with 'saving souls' because they believe in predestination so are concerned with the welbeing of people while on earth (which also results in them not becoming heartless b-stards)

Because I was referring to the views held by some of my close friends who are members of the CofS (after your harsh criticism of the church body). I was simply summarising their interpretation and personal 'implementation' of the notion; doesn't mean I agree with it but neither does it mean I dislike them or belittle them for holding that position.

The reason why I edited my post to remove that example was because I knew it would lead to where it has led - pressing me on the issue of predestination which is wildly off topic.

[afleitch]

It depends what is meant by pick and choose. From personal experience UK evangelists tend to be the most guilty of doing so (particularly when justifying a position on social issues) and tend to play fast and loose with the OT and NT. I'm not one to pick and choose - I do look at each passage and each concept individually. Some are as clear as day, others require consideration alongside contemporary historical and cultural factors (homosexuality for example though it is rarely mentioned in relation to other concepts - not as much as conservatives or liberals would like you to believe)