religions / worldviews

Off-topic discussions

Moderators: jacob, Mattmon

User avatar
i saved latin
Posts: 2805
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:32 pm

Postby i saved latin » Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:15 pm

CuriousOrgans wrote:
i saved latin wrote:
FatalWound wrote:
i saved latin wrote:
FatalWound wrote:It's one of the least literal translations

i must be missing something...how have you come to this conclusion?...


I am pretty sure this is widely accepted in the field of religious studies, isn't it? Not that wiki is a great source, but:

Some scholars working with Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew versions regard the Authorized Version as an inferior English translation of the Bible. For example, New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman has written:

The Authorized Version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus's edition, which was based on a single twelfth-century manuscript that is one of the worst of the manuscripts that we now have available to us![5]

Some suggest that its value lies in its poetic language at the cost of accuracy in translation, whilst other scholars would firmly disagree with these claims. Some of today's exegetes (Walter Brueggemann, Marcus Borg, Warren Carter, James L. Crenshaw, Robert W. Funk, John Dominic Crossan, and N.T. Wright) do not endorse the KJV for Masters or Doctoral-level exegetical work.

hmm...i've never heard this in my life so it can't be that well known in the religious fields...


to CO: don't worry man...i just figured it was your liver talking...


i've heard it before.

there is a difference between religious studies, and a person who is religious.

trust me i'm not just a religious person...i've studied as well...
"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition. "

-Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
CuriousOrgans
Posts: 3327
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:45 pm
Location: Asheville, NC
Contact:

Postby CuriousOrgans » Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:18 pm

but there is a difference between being a religious studies major and going to seminary
"I guess you tripped and fell. Then he tripped and fell on to you. Is that what you meant when you said you didn't mean to?"

User avatar
i saved latin
Posts: 2805
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:32 pm

Postby i saved latin » Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:23 pm

CuriousOrgans wrote:but there is a difference between being a religious studies major and going to seminary

were you a religious studies major?...
"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition. "



-Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
CuriousOrgans
Posts: 3327
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:45 pm
Location: Asheville, NC
Contact:

Postby CuriousOrgans » Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:27 pm

i saved latin wrote:
CuriousOrgans wrote:but there is a difference between being a religious studies major and going to seminary

were you a religious studies major?...


no, i'm just saying when FW said "in religious studies" that's what he most probably refering to. not "christian community"
"I guess you tripped and fell. Then he tripped and fell on to you. Is that what you meant when you said you didn't mean to?"

User avatar
i saved latin
Posts: 2805
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:32 pm

Postby i saved latin » Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:38 pm

CuriousOrgans wrote:
i saved latin wrote:
CuriousOrgans wrote:but there is a difference between being a religious studies major and going to seminary

were you a religious studies major?...


no, i'm just saying when FW said "in religious studies" that's what he most probably refering to. not "christian community"

this might possibly be true about the king james bible...i haven't studied the matter...

...that being the case...i don't want that to ruin the validity of my case on 'fornication' being mentioned in the ancient texts...

...here is a link to some scriptures from the Geneva Bible...this is even older than the king james version...it discusses fornication (i don't mean to beat a dead horse here...i just want to support my claim...the topic can be dropped after this):

http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/eph ... sians5.htm
"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition. "



-Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
CuriousOrgans
Posts: 3327
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:45 pm
Location: Asheville, NC
Contact:

Postby CuriousOrgans » Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:41 pm

look up the original Koin Greek or whatever its called that the parts you are mentioning were written in.
"I guess you tripped and fell. Then he tripped and fell on to you. Is that what you meant when you said you didn't mean to?"

User avatar
i saved latin
Posts: 2805
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:32 pm

Postby i saved latin » Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:50 pm

CuriousOrgans wrote:look up the original Koin Greek or whatever its called that the parts you are mentioning were written in.

hmm...from what quick looking i've done...i've discovered that the koine greek bible's word for fornication refers to sexual immorality within AND without the marital union...

...i found this question and answer thing that addresses the very argument you were making:

http://www.epm.org/articles/Porneia.html
"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition. "



-Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
voodooramen
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:56 am

Postby voodooramen » Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:01 pm

ryan_jasurda wrote:I still don't feel that Jesus spoke of the type of hell that has been created today.


That's one of the things I think too.

I was raised up Catholic, but I am unsure if I even care about titles anymore. I believe there is a God, and my stance on it is, I don't think he gives one damn what I am labeled as long as I live my life for the good of myself and others and for his honor. I am growing more against being in a religion where there is a pontiff and such that can dictate what is the beliefs of such a large group of people...religion really is just becoming a deeply personal thing for me rather than something I can just go and say I believe in with regards to a certain church.

Jesus, sure I think he is the son of God. Does it truly matter to me though? I don't know really, I think even without any knowledge of Jesus at all, I wouldn't have a much different faith in God at all. I do however say that I try to live my life by his example, even with beliefs aside, his set of thoughts on peace and such are great in my book.

Keep the lord's day holy? I don't think I need to go to church every week to be accepted by God, and that isn't just a choice of laziness, I do go a couple times a month at least, but I believe living my life in goodness is just as much keeping the lord's day holy, each and every day, as attending mass on Sundays. And to throw this out there, The ten commandments are a set of guidelines, not necessarily rules to me. The bible is a book of stories to base some faith upon, not an encyclopedia of religious law that is strictly interpreted, to me as well.

So, that's about all I feel bothered to say about my beliefs. Really though, I couldn't begin to count the minutes and sometimes hours a day I just run this issue in my head, it really is something I think about constantly.

User avatar
torn_aclu
Posts: 1178
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:36 pm
Location: Atlanta

Postby torn_aclu » Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:52 pm

FatalWound wrote:
i saved latin wrote:
FatalWound wrote:It's one of the least literal translations

i must be missing something...how have you come to this conclusion?...


I am pretty sure this is widely accepted in the field of religious studies, isn't it? Not that wiki is a great source, but:

Some scholars working with Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew versions regard the Authorized Version as an inferior English translation of the Bible. For example, New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman has written:

The Authorized Version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus's edition, which was based on a single twelfth-century manuscript that is one of the worst of the manuscripts that we now have available to us![5]

Some suggest that its value lies in its poetic language at the cost of accuracy in translation, whilst other scholars would firmly disagree with these claims. Some of today's exegetes (Walter Brueggemann, Marcus Borg, Warren Carter, James L. Crenshaw, Robert W. Funk, John Dominic Crossan, and N.T. Wright) do not endorse the KJV for Masters or Doctoral-level exegetical work.


For Masters or Doctoral work these scholars endorse the Greek Nestle-Aland 27th edition because they will be working with the Greek text. But if they do use and English translation, they won't use the KJV. The KJV hasn't been used for some time because we don't use many of the words in it anymore and because the KJV takes variant readings from sources that aren't as reliable. The KJV bases its translation off of only part of the 5,000 extant manuscripts we have for a number of reasons I don't want to get into here. The NA27 is called an eclectic text, meaning that it tries to find the oldest and most reliable text when the 5,000 differ from each other instead of looking at just one textual family which the KJV tends to do. So yes the KJV and other modern translations will differ from each other, but the differences are really slight.

Porneia, the word you are talking about has a very wide semantic range. It is a general word for any kind of sexual immorality (premarital included). Every single major reference word that I checked says that porneia includes premarital sex. This includes the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, BDAG (the foremost Greek lexicon in the world), the Analytical Lexicon of the NT, Lusk's concordance to the Septuagint, and Louw and Nida.

User avatar
CuriousOrgans
Posts: 3327
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:45 pm
Location: Asheville, NC
Contact:

Postby CuriousOrgans » Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:26 pm

i give up then. i'm wrong about premarital sex.

i still dig it, though
"I guess you tripped and fell. Then he tripped and fell on to you. Is that what you meant when you said you didn't mean to?"

User avatar
ryan_jasurda
Posts: 730
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 11:58 pm
Location: WI, USA
Contact:

Postby ryan_jasurda » Tue Dec 18, 2007 9:09 pm

Ha.

User avatar
CalendarGirl
Posts: 2065
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:36 am

Postby CalendarGirl » Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:56 am

i saved latin wrote:
CuriousOrgans wrote:
i saved latin wrote:
CuriousOrgans wrote:fornication is not premarital sex. jesus

http://www.christiananswers.net/diction ... ation.html

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fornication

http://www.answers.com/topic/fornication

...isn't sex outside of marriage the same concept as pre-marital sex?...maybe we're just looking at it differently...

...i'll be curious to know what you're definition is...


the word fornication came about in the 14th century. it is not what was used in the bible. look up what word actually was.

hmm...the word fornication is used in the king james version of the bible and that's one of the oldest/literal translations...

http://www.bartleby.com/108/46/7.html


I didn't know you were Baptist.
"You expect to get screwed by your company. But you never expect to get screwed by your girlfriend."

User avatar
CuriousOrgans
Posts: 3327
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:45 pm
Location: Asheville, NC
Contact:

Postby CuriousOrgans » Wed Dec 19, 2007 2:42 am

^ i kinda figured that
"I guess you tripped and fell. Then he tripped and fell on to you. Is that what you meant when you said you didn't mean to?"

User avatar
i saved latin
Posts: 2805
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:32 pm

Postby i saved latin » Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:55 am

CalendarGirl wrote:
i saved latin wrote:
CuriousOrgans wrote:
i saved latin wrote:
CuriousOrgans wrote:fornication is not premarital sex. jesus

http://www.christiananswers.net/diction ... ation.html

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fornication

http://www.answers.com/topic/fornication

...isn't sex outside of marriage the same concept as pre-marital sex?...maybe we're just looking at it differently...

...i'll be curious to know what you're definition is...


the word fornication came about in the 14th century. it is not what was used in the bible. look up what word actually was.

hmm...the word fornication is used in the king james version of the bible and that's one of the oldest/literal translations...

http://www.bartleby.com/108/46/7.html


I didn't know you were Baptist.

i'm not...i'm non-denominational...
"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition. "



-Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
KnitKat
Spammer
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 10:26 am

Postby KnitKat » Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:12 am

i saved latin wrote:
CuriousOrgans wrote:
i saved latin wrote:
CuriousOrgans wrote:fornication is not premarital sex. jesus

http://www.christiananswers.net/diction ... ation.html

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fornication

http://www.answers.com/topic/fornication

...isn't sex outside of marriage the same concept as pre-marital sex?...maybe we're just looking at it differently...

...i'll be curious to know what you're definition is...


the word fornication came about in the 14th century. it is not what was used in the bible. look up what word actually was.

hmm...the word fornication is used in the king james version of the bible and that's one of the oldest/literal translations...

http://www.bartleby.com/108/46/7.html


you're joking, right?


Return to “Craft Beer Talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron