Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Questions about manuscript evidence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
    Edited by a Moderator
    Nope. While most modern translations still use the Septuagint or the Masoretic as their base, a number of translations now refer to the DSS in difficult areas. Here's a list of translations that consult the DSS:

    RSV
    AMP
    NASB
    NIV
    NKJV
    NRSV
    REB
    NLT
    NIRV
    ESV
    TNIV
    NAB

    (source: The Complete Guide to Bible Translations by Ron Rhodes)
    Last edited by Bill the Cat; 06-17-2015, 06:21 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
      Yes, they are two different words in English, but in ancient Hebrew you have different words available, and there are limitations that come with that. The word translated merely means "to lie with", so context has to inform what it would mean when translated into English. The context suggests that "seduce" is a better English equivalent. "Rape" fits the earlier verse that has a punishment of death.
      So why isn't he being punished here?

      From NIV

      Deu 22:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,
      Deu 22:29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

      Are you saying after a rape, then get married and it is ok?
      Yeng Vg

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by AkByR64 View Post
        So why isn't he being punished here?

        From NIV

        Deu 22:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,
        Deu 22:29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

        Are you saying after a rape, then get married and it is ok?
        No, I'm saying that in these verses it's not accurately translated. The context suggests that seduction is in view. Remember, the Hebrew word here means "lie with", not "rape". Then there is the fact that even if this was an accurate translation, that's what a woman living in ancient Israel would have wanted. We have the perfect example of this with Tamar.

        2 Samuel 13:7 David sent word to Tamar at the palace: “Go to the house of your brother Amnon and prepare some food for him.” 8 So Tamar went to the house of her brother Amnon, who was lying down. She took some dough, kneaded it, made the bread in his sight and baked it. 9 Then she took the pan and served him the bread, but he refused to eat.

        “Send everyone out of here,” Amnon said. So everyone left him. 10 Then Amnon said to Tamar, “Bring the food here into my bedroom so I may eat from your hand.” And Tamar took the bread she had prepared and brought it to her brother Amnon in his bedroom. 11 But when she took it to him to eat, he grabbed her and said, “Come to bed with me, my sister.”

        12 “No, my brother!” she said to him. “Don’t force me! Such a thing should not be done in Israel! Don’t do this wicked thing. 13 What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel. Please speak to the king; he will not keep me from being married to you.” 14 But he refused to listen to her, and since he was stronger than she, he raped her.

        15 Then Amnon hated her with intense hatred. In fact, he hated her more than he had loved her. Amnon said to her, “Get up and get out!”

        16 “No!” she said to him. “Sending me away would be a greater wrong than what you have already done to me.”

        To her, being sent away without being married to him was worse than the rape itself. Thing were very different back then. We have to take that into account when we read the Bible.

        I have a question, did you even read the article I linked to? It already covered all of this.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          Ooookay. I see now that I've been wasting my time.

          Yeesh. We should have a litmus test for new posters so that we get a heads up.
          Yup. I always try and throw out a reality-based question when my spidey-sense starts tingling just to see if the individual in question is playing with a full deck.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
            No, I'm saying that in these verses it's not accurately translated. The context suggests that seduction is in view. Remember, the Hebrew word here means "lie with", not "rape". Then there is the fact that even if this was an accurate translation, that's what a woman living in ancient Israel would have wanted. We have the perfect example of this with Tamar.

            2 Samuel 13:7 David sent word to Tamar at the palace: “Go to the house of your brother Amnon and prepare some food for him.” 8 So Tamar went to the house of her brother Amnon, who was lying down. She took some dough, kneaded it, made the bread in his sight and baked it. 9 Then she took the pan and served him the bread, but he refused to eat.

            “Send everyone out of here,” Amnon said. So everyone left him. 10 Then Amnon said to Tamar, “Bring the food here into my bedroom so I may eat from your hand.” And Tamar took the bread she had prepared and brought it to her brother Amnon in his bedroom. 11 But when she took it to him to eat, he grabbed her and said, “Come to bed with me, my sister.”

            12 “No, my brother!” she said to him. “Don’t force me! Such a thing should not be done in Israel! Don’t do this wicked thing. 13 What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel. Please speak to the king; he will not keep me from being married to you.” 14 But he refused to listen to her, and since he was stronger than she, he raped her.

            15 Then Amnon hated her with intense hatred. In fact, he hated her more than he had loved her. Amnon said to her, “Get up and get out!”

            16 “No!” she said to him. “Sending me away would be a greater wrong than what you have already done to me.”

            To her, being sent away without being married to him was worse than the rape itself. Thing were very different back then. We have to take that into account when we read the Bible.

            I have a question, did you even read the article I linked to? It already covered all of this.
            I see. Well, I am not against that verse if it means rape. I guess raped was Ok for those people at the time and God was Ok with it.

            Yes I read your link.
            Last edited by AkByR64; 05-15-2015, 08:54 PM.
            Yeng Vg

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by AkByR64 View Post
              I see. Well, I am not against that verse if it means rape. I guess raped was Ok for those people at the time and God was Ok with it.

              Yes I read your link.
              You obviously failed to understand the link. Try reading the clear post that Cerebrum123 made. Try understanding it this time. Rape was a faulty translation. The word is not rape. Get it?
              Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                You obviously failed to understand the link. Try reading the clear post that Cerebrum123 made. Try understanding it this time. Rape was a faulty translation. The word is not rape. Get it?
                I know that, but I meant to say that I don't have a problem even if it were meant rape. The NIV says rape doesn't it? Until they change it to mean seduce I'm afraid you aint' going to convince anyone.

                Anyway, this is the problem with the NIV. It clearly indicated it to be a rape. There is nothing to it. The problem is, today's world, there are too many version.
                Last edited by AkByR64; 05-15-2015, 09:12 PM.
                Yeng Vg

                Comment


                • #38
                  So this guy is a right? An American advocating for geocentrism and with almost laser guided ignorance of how translations work after so many explanations that anyone halfway interested in the subject would have already understood what everyone was talking about. How about the fact that he's now trying to put some sort of burden of proof in regards to us not hating the NIV?

                  Lame b8 m8 I r8 0/8.
                  Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? -Galatians 3:5

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
                    So this guy is a right? An American advocating for geocentrism and with almost laser guided ignorance of how translations work after so many explanations that anyone halfway interested in the subject would have already understood what everyone was talking about. How about the fact that he's now trying to put some sort of burden of proof in regards to us not hating the NIV?

                    Lame b8 m8 I r8 0/8.
                    Yes, I do believe he is a troll. Perhaps an ex-fundamentalist Christian now "Atheist" who is attempting to exorcise the demons of his past via catharsis through his antics here.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
                      So this guy is a right? An American advocating for geocentrism and with almost laser guided ignorance of how translations work after so many explanations that anyone halfway interested in the subject would have already understood what everyone was talking about. How about the fact that he's now trying to put some sort of burden of proof in regards to us not hating the NIV?

                      Lame b8 m8 I r8 0/8.
                      Hey, don't get mad at me. Get mad at the translator cuz they didn't get it correct. Anyone that reads the NIV and are fully aware of this, will automatically think it means rape by default. Can't blame them. No translation is perfect. I suggest everyone stick to Hebrew.
                      Last edited by AkByR64; 05-15-2015, 10:33 PM.
                      Yeng Vg

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
                        So this guy is a right? An American advocating for geocentrism and with almost laser guided ignorance of how translations work after so many explanations that anyone halfway interested in the subject would have already understood what everyone was talking about. How about the fact that he's now trying to put some sort of burden of proof in regards to us not hating the NIV?

                        Lame b8 m8 I r8 0/8.
                        I'm thinking he may be a King James-Onlyist. I seem to remember someone else who had an alphabet soup sort of handle who used to post KJ-O type stuff on this forum before the crash, but I don't remember if this is the same person. I'm still undecided if the original post was a sincere attempt to gather information, or a deliberate bait-and-switch to jump on a soapbox.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          I'm thinking he may be a King James-Onlyist. I seem to remember someone else who had an alphabet soup sort of handle who used to post KJ-O type stuff on this forum before the crash, but I don't remember if this is the same person. I'm still undecided if the original post was a sincere attempt to gather information, or a deliberate bait-and-switch to jump on a soapbox.
                          It could be, I've been wrong plenty of times before, I'll go back to lurking then and see how things go.
                          Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? -Galatians 3:5

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            I'm thinking he may be a King James-Onlyist. I seem to remember someone else who had an alphabet soup sort of handle who used to post KJ-O type stuff on this forum before the crash, but I don't remember if this is the same person. I'm still undecided if the original post was a sincere attempt to gather information, or a deliberate bait-and-switch to jump on a soapbox.
                            I don't know which is more unbearable: fundies or KJV-Onlyists.
                            The fact that science cannot make any pronouncement about ethical principles has been misinterpreted as indicating that there are no such principles; while in fact the search for truth presupposes ethics. - Karl Popper, 1987

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Dante View Post
                              I don't know which is more unbearable: fundies or KJV-Onlyists.
                              A KJV-Onlyist is pretty much just the extreme version of a fundy.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Edited by a Moderator

                                Moderated By: Bill the Cat

                                Posting in restricted forum

                                ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
                                Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

                                Last edited by Bill the Cat; 05-17-2015, 10:40 AM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                                35 responses
                                166 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                                4 responses
                                49 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                                10 responses
                                119 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post mikewhitney  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                                14 responses
                                71 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                                13 responses
                                59 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X