plaetton:


Ohhhh Migosh!
Unbelievably Dodo bird.

My sincere apologies.
I thought I was discussing with a real person.
I did not know I was engaging with another pentecostal zombie.

I mean, just look at all the garbled crap above.
Whew !
What does all that babble have to do with the op?

Comprehension, comprehension.
That's why most of you all fail English, and yet, you claim to comprehend what you read in the bible.
Nooooo wonder.

i'm nt a philosopher and d bible isnt a maths or literature buk, so i'm nt expectd to cme nd speak LOGIC as you wnt it. The bible says "THE kingdom of God is nt in words bt in POWER"
If in its fakenes still carries POWER for salvatn, healing, deliverance nd eternal lyf and walk with God....then wats d use of the DEBATE?

plaetton:

Let me show you just a few biblical verses that say different things from different bible editions.

Leviticus 16:8

1.New International Version
He is to cast lots for the two goats--one lot for the LORD and the other for the scapegoat.


2.English Standard Version
And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for Azazeel.


3.Douay-Rheims Bible
And casting lots upon them both, one to be offered to the Lord, and the other to be the emissary goat:


4.Young's Literal Translation
'And Aaron hath given lots over the two goats, one lot for Jehovah, and one lot for a goat of departure;

Now, please , my dear friend, tell me, with your honest intelligent mind, if all the above four renderings of Levicticus 16:8 say the same thing.

Another is psalm 82:1

1. KJV. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty;

he judgeth among the gods.


2. NIV: God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the "gods


3. New Living Translation
God presides over heaven's court ; he pronounces judgment on the heavenly beings:



4. New American Standard Bible
God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers.

Once again, my friend, Please honestly tell me if the above 4 different renderings of Psalm 82:1 say the same things.

there are differences in this thngs....and the difference is dat they are nt written the same way. Versions of the bible doesnt make them diffrnt... They are all same bt written in diff patterns to make study easy 4d readers.

Az-azel is the hebrew word for scape-goat..emissary goat comes frm the latin trans-litatn of scape goat. As to the other ones, with much honesty, i tell u dat there's no diffrnce in dos thngs.
Let me tell you where u're getting it wrong.
* if at all u read the bible, you read it with dis-honesty, not to get solutns bt to crisisize. Its jst lyk quoting one part of d quran dat says "one shld kill", not reading d whole story, nt knwing wat hapnd b4...and using such verse to judge d whole quran and muslims. Read the bible for once with a sincere heart

anochuko01:
there are differences in this thngs....and the difference is dat they are nt written the same way. Versions of the bible doesnt make them diffrnt... They are all same bt written in diff patterns to make study easy 4d readers.

Az-azel is the hebrew word for scape-goat..emissary goat comes frm the latin trans-litatn of scape goat. As to the other ones, with much honesty, i tell u dat there's no diffrnce in dos thngs.
Let me tell you where u're getting it wrong.
* if at all u read the bible, you read it with dis-honesty, not to get solutns bt to crisisize. Its jst lyk quoting one part of d quran dat says "one shld kill", not reading d whole story, nt knwing wat hapnd b4...and using such verse to judge d whole quran and muslims. Read the bible for once with a sincere heart

Azazel is also a demon or fallen angel....so, your point about translation is not as straightforward as you think it is


There are words that are lost in translation.....the bible is not complete in translation

Plaetton i'm waiting for your response to my post.

Logicboy03:


Azazel is also a demon or fallen angel....so, your point about translation is not as straightforward as you think it is


There are words that are lost in translation.....the bible is not complete in translation

Oga logic.

A cookie in the US is called a biscuit in the UK.
A biscuit in the US is a scone or small cake in the UK. I dont know what scone is as it not use in Nigeria. Go to any store in Agege and tell them you want scone or cookies.

Crisps in the UK, are known as chips, but in the UK we eat a plate of chips that you call fries.

My friend in US doesn't understand 'how far' when I greeted her. She was like....what are we measuring? If you dont relate with US wordings....most of their words will get you pissed off but to them, it normal thang.


Still wondering when you will translate 'eku-ile' in yoruba to english.

FOLYKAZE:

Oga logic.

A cookie in the US is called a biscuit in the UK.
A biscuit in the US is a scone or small cake in the UK. I dont know what scone is as it not use in Nigeria. Go to any store in Agege and tell them you want scone or cookies.

Crisps in the UK, are known as chips, but in the UK we eat a plate of chips that you call fries.

My friend in US doesn't understand 'how far' when I greeted her. She was like....what are we measuring? If you dont relate with US wordings....most of their words will get you pissed off but to them, it normal thang.


Still wondering when you will translate 'eku-ile' in yoruba to english.

Eku-ile na hard thing to translate o

If the Bible was original written in Yoruba, I wonder how they wud have translated eku-ile. they wud probably leave it like dat

Logicboy03:


Azazel is also a demon or fallen angel....so, your point about translation is not as straightforward as you think it is


There are words that are lost in translation.....the bible is not complete in translation

*dat i am an arsenal FAN doesnt mean i'm the same person rolling on ur cieling or arsen-wenger's cieling*

if in other translatns u av emissary goat, scapegoat, escapegoat, goat dat went, sent-goat etc..what gvs u d convictn dat azazel usd there was a demon nd nt a goat.

plaetton:

Chill bros.
The reason we, including your honorable self, open threads is usually for the purpose of eliciting viewpoints from the other side that one might have missed or overlooked.
But viewpoints have to stand on firm logical and sensible grounds to be considered, let alone accepted.

I dont do or support unnecessary attack on others. Much as well, I dont have problem with anybody here.

plaetton:

No, there is no difference in the standard english spoken in these places.
What you have are drawls, different pronunciations , voice inflections and broken shortforms.
A jamaican speaks with a jamaican accent but clearly understands , writes and reads standard english.
Same thing with Americans. Americans even different accents depending on whether you are in the North or the South, the east or the West.

In the Uk, the same applies.

I have never read any literary work written in an Irish accent, Jamaican accent( except for cartoons or comedies) or the southern accents of the united states.
American schools teach and write in standard english. American authors write in standard english .

I first read shakespear when I was secondary school class 2, and I understood and enjoyed it, irrespective of the that it was written in old standard English .
Shakespear, in any other variation of english other than the original would be garbled nonsense.

Achebe's Things Fall Apart , written in Ebonics(lol) or Jamaican Patua, or Warri broken English would be a piece of garbage.


So, you guys should stop being disengenuous by pretending that you not understand my querry in this op.

the usage of Garage in US is different that of UK. Biscuit and cookies...lorry and truck. Filling station and gas station. Want to deny this as different spelling but same words?

plaetton:

The constant revisions and editions of the Bible can hardly be attributed to the need to respond to small differences or nuances in standard English.

a word mean many things to many people. There is ground for revision.

It would have been better if you argue why the bible was altered (adding verse and subtracting)

macof:

Eku-ile na hard thing to translate o

If the Bible was original written in Yoruba, I wonder how they wud have translated eku-ile. they wud probably leave it like dat

logicboy is intelligent......no impossiblities in his dictionary.

He might help

FOLYKAZE:

Oga logic.

A cookie in the US is called a biscuit in the UK.
A biscuit in the US is a scone or small cake in the UK. I dont know what scone is as it not use in Nigeria. Go to any store in Agege and tell them you want scone or cookies.

Crisps in the UK, are known as chips, but in the UK we eat a plate of chips that you call fries.

My friend in US doesn't understand 'how far' when I greeted her. She was like....what are we measuring? If you dont relate with US wordings....most of their words will get you pissed off but to them, it normal thang.


Still wondering when you will translate 'eku-ile' in yoruba to english.

lol....that is the point.....the original context of some words in Hebrew/greek etc have been lost......


The direct translation might not mean what they think it means.....


For instance....my friend told me that Jeun soke means "chop up"......I started telling people to "jeun Soke" their food (eat up their food)


Direct translation might not carry the necessary meaning

Logicboy03:


lol....that is the point.....the original context of some words in Hebrew/greek etc have been lost......


The direct translation might not mean what they think it means.....


For instance....my friend told me that Jeun soke means "chop up"......I started telling people to "jeun Soke" their food (eat up their food)


Direct translation might not carry the necessary meaning

aw does cookies in US and biscuit in UK change the fact dat both of them are the same thing?
I gues u dnt undrstnd yoruba...if u do, u'l knw dat 'jeun soke' probably has nothing to do with eating food...it's a form of 'hailing somebody to continue he's work'. If 'jeun soke' is to be translatd to english, u'l say "ride on". Now translate dat to ur native dialet...did it relate to "eating up ur food"? Translatns are done in context nd nt wat u ar claiming above.
Wat we'v had isnt a lost bible bt a bible made for evryone to undrstnd!

Logicboy03:


lol....that is the point.....the original context of some words in Hebrew/greek etc have been lost......


The direct translation might not mean what they think it means.....


For instance....my friend told me that Jeun soke means "chop up"......I started telling people to "jeun Soke" their food (eat up their food)


Direct translation might not carry the necessary meaning

Lol. This is logicboy bending fable to look like fact.

You have stated here clearly that the original context of a word is lost.....what is wrong with revising this word since it context translation is lost?

Here is it. Eku-ile in yoruba is a formal greeting said by person coming in to person inside a house. If you translate this to english....you got 'die at home'. Pls is that what you will use to greet others inside a house? English came up with 'welcome'. It understood that this is what you meant and not 'die at home'.

This same thang drives down to Orisa which english translate as God/deity but the original meaning is selected consciousness. When writing and the word god is used in a context, it pointing to consciousness as per yoruba wordview and not monster. The word god can also be revise to deity or anything. Different words pointing to same direction.

Na online slap I go use for you if you dare call me Sango worshipper again.

Dig into etymological context of words instead of picking on surface.

anochuko01:
there are differences in this thngs....and the difference is dat they are nt written the same way. Versions of the bible doesnt make them diffrnt... They are all same bt written in diff patterns to make study easy 4d readers.

Az-azel is the hebrew word for scape-goat..emissary goat comes frm the latin trans-litatn of scape goat. As to the other ones, with much honesty, i tell u dat there's no diffrnce in dos thngs.
Let me tell you where u're getting it wrong.
* if at all u read the bible, you read it with dis-honesty, not to get solutns bt to crisisize. Its jst lyk quoting one part of d quran dat says "one shld kill", not reading d whole story, nt knwing wat hapnd b4...and using such verse to judge d whole quran and muslims. Read the bible for once with a sincere heart

You see what I mean by cognitive desonance?

To you now, scapegoat, emmisary goat, Goat of departure and Azazeel all mean the same thing, huh?
I what language, if I may ask?. Which of the Above is standard English, which is American English, which is old English and which is Modern English?

Now , pls tell me, If they meant the same thing, then what was the motivation for changing the words?
Was it for simplicity? Whose simplicity?

anochuko01:

aw does cookies in US and biscuit in UK change the fact dat both of them are the same thing?
I gues u dnt undrstnd yoruba...if u do, u'l knw dat 'jeun soke' probably has nothing to do with eating food...it's a form of 'hailing somebody to continue he's work'. If 'jeun soke' is to be translatd to english, u'l say "ride on". Now translate dat to ur native dialet...did it relate to "eating up ur food"? Translatns are done in context nd nt wat u ar claiming above.
Wat we'v had isnt a lost bible bt a bible made for evryone to undrstnd!

ode.


Jeun soke means "eat up" literally.
Jeun soke actually means "chop up"...."ride on"


This is not about cookies vs biscuit......not about terminologies and synonyms......it is a case of literal vs metaphorical/connotative meaning of a language to a native speaker.

http://www.bokorlang.com/journal/18bible.htm

Eugene Nida points out that "since no two languages are identical, there can be no absolute correspondence between languages. Hence, there can be no fully exact translations. The total impact of a translation may be reasonably close to the original, but there can be no identity in detail" (cited in Venuti 2000; 127). It is accepted that exact translation is 'impossible' since meanings of words and grammatical structures in any two languages do not generally correspond. We can illustrate that with the Greek word λόγος. No one English word is exactly equivalent to it. It can mean a word, a thought, a saying, a discourse, a narrative, a matter and many other things. The translator must choose the best equivalent in each situation. To illustrate grammatical problems we can consider tenses. English has two present tenses whereas most other languages only have one. Εσθίω in Greek or ich esse in German can mean 'I eat' or 'I am eating'. Pronouns are also full of problems. Hebrew has four words for you distinguishing between masculine and feminine and singular and plural. English has only the one. In the Song of Solomon, in the Hebrew it is always clear from the gender whether the bride or bridegroom is speaking, but some English versions lose the distinction (See Notes for a discussion of specific biblical passages). So from the above examples we can see that it is totally impossible to take a document in one language and make an exact word for word equivalent of it in another. Frequently the translator must grasp the meaning of the original as best he can and then seek to reproduce that meaning in the Target Language. This, however, can be done if the Bible translator "respects the features of the receptor language and exploits the potentialities of the language to the greatest possible extent" (Nida and Taber 1974, 4). And as Nida says, "unfortunately, in some instances translators have actually tried to 'remake' a language; but this was unsuccessful" (ibid, 4). For example, one missionary in Latin America insisted on trying to introduce the passive voice of the verb into a language which had no such form. Of course, this was not successful. One should simply accept the fact that there are many languages which do not have a passive voice and find a way to report actions in the active voice.

Another problem inherent in Bible translation is comprehension of the intended meaning. Here, in fact, there are at least three problems. First, there is the problem of understanding the ancient languages in which the Bible was written. No one who spoke those languages is around to tell us what they mean. We all know that languages continually change over time. New words are always being added and others take on different or added meanings. For example, only recently have we begun using the word 'Internet' as part of the everyday speech. And when we hear the word 'cool' in a conversation today, it is not always referring to the weather. Therefore, it is obvious that words do not have only one meaning, and many are not used in the same way that they were used in the past. It is also well known that even modern Greeks and Israelis cannot understand the Bible from its original manuscripts; they need a translation. However, to understand the Bible, words must be studied in all the places where they occur in available writings and compared with similar words in related languages. Then, we might be able to understand or guess their meaning. Nevertheless, we should bear in mind that of the Bible expected to be understood. The Bible is not a collection of cabalistic writing or of Delphic oracles. As Nida says, "the writers of the Bible were addressing themselves to concrete historical situations and were speaking to living people confronted with pressing issues" (ibid, 7). Thus, we should assume that the writers of the Bible expected to be understood, and also that they intended one meaning and not several, unless an intentional ambiguity is linguistically 'marked.'

FOLYKAZE:

Lol. This is logicboy bending fable to look like fact.

You have stated here clearly that the original context of a word is lost.....what is wrong with revising this word since it context translation is lost?

Here is it. Eku-ile in yoruba is a formal greeting said by person coming in to person inside a house. If you translate this to english....you got 'die at home'. Pls is that what you will use to greet others inside a house? English came up with 'welcome'. It understood that this is what you meant and not 'die at home'.

This same thang drives down to Orisa which english translate as God/deity but the original meaning is selected consciousness. When writing and the word god is used in a context, it pointing to consciousness as per yoruba wordview and not monster. The word god can also be revise to deity or anything. Different words pointing to same direction.

Na online slap I go use for you if you dare call me Sango worshipper again.

Dig into etymological context of words instead of picking on surface.

Ode...clearly I am not Yoruba......I am showing you that while I understand the Yoruba language on a literal basis, I do not understand it on a deep level. This is the same thing today....no one speaks ancient hebrew as it was spoken then....some translations are educated guesses of what the ancient guys wrote

FOLYKAZE:

Lol. This is logicboy bending fable to look like fact.

You have stated here clearly that the original context of a word is lost.....what is wrong with revising this word since it context translation is lost?

Here is it. Eku-ile in yoruba is a formal greeting said by person coming in to person inside a house. If you translate this to english....you got 'die at home'. Pls is that what you will use to greet others inside a house? English came up with 'welcome'. It understood that this is what you meant and not 'die at home'.

This same thang drives down to Orisa which english translate as God/deity but the original meaning is selected consciousness. When writing and the word god is used in a context, it pointing to consciousness as per yoruba wordview and not monster. The word god can also be revise to deity or anything. Different words pointing to same direction.

Na online slap I go use for you if you dare call me Sango worshipper again.

Dig into etymological context of words instead of picking on surface.

The bolded is very interesting, and is part of my argument.
Thank you for throwing it in.

You see every word has it's own complex history. That is what is called etymology.
In sacred religious scripture, words were carefully chosen to convey certain facts and ideas.

Here is what a lot of people do not know.
Ancient Egyptian, Babylon and Hebrew scribes used a numbering system to keep track of words in written scripture.

In Hebrew language, letters had numerical equivalents, so every word had a corresponding number that was the sum of it's letters.
With this, each paragraph of a written text would have the numerical sum of the words written at the end, and then the entire page or scroll would also have the numerical sum of the entire text written at the end.

With this system, they would always keep track of the authenticity and purity of the texts by simply counting and adding the letters.
By simply counting the letters and adding up their numerical values, it was easy to know whether a word, a paragraph, a page or an entire text had been altered.
This was a foolproof way of checkmating unauthorized and spurious additions or subtractions from sacred texts .

As You can see from the examples I gave in my last response to anochuko01, once you substitute scapegoat for Azazeel, then later to emmisarry goat, then to goat of departure, you have lost both meaning and context of the message being conveyed.

It would be of interest to you all to know that prior to King James translation of the Bible, the word scapegoat did not exist in english vocabulary.
That word was made up just for that purpose and thereafter came into common usage.
Same goes for the word "Glory" as in " the Glory of the lord". Glory is an improvised word because it original Hebrew word "Kabod" did not have any English equivalent., as is true for many other words in the bible.

If one examines the usage of the word "glory" in the old testament and then figures out true meaning of it's hebrew original "kabod" , it will change the way we view the biblical god.
Thats a topic for another time.

Azazeel means something, scapegoat means nothing, emissary goat means nothing, goat of departure means nothing.
So , when you remove a word that means something and replace it with words that mean nothing, then something is fishy.

Politicians do it all the time when they are hiding something from the public.

Area_boy:

How can you use this logic and still end up with your conclusion? I wonder how you religious folks do it.

This thread is about ironing out the problems existing with editing texts of "godly" origin and nothing to do with purporting your own religion.

I like the way u reason, but that will not let us deny the fact that there is the supreme God is perfect, that has created human beigns and the universe, have u ever wonder how the DNA of man works? It can't just happen like out of time. I believe u anything been edited or revised cannot be from him, but pls give the Quran a chance, read it and reason the book was brought up by someone who cannot read and write over 1400 yrs ago, today brother I challenge u to come up with an establish fact that is contrary to what the Quran said 1400 yrs. Pls present it so we can reason.
I like people that think and refuse to be zombies. Deep from my heart accept my CONGRATULATION

mahdino:
I like the way u reason, but that will not let us deny the fact that there is the supreme God is perfect, that has created human beigns and the universe, have u ever wonder how the DNA of man works? It can't just happen like out of time. I believe u anything been edited or revised cannot be from him, but pls give the Quran a chance, read it and reason the book was brought up by someone who cannot read and write over 1400 yrs ago, today brother I challenge u to come up with an establish fact that is contrary to what the Quran said 1400 yrs. Pls present it so we can reason.
I like people that think and refuse to be zombies. Deep from my heart accept my CONGRATULATION

So wats in the quran dat isn't in the Bible?

Didn't the Arabs copy Jewish concepts

Logicboy03:

ode.


Jeun soke means "eat up" literally.
Jeun soke actually means "chop up"...."ride on"


This is not about cookies vs biscuit......not about terminologies and synonyms......it is a case of literal vs metaphorical/connotative meaning of a language to a native speaker.

http://www.bokorlang.com/journal/18bible.htm

hmm, i guess d qstn was "why the editing nd versions" dis qstn has bn dealt with already... Ur problem is dat u ar bn logical_ nd i'v passed that level coz i av testd nd seen dat d bible works.
I dunno if a muslim will agree to dat ur point of "a document cnt be translatd to anoda language perfectly"...if dey do, then maybe the english quran has sme problem too.
I'll be stooping TOO LOW to doubt wat i av tried nd seen dat works. I dnt operate in words nd logic anymre but in power....smebdy calld me a pentecostal zombie..my pple dats exactly wat i am!
I leave d argument 2u guys till u experience God.

macof:

So wats in the quran dat isn't in the Bible?

Didn't the Arabs copy Jewish concepts

No it's uncomparable and there is not a single copy.
People follow hearsay without really studying the Quran.

mahdino:
No it's uncomparable and there is not a single copy.
People follow hearsay without really studying the Quran.

then I suggest you study other religions too.

The Bible has been changed to appeal or be accepted by different groups throughout history.

However, if you want to understand how fake a preacher or a prophet is, just listen to them: they will claim that the words in the bible are important, rather than the sentiment.

The good bits of Bible can be shortened into one paragraph: "Be nice to each other and don't to things to others that you'd not appreciate yourself."

The worst Christians are those who, following a man who refused to cast the first stone, speak readily of their hatred for their fellow man.

mahdino:
I like the way u reason, but that will not let us deny the fact that there is the supreme God is perfect, that has created human beigns and the universe, have u ever wonder how the DNA of man works? It can't just happen like out of time. [/b] I believe u anything been edited or revised cannot be from him, but pls give the Quran a chance, read it and reason the book was brought up by someone who cannot read and write over 1400 yrs ago, today brother I challenge u to come up with an establish fact that is contrary to what the Quran said 1400 yrs. Pls present it so we can reason.
I like people that think and refuse to be zombies. Deep from my heart accept my CONGRATULATION [b]

So desperate.. Save your breath bro..
The Koranic propaganda is not the topic for today.

Bump