₦airaland Forum

Pastor AIO: . . . . . When I take my own bow it'll be for real.

Enigma:

truthislight:
. . .He was saying that what people today take to be the "standard translation" may have been influence by the doctrine of the early translators and not that what is contain thereing(early translation) is the message of the original manuscript.

8

Maybe; but firstly, even that raises questions e,g, early translators into what language? And why are translators TODAY working with ORIGINAL Greek manuscripts STILL translating John 1:1 as those "early translators"?

Secondly, the unsupported (or perhaps ill-thought or ill-expressed) allegations go beyond what you have stated. Take just one example:

the bible was translated and collated by an institution with an agenda

Raises questions inter alia like:
- which institution "collated" the Bible?
- was it that same institution that "translated" the Bible?
- into what language did that institution translate the Bible?
- was that institution the "Church of the Roman Empire" the guy later referred to?
- is that "Church of the Roman Empire" the same as the Roman Catholic Church?

Now more serious issues for a Christian would be: before there was such a thing as "the Church of the Roman Empire" or the Roman Catholic Church, how did the earliest Christians understand John 1:1 (and related passages)?

Before there was this "Church of the Roman Empire" thing, did the earliest Christians understand John 1:1 to be referring to Jesus and did they understand it to say Jesus i.e. "the Word was God".

We do indeed have evidence of how Christians saw John 1:1 before there was the Roman Catholic Church however you want to define that (legitimately and reasonably) or before what I believe is being called "the Church of the Roman Empire".

We have evidence of how people who were working with the Greek text, long before its translation into English, understood the text.*

So all these talk of translation into English as "a god" is not as impressive as its purveyors think.

Truthislight, I do not know your particular vernacular but I'd be interested in how John 1:1 will be translated into your own language. I know how it is translated into Yoruba and may bring that to the table later.



EDIT *See now for example this subsequent post elsewhere https://www.nairaland.com/1127181/jesus-christ-servant-god-trinity/1#13346320

Pastor AIO: Please could the person that said that translating John1:1 as the' Word was God' was a fraud come and help us put this guy out of his misery.

Ubenedictus: so u are saying d nwt once translated it as worship and lata changed it? Are u confirming enigma? That was a simple question.

. . . . In 'The Distinguished Gentleman', one fellow accused the Eddie Murphy character of being another congressman's 'Yes man'. Eddie Murphy promptly replied: "I'm not just his Yes man! When he votes No, I vote No too."

On this thread some of Dawkins disciples have been defending a speculation put forward by their Daddy G.O. as a worthwhile hypothesis. Now we know, as davidylan pointed out, that if that same speculation/hypothesis had been put forward by a creationist or believer in ID, Dawkins' followers would have ridiculed the person.

Interestingly, now that we have shown that after Dawkins himself was ridiculed for his 'speculation/hypothesis', he denied that he was putting forward the speculation/hypothesis and even impliedly ridiculed the speculation/hypothesis claiming it is the argument of creationists etc.

Do Dawkins' followers still believe that the 'speculation' or 'hypothesis' "discussed" by their Daddy G.O. in the OP video is worthwhile and worthy of defending?

Are Dawkins' disciples both Yes Men and No Men?

Ubenedictus: do u mind pasting d reply?

“We declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.”

“Why do we say that we believe in the Roman Catholic Church when we are Protestants?” they ask. The confusion arises because the word "catholic" is not in common usage in English today. Most people hear it used only in reference to the Roman Catholic Church. And so, when they read or hear the word "catholic" in another context, they assume it refers to the Church of Rome. But this is mistaken. "Catholic," in this context, means "universal" and is not a reference to the Church of Rome.

SNCOQ3: I watched the debate with an open mind. Dawkins made himself look like an Anti-God occultist with a special mission to deceive. Even his fellow atheist were embarrassed for him. Anyway the debate ended with a vote in favour of religion by 324 versus 138.
Atheism has no future; please lets move forward.

Ubenedictus: oga enigma, u seem to be runing round circle. Maybe i'll ask d question directly. Does the christian bible as compiled by the earlier xtians have d deterocanonical books or not? And dont give me d septuagist crap because it also also d said books. So u may want to tell us why d removal of d detero books isnt suspect.

Ubenedictus: no problem, even wen i disagree with u, it doesnt mean i didnt see ur point. Those threads are naturally hot.

Kay 17: ^^ you asked the questions which obviously go against my position. You were to make authoritative statements! Like the Bible is provisional!

My position has always being the sum total of OT, Apocrypha and NT make up the Bible which is the foundational guide for Christianity. That without these books, the Christian experience can not be captured.

Hence it is difficult to imagine a provisional bible without any of Jesus' teachings or a narrative on his death!!

The two links were endless debates. I need to study right?! Looool!!

The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, "the books" ) is a canonical collection of texts considered sacred in Judaism or Christianity. Different religious groups include different books within their canons, in different orders, and sometimes divide or combine books, or incorporate additional material into canonical books. Christian Bibles range from the sixty-six books of the Protestant canon to the eighty-one books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church canon.

italo: . . . . . . Don't be like Enigma whose number one enemy is truth.

Zikkyy: Thank you bros. i have difficulty getting maself involved in discussions of this nature cos ma knowledge of church history is not so good and am too lazy to make any serious research.

Kay 17: Hmmm

So you mean to say, Christians used the Septuagint as THE foundational guide till the Catholics came along??

Enigma: ^^^ When you find out whether you Jehovah Witnesses changed the word 'worship' (in Hebrews 1:6) in an earlier edition of your bible to another word in a later edition, let me know.

Kay 17: 1. It became an issue when you tried making a distinction btw Roman Catholic Church and Catholic Church.

Kay 17: 2. Ok, even if I conceded with your Septuagint Bible story, what would it prove? That any book remotely called a Bible is satisfactorily a foundational guide for christianity?