This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Rolexeo · 26-30, M
Because it's very complex and has been revised multiple times. Nobody knows for sure what's meant as literal or metaphor. It was also initially written in Latin, which is a dead language so it probably has been poorly translated on top of that.
NortiusMaximus · M
@Rolexeo
It was also initially written in Latin,
The OT was originally written in Hebrew and the NT in Greek. It was translated in to Latin later.
walabby · M
@NortiusMaximus The OT was translated from Hebrew into Greek at about 400 BC, and a lot of earlier translations into European languages was from this Greek translation. Only in the last few hundred years has the OT been translated from the original Hebrew. What difference does that make? A fair bit. The virgin birth doctrine is a result of an error in the 2400 year old Greek translation.
NortiusMaximus · M
@walabby An omniscient god should have foreseen the problems these mistranslations would cause and, being omnipotent too, taken steps to prevent it. Perhaps god isn't real after all.
Rolexeo · 26-30, M
@NortiusMaximus Can't you see the problem with assuming god isnt real because you'd do things different if you were god?
NortiusMaximus · M
@Rolexeo It's not simply that I would do things differently, it's the fact that almost every description of god contradicts every other description.
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@Rolexeo Didn't you feast from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and know as much as God does about those things? So, of course you should be able to do better than he did.
NortiusMaximus · M
@Diotrephes Good point. Although I didn't personally, my ancestors did and the effects of that are said to have carried through the generations as the so-called "original sin".
Rolexeo · 26-30, M
@Diotrephes oh does that ever not follow....
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@NortiusMaximus Produce it.
NortiusMaximus · M
@Diotrephes Produce what?
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@NortiusMaximus This forum isn't vey easy to follow because it does
not automatically include quotes when someone replies to a part.
I was responding to this comment =
So, all you have to do is produce a legitimate original copy to support your claim. Can you do that?
not automatically include quotes when someone replies to a part.
I was responding to this comment =
The OT was originally written in Hebrew and the NT in Greek. It was translated in to Latin later.
So, all you have to do is produce a legitimate original copy to support your claim. Can you do that?
NortiusMaximus · M
@Diotrephes To be honest, it's probably not possible to determine what is a genuine, original, legitimate copy. It does seem likely the OT was originally written in Hebrew considering who the purported authors were. As for the NT, it's possible it was originally in Latin but I'm not aware of any hard evidence either way.
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@NortiusMaximus The thing is that every time someone claims that the Bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek, they are unable to produce such an ancient copy.
The earliest complete Bible in existence on this planet was written by a committee of story tellers, writers, and artists based in England in the 680s-early 690s. They produced three copies written in Latin, each weighing about 75 pounds. One copy still exists. Therefore, if there are any earlier versions all that is necessary is to produce it. Otherwise, you are just spouting propaganda to make the Bible older than its 1,332 years.
That is not to say that there are not bits and pieces of ragged scrolls floating around but they are not the Bible.
All you have to do is think. No one in the Third or Fourth Centuries would have been able to get all of those various scrolls together and compile them into a single volume. Think about the logistics and the technology of the time and they certainly wouldn't have been able to format it in its current series of books, that flow from one to another. That in itself should indicate that the process took a central planning committee.
The earliest complete Bible in existence on this planet was written by a committee of story tellers, writers, and artists based in England in the 680s-early 690s. They produced three copies written in Latin, each weighing about 75 pounds. One copy still exists. Therefore, if there are any earlier versions all that is necessary is to produce it. Otherwise, you are just spouting propaganda to make the Bible older than its 1,332 years.
That is not to say that there are not bits and pieces of ragged scrolls floating around but they are not the Bible.
All you have to do is think. No one in the Third or Fourth Centuries would have been able to get all of those various scrolls together and compile them into a single volume. Think about the logistics and the technology of the time and they certainly wouldn't have been able to format it in its current series of books, that flow from one to another. That in itself should indicate that the process took a central planning committee.