(Disclaimer- The is purely a question that was stirred in my mind as two close friends debated Christian ideas in my presence, and is just to see if anyone shares my thoughts.) When I see a document that in its original state by that I infer that it is in its original language I feel that it might be prudent to interpret the wording of said document. When it comes to a compilation of writings that has been translated into a different language centauries ago are the interpretations from it valid? When Paul says he has a thorn in his side what does the reader interpret that to actually describe. The examples are endless and before you say it I do realize that the time at which it is written plays a part.(So those with the declaration of independence and constitution rebuttals take a breather.)
2007-08-11 21:03:09 · 14 answers · asked by Brian B 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Even for its day, the kjv was a rather poor translation. Several of the versions available at the time maintained a closer affinity with the original Hebrew and Greek documents...
A valid translation must consider the context of the source documents in order to accurately relate their meaning in the new language. This is itself one of the places where the King James Bible fails to be what was needed at the time. Many things were twisted to fit "modern" thought at their time, abandoning the original intent and context of the work.
2007-08-11 21:30:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The original KJV more than the modern one. The original was a translation of the Latin Bible, which was a translation of the Septuagint Greek texts--which in the case of the OT was a translation of the Hebrew texts. Now if things get lost going from one language, imagine how much worse it is if you throw a couple more in the mix to muddy things up.
There are so many aspects of context that have to be considered, and when a collection of documents written over a period of 2000 years is combined into one doctrine, there are countless possibilities for misinterpretation or misrepresentation of truth. And that doesn't even count for the historic and social context that we may know nothing about.
But the translations we have today are based on the consensus of a large group of people, who took all possible meanings of words and figured out which ones they thought most likely conveyed the message that the author was attempting to convey. We now translate from the original language whenever possible, rather than a translation of a translation of a translation.
This is one of the best questions I have ever seen asked on this site. You get a star!
2007-08-11 21:18:00 · answer #2 · answered by SDW 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The scriptures in general have been corrupted by men and women who wanted to use them for political power, the greatest corruption came during the time when Emperor Constantine decided to make Christianity into a state religion. In which they mixed the paganism of Rome with Christianity, thus creating the Jesus-God Christians worship today to replace their sun god. If you search you will see the story of the sun god birth is nearly identical to the Jesus virgin birth. Dec 25, born from a virgin etc.
What people must understand is that the scriptures aren't historical events but allegorical. When interpreted as literal it becomes as Paul gave "The letter that killeth". The historical Yeshua condemned the pharisees for throwing away the key of knowledge and teaching their perverse interpretation of the scriptures, which is the literal application of it. The scriptures are suppose to be turned within, every character, event, place are within you. So when you read about the Adam and Eve story, what does that reflect in you?
The scriptures are multi-dimensional and serve as a catalyst to raise the seeker above the organic limitations of the mind(if they apply). Each layer of the scripture reflects the level of the seeker reading it.
So what does it mean when Paul says he has a thorn in his side? We are all the prodigal sons and daughters of the kingdom who are seeking to return to the father. Each and everyone of us has a thorn in our side that we must overcome and raise up to return to the kingdom. This is what Paul was referring to, his own thorn or burden that he must seek to reconcile with so he may enter into the kingdom and while one might want it to just magically disappear, it will not without applying the effort to overcome what ever is hindering you.
Professing your belief in Yeshua/Jesus doesn't not remove that thorn and by no means permits you to enter the kingdom, it is as Socrates gave. "Know thy self" and you will be known by God.
Peace
2007-08-11 21:15:33 · answer #3 · answered by Aza 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i detect it marvelous how worked up the KJV only crowd recover from the call "Jehovah" while the King James makes use of the call Jehovah, albeit in only some places. If the King James is "the" Bible, how are you able to deny it ? If it became acceptable in some places, why no longer the 1000's of others ?
2016-11-12 02:34:05 · answer #4 · answered by dorval 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
partial non-sequitor ... I think the wording which might be more appropriate here relates to "quoting" various passages "out of context" ... not observing the scenario in which certain events are placed.
Paul : utterly fraudulent corrupter of the Jesus message
KJV : some of the language forms poetic imagery, but a layer of mis-comprehension is inserted due to the displacement in time and linguistic development
ps I'm agnostic
2007-08-11 21:25:37 · answer #5 · answered by atheistforthebirthofjesus 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The silly thing about the english KJV is that for some reason many christians believe that it's somehow more accurate than the original herbrew that it's translated from! Wacky!
2007-08-11 21:10:06 · answer #6 · answered by Dirty Scoundrel 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
2 Cor 12: 6 I have plenty to boast about and would be no fool in doing it, because I would be telling the truth. But I won’t do it. I don’t want anyone to think more highly of me than what they can actually see in my life and my message, 7 even though I have received wonderful revelations from God. But to keep me from getting puffed up, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger from Satan to torment me and keep me from getting proud.
Paul came from a proud group with many achievements. God knew that he was prone to pride and used this thorn to keep him focused so he could keep his mission in line.
2007-08-11 21:28:50 · answer #7 · answered by djm749 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
People choose to take the Bible out of context. I love the King James Bible. It is poetic, historical and honest. It brings out the true message of the New Testament. I grew up without anyone telling me what to believe, which I appreciate.
2007-08-11 21:05:48 · answer #8 · answered by Desert Sienna 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Any writing can be taken out of context and used for personal reasons. Many things written are easily understood and only have one interpretation. - other writings can be so esoteric as to be useless.
2007-08-11 21:10:22 · answer #9 · answered by cheir 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Of course. The problem is that religions are the translators.
2007-08-11 21:18:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋