Reply With Quote
6. When translated properly, the "Red Sea" is more likely the "Reed Sea".......which would make a lot more logistical sense for a mass exodus.
......which also takes the shine off of the miracle of the parting of the Red Sea....
In the original Hebrew, the 10th Commandment prohibits taking, not coveting. The biblical Jubilee year is named for an animal's horn and has nothing to do with jubilation. The pregnant woman in Isaiah 7:14 is never called a virgin. Psalm 23 opens with an image of God's might and power, not shepherding. And the romantic Song of Solomon offers a surprisingly modern message.
But most people who read the Bible don't know these things, because extensive translation gaffs conceal the Bible's original meaning.
The mistakes stem from five flawed translation techniques: etymology, internal structure, cognates, old mistranslations, and misunderstood metaphor. (Read more: "Five Ways Your Bible Translation Distorts the Original Meaning of the Text.")
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-joe...comm_ref=false
=========
How could God inspire so many egregious mistakes?
6. When translated properly, the "Red Sea" is more likely the "Reed Sea".......which would make a lot more logistical sense for a mass exodus.
......which also takes the shine off of the miracle of the parting of the Red Sea....
I heard that "Thou Shall Not Kill" was actually "Thou Shall Not Commit Genocide."
And Song of Solomon is sexy as . God's love for his people is like soaping down a delicious pair of breasts.
Boutons, what about chicken wings? Does it address that at all?
meatless chicken wings suck, you can have mine.
Boutons finally admitting he's meatless.
It's murder. Not kill.
No, that's not what I heard. I heard it was kill...but they actually meant genocide. I don't read the bible, I just go off of what other people tell me.
I have some hardback reference material. It is murder.
The Bible is open to many interpretations. Yes, it is.
God is a lousy communicator.
And many biblical and hebrew scholars translate the word "adam" as mankind, not 'man' or the man named Adam. Again, the translation is not a problem unless you are committed to a literal interpretation of the bible with only modern word translations.
The number and variances of language translation from the original hebrew, aramaic and greek are so enormous that academics spend their lives arguing about them. It ain't gonna get settled in a Spurstalk forum, imho.
I wonder how many Mistakes are in Your Science books?
go to the 11:18 / 43:24 Mark
http://www.wabcradio.com/FlashPlayer...817&ID=2350693
^^^^I don't know to whom the "Your" refers, but my science books are full of errors and that is no problem for me or the scientists who wrote them, since science, by its definition, is only considered 'factual' (never 'truth') as long as the most recent testing of a given hypothesis is able to be shown to be consistent with observable data.
Please don't mistake me for someone who challenges faith. I certainly do not.
I do, however, challenge the insistence on a literal translation of writings that are several thousands of years old and were originally written in languages far different than modern-day English as being 'truth'.
Your faith may lead you to 'believe' that the literal words of the English bible are the divinely inspired word of God. If so...go for it, fella.
My own faith is a bit more 'message' based, rather than literal.
To each his own.
Actually, I've never had a problem reconciling faith with evolution. I believe in God and I believe in evolution. I think we have an imperfect understanding of both.
No prob. for me.
So your ok with young students being taught lies as facts?
Then its more of a religion? And why does Science say the earth is 4 billion years old if its a lie?since science, by its definition, is only considered 'factual' (never 'truth')
What data do you consider useful?as long as the most recent testing of a given hypothesis is able to be shown to be consistent with observable data.
Please don't mistake me for someone who challenges faith. I certainly do not.
unless your a narrow minded Catholic in denial like
Joe Chalupa your ok.
trueI do, however, challenge the insistence on a literal translation of writings that are several thousands of years old and were originally written in languages far different than modern-day English as being 'truth'.
The way many of these wannabee professors like Agloco preach Science to us on a daily basis they are no different than a preacher in church.Your faith may lead you to 'believe' that the literal words of the English bible are the divinely inspired word of God. If so...go for it, fella.
My own faith is a bit more 'message' based, rather than literal.
To each his own.
good to hear, I to have a message for all ignorant people that post in here.
That's like saying I am Jewish and I support Hitler.
Man isn't perfect, so there should be no surprise at errors in text books.
That's nothing like saying that.
Not really at all. My faith is not threatened by my education in and appreciation of the scientific method of learning about our natural world. I believe that an all-powerful life-force (God, if you will) would be (or is) capable of designing a method of species and natural development that we are, as yet, unable to decipher. Doesn't mean it won't ever be deciphered, but is beyond our current ability to understand.
For example, earlier civilizations of humans believed that super-human beings created the seasons and made the winters give way to spring only after a sacrifice of some sort. Now we understand that spring will follow winter eventually regardless of whether or not we sacrifice some one or some thing to the god of spring. Does that mean that science has proven that a Supreme Being is not ultimately responsible for having designed a system of natural law wherein spring follows winter? Not at all.
Science has taught us that we needn't rely on sacrifices to a supreme being to bring about the end of winter, but it hasn't shown there is no God...
We don't understand all there is to understand about science.
We don't understand all there is to understand about God.
Belief in God does not blind me to what science can offer, and reliance on the scientific method for discovering as much as we can about the natural world does not lessen my faith in God.
Why must we make God in our image?
The god (or Supreme Being) that I believe in is not limited to what I can imagine...
It is possible, in my mind, that as humans we will learn more about the universe that was created by a Supreme Being as we perfect our knowledge.
That is belief.
It is also possible to prove the law of gravity, over and over again, with repeated experiments. That is scientific discovery.
I don't see them as incompatible.
So, for me, it is possible that a Divine Being put into place a method of development of creatures on a given planet that we only understand imperfectly now as evolutionary.
Since evolution is a scientific theory, I can test it against the observable world and grow in my understanding of it. If, as often happens, the scientific discovery modifies
the theory of evolution, I can change it, because the scientific method allows for that modification.
My faith in a Supreme Being, however, is unchangeable and thus, not subject to testing or verification or modification. It simply is. That is faith.
At least to me, it is.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
