But you’re just comparing English translations (and in several cases, paraphrases) of the original Greek verse. I don’t think anyone would deny variations in translation. My understanding of the OP was a claim that the oldest Greek manuscripts we have today are substantially different than the original text. There are not many cases of this type of textual corruption, and the ones we know about are very minor.
I don’t think that’s what he means at all.
[QUOTE=TexasCountryBoy]
I have a friend who is majoring in Ancient History. She swears that **the bible people use today **(yes, I know there are dozens of different versions, but most are very similar), is almost completely different than the original (oldest known) texts. I’m no expert, but I find this a little hard to believe. Granted, I’m sure there are multiple mistranslations/contradictions and I’m sure we have lost a few books, but I’'m sure the original texts arent that much different than modern bibles. What do yall think?
[/QUOTE]
It doesn’t seem like he’s comparing Greek to Greek, but Greek to “Modern”.
May I suggest Transliteration - Wikipedia but anyway…
Ok I have tried to find the direct notes I once made, but only find notations in a bible which I do believe is sufficient for this purpose:
[QUOTE=PS 107 NIV]
2 Let the redeemed of the Lord tell their story—
those he redeemed from the hand of the foe,
3 those he gathered from the lands,
from east and west, from north and south.[a]
[/QUOTE]
That reference of [a] in the NIV is stating that what they take as ‘south’ is in fact ‘sea’.
Kanicbird’s transliteration :
2 Let the redeemed of the Lord tell their story—
those he redeemed from the hand of the foe,
3 those he gathered from (from the nearby nations),
from all (sunrise to sunset), from (underworld) (to) (the sea)"
It is in particular verse 3 that I hold in question given that the word for ‘North’ also means ‘underworld’ and the word for ‘sea’ does not mean south (as the sea was to the west). As I read it the terms used East, West are more accurately transliterated as the transit of the sun from east to west, as in all that the sun shines upon, would include by default in the north and on the sea, so the second transliteration of 'north makes sense to take as underworld, those who have died. The oppoiste those who have yet to be born is the exact same logic that taking it for ‘north’ has the word for ‘sea’ taken as south.
With the word used for South meaning ‘sea’ only we need to question if the word for ‘North’ actually means north or the alternate definition ‘underworld’ Since the sun’s transit covers also north and south those are not needed, and the other devfinition needs to be considered, underworld and pre-born.
And my take is more in line of the god described in the Bible, one who knew you before the foundations of the earth was founded, etc.
It seems to me the OP is comparing “original” to “modern” not Greek to English. There’s no such thing as a perfect translation; just because we have different translations is not an indication of corruption of the original texts over time. I could compare different translations of Les Mis, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have original text.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Ok I have tried to find the direct notes I once made, but only find notations in a bible which I do believe is sufficient for this purpose:
[/QUOTE]
This was my post, but timed out on edit, I want it clear this was my notes, not one part of NIV or any other bible version I am aware of is is a product of my research word by word from the Hebrew.
It’s a very commonplace misconception. (I made it, and Tomndebb politely corrected me.) Some matters of theology seem to have been settled at Nicea (Nicene creed?) and people just assume they all were.
“Obviously” obviously isn’t true, or else it wouldn’t be so widely mistaken.
Naturally when you translate texts from different languages you will lose at least some meaning. It’s not like all words have exact equivalents in other languages…and some times a cluster of words in let’s say Greek has an entirely different connotation and meaning when translated to Spanish foe example.
Jesus in using the words of the psalmist (is quoted) psalm 81 or 82) depending on which version you use: "It says in your law, I said you are gods, so why do you say I blaspheme because I call god my father when your fathers did? " That is why they most likely called Jesus the son of god.
They called Jesus the son of god because the Psalmist wrote(or said)“I say you are gods and sons of the most high” In John 10, Jesus is quoted as saying: "It says in your Law I say you are gods, so why do you say I blaspheme because I call God my father when your fathers did?
They called Jesus the son of God because (according to the text) they saw Him walking on water. They would likely not have called Him that if He walked on the shore. Therefore it is very unlikely that the text said or meant that Jesus walked on the shore. If it did, the story wouldn’t make sense no matter what the Psalms say.
Regards,
Shodan
There is no proof that Jesus or anyone waked on water, just because some one wrote it, doesn’t make that it really happened. There could well be a sand dune under the water that made it look that way, but in John 10 he is stating that his being a son of God was no different than who the Psalmist called gods. It is all in the way one wants it to be. Centuries ago the word God meant someone or thing with Power not a creator of the universe; that is why there were sun gods, god of thunder etc.
Cite, for this ritual?