Cardinal Pell and Evolution

[shunyadragon]

Have you read the history of how the kjv was compiled?
The bible is a little more than genesis

Yes, I am intimately aware of how the KJV was compiled and I am aware of the recent discoveries that added verses and changed text for the NIV.

Actually, the majority of the objections are from those who believe the KJV should not be changed or altered regardless. They consider the KJV to be a divinely inspired perfect translation, and the actual issues of the changes are trivial at best in the meaning of the text.

The subject of the thread involves Genesis and how it is interpreted, and this has not changed with the different translations.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, I am intimately aware of how the KJV was compiled and I am aware of the recent discoveries that added verses and changed text for the NIV.

Actually, the majority of the objections are from those who believe the KJV should not be changed or altered regardless. They consider the KJV to be a divinely inspired perfect translation, and the actual issues of the changes are trivial at best in the meaning of the text.

The subject of the thread involves Genesis and how it is interpreted, and this has not changed with the different translations.

Well my objection is that they are different

 

[shunyadragon]

Whatever!

I would like to know any changes that in and of themselves would cause a serious theological break or disagreement.

 

[ChristineM]

I would like to know any changes that in and of themselves would cause a serious theological break or disagreement.

Well there are close on 50,000 denominations of Christianity, many of whom consider their interpretation of their chosen bible to be the only correct interpretation and all the rest will burn on hell. So there must bebsome difference to cause such schism and friction.

 

[metis]

List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations - Wikipedia

There are many websites dedicated to the differences. Just compare the kjv with the niv.

The bible is more than genesis

I mostly use the RSV. It's less poetic but more accurate and is more often used within theological circles than any other translation.

 

[ChristineM]

I mostly use the RSV. It's less poetic but more accurate and is more often used within theological circles than any other translation.

It has good reputation but i do wonder, considering there are no original Bibles in existence, what is accuracy measured against?

 

[metis]

It has good reputation but i do wonder, considering there are no original Bibles in existence, what is accuracy measured against?

They tried to keep as close to the oldest copies as possible, and when the DSS were discovered, they literally stopped the press and delayed more publication since the DSS are older than any of the other sources. The errors found in the earlier RVS copies turned out to be very minor.

Since I'm not a literalist anyway, the idea that there's some errors doesn't cause me to lose any sleep.

BTW, I also have an old copy if The Jerusalem Bible, which is an English translation from the French original. It's an excellent version since it's loaded with theological notations.

 

[ChristineM]

They tried to keep as close to the oldest copies as possible, and when the DSS were discovered, they literally stopped the press and delayed more publication since the DSS are older than any of the other sources. The errors found in the earlier RVS copies turned out to be very minor.

Since I'm not a literalist anyway, the idea that there's some errors doesn't cause me to lose any sleep.

BTW, I also have an old copy if The Jerusalem Bible, which is an English translation from the French original. It's an excellent version since it's loaded with theological notations.

Thanks

 

[Subduction Zone]

They tried to keep as close to the oldest copies as possible, and when the DSS were discovered, they literally stopped the press and delayed more publication since the DSS are older than any of the other sources. The errors found in the earlier RVS copies turned out to be very minor.

Since I'm not a literalist anyway, the idea that there's some errors doesn't cause me to lose any sleep.

BTW, I also have an old copy if The Jerusalem Bible, which is an English translation from the French original. It's an excellent version since it's loaded with theological notation

One of my recent standards for judging Bibles arose from the abortion battle. The verse of Exodus 21 22 was changed in many translations to try to claim that the event was an early birth, the verse clearly does not say that in Hebrew. The RSV is one that did not change their translation after Roe v. Wade:

Exodus 21:22-23 RSV​

“When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life."

Believers have to have some gall when they decided to change their own holy book because their God got it wrong.

 

[Brian2]

You could well be right. So much difference and interpreted different ways. Shows up on a fragmented religion each believing their version is correct.

From my pov most Christians do not look at the nitty gritty of doctrines when choosing a church to go to. If the basics are right then they can put up with some details being different to what they might believe. It is not up to them to start a campaign to show their local church all the little areas where their official doctrine might be wrong, they just want fellowship with other Christians.

 

[Brian2]

Basically, all the translations present the content of Genesis, and the gospel author's support of a literal Genesis is relatively the same. The KJV has the most problems with translations and text errors based on recent discoveries.

It's not up to translators to change the text of Genesis or the gospels even if their own beliefs about the meaning might be different to a fundamentalist literal meaning.

Please document any significant differences or lies you are claiming in the different translations.

I was referring to the translation I am most familiar with when it comes to biased translating and dishonest translating,,,,, the New World Translation of the JWs.
Most of that is probably fine as a translation but certain places in my pov are dishonest and/or biased.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well there are close on 50,000 denominations of Christianity, many of whom consider their interpretation of their chosen bible to be the only correct interpretation and all the rest will burn on hell. So there must be some difference to cause such schism and friction.

I believe you're grossly overestimating the number of denominations.

I gave you an opportunity to over a conflicting Bible compilation that is only accepted by one church. There are at least two distinct examples. The Bible of the Roman Church (RCC) has more books than is accepted by the Protestants, and it justifies some beliefs the Protestants do not accept. The Jehovah's Witnesses translated their own Bible and accepted no other, though the Bible itself is not much different. Of course, the KJV is the foundation Bible of virtually all Protestant Churches, but it is only the conservative fundamentalists today that consider it the only true Divinely inspired translation.

The NIV and RSV are widely accepted by liberal Protestant Churches. These versions contain some verses and translation differences that reflect recent archeological discoveries. The changes do not affect significant belief differences among the churches.

Then again actually the translations do not do very much concerning the Pentateuch including Genesis.

Actually, it is modern science, archaeology, historical technology, and the Reformation that has caused the great rifts in the interpretation of the Pentateuch by the divisions in Christianity.

 

[shunyadragon]

From my pov most Christians do not look at the nitty gritty of doctrines when choosing a church to go to. If the basics are right then they can put up with some details being different to what they might believe. It is not up to them to start a campaign to show their local church all the little areas where their official doctrine might be wrong, they just want fellowship with other Christians.

It is more like church shopping for shoes that feel nice and fit. Once the hooks are set they are reeled in and indoctrinated.

 

[Brian2]

Its true that the overall stories are similar, the main points being agreed but I've read 3 bibles that do differ significantly, including missing important verses.

The Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Churches accept more books in the OT than the Protestants do. The Protestants line up with the Jews in what books are accepted.
Many newer translations reflect the scholarship which tells us which passages may have been added later (eg the last half of the last chapter of Mark and the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery at the beginning of John 8) These are either left out or indicated in the footnotes as probably not authentic.

 

[Brian2]

It is more like church shopping for shoes that feel nice and fit. Once the hooks are set they are reeled in and indoctrinated.

It's nice to be the one who is correcting all the views of others I guess but where I go to church we accept each other and worry about the important issues mainly.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Science does not contradict the Bible, it helps to verify it.

In that I mean that the more science we learn the better our understanding of the Bible becomes.

So in this case we know that science has proven evolution meaning that the creation story of Adam and Eve was accomplished through evolution.

Adam was created from dust, as was all life according to evolution, dust means simply the earth. Eve was created from Adam's rib which is representative of cells dividing and creating new life.

God does not work outside of the rules he created for our universe. He simply uses these rules to accomplish His works.

Just a question around what you mean by that...I'll try using your example.

Would you consider that part of what science might help determine is which parts of the Bible are allegorical rather than literal?

If, for example, science suggested that natural means couldn't generate the current human population from an original single female and single male, would you be more likely to see;

Adam and Eve as non-literal.
Science as mistaken.
God as intervening above and beyond 'normal' rules of nature.

I'm guessing the answer would be somewhat contextual, just curious.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's nice to be the one who is correcting all the views of others I guess but where I go to church we accept each other and worry about the important issues mainly.

I like that.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's nice to be the one who is correcting all the views of others I guess but where I go to church we accept each other and worry about the important issues mainly.

If you have not figured it out this is a 'debate forum' we argue different views as you get sensitive and dodge. Correct the views of others?!?!?! You debate and disagree as much as anyone else.

Yes, like most churches you all have the same shoes that comfortably fit and you mostly all agree. Not the case here in a debate forum.

 

[Eli G]

Just a question around what you mean by that...I'll try using your example.

Would you consider that part of what science might help determine is which parts of the Bible are allegorical rather than literal?

If, for example, science suggested that natural means couldn't generate the current human population from an original single female and single male, would you be more likely to see;

Adam and Eve as non-literal.
Science as mistaken.
God as intervening above and beyond 'normal' rules of nature.

I'm guessing the answer would be somewhat contextual, just curious.

There are biblical issues that are not there to be reinterpreted or debated.

Adam and Eve were our first parents, created around 4 millennia BC. In the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures they are taken as real people, who begin genealogies with characters like Enoch, seventh from Adam (Jude 14), or Noah, three generations after him in the same family line. Or Abraham, who was born only two years after Noah died.

No science can determine, as if it were certain, how many male and female apes were the original parents of humans... so that is a matter that science will never make a Christian deviate from what even Jesus himself taught .

Matt. 19:4 In reply he said: “Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female 5 and said: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? 6 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart.”

Read Gen. 1:27; 5:2; 2:24.

 

[Brian2]

If you have not figured it out this is a 'debate forum' we argue different views as you get sensitive and dodge. Correct the views of others?!?!?! You debate and disagree as much as anyone else.

I do debate and disagree. It is a debate forum.

Yes, like most churches you all have the same shoes that comfortably fit and you mostly all agree. Not the case here in a debate forum.

We disagree about things but realise also that these things are not what unite us as Christians.