Q: for the one who uses the quotes from holy books/texts as an evidence of truth ?

[Pegg]

And yet we see just that.
Take the newly revised JW version of the Bible for example...

the ancient manuscripts have not changed...no one can rub lines out of it and insert new ones.
Every translation committee calls their translation their own 'version' because they are the ones who translated it.

It doesnt mean its a different version of the actual bible. God onto bible gateway and compare 50 translations of the same verse and they all say the same thing only in slightly different ways.

i dont see what the issue is with the Watchtower having a version that they themselves have translated....there are hundreds of bible committees who do exactly that.

 

[McBell]

the ancient manuscripts have not changed...no one can rub lines out of it and insert new ones.
Every translation committee calls their translation their own 'version' because they are the ones who translated it.

It doesnt mean its a different version of the actual bible. God onto bible gateway and compare 50 translations of the same verse and they all say the same thing only in slightly different ways.

i dont see what the issue is with the Watchtower having a version that they themselves have translated....there are hundreds of bible committees who do exactly that.

I agree, the ancient manuscripts have not changed.
However, each new translated version takes liberties with what the ancient manuscripts says.

That said, the watch tower version is no better or worse than most of the other translations.
But the fact remains it is merely a translation that reflects the bias and prejudices of those who did the translating.

 

[paarsurrey]

I agree, the ancient manuscripts have not changed.
However, each new translated version takes liberties with what the ancient manuscripts says.

That said, the watch tower version is no better or worse than most of the other translations.
But the fact remains it is merely a translation that reflects the bias and prejudices of those who did the translating.

There are no original manuscripts of Bible from Jesus; it is all written by the sinful scribes. JW's translation is just another translation of the secondary manuscripts.

 

[idav]

Of course the texts were the tampered with. The question is on the truthfulness of what is said. Truth can be tested against falsehood no matter what human it came from.

 

[chinu]

Well, all debates end on the one simple conclusion, that all holy were translated/edited time to time. thus, my question stands where it was.

Yes, if one is using holy texts for their own knowledge sake, its good. But one cannot use edited holy texts as an evidence of truth because all were edited.

 

[savagewind]

Considering: As i have heard, mostly all the major holy texts of this world such as Quran, Bible, Gita, GGS, Vedas, Purans etc.. has been edited by the people thereafter. Here's my question for the people who uses quotes from these holy text as an evidences of truth.

How will they prove that the quotes which they are using as an evidence of truth has not been edited by the people thereafter ?

Either they should give any satisfactory answer, or they should stop increasing the weight of their sayings by using such quotes that are edited.

My holy text is like poetry or music to many people. When I add a text I am aware it might be corrupted. I don't care.

 

[chinu]

My holy text is like poetry or music to many people. When I add a text I am aware it might be corrupted. I don't care.

If you are aware it might be corrupted, than why do you use them for others ?

 

[paarsurrey]

Well, all debates end on the one simple conclusion, that all holy were translated/edited time to time. thus, my question stands where it was.

Yes, if one is using holy texts for their own knowledge sake, its good. But one cannot use edited holy texts as an evidence of truth because all were edited.

I don't agree here.

Quran has not been edited any time after it was revealed on Muhammad; it is in the same pristine form it was originally revealed.

The information about Quran is wrong. Quran is the first hand text authored by the one true God. it was memorized immediately when revealed to Muhammad by him and his companions; and as an auxiliary measure it was also dictated to the scribes for writings also. Both these systems exist to date.

 

[savagewind]

If you are aware it might be corrupted, than why do you use them for others ?

I share only the ones I believe. I am not good with words. It is OK to use the words of others and much easier, isn't it?

 

[chinu]

The information about Quran is wrong.

You says that information is wrong, and there are many other who says that the information is right.
Anyways, one cannot trust the thing which is still under debates.

 

[chinu]

I share only the ones I believe. I am not good with words. It is OK to use the words of others and much easier, isn't it?

Yes, you share only the ones you believe, but this doesn't proves that they are unedited texts. is it ?

 

[savagewind]

Yes, you share only the ones you believe, but this doesn't proves that they are unedited texts. is it ?

Right. God nor God's Word cannot be proved by humans. I am sure it is not possible.

 

[idav]

Well, all debates end on the one simple conclusion, that all holy were translated/edited time to time. thus, my question stands where it was.

Yes, if one is using holy texts for their own knowledge sake, its good. But one cannot use edited holy texts as an evidence of truth because all were edited.

Texts are always edited by humans. This doesn't say whether or not it is truth. Also evidence of a text being truth wouldn't be within the text itself.

 

[chinu]

Texts are always edited by humans. This doesn't say whether or not it is truth. Also evidence of a text being truth wouldn't be within the text itself.

My question is very simple, Idav. If holy texts are edited, than why do some people use such edited texts to increase the weight of their spiritual understandings infront of other people ?

 

[idav]

My question is very simple, Idav. If holy texts are edited, than why do some people use such edited texts to increase the weight of their spiritual understandings infront of other people ?

I see what your asking. People only spread it when they believe it to be the truth. With the bible some think its inerrant meaning no error what so ever. Others believe the bible to be infallible meaning it may have detail errors but the over all is enough for salvation. I see the bible and writings of Buddhist scripts to be enough to get the intended message across and much is left to the practitioner. Similar in Catholic and some Buddhist schools where theosis/buddhahood is an ongoing process towards perfection and even attainable.