Posts by kepler

16

Better Bible Translation?

by Sofia Lose in

which bible translation is the best, according to biblical scholars, anybody knows?

please chime in.. i plan on getting it and doing comparison with the new world translation.

sl.

kepler

Hi, folks. It's been a while ( several months) since I logged on last. Part of the reason was that the re-boot of the web site caught me unawares; partly due to other priorities.

But all the same, I do enjoy throwing around these ideas around the metaphorical campfire...

As to whether there is a best translation, I suspect that there are only qualified answers in the sense that certain translations give you certain perspectives, the best that the money and authority of the sponsors can buy. Wherever there is ambiguity, then the sponsors are going to argue in behalf of their perspective, especially if they have centuries of time invested in the outcome. We have our own biases in research, but that is the reason why we open up the book in the first place.

So given that, I would argue that rather than relying on one version of the Bible, it would be well worth looking at at least several differing translations with differing antecedents. Plus, the commentaries associated with the books.

Maybe this sounds daunting, but it seems a lot more interesting than simply relying on what one finds in a motel room Gideon next to the telephone book.

So having said that, let's consider:

If the Bible as a word is derived from the Greek biblia, which is plural of books, then what is the word or words used by the Jews in their ostensibly Hebrew truncated version known as the Old Testament? Hint, these days its an acronym based on three divisions of the books, which Christians seldom acknowledge or have shuffled for their own devisings.

Secondly, where do chapters and verses come from and how accurately do they represent the beginning and end of an "inerrant" text? How accurately are they placed in the first book to denote a first and second chapter? If a monk had denoted the story about Nephilim with a chapter between 5 and 6, would you think about it differently? Or would the story still leave entirely too much to conjecture? Perhaps with a better translation?...

Another issue is whether translation into the English language has rendered anything any clearer than efforts of native speakers of any other modern tongue (e.g., French, Greek, Italian, Arabic). In many cases the trail to the original text or meaning is confused by accounts in Hebrew centuries after the presumed event, much like the Iliad by "Homer". Aramaic chapters appear in Daniel and deuteron-canonical texts ( adhered to by Reformation documents ) are in Greek. Events in the New Testament with exceptions such as Christ on the cross crying out in Aramaic are all related in koine Greek...

Faced all with all these issues and remembering when I used to do the high school homework of translating Caesar, I could sympathize with the biblical translator. One could leave things in the literal mess my teacher found in my papers or one could be bolstered by an assumed meaning.

We assume inspiration in the Bible, or else we would all thrown it away. But can we assume universal inspiration in translation and transcription when the manuscripts are filled with disconnects and glosses?

And how about this one: Jeremiah 8:8.

2

Is there an ancient Christian creed that says credo in scripture?

by kepler in

consider the nicene creed.

does it mention bible?

it does say what a christian in a universal church of the roman empire should believe though.. one day i visited a service at a fundamental church and i noticed that a video display interjected the belief in holy scriptures into what otherwise looked to me like the credo i had learned in my own church.. the notion of a credo does not necessarily stay unaltered, i admit.

kepler

Consider the Nicene Creed. Does it mention Bible? It does say what a Christian in a universal church of the Roman Empire should believe though.

One day I visited a service at a fundamental church and I noticed that a video display interjected the belief in Holy Scriptures into what otherwise looked to me like the Credo I had learned in my own church.

The notion of a credo does not necessarily stay unaltered, I admit. But it is worth investigating when or how belief in every word of the Bible became a pervasive belief among Protestants, especially 2nd Adventists.

When I checked out the video testimony of the former Bethelite who obtained a doctoral degree in chemistry and became a Catholic, I noticed that part of his testimony related to scriptures. He said something that was tantalizing in the beginning, but I don't know if he ever elaborated further on. He said that Scripture was interpreted in the Catholic community as "Christian tradition".

Think about it. That doesn't necessarily mean you chose sides with Samuel against Saul or believe that Joshua's campaign of extermination in Canaan is justified. It's just what we inherit from ages ago in our quest to understand our relation to God and doing what is right by it.

Curiously as well, the same individual cited the writings of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch. Since he was about second or third in succession and lived in the 1st to 2nd century, that placed an episcopal structure on the church centuries prior to the collection of the Biblical books. Wonder how close he was to making the cut? After all, the competition were people who signed their names as Jude, John, Peter... And people like Barnabas didn't make it. But the decision to include some Hebrew Scriptures and writings of the Apostles came after the Nicene Creed.

So, if the Nicene Creed preceded the canon. Then let's talk about Credos that included any insistence on belief in Scripture: which ones, what verses, what text...Anything.

11

Does Anyone Watch Ascension?

by jw07 in

this new series' pilot episode is the perfect allegory for the blind faith of the average person in the jw movement, those who deny that anything 'immoral' or sinister happens within the ranks, the double lives, doubters, and towards the end of the episode, an example of how the governing body controls persons' lives.

check it out and tell me if you saw all the parallels.

i think it's my new favourite show.. http://tv-series.me/2014/12/15/ascension-s1e1-season-1-episode-1/.

kepler

Two for the price of one - and no paragraphs.

11

Does Anyone Watch Ascension?

by jw07 in

this new series' pilot episode is the perfect allegory for the blind faith of the average person in the jw movement, those who deny that anything 'immoral' or sinister happens within the ranks, the double lives, doubters, and towards the end of the episode, an example of how the governing body controls persons' lives.

check it out and tell me if you saw all the parallels.

i think it's my new favourite show.. http://tv-series.me/2014/12/15/ascension-s1e1-season-1-episode-1/.

kepler

Haven't seen the series since I'm not on cable these days, but it sounds an awful lot like the Project Orion of the 1960s vs. the one of today ( an improved Apollo space capsule). A number of Manhattan Project veterans in that period gave their shot at solving the problem of traveling to the planets and stars. My understanding is that the show presumes that the General Atomics crowd was given a go-ahead and here are the fruits of heading down this alternate path. Of that original investigation into the possibility of space travel ( minus any large scale tests, in effect banned by international treaty) I have read much, starting with the 1970s account "The Starship and the Canoe" and then Freeman Dyson's writing in book form or articles for the New Yorker. Then, remarkably, I had the opportunity to meet and converse with the gentleman at a conference or two in New Jersey during the 1990s - though Orion never came up. I should say that wherever the Ascension series is going thanks to Dyson, he has gone elsewhere as well. While trained as a physicist and mathematician he had interests in all manner of things, but loved to stretch his trained imagination. Plus he was present at remarkable events with the ability to write of them with color and perception. I recommend his essays. Though not having had an opportunity to study conditions aboard Ascension underway, there have been other TV series that I have noticed the examination of behavior within cults. The Star Gate production from Canada had a many year run which had its moments good and bad. You can be your own judge on which predominated; but in a way this TV s/f was cleverer than most. And the characters in the script did have characters after a fashion, even if they reached into their military manuals for resolutions most of the time. None of the characters though were likeable because they were always right. It was more for their cheek in confronting terrestrial and extra-terrestrial symbols of power and authority. After the series lost its pre-occupation with Egyptian gods and goddesses as representations of hostile aliens, it did move on to another extra-terrestrial threat which appeared to be an uncompromising cult. By means of a strage asceticism, it seemed to have the force to do whatever earthly counterparts had only imagined - or should I say anticipated happening. When the cult folded, it had its own survivors. Anyone remember those episodes? They still show up on Sunday nights in syndication.

11

Does Anyone Watch Ascension?

by jw07 in

this new series' pilot episode is the perfect allegory for the blind faith of the average person in the jw movement, those who deny that anything 'immoral' or sinister happens within the ranks, the double lives, doubters, and towards the end of the episode, an example of how the governing body controls persons' lives.

check it out and tell me if you saw all the parallels.

i think it's my new favourite show.. http://tv-series.me/2014/12/15/ascension-s1e1-season-1-episode-1/.

kepler

Haven't seen the series since I'm not on cable these days, but it sounds an awful lot like the Project Orion of the 1960s vs. the one of today ( an improved Apollo space capsule). A number of Manhattan Project veterans in that period gave their shot at solving the problem of traveling to the planets and stars. My understanding is that the show presumes that the General Atomics crowd was given a go-ahead and here are the fruits of heading down this alternate path. Of that original investigation into the possibility of space travel ( minus any large scale tests, in effect banned by international treaty) I have read much, starting with the 1970s account "The Starship and the Canoe" and then Freeman Dyson's writing in book form or articles for the New Yorker. Then, remarkably, I had the opportunity to meet and converse with the gentleman at a conference or two in New Jersey during the 1990s - though Orion never came up. I should say that wherever the Ascension series is going thanks to Dyson, he has gone elsewhere as well. While trained as a physicist and mathematician he had interests in all manner of things, but loved to stretch his trained imagination. Plus he was present at remarkable events with the ability to write of them with color and perception. I recommend his essays. Though not having had an opportunity to study conditions aboard Ascension underway, there have been other TV series that I have noticed the examination of behavior within cults. The Star Gate production from Canada had a many year run which had its moments good and bad. You can be your own judge on which predominated; but in a way this TV s/f was cleverer than most. And the characters in the script did have characters after a fashion, even if they reached into their military manuals for resolutions most of the time. None of the characters though were likeable because they were always right. It was more for their cheek in confronting terrestrial and extra-terrestrial symbols of power and authority. After the series lost its pre-occupation with Egyptian gods and goddesses as representations of hostile aliens, it did move on to another extra-terrestrial threat which appeared to be an uncompromising cult. By means of a strage asceticism, it seemed to have the force to do whatever earthly counterparts had only imagined - or should I say anticipated happening. When the cult folded, it had its own survivors. Anyone remember those episodes? They still show up on Sunday nights in syndication.

76

Anthony Morris III... Did he really serve in Vietnam? Something doesn't quite add up...

by Calebs Airplane in

born in 1950, he apparently became a regular pioneer in 1971.. but wait.... let's just say that he enlisted (or was drafted) in 1968 at age 18.... depending on the branch of service, he would have to complete anywhere from 2 to 4 years of service.

yes, duty in hot combat zones was usually limited to 6-months at a time but you still had to serve a total of 2 to 4 years depending on the branch of service.

assuming he only served 2 years, he would have been 20 years old and discharged by 1970.... how did he get witnessed to, complete a book study, become an unbaptized publisher, get baptized and then become a regular pioneer in less than year???.

kepler

I should some remarks where the stories of Parisi and Morris seem to diverge. This account was presumed to relate to Tony Morris:

In the interim, he and his wife became special pioneers, and he was granted recognition as a minister. But the law still required that he serve his ten-month sentence. Finally he received a letter offering a suspended sentence if he would plead guilty. "I told them I could not do that, since I was innocent," explained Tony. He braced himself to go to jail. To his surprise came a letter stating that the justices of the High Court had analyzed the case and had thrown it out of court on a technicality! Tony felt blessed for declining to ‘live by the sword.’

The above account does not supply Tony with a surname.

And on page of this thead, my search for records of Parisi ended with his appeal process actually failing. He was sentenced to serve at Fort Leavenworth at hard labor for about two years beginning in April 1970, a consequence of failing to board a flight bound for Vietnam as required by orders. My reading of the account was that he did serve time and that it began with stockade time in California.

Possibly his sentence was shortened, but sounds to me like he started serving.

Yes, confusing. Especially if we are discussing the same individual.

76

Anthony Morris III... Did he really serve in Vietnam? Something doesn't quite add up...

by Calebs Airplane in

born in 1950, he apparently became a regular pioneer in 1971.. but wait.... let's just say that he enlisted (or was drafted) in 1968 at age 18.... depending on the branch of service, he would have to complete anywhere from 2 to 4 years of service.

yes, duty in hot combat zones was usually limited to 6-months at a time but you still had to serve a total of 2 to 4 years depending on the branch of service.

assuming he only served 2 years, he would have been 20 years old and discharged by 1970.... how did he get witnessed to, complete a book study, become an unbaptized publisher, get baptized and then become a regular pioneer in less than year???.

kepler

Happened to notice how this topic was picked up a few days ago, based on photos with an uncanny resemblance.

But before I ventured to say anything, I thought I would re-read all the posts, including mine.

A couple years ago I tried very hard to see if there was any public record of what Mr. Morris was talking about when he spoke of his militar, Vietnam and military judicial experiences. That turned up a null. But there were other conscientious objector cases - and the one that was most similar was that of Anthony Parisi.

Mr. Parisi's public record I related in the preceding pages and I compared it with what Mr. Morris was reported to have said - or else his ruminations on warfare and the pains of tribulations yet to come...

I still am not sure if Parisi and Morris are the same person.

But what if they were? What are we to carry away if Morris's military and judicial records are actually those of Mr. Parisi?

To start. Mr. Parisi began his career with an intent to serve as a medic, but declined when he received his orders to report to Vietnam. I do not mean to pass judgment on his decision about whether to go to Vietnam or not, but I want to point out that Mr. Parisi did NOT go to Vietnam. His subsequent claims in judicial reviews were based on his new-found religious reservations. Subsequently, Parisi was dealing with incarceration and not military campaigns or aiding the injured in the field. After reviews the military relented and Parisi disappeared from public view.

Now years later, we have someone who MIGHT be Parisi head of a religious body or a member of its governing board. He frequently relates stories about his service in the military and how he recalls the furies of hostile fire and the smell of death and destruction. He exhorts his audience to think about the far greater magnitude of such death and destruction awaiting in the time of trial and tribulation, emphasizing the near universality of this retribution and death.

Possibly this is the same man, but it is not any type of conscientious objector with which I would want to be associated with.

In either case, as an unknown Mr. Morris or as a Mr. Parisi in hiding, that this man is a screened and vetted member of a governing board turns the concept of vetted leadership on its head. If Morris is an alias, then his board identity is a deceit. And if Morris is simply Morris, it looks much the same as well: a selection that is so indefensible that no evidence is submitted to the community "overseen" that he has any real credentials related to leadership, administrative skills, philosophy, sober reflection ... Anything that you would want your children to imitate or aspire to.

He will talk at your convention though.

43

From A Bublical Point Of View Did You Ever Think The Trinity Doctrine Made Sense?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i see no logic in it.

i see what appears to be some scriptural contradictions but i see no merit in a trinitarian view of god.. .

.

kepler

Designs: Kepler,Have you ever set down with a Rabbi and discussed the "we" in Genesis and how a Jew understands the passage?

Designs,

No I have not, but I have in my library several Jewish commentaries, which I presume are by rabbis. At least one was a lead translator on a TaNaKh translation and the other was commenting on the Torah. Breitler and Friedman respectively. The latter commented on both chapter 1 and 18 of Genesis. He did not say what an individual Jew understands about the"we" but gave several interpretation. These included the editorial we, the notion that God was addressing his angels and, he also entertained the possibility that it was an example of polytheism or something that gave credence to the existence of pagan gods ( disputed in other books of the OT).

On chapter 18, he admitted that Abraham addressed three men as God. But he could not let that stand. He claimed that this was an example of "hypostasis" because a human could not countenance the face of God. He cites the later authority of Exodus.

So, for one reason or another hermeneutics leads not to "Trinity" because of a priori assumptions or pre-conditions for "reasoning from scripture".

When we get to Joshua, events described there will be used to support a Ptolemaic cosmos...

43

From A Bublical Point Of View Did You Ever Think The Trinity Doctrine Made Sense?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i see no logic in it.

i see what appears to be some scriptural contradictions but i see no merit in a trinitarian view of god.. .

.

kepler

Ever hear this one? Three guys walk into a bar: a conservative, a liberal and a middle of the roader.

The bar tender looks up and says, "What are you having, Mitt?"

"You have offered hints of Jesus' deity but nothing at all regarding a trinity."

It's amazing! Nobody reads or read Genesis Chapter 18. Nobody even acknowledges it exists.

43

From A Bublical Point Of View Did You Ever Think The Trinity Doctrine Made Sense?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i see no logic in it.

i see what appears to be some scriptural contradictions but i see no merit in a trinitarian view of god.. .

.

kepler

I'll reserve judgment about the nature of God, but "from the Biblical point of view", I do see some shortcomings to this basis of reasoning , that the notion of a Trinity is "un-biblical". It would appear that there is not so much a Biblical point of view as there is a point of view imposed on the Bible.

In the book of Genesis, chapter one, the Lord relates the events of the creation in the form of an editorial "we". "Let us make man in our own image and likeness..."

And then in chapter 18 of the same book starting from the first verse:

"Yahweh appeared to (Abraham) at the Oak of Mamre while he was sitting by the entrance of the tent during the hottest part of the day. He looked up and there he saw three men standing near him. As soon as he saw them he ran from the entrance of the tent to greet them and bowed to the ground. "My Lord, if I find favor with you, please do not pass your servant by. Let me have a little water brought...

"They replied, 'Do as you say.'

----------------

That would appear to me as quite clear from a Biblical point of view - and I have sat through hours of arguments that were of much more tenuous nature or connection to text.

Then, of course, there is nearly all the Gospel of John. A man who speaks of God as his Father, in the 8th chapter, 58th verse says that "before Abraham ever was, I am". His audience reportedly sensed the drift of what he was saying because they picked up stones from the Temple courtyard to express their rebuttal.

It is also in the Gospel of John that the Samaritan woman says to Jesus in chapter 4 that "I know that the Messiah is coming and when he comes he will explain everything." Jesus answers that "That is who I am, I who speak to you."

So, it is the contention of many who have replied to this query:

On the matter of a Trinity or even a Duality, how could Christians have ever been confused if they had studied their Bible?

In chapter 5 of John, it's almost as though Jesus laments in the text about the dilemma: "You pore over the scriptures, believing that in them you can find eternal life; it is these scriptures that testify to me, and yet you refuse to come to me to receive life!"

As sceptical as I am about many things I read, I do find it remarkable that this text predicts a Bible as it will someday be construed. For whenever a certain John put the text to scroll, there was a time before that that there was no Gospel of John and a message of a Messiah coming was all that much less clear.

But coming back to the subject, in combination with the citations John gives from Isaiah and other OT texts, as do other apostolic writers, and then the additional passages that they do not connect directly such as the ones I cited above, then you have the basis for a Trinitarian view of God.