Easy way to resolve this controversy.
Take travelogue book about Egypt with good photos of Great Pyramids to Kingdom Hall.
Consult with Elder and ask him to point out the high water marks.
fact: bible chronology says the flood occurred between 2348 and 2370 bce, depending on which scholar you listen to.
fact: the great pyramid of giza was constructed 200 years before, in c. 2560 bce..
so, if you believe in a literal interpretation of noah's flood, you believe that the egyptians built a great civilization, were destroyed by the flood in 2370 bce, and then somehow, they reappeared immediately after the flood, picked right back up where they left off without skipping a cultural beat.. oh, and isn't it ironic that legitimately studying the great pyramid of giza debunks jw mythology now?
Easy way to resolve this controversy.
Take travelogue book about Egypt with good photos of Great Pyramids to Kingdom Hall.
Consult with Elder and ask him to point out the high water marks.
#notsatire.
thanks to wifibandit and pixel for collaborating on this.
more to come.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxce4duetw8.
Secondly, if he had any misgivings about the results, then maybe he should have interjected himself into the controversy earlier. No doubt he would have had something Solomon like to say that would have clarified the issues at hand and clearly changed the outcome. The Roman Curia didn't like the outcome, true, and we knew where they stood.., but hey, .they don't get to marry either.
Anyway JWs in Ireland non-voted as a bloc under his direction... Show's what a deciding force they can be.
#notsatire.
thanks to wifibandit and pixel for collaborating on this.
more to come.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxce4duetw8.
Not much on that first entry. But had to wonder:
What would his excellency have said at the podium if he had not brought along those notes torn from a binder tablet?
can history really be destroyed?.
would otherwise moral authorities participate in such destruction?.
can we believe there is accuracy in historical documents pertaining to the early christian church?.
Full Time Student:
"The right thing to do, then, is to avoid such people and to talk to them neither in private nor in public."
So (in modern terms) - do not talk to apostates !!! ( Is the GB reading Ignatius ???? ROFL)
Interesting parallel, but it still places the GB in a difficult position. Their claim is that nearly 1900 years and suddenly an invisible miracle happens. They become "bishops" and all the old rules apply to them.
I would cite Ignatius of Antioch that THEY (the GB) should not be talked to in private or public.
can history really be destroyed?.
would otherwise moral authorities participate in such destruction?.
can we believe there is accuracy in historical documents pertaining to the early christian church?.
Terry,
As you note: Enter our hero Papius ( episkopis or ‘bishop’) of Hierapolis,... "bishop" from 98-117 AD.
-----------
Odd, is it not, that the institution of bishop and the other institutional trappings of the church would be established so early? Especially, if we are called on to give more weight of one early bishop's recollections of the early days than that of others. I would say that his testimony is there, but there are other sources and developments that contradict what he is saying - which is about par for the course.
Under different circumstances, Carl Sagan once noted that decades ago drawing from the fact that Venus was hotter than Earth and it had heavy clouds, some concluded that was life under the clouds - and others went so far to say that it harbored dinosaurs. If you want to see where the dinosaurs come in, consider the inferences surrounding the possibility that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. No one's has a copy but it must have had "The Name".
Pappias was by no means the only victim of censorship. Most of the critics of what became orthodoxy we know of largely from not very kind summaries of other writers. But distinct from most of those who wrote voluminously, we have Pappias's own disregard for the word in print - rather his reliance on oral tradition. Since the testimony of Pappias is hearsay evidence, late in his life and what he claimed he had heard from others, then what we have is something like the accounts of children and grandchildren of people who were in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947. Their parents or their grandparents' neighbors saw or claimed... In each case we do not know how the information is filtered. Or for that matter, which oral traditions Pappias shifted to the top of the stack over others.
What if "their " oral tradition, the other bishops, contradicted that obtained from Pappias? And how do we know that it does or does not?
Pappias had contemporaries who were bishops and "church fathers" with similar or better credentials in matters of speaking of the early days. One of these with which Pappias can be contrasted is Ignatius Bishop of Antioch who wrote a number of letters (some spurious but others uncontested) that included his beliefs on theological matters and his views on Paul, Peter and John, not to mention Jesus. As to when he was born (35-50 AD) and died ( 98-118), the brackets are rubbery, yet they seem to indicate he was at least as close to the creation as Pappias.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/.
Two for the price of one - and no paragraphs.
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/.
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.
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/.
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.