Quote:
Originally Posted by tpir
Quote:
Thought. Or he could just talk to me like the other beings.
Was this ignored for not being a wall of text and being too direct? Seems like walls of text are preferred as they allow for easier tangents and distractions from freet/NR.
I thought those were rather obviously incompatible with the self-concept of christianity, both as a revealed religion (finding its summit of revelation in Christ), and the concept of god not constantly interfering with natural order. If god talked "like the other beings", that should result in quite the cacophony.
But I agree that I should've been clearer in my wording: What better medium than text that maintains the basic tents of christianity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
As a PhD student myself in an esoteric field, I could not begrudge freteloo for this.
Puh, thanks. I was genuinely worried.
Quote:
However, that study is very, very different from either layman apologetics, which is largely what occurs on this forum, or more "professional" apologetics.
Jupp, it's called Biblical Exegesis and is part of humanity faculties throughout Germany (and the world, I guess).
Quote:
Yet in the few threads I have seen he seems to repeatedly be taking a role effectively of apologizing for statements that seem incriminating on their face in terms of them just being mistranslations.
The reason why I usually just focus on translation is that I'm mostly not posting from a library. Also, to be quite honest, for whatever claims I make, I usually don'T need much more than a bit of tinkering in BibleWorks.
Quote:
Especially given how his claims are usually pretty superficial
Quote:
of searching for an original passage and looking up alternate meanings of words and claiming that new translations are wrong.
Well, three points.
1) As far as you're casting doubts on my translations with reference to "new translations", this is partly a veiled argument from authority. Inasfar as it is that, thanks, no takers.
2) I'm bummed that ascertaining the textual basis of the verses in question is a superficial approach to you; Sadly, a responsible approach to exegesis being what it is, I rather remain superficial in your eyes than actually become so.
3) Regarding you accusing me of merely claiming that some translation is wrong without any attempt to substantively counter my claims - that's ballsy.
- In this thread, my comments about translation were actually supported by the King James Version.
- In the Mt 5,28 passage, my reading is supported both by the revised Elberfelder and the Zürcher NT, two of the four major german NT translations, who are primarily used by exegets due to their primary interest in exact translation.
Apparently, you're oblivious to the fact that bible translations - even new ones - also take into account traditional accepted renderings and at times vote for tradition over precise textual accuracy.
(Zürcher: "
The Zürich Bible (Zürcher Bibel, also Zwinglibibel) is a Bible translation historically based on the translation by Huldrych Zwingli. Recent editions have the stated aim of maximal philological exactitude."
Elberfelder: "
It is certainly possible that we could have clothed some passage into a more beautiful German; only, without being slaves of the words, the thought always guided us that an as faithful rendering of the original text as possible outweighed any other consideration,...")
Last edited by fretelöo; 06-23-2013 at 03:57 PM.
Reason: Cleaned up language.