Quote from: ~Erica~ on July 30, 2009, 01:30:05 PM
She really did get the out of the bible that we had proping the screen of our computer up. I checked.
FYI this is the New living translation...easy to understand relevant for today. (thats what the cover says) I've had this bible for 6 years. It was givin to me by my youth paster because it has large print. and it does with out the Thy and thyn stuff...
Point of order - the "Living Bible" is a paraphrase, not a translation.
Which is to say, it is heavily influenced by the authors opinion, rather than being a direct translation of the original words.
And, as an aside, you can get quite a few different translations now that are free of the King James Elizabethan English.
The NASB might be the best, but there are easily half a dozen.
Quote
Adrianna makes a point that i actually agree with *gasp* and that is that God loves us all. He says that. The rest can be tossed around and interprated however you want. hence the millions of diffrent chruches with the same bible.
So to run off topic even more...Ok this questions been bugging me for ever and i'm going to put your minds at work. IF Adam and Eve were the first people...and then they had Cain and able... when Cain kills able and god sends him out of Eden...where did his wife come from?
Well, assuming for the sake of the question this was literal history (a point I would not take a stand on)
If you read All of the first several chapters of Genesis you get many clues on this point:
1. Adam and Eve Lived HUNDREDS of years and thus logic suggests that had MANY children other than the two mentioned in the story.
2. Consider, God said "go forth and multiply" and there was no knowledge of birth control or reproduction. By the time Cain was, shall we say, 30, he likely was one of 25-30 siblings. And we do not know that the killing occurred when he was 30 - lets suppose it occurred when he was 200.
Then there may well have been 180-200 siblings, who themselves had had many children. YES, that implies intermarriage between siblings but that was not uncommon even as late as Abraham. The reason for this is that the genetic imperfections that make marriage between siblings unsafe today had not been reinforced by generations of breeding yet.
3. Let us assume quite conservatively that women did not begin childbearing until they were 20. that would mean that at the time Cain was 200, there would have been EIGHT generations of descendants old enough to have begun having children....and of course each of them in turn having multiple generations below them.
I'm no mathmatician but as a crude attempt:
Generation Zero: Adam + Eve (2)
Generation 1: Cain and Abel and siblings - one child from Eve every year, with some infant mortality, starting at age 20 = 150 children by the time Cain is 200, let's assume half are female
Generation 2: 75 females ranging in age up to 180 years, the oldest having been old enogh to bear children for 160 years and thus having up to 150 children of her own, again assuming half female and some mortality - call it 60 child bearing females. and each of her child-bearing sisters producing at a similar rate for a lesser period of time. Assume a mean of 30 daughters per mother and in the next generation you have at least 2200 child bearing females
See where this is going?
3. the bible speaks of Cain wandering among the cities of the earth or some such. So the population was obviously into the thousands.
4. We do not know how old Cain and Abel were at the time.
In short - Cain married a relative, either a sister or a neice or whatever. There would have been hundreds if not thousands of possibilities.
Post Merge: July 30, 2009, 03:28:40 PM
Quote from: ~Erica~ on July 30, 2009, 01:52:52 PM
...what? There is no need to be sarcastic about it i'm asking a real question. Genisis contractics itself by first saying "God created all the peoples of the earth" then into it he says he created Adam FIRST then and Eve and then it goes onto that story.
The reason for this is because it is an idiomatic function of Jewish storytelling at the time.
first you tell a general overview - a very broad statement of what the story is about...then you go back to the first and go into much detail.
It's one of the many ways in which a person really doesn't "get" the Bible unless they understand the context and culture behind it.
Post Merge: July 30, 2009, 04:31:48 PM
Quote from: ~Erica~ on July 30, 2009, 02:03:55 PM
Aliens....LOL hum i didnt find anything about the land of nod lol. Mabie this bible translation i have is really screwed up. Though i try to read the king james and i'm asleep in five seconds.
okay so another a little sarcastic a little seriuos question. Revelations.....seems to be the words biggest asid trip. Its the wierdist thing i've ever read in my intier life. Any way to de-wierd it.
Not really but there is a way to understand WHY it's weird, and why all the end time prophecies in Daniel and so forth are weird.
(assuming for the sake of argument that the book is legit)
consider the fact that the claim is that God took a man who lived 2000 years ago and showed him events that still lay in OUR future.
How would a man of that day describe and understand, for instance, a helicopter, or a tank?
Post Merge: July 30, 2009, 05:47:26 PM
Quote from: Adrianna on July 30, 2009, 04:53:50 PM
A reputable translation Kristi? Who are you to say which translation is correct? Who is anyone to say. Unless you can actually read the original scrolls yourself then you can't prove which translation is correct.
Bible scholars have thousands and thousands and thousands of documents from thousands of years ago which they use to verify the veracity of the content of the Bible.
One can easily question WHY the Bible should have any athority at all.
One CANNOT, if one is acquainted with the FACTS (which, may I say, quite a lot of internet experts are not) question whether or not what you find in a modern translation accurately reflects the original contents of the original texts.
where there are uncertainties, they are minor and they are well documented in any good study Bible so that the reader knows when they are reading an uncertain passage.
How do they know the texts they have are reliable?
Simple.
If you took a work of fiction, shall we say a John Grisham novel, and you ask every member of Susans to transcribe by hand the contents of that book and to be VERY vareful they got every word right - all of us would make errors.
but a third party could take all our works, compare them to each other, and find out what the book actually said at near to 100% accuracy because
all our mistakes would be in different placesBy shear chance, there MIGHT be a place where 100 of us all made a mistake, but it wouldn't be the SAME mistake which would undermine the chances that any of them were actually correct.
Even if the process is repeated for 100 years, an expert can take the existing copies and compare then and by the same method find out what the original content was - even if some of the transcribers had PURPOSELY miscopied it.
Even if you suppose one church or one group of churches conspired to change a text, the copies made by others would outnumber their work and disprove the credibility of the corruption.
Question whether the Bible is true? Or that it shold be followed?
Sure.
Question that it is an accurate representation of the original work? Anyone who does that is simply revealing their lack of acquaintance with reality.
With all due respect.
