Very slim, actually. You know English has a lot of intricacies, layered meanings, allusions, and all kinds of cool stuff. The thing is all languages have that and many times they're hard to translate into another language.

A great deal is lost in translation. To fully enjoy something, it's better to read it in the original context...i.e. learn Greek or Hebrew to "get" the Bible or whatnot.

I believe if you had a talk with SanCho, he'd tell you that something written in Spanish is meant to be read and appreciated in Spanish. The original language carries much more weight than a translation ever will.

~Zoo

Really? You both seem pretty dogmatic. Are you sure? And how much have you two researched this? Have you even read the bible? Have you studied the Gk and Hebrew to be making such claims?



and you're writing this SP shows me you haven't a clue. The bible had nothing to do with monks nor do the over 5,000 original copies out there.

EVEN if the monk did write what he wanted....how many GK scholars came behind this monk to study the original transcripts? They had over 5,000 original copies to study and all of these different copies from all over were very well preserved and written in total agreement. The scribes (Jewish btw) who kept these scriptures were meticulous in transcribing the scriptures over the centuries.

Umm, give me a few days cause I'm going to be writing a long-ish reply. Your comment is making me think more, and while it's not converting me (since I'm semi christian already), I want to make sure I hit all the points.

Okay, I'm done. No, wait.

Care to join and make KFC see the error of her ways - I mean see the flaw in, oh hell, forget it. (Just playing kfc)

But seriously, like I said above, give me a couple days.

SC...do you even know what that means?



good cuz thinking is a good thing. Because no monk had anything to do with the original scriptures. For one thing...there were no monks yet.

oh and SP forgot to ask.....but.....

what is a "semi-Christian?"

Sorry Zoo,

this link is Evolutionist baloney. We've already discussed that all those fossils found by of so-called ape-men are either proven to be 100% apes or 100% humans...no in-between forms. To date, there is no fossil evidence whatsoever that fits macro-evolution theory.

What insect, what bird, what animal, what fish, what reptile is in transitional form to becoming a new and different species? Where are the half bats..only in the imagination of evolutionist scientists and people they have goaded into believing the lie.

I note they showed the famous supposed evolution of a horse icon.

By showing chart drawings of horse fossils they attempt to show that modern day one-toed horses have evolved from a very small four toed ancestor. These illustrations found their way into museums and science textbooks as evidence of horse evolution, but it isn't. At first, they showed horse evolution proceeding in a straight line to the modern horse and then they changed that into more of a tree type evolution.

Evolutionists say the modern horse called Equus started out as a small animal about knee high called Eohippus or Hyracotherium. They are supposedly changed into their present form over milllions of years and visually it looks very convincing.

Well, here are the problems with horse evolution.

A complete series of horse evolution fossils has not been found anywhere in the world. What they have found on the same continent are the three toed and one toed are found in the same geological stratum....yet according to ET, it required millions of years for one species to make the change into another.

There are no transitional forms found anywhere in the world between each of these "horses".

the "horse" creatures fossils do not come from the proper lower to upper rock strata as would be expected for the horse evolution to be true.

The sequence from small, many toed forms to a large one toed horse is completely absent in the fossil record. In the horse series exhibits in museums and in drawings in textbooks are actually different animals in each series starting with small ones and becomes our larger one-toed horse.

Eohippus, the supposed first horse, is actually a type of rodent and very much like our modern rock badger and is identical to the rabbit like hyrax now living in Africa.

Turns out that the horse evolution series is a carefully fabricated fake.

You are dreaming Zoo.

Where has any one rebutted KingCasper211 points? I'd love to read that.

preach it sistah!   

I prefer Answers in Genesis myself.

Silent poet posts:

Well, actually, we know that our Bibles are true to the originals from archaeological finds like those of the Dead Sea Scrolls in which ancient copies of bible books and manuscripts and other literature have been found in desert caves southeast of Jerusalem. With these, almost every aspect of Biblical life has been clarified in one way or another.

In any event, progress in archeology, linguistics, and history itself has helped scholars reach agreement about the substance of the original texts vs. the modern ones. For the most part the drastic differences formally found in earlier translations have been eliminated. For example, the non-biblical addition to the Lord's Prayer, "for thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory", has been removed from modern Protestant editions.

Silentpoet posts:

Actually, most, not all, standard translations from the original languages are quite accurate. It's the interpretation of the translations where the trouble begins.

Zoo, take your sentence and apply it to modern science or biology textbooks describing horse evolution....sure are a lot of intricies, layered meanings, allusions found there.   

SILENTPOET POSTS #46

KFC POSTS:

I don't want to put words in SP mouth, but I think I know to what he is referring to when he says the monks could have mistranslated the bible when transcribing the manuscripts.

We know the Holy Bible is a collection of OT and NT books that came from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek languages. We don't possess any of the original manuscripts were written on papyrus and have perished. But we know approximately in 150AD, a version of the entire bible was assembled call the Old Italia and that was in general use until St.Jerome translated the Bible into Latin in 390-405 AD. This version superceded the old Italia and is now considered a sacred translation in its own right, having received the approbation not only of 16 centuries of continuous use, but also formally declared free of error by the Council of Trent in 1545-1563.

It was becasue of the monks, friars and nuns in monasteries of the Middle Ages that these versions came to be preserved and multiplied and diffused throughout the centuries previous to the printing press. the monestaries were the centers of learning in those times and an indespensable part of every monestary was its vast library so much so that emperors and other great people borrowed from them.

the monks of those days were the most learned and by profession scholars who renounced earthly pleasures and dedicated themselves to a retired life of prayer and study, and the one principal part of their work was the painstaking copying and transcribing of the Sacred Scriptures. Some princes including Charlemagne gave the monks permission to hunt for deer in the royal forests so as to get skins to make into parchment for copying work.

Again, I will contend that any document written by man or, in the case of the bible, many men, will be subjective. Given most of the stories of the bible were originally taken as word of mouth accounts, by their very nature subjective at best, there is no way you will convince me otherwise.

Of course, by your statement that I:



you obviously already think I don't see any worth in the bible, which would be completely wrong. But when it is constantly used and referred to in just about every post you and a few others put up, particularly when held up against the clarity of science, it gets very tiring very quickly.

Wisdom doesn't come from a single source. As Andre Gide said "Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."

oh I agree with you completly here Maso. It's not up to me to convince you. Only the Holy Spirit can do that.



Well that's good to hear. But I haven't gotten that impression from you up until now.



Com'on on...look at the subject matter here. I don't post biblical stuff in a non-biblical context usually. In fact, I quote very little scripture unless there's a valid point to do so. The bible NEVER contradicts Science and I would again challange you to show me where.



always seeking knowledge but never coming to the truth? "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Knowledge;" Prov 1:7a

Well there's worldly wisom and there's Godly Wisdom. I don't seek wisdom from men usually but of God. I measure what men say against what God says in scripture. I seek Godly counsel not worldly counsel. I don't believe the bible was written by men but only in that they were instruments used by God guided by the Holy Spirit.