Merry Christmas

[calsnowskier]

Merry Christmas, guys. Be safe and cherish your time with family and friends.

And tz, merry Tuesday and happy Wednesday.

 

[tzill]

Merry Christmas, guys. Be safe and cherish your time with family and friends.

And tz, merry Tuesday and happy Wednesday.

Happy New Year to you.

 

[msgkings322]

As a Jew (admittedly a lot less Jewy than tzill) I've never had a problem with being wished Merry Christmas...what, Jews can't be merry on Dec 25?

And they don't make Jews like Jesus anymore

 

[calsnowskier]

As a Jew (admittedly a lot less Jewy than tzill) I've never had a problem with being wished Merry Christmas...what, Jews can't be merry on Dec 25?

And they don't make Jews like Jesus anymore

Hey, you couldn't have killed him if he weren't born first...


I keed, I keed...

 

[msgkings322]

Hey, you couldn't have killed him if he weren't born first...


I keed, I keed...

Well, technically the Romans killed him, but some of the jealous rabbis were pretty willing to turn him in. I guess, none of us were there.

You know the historical Jesus was most likely under 5 feet tall? Because everyone was back then, with a lot less nutrition and food to eat like we have.

 

[calsnowskier]

Well, technically the Romans killed him, but some of the jealous rabbis were pretty willing to turn him in. I guess, none of us were there.

You know the historical Jesus was most likely under 5 feet tall? Because everyone was back then, with a lot less nutrition and food to eat like we have.

So he was black AND a midget?

Man, you are really trying to get the shit going, aren't you?

 

[Stokes1931]

So he was black AND a midget?

Man, you are really trying to get the shit going, aren't you?

Say it ain't so! Jesus was white, blue eyes, blond hair, just like the pictures in church tell us. And he spoke ENGLISH, as all God-fearing people do. Oh, wait.

I once visited a church in Chinatown in San Francisco, and in all the pictures of Jesus, he was Chinese. I never knew!

Merry Christmas to all. Be safe.

When do pitchers and catchers report? Anyone going to ST in AZ? I am trying to talk my now gainfully employed son into going with me for the 4th year in a row.

 

[Mays-Fan]

As a Jew (admittedly a lot less Jewy than tzill) I've never had a problem with being wished Merry Christmas...what, Jews can't be merry on Dec 25?

And they don't make Jews like Jesus anymore

Hey, and every book of the Bible was written by a Jew.

 

[Stokes1931]

Hey, and every book of the Bible was written by a Jew.

Except Revelations. It was written by Elvis.

 

[msgkings322]

Except Revelations. It was written by Elvis.

Yeah, Elvis Goldberg. My cousin.

 

[tzill]

I once got into an argument (hard to believe I know ) with a "Jew for Jesus" about the Bible. This was on the quad as an undergraduate, where I was getting my degree in Jewish Studies. Dude started to quote verses from the "Old Testament." I asked him how he knew that what he was quoting was correct. He got all red faced and whipped out his KJ version of the Bible. I asked him "you know that's a translation, right?" He starts yelling that it's the WORD OF G-D and I kept asking him if he knew it was a translation. Long story short, dude didn't even know that the verses he was quoting were originally written in Hebrew. He had NO clue. I wonder how many fundamentalist Christians know that?

Anyway, Happy Boxing Day. 50 days til pitchers and catchers report.

 

[Stokes1931]

I once got into an argument (hard to believe I know ) with a "Jew for Jesus" about the Bible. This was on the quad as an undergraduate, where I was getting my degree in Jewish Studies. Dude started to quote verses from the "Old Testament." I asked him how he knew that what he was quoting was correct. He got all red faced and whipped out his KJ version of the Bible. I asked him "you know that's a translation, right?" He starts yelling that it's the WORD OF G-D and I kept asking him if he knew it was a translation. Long story short, dude didn't even know that the verses he was quoting were originally written in Hebrew. He had NO clue. I wonder how many fundamentalist Christians know that?

Anyway, Happy Boxing Day. 50 days til pitchers and catchers report.

I knew that!

I was talking to a woman the other day and discussing the authority of the Bible. (Odd conversation, even for me.) She kept saying that she believed the Bible was inspired by G-d, but didn't like some sections. She finally said she only believed in the red letters, which reputedly are what Jesus said. Like TZ, I pointed our that the red letters were a translation, and someone's interpretation of where Jesus begins and ends speaking. (The gospel of John is quite fluid in this, hard to tell). I had never heard this before, and I've been around the block a few times.

I also LOVE toying with Jehovah's Witnesses who insist, INSIST, that G-d's name is Jehovah. Well, not really. The Hebrew consonants with Greek vowels from "adonai" add up to Jehovah. Whatever the Lord's name is (Fred?), it is most certainly NOT Jehovah. End of rant.

BTW, where was your college, tzill? I used to love discussing stuff like this at Berkeley. A spiritually alive campus, but CRAZY. I even met Jesus several times, and once saw Jesus argue with Jesus over who was the real Jesus. Can't make this stuff up.

 

[Mays-Fan]

I knew that!

I was talking to a woman the other day and discussing the authority of the Bible. (Odd conversation, even for me.) She kept saying that she believed the Bible was inspired by G-d, but didn't like some sections. She finally said she only believed in the red letters, which reputedly are what Jesus said. Like TZ, I pointed our that the red letters were a translation, and someone's interpretation of where Jesus begins and ends speaking. (The gospel of John is quite fluid in this, hard to tell). I had never heard this before, and I've been around the block a few times.

I also LOVE toying with Jehovah's Witnesses who insist, INSIST, that G-d's name is Jehovah. Well, not really. The Hebrew consonants with Greek vowels from "adonai" add up to Jehovah. Whatever the Lord's name is (Fred?), it is most certainly NOT Jehovah. End of rant.

BTW, where was your college, tzill? I used to love discussing stuff like this at Berkeley. A spiritually alive campus, but CRAZY. I even met Jesus several times, and once saw Jesus argue with Jesus over who was the real Jesus. Can't make this stuff up.

This book is a great read on this subject:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615]I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist: Norman L. Geisler, Frank Turek, David Limbaugh: 9781581345612: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist, by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. A great read on the "science" of science - how the universe began, how different species appeared, the compilation of the Bible - all in very factual, rational, verifiable terms and sources.

 

[tzill]

I knew that!

I was talking to a woman the other day and discussing the authority of the Bible. (Odd conversation, even for me.) She kept saying that she believed the Bible was inspired by G-d, but didn't like some sections. She finally said she only believed in the red letters, which reputedly are what Jesus said. Like TZ, I pointed our that the red letters were a translation, and someone's interpretation of where Jesus begins and ends speaking. (The gospel of John is quite fluid in this, hard to tell). I had never heard this before, and I've been around the block a few times.

I also LOVE toying with Jehovah's Witnesses who insist, INSIST, that G-d's name is Jehovah. Well, not really. The Hebrew consonants with Greek vowels from "adonai" add up to Jehovah. Whatever the Lord's name is (Fred?), it is most certainly NOT Jehovah. End of rant.

BTW, where was your college, tzill? I used to love discussing stuff like this at Berkeley. A spiritually alive campus, but CRAZY. I even met Jesus several times, and once saw Jesus argue with Jesus over who was the real Jesus. Can't make this stuff up.

I went to Nevada. My understanding of the tetragammeton (יהוה) or "yud hai vac hai") is that it certainly could have been pronounced Jehovah. By convention, of course, we Jews don't vocalize it but instead say "Adonai" or "HaShem." Most Hebrew scholars say it's probably "Yahweh."

Now that the rest of the board is asleep, I will say: 49 DAYS!!

 

[49er4life1979]

I once got into an argument (hard to believe I know ) with a "Jew for Jesus" about the Bible. This was on the quad as an undergraduate, where I was getting my degree in Jewish Studies. Dude started to quote verses from the "Old Testament." I asked him how he knew that what he was quoting was correct. He got all red faced and whipped out his KJ version of the Bible. I asked him "you know that's a translation, right?" He starts yelling that it's the WORD OF G-D and I kept asking him if he knew it was a translation. Long story short, dude didn't even know that the verses he was quoting were originally written in Hebrew. He had NO clue. I wonder how many fundamentalist Christians know that?

Anyway, Happy Boxing Day. 50 days til pitchers and catchers report.

So because it's a translation it doesent mean the same thing??...If I say do svidania in Russian and then translate it to English it means the same thing, which is good bye...Your point?

 

[calsnowskier]

So because it's a translation it doesent mean the same thing??...If I say do svidania in Russian and then translate it to English it means the same thing, which is good bye...Your point?

I was playing poker a few days ago at the local casino and an old friend of mine I had not seen in a while sat down at the table. He is Caldean.

We were exchanging good-natured table smack talk, and he said to me "I am going to suck your blood, tonight". The whole table stopped, the dealer included and looked at him saying "WHAT????"

Basically, what he said makes complete sense in (Persian?? Aramaic?), but it completely lost it's meaning in translation.

A single word translated <> a series of books translated.

This coming from an agnostic/atheist, so I do not have a religious flying-spaghetti-monster in this race...

 

[Mays-Fan]

I was playing poker a few days ago at the local casino and an old friend of mine I had not seen in a while sat down at the table. He is Caldean.

We were exchanging good-natured table smack talk, and he said to me "I am going to suck your blood, tonight". The whole table stopped, the dealer included and looked at him saying "WHAT????"

Basically, what he said makes complete sense in (Persian?? Aramaic?), but it completely lost it's meaning in translation.

A single word translated <> a series of books translated.

This coming from an agnostic/atheist, so I do not have a religious flying-spaghetti-monster in this race...

There are many New Testament versions that are hyper-accurate translations of the original Greek and Aramaic texts. It is simply inaccurate to state in any context that the Bible is just someone's translation of texts that no longer exist. Teams of highly educated scholars and historians throughout the centuries have devoted entire careers to maintaining this accuracy. As an example:

bethinking.org - Bible + Jesus - The Historicity of the New Testament

"A brief perusal of the table indicates that for a representative sample of ancient historical [non-Biblical] works, we possess only a handful of manuscripts which are, on the average, one thousand years removed from their originals.

In contrast to this, the New Testament documents have a staggering quantity of manuscript attestation.[6] Approximately 5,000 Greek manuscripts, containing all or part of the New Testament, exist. There are 8,000 manuscript copies of the Vulgate (a Latin translation of the Bible done by Jerome from 382-405) and more than 350 copies of Syriac (Christian Aramaic) versions of the New Testament (these originated from 150-250; most of the copies are from the 400x). Besides this, virtually the entire New Testament could be reproduced from citations contained in the works of the early church fathers. There are some thirty-two thousand citations in the writings of the Fathers prior to the Council of Nicea (325).

The dates of the manuscript copies range from early in the second century to the time of the Reformation. Many of the manuscripts are early-for example, the John Rylands manuscript (about 120; it was found in Egypt and contains a few verses from the Gospel of John), the Chester Beatty Papyri (200; it contains major portions of the New Testament), Codex Sinaiticus (350; it contains virtually all of the New Testament), and Codex Vaticanus (325-50; it contains almost the entire Bible).

Too much can be made of this evidence, which alone does not establish the trustworthiness of the New Testament. All it shows is that the text we currently possess is an accurate representation of the original New Testament documents. Most historians accept the textual accuracy of other ancient works on far less adequate manuscript grounds than is available for the New Testament."

 

[Stokes1931]

I was playing poker a few days ago at the local casino and an old friend of mine I had not seen in a while sat down at the table. He is Caldean.

We were exchanging good-natured table smack talk, and he said to me "I am going to suck your blood, tonight". The whole table stopped, the dealer included and looked at him saying "WHAT????"

Basically, what he said makes complete sense in (Persian?? Aramaic?), but it completely lost it's meaning in translation.

A single word translated <> a series of books translated.

This coming from an agnostic/atheist, so I do not have a religious flying-spaghetti-monster in this race...

Reputedly, before the United Nations opened, they were testing their translation system. They read a script of English phrases, translated them into another language, and then back into English to see how close it got. It is very difficult to translate idioms. One of my favorites was the translation of "out of sight, out of mind", when it came back into English from other languages it was almost always something like, "invisible, insane."

 

[tzill]

So because it's a translation it doesent mean the same thing??...If I say do svidania in Russian and then translate it to English it means the same thing, which is good bye...Your point?

My point is that that chumps ignorance aside (I mean REALLY, how can you evangelize and not know fundamental biblical facts), any time you translate something you're making choices about meaning, either subtle or profound. To use your example, what if you translate those Russian words as "travel safely," or "please return soon." Kinda changes the context, no? And what if you translated it as "never return!" You'd really have a different meaning. Now imagine 5 whole books of such choices.

Original text is important.

 

[tzill]

There are many New Testament versions that are hyper-accurate translations of the original Greek and Aramaic texts. It is simply inaccurate to state in any context that the Bible is just someone's translation of texts that no longer exist. Teams of highly educated scholars and historians throughout the centuries have devoted entire careers to maintaining this accuracy. As an example:

bethinking.org - Bible + Jesus - The Historicity of the New Testament

"A brief perusal of the table indicates that for a representative sample of ancient historical [non-Biblical] works, we possess only a handful of manuscripts which are, on the average, one thousand years removed from their originals.

In contrast to this, the New Testament documents have a staggering quantity of manuscript attestation.[6] Approximately 5,000 Greek manuscripts, containing all or part of the New Testament, exist. There are 8,000 manuscript copies of the Vulgate (a Latin translation of the Bible done by Jerome from 382-405) and more than 350 copies of Syriac (Christian Aramaic) versions of the New Testament (these originated from 150-250; most of the copies are from the 400x). Besides this, virtually the entire New Testament could be reproduced from citations contained in the works of the early church fathers. There are some thirty-two thousand citations in the writings of the Fathers prior to the Council of Nicea (325).

The dates of the manuscript copies range from early in the second century to the time of the Reformation. Many of the manuscripts are early-for example, the John Rylands manuscript (about 120; it was found in Egypt and contains a few verses from the Gospel of John), the Chester Beatty Papyri (200; it contains major portions of the New Testament), Codex Sinaiticus (350; it contains virtually all of the New Testament), and Codex Vaticanus (325-50; it contains almost the entire Bible).

Too much can be made of this evidence, which alone does not establish the trustworthiness of the New Testament. All it shows is that the text we currently possess is an accurate representation of the original New Testament documents. Most historians accept the textual accuracy of other ancient works on far less adequate manuscript grounds than is available for the New Testament."

Thanks for that info on the Christian bible. As for the Hebrew Bible (what Christians call the Old Testament) I think most scholars would agree that the KJ version is a fairly accurate translation, but not without controversy. For example, all uses of "thee" and "thou" we're not common usage at the time it was written, but stylistically chosen to add an air of "importance" to the text. There are other examples of out and out whole cloth additions to the Hebrew text too, mostly to make the text flow in a more narrative fashion.