Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
This is a common misunderstanding.
First, every translation is someone’s interpretation. There are dozens in the English language alone.
Second, Bibles differ in which books they include. Catholic bibles for instance contain several more than the Protestant bibles.
Third, we have no, ZERO, original letters in the NT. There are variations in source manuscripts.. Western, Alexandrian, Byzantine, Caesarean,.....
Fourth, those mss were copied and translated by scribes often with a point of view...text variations, whole verses added or omitted, .. transcription errors.
Finally, when someone claims they are using the “pure word” only, they are without exception applying their own understanding as a filter through which they interpret the Bible. Even the verses they select are a process of interpretation embracing some and ignoring others that don’t fit.
|
Sorry,
Drake, but all of your claims here are bogus.
Jesus condemned the Jewish leaders for making void the word of God. Sometimes (
always?) Jesus quoted scripture from the Greek Septuagint Old Testament translation
and not from the actual Hebrew scriptures. So your argument about original manuscripts is bunk, since Moses' original writings were also long gone. The scroll He read from in His Nazareth Synagogue was (gulp!) copied from a (gulp!) copy from a (gulp!) copy. You get the idea.
Using the "pure" original, Hebrew words of God was also unimportant to Jesus. Jesus used the "interpreted" Septuagint words of Greek scholars in Alexandria for His ministry.
Can you believe that? Finally, that Septuagint version contained the Apocryphal books
(like Maccabees) contained also in Catholic versions, and Jesus was not at all bothered by these extra books.
Your post actually surprised me,
Drake. It was something
awareness might write. Not exactly a fundamental, evangelical any more.