white_raven23 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Those of you who have been paying attention to the "Verses" Thread in this forum may have noticed the fallacy I discovered in the thinking regarding the behavior of Lot's daughters..... Anyway I did more poking around and discovered I was still right.......and wrong depending on which version of the bible you read. Okay.....same verse for each Version....and these are only a few of the Versions in English. New International Standard 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. New American Standard Bible 31Then the firstborn said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to (A)come in to us after the manner of the earth. New Living Translation (this one is really warm and fuzzy) 31One day the older daughter said to her sister, "There isn't a man anywhere in this entire area for us to marry. And our father will soon be too old to have children. New International Reader's Version 31One day the older daughter spoke to the younger one. She said, "Our father is old. There aren't any other men around here to make love to, as people all over the earth do And let's not forget good ol' King James Version 31And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: So...my point? Depending on which version you read, either there were no men on the planet, or there were no men in the area for these two girls. So which is it? No men at all, or no men convenient? Which intended translation is God's Word? And heck, this is only ONE verse.....there are 31,102 verses in the combined Old and New Testaments. And this is supposed to be the Inspired word of God. If it's so "inspired" why doesn't this verse match from version to version? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ nivek ♦ Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 WhiteRaven... For shit, kicks and giggles go to chick's page and check out his reasoning for all of this. h**p://www.chick.com If you want a mindfulla garbage that will make you go "Goddam I'm glad I live in a palce that allows firearms ownership", Chickentraxx site will do so.. Which "babble"? All of them, of course.. When it looks, feels and smells like bullshit, well it must be! kL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heimdall Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 And if your choice of versions happens to be the King James Version (which seems to be the fundie BOC - bible of choice), then which edition do you pefer, the 1611, the Blayney edition of 1769 or the various changes in 1613, 1629, 1638, and 1762. With this in mind, which edition of the KJV do you like the best? Why do you favor that particular edition over the other editions? - Heimdall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Chick's view on which bible's right... Most Agree Beautifully The other disagrees with the first, and is missing most of chapters 9 through 13 of Hebrews. How convenient that this manuscript neglects to mention we have no further need of priests! However, the vast majority of old manuscripts agree beautifully with each other, are quoted extensively by early church leaders, and are obviously from the text accepted by the early church as correct. These manuscripts combine to form the text from which the King James Bible was translated. The importance of the King James lies mainly in the fact that it was translated from the true text, and therefore gives us the true and error-free Word of God. Pastors need to recognize that using many translations in the church undermines the people's confidence in the written Word, and thus undermines the whole church. They need one standard text. And it would certainly help to get the right one! Wow! Thank goodness Chick is here to correct all those people that went to seminary... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eponymic Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 And if your choice of versions happens to be the King James Version (which seems to be the fundie BOC - bible of choice), then which edition do you pefer, the 1611, the Blayney edition of 1769 or the various changes in 1613, 1629, 1638, and 1762. With this in mind, which edition of the KJV do you like the best? Why do you favor that particular edition over the other editions? - Heimdall KJV is definitely my fave, "not a man IN the earth." Maybe they should've tried looking on the earth. Kinda hard to find viable sperm donors underground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MQTA Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 well, they didn't have a car or transportation back then, they just left behind the only home they ever knew, and they were the only survivors of the nuclear holocost of S&G. There may have been lots of people elsewhere on the planet, but they were virtually cut off from everyone else. Everyone they knew was now GONE. The Bible, being Inspired by GOD, is like one of our physics and biology experts telling you all there is to know about our body and the make up of the universe; then you go to write it down, In your Own words, from your (by comparison) 2nd grade level of understanding. Your writing would be inspired by GOD, being the same being as this expert who told you all HE knows, but being you're no where near his level of understanding, your writing doesn't quite read back the way it was taught to you. But it makes sense to you, and the apologists read it and then explain their understanding to everyone else, and they Believe. Until such a day when people grow in understanding and see the writings for what they were, to them, back then, at their level. The different versions are just people trying to clarify, based on their level of understanding at the time, for people of that day. The only inspired writings were the originals. Why didn't the experts write it down for us? I guess it would make no sense to us. They should have written down something though, for future generations. I'm waiting for the bible that's designed like the hitchhikers guide, whatever language you know, that's what you'll see, and in easy to understand language suited to your own level of understanding. It would be a dynamic book, for sure. I think they meant well, and it musta worked for them, we've survived some how all these years. They were just idiots. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 well, they didn't have a car or transportation back then, they just left behind the only home they ever knew, and they were the only survivors of the nuclear holocost of S&G. There may have been lots of people elsewhere on the planet, but they were virtually cut off from everyone else. Everyone they knew was now GONE. I see that S&G were very well totaled with fire and sulpher raining down....but what about surrounding settlements? A true nuke holocaust really would total everything and everyone....but is that really how severe this was? Wasn't it specific to those cities? Wouldn't the surrounding rural communities be spared? The Bible, being Inspired by GOD, is like one of our physics and biology experts telling you all there is to know about our body and the make up of the universe; then you go to write it down, In your Own words, from your (by comparison) 2nd grade level of understanding. In that case, the bible (none of them) is NOT god's word. I sure wouldn't want to hear a physics lecture, and then be expected to build a nuclear powerstation. And I'm not going to read the bible expecting to experience the word of god as it pertains to my immortal soul. I'm waiting for the bible that's designed like the hitchhikers guide, whatever language you know, that's what you'll see, and in easy to understand language suited to your own level of understanding. It would be a dynamic book, for sure. Now THAT book I would be more inclined to attribute to being the word of god. Forget a future bible....if the current bible were truly the intended word of god, then not only would every volume of it we picked up be in our own native tongue....but instantly tailored to our own personal perspectives so god's intended meaning would be percieved spot on by the person reading it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Ultimately, the differences between the different versions of the Holah Scripchahs is like the difference between the bowel movements of different animals. Whether we're talking about dog shit, cat shit, horse shit, or bull shit, it's all shit when you get right down to it. Basically, each version of the Babble may have come from a different source, but it's still the same old crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MQTA Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 well, they didn't have a car or transportation back then, they just left behind the only home they ever knew, and they were the only survivors of the nuclear holocost of S&G. There may have been lots of people elsewhere on the planet, but they were virtually cut off from everyone else. Everyone they knew was now GONE. I see that S&G were very well totaled with fire and sulpher raining down....but what about surrounding settlements? A true nuke holocaust really would total everything and everyone....but is that really how severe this was? Wasn't it specific to those cities? Wouldn't the surrounding rural communities be spared? I dunno.. I was never around a nuclear holocost But apparently Lot and his family were spared and I guess they didn't run into any other local rural communities. The Bible, being Inspired by GOD, is like one of our physics and biology experts telling you all there is to know about our body and the make up of the universe; then you go to write it down, In your Own words, from your (by comparison) 2nd grade level of understanding. In that case, the bible (none of them) is NOT god's word. I sure wouldn't want to hear a physics lecture, and then be expected to build a nuclear powerstation. And I'm not going to read the bible expecting to experience the word of god as it pertains to my immortal soul. Well, we've kinda established that here already, no? I like looking at the KJV on the SAB when I'm looking for comparisons, and then follow his lead, if I agree with the comment and/or google some other info based on the context. I'm waiting for the bible that's designed like the hitchhikers guide, whatever language you know, that's what you'll see, and in easy to understand language suited to your own level of understanding. It would be a dynamic book, for sure. Now THAT book I would be more inclined to attribute to being the word of god. Forget a future bible....if the current bible were truly the intended word of god, then not only would every volume of it we picked up be in our own native tongue....but instantly tailored to our own personal perspectives so god's intended meaning would be percieved spot on by the person reading it. Well, the current bible isn't like that, so the only hope would be a future one. I'm not holding my breath for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts