All this proves is that bablefish is not perfect at translating from one language, to another and back. The part you are forgetting to bring up is that we still have access to the origional texts, so if you do not think the translation is right, you can go back and study the origional texts and decide for yourself.
However, some of those sentances were quite humorous in their translation. Good thing you posted the origional sentance so that we could look at it and know what it said in the first place.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right...we have ALL of the original texts dating back to the "old testament." Give me a break.
If I think the currency is potato it is. I´m going to have some trouble finding someone to trade with but a lot of people are going to have trouble trading with me so thats no different. If I find someone who think potato is the currency who is to say that "your" currency is more true than ours?
What is money? Nothing but papers that you hope you can buy something with. It is nothing in itself. What we believe things are things are.
The same with the question of God. what I believe is right is right. "But we can´t prove or reject the excistence of God". According to who? Some people will insist they have seen miracles or have similar arguments and I will claim that God is a social product dependent of the material circumstances of a certaint time and age and that can be proved by looking at the history of religion. How is your way of checking things (some kind of positivism) any better than mine (some kind of historic materialism) or NoahJs (some kind of religious inspiration). Do you have a method to judge which way of looking at phenomens that is the right one?
Dates back about 2000 years. So we are to NT times there at least. And yes, there are documents that people have that are older. Do you enjoy flying off the handle like this?
Dates back about 2000 years. So we are to NT times there at least. And yes, there are documents that people have that are older. Do you enjoy flying off the handle like this?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do we have the ORIGINAL FIRST EDITION old testament? No. Go home.
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>Atheism is just as stupid as theism. It's blind faith either way.</strong><hr></blockquote>So if you're an atheist, what do you have faith in? No I think there's a difference - atheists are withholding faith in something. Atheism may be wrong, but not because of blind faith.
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>
Do we have the ORIGINAL FIRST EDITION old testament? No. Go home.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Considerinng it was not written as one book but is a compilation of many smaller books there is no "Origional First Edition" of the Old Testament.
2000+ years old is a very good source if you ask me. especially for the NT books. The OT was referenced by the NT many times and they likely had older documents that they were reading so translation was not an issue as it was normally in their own languages.
Considerinng it was not written as one book but is a compilation of many smaller books there is no "Origional First Edition" of the Old Testament.
2000+ years old is a very good source if you ask me. especially for the NT books. The OT was referenced by the NT many times and they likely had older documents that they were reading so translation was not an issue as it was normally in their own languages.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A very good source to get old editions of fairy tales. I hope one day christianity is treated the same way as older religions that died and suddenly became "myths." One day people will look at Jesus the same way as the Greeks saw Poseidon.
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>
A very good source to get old editions of fairy tales. I hope one day christianity is treated the same way as older religions that died and suddenly became "myths." One day people will look at Jesus the same way as the Greeks saw Poseidon.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The last gasp of a failed argument. Poke fun at it.
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>
I'm not saying you have to be wrong. I'm saying it's ridiculous to think that your religion out of the hundreds if not thousands of other religions is right. I do not like it when people go around claiming they understand the incomprehensible. I do not like it when people go around claiming that they can explain the unexplainable. It would be different if you had a shred of evidence, however, the only evidence you can provide is that of a text that has been translated and retranslated time and time again (not to mention the whole circular argument about why you claim the bible is holy). <hr></blockquote></strong>
Why follow a religion if you do not think it is right? What is gained? As far as evidence. The evidence is presented to you, and to others all the time. If it does not stand for you then that is for you to decide. I have made my decision and I am not forcing it on you or anyone else. So once again. How does this viewpoint hurt you. Why the need to attack it?
[quote]<strong>It's one of the longest threads because sometimes it's fun to argue with an irrational person.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Answer given. [sarcasm]"I like arguing with people I don't agree with. It's fun putting them down. Makes me feel warm and fuzzy."[/sarcasm]
[sarcasm]I see you are an expert in translation. If the translators of the bible were half as good as you I'm sooooo sure it's quite accurate.[/sarcasm]
Bleh.
Now this thread has degraded to you just restating in your own words your interpretation of what I said.
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>
And you claim to be civil. HAH!</strong><hr></blockquote>
An observation. Every argument we have gotten into that I have made any points on that you had no good answer for you immediately downshift into name calling, taunting and derision. This time and the nameless post above are too good examples of this. I was perfectly civil. I stand by my post.
An observation. Every argument we have gotten into that I have made any points on that you had no good answer for you immediately downshift into name calling, taunting and derision. This time and the nameless post above are too good examples of this. I was perfectly civil. I stand by my post.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, your insults are "observations." My observations are "insults." Didn't you get the message about this thread needing to die?
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>[sarcasm]I see you are an expert in translation. If the translators of the bible were half as good as you I'm sooooo sure it's quite accurate.[/sarcasm]
Bleh.
Now this thread has degraded to you just restating in your own words your interpretation of what I said.
This thread must die...now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Cannot take people restating your own words back on you in their own interpretation of what it means. If you disagree with the interpreation correct it. Don't cry foul and stomp your feet.
BTW if you want the thread to die, stop posting to it. I have made this obvservation many times before. It still stands.
'truth' is not subjective, and it cannot be 'objective' for us: it is inter-subjective. Just as the meanings of the words through which we interpret the world and ourselves within it, are passed around among us . . . their meanings are derived from collective usage, their descriptive, prescriptive and so on ways of meaning are born out of iteration through collective use, therefor what a person thinks is not purely subjective.
that, my friend who throws the words post-modern around, is the meaning of post-modernism
<strong>'truth' is not subjective, and it cannot be 'objective' for us: it is inter-subjective. Just as the meanings of the words through which we interpret the world and ourselves within it, are passed around among us . . . their meanings are derived from collective usage, their descriptive, prescriptive and so on ways of meaning are born out of iteration through collective use, therefor what a person thinks is not purely subjective.
that, my friend who throws the words post-modern around, is the meaning of post-modernism</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course not. We would be very difficult to uphold a individual view of the world for much longer than it takes to meet another person. But my point was to "break the ice" with an extreme example and show that facts are nothing but conventions and there is no way of saying that one fact is more right than another. And if enough people believe it potatoes IS the (or at least a) currency.
And even though the truth is formed inter-subjective its still patterns in the minds of individual people. It doesn´t form anything "out there" that live on its own. Two or more different truths can be present in the same room (as we see here for instance) but if we removed those who "carry the truth" there would be nothing left. Thats the point I was trying to make. There is no neutral ground where you can judge others truths without resorting to another truth who other can judge based on their truth aso.
Of course not. We would be very difficult to uphold a individual view of the world for much longer than it takes to meet another person. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That topic would need its own thread, or this one could go for another 5 pages...
This has been a wild ride to be sure. Unless anyone has more to add I am willing to close the chapter on this, my longest and hardest fought thread ever.
What I have found is that a few of you agree with me, a few of you disagree and at least one of you is vehement about it. Some of you are very eloquent with your arguments, and some of you not so eloquent, but I feel that overall everyone got a chance to put forth their views even if they were somewhat buried by the heated discussion that ran through the thread. If you have anything that you would like to add now is the time, if not I will now bow out. Thank you for a good run. I wish I could say it was a lot of fun, but it was interesting anyhow and there were fun parts.
Comments
<strong>
All this proves is that bablefish is not perfect at translating from one language, to another and back. The part you are forgetting to bring up is that we still have access to the origional texts, so if you do not think the translation is right, you can go back and study the origional texts and decide for yourself.
However, some of those sentances were quite humorous in their translation. Good thing you posted the origional sentance so that we could look at it and know what it said in the first place.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right...we have ALL of the original texts dating back to the "old testament." Give me a break.
If I think the currency is potato it is. I´m going to have some trouble finding someone to trade with but a lot of people are going to have trouble trading with me so thats no different. If I find someone who think potato is the currency who is to say that "your" currency is more true than ours?
What is money? Nothing but papers that you hope you can buy something with. It is nothing in itself. What we believe things are things are.
The same with the question of God. what I believe is right is right. "But we can´t prove or reject the excistence of God". According to who? Some people will insist they have seen miracles or have similar arguments and I will claim that God is a social product dependent of the material circumstances of a certaint time and age and that can be proved by looking at the history of religion. How is your way of checking things (some kind of positivism) any better than mine (some kind of historic materialism) or NoahJs (some kind of religious inspiration). Do you have a method to judge which way of looking at phenomens that is the right one?
<strong>
Right...we have ALL of the original texts dating back to the "old testament." Give me a break.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/toc.html"; target="_blank">http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/toc.html</a>;
Dates back about 2000 years. So we are to NT times there at least. And yes, there are documents that people have that are older. Do you enjoy flying off the handle like this?
<strong>
<a href="http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/toc.html"; target="_blank">http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/toc.html</a>;
Dates back about 2000 years. So we are to NT times there at least. And yes, there are documents that people have that are older. Do you enjoy flying off the handle like this?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do we have the ORIGINAL FIRST EDITION old testament? No. Go home.
<strong>Atheism is just as stupid as theism. It's blind faith either way.</strong><hr></blockquote>So if you're an atheist, what do you have faith in? No I think there's a difference - atheists are withholding faith in something. Atheism may be wrong, but not because of blind faith.
<strong>
Do we have the ORIGINAL FIRST EDITION old testament? No. Go home.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Considerinng it was not written as one book but is a compilation of many smaller books there is no "Origional First Edition" of the Old Testament.
2000+ years old is a very good source if you ask me. especially for the NT books. The OT was referenced by the NT many times and they likely had older documents that they were reading so translation was not an issue as it was normally in their own languages.
<strong>
Considerinng it was not written as one book but is a compilation of many smaller books there is no "Origional First Edition" of the Old Testament.
2000+ years old is a very good source if you ask me. especially for the NT books. The OT was referenced by the NT many times and they likely had older documents that they were reading so translation was not an issue as it was normally in their own languages.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A very good source to get old editions of fairy tales. I hope one day christianity is treated the same way as older religions that died and suddenly became "myths." One day people will look at Jesus the same way as the Greeks saw Poseidon.
<strong>
A very good source to get old editions of fairy tales. I hope one day christianity is treated the same way as older religions that died and suddenly became "myths." One day people will look at Jesus the same way as the Greeks saw Poseidon.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The last gasp of a failed argument. Poke fun at it.
<strong>
The last gasp of a failed argument. Poke fun at it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry I'm gasping. I'm not as full of hot air as some other people who will go nameless (noah).
<strong>
The last gasp of a failed argument. Poke fun at it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And you claim to be civil. HAH!
<strong>
I'm not saying you have to be wrong. I'm saying it's ridiculous to think that your religion out of the hundreds if not thousands of other religions is right. I do not like it when people go around claiming they understand the incomprehensible. I do not like it when people go around claiming that they can explain the unexplainable. It would be different if you had a shred of evidence, however, the only evidence you can provide is that of a text that has been translated and retranslated time and time again (not to mention the whole circular argument about why you claim the bible is holy). <hr></blockquote></strong>
Why follow a religion if you do not think it is right? What is gained? As far as evidence. The evidence is presented to you, and to others all the time. If it does not stand for you then that is for you to decide. I have made my decision and I am not forcing it on you or anyone else. So once again. How does this viewpoint hurt you. Why the need to attack it?
[quote]<strong>It's one of the longest threads because sometimes it's fun to argue with an irrational person.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Answer given. [sarcasm]"I like arguing with people I don't agree with. It's fun putting them down. Makes me feel warm and fuzzy."[/sarcasm]
Bleh.
Now this thread has degraded to you just restating in your own words your interpretation of what I said.
This thread must die...now.
<strong>
And you claim to be civil. HAH!</strong><hr></blockquote>
An observation. Every argument we have gotten into that I have made any points on that you had no good answer for you immediately downshift into name calling, taunting and derision. This time and the nameless post above are too good examples of this. I was perfectly civil. I stand by my post.
<strong>
An observation. Every argument we have gotten into that I have made any points on that you had no good answer for you immediately downshift into name calling, taunting and derision. This time and the nameless post above are too good examples of this. I was perfectly civil. I stand by my post.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, your insults are "observations." My observations are "insults." Didn't you get the message about this thread needing to die?
<strong>[sarcasm]I see you are an expert in translation. If the translators of the bible were half as good as you I'm sooooo sure it's quite accurate.[/sarcasm]
Bleh.
Now this thread has degraded to you just restating in your own words your interpretation of what I said.
This thread must die...now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Cannot take people restating your own words back on you in their own interpretation of what it means. If you disagree with the interpreation correct it. Don't cry foul and stomp your feet.
BTW if you want the thread to die, stop posting to it. I have made this obvservation many times before. It still stands.
that, my friend who throws the words post-modern around, is the meaning of post-modernism
<strong>'truth' is not subjective, and it cannot be 'objective' for us: it is inter-subjective. Just as the meanings of the words through which we interpret the world and ourselves within it, are passed around among us . . . their meanings are derived from collective usage, their descriptive, prescriptive and so on ways of meaning are born out of iteration through collective use, therefor what a person thinks is not purely subjective.
that, my friend who throws the words post-modern around, is the meaning of post-modernism</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course not. We would be very difficult to uphold a individual view of the world for much longer than it takes to meet another person. But my point was to "break the ice" with an extreme example and show that facts are nothing but conventions and there is no way of saying that one fact is more right than another. And if enough people believe it potatoes IS the (or at least a) currency.
And even though the truth is formed inter-subjective its still patterns in the minds of individual people. It doesn´t form anything "out there" that live on its own. Two or more different truths can be present in the same room (as we see here for instance) but if we removed those who "carry the truth" there would be nothing left. Thats the point I was trying to make. There is no neutral ground where you can judge others truths without resorting to another truth who other can judge based on their truth aso.
<strong>
Of course not. We would be very difficult to uphold a individual view of the world for much longer than it takes to meet another person. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That topic would need its own thread, or this one could go for another 5 pages...
What I have found is that a few of you agree with me, a few of you disagree and at least one of you is vehement about it. Some of you are very eloquent with your arguments, and some of you not so eloquent, but I feel that overall everyone got a chance to put forth their views even if they were somewhat buried by the heated discussion that ran through the thread. If you have anything that you would like to add now is the time, if not I will now bow out. Thank you for a good run. I wish I could say it was a lot of fun, but it was interesting anyhow and there were fun parts.