Talk:Disputed Biblical Translations

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LiamG (Talk | contribs) at 20:46, 10 December 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Conflicts w/ Jesus emphasis on Hell

Right now this claim is very unsubstantiated. I think the readers of this article will get more out of it if we tell them how the passage about the adulterous woman conflicts w/ Jesus emphasis on hell-- not merely say that it does. --Ben Talk 10:43, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Good point. Will try to improve it now per your suggestion.--Aschlafly 13:39, 7 December 2008 (EST)
Many Christians don't believe in Hell or believe that Hell is a place where we are purified but all will eventually be saved. See Jesus' Teaching on Hell, Samuel G. Dawson BernardH 13:28, 9 December 2008 (EST)
or believe that Hell is a place where we are purified but all will eventually be saved. That is not believing in Hell; that is believing in Purgatory. Bugler 05:31, 10 December 2008 (EST)

"Many Christians believe etc." What kind of argument is that? Truth is independent of belief. What "many christians believe" has no impact on the reality of Hell.

Still, no one has yet attempted to explain how the passae conflicts with Jesus' emphasis on Hell. We've sufficiently demonstrated that the passage is used (or misused) to arue against hell, but the page still doesn't explain how or why it is actually in conflict with the reality of Hell (or Jesus' emphasis thereon). --Ben Talk 10:10, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Jesus emphasized Hell more than Heaven in the authentic passages, with Jesus as judge. In this phony passage, however, Jesus refuses to judge and the woman never asks for forgiveness. Based on the authentic passages, she's headed for Hell. Based on the phony passage, she's not.--Aschlafly 13:43, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Human Ghosts?

"It is ironic that the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV and many other modern versions have tossed out the term Holy Ghost, yet they have introduced the totally false idea of human ghosts"

I have never heard anyone claim that the bible supports the idea of human ghosts. On the contrary, it is against the idea. Could you please point out the basis for the claim that these versions have introduced the idea of human ghosts. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 14:28, 7 December 2008 (EST)

You're right that the Bible does not support the idea of human ghosts. But I've given examples now of how modern translations (erroneously) do.--Aschlafly 15:22, 7 December 2008 (EST)
The examples do not show that modern translations support the idea of human ghosts. All the examples support is that modern translators believe that the people the Bible was talking about believed in human ghosts. Philip J. Rayment 20:58, 8 December 2008 (EST)
The "commentator" mentioned in this section is a KJV-only person, who provides a poor argument overall. The quote of him is wrong (as mentioned above the examples do not show what is claimed) and should be removed. Philip J. Rayment 21:13, 8 December 2008 (EST)
I would imagine that when people say that the bible supports the idea of human ghosts they are referring to 1 Samuel 28, in which Saul has a witch summon the deceased Samuel for counsel. I have always been personally surprised by the depiction of this story in the bible and I wonder if its translation has changed from the older manuscripts. --Laches 13:21, 9 December 2008 (EST)
That's a curious case! The connections between human ghosts and the Holy Ghost are patently absurd, however. I think it has to do with the German (perhaps Old-English?) rootword Geist, which means both Ghost and Spirit. Translation is often a problem. - Rod Weathers 13:22, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Adulteress story

I've removed some bits for the following reasons:

  • I don't ever recall seeing anybody use the passage to argue against capital punishment.
  • I don't ever recall seeing anybody use the passage to argue against hell. The reference supposedly supporting this claim was actually using the passage to argue against condemnation of any sort, as part of a larger argument against the existence of hell, but this passage itself wasn't being used to argue against hell itself.
  • I can't see how the passage conflicts with other teaching about hell.

Philip J. Rayment 21:35, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Quite the contrary, it's used extensively by liberal denominations who try to push the "no condemnation" "everyone is saved" view. I've personally had numerous conversations with "liberal Christians" who brought up the passage to deny Hell itself. - Rod Weathers 12:30, 9 December 2008 (EST)
Right. There's no denying how this passage is used to deny the existence of Hell (which, by the way, should be capitalized), oppose capital punishment, and even bully anyone who condemns sin in an effective way. There is already one reference to an example and more could be easily found.--Aschlafly 12:46, 9 December 2008 (EST)
I'm going to half-agree with Andy here: I have heard people (ministers included) reference this story as an argument against capital punishment, and/or to downplay the notion of harsh punishments from God. However, I must take issue with the idea that the story's "authenticity is rejected by modern biblical scholars". While some reject it entirely, and most dispute its placement, my understanding is that it is considered to be an actual Jesus story, and the implication that all scholars reject it out of hand is preposterous. At the very least, there should be a "some" inserted between "by" and "modern".--RossC 14:10, 9 December 2008 (EST)
Given that there's now further testimony of the passage being used to oppose hell and capital punishment, I'll accept that. However, not all the objections have been addressed.
Further, Andy's edit comment and reply here are offensive, illogical, and unsubstantiated. As I have repeatedly pointed out before, it is NOT censorship to remove inaccurate information (which is what I believed this to be). Further, it is NOT a valid argument to simply declare yourself correct ("There's no denying...").
Finally, there was no explanation for the reversion of a wording change that was made at the same time.
Philip J. Rayment 21:12, 9 December 2008 (EST)
Philip, your edits again distort the entry without justification. For example, you say that the passage is "misused" to deny the existence of Hell (which you notably spell with a small "h"). There is evidence that the passage is fake, but no justification for saying it is "misused". The passage, if taken at face value, does support an argument denying the existence of Hell.
The passage taken at face value does not deny the existence of Hell. It is an example of Christ's forgiveness, which he offers to everyone, regardless of the severity of their sin. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 23:01, 9 December 2008 (EST)
Another change is you insist on putting a website in the text rather than in a footnote, perhaps to try to downplay the (undeniable) point being made. Websites belong in the footnotes.--Aschlafly 22:37, 9 December 2008 (EST)
Your "reversion explained" does not explain the wholesale reversion of my edits including formatting changes nor much of my rewording, such as the sentence introducing the different translation comments.
The passage does not directly nor indirectly mention hell, so does not deny the existence of hell, at face value or otherwise.
The "misused" word was yours. I didn't add that.
I did not spell Hell with a lower-case "h". The only use of that in the section is in a quote that you inserted.
I did not "insist" on putting a web-site in the text. I did put it in the text, but only because it's normal practice when quoting someone to say in the text who is being quoted. As there was not an author's name to attribute it to, I attributed it to the web-site.
Philip J. Rayment 01:07, 10 December 2008 (EST)
offensive, illogical, and unsubstantiated You are skating on very thin ice with abusive comments like that. Bugler 05:33, 10 December 2008 (EST)
You have a problem with the truth? Philip J. Rayment 06:01, 10 December 2008 (EST)
You are both out of order. When comments get above six colons, the indent should be reset to the edge of the page.--CPalmer 07:04, 10 December 2008 (EST)
Did you just make that up, Mr. nine-colons?  :-) Philip J. Rayment 08:41, 10 December 2008 (EST)
I thought it was a rule, but maybe I'm wrong. The amount of time I spend on here, I wouldn't be surprised if I'd dreamt it.--CPalmer 09:26, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I didn't know the six colon rule, CP, but I do now! As for Philip: I don't have any problem with the truth; what I do have a problem with is your increasingly aggressive and intemperate attitude towards Andy, who, as the Founder and Leader of Conservapedia is entitled to courtesty and respect, not insult. Bugler 07:15, 10 December 2008 (EST)

If I'm increasingly aggressive and intemperate toward Andy, then I'm merely following the example set by our Founder and Leader. Is there any better way to show courtesy and respect other than to try and be like him? Philip J. Rayment 08:41, 10 December 2008 (EST)
Philip, your angry and insulting comments are increasingly inappropriate. We're going to keep a high level of discourse here consistent with our purpose. Also, website references belong in footnotes, not the text.--Aschlafly 08:43, 10 December 2008 (EST)
If we are going to keep a high level of discourse here, why do you insult me by ignoring my questions and comments, by calling my attempts to make the article more accurate "censorship", and calling me "liberal"? Philip J. Rayment 09:10, 10 December 2008 (EST)
Philip, we're building an encyclopedia here. I'm not going to waste more time in talk, talk, talk. Your edits have far too high a percentage of talk and edits that are reverted. Deleting information is censorship, and I don't think I ever called you a liberal. Supporting gun control is a liberal position; claiming that "beauty is on the eye of the beholder" is an atheistic view; and spelling Hell with a small "h" does suggest a denial of it.--Aschlafly 09:21, 10 December 2008 (EST)
I don't know if using the Adulteress Story to deny Hell is a very common thing. The provided source links to a forum post, where the Adulteress Story seems like a very minor point in the guy's argument. Anyone who is trying to use that verse to deny Hell is really just grasping at straws. Could we find a better source for this? I searched briefly but found no other instance of using the Adulteress Story to deny Hell. FernoKlumpMr. Schlafly! Look at this petition! 10:00, 10 December 2008 (EST)
Since Mr. Aschlafly has refused to participate in discussion any further ("I'm not going to waste more time in talk, talk, talk.") and has shown no further evidence to his side other than offering ad hominum and other fallacious statements like "undeniable", why not just go with Mr. Philip Rayment's edits? It boggles the mind as to how one can push their side of the discussion without giving any sort of reason. Seems pretty simple which side to pick... Jalast Jeweler 11:00, 10 December 2008 (EST)
Regardless of whether you agree with other users or not, we do not tolerate personal insults on this encyclopedia, Jalast Jeweler. Please keep it civil and objective. - Rod Weathers 11:11, 10 December 2008 (EST)

a new kettle o' fish

I'm starting a new subsection here to explain the changes I just made to the article, and also to bypass the fussiness above, and perhaps have an actual discussion on the merits, as it were.

  • I changed "authenticity has been rejected by modern biblical scholars" to "authenticity and placement have been disputed by many modern biblical scholars" because a bit of research on the issue showed me that a few scholars think the story is totally bogus, many think it the story is accurate but misplaced, and a fair number think the story is accurate and correctly placed. Therefore, to say or imply that all agree that the story is bogus is just plain wrong.
  • I indicated somewhere above that I have indeed heard (as Andy wrote) various folks use this passage as an argument against capital punishment, and a few use it to argue against Hell in general. However, the most recent assertion that some use it to "argue against opposition to sinful behavior...(including) permissiveness to alternative lifestyles, desecration and belittlement of Christianity and Christians by the unfaithful" is just ludicrous--I've never heard anyone ever argue anything like that, ever. If that's going to be in the article, you're going to need some serious cites. Therefore, I changed it back to something like Andy first wrote (which still includes his supporting cite).--RossC 21:25, 10 December 2008 (EST)
Your second point is fine, but your first point is simply not accurate. The overwhelming consensus is that the passage is not authentic, and all modern versions of the Bible confirm this as well as all or nearly all biblical scholars across the political spectrum. Our description will reflect that, and I'm changing it now.--Aschlafly 21:34, 10 December 2008 (EST)
To avoid any contention this may cause, could either of you provide citings? That way we could be sure and add them to the article, rather than just asserting either way. --LiamG 21:46, 10 December 2008 (EST)