If you're going to trot out the 'Scripture says X' argument, translation and mistranslation are crucial elements, because if you get it wrong, then simply Scripture doesn't say X.
Oh, I agree! The various mistranslations and whatnot are a part of why I don't accept the bible as true. I'm just saying that when talking to modern Christians, they follow a specific bible, so addressing a previous version is usually an exercise in futility since you're not talking about their
The OT is notorious for misinterpretations, especially in translations following the Masoretic Text, which added vowel points to the original all-consonant text. Given how many words only differ in their vowels, the choice of vowels to add can mean massive skewing of the original text.
Again, I agree
I just think that to properly engage with a Christian, you need to engage with the version of the bible that they base their faith off of and only bring up the mistranslations when it becomes appropriate.
Also, there's no such thing as 'the Bible shared by most of the Christians on Earth'. If anything, the Bible you are familiar with is missing 10 OT books that Luther decided they weren't good enough to remain in the canon that had stood for a millennium.
I meant today,
haha; the bible has had many different versions, and every strain of Christianity has its own unique little book, but there are certain things that are commonly held by the majority of the larger Christian strains. What I was saying was that I try and engage with their bible rather than appealing to an earlier version.
Obviously, the Christians you know are different from those I know, because I've never had anyone (except, perhaps, Messianic Jews) go on and on about how the entire Exodus, with Deuteronomy tacked on, is the list of the Ten Commandments.
Probably not....the Christians I know go on about the Ten Commandments, which is why I point out that there weren't only ten and that "The Ten" aren't the ones they're thinking of, according to the "modern" Christian bibles; as far as I am aware, most editions today have relatively identical accounts of Exodus.
Also, define 'current version'. The 'no point in checking earlier ones' line belongs more with the lunatic fringe who really think that the Bible was originally written in King James English. Snort
. By "Modern," I mean the ones being used by the "majority" of the larger strains. It's complicated, since there are so many strains and so many different versions, so when I say "modern" I mean "The ones used by modern Christians to justify their faith." As far as I know, the original
untranslated texts aren't used that often, so should only really be used to point out the nature of translation and the shifting nature of language. When talking about what happened narratively, it's probably best to use their specific version of the bible.
It's not about getting technical, just getting facts right. Thought you'd appreciate facts.
Oh, I do, don't worry.
I was just making the point that what the original says is irrelevant to what the books that Modern Christians use says (unless it becomes relevant through discussion).
Now back to our regularly scheduled debate on the sinfulness of writing fiction.
Yes indeedy! Writing fiction is fine. There we go, that was quick!
Anywho, if you wanna chat more, drop me a PM line so we don't further clutter the thread with off-topic discussion.