DarkwolfX37

Myriad Reality

Damnit Spirit you're back for two days and look what happens. :P

Myriad Reality

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

Shakespeare. He's the one who made up words.

Except that's not what happened.

His first language was Greek and he wrote in Greek.

What language the books were originally written is isn't even a debate topic. People don't dispute this because there's nothing to argue about.

No sources means no proof. And if you did have sources, are they peer reviewed? Because some random forum means much less than verified scientists and historians testing; you have a concept of what the past is that isn't shared by even atheistic historians. There are historical topics that are debated, but things like "Satan and Lucifer are different" and a majority of the things you dispute aren't even a topic. It's so virtually unanimous, nobody finds the need to argue against it.

The New Testament was written primarily in Greek, the Old in Hebrew. This isn't something people disagree on.

@Legend

So did one of the apostles in their sections. Don't remember which. Might have been Luke.

It's a pretty apt parallel.

Not if he's the one who wrote the first howevermuch of the NT.

That's because people know the OT was in all sorts of languages. I'm pointing out to you that, even before the errors into greek, there was translation that allowed for errors. Then again, the stories were heavily altered so they'd be related by the Jews, so... Kinda a moot point to a point.

Okay, dude. The topic is demonology. You're basically saying that no sources means no proof when discussing what happens in Harry Potter. You may as well be saying that I don't have any proof that Dynamo made X because I don't have a link to the post where it was stated.
I don't know how few sources you're getting your "views of historians" on. Probably ones still saying that yoshua's existence isn't contested much? And seriously, the reason people don't debate over stuff like that is because they're fucking historians, not theologians. Theologians have pretty much universally split down the middle on, for example, whether Satan and Lucy are the same person. It generally depends on whether they're christian or not, funnily enough.

Yes, but I'm talking about the parts written first in the NT. The NT wasn't written all at once, and a lot of it came after other bits of it. You're even saying "primarily in greek" because you know that there were other languages used in writing the NT. That fact means that the translation of it matters, just like it matters when talking about the OT.

Another fun thing about sources is that, unlike you, I don't specifically go after sources that share my bias for information. The meaning of Cain's story was by jewish sources and directly opposed the demonology sources I had, yet since it made more sense, I adopted it. You've literally said that if the bible said the earth was flat in blatant terms, you'd believe it over any evidence otherwise. Which is why I specifically avoid that topic anymore, because I don't want to convince you that the earth is fucking flat.

Now kindly, shut the fuck up, because we know how this ends, we know this goes on forever, and we know we're both stubborn enough to keep going so long that we veer off into completely unrelated topics and argue for days or weeks over what could eventually turn into fucking plant science or something else equally unrelated, and we've been really good about not dominating the OOC with long pointless arguments, so

Myriad Reality

May i point something basic out?
Humans wrote the bible.
As such, even if god told someone to write it along with what to write, it is very likely that there are human errors, and that something may have be lost in translation.
That being said, there should be some kind of flexibility applied when reading it as it is religious material and not a literal guide on how to live your life. Besides, everyone has a different view on things in life, and that is especially true of the things we read, as words, although descriptive, can have many different meanings, making them imprecise.

That's all i have to say.
If you want to point out something to me, I'll be happy to listen.

@Darlit Glitch

No but see David and Spirit believe the bible to be completely literal in its entirety.

Myriad Reality

@souleaterfan320

The point is, Soul, that our parents matter. God put them in our lives for a reason, and though it's fine to leave your dad if you really think you need to, it's important to tell him why, first. He wants to help you, and he's not going about it in a very kind way. He cares about you at heart, and he deserves to know what he did wrong.

@Mammalia

Okay, see, this. Yes, barring the parts we obviously disagree on, you are absolutely correct. Though I'd contest that the reason parents are in our lives is to have created our lives, but... Eh.

Myriad Reality

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

What are you even talking about? That doesn't make any sense; it means that if you don't understand something or question the meaning of a word, you just look somewhere else and see how it's used there.

It's all but objectively the most accurate. They took the original and painstakingly converted it to English.

While you have no evidence for this and part of it is just incorrect, I'll entertain it a bit. Most of the New Testament was written by Paul (who happened to write more books of the Bible than any other person). "Although we know from his biography and from Acts that Paul could speak Hebrew, modern scholarship suggests that Koine Greek was his first language." Citation: Frederick Fyvie Bruce (1977), Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, p. 43
Dale Martin 2009. Introduction to New Testament History and Literature, lecture 14 "Paul as Missionary". Yale University.

I really think you're just making this up because it sounds right to you, despite the sources saying the exact opposite.
Greek has about as many meanings as English; it's really not that hard to figure out when you see how it's used. When I say "I shot an arrow from a bow," it's clear that I'm referring to a bow and arrow, not a bow tie.

You also make a plethora of demonology claims on the basis of you being an expert or something, but I never see cited sources. You can't prove that there's an error when you assume that one side is correct to begin with.

@Legend

You and I are talking about different things here.

Again, the greek is only the original for... I can't remember how much. I think it was over half, but again, I can't remember.

Is Paul the one who made up words too or was that another one?

My Hider

Let's say I want to translate "iris" from english to japanese and back again. This is much more direct than the many translations that happened in the OT and few translations done in the NT, but is a good show for what it was like to translate into greek.
In english, "iris" can refer to both a part of the eye and a type of flower. Several types of flowers, actually. Now let's say I want to say "the iris bloomed beautifully." Now let's hand it off to someone else who naturally spoke japanese and had a loose understanding of english, similar to the situation of turning the OT and beginning of NT into greek. (I'll get to the fact that it was many people in a moment.) They come back with "... kousai ..." Then we hand the same thing to several other people, with varying degrees of understanding of english but all a deep understanding of japanese. We get back "... hanashoubu ..." "... kakitsububata ..." and "... ayame ..." as well as several more examples of "... kousai ..."
Alright, now we hand these off to someone in charge of compiling the translated texts, this line included, into the final version. People on this level decide WHICH translation is to be used. Now, they can compare the usage of this word to other usages and use context to see which is most likely, but there will end up being people in this position who choose each of the possible translations, resulting in several, different versions. Again, this mirrors the translation into greek, with several versions with differences ranging from minor to major.
Now the text gets popular, and someone has to decide which is the "official" version. Let's say they go with the "hanashoubu" version. There are still people who use the other three, but the most popular is this one. Now all of them spread across various lands and cultures and languages, trying to remain as direct as possible. But we're saying we're translating directly back. So now you have to choose which of the "original" versions you want to believe to be the best. Since the "hanashoubu" version was the most popular, it's the most likely to be used 2000 years later as the "original" version.
So now let's have some modern, bilingual people translate it back. "Hanashoubu" can mean either "japanese iris" or "blue flag." Alright, let's look at the context and usage of the same word with their context. Except, uhoh, "Hanashoubu" wasn't used for every instance of "iris" because several passages referred to specific kinds of iris, while this one didn't. We can't really use the context of the other uses now. Alright, we've got translations about this sentence from this version and other ones, and the general consensus is "the ... bloomed beautifully." Guess what? Either meaning of the word could, theoretically, be used to complete that sentence correctly. But, in this case, they choose to go with "iris." So we've successfully translated one way and back.
Except, there are other people who swear by THEIR version of the "original" who disagree with this version. Each one has historians backing them up as "the original." Again, this is a parallel. The historians for the most part admit that there is no way to know which of the versions is the true "original" because they were all translated around the same time and were all translated to the best of the ability of the translators. Now you have a version that says "the iris bloomed beautifully," one that says "the rabbit's ears were beautiful," one that says "the rainbow shone beautifully." And yes, those are actually plausible translations for those japanese words.
Any of them COULD be correct, because they were all translated correctly. The only difference is which you believe to be the "original."
But it gets worse than that for christianity, because now you have all these separate authors, separate books and stories, and are deciding which of these stories are important based on which ones the compilers of the texts that were then translated felt were important.

It's not a matter of original language > new language > english. It's a matter of Language + language + language + language (etc. the various types of aramaic that the stories were written in) > new language (hebrew) + language + language > new language (hebrew) > new language (greek) > new language. (english)

I'll also point out that your quote didn't refute anything. His first language doesn't change what language he wrote in.

Given a record of them, I could provide a source for each one you give that says the exact opposite, the only difference being that yours came from christians a lot more often than mine. Which could mean bias in either direction.

That's because I don't collect sources very often for my demonology stuff. When I'm bored in class or after school or whenever else I was free but not in my room, I didn't want to write down paragraphs of citation multiple times for every fucking thing. I looked for things confirmed by at least two trustworthy sources, ie not those shitty "oh satan is so cool we're demonologists lol" sites, and then wrote down that information and remembered it. All my demonology stuff is in physical notebooks that are somewhere with my school stuff across the years. Citing my sources is impossible because of this. I HAD several sources saved in a notes app on my old phone, but I no longer have access to those links, and they would only cover certain things. For example, I had saved the link to the explanation of Cain, which I really wish I still had because I really liked the explanation given, but I don't have it anymore.

I can all but tell you exactly what the error was with Lucy into Satan but you wouldn't believe me anyway since it happened during the translation into greek, which you consider the "original" version.

Myriad Reality

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

Baseless claim. Evidence, please.

OT is split into three parts. One still applies, two don't.

This is so incorrect, I'm legitimately stunned and unsure of where to even start.

Since we have the ability to interpret passages with some flexibility—
Wrong; the Bible is used to interpret itself. Just because you may doesn't mean everyone else does. I'm also using the most accurate translation. If you want the Greek (not Aramaic) word (since we do have the originals), it's Τίμα, pronounced "Tima." The word means "honour, regard, reverence, set a price on, acknowledge the status of, give financial aid to." Because we're not dealing with money, we are left with "honour, regard, reverence," and loosely, "acknowledge the status of." That would be more likely to fit with an elected official, but the definition of the word and its interpretation is clear. It's also used the same way in all instances of its use I've found in the Bible. There isn't wiggle room; this one is cut and dry.

@Legend

If the bible is used to interpret itself then it nulls itself through all its contradictions. That's the whole reason apologists exist.

What you define as the "most accurate" may not be the most accurate.

You do realize that greek was the second language that the first portion of the NT was written in, right? Even the NT began, up until a certain point, in aramaic and hebrew. So you claiming to have the originals and then saying that they're greek doesn't really give you much credit to work off.
Also, of course the GREEK word would be consistent, greek words have a lot of meanings and so do aramaic and hebrew. If even one of them matches one of them then it would use that word, even if the original intent wasn't for that. The Lucifer = Satan error came about when translating into greek, after all.

Myriad Reality

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

For the sake of simplicity, we'll assume Christian morals being the "moral" side of things, because it allows us to weigh an objective standard.

Deuteronomy 5:16

“Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you, that your days may be long, and that it may go well with you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you."

Leviticus 19:3

"Every one of you shall revere his mother and his father, and you shall keep my Sabbaths: I am the Lord your God."

Or if you don't like OT

Ephesians 6:1-2

"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise),"

No qualifications are ever put on honoring (respecting) one's parents. Obeying, on the other hand, has qualifications (see above), because they must obey God first, and then parents. But at no point does it say to respect/honor them if they have earned it. It's an all-encompassing command that does not fade. The humanistic view, on the other hand, claims relative morals, which might as well be no morals at all because it means nothing; without a static structure to create morality around, it will shift eventually anyway, so there's no room to call something absolutely morally right.

@Legend

Except the christian set of morals is contradictory and has changed over time, and adding a god into the mix doesn't make morals mean something when they wouldn't otherwise...

ANYWAY

Throwing out the OT because literally five christians follow it anyway, let's look at that quote you gave.
"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise),"
Since we have the ability to interpret passages with some flexibility since that's, you know, how religion works, and there's the whole "the words used often don't convey the same meaning as the words they were translated into over time, or even simply from Aramaic," this passage could easily have been intended to mean:
- Children, obey your parents when they instruct you in how to follow the (in the) Lord, for this is right. “(Honor)Trust your father and mother” -

Using bible verses is basically like using google translate to turn a japanese song into english.

Myriad Reality

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

Technically it's binary and objective. If we assume morals to be legitimate and to exist, then one is to always respect his parents. If morals do not exist then one never technically "should" respect them; it would just be something he could do if he so chose.

@Legend

No? Even if we assume that morals do exist, "always respect your parents" wouldn't be one. "Respect your parents so long as they remain worthy of respect" could be, but that's why it's highly relative. Not all parents deserve respect and some deserve it more than others.

Myriad Reality

alright, i'm sick of my dad giving me shit. i'm getting a new job and moving the hell out. I cant stand this bullshit he puts me through.

I understand he wants the best of me, but I don't have the sort of drive he wants me to have. that's something I have to learn on my own.

@souleaterfan320

You should really have a heart to heart talk with him about that very subject before you jump to moving out.

<Snipped quote by souleaterfan320>

He means well, and one should respect their father and mother.

@Disdain

That's highly relative.

Myriad Reality

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

Threads of Fate hasn't responded to all the stuff Spirit and David said.

@Efficacy

I was away from internet yesterday and until today. Sorry.