>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Non mobile discussion
> Da vinci code
Bookmark topic
Quote:
On 2006-05-19 20:02:00, cycne wrote:
As far as i know the bible is written with divine intervention
Yes; you mean divine inspiration, I believe
Quote: and how can you edit the words of god you said its just translations but i say on it is not only translations
What is it then? Give any book written in ancient (not even modern) Greek to 10 groups of linguists to translate into English and it will come out as 10 different translations. The meanings and message will be the same, but the words will differ. Surely, that is easy to see. Again you use that word "edit". Hopefully, its not deliberate, as I have shown clearly that the Bible has been copied and translated; not edited.
Then consider that the KJV was translated in 1611, the NIV in the 70s, and others at different other times and its certainly easy to see how the variations came to be.
Quote: and also one more thing dont you think there is any chance of an error in the ideas being conveyed upon so many translations......
In my opinion - and it does seems obvious - subjecting Scriptures to such open scrutiny and translations makes it more difficult for one man, or a group of people, to foster their own private agendas on everyone else. After all, God did not entrust even the original writs to just one man but many.
Look at the Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. Even their accounts of Jesus' life and ministry differed in some details. Not that they contradict one another, mind you. Its more a case of each individual approaching issues from differing perspectives, and at times leaving out what didn't appear important at that time from that individual perspective. For example, John seemed to be more concerned with the sonship and divinity of Christ, while Mark concentrated more on his teachings. Having contributions from more than one person has given us a better view of the picture.
In my opinion, the more people are involved in translating the original writ, the greater the chances of dealing with errors or ommissions from a single translation.
--
Posted: 2006-05-19 21:20:00
Edit :
Quote
Aya
You told it right the disciples of christ has written the gospels from different views....But the fact that the bible is compiled to a single book long after and it was not compiled by the disciples....Themselves casts doubts ......At the time the bible was compiled the church was going through a bad state.......
--
Posted: 2006-05-20 04:42:00
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2006-05-20 04:42:00, cycne wrote:
....But the fact that the bible is compiled to a single book long after and it was not compiled by the disciples....Themselves casts doubts
When you look at the Bible as it is, there should be no doubts. The Bible was compiled from:
- different books...
- by different authors...
- who lived at different times under differeing cultural settings...
- and who spoke different languages
And yet a common theme runs through those books. Some of those disciples were separated by hundreds of miles at times and could not have done the compilation. Again, note that many of those books were letters written to different churches spread around different corners of the known world then.
Its like saying Albert Einsteen discovered this theory in Europe at so-so date, and Eugene O. discovered this other one in Asia. Many years later, some other scientists come along and combine both their theories/works into a usable format for the benefit of the rest of us. And that's the scenario in most scientific cases - and in this case too.
Surely, it gives a greater sense of security and credibility than if one singular individual had written it all and fostered it on us. Paul and David never met, having lived hundreds of years apart under different cultural realities; yet they both paint a picture of a God they both knew.
No; it casts no doubt for me. It gives me more reason to believe.
Quote: ......At the time the bible was compiled the church was going through a bad state.......
Again, there are lots of good things we enjoy today on planet earth that came into being during troubled times. Inventions, innovations and landmark decisions that were made during plagues, wars and turbulences, but that have made the quality of life of man better today.
That the book we know today as the Bible was compiled during a time of trouble does not in itself discredit the book. The important thing is the credibility of the writers and the copies of the scripts used. And those were clear.
--
Posted: 2006-05-20 05:32:00
Edit :
Quote
@AYA
You've hit the nail on the head.
The Da Vinci Code author has been accused of copying large chunks of another book
Holy Blood, Holy Grail, a pseudo-historical work it's authors call a 'hypothesis' (which is another way of saying 'we fill in the gaps in our knowledge using our political bias).
One of these authors is ex-patriate NZer Michael Baigent who was interviewed on RadioNZ's Nine 'til Noon show recently.
In this interview Baigent suggested that his book could be relied on as historical fact, and yet could not explain how he could own the copyright on historical facts. Historal facts after all cannot be owned, you can only own copyright on ideas in works of fiction. Also Baigent refused to acknowledge to role of the 4 Gospels in understanding Jesus and his time on earth. He would not even mention them - as if they didn't exist.
It's no wonder the Catholic Church is upset. They stand accused of perpetrating a world-wide fraud which has gained them billions of dollars in revenue over hundreds of years - an accusation which has no basis in truth.
Also, if Jesus did escape the cross and settled down with Mary Magdalene, then the most important belief of Christianity is worthless and therefore so would be Christianity. Jesus could be no more than an ancient Tony Robbins and his birth (Christmas) and death (Easter) would hold no more significance than any other day.
This is a situation many people would like to see. It's no surprise to see the same people in this discussion as in the 9/11 Conspiracy and Anti-Bush threads.
_________________
J ustan oth erinan esig nature thatd oe sntm akesen se. - HA!
[ This Message was edited by: carkitter on 2006-05-20 06:44 ]
--
Posted: 2006-05-20 07:25:59
Edit :
Quote
Has anyone seen the movie .....How is the movie..... And does the movie and book take different paths at any point.......
--
Posted: 2006-05-21 05:07:00
Edit :
Quote
I haven't read the book as I choose to vote with my wallet - I dont support products I disagree with. The movie I have been tempted to see but initial reviews have been unflattering to say the least. It bombed with the critics at Cannes and critics here in NZ decribed it as tedious.
Nonetheless, the viewing public here seem to like it, with superlatives flowing and some saying it follows the book closely.
I'll probably wait til it arrives on DVD. At the moment I have rented: Bullit (Steve McQueen), Hard Rain (Christian Slater) and perennial favourite Robin Hood - Prince of Thieves. Da Vinci Code is not high on my list.
--
Posted: 2006-05-21 06:29:19
Edit :
Quote
Here in india the movie is rated 6/10
--
Posted: 2006-05-21 13:41:00
Edit :
Quote
i suppose its a great thriller.
i am reading this book up to the 83chapter now and going to watch this film this sunday... at least it tells you something totally different that can make you realise there is still another world.
--
Posted: 2006-05-22 04:51:55
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2006-05-21 05:07:00, cycne wrote:
Has anyone seen the movie .....How is the movie..... And does the movie and book take different paths at any point.......
have read the book and watched the movie... obviously the movie definitely be quicker, the pace is up while the novel tells you every tidbits of wots happnin... as ive read the book i can tell you that the movie doesnt suffice it.. but if you havent read the book and watched the movie.. youll definitely like it because it goes to the point of the story... meaning the quest for the holy grail. and how the movie was layed out is such a cool thing.. but if you base it on the novel... then youll see.. aaahh! thats what the novels for...
you will understand me if you have read the book and watch the movie...
--
Posted: 2006-05-22 05:13:50
Edit :
Quote
i think they totally massacred sophie's character, turning her into yet another caricature - no, not even - they turned her into a mere spectator. she was more hands-on when it came to puzzle-solving in the book. another machismo movie from ron howard, thankyouverymuch.
--
Posted: 2006-05-22 05:44:07
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
