 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
I skipped ahead to this:
They are not VERSIONS, they are TRANSLATIONS.
I meant this:
you may get idiosyncrasies in the 3 different translations
If you have an issue with my word choices, as you appear to have here, I can be less ambiguous and I can be more precise with my word choices as I am now trying to explain.
I meant that there are more than one translations (I chose the word versions), which was an intent by me to acknowledge the fact that "you may get idiosyncrasies in the 3 different translations," and therefore the message in one may not be the same message in another.
They are not VERSIONS, they are TRANSLATIONS.
Now you are using capital letters to highlight something. What are you intending to highlight?
I've done wrong?
I am going to go back to where I left off in the first new reply I have yet to read.
Frank cannot make a contract between good and evil. He cannot call a truce. He has no standing.
Actually Frank has done so, according to Frank. You claim, as if factually, that Frank cannot do so, when in fact, Frank has done so, and then there is the separate measure of what exactly is done by Frank, whereby the words are left behind and the actual actions stand as being what the actual actions are in fact.
I am not Frank, so I don't actually know what Frank has done, other than reading the words, and listening to his words, and so I know what I read, and I know what I hear, so you can claim what you claim, and I can know that you claim what you claim, because I can read your words too. What actually happens?
If Frank says that there is significance to the Roman Pontiff resigning, then I am less able to understand what that means, if my perspective is compared to Frank's perspective concerning what he measures as the fight between good and evil.
You believe what you believe.
Frank believes what Frank believes.
I seek to know better, and my power to believe is, to me, power less, and often counter productive.
You will do what you will do. I think I will do bookwork as I am weary to explain the Gospel of Christ any better. However, I do say that I think that if you would read the Bible, and I don't care which version you read, you may get the big picture. I think that you speak of that which you do not know, and I don't know how to make you know except that you have to search the scriptures yourself, and you have to let God be God, and if God says that He is going to be tortured and murdered on your behalf so that you might be purchased you from the death of sin, then that is the way it is. And I suppose that is child like faith.
The many Translations of The Bible say different things, and much of what I've already read is ambiguous, or beyond my understanding as to what the intended meaning is in those ambiguous words. As far as child like faith, there is what appears to be a contradiction, since I've heard a Translation that makes the claim that childlike things are to be left behind. I may be mistaken as to such an intended meaning, of course. I am not, nor do I pretend to be, nor have I ever claimed to be, an authority concerning any Translation of The Bible. I also do not claim to be an authority concerning what God says.
The only thing required is Faith...Childlike faith. There will be a time when we have perfect perception, and that will be when we see Him.
That is good news for those in that group. I am happy for those in that group. My current understanding is such that I am not in that group, unless told otherwise.
But I do not know that we will be as powerful as God, or that we will be God, but I know that we cannot even imagine what God has in store for us:
That appears to be another contradiction, but I understand that it is more than likely that the contradiction is a product of my error in perspective. If I do not believe, as I'm told that I must believe, despite every attempt to believe, then I am told that I don't go to heaven. Is that true or not? Is that imagined into being and therefore not true, or is that the type of thing that is set in stone, non-negotiable, factual, real, known to be my fate, beyond doubt, and therefore having nothing to do with the power to imagine what may, or many not, be my fate?
We, you say, will have perfect perception. That can be imagined by me, and when I imagine that, I imagine God. I am told that failing to do what I can't do reduces me to some lesser fate than what you get for your ability to believe?
You get perfect perception. I get the lake of fire?
I get from Genesis 13 a message that sounds like God subsidy, so what do I know?
I know enough not to claim knowledge of the word of God, as my ability to demonstrate such authority is not merely weak, it appears to be demonstrably absent.
If I imagine God, a perfection of perception, then I imagine a power capable of avoiding resort to torture and murder, especially regarding human children, so much for my childlike dreams?
I am asking you to find an English copy of the Bible and read it.
I read parts, and I get God subsidy.
I get ambiguous words that convey either no meaning to me, or the meaning is anything I may care to make of it, since the meaning is ambiguously conveyed to me, and again, sure, the fault is all mine, but that is the current state of my being in relation to any specific translation (that is not a version) of any Bible.
As to the actual, real, word of God, your claim of authority as to knowing what the actual, real, word of God could be demonstrated in fact.
You say this, and you say that, and that, according to you, is the Word of God, and as far as I am concerned, that could be true, factual, real, or that could not be true, factual, and real.
I don't believe it is true, factual, or really the Word of God because I can't, and no matter how many times I keep asking, you keep repeating the same suggestions, and so I read, and what do I get?
God subsidy.
God pays favorites.
If that is God, it is not the God I know, it is not the God I believe, for the same reasons already stated.
God aught to be able to figure a way out of playing favorites.
I am asking you to believe the words in the Bible.
Which words?
I believe that to fear God is to hate evil. Those words I get, and I get those words loud and clear.
I do not believe the slaughter of babies was done by God to accomplish some nebulous goal.
I do not believe that the torture and slaughter of Jesus Christ was done to excuse my sins, or some other wording that appears to mean the same thing, as if I am being blamed for Jesus Christ being tortured and murdered. I don't believe such thing, it makes no sense, and if there is a God that is going to torture and murder more people because I'm not obeying words written in English, whereby I have to forgo my sense of reason, and I have to blindly follow orders, without question, that appear to be unreasonable, then I have a problem with that God.
That God, to me, sounds much more like what I can conjure up as being The Devil.
I do not claim to be an authority on what God is, or is not, according to anyone else but me. God to me is real, and real nice, a power to perfectly perceive everything to such a degree of power as to then be able to create things and those things created then are able to create things of beauty, like songs, like paintings, and even beautiful things like happiness.
So, sure, I am all set to get thrown in the Lake of Fire and that happens despite your best efforts to encourage me to believe, by reading an English Translation of The Bible.
I've read. I've read before you ever knew me. I get the same reaction each time. The words are ambiguous, or the words are specifically abhorrent to my sense of reason.
Childlike faith? I did that at age 10. I've told you already. My childlike faith was not signing onto the concept of some guy being tortured and murdered for me. There has to be a more Godly way to deal with human beings, it seemed to me then, and it still seems to me now.
Sure, again, sure, I'm all wrong, send me off to the Lake of Fire, that is how it is, until who knows, I don't.
I am not disbelieving, so that aught to be understood, if by now it is not been made clear.
Those words were written by the Holy Spirit of God as men were directed to write.
Written in Greek?
English language, apparently, is like Federal Reserve Notes, as far as my understanding goes currently, and that fits the Big Picture, since that could easily explain the lack of capacity to convey meaning with those English words arranged in those ways in those Translations (not versions).
The point is that the versions are basically the same. Joe, the New Testament was originally written in Greek.
I can ask Frank as to specific words in specific original texts and what is added or subtracted concerning specific things. I have been thinking about this all day, and I was reminded of a specific example already stumbled upon by me in Frank's writing, and the example concerned the message contained in the parable about the son who took an inheritance from his father, spent it all on having fun, and then returned to the father broke. I forgot the names of the people in the parable.
If it is Frank's contention that the words are fiction, then that is based upon his viewpoint.
If it is your contention that the words are true, then that is based upon your viewpoint.
If other people have similar viewpoints then those are their viewpoints.
If the Greek words (or Latin, or Hebrew, or whatever) of the original documents mean this, or that, and the English words meant this for awhile, and then that for awhile, then there can be a comparison done from original meaning to translated meaning, and in that example I remember it was Frank's claim that words were added to the message that were words never in the original message.
The point is to know and understand the Bible and from there Jesus Christ is known.
If you say the words in The Bible are true accounts of real things, such as the example I remembered about the story you had already shown to me, about the father and the son who wasted all that money, then that is your claim, based upon your belief, and it may be true, or not true, as far as I know.
Frank says that words were added to that story, which he calls the words a parable, I think that is what he says, I can check. Frank may be wrong too.
How do I know?
I can know, eventually, by actually getting the actual document written in the original form, and then I can see if Frank is correct, where there are words added, to make the story different in specific ways, not ambiguous ways, specific ways, where someone, sometime, changes the message from the original to something different.
If that can be demonstrated as true, then your claim of the Word of God being the English Translation would require that the additional words added to the original copies were added by God, through whoever did the edit work.
That can be true too. I don't know.
The Bible is reveals the Lord Jesus Christ so that we all might know Him AS HE IS. He is not a figment of an imagination to be known or made up.
I don't know anyone who claims that Jesus Christ was made up. I have read enough of Frank's work that proves to me that Frank believes that Jesus Christ was a human being.
Much in The Bible is not about Jesus Christ, and now we are back to Frank's contention concerning Christians who may, or may not, put more weight into words in the Bible quoting Jesus Christ where there may be contentions (or contradictions) with words quoted from other people.
I could add that to the list of things I can ask Frank, if I run out of specific things I want to speak to Frank about concerning my power perspective relating to political economy.
I point you to the Bible because it is the only way to know.
The message I get from those words are such that I would need to find the original documents and I would need to translate the words myself, since I do not trust the English language versions now that I understand the history of English, at least as far as the information offered by Frank is concerned.
Counterfeit Language makes sense to me.
English is a counterfeit language.
I point you to an English Bible because it is the only language you know. If you know German I could point you to Martin Luther's Bible which he TRANSLATED from the Hebrew and Greek into German. That is the Bible used by the Amish. They still know German.
If I have to learn a new language then directly going to the original documents, to me, makes the most sense, and that is what Frank appears to have done.
You can claim, all day, that I believe in what Frank says, which is not true, if that is what you are going to do, or if that is what you are already doing.
The information offered by Frank is significant information for reasons that I can explain, such as the history of English, and such as the example of that specific parable concerning the father and son where the son wastes all that money.
The point is to have the WORD OF GOD in your own language so that you are not dependent upon any man or priest or government to tell you what God says.
That is odd, because that is the point I am pointing out to you, when I do not trust the many translations done by the many men, priests, and employees of so called government.
God requires faith in the death of Christ as atonement for sin.
That is a very good point of contention I have right now. What is the original meaning of the word "atonement" and "sin"?
What is the original words, any sentence, any paragraph, any quote by Jesus Christ saying, that God requires faith in the death of Christ as atonement for sin?
That sounds like a very good way that I can briefly put the question to Frank.
You alone are responsible to have or not to have faith.
Here again I am seeing contradiction. If I ask and there is no answer, then I am unable to respond, I have no ability to respond, there is no faith within my power to respond. I lack that ability. If I lack that ability, then the faith has to arrive from an external power, and why not?
Why does God not simply give faith to me?
If you are sent to me to help me, then I should find the original text and get the word of God from the mouths of the people God used to speak to man, if that is at all true, what you say is true.
So then, there is Frank, out of nowhere, and he just happens to have done all that study work, finding the original documents, and doing the manual translations himself?
Is that how God answers me?
Am I to act childlike again, in this case, like I acted when I was a child at age 10?
So, that is why I say read the Bible, an English Bible that has been Translated from the Original Hebrew and Greek (the same way that you are depending on Surgi to translate Russian history into English for his book).
There is English again. You use the word "depend," and I am supposed to agree that I depend upon Sergey for accurate information?
I do no such thing. From nothing there is now a version of Russian History, which can be called a translation of Russian History, and it is far more competitive to me compared to no translations. I do not depend upon it, as if to say that I would reject any competitive offer of another translation, and then I have two from which to compare one to the other looking for similarities, looking for contradictions, and it is often the case, but not always the case, where one is demonstrably more accurate, and therefore better, than the other one.
Here is a few possible tests in view.
1.
A parable or news report concerning a son and a father and a lot of money spent on having a good time.
2.
A claim that can be traced back to actual words written in original documents concerning that which God requires, without misunderstanding, and without ambiguity.
Even "religious" people argue about what "version" of the Bible to use. It is a distraction.
So now you say that those words are for me, for my hearing, as if I don't know that these arguments over who knows, who is the greater authority, over what God did or did not say, is a diversion?
Those pages are all about how the King of England authorized scholars to translate the Bible into the English Language. (I remember reading Patrick Henry's work opposing the constitution. I had a hard time understanding early American English.)
What is the full measure of that King? I have my measure of Patrick Henry, which I base upon his words and deeds, as far as it is possible to trust the origin of the words and deeds having been attributed to Patrick Henry.
We can cut past a lot of words concerning our differences in religious belief, it seems to me, if it is possible to trace back the original message in the original document that claims to say that God requires this or that such as your claim as you make that claim earlier in this discussion.
(Let me also add, that if people in China wanted to read Frank's covenant, but didn't know English, what good would it be to them. Maybe they could get someone in China to translate it for them.
Here is where my thinking has been with Frank and his work. To me the effort to hold the Roman Cult to account is limited in scope, since it is my understanding that the most powerful humans are now creating World War III. The supposed Westernization of China, for example, indicates to me that these most powerful of human beings, whatever names they hide behind, are gaining power in China, and they are not using Uniform Commercial Code, or Nohide Law, or Admiralty Law in China, or are they?
That may be a key point?
Does the "westernization" of China actually mean that Admiralty Law is now being enforced in China?
Would the end product still be Frank's covenant if the translator was doing an honest job?
I can't see Frank's ideas working for the average Joe. Compared to Trial by Jury, as explained in the Essay by Lysander Spooner, the work done by Frank is much too complex, unusable, for most people, and that does not make it unusable for all people. Those who voluntarily need complex associations find ways to find agreement, so Frank's work might help them. I don't know.
The idea Frank has is similar to mine in that there has to be something replacing Legal Crime, something to work toward, or Legal Crime will be the Default.
I see much more value in moving forward to a Democratic Federated Republic, with Trial by Jury based upon sortition, such as the example already set with The Articles of Confederation. It was an example of Free Market Government, complete with Free Market Money (whiskey when the Gold was driven out by fraud money).
But Frank may be much more pessimistic than I am, so he may be thinking in terms of having total collapse, and then a necessity of building everything back up from ashes.
He wants to get a head start, so do I, but that does not mean that I agree with the specific methods.
I see getting rid of The FED, and doing so by inventing, producing, and maintaining competitive Legal Monies, at State levels (republics), or even County, City, Town, Company, Family, or Individual levels. It was Josiah Warren who proved that individual are fully capable of being their own central bankers.
Would the words still be Frank's, but in a different language? Would the intent and content and covenant still be the same if Surgi were to do an honest job at the translation? What if multiple people worked together to make the translation into Russian. Would it maybe be a little better translation?
I don't think that you get the point offered by Frank.
Frank does not claim to be the leader of anyone; other than to lead by example, and to offer, voluntarily, the advice that each individual person has to become their own competent leader themselves.
Here is where I have a problem with Frank, again, since his example sets the bar way too high, or if high is the wrong word, then the word I want to use, the word I can repeat, is too complex.
Frank sets a too complex example.
But the point is not complex. The point is that each person has to develop their own level of competence in defending their own existence while they are human beings in this thing we call reality, and that has to be done because, according to Frank, the system is evil.
That is another contention I have with Frank, since I do not blame the system, I think it is much more important to hold the actual people who are evil accountable for the actual evil that they perpetrate.
Again, to me, that can be attributable to my own error in understanding the message intended by Frank.
What if the translator had an ulterior motive? Would that not become evident when comparing it to multiple translations done by different people?
If I ask Frank if he knows of any messages in the original documents claimed to be written by people who were directed by God, those original documents that constituted The Bible, I ask Frank, if in those original documents does he know of any words that actually convey the requirements made by God in reference to your claim, then I can get an answer, and I can then have, possibly, a specific document, I can then have the original symbols in the original language, and I can have the actual meanings of those original symbols, perhaps.
Is that stretching things too far?
I began this study as a skeptic, expecting to discover significant differences between these early translations and the King James. I happily found that there are no differences in the major points of faith, but there are many subtle differences in meaning and many passages are much easier to understand in one version than in another. I found no one version that seemed to be the best in every instance, each one has its strengths and weaknesses.
Case closed?
To me there are specific things worthy of greater care in study to find the original message intended by God, if such a message does exist.
Example:
God requires faith in the death of Christ as atonement for sin.
What is the original arrangement of symbols that leads to that message right there in those English words?
I can ask Frank tomorrow, to see if he can offer a competitive answer.
Did you get that Joe?
Please excuse my failure to get that, in this case, I can't remember Peter and a tabernacle.
My son just called and said "be outside in 2 minutes," as the Real Estate Agents are rushed today, and I am asked to go help look at a house.