Let's Be Honest(Bible based Religion).

[Mandirigma]

---

This was posted in the literature forum so let's approach it as such. If you guys want to argue about divinity or faith and religion, then better request that this be moved to another section.

With that said, TS, your point that the bible may have been misrepresented is quite valid, from the literary point of view. So don't get sucked into debates about apologists or divine intervention about biblical authors because it only goes in circles. Faith is never a valid argument for it is subjective. The discussion would go nowhere.

Tip lang, why don't you guys try to objectify your arguments based on known historical events and incorporate it with the growth of christianity? Believe it or not, religion grew not just from internal teachings but in parallel with how a society was in every given time. Have you guys never had lessons in social science when you were in college? Or are you one of those close-minded bigots intent on proving themselves right because they're afraid that they might be wrong?

osahay man gud bro mahagit ta ba labi na kong hambogero og in denial ang atong ma encounter, mo ng mo gear up gamay ang discussion.

mao onta na ang akong gosto bro pero kining ka atbang nako nga fundamentalist mag sige man og deny nga PERPEKTO jud ng iyahang baroganan, nga way sayop ang bible.

nya kong adto ta sa EVIDENCE ma kita jud nato nga naay mga sayop. Blinded man gud ni sa FAITH ning tawhana. bisag ang sayop naa na sa iyang atobangan, e deny pa jud, nya buhaton ang tanan para lang matabonan ang sayop.

correct bro, hadlok na sila nga SAYOP ilng pagtoo.

[Mandirigma]

@defender_1611

balik sa topic ha og hunong na anang mga diversion nimo. like I said ato osang e exhaust ang issue around sa premise nga atong gihisgutan previously.

ayaw sa anang style nimo nga pina spin doctor og pa as as if nga knowledgeable kaayo ka sa bible og kam mga bogo.

[defender_1611]

@mandirigma: e review ang post bro kung wala ba ko mutubag sa imong pangutana......tan.awa pod ug balik kung nitubag ba pod ka sa akong pangutana......diba wala? tan.awa pod kung kinsay ni spin doctor natong duha......sa ako nang gisulti bro wala ko muingon na knowledgeable ko....ang ako lang is naa lang koy mga evidences na ipakita nimo....hambogero na di ay nang naa kay mga evidences na ikapakita? ika maoy bogo bro....wala jud kay na prove bisan usa sa mga arguments nimo.....dili man gani ka ka prove na imo ko gitawag ug hambogero....mga arguments pa kaha nimo?

[Mandirigma]

@mandirigma: e review ang post bro kung wala ba ko mutubag sa imong pangutana......tan.awa pod ug balik kung nitubag ba pod ka sa akong pangutana......diba wala? tan.awa pod kung kinsay ni spin doctor natong duha......sa ako nang gisulti bro wala ko muingon na knowledgeable ko....ang ako lang is naa lang koy mga evidences na ipakita nimo....hambogero na di ay nang naa kay mga evidences na ikapakita? ika maoy bogo bro....wala jud kay na prove bisan usa sa mga arguments nimo.....dili man gani ka ka prove na imo ko gitawag ug hambogero....mga arguments pa kaha nimo?

no no, you do it. kabalo ko kong unsay akong gipangsulti og kabalo ko sa flow sa atong disucssion.

e review kong imong tobag ni fit ba sa akong mga questions. gi ingnan na ka nako nga e exhaust nato ng issue before ta m proceed og laing issue. pero ang gosto nimo molihay mao ng ni attempt ka og hatag og question nako. kana nga style bro ni jud na puede nako, dali ra ko maka spot og mga diversions.

Spin doctor bitaw ka. unsay walay gi prove hahahaha, ta-awa nigawas na pod imong pagka hambogero. e review kono wa ba koy mga verses nga gi quote to prove that the bible was not manipulated by the translators. ako man ganing gigamit imong refutation kono to prove nga dunay changes ang bible og dunay mga manipulation, kay bisan ang mga scholars mismo ga sumpaki kong unsa nga MSS ang reliable or dili kana lang daan EVIDENCE na na sa akong ponto, nya mo ingon ka nga wa koy evidence? hahahaha. HAMBOGERO nimo.

pina ingon pa ka nga mogawas imong pagka DEFENDER,ahahahaha, hamboger jud. nya asa naman imong pagka defender nga wa man gani ka kaigo sa akong question, likay likay imong style.

ako bro di ko mogamit og mga high falluting nga mga TERMS kay wa ko diri to impress the readers,dili sama nimo nga magpa ka haron ingnon jud nga koyaw kaayo ka sa bible by using technical terms nga di kaayo masabtn sa mga readers. DILI ko ingon ana, in my discussion here ako e simplify ang mga terms para kasabot ang mga readers.

then ikaw gamit gamit pa ka og mga names sa MSS, for what? kita ka ani nga mga MSS ? ga study ka ani personally? im sure wala, wa gani ka kahikap sigoro ani, nya mo project ka og image nga expert ka ani? hahahaha. hambogero jud nimo.

basta mao ni ang FACT bro, there are insertions and manipulations sa translations og mss, di na according nako ha but according na sa mga New Testament scholars. nya mosumpaki pa ka ana? New Testament scholar ka?

FACT: there are groups nga mo ingon nga ang kjv mao ray authorized version sa bible kay it is based on good mss BUT there are also groups nga mo ingon nga ang kjv WEAK nga version kay gi based ni sa unreliable mss og daghang mga mistranslation. So karon ang question is mao ba na ang inspired word of God, nga n divide man ang mga Scholars kong asa ang reliable or dili?

you know what sigoro mao na ni last nako nga tobag nimo kay obvious man kaayo nga di ka motobag ani, ang style nimo is imong e divert ang issue so far mao nay gibuaht nimo diri. ni abot na lang ta og pila ka pages pero di jud nimo atubangon ang mga questions.

I will not waste my time with someone like you, nitubay ko nimo at first kay impressive kayo imong username nga defender 1611 nya ga hinambog pa jud ka nga mogawas imong pagka DEFENDER. But na disappointed ko kay wa man diay kay ikatubag.

[g0dmenuelz]

bro question.

how come jesus never condemned slavery?
in fact the bible condones slavery.

a cage no matter how beautiful is still a cage ana pa cla.

although i read different views and answers from other individuals, interested ko unsay may view ninyo ani.

[yadah]

This thread will go nowhere. We know this will be a continuing debate for all. I have been on all sides of the world. This topic is based on individual belief, commitment and understanding. IF you believe on your leaders then that's your choice. IF you don't believe them, then you also have a choice to leave them. I suggest we all wait until you end your life here on earth and send a message on this thread so that we can prove it. I guess that is how FAITH came in...............

[supernova37]

nosebleed ko aning mga translations sa bible, but i believe ang tanan gisulat sa bible puro kaayuhan...i walk in faith.

[Breakeven]

kaila kag kanding nga naai bangs?

nahimuot lang ko nag imagine part!

[vahnhelsing]

unsaon nato pagkahibaw nga mao diay ni thread iyaha gipasabot nga naa man ni sa arts ang literature tawn uy...

request transfer sa gen.. para dayon dayon ang tigi..

[%75life4Him]

I made this with an intention of bringing out to the light what most of us are afraid to admit . We don't talk much about it, like in my church I seldom hear people talk about this. Our pastors or priests avoid serving this kind of topic in their respective pulpit. There are few I heard but presents only the Christian apologists point of view and barely mentions the side that questions the validity of biblical inerrancy.

So this place serves as a platform for us to discuss both sides, and pls let us be honest. The bible has errors I mean the bible that we have now not the autographs. There are words that were manipulated by some scholars who are bias to their own theological affiliation.

here is one example...

Matthew 6:11------------> "give us this day our _________ bread"

is it "DAILY" or something else? let's examine the greek. The word is "

ἐπιούσιος (epi-OO-sea-os)" .

let me quote my source....

The Greek splits into two parts: ?ἐπι-? (epi) is a common prefix in Greek that means upon, or over, and by analogy ?
"beyond?", "more-than". We have it in our word "epidemic"¹ where -demic is again related to a Greek root meaning people (c.f. words such as demographics or democracy).

The second part of the word "-ούσιος".... is a common morpheme in Greek with meanings of "substance". Hence the debate in the early church between whether Jesus and God were "homo-ousios": of the same substance . So using this analysis, we get ...Give us this day our super-substantial bread?.

And this is exactly how it was translated in the Latin Vulgate ("supersubstantialem"), and in some of the earliest English bibles. But, of course, if you are a protestant, "super-substantial bread" is unacceptably reminiscent of "trans-substantial bread". And Jesus praying a Catholic prayer? Unconscionable!


so why is it that we have some translations that says DAILY?



off topic: ako lang ni e share nga video ha nice man kaayo gud

A Girl's Message To All Christians - YouTube

Walay klaro ang iyang pangutana. Unsa kaha iyang gipangitaan ug sayop nga bible, ang mga manuscripts or ang english translated bible? Nangutana siya nganung "daily" ang rendered sa english translation sa GK word epiooseaos.

Well, because "daily" is the exact meaning of the word. Infact, the term could also be translated "substantial" according to Strong's Concordance. "epiooseaos" is not an invented word by Matthew to echo the Lord, I believe this is a common greek word of his day which doesnt have a equivalent english term, even, in our day to match the term. Of course, I am not speaking on behalf of the scholars because I am not, but they cannot just invent a new term in the purpose of just proving to others that they know the exact meaning of the term. We have to remember that an "ecclesiastical slang" and personal conclusion cannot be brought into the work of translation. Besides the manuscripts used by Tyndale was not a translation of Jerome in 6th Century. He used the textus receptus of Erasmus and not the latin vulgate. He went to the original.

So I think the reason why the scholar community was silent about this because there isnt really a difference between the invented word of the Catholic Theologian Jerome, "supersubstantialem", in latin, "daily" by Tyndale I presumed (because he was the one who first translated the bible from greek textus receptus to English) in 16th Century. So there isnt really an issue which is the better translation is it "supersubstantialem" in latin or "daily" in english. After all, they both are just translations.

Now lets be honest. So let's say that the term "daily" is or may not be the perfect term that should have been used, and I agree, but it is niether a wrong term to use. My stand is that the term "daily" rendered is the best translation that an english scholar and linguist like Tyndale could use for "epi-OO-sea-os". So what would be a non-invented english word that should have been used then? Now if we think that we are smart enough to think that the term "daily" is wrong, what would it be then?