Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01

From: Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD (andrew_at_heartmdphd.com)
Date: 08/24/04 

Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:57:57 -0400

"J. David Anderson" wrote:

> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
> > "J. David Anderson" <jdavidanderson_@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:ilFWc.250$HO4.4932@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> >
> >
> >>Prepare to be very surprised then.
> >>
> >>There is little problem with translating the Greek language, and Jesus,
> >>James etc., spoke modern Greek, not ancient Greek. Ancient Greek is the
> >>Greek language *prior* to the Roman empire.
> >
> >
> > Jesus spoke Aramaic, and probably good Hebrew as a good Jewish boy. There's
> > not the slightest hint that he spoke Greek or Latin.
>
> You are correct, not the slightest hint.
>
> It goes far beyond a "slight hint". There is a huge amount of evidence
> that he spoke a form of common Greek. Romans, since Alexander,
> habitually spoke Greek and would be unlikely that they all learned
> Aramaic simply in order to speak to a subjugated people. Unless Jesus
> also spoke Greek, he could not communicate with them, let alone teach
> them. James, Jesus' brother, wrote in Greek.
>
> It would in fact be far more remarkable if he *didn't* speak Greek. He
> grew to adulthood under Roman occupation, in an area where "koine",
> common Greek was the lingua franca. Why would he be one of the few
> people of the region not to be able to do so?
>
> It has been long accepted among Biblical scholars that Jesus spoke
> Greek, however, with regard to being germane to my post; it isn't. The
> OP claimed a likelihood of wide ranging errors in translating from
> Greek. My response was that would be unlikely.
>
> If you wish to believe that Jesus spoke only Aramaic, then far be it
> from me to disavow you. I have my opinion, you are quite welcome to yours.
>
> Greek is the language
> > that materials written many, many years after his death were recorded in,
> > but given the lack of verifiable documents that were not re-recorded and
> > re-translated on for King James's scholars to work with, it's extremely
> > unlikely that they had a single original document written by any of the
> > literary apostles to work from.
>
> You are aware of course, that the King James translation is far from the
> only translation, and that in all translations, the difficulty was with
> ancient Hebrew, not modern Greek?
>
> > Take a look at the various Gnostic questions,
>
> I asked many of them myself.
>
> the probable existence of the
> > "Q" document from which several of the gospels drew common material, and the
> > degree of direct overlap among the gospels of exact word and phrase, not
> > simply similar stories. You've got evidence of clear literary mixing of
> > distinct original materials.
>
> I have no problem with this, I don't have any particular axe to grind
> regarding the accuracy of the Bible, nor the likelihood that at the time
> of writing, the Gospels had *morphed* as it were. They were a long time
> coming, so to speak.
>
> Look at the eighties computer analysis of writing style, ala
> Shakespeare/Bacon. It is considered among many, that the authors of the
> gospels have been incorrectly attributed. It makes little difference, it
> is all of minor consequence.
>
> The Bible itself makes little sense in a modern, educated, thinking
> world. It is full of misdirection and inconsistency, not errors in
> translation. It mentions dragons, witches and unicorns as though they
> were a part of life. It also implies that there are other Gods, not just
> the Christian one, why else exhort that people have no other Gods if
> there *are* no other Gods? ;)
>
> >>There are some problems with dead languages, i.e., ancient Hebrew, but
> >>even then, any scholar capable of translating from that language would
> >>be in pretty close agreement with any other scholar.
> >>
> >>It is a common misconception that there can be a wide range of
> >>interpretations in translation, the difficulty is in the intended
> >>meaning of the translated text in modern terms, not in accuracy of
> >>translation.
> >>
> >>There are inconsistencies in the Bible, but they are not related to
> >>translation.
> >
> >
> > BWA-HA-HA! OK, what about the Greek word for "Brother" being similar to the
> > word for "cousin", and the possibility that the word got mis-translated and
> > James was actually the brother of Jesus? It kind of throws the whole "Mary
> > virgin unto birth" thing out the window.
>
> This is not new, I have Biblical research material going back to the
> turn of the last century accepting this as *gospel* <g> I believe, along
> with many others, that James *was* the brother of Jesus. This is why I
> mentioned him, the fact that he wrote in Greek was an indicator that
> Jesus would also speak Greek.
>
> >
> >>Don't forget that the Bible, originally the Jewish Books of Law, wasn't
> >>consecrated into scripture until the Church was well established, many
> >>years after Christ's death. The Church at that time was riddled with
> >>corruption and self serving men in high office. It hasn't changed much
> >>since those days.
> >
> >
> > Well, that's true, and it's also true that they had and have huge political
> > arguments that get bound up in very slight phrasing differences or
> > interpretation of the same documents. We have the same problems interpreting
> > the Constitution.
>
> That is what I said. The problem is not of translation, but of
> discerning original meaning, the intent of the author.
>
> As far as I am concerned, the Church was stillborn, it died at birth,
> and the extent of the decay is becoming more apparent with every news
> story regarding corruption, child abuse, and disregard of Christian
> attitude. For centuries the corruption existed but the Church had the
> power to protect itself from accusers. Nowadays when even Presidents
> can't hide their misdoings from the public eye and retributory justice,
> organisations as archaic and venal as the Church have become just as
> vulnerable to exposure.
>
> Jesus didn't leave a Church, that was man made, and being man made, was
> flawed from the start. Whether you believe Jesus was the son of God or
> not, he was a genuine historical figure who set examples worth
> following. Leave the Church and the Bible out of it and you might have
> something worthwhile.
>
> Regards
>
> David

It seems that your choice to judge the Holy Bible and Christians blind you to the
truth.

You will be in my prayers, dear neighbor whom I love.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew 

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48
Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01
    ... >> Jesus spoke Aramaic, and probably good Hebrew as a good Jewish boy. ... >> not the slightest hint that he spoke Greek or Latin. ... > You are aware of course, that the King James translation is far from the ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01
    ... >>There is little problem with translating the Greek language, and Jesus, ... > Jesus spoke Aramaic, and probably good Hebrew as a good Jewish boy. ... that the King James translation is far from the ...
    (sci.med)
  • Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01
    ... >>There is little problem with translating the Greek language, and Jesus, ... > Jesus spoke Aramaic, and probably good Hebrew as a good Jewish boy. ... that the King James translation is far from the ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01
    ... > There is little problem with translating the Greek language, and Jesus, ... Jesus spoke Aramaic, and probably good Hebrew as a good Jewish boy. ... > interpretations in translation, the difficulty is in the intended ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01
    ... > There is little problem with translating the Greek language, and Jesus, ... Jesus spoke Aramaic, and probably good Hebrew as a good Jewish boy. ... > interpretations in translation, the difficulty is in the intended ...
    (sci.med)