The Daily Static
  The Daily Static
UF Archives
Register
UF Membership
Ad Free Site
Postcards
Community
Geekfinder
UFie Gear
Advertise on UF
Forum Rules
& FAQ

Username

Password


Create a New Account

  
 

Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
Question of the Day! by kickstart2006-11-19 12:26:49
  Prolly the fact that... by breezeblock2003-07-11 01:21:08
    umm ... by graeme2003-07-11 01:32:43
      Interestingly enough... by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 02:55:38
        Small question by catharsis2003-07-11 05:40:59
          Let me see if I can make an analogy by Buffy_Fett 2003-07-11 07:36:51
Let's take any famous work of literature that was originally written in another language. Do you completely discount the English translation, because "it's not the author's intended words"? Or do you take on faith that it accurately converys the message of the piece, even if not word-perfectly?

I will say something that I know some people will not agree with: the Bible, as we have it, is imperfect. There are minor inconsitincies, but these are fairly common with multiple translations. What is important is that the message has remained unchanged. Whether 10,000 or 20,000 soldiers died in X battle is not important to the message of the Scripture.

The original texts were God's words written by man's hand. Everything after those orignial texts were copies of such, and therefore subject to man's errors in transition and translation. I did not say that God's intent was to create a perfect instance of the Bible. His intent was to pass on his message through the hands of men. I believe that He has kept enough control over the translations to ensure that the message remains unchanged, even though the words have.

It is rather arrogant to presume that God must have originally had English in mind when he gave the words to his people. I am sure that he did, but the primary intent was to pass on the message throughout all the differerent languages, past present and future.

There is a great pamplet I have at home that goes into detail about the accuracy of translations and all. Unfortunately, it's a few thousand miles away right now and I can't remember the title or the author for the life of me.

|·Þ
[ Reply ]
            How can you be sure? by Control2003-07-11 07:44:43
              Why shouldn't I be sure? by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 07:58:20
                Circular argumentation by Control2003-07-11 09:17:46
                  But they don't by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 09:21:58
                    My response to that is to be found ... by Beorn2006-11-19 12:55:59
                      Different questions by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 12:38:33
                        depends by mirage2003-07-11 13:08:52
                          Key phrase, as I see it by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 13:20:00
                            If they by mirage2003-07-11 13:27:51
                            Well, I know there is definitive proof. by Beorn2003-07-11 15:05:53
                              An even better argument... by catharsis2003-07-11 15:22:33
                                umm ... by graeme2003-07-11 22:06:43
                                This by mirage2006-11-19 12:55:59
                                ... by graeme2003-07-11 23:46:58
                              HAhahahaha by Ston2003-07-11 15:36:38
                                Yes, I have faith in science. by Beorn2003-07-11 18:23:03
                              just for fun... by niwikki2003-07-11 16:41:16
                                nah by mirage2003-07-11 19:00:36
                                Why am I even bothering to refute that nonsense? by Beorn2003-07-11 19:47:58
                                so ... by graeme2003-07-11 22:12:23
                                No answer by mirage2003-07-11 23:19:25
                                Exactly (n/t) by graeme2003-07-11 23:49:15
                                However, by mirage2003-07-11 23:56:02
                        But you seem to believe ... by Beorn2003-07-11 14:51:57
                          Archaeologists? by graeme2003-07-11 22:21:23
                            archaeology vs anthropology by niwikki2003-07-11 23:03:01
                              Actually ... by graeme2003-07-11 23:40:26
                                No, because by mirage2003-07-11 23:46:24
                                Actually ... by graeme2003-07-11 23:58:29
                    You are wrong, there. by Naruki2003-07-11 12:39:30
                      Still by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 12:45:49
                        I haven't satisfactorily had Baron Munchausen by Naruki2003-07-11 14:41:18
            But God is RESPONSIBLE for the confusion! by Naruki2003-07-11 10:30:42
              Warning: infinite recursive loop! (n/t) by NOLAWitch2003-07-11 10:43:07
            if men are flawed by niwikki2003-07-11 12:02:58
              I agree with part of that by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 12:33:32

 

[Todays Cartoon Discussion] [News Index]

Come get yer ARS (Account Registration System) Source Code here!
All images, characters, content and text are copyrighted and trademarks of J.D. Frazer except where other ownership applies. Don't do bad things, we have lawyers.
UserFriendly.Org and its operators are not liable for comments or content posted by its visitors, and will cheerfully assist the lawful authorities in hunting down script-kiddies, spammers and other net scum. And if you're really bad, we'll call your mom. (We're not kidding, we've done it before.)