Poll: Do you agree with this author's thesis
Yes
No
[Show Results]
 
Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Myth of the Coat of Many Colors
12-29-2008, 09:48 PM
Post: #1
The Myth of the Coat of Many Colors
I'm curious what others think about this information:

http://www.writeidea.org/2008/12/coat-of...y-one.html
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-29-2008, 11:56 PM
Post: #2
RE: The Myth of the Coat of Many Colors
I'd vote maybe if that was a choice. It could have been mistranslated but its hard to say for sure.

His and Your Humble Servant
RF's Sponsors
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-30-2008, 12:51 AM
Post: #3
RE: The Myth of the Coat of Many Colors
if it is mistranslated,with all the scholars who have worked on the bible,then it,s either a mistake by many or foul play by many.maybe more research is needed by you.?

Good evil salvation
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-30-2008, 01:59 PM (This post was last modified: 12-30-2008 02:06 PM by God Rocks.)
Post: #4
RE: The Myth of the Coat of Many Colors
Most people don't know Hebrew or Aramaic so all they have to go off of is the translation. It only takes one person to make a mistranslation. If you've ever tried translating a language, you would also understand that things don't always translate well. Things that mean one thing in one language can mean something else in another if translated literally, and if you try to translate for meaning instead of literally, that doesn't always work well either.

(12-30-2008 12:51 AM)smellycat Wrote:  if it is mistranslated,with all the scholars who have worked on the bible,then it,s either a mistake by many or foul play by many.maybe more research is needed by you.?

Other people have already done plenty of research so if you don't believe it learn Hebrew and Aramaic and interpret it yourself.

His and Your Humble Servant
RF's Sponsors
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-30-2008, 05:17 PM
Post: #5
RE: The Myth of the Coat of Many Colors
Wasn't the Bible also originally translated to Greek?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2009, 12:34 PM (This post was last modified: 01-01-2009 12:37 PM by God Rocks.)
Post: #6
RE: The Myth of the Coat of Many Colors
(12-30-2008 05:17 PM)JonathanT Wrote:  Wasn't the Bible also originally translated to Greek?

The new testament was originally written in Greek. I imagine the old testament was translated to Greek at some point in antiquity but it wasn't originally written in Greek. Are you getting at that the bible was translated to Greek and the then the Greek version was translated to English? That might be true, I'm not really sure. If it is though it would be even easier for there to have been mistranslations.

His and Your Humble Servant
RF's Sponsors
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2009, 01:32 PM (This post was last modified: 01-01-2009 01:40 PM by Anglican.)
Post: #7
RE: The Myth of the Coat of Many Colors
(01-01-2009 12:34 PM)God Rocks Wrote:  
(12-30-2008 05:17 PM)JonathanT Wrote:  Wasn't the Bible also originally translated to Greek?

The new testament was originally written in Greek. I imagine the old testament was translated to Greek at some point in antiquity but it wasn't originally written in Greek. Are you getting at that the bible was translated to Greek and the then the Greek version was translated to English? That might be true, I'm not really sure. If it is though it would be even easier for there to have been mistranslations.

The Hebrew Old Testament was translated into Greek by Jewish scholars in the third century BC. The Vulgate translation of the Bible into Latin made use of the Greek translation of the OT. However, all modern translations of the Bible into English (which includes the KJV) use the original Hebrew texts of the OT.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2009, 11:54 PM
Post: #8
RE: The Myth of the Coat of Many Colors
The OT was originally an oral document, written down later in Hebrew. The literal text is unlikely to be a reliable source of anything other than debate.

It might be fairer to say that "we think" that the NT was originally written in Greek. We don't have the originals, not even copies of copies of copies of copies of the originals. What we know is that many stories and sayings were circulating in the early years post-crucifixion, some of these got written into pamphlets and were read in newly developing churches. Later, some of these pamphlets were lost, others were destroyed intentionally, and others were editted and altered. A collection of these was declared "canon" and put into a list of "books" later called the NT.

It is wise, therefore, to trust the spirit of the text, but not to trust the text as written in literal form, particularly when the person interpreting it in literal form is trying to tell you something you're doing or thinking is wrong (or has an army and is certain God is on his/her side).
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2009, 01:23 AM
Post: #9
RE: The Myth of the Coat of Many Colors
(01-02-2009 11:54 PM)twenty-two20 Wrote:  It is wise, therefore, to trust the spirit of the text, but not to trust the text as written in literal form, particularly when the person interpreting it in literal form is trying to tell you something you're doing or thinking is wrong (or has an army and is certain God is on his/her side).

I agree twenty-two20.

His and Your Humble Servant
RF's Sponsors
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2009, 01:45 AM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2009 03:24 AM by Anglican.)
Post: #10
RE: The Myth of the Coat of Many Colors
(01-02-2009 11:54 PM)twenty-two20 Wrote:  The OT was originally an oral document, written down later in Hebrew. The literal text is unlikely to be a reliable source of anything other than debate.

The OT is by definition a written document, consisting of various texts composed between about 1,000BC (the J strand in the Pentateuch) and 150BC (Daniel). There may be oral traditions underlying some of the OT documents; who knows.


Quote:It might be fairer to say that "we think" that the NT was originally written in Greek. We don't have the originals, not even copies of copies of copies of copies of the originals. What we know is that many stories and sayings were circulating in the early years post-crucifixion, some of these got written into pamphlets and were read in newly developing churches. Later, some of these pamphlets were lost, others were destroyed intentionally, and others were editted and altered. A collection of these was declared "canon" and put into a list of "books" later called the NT.

It is wise, therefore, to trust the spirit of the text, but not to trust the text as written in literal form, particularly when the person interpreting it in literal form is trying to tell you something you're doing or thinking is wrong (or has an army and is certain God is on his/her side).

Well there wouldn't have been much point in Paul addressing his Gentile audience in Hebrew. Similarly for the Gospels and Acts, or anything else intended for an audience beyond Israel. Greek was the international language of the day. There is some speculation that there might have been a Hebrew original for Matthew's Gospel (because Jews were his intended audience), but that is pure speculation. The gospels and Acts were written starting around 65AD, when it became clear that the Parousia wouldn't be happening any time soon, and it was thought to be a good idea to commit things to paper (or papyrus) whilst there were still eye witnesses around. There is a fragment of John's Gospel (in Greek) dating from the second century. I suppose the epistles come closest to being "pamphlets", but the Pauline epistles at least were usually written to address specific concerns in specific churches. The NT canon as we have it was more or less in existence by 180AD, when Iraeneus gave his list of books considered to be canonical, although it wasn't finally set in stone until 397.

Quote:It is wise, therefore, to trust the spirit of the text, but not to trust the text as written in literal form

Twaddle. The text may be using myth, metaphor, poetry, or some other literary form to make its point, but it is still trying to say something objectively true. If you don't think that you can trust that the text, as it has come down to us, is essentially intact, there is not much point in trying to locate even a "spiritual" meaning in it.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)