Evidence for God from Science

If the Bible is truly God's word, then why are there so many translations? The most common atheist argument seems to be along the lines of this topic.

only illiterate atheists, who does not have a clue about history, blow this trumpet, there are translations because language evolves and so does understanding, dictionaries are updated every year. but i bet even if you tell it, they won't accept. so do not take it seriously.

I even saw a translation made especially for the people who live in the "ghetto" since the way they speak English is sorta different and some said that reading the Bible now for them is much clearer.Tt was pretty funny,

On a more serious note, ive never been an atheist, but i think what neo is saying resounds well in my ears.

neo-x wrote:only illiterate atheists, who does not have a clue about history, blow this trumpet, there are translations because language evolves and so does understanding, dictionaries are updated every year. but i bet even if you tell it, they won't accept. so do not take it seriously.

Their point is that if the Bible is translated by men, its claim to be "the word of god" becomes significantly diluted. The readers have to trust that the translation is actually a faithful representation of god's intent. Surely god is capable of doing his own translations to avoid the problems inherent in relying on flawed human linguists. So why does he choose not to avoid the problem of the "middle-men"?

by waynepii » Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:32 am

neo-x wrote:
only illiterate atheists, who does not have a clue about history, blow this trumpet, there are translations because language evolves and so does understanding, dictionaries are updated every year. but i bet even if you tell it, they won't accept. so do not take it seriously.

Their point is that if the Bible is translated by men, its claim to be "the word of god" becomes significantly diluted. The readers have to trust that the translation is actually a faithful representation of god's intent. Surely god is capable of doing his own translations to avoid the problems inherent in relying on flawed human linguists. So why does he choose not to avoid the problem of the "middle-men"?

Waynepii, my point is, what they call rationale and logic has nothing to do with science or moral law. personally I have seen bad Christians, I have seen worse Christians but in atheism I have only seen hate, anger, denial, the fear to be proven wrong, excessive hatred for any system that exists no matter how trusted or old it is, revengeful anger at the unknown, loss of happiness, complete denial or back-out if they know your logic makes some sense or used the word God.

here let me break it down for you,

Surely god is capable of doing his own translations to avoid the problems inherent in relying on flawed human linguists.

See this is the type of flawed thinking that produces atheism, do you have any idea that Christianity is more than the Bible, lets say we take out the Bible as the early church was without the Bible, the dark ages were without the Bible. Do you think this will makes atheism see the light of the gospel?

God works through common men, that is the whole message of the gospel, he can choose those who are rejected, sinned etc etc. If we take out the Bible, then what would be next - Prophecy, then the atheists will say, how can man speak the word of God, surely God can speak to us. So prophecy goes of the list too. As I said, illiterate atheists do such kind of reasoning.

Frankly,I do not care what atheists think anymore, to me its stupid in the superlative degree. there is no way to prove God through science or logic, it is as simple as Paul said, you need only believe. Believe and he is.

Some people claim only King James is only trustworthy. But I think only the first Hebrew or Greek, the originals are designated as true Word of God. But I figure if God truly inspired original writers, I figure God could inspire translators too. I personally have many translations in my home, and I don't prefer one over other. But since many of us don't read Hebrew or Greek, we have to do the best we can in allowing God to speak to us through the Holy Spirit with whichever translation we read. Sadly, I don't hear much from Holy Spirit, but I don't fault the bible.

Bruce Metzger has an excellent book about the NT, a couple actually.
May I suggest:
The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th Edition) by Bruce M. Metzger

The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance by Bruce M. Metzger

Bible in Translation, The: Ancient and English Versions by Bruce M. Metzger

neo-x wrote:Frankly,I do not care what atheists think anymore, to me its stupid in the superlative degree. there is no way to prove God through science or logic, it is as simple as Paul said, you need only believe. Believe and he is.

I have absolutely NO problem believing what god says. Believing what people say god said is another issue entirely. At one time, I believed the bible was god's word. Then I read it cover to cover. Any book requiring so much interpretation and discussion to determine what it means was written by men.

waynepii wrote:

neo-x wrote:Frankly,I do not care what atheists think anymore, to me its stupid in the superlative degree. there is no way to prove God through science or logic, it is as simple as Paul said, you need only believe. Believe and he is.

I have absolutely NO problem believing what god says. Believing what people say god said is another issue entirely. At one time, I believed the bible was god's word. Then I read it cover to cover. Any book requiring so much interpretation and discussion to determine what it means was written by men.

It's written by both.

Any book requiring so much interpretation and discussion to determine what it means was written by men.

Is this some objective standard that says things needing interpreting are instantly excluded from divine inspiration? Or just some idea of your own?

If people talk long enough they are bound to reveal something about their position that they probably would rather have kept concealed. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I find that a telling statement.

jlay wrote:

Any book requiring so much interpretation and discussion to determine what it means was written by men.

Is this some objective standard that says things needing interpreting are instantly excluded from divine inspiration? Or just some idea of your own?

No, but it makes me doubt their claims of divine inspiration and dilutes their message. It just seems that an omnipotent and all-knowing being would be able to express his objective rules in a more direct manner than inspiring humans to do his writing, editing, interpreting, publishing, distribution, etc. The number of "divinely inspired" documents that have been published over the years makes them ALL seem distinctly human, not divine. This could so easily have been foreseen and prevented.

If people talk long enough they are bound to reveal something about their position that they probably would rather have kept concealed. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I find that a telling statement.

The only thing to be revealed is serious doubts about who is the true author of the bible, that shouldn't be a surprise by now.

waynepii wrote:No, but it makes me doubt their claims of divine inspiration and dilutes their message. It just seems that an omnipotent and all-knowing being would be able to express his objective rules in a more direct manner than inspiring humans to do his writing, editing, interpreting, publishing, distribution, etc. The number of "divinely inspired" documents that have been published over the years makes them ALL seem distinctly human, not divine. This could so easily have been foreseen and prevented.

You mean something like coming down himself, dying, and resurrecting so we might believe? Alas, if only we were that lucky .

No, but it makes me doubt their claims of divine inspiration and dilutes their message. It just seems that an omnipotent and all-knowing being would be able to express his objective rules in a more direct manner than inspiring humans to do his writing, editing, interpreting, publishing, distribution, etc.

Wayne, here's a proposition. You create your own universe and intelligent beings to populate it. You can then chose how you will reveal yourself to them. Deal?

There is a distinctive human element to scripture, since it was penned by humans.

This could so easily have been foreseen and prevented.

Assuming there isn't an enemy of God, who seeks to counterfeit the genuine.
Have you ever accidently mistaken monopoly money for the real thing? No. You've handled enough of the genuine to know the difference. However, there are counterfiets that are much more like the real. But, the trained eye can easily spot the best fakes. Counterfiets are not evidence against the genuine, but actually prove otherwise.

jlay wrote:

No, but it makes me doubt their claims of divine inspiration and dilutes their message. It just seems that an omnipotent and all-knowing being would be able to express his objective rules in a more direct manner than inspiring humans to do his writing, editing, interpreting, publishing, distribution, etc.

Wayne, here's a proposition. You create your own universe and intelligent beings to populate it. You can then chose how you will reveal yourself to them. Deal?

Explain why you think an all-knowing, all-powerful being would choose a method of revealing itself that could so easily hide the being's divinity and corrupt it's message.

There is a distinctive human element to scripture, since it was penned by humans.

Why do you think god would use ghost writers?

This could so easily have been foreseen and prevented.

Assuming there isn't an enemy of God, who seeks to counterfeit the genuine.
Have you ever accidently mistaken monopoly money for the real thing? No. You've handled enough of the genuine to know the difference. However, there are counterfiets that are much more like the real. But, the trained eye can easily spot the best fakes. Counterfiets are not evidence against the genuine, but actually prove otherwise.

So Satan is more powerful than God? Or is God complicit in misleading those who use their intellect to evaluate things? If Satan can counterfeit the genuine, then God either can't prevent the counterfeit (Satan is thus more powerful) or God chooses to allow the counterfeit (he is thus complicit in the deception - why would he do that? The only reason I can think of is that God wants us NOT to use the intellect he gave us).

Your responses here really make me question your 'neutral' stance that you claimed in the other thread. Have you spent any time at all studying Christian beliefs? Do you realize that your questions have had genuine and sufficient answers for thousands of years?