Jump to content

Grumpy Bear

Which Paradigm?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On ‎6‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 1:04 AM, CadillacLuke24 said:

How accurate are the different versions? I've heard some are more than others.

Before I went to school I spoke words I’d learned from those around me. Parents mostly. I couldn’t read them. I couldn’t write them but I knew them and I knew their meanings.

 

I would latter learn the alphabet. Learn to arrange letters into those words and words into sentences. Compose a paragraph, Tell a story or record a history. I would have to expand my vocabulary and learn the meanings of the new words I spoke or wrote to progress to more complex expressions.

 

To do this I needed to learn composition, punctuation and grammar. I would have to learn the rules of the language. I would have to learn some of its history and understand its fluidity. I would have to trust my teachers, regardless of their motives to the degree that purpose was served. 

 

If I cared to do so for a second or third language; it would be rinse and repeat. If I cared to translate from one language to another I would need to understand the differences in grammar and meanings of words well enough to duplicate a thought or series of thoughts accurately to the degree those two languages permitted such thoughtful exchange. If I could do that I would be like Steven T. Byington, a language expert foremost in his field. I’m not; so I’m going to have to trust some people to do it for me and trust God to keep it pure enough to allow me to understand what he said in the languages we no longer speak but were delivered in. I trust him like that. It should be a cakewalk after creating a Universe don't you think?

 

Words in translation need to accurately translate a thought more importantly than a word for word exchange which in many languages is literally impossible.

 

When discussing Christianity the bases of sensibility is in the fabric of an agreed foundation and its rules. Those rules and that fabric are consecrate in the Bible.

 

Every translation is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy….he KJV is no exception. We don’t read Koine Greek or Ancient Hebrew (both dead languages) or even Aramaic. Translation in to another language is going to be problematic even for experts in the field. That is sensible, rational, reasonable

 

1 Corinthians 10:25 KJV reads:  Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake

 

1 Corinthians 10:25 NWT reads: Eat whatever is sold in a meat market, making no inquiry because of your conscience,

 

This comparison should be effective in showing that translating into a ‘dead tongue’ (language) would be as fruitful as studying your Bible in Ewé if you don’t speak Ewé. Well, I nor anyone I know speaks nor understands fluently Shakespeare. While I use the KJV on occasion for the purpose of study; the language of the NWT or Byington’s for that matter is quite current and updated as our English language devolves.

 

God doesn’t make mistakes, Men do. When I find a problem with a translation I compare until the truth reviles itself by removing any seeming contradictions or bias from the translators influences or his politics. You can't find an answer your not looking for. 

 

When a person wishes to read, write and understand English he learns to alphabet and the rules of composition, speech and grammar. I have no idea what a person wants that attacks the origin of that languages alphabet or attempts to discredit it by any other means. That lacks sense-able-ness.

 

I have a great interest in knowing what the Bible contains.

 

I have no interest in debating things such as its source. I know it’s source.  

 

2 Timothy 3:16 NWT All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight,* for disciplining in righteousness,

 

That’s what I’m interested in. That's what's sensible. Hope that answers  your question Luke. 

Edited by Grumpy Bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The King James Bible is a faithful translation of the Masoretic Text and the line of manuscripts that came out of the church at Antioch.  There are many thousands of fragments and copies and are in near perfect agreement with one another.  Conversely, there is only one copy of the Sinaiticus Text and it has no chain of custody before the 1840s.  It does not agree with the Masoretic Text nor the line of manuscripts from the church at Antioch.  Modern translations based on the Sinaiticus are missing many tens of thousands of words, upwards of sixty thousand words and they do not agree with one another.  God is not the author of confusion.

 

There are those that belittle God's Word preserved in the English and say it's too hard to read and understand and yet they learned to walk, talk, ride a bicycle, do math, read and write, pass a driving test and so on.   

 

God promised to preserve His Word.  So where is it?  The New Testament Church is an executive body.  It has no authority to add to or take away from the scriptures or the commandments therein.  Indeed, the Lord has placed a curse upon those who attempt to corrupt His Word:

  

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." - Revelations 22:18-19

 

The King James and New World Translation are not in agreement with one another.  Their have been several editions of the KJV but no revisions.  On the other hand, the latest revision to the NWT has 13% fewer words than previously.

 

Marty,  this is your post and I shall not comment any further in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stating a thing as a 'fact' is proof of nothing but ones personal convictions. 

 

Stating a thing that's a lie as a fact is something else altogether. 

 

 

That's one Paradigm. And the other would be........:lurk:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One fella likes 6.2 liter blown CCSB's on 37" AT tires. 7" lifts. Lightbars, headache racks. 500 lb. bumpers with a Titanic capable winch pulling through 4.88 gears and drives aggressively 80/85 mph everywhere he goes with the AC on and the AMP's cracking his skull so he doesn't hear the roar of his muffler delete being drown by his tires. He believes 10W40 is for 'real' trucks as well as 140 in the diffs. He gets 8 mpg and is constantly in a state of repairing this or that. 

 

Second fella likes RCSB V-6 on -1 size tires slightly lowered. Lightest fluids his heat management will allow and still provide acceptable drive line life. Rarely runs ether AC or radio except Cub's games. Drives at or under the speed limit. Is fanatical about how he maintains his tires and alignments and keeps what he can inside the trucks envelope. Leggy gears and moderate driving choices and he gets 27 mpg. Can't remember the last time he replaced anything but a light bulb. 

 

Know what these two fellas have in common? 

 

They are getting  the direct results of the physics, mathematics and chemistries they choose to employ.

 

Know what these two fellas differences are?

 

The physics, mathematics and chemistries they choose to employ. 

 

 

 

That's one Paradigm. And the other would be........:lurk:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One fella likes 6.2 liter blown CCSB's on 37" AT tires. 7" lifts. Lightbars, headache racks. 500 lb. bumpers with a Titanic capable winch pulling through 4.88 gears and drives aggressively 80/85 mph everywhere he goes with the AC on and the AMP's cracking his skull so he doesn't hear the roar of his muffler delete being drown by his tires. He believes 10W40 is for 'real' trucks as well as 140 in the diffs. He gets 8 mpg and is constantly in a state of repairing this or that. 
 
Second fella likes RCSB V-6 on -1 size tires slightly lowered. Lightest fluids his heat management will allow and still provide acceptable drive line life. Rarely runs ether AC or radio except Cub's games. Drives at or under the speed limit. Is fanatical about how he maintains his tires and alignments and keeps what he can inside the trucks envelope. Leggy gears and moderate driving choices and he gets 27 mpg. Can't remember the last time he replaced anything but a light bulb. 
 

Know what these two fellas have in common? 

 

They are getting  the direct results of the physics, mathematics and chemistries they choose to employ.

 

Know what these two fellas differences are?

 

The physics, mathematics and chemistries they choose to employ. 

 
 
 

That's one Paradigm. And the other would be........:lurk:


You know what else they have in common? Their rides are their pride and joy. To some extent I’m the other guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, KARNUT said:


You know what else they have in common? Their rides are their pride and joy. To some extent I’m the other guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are absolutely correct. :thumbs: Well played. 

 

An example of a perfectly civil and thoughtful response. It can be done. Thank you. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Grumpy Bear
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the much older lady that she should bring her own grocery bags, because plastic bags are not good for the environment.

The woman apologized to the young girl and explained, "We didn't have this 'green thing' back in my earlier days."

 

The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today.  Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."  

 

The older lady said our generation didn't have the "green thing" in its day.   Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store.  The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over.   So they really were recycled.  But we didn't have the "green thing" back in our day.  Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags that we reused for numerous things.  Most memorable besides household garbage bags was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our school books.  This was to ensure that public property (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribbling.  Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags.   
 

We walked up stairs because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building.  We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. 

 

But she was right.  We didn't have the "green thing" in our day.  Back then we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts.  Wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. 

 

But that young lady is right; we didn't have the "green thing" back in our day.  Back then we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room.  And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana.  In the kitchen we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us.  When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.  Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn.  We used a push mower that ran on human power.  We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.  We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water.  We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blade in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.
 

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service in the family's $45,000 SUV or van, which cost what a whole house did before the "green thing."  We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances.  And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.  But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the "green thing" back then?  

 

We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to tic us off.  Especially from a tattooed, multiple pierced dummy who can't make change without the cash register telling them how much.

Don't regret growing old....it is a privilege denied to many!

Edited by Grumpy Bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.