Historical facts and inaccuracies in the Bible

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Which is hugely irrelevant given I was demonstrating how we use language.

No its not. Everyday language is quite different from the supposed word of a supreme being.

Isn't what the bible says important ? therefore shouldn't it be clear ?

How can I, since we are discussing a comment by a silly woman on a TV programme that Jimi saw? Without looking into her head I have no idea what passage she was referring to.

So you just told me that the context of this word, godless, makes it obvious that it means 'non-believers in 'yahweh' yet you don't know the context ?

Your telling me that 100% yes, in the context its used its 100% correct/clear yet you don't know the context ?

What about it Jimi, any chance of a link to the video or the passage in the bible ? Do you happen to remember the tv show ?

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

No its not. Everyday language is quite different from the supposed word of a supreme being.

Oh for God's sake stop this nonsense.

We're talking about an English translation. A translation has to be expressed in the idioms and speech of the people who will be reading it. Therefore the way we use language is relevant.

Isn't what the bible says important ? therefore shouldn't it be clear ?

Yes, which is why the translators work hard to make it clear to those who actually read it, rather than those who just want to argue about it.

So you just told me that the context of this word, godless, makes it obvious that it means 'non-believers in 'yahweh' yet you don't know the context ?

Your telling me that 100% yes, in the context its used its 100% correct/clear yet you don't know the context ?

I know the context of the Old Testament passages that speak about Babylon. All of them make it abundandantly clear that idolatry was the defining feature of Babylonian life. Indeed, for Jews, 'Babylon' became a synonym for 'idolatry'. That is why the Book of Revelation refers to Rome as 'Babylon'.

Therefore, in the context of the entire Old Testament, or any book of it that refers to Babylon, the word 'godless' would not and could not carry the meaning of 'having no deities' when applied to a people whose name was synonymous with idolatry (worshipping false gods).

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

We're talking about an English translation. A translation has to be expressed in the idioms and speech of the people who will be reading it. Therefore the way we use language is relevant.

Yes it is. 'godless' to me immediately means 'no gods'.

My point is simple, this word is not clear enough in this respect. Theres no reason it can't be clear, you just refuse to admit that theres a problem with it.

If the sentence is "... Babylonians were godless.." then it should be changed.

Yes, which is why the translators work hard to make it clear to those who actually read it, rather than those who just want to argue about it.

I don't particularly care, this was brought up by another poster and I haven't said anything except the meaning isn't 'clear'.

I know the context of the Old Testament passages that speak about Babylon. All of them make it abundandantly clear that idolatry was the defining feature of Babylonian life. Indeed, for Jews, 'Babylon' became a synonym for 'idolatry'. That is why the Book of Revelation refers to Rome as 'Babylon'.

So what possible reason did the translators have to use 'godless' over 'pagans', 'worshipers of false gods', 'idolater' or any other number of words where the meaning is clear to the original writing/meaning.

Your argument holds no water because there are perfectly good words in the English language to clearly describe the meaning you want, 'godless' is not one of them.

Therefore, in the context of the entire Old Testament, or any book of it that refers to Babylon, the word 'godless' would not and could not carry the meaning of 'having no deities' when applied to a people whose name was synonymous with idolatry (worshipping false gods).

So you need to know the entire Old Testament to understand the meaning of this word in relation to the Babylonians ?

And you consider that to be 'clear' ?

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Oh for God's sake stop this nonsense.

TBH, I don't know what more you can say here PDN. I anticipated this kind of mentalness a few pages back, and just thought, 'Don't bother, its only going to end in tears'.:)