Just found an interesting Bible scripture

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-08-23 12:45pm

If I [Jesus] bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." (John 5:31)

"I [Jesus] am one that bear witness of myself..." (John 8:18)

Anyone else confused by that?

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-08-23 01:02pm

What's the context of the first one? Is he saying that as a rule that applies to everyone kind of "i"?

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-08-23 01:11pm

It sure seems like it.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-08-23 02:26pm

Look at the whole story, and then judge it.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-08-23 02:41pm

Even if he were speaking, in the first quote, in a generalized way: "If a person/if someone bear witness of himself, that witness is not true." for example, the quotes are still contradictory, because the very next quote states that he does so. Whether the "I" in the first quote is specific to him or a hypothetical doesn't matter.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2003-08-23 02:51pm

Superman wrote:If I [Jesus] bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." (John 5:31)

"I [Jesus] am one that bear witness of myself..." (John 8:18)

Anyone else confused by that?

Try the full context. He's saying the same thing in both of them.

John 5:31-33
"31 If I alone bear witness about myself, my witness is not true. 32 There is another that bears witness about me, and I know that the witness which he bears about me is true. 33 You have dispatched men to John, and he has borne witness to the truth."

The witness of one person is worthless, but Jesus is explaining how there are others that can talk about him.

John 8:17, 18
"17 Also, in your own Law it is written, 'The witness of two men is true.' 18 I am one that bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me."

That one clears itself up just by throwing in the rest of the context. It's the same principle as was used in chapter 5, except he words it differently. (Back in chapter 5, Jesus goes on to say that God bore witness about Jesus, as well.)

The quotes only contradict each other if you take them out of context.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-08-23 02:53pm

Actually, I wouldn't call that taking it out of context -- I'd call that misquoting. Where did you get those quotes from, Superman?

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2003-08-23 02:58pm

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:Actually, I wouldn't call that taking it out of context -- I'd call that misquoting. Where did you get those quotes from, Superman?

His quotes are from the King James Version. I just checked and his quotes are exact. He took them out of context, though.

My quotes were from a different translation. The main difference, aside from much more modern English, is that mine said "if I alone" instead of just "if I." The implication of "alone" in the KJV is still clear if the rest of the context is taken into account.

I'm not sure how other translations render it, as I only have these two translations here.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-08-23 03:05pm

Mad wrote:
Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:Actually, I wouldn't call that taking it out of context -- I'd call that misquoting. Where did you get those quotes from, Superman?
His quotes are from the King James Version. I just checked and his quotes are exact. He took them out of context, though.

My quotes were from a different translation. The main difference, aside from much more modern English, is that mine said "if I alone" instead of just "if I." The implication of "alone" in the KJV is still clear if the rest of the context is taken into account.

I'm not sure how other translations render it, as I only have these two translations here.

Hmm. That's one of the things that sucks worst about that damn book, and probably one of the things that led the religion that goes with it so far into FUBARville. God seems to have a rather vague, ambiguous and often-times self-contradictory Word.

Personally, I'd lock Him up somewhere until He gets His story straight.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-08-23 03:57pm

I see nothing contradictory in the two quoted passages.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-08-23 04:27pm

KJV is a bad translation anyway. The translators didn't read Hebrew or Greek well, and there are some verses that have had my religion classes laughing because of how bad they are (in Isaiah there are dragons, but only in the KJV...everyone else translates the same word as "owls").

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-08-23 04:57pm

The Dark wrote:KJV is a bad translation anyway. The translators didn't read Hebrew or Greek well, and there are some verses that have had my religion classes laughing because of how bad they are (in Isaiah there are dragons, but only in the KJV...everyone else translates the same word as "owls").

that, and that PISS ANNOYING mistake with God's name. It's YHVH, not Jehovah!

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-08-23 05:08pm

That was Germany's fault. A German scholar made the original error, and it's all because of Jewish tradition.

Y'see, Jews don't use the name "YHWH." It's considered too holy to say, even for Rabbis in Synogogue (sp?) services. Thus, they use the word "adonai," which translates roughly to "Lord." In order to remind them of this, the vowels for "adonai" are superimposed over YHWH, so it read YaHoWaiH. Since J and Y were the same to the scholar, it became translated as JaHoWaiH, pronounved "Yehovah." Another translation screwup occurred in bringing to English, where they kept the J but changed the W to V because the German W is the same as the English V (and somehow lost the i), thus making it Jehovah. Bloody irritating.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2003-08-23 05:40pm

BRAVO DARK! You deserve a hero biscuit!!!
::Hands The Dark a hero Biscuit::

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-08-23 05:47pm

*desparately tries not to make a Monty Python reference*

...

....

"Stone him!"

(sorry)

Baron Scarpia · Post by **Baron Scarpia** » 2003-08-23 05:56pm

The Dark wrote:KJV is a bad translation anyway. The translators didn't read Hebrew or Greek well, and there are some verses that have had my religion classes laughing because of how bad they are (in Isaiah there are dragons, but only in the KJV...everyone else translates the same word as "owls").

Sadly, the KJV is still more accurate than a lot of modern texts created by Evangelicals to "tidy up" the contradictions, errors, etc. I refer specifically to the NIV, which is so bastardized it's ridiculous.

Hethrir · Post by **Hethrir** » 2003-08-23 09:36pm

Baron Scarpia wrote:Sadly, the KJV is still more accurate than a lot of modern texts created by Evangelicals to "tidy up" the contradictions, errors, etc. I refer specifically to the NIV, which is so bastardized it's ridiculous.

Heh, simple translation method alone convinces me of that. That NIV is a 'paraphrase Bible' which doesn't translate word for word, but get the general meaning and writes it instead.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-08-23 11:11pm

True, I now dislike the NIV for anything other than skimming to get the general gist of a text. The most accepted "scholarly" translation is the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version), though some still prefer the RSV (pre-New). NRSV is the only one encouraged for use by my professors, though they'll often call on NIV and KJV people to read for purposes of getting a laugh from NRSV people.

Chardok wrote:BRAVO DARK! You deserve a hero biscuit!!!
::Hands The Dark a hero Biscuit::

Darth Gojira · Post by **Darth Gojira** » 2003-08-24 07:55am

Between all those versions of the Bible, I'll just take Hebrew over the summer, or maybe replace Spanish with it.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Just found an interesting Bible scripture

Just found an interesting Bible scripture

Re: Just found an interesting Bible scripture