philosophy and religion over a decade ago. Michael pointed out one, but IIRC
the whole King James translation was rather politically motivated.
Even for translations where the translators are trying to be faithful to the
original texts, there will still be honest differences of opinion as to what
a word, passage, or concept translates to be. And even going back to the
"original" texts cand be considered circumspect because much of the original
text is based on retold stories. The authors weren't sitting there
scribbling furiously as the events happened.
-Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Small" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION"
> Do you have any documentation on that? I was unaware that the New
Testament had gone through revisions, excepting translations. I believe
that the King James Version and the New International Version were both
taken straight from the original langauges - Greek and Latin I think. These
translations were painstakenly done to ensure the meaning of the passages
were retained. Of course, the KJV is only 500 years old.
>
> - Matt Small
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kevin Graeme
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 2:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION"
>
>
> Which New Testament though? In translations and editions, the New
Testament
> has changed over time. Is the Vatican II revisionist history or is it
> setting right the revisionist history that happened over time to the New
> Testement?
>
> -Kevin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matthew Small" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 1:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION"
>
> > The thing I'm most interested in is not what the Pope in Vatican II
said
> or whatever revisionist histories may be out there, but rather what the
New
> Testament says happened.
> >
> > If indeed there are Jews who are responsible for the death of Jesus
Christ
> (and I still have so much to learn about the Bible) then that in no way
> condemns all Jews or even holds responsible jews today, does it? As
> somebody's already pointed out, Jesus was Jew, his followers were Jews,
his
> lineage is the Old Testament Jews (David, Solomon, etc) but in any case
> there was also a Jew follower of Jesus that was in great part
responsible
> for his death - Judas, who betrayed Jesus.
> >
> > I don't know what the movie portrays, but if it's Biblically accurate,
> then I can't find fault with it.
> >
> > - Matt Small
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Kevin Graeme
> > To: CF-Community
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 1:27 PM
> > Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION"
> >
> >
> > It comes around to the way the jews are being portrayed in the
movie.
> The
> > movie is purporting to be biblically accurate, but it is
representing
> the
> > outdated views of a Catholic sect that apparently has a bone to
pick.
> Which
> > is why there is controversy, which answers the question posed by
Matt.
> >
> > -Kevin
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "brob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:22 PM
> > Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION"
> >
> > > Well, it was either the Jews or the Romans. Maybe it was the
Chinese,
> but
> > I'll take my risks. But the point I was tyring to make was why the
> words
> > "jew" had to be in there. it's like saying "Thomas, who is an
Arabian
> man
> > and plays golf and listens to rap and is 6 feet tall, called me
today".
> > Like what the heck does that have anything to do with it.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
