Can anyone help me find lesser known Bible translations?

[Lonestar_logic]

Thank you Professor. But I want to spend my money and not just get Bibles that are translated into Chinese.

Did you check the bookstore at Biblegateway?

 

[theword]

It's wrong of course.

Most of the jews who take Torah learning seriously and have studied, study the Torah in Hebrew. They don't need translations.

And you never had competing high places either or wicked kings like Manasseh?
You never had idolatry so everyone did what was right?

And that has what to do with translations?

Saint Paul was not a Christian and neither was any saint who had the knowledge of God to understand the prophecies about God's eternal plan.

Here's what is written by Paul that wasn't changed by the Roman religious writers who changed some of the writings of the saints to make sure their Christians wouldn't become new saints.

Acts 17: 24-31
24: The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man,
25: nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything.
26: And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,
27: that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us,
28: for ..In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your poets have said, ..For we are indeed his offspring.'
29: Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man.

After this world has been destroyed by the fire of God, we will awaken in new flesh that will never be used to deceive us from the Truth, which happens to be our Creator, the only thing that's real and the Creator of ALL things that we experience.

 

[Chuckt]

It's wrong of course.

Most of the jews who take Torah learning seriously and have studied, study the Torah in Hebrew. They don't need translations.

And you never had competing high places either or wicked kings like Manasseh?
You never had idolatry so everyone did what was right?

And that has what to do with translations?

Mike,

People in ministry do funny things. I've watched them.
I caught a minister giving a translation that added / subtracted to the word of God. I went to the pastor and got nowhere. I emailed the station and after 70 feet of email, I got nowhere and a relative told me that I could get sued for what I was saying and that their lawyers could take everything because some of these corporations are run like big corporations and that is what they do.

If G-d wants to do something new, what do you do? Do you think man can just enter into a contract with Him and hold Him hostage because they don't want to keep their end of the bargain.

G-d tore down the partition wall separating man and G-d which essentially put the priesthood out of business so those working on the Septuagint stopped.

If you go against a union, are you out of a job?

I've complained against boards holding the truth down in unrighteousness. Don't you know that they edited my words or deleted my posts? Why? Because they aren't wrong and don't answer to anyone. People get a little bit of authority and it goes to their head and the next thing I see are them over doing their job.

It is hard to preserve anything. I had a vacuum cleaner in my garage and it rusted out after 5 years. I have hundreds of bible studies I've written and it is hard just to keep them organized or be able to search what I've written.

The criticism from Jesus was that they nullified the word of God through their tradition.

New International Version
Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

New Living Translation
And so you cancel the word of God in order to hand down your own tradition. And this is only one example among many others."

English Standard Version
thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

New American Standard Bible
thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that."

King James Bible
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
You revoke God's word by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many other similar things."

International Standard Version
You are destroying the word of God through your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many other things like that."

NET Bible
Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like this."

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And you reject the word of God for the traditions that you deliver, and many things like these you do.”

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Because of your traditions you have destroyed the authority of God's word. And you do many other things like that."

Jubilee Bible 2000
invalidating the word of God with your tradition, which ye have given; and many such like things do ye.

King James 2000 Bible
Making the word of God of no effect through your tradition, which you have delivered: and many such things do you.

American King James Version
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which you have delivered: and many such like things do you.

American Standard Version
making void the word of God by your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things ye do.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Making void the word of God by your own tradition, which you have given forth. And many other such like things you do.

Darby Bible Translation
making void the word of God by your traditional teaching which ye have delivered; and many such like things ye do.

English Revised Version
making void the word of God by your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things ye do.

Webster's Bible Translation
Making the word of God of no effect through your traditions, which ye have delivered: and many such like things ye do.

Weymouth New Testament
thus nullifying God's precept by your tradition which you have handed down. And many things of that kind you do."

World English Bible
making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this."

Young's Literal Translation
setting aside the word of God for your tradition that ye delivered; and many such like things ye do.'

Mark 7:13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

Chuck

 

[Chuckt]

Thank you Professor. But I want to spend my money and not just get Bibles that are translated into Chinese.

Did you check the bookstore at Biblegateway?

No. I haven't but I will check, Lord willing.

Thank you.

 

[Chuckt]

The Torah says nothing about a virgin giving birth. Christians rewrote young maiden to virgin. Almah is a young maiden. Betulah is a virgin.

"Virgin is denoted by two words in Hebrew:
1. bethulah - proper meaning denotes a virgin maiden. (Genesis 24:16; Leviticus 21:13; Deuteronomy 22:14,23,28; Judges 11:37; I Kings 1:2) Joel 1:8 is, according to Unger, not an exception because it 'refers to the loss of one betrothed, not married.'
2. almah (veiled)-young woman of marriageable age. This is the word used in Isaiah 7:14. 'The Holy Spirit through Isaiah did not use bethulah, because both the ideas of virginity and marriageable age had to be combined in one word to meet the immediate historical situation and the prophetic aspect centering in a virgin-born Messiah." 28/1159

-p, 145, Evidence That Demands A Verdict (Historical Evidences For The Christian Faith) Volume I, Josh McDowell

There may be more argumentation in Volume 2 and one of his other works.

Lexicon Results Strong's H5959 - `almah עַלְמָה
1.virgin, young woman
1. of marriageable age
2. maid or newly married
"There is no instance where it can be proved that 'almâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen 24:43 where 'almâ is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac." (R. Laird Harris, et al. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, p. 672.)

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 7 AV — virgin 4, maid 2, damsels 1

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

 

[Chuckt]

And yes, Chuck - that goes for every single other religion on the planet, equally. There is simply no reason to not treat all religions one's not an adherent of equally.... unless, of course, one of the religions claims to be the one, the true, the ONLY WAY for EVERYONE. In which case, they're philosophically no different from Nazis AFAICT

"Absolute Meaning

If there is an absolute Mind, then there can be absolute meaning. The objective basis for meaning is found in the Mind of God. Whatever an infinite Mind means by something is what it means objectively, infinitely, and absolutely. Therefore, the existence of objective and absolute meaning is grounded in the existence of an absolute Meaner (God)."

-p 171 to 172, Systematic Theology, Volume One, Introduction / Bible, Interpretation: The Hermeneutical Precondition, Dr. Norman Geisler

The reason to treat all religions equally would be atheism and to deny that there is one God who is an absolute Mind.

 

[MHunterB]

And yes, Chuck - that goes for every single other religion on the planet, equally. There is simply no reason to not treat all religions one's not an adherent of equally.... unless, of course, one of the religions claims to be the one, the true, the ONLY WAY for EVERYONE. In which case, they're philosophically no different from Nazis AFAICT

"Absolute Meaning

If there is an absolute Mind, then there can be absolute meaning. The objective basis for meaning is found in the Mind of God. Whatever an infinite Mind means by something is what it means objectively, infinitely, and absolutely. Therefore, the existence of objective and absolute meaning is grounded in the existence of an absolute Meaner (God)."

-p 171 to 172, Systematic Theology, Volume One, Introduction / Bible, Interpretation: The Hermeneutical Precondition, Dr. Norman Geisler

The reason to treat all religions equally would be atheism and to deny that there is one God who is an absolute Mind.

Ah, but I'm not talking about Christian hermeneutics.

I'm talking about how human beings should be treating one another's religious belief systems . It's a simple concept, otherwise known as 'common courtesy'.

Both Hillel the Elder and Jesus (who appears to have been largely of Hillel's school!) are quoted as being in favor of this idea: showing others the respect one wishes to have from them.

Some few delude themselves into imagining that because their faith appears to them to be 'the one true faith', everyone else should give it primacy. Not happening.

I must confess that as a Jew I'm particularly impatient with such utter nonsense. NONE of us can 'prove' to another that the LORD we worship exists - and NONE of us can 'prove' that this faith or that is 'the one and only'......

After all, Chuck: if one could "prove" that YHVH exists or that a given religion is 'the one and only truth', what value would a person's faith in GOD have? Why would YHVH have told us several times in the Bible to *trust* Him?

 

[MHunterB]

OH, and Chuck? Your reference author there? He's got ZERO authority for me since he's not a 'believer' (though I don't usually resort to such crude language).

 

[Chuckt]

And yes, Chuck - that goes for every single other religion on the planet, equally. There is simply no reason to not treat all religions one's not an adherent of equally.... unless, of course, one of the religions claims to be the one, the true, the ONLY WAY for EVERYONE. In which case, they're philosophically no different from Nazis AFAICT

"Absolute Meaning

If there is an absolute Mind, then there can be absolute meaning. The objective basis for meaning is found in the Mind of God. Whatever an infinite Mind means by something is what it means objectively, infinitely, and absolutely. Therefore, the existence of objective and absolute meaning is grounded in the existence of an absolute Meaner (God)."

-p 171 to 172, Systematic Theology, Volume One, Introduction / Bible, Interpretation: The Hermeneutical Precondition, Dr. Norman Geisler

The reason to treat all religions equally would be atheism and to deny that there is one God who is an absolute Mind.

Ah, but I'm not talking about Christian hermeneutics.

I'm talking about how human beings should be treating one another's religious belief systems . It's a simple concept, otherwise known as 'common courtesy'.

Both Hillel the Elder and Jesus (who appears to have been largely of Hillel's school!) are quoted as being in favor of this idea: showing others the respect one wishes to have from them.

Some few delude themselves into imagining that because their faith appears to them to be 'the one true faith', everyone else should give it primacy. Not happening.

I must confess that as a Jew I'm particularly impatient with such utter nonsense. NONE of us can 'prove' to another that the LORD we worship exists - and NONE of us can 'prove' that this faith or that is 'the one and only'......

After all, Chuck: if one could "prove" that YHVH exists or that a given religion is 'the one and only truth', what value would a person's faith in GOD have? Why would YHVH have told us several times in the Bible to *trust* Him?

We respect other people and we respect what other people believe to some extent.
I don't hold all beliefs equal because they're not.

How did Aaron get in trouble? He built a golden calf and basically gave people what they wanted instead of what they need.

G-d has communicable attributes and non-communicable attributes but my Bible says that people are without excuse:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I'm not ecumenical so I'm not going to offend G-d in order to please man and why should I tell men and women that they are alright and not warm people of hell when they're not alright?

It is blasphemy to G-d to put His religious writings on a table with other people's religious icons or writings on a table to show equality when they're not.

G-d is holy and set apart. There is none like Him and He is the only true G-d.

Love my enemies and treat them better than myself? Yes. Tell them a lie? No.

Join in the new world order with the anti-Christ, and false prophet so I can be judged in the coming judgment? No.

 

[MHunterB]

We respect other people and we respect what other people believe to some extent.
Evidently I didn't make myself clear enough: the equality is the fact that ALL faith are likewise UNprovable. An honest person acknowledges that they cannot produce any 'outside' proof that their particular Scripture is in any way 'truer' or 'holier' than any of the others.


I don't hold all beliefs equal because they're not.
They are 'equal' in being unprovable - no matter how many millions are 'believers', or how many have been martyred for the faith.

How did Aaron get in trouble? He built a golden calf and basically gave people what they wanted instead of what they need.NO. He disobeyed the LORD's command to have no other worship than that of the LORD.

G-d has communicable attributes and non-communicable attributes but my Bible says that people are without excuse:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
I have no idea what 'communicable attributes' are, but at least you've acknowledged this comes from your particular faith's Scriptures. I hope you understand that that will mean exactly nothing to anyone of another faith.

I'm not ecumenicalWhy not?


so I'm not going to offend G-d in order to please man

When you offend against humans, you cannot help but offend against YHVH as well. Or don't you understand that?

and why should I tell men and women that they are alright and not warm people of hell when they're not alright?
So of course you don't mind having me explain that your beliefs are heretical, blasphemous, and idolatrous ? What is this 'hell' that you are so afraid of? Nothing of the sort of eternal torment exists in my universe: it would be blasphemy to accuse the LORD of so lacking in compassion for His creation.

It is blasphemy to G-d to put His religious writings on a table with other people's religious icons or writings on a table to show equality when they're not.
I don't see how: how does other people believing something different constitute 'blasphemy' in your opinion when neither they nor their beliefs are part of your faith?

G-d is holy and set apart. There is none like Him and He is the only true G-d.
So you don't think your fellow Abrahamics are worshipping the same GOD?

Love my enemies and treat them better than myself? Yes. So you assume that whoever believes differently from you is an 'enemy'??? I didn't mention 'enemies': you chose to insert that. And btw, what is this affectation of yours in not writing out G-O-D? Can you even tell me why you think you, as a Christian, need to do that? I find it quite insulting. Do you also put your wishes into a 'prayer box'? And do you offer your food to DEITY before eating it? What OTHER religious customs of non-Christians do you bowdlerize to suit your Christian taste?


Tell them a lie? No.So do you or don't you believe that the ONE other Abrahamics worship is 'the one true GOD?

Join in the new world order with the anti-Christ, and false prophet

What are you ranting about here? There is NOTHING in other people's faiths about any such thing as a 'new world order' - and obviously nothing about any 'anti-Christ', any more than there's anything in Christianity about an 'anti-Buddha' or whatever.

You mention 'false prophet' - singular - I don't know why you didn't say 'prophets'. There is also the matter of taking it upon oneself to 'redefine' both prophet and prophesy, and to debase the Scriptures thereby....

so I can be judged in the coming judgment? No. Chuck, do you believe that you as a Christian are somehow exempt from being judged by our Creator? As we are all 'works in progress', I don't see how His judgement can be evaded - or why any true 'God-fearer' would seek to do so.

You seem to have a very negative view of our GOD : (( I am sad for you, so I will pray for you )

 

[Chuckt]

We respect other people and we respect what other people believe to some extent.

Evidently I didn't make myself clear enough: the equality is the fact that ALL faith are likewise UNprovable. An honest person acknowledges that they cannot produce any 'outside' proof that their particular Scripture is in any way 'truer' or 'holier' than any of the others.


I don't hold all beliefs equal because they're not.
They are 'equal' in being unprovable - no matter how many millions are 'believers', or how many have been martyred for the faith.

I spent some time trying to answer your questions. I won't get to all of the questions or reasons or be able to give you all of the answers tonight.


What do you want? A 2,500 word paper? Maybe you should read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell which is basically a compilation of all the apologetic books that have been written over the ages. You picked on the wrong person because I started out in apologetics.
Evidently I didn't make myself clear enough: the equality is the fact that ALL faith are likewise UNprovable. An honest person acknowledges that they cannot produce any 'outside' proof that their particular Scripture is in any way 'truer' or 'holier' than any of the others.

What people believe is not equal unless it is true. There is a story about an elephant and the people are blind but one person feels a trunk and thinks that God is a trunk and another person feels the tail and thinks God is a tail. The Elephant spoke so we know that Christianity is true and every other religion is false.

If you are going to be true to yourself and respect Christianity then you have to give weight to the fact that Jesus said He is the only way, and that He is the door (to heaven) and that all others who try to climb over are thieves and robbers. True means that one is true which makes all others false. If all religions are equally true then try to reconcile monotheism, polytheism, pantheism and dualism and it can’t be because they have to be false.

Jesus fulfilled prophecy. It is almost impossible for someone to fulfill just eight of them but he fulfilled more.

The Bible is true because it says God caused a flood and almost every culture has a flood story. There are also shell fossils from the ocean on top of Mount Everest and there are eight foot shells on top of the mountains in Peru.

It is illogical to allege that all faith is unprovable and that they cannot produce any outside proof that their scripture is true or false. Philosophy looks at prescriptions (RX) like Jesus and then they draw a framework to either prove or disprove and I actually had to do that and write papers on that in a secular college.

The level of proof and responsibility is lower for God because He sent two witnesses which makes you responsible for His testimony.
There is archaeological evidence that the Bible is true and there is manuscript evidence that the Bible is true.

The real question is, if Christianity or Judaism is true and if you think that they aren’t more true than any other religion then how would you know if it was true or not if you didn’t know whether you were in the religion or not?

The Bible is true because it speaks to men and women today and I know it is true because the Bible speaks to believers in the past as well as the present and I will include myself because God has jumped off the page to men and women through His word and it is called illumination, inspiration and revelation:
Article X says,"The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.1"-Westminster Confession of Faith

The Bible is true because when God was visibly active, people countered it with their own gods and religion and now that He has gone back to prepare a place for us, there is less activity that counters God and we’ve fallen into a world of secularism.

My Orthodox Jewish friends have commentaries by people who claimed to see Devils so there is testimony that the supernatural exists.

There are tire tracks found in the Red Sea from the Egyptian Army and the existence of the Nation of Israel is prophecy fulfilled.

I’m not charismatic but I talked to one believer who claimed she was charismatic and she gave me a description of what it was like to speak in tongues that I thought her description was credible. There is also a study by a major IVY League University that did MRI brain scans on people who spoke in tongues and they didn’t see any brain activity which concludes what the Bible says:

1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

I can find the links to that study but I don’t wish to publish it all over the web so if you want to PM me, I will see what I can do.

Without the resurrection and the miracles of the Bible, I don’t think there would be Judaism or Christianity because no one would follow them. If Jesus swooned on the cross and was placed in a tomb before He died, he wouldn’t be credible enough to push a one ton boulder up a hill with holes in his arms because He would look half dead and he wouldn’t look like a superhero. Jesus rose from the grave after three days demonstrating that He had the power over the grave to over 500 followers and because He came back to life, we can believe… but Muhammad is in his tomb and Confucius is in his tomb and Buddha is in his tomb.

“I'm not ecumenical. Why not?”

Why are you ecumenical?

I’m not ecumenical because I won’t deal with false religious systems and people who do are either peacemakers or morally dishonest.

 

[pacer]

What people believe is not equal unless it is true. There is a story about an elephant and the people are blind but one person feels a trunk and thinks that God is a trunk and another person feels the tail and thinks God is a tail. The Elephant spoke so we know that Christianity is true and every other religion is false.

There is a story about an elephant and the people are blind but one person feels a trunk and thinks that God is a trunk and another person feels the tail and thinks God is a tail. The Elephant spoke so we know that Christianity is true and every other religion is false.

Not quite accurate. There are several versions of the story but here is the gist.

In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one feels a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes and learn that they are in complete disagreement.

The stories differ primarily in how the elephant's body parts are described, how violent the conflict becomes and how (or if) the conflict among the men and their perspectives is resolved.

In some versions, they stop talking, start listening and collaborate to "see" the full elephant. When a sighted man walks by and sees the entire elephant all at once, they also learn they are blind. While one's subjective experience is true, it may not be the totality of truth. If the sighted man was deaf, he would not hear the elephant bellow.

All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently is because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the features you mentioned.

This story totally contradicts your assertion that ”…the elephant spoke so we know that Christianity is true and every other religion is false.". The elephant didn't speak. hahaha Someone obviously included it as a joke in the retelling. The story demonstrates that truth is subjective. All the blind men in the group were correct. They each described a part of the elephant's body differently because they each touched a different part.

This is the Buddhist version. It is brilliant.

When the blind men had each felt a part of the elephant, the king went to each of them and said to each: 'Well, blind man, have you seen the elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?'

The men assert the elephant is either like a pot (the blind man who felt the elephants' head), a winnowing basket (ear), a plowshare (tusk), a plow (trunk), a granary (body), a pillar (foot), a mortar (back), a pestle (tail) or a brush (tip of the tail).

The men cannot agree with one another and come to blows over the question of what it is like and their dispute delights the king. The Buddha ends the story by comparing the blind men to preachers and scholars who are blind and ignorant and hold to their own views: "Just so are these preachers and scholars holding various views blind and unseeing.... In their ignorance they are by nature quarrelsome, wrangling, and disputatious, each maintaining reality is thus and thus."

The Buddha then speaks the following verse:

O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim
For preacher and monk the honored name!
For, quarreling, each to his view they cling.
Such folk see only one side of a thing.

Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Chuckt]

But Christianity concludes that the elephant did speak.

Matthew 7:13 ¶ Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Luke 13:28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.

Matthew 22:13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Jesus made a lot of claims in John 12:44. Believing in Him was believing in God, to see Him was seeing God, came as the light of the world, those who believe don't abide in darkness, came to save the world, those who don't believe will be judged, claimed His teaching didn't originate with Him and His words are life everlasting.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 10:7 ¶ Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep (gate).
John 10:8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
John 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

You enter heaven by the door which is Jesus or you don't get in. It is an exclusive claim and the elephant has spoken.

 

[pacer]

But Christianity concludes that the elephant did speak.

Please give us a source wherein "Christianity concludes that the elephant did speak.”

 

[pacer]

Christianity did not originate the story. You cannot simply attach your own conclusion and attribute it to Christianity.

"The story originated in the Indian subcontinent from where it has widely diffused. It has been used to illustrate a range of truths and fallacies. At various times it has provided insight into the relativism, opaqueness or inexpressible nature of truth, the behaviour of experts in fields where there is a deficit or inaccessibility of information, the need for communication, and respect for different perspectives.

It is a parable that has crossed between many religious traditions and is part of Jain, Buddhist, Sufi and Hindu lore. The tale is also well known in Europe. In the 19th century the poet John Godfrey Saxe created his own version as a poem.[1] Since then, the story has been published in many books for adults and children, and interpreted in an ever-increasing variety of ways."

Blind men and an elephant - Ask.com Encyclopedia

 

[Chuckt]

But Christianity concludes that the elephant did speak.

Please give us a source wherein "Christianity concludes that the elephant did speak.”

Our Christian leaders whom I can't identify because I specifically don't know who did it but our Christian leaders heard the story and re-wrote the conclusion of the elephant story because the elephant story is untrue the way it was.

The Bible is the source of speaking for the elephant. God spoke and it is recorded in the Bible.

 

[pacer]

Our Christian leaders whom I can't identify because I specifically don't know who did it but our Christian leaders heard the story and re-wrote the conclusion of the elephant story because the elephant story is untrue the way it was.

The Bible is the source of speaking for the elephant. God spoke and it is recorded in the Bible.

Christianity did not originate the story and Christianity cannot rewrite it just as the parables of the Bible cannot be rewritten. The parable of the elephant and the blind men is symbolic of a deeper underlying moral. It is a beautiful story.

***

"The moral of the story is that there may be some truth to what someone says. Sometimes we can see that truth and sometimes not because they may have different perspective which we may not agree too. So, rather than arguing like the blind men, we should say, "Maybe you have your reasons." This way we don’t get in arguments.

In Jainism, it is explained that truth can be stated in seven different ways. So, you can see how broad our religion is. It teaches us to be tolerant towards others for their viewpoints. This allows us to live in harmony with the people of different thinking. This is known as the Syadvada, Anekantvad, or the theory of Manifold Predictions."

ELEPHANT AND THE BLIND MEN

Given that you cannot identify even one source, I will give your statement the consideration it deserves.

 

[Chuckt]

Our Christian leaders whom I can't identify because I specifically don't know who did it but our Christian leaders heard the story and re-wrote the conclusion of the elephant story because the elephant story is untrue the way it was.

The Bible is the source of speaking for the elephant. God spoke and it is recorded in the Bible.

Christianity did not originate the story and Christianity cannot rewrite it just as the parables of the Bible cannot be rewritten. The parable of the elephant and the blind men is symbolic of a deeper underlying moral. It is a beautiful story.

***

"The moral of the story is that there may be some truth to what someone says. Sometimes we can see that truth and sometimes not because they may have different perspective which we may not agree too. So, rather than arguing like the blind men, we should say, "Maybe you have your reasons." This way we don’t get in arguments.

In Jainism, it is explained that truth can be stated in seven different ways. So, you can see how broad our religion is. It teaches us to be tolerant towards others for their viewpoints. This allows us to live in harmony with the people of different thinking. This is known as the Syadvada, Anekantvad, or the theory of Manifold Predictions."

ELEPHANT AND THE BLIND MEN

Given that you cannot identify even one source, I will give your statement the consideration it deserves.

How do you know your own sources didn't steal it? A lot of stories are passed down from person to person and they change over time.

That is the conclusion I give the story because the story isn't based on reality and we can't change reality just because someone doesn't like reality.

The elephant spoke so we know that Christianity is true and Jesus is the only way to God.

 

[pacer]

How do you know your own sources didn't steal it? A lot of stories are passed down from person to person and they change over time.

By all accounts, the origin of the story is India.

Please read:

The “Blind Men and the Elephant” tale originated in India. It is widely thought the original story originated in Hindu lore. It was translated to the English language in the 19th century as a poem by the English writer John Godfrey Saxe.

A version of the story has been used in the Buddhist culture as well as the Jain and Sufi Muslim culture.

In modern times, the story has become widely used in philosophy and religion classes. It is used to illustrate the need for religious tolerance. The story illustrates how people form their reality and belief system on their limited experiences. In other words, perhaps each religious faith only holds truths that make up one part of God.

The story is also used to teach tolerance for other cultures. We only “see” the culture in which we are immersed.

The poem illustrates how perception is based on what a person is able to see or touch. In the story, six blind men touch an elephant. Although each man touches the same animal, his determination of the elephant is based only what he is able to perceive. The poem warns the reader that preconceived notions and perceptions can lead to misinterpretation.

Blind Men and the Elephant | WordFocus.com

That is the conclusion I give the story because the story isn't based on reality and we can't change reality just because someone doesn't like reality.

The parables of the Bible are not based on reality, either. They are simply short stories with a moral. You can give whatever conclusion you wish to the parable of the elephant and the blind men but you cannot attribute it to Christianity.

The elephant spoke

And only you heard him. 

 

[pacer]

So we know from this beautiful poem that the story dates back to at least the 1900s. If you read nothing else, read the MORAL.

Blind Men and the Elephant

Poem by John Godfrey Saxe (1816–1887)

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant is very like a wall!”

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
” ‘Tis clear enough the Elephant Is very like a tree!”

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

Moral

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!