The Bible is translated many different ways and by many different people. Which is the correct way to translate it right? Are any of the translations or views on it right? The answer to this can be unclear. Everyone tends to interpret the bible in at least slightly different ways, and these small differences in thinking can drive people apart. There have been wars and battles fought between and by Christians who all believe they are doing the right thing. When branches of Christianity break off and only teach the bible in one way and do not allow people to think freely for themselves or interpret it their own ways, it can cause problems within the religion and can even lead people astray. Luther says in the Freedom of a Christian that the …show more content…
In fact, if people viewed everything with the mindset he is talking about, there would be much less violence in the world today. The fact is that people seem to love arguing for what they think is right, and we can not really fault people for that. Some people adamantly believe that the death penalty for instance, is wrong. Others believe that the death penalty is justice for crimes of a certain degree. Both sides have good reasons and thoughts behind them, but who is truly right? This is the problem Christians face with the interpretation of the Bible and what is right or wrong in God’s eyes.
The fact that people have fought for hundreds of years over the correct way to worship God, interpret the bible, and teach the word, is a huge issue. The Crusades, for example was a huge amount of violence centered around Christianity and the idea that christians should have the holy land. Many were taught that some acts of violence were good and would even get them into heaven. As written by David Krueger “Acts of violence are justifiable, said Augustine, if one
…show more content…
The branches of Christianity that I have found include catholicism, eastern orthodoxy, oriental orthodoxy, other eastern christianity, anglicanism, and protestantism. Among these there are quite a few that I myself have never heard of, though I know of another branch not mentioned that seems to have originated in my small hometown. The reason all of these branches exist is because no one can agree to disagree. Why make separate branches of the same religion? Why can we not all just be Christians, but do it in our own way? To be simply put, it is some people will not let go of the fact that they think any way of viewing the bible than their own is wrong. Even in my hometown of about 2000 people there is a Christian church that will not allow anyone in that cannot read the german Bible because they believe that other bibles are
If King defines violence as “immoral and destructive means” (King, 400), and Mitchell claims that violence can be used to bring about peace and equality. And King further states that “immoral and destructive means” (King, 400), can only bring about immoral and destructive ends. Then it is possible to infer that peace and equality are immoral and destructive. This is an error brought about through a lack of a definition to the terms violence and non-violence. As with the time King found new terms to differentiate between the types of love, he must find a number of new terms with which we may differentiate between the types of violence. The lack of variety has led to confusion that can possibly be eased through an ability to discriminate meanings. A possible distinction King could make between his violence and Mitchell’s violence is by using the terms brutality and brouhaha. A brouhaha could be what King calls non-violence, and brutality being what King calls violence. Brutality being a physical, forceful and damaging act of cruelty. A brouhaha is an enthusiastic act of abnormal behavior for the purpose of causing discomfort in others. An example of a brouhaha would be what King would call a non-violent protest. An example of brutality would be smashing in the windows of a store that refused to serve someone. To fix the claim “the type of peace King predicts from non-violence is better than one from violence,” Dr. King need only add a disclaimer stating the fact that such a claim is purely conjecture and wrought with bias. These changes could cause the essay to lose some of its power over the public, a group that has to think very little about the information that moves them, but it is personally believed that the changes would make the document more accurate for the people who
We can so easily deceive ourselves into believing that what is accepted by the general population as normal behavior is also justifiably correct. Rarely do we, as a society, question our customs as long as this behavior yields such commodities as convenience, profit or social benefit. If contested, our acts become well justified and defended. All components of our lifestyle are purposefully bent to fit around popular beliefs and anything, up to and including the Holy Bible, can be distorted to advance our position. A current example of this is today's Muslim terrorists who are using teachings in their Koran to justify their position, saying that the Koran dictates that they must fight a holy war, killing as many Christians and Jews as possible, even going so far as to sacrifice their own lives in the process.
I disagree that a variety of opinions of scripture are to be frowned upon. The secular interpretations are what defines Christianity in the 21st century. I view the immense number of ideas as the creativity that is essential for mankind. Everyone’s life is different and the environments in which people lived throughout their life will change their point of view on
Christians refuse to fight at war, they can still be part of war in a
“Violence never really deals with the basic evil of the situation. Violence may murder the murderer, but it doesn’t murder murder. Violence may murder the liar, but it doesn’t murder lie; it doesn’t establish truth. Violence may even murder the dishonest man, but it doesn’t murder dishonesty. Violence may go to the point of murdering the hater, but it doesn’t murder hate.
The most highly referenced and revered as sacred are The King James Version, considered a masterpiece of English literature, The Tanakh, or Hebrew Bible, The Aprocrypha, the books believed left out of some bibles, The Vulgate, the Latin Bible used for centuries by the Roman Catholic religion, and The Septuagint, the first ancient Greek translation of the Tanakh (Geisler and Nix 15, McCallum 4). The Bible is considered a sacred text by three major world religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Many believers consider it to be the literal truth. Others treat it with great respect, but believe that it was written by human beings and, thus is often contradictory in its tenets.
This quote by Gene Nowlin in his book The Paraphrased Perversion of the Bible summarizes the composition of the Bible. Throughout life, Christians grasp tightly to these words of God in hopes to inherit the Kingdom of God one day. In order to do this, they must study the Bible closely and apply it to their lives daily. Without the proper Bible, this may become a difficult task to accomplish. Although the various translations of the Christian Bible are exceptionally similar in their message, some have quite a few differences and perversions that set them apart from one another. Many of them even leave out several potentially important verses in their revision. These variations contribute to the justification of one translation being more reliable and accurate than the other versions.
The Christian religion, like all other religions has its strengths and weaknesses in our modern society. Perhaps the strengths out weight the weaknesses as this is one of the largest religions in the world. Hundreds of people follow the Catholic/Christian religion yet still a greater number follow yet other religions. Perhaps this is because they see the weaknesses or perhaps it is simply because their parents have taught them that it is a sin to follow this religion.
Thomas Aquinas held the view that violence was necessary when it was justified and meant to ensure the common good. Thomas Aquinas’s philosophy can be broken down into one easy to remember phrase, ““Good is to be done and pursued and evil is to be avoided.” All other precepts of the natural law are based on this” (Aquinas I-II.94.2). Aquinas’s bases his entire philosophy around the simple idea that evil should be shunned from individual’s lives and they should instead focus on the good. Yet, Aquinas did foresee that in certain cases, violence and war were necessary to ensure the common good, “Therefore, if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin,...
...ugustine about the human condition. Throughout life we are faced with many decisions both right and wrong, however the wrong option always seems more fun or better in someone even though we know its wrong. Something so basic like breaking the speed limit is a choice we know is wrong and could end it punishment but we do it anyway, because we just enjoy doing the wrong thing, its part of our human nature to do wrong. However in Augustine’s time there was no question that God existed, if you broke a law or sinned you where doing so against God, now if you sin or break a law, the human population focuses more on how the law will punish you, rather than how God will feel about it. Happiness and sin are two sides of the same coin, you cant achieve one without the other, and because of our human nature sinning and choosing false happiness will always “look’ better to us.
Throughout history many different secs of Christianity have fought over whose theology was sounder then the other. In many places often resorting to violence to try and establish their views as the most dominant. However, there is one theological belief
One of the earliest trends in Christianity was the need for Councils to settle disagreements on the religion. There have been many times where Christians had disagreements on what to consider as the base concepts of Christianity. Some
People separate and then reunited; people quarrel and then reconciled. Similarly, Christianity also has separation reunion, argument and reconciliation. Christianity was started as one body, and then multiple factors gradually contributed to the split of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Some of these factors are such as the different understanding of Christianity, the different point of views toward the authority of the Pope and the different ideas of governing the Church. All the different thoughts created the disagreement between the two branches of Church. In other words, the conflict came up, and eventually led to the Great Schism. The differences between these two branches of church were significant because they are the result of this Great Schism.
Until 381CE, Christianity had experienced many persecutions. However, over time it became the central religion of the Roman Empire. Conversely, in the 11th century, Christianity had split into two main denominations, the Church of the East, known as the Orthodox Church, and the Church of the West, known as the Roman Church. This was due to the breakdown of the Roman Empire. Similarly, in the 16th century the ‘Reformation in Europe’ led to more divisions.
...ill the most preferred version of the Bible. Although we read the book very comfortably at home, we have many different versions. English translations are so many but the most important ones are listed in the paper.