Just Hummin’, all translations end up involving at least some degree of interpretation inevitably colored by particular theological and ideological viewpoints or biases, especially when they involve Greek, which has a structure very different from English and other European languages and uses some vernacular vocabulary whose meaning has effectively been lost. There’s a reason that there are so many versions of English bibles, which people have actually been burned alive at the stake over, and not just one that everyone can agree on. That is not a point of heresy or controversy, and you will find that serious religious scholars from pretty much all Christian traditions will admit as much, even if a more comfortable, simpler black-and-white perspective is preached from the pulpit and taught in Sunday school.

I checked, and on at least one point even the ESV relies on taking a particular side on a controversy that goes back to the 3rd or 4th century – and probably the wrong side, based on what we now know of original manuscripts and from more recently discovered materials. On the other hand, the differences in the oldest manuscripts, such as the 4 different synoptic Gospels that are sometimes even contradictory in their reporting of what Jesus said, as well as other materials like the Dead Sea Scrolls, are generally cited by modern New Testament scholars as clear evidence of competing interpretations – in fact, new discoveries open up new questions, such as whether Jesus was actually much more in the vein of of an Essene radical than any of the materials that have come down to us acknowledge.

When you start to talk about subjective judgments like “faithfully translated” that conveniently dismiss what you don’t agree with, you’re getting into the same territory as scientologists arguing that the abuses being exposed aren’t really Scientology or proper applications of Hubbard’s policies. You might consider how your own assumptions and apologistics could be similar to those of a faithful scientologist.

Espi,

You condemn Deb’s quoting of Scripture as Bronze Age heresy but the NJB has only been around since 1985 and specifically for Roman Catholics, may I assume this is your faith?

The writing styles of the different English language translations may be different but the original meaning of Scripture is unchanged. If I were quoting Scripture I would quote from the ESV, it is my preferred translation.

The only manuscripts (or books) truly inspired of God are the very originals which we don’t have any longer but what we do have are faithful copies ( as comparisons to the very earliest manuscripts shows as well as the newly discovered Dead Sea Scrolls).

No one English Language translation which is faithfully translated is superior to another in inspiration.

Hey Espi…

Were you joking? I didn’t think you believed in god, The Bible or any of that stuff based off your other posts I’ve read. I assume you were being sarcastic about being “a spawn of Satan”, “confess your sins” and “going to hell”. Yes?

Sorry, PM, I misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking about independent auditors (or supervisors) who incorporated non-LRH tech in their practice, as opposed to asking whether they allowed their pc’s and students to do other practices. The former is what I’ve been commenting on, after being challenged with “but you have no choice but to follow KSW.”

I don’t have any data about the latter, but I can imagine that a pc would be told not to get involved in other practices WHILE getting auditing, as it would possibly color the results. This is actually the way it was originally handled in the CoS too – the rule was basically “while on course.”

marildi, I’m genuinely interesting in what going on in the independent community, where I no longer really have current contacts – I knew some old timers who were such old-timers, that they’re no longer with us, unfortunately; they were impressive people, and I wish now that I’d learned more from them, and gotten more auditing from them, if only to broaden my background knowledge about the subject. And, I do also want to challenge claims that you have made without support or evidence – plus anyone reading this who might be interested in independent Scientology, deserves to be more fully informed.

Do you know for a fact that the organizations and auditors you cited, are in fact actually tolerant of “other practices” – that they really would allow someone to receive auditing and training, who was engaged in another practice like meditation, or even say Eckankar? Or are you just speculating based on what you think independents ought to do?

I’d really be interested to hear from anyone with specific knowledge, about the state of this matter. I would have expected, for instance, that Ron’s Orgs might have followed Hubbard’s dictates about prohibiting other practices – but I admit that I have no specific knowledge about that.

A quick search did turn up some processing dealing with apparently negative aspects of “former practices” in Excalibur, though I don’t know enough about Excalibur and how it is delivered to actually put that in context.

Oren E, the Jews get a bad wrap in the New Testament, IMO. I think the Jews were the fall guys for the Romans’ fear and hatred of Jesus. According to what one reads there, “multitudes” of Jews loved and followed Jesus around. I think the Romans thought he was getting a little too big for his britches. In fact, I think the Romans, the powers that be at that time, were so hating and fearful of this man, had so much attention on what he was saying and how people in Judea were listening and so forth, that it was inevitable that one day they would “swap terminals” with him. Even if – and hear me out – even if there never was a Jesus, SOMEBODY said, “Love thy neighbor as thyself”, “Do good to those who hate you”, “Turn the other cheek”, “You are your brother’s keeper”…all revolutionary concepts of operating at the time to which people were paying attention. They liked it. It was catching on, and, as such, it was threatening to the Romans who controlled Judea as part of the Roman Empire. So they had to get rid of him and they blamed the Jews. Well, maybe some Jews didn’t like him but apparently from what is written plenty other Jews liked him a lot, so Jesus had to go. This is just my opinion.

But, Wynski, I’m agreeing with you, darling.

“Evidence” is in quotes in my second post.

It should have been in quotes in my first post.

I personally don’t consider this to be evidence.

Thank you Good People 🙂

And thank you for the info about the Gospel 🙂

“you know I agree with you absolutely on this – you won’t reason me out of my faith in Jesus and I doubt if I could reason you out of your position but I would like to think we can disagree with love & respect to one another as human beings.”

Of course! Not only we can, but we do 😉

thegman, perhaps my post sounded perjorative of those whose beliefs I do not share. I did not intend it so. I truly do not think there’s anything wrong with “belief”. Whatever floats someone’s boat is OK with me. Whatever sustains and comforts a person, whatever inspires, uplifts, etc., so long as its not sociopathic, so long as it does not harm people, so long as it does not hard animals, and so long as no one pressures me to believe it. Believing in the miracles of the New Testament does not on its face constitute a violation of any of the above. That being said, “beliefs” sometimes get out of hand. The Crusades, the Inquistion, the Salem Witch trials, these are extreme examples of beliefs getting out of hand. Punishment, make wrong, damned forever…anathema to me. Presenting one’s beliefs is one thing, pressuring and/or insisting that “This is the way, the ONLY way”, really, REALLY turns me off. Hope this clarifies my opinions on the subject of beliefs and belief systems. Peace.