Saturday, August 15, 2015

Translation Question for Analysis

Someone sent me the following verse from Psalms 103:13 from a translation that is reported to be "new" and "dynamic."  (A)

Then, I posted a much older translation.  (B)

Question:   What is the difference between the two? 

Using Statement Analysis:   Has the new translation changed meaning? Or, is it, essentially the same?

Statement Analysis recognizes not only the words used, but the order being critical for understanding. 

In change of language, there is a change in reality.  Even those who learned their English lessons well, and seek to, while writing, avoid repetition, choose specific words for a reason.  When someone is speaking freely, their words change automatically, as the speed of transmission does not have them slow down, think to themselves, 'hmm, let me not sound tedious, therefore, I will change my 'car' into my 'vehicle' here.  In fact, when I hear someone change language, I sometimes ask them why they did it.  Most will initially, say, "I didn't change my language' and when I point out that 'car' became a 'vehicle' (usually when something is wrong, or it is no longer in their possession, or 'close' to it) they say, "I didn't realize I had changed my language!"

In written statements, the setting is important.  In theft cases, change of language has led to confessions, as I have confronted the subject on how the "jewelry" became a "necklace" when it was in her hands (see prior samples), or the "sweater" became a "hoodie" once stolen.  The setting of writing out a statement for an investigator, precludes the notion that the person will be concerned with 'creative writing' and wish to spare their reader from boredom.  

In the following, do not consider Olde English to be a 'change of language' as these are two very different writers (separated by over 400 years).  If you wish to add in any Hebrew, it will only enhance your analysis.  Yet, even without it there is a difference that is significant here.  The more input (including Hebrew) the better.  

Remember, the first claims "dynamic" in part of its description.  This is a strong hint for you.  

Which would you rather embrace, in a time of distress in life?   This is another hint.  

Without any training in Hebrew or religious studies, you should be able to identify some important points.  

(A) 
"The Lord is like a father to his children, tender and compassionate to those who fear him."

          (B)

          "Like as a father pitieth his children,so the Lord pitieth them that fear him." 

48 comments:

foodnerd said...


What and where is the line between repetition of a word being sensitive, and a change in language indicating a change in reality or possible deception?

Specific examples you have used are "vehicle" for "car" and "chair" for "recliner" or "seat" where the subject has to either repeat the word and be flagged for sensitivity, or use a synonym which is flagged as a change in language?

Verbal Kint said...

Peter,

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Studying SA had me considering what I learned from wonderful English teachers, like Buckley, vs what I've learned here. I vary my words writing, keeping with what I learned. However, as you said, when speaking I've noticed my car remains a car. Doing SA on my own writing was a disaster!

VK

BallBounces said...

The Psalms are Hebrew poetry, and one of the main poetic devices is use of parallelisms, or parallel structures. The word pitieth is perhaps archaic in that its meaning has shifted in the past 400 years. However, the older KJV retains the parallelism of the original Hebrew and is thus arguably more forceful. The parallel structure is obscured in the modern translation.

Also, the modern translation tells us what God is like, whereas the older translation tells us what God does, i.e., "he is compassionate" vs. "he shows compassion". So, in fact, the older translation is arguably the more "dynamic".

Here, from BibleHub.com, are some additional translations for comparison:

New International Version
As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear him;

New Living Translation
The LORD is like a father to his children, tender and compassionate to those who fear him.

English Standard Version
As a father shows compassion to his children, so the LORD shows compassion to those who fear him.

New American Standard Bible
Just as a father has compassion on his children, So the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him.

King James Bible
Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him.

International Standard Version
As a father has compassion for his children, so the LORD has compassion for those who fear him.

NET Bible
As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on his faithful followers.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And as a father shows compassion upon children, Lord Jehovah shows compassion upon his worshipers.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
As a father has compassion for his children, so the LORD has compassion for those who fear him.

King James 2000 Bible
Like as a father pities his children, so the LORD pities them that fear him.

American King James Version
Like as a father pities his children, so the LORD pities them that fear him.

American Standard Version
Like as a father pitieth his children, So Jehovah pitieth them that fear him.

Douay-Rheims Bible
As a father hath compassion on his children, so hath the Lord compassion on them that fear him:

Darby Bible Translation
As a father pitieth his children, so Jehovah pitieth them that fear him.

English Revised Version
Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him.

Webster's Bible Translation
Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him.

World English Bible
Like a father has compassion on his children, so Yahweh has compassion on those who fear him.

Young's Literal Translation
As a father hath mercy on sons, Jehovah hath mercy on those fearing Him.

And here, from the free online Tyndale House Cambridge STEP Bible, is the Hebrew for pitieth/shows compassion:

Vocab
רָחַם (ra.cham): to have compassion (H7355)

Search for this word (~47 occurrences)
Meaning
1) to love, love deeply, have mercy, be compassionate, have tender affection, have compassion
1a) (Qal) to love
1b) (Piel)
1b1) to have compassion, be compassionate
1b1a) of God, man
1c) (Pual) to be shown compassion, be compassionate

Buckley said...

The main question seems to be the difference between pity and compassion. Looking up a more modern version of "pity" versus "Herbrew definition of pity," it seems we now place more emphasis on "looking down on" and the Hebrew definition places more emphasis on empathy and sympathy. So since the word has changed some, the translation might actually keep the passage more closely aligned with what was meant in the earlier version. If we take only what we perceive of "pity" today, the change seems to be softening God, akin to the softening of God we see from Old Testament to New.

Anonymous said...

The facts speak for themselves. Since many fathers do not have pity (or compassion)on their children that fear them, the only pity and compassion that we can truly count on in this life comes from God the Father above. Use any biblical interpretation you wish but there you have it, the truth.

Trigger said...

"Like as a father pitieth his children..." is present tense and describes an emotional father who cares about the well being of his children.

"The Lord is like a father to his children..." This implies doubt or questions as not all fathers love their children or care about their well being.

I'll take the loving father in the first statement who is emotionally connected to his children and cares about their well being.

Sus said...

To "pitieth" someone is to take pity on them, or to show mercy. No matter what the mistake, no matter how wayward, a father gives mercy, forgives, or welcomes back...as the prodigal son.

Showing tenderness and compassion is not the same. They speak more to care and understanding without mercy.

In the B translation, it is made clear a father gives this naturally. We must fear, or accept, the Lord to receive it. Translation A changes the arrangement to make it as a given.

Anonymous said...

There is also mispronunciation of various scriptures, as well as misapplied commas and emphasis on certain words, etc. One would do well to carefully read the scriptures to make sure they understand what they are reading, and not just skim over them.

In comparing more recent versions of bibles that have been printed in the last few decades you will notice there are many word changes in some of the more commonly used verses of various scriptures that do make a difference in the meaning of a scripture. I prefer the KJV, it is older and beautifully worded with some of the scriptures having profound meanings when compared to other versions.

Here is a scripture, although it is in very common usage, that is widely misunderstood due to the mispronunciation of the meaning of just one word:

John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life." So you read that, and you think you understand what it means? Do you? Are you sure about that? Its' "first-thought-off-the-top-of-your-head" meaning tells us that if you believe God gave his son Jesus to die for our sins that you will have eternal life. But think again, carefully. This is not what John 3:16 actually says.

So now let's read it another way, with correct pronunciation: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth on him SHOULD NOT perish but should have everlasting life." Ah... but that's another whole different ballgame. It does not say you will not perish if you believe on the Name of Jesus, it says you SHOULD NOT perish.

So you believe in Jesus, that he was the son of God, that he came to save us from our sins? Well, that's a good thing. So do the devils believe, and tremble at the mention of His Name. But may I suggest; one needs to look a lot further than just saying 'I believe.' There's a lot more to our salvation than just quoting John 3:16 and saying I believe.

John 3:16 does not say you will not perish, it says you SHOULD NOT perish. One ALSO needs to repent and follow the teachings of Jesus if they truly believe that He is the Son of God; it is these things for which we will be judged.

Anonymous said...

Any insight into this?

"Deuteronomy 13:6-10New International Version (NIV)

6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

C5H11ONO said...

Apologies for off topic:
Record use of the liar'so number!

http://www.youngcons.com/ny-post-writer-dismantles-planned-parenthoods-3-percent-defense/

Jessica Blans said...

One of the main differences is that the point/reason of the comparison changes.

In the new version (A), the comparison is that the Lord is like a father. It compares God with humans.
"The Lord is like a father to his children, tender and compassionate to those who fear him."

In the older version (B), the comparison is that the Lord feels as a father feels. It compares a divine feeling/action with one human feeling/action.
"Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him."

The result is that the newer version casts God as more human and less divine. It's dynamic because we can identify easier if God is more like us.

You'd have to go back to the original Hebrew and find out what was the point of comparison: God is like a father OR God feels as a father feels.

Either way, it does create a different mental reality for who we think God is or what we think he is like. I think it is a more influential language shift that the difference between pitieth and compassionate. When I read, "pitieth," I know it is a word that has shifted meanings and it is an overt and straightforward mental process to redefine it as originally intended. With the comparison shift, however, in the two versions, I am not even aware of it unless someone points it out- as done in this post. Because people are unaware of the comparison shift, they cannot think about it to critically evaluate it.

Jessica Blans

Lis said...

There is a subtle difference between these two translations and I like this exercise in comparing them. I have been given a lot of good food for thought from the comments here!

How about the same passage from "The Message"?

"As parents feel for their children,
God feels for those who fear him."

Insipid.

~mj said...

Translation A does not directly say the Lord is tender and compasionate to those who fear him. The father to his children are closer to the tender and compassionate phrase in the sentence, but the Lord is further away and in no words connected to it. One could argue that the tender and compassionate does not apply to the Lord. In fact, the writer does not say how the Lord and father to his children are "like" one another. It is implied.

Where-as translation B outwardly states that the Lord pitieth those who fear him, connecting the comparison with the father and his children - evidenced by the use of the word "Like" at the start and the word "so" in explanation.

Did the writer mean a similar meaning? Probably. Did the word choice bring that home? No.

Lis said...

Anon, I could give you my own insight on the passage from Deuteronomy but I would suggest you would get much more insight by studying it yourself. Begin on page one of the Bible and read it through as a book, following the story and the developments right through to the final page of the New Testament. Leave the commentaries and teachings of others aside and just read it for yourself. Don't worry about understanding on this first reading, just read to see what was said and what happened when and to whom. When you have finished, then you can begin to see the overall outline take shape as to what has been done, when, and why. And then you can begin to seek for understanding of the Book. I think you will find it is time well spent.

Oakley A said...

A) ....Is like a father TO his children. Tender and compassnate TO those that fear him.
Shows effective action
B) only the verb with no effective action

Anonymous said...

I have read The Book Liz and you are not the first to avoid the question. I understand why...it is a troubling passage. I'll keep asking. Thanks anyway.

Anonymous said...

Anon; adding to Lis' post above, and to those who have never read the Bible; I would suggest that they start with the Psalms & Proverbs, great books of knowledge and wisdom; then move on to the new Testament and the teachings of Jesus and his disciples, through to the end. You/they will find yourself in the Psalms & Proverbs and will more fully comprehend the &ew Testament if you start there first.

Most importantly; it is the new Testament and the teachings of Jesus that we are told to follow; yet you will also find Jesus in the old Testament as well, all the way back to the beginning of time; but having already found Jesus in the new Testament, you will understand it more fully if you read it after reading the new Testament. You can skip back to the Book of Genesis and go forward at any time.

I will answer your question as taken from a scripture in the Book of Deut, from the old Testament, under the old law: Our commandment: "THOUGH SHALT NOT KILL." Jesus does not give a single occasion or command where we are told to kill or that it is okay to kill. There AREN'T any exceptions. Man has not been under the rule of the Old Testament since Jesus came to teach us, lead us and die for our sins more than 2,000 years ago. Man did not understand the law of the old Testament, took it into their own hands, and sin and death ran wild and rampant.

There is a gap in time between the writings of the old Testament and the new Testament as God had left us in darkness for a period of 400 yrs without his spirit dealing with man. He had at one time purposed to destroy man then repented of his anger towards us and gave us another chance to seek Him and restore ourselves to him. We are under that grace since God sent Jesus down here to show us the way back to God the Father and to die for our sins.

But a price had to be paid. God, in His tender love and mercy for us, bought us back for a price; that price was the blood of Jesus, shed for OUR sins by his only pure, spotless, holy, divine and without sin; His only begotten son Jesus. This is why we pray all in the Name of Jesus. We have no other way back to God except through His son Jesus who willingly carried all of our sins on his own back, not wanting a one of us to perish.

The Bible was penned (under divine inspiration by God) by Jewish leaders and rulers and Jewish followers of Jesus. These seekers of God KNEW Jesus was indeed the Son of God, the messiah they had long awaited and were expecting. 'Salvation is of the Jews', Jesus came as a Jew by birth, and it was the Jews in their degradation, perversion and following false gods, that Jesus came to save. God had pity on them as their leaders were His prophets who sought to serve Him day and night; sending to the Jews first and to us second after the masses rejected the savior He sent to them. The only thing that matters is that in His pity, He sent a savior to ALL of us. God will not be mocked. The price to pay for rejecting Jesus is our eternal damnation.

Concerning ALL of the killings and wars where people believ(ed) they were following God's commandments, they are not in line with the teachings of Jesus. The 12 commandments are our guide and still pertain; the ten as given to Moses and the two Jesus brought to us that most people tend to ignore, when there actually ARE 12 commandments. Those last two: "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and "Worship the Lord thy God with all thy heart, thy mind, they strength and thy soul." "All of the law of the prophets is given in these two commandments." If we follow just these two commandments as given by Jesus, then we have the other ten covered.

You are going to find that the Bible is the most amazing, interesting and spell binding book you will ever read! You will know, without any doubt, that this book truly was inspired by God as human man does not think this way and could never write such a book on their own. It simply isn't humanly possible.

Anonymous said...

Thanks but I'm asking for an interpretation of a passage not a sales pitch. I'll try elsewhere.

Oakley A said...


Is= a strong linking verb that agrees with the subject. The Lord IS like a father to His children. Who 's children, the Lords children.
As=a conjunction that shows comparison/degree AS a father pitieth his children...so the Lord pitieth those who fear Him.  Who's children, a fathers children.

Lis said...

Anon, if you have read the entire book carefully and are aware of the order of events, have you come to realize that there are different periods of time in the Bible where God deals with man in different ways? And, if so, which period of time does this event fit into?

~mj said...

Anon 8/15 @ 1:21 ~

According to the mosaic law if a child/family member of yours turned towards worshipping other gods they were to be put to death. With you as the member of their family being the first in line to carry out the discipline.

There's your meaning of those passages. I do believe you are getting vague answers because, with the world's religious climate, many fear that people will take bits of the bible without understanding it as a whole and use that to justify hideous actions on their part.

True, the Israelites were told to do this action as part of their law code. Which was a different time in human history.

The bible as a whole, shows us the record of mankind and clearly indicated that while that is how a family was to be treated then and under the circumstances surrounding that law code, people today are not to behave that way. The NT tells of the progression made since Jesus' arrival and clearly outlines what is acceptable behavior now, now that the Messiah has come and died for our sins.

So I'm sure you can understand why some shy away from answering your question, they may not be sure where you are headed with your question. :)

~mj said...

Oakley,

I'm amazed! I didn't read translation A that way at all. Isn't it amusing how people can see things differently? I do think it has a lot do with whether a person capitalized "Him" or not:

"The Lord is like a father to His children.."
OR
"The Lord is like a father to his children..."

The cap of "him" makes it either Gods children where-as leaving it small makes it the fathers children.

Interesting.

Anonymous said...

Thanks mj that all makes sense.

Anonymous said...

Anon @11:22, I was not giving you a sales pitch. I have nothing to sell. I answered your question in the best way I know how; that by giving you some Bible history which would otherwise make it impossible to answer your question without first laying some groundwork. To expound further would take pages and pages.

It's up to you, whether you want to accept the savior as our redeemer or not, and in being grateful that we DO have a savior who paid for our sins and accepts us; thereby, and in doing so, not even making it necessary to answer your question at all since it has no bearing on our present plan of salvation.

The same applies to your comment too Lis. And yes, I have read the Bible in its' entirety, more than once and in many areas several times over. That doesn't mean that there isn't always more to learn.

However;

I will add this to further enlighten you; once you realize who satan is and the profound power he and his demons has over this earth and all its' inhabitants, there is no need any longer to ask questions that need no further answers. It's all right there in the Book, take it or leave it; available for all to read and understand as spoken of and warned repeatedly by Jesus. If we care to seek the truth it is easy to find; therein sparing ourselves from the wrath to come. I am not the one who wrote the Bible and I will not dispute it. My best wishes...

~mj said...

You are most welcome :)

Oakley A said...

I did not capitalize it to make it his children. That was a force of habit to capitalize a pronoun referencing the Lord. His is a possessive pronoun. You think it is possessive to "a father". Could be.

Turtle said...

In "The Lord is like a father to his children", the children are the father's not the Lord's. You wouldn't say about someone that he is LIKE a father to his children since he IS a father to his children. So the wording is ambiguous but I think it only makes sense to assume that the intended meaning is that the Lord is like "a father to his children" not that the Lord is "like a father" to his children.

However, by putting compassion only after the comma, the translator of (A) has changed the meaning. In (A) the Lord is like "a father to his children", and one way in which this is true is in the tenderness and compassion he has for those who fear him, but there may be other ways. In (B), there is no room for additional fatherly characteristics (at least not in this statement). The Lord has compassion for those who fear him, just as a father has compassion for his children, but since compassion is on both sides of the comma, it is a narrower claim.

Anonymous said...

Wheeeew...! That was quite a mouth full. You couldn't pay me good money to 'split hairs' and untangle these different (mis)interpretations. But this I will say:

However anyone wants to interpret it; God IS our Father. He is not 'like our father', He IS our father. I quote scriptures from the KJV:

"Take heed that you follow no man lest you both fall into the ditch." "Follow me, I am the truth, the light, the way, no man cometh to the Father but by me.."

"Call no man father," "your Father is in heaven." "He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear."

These are the words of Jesus. This earth is His footstool. He owns all the cattle on a thousand hills and all in between. Everything and everybody on this earth belongs to Jesus, bought and paid for by Him with a very high price. Jesus is from time immortal, He was before the foundations of the earth were laid; He sits at the right hand of God the Father; He came from God through a spiritual immaculate conception, sinless, not by man; He was from God, was OF God and IS GOd. (Do we mortal creatures, who, being weak and sinful, even filthy in our sins; HAVE to understand every little thing? NO, we do not. But we who seek to find, DO know truth).

When we baptize "in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit" we baptize in the Name of Jesus. He IS the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, three in one. It is to HIM we belong and to HIM we repent.

It is HE alone who will open the books in the judgment and HE who will raise the dead. Our names will either be written in the book of life or they won't. Our deeds will be found written in the book of deeds, good and bad, and we will be judged accordingly, and our portion WE EARNED awarded to us. Jesus will either say to God the Father, "Father, this one belongs to me," sparing us from the wrath; or he will say, "depart from me you workers of iniquity, I never knew you." We have either repented of our sins, accepted Jesus and been reborn of the holy spirit, and have followed and stood up for His Name without shame or we haven't.

"Judgment has already begun at the House of God." "The saints of God cry out and pray for us on the earth day and night." "Pray without ceasing. You know not the day or the hour your Heavenly Father will appear." "Take heed that you not get caught up in the affairs of this life, lest sudden destruction come upon you, and that without remedy."

My words of wisdom: Do not let these warnings fall on deaf ears; there is no escaping the end to come. Take this however you will. Just be ready. You won't get another chance. Yes it is frightening. Very.

Anonymous said...

eggs...got it!

Anonymous said...

pancakes...yummy!

Anonymous said...

huh?

Say what?

Anonymous said...

eggs again...

Anonymous said...

candy? difficult security features but stimulating none the less

Anonymous said...

Alrighty then. Have it your way.

Anonymous said...

I would question the person who sent the translation moreso than the new translation itself. Many detest the King James version as claims of homosexuality loom over the kingdom of the revisionists.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Fast food symbols would be good, too. The corporate trinket peddlers and their brand image would suffice. But, thier pies aren't colorful as yours.

Anonymous said...

Anon @9:45, who states that many detests the King James Version of the Bible and advocates claims of homosexuality loom over..... and bla bla bla....? You've got a problem with it? Take it up with God.

According to the history of the Bible; The KJV was the first version of the Holy Bible that was released to parishioners and the public in around 1260 AD by the Catholic Diocese, and here you sit fighting with it? Prior to this time no one else was allowed to have possession of this Holy Book. It was kept guarded and under lock when not being used by Catholic Priests in their readings. Finally, after centuries of pouring over it, it was released.

We don't even know if and how it might have been modified before it was released to us, but it's the best we have. You got a better plan? Bring it. All newer versions of the Bible were taken from the original KJV and were modified to suit those translating from it. Regardless, no man can say that Gods' Word is not found in this Holy Book. It is timeless throughout the ages, has endured and will continue to endure. Try as they might; no man can defeat God.

You want to dispute with the Holy Word of God? You are anti-Christ, that being one who is AGAINST Christ and a blasphemer. You are one of many. God have mercy on your soul.

tania cadogan said...

He IS the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, three in one. It is to HIM we belong and to HIM we repent.

Ok let me get this straight.

Jesus is schizophrenic, believes he is possessed by either a ghost or an alcoholic drink both of which have bee declared holy by himself?

He is both father and son at the same time,does that make him a redneck (possibly, given he is full of the holy spirit aka moonshine)

Slavery is allowable given he owns everyone and doesn't pay us (anyone know a good employment attorney?)

We mess up and we then have to say sorry to him?
Kettle and pot spring to mind if we claim to be our own parent and child, full of booze or the holy spirit ( holy spirit aka holy ghost - aren't ghosts supposed to be non existent or spirits are the work of the devil especially if we talk to them?)and we own people.

Since we all belong to god/jesus isn't he breaking the law by owning what amounts to slaves who have to do his every bidding?
Even if we go to heaven to reap our rewards, we end up on the equivalent of the call centre to god passing on the multitude of requests for help/forgiveness/intercessions and directions to the nearest garage/bathroom.


I'll go sit in the naughty corner with my glass of orange baileys and a nice bacon and fried egg butty with lots of brown sauce.


:)

Lis said...

Yes, anon, I was curious exactly what about the passage you were interested in and wanted to analyze.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Lis, but I'm not following your last comment. Can you be a little more specific?

Hobnob, I'm so sorry for you, being that you are a heathen and a mocker of God. It grieves me to read your remarks against our holy and divine savior, the Gentle Master who loves you so dearly. You are deceived if you think He isn't seeing you, hearing you, every word of blasphemy.

Sorry, I can't help you; you'll have to deal with it yourself in time to come. No matter what you believe or don't believe, we will all stand before the throne of judgment; you will be no exception.

I will leave one scripture with you, "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Don't be as a fool and wait until it's too late, Tania. As it is with all of us; every breath you take is one more chance you have been given to turn to God and repent of this evil.

tania cadogan said...

I don't believe in any god, i don't believe in any devil, i don't believe in any heaven, i don't believe in any hell.

Should irrefutable proof arise of either arise, then i will reconsider my position.
I do however believe there is a multitude of life in this version of the universe, especially given it is approximately 14 billion years old and our planet is only 4 billion years old with life of some kind from about 700 million years ago, which is a blink in time.

Given the known age of the universe and the fact there are 100 billion stars in our galaxy (at least) and 100 billion plus galaxies in the known universe (at least) it is an impossibility that we are and will be the only life in the whole universe.
Current thinking and my own is that we are but one in a multitude of universes.
I personally believe that universes are bubbles and that the big bang, along with the rapid expansion of the universe happens when two bubbles touch at a singular point and then cause a new universe to appear ( have a play with soap bubbles and you will get the idea)

I await with interest comments and explanations from those with a religious belief when life is found on other planets be it bacterial, microbial right through to millions of years in advance of us and even those who are extinct due to millions/billions of years of evolution and advancement.

Heck even the Pope has said there is other life in the universe and that god didn't send jesus to said planets.

If god made man in his own image, how would religious people explain away all the other intelligent lifeforms on other planets in other galaxies?

What happens if it is conclusively proven that we are the result of panspermia or even deliberate seeding of the planet by an alien species and subsequent tinkering with the human genome?

As an aside if god does exist then i am sure he will understand why people don't believe in him, given all the atrocities performed on people in his name.
By the way, what happens if god does exist but he isn't your god , rather the god of a different religion?
Don't worry, i'll save a seat next to me for you, i don't bite and i promise i won't sing too much :)

C5H11ONO said...

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And as a father shows compassion upon children, Lord Jehovah shows compassion upon his worshipers.

Wasn't Aramaic the language Jesus spoke? If Aramaic is an ancient language, then the translation to English would be most accurate. Therefore I find it interesting that this translation doesn't include "fear" into the equation and makes more sense.

Anonymous said...

AnonYMOUS: Since you're giving out advice:

You should try emulating Christ rather than using His name to instill fear in others. It's like you haven't quite made it to the New Testament yet. Too much judgement of others, not enough compassion. It seems you use religion to put others down and feel better about yourself. ACCEPT Christ and his message of love.

Anonymous said...

Anon, if you'd read the New Testament you would recognize the scriptures I quoted. They all came from the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament; not my words, HIS words.

My final quote; "Judge not lest you be judged. With the same judgment you meet, likewise will you be judged." No, I do not feel good about myself; I am aware this same judgment also applies to me. I never cease to think on it. Have a good evening.

Juliet said...

Of the vehicles: ''Even though we searched them that night'.

Which night? So frustrating, as the Sherrif makes it sound as if the disappearance was on the Thursday night. Would they wait till night time to search the vehicles if DeOrr went missing on the Friday? One of the first places they would check, I would imagine.

Anonymous said...

Juliet, "that night" the sheriff is referring too is Friday night, or evening. The DeOrrs did not report the little fella missing until around 2:30ish the next day, that being a Friday, 7/10, even though they had arrived at the campsite on Thursday evening the 9th.

Who can say what time the autos were actually searched? We have no way of knowing. We wouldn't even know now that the DeOrrs had arrived to set up camp on Thursday evening if Miz Clegg hadn't said so and now the sheriff confirms it. We don't know either, when little DeOrr actually went missing. We have only the say so of a buncha liars.

Juliet said...

Buckley - I saw that but didn't think it was what you meant as that's pretty much what Peter was saying in his 'unintended death' article in the 10th. I thought he maybe had made another comment which I couldn't find. Thanks, though. ;)

Juliet said...

Sorry about DeOrr posts appearing here, it's some glitch where I click in what seems to be the thread and once it's posted discover it is in a different thread. Comes of not waiting for the page to fully load before clicking, I think. :-/