|
Post by Διαμονδ on Mar 29, 2018 22:34:47 GMT
What is Truth!? 2000 years ago, Pilate asked Jesus - "What is truth?"Many years passed and people continue to worry about this issue! What is Truth for you? Interesting is any view, not only religious! We will discuss!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2018 10:14:39 GMT
Elizabeth, what translation of the Bible are you using here? NKJV Solid reasoning. I mean New King James Version seems to be the best one. I can't compare it and can't say more, because I have a Bible in modern redaction in my lib, but I have heard of it. One girl (The Presbyterian Church, I think; we were discussing Alvin Plantinga who's Calvinist) told me about this version of the Bible. By the way, there's something interesting with the quote of John you've post. Do you know what is it? The quote is laying down in the hall of CIA headquarters: P.S. Sorry, for not having found more accurate photo.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Apr 3, 2018 10:25:08 GMT
That's CIA thing is from KJV not NKJV though. I do like both still since both are King James bibles!
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Apr 3, 2018 10:34:44 GMT
That's CIA thing is from KJV not NKJV though. I do like both still since both are King James bibles! What about the Russian/Ukrainian version of the Bible?
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Apr 3, 2018 10:53:58 GMT
That's CIA thing is from KJV not NKJV though. I do like both still since both are King James bibles! What about the Russian/Ukrainian version of the Bible? I just read whichever one I open!
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Apr 3, 2018 10:56:51 GMT
Just wondering who the editor ... for example the King James Bible contains the wrong translation of the old testament. The Masoretic text - which is the basis of Judaism, not of Christianity!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2018 11:08:05 GMT
That's CIA thing is from KJV not NKJV though. I do like both still since both are King James bibles! I want to please some excuses again, because I haven't found the right picture. The quotation I've posted is not relevant. I know that there's a guide tour to CIA, so you can use it. My cousinsSurely, the quotation seems to be not from NKJV, because my beloved CIA has been founded in 1947 and NKJV appears in 70's or 80's... (I don't remember exactly/don't want to google).
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Apr 3, 2018 11:12:23 GMT
Just wondering who the editor ... for example the King James Bible contains the wrong translation of the old testament. The Masoretic text - which is the basis of Judaism, not of Christianity! Who cares about Judaism text? Bleh
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Apr 3, 2018 11:15:26 GMT
Just wondering who the editor ... for example the King James Bible contains the wrong translation of the old testament. The Masoretic text - which is the basis of Judaism, not of Christianity! Who cares about Judaism text? Bleh The text that the Jews use is called Masoretic! He is part of the Bible of Jacobs .. while initially Christians used the old text of the Septuagint ... it is ideally associated with the Gospels! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuaginten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2018 11:16:56 GMT
That's CIA thing is from KJV not NKJV though. I do like both still since both are King James bibles! What about the Russian/Ukrainian version of the Bible? The Russian version of the Bible... hmm... No, I haven't spelled it correctly - the Orthodox version of the Bible seems to be one of the best. I mean Slavianic Bible which has been written with Old Slavianic language (by the way I know it, and can read it little) is the most right translation among many others because it hasn't been written from Masorethic version. Our translators did a very good job. It's not good that nowadays almost everyone don't know that language. A piece of language here, a piece of language there - shared among Slavs languages. And not everyone understands what's the meaning of some fragment of the Bible. By the way, Ukrainian language is the most relevant that saves the manner of uttering in Old Slavianic. The same can be said about Polish and lesser for Belarus'.
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Apr 3, 2018 11:19:13 GMT
What about the Russian/Ukrainian version of the Bible? The Russian version of the Bible... hmm... No, I haven't spelled it correctly - the Orthodox version of the Bible seems to be one of the best. I mean Slavianic Bible which has been written with Old Slavianic language (by the way I know it, and can read it little) is the most right translation among many others because it hasn't been written from Masorethic version. Our translators did a very good job. It's not good that nowadays almost everyone don't know that language. A piece of language here, a piece of language there - shared among Slavs languages. And not everyone understands what's the meaning of some fragment of the Bible. By the way, Ukrainian language is the most relevant that saves the manner of uttering in Old Slavianic. The same can be said about Polish and lesser for Belarus'. On the basis of the Church Slavic text and the Septuagint - modern Russian Synodal and Ukrainian translation!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2018 11:23:45 GMT
The Russian version of the Bible... hmm... No, I haven't spelled it correctly - the Orthodox version of the Bible seems to be one of the best. I mean Slavianic Bible which has been written with Old Slavianic language (by the way I know it, and can read it little) is the most right translation among many others because it hasn't been written from Masorethic version. Our translators did a very good job. It's not good that nowadays almost everyone don't know that language. A piece of language here, a piece of language there - shared among Slavs languages. And not everyone understands what's the meaning of some fragment of the Bible. By the way, Ukrainian language is the most relevant that saves the manner of uttering in Old Slavianic. The same can be said about Polish and lesser for Belarus'. On the basis of the Church Slavic text and the Septuagint - modern Russian Synodal and Ukrainian translation! ...Wait a minute, isn't the Old Slavic variant considered? Yes, I know that there are some translation into Slavic group of langs, but... The main, the head one I'd say, is the Old Slavic translation. It is the most truly and correct translation, why to use Russian or Ukrainian versions? But I think I'm understanding you, because you're talkin' not about using it in liturgy/ritual cases, but in common reading, aren't I?
|
|
Leebert
New Member
Posts: 27
Likes: 20
Age: 20
|
Post by Leebert on Apr 3, 2018 15:04:58 GMT
I don't fully understand what you meant by through history, but let me say this, there is no objective history and history is filled with interpretations even though the fact is there but some missing facts are the main obstacle of historians and thus it could create many interpretations, some interpretations might close to the truth and some might even stray from it. So history is history. Truth can be something as a fact of natural reality and it could be something that o socially constructed accepted morality through social consent For instance, 1. fire is hot (absolute truth) 2. fire is cold (absolute falsehood) 3. being devout of your religion indicates that you're a decent individual (this can be truth/false) it depends on what kind of society you lived in
4. Rebelling against God and deviate from its teaching means that you're an indecent individual (this can be truth/false) it depends on which kind of society you lived in I absolutely agree with you in this subject. Sorry me, for being not understandable. I wanted to say that social affairs is the history affairs of the society (or the community). Because, occasionally the society can be represented by many shared ways, and be grouped really differently. According to democracy, if they all are citizens and do exactly with laws, than their will makes everything clearly. But I think we should distinguish societies with the past and just grouped societies. Usually, a society with past is either a group with their common material things (estates, weapons, clothes... things which is belonging to traditions) and non-material, spiritual traditions. I uphold a modern liberal view on it, so I reckon own free choice is higher than traditions, but it's clearly to me that the groups wanting to stay in traditions also have their rights. That's why I was talking of the history as the subject of society which can be 'the truth' in our vision. Speaking of the nature of facts and its separating, yes you have showed it very well. I just want to add that the truth can be something that relates to material things as like we're saying about the right position of some parts, and it also can be understand as an extensional (comparing to an intentional) when we're speaking for example in the logic of statements. Such facts as in example 'fire is hot' are coherence truth, because notions and their senses inside the sentence are consolidated with each other. Everything else is just either relative, or gibberish (R. Carnap's 'Counter Metaphysics' deals with these questions in more detail manner). But, I also want to add because of the nature of meaning/sense (sometimes we can understand one instead of another. So, I'll be talking about the meaning understanding it like - something opposite to an referent of any notion or a sentence, but however transferring through it; for example, if someone says 'to the barricades!' it has no actual 'truth/false' categories, but it does has sense ('meaning' in my current speech). I want to say that history can be represented in just material things: documentary, decorative vases, buildings, shrines, pots... etc, but all these things, except documentary, can be just group together in straight coherent manner, and that's all. Most documentary facts can be interpreted according to your method, that has been descried upper. Besides, we can get many meanings, and anyway we can's get to the truth, because the truth won't be reached by the method. However, what should we do with moving of meanings? The one had told 'to the barricades', and everyone went to it, but there was no common parts, there was necessary no causes links between 'the one said: to the barricades' (P) and 'they moved to barricades' (Q), because we can get truly conjunctions: (P and not-Q), (not-P and Q). So, historians never be sure about real reasons of it. Anyway, we can see that in such circumstances may be the link. Such link is not extensional, but intentional meaning transferring. A meaning from 'to the barricades' was transported to 'they went to the barricades'. The nature of intentional logic is more shared today, because of topics in Western Philosophy of Consciousness - The Analytic Philosophy of Consciousness. There's an presupposition (or a theory?) of our consciousness building of meaning and their transportation from one situation to another. It's interesting too that some psychoanalytics like Jung have appeared right in the question of this having discussions of mythologies as the key to the nature of our consciousness. Please, I'm sorry for large letter, I hope you like it. great explanations, I pretty much agree with everything you have stated. However, after reading the third paragraph which is about the nature of meaning/sense, it reminds me of the theory about causality (cause and effect). History requires facts and facts are the results of any event that occurs in the past, and there must be a cause which subsequently will become the event (effect) as a result of that cause. Which brings the idea that both truths (natural truth/meaningful truth) require causality For example. 1. "tell me the truth of what happened yesterday?" 2. " we don't know the truth whether this food is poisoned or not until we examine it" or premise 1. Hitler was a dictator of Nazi Germany 2. Almost the entire of European countries were occupied by Nazi Germany
Therefore Hitler was the one who responsible for the European occupation by Nazi Germany
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2018 16:05:12 GMT
I absolutely agree with you in this subject. Sorry me, for being not understandable. I wanted to say that social affairs is the history affairs of the society (or the community). Because, occasionally the society can be represented by many shared ways, and be grouped really differently. According to democracy, if they all are citizens and do exactly with laws, than their will makes everything clearly. But I think we should distinguish societies with the past and just grouped societies. Usually, a society with past is either a group with their common material things (estates, weapons, clothes... things which is belonging to traditions) and non-material, spiritual traditions. I uphold a modern liberal view on it, so I reckon own free choice is higher than traditions, but it's clearly to me that the groups wanting to stay in traditions also have their rights. That's why I was talking of the history as the subject of society which can be 'the truth' in our vision. Speaking of the nature of facts and its separating, yes you have showed it very well. I just want to add that the truth can be something that relates to material things as like we're saying about the right position of some parts, and it also can be understand as an extensional (comparing to an intentional) when we're speaking for example in the logic of statements. Such facts as in example 'fire is hot' are coherence truth, because notions and their senses inside the sentence are consolidated with each other. Everything else is just either relative, or gibberish (R. Carnap's 'Counter Metaphysics' deals with these questions in more detail manner). But, I also want to add because of the nature of meaning/sense (sometimes we can understand one instead of another. So, I'll be talking about the meaning understanding it like - something opposite to an referent of any notion or a sentence, but however transferring through it; for example, if someone says 'to the barricades!' it has no actual 'truth/false' categories, but it does has sense ('meaning' in my current speech). I want to say that history can be represented in just material things: documentary, decorative vases, buildings, shrines, pots... etc, but all these things, except documentary, can be just group together in straight coherent manner, and that's all. Most documentary facts can be interpreted according to your method, that has been descried upper. Besides, we can get many meanings, and anyway we can's get to the truth, because the truth won't be reached by the method. However, what should we do with moving of meanings? The one had told 'to the barricades', and everyone went to it, but there was no common parts, there was necessary no causes links between 'the one said: to the barricades' (P) and 'they moved to barricades' (Q), because we can get truly conjunctions: (P and not-Q), (not-P and Q). So, historians never be sure about real reasons of it. Anyway, we can see that in such circumstances may be the link. Such link is not extensional, but intentional meaning transferring. A meaning from 'to the barricades' was transported to 'they went to the barricades'. The nature of intentional logic is more shared today, because of topics in Western Philosophy of Consciousness - The Analytic Philosophy of Consciousness. There's an presupposition (or a theory?) of our consciousness building of meaning and their transportation from one situation to another. It's interesting too that some psychoanalytics like Jung have appeared right in the question of this having discussions of mythologies as the key to the nature of our consciousness. Please, I'm sorry for large letter, I hope you like it. great explanations, I pretty much agree with everything you have stated. However, after reading the third paragraph which is about the nature of meaning/sense, it reminds me of the theory about causality (cause and effect). History requires facts and facts are the results of any event that occurs in the past, and there must be a cause which subsequently will become the event (effect) as a result of that cause. Which brings the idea that both truths (natural truth/meaningful truth) require causality For example. 1. "tell me the truth of what happened yesterday?" 2. " we don't know the truth whether this food is poisoned or not until we examine it" or premise 1. Hitler was a dictator of Nazi Germany 2. Almost the entire of European countries were occupied by Nazi Germany
Therefore Hitler was the one who responsible for the European occupation by Nazi Germany
Yeah, yeah. By the way, C. Hempel wrote an interesting article of this problem solving it in analytic manner. Lately it was called 'A Theory of Explanation'. According to him, there's a form of finding right theories (laws) in History. A. Firstly, we're needed to find solid facts (I think for this question of sorting facts from not-facts is better to 'ask' B. Russell, who has dealt with it very good); f.e. 'Hitler send some Jews to hell'. B. Make a conditional assumption, like that: 'if Hitler hadn't been listening to whistles of Wittgenstein in Linz School (q), he wouldn't kill Jews (p)'. (It's necessary to be said that the assumption is not a conditional, but the counter-fact one. This question about the relations between conditional and counter-facts sentences was discussed in details in N. Goodman 'Fact, Fictions and Forecasts' and in some H. Putnam's books.) C. Make a conclusion: 'If there's a 'not-p', and there's an 'If q, then p', then a 'not-q''. It sounds too simple, but Hempel did with these things. I'm sorry that I can't get any other links but the one. If you're registered and have a pass in PhilPapers you'll can read the article. I have the text, but it's in Russian translation and I have it in a paper book. sigh There's another way in Hempel's suggestions. He said that we can mean exactly a reason of something. F.e. 'to blow a car we should have fulfilled gas tank, right temperature (not being frozen to hell), and a spark. And a cause/a reason of explosion can be reckoned either gas tank, or the temperature, or a spark. More important to make statements like 'if to spark a lighter near opened gas tank... there will be an explosion'. So, we have the circumstances and one of the elements can be reckoning as the reason/the cause of it. Puzzling it in this way let us to make a presupposition that: (F 1...F n); (F 1...F n-1)→ (F n → F 0); F m - factors, F 0 - a blow. And also I want to say that there's a conceptual barrier in understanding history, but it seems that telling all these I've just sink down more and more deeper, so I hope the info will be helpful briefly. Wish you luck!
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Apr 4, 2018 1:48:18 GMT
Actually this isn't a "duh" answer, but rather is the correspondence theory of truth. For me, truth is relative and is what is reliable/trustworthy over the long term. Saying that a statement is factually correct assumes absolute truth which I don't believe in, so this is meaningless to me. Got confused. You mean absolute truth doesn't exist or it exists if it can be proven to still be truth over time? For me, absolute truth doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Apr 4, 2018 2:17:47 GMT
Got confused. You mean absolute truth doesn't exist or it exists if it can be proven to still be truth over time? For me, absolute truth doesn't exist. Not even in Islam??
|
|