Bible "Discussion" (split by Lothar)

[fyrephlie]

MODERATOR NOTE: this thread has been split from the "Tis the Season" thread due to being generally unrelated to the topic of Christmas.

-Lothar

my main point was what the BIBLE says and how it condemns certain things, but men have thrown their own "reasoning" into the mix and determine that it no longer applies.

BIBLE = Written by men using their own reasoning, edited and re-edited to suit the various ruling powers over the millenia that have passed since...

[Lothar]

BIBLE = Written by men using their own reasoning, edited and re-edited to suit the various ruling powers over the millenia that have passed since...

Edited and re-edited? I suggest you spend more time researching history. You can start on this board; Mobi has made the mistake of making this argument a number of times.

[Duper]

BIBLE = Written by men using their own reasoning, edited and re-edited to suit the various ruling powers over the millenia that have passed since...

Edited and re-edited? I suggest you spend more time researching history. You can start on this board; Mobi has made the mistake of making this argument a number of times.

X2

even a little research will show that the scriptures are some of the most accruately passed down material in print to date.

[fyrephlie]

BIBLE = Written by men using their own reasoning, edited and re-edited to suit the various ruling powers over the millenia that have passed since...

Edited and re-edited? I suggest you spend more time researching history. You can start on this board; Mobi has made the mistake of making this argument a number of times.

X2

even a little research will show that the scriptures are some of the most accruately passed down material in print to date.

it certainly is an extremely well maintained text. but history is written by the victors, and certain texts have been changed and omitted over the many years. this is fact, not fiction. of course i know where this is going, so in the interest of not starting a war i am prepared to deal with, i will back off.

but remember, according to the Bible, the earth is flat, seeds need to be dead to germinate, slaves are ok, menstruation is proof of woman's uncleaness, and just before the second coming, 144,000 Jews will be sealed, the rest of us are off to hell.

FLAMES AWAY!!!

[Admiral Thrawn]

but remember, according to the Bible, the earth is flat, seeds need to be dead to germinate, slaves are ok, menstruation is proof of woman's uncleaness, and just before the second coming, 144,000 Jews will be sealed, the rest of us are off to hell.

Actually your wrong on those points. And as a matter of fact, the bible said that the earth was round even before man knew so.

[Top Gun]

but remember, according to the Bible, the earth is flat, seeds need to be dead to germinate, slaves are ok, menstruation is proof of woman's uncleaness, and just before the second coming, 144,000 Jews will be sealed, the rest of us are off to hell.

FLAMES AWAY!!!

A. The Bible isn't supposed to be read as a science textbook. Before the days of the ancient Greeks, the belief in a flat Earth was almost ubiquitous (and, when you think about it, made perfect sense given the evidence at hand).

B. The seed phrase was supposed to be metaphorical, not literal. In a certain sense, a seed does "die" when it germinates into a plant. The essense of what the seed was is no longer; something new is there, and the seed has ceased to exist. Depending on how you look at it, this can be considered a sort of death.

C. Every culture and their mother practiced slavery at this period of time.

D. See A. The menstruation regulations in the Torah most likely stemmed from cultural practices and from lack of medical knowledge. Let's face it: without knowing anything about why menstruation occurs, the act of uncontrolled bleeding every month is a little unsettling. (Hell, for us guys, it is regardless of how much you know about it. ) Something like that could easily be construed as some sort of evil influence, and thus unclean.

E. I don't believe that the group mentioned in Revelations was specifically listed as only Jewish; considering that Revelations is part of the Christian Scriptures, I'd think that any use of a term like "children of Israel" would be referring to all followers of Christ, just like similar terms are used in the modern church. As for the 144,000, that's simply meant to convery the sense of a vast number of people, not as an exact headcount.

So...how's that for flames?

[fyrephlie]

A. Which is my point on the Bible being written in the perception of those who wrote it.

B. Eh? Per textbook answer on the germination of seeds: "Under favorable conditions, the seed begins to germinate, and the embryonic tissues resume growth, developing towards a seedling." But, ok. it dies, I guess.

C. See A

D. See A

E. Certainly open for debate on who the Children of Israel were, and a headcount, very typical to take certain scripture word for word, and others as, "it means this"

but here is what is written:

7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel. 7:5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand. 7:6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nephthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand. 7:7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand. 7:8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.

those are some pretty specific numbers...

Admiral Thrawn: At what point does the Bible make mention of a 'round earth',

Is. 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the [bold]circle[/bold] of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in...

thats as close as it comes, it's frequently referred to as 'pancake' like...

[Duper]

it certainly is an extremely well maintained text. but history is written by the victors, and certain texts have been changed and omitted over the many years. this is fact, not fiction. of course i know where this is going, so in the interest of not starting a war i am prepared to deal with, i will back off.

There are plenty of ancient texts to compare current one's with. well over 10,000 sources. many nearly 2000 years old. I think the oldest copy of the Tora is older.

[Lothar]

it certainly is an extremely well maintained text. but history is written by the victors, and certain texts have been changed and omitted over the many years. this is fact, not fiction. of course i know where this is going, so in the interest of not starting a war i am prepared to deal with, i will back off.

In laymans terms, we call this a "cop out". Or, in another form of the vernacular, "not backing your s*** up". That's generally looked down upon here in E&C.

I suggest you either attempt to produce evidence to back up what you claim to be fact, or withdraw the claim. Don't just make the assertion and say it's "fact" without being willing to provide some form of evidence on which to base the claim.

[fyrephlie]

it certainly is an extremely well maintained text. but history is written by the victors, and certain texts have been changed and omitted over the many years. this is fact, not fiction. of course i know where this is going, so in the interest of not starting a war i am prepared to deal with, i will back off.

In laymans terms, we call this a "cop out". Or, in another form of the vernacular, "not backing your s*** up". That's generally looked down upon here in E&C.

I suggest you either attempt to produce evidence to back up what you claim to be fact, or withdraw the claim. Don't just make the assertion and say it's "fact" without being willing to provide some form of evidence on which to base the claim.

wikipedia's biblical canon reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_c ... tian_canon

which contains a fairly breif breakdown of the various books of the Bible we know. It also discusses some of the books which aren't included in its present form as most of us know it.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible5.html

which has some decent information as well, citing the cambridge history quite a bit.

for example: martin luther had trouble swallowing certain parts of the Bible with his own beliefs when he split from the Catholic Church, so he scratched some stuff, and BAM, better Bible!

some of what i know about this subject comes (unfortunatley) from documentaries on the history / the learning channels, etc. some comes from theology classes that were sponsored by a former church, which discussed the history of the Bible, but instructors were never willing to go into details on these things with me, citing: "it's the word of God..."

and of course the etheopian orthodox bible has more than 80 books...

google will help you find more information about the differences and changes to the bible. yes it is a well maintained text, but especially in recent years, there have been some errors uncovered. but they are usually dismissed.

in regards to the inerrancy of the Bible:

Scholars working with the ancient texts find numerous discrepancies between various copies, such as those between the mostly newer copies and the extremely ancient Dead Sea Scrolls. A few fundamentalists dismiss these as inconsequential or unimportant, and that no key Christian doctrine rests on these verses, but that raises the question of whether a truly inerrant writing should contain any errors, even insignificant ones. Either all scripture is without error, or it isn't. The existence of passages that seem to be mutually exclusive (that is to say, if one passage is true, the other cannot be) cast doubt on absolute inerrancy. Leading inerrantist scholars do not make this dismissal, but instead claim that what appear to be inconsistencies are merely misunderstandings on the part of the reader, or failures to understand the type of literature it is, or ignorance of the ancient Semitic context. Skeptics are not convinced by the argument that the text should be re-interpreted until all inconsistencies are removed, but would agree that interpretations of inconsistencies should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Some believers in biblical inerrancy don't allow for the possibility of transcription errors or translation errors. Their view is that not only were the scriptures originally inspired by God, but that God has actively intervened through the centuries to make sure that only "pure" copies of His word have survived. This is easily refuted by the differences found in early manuscripts, let alone the many differences found in modern translations. However, leading inerrantists point out that from the different manuscripts, we can reconstruct the original to a very high accuracy, and that not a single doctrine rests on a disputed verse. Also, some inerrant positions, such as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, claim that the original manuscripts were inerrant, though errors may have been introduced in subsequent transcription and translation.

take also the numerous inconsistancies in the Bible, a simple example:

1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

so, Joseph is the son of Heli, or is it Jacob?

of course all these geneaologies are great, except:

1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

i don't mean to offend anyone here, or question your faith in this "Good Book" at all, i just make mention that in the history of the world, there is this drop in the bucket called Christianity, which is now called the one truth.

my own beliefs lie in more of a higher power. i have a solid distaste for 'organised' religion, finding much of it to be far to incongruous, and powercentric to be right.

Duper: in response to you, i agree that the Bible in its current form is EXTREMELY accurate to the old texts, it is amazing. you can't pick up a copy most books produced by different publishers without finding massice inconsistancies, but this older than old text has managed to stay the test of time and remain intact. (some may just contribute this to the dedication of those with faith, or to the hand of God)

Lothar: the exact thing i was trying to avoid was discussing sources, and quotes, and bouncing around through brower windows, and trying to remember things i haven't talked about in years. its a pain.

i will retract what i have said insofar that i no longer wish to devote a lot of time to this. it is my fault for piping up, and trying to discuss things that are contrary to popular / common / spiritual beleif. i will state that i used the word 'REWRITTEN' inaccurately, and meant to illustrate 'RETRANSLATED' more.

the E & C has an odd draw that is hard to fight. i am sorry.

[Kilarin]

I was once taught how to give a Bible Study on the inerrancy of the Bible. They gave me a long lists of text to mark, each of which said something about the scriptures being perfect. Even at that young and gullible age I balked. I had the gall to ask my teacher, "WHAT is the POINT of this? If someone doesn't believe that the Bible is inerrant, they aren't going to accept the authority of the Bible to prove that point!!!" Needless to say, I did NOT get out of the assignment, but I did shake my head all the way through it. There ARE great thinkers in the church, not all Bible teachers are among that crowd.

There are MUCH better examples of biblical contradictions than those mentioned so far. The question is, can you believe that the Bible has errors, AND that it is the inspired Word Of God simultaneously?

It all depends on how you think inspiration works. What is "Inspiration?" The term means "God Breathed", but at what level did God "breath" the Bible into existance?

Many conservative Christians believe in "word (or verbal) inspiration", which basicly means that God told the writers exactly which words to write. My church (and many others) believes in "thought inspiration", which means that God inspired the writers thoughts, but they wrote it in their own words. We could also go into Partial or Plenary inspiration, but lets just concentrate on "Thought" vs "Verbal" for right now.

If we go with verbal inspiration, we have several problems to explain.
One, why are the voices in the Bible so different? Just read the four Gospels, they are written in four completely different styles. It seems that verbal inspiration should not allow for the authors own style and interests to come through.
And Second, how do we deal with issues like 1 Kings 7:23 which defines the value of pi as being 3.0, exactly? Or these:
How Many Demoniacs healed and demons cast into pigs?
Matthew 8:28-34 (2) Mark 5:1-20 (1) Luke 8:26 (1)
How many blind men healed at Jerico?
Matthew 20:30 (2) Mark 10:46 (1) Luke 18:35 (1)
Ya reckon Mathew was crosseyed?

But these problems dissapear if we go with "thought" inspiration. There are different voices throughout the Bible because it was written in the words of different authors. The authors chose thier own words to write down the thoughts that God had inspired in them.
So what about the value of pi? God wasn't trying to teach math, that wasn't part of the thoughts he inspired, and certainly had no bearing on the message of the Bible.
And what about the Gospel writers getting eye witness events differently? Well, one comentary puts it like this:

In various places in the Gospels the writers report differently the words of Christ. They also give different accounts of certain matters, for example, the inscription on the cross. These variations have been seized upon by skeptics as proof that the Gospel writers are unreliable, even false, and thus certainly not inspired. A careful examination proves the opposite. Those who wrote the Gospels, along with the other followers of Christ, considered themselves witnesses of the events of our Lord's life. They staked everything on the truthfulness of their witness. Now in a court, today, if witnesses all testify precisely the same regarding an incident, the conclusion is, not that they are truthful, but that they are perjurers. Why? Because experience teaches us that no two people see an event exactly alike. One point impresses one witness; another point impresses another. Again, they may all have heard exactly the same words spoken in connection with the event, but each reports the words a little differently. One witness may even report certain parts of a conversation that the other witnesses do not report. But so long as there is no clear contradiction in the thought or meaning of the variant statements, the witnesses may be considered to have told the truth. Indeed, apparently contradictory statements may often prove to be not contradictory at all, but rather complementary.

So, for me, thought inspiration is the only thing that makes sense. It is consistant with what we actually find in the Bible, and it is consistant with God's purpose for the Bible.

The Bible was written by human beings who were Inspired by God. This didn't make them perfect, it didn't even make what they wrote perfect. But it DID allow God to get his message through. You find the story of Salvation there from the very first book of the Bible Gen 15:6 to the very last Rev 21:6-7. With an amazing consistancy between authors from different places writing in different times.

Kilarin

[Zuruck]

fyre, you made a crucial mistake. You questioned Lothar, do you not know that he is the world's foremost authority on the Bible and its teachings? Scholars maintain that the wealth of knowledge that both he and his wife, Drakona, share, equals that of roughly 23% of Ft. Hays, Kansas.

Otherwise, Bible is exactly as you said. Re-written over the years, can we know if it has been changed? Who wrote it? What were their intentions? Things we can't ever know...well...just ask Lothar, I'm sure he knows.

[Iceman]

fyre, you made a crucial mistake. You questioned Lothar, do you not know that he is the world's foremost authority on the Bible and its teachings? Scholars maintain that the wealth of knowledge that both he and his wife, Drakona, share, equals that of roughly 23% of Ft. Hays, Kansas.

Otherwise, Bible is exactly as you said. Re-written over the years, can we know if it has been changed? Who wrote it? What were their intentions? Things we can't ever know...well...just ask Lothar, I'm sure he knows.

STFU Z

[Zuruck]

That's all the love I get from a poet like you Iceman.

[dissent]

Nice ad hominem, Zuruck. Passing for witty, or just passing something else....

Otherwise, pointless.

[Iceman]

My point too, take it somewhere else. I may not be contributing to this discussion much but I am enjoying how those other than you (Z) are discussing the topic intelligently and respectfully.

[Zuruck]

As was his post dissent. I said my two cents, it's been re-written in my opinion. You get mad because I think Lothar's head is just a little too big?

[Bet51987]

fyre, you made a crucial mistake. You questioned Lothar, do you not know that he is the world's foremost authority on the Bible and its teachings? Scholars maintain that the wealth of knowledge that both he and his wife, Drakona, share, equals that of roughly 23% of Ft. Hays, Kansas.

Otherwise, Bible is exactly as you said. Re-written over the years, can we know if it has been changed? Who wrote it? What were their intentions? Things we can't ever know...well...just ask Lothar, I'm sure he knows.

Fyre also used Wikipedia and we know what theists think about Wiki. I thought that Fyres post was great. ....and Zurick, your more right than otherwise. Don't let the bible boys push you around. Your only pointless because you don't agree with them.

Bettina

[fyrephlie]

Kilarin: i understand what you, and many other people are saying. beleif in the scriptures comes from faith, it speaks to you, differently than it speaks to me. i see passages where God kills all the first born children for the transgressions of the Pharouh. He also kills all the animals, then the animals are back, then he kills them again, and a few more times for good measure... I see passages about God being upset and killing all sorts of things, and teaching that if my children are bad, I shouldn't hesitate to kill them in his name, I should be willing to kill a lot of things in his name. The entire book of Leviticus seems devoted to telling me to kill animals and spread its blood around, and burn its entrails, for the sweet favour of the Lord.

these things leave a bad taste in my mouth, and when i began to actually read the Bible, it brought out a lot of questions i had regarding the "super happy friendly loving nice God" i had been taught about in sunday school. there aren't a lot of songs about the scarifice of animals, or the murder of children, or my wife being my property.

i began to look into it, then found all sorts of inconsistancies, and even things i just couldn't help but laugh at. i lost my faith in the Bible, but i didn't lose faith in 'God'. I still adamently believe that there is a God, and that He appears in many faiths.

I have seen MANY skeptical and neutral studies on the Bible which show that there are a lot of things about its history that most people just don't know, but more often than not, these are things that people don't care about. Because their word is true. They know it, they feel it, they trust it! So be it.

Zuruck: in case you haven't read what i wrote, we know alot about the history of the Bible, who wrote it, where its been changed and 're-written', when decisions were made to suit the fancy of the church.

i would expect it's about time for Lothar to have his final say and lock this one up, cause i just don't have it in me to deal with this.

[Bet51987]

...and when i began to actually read the Bible, it brought out a lot of questions i had regarding the "super happy friendly loving nice God" i had been taught about in sunday school.

Me too. When I was 10, I thought the answer was there somewhere. I read it all..every single page. I asked questions to the priest and my dad and always got different answers. I came to the realization that there is no "loving god", there isn't any god and the bible is full of nonsense. I know your not as extreme as me, but I like your posts.

i would expect it's about time for Lothar to have his final say and lock this one up, cause i just don't have it in me to deal with this.

I'll just start another.

Bettina

[fyrephlie]

I came to the realization that there is no "loving god", there isn't any god and the bible is full of nonsense. I know your not as extreme as me, but I like your posts.

you'd be suprized how extreme i can be when it comes to this subject. i have actually noticed that many people who haven't read it through as i have seem to fight me on my points fervently. my former superior taught a bible class, i remember her putting up these scripture quotes as 'reminders' for us to be good people, she got VERY mad at me when i put these quotes in context (finishing a passage that showed how IF YOU DIDNT GOD WILL KILL ALL SORTS OF THINGS, etc...). she became irate with me, telling me that i shouldn't be doing these things if i didn't know what i was talking about. when i explained my own theoligical background and studies, historical and philisophical learnings, and the fact that having read the Bible cover to cover and was presented with only one decision... she blinked a few times and said: "I haven't even read it through." I told her to try it. The next day at work these 'passages' were removed and she never spoke of it again.

p.s. in response to another thread: Yes, I do talk this much is real life too.

[Dedman]

it certainly is an extremely well maintained text. but history is written by the victors, and certain texts have been changed and omitted over the many years. this is fact, not fiction. of course i know where this is going, so in the interest of not starting a war i am prepared to deal with, i will back off.

In laymans terms, we call this a "cop out". Or, in another form of the vernacular, "not backing your s*** up". That's generally looked down upon here in E&C.

I suggest you either attempt to produce evidence to back up what you claim to be fact, or withdraw the claim. Don't just make the assertion and say it's "fact" without being willing to provide some form of evidence on which to base the claim.

I am not defending Frey, cause I don't really care one way or the other but...

BIBLE = Written by men using their own reasoning, edited and re-edited to suit the various ruling powers over the millenia that have passed since...

Edited and re-edited? I suggest you spend more time researching history. You can start on this board; Mobi has made the mistake of making this argument a number of times.

Where is Lothar's evidence to back his s*** up? Did he not just infer a claim the the bible hasn't been edited and re-edited without the proper evidence?

Like I said, don't really care, just looking for consistancy.

[woodchip]

I'm with Dedman. Why did a "King James" VERSION have to be written? C'mon Lothar, 'splain it to us.

[fyrephlie]

Like I said, don't really care, just looking for consistancy.

his evidence would be the faith in the Bible itself. like most theoligical discussions the 'skeptic' points to archeological and written evidence, the 'faithful' discounts this, points at a passage which, when interpereted their way, says, 'it is.'

[De Rigueur]

The entire book of Leviticus seems devoted to telling me to kill animals and spread its blood around, and burn its entrails, for the sweet favour of the Lord.

these things leave a bad taste in my mouth, ...

I think you have a point. I'd say it's difficult, if not impossible, for a 21st century Westerner to enter into the mindset of the ancient Hebrew religion and relate to its worldview.

we know alot about the history of the Bible, who wrote it, where its been changed and 're-written', when decisions were made to suit the fancy of the church.

IMO, the church's most significant and extreme change to the Bible took place in Acts 15 when the early Christians decided to dispense with the majority of the Jewish ceremonial and sacrificial regulations including that stuff in Leviticus that you didn't like.

As for changes to the Bible since then, there are a few passages that are disputed from the stand point of textual criticism, but it seems to me that it's much easier to change intrepretations than to try to get away with changing the text.

[De Rigueur]

I'm with Dedman. Why did a "King James" VERSION have to be written? C'mon Lothar, 'splain it to us.

Are you attaching special significance to the word 'version'? Are you thinking that since it's a 'version', it is a different Bible?

As to why it was written: KJV is a by-product of the Protestant Reformation with its emphasis on the priesthood of the individual. I believe the Church of England wanted to separate itself from Roman Catholicism by conducting its business in the local vernacular. It was translated using Greek rather than later Latin texts.

[Birdseye]

In laymans terms, we call this a "cop out". Or, in another form of the vernacular, "not backing your s*** up". That's generally looked down upon here in E&C.

Does this mean you are ready to prove to me the predictions the bible made that came true? I was promised this over a year ago, but it never happened. Funny thing is that Barry did the same thing.

You can start a new thread.

[Lothar]

Edited and re-edited? I suggest you spend more time researching history. You can start on this board; Mobi has made the mistake of making this argument a number of times.

Where is Lothar's evidence to back his s*** up?

Reread what I've put in bold.

(Though, now that I look for it... I can't find the posts I was thinking of. I know I've laid the smack down on Mobi a number of times for posting things like what Zuruck tried to argue here before fyrephlie smacked him down, but IIRC the search database got hosed recently. So it looks like the back-up for my s*** is harder to find than I thought, even though I posted it only a few months ago. In that case, it'll take me a while to find it.)

his evidence would be the faith in the Bible itself. like most theoligical discussions the 'skeptic' points to archeological and written evidence, the 'faithful' discounts this, points at a passage which, when interpereted their way, says, 'it is.'

Here in E&C, we call this a "straw man". You're constructing an imaginary argument, pretending it's my position, and knocking it down. Again, we look down on this sort of thing here. Please, if you don't know what I'm going to say, don't pretend you do (unless you like being wrong )

---

Honestly, I don't see much to disagree with you on in terms of your arguments themselves.

1) The Wikipedia Biblical canon article is pretty good. I'm not going to take the time to search through every reference, but as a whole it looked like the history I know -- with the canon taking time to develop, not being exactly the same everywhere, and with a few groups trying to change the canon during the Reformation. So, yes, on the macro scale, the Bible has been edited in the sense that different texts have been accepted by different leaders for different reasons (though, it should be noted, we're talking about a small number of different canons -- it's not like it changed with every new Pope or every new political ruler; there are a small number of well-known variants and that's it. And, of course, we all have access to the texts involved AND the opinions of those involved.)

2) In terms of textual accuracy, again, you seem to be right on. The text is remarkably well preserved, to the point where the few manuscript errors that do exist can be easily traced and catalogued. There are some weirdnesses like the genaeologies of Joseph and passages nobody can quite figure out what they say, but for the most part we can identify very accurately what the originals said. (BTW, you deserve props for smacking Zuruck down on this point.)

3) The text has, in fact, been retranslated from the original languages to English a bunch of times for a bunch of reasons. (Some of those retranslations are made for political reasons, and not surprisingly, those tend to be the worst translations.) I don't see any reason to worry about that, though -- the fact that some n00b made a crappy English translation in 1865 to support his politics doesn't have any effect on whether or not my modern (still being beta tested) translation is any good.

4) I agree, the Bible is incredibly violent and filled with a lot of stuff that offends a lot of people (though, honestly, it doesn't bother me.) I wish more Christians were aware of that -- far too many worship some fluffy snuggly cartoon god of happiness. Far too many get really confused or offended when you bring up such questions as "the problem of evil", because from their perspective, God couldn't *possibly* have meant for all of the suffering that's in the world. I don't think it ever occurs to them that maybe God isn't just an omnipotent version of the Care Bears.

It seems like our positions are pretty close. Looks you and I agree a lot more than either of us would agree with Zuruck

I think the main thing I disagree with you on is your methods... if you don't want to discuss something controversial, please, don't pop into E&C and make a random comment about it. Trolling is bad...

how do we deal with issues like 1 Kings 7:23 which defines the value of pi as being 3.0, exactly?

Remember "significant figures" from science class? If the text said the bowl had a circumference of 30.00 and a diameter of 10.00 and was a perfect circle with no distortion whatsoever you'd have a point... but if 30 means 29.5 to 30.5 and 10 means 9.5 to 10.5 then pi is between 2.81 and 3.21 (both have been rounded), which in fact it is.

As a more general point... one of my biggest pet peeves is people (either pro- or anti- Bible, Christian or not) treating the Bible, ESPECIALLY some particular English translation, like some sort of incredibly precise magical textbook. As if every single sentence in the Bible is an exactly formulated logical dissertation on a particular idea. As if every word and phrasaeology is specifically and carefully chosen due to extremely subtle connotations, rather than due to the fact that some authors had different vocabulary than others (see, for example, the Lord's prayer.)

Let's be reasonable here... the Bible is a collection of writings made by a couple dozen authors with different backgrounds over a couple thousand years, all talking about the same general subject matter. Their purpose in writing wasn't to create some sort of logically concrete case for God; it was to teach others. Not surprisingly, this means there are a lot of generalizations that aren't true 100% of the time. There are also a lot of statements that are incidental and don't get clarified -- nobody bothered to tell us if the bowl thing was actually 30.00 cubits, for example, because it just isn't important to be that precise when describing a big bowl when the discussion isn't really about how big (exactly) the bowl is. And, overall, the text is meant to teach us some "key ideas" rather than to teach the exact 14 situations in which killing is justified or the 3 precise times at which it's OK to lie or whatever.

[Lothar]

In laymans terms, we call this a "cop out". Or, in another form of the vernacular, "not backing your s*** up". That's generally looked down upon here in E&C.

Does this mean you are ready to prove to me the predictions the bible made that came true?

IIRC, I posted a response about the predictions in Daniel about the (future) history of the region and about Jesus' statements about the temple in Jerusalem being destroyed, either during or right after the initial discussion. You specifically said you weren't interested in Bible prophecies that were fulfilled within the Bible, so I didn't bother with those. I'm not sure what else you expected, or what else you want me to post now.

[Dedman]

Reread what I've put in bold.

(Though, now that I look for it... I can't find the posts I was thinking of. I know I've laid the smack down on Mobi a number of times for posting things like what Zuruck tried to argue here before fyrephlie smacked him down, but IIRC the search database got hosed recently. So it looks like the back-up for my s*** is harder to find than I thought, even though I posted it only a few months ago. In that case, it'll take me a while to find it.)

Fair enough. Like I said, I am not taking a position on this one way or another. Just looking for consistancy.

[Stryker]

It's also very, very important to note that all of the killing that is going on is in the Old Testament. Most of the killing is either sacrificial in nature (to atone for one's sins) or is meant for a very specific purpose (removing a subversive effect on a culture that God had strictly defined).

When the new covenant was established in the New Testament, one finds that God did not any longer require the sacrifice of animals, or any of the rituals before required.

The Old Testament is mostly a description of the old covenant between God and man, and shows how we could never hope to complete all God required of us. The New Testament is meant to serve as a record of how God will allow us to actually enter heaven without demanding a perfection that we cannot achieve.

[Bet51987]

I agree, the Bible is incredibly violent and filled with a lot of stuff that offends a lot of people (though, honestly, it doesn't bother me.) I wish more Christians were aware of that -- far too many worship some fluffy snuggly cartoon god of happiness. Far too many get really confused or offended when you bring up such questions as "the problem of evil", because from their perspective, God couldn't *possibly* have meant for all of the suffering that's in the world. I don't think it ever occurs to them that maybe God isn't just an omnipotent version of the Care Bears.

When I was younger, I used to kneel by my bed with my favorite duck, and said my prayers, but when I started to read the bible for personal reasons, I became well aware that god was not a "care bear" as you decribed. Violent even. So...if he isnt the all powerful version of the care bear....then what is he?

I think the main thing I disagree with you on is your methods... if you don't want to discuss something controversial, please, don't pop into E&C and make a random comment about it. Trolling is bad...

"a troll is a person who posts inflammatory messages on the internet, such as on online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion or to upset its participants."

I guess he upset you then because he wasn't trolling. I enjoyed what he had to say and I thought his presentation was nothing short of awesome....and he did it without being arrogant.... Just my pov.

Bettina

[Lothar]

I think the main thing I disagree with you on is your methods... if you don't want to discuss something controversial, please, don't pop into E&C and make a random comment about it. Trolling is bad...

"a troll is a person who posts inflammatory messages on the internet, such as on online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion or to upset its participants."

I guess he upset you then because he wasn't trolling.

He didn't upset me at all. He just stepped on a line that I generally bust out the moderator stick when people cross: he made a controversial, off-topic comment on a subject where people are known to be a bit uncivil. In other words, he was doing something expected to stir up trouble ("inflammatory"). That's trolling, and I hope he (and everyone else) caught my suggestion not to do that. It makes E&C a better place overall...

His responses in THIS thread are not trolling. He's actually engaging in discussion, and writing intelligent responses to those he's arguing with. That's refreshing -- definitely a nice change.

So...if he isnt the all powerful version of the care bear....then what is he?

Not a care bear. Really, not anything you can describe via simple analogy. (If a simple analogy would work, the Bible would be about 3 pages long.)

You've read the text. I can't give you a better explanation than what's there...

[Bet51987]

His responses in THIS thread are not trolling.

Then I misunderstood your trolling comment. Sorry.

Bettina

[De Rigueur]

Here's an example of a deliberate alteration of the biblical text "to suit the various ruling powers", or more specifically, to avoid offence.

Gender inclusive language - Some translations are converting passages such as "brothers" to "brothers and sisters".

My Greek Interlinear has the New Revised Standard Version in the margin. It incorporates inclusive language, but assures us that it "does not distort the meaning of the text."

[Lothar]

Here's an example of a deliberate alteration of the biblical text "to suit the various ruling powers", or more specifically, to avoid offence.

Gender inclusive language...

In general, when I'm talking about alteration of the Biblical text, I'm talking about the integrity of the source material -- the stuff you'd go to if you really really wanted to know. It matters to me whether or not the source material is accurately preserved over the ages, or if it's been rewritten. There are a lot of crappy English translations out there, but I don't much care about those for the purposes of determining the integrity of the text -- they're just translations, not source material. But, since you (and others) bring it up, let's talk translation:

Translations *necessarily* distort the original language, because there isn't a direct one-to-one correspondance between words or phrases within the languages. You simply can't create a perfect translation; you can only create a translation that's appropriate for specific purposes. For example, if you want to create a Bible for scholars who have some knowledge of the original language, something like an interlinear -- where the original word order is exactly preserved and every word is translated into its nearest equivalent -- is appropriate. If you want a Bible for normal people to read to try to understand the original message, something like NIV -- where whole sentences or ideas are translated with the word order as is natural in English (rather than Greek) and with certain conjunctions or pronouns changed -- might be appropriate. If you want a Bible for young children, something like The Living Bible -- where ideas are loosely translated using basic vocabulary -- is appropriate.

When you're evaluating translations to see if they qualify as "deliberate alteration... to suit the various ruling powers" you need to look at questions like this:
1) What purpose / audience does this translation serve? (Is it for kids, scholars, new Christians, light reading, intensive study, etc.?)
2) Does the translation distort the underlying language beyond what is necessary for that purpose?
3) Is the underlying message communicated in a way that's appropriate for that audience?
What really matters is this last question, and specifically, whether the distortion in the message is meant to deceive.

There are definitely some Bible translations that are made to suit various rulers... some cults and some social groups intentionally mistranslate the text in order to distort certain meanings. (I know there are "goddess"-based translations out there.) And there are some "gender-inclusive" translations that fit the same label -- they take every reference to "he" in the entire Bible and turn it into "they" or "he or she", even if it's talking about a specific male. And there are some so-called "scholarly" translations that completely hose the language.

Most of the gender-inclusive translations I'm familiar with are somewhere between "crappy but not malicious translation" and "pretty good". For the most part, their purpose is for normal people to do normal everyday reading, and some normal people misunderstand "he" to actually mean "this verse only pertains to males". (We can debate until we're blue in the face about how stupid society is to have destroyed language this way; the fact remains that some people grew up with this sort of language.) IMO, it's perfectly appropriate for a Bible for normal people to distort the original *language* in order to appropriately communicate the underlying *message*. If the original language used the word "he" but in such a way as to refer to either male or female, it's perfectly appropriate to communicate the message in a gender-neutral way.

Those gender-neutral translations which are meant to avoid *offense* tend to be the crappy ones. But, IMO, there are plenty that aren't at all concerned with avoiding offense -- only with avoiding *confusion*. Those don't even begin to fall into the category of being modified to suit the ruling powers. (The NET Bible uses some gender-neutral terms, though it always includes a note about the original language. See, for example, Romans 1:13.)

[Kilarin]

how do we deal with issues like 1 Kings 7:23 which defines the value of pi as being 3.0, exactly?

Remember "significant figures" from science class?

It's off by almost one and a half cubits, thats a pretty big deviation. BUT:

Let's be reasonable here... the Bible is a collection of writings made by a couple dozen authors with different backgrounds over a couple thousand years, all talking about the same general subject matter. Their purpose in writing wasn't to create some sort of logically concrete case for God; it was to teach others.

That was the point I was trying to make. The Bible isn't a Math textbook and I don't consider this to be a problem text. I think we are in agreement here.

i understand what you, and many other people are saying. belief in the scriptures comes from faith,

Actually, that wasn't my point. I think we actually agree about the general history of the Bible and the fact that it contains small inconsistencies. I was attempting to say that recognizing these facts does not necessarily invalidate a belief in the inspiration of the Bible. The Bible is a collection of books written by humans, who were inspired by God. Not a collection of books written by God and dictated to humans.

Now when you say, "Faith", I get nervous, because a LOT of people mean by "Faith" a belief in something for which you have no evidence. We don't need to waste the word "Faith" on that, because we already have a perfectly good word for believing in things without any evidence: "Foolishness"

My evidence for believing in the Bible is the accuracy of it's prophecies, and the effects I've seen it have on my and other peoples lives, just to name two.
I don't expect everyone will AGREE with me about that evidence, but whether you agree with me or not is not the point. You can actually discuss an issue with someone who has reasons for what they believe. There is nothing you can say to someone who believes simply because they have decided that they are going to.

The entire book of Leviticus seems devoted to telling me to kill animals and spread its blood around, and burn its entrails, for the sweet favour of the Lord

I can handle Leviticus mostly. It's a dreadful read (although certainly better than Chronicles!), but I understand the basic WHY of that book. It was an attempt to build rituals that would pound into one peoples head the fact that the wages of sin is death, and the remission of sin requires blood. It's ugly, but so was the crucifixion which it was meant to foretell.

No, I find Joshua much more difficult than Leviticus. The wholesale slaughter of the natives to make room for a new people. It's very difficult to stomach. But there are a few points that need to be made here.

First, have you done any reading about what was actually going on in the Canaanite region in that time period? The locals made a regular practice of frying (literally) new born babies alive on their idols. I'm not going to pretend that that answers every question, but there really was something to this idea that they had filled their cup of wrath.

Second, many of the things that shock us in the old testament (and the new for that matter) seem horrible and repressive at first glance, but were actually radical improvements over the standards of the day.
For example, Deut 21:10-14, at first glance, just makes you want to vomit. It basically says that after you have killed off all the menfolk in war, you can take any woman you want and force her to marry you. Then if you get tired of her later you can throw her out.

But look more closely and think about the text in the context of the periods general standards of warfare. The accepted method was (and in many places still is) that the conquering warriors rape any and all women they find, then strut away feeling proud of themselves. Deut 21:10-14 made this illegal in Israel. It said the only way you could have any of those prisoner women was to actually MARRY them, and once you had done so, she either stays as your wife, with full privileges, or she walks away free. No slavery for that victim, period.

It may seem like to small a step, at least it does to me, but it was a VERY BIG step for the people of that day and age, one so big that they didn't generally succeed in following it. God was leading his people, in baby steps, towards his goal.

We have a similar situation with the laws on Divorce. Deut. 24:1-4 clearly states that all a man has to do to divorce his wife is give her a "certificate of divorce" But in Matthew 5:31-32 Christ says that this is really adultery and God never intended for people to just casually Divorce each other. So why was the rule given to Moses? Because it that age a man could simply kick a woman out of his house at any time and she was ruined. She could not get remarried, and if she wasn't willing to become a prostitute she couldn't really support herself. The "certificate of divorce" was an improvement, another baby step. And Christ obviously thought the people were ready to go beyond that first step and on to the next.

And yes, I know this has gotten long, but I have a third and final point.
Not EVERYTHING that gets credited to God was actually His fault. Take a look at
2 Sam 24 Again the anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah."
and
1 Chronicles 21 Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.

Whats going on here? Nothing really complicated. The book of 2 Kings was written sometime after 971 b.c., but the parallel account in 1 Chronicles was written after the Babylonian captivity in the latter half of the 5th century b.c., so around 400 years later. At the time of 1 Kings, the Hebrew people didn't have a great grasp on the concept of Satan. To them, everything that happened was the direct will of God, so since someone obviously tempted David, it must have been God. 400 years later the Hebrews have advanced somewhat in their theology, and the new version clarifies this point.

The Bible: written by humans, still inspired.

Kilarin

[dissent]

You get mad because I think Lothar's head is just a little too big?

I will demure from making a comparison of your and Lothar's heads.

60% of your post was a pointless ad hominem, as I noted. Your opinion as to the accuracy of transcription of the Bible text is also noted. Let's move on, shall we? Besides, there is a vast gulf between claims about the veracity of the Bible, and claims of the accurate transcription (and translation) of the Bible from its original source material.

[dissent]

And Kilarin reminds of the importance of context.

Nice post, Kilarin.

[fyrephlie]

i apologize for seeming to be trolling in the previous thread. it wasn't meant to be inflammatory, and i didn't mean for it to be understood the way it was. more or less, i have had this discussion so many times, and thought many others had as well. i guess i kinda walked in mid-conversation and brought one half of my own conversation to your half and ended up with a bit of jumble. i am sorry for that. (lazy posts in the E&C are just not a good idea, right? )

another mistake in posting

his evidence would be the faith in the Bible itself. like most theoligical discussions the 'skeptic' points to archeological and written evidence, the 'faithful' discounts this, points at a passage which, when interpereted their way, says, 'it is.'

this was meant as a generalization, not he, but 'people', and should not have been made as it was. I am sorry for that as well, I was not meaning to demean you, just take a stance of the general response to conflicting opinions on faith.

again, I am sorry.

-

my concern in the previous thread was that people were falling on the Bible to make a very silly point about Christmas, and as such I wanted to say that it isn't in the Bible. Christmas has been embraced by the Christian faith to integrate pagan traditions to eliminate them (as with many other holidays and 'rituals'). This shouldn't be a surprise when you read passages about the death of 'non-believers' from the Bible, but also the fact that traditions of the 'converted' are often retained to help integrate them to the Church. If you can't kill them all, bring them in and make them comfortable.

When you consider the crusades and the attrocities thereof, you have to look to the Bible and see the mirror of the descriptions therein. My problem is more in the fact that the modern church has 'exluded' that from their teachings, in the NIV "Teen Study Bible" you will note a severe lack of ANY margin notes in these areas, you has a young servant of Christ are actually supposed to ignore it, gloss right over it. In certain sections you are actually reading passages, then look at the notes, which immediate direct you away from much of this, and never brings you back.

In regards to the to the ruling masses, it seems that the political and the religious-political powers over the years have pointed to passages in the Bible to make their points in whatever way they saw fit. When you talk of the 'other' scriptures being availiable and their points open to anyone, keep in mind that very few in their faiths even know they exist. It is hard for the congregation to see things differently, if they don't know there is anything else to see. (Does that make sense) While there may not have been many changes to the Bible over the generations, it doesn't take much to 'make the masses' beleive what you want them to beleive, and we leave it to the powers to teach us what we are supposed to know. This is of course similar to any political structure, and the people they govern. I think the fact that certain books have been omitted, and that texts have been 're-translated' is EXTREMELY important to the massive amount of people that are being taught, and 'ruled' with them. (it's the butterfly flapping his wings, and a hurricane on the other side of the world effect... a little change at the top can make a big change on the bottom).

So now we are to look to these scriptures and believe what we are currently taught, ignoring the bad stuff to find ourselve left with a fluffy God. That does not sit well with me. Which leads me to: The Church teaches all about tolerance now, but doesnt take a stand on the 'history' of intolerance, but of course the intolerance is still there. How is this evident? Because people are now upset that it is referred to as the Holidays, and not Christmas. (yes this point should be placed in the previous thread...) Which isn't because of the decline of the Christian faith, but an incline of other faiths. And because they aren't Christians they are 'bad'. Even if this holiday is paganistic in origin, it's still the one of the most important days on the Christian calender, and the fact that other religions have some say now in the world, it puts them at odds. But simply, I don't see why it should matter. It's the seperation of church and media.

(I have some very good Christian friends, one of which said to me THIS VERY NIGHT, that he is upset that Christmas falls on a Sunday because it means he has to go to Church on Christmas morning... take that for what you make of it, but it illustrates some very interesting things to me, even if it is off topic.)

getting back to this thread:

Kilarin:

I appreciate that you have a strong knowledge of the history of history. I wish everyone did.

When I use the Faith, I mean FAITH. You have a faith in what you believe, and for your purposes and knowledge, the evidence is there. The foolishness unfortunately applies to many Christians. (I don't want to get into that discussion right this moment, but we can certainly do so at a later date. ) When I say Faith, I assume that you, and Lothar and other users of the E&C forum are fairly versed in the Bible, and for the most part that is true. I assume that you know about your religion and understand it fairly well. Just as I have faith that there is a STRONG chance that the sun will be there tomorrow.

It is hard here because we are now getting into semantics. Faith and Beleif, which means what to who?

You have faith, you beleive.

Prophecies: Another discussion best left for another time.

Leviticus was brought up merely for illustration. The genocide of Joshua, the literal DESTRUCTION of life in Genesis, and all the references to killing throughout the book, are also discussions for another time. I was trying to make a point as you are now.

Your descriptions of things after that are great, and I think help to illustrate a point I was also trying to make regarding the fact that these were ACCEPTED in the times they were written.

BIBLE = Written by men using their own reasoning

I believe you stated this point for me.

Lothar:

I beleive you and I certainly DO agree on many things, we may just take them differently. Which is certainly ok with me.

When you're evaluating translations to see if they qualify as "deliberate alteration... to suit the various ruling powers" you need to look at questions like this:
1) What purpose / audience does this translation serve? (Is it for kids, scholars, new Christians, light reading, intensive study, etc.?)
2) Does the translation distort the underlying language beyond what is necessary for that purpose?
3) Is the underlying message communicated in a way that's appropriate for that audience?
What really matters is this last question, and specifically, whether the distortion in the message is meant to deceive.

I think you what you and I disagree on is the impact of the changes in text, ommisions, and 'translations' of the Bible.

-

I have VERY strong feelings against the state of organized religion now, and throughout history.

To anyone that i have offended here, I am sorry. I just have differing opinions about religion. I love having discussions about it, it is just very time consuming. I do not slight you because you feel differently than me.