The Bible

[EvB]

so... what is in the bible that has not been translated properly... and has lost its proper meaning???

I'm not a biblical scholar. Religious literature is, however, a hobby of mine.  I can take a crack at some of your statements and questions.  If they were purely rhetorical, forgive my taking the space, but I find it hard to leave these things alone, cans of worms or no.  FYI - before you read this you should know that a) I do consider myself Christian.  b) most of my information comes form people whose field is theology - not debunking, precise history, or apologetics. IOW - despite what may seem like a cynical spin on the surface, I'm coming form a POV of faith, though most - including myself, would not consider it an orthodox one. (It's my understanding that Bill Hicks considered himself Christian, and we all know Ian Punnet is in his last lap towards ordination.  Both are men after my own heart when in comes to these matters.)


1) Proving God does or does not exist is something philosophers have been working at for as long as recorded history - likely longer. The problem is, those proofs ARE philosophical, not empirical.  Empirical proofs of "the something" that has not been clearly defined (as your post shows) and it not quantifiable, are, by their nature, personal. Short of something like a Vulcan mind-meld during an individuals experiences of their "god" -  the proofs can not be re-created.  Ergo - no scientific method. IMO - that does not mean that God does not exist - it only means that God, however ones defines it, is slippery according to current standards of "proof". As for proving God does NOT exist - it's pretty much the same thing, with the added issue of the difficulty of proving a negative.

2) In terms of the Jeudeo-Christian tradition, most of those stories were codified long after whatever events inspired them.  They are reports of an ORAL tradition. Ever play the game "telephone" ?  'nuff said. And - while I am more or less sticking to that tradition, since that is what you address in your post, many scholars will tell you (even scholars of faith - not just the skeptical ones) that the stories were inspired, at least in part,  by stories form other cultures.

3) The new testament is a conglomeration of personal experience, historical fact and legend, and records of stories handed down over at least two generations (last I knew - general agreement is that the earliest written record of new testament stories were not put in writing until at least 60 years after the fact) before put into any standard format.

4) I don't think MPD explains the widely varying reports of the nature of God.  Cultural imperatives, shifting values, and changes in the human condition are more likely to have had impact on those descriptions of "god." Even some rather fundamentalist theologians use the example: "the bible says 'go forth and multiply', we achieved that, well enough, a couple of centuries ago at least."  The world has changed.  That doesn't mean God has changed - though God may have.  I don't pretend to know.

5) There ARE bibles available that are not just re-wrights of King James - and they are easy to find. Try The New International Version, Young's Literal Translation, New Revised Standard Version, or the New Jerusalem Bible.  (That last one has parts that Protestants consider apocryphal.  Being both a protestant and an iconoclast, it's one of my favorites) 

6) All that said, if you want the most ORIGINAL texts available - don't go for Latin.  You need Hebrew and Greek. Good luck.

In biblical scholarship and translation - there is a continuum - it runs from TEXT on one side (translations as close to word-for-word as possible - but words change meaning and in many cases the cultural context is unclear) to THOUGHT on the other (translations that try to take cultural meanings and shifts into account and translate according to meaning, not literal words)

Whenever you study religious literature, you must keep in mind the following forms:  Poetry, Myth (not in the pejorative sense - but as a style of conveying meaning), Metaphor, Allegory, and Parable (which differs form Myth and Allegory in that the meaning is usually more simple, brief, and practical) I'm sure there are more - those are the ones I consider most often. Some of it is no more realistic that Kipling's Just So Stories   In Kipling's case - he was quite clear that he was spinning tales to answer children's incessant "why? why? why?" about life.  I imagine some of the creation stories in Genesis were created in the same spirit, though they have deeper meaning. 

Consider Milton's Paradise Lost.  Milton never pretended that his story was based on facts.  He did intend, however, that it would expand upon the meaning of creation - and that is where the truth (as Milton saw it) lies, not in the exact meaning of specific words or phrases.

What was included in what we now call "THE BIBLE" and what was not was decided by committees.  The men (yes, they were almost exclusively men, though some advisers were women) who had conscious and unconscious motivations that were related to any number of aspects of life - political, personal, and who knows what all.  Opinions on what those motivations were and what impact they had vary widely.

As for "proper meaning"  - I'm not sure what you mean by that. Get two theologians in any one room, and you are likely to get three or more opinions on what any give passage may mean, particularly in terms of application.

There - I've babbled on quite enough.

Have a day!

[EvB]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSm7YPMQOSo

[Max]

lets go with this one too...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RV46fsmx6E

[Max]

and how about this one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

[Max]

and this one too... hmm...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkXOwBIRX7Y

[Selenolycus]

something interesting about islam is that the koran has never been edited or revised in any way.  as a matter of fact, if you have a copy of the koran that is translated into any language other than arabic, it's not considered to be a copy of the koran.

This is a somewhat dubious claim often made. There's the Qira'at (the readings, or seven readings of the Qur'an) and there's no original text. Further, the average Muslim cannot fully comprehend the Qu'ran as he either: a) is not an Arab (the majority of Muslims are non-arab), and Arabic therefore is not his native tongue, b) the Arabic of the Seventh Century is not the Arabic of today, and unless an Arab was taught about the Qur'an and Qur'an Arabic he really can't read it - this may be

my biggest beef with christianity has always been the willingness of its practitioners to modify and revise the supposed word of god in order to appeal to the changing times in which we live.

I think this is true of most religions. Jews and Muslims don't always practice what their books preach, and they interpret verses that suit them how they wish, or ignore them altogether when convenient.

doesn't the bible say it's against god to be gay?  i'm just throwing this out there, but i believe i've read that little part in the bible about men who lay with men and women who lay with women.  so how could people believe that they can be gay and christian when the bible clearly says this is not permissible?  i'm not saying people will go to hell for being gay.  i AM saying, however, that christianity is weak and virtually nonexistent because of the willingness of self proclaimed christians to move the goal post of what god supposedly is or isn't ok with.

i don't know of any gay mosques.  christianity in 2008 is weak, weak, weak.

Better weak than fundamental. You really want Puritans running-about in droves?

I like the Quakers, I think they have the idea right (Nixon doesn't count). Them and the Amish.

[PhantasticSanShiSan]

I like the Quakers, I think they have the idea right (Nixon doesn't count). Them and the Amish.

...You mean like John Book Amish?  And I know someone who totally feels the way you do about Quakers and the stuff they believe in.......



...but truthfully, I do sometimes find myself, like you, thinking that the Amish have the right idea. But then again sometimes I think the Humungus, Mighty Wez, and The Dogs of War from The Road Warrior have a neat little racket going too. The duality of man, I guess.

[Selenolycus]

...You mean like John Book Amish?  And I know someone who totally feels the way you do about Quakers and the stuff they believe in.......



...but truthfully, I do sometimes find myself, like you, thinking that the Amish have the right idea. But then again sometimes I think the Humungus, Mighty Wez, and The Dogs of War from The Road Warrior have a neat little racket going too. The duality of man, I guess.

I don't really follow whatever it is you're saying (if you're really saying anything at all).

For the record, I have no theological agreements with Quakers or the Amish, but their non-coercive lifestyles and typical non-aggression I deeply admire. They're people who seem to have a grasp on the idea of Liberty.

[EvB]

I like the Quakers, I think they have the idea right (Nixon doesn't count). Them and the Amish.

No, he doesn't - he was "read out of meeting" (the Quaker equivalent of ex-communication)

[EvB]

This is a somewhat dubious claim often made. There's the Qira'at (the readings, or seven readings of the Qur'an) and there's no original text. Further, the average Muslim cannot fully comprehend the Qu'ran as he either: a) is not an Arab (the majority of Muslims are non-arab), and Arabic therefore is not his native tongue, b) the Arabic of the Seventh Century is not the Arabic of today, and unless an Arab was taught about the Qur'an and Qur'an Arabic he really can't read it - this may be

I think this is true of most religions.

This is something I wanted to address after the post form MV that you quoted - but I just didn't' have the knowledge to do it well at my fingertips - nor the time for research.  So - thanks for mentioning it.

The fact is the the process of communication - especially in print since it is rather two dimensional - is one of interpretation. That's unavoidable. If we didn't know that before the uncountable internet flame wars we've all seen - many due to misinterpretations - we sure as heck should know it now.

That said - I admire intelligent people of faith.  In fact, I enjoy their company in particular.

[Camazotz Automat]

All written language was created by The Devil.

("text messaging" is His most recent beachhead)

[EvB]

Maybe this should be under Bible Conspiracy -  but - ah well - move it if you think so . . .


http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread372148/pg1

[Max]

All written language was created by The Devil.

("text messaging" is His most recent beachhead)

Now your sounding like JC.....LOL