Yeah, but it was inspired by God, and it was supposed to go in the Bible from the beginning, just like every other book, right?
Well, it's just one of the books that happened to be voted into the Bible. Yes, the books of the Bible were all voted on by a council which decided which books should be in the Bible and which shouldn't. Christians should hope that one of the books that was thrown out wasn't a book inspired by God that had important instructions on following him...
Well, it's just one of the books that happened to bevoted into the Bible. Yes, the books of the Bible were all voted on by a council which decided which books should be in the Bible and which shouldn't. Christians should hope that one of the books that was thrown out wasn't a book inspired by God that had important instructions on following him...
Yeah, yeah, but you don't get it. The Bible now is EXACTLY how God always wanted. That's why it's so inerrant and completely free of factual inaccuracies and internal contradictions. God made everything happen exactly how he wanted it to. In other words -- however the Bible ended up is how it was SUPPOSED to end up.
Yeah, yeah, but you don't get it. The Bible now is EXACTLY how God always wanted. That's why it's so inerrant and completely free of factual inaccuracies and internal contradictions. God made everything happen exactly how he wanted it to. In other words -- however the Bible ended up is how it was SUPPOSED to end up.
But which version/translation is correct? There are so many and most of them are significantly different from each other.
Yeah, but it was inspired by God, and it was supposed to go in the Bible from the beginning, just like every other book, right?
Well, it's just one of the books that happened to bevoted into the Bible. Yes, the books of the Bible were all voted on by a council which decided which books should be in the Bible and which shouldn't. Christians should hope that one of the books that was thrown out wasn't a book inspired by God that had important instructions on following him...
Yup. The Council of Trent. The books that were most widely used by the Church at the time were included, others weren't. People decided. Which is why fundamentalists are further down the crazy scale.
Yup. The Council of Trent. The books that were most widely used by the Church at the time were included, others weren't. People decided. Which is why fundamentalists are further down the crazy scale.
But if you're not siding with the fundamentalists and believing the bible literally, then you're just picking and choosing which parts to believe. What's the point of that? It's completely arbitrary.
Yup. The Council of Trent. The books that were most widely used by the Church at the time were included, others weren't. People decided. Which is why fundamentalists are further down the crazy scale.
But if you're not siding with the fundamentalists and believing the bible literally, then you're just picking and choosing which parts to believe. What's the point of that? It's completely arbitrary.
Again? They really ought to adjust Godwin's Law to fit fundamentalists in there somehow. I was hoping for 69 posts worth of race-related flaming. :P Variety, people!
Yup. The Council of Trent. The books that were most widely used by the Church at the time were included, others weren't. People decided. Which is why fundamentalists are further down the crazy scale.
But if you're not siding with the fundamentalists and believing the bible literally, then you're just picking and choosing which parts to believe. What's the point of that? It's completely arbitrary.
Here's a good historical background on the assembling of the New Testament: Canon of the NT . I was mistaken. The Council of Trent (1545-1563) was a reaffirmation of Church Canon in the counter-reformation. The original New Testament was accepted at the Third Council of Carthage in 397.
Maybe you can explain the concept of fundamentalism to me. Because you're practicing it as well. How can you take a manuscript written by so many different people over so many different time frames and require that it either all be fact or deny the whole thing as fiction? Why can it not be both? Do parables have to be true to teach a lesson?
Maybe you can explain the concept of fundamentalism to me. Because you're practicing it as well. How can you take a manuscript written by so many different people over so many different time frames and require that it either all be fact or deny the whole thing as fiction? Why can it not be both? Do parables have to be true to teach a lesson?
How does one determine what is fact and what is fiction?
If you don't know what is fact and what is fiction, what is the point of believing any of it? And if Christianity is based on the tenet that the bible is the word of god, doesn't that mean that you have to believe all of it?
If you don't know what is fact and what is fiction, what is the point of believing any of it? And if Christianity is based on the tenet that the bible is the word of god, doesn't that mean that you have to believe all of it?
And if you don't have to believe all of it, how do you determine what to believe and what not to believe? By what criteria do you decide the parts of the bible that define your faith?
If you don't know what is fact and what is fiction, what is the point of believing any of it? And if Christianity is based on the tenet that the bible is the word of god, doesn't that mean that you have to believe all of it?
And if you don't have to believe all of it, how do you determine what to believe and what not to believe? By what criteria do you decide the parts of the bible that define your faith?
Not to mention the fact that there are many, many, translations of the Bible, with varying degrees of accuracy.
Accurate to what? If you know that one bible is inaccurate, that implies you have an accurate one to compare it to. You have to know where the bullseye in order to know how close you came to hitting it.
Accurate to what? If you know that one bible is inaccurate, that implies you have an accurate one to compare it to. You have to know where the bullseye in order to know how close you came to hitting it.
By that I mean there are various amounts of accuracy from whatever the "originals" were that were translated into English. The King James Bible, for example, takes many liberties and sacrifices accuracy to the originals they were working off of in exchange for a better sounding story. That is not to say that the text is accurate, rather the translations vary in their faithfulness to the originals.
If you don't know what is fact and what is fiction, what is the point of believing any of it? And if Christianity is based on the tenet that the bible is the word of god, doesn't that mean that you have to believe all of it?
And if you don't have to believe all of it, how do you determine what to believe and what not to believe? By what criteria do you decide the parts of the bible that define your faith?
The Jews and Catholics do it through religious jurisprudence. Many of the Protestants also do this nowadays, although that wasn't the original idea.
Protestantism was a reaction against church credentialism, which is what happens when religious jurisprudence is taken to extremes. Average parishioners had to rely entirely on the established priesthood for religious guidance, because the Bible was only available in Latin which only a select minority educated by the priesthood could understand. (Compare this with the jargon-filled technical papers and the specialists who interpret them of today :P). Protestantism in the form of "sola scriptura" pushed the idea that the scripture was fairly self-evident to the rational and intelligent studier (or would be, if it were published in the local tongues) and that the layers of jurisprudence, jargon, and specialization were unnecessary. This did not necessarily mean that the Bible was to be taken literally, however. Fundamentalism is the extreme form of sola scriptura in the same way that church credentialism was the extreme form of religious jurisprudence.
So anything that's not rational or intelligent in the bible is phony?
Phony meaning "intended to deceive, mislead, or defraud"? Not according to the religious. Phony meaning fictitious? Possibly. A parable is a work of fiction, for instance.
Do you think Noah's ark is real, then?
I haven't looked into it enough to hold an opinion. I'm not a Jew, Christian or atheist, so It's not an especially important question for me, although if I didn't have other books in my reading lineup I'd certainly enjoy learning about the different interpretations scholars have come up with over the centuries.
I haven't looked into it enough to hold an opinion. I'm not a Jew, Christian or atheist, so It's not an especially important question for me, although if I didn't have other books in my reading lineup I'd certainly enjoy learning about the different interpretations scholars have come up with over the centuries.
What is to look up? Noah placed two of every single single animal in the world on a boat and then the world was flooded so that the water level rose above Mount Everest. I'm sure it's pretty obviously that this situation is impossible.
What is to look up? Noah placed two of every single single animal in the world on a boat and then the world was flooded so that the water level rose above Mount Everest. I'm sure it's pretty obviously that this situation is impossible.
Well, for starters the word "eretz". Did it mean land or earth or country or what? Secondly, the Old Testament does not say that Noah took two of every single animal. It said that he took two of certain types of animals, seven of certain others, and there were some types of animals that were not mentioned. Part of the trouble seems to be that it is not quite clear which animals in particular are covered by the Hebrew terms mentioned and which are not. Mount Everest is not mentioned, as far as I am aware.
Well, for starters the word "eretz". Did it mean land or earth or country or what? Secondly, the Old Testament does not say that Noah took two of every single animal. It said that he took two of certain types of animals, seven of certain others, and there were some types of animals that were not mentioned. Part of the trouble seems to be that it is not quite clear which animals in particular are covered by the Hebrew terms mentioned and which are not. Mount Everest is not mentioned, as far as I am aware.
Generally, when studying religion it is unwise to take whatever text you are reading literally. I am not religious, but I seriously doubt that anyone who has read the Bible cover to cover, or the Torah, or the Koran, or what have you, takes it as absolute truth (barring, of course, the extreme fundamentalists).
Generally, when studying religion it is unwise to take whatever text you are reading literally. I am not religious, but I seriously doubt that anyone who has read the Bible cover to cover, or the Torah, or the Koran, or what have you, takes it as absolute truth (barring, of course, the extreme fundamentalists).
I agree. It is almost always beneficial to read carefully, though.
Secondly, the Old Testament does not say that Noah took two of every single animal. It said that he took two of certain types of animals, seven of certain others, and there were some types of animals that were not mentioned.
Well he would have had to take two of every single non-aquatic life form we know today because they obviously didn't die out from the flood. Genesis 7:14-15 (Emphasis added by me) - 14They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
15And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
Mount Everest is not mentioned, as far as I am aware.
Genesis 7:20 - Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
Generally, when studying religion it is unwise to take whatever text you are reading literally. I am not religious, but I seriously doubt that anyone who has read the Bible cover to cover, or the Torah, or the Koran, or what have you, takes it as absolute truth (barring, of course, the extreme fundamentalists).
If it's the word of God, shouldn't you take it as THE absolute truth?
Secondly, the Old Testament does not say that Noah took two of every single animal. It said that he took two of certain types of animals, seven of certain others, and there were some types of animals that were not mentioned.
Well obviously he would have had to take two of every single non-aquatic life form we know today because they obviously didn't die out from the flood.
Oh? Might there be other interpretations?
Mount Everest is not mentioned, as far as I am aware.
Genesis 7:20- Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
Is the word mountains or hills? Google claims that 15 cubits is about 22 feet... Upward from where? Hmmmm... In 7:19 it specified that the scope of mountains/hills effected was "tachath shamayim"... some might say that this means "under the whole heaven", but are there any alternate possibilities?
Generally, when studying religion it is unwise to take whatever text you are reading literally. I am not religious, but I seriously doubt that anyone who has read the Bible cover to cover, or the Torah, or the Koran, or what have you, takes it as absolute truth (barring, of course, the extreme fundamentalists).
If it's the word of God, shouldn't you take it as THE absolute truth?
Well, then how would you interpret the parables? "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed" sounds suspiciously like something not meant to be taken literally.
Well, then how would you interpret the parables? "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed" sounds suspiciously like something not meant to be taken literally.
So does man rising from the dead or man walking on water or man putting mud on someones eyes to heal them of blindness or man turning water into wine; well you get the picture. The point is that there is no way to know what is a story and what is not. What if the entire story of Jesus is just a "parable"?
Oh? Might there be other interpretations?
Is the word mountains or hills? Google claims that 15 cubits is about 22 feet... Upward from where? Hmmmm... In 7:19 it specified that the scope of mountains/hills effected was "tachath shamayim"... some might say that this means "under the whole heaven", but are there any alternate possibilities?
You tell me, I'm going by what is written. If you want to nit-pick the specific meanings of each word in Hebrew go right ahead, but I don't see the effect it has upon Christianity as a whole.
Interpretations? It's either the word of god, or it isn't. There is no in-between on that.
If it's the word of god, how can you, a lowly human DARE interpret it? God decided what the meaning is. If you were to decide the meaning for yourself, then you are playing god. How can you simultaneously say that you are living by the word of god when you also are deciding for yourself what the word of god is?
If it's not the word of god, then who gives a shit what it says? It's just another work of fiction. You shouldn't live your life by it, or take it more seriously, than any other poorly written ancient novel.
It may also be that the language of the time did not have the proper words to convey what was happening and they made their best approximation.
But but, I thought this was the inspired word of god, it should be understandable to all people at every age, otherwise it is not able to do it's job properly and we need a new gospel. (well I guess that's why we have Mormons ^_^)
Interpretations? It's either the word of god, or it isn't. There is no in-between on that.
If it's the word of god, how can you, a lowly human DARE interpret it? God decided what the meaning is. If you were to decide the meaning for yourself, then you are playing god. How can you simultaneously say that you are living by the word of god when you also are deciding for yourself what the word of god is?
If it's not the word of god, then who gives a shit what it says? It's just another work of fiction. You shouldn't live your life by it, or take it more seriously, than any other poorly written ancient novel.
Both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament were collections of documents written by different authors at different times, selected out of larger pools of documents, a layer of interpretation. Religious tradition often claims that these selections were made with the assistance of God and not simply through careful study and discussion between church leaders of the time, but it is certainly possible to disagree. The Hebrew Bible was written in ancient Hebrew, the New Testament in Koine Greek, Mishnaic Hebrew, and/or ancient Aramaic, depending on which part you are talking about and which set of scholars you ask. This means that any quotes from the Bible in English are translations, which by their very nature are interpretations. In earlier times, they were often translations of translations, making them interpretations of interpretations. The original reason for the Catholic church trying to restrict Biblical translations into local tongues was to discourage potentially misleading versions. Of course, in their case by misleading they often meant any version that did not re-enforce church orthodoxy, but the officially given reason (rather than the reality of its practice) is certainly a valid one. Also, there are some parts of the New Testament anyway where it is specifically spelled out, "This is a parable. Paraballw. A fictitious story that illustrates a moral teaching or religious principle." These require interpretation whether one wants to or not. :P The smallest pool of religious are those who read all the apocrypha and the bibles in their original languages and think critically about them. The largest pool is that of those who simply listen to the sermons of their priests (another form of interpretation), who may have only read a couple translations of the bible in their native tongue.
How is listening to a priest talk about his thoughts on a translation of a translation of two groups of documents created through culling two larger groups of documents over a period of several centuries not open to interpretation?
Comments
Maybe you can explain the concept of fundamentalism to me. Because you're practicing it as well. How can you take a manuscript written by so many different people over so many different time frames and require that it either all be fact or deny the whole thing as fiction? Why can it not be both? Do parables have to be true to teach a lesson?
Protestantism was a reaction against church credentialism, which is what happens when religious jurisprudence is taken to extremes. Average parishioners had to rely entirely on the established priesthood for religious guidance, because the Bible was only available in Latin which only a select minority educated by the priesthood could understand. (Compare this with the jargon-filled technical papers and the specialists who interpret them of today :P). Protestantism in the form of "sola scriptura" pushed the idea that the scripture was fairly self-evident to the rational and intelligent studier (or would be, if it were published in the local tongues) and that the layers of jurisprudence, jargon, and specialization were unnecessary. This did not necessarily mean that the Bible was to be taken literally, however. Fundamentalism is the extreme form of sola scriptura in the same way that church credentialism was the extreme form of religious jurisprudence.
Do you think Noah's ark is real, then?
Genesis 7:14-15 (Emphasis added by me) -
14They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
15And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. Genesis 7:20 - Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. If it's the word of God, shouldn't you take it as THE absolute truth?
If it's the word of god, how can you, a lowly human DARE interpret it? God decided what the meaning is. If you were to decide the meaning for yourself, then you are playing god. How can you simultaneously say that you are living by the word of god when you also are deciding for yourself what the word of god is?
If it's not the word of god, then who gives a shit what it says? It's just another work of fiction. You shouldn't live your life by it, or take it more seriously, than any other poorly written ancient novel.
How is listening to a priest talk about his thoughts on a translation of a translation of two groups of documents created through culling two larger groups of documents over a period of several centuries not open to interpretation?