# Biblical Threads Make My Blood Boil **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 5, 2003, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-threads-make-my-blood-boil/193086 "2003-08-05T12:44:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-threads-make-my-blood-boil/193086/41 "2003-08-06T12:45:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\*There’s a Rule of the Debating Universe that says that **Shodan** and I agree precisely on a given point about once a quarter. I’m pleased to announce this quarter’s Post of Agreement, above! 😉 \*\* If it is only once a quarter, one of us had better start improving his thinking, and I don’t think it’s you. 🆒 The way I heard it explained is that the Bible is not itself the word of God, but it contains the Word of God. Guess Who is the Word of God, present in but not limited by the Bible. Anyone else read thru the link **Mangetout** provided to his debate with the Happy Heretic? It looked to me as if she (the HH) was making the opposite mistake from accepting everything the Bible said uncritically. She seemed to be rejecting whatever the Bible said out of hand. I don’t think you get very far in a discussion about Christianity without quoting the Bible. For examples and definitions, if for nothing else. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-threads-make-my-blood-boil/193086/42 "2003-08-06T12:49:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > \*\*Guess Who is the Word of God \*\* Then apparently He doesn’t want to be bothered by American Women 😉 ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-threads-make-my-blood-boil/193086/43 "2003-08-06T13:08:23Z")
> [@](#): > > I find most ‘Christians’ don’t “worship” the Bible because that would require them to stop doing something they currently like doing, and 95% obedience is still disobedience. So you’re saying that liberal Christians who reject Biblical literalism are doing so out of sheer perversity and not their convictions? Boy, you take the cake when it comes to smug arrogance, pal! Several liberal Christians who disagree with your POV post here. **Polycarp** , Siege\*\*, Mangetout\*\*, Steve Wright\*\*, just to name a few. Are you saying that they disagree with Biblical literalism because they are unrepentant sinners? And is it just me, or is there a logical contradiction in these two sentences? > [@](#): > > As for believing the Bible because the Bible says so is a bit too circular for me, and is not why I believe it. > \ > I also find it funny when people say “Don’t use the Bible to prove God” as I liken it to saying don’t look in the white house to prove the President is there. It’s by looking in that you see he’s there The Bbile is an interesting collection of sacred literature that has been heavily influential in our society, but it is no more “true” than the Qu’ran, the Mahabharata, the Kalevala, the Iliad, or any other tales of the interactions of gods and men. But then I’m an atheist who sees no evidence for the existence of gods, devils, elves, leprechauns, satyrs, nymphs, apsaras, gandharvas, pixies, or any other supernatural entities. ---
**Author:** ![Bren\_Cameron\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@Bren\_Cameron\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bren_Cameron_1)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-threads-make-my-blood-boil/193086/44 "2003-08-06T13:09:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by fessie \* > \*\* > > As to my statement about friezes and paintings, that comes from studying art history. I have most certainly read that before Guttenberg came up with his printing press, the way that the stories that became the Bible were shared with church followers was via illustrations on the church itself - that’s one of the reason why Guttenberg’s invention was cited as one of the most influential in human history. > > \*\* You’ve got it kind of backwards, I think. Those paintings and friezes were illustrations of stories already in the Bible–they didn’t become Bible stories because they were paintings, but precisely the reverse. Not one of those paintings changed or added or took away from anything that was already in the Bible. The books in the New Testament had already been written when those paintings were made. Guttenberg’s printing press was influential because it was a way to make many copies inexpensively–before that, the only way to copy a book was to sit down and write it out by hand, something that made books prohibitively expensive. The printing press made it easier to make more copies more cheaply, which made it easier for people to get their hands on an actual book for themselves. But the text existed before then, it was just really expensive to get your hands on a copy. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-threads-make-my-blood-boil/193086/45 "2003-08-06T14:12:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by fessie \* > \*\*I agree with you that if one is studying Christianity then it makes sense to incorporate study of the Bible. It might also be wise to study _The Dead Sea Scrolls_. > > I just don’t see that Christianity = Religion. That’s an obvious point, a real no-brainer; yet people do make that assumption all the time. Christianity = Religion, Christianity = God. No fucking way.\*\* As this board is primarily made up of Americans, and because Christianity is the majority religion in America, it’s not outside the realm of possibility to assume that a lot of posters to this board are Christian, in one form or another. Therefore, when they discuss religion, they’re going to do it from their standpoint, which is a Christian one. If this were an Indian board, you’d expect to see religious discussions skewed toward Hinduism; if it were a Thai board, you’d expect to see them skewed toward Buddhism. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-threads-make-my-blood-boil/193086/46 "2003-08-06T14:40:54Z")
Regarding “extra” translations and taking the bible off paintings ( **Bren\_Cameron** is correct: the painings were to illuminate the already-written bible), you might want to look over the Straight Dope Staff reports: [Who wrote the Bible? (Part 1)](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html) [Who wrote the Bible? (Part 2)](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible2.html) [Who wrote the Bible? (Part 3)](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible3.html) [Who wrote the Bible? (Part 4)](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html) [Who wrote the Bible? (Part 5)](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible5.html) ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-threads-make-my-blood-boil/193086/47 "2003-08-06T14:42:11Z")
**Mr. Cameron** that does make sense - I forgot about the Monks whose lives consisted of copying the Bible by hand, not to mention that the Old Testament predates any of the churches I would have been studying. I was mistaken in my statement. **Captain** perhaps my frustration is merely that shared by the typical person with a minority view. I don’t want to start a political correctness campaign. It just becomes tiresome to see what looks like a potentially interesting thread become an argument based on a huge set of assumptions that I don’t happen to share. I see intelligent people nitpicking about interpretations and details and it reminds me of NFL referees (only there’s no clear rule book). It’s like people arguing over cookbooks and how to follow recipes when I’d rather just eat. ---
**Author:** ![DogMom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e9c0ed/32.png) [@DogMom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DogMom)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-threads-make-my-blood-boil/193086/48 "2003-08-06T15:13:38Z")
Completely ignoring the ongoing argument and imparting information for **Bren\_Cameron** : Worship of the saints is called “hagiology” according to [www.dictionary.com](http://www.dictionary.com). Just so you know. ---
**Author:** ![DogMom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e9c0ed/32.png) [@DogMom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DogMom)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-threads-make-my-blood-boil/193086/49 "2003-08-06T15:16:37Z")
And dammit, I got the wrong word in my first post, but I thought I stopped the transfer fast enough. Dang, dang, dang. Correction: it’s **hagiolatry**. Hagiology is the _study_ of the saints or their writings. Damn. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-threads-make-my-blood-boil/193086/50 "2003-08-06T16:55:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by fessie \* > \*\*It seems, **JThunder** , that you and I are coming at my rant from opposing angles and there’s little likelihood we’ll agree. You yourself used the phrase “modern Bible translations”, thereby suggesting there have been older ones. \*\* Yes, there have been some older ones. I’m not commenting on those, since they are not in common use, and since I can’t claim to know what kind of scholarship which every single one of them employed. That is ultimately irrelevant though, since your criticism was levelled against _the Bible itself_, rather than just a few of the older translations. Remember, your claim was that _the Bible_ is not to be trusted since (a) it was translated repeatedly, from one language to another, (b) it was supposedly edited and corrupted by Guttenberg, and © that Bible translations are based in part on texts from church paintings and friezes. **Anyone** who knows **anything** about how Bible translations are derived knows that such claims hav absolutely zero merit. > [@](#): > > \*\*I’m saying this is not an absolute document, it’s a human document. \*\* No, you went far beyond that claim. You claimed very specific reasons why it cannot be trusted, and as I’ve explained, those reasons bear no resemblance to reality. > [@](#): > > \*\* Is there not a Catholic and a Protestant Bible? \*\* Yes, since the Catholic church includes the Deuterocanonicals. That does absolutely nothing to support the claims which you made regarding repeated translations, editing by Guttenberg, yadda yadda yadda. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I’ve even heard of recent versions where the language is sanitized to eliminate some sexism, which may be an improvement or could perhaps be a further distortion of the original meaning - who know? Nobody knows. It means whatever people decide it does.\*\* First of all, you’ll find that such translations are routinely rejected by conservative Christianity. And second, people who **know** Hebrew and Greek can see how preposterous such translations are. To claim that “Nobody knows” is simply false. Mroeover, such attempts at sanitizing say nothing about the reliability of the Bible itself. These efforts are reflections of the bozos who embark on these endeavors, and say nothing about the inherent reliabilty of the text. ---
**Author:** ![Bren\_Cameron\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@Bren\_Cameron\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bren_Cameron_1)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-threads-make-my-blood-boil/193086/51 "2003-08-06T18:03:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DogMom \* > \*\ ***hagiolatry** > > \*\* Oooh, thanks! New word! And now I’m having a “d’oh!” moment, because I knew the word “hagiography” and I guess I could have formed “hagiolatry” from that. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-threads-make-my-blood-boil/193086/52 "2003-08-06T19:29:39Z")
JThunder, It seems somewhat unfair of you to keep throwing “Translated from paintings” in Fessie’s face when he (she?) admitted that he (she?) was wrong about that. Second, when King James commissioned his translation of the bible, he insisted that it be translated only from Hebrew. Some passages were only available in Greek, and so were translated into Hebrew and then into English, yeilding less precise results. ( Ever play telephone when you were a kid? ) ( Also, I may have Greek and Hebrew mixed up there, it might have been the other way around. Sorry, it’s been a long time since my History of Christianity class ) Since the KJV _is_ the version that many, if not most, fundamentalist Xans will cite as the “best” translation, you can’t claim that these translation mistakes are “ultimately irrelevant”. ---
**Author:** ![Svt4Him](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7feea3/32.png) [@Svt4Him](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Svt4Him)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-threads-make-my-blood-boil/193086/53 "2003-08-06T20:24:54Z")
Well, yes you can. The KJV may by cited as the “best” translation, even as the one Jesus used, but it’s not. And the fact that you can reference it with the Hebrew and Greek yourself does make these translation mistakes irrelevant. I tend to like to use NKJV, but also the NIV, but I don’t think any one is better than the other. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-threads-make-my-blood-boil/193086/54 "2003-08-06T20:32:40Z")
S4H, that makes no sense. You’re saying that you can overcome translation mistakes in one version by using a better translation, based upon a wider base of sources. Fine, I agree with that 100%. I was replying to JThunder who said: > [@](#): > > Or do you mean that it was translated from one langauge, to another, to another, and so forth, thereby producing a grossly distorted version of the original? If so, then where in the world did you get that idea? Have you ever researched how the Bible was translated into English? ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-threads-make-my-blood-boil/193086/55 "2003-08-06T20:35:31Z")
Also, my point is relevent for someone who _does_ claim that the KJV is the best translation, as many Fundies (down here in the states, anyway) do. That fact that _you_ don’t simply means that it dosen’t apply to you. ---
**Author:** ![Svt4Him](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7feea3/32.png) [@Svt4Him](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Svt4Him)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2003, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-threads-make-my-blood-boil/193086/56 "2003-08-06T20:43:56Z")
Weirddave- nope, I use a few to see how different people translate different words or concepts, and why. For instance, if I say “God is far out because He’s so close” and you translate that word for word, it may be a contradiction, if you translate it as an idiom, you’d get a more accurate picture. Some versions do word for word, some concepts, some idioms, and they are all pretty close, but if you study it from an English perspective, you get the best understanding. I don’t believe one is better, so how then can a better one be used? I think they are all good, and you get a different perspective by using one over the other, but there is still the greek and hebrew that can be used. ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2003, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-threads-make-my-blood-boil/193086/57 "2003-08-07T01:24:41Z")
I think that the links kindly provided by **tomndeb** support my stated skepticism towards the Bible as the infallible word of God. Exactly, **Weirddave**! And I’m a she 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2003, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-threads-make-my-blood-boil/193086/58 "2003-08-07T01:44:47Z")
> [@](#): > > I think that the links kindly provided by **tomndeb** support my stated skepticism towards the Bible as the infallible word of God. Well, to be fair, not everyone accepts the literary tradition of biblical origins. I posted those mostly to clear up any misconceptions regarding the views put forth in the literary approach. Those who believe in direct divine authorship (using the various writers as amanuenses) would probably not accept the literary view, in any case. Similarly, there are somewhat widely divergent views of what “infallible word” or “inerrant” mean, ranging from those who believe that the entire composition is factually, literally accurate in all particulars _if we just understood_ what was meant, all the way across to those who believe that God shared his message with humanity in very human ways, including works that are mythological, allegorical, exhortative, and even contradictory, but in which the central message remains true. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2003, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-threads-make-my-blood-boil/193086/59 "2003-08-07T07:04:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weirddave \* > \*\*JThunder, > > It seems somewhat unfair of you to keep throwing “Translated from paintings” in Fessie’s face when he (she?) admitted that he (she?) was wrong about that. \*\* I was responding to a posting made _before that_, wherein the existence of “modern Bible translations” was offered as an argument – purportedly to defend the claims that the Bible was edited by Guttenberg, etc. At the time, I had not yet read her subsequent posts. Moreover, while I can appreciate it when someone acknowledges her error, I have decidedly less patience for offering tangential arguments that have nothing to do with the matter under discussion. Perhaps this is a personal failing, but when people offer such obviously irrelevant arguments, I find it hard to let such thing slide. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Second, when King James commissioned his translation of the bible, he insisted that it be translated only from Hebrew. Some passages were only available in Greek, and so were translated into Hebrew and then into English, yeilding less precise results. ( Ever play telephone when you were a kid? )\*\* First of all, that would only pertain to the King James translation. It still doesn’t substantiate the specific claim made – namely, that the Bible itself has been corrupted through repeated translations. Remember, the overwhelming majority of Bible translations did NOT occur as you described. Second, I think you’re [oversimplifying the process by which the King James Version](http://www.christianstudycenter.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=137) was translated. The translators consulted scholars in Greek, Hebrew and other languages, where there was room for doubt. Besides, suppose that you’re correct in describing how the King James Version was translated. Even then, there was only the one intermediate step that you mentioned, affecting only certain books. While I would likewise be wary of such a methodology, it is hardly analogous to the children’s game of Telephone, where corruption occurs through multiple retranslations. Mind you, I’m no fan of the King James Version, and I almost never use it myself. However, to say that it – and other Bible translations – have been corrupted through a successive chain of re-translations is a gross distortion of the facts. ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2003, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-threads-make-my-blood-boil/193086/60 "2003-08-07T12:30:54Z")
The thing about your arguments, **J** , is that you keep refining your description of exactly which Bible you’re talking about, and exactly which elements of which Bible. I never said there was nothing of value in the Bible - clearly there is. Same with other major religious documents. And plenty of secular writings - shades of Cecil! The point is, none of it alone is enough. And I don’t believe there’s any way the Bible is infallible. It was written by flawed human beings. The other thing I was thinking of when I objected to translations and interpretations is the way in which fans of the Bible can argue infinitely over which passages override other contradictory statements. And the way that different denominations use it to support clashing views. Gimme a break! It’s a starting point. It’s not all of the answers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-threads-make-my-blood-boil/193086.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-threads-make-my-blood-boil/193086.md?page=4)