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! 
I’m with you, fessie. I’ve never understood and doubt I’ll ever be able to understand, how someone can live their lives through a book. And even worse, think that others should also live their lives through that book, whether or not they believe in it.
It still occasionally drives me nuts when some overzelaous Christian will say “but the Bible says so!” Yeah? So? The Rede says something else. “But the BIBLE says so!” I repeat: yeah? SO? The Rede says something else! They just don’t get it.
How lucky you are not to have run into (m)any of those bibliolatrists:(
I actually debated a bloke on another board who argued that Jesus is the Word of God and the Bible is the word of God, therefore the Bible is Jesus and because Jesus is God, the Bible is God, which is why it should be taken seriously.
I’m not making this up.
No, no, no. Blood was the first plague (and the ward against the tenth plague). Boils were the sixth plague. You can’t put them together; that’s just not right.
Mangetout would you mind running up the road a few miles and fetching my uncle? That last post made my head hurt! Please tell me it wasn’t an Englishman who said that – I’d like to have some respect for the country of my birth.
Fessie, I am sorry, but even a liberal Christian like me can’t see how I can discuss my faith or the words and actions of Christ without bringing the Bible into it. It looks like an easy way to know God to me; then again, building a fully normalized relational database also looks easy to me. Cooking an edible dinner looks hard!
CJ
You are Vincent Price and I claim my five pounds.
I would love to see a religious thread without the bible mentioned. There are NUMEROUS religions that DON’T include the bible in the literature.
OK, I won’t tell you that it was an Englishman.
[sub]But it was[/sub]
While that may be true of some, it is merely an untutored layman’s opinion. Actual Biblical scholars and teachers do not espouse such a view.
What exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean that it has been translated into multiple languages? If so, then what’s the problem? That should have no bearing on the book’s validity.
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?
Although I’ve read the Bible I’m definitely not a scholar of the subject. I am, however, aware of many controversies surrounding the interpretation of the original Hebrew - the “thou shalt not murder” not being the same as “thou shalt not kill” argument, among others.
I was also thinking of the “King James” version of the Bible as versus other editions - not to mention editorial decisions made by Guttenberg. My understanding is that the earliest versions of the Bible existed as paintings and friezes on the church walls, which would make it more of a tool for storytellers than a historical record of facts.
I’m not sure I made any assertions of superior validity; perhaps by stating a lack of “respect for people who abdicate responsibility for their own choices by deferring to the Bible” I’ve suggested that my method of choosing is a better one. I really wasn’t looking to make this a validity contest.
Look, given the sheer volume of information in the Bible there’s just no way a person could follow every single one of its dictates. I think that people who claim to be following the Bible (and therefore infallible) are in fact following their own understanding of the Bible. What they’ve culled from it. So I don’t see how there’s a big difference between their religious knowledge and mine. The fact that they’re quoting selected passages from a book in which they have faith doesn’t mean any more than my decision to do the same with a book of my choosing.
It reminds me so much of sports teams or corporate identities, where some group identity is given a great deal of meaning and that’s supposed to keep everyone safe and happy. It means something because people decide that it does, not because of some quality inherent in the thing itself.
It doesn’t really matter how the bible got translated, does it?
I’m sure the fairy tales of the brothers Grimm were correctly translated. That doesn’t mean the stories are true.
How can anyone believe a guy walked on water [without water-skies] or a sea that split [without the help of Cecil B. deMille]
The bible is a book written by some good story tellers. But that’s all it is.
This is another thread about ‘belief’. We’ll never agree.
First of all, it’s pretty much universally understood that “Thou shall not murder” is the more accurate rendition. I respectfully challenge you to find any modern Hebrew scholar who believes otherwise.
And second, you didn’t answer my question. You claimed that the Bible has been repeatedly translated. The reply you gave says nothing to support that assertion.
So again, please tell me… HOW has the Bible been translated from the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic? Have you studied the matter? Can you tell me how many intermediate languages were used before arriving at the English renditions?
I hate to break this to you, but modern Bible translations are NOT based on any alleged revisions by Guttenberg – and they CERTAINLY are not based on any church paintings or friezes. In fact, since you claim that they are, would you care to cite your source for this assertion?
Look, it’s clear to me that you haven’t studied how Bible translations are actually derived. I suggest that you do some research on the matter before you make grandiose allegations about repeated translations, editing by Guttenberg or the preposterous use of church friezes.
Nobody in this thread claimed otherwise. Nobody said that an accurate translation alone guarantees the Bible to be correct.
HOWEVER, if somebody asserts that the Bible is incorrect because it has been “repeatedly translated” or that it was based on early church paintings, then it’s only reasonable to ask that person where he/she got that notion from. It certainly isn’t a claim which is supported by the facts.
That’s only a problem for those who deny the existence of God and his workings in the universe. If there is a God who is involved in the universe, then it’s entirely possible that such events could happen.
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. Do I “worship” the Bible? Nope, I fold the pages, underline, mark up, and possibly have a coffee stain on one of my Bibles. If my wife writes me letters telling me about her, I don’t love the letters. I may love getting them, I may love reading them, but it’s because of who they’re about. The Bible is no different. Not only that, but everything about God and our understanding of Him must be measured against the Bible, as He has exalted His word above His name. As for believing the Bible because the Bible says so is a bit too circular for me, and is not why I believe it.
What I find funny is Christians who don’t believe in the Bible. Well, they may believe in the nice things, nothing more. It’s like the clay telling the potter what to make. 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.
Me too! You know what I find helps me feel better when that happens? The Jesus . . .
I’ve yet to meet someone who believes, acts upon and applies to their life the entire Bible; everybody picks and chooses - Everybody.
It’s just that some people think that their own criteria of selection are absolute.
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. I’m saying this is not an absolute document, it’s a human document. Is there not a Catholic and a Protestant Bible? 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.
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.
When I have the time and the inclination (perhaps after consulting with my dear friend the Pastor) I’ll research this matter further. If you have some vast accumulation of knowledge on the subject that you’d care to share, perhaps I will learn something of value from you.
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.
Personally my biggest beef with Christianity is from a moment when I was about 8 years old and was told that if you don’t believe in the Christian God then you’re going straight to Hell. And I thought about however many millions of Chinese people there were at the time & was like “yeah, right”. It was b.s. then and it’s b.s. now.
Svt4Him, I’m amazed that I agree so much with the part where you said
and then totally disagree with where you said
Your two points seem diametrically opposed. If your wife’s letters are themselves a symbolic reflection of her love, why isn’t the Bible a symbolic reflection of God (and therefore not itself infallible)?