There are over 100 complete English versions of The Bible, of which I have read maybe 45 to 50 of so far. Each version is/was subject to the prejudices and/or personal beliefs of those that created them, so seriously discussing the meanings and/or translations of anything in The Bible is kind of difficult unless everyone is on the same page(so to speak).
Your disregarding of Old Testament laws doesn’t eliminate them from The Bible, nor does it eliminate the fact that those laws were the ones that supposedly kept them in their god’s good graces, including that one about “Whoever insults his father or mother must be put to death.”
While I like archaic language as much as anyone, it greatly impedes comprehension. For starters, any analysis of it will require a dictionary that documents 17th century English. But I don’t really care what version you use, I use the New English Translation (NET) version. It is modern English, has copious notes (many about the translation choices made), and is freely accessible.
If you want to make a point about a particular translation, then use that one. There are certainly some shakily translated versions out there. The KJV is one of them; I believe it’s based on some manuscripts that aren’t generally used anymore. Otherwise, use whatever version floats your boat.
So? I agree with everything in your post here. They’re irrelevant details to me.
I’m not sure I would put the NET on the top of my list for accuracy in translation, and certainly not higher than the KJS. Of the 22 men and one woman listed as translators and editors, all but one were teachers or students from Dallas Theological Seminary. This may leave one to believe that they were picked because of something other than their scholarship credentials, seeing as how the NET pretty much matches up with the teachings of DTS.
The KJV isn’t ‘shakily’ translated, it’s generally acknowledged to be an excellent translation of the manuscripts it used (Masoretic text for the Hebrew Bible, Received Text for the New Testament).
Most modern translations use a different set of manuscripts than the KJV (they use the ‘critical’ text which is based on older manuscripts than the received text), and you can certainly make a case for that, but you can make a case for the received text too: it’s worth considering that the second largest Christian confession out there, the Orthodox Church, uses more or less the same new testament manuscript tradition as the KJV, because they disagree with historico-critical premises. (They use different sources for the old testament, relying on the Greek rather than the Hebrew version).
Between what you have stated and your preference in Bibles, would you say you are a believer in Dispensationalism, Pleonast?
Jesus personally established a strong presumption against the death penalty, however, in the Pericope de Adultera (John 8). The position of the early church was heavily leaning towards pacifism, until around the time of St. Augustine in the fourth century.
Early Christians largely (not entirely) accepted the moral laws of the Old Testament but not the juridical precepts. (For that matter, even first-century Jews didn’t accept the juridical precepts of the Old Testament, my understanding is that Judaism mostly internally abolished the death penalty, coincidentally around the time of Jesus, by raising the burden of proof to near-impossibility).
The ‘spirit’ of that law is that disobedience / disrespect to parents is really really bad.
This is absolutely correct, and I think ‘slave’ is the better translation here. That said, it shouldn’t be surprising that Jesus talked a lot about masters and slaves, since he wasn’t talking primarily to our society, he was talking to first century Greco-Roman society, which did in fact see slavery as normal condition.
Slavery was legal in the USA; Women couldn’t vote; Seperate but equal.
The Constitution is useless as a document about good government.
The Constitution was written fairly recently, in one language, and yet the intent and meaning of that one short document is hotly debated to this day…and there is only ONE version of it. If there were many versions of it and it was written in three or four languages over a long period of time, then it, too, would be pretty close to useless.
Were the bible close to useless, humanity would have dumped it centuries ago…like the Greek Gods. Considering that many of the key ideas in liberalism are grounded in Christian thought, I would argue that it has value.
Length of time being popular isn’t always a good way to judge value.
How many weeks total did Garfield books occupy the New York Times Bestseller list?
The bible is super-useful for things other than sourcing morality - getting people to give you money, for example. It has staying power entirely independent of any moral worth it may or may not have.
And this is the first I’ve heard that liberal ideas were sourced in Christian thought. Many Christian thinkers would disagree with you.
Which is not to say that you can’t use the bible to support liberal ideas. But that’s not because the Bible is liberal. It’s because with a minimal amount of twisting and cherry picking, the Bible can be used to support anything. Which makes it super useful for justifying yourself or manipulating others, but extremely bad at determining what moral rules you should unambiguously be following.
Yea, I would strongly disagree that “liberal ideas were sourced in Christian thought” as well.
You can certainly source some broadly liberal ideas in early Christian thought, but essentially no Christian thinkers before the eighteenth century thought Christianity required or even was particulalrly compatible with modern concepts of liberal democracy. (They either believed in monarchy or in some kind of theocratic republicanism).
Clearly the key ideas in conservative thought are also sourced from the Christian Bible, so it isn’t much of a guide, is it?
Let’s not worry about killing children, let’s worry about handwashing. I wonder how many people died over the years thanks to Jesus pooh-poohing hand washing. Maybe his dad could have told him about germs or something. Whether Jewish law was accidentally useful or done because of some observation of the relation of dirt and disease, it is not one of the more stupid laws of the real Bible.
a) The Prodigal son is not disobedient, just incompetent.
b) Deuteronomy’s exact law is a bit more fine-grained than “rebellious”. It’s relatively clear from the OT that they’re really looking for drunk menaces to society, rather than people who aren’t 100% in lock-step with their parents. BUT, the expectation is still that the parents arrange an execution for their child and there’s no indication that Jesus doesn’t think that is anything but fine and dandy. The Pharisees are the ones who are trying to find excuses to avoid enacting the law.
I’m not sure you understand what Liberalism is or how liberal ideas are rooted in concepts they imported from Christian philosophy. This isn’t hard.
Garfield rocks but Garfield didn’t lead to a lasagna revolution.