# Modern bible vs Original texts **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 14, 2014, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-bible-vs-original-texts/686070 "2014-04-14T05:10:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-bible-vs-original-texts/686070/21 "2014-04-15T19:51:59Z")
Ouija boards do not count as research, **kanicbird**. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-bible-vs-original-texts/686070/22 "2014-04-15T20:13:06Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Ouija boards do not count as research, **kanicbird**. Would you care to try it yourself if you feel so qualified to do so, I can give you the book and verses, I request that if you feel that you are so qualified and that you reply with your response here openly (and that you don’t use your Ouija board, or if you do please state so). ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-bible-vs-original-texts/686070/23 "2014-04-15T20:13:30Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > The specific books that make up the Bible we have today probably haven’t changed much since early Christian times, but there were a whole lot of other Christian writings (i.e., allegedly about Jesus), including several different “gospels”, that were circulating amongst Christians in the first, second and third centuries AD,and that depicted Jesus (and his Apostles) and his nature and his deeds very differently from the books that eventually made it into the New Testament. These were once considered to be at least as authentic (by some self-identified Christians, at least) as the books that made it in to our current Bible. The present selection, the general agreement amongst Christians as to which texts about Jesus were really true and divinely inspired, and which make up the current New Testament, wasn’t arrived at until about [367 AD](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_testament#4th_century_and_later). Although the canon of the NT wasn’t _officially_ agreed upon until 367, it was _pretty much_ in its present form much earlier, in the early 200s. According to your own link: > [@](#): > > By the early 200s, Origen may have been using the same twenty-seven books as in the Catholic New Testament canon, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of the Letter to the Hebrews, Epistle of James, II Peter, II John and III John and the Book of Revelation, known as the Antilegomena. Likewise, the Muratorian fragment is evidence that, perhaps as early as 200, there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to the twenty-seven book NT canon, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them. Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings are claimed to have been accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the 3rd century. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-bible-vs-original-texts/686070/24 "2014-04-15T21:21:28Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Would you care to try it yourself if you feel so qualified to do so . . . I’m not qualified to do so. I am qualified to judge that you aren’t qualified to do so either, by evidence of your really, really bad translation so far. Of course, you might go into detail on how you got “hell” from “West” and “the unborn” from “South.” But…don’t bother. ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-bible-vs-original-texts/686070/25 "2014-04-15T21:59:38Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Would you care to try it yourself if you feel so qualified to do so, I can give you the book and verses, I request that if you feel that you are so qualified and that you reply with your response here openly (and that you don’t use your Ouija board, or if you do please state so). You really have to read the psalms in Hebrew, and the KJV is not a good translation. For example, “Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for thou art with me,” means something like, “Even if I have to walk through a bad neighborhood at night, I know you got my back.” It makes sense, then why something non-snuggly, like a rod and staff, are comforting. If you can read them in Hebrew, you won’t ever really “get” them. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-bible-vs-original-texts/686070/26 "2014-04-15T22:09:32Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I’m not qualified to do so. I am qualified to judge that you aren’t qualified to do so either, by evidence of your really, really bad translation so far. > > Of course, you might go into detail on how you got “hell” from “West” and “the unborn” from “South.” But…don’t bother. What is transliterated as North = underworld also What is transliterated as South = sea (it does not even equal south in any sense) So I take it no takers then :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2014, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-bible-vs-original-texts/686070/27 "2014-04-16T00:45:39Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Would you care to try it yourself if you feel so qualified to do so,\*\* I can give you the book and verses,\*\* I request that if you feel that you are so qualified and that you reply with your response here openly (and that you don’t use your Ouija board, or if you do please state so). Please do. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2014, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-bible-vs-original-texts/686070/28 "2014-04-16T14:43:00Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Although the canon of the NT wasn’t _officially_ agreed upon until 367, it was _pretty much_ in its present form much earlier, in the early 200s. According to your own link: First of all, that still gives about two centuries in which the canon was not agreed upon, which is plenty enough time to support my point. Secondly, however, I think the bit you quote from Wikipedia is rather misleading. It may be true that Origen and some others during the third century were focusing largely on the books we now regard as canon, and rejecting others, but many other people who regarded themselves as followers of Jesus clearly were not. It is not until accession of Constantine, and the Council of Nicea in 325 that Gnostic Christians (of various stripes), Arians, and the like were decisively and effectively declared to be heretical, not true Christians. Before that, the Church was a loosely organized, semi-underground organization (there was major persecution of Christians under Diocletian in the late 3rd to early 4th century), with no clear leaders, or certainly no-one who could enforce authority on people who were calling themselves Christians in distant parts of the Empire. This meant that different types, sometimes quite radically different types, of Christianity flourished in different regions, and sometimes many types in the same region. A local bishop might be able to declare some theological opinion or other heretical, or some purportedly Christian books as spurious and others as sacred,\* in his own region\*, and maybe sometimes even enforce that on the local Christian community, but even 50 miles away, other theological views might prevail, and the books that our first bishop thought spurious might be held as sacred, and vice-versa. This all changed when Constantine came to power, made Christianity, in effect, the state religion, and encouraged, or even forced, the Christian leadership to get organized. The Council of Nicea was convened, more or less at Constantine’s insistence, so that the Christian leadership could come to a consensus about what Christian doctrine should be (including which books were sacred, and which spurious). After much heated argument, and probably under threat from Constantine insisting that they must come to some sort of consensus, they finally did so. Now, there was an “official” Christian set of doctrines, and the beginnings of an agreement (though not finalized until 367, if then) as to what Christian books were sacred canon, and which were spurious heresy. Once all this as largely agreed, the power of the Roman state could be, and was, used to enforce that orthodoxy (not necessarily by coercion: just the fact that there now was an established orthodoxy, and the ability to promulgate the word about it freely and openly around the Empire, probably made a lot of difference, although I dare say there was some coercion too). More to the point for us, however, this newly agreed orthodoxy got projected back through history, so that those earlier followers of Jesus who had focused mostly on the books, or some of the books, that were soon to become the canonical New Testament, and whose theological views were not too far from (and, perhaps, had influenced) the consensus reached at Nicea (people like Origen), were retrospectively designated as true, or pretty good, Christians, whereas those who had focused on different books about Jesus, and/or had developed significantly different theological views, were retrospectively stigmatized as having been heretics or false Christians of various sorts (and in varying degrees) all along. This retrospective historical sorting, that began with Nicea, still affects how the history of early Christianity is often perceived today, especially (because virtually all modern versions of Christianity are still effectively Nicean) amongst Christians themselves. In actual historical fact, however, before Nicea (and even for a bit after) there were many people who, _at the time_, thought of themselves (and may have been thought of by many others) as good, devout Christians, even as mainstream Christians, who were treating some books that did _not_ make it into the New Testament as sacred, and perhaps treating some of those that _did_ make it as spurious. The Wikipedia passage that you quote is, undoubtedly, still in thrall to this post-Nicean historiography. However, most academic historians today, including, it would seem, those teaching the OP’s friend, have largely moved beyond it. [Fun non-fact: Before the Council of Nicea was convened, in a place chosen for its pleasant climate, the city was not known as Nicea. One newly arrived bishop said to another, “It’s nice ‘ere, isn’t it?” “Yes,” said the other. :D] ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2014, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-bible-vs-original-texts/686070/29 "2014-04-16T15:10:12Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > What is transliterated as North = underworld also > What is transliterated as South = sea (it does not even equal south in any sense) > > So I take it no takers then :dubious: I’ll take this: You don’t know the meaning of the word [transliterate](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transliterate?s=t). ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2014, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-bible-vs-original-texts/686070/30 "2014-04-16T15:44:29Z")
Yes, I’d say there’s a lot of differences. Even modern texts don’t agree with each other. Take [1 Corinthians 6:9](http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1%20Corinthians%206:9) for example: > [@](#): > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (KJ21) > 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (ASV) > 9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (AMP) > 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (CEB) > 9 Don’t you know that people who are unjust won’t inherit God’s kingdom? Don’t be deceived. Those who are sexually immoral, those who worship false gods, adulterers, both participants in same-sex intercourse, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (CJB) > 9 Don’t you know that unrighteous people will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t delude yourselves — people who engage in sex before marriage, who worship idols, who engage in sex after marriage with someone other than their spouse, who engage in active or passive homosexuality, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (CEV) > 9 Don’t you know that evil people won’t have a share in the blessings of God’s kingdom? Don’t fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (DARBY) > 9 Do ye not know that unrighteous [persons] shall not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (DRA) > 9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (ERV) > 9-10 Surely you know that people who do wrong will not get to enjoy God’s kingdom. Don’t be fooled. These are the people who will not get to enjoy his kingdom: those who sin sexually, those who worship idols, those who commit adultery, men who let other men use them for sex or who have sex with other men, those who steal, those who are greedy, those who drink too much, those who abuse others with insults, and those who cheat. > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (ESV) > 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (ESVUK) > 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practise homosexuality, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (EXB) > •Surely [L Don’t…?] you know that the •people who do wrong [unrighteous; wicked; unjust] will not inherit God’s kingdom. Do not be •fooled [deceived]. Those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are •male prostitutes [or passive homosexual partners], or •men who have sexual relations with other men [or active homosexual partners], those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, •lie about others [slander others; use abusive language], or •rob [swindle]—these people will not inherit God’s kingdom. > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (GNV) > 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor wantons, nor buggerers, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (GW) > 9 Don’t you know that wicked people won’t inherit the kingdom of God? Stop deceiving yourselves! People who continue to commit sexual sins, who worship false gods, those who commit adultery, homosexuals, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (GNT) > 9 Surely you know that the wicked will not possess God’s Kingdom. Do not fool yourselves; people who are immoral or who worship idols or are adulterers or homosexual perverts > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (HCSB) > 9 Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or anyone practicing homosexuality, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (PHILLIPS) > 9-11 Have you forgotten that the kingdom of God will never belong to the wicked? Don’t be under any illusion—neither the impure, the idolater or the adulterer; neither the effeminate, the pervert or the thief; neither the swindler, the drunkard, the foul-mouthed or the rapacious shall have any share in the kingdom of God. And such men, remember, were some of you! But you have cleansed yourselves from all that, you have been made whole in spirit, you have been justified before God in the name of the Lord Jesus and in his very Spirit. > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (JUB) > 9 ¶ Know ye not that the unjust shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor effeminate nor homosexuals > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (KJV) > 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (AKJV) > 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (LEB) > 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Neither sexually immoral people, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor passive homosexual partners, nor dominant homosexual partners, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (TLB) > 9-10 Don’t you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexuals—will have no share in his Kingdom. Neither will thieves or greedy people, drunkards, slanderers, or robbers. > > 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (MSG) > 9-11 Don’t you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don’t care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don’t qualify as citizens in God’s kingdom. A number of you know from experience what I’m talking about, for not so long ago you were on that list. Since then, you’ve been cleaned up and given a fresh start by Jesus, our Master, our Messiah, and by our God present in us, the Spirit. > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (MOUNCE) > 9 Do you not ou know oida that hoti the unrighteous adikos will klēronomeō not ou inherit klēronomeō the kingdom basileia of God theos? Do not mē be deceived planaō: neither oute the sexually pornos immoral , nor oute idolaters eidōlolatrēs, nor oute adulterers moichos, nor oute male malakos prostitutes , nor oute homosexuals arsenokoitēs, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (NOG) > 9 Don’t you know that wicked people won’t inherit the kingdom of God? Stop deceiving yourselves! People who continue to commit sexual sins, who worship false gods, those who commit adultery, homosexuals, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (NASB) > 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (NET) > 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (NIRV) > 9 Don’t you know that evil people will not receive God’s kingdom? Don’t be fooled. Those who commit sexual sins will not receive the kingdom. Neither will those who worship statues of gods or commit adultery. Neither will men who are prostitutes or who commit homosexual acts. > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (NIV) > 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (NIVUK) > 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (NKJV) > 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (NLV) > The Body Is to Be Holy > 9 Do you not know that sinful men will have no place in the holy nation of God? Do not be fooled. A person who does sex sins, or who worships false gods, or who is not faithful in marriage, or men who act like women, or people who do sex sins with their own sex, will have no place in the holy nation of God. > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (NLT) > 9 Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (NRSV) > 9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (NRSVA) > 9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (NRSVACE) > 9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (NRSVCE) > 9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (RSV) > 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (RSVCE) > 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (VOICE) > 9-10 Do you need reminding that the unjust have no share in the blessings of the kingdom of God? Do not be misled. A lot of people stand to inherit nothing of God’s coming kingdom, including those whose lives are defined by sexual immorality, idolatry, adultery, sexual deviancy, theft, greed, drunkenness, slander, and swindling. > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (WEB) > 9 Or don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Don’t be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (WE) > 9-10 Do you not know that bad people will have no part in the kingdom where God rules? Do not be fooled. There are some people who will not have part in that place. They are those who commit adultery of any kind, those who have idols, or steal, or are always wanting more, or talk wrong things about people, or drink plenty of strong drink, or take things by force, or curse. > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (WYC) > 9 Whether ye know not, that wicked men shall not wield the kingdom of God? Do not ye err; neither lechers, neither men that serve maumets [neither men serving to idols], neither adulterers, neither lechers against kind, neither they that do lechery with men, > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 (YLT) > 9 have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, So here we have 1 Corinthinians which was assumably written in the first century. It is using the word “homosexual” in many of the passages, a term which wasn’t coined for another 17 or 18 centuries later. The term that it’s subplanting is either \*arsenokoites \*or _malakoi_. Greek words that we don’t have an exact translation for actually. [Dr. Ann Nyland, Faculty in ancient Greek language and Ancient History in the Department of Classics and Ancient History says:](http://www.gaychristian101.com/Define-Arsenokoites.html) _"The word arsenokoites in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 has been assumed to mean “homosexual.” However the word does not mean “homosexual,” and its range of meaning includes one who anally penetrates another (female or male), a rapist, a murderer or an extortionist._ And [Malakia was a particular type of cowardice, associated with effeminacy in men, that was widely condemned in ancient Greek society. To the ancient Greek, bravery was such an essential character trait of manliness that its absence was associated with femininity. Malakia could also refer to races, cultures, and societies as a whole.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malakoi) So with that information, which translation into English from Greek was accurate? ---
**Author:** ![blindboyard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blindboyard/32/2833_2.png) [@blindboyard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blindboyard)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2014, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-bible-vs-original-texts/686070/31 "2014-04-17T07:45:00Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > Secondly, however, I think the bit you quote from Wikipedia is rather misleading. It may be true that Origen and some others during the third century were focusing largely on the books we now regard as canon, and rejecting others, but many other people who regarded themselves as followers of Jesus clearly were not. There are always splinter groups. > [@](#): > > It is not until accession of Constantine, and the Council of Nicea in 325 that Gnostic Christians (of various stripes), Arians, and the like were decisively and effectively declared to be heretical, not true Christians. Before that, the Church was a loosely organized, semi-underground organization (there was major persecution of Christians under Diocletian in the late 3rd to early 4th century), with no clear leaders, or certainly no-one who could enforce authority on people who were calling themselves Christians in distant parts of the Empire. This meant that different types, sometimes quite radically different types, of Christianity flourished in different regions, and sometimes many types in the same region. A local bishop might be able to declare some theological opinion or other heretical, or some purportedly Christian books as spurious and others as sacred,\* in his own region\*, and maybe sometimes even enforce that on the local Christian community, but even 50 miles away, other theological views might prevail, and the books that our first bishop thought spurious might be held as sacred, and vice-versa. > > This all changed when Constantine came to power, made Christianity, in effect, the state religion, and encouraged, or even forced, the Christian leadership to get organized. The Council of Nicea was convened, more or less at Constantine’s insistence, so that the Christian leadership could come to a consensus about what Christian doctrine should be (including which books were sacred, and which spurious). After much heated argument, and probably under threat from Constantine insisting that they must come to some sort of consensus, they finally did so. Now, there was an “official” Christian set of doctrines, and the beginnings of an agreement (though not finalized until 367, if then) as to what Christian books were sacred canon, and which were spurious heresy. Once all this as largely agreed, the power of the Roman state could be, and was, used to enforce that orthodoxy (not necessarily by coercion: just the fact that there now was an established orthodoxy, and the ability to promulgate the word about it freely and openly around the Empire, probably made a lot of difference, although I dare say there was some coercion too). You know Constantine was an Arian, right? What Nicea declared to be Orthodox wasn’t what he wanted to be Orthodox, but rather what was already the consensus position. ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2014, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-bible-vs-original-texts/686070/32 "2014-04-17T10:40:15Z")
A big part of the problem with rejection of homosexuality was probably that it was originally just a rejection of a pagan ritual where two men had sex as part of a fertility rite that originally involved a male-female couple, but late came to involve a male-male couple, with one man dressed as a female when female virginity at marriage became highly valued. Several tribes around the Israelites probably practiced this, and the Israelites were told not to do it, as it displeased their deity, which was what the word translated “abomination” meant. It’s just HaShem saying “We are not amused.” Now, here’s the, no pun intended, rub. The reason this practice is rejected is that it requires one man to act as the woman, and that isn’t allowed. It violates another commandment on wearing the clothes of their opposite gender. The Torah is silent on relationships between men where neither is taking on a feminine role. The Torah specifically permits threesomes among two women and one man, as long as the women are not sisters, but there is an explicit instruction to men with multiple wives that if they want to take two wives at the same time, the wives must not be sisters (a man can’t marry a mother and daughter, or that would be prohibited as well, one imagines). There are no directions to the women along the lines “If the man falls asleep, you must stop,” or that on a night you are not chosen, you can’t make out with one of the other wives." The males authors probably never envisioned this. But suffice to say the prohibition against “homosexuality” is against a very specific act, doesn’t apply to all gay, male sex, and is irrelevant to women. IIRC, the Epistle prohibitions are based on the Septuagint reading of the passages in the Torah that prevent this ritual practice that is very specific. I don’t read Greek, but I am guessing that either the Septuagint alters the language enough to alter the meaning, or Paul colors the passage with his own weird beliefs about sex. Now, don’t misunderstand me: ancient Judah was just as homophobic as any place, but not because of the bible. They were racist as well, but not because of the bible. People tend to read their prejudices into the scriptures, rather than finding them in the plain meaning, and adopting them against their better judgment. The use of the Tanakh to justify anti-Semitism is proof enough of that. ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2014, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-bible-vs-original-texts/686070/33 "2014-04-17T10:59:07Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > From memory, I believe they were on a boat rather than the land. And that passage also contains a bit about Jesus successfully commanding a storm to abate, I believe, so that would make them think he was quite impressive. I wonder, if he was walking on the water, was he also clambering over the waves, which must have been considerable in a storm, as if they were sloped bits of ground? Or was he standing on a base level of the sea, while the waves just sort of splashed around him? I take it you haven’t watched Ponyo. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2014, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-bible-vs-original-texts/686070/34 "2014-04-17T11:02:53Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > Now, don’t misunderstand me: ancient Judah was just as homophobic as any place, but not because of the bible. They were racist as well, but not because of the bible. Yeah, if anything, those ended up in the bible because they existed in the society(es) that created it. But as you say, some people have an enormous ability to read causality backwards and to twist anything to fit their prejudices. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2014, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-bible-vs-original-texts/686070/35 "2014-04-17T14:01:08Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > IIRC, the Epistle prohibitions are based on the Septuagint reading of the passages in the Torah that prevent this ritual practice that is very specific. I don’t read Greek, but I am guessing that either the Septuagint alters the language enough to alter the meaning, or Paul colors the passage with his own weird beliefs about sex. There is no evidence that the Pauline prohibitions are based on the Septuagint, and, far from being weird, Paul’s beliefs about homosexuality were mainstream Jewish thinking on the subject. (N.B. I can’t tell if you know - the Septuagint contains only the Old Testament.) The Pauline prohibitions extend to lesbian sex as well, not merely to male homosexuality. > [@](#): > > People tend to read their prejudices into the scriptures, rather than finding them in the plain meaning, and adopting them against their better judgment. This applies especially to people trying to talk their way out of the clear prohibitions of homosexuality in the Bible. Paul was a Pharisee, and his education in the Hebrew scriptures was based on a tradition that well predates the Septuagint. He would have read mostly the Masoretic texts, which were in Hebrew. > [@](#): > > A big part of the problem with rejection of homosexuality was probably that it was originally just a rejection of a pagan ritual where two men had sex as part of a fertility rite that originally involved a male-female couple, but late came to involve a male-male couple, with one man dressed as a female when female virginity at marriage became highly valued. There is no evidence that this distinction existed between ritual and ordinary homosexuality. It is a form of special pleading. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2014, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-bible-vs-original-texts/686070/36 "2014-04-17T15:02:30Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > There is no evidence that the Pauline prohibitions are based on the Septuagint, and, far from being weird, Paul’s beliefs about homosexuality were mainstream Jewish thinking on the subject. (N.B. I can’t tell if you know - the Septuagint contains only the Old Testament.) > > The Pauline prohibitions extend to lesbian sex as well, not merely to male homosexuality. > This applies especially to people trying to talk their way out of the clear prohibitions of homosexuality in the Bible. > > Paul was a Pharisee, and his education in the Hebrew scriptures was based on a tradition that well predates the Septuagint. He would have read mostly the Masoretic texts, which were in Hebrew. > There is no evidence that this distinction existed between ritual and ordinary homosexuality. It is a form of special pleading. > > Regards, > Shodan Cite? ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2014, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-bible-vs-original-texts/686070/37 "2014-04-17T15:07:55Z")
The texts were already very old by the time Paul was using them, and removed from the society that created them. There probably was not a distinction between ritual and ordinary homosexuality in Paul’s time, but the texts were thousands of years removed even in Paul’s time, from the people who were dealing with pagan neighbors and their fertility rites. Heck, they were also quite a ways removed from the text that gave them the whole idea of the virgin conception, a plain reading of which is simply “See the girl over there? She’s still unmarried now, but in the time it takes her to become betrothed, have a wedding, get pregnant, and have the baby, X will happen.” It’s a literary way of saying “about 18 months,” and a much less crude way of saying “She may be a virgin now, but not for long.” Seriously: if I said “My friend Dina is a virgin, but she’ll have a baby before the year is up,” what would you conclude? virgin birth, or that Dina is engaged, the wedding is soon, and she’s champing at the bit to hit the sheets with her husband, once he is her husband. ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2014, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-bible-vs-original-texts/686070/38 "2014-04-17T15:10:09Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > Cite? All the cites are intra-textual (ie, in the bible), so it’s question begging at it’s finest. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2014, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-bible-vs-original-texts/686070/39 "2014-04-17T15:16:35Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > All the cites are intra-textual (ie, in the bible), so it’s question begging at it’s finest. Oddly enough I was able to give multiple cites, so no, that doesn’t apply here nor to Shodan’s (personal) interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2014, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-bible-vs-original-texts/686070/40 "2014-04-17T16:38:36Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > It is not until accession of Constantine, and the Council of Nicea in 325 that Gnostic Christians (of various stripes), Arians, and the like were decisively and effectively declared to be heretical, not true Christians. Before that, the Church was a loosely organized, semi-underground organization (there was major persecution of Christians under Diocletian in the late 3rd to early 4th century), with no clear leaders, or certainly no-one who could enforce authority on people who were calling themselves Christians in distant parts of the Empire. That’s not exactly true. There were definitely some hierarchy that developed in the early 2nd Century. While Nicea established the position of Metropolitan Bishop, the position of bishop was already in existence (in fact the Arian controversy was an argument between bishops who were in charge of different areas). In addition, the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch had authority over other bishops. While it may not be modern papacy like stuff, it is a bit more than simply an underground, every area for themselves type of thing (may have been the case in the Apostolic Era, but that was soon over). In addition Nicea wasn’t the first council held by Bishops. You had: > [@](#): > > Council of Jerusalem (c. 50), the Council of Rome (155), the Second Council of Rome (193), the Council of Ephesus (193), the Council of Carthage (251), the Council of Iconium (258),[11] the Council of Antioch (264), the Councils of Arabia (246–247), the Council of Elvira (306), the Council of Carthage (311), the Synod of Neo-Caesarea (c. 314), the Council of Ancyra (314) and the Council of Arles (314). > **[Ancient church councils (pre-ecumenical)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_church_councils_(pre-ecumenical))** > > In Christianity, Church councils are formal meetings of bishops and representatives of several churches who are brought together to regulate points of doctrine or discipline. The meetings may be of a single ecclesiastical community or may involve an ecclesiastical province, a nation or other civil region, or the whole Church. Some of those convoked from the Church as a whole have been recognized as ecumenical councils and are considered particularly authoritative. The first ecumenical coun Pre-e... Nicea was, of course, far more organized. And for what its worth, Nicea dealt mostly with the Arian Controversy, not Gnosticism (technically Arianism isn’t Gnostic belief - Arians actually accused the followers of Athanasias of Gnostic ideas regarding homoousia). The Nicean Creed was in direct result to Arianism. Though, interestingly, Constantine was like an Arian as **blindboyard** points out and his next two successors most definitely were Arian. > [@](#): > > so that the Christian leadership could come to a consensus about what Christian doctrine should be (including which books were sacred, and which spurious). After much heated argument, and probably under threat from Constantine insisting that they must come to some sort of consensus, they finally did so. Now, there was an “official” Christian set of doctrines, and the beginnings of an agreement (though not finalized until 367, if then) as to what Christian books were sacred canon, and which were spurious heresy. Which books were in canon was NEVER discussed at Nicea. I’m not sure why people keep saying this, when it is obviously not true. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-bible-vs-original-texts/686070.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-bible-vs-original-texts/686070.md?page=3)