bible question - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Sion · 06-13-2003, 07:14 PM

WhoaitsZ's thread about the "sin" of sodomy/homosexuality got me thinking about something.

Religious people quote the Bible all the time. When they do, they usually take the attitude that the Bible is the end-all and be-all of truth, which, for them, it may be. But, what bothers me about this is not the fact that I, as a non-believer, do not accept the Bible as truth. Rather, what bothers me about quoting the Bible as an absolute reference for truth is that no one ever supplies context or even the name of the speaker.

from the above reference thread, these Bible verses were quoted:

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman: it is an abomination" (Lev 18:22).

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall be put to death: their blood is upon them" (Lev 20:13).

"God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (Rom 1:26-27).

"Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers - none of these will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10).

But no context was given. Nor was the speaker identified. Granted, in many case, the book of the Bible from which the verse comes will tell you who did the speaking, at least if you are well-versed in your knowledge of the Bible. But not always. And what about those of us who are not biblical scholars. How are we to know (and why should we care?) who said ""You shall not lie with a male as with a woman: it is an abomination" in the book of Leviticus?

now, the easy answer is that the speaker is irrelevant, as the Bible is the word of God. The issue for me, essentially, is a non-believer's skepticism with regard to the Bible. The general consensus is that the Bible is the word of God, spoken through man. And THAT is what I have the biggest problem with. Humanity has such a tendency to misrepresent, misinterpret, and misuse things that I cannot trust the Bible to be an accurate rendering of anything. Even if I believe completely in the Christian conception of reality, how could I possibly trust a book that has been changed and translated and retranslated and reinterpreted so many times over the course of the intervening centuries?

Like the old joke about the monk who went back and reread the original document from which his order based its faith, being the first person in centuries to do so, only to find out "The word is celebrate, NOT celibate." I just dont trust humanity enough to have faith in a document that has gone through so many revisions.

so, what do you believers think of all this?

chavos · 06-13-2003, 10:15 PM

"ven if I believe completely in the Christian conception of reality, how could I possibly trust a book that has been changed and translated and retranslated and reinterpreted so many times over the course of the intervening centuries?"

Hmm. Save, that in adopting a Christian worldview, no matter what brand of Christianity you adopted, you would invaribly be influenced and affected by the Bible as the founding document of the Church... Simply, i find it hard to imagine a Christian with out any trust in the bible.

That said, i'd share some concern with proof texting, the practice of simply quoting a verse with no context, in a manner designed to close off debate. "God Says"ing...so to speak. But, i also hate to give my context to every verse i cite...i want people to go read that verse, and to figure out what the context means to them...and while i'll often give my commentary, i try to fall short of "explaining" a verse, since i can only explain it to me, and even then, i'm often confused...its a tough document, and one that's very much alive to new thoughts, revelations, interpretations.

To the "who cares" allegation...i'd raise the question of sincerity. If you get in a debate with someone, but don't give a damn enough to fire up an online bible, and pop in a verse citation...i dunno if you really ought to be debateing. I will read any easily available outside sources a poster links to if it will help me understand their arguement....i don't think that's a unrealistic expectation.

To the idea that the bible is unreliable due to human causes...unreliable for what? I'd be the first one to acknowledge that there are places where the Bible, as we have it today, is mistaken and wrong. But, it's also one of the richest written spirirtual tradtitions on the planet, and freed from literalism and fundamentalism, has intensely relevant and meaningful things to say about our lives, and our relationship with God. And i don't think this is a assertion that must be taken on faith-simply in the study of scripture, i think there is great potential to learn, regardless of what authority one assigns to that scripture. To those who charge that the Bible, as a document is irrelevant in such as fashion as has been done here...i wonder how much time you've really spent reading it.

I don't mean this as an insult-i absolutely don't expect everyone to be a bible nerd, and to love reading it in their spare time. But i would hope that the citations we sometimes make will be invitations in to the text, and whether you think its a collection of myths or the eternal Word of God, i think you'll probably see something important.

Lebell · 06-13-2003, 10:37 PM

Maybe it's just because I'm tired and if so, please forgive me, but what exactly is the question?

4thTimeLucky · 06-14-2003, 05:01 AM

Sion

I agree with your point/question, which I took to be:

Why do people who quote the Bible think it is enough just to put the book and verse as a reference without giving the name of the speaker and the context?

The answer is (as chavos pointed out) that those who quote the Bible have probably been tutored with the fact that you should always go back to the text to check that the quote you have been given hasn't been altered or taken out of context. Even if the quoter gives the context, how do you know they haven't misrepresented it. It is up to the reader/listener to make usre that they are no listening to "false prophets".

An example to illustrate your question would be:

Quote:

28 You say, 'Where now is the great man's house,
the tents where wicked men lived?'
29 Have you never questioned those who travel?
Have you paid no regard to their accounts-
30 that the evil man is spared from the day of calamity,
that he is delivered from the day of wrath?
31 Who denounces his conduct to his face?
Who repays him for what he has done?
32 He is carried to the grave,
and watch is kept over his tomb.
33 The soil in the valley is sweet to him;
all men follow after him,
and a countless throng goes before him.
- (Job 21:28-33)

Without knowing that Job was going through an anti-God rant at this point one could think that the passage was saying that there is no justice for bad men in this world. When in fact the rest of Job says that this is not always the case.

SecretMethod70 · 06-14-2003, 05:26 AM

Wehn quoting the Bible, you are correct to say that to the quoter the speaker is irrelevant.

As to your assessment of the Word of God through man, it's still a mute point because the nature of having faith in the Bible is faith that God instructed the men who wrote it to write it in just the way that they did, therefore there is no room for human error in the actual writing.

Where there IS room for human error is in interpretation and translation. Because of this, your criticism of quoters lacking context is a good one.

As far as translation, short of reading and understanding the Bible in its original language, it's very difficult to assess the meaning. For example, the original word used in the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" actually has a meaning of thou shalt not take innocent life, and, therefore, is a completely invalid phrase for arguing against the death penalty.

So, how can one trust interpretation of the Bible? This is one of the flaws as I believe the Catholic Church sees it in the various Protestant faiths, and is the reason the Catholic Church also takes into account Apostolic Tradition to guide them in their understanding - that is to say, they look to how the original Apostles acted and what they taught. It is also why the Catholic Church actually has, generally speaking, one of the most liberal interpretations of the Bible of all Christian religions, accepting the possibilty of evolution, the big bang, and the idea that many of the Bible's stories are just that - stories told by God with a moral, much like the parables of Jesus.

Sion · 06-14-2003, 12:04 PM

just in case I wasnt clear enough, I am not a Christian, nor a believer in God. Though I have read the Bible (King James version) fully twice in my life, and though I was raised in vaguely Christian tradition, I now consider myself to be somewhere between an athiest and an agnostic, spiritually speaking.

I started this thread out of simple curiosity, not to spark any debates about religion, though I found each of your comments interesting and thought provoking. thanks.

Lebell · 06-14-2003, 12:43 PM

Ok, I'm awake now

The short answer for a biblical literalist (which I am not), is that the Bible is the inspired and innerant word of God, therefor it doesn't matter that it was Job or Isiah or whoever who actually put the words on paper, it was God that inspired them to do so and therefore the whole Bible is the word of God and when it is quoted, that is understood.

As I said, I'm not a biblical literalist, so I agree that context as well as authorship is very important when trying to understand what a particular passage says.

Since I believe you are actually refering to one of my posts

, I'll just say that I hope I sufficiently explained everything I wrote.

If not, feel free to ask or comment

4thTimeLucky · 06-14-2003, 04:47 PM

The Bible is the Word of God*, but the statements within it need not be God's words!

We can imagine that the following exchange could occur in the Bible:

---
[1] And God was approached by the Devil to discuss the fate of the world and the Devil spoke saying,
"When will the masses learn of the deceit of their creator.
[2]The One true God, through His selfish indulgence, Has condemned His flock to an eternity of suffering."
[3]And God did reply.
"Bollocks"
- (BookName, 1:1-3)
----

and then a person could quote the Bible as follows:

"The One true God, through His selfish indulgence, Has condemned His flock to an eternity of suffering."
- (NIV, BookName, 1:2)

Now without the name of the speaker and its context the verse is pretty much useless. Taken at face value it would seem that the Word of God says that God has abandoned His own creation to eternal suffering. In fact the Word of God said that the Devil said that God had done this - a claim that God then refuted.

Similarly many of the quotes in the Bible come from just ordinary, falible men. For example, the pissed-off Job! So the literalist may be able to really 100% upon the fact that these people said these things, but that doesn't mean that we should accept what they say as being the truth. Only a few people in the Bible speak on behalf of God - the others are just ordinary folk who God has chosen to include in His story*.

*say some

Podmore · 06-14-2003, 08:47 PM

I agree, for a literalist the speaker doesn't matter. It's the word of god, no matter where it is in the bible. But I have two huge problems with they way they do it even with that stipulation. The first is that they take things out of context (as was already mentioned). That's different from not referencing the speaker. One or two sentences taken by themselves can often give a much different meaning than the same sentences surrounded by the paragraphs they came from. And often people who quote the bible to prove rightness or wrongness do this in a very disingenuous way.

My second problem is that most of the quotes like this that christians toss around are from the old testament, and jesus tossed quite a bit of that out. That's what the whole "new covenant" thing was about. And that's where stuff like the "Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone" came up.

I used to have a lot of the bible memorized (back in high school). One time a woman was arguing with me about how the bible was supposed to be taken literally, and was rattling off quotes from it to prove that god meant it to be used that way. So I quoted the part from, umm, one of Peter's letters I think, where he said that no woman should argue with a man, but should be subserviant. Then I said "So stop arguing!" and she stomped off in a huff.

rogue49 · 06-14-2003, 11:52 PM

the question I've always had was which VERSION was valid?

how do I know which one is more correct?

chavos · 06-15-2003, 10:14 AM

rogue-Its pretty common to give preference to the original language texts, so if you want to be uber-correct, learn greek and hebrew. Aside from that, i'd do side by side comparisons (Blueletterbible.org is good for this) and use a concordance to try to get a better context. The point is though, that ultimately there are a lot of interpretive issues to work out, and I think that's best done in community and through discussion.

The short asnwer is that the NSRV is probably the most accurate and lucid translation around. A bible printed especially for study, such as the Harper Collins version, will have good side notes and explantions for difficult passages.

Tech · 06-16-2003, 12:31 AM

the NIV went and fixed a lot of the translational flaws in the KJV... as for which is the BEST translation, i can't say that, i don't know enough about different ones, but i can say that many bibles you will find will use the NIV, but then have footnotes with added things that can be very helpfull in understanding what the original text might have said.

Lebell · 06-16-2003, 01:07 AM

I personally prefer either the New Jerusalem or NRSV.

(I do have my great great grandmother's Douey & Rheems, tho.)

Cynthetiq · 06-16-2003, 08:21 AM

The original Oral Tradition predates the Greek and Hebrew writings, it's also there that misinterpretations and misquotations happened, after that it's the written tradition, then the translations.

As far as I know, it's easy to go point for counter point in the bible. One book may say one thing, and later in another book it states something completely different, but again, that's all bound together by interpretation.

chavos · 06-16-2003, 09:30 AM

" but again, that's all bound together by interpretation."

Kind of the point, IMO. I have a friend who's big in to New Age theology, etc....and my biggest reservation about it is that when he goes to wrestle with those ideas, there is a very limited number of sources beyond the one man who originated the brand of New-Agism that he's reading about. When i stuggle with an idea in the bible, i can read the thoughts of some of the greatest thinkers ever to live-Aquinas, Barth, Tillich, Luther....And none of these brilliant people would have been argueing and flexing their mental muscle if the Bible wasn't so darn complex.

So instead of seeing the conflicts and challenges as limitations to the Christian world view, i see them as one of the most creative gifts God has given the church.

crumbbum · 06-16-2003, 10:52 AM

In regard to the original post about homosexuality, I always assumed that the religious perspective was as follows- if God created human beings (as it says, "Male and Female, He created them", then homosexuality would simply be against the plan for humanity, since men and women were biologically designed as partners. To say it's an abomination to God probably just means it wasn't what He had in mind. Also, homosexuality can't reproduce, it's dependent on a heterosexual majority to produce children. This also would indicate that it isn't the most natural way for human beings to relate sexually. I don't say this because it is necessarily what I think, just trying to frame the religious viewpoint on this.

XenuHubbard · 06-16-2003, 10:42 PM

If the only type of sex allowed is natural sex, wouldn't oral sex be out of the question? If sex is only allowed when trying to reproduce, wouldn't the same rule apply to the first months of a pregnancy?

And if we look at nature, the only thing allowed would be doggy style.

bobdobbs8056135 · 06-16-2003, 11:19 PM

i welcome the"onslaught" of cute pink ninjas in pink and wonder why this thread exists

crumbbum · 06-17-2003, 07:28 AM

pink ninjas?

Hmmm, obviously people were created in a way that they still experience sexual desire, and can indeed still engage in sex during the early stages of pregnancy. So apparently sex isn't supposed to be merely reproductive. Actually, I think human are the only species that can and does continue to cohabit during pregnancy. I think though that the idea of people being created "male and female" still applies though. Trying to frame the bible account from a more independent perspective. Also, what is interesting is that it says Eve was created from Adam's rib. But that is the translation- it can also be translated from the Hebrew as "side". Literally, Eve was a side of Adam, suggesting that the original "man" was in fact a euphemism for mankind, and had both make and female elements. Therefore sex, and marriage, would be a form of re-unification. Like people suggested earlier in the thread, the literature itself is fascinating, if you don't get bogged down by the dogmatic interpretations some people have been pushing for so long.

Lebell · 06-17-2003, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bobdobbs8056135
i welcome the"onslaught" of cute pink ninjas in pink and wonder why this thread exists

It exists because the thread originator had a question and people have decided to answer.

And that is good enough for me.

grumpyolddude · 06-18-2003, 09:43 PM

Crumbbum: Dolphins also engage in recreational sex.

RE: The Bible... it IS a nice reference/philosophy book, but has been editted and re-written (especially the New Testament) so often to reflect the special interests of the Paulists, or the Papists (most notalbly Pope Julian and his cadre of homosexual Cardinals), that it is now only partially reliable. So much information has been hidden from us. There are other Gospels and biographies of Jesus that date back to His lifetime, or shortly thereafter, that reveal a more human Jesus. What we have been fed is highly fictionalized.

raeanna74 · 06-19-2003, 09:14 AM

As to the original question. In the Old Testament - The first 2/3rds of the Bible and BC the Israelites had laws that if a man "laid" with a man i.e. has sex with, or if a woman with a woman or any human with an animal they were to be killed - stoned to death. We have learned so much in modern times about the diseases and things that animals carry and we also have means for protection during sex. Many of the laws that the Israelites had were believed to be divinely given. We now know that many of those laws were ways of protecting the Israelites from diseases. There were laws about women menstrating and how to keep things clean. There were laws about diseases and when the people would be considered cured. I personally don't follow those Old Testament laws and neither do more "Christians". What bothers me is that they pick and choose what to obey and what not to.

As for the quotations. They expect you to trust them that God was quoted literally by these men that wrote it down. As for Job there is some dispute as to whether it should be included. They also expect you to compare them to the original scripture. The problem I find with most laymen is that they just take the words of the church leaders that they know what they are talking about and they don't compare it to the original text. The Bible itself (particularly the words of Paul the Apostle) tell laymen and people to always compare the words of a "prophet" in this case a church leader, to the original text of the Bible.

Then as far as the King James Version versus other versions. The King James Version was interpreted by many different men (I forget the exact number) all across Europe and then all of the translations were compared so that the clearest version would be used. It was written in older English and so some of the words used then are not used or well understood now. It is fairly accurate when I compare things with the Hebrew or Greek that the original text was written in. I normally use the KJV. Though I often used the NIV for comparison and to get a more modern wording. The NIV does drop a few verses completely if they supposedly "contradict" the rest of the text so I don't rely on it completely.

I hope I made some sense. I tend to ramble and I was interrupted in the middle of this by the kids fighting.

ganon · 06-20-2003, 11:30 AM

the king james version was done by 20 different scholars. The church I go to teaches that the bible is the infallible word of God, in the original languages. Therefore when we teach bible, we try our utmost to go to the original languages and find out what the words, context and cultural influences are. If you have faith to believe that an unseen all powerful being has created the universe from the power of his words, you can generally believe that same being can manage to have a book be fairly accurate after a few thousand years.

06-13-2003, 07:14 PM	#1 (permalink)
Sion Dumb all over...a little ugly on the side Location: In the room where the giant fire puffer works, and the torture never stops.	bible question WhoaitsZ's thread about the "sin" of sodomy/homosexuality got me thinking about something. Religious people quote the Bible all the time. When they do, they usually take the attitude that the Bible is the end-all and be-all of truth, which, for them, it may be. But, what bothers me about this is not the fact that I, as a non-believer, do not accept the Bible as truth. Rather, what bothers me about quoting the Bible as an absolute reference for truth is that no one ever supplies context or even the name of the speaker. from the above reference thread, these Bible verses were quoted: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman: it is an abomination" (Lev 18:22). "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall be put to death: their blood is upon them" (Lev 20:13). "God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (Rom 1:26-27). "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers - none of these will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10). But no context was given. Nor was the speaker identified. Granted, in many case, the book of the Bible from which the verse comes will tell you who did the speaking, at least if you are well-versed in your knowledge of the Bible. But not always. And what about those of us who are not biblical scholars. How are we to know (and why should we care?) who said ""You shall not lie with a male as with a woman: it is an abomination" in the book of Leviticus? now, the easy answer is that the speaker is irrelevant, as the Bible is the word of God. The issue for me, essentially, is a non-believer's skepticism with regard to the Bible. The general consensus is that the Bible is the word of God, spoken through man. And THAT is what I have the biggest problem with. Humanity has such a tendency to misrepresent, misinterpret, and misuse things that I cannot trust the Bible to be an accurate rendering of anything. Even if I believe completely in the Christian conception of reality, how could I possibly trust a book that has been changed and translated and retranslated and reinterpreted so many times over the course of the intervening centuries? Like the old joke about the monk who went back and reread the original document from which his order based its faith, being the first person in centuries to do so, only to find out "The word is celebrate, NOT celibate." I just dont trust humanity enough to have faith in a document that has gone through so many revisions. so, what do you believers think of all this? __________________ He's the best, of course, of all the worst. Some wrong been done, he done it first. -fz I jus' want ta thank you...falettinme...be mice elf...agin...

06-13-2003, 10:37 PM	#3 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Maybe it's just because I'm tired and if so, please forgive me, but what exactly is the question? __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

06-14-2003, 05:26 AM	#5 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Wehn quoting the Bible, you are correct to say that to the quoter the speaker is irrelevant. As to your assessment of the Word of God through man, it's still a mute point because the nature of having faith in the Bible is faith that God instructed the men who wrote it to write it in just the way that they did, therefore there is no room for human error in the actual writing. Where there IS room for human error is in interpretation and translation. Because of this, your criticism of quoters lacking context is a good one. As far as translation, short of reading and understanding the Bible in its original language, it's very difficult to assess the meaning. For example, the original word used in the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" actually has a meaning of thou shalt not take innocent life, and, therefore, is a completely invalid phrase for arguing against the death penalty. So, how can one trust interpretation of the Bible? This is one of the flaws as I believe the Catholic Church sees it in the various Protestant faiths, and is the reason the Catholic Church also takes into account Apostolic Tradition to guide them in their understanding - that is to say, they look to how the original Apostles acted and what they taught. It is also why the Catholic Church actually has, generally speaking, one of the most liberal interpretations of the Bible of all Christian religions, accepting the possibilty of evolution, the big bang, and the idea that many of the Bible's stories are just that - stories told by God with a moral, much like the parables of Jesus. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

06-14-2003, 12:04 PM	#6 (permalink)
Sion Dumb all over...a little ugly on the side Location: In the room where the giant fire puffer works, and the torture never stops.	just in case I wasnt clear enough, I am not a Christian, nor a believer in God. Though I have read the Bible (King James version) fully twice in my life, and though I was raised in vaguely Christian tradition, I now consider myself to be somewhere between an athiest and an agnostic, spiritually speaking. I started this thread out of simple curiosity, not to spark any debates about religion, though I found each of your comments interesting and thought provoking. thanks. __________________ He's the best, of course, of all the worst. Some wrong been done, he done it first. -fz I jus' want ta thank you...falettinme...be mice elf...agin...

06-14-2003, 12:43 PM	#7 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Ok, I'm awake now The short answer for a biblical literalist (which I am not), is that the Bible is the inspired and innerant word of God, therefor it doesn't matter that it was Job or Isiah or whoever who actually put the words on paper, it was God that inspired them to do so and therefore the whole Bible is the word of God and when it is quoted, that is understood. As I said, I'm not a biblical literalist, so I agree that context as well as authorship is very important when trying to understand what a particular passage says. Since I believe you are actually refering to one of my posts , I'll just say that I hope I sufficiently explained everything I wrote. If not, feel free to ask or comment __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

06-13-2003, 10:15 PM	#2 (permalink)
chavos Banned Location: St. Paul, MN	"ven if I believe completely in the Christian conception of reality, how could I possibly trust a book that has been changed and translated and retranslated and reinterpreted so many times over the course of the intervening centuries?" Hmm. Save, that in adopting a Christian worldview, no matter what brand of Christianity you adopted, you would invaribly be influenced and affected by the Bible as the founding document of the Church... Simply, i find it hard to imagine a Christian with out any trust in the bible. That said, i'd share some concern with proof texting, the practice of simply quoting a verse with no context, in a manner designed to close off debate. "God Says"ing...so to speak. But, i also hate to give my context to every verse i cite...i want people to go read that verse, and to figure out what the context means to them...and while i'll often give my commentary, i try to fall short of "explaining" a verse, since i can only explain it to me, and even then, i'm often confused...its a tough document, and one that's very much alive to new thoughts, revelations, interpretations. To the "who cares" allegation...i'd raise the question of sincerity. If you get in a debate with someone, but don't give a damn enough to fire up an online bible, and pop in a verse citation...i dunno if you really ought to be debateing. I will read any easily available outside sources a poster links to if it will help me understand their arguement....i don't think that's a unrealistic expectation. To the idea that the bible is unreliable due to human causes...unreliable for what? I'd be the first one to acknowledge that there are places where the Bible, as we have it today, is mistaken and wrong. But, it's also one of the richest written spirirtual tradtitions on the planet, and freed from literalism and fundamentalism, has intensely relevant and meaningful things to say about our lives, and our relationship with God. And i don't think this is a assertion that must be taken on faith-simply in the study of scripture, i think there is great potential to learn, regardless of what authority one assigns to that scripture. To those who charge that the Bible, as a document is irrelevant in such as fashion as has been done here...i wonder how much time you've really spent reading it. I don't mean this as an insult-i absolutely don't expect everyone to be a bible nerd, and to love reading it in their spare time. But i would hope that the citations we sometimes make will be invitations in to the text, and whether you think its a collection of myths or the eternal Word of God, i think you'll probably see something important.

06-14-2003, 04:47 PM	#8 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	The Bible is the Word of God, but the statements within it need not be God's words! We can imagine that the following exchange could occur in the Bible: --- [1] And God was approached by the Devil to discuss the fate of the world and the Devil spoke saying, "When will the masses learn of the deceit of their creator. [2]The One true God, through His selfish indulgence, Has condemned His flock to an eternity of suffering." [3]And God did reply. "Bollocks" - (BookName, 1:1-3) ---- and then a person could quote the Bible as follows: "The One true God, through His selfish indulgence, Has condemned His flock to an eternity of suffering." - (NIV, BookName, 1:2) Now without the name of the speaker and its context the verse is pretty much useless. Taken at face value it would seem that the Word of God says that God has abandoned His own creation to eternal suffering. In fact the Word of God said that the Devil said that God had done this - a claim that God then refuted. Similarly many of the quotes in the Bible come from just ordinary, falible men. For example, the pissed-off Job! So the literalist may be able to really 100% upon the fact that these people said these things, but that doesn't mean that we should accept what they say as being the truth. Only a few people in the Bible speak on behalf of God - the others are just ordinary folk who God has chosen to include in His story. say some __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless! Last edited by 4thTimeLucky; 06-14-2003 at 04:50 PM..*

06-14-2003, 08:47 PM	#9 (permalink)
Podmore Crazy Location: SoCal	I agree, for a literalist the speaker doesn't matter. It's the word of god, no matter where it is in the bible. But I have two huge problems with they way they do it even with that stipulation. The first is that they take things out of context (as was already mentioned). That's different from not referencing the speaker. One or two sentences taken by themselves can often give a much different meaning than the same sentences surrounded by the paragraphs they came from. And often people who quote the bible to prove rightness or wrongness do this in a very disingenuous way. My second problem is that most of the quotes like this that christians toss around are from the old testament, and jesus tossed quite a bit of that out. That's what the whole "new covenant" thing was about. And that's where stuff like the "Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone" came up. I used to have a lot of the bible memorized (back in high school). One time a woman was arguing with me about how the bible was supposed to be taken literally, and was rattling off quotes from it to prove that god meant it to be used that way. So I quoted the part from, umm, one of Peter's letters I think, where he said that no woman should argue with a man, but should be subserviant. Then I said "So stop arguing!" and she stomped off in a huff.

06-14-2003, 11:52 PM	#10 (permalink)
rogue49 Loser	the question I've always had was which VERSION was valid? how do I know which one is more correct?

06-15-2003, 10:14 AM	#11 (permalink)
chavos Banned Location: St. Paul, MN	rogue-Its pretty common to give preference to the original language texts, so if you want to be uber-correct, learn greek and hebrew. Aside from that, i'd do side by side comparisons (Blueletterbible.org is good for this) and use a concordance to try to get a better context. The point is though, that ultimately there are a lot of interpretive issues to work out, and I think that's best done in community and through discussion. The short asnwer is that the NSRV is probably the most accurate and lucid translation around. A bible printed especially for study, such as the Harper Collins version, will have good side notes and explantions for difficult passages.

06-16-2003, 12:31 AM	#12 (permalink)
Tech Addict Location: Baltimore MD	the NIV went and fixed a lot of the translational flaws in the KJV... as for which is the BEST translation, i can't say that, i don't know enough about different ones, but i can say that many bibles you will find will use the NIV, but then have footnotes with added things that can be very helpfull in understanding what the original text might have said. __________________ -Tim- ~I swear sometimes i feel like i'm married to a child. ~You better watch who you're calling a child, Lois, cause if i'm a child than you know what that makes you? a pedophile. and i'll be damned if i'm going to stand here and be lectured by a pervert.

06-16-2003, 01:07 AM	#13 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I personally prefer either the New Jerusalem or NRSV. (I do have my great great grandmother's Douey & Rheems, tho.) __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

06-16-2003, 08:21 AM	#14 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	The original Oral Tradition predates the Greek and Hebrew writings, it's also there that misinterpretations and misquotations happened, after that it's the written tradition, then the translations. As far as I know, it's easy to go point for counter point in the bible. One book may say one thing, and later in another book it states something completely different, but again, that's all bound together by interpretation. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

06-16-2003, 09:30 AM	#15 (permalink)
chavos Banned Location: St. Paul, MN	" but again, that's all bound together by interpretation." Kind of the point, IMO. I have a friend who's big in to New Age theology, etc....and my biggest reservation about it is that when he goes to wrestle with those ideas, there is a very limited number of sources beyond the one man who originated the brand of New-Agism that he's reading about. When i stuggle with an idea in the bible, i can read the thoughts of some of the greatest thinkers ever to live-Aquinas, Barth, Tillich, Luther....And none of these brilliant people would have been argueing and flexing their mental muscle if the Bible wasn't so darn complex. So instead of seeing the conflicts and challenges as limitations to the Christian world view, i see them as one of the most creative gifts God has given the church.

06-16-2003, 10:52 AM	#16 (permalink)
crumbbum Crazy Location: CT,NYC,NJ(have been all over)	In regard to the original post about homosexuality, I always assumed that the religious perspective was as follows- if God created human beings (as it says, "Male and Female, He created them", then homosexuality would simply be against the plan for humanity, since men and women were biologically designed as partners. To say it's an abomination to God probably just means it wasn't what He had in mind. Also, homosexuality can't reproduce, it's dependent on a heterosexual majority to produce children. This also would indicate that it isn't the most natural way for human beings to relate sexually. I don't say this because it is necessarily what I think, just trying to frame the religious viewpoint on this. __________________ Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

06-16-2003, 10:42 PM	#17 (permalink)
XenuHubbard Cute and Cuddly Location: Teegeeack.	If the only type of sex allowed is natural sex, wouldn't oral sex be out of the question? If sex is only allowed when trying to reproduce, wouldn't the same rule apply to the first months of a pregnancy? And if we look at nature, the only thing allowed would be doggy style. __________________ The above was written by a true prophet. Trust me. "What doesn't kill you, makes you bitter and paranoid". - SB2000

06-16-2003, 11:19 PM	#18 (permalink)
bobdobbs8056135 Upright Location: in the woods	i welcome the"onslaught" of cute pink ninjas in pink and wonder why this thread exists __________________ the days run over the hills like wild horses...-Bukowsky- i am the flying rodeo clown of death in qpids liberation army... lending my strange services in the noble cause of taking over the world before microsoft enslaves us all.

06-17-2003, 07:28 AM	#19 (permalink)
crumbbum Crazy Location: CT,NYC,NJ(have been all over)	pink ninjas? Hmmm, obviously people were created in a way that they still experience sexual desire, and can indeed still engage in sex during the early stages of pregnancy. So apparently sex isn't supposed to be merely reproductive. Actually, I think human are the only species that can and does continue to cohabit during pregnancy. I think though that the idea of people being created "male and female" still applies though. Trying to frame the bible account from a more independent perspective. Also, what is interesting is that it says Eve was created from Adam's rib. But that is the translation- it can also be translated from the Hebrew as "side". Literally, Eve was a side of Adam, suggesting that the original "man" was in fact a euphemism for mankind, and had both make and female elements. Therefore sex, and marriage, would be a form of re-unification. Like people suggested earlier in the thread, the literature itself is fascinating, if you don't get bogged down by the dogmatic interpretations some people have been pushing for so long. __________________ Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

06-18-2003, 09:43 PM	#21 (permalink)
grumpyolddude Deliberately unfocused Location: Amazon.com and CDBaby	Crumbbum: Dolphins also engage in recreational sex. RE: The Bible... it IS a nice reference/philosophy book, but has been editted and re-written (especially the New Testament) so often to reflect the special interests of the Paulists, or the Papists (most notalbly Pope Julian and his cadre of homosexual Cardinals), that it is now only partially reliable. So much information has been hidden from us. There are other Gospels and biographies of Jesus that date back to His lifetime, or shortly thereafter, that reveal a more human Jesus. What we have been fed is highly fictionalized. __________________ "Regret can be a harder pill to swallow than failure .With failure you at least know you gave it a chance..." David Howard

06-19-2003, 09:14 AM	#22 (permalink)
raeanna74 I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot! Location: Upper Michigan	As to the original question. In the Old Testament - The first 2/3rds of the Bible and BC the Israelites had laws that if a man "laid" with a man i.e. has sex with, or if a woman with a woman or any human with an animal they were to be killed - stoned to death. We have learned so much in modern times about the diseases and things that animals carry and we also have means for protection during sex. Many of the laws that the Israelites had were believed to be divinely given. We now know that many of those laws were ways of protecting the Israelites from diseases. There were laws about women menstrating and how to keep things clean. There were laws about diseases and when the people would be considered cured. I personally don't follow those Old Testament laws and neither do more "Christians". What bothers me is that they pick and choose what to obey and what not to. As for the quotations. They expect you to trust them that God was quoted literally by these men that wrote it down. As for Job there is some dispute as to whether it should be included. They also expect you to compare them to the original scripture. The problem I find with most laymen is that they just take the words of the church leaders that they know what they are talking about and they don't compare it to the original text. The Bible itself (particularly the words of Paul the Apostle) tell laymen and people to always compare the words of a "prophet" in this case a church leader, to the original text of the Bible. Then as far as the King James Version versus other versions. The King James Version was interpreted by many different men (I forget the exact number) all across Europe and then all of the translations were compared so that the clearest version would be used. It was written in older English and so some of the words used then are not used or well understood now. It is fairly accurate when I compare things with the Hebrew or Greek that the original text was written in. I normally use the KJV. Though I often used the NIV for comparison and to get a more modern wording. The NIV does drop a few verses completely if they supposedly "contradict" the rest of the text so I don't rely on it completely. I hope I made some sense. I tend to ramble and I was interrupted in the middle of this by the kids fighting. __________________ "Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

06-20-2003, 11:30 AM	#23 (permalink)
ganon Insane Location: in my head	the king james version was done by 20 different scholars. The church I go to teaches that the bible is the infallible word of God, in the original languages. Therefore when we teach bible, we try our utmost to go to the original languages and find out what the words, context and cultural influences are. If you have faith to believe that an unseen all powerful being has created the universe from the power of his words, you can generally believe that same being can manage to have a book be fairly accurate after a few thousand years. __________________ "My give up, my give up." - Jar Jar Binks