or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Bible --- Too liberal For Some
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Bible --- Too liberal For Some

post #1 of 346
Thread Starter 
The Bible, yep, the heart and soul of Christianity, is too liberal (according to some), so some people are undertaking a re-write.

Placed this in PO because of the inevitable political ramifications.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_310037.html

Your thoughts?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #2 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

The Bible, yep, the heart and sole of Christianity, is too liberal (according to some), so some people are undertaking a re-write.

Placed this in PO because of the inevitable political ramifications.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_310037.html

Your thoughts?

First of all, it's SOUL not SOLE. There is a big difference.

I am not at all surprised, nor do I care what they seek to do on their own. The Bible through WIKI will likely end up being a disaster and will most likely be ignored or vilified at first by most Conservative Christians.

Just because they claim to represent a particular group does not mean they necessarily do. If they do release a version it will be heavily critiqued by many scholars, and who knows where it will go from there. Only time will tell. If their project is any good, perhaps there will be a much less expensive or free version that comes out of it in digital form that people can read.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #3 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

The Bible, yep, the heart and sole of Christianity, is too liberal (according to some), so some people are undertaking a re-write.

Placed this in PO because of the inevitable political ramifications.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_310037.html

Your thoughts?

Looking at the history, it looks to be about 5 people on a wiki.
http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible

5 whole people and this gets written up by huffington? I guess the standards there are pretty low.
post #4 of 346
It's a stupid article written for ignorant people.

Anyone who studies the Bible to any extent, will have direct access to original greek, etc. Virtually any Bible website will have a button to turn on "Strong's Numbers" -- which reference the original text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong's_Concordance


It never ceases to amaze me that the same people who are so quick to wield "Science" in the culture wars, who are so quick to bash "ignorant Bible thumpers" for not meticulously following every technical discovery, are the same people who are somehow feel completely free to discuss the Bible without ever studying it to any degree.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #5 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

It's a stupid article written for ignorant people.

Anyone who studies the Bible to any extent, will have direct access to original greek, etc. Virtually any Bible website will have a button to turn on "Strong's Numbers" -- which reference the original text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong's_Concordance

It never ceases to amaze me that the same people who are so quick to wield "Science" in the culture wars, who are so quick to bash "ignorant Bible thumpers" for not meticulously following every technical discovery, are the same people who are somehow feel completely free to discuss the Bible without ever studying it to any degree.

I have studied it to a great degree and I still want to bash ignorant Bible Thumpers who NEVER follow any rational discovery, scientific or otherwise.

Btw, they would not necessarily have access to the original Greek as the texts have been subject to..err....shall we say 'enhancement' and - even if they did - they still would not be studying 'the Bible' as that term properly applies to the Old Testament which, as far as I recall, would not be understandable in the original were one to have any level of Greek whatsoever.

Oh and one more thing; Strong was really an unmitigated idiot in many ways wasn't he?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #6 of 346
OMG...you mean MAN is trying to manipulate the bible for his own purposes?

Unprecedented, I say!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #7 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

I have studied it to a great degree and I still want to bash ignorant Bible Thumpers who NEVER follow any rational discovery, scientific or otherwise.

Btw, they would not necessarily have access to the original Greek as the texts have been subject to..err....shall we say 'enhancement' and - even if they did - they still would not be studying 'the Bible' as that term properly applies to the Old Testament which, as far as I recall, would not be understandable in the original were one to have any level of Greek whatsoever.

Oh and one more thing; Strong was really an unmitigated idiot in many ways wasn't he?

Hey there, segovius -- long time, no rant.

Wouldn't venture a guess on Strong -- but you get the point. Rancor over a "new" translation of the Bible is ridiculous -- any serious study or criticism is textual and technical at this point. No theologian or pastor who's gone to seminary is going to stand up in the pulpit and yell "OMG! I've had a revelation!" becuase of a new "translation".

We have the "received text" -- anyone can get hold of it online -- and we have a meticulous cross referencing of what is there, linguistically. The real fight is over textual criticism of the source text. This article is misdirection/muddying the waters.

And how even the worst translation could cloud Christ's self-indentification is a mystery to me -- that being the biggest stumbling block for too many.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #8 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Hey there, segovius -- long time, no rant.

Hi. I didn't miss any of you

Quote:
We have the "received text" -- anyone can get hold of it online -- and we have a meticulous cross referencing of what is there, linguistically.

But do we? Do you mean Sinaiticus? If so, then it is indeed the original text and it is at variance with many of the later redactions. Which means it takes precedence when translations differ.

You would think this is straightforward but no...read this and laugh:


Quote:
The Sinaiticus is one of two manuscripts which are the one's called by many "the oldest manuscripts." The other, is the Vaticanus. This is a prime example of "oldest is not always best." (!!!!!!!!! ??????)

.........They are used because of their age, as so many claim them to be the oldest and thus most reliable. However, sadly this is untrue. As human witnesses are found to be liars, or Truthful, by the words they speak and if they agree amongst other witnesses, so are manuscript witnesses. This is how we rightly determine whether a manuscript is worthy to be used for our Bible.
(!!!!!!!!! ??????)

Found by a Constantin Tischendorf in St. Catharine's Monastery in the Sinai desert,..........Tischendorf actually is said to have rescued the manuscript from the trash at the monastery! This sheds some doubt on the manuscript, why would such a "valuable" manuscript be in the trash? Obviously someone in the monastery saw it, deemed it garbage, and put it with the rest of the trash.

As they believe oldest is best, this would devastate them. However, the context of Codex Sinaiticus itself is enough to discredit it, not just its age.

http://www.workmenforchrist.org/Bibl...inaiticus.html

My italics and bold.

Hilarious as it is, this is a representative example of the level of intelligence (I mean utter absence of) of most 'believers'.

As it is thus, there is no point in Biblical Studies. The argument was won and lost decades ago. It's now an equivalence of debating with flat earthers. Ok on a rainy Saturday if you're girlfriend's away and you've no money for opium or a fine Malt (my situation now as it happens - hence my reappearance) - but not really a task for a dignified man is it?

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #9 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Hi. I didn't miss any of you



But do we? Do you mean Sinaiticus? ...

...

...but not really a task for a dignified man is it?


Meh, I agree there's not much to argue there -- but the "tampering" aspect seems a little much. Too conspiratorial for me (and apparently academia in general).

Textual-cultural criticism is where "it's at" as far as poking holes in the text. It's too easy to take the story of Noah or Abraham and say the Noah was a borrowed Mesopotamian myth, as was Lot wrestling the angel. Moving forward you can simply ascribe God's mighty acts to myth or exaggeration, culminating in the Disciples "seeing what they wanted to see" in Yeshua, due to the cultural overhead established in the Talmud, etc.

The attack holds together much better, in that the Bible is very culturally bound, and it would be nigh impossible to tamper with the text and not have anthropologists catch that, given an extra thousand years of cultural studies and archeology. (Which is exactly what you see modern academics doing -- they don't even have to resort to Kant or whoever.)

Regardless, there are too many here that still think that James I got into the Bible and "changed" it -- they don't understand that the received text is still as it was.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #10 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Meh, I agree there's not much to argue there -- but the "tampering" aspect seems a little much. Too conspiratorial for me (and apparently academia in general)....

well, Tischendorf, when he discovered the Codex recognized that Mark ended at 16:18 and not 16:20.

So where did the other two chapters (12 verses which do not either appear in Vaticanus or Syriacus) come from if Sinaiticus is the oldest?

Clearly they are additions by someone later down the line. We don't have to call it 'tampering' but it is an invention by someone who inserted it into the text thus adjusting the original.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #11 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

well, Tischendorf, when he discovered the Codex recognized that Mark ended at 16:18 and not 16:20.

So where did the other two chapters (12 verses which do not either appear in Vaticanus or Syriacus) come from if Sinaiticus is the oldest?

Clearly they are additions by someone later down the line. We don't have to call it 'tampering' but it is an invention by someone who inserted it into the text thus adjusting the original.

Right, but minor textual corruption, and some redaction is recognized. Most bibles have those passages bracketed and footnoted.

But that's not going to account for the Flood narrative being there, or Peter's confession that Christ was "the anointed one" -- Messiah, or David's reign, etc. This is where the textual-cultural criticism is lethal to the content.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #12 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Right, but minor textual corruption, and some redaction is recognized. Most bibles have those passages bracketed and footnoted.

But that's not going to account for the Flood narrative being there, or Peter's confession that Christ was "the anointed one" -- Messiah, or David's reign, etc. This is where the textual-cultural criticism is lethal to the content.

Err...the additions are about the resurrection of Christ

Those seem to be the doctrines that weren't originally present. I'd say that's kind of significant.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #13 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Hi. I didn't miss any of you



But do we? Do you mean Sinaiticus? If so, then it is indeed the original text and it is at variance with many of the later redactions. Which means it takes precedence when translations differ.

You would think this is straightforward but no...read this and laugh:




http://www.workmenforchrist.org/Bibl...inaiticus.html

My italics and bold.

Hilarious as it is, this is a representative example of the level of intelligence (I mean utter absence of) of most 'believers'.

As it is thus, there is no point in Biblical Studies. The argument was won and lost decades ago. It's now an equivalence of debating with flat earthers. Ok on a rainy Saturday if you're girlfriend's away and you've no money for opium or a fine Malt (my situation now as it happens - hence my reappearance) - but not really a task for a dignified man is it?


I am not positive about the quote posted above, will research it to determine at a later time, but I recall a couple of instances where manuscripts were claimed to have been rescued from the trash, when they were not. It was only a ruse used to steal the manuscripts from their original owners, so that they could return to their home with the valuable documents in their possession. The monks even requested (demanded) the documents back and were refused.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #14 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

I am not positive about the quote posted above, will research it to determine at a later time, but I recall a couple of instances where manuscripts were claimed to have been rescued from the trash, when they were not. It was only a ruse used to steal the manuscripts from their original owners, so that they could return to their home with the valuable documents in their possession. The monks even requested (demanded) the documents back and were refused.

Yes, it seems unlikely somehow. But it was the argument that it somehow belonged in the trash and that proves it is false that seems well...insane...particularly when proffered in a supposedly rational assessment.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #15 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Err...the additions are about the resurrection of Christ

I don't know about that, except for the end of Mark. The other Gospels don't have additions as to the resurrection. But again, it's much easier to write off the resurrection --- as being the expectation of the Disciples, rather than having to invent it later.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #16 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

The Bible, yep, the heart and soul of Christianity, is too liberal (according to some), so some people are undertaking a re-write.

Placed this in PO because of the inevitable political ramifications.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_310037.html

Your thoughts?

A re-write of the Bible? It's been translated, retranslated, mistranslated, censored, edited, and re- censored again more times that we know. And.... by men, and usually for coercive, manipulative or political, not spiritual, ends... and certainly not by any deity.

What's new?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #17 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

A re-write of the Bible? It's been translated, retranslated, mistranslated, censored, edited, and re- censored again more times that we know. And.... by men, and usually for coercive, manipulative or political, not spiritual, ends... and certainly not by any deity.

What's new?

That's not accurate, sammi jo -- the Bible as we know it is based on the "Received Text". This text is consists of manuscripts that date back to the first few centuries of Christianity. Translations are simple revisitations of the original Greek and Hebrew text that date to the period. By revisiting the original documents, you are bypassing any tampering that James I or Roman Catholic monks were supposed to have perpetrated.

They do not agree, that is, these early manuscripts, as carbon copies of each other, but as I noted earlier questionable sections are bracketed and footnoted as such in modern Bibles. Textual corruption is minor -- mostly typos, etc.

This is why very few in academia take the "conspiracy" or "King James altered the Bible" route -- the Bible, as an ancient text is as good or better than any other, and it has stood that scrutiny. The only thing that can be legitimately called into question is whether the Bible, either the Talmud or the New Testament -- is whether they are self-serving social constructions, rather than a catalog or narrative of actual events.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #18 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

well, Tischendorf, when he discovered the Codex recognized that Mark ended at 16:18 and not 16:20.

Don't you mean 16:8, not 16:18?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #19 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Don't you mean 16:8, not 16:18?

Probably.

There you go then. It's worse than I thought...
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #20 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

That's not accurate, sammi jo -- the Bible as we know it is based on the "Received Text". This text is consists of manuscripts that date back to the first few centuries of Christianity. Translations are simple revisitations of the original Greek and Hebrew text that date to the period. By revisiting the original documents, you are bypassing any tampering that James I or Roman Catholic monks were supposed to have perpetrated.

You ignore, for example, the Gospel of St. Barnabas. This was omitted from the canon by the Council of Nicea in 325 CE *allegedly* because if failed to conform to the projection of Jesus according to Pauline doctrine. The same might go for other work, such as the gospels of Judah and Mary. The "Gnostic gospels' have been partially censored.. they do appear in some bibles under the "Apocrypha" collection; however the vast majority of bibles leave these books, and others out. Have a read of Stevan Davies' "The Gospel of Thomas". All good stuff.

Religious belief/adherence has been recognized for millennia as one of the most powerful means of controlling populations, and those in the driving seat of big religion will go to great lengths to maintain that control. Out of the bloodstained track-record of population-stomping by big religion in the last 2000 or so years, one example was the extermination of the Cathars/Gnostics by the armies of the Pope... some 500,000 people slaughtered purely for believing in what they held as the truth. Hmmm.. that "T" word again.. doesn't get much traction these days either.

When the entire belief systems of so many people have been condensed into written works which can be held in the palm of anyone's hand, there is a great motivation to keep those texts conforming to the preferred doctrine. The decisions which material to include, and which to leave out of the biblical text have been based by people for political reasoning. "God" has zero to do with this.

Such cherrypicking isn't limited to Christian work.. the early Q'ran was "modified" by Caliph Uthman bin Affan some 150 years after Mohammed's death. Was this as a result of earthly political motivation, or guidance by the hand of Allah? ..... Three guesses.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #21 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Such cherrypicking isn't limited to Christian work.. the early Q'ran was "modified" by Caliph Uthman bin Affan some 150 years after Mohammed's death. Was this as a result of earthly political motivation, or guidance by the hand of Allah? ..... Three guesses.

Well, all three guesses would be wrong seeing as the starting premise is incorrect.

The Caliph Uthman merely preserved the Qur'an in the original Quereshi dialect - that spoken by Muhammad - and suppressed version in other tribal dialects.

Hence nothing was 'modified' but the versions that had been modified - and that only in dialect as the Qur'an was then memorised not written down - were suppressed.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #22 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

You ignore, for example, the Gospel of St. Barnabas.... The "Gnostic gospels' have been partially censored.. they do appear in some bibles under the "Apocrypha" collection; however the vast majority of bibles leave these books, and others out....


....

No, sammi jo, The Gospel of St. Barnabas and the Gnostic gospels are not in the same league with the original Gospels -- they diverge too greatly to harmonized at all with those accounts. Gnosticism is much different from Judaism, Christianity or anything else for that matter. It was dealt with in the early councils in a forthright manner -- not "censored" as such.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #23 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

It was dealt with in the early councils in a forthright manner --

Heheh - like little old ladies, Jews and dark people were a bit later on....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #24 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

No, sammi jo, The Gospel of St. Barnabas and the Gnostic gospels are not in the same league with the original Gospels -- they diverge too greatly to harmonized at all with those accounts. Gnosticism is much different from Judaism, Christianity or anything else for that matter. It was dealt with in the early councils in a forthright manner -- not "censored" as such.

Of course there are differences in the record. One can read a set of historical documents describing one event merely decades old, written from different viewpoints ... and one might easily be under the impression that the writers were talking about different events. We're dealing with things that (allegedly) happened some two millennia back, involving people from simple, tribal cultures, speaking different languages to ours, and with little knowledge and awareness of how the world around them behaves (relative to modern times). The events that these early writers were describing were being interpreted according to this relatively limited knowledge.

As a thought experiment, in modern western culture, how would we view someone who claimed to be a 'messiah', and who had bizarre, paranormal occurrences that violated the laws of nature associated with him? Would we believe implicitly? Or perhaps express some skepticism? Or laugh it out of court? Would we reckon the person to be certifiable insane? Or a hoax, fraud and charlatan? Or a con man? Or (topically), perhaps even a threat to national security? What is so different about an admittedly hard-to-swallow, wacky story from 2000 years ago, especially when most of what we know about it is hearsay... and a similar hypothetical claim made by someone in modern times?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #25 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Of course there are differences in the record. One can read a set of historical documents describing one event merely decades old, written from different viewpoints ... and one might easily be under the impression that the writers were talking about different events. We're dealing with things that (allegedly) happened some two millennia back, involving people from simple, tribal cultures, speaking different languages to ours, and with little knowledge and awareness of how the world around them behaves (relative to modern times). The events that these early writers were describing were being interpreted according to this relatively limited knowledge.

Yes, but don't forget, Nehmiah and Socrates were historical contemporaries. We don't have (I don't have) problems reading Herodotus, or Xenophon, The Aeneid, or Phaedo, let's not forget the poetry and plays of ancient Greece -- Paul quoted elements of that in his speech on Mars Hill.

That goes for Egyptian and far Eastern literature as well -- these were not simple people

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

As a thought experiment, in modern western culture, how would we view someone who claimed to be a 'messiah', and who had bizarre, paranormal occurrences that violated the laws of nature associated with him? Would we believe implicitly? Or perhaps express some skepticism? Or laugh it out of court? Would we reckon the person to be certifiable insane? Or a hoax, fraud and charlatan? Or a con man? Or (topically), perhaps even a threat to national security? What is so different about an admittedly hard-to-swallow, wacky story from 2000 years ago, especially when most of what we know about it is hearsay... and a similar hypothetical claim made by someone in modern times?

That is simply belief in Christ's self-authenticating statements. [Or not.] There were plenty of people of that time who chose not to believe, even in the presence of miracles.

(We don't learn by experience, if we did Las Vegas wouldn't exist.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #26 of 346
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

especially when most of what we know about it is hearsay...

And quite an important part of it upon the words of one individual woman... but the church then proceeded to put women several steps behind men for many, many years... and still does...

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #27 of 346
Quote:
It's a stupid article written for ignorant people.

That's some fucking major league pouting there, dmz.

Quote:
Virtually any Bible website will have a button to turn on "Strong's Numbers" -- which reference the original text.

There is no "original text".

"Oldest copy" is not "original text".
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #28 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

As a thought experiment, in modern western culture, how would we view someone who claimed to be a 'messiah', and who had bizarre, paranormal occurrences that violated the laws of nature associated with him? Would we believe implicitly? Or perhaps express some skepticism? Or laugh it out of court? Would we reckon the person to be certifiable insane? Or a hoax, fraud and charlatan? Or a con man? Or (topically), perhaps even a threat to national security? What is so different about an admittedly hard-to-swallow, wacky story from 2000 years ago, especially when most of what we know about it is hearsay... and a similar hypothetical claim made by someone in modern times?

Or as another modern-day thought-experiment, how about someone say, who claimed to be able to produce some sort of free energy source but was done away with by the Corporate-Industrial complex as they rightly perceived him as being able to bring their empires to an end.

What if when this individual was safely dead and his methods destroyed then the same Corporate Complex was able to 'market' a version of this individual and his ideas for profit and also to corrupt his methodology to prevent anyone else discovering his Energy Source.

Of course they would not claim that he ever was a threat or that he had had a rational method but rather, it would be utterly necessary to portray him as 'anti-scientific' (or whatever the prevailing orthodoxy of the day might be) and 'irrational' - 'magical' even.

Above all the Corporate Complex - which he had opposed and tried to undermine - must portray themselves as the 'good guys' and 'following his teaching'.

What would we think then?

What would we think of people who accepted the Corporate line to either agree that this individual was a magician or to disagree because magicians are irrational and don't exist?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #29 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

And quite an important part of it upon the words of one individual woman... but the church then proceeded to put women several steps behind men for many, many years... and still does...

Is there a point to this comment? I don't know what church you attend where this is the case and I don't know how it even fits in the coversation. Unless you are trying to pick a fight for no good reason.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #30 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Or as another modern-day thought-experiment, how about someone say, who claimed to be able to produce some sort of free energy source but was done away with by the Corporate-Industrial complex as they rightly perceived him as being able to bring their empires to an end.

What if when this individual was safely dead and his methods destroyed then the same Corporate Complex was able to 'market' a version of this individual and his ideas for profit and also to corrupt his methodology to prevent anyone else discovering his Energy Source.

Of course they would not claim that he ever was a threat or that he had had a rational method but rather, it would be utterly necessary to portray him as 'anti-scientific' (or whatever the prevailing orthodoxy of the day might be) and 'irrational' - 'magical' even.

Going off on a bit of a tangent to your point here...as I am sure you are aware, there have been countless individuals who have postited schemes and devices to produce "free" (?) energy. (A few examples: Moray, Tesla, Newman, Searl, Hendershott, Baumann et al)... the problem being, their devices represent variations on the "perpetual motion" fallacy and as such violate the first and second laws of thermodynamics. "Anti-scientific" accusations thus hold water.

However, have those hapless researchers who have spent so much time and energy flogging the proverbial dead horse been harassed for their efforts? Yes, and on many instances. Why would this be the case, when not a solitary person has successfully patented an "over-unity" device, and their line of research is a dead end, re. the laws of nature, in the first place? Perhaps the corporate sponsors of those who have been engaged in such harassment are clueless, fearful of losing profits to something that is, and will forever remain a "non-threat" to vested interests? Probably, just because they can... standard behavior for the powerful....

Quote:
Above all the Corporate Complex - which he had opposed and tried to undermine - must portray themselves as the 'good guys' and 'following his teaching'.

What would we think then?

What would we think of people who accepted the Corporate line to either agree that this individual was a magician or to disagree because magicians are irrational and don't exist?

It seems that people will believe anything, if coerced sufficiently. People think that Bono of U2 is out to make the world a better place. Obama just won the Nobel Peace Prize. Now, he's a man of peace.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #31 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

It seems that people will believe anything, if coerced sufficiently. People think that Bono of U2 is out to make the world a better place. Obama just won the Nobel Peace Prize. Now, he's a man of peace.

My God, don't get me started on Bonio He's an absolute tool (in all senses).

The Nobel is really just what they give you when you are fully in the team I guess - witness the Dalai Lama.

Btw - another tangent - as the news broke here about Obama I heard the following on BBC Five Live:

Reporter: Obama has won the Nobel Prize blah, blah...we're going over live to Jerusalem for comment from Shimon Peres...

Peres: {10 mins of eulogizing hyberbole]

Reporter: in other news...


It was fairly blatant: Obama wins Nobel, Israel is turned to for comment, Nobel is validated, all is ok... back to other news...

I would have thought they would go somewhere in the US for comment but apparently for some reason not...
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #32 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

My God, don't get me started on Bonio He's an absolute tool (in all senses).

.....

It was fairly blatant: Obama wins Nobel, Israel is turned to for comment, Nobel is validated, all is ok... back to other news...

I would have thought they would go somewhere in the US for comment but apparently for some reason not...

Perhaps it was seen as more appropriate to get Israel's take. Israeli interests tend to trump all others... to the extent that Israel can act outside of international law with a blank check. Furthermore, Israel has long been themajor influence in US middle eastern policy making, especially during the Bush years. The Bush Junior administration was filled with so many dual US-Israeli citizens it was hard to tell if it was an Israeli or a US administration! Had there been, for a random example, that many dual US-New Zealand citizens in senior US administration positions, people would have been scratching their heads in bewilderment... ie WTF's going on here????
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #33 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

There is no "original text".

"Oldest copy" is not "original text".

The Bible has better source documentation than almost any comparable work of antiquity.

Most modern skeptics were shut up by the Dead Sea Scrolls, but we can go around the carousel again if you like.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #34 of 346
Quote:
The Bible has better source documentation than almost any comparable work of antiquity.

Even if we take that statement as true, which we need not, I do not see what this has to do with my point, which is that it is dishonest to say that there is any "original text" available for the Bible. There isn't. We have, at absolute best, very old copies of copies of copies. And at every step along the way, from the very old copies of copies, there are alterations (purposeful or accidental).

To argue that there is an "original text" is factually inaccurate.

And the standard you have invented (compared to "almost any comparable work of antiquity") is completely meaningless; a red herring. The Bible's books are not comparable to anything else in antiquity.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #35 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

Even if we take that statement as true, which we need not...

No, that's an ignorant statement. Most in/many of academia take the texts as they represent. The only question is whether the texts have borrowed from other myths, or are social constructions. The texts/narratives are clearly from those time periods -- whether they are records of actual events is what is in question.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #36 of 346
Dionysos, Osiris, Mithras, Zoroaster, Krishna, Prometheus...the list goes on and on.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #37 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

No, that's an ignorant statement. Most in/many of academia take the texts as they represent. The only question is whether the texts have borrowed from other myths, or are social constructions. The texts/narratives are clearly from those time periods -- whether they are records of actual events is what is in question.

Now you are being disingenuous DMZ - I think that it is not really possible to argue against the point.

The Bible can not possibly have any 'original text' as it is not a coherent whole....it is a collection of works of authors of differing religious beliefs (and none), differing cultures, differing political perspectives and written over a span of over 2000 years.

How can such a conglomeration have an 'original text'?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #38 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Now you are being disingenuous DMZ - I think that it is not really possible to argue against the point.

The Bible can not possibly have any 'original text' as it is not a coherent whole....it is a collection of works of authors of differing religious beliefs (and none), differing cultures, differing political perspectives and written over a span of over 2000 years.

How can such a conglomeration have an 'original text'?

Hmmmmm.... I'd say it's more disingenuous to draw that distinction: to demanding an "original text". Most scholars agree that these narratives were oral traditions [dare I say "recitations"] until much later on -- maybe not Nehemiah later but much later than you'd think. And when you compare those texts with what they reference -- the languages, the historical/cultural references, it bears out that they were from that time period. (Just like any other text of the era is verified.)

And in any event, you have to account for the Hebrew religion, which by any account is very old.

What we do "know" -- in a secular academic sense -- is that there was a King David, and there was someone named Moses, and that the Israelites really existed, really built a temple in Jerusalem. We "know" that they had an experience at Horeb/Musa that they interpreted as a divine encounter. We also can gather from the first/second century materials that there was a guy named Yeshua, that paid off a lot of the Jewish cultural expectations -- expectations based on that earlier cultural overhead. See the "historical Jesus" materials.

It isn't a question whether these people or events happened/existed at that time, it's a question of whether they are accurate. And again, for those wishing to strip Scripture of its authority, it is a 100 times more potent to simply reduce it to a social construction, rather than insist the ancient Israelites, or Yeshua never existed.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #39 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Hmmmmm.... I'd say it's more disingenuous to draw that distinction: to demanding an "original text". Most scholars agree that these narratives were oral traditions [dare I say "recitations"] until much later on -- maybe not Nehemiah later but much later than you'd think. And when you compare those texts with what they reference -- the languages, the historical/cultural references, it bears out that they were from that time period. (Just like any other text of the era is verified.)

But this in itself is dishonest in a way - there WAS an oral tradition but the oral tradition was the earlier non-Hebrew mythos.

The flood was an oral tradition - but never in a Biblical sense....it was even literary in the Babylonian iteration from which it was lifted.

Ditto the two contradictory creation myths in Genesis...on at least may have been oral but the Biblical version never was.

All of what we know as Bible in its Judaic form is literary.

Quote:
And in any event, you have to account for the Hebrew religion, which by any account is very old.

Umm...?

Quote:
What we do "know" -- in a secular academic sense -- is that there was a King David.

Do we?

How do we know this? Please don't say 'from the Bible' or we will have to shoot you.

Quote:
, and there was someone named Moses,

Again - evidence?

Quote:
We also can gather from the first/second century materials that there was a guy named Yeshua, that paid off a lot of the Jewish cultural expectations -- expectations based on that earlier cultural overhead. See the "historical Jesus" materials

One historical source and one only. A dubious one that says none of those things. In fact it is almost a throwaway comment that may even be spurious or a later addition.

Quote:
It isn't a question whether these people or events happened/existed at that time,

Why not? I would say it is nothing else but that..

Quote:
it's a question of whether they are accurate. And again, for those wishing to strip Scripture of its authority, it is a 100 times more potent to simply reduce it to a social construction, rather than insist the ancient Israelites, or Yeshua never existed.

For anyone wishing to strip scripture of its 'authority' it is only necessary to make a list of the first contradictions one finds in the text. No need to list the hundreds , the first 10 or so will do.

Thereafter the question merely becomes a philosophical/psychological one: "how can people continue to believe that a document with inherent and blatant contradictions is any sort of guidance, divine or otherwise"...but it is all the more interesting for that.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #40 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Again - evidence?

That would be the existence of the Israelites, the archeology, references to the historical period, bla, bla, bla. Something like Solomon's temple is a given, historically speaking. (And of course you, or anyone else are free to deny that Solomon or David existed, because we don't have a body, and videotape of the Temple being built, etc., but that's not how historical studies are conducted.)

As to contradictions in the Bible -- only in the most superficial sort of way. Any questionable text is bracketed and footnoted as such.

Annnnnnnd.... I'm starting to repeat myself here, and I've got a domain to move over so that DNS flips on the weekend, so I'll let you guys muse why we don't have Yeshua's Roman deposition, or a EEG of Pilate's wife during her dream.

(Look up historical-textual criticism.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Bible --- Too liberal For Some