IrishEyes Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 The King James isn't the most currently accepted version of the Bible. Almost no one uses that version any more. The NIV (New Internation Version) is now the most accepted. There are many numbers of manuscripts dated far before the King James was translated that show us that the translations were correct, and even allows us to retranslate to modern English directly from the ancient Greek and Hebraic manuscripts. I would be VERY interested to learn where you get your information.
bumab Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 My point is that within the evolutionary worldview, "morality" is merely utilitarian rules that we have constructed by evolving to make our societies function and stay orderly and not die out. ...I feel that naturalistic evolution is all-encompassing, and is even able to explain morality as utilitarian rules. I agree. That's where I feel religion has to take a stand and say "There's something more to this, more then a set of evolutionarily constructed rules." If you can accept morality (and thus free will) as an evolutionary construct, then that's it. Religion, really, loses validity. If you can't accept that, then religion is a viable entity. Thoughts?
bumab Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 I would be VERY interested to learn where you get your information. As for the older sources that corraberate the KJV, the Dead Sea Scrolls and some of the texts found along with the Gnostic gospels match up really accuratly with the modern text (at least, that's what the translators tell me :o ) along with giving more records of the time period. But a major point here is that ancient Greeks and Hebrews and others would not understand the same text in the same way. We might have preserved the words, but it's an entirely different to say we've preserved the meaning. The real valuable scholarly research comes from trying to understand what so and so meant when he wrote such and such. The most obvious and common example is that "7 days and 7 nights" to us means a week, but the way it's written in the Hebrew suggests any length of time- and that's the origional (or closer to it) language it was written in. As for meaning for meaning, I'm told the Living Bible gets closest at this point in time. But, it's attacked by some more conservative groups. Can't win for trying! :o
lindagarrette Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 Also, I think that verses and passages should be taken in context, rather than pulled apart and used to defend a certain philosphy or idea. There is no way know the context of any biblical passage since the only record we have is the book itself. That's why it can be used to defend just about any notion. Without the facts, who can disagree?
jp3089 Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 There is no way know the context of any biblical passage since the only record we have is the book itself. That's why it can be used to defend just about any notion. Without the facts, who can disagree? That's not quite correct. The entire New Testament was written after 40 AD, so we can actually verify its claims, archaeologically as well as comparing it to other literary sources of the time to verify its accuracy. Even Jesus is mentioned in many other manuscripts including writings by Josephus, Tacitus, and in approximately 34-35 AD, ossuaries (stone containers to hold deceased people's bones) began having writings on them such as "Jesus save me". Besides, the archaeological record has done nothing but back up what is written in the Bible. For a long time, the Hittite empire mentioned in the Old Testament was one of the biggest arguments against the validity of the Bible. However, in the 1960's the Hittite empire was discovered by archaeologists.... Just more evidence to support the accuracy of the Bible. Anyway, if you take something like the Bible out of context, you CAN use it to justify just about any horrible thing. But if you take the time to read the verses in context, see the big-picture of the Bible, and compare the passages to other ones that help clarify, the Bible really is a story of God's love expressed through Jesus Christ that hinges on fallenness, redemption, and restoration. -jp
jp3089 Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 As for the older sources that corraberate the KJV, the Dead Sea Scrolls and some of the texts found along with the Gnostic gospels match up really accuratly with the modern text (at least, that's what the translators tell me :o ) along with giving more records of the time period. But a major point here is that ancient Greeks and Hebrews and others would not understand the same text in the same way. We might have preserved the words, but it's an entirely different to say we've preserved the meaning. The real valuable scholarly research comes from trying to understand what so and so meant when he wrote such and such. The most obvious and common example is that "7 days and 7 nights" to us means a week, but the way it's written in the Hebrew suggests any length of time- and that's the origional (or closer to it) language it was written in. As for meaning for meaning, I'm told the Living Bible gets closest at this point in time. But, it's attacked by some more conservative groups. Can't win for trying! :o Thanks for taking care of that for me. Most of these things are easily accessible answers that can be looked up on the internet. Have you ever had a chance to read The Message? I'm pretty sure it's even more paraphrase than the Living Bible. It's a lot of fun to read. :o
jp3089 Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 I'm not speaking about translation, I'm speaking of interpretation. You would decide that one of Warhol's portraits suddenly was anything more than pop art, even if you happened to prefer Jagger over Monroe... To say you can decide whether it is allegorical in parts and literal in others pretty much makes it nothing more that a work of fiction that you can decipher as you will. I don't like that part about thou shall not kill, so I'll look at it as a fable, but over here it says the world was fooded, and darn it it was...The bible said so. For it to any sort of reliable reference it needs to be exanmine in either light, allegory are litteral depiction of events, not pick and choose what is convenient to your POV they seem pretty much mutually exclusive POV's when looking at a single item. It's not picking and choosing as I stated in an earlier post. That's not how Biblical scholars decipher literal and allegorical passages. To pick and choose is to do a disservice to the Bible. For Example: Allegorical passages sometimes are fairly obvious, such as most of Revelation. However, some are very literal, such as most of the Gospels, Kings, Chronicles, Judges... etc. Genesis happens to be a mix of allegory and literal writing. There's no rule that says you have to pick one and apply it to the entire Bible. If YOU have a rule like that, that's fine for you. But the Bible doesn't need to follow YOUR rule to be a reliable reference. -jp p.s. To your credit, many people (even ones that call themselves Christians) take the Bible out of context and use it to justify horrible things. There were even people who tried to use the Bible to justify slavery during the civil war. That's just one example.
jp3089 Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 I agree. That's where I feel religion has to take a stand and say "There's something more to this, more then a set of evolutionarily constructed rules." If you can accept morality (and thus free will) as an evolutionary construct, then that's it. Religion, really, loses validity. If you can't accept that, then religion is a viable entity. Thoughts? I definitely agree. I think morality is too big of a player (in the minds of many) to be left up to evolutionary processes. -jp
jp3089 Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 I would be VERY interested to learn where you get your information. "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. It's a good read. Asks a lot of tough questions about Christianity, Jesus, and the Bible. I even have a copy I'd be willing to send to you. -jp
lindagarrette Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 That's not quite correct. The entire New Testament was written after 40 AD, so we can actually verify its claims, archaeologically as well as comparing it to other literary sources of the time to verify its accuracy. Even Jesus is mentioned in many other manuscripts including writings by Josephus, Tacitus, and in approximately 34-35 AD, ossuaries (stone containers to hold deceased people's bones) began having writings on them such as "Jesus save me". Besides, the archaeological record has done nothing but back up what is written in the Bible. For a long time, the Hittite empire mentioned in the Old Testament was one of the biggest arguments against the validity of the Bible. However, in the 1960's the Hittite empire was discovered by archaeologists.... Just more evidence to support the accuracy of the Bible. -jpMost of the archeological evidence recently surfacing conflicts with the biblical stories and there is no corroborated evidence that Jesus as glorified in the gospels, ever existed. Biblical scholars have dismissed the external sources as forgeries. You can check the internet for multitudes of references for verification.
lindagarrette Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 There's no rule that says you have to pick one and apply it to the entire Bible. If YOU have a rule like that, that's fine for you. But the Bible doesn't need to follow YOUR rule to be a reliable reference. How can a reference be reliable if it is not intersubjectively verifiable?
Fishteacher73 Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 Was it not at aprox. 300 c.e. that the "church" took the writings and compiled what it wanted, and ignored other sources (Usually called aprocrypha, if I recall).
Queso Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 that's what i heard too...once again, just like that childrens game "Telephone" where you sit in a circle and pass along a sentance.
IrishEyes Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. It's a good read. Asks a lot of tough questions about Christianity, Jesus, and the Bible. I even have a copy I'd be willing to send to you. -jpI've read it. It was 'interesting'. Thanks for the offer. Is that your only source of information, for which you make your claims? Or have you done other studying on this subject?
IrishEyes Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 Was it not at aprox. 300 c.e. that the "church" took the writings and compiled what it wanted, and ignored other sources (Usually called aprocrypha, if I recall).Yes, it was 'around' that time. I've done some research on this when studying about the different versions of the Bible currently in use. That's one of the reasons I asked jp for his source, as the information I have is very different. It's my understanding that the 'church' combined many different religions to come up with what is now Catholocism. They used parts of Judaism, Christianity, Gnosticism, and paganism. The intent was to create a religion that many different groups of conquered people could accept, while the church remained the ultimate authority. In this way, God was taken out of the equation, and a man was put in his place. Religion became more a way for the church to control the masses and less about a personal relationship with God.
bumab Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 Have you ever had a chance to read The Message? I'm pretty sure it's even more paraphrase than the Living Bible. It's a lot of fun to read. :D I have, and I was thinking about it as I wrote that post. Just thought it would add more confusion. I do like it, very accessable. Besides "the case for Christ," have you read "a new kind of chistian?" sounds like you would find it interesting.
bumab Posted February 19, 2005 Report Posted February 19, 2005 Most of the archeological evidence recently surfacing conflicts with the biblical stories and there is no corroborated evidence that Jesus as glorified in the gospels, ever existed. Biblical scholars have dismissed the external sources as forgeries. You can check the internet for multitudes of references for verification. I'm sorry, but I've yet to hear of a conflicting discovery towards parts of the historical bible. Ur was discovered, Josephus is still accepted (as far as I know), etc etc. I tried looking it up on Google- found nothing but obviously biased sites (on both sides :D ). I'm sorry I've not time right now to look into it more in depth- did you have a particular source in mind? Also, of course you can take things literally and not literally in the same book- that's obvious. Textbooks use analgoies all the time. If you were talking about different people taking the same part literally or as an analogy, that's an obviously valid concern... but misinterpritation does nothing for your argument. Careful study of the origional languages, the historical context, etc etc brings out the details. Could we be wrong about some things? Of course- nobody here is claiming to have the exactly correct definition...
Recommended Posts