Print

[pingrr]

A lot of people do not take the bible word for word as exact truth.  Some people do and they are idiots.  But a lot of people just look at the bible as a history book or a spiritual guide.  Books of religion will change over time as do peoples beliefs.  For example in Roman times people believed that the SUN was a got and now we know it to be a star so people don't worship the sun anymore.

[jha'dhur]

[jha'dhur]

[damam]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 18 2006, 12:49 PM)

How stupid does someone have to be to believe this kind of notion?
Besides the obvious fallacies and the errors in the bible, why do few of these people know how to speak Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic?
If I believed that something was the "work of God", then I would sure as hell learn how to read it so that I could make sure that I grasped all of the subtle nuances of the original author's text.  I've heard that God made sure that the translators got all of the good stuff in there....but it just doesnt make sense.  Everyone knows that you lose a little bit in translation.  The words are not perfectly equivalent in certain situations.

i have tried to learn ancient greek, hebrew and aramaic for that very reason only to find that I am woefully underskilled as a linguist   there are also examples within the bible where the translation has obscured what actually happened.  While I do believe that "good stuff" will make it through any earnest attempts to correctly translate the bible, i also recognise that some will be lost.  I also find it somewhat ironic that as a christian convert I find myself amongst a small group of christians who have actually read the bible cover to cover.

QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 18 2006, 12:49 PM)

So, why do all of these idiots still follow a movement that started during the 1850's?  
Biblical literalism is a rather new phenomenom.  While medievel catholics might have believed the bible to be divine, the church did this more for political reasons than practical reasons.
Even the protestant reformation was lacking in this obsessive "inerrant" bible.
So, why do we still listen to this crap?

Its my oppinion that this is generally done by people who have not read the bible to any great extent outside of a structured learning class.  What it really boils down to is they do not want to think about it.  If you simply point out problems in the bible, they can simply call you a tool of lucifer and the debate ends right there before any critical thought can occur.  They can then feel safe and secure knowing that they will never actually have to defend there beliefs.  

QUOTE

Who would bother to read a history books that has numerous errors, and a difficult time keeping chronology correct?

Lots of people would and do, and not just with the bible but with all sorts of ancient documents that share the exact same flaws.  Archaelogists/historians that study these time periods dont have accurate historical accounts to read on what happened.  They go to the next best thing, which are the writings from the time period.  The bible does give general information of climate, locations, customs, politics, culture, etc which are useful when trying to gain context of an archaelogical find.   this eventually leads to a clearer picture of history and what these people and there life experiences were really like.  Of course archaelogists also use lots of sources outside of the bible as well (like writings from competing cultures of the same era for example), but they tend to have the exact same flaws that the bible has as far as history books go.  

[pug_ster]

The Bible is probably the most misused tool in human history.  During the plague in the Medieval times, it is believed that God was punishing mankind for its sins led to an increase in sinful behavior.  In the early American coloninal days, they used the bible to justify slavery.  You have Pat Robertson portrayed his word is God's word and used the bible to push his own agenda and beliefs.  Most of the christian leaders believe that abortion, and gay Marriage is wrong when you never heard Jesus Christ saying anything about it.  Bush and the conservative right used the Christians as to get him elected.  I could go on and on.

[throwingks]

QUOTE(damam @ Jul 19 2006, 12:50 PM)

Of course archaelogists also use lots of sources outside of the bible as well (like writings from competing cultures of the same era for example), but they tend to have the exact same flaws that the bible has as far as history books go.

They have the potential to make the same mistakes. But, they are also open to correct themselves. The Bible is believed by many to be set in stone, that is the way it is/was. Archaelogists make mistakes, but when found, correct them. Even if it is hundreds/thousands of years later.

Judas for example. Historians now tell what we know as the truth. He didn't betray Jesus. But, the Bible still portrays his as a traitor, and always will.


When I mention the Bible I mean King James version. And, I assume everyone else does to.

[pingrr]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Jul 19 2006, 11:27 AM)

The Bible is probably the most misused tool in human history.  During the plague in the Medieval times, it is believed that God was punishing mankind for its sins led to an increase in sinful behavior.  In the early American coloninal days, they used the bible to justify slavery.  You have Pat Robertson portrayed his word is God's word and used the bible to push his own agenda and beliefs.  Most of the christian leaders believe that abortion, and gay Marriage is wrong when you never heard Jesus Christ saying anything about it.  Bush and the conservative right used the Christians as to get him elected.  I could go on and on.

Your rite a lot of trible things have been done in the name of god/religion.  But there have also been a lot of very good things done in the name of God.
You could have two people each sit down and read the bible and both of them could have an entirley different interpretation of what they just read.  A lot of things are not clear in the bible so people will interpret them in such a way that will fit their agenada.

[damam]

QUOTE(throwingks @ Jul 19 2006, 06:27 AM)

They have the potential to make the same mistakes. But, they are also open to correct themselves. The Bible is believed by many to be set in stone, that is the way it is/was. Archaelogists make mistakes, but when found, correct them. Even if it is hundreds/thousands of years later.

yes but the ancient Assyrians for example cannot go back and change their stories, documents, etc either.  And that is a good thing, it would take away from the flavour the documents give us today of what life was like back then.  The fact that the bible has stayed relatively the same for 2500 - 1700 years (most scholars agree that the bible is about 98.5% pure meaning that about 1.5% of the bible is in question as to its authenticity) makes it a historical document that historians would be insane to ignore.  Historians are free to take from all of these sources and create a consistent history.  Puck is saying anyone who tries to use the Bible for history is an idiot.  I disagree, it has its place in historical studies.  For example when looking at Assyrians and what their conquered subjects thought of them, we can use documents from the bible as well as many others from places like babylonia to gain that understanding.

People who soley use the bible for historical studies, and dont look to other evidence will be sorely in for a suprise should they ever do so.  But to toss the bible aside and leave it completely out of the study of the past is just as ridiculous.

QUOTE(throwingks @ Jul 19 2006, 06:27 AM)

Judas for example. Historians now tell what we know as the truth. He didn't betray Jesus. But, the Bible still portrays his as a traitor, and always will.
When I mention the Bible I mean King James version. And, I assume everyone else does to.

actually we dont really know if it was a betrayal or not.  there are strong arguements for both sides.  And thats what makes history so intriguing

[throwingks]

I was always under the impression that the Old Testament was made up of historical recounts passed through spoken stories. That would be way less than 98.5% accurate. Archaeologists would be closer to the real facts because it goes through scientific scrutiny, not blind belief.

[damam]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 19 2006, 09:05 AM)

I agree...however...it is only valuable to historians as a mythological narrative.
Just like the epic poems of Homer, the Bible may hold some fact.  It is important to remember, though, that it is still a work of fiction.  It also is not meant as a historical text....and therefore any historical "facts" are only useful until a more reliable source presents different evidence.

mythological like what?  

Take as one example Leviticus.  Are you suggesting that the jews never followed the laws in Leviticus? never did the rituals described in Leviticus?  that element of hebrew life is all a myth?

[damam]

QUOTE(throwingks @ Jul 19 2006, 11:07 AM)

I was always under the impression that the Old Testament was made up of historical recounts passed through spoken stories. That would be way less than 98.5% accurate. Archaeologists would be closer to the real facts because it goes through scientific scrutiny, not blind belief.

you misinterpreted what i said.  
The current bible (both old and new) that we have today is 98.5% accurate compared to the original texts.  this is of course an estimate.  it is based on comparing the dead sea scrolls and the The Septuagint to the Old testament and a similar comparison with the new testament.  The 1.5% that is in question is primarily spelling and gramar.  We can be pretty darn sure that what we are reading is what was read atleast 2000 years ago and probably longer since we know that the jews started writing long before 250BC.  

All that makes it a very good source for historians to use when it is applied to customs, rituals, laws, culture, etc.  It also gives us a very good idea of how the hebrews interpretted events as well such as Assyrian and babylonian captivity.  

[puckSR]

QUOTE

The 1.5% that is in question is primarily spelling and gramar. We can be pretty darn sure that what we are reading is what was read atleast 2000 years ago and probably longer since we know that the jews started writing long before 250BC.

Actually...your wrong.
We do not have any original text for any book of the new testament...and all of the "original" copies of books that we do have seem to conflict.

The authorship of the books of the bible are so questionable that NO ONE knows who wrote them.  Im not saying that we cannot prove who wrote the gospels...Im saying that their is incredibly strong evidence to suggest that the author lied about their true identity.

Massive editing and changing of Christians texts was so common that the Revelations of John actually contains a warning against editing it....

As one famous biblical scholar points out...there are more errors between the different texts than there are words in the bible.  While 95% of those errors are simply grammatical errors...there are a great number of errors/contradictions in the bible.  Damam...you say you have read the bible...but obviously you werent paying attention.  

I wish people would actually research this kind of stuff before making dismissive claims.
The bible is erroneous...we dont even have an original version....and the books that exist in the current bible were basically chosen on popularity...after powerful men in the church "weeded out" the "false" books.

QUOTE

mythological like what?

Take as one example Leviticus. Are you suggesting that the jews never followed the laws in Leviticus? never did the rituals described in Leviticus? that element of hebrew life is all a myth?

No...
That probably happened...
The Greeks did wage a massive battle against the trojans.
But the Illiad is still a mythological narrative...taking inspiration from historical events.

The Old Testament of the bible is not a historical tome that contains some crazy stories...
It is a mythological narrative that contains some historical truth.

[damam]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 19 2006, 01:43 PM)

Actually...your wrong.
We do not have any original text for any book of the new testament...and all of the "original" copies of books that we do have seem to conflict.

obviously i mis-typed - but im pretty sure you knew what I meant by "original".  as for conflict - yes they do from time to time.  the gnostic texts provide numerous re-interpretations of various stories.  I recently read one where the creation story had the snake being mans heroic liberator, essentially flipping the entire story on its head.  but all in all, it still was the same story just taken from a different perspective.

QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 19 2006, 01:43 PM)

The authorship of the books of the bible are so questionable that NO ONE knows who wrote them.  Im not saying that we cannot prove who wrote the gospels...Im saying that their is incredibly strong evidence to suggest that the author lied about their true identity.

you already know that i know/agree with this - so what is your point?  we can still get reasonably good proximal dates.  It still gives us a good idea of what the early christians were concerned with.  It still provides cultural relavance, etc, etc etc

QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 19 2006, 01:43 PM)

Massive editing and changing of Christians texts was so common that the Revelations of John actually contains a warning against editing it....

yes, it was a problem early on in regions where exact copying was not valued.  but fortunately we have roughly 60 complete documents and 25000 incomplete documents from that era that can be used to cross and re-cross verify everything.  it also helps to give us a timeline for the development of dogmas, sects, etc.  even if there was massive editing, this does not somehow invalidate the new perspective of the editor either.  Even the doodlings of monks in the margins gives us valuable information about their culture and society.  

QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 19 2006, 01:43 PM)

As one famous biblical scholar points out...there are more errors between the different texts than there are words in the bible.  While 95% of those errors are simply grammatical errors...there are a great number of errors/contradictions in the bible.  Damam...you say you have read the bible...but obviously you werent paying attention.  

I wish people would actually research this kind of stuff before making dismissive claims.
The bible is erroneous...we dont even have an original version....and the books that exist in the current bible were basically chosen on popularity...after powerful men in the church "weeded out" the "false" books.

and i wish people would read what i actually wrote before personally attacking me.  but heh we dont always get what we want.

so what are you saying that 99.925% of the complete bible is textually pure excluding grammatical issues.  so if my bible is 4000 pages long that would mean that the equivaelent of about three full pages would be textually impure.  I could live with it being a whole lot worse.  And archaelogists/historians deal with texts that are worse all the time.

I never said there werent contradictions or errors within the bible.  There are lots of contradictions and errors.  As a matter of fact i said within this thread that "People who soley use the bible for historical studies, and dont look to other evidence will be sorely in for a suprise should they ever do so."  besides we have had enough discussions here on this board for you to know that i dont think the bible is perfect.  I have also stated that I seperate history from my personal dogmas.  So i am not really sure where this hostility is coming from.

You asked why anyone would read the bible for historical reasons and i am giving you valid reasons why historians and archaelogists do.  the contradictions and errors within the bible do not negate its use for contextual relevance when studying old civilizations.  The bible says that an angel guards the garden of eden, and since you seem to think that all christians are idiots, i will come out and say that i dont think that is literally true.  But it does provide relevence and insite to know that a good percentage of the hebrews bought into this idea at the time.  

also keep in mind that while you may have little to no respect for my beliefs, my atheist parents and siblings have an equael respect for your notion that there is still a creator of some sort (if i have understood your beliefs correctly).  They would probably throw us in the same boat actually.  Bottom line is that there is always going to be someone who thinks they are a little more enlightened than you are, and we all have the right to believe spiritually what ever we want.

[damam]

oops

[damam]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 20 2006, 08:04 AM)

Sorry it felt like a personal attack Damam...It wasnt meant as one...

were cool

QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 20 2006, 08:04 AM)

right...but one thing that has been learned from all of those documents is that the bible that is considered "canon" today has drastically edited books contained within.

They disagree with each other...not because mark said one thing and matthew says another....
When we find 4 "copies" of the Gospel of Mark...we find that they disagree in both minor and major ways.
The letters and gospels of the bible were edited to more fully reflect the "belief" of the Christian faith.

You seem to think that im claiming that different books conflict with each other...when I am actually saying that the same books, but different copies of it, conflict with each other....in several ways...including whole passages.

Now, if this all happened with people actually copying the books....
How can we expect any accuracy from the Old Testament that admittedly was written centuries after most of the events took place?

unfortunately i will be losing my internet connection sometime today very soon - so i am going to be making this quick.  I would really like to continue this conversation when/if I get it back.
:::
i will say this:  your arguement is valid for competing versions of the same gospel and there edits.  That is why my version of the Bible is considered to be a blasphemous open canan by some.  hopefully i can explain my position better at a future date.