The crap selective Biblical literalism has fostered

[Daisy]

Butt, but, but... If you're using the bible they created, how do you reconcile that? Seriously, I can't fathom that.

I don't...I use the new World Translation, translated from/based on the original Hebrew and Greek texts...

ESTABLISHING THE HEBREW AND GREEK TEXTS FOR TRANSLATION
Not all copies of ancient Bible manuscripts contain identical wording. How, then, can we know what the original text contained?

The situation could be likened to that of a teacher who asks 100 students to copy a chapter of a book. Even if the original chapter was later lost, a comparison of the 100 copies would still reveal the original text. While each student might make some errors, it is highly unlikely that all the students would make exactly the same ones. Similarly, when scholars compare the thousands of fragments and copies of ancient Bible books available to them, they can detect copyist error and determine the original wording.

How confident can we be that the thoughts contained in the original Bible texts have been accurately transmitted to us? Commenting on the text of the Hebrew Scriptures, scholar William H. Green stated: “It may be safely said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted.” Regarding the Christian Greek Scriptures, or so-called New Testament, Bible scholar F. F. Bruce wrote: “The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning.” He also said: “If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.”

Hebrew Text: The New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (1953-1960) was based on Biblia Hebraica, by Rudolf Kittel. Since that time, updated editions of the Hebrew text, namely, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and Biblia Hebraica Quinta, have included recent research based on the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient manuscripts. These scholarly works reproduce the Leningrad Codex in the main text along with footnotes that contain comparative wording from other sources, including the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Greek Septuagint, the Aramaic Targums, the Latin Vulgate, and the Syriac Pe****ta. Both Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and Biblia Hebraica Quinta were consulted when preparing the present revision of the New World Translation.

Greek Text: In the late 19th century, scholars B. F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort compared existing Bible manuscripts and fragments as they prepared the Greek master text that they felt most closely reflected the original writings. In the mid-20th century, the New World Bible Translation Committee used that master text as the basis for its translation. Other early papyri, thought to date back to the second and third centuries C.E., were also used. Since then, more papyri have become available. In addition, master texts such as those by Nestle and Aland and by the United Bible Societies reflect recent scholarly studies. Some of the findings of this research were incorporated into this present revision.

Based on those master texts, it is evident that some verses of the Christian Greek Scriptures found in older translations, such as the King James Version, were actually additions made by later copyists and were never part of the inspired Scriptures. However, because the verse division generally accepted in Bible translations was already established in the 16th century, the omission of these verses now creates gaps in the verse numbering in most Bibles. The verses are Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; and Romans 16:24. In this revised edition, those omitted verses are indicated by a footnote at the location of the omission.

Regarding the long conclusion for Mark 16 (verses 9-20), the short conclusion for Mark 16, and the wording found at John 7:53–8:11, it is evident that none of these verses were included in the original manuscripts. Therefore, those spurious texts have not been included in this revision.*

Some other wording has been adjusted to incorporate what scholars generally accept as the most authentic reflection of the original writings. For instance, according to some manuscripts, Matthew 7:13 reads: “Go in through the narrow gate because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction.” In previous editions of the New World Translation, “is the gate” was not included in the text. However, further study of the manuscript evidence led to the conclusion that “is the gate” was in the original text. So it was included in this present edition. There are a number of similar refinements. However, these adjustments are minor, and none of them change the basic message of God’s Word.

A3 How the Bible Came to Us — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[akyron]

This guy made a sandwich old school as well.

This is more enlightening than the entire thread.

 

[NWRatCon]

I prefer the Jefferson bible. Short, sweet, and to the point. His work preceded that of the Jesus Seminar by about 200 years (and succeeded the Nicean conclave by about 1300), but they had similar goals - to suss out the actual words and teachings of Jesus.

 

[Xelor]

I suppose ironic is one word for it....

[1] Judge not, that ye be not judged.
[2] For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
[3] And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
[4] Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
[5] Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
-- Matthew 7:1-5​

Now either the above passage is rightly interpreted figuratively with regard to motes and beams, or it's rightly applied literally thus.
-- Figurative application --> Insofar as one is necessarily stained with various sins, the beams, one mustn't judge others.
-- Literal application --> Beams and motes are specific physical things, in which case the proscription doesn't apply to non-motes and non-beams.
Now, one can invoke literal or figurative patristics, but in doing so, one implies the corresponding approach to Biblical interpretation, and thus one must be consistent with regard to the rest of the Bible. I don't care with tack one takes; I care that one is consistent in taking it.

That is illogical thinking and why context has to be considered, to determine if the meaning is literal or figurative...it is not all or nothing, as is the case for most things in life...

Red:
...If one must use passages of the Bible as the or as part of the basis one uses to legitimate ones temporal judgments of others, of course, one must hold to the notion that it's not all or nothing as goes whether Bible passages are linguistically literal or figurative.

I am a Christian who subscribes to what the Bible teaches, not what some 3rd century crowd of men thought it said...there is no hellfire, there is no immortal soul, there is no trinity taught in the Bible...

Blue:
And there again we observe the convenient patristic flip-flop from the literal to the figurative (inferential).

• The "Flip": Matthew 7:1-5 --> You clearly reject the literality, thus accepting the figurativity, the passage about motes and beams and what one may judge about others. Doing so accords you license to judge whomever you want, one such judgment being that alcoholics' assertions that they are Christians are inaccurate own assertions to the contrary, are not Christians....I suppose that "stone" of judgment is one you can cast either because (1) someone before you cast it first, (2) the judgment isn't literally a stone, or (3) you are without sin....Furthermore you have adjudged my Mat 7:1-5 analysis illogical.
• The "Flop": The Bible doesn't explicitly, literally define as extant the Holy Trinity; therefore you reject its existence. By the same token, the Trinity is logically inferred from passages in the Bible:
  • John 10:30 --> "I and the Father are one."
  • 1 Corinthians 8:6 --> "There is but one Lord, Jesus Christ."
  • 2 Corinthians 3:17 --> "The Lord is the Spirit."

Jesus and God are one and Jesus is the Spirit; therefore God is the Spirit. Thus the Trinity is.​

As I said, my issue is that Christians patristic hermeneutics are inconsistent, so much so as to be illogical. In response to charges of their being irrational, illogical, Christians, rather than responding with something logically sound, respond with summary declarations about logic's inapplicability to understanding Christian catechism. Well, in a matter of speaking, they're right: the instant one applies logic to the stuff Christians say/found on what's in the Bible, one immediately understands that what they say doesn't make sense. (Aside: Christian theists are about the last people who have any business talking about what's logical and what's not, for, given the illogic to which they ascribe, they are demonstratively bereft of enough practice at, thus adeptness enough with, applying logic to legitimate any such assertion they may make about what is and isn't logical.)

 

[zyzygy]

I prefer the Jefferson bible. Short, sweet, and to the point. His work preceded that of the Jesus Seminar by about 200 years (and succeeded the Nicean conclave by about 1300), but they had similar goals - to suss out the actual words and teachings of Jesus.

Who took down Jesus's actual words in shorthand?

 

[Daisy]

Blue:
And there again we observe the convenient patristic flip-flop from the literal to the figurative (inferential).

• The "Flip": Matthew 7:1-5 --> You clearly reject the literality, thus accepting the figurativity, the passage about motes and beams and what one may judge about others. Doing so accords you license to judge whomever you want, one such judgment being that alcoholics' assertions that they are Christians are inaccurate own assertions to the contrary, are not Christians....I suppose that "stone" of judgment is one you can cast either because (1) someone before you cast it first, (2) the judgment isn't literally a stone, or (3) you are without sin....Furthermore you have adjudged my Mat 7:1-5 analysis illogical.
• The "Flop": The Bible doesn't explicitly, literally define as extant the Holy Trinity; therefore you reject its existence. By the same token, the Trinity is logically inferred from passages in the Bible:
  • John 10:30 --> "I and the Father are one."
  • 1 Corinthians 8:6 --> "There is but one Lord, Jesus Christ."
  • 2 Corinthians 3:17 --> "The Lord is the Spirit."

Jesus and God are one and Jesus is the Spirit; therefore God is the Spirit. Thus the Trinity is.​

As I said, my issue is that Christians patristic hermeneutics are inconsistent, so much so as to be illogical. In response to charges of their being irrational, illogical, Christians, rather than responding with something logically sound, respond with summary declarations about logic's inapplicability to understanding Christian catechism. Well, in a matter of speaking, they're right: the instant one applies logic to the stuff Christians say/found on what's in the Bible, one immediately understands that what they say doesn't make sense. (Aside: Christian theists are about the last people who have any business talking about what's logical and what's not, for, given the illogic to which they ascribe, they are demonstratively bereft of enough practice at, thus adeptness enough with, applying logic to legitimate any such assertion they may make about what is and isn't logical.)

Wrong...

https://www.debatepolitics.com/beli...literalism-has-fostered-3.html#post1070012793

 

[kitsune]

Indeed; and I'm seeing hash made right here, too!

Modern readers are thus more confident in their own inerrancy in their interpretation than they are in the inerrancy of "God's word." Jesus spoke to that hubris, too. They wouldn't like what he had to say.

And in their attachment to their biases, which they turn to the Bible to validate and justify.

Seems like this might be applicable here.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”

 

[RAMOSS]

Are you, Elvira, a Christian? Do you not ascribe to the Nicene Creed? To the extent you do, it, the Council of Nicea, "worked out" pretty well.

As for the development of the Christian canons, though that isn't really what Nicea was all about (defining what be and be not canonical texts is part of what, for example, the Council of Trent was about), it did occur by the process NWRatCon describes, which is to say a bunch of dudes got together and decided which texts to include and which to reject. Among Christian belief systems, those decisions, by and large, have endured, as shown by the fact that Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Bibles are, with relatively minor exception, the same.

She's a Jehovah Witness.

 

[Logicman]

I prefer the Jefferson bible. Short, sweet, and to the point. His work preceded that of the Jesus Seminar by about 200 years (and succeeded the Nicean conclave by about 1300), but they had similar goals - to suss out the actual words and teachings of Jesus.

The Jefferson Bible was more about ethics than it was about the supernatural, although Jefferson did believe in a supernatural God working in America.

The Jesus Seminar was a gaggle of discredited, liberal, "a priori" anti-supernaturalists who cast colored beads to vote on which scriptures were to be included in the Bible.

 

[Logicman]

She's a Jehovah Witness.

She's still light years ahead of your twisted theology.

 

[RAMOSS]

She's still light years ahead of your twisted theology.

Non sequitur , your facts are uncoordinated. This comment does show the inability to follow a thread and read in context though. My comment was in response to the Nicene creed comment, and did not make a judgement on the correctness or incorrectness of her viewpoint. It is as correct as yours.. which is to say 'not at all'.

 

[ecofarm]

Here, have fun:

Responding to Pro-Gay Theology, Part III

That's a good article. It's a bit obviously rhetorical when it points out the orientation of scholars, but that's to be expected. Thanks for sharing. I agree with Boswell.

 

[Xelor]

She's a Jehovah Witness.

Well, that's somewhat expositive.

 

[Xelor]

I suppose ironic is one word for it....

[1] Judge not, that ye be not judged.
[2] For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
[3] And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
[4] Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
[5] Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
-- Matthew 7:1-5​

Now either the above passage is rightly interpreted figuratively with regard to motes and beams, or it's rightly applied literally thus.
-- Figurative application --> Insofar as one is necessarily stained with various sins, the beams, one mustn't judge others.
-- Literal application --> Beams and motes are specific physical things, in which case the proscription doesn't apply to non-motes and non-beams.
Now, one can invoke literal or figurative patristics, but in doing so, one implies the corresponding approach to Biblical interpretation, and thus one must be consistent with regard to the rest of the Bible. I don't care with tack one takes; I care that one is consistent in taking it.

That is illogical thinking and why context has to be considered, to determine if the meaning is literal or figurative...it is not all or nothing, as is the case for most things in life...

Red:
...If one must use passages of the Bible as the or as part of the basis one uses to legitimate ones temporal judgments of others, of course, one must hold to the notion that it's not all or nothing as goes whether Bible passages are linguistically literal or figurative.

I am a Christian who subscribes to what the Bible teaches, not what some 3rd century crowd of men thought it said...there is no hellfire, there is no immortal soul, there is no trinity taught in the Bible...

Blue:
And there again we observe the convenient patristic flip-flop from the literal to the figurative (inferential).

• The "Flip": Matthew 7:1-5 --> You clearly reject the literality, thus accepting the figurativity, the passage about motes and beams and what one may judge about others. Doing so accords you license to judge whomever you want, one such judgment being that alcoholics' assertions that they are Christians are inaccurate own assertions to the contrary, are not Christians....I suppose that "stone" of judgment is one you can cast either because (1) someone before you cast it first, (2) the judgment isn't literally a stone, or (3) you are without sin....Furthermore you have adjudged my Mat 7:1-5 analysis illogical.
• The "Flop": The Bible doesn't explicitly, literally define as extant the Holy Trinity; therefore you reject its existence. By the same token, the Trinity is logically inferred from passages in the Bible:
  • John 10:30 --> "I and the Father are one."
  • 1 Corinthians 8:6 --> "There is but one Lord, Jesus Christ."
  • 2 Corinthians 3:17 --> "The Lord is the Spirit."

Jesus and God are one and Jesus is the Spirit; therefore God is the Spirit. Thus the Trinity is.​

As I said, my issue is that Christians patristic hermeneutics are inconsistent, so much so as to be illogical. In response to charges of their being irrational, illogical, Christians, rather than responding with something logically sound, respond with summary declarations about logic's inapplicability to understanding Christian catechism. Well, in a matter of speaking, they're right: the instant one applies logic to the stuff Christians say/found on what's in the Bible, one immediately understands that what they say doesn't make sense. (Aside: Christian theists are about the last people who have any business talking about what's logical and what's not, for, given the illogic to which they ascribe, they are demonstratively bereft of enough practice at, thus adeptness enough with, applying logic to legitimate any such assertion they may make about what is and isn't logical.)

Wrong...

https://www.debatepolitics.com/beliefs-and-skepticism/355254-crap-selective-biblical-literalism-has-fostered-3.html#post1070012793

Pink:
Post 61 -- Lovebug's post that says, "Christian....not BC" -- doesn't show errancy in my comments...

Perhaps it's not the post you had in mind; however, it's the one I'm taken to upon clicking your "pink" link.

 

[OlNate]

I did and I think the article is twisting the Bible's words...

See, I didn't get that - they refer back to original language, just like the JW's, they do word studies, just like the JW's. They've just come to a different conclusion. How do you know they're twisting the Bible's words, and not the folks you are receiving your instruction from?

I'm not accusing anyone of anything...both sides appear to have done their due diligence (the same diligence), and come to different conclusions. That's the nature of the mystery of our faith. But I don't know how anyone condemns anyone else, given the "reasonable doubt" that multiple interpretations should put in anyone's mind. Maybe that's why the Bible spends so much time talking about love and humility, and so little time, comparatively speaking, on homosexuality, and other specific sins.

Word study of the Bible tends to assume that the more something is mentioned, the more important it is. Yet so much time and energy is spent "calling out" something that is barely mentioned, so much hurt caused, while seemingly ignoring one of the most often repeated concepts - love. The grace-focused Lutheran in me finds this very confusing.

 

[Daisy]

Jesus and God are one and Jesus is the Spirit; therefore God is the Spirit. Thus the Trinity is.

With this type of reasoning, so are the angels, including Satan and his demons...are they all a part of the Godhead, too?:roll:

 

[RAMOSS]

With this type of reasoning, so are the angels, including Satan and his demons...are they all a part of the Godhead, too?:roll:

They are just messengers, doing a job for God.. with no free will what so ever.

 

[Omega Man]

They are just messengers, doing a job for God.. with no free will what so ever.

Just like harpies!


OM

 

[NWRatCon]

That's a good article. It's a bit obviously rhetorical when it points out the orientation of scholars, but that's to be expected. Thanks for sharing. I agree with Boswell.

Its an unexceptional article, in my view, and doesn't really address the substance, frankly. Not quibbling, but unimpressed. For example, it notes that "The Hebrew word yada appears 943 times in the Old Testament; it carries a sexual meaning perhaps 10 of those 943 times." How do we reach the conclusion that that maybe 1% of the time It's sexual? Bad translation? Preconception? And why does anyone believe (harking back to the OP) that it is supposed to be literal? What's the lesson supposed to be? Don't be evil and idolators? Or don't be homosexual? It's really, really, really hard to reach the second conclusion unless you've reached that before you've read it.

That truly is my biggest problem with this approach - missing the forest by arguing what kind of trees are in it. If "God is love," why does he hold contempt for some of his creations? Or maybe it is just some of his believers are contemptuous.

 

[devildavid]

See, I didn't get that - they refer back to original language, just like the JW's, they do word studies, just like the JW's. They've just come to a different conclusion. How do you know they're twisting the Bible's words, and not the folks you are receiving your instruction from?

I'm not accusing anyone of anything...both sides appear to have done their due diligence (the same diligence), and come to different conclusions. That's the nature of the mystery of our faith. But I don't know how anyone condemns anyone else, given the "reasonable doubt" that multiple interpretations should put in anyone's mind. Maybe that's why the Bible spends so much time talking about love and humility, and so little time, comparatively speaking, on homosexuality, and other specific sins.

Word study of the Bible tends to assume that the more something is mentioned, the more important it is. Yet so much time and energy is spent "calling out" something that is barely mentioned, so much hurt caused, while seemingly ignoring one of the most often repeated concepts - love. The grace-focused Lutheran in me finds this very confusing.

So why follow any doctrines at all? Why even have heirerarchal organized religion? How can you determine which rules are merely man mad doctrines and which come purely from god? If you call your faith a mystery why all the detailed study of ancient texts? Is that the only way god has or can communicate with mankind? Why do you and others label themselves Lutheran, Jehovah's Witness, Catholic, etc.? It appears that you seek certainty in your faith, not mystery.

 

[OlNate]

So why follow any doctrines at all? Why even have heirerarchal organized religion? How can you determine which rules are merely man mad doctrines and which come purely from god? If you call your faith a mystery why all the detailed study of ancient texts? Is that the only way god has or can communicate with mankind? Why do you and others label themselves Lutheran, Jehovah's Witness, Catholic, etc.? It appears that you seek certainty in your faith, not mystery.

I'm sure we seek certainty, that's a very human response. But we are told in the Bible that we will not get that certainty in this life. Therefore we are simply left with different opinions, and I'm sure even an atheist can understand the human element there.

One more time, it's why debates about religion between theists and atheists are doomed to be unsatisfactory for either side. We each come to the table with our own view of the world, which are completely disconnected, and can't understand why the other side doesn't get it. :shrug:

 

[Daisy]

Its an unexceptional article, in my view, and doesn't really address the substance, frankly. Not quibbling, but unimpressed. For example, it notes that "The Hebrew word yada appears 943 times in the Old Testament; it carries a sexual meaning perhaps 10 of those 943 times." How do we reach the conclusion that that maybe 1% of the time It's sexual? Bad translation? Preconception? And why does anyone believe (harking back to the OP) that it is supposed to be literal? What's the lesson supposed to be? Don't be evil and idolators? Or don't be homosexual? It's really, really, really hard to reach the second conclusion unless you've reached that before you've read it.

That truly is my biggest problem with this approach - missing the forest by arguing what kind of trees are in it. If "God is love," why does he hold contempt for some of his creations? Or maybe it is just some of his believers are contemptuous.

God holds contempt for any one of His creation that goes beyond what they were created for and rightly so...Romans 1:18-27

 

[devildavid]

I'm sure we seek certainty, that's a very human response. But we are told in the Bible that we will not get that certainty in this life. Therefore we are simply left with different opinions, and I'm sure even an atheist can understand the human element there.

One more time, it's why debates about religion between theists and atheists are doomed to be unsatisfactory for either side. We each come to the table with our own view of the world, which are completely disconnected, and can't understand why the other side doesn't get it. :shrug:

Debates between believers have a high failure rate as well. Just because you believe in a religion, even ostensibly the same one, does not mean an end to debate. Believers have many issues among themselves, despite supposedly believing in some kind of god. At least atheists have nothing to debate about how not to believe in gods.

So don't think that major disagreements don't occur among believers or that all have some shared understanding. It isn't the case at all.

 

[OlNate]

Debates between believers have a high failure rate as well. Just because you believe in a religion, even ostensibly the same one, does not mean an end to debate. Believers have many issues among themselves, despite supposedly believing in some kind of god. At least atheists have nothing to debate about how not to believe in gods.

So don't think that major disagreements don't occur among believers or that all have some shared understanding. It isn't the case at all.

Oh, totally agree, but at least they have a foundation upon which to build. You and I can't talk because we don't even speak the same language, philosophically speaking.

 

[RAMOSS]

God holds contempt for any one of His creation that goes beyond what they were created for and rightly so...Romans 1:18-27

Well, that was Paul's opinion. I see no reason to think Paul got it correct.