Can someone address this PLEASE?

Well, assuming that I understand the question, there are dozens of criteria that come into play. Understand that ancient Hebrew writing was one of the earliest forms of writing developed and without benefit of capital letters, separation of words, or vowels, was extremely difficult to translate. How many errors have been made as a result of that alone is open for debate. Some of the earlier translations were riddled with mistakes and unfortunately, some groups still use those. The later translations are more accurate as more has been learned about the ancient language usages.

The syntax, style, and references of persons, places, and events are used to divide the scriptures into different writing styles and then into chronological order. For instance, if a passage early in the Old Testament references something that happened centuries later, we can be pretty sure that passage was inadvertently misplaced in the order. However, through centuries of usage, nobody has the guts to rearrange the traditional order of books and put things as they should be.

Archeological digs, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries, have provided a mountain of new information and helped scholars understand passages that previously were confusing or made no sense. Tediously studying ancient writings, art, architecture, etc. has educated us a great deal about the peoples and cultures of ancient times and how these almost certainly influenced the Jews. A great deal of Old Testament passages deal with resisting these 'outside' influences.

It's pretty hard to put a whole year's course work into a couple of Message Board posts, but this is pretty much the gist of how it is done.

0 Replies

What I was trying to sort out is how you decide what god said from what somebody said god said.

Which bits you decide are god's "core" promises - and which aren't?

0 Replies

How you think you can determine what god really meant.

Sounds so far as though, except where one can be reasonably sure that a new translation is better, that you decide via what you WANT god to have said.

Eg - we don't want to have to stone homosexuals to death any more - so we decide he didn't really mean that - he just meant you oughtn't to have homosexual sex in your wife's bed (man - THAT is an interesting one - and perfectly good manners, I do believe) - but he was just kidding about the stoning - or the stoning was just a regional and temporal thing - unlike the lord thy god being the only god and such - which was a core promise.

Get what I mean?

0 Replies

I don't believe I've ever used "God said" or "God intended" or "God wanted" in any of this. What I have related is the best information available of how the ancient peoples looked at various issues concerning homosexuality, and how many people today pluck passages out of the Bible, attach 21st understanding to them, and say this is what God says. It is my belief that people are almost always in error when they do this no matter which side of the debate they are on.

0 Replies

How are they in error? You can't point anything out but still make the general claim...

And how would context change any of the passages? You make a general claim that they are "out of context" but can't point to anything yet again...

If you want to be taken seriously, much less considered an authority, you might want to have backup for your claims like that.

Otherwise they come across as feckless and unsubstantiated.

0 Replies

Well I did my best to explain where I was coming from Craven and why I come from that perspective. It is certainly within your prerogative to discount it to your liking. Let's just say you think I'm wrong and let it go at that.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well, assuming that I understand the question, there are dozens of criteria that come into play. Understand that ancient Hebrew writing was one of the earliest forms of writing developed and without benefit of capital letters, separation of words, or vowels, was extremely difficult to translate. How many errors have been made as a result of that alone is open for debate. Some of the earlier translations were riddled with mistakes and unfortunately, some groups still use those. The later translations are more accurate as more has been learned about the ancient language usages.

Well, cuneiform predates Hebrew. Also, most Torah scholars see the writings as a living text, and are constantly discussing the meaning of the words. The Hebrew system also employs numerical values to each letter, which have deep symbolism, and an influence on interperetation. The scholars then and now never had a problem with so-called "mistakes" being made, which is why it is still studied today, and why commentary and addendum by rabbis throughout the ages are considered worthy to note. So, to suggest that later translations of the Hebrew bible (not to mention heaps of other ancient texts) are "more accurate" today is to show a clear bias towards what you consider "accurate" from an English-speaking Christian perspective. In other words, the opinion is useless to true students of Hebrew religious works.

0 Replies

But we were discussing the "Christian Bible", not the Hebrew Bible Cav. There is a vast difference.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But we were discussing the "Christian Bible", not the Hebrew Bible Cav. There is a vast difference.

Why bring it up at all then? Smile

One vast difference that I have noticed is that the Christian Bible most likely has more "mistakes" in it, given the number of times it has been translated. Hebrew texts tend to stick with the Hebrew, so there is less chance of misinterperetation. Even English versions of the NT differ in opinion, depending on who wrote them.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well I did my best to explain where I was coming from Craven and why I come from that perspective.

No you did not, you just claimed that you were an authority on it and made excuses for why you couldn't substantiate anything your claims.

Quote:

Let's just say you think I'm wrong and let it go at that.

Wrong about what? You never pointed anything out at all. You just keep saying that something is wrong but for whatever reasons you are unable to indicate what is wrong. Laughing

0 Replies

Cav writes

Quote:

Why bring it up at all then? One vast difference that I have noticed is that the Christian Bible most likely has more "mistakes" in it, given the number of times it has been translated. Hebrew texts tend to stick with the Hebrew, so there is less chance of misinterperetation. Even English versions of the NT differ in opinion, depending on who wrote them.

I joined this discussion because so often members will pluck a verse out of context from the Christian Bible and post it as authority of what Christians believe about homosexuality. Some do this as authority for disapproving homosexuality and/or gay marriage; some do it as authority for what is wrong with Christian beliefs. It is always the Christian Bible that is quoted. For whatever reason, they don't get into the Hebrew texts as used by the Jews. (But then, so few people can read Hebrew, and even among those who do, so few can accurately translate from the ancient texts.)

My purpose wasto attempt to show how both camps are wrong to use the Bible in this way. Craven says I failed. I probably did. But my class and my publisher love me, so I'm happy. Smile

0 Replies

Fox,

You did more than just assert that this is not what Christians believe. Heck I'd never said they did.

You asserted:

Linguistic errors: but you can't point out any.

Contextual errors: but you can't point out any.

So all you do is say how much of an authority you are on the subject and how much knowledge is stuffed in your head, verily bursting from the seams and it's so volumous yet you don't have any to use to substantiate your claims. Laughing

Simple questions:

Do you have an example of any contextual error in the passages I quoted?

Do you have an example of a linguistic error in the passages I quoted?

No, you do not. So you claim they are there and when asked to point out what you are talking about it's back to the excuses about why it's not possible for you to do so.

0 Replies

I do agree with you regarding the fact that people misuse bible quotes to justify just about anything, but I don't think it's just the Cristian bible. I also don't agree that it can be broken down into two simple camps, i.e. OT and NT. This crap happens worldwide, with many different religions.

I agree that it is wrong to use the bible in a political arena but maybe not for the same reasons you have. To me, it's just a book, a work of fable and fiction designed to educate the uneducated via parable, admittedly not the most efficient way to communicate complex messages, but it was the best they had at the time.

If I took the religious stance, I would argue that to use the bible out of context for any human agenda would be patently heretical, as first, humans are imperfect, and try as they may, they cannot possibly know of god's true intent. Second, to use the bible to condemn any individual or group goes against the teachings of Christ. The bible should be used as a personal guide to one's own enlightenment, not as a weapon against others.

0 Replies

We aren't all that different in our views of the Bible Cav except that I don't see it either the NT or OT as 'just a book'. It is much much more than that to me. Maybe that's why I am devoting a good chunk of my 'old age' trying to help people understand it better and misuse it less.

0 Replies

So - if 'tis all interpretation and such, why bother with it at all?

Fox - you talk about this and that contextualising, and mistakes and so on.

You say you make no mention of what god said, or didn't say.

Is this not the whole point of the christian bible - that somewhere in it a supernatural being which I ASSUME you worship (mebbe I am wrong - and you are a non-theist scholar?) is held to have communicated some eternal verities about the meaning of life and how to live and what happens after we die, right?

Many things are attributed to this being, or its prophets (who presumably speak on its behalf?) in the old and new testaments.

Some of these things do not now fail to appall any but the most primitive of religious beings, so most christians rightly (in my view) ignore them, or know nothing of them.

However, this seems to me a logical problem - if we reject a portion of what this god is alleged to have said, are we not rejecting the god?

No - some say - we can reject this or that bit we no longer like because it is not REAL word of god - it is a temporal cultural or linguistic intrusion.

What I am trying to comprehend is on what basis you get to choose - other than I don't like it any more, so it is not the REAL stuff.

0 Replies

At least some of us Christians come to think of God as revealed in the Bible. But many of us also believe the revelation is ongoing. To understand the perception of the ancients and to believe that subsequent perception to be different in no way rejects God. For me the Bible is fascinating history, inspiration, metaphor, literature and, when studied properly, an insight into God's purposes for humankind.

The at least temporary title of the work in progress I am currently writing, teaching, and preparing for publication is "The History of Development of Christian Thought". It starts with the most ancient texts available and comes forward to modern times and is definitely a labor of love.

0 Replies

I would suggest that 'god' is revealed in every 'bible' on the planet, including, (and endorsing) mystical and/or heretical tomes.

0 Replies

Foxfyre, the verses condemning homosexuality were NOT "plucked out of context" but clearly reflect the opinion of the community that homosexual acts were condemned by God and were punishable by death (OT) or exclusion from heaven (NT).

So please explain to me how you get ANY other interpretation from the Bible (Hebrew, Greek, or any of its translations) and/or historical context and/or your own studies.

0 Replies

I am not saying that the ancients condoned homosexuality Terry. I think it would not have occurred to them that an ancient Hebrew would be gay. I'm quite certain they had little or no understanding of sexual orientation other than heterosexuality at all.

All I am saying is that the scriptural references in the Bible do not refer to individual homosexuals or homosexuality perse, but do object to societal perversions that included public displays as described in the Bible. The text comes down just as hard on heterosexual perversions as it does homosexual ones.

One example: When Yahweh's male angels arrived as guests at Lot's house in Sodom, the men of the city arrived at the door demanding that Lot send them out so the men could have sex with them. Due to the cultural requirement that a guest is to be honored and protected at all costs, Lot refused and gallantly offered his daughters in the place of the guests. (cough) Now are we to assume that all the men of Sodom were gay? Of course not. But there was a homosexual perversion at play, much as we find in American prisons, that had nothing to do with sexual orientation, but is played out in a sexual perversion.

This I believe is the context in which all homosexual references in the old and new testaments of the Bible are found. Therefore to proof text the Bible as evidence of anti-gay bias or as a justification for anti-gay bias is not a valid use of scripture.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

All I am saying is that the scriptural references in the Bible do not refer to individual homosexuals or homosexuality perse, but do object to societal perversions that included public displays as described in the Bible.

This is a falsehood. The Bible specifically comes down on homosexuality per se.

Quote:

The text comes down just as hard on heterosexual perversions as it does homosexual ones.

One example:

I will comment on your example, but first note that it is not an example of coming down hard on heterosexual perversions. In fact no heterosexual act takes place in your example and further more no "coming down on" at all, much less "just as hard".

Having not a single element of what you claim it to be an example of, it is a rather poor example.

Quote:

When Yahweh's male angels arrived as guests at Lot's house in Sodom, the men of the city arrived at the door demanding that Lot send them out so the men could have sex with them. Due to the cultural requirement that a guest is to be honored and protected at all costs, Lot refused and gallantly offered his daughters in the place of the guests. (cough) Now are we to assume that all the men of Sodom were gay? Of course not.

They refused the daughters....

Furthermore it was a crowd that may not have consisted of all the men of Sodom.

Quote:

But there was a homosexual perversion at play, much as we find in American prisons, that had nothing to do with sexual orientation, but is played out in a sexual perversion.

How does this have anything to do with the Bible's explicit condemnation of simple homosexual sex? You are trying to excuse it for "coming down on perversions" but this is an example of the Bible not coming down on it. Confused

Furthermore, the Bible explictly condemns simple homosexual sex throughout.

Your apologism for it is baseless and reflects an ignorance of the scriptures and your claims are not substantiated by your examples.

Quote:

This I believe is the context in which all homosexual references in the old and new testaments of the Bible are found.

This would be a declaration of profound ignorance of the scriptures then, as the context of the "homosexual references" in the Bible frequently have nothing whatsoever to do with your example.

You offered an example of rape. When the Bible condemns homosexual acts it doesn't mention rape. So no, it is not a similar context at all. The Bible proscribes death for consensual homosexual sex. The Bible condemns consensual homosexual sex. The Bible condems mere homosexuality (despite your absurd claim that sexual orientation was not understood, the peoples of the time had words to reference homosexual orientation and they are used in the Bible to condemn homosexuality).

Really Foxfyre, you have a profound ignorance of this topic, your claims are demonstratably false. The Bible's condemnation of homosexuality has nothing to do with "perversions" in many places (unless you equate homosexuality with perversion yourself) and the pathetic example you bring of rape had no condemnation of any similarity with the simple, explicit, non-rape condemnations of homosexuality in the scriptures.

Quote:

Therefore to proof text the Bible as evidence of anti-gay bias or as a justification for anti-gay bias is not a valid use of scripture.

This is complete bullshit. The Bible has a very explicit anti-gay message. You try to decry it as contextually flawed "proof texting" but hell you can't even provide any examples to your claim and are reduced to bringing examples to the table that in no way support your position. Laughing

The Bible explicitly condemns simple homosexual sex, sans any extracurricular "perversion" you speak of.

You can't illustrate that this is untrue, despite your claims of contextual errors as your claims are based on ignorance of the scriptures and can't be substantiated with them.

0 Replies

Can someone address this PLEASE?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know