The Bible (a discussion)

@Setanta,

So you agree when I say you are smart?

See, It's not hard to agree., Laughing

0 Replies

@neologist,

So then you interpret the text literally when i suits you, and allegorically when that suits you. How convenient for you.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

I think you are smarter than that. As are Set, Blue, and others.
You all seem strangely reluctant to admit any internal consistency in the Bible.
I'm waiting for someone to say Yeah, it seems to say that; but I still don't believe it..
May never happen, I will admit.

I've certainly said it often enough.

Here, I'll say it again:

There is a great deal of "internal consistency" in the Bible.

For instance, the Bible suggests that during their trip out of bondage as slaves in Egypt...the god of the Bible told the Hebrews that they were allowed to buy, sell, and own slaves...perpetual slaves.

That seems to be a notion that is "internally consistent" throughout the Bible...in both the Old and New Testaments.

I think this is most rationally explained by accepting the writings of the Bible as the work of men (perhaps a few women)...reporting what they considered appropriate and moral...and putting those thoughts and sensibilities into the mouth of a god they invented...partly for that purpose.

1 Reply

@neologist,

You should watch that vid, it's very funny.

Quote:

wouldn't you expect one claiming to be God's firstborn son to have that power?

Where did Jesus claim to be God's firstborn? He just talked to God affectionately, using the term "father" as lot's of people do.

Jesus was indeed accused of practicing sorcery by some, and believed to be a great magician by others. So were Peter and others, after Jesus' death. Even Simon Magus wanted to learn their tricks.

But you are right in a sense: in the Jewish mystical tradition, which continued into the Kabbalah and Zohar, somebody inspired or anointed by God was expected to be able to do miracles, which functioned as proofs of such connection with God.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans, a faction within the Church of England.

James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy. The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek and Latin.

Is the KJB the one under discussion here? There were no women involved in that. At one level of consistency it might be said that women were the subject being addressed and everybody knows that women cast objectivity to the winds when appraising their own value. An evolved trait we can unfortunately do nothing about.

The highest Protestant court in England wrote the KJB. And the Greek, Latin and Hebrew texts they worked up had been through many hands.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

You all seem strangely reluctant to admit any internal consistency in the Bible.

I don't care about internal consistency until external validity is demonstrated. Until the thing becomes any more than just a fantasy story why would anyone be interested in internal consistency. I'm not worried about the internal consistency of a Bugs Bunny cartoon either.

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans, a faction within the Church of England.

James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy. The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek and Latin.

Is the KJB the one under discussion here? There were no women involved in that. At one level of consistency it might be said that women were the subject being addressed and everybody knows that women cast objectivity to the winds when appraising their own value. An evolved trait we can unfortunately do nothing about.

The highest Protestant court in England wrote the KJB. And the Greek, Latin and Hebrew texts they worked up had been through many hands.

I said "perhaps a few women." I was talking about the writing...not about the translating.

Maybe there were no women involved.

What is your point?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I was just wondering which Bible is under scrutiny. It seems to me to be the first point for us to get clarified before proceeding to other matters.

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

I was just wondering which Bible is under scrutiny. It seems to me to be the first point for us to get clarified before proceeding to other matters.

The Holy Bible!

0 Replies

@spendius,

I'm wondering whether His Majesty, King James, was aware that the Hebrew texts available to us today (and in his day as well) are, without exception, re-translations of Greek texts then extant when he assembled some scholars conversant with Hebrew.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

I'm not worried about the internal consistency of a Bugs Bunny cartoon either.

The IC of Bugs Bunny can be taken for granted and it is simple anyway. ros's posts are similar in that respect.

There is no chance of Bugs Bunny originating anywhere else than in the US.

A much more intelligent comparison would be with Hollywood's total production under the Hay's Code or some similar body which is designed to achieve an internal consistency.

Another comparison might be made between Chinese dissidents who support western ideas on human rights and the writers of the the Gospels. ros, and others, are "dead" to such a notion and blind. Maybe we might raise them from the dead and restore their sight.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Quote:

I'm wondering whether His Majesty, King James, was aware that the Hebrew texts available to us today (and in his day as well) are, without exception, re-translations of Greek texts then extant when he assembled some scholars conversant with Hebrew.

Are you sure about that???

0 Replies

@ Andy

I think Olivier may be on to something here. Think over that comment of yours very carefully. It sounds way off base to me...and would involve the Hebrews depending upon the Greeks to record their myths...and then translating them into Hebrew???

The material of the New Testament had lots of Greek as source mattter...not the Old.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

neologist wrote:

. . . there is a good discussion here:
http://able2know.org/topic/104369-1

rosborne979 wrote:

I can't wade through 7 pages of commentary trying to extract what you consider to be an accurate answer.

If you don't want to answer the question please just say so, and if you do, just go ahead and do it.

I thought the first page would be of interest to you. The conversation between Jesus and Pilate puts much into perspective.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I wrote:

. . . wouldn't you expect one claiming to be God's firstborn son to have that power?

Olivier5 wrote:

Where did Jesus claim to be God's firstborn? He just talked to God affectionately, using the term "father" as lot's of people do.

Trinitarians take note:

Jesus, Before his betrayal by Judas:
(John 17:5) . . . "So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was."

Paul's Statement:
(Colossians 1:15-17) " He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16  because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17  Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist. . ." (see Proverbs, Ch 8)

2 Replies

@neologist,

Hmmm.... Paul is irrelevant for this issue, he's just one commentator among others, and John is the most mystical of the 4 canonical evangelists, and probably the last to write, well into the 2nd century, and therefore the least reliable.

I remain unconvinced that the actual man Jesus and his followers thought of him as a semi-god, son of a mortal and a god, or anything like that. For me the whole idea is just too un-Jewish and a tad too Greek. I'd rather lean for a title, an honorific phrase as suggested by Luc: "he will be called the son of the most high".

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

I wrote:
. . . wouldn't you expect one claiming to be God's firstborn son to have that power?
Olivier5 wrote:
Where did Jesus claim to be God's firstborn? He just talked to God affectionately, using the term "father" as lot's of people do.
Trinitarians take note:

Jesus, Before his betrayal by Judas:
(John 17:5) . . . "So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was."

Paul's Statement:
(Colossians 1:15-17) " He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16  because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17  Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist. . ." (see Proverbs, Ch 8)

Jesus H. Christ, Neo. You are way too intelligent for this kind of nonsense. Are you just kidding around?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

I don't care about internal consistency until external validity is demonstrated. . . .

Quite a narrow view, considering the Bible writing was entrusted to about 40 scribes over more than 1600 years. Both internal and external validity become important. There are a few touchstones of external validity even Frank, will agree to: the existence of certain named nations and kings, for example. Any questions I have about how koalas may have wound up only in Australia or how certain species could possibly have been protected during a flood, I defer those to future consideration. I believe the flood account to be a reliable basis for faith.

As for internal consistency, if I believed any part to be spurious, I would have nothing to do with any of it, inside or out.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Hmmm.... Paul is irrelevant for this issue, he's just one commentator among others, and John is the most mystical of the 4 canonical evangelists, and probably the last to write, well into the 2nd century, and therefore the least reliable.

I remain unconvinced that the actual man Jesus and his followers thought of him as a semi-god, son of a mortal and a god, or anything like that. For me the whole idea is just too un-Jewish and a tad too Greek. I'd rather lean for a title, an honorific phrase as suggested by Luc: "he will be called the son of the most high".

I'm sorry to have to admit that I consider the bible as a whole. Should any part fail, the entire book is trashed. (In which case, I would not consider your suggestion from Luke)

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Jesus H. Christ, Neo. You are way too intelligent for this kind of nonsense. Are you just kidding around?

Just quoting independent sources, Frank. Are you disturbed by my belief in them?

1 Reply

The Bible (a discussion)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know