Have some parts of the Bible been changed by time?

CHRISTIANS ONLY?

I am thinking that aperson wants to get the persepective of those who actually believe the bible. Asking a non-Christian, albeit polite, would not give him/her the persepective he wants. I am assuming.

On the otherhand, there could be those who are very well versed in the bible who do not, of necessity, believe in God.

Intrepid wrote:



exactly!

Would you be one of those and that is why you are so passionate about that statement?

I think that by asking whether parts of the bible are exaggerated, the write is saying that parts were intentionally changed or embellished. Exaggeration is not the elimination or inadverant change of something, it is a deliberate falsification. Is this what the writer is suggesting?

I'm not passionate about it!

I just like the fact that A2K doesn't undulge in sectarianism.

Maybe that's a little hypocritical of me as members can elect to converse with Christians only if they so wish.

I am honest enough to admit to having 'issues' around religion (Catholicism in particular). I try not to go onto religious threads too much - but sometimes...

I just gotta!

x

In the example given--David and Goliath--it would be more likely that if the story were embellished (Goliath "becoming" a giant, rather than just a large man), it were more likely that such a thing occured when it were an oral tradition, rather than written. It is a simple matter of the exegesis (and exegesis is here meant in the broadest sense, and not the specific sense of theological exegesis) of ancient texts that being written tends to "fix" accounts, so that subsequent changes in the text which are not strictly literary are only ever slight.

To explain that further, the great literary cycle of Western Europe, the Arthurian cycle, was radically changed by those who treated it as literature, and not as literal truth--anyone who changed a text which was considered to be an account of literal truth would have been subject to the censure and contradiction of those who were literate and agreed that the text described literal truth. The jongleurs of France in the era of the 12th through the 15th centuries viewed the Arthurian cycle as what it was--a literary body of wonderful and entertaining stories. But canonical scripture would always be seen as expressive of literal truth, and it would be much harder to change the text significantly without raising the objections of other literate people with a stake in the contention that the scripture represented literal truth.

In the latter case, there would only ever be slight change from editing, or greater, but still relatively slight, change due to the conflation of separate and slightly contradictory text. So, for example, the story of Noah and the flood is considered by reputable scholars to have been created by the conflation of separate texts which recounted a similar story, and that this explains the contradictions in Genesis seven through nine. The Pentateuch, and possibly other passages of what is now called by Christians the Old Testament was edited in the 6th century BCE (i believe that is the appropriate time scale, without going to check it). This would have produced only minor textual changes, and, for example, the inherent contradictions of the flood story suggest that not a lot of editing took place at that time.

Translation into other languages, of course, would also have an effect (probably unintentional) of changing the original texts, due to imperfect source copies and the ignorance or misunderstanding of those who performed the translations.

The David and Goliath story is actually a good example to select, and for exactly the reason advanceds, as well as being illustrative of the "problem" of perception. Goliath may have been simply a very large man, over six feet tall (two meters) and therefore might have been called a giant when he lived (if he did), without further quibble, since that would have made him huge out of all proportion to his contemporaries. Or, he could simply have been a large man who was "embroidered" into a giant in the retelling of an oral tradition.

Charles Stuart, who became King Charles II, was a tall man even by our standards. He was at least 6'3" tall--we know this from contemporary accounts, and also because at his death, a wax effigy was made of him, and dressed in his clothing with one of his wigs placed on the head of the effigy. In the 17th century, men were on average 5'7" in height, which means that many of them were shorter, and most women were shorter. He would have appeared to be a giant by the standards of his day. In 1651, he invaded England (his father, King Charles I, had been executed, and the country was governed by parliament without a king). At Worcester, his Scots army was defeated by the forces of Parliament, and he escaped the city, and the successfully escaped the country in a series of adventures which read like something out of a fairy book story.

Wanted posters were issued by Parliament which described him as "a black man, over two yards in height." Now, Charles' mother, Henrietta Maria, was the daughter of the King and Queen of France in the early 17th century--and her mother was an Italian, Maria de Medici. Therefore, she passed on to her son Charles the "olive" complexion and coal black hair of her Italian heritage. In England in the mid-1600s, everyone (almost exclusively) was "white," with pale complexions and brown to pale colored hair. By their standards, and in the common expression of their society, he was a "black man," because his skin color, although still what we would call "white," was noticably darker than those around him, and his hair was black.

If the account of the escape of Charles Stuart from Worcester had come down to us after thousands of years, and when written accounts were uncommon, instead of just 450 years ago, in an era of wide-spread written evidence--we might have a considerably different view of him than we now have. Being called a black man by his contemporaries, if the account had been passed on by word of mouth for centuries before being written down, we might have gotten an account which erroneously described someone with black skin, and a giant because he towered over his contemporaries. This is what could be called the "problem" of perceptions. Charles was what we would call a white man, and someone we would only consider to be somewhat tall. But if our only record described a black man, and a giant, and we had no records to provide perspective on why he was so described, we might now have a tale which suggested to us a black African giant.

Ancient texts are sufficiently unreliable on their own, simply from having been copied and translated. If you add to that the misunderstood perspective of the parties who originally created the tale, and the unreliability of accounts passed on for many generations by word of mouth, it is easy to see how the "stories" we now find in the bible might not actually describe the literal truth as we would see if we had any way of knowing the facts of the original people and events.

Reading

i doubt the story of Goliath is exagerated (obviously saying the whole story is true). The parts of the bible i really worry about is the hidden pagan worships contained within christianity.

But if you want to take the entire bible as insired truth and just wonder about some exageration, then i would say no b/c god would have made sure there isnt any, if you think the bible is open to flaw then i would say there is definately some but for the most part it is reliable.

For me, it is a matter of faith that an all powerful God would certainly be well equipped to preserve the essential parts of his message to mankind and ensure it's availability.

That being said, it is up to the individual to "Make sure of all things. . ." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

I am one of them.

Ever hear of cognitive dissonance, Scott?

All books have either been mistranslated, edited, updated or generally messed with to fit the purpose of the religion involved. Why do u think the library of alexandria was burned down (Christian side) ????? or why the koran wasn't finished until after his death ?????

I say the complete basis of chrsitianity is flawed and parts disproved by the old testament, and the old testament has a false foundation too, being based on lots of pagan religions.

There is a certain comfort in the uncertainty of divine requirement. But is it prudent?

Is it prudent to have a belief in an unprovalbe force to comit your life to hoping it controls your destiny instead of yourslef?

You certainly should not enter on blind faith. In my post above I said:

Zzzzziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnngggggggggg ! ! !


Good one, Boss . . . here, have a cup of this excellent Columbian coffee . . .