Skwim
Veteran Member
And no, this is not about Jonathan Swift's proposal to rid Ireland of its impoverished children by eating them.
In almost all publications authors carefully choose the best words they can to represent the idea they wish to get across; and readers, well aware of this, rightfully trust those words and the ideas they express. Responsible authors also take care to present accurate, up-to-date information, but not the author of the Bible. For whatever reason god, in his infinite wisdom, passed down his message to the world in a book
That contradicts itself: Which were created first, Adam and Eve or the animals? (Genesis 1 and 2)
Whose various translations are unable to settle on common terms: Does the Hebrew "ra" in Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things," mean evil, disaster, woe, calamity, adversity, or hard times (all alternatives appearing in various translations).
Whose events contradict science: Despite the Biblical claim, rabbits/hares do not chew cud. (Deuteronomy 14:7)
With inaccuracies: Joseph tells Pharaoh he comes from the "land of the Hebrews" (Gen 40:15). But there was no such land until after the conquest under Joshua.
Of course, as some will eagerly contend, these problems aren't god's fault but those of fallible humans who mistranslated his word somewhere along the way. Okay, but that doesn't change the fact that god hasn't made any attempt to correct them, leaving them to continue to mislead and confuse the faithful reader.
A common answer to these difficulties is that one must understand the original intent of the authors and understand what they said in the context of the event and the times. Fine, I say. Then how about a Bible that does just that. Recast all these problematic words and passages in a way that leaves no doubt. Create a Bible that can actually be taken literally---unlikely events like the noachian flood aside perhaps---instead of one that creates misunderstanding or leaves one in doubt.
If Jonah wasn't ". . .in the belly of the fish three days and three nights," but rather a whale, then don't use "fish.
If Psalms 92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree." is wrong and Isaiah 57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart." is right, then either get rid of Psalms 92:12 or change it.
And how about eliminating the claim that bats are fowls in Leviticus 11:19
So why isn't there a Bible that says what it means? Why all this *****-footing around with translations that may be etymologically accurate, but fail to convey the real meaning? If "evil," as we understand the term, ain't what was meant in Isaiah 45:7 then don't use it. Use the correct, modern-day word that does!! And stop misleading people by telling them that rabbits chew cud, or even produce it.
It can't be all that hard, can it? Or is it that it simply not worth the effort to clean up the Bible?
.
In almost all publications authors carefully choose the best words they can to represent the idea they wish to get across; and readers, well aware of this, rightfully trust those words and the ideas they express. Responsible authors also take care to present accurate, up-to-date information, but not the author of the Bible. For whatever reason god, in his infinite wisdom, passed down his message to the world in a book
That contradicts itself: Which were created first, Adam and Eve or the animals? (Genesis 1 and 2)
Whose various translations are unable to settle on common terms: Does the Hebrew "ra" in Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things," mean evil, disaster, woe, calamity, adversity, or hard times (all alternatives appearing in various translations).
Whose events contradict science: Despite the Biblical claim, rabbits/hares do not chew cud. (Deuteronomy 14:7)
With inaccuracies: Joseph tells Pharaoh he comes from the "land of the Hebrews" (Gen 40:15). But there was no such land until after the conquest under Joshua.
Of course, as some will eagerly contend, these problems aren't god's fault but those of fallible humans who mistranslated his word somewhere along the way. Okay, but that doesn't change the fact that god hasn't made any attempt to correct them, leaving them to continue to mislead and confuse the faithful reader.
A common answer to these difficulties is that one must understand the original intent of the authors and understand what they said in the context of the event and the times. Fine, I say. Then how about a Bible that does just that. Recast all these problematic words and passages in a way that leaves no doubt. Create a Bible that can actually be taken literally---unlikely events like the noachian flood aside perhaps---instead of one that creates misunderstanding or leaves one in doubt.
If Jonah wasn't ". . .in the belly of the fish three days and three nights," but rather a whale, then don't use "fish.
If Psalms 92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree." is wrong and Isaiah 57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart." is right, then either get rid of Psalms 92:12 or change it.
And how about eliminating the claim that bats are fowls in Leviticus 11:19
So why isn't there a Bible that says what it means? Why all this *****-footing around with translations that may be etymologically accurate, but fail to convey the real meaning? If "evil," as we understand the term, ain't what was meant in Isaiah 45:7 then don't use it. Use the correct, modern-day word that does!! And stop misleading people by telling them that rabbits chew cud, or even produce it.
It can't be all that hard, can it? Or is it that it simply not worth the effort to clean up the Bible?
.
Last edited: