• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

No Wonder the Bible is Anybody's Guess

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
One original collection of myths is necessarily better than a smorgasbord of an assemblage of collections of ancient myths?
Nah.
I don’t see Judaism or Islam as better than Christianity.
I just mean that they are capable of reading and interpreting their books in their original languages because [most] Jews are raised with it, regardless what they believe.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
The method of copying was not in question. That they were copied by hand was.

Considering there are no original nt bo
books and you know it you have obfuscated.

That, Christine, is a decision that you have made. But it isn't based on logic. The method IS important.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
That, Christine, is a decision that you have made. But it isn't based on logic. The method IS important.


Actually it is a decision based on logic, knowledge of the human condition, history, the fact that no 2 versions of the bible are the same, the fact that no original version of the NT exists (and still no answer to the original bibles claim) and the OT can only be compared to Hebrew scripture because no original OT texts exist.

How did you make your decision?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Actually it is a decision based on logic, knowledge of the human condition, history, the fact that no 2 versions of the bible are the same, the fact that no original version of the NT exists (and still no answer to the original bibles claim) and the OT can only be compared to Hebrew scripture because no original OT texts exist.

How did you make your decision?

I have laid logical understanding, quoted 20+ scriptures from different Bibles that say the same thing that proves your point absurd.

Other than your personal opinions, you have proved nothing.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I have laid logical understanding, quoted 20+ scriptures from different Bibles that say the same thing that proves your point absurd.

Other than your personal opinions, you have proved nothing.

So where are these 20+ scriptures you "claim" to have quoted.

I have asked you to compare the kjv and niv, not happened. I have asked about your claim that bibles are copied from original bibles, nothing but obfuscation from you. I have asked you tell me what various verses of the niv say (with kjv verse numbers as a guid) no response from you.

If you consider that personal opinion then i see where the the problem on communication lies and i guess we are done.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Good thing the Jews can read the original. Anyone an learn.
No they can't. They'd have to live back when it was written in order to understand the context directly. Without the original context, it's all still a translation of the meaning from the original language to the modern usage of the same words and images, supposing modern thought reflects the original culture's understanding. Just reading the words, does not mean you get the meaning, especially when you are removed from the original culture by 2000 plus years.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
No they can't. They'd have to live back when it was written in order to understand the context directly. Without the original context, it's all still a translation of the meaning from the original to the modern, supposing modern thought reflects the original culture's understanding. Just reading the words, does not mean you get the meaning.
Then no-one would be able to understand anything ever that was written even just a few years ago. That's not a very good argument.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Then no-one would be able to understand anything ever that was written even just a few years ago. That's not a very good argument.
It is an excellent argument that cannot be disputed. To answer your objection, the answer is YES, everything we read, even from today, is subject to our own frames of reference, even if the words are spoken directly to you. Add 2000 plus years of removal from the original culture, and what you have at best is whiffs of something cooking from another village 20 miles away, not the actual meal they are serving.

To claim in essence as you are, that it must be reliable otherwise we can't really know what was said, is a spurious, circular argument that has no credible support. "It must be right, otherwise we can't know the truth", does not make it true. What's wrong with saying, "We can't really know"? Is that not allowed, for some unknown reason?
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
It is an excellent argument that cannot be disputed. To answer your objection, the answer is YES, everything we read, even from today, is subject to our own frames of reference, even if the words are spoken directly to you. Add 2000 plus years of removal from the original culture, and what you have at best is whiffs of something cooking from another village 20 miles away, not the actual meal they are serving.
Of course everything is subject to our own frames of reference, but to suggest that we cannot accurately interpret something in light of a known context is absurd. If we know there was a war going on and David had just escaped being killed, we can deduce the meaning of this or that psalm relatively simply. If we know the cultural context of a given prophecy we can put it into this situation and go from there. The Jewish people are more than reasonably knowledgable about their history, culture, religion et al. and are well prepared to interpret their scriptures; they have been doing it since they've had scriptures. They have commentary on commentary.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Of course everything is subject to our own frames of reference, but to suggest that we cannot accurately interpret something in light of a known context is absurd.
First of all, it's not a known context. You would have to be part of the original culture, immersed within it as the very set of eyes you look at reality through, understanding all the nuances and subtleties of what is was to be a Jewish person living over 2000 years in the past in a culture that no longer exists today in as then. The best you can hope for is little bits of information here and there. That does not make you part of the culture, and as such, it's like trying to talk about what it is to be a French person, because you read about the culture in a few books. That is what is an absurd assumption.


If we know there was a war going on and David had just escaped being killed, we can deduce the meaning of this or that psalm relatively simply.
You think you can reduce understanding down to a few bits of historical data left in the sparse writings of a few individuals in ancient history? The variable you just site can have a million different understandings of what that may have meant to him, what was in his mind translating his reality through the reality of the world as it was to him then, of which we at best have only glimpses of, and those glimpses are filtered through our modern context, outside the original context. We read into ancient texts, modern understandings all the time. That is just how this works. It's what we all do, even if that person is talking to you directly face to face.

If we know the cultural context of a given prophecy we can put it into this situation and go from there.
But we don't know it. That's like saying the fossil of an fish found in the rock of an ancient sea bed can tell you everything you need to know about the ocean it swam in. The "and go from there," really should be said, "and make up and inject our own ideas into it and call that truth".

The Jewish people are more than reasonably knowledgable about their history, culture, religion et al. and are well prepared to interpret their scriptures; they have been doing it since they've had scriptures. They have commentary on commentary.
Sure, nonetheless, they are not ancient Jews. And if you were able to transport one of them in a time machine, dropping them into the world of 2500 BCE, do you think that anyone there were think this visitor from the future was one of them? Hell no. :) What if you transported an ancient Jew into a modern Jewish community? Do you think the modern Jews would understand this ancient man? Highly doubtful, in fact, I'd say a guaranteed no.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
First of all, it's not a known context. You would have to be part of the original culture, immersed within it as the very set of eyes you look at reality through, understanding all the nuances and subtleties of what is was to be a Jewish person living over 2000 years in the past in a culture that no longer exists today in as then. The best you can hope for is little bits of information here and there. That does not make you part of the culture, and as such, it's like trying to talk about what it is to be a French person, because you read about the culture in a few books. That is what is an absurd assumption.
It is a known context. What makes you think it isn't? I don't need to travel to Tudor England to understand poetry written about jousting. You are overcomplicating this.

A Frank has every right to interpret his own culture, past and present, because it's his culture. I am arguing for Jewish people being able to interpret Jewish scriptures in light of Jewish culture, history and so on. Saying they can't do that because they weren't there is effectively saying that they don't understand their own religion, and if we must continue using this word, that is undoubtedly absurd.


You think you can reduce understanding down to a few bits of historical data left in the sparse writings of a few individuals in ancient history? The variable you just site can have a million different understandings of what that may have meant to him, what was in his mind translating his reality through the reality of the world as it was to him then, of which we at best have only glimpses of, and those glimpses are filtered through our modern context, outside the original context. We read into ancient texts, modern understandings all the time. That is just how this works. It's what we all do, even if that person is talking to you directly face to face.
We know what he felt and experienced because he wrote it. If David writes 'My enemies encompass me' and he's praying to G-d for deliverance, this is not difficult to interpret. We know who he was fighting because the other scriptures inform us. It's not as though there is a dark veil over our understanding. If people couldn't understand their own religious writings, there would be no religions.

But we don't know it. That's like saying the fossil of an fish found in the rock of an ancient sea bed can tell you everything you need to know about the ocean it swam in. The "and go from there," really should be said, "and make up and inject our own ideas into it and call that truth".
We do know it. A prophecy written about Israel returning from exile in Babylon is simple. We know about the wars and exiles that took place. We know which tribes were taken. We know who the leaders were. We know how it all panned out.

Sure, nonetheless, they are not ancient Jews. And if you were able to transport one of them in a time machine, dropping them into the world of 2500 BCE, do you think that anyone there were think this visitor from the future was one of them? Hell no. :)
Sure he may have problems adjusting to the different timezone and lack of technology, but certainly he'd be a Jew.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Some people presumably heard from God and shared what they heard. Then, later it was written down for the most part by someone else. Then, THOSE writtings disappeared. So, @Skwim is correct, like always.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
A Frank has every right to interpret his own culture, past and present, because it's his culture. I am arguing for Jewish people being able to interpret Jewish scriptures in light of Jewish culture, history and so on. Saying they can't do that because they weren't there is effectively saying that they don't understand their own religion, and if we must continue using this word, that is undoubtedly absurd.
I most certainly am not saying they cannot interpret their own scriptures in light of, or rather as an extension of their own culture. This is how religious thought develops, and grows and changes over the ages. What I am actually saying, is that an interpretation is just that. It is expounding on a tradition, not trying to tell you what was in the actual minds of the actual authors of the time, and how they meant, intended, or were thinking at the time. It likely would not resemble how the interpreter of today would understand it. That is what I mean.

For instance, there is the great story I heard, but cannot recall the names in it. It refers to this very famous Rabbi who was very well-renowned for his interpretations of the scriptures. So the story goes that at one meeting as he was expounding on his views, Moses snuck into the audience and listened with the rest of the audience, keeping his identity hidden. Then after some time, hearing the things he was hearing him say, he couldn't hold himself back and stood up at said, "Wonderful! I can't believe how much my children's understanding have surpassed even my own!"

I think that is a wonderful story that celebrates our views taking on new meaning to fit greater understandings of ourselves and the world and the meaning of faith in it. Why do you imagine that the truth lays in understanding how someone back then thought, that you cannot change or modify, and that if you can only learn what that was, then you would know God?

We know what he felt and experienced because he wrote it.
Do you really? There is no way I can write about my own experiences, and expect you reading them to be able to claim you know how I really felt through them. They are just words on a page. They contain no non-verbal communications, no body language, no facial expression, no verbal inflections, no other other cues whatsoever, etc.

You are essentially reading blind, as projecting and assuming through your imagination what he "must have" felt. At the very best, you end up with a single broken line that has no depth or dimensionality of any kind. It's like a pencil mark on a sheet of paper, you project your own beliefs upon and claim, "I know what he felt because it's in these few words here." It's a one dimensional reality, which is no reality at all.

If David writes 'My enemies encompass me' and he's praying to G-d for deliverance, this is not difficult to interpret. We know who he was fighting because the other scriptures inform us.
Is this maybe a metaphor for inner struggles from his own inner demons, using these earthly battles to symbolize that, like you find in the Bhagavad Gita? How do you interpret it? That's how I interpret it. Are you right and I'm wrong? Or do neither of us really know what he meant and interpreting it in ways that are meaningful to us?


It's not as though there is a dark veil over our understanding.
If you take the word of another Jewish teacher, by the name of the Apostle Paul there is, "For now we see through a glass dimly, but then shall we see face to face".

If people couldn't understand their own religious writings, there would be no religions.
Well, that is not true at all! My lord, just take a poll of members of them what they really know about their religion, and most do not know much at all.

But what's more is that religions grow and evolve through disputes within them. This is how it keeps fresh and relevant to the day they are their to assist. This is why Fundamentalism is the opposite of that. It seeks to find truth in the past, which is dead, under the dust, non-living, except only through the current evolution of that tradition, which grows and evolves over the years. In other words, fundamentalism seeks to kill growth. It kills religion. It kills God.

We do know it. A prophecy written about Israel returning from exile in Babylon is simple. We know about the wars and exiles that took place. We know which tribes were taken. We know who the leaders were. We know how it all panned out.
No you don't. That's just a super high-level sketch that you summarized the lives of hundreds of thousands of lives over the course of many years into a single paragraph. Good job in compressing the hell out of reality. :)

Sure he may have problems adjusting to the different timezone and lack of technology, but certainly he'd be a Jew.
Sure, but a very strange and foreign one where they would all wonder why he thinks so strangely about the things they believe in. :)
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
Why is the number of translations in existence a problem exactly?

The Christian claim has never asserted the existence a single, flawless manuscript tradition. Yet alone the possibility of a flawless never to be superseded English translation.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
Why is the number of translations in existence a problem exactly?

The Christian claim has never asserted the existence a single, flawless manuscript tradition. Yet alone the possibility of a flawless never to be superseded English translation.

The worshippers of the King James bible may disagree with you. They have this 7th of the 7th translation thing, which is supposedly to make their version perfect. This despite that it appears to me to be among one of the worst translations.
 
Top