The Bible's a mess, but a designer is fixing it

[cbayer]

http://www.theverge.com/2014/7/22/5922855/bibliotheca-bible-kickstarter-campaign-adam-greene-interview

'Bibliotheca' is one man's quest to make the Good Book better

By Aaron Souppouris on July 22, 2014 10:06 am



Although many consider Christianity’s message a thing of beauty, the typical Bible is an ugly thing. Most editions are a mess of numbers, notes, translucent pages, and invariably tiny type. While the traditional arrangement makes for a great reference tool, it's anything but an easy read. Adam Greene, a book designer based in Santa Cruz, California, thinks he can change that with a Kickstarter for a new version of the Bible titled Bibliotheca.

Bibliotheca is the realization of Greene’s long-held desire to help others discover the Bible. The premise is at once simple and daring: to lay out the Bible as a collection of literature, rather than a single encyclopedic volume. Bibliotheca consists of four volumes, three for the Old Testament and one for the New. There are no chapter divisions, no verse numbers, and no annotations. Greene hopes this will transform the biblical text, making it as easy to read as a New York Times bestseller. This newly arranged Bible isn’t meant to appeal to a particular demographic, nor is it intended to replace the more traditional format. Instead, Greene is targeting anyone who wants to "enjoy the biblical library anew, as great literary art," and believes his creation could make people question "the ubiquity of the encyclopedic form."

"Growing up with the Bible, there were so many interpretive lenses held up to it for me," Greene tells The Verge. "As I grew older and learned more about its history, I began to see that it had been made to ‘say’ so many things to so many different ends over the past 2,000 years ... I couldn’t quite pin down what the Bible was, or why figuring out what it was mattered to me."

It wasn't until Greene was introduced to writings like N.T. Wright's Scripture and the Authority of God and Robert Alter's The Art of Biblical Narrative that he began to see the Bible as a library of liturgical texts "compiled of masterfully crafted literary art, infused by its authors with needle-sharp significance, rich symbolism, and enthralling beauty."

more at link

[merrily]

1. One needs to define the term "Christianity's message."

Do we mean the words that the New Testament attributes to Jesus? Or some effort to make the words and life of Jesus, as portrayed in the New Testament, consistent with the entire Old Testament?

Or do we mean the rest of the NT, including the Pauline letters?

Or, do we mean what the Catholic and Orthodox Churches said the message of Christianity is? Or what the evangelicals say it is?

Using that term under the apparent assumption that all readers would understand what was meant by it is stunning.

The words attributed to Jesus in the New Testament do not bother me. The rest of things mentioned above bother me very much.

A series of liturgical texts, though?

For the definition of liturgical, Webster's refer to liturgy.

lit·ur·gy
noun \ˈli-tər-jē\

a fixed set of ceremonies, words, etc., that are used during public worship in a religion

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liturgy

I think the Bible contains a lot more than that. Well, the bible as it finally came out of the hands of the Church, anyway.

[cbayer]

4. I think all he means is that the bible, including both old and new testaments, are

the set of book that are attached to christianity, with christianity being the rather massive tent under which all those other groups reside.

[merrily]

5. Still not a definition of "Christianity's message," though.

[TygrBright]

62. Ask 100 Christians and you'll get dozens of versions...

...of "Christianity's message."

There will be some commonalities among many, but not all of them.

One of the challenges for Christian believers is to study the literature based on accounts of Christ's life and the early history of the Christian community, and determine what it means to you as an individual attempting to live as a Christian.

This is not an easy OR simple task, it takes great effort, and great commitment. Many believers, therefore, are happy to accept others' interpretations.

But you can only get so far, doing that.

Ultimately, you get (sorry) left behind, by the incredible and evolving complexity of the Universe.

reflectively,
Bright

[merrily]

92. Very true. But when a journalist praises

Christianity's message, I get two very different thoughts in my mind. One is the words attributed to Jesus in the NT as it has come to us from the Church. The other is what I consider the evil stuff being spewed by some who insist they are Christians.

I would think/hope that a journalist today would/should realize that and choose words more carefully.

[TygrBright]

96. Journalists have agendas, too.

I refer you to the famous and probably apocryphal quote from WR Hearst to a cub reporter: "Son, do you know what a pervert does?" And as the lad blushed, he barked "Sells newspapers!"

ironically,
Bright

[merrily]

98. Yes, I curse our media often.

Doesn't change media a tiny bit, but I like venting.

However, I don't know if that particular word choice reflected his agenda or just some lack on his part.

[longship]

2. And Numbers will still be a crushingly boring read.

I tried to read the Bible in my teens. I took away two observations.

1. The language of the King James Version is horribly antiquated, and makes the entire volume mostly unreadable. I have since understood that the language was out of date even in King James' time. As good as the translation might be -- many scholars support the KJV -- what good is a volume with antiquated language? I am not advocating a McBible, like the apparently monumentally idiotic Good News Bible, but just maybe there's a modern version that honors honest translation.

2. Some of the books are inherently unreadable, with little narrative. They are bogged down in minutia to the point that nobody but an anal retentive would be interested in them. Begats, upon begats comes to mind. Who thinks that is good literature?

Of course, there are some very good stories. Job comes to mind, as does Song of Solomon, among others. But I would rather drill a hole in my head than attempt Numbers again. And I love mathematics! Maybe that is why I find the Bible on the whole a crushing bore.

Then, there are the conflicting doublets in the Septuagint, the evolution of Jesus' teachings throughout the gospels -- both the accepted four as well as the others -- to say nothing about the discordant historical accounts. And, by the way, is it faith (Paul) or is it works (Jesus)? Nobody's worked that one out either. Of course, the Calvanists apparently solved that with predetermination, nothing one does in life will save your evil miserable soul, you are either saved or not. And God is love, BTW.



Maybe this guy has a good idea. But I don't know what the fuck he can do with all those begats to make them literature.

[cbayer]

3. At one time during my youth I tried to read it cover to cover, but I couldn't do it.

I later came to realize that it was a collection and did not benefit from a front to cover read, but was better when certain sections were read separately.

I have enjoyed and learned from many of the stories, been comforted or inspired by others and frightened or angered by others. I never did see it as a whole pill that one had to swallow.

Anyway, his work seems interesting, although I don't think it's going to change much.

[merrily]

7. I think it does benefit from a cover to cover read, as well as reading selections.

It's amazing how many people, including some who teach the Bible, have never actually read all of it.

[cbayer]

9. I know that there are a lot of people who haven't read all of it, but

it would be hard to imagine someone who taught it not having read it.

[merrily]

11. Really? Are you talking teaching it in Sunday School or in Harvard Divinity?

I don't even think every pastor has necessarily read all of it.

[cbayer]

14. Certainly those teaching specific bible stories in sunday school may

not of read the whole thing. I thought you were referring to real teachers.

And I don't know if every pastor has necessarily read it, but I'm pretty sure that those that go to a seminary or divinity school probably have.

[merrily]

15. Pastors and Sunday School teachers are real teachers, regardless of whether they

are certified by the state or a university or not. And the only teachers of the Bible to whom most Americans are exposed.

And I don't know if every pastor has necessarily read it, but I'm pretty sure that those that go to a seminary or divinity school probably have.

And I am equally sure many, perhaps even most, pastors have never read it in its entirety.

[cbayer]

17. Ok, we are just arguing semantics, which I'm not interested in.

Honestly, I don't care if someone who teaches the bible has read every word in it. I don't think it would make them any better or worse a teacher, but it might be used as a sharp stick to poke them. If they use what they know to transmit the right message, I support them. If they use it to justify bigotry and hate, then I am against them.

[merrily]

18. This was my comment:

It's amazing how many people, including some who teach the Bible, have never actually read all of it.

You argued with that statement for quite a few posts before concluding you didn't care if that statement were accurate or not.

However, I do share your conclusion that what is taught is more important.

[cbayer]

19. You are correct on all counts.

[TygrBright]

65. I've read it cover to cover many times.

The begats, the building specs for the Temple, the elaborate rules and interpretations of the Covenant and the Law, and the lists of who contributed what to the re-building of the Temple, are not narrative in the storytelling sense, but they do gloss the narrative and provide depth of understanding.

I read it as narratives on humanity's attempts to fathom the Divine and act upon what they fathom. What they chose to set down in writing, what was preserved over time and invested with sufficient importance to survive in various forms over millenia, says a good deal about how the specific peoples of the Biblical narratives evolved in their understanding of the Divine.

Comparing lists with stories, symbols emerge, and a whole subtext about what mattered to them in terms of family, continuity, tribal identity, and how that was affected by what happened to them in the narrative.

I'm looking forward to reading this version very much.

interestedly,
Bright

[cbayer]

66. Did you do all this in the context of a course or a study group.

I think it would be fascinating to look at the myriad of complex ideas that you talk about in this post. I particularly like the historical perspective.

In Rome last week I learned a great deal about the ancient culture, it's symbols and stories. Sometimes you don't realize how much you don't know until you begin to look at a thing.

What about this version interests you?

Hope you are well and having a great summer.

[TygrBright]

75. Pretty decent summer...

...and very much enjoying the occasional glimpses of your travel experiences!

My interests began in college when I studied classical Hebrew and NT Greek in the interests of "reading it in the original."

My teachers were happy to have a student at all (at the time all those "ancient languages" were losing popularity rapidly,) but being honest folk, they couldn't help but point out to me that even "original" is a pretty shaky concept.

The translation and exegesis of the Dead Sea Scrolls was pretty recent and still evolving then, and a couple of my instructors pointed me at books on the history of the original texts, exigetical techniques and how THEY evolved, and the various conferences and processes that canonized the books.

Fortunately although my minor was medieval history, I was able to get credit for that stuff as well, so it wasn't all lagniappe.

But it piqued my interest, and as my own faith has developed and changed, I've continued to keep up with how various interpretations reflect the human understanding of the Divine. Not to mention (as noted below later in this or another subthread) the social and political agendas involved!

I'm looking forward to reading this version partly because of what the article says about the format-- it's amazing how much influence formatting can have on interpretation and comprehension. And partly because the viewpoint of the designer can't help but come through in the gestalt. And that will be, I think, a very different starting place and POV from most of the versions I've read before.

I expect I'll be constantly setting down the book(s) with an unvoiced "huh! Now what do I think about THAT?" and reflecting on the differing insights.

I get satisfaction in some very strange and kinky activities...

diffidently,
Bright

[cbayer]

81. I did not realize the depth and breadth of you education and experience in this area.

I went to a liberal arts college and got to taste so many things, but there were so many that I missed.

Because I was raised with religion, I thought I didn't really need to explore it more academically. Now I am fascinated and would love to have some of the educational experiences that you have had.

I look forward to your take on this new version. It might even inspire me to do the thing I have never done - read it cover to cover.

[TygrBright]

89. Reading it "cover to cover" benefits from being done incrementally!

I've never yet sat down and started at Genesis and read through to the Revelations in a few multi-hour sessions, without reading anything else in between, so to speak (not sure I could read it in a single session, I'm too old to stay awake that long...)

But this version might facilitate that, and it would be interesting.

I tend to read a chapter a day from the OT and a chapter a day from the NT, rinse and repeat. Each time I read a specific chapter, new insights emerge based on previous readings.

And yeah, sometimes I "skim" on the list-y bits. But if I'm disciplined, and think about what I'm reading, some interesting stuff occurs to me. For instance, right now I'm on Nehemiah, and the lists of folk who contributed to the rebuilding of the Temple, and the whole process of which families and tribes were "validated" as belonging to the elite groups, based on extant records, is fascinating. So many parallels with True Scotsmen through the ages!

We are an amazing, maddening, inspiring species.

discursively,
Bright

[cbayer]

91. I think I would enjoy this most if I had a group to talk to about it.

I remember the days of book clubs and study groups very fondly. I have lost my love of reading long, complex things. I think the internet is responsible for that to a large degree.

But I am in a place right now when I could try to rediscover some of that.

Thanks so much for the enlightening conversation. We are indeed an amazing, maddening, inspiring species.

cb

[TygrBright]

100. It would definitely be fun!

But as a club/study group book, it has certain pitfalls.

If you do it with all like-minded folk, the groupthink tends to take over, and if you do it with highly heterogeneous folk, some of the agendas that creep in tend to conflict for its own sake, which diminishes enjoyment considerably. Well, my enjoyment, anyway.

But it should be possible to find a small group of folk with common interest and sufficiently varied POVs to make a regular discussion interesting.

affirmatively,
Bright

[cbayer]

101. I hear what you are saying. Reminds me of the groups we had when feminism

was becoming a central issue. I was in a group that discussed Our Bodies, Our Selves. We had a great balance with little to no contention, as groups of women can sometimes pull off in ways easier than mixed groups.

[TygrBright]

104. Oh, yes! I remember some of those groups, indeed.

You could probably reproduce the phenomenon with a selection of liberal theists and/or agnostics of varied traditions, who share a historical/literary appreciation of the context and a dislike of conflict for its own sake.

I'd enjoy participating in such a group, anyway.

diffidently,
Bright

[cbayer]

111. I would also enjoy that.

I think that some of the UU congregations have the availability of this mix. Unfortunately, I don't have access to one.

Finding such a group on the internet seems unlikely, and even if available, I think the actual presence of individuals is an important factor in making these kinds of things worthwhile.

My father and his wife have retired to a community where this is going on all the time. I wonder if that might be available to us at some point.

[okasha]

117. I like T. S. Eliot's take on Nehemiah.

"a trowel in the hand, and a gun rather loose in the holster."

[TygrBright]

122. Yes, I think had he lived today he'd be pretty cozy...

...w/ the manifest destiny, might-is-right crowd.

Rather an unpleasantly picky old gink on the topic of genealogy, too.

But a fascinating and revealing narrative, for all that.

And "Rock" is one of my favorite Eliot poems.

appreciatively,
Bright

[merrily]

6. It is difficult language for us, but not more difficult than Shakespeare.

[cbayer]

8. I have trouble reading that as well, lol.

[merrily]

13. Yet, Shakespeare sells books and theater tickets galore.

It depends on what one thinks is worth the effort.

From someone's estate, I actually received a parallel bible (from the Praise the Lord ministry, no less). King James and a more modern translation side by side.

I tried hard to stick to the King James as much as I could. I am sure those translators had an agenda, too, but at least it was not a Republican agenda. So, I trust the King James more than some of the more modern language versions.

[cbayer]

21. Really interesting point about the agenda of the translator.

This is not something I have had the opportunity to discuss much in the past.

I know there are parts that do vary in meaning when you read different editions and I've seen some of these on various sites that supply the different translations.

The version this guy has picked seems reasonably readable, but I'm not sure about the agenda.

[merrily]

24. My strong suspicion is that all translations reflect some agenda(s) or other.

Not a translation issue, but, at a wedding I attended recently, the officiant claimed God married Adam and Eve.

I bet at least half those present took his statement at face value because they have no clue what the Bible actually says.

Translators are probably more subtle than the officiant. At least, I hope so. (Or maybe I hope they are not at all subtle and therefore more easily exposed than a subtle deceiver.)

But I would not be very surprised to see something like that in some modern translation. Not saying such a thing exists. I don't know. I don't compare versions. Just saying I would not be very surprised if it does exist.

[cbayer]

26. I'm not even sure what adam and eve being married means.

Could there have been a metaphor or allegory there that he was emphasizing? If not, what do you think was his point?

I agree with you about translators, but I also think the humans that wrote the various sections had their own agendas as well.. The question for me would be how to decipher that and whether it really makes any difference.

[merrily]

39. I don't think he was sure what adam and eve being married by God means, except

that it means they did not go around popping out kids without the "benefit" of holy matrimony.

And maybe there were even overtones of "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

The question for me would be how to decipher that and whether it really makes any difference.

Whether it makes any difference for what purpose?

For me, in talking to Christians, it's a lot easier to get them to stick to the King James version when they try to make their case to me than to convince them to ignore all translations of the entire Bible. Just like it's easier for me to say "Jesus never said that," than it is for me to convince them there was never a Jesus, even a historical one.

[cbayer]

42. Well that sounds like a metaphor and I wouldn't really have a problem with that.

If he was making an anti-GLBT civil rights statement, I would clearly have a problem with that.

Religious people use religious language and allegory and reference religious themes all the time. It's only when they use that to impose their beliefs on other that I think it makes any difference.

So, if the pastor said something about god performing the first marriage in order to impart some religious meaning to this particular ceremony, what does it matter to anyone else? And if people shook their heads in agreement, what does it matter if they even felt it was somehow literal?

Were you offended somehow?

[merrily]

45. You had to be there. He did not impress me as a scholar or the brightest bulb.

Or a poetic speaker. Or a specific one.

I think we were supposed to accept that God joined Adam and Eve in "holy matrimony" almost literally and for what I would consider to be the wrong reasons, namely, to prove that sex without a religious marriage ceremony of some kind was always wrong in the eyes of God. And yes, as I already suggested, I did think there was an anti-civil rights component.

And if people shook their heads in agreement, what does it matter if they even felt it was somehow literal?

Aside from it's being false, you mean? I think truth and reality matter, especially when so much turns on it.

Were you offended somehow?

Yes, misrepresentation and outright lies offend me, especially by a "a man of God" and especially about what the Bible says.

[cbayer]

46. Perhaps you did have to be there, because you clearly had a very strong reaction

and concluded many things based on his statement. If your interpretations are correct, then I can see why you might be offended.

Out of context, what he said seems very benign, but I don't even know what kind of community he was speaking to.

[merrily]

48. It was a very mixed community.

The groom was a very observant and devout Muslim from Egypt who works in the building in which I live. The bride was a Catholic from South America --don't know about how devout--who cleans apartments in the same building. The invitees were the few relatives both of them have in the US and people of all faiths--and none--who live or work in the building.

My conclusions were based not on that one statement, but on his entire talk he gave.

[cbayer]

49. And it was officiated by a minister? Wow, what an experience that must have been.

I wonder where they found him.

My daughter, an atheist, married a muslim man last year. Actually, she married him several times last year, including once in a mosque.

Do you know much about the groom or what kinds of conflicts he may have had to deal with to marry a non-muslim woman?

[merrily]

50. I am not sure what you mean by "a minister."

I don't know what his credentials were or his denomination. He officiated at what purported to be a religious ceremony. That's all I know.


I know that the groom works in my building and has been given use of someone's office in the building for his prayers because of the many dogs in the building. (He gives the dogs treats all the time and says he has one--says it's only that they cannot be where he prays.) His whole family is in Egypt; and that is usually the biggest source of conflict about intermarriage.

It was a second marriage for him, Christians both times and, both times, the marriages ended in divorce both times.

I have no proof but I suspect the first marriage at least may have been about his citizenship. It happened very quickly after he arrived in the US and didn't last much beyond his naturalization. This one, though, seemed very genuine to me, though he now says that he believes she married him only for her citizenship.

That is about all I know. He and I speak often, but he does not volunteer info of that kind and I try not to ask people personal questions about topics they haven't opened for discussion by me.

[cbayer]

53. Ah, then he could have been a muslim, catholic or protestant, I guess.

If Muslim, that might help understand the statement about marriage. I just did some research on it, and in the Qu'aran it is apparently more clearly stated that Adam and Even were married.

It sounds like this man is lucky to have you as a friend and something of a confidant. I hope this marriage is the right thing for him and wish them both happiness. I'm a big believer in long-term commitment, whether that includes an actual marriage or not.

[merrily]

55. I love him dearly (as a friend), even though he is the soul of maintaining

the "proper" professional distance. Once or twice a year, I hug him anyway--and he doesn't recoil, though I think that is only because he humors me.

The officiant could have been a Muslim, though he never once referred to the Koran or Mohummad. He did not venture outside the OT, either, though I did not get the impression he was Jewish. And I doubt he was a Catholic priest. I have no clue.

[okasha]

118. In Islam, the belief that Adam and Eve were married in Paradise

forms at least part of the foundation for the doctrine that the blessed also marry in Paradise. Everyone is young and beautiful again--beautiful virgins and youths--and a woman has the option of staying married to her earthly husband. If she didn't like him, Allah promises to find her a husband she does like.

[cbayer]

119. That's what I gathered from the brief research I did, which

would help explain why he did it and why it sounded rather odd to merrily.

Nice to see you Okasha. Hope you are well.

I am in Italy, where the pope is loved beyond what I can describe to you.

Quite an experience.

[okasha]

121. Well but frantically busy, thanks.

A tour of the museums of Italy, including the Vatican, is on my bucket list. I think Francis is seen almost as the Second Coming of John XXIII among many Catholics, and their hopes for him are very high. He's both humble and courageous, and that's an admirable combination.

On marriage in Paradise, I think it says a good deal about early Islam that remaining married to the earthly husband is the wife's option, not his. Muhammad, like Jesus, seems to have been one of those rare men who genuinely like women.

[cbayer]

123. I did not make it to the Vatican.

The lines can be up to 4 hours long in July. We are going to go back in September when things are hopefully slower.

Francis is revered, even by people with limited or not faith. It has been very interesting to talk to people about him.

I love your take on Muhammad. The muslim men that I have know (and they are only a few) have had a very interesting take on women. If I could choose a single word it would be ambivalent. Highly ambivalent.

[okasha]

124. There's a wide spectrum among the Muslim men I've encountered

and their attitudes on women. A couple of them, academics married to Western women, are very Western in their outlook. And then there's one or two real little chavinist porkers. Not all that different from the distribution of attitudes among Western men.

[cbayer]

125. I think that you are absolutely correct about the variation being fairly

consistent across cultures.

If I was to really be honest, I would say that there is a percentage of men who try not to be sexist. I mean they really try. They want that in a truly sincere way.

But when it comes down to the real marrow, they are sexist and will always be so. It can't be helped.

Fortunately, we are tolerant and understanding, lol.

[TygrBright]

69. You raise a fascinating point about the agendas of the translators.

Because YES, not only every translator, but every copyist and even every original scribe/recorder had an agenda.

Even among those who strenuously attempt to be "agenda free" in the most scholarly, objective sense have their understandings shaped by the culture they live in, the language they think in, and it reflects in how they record narrative, what is chosen to copy and preserve, and how it is translated.

It helped me enormously to study the historical period during which the KJV was being translated, to understand the political and social issues that were at the forefront of consciousness among native English speakers of the time, not to mention the power dynamics that were operative in facilitating the translation.

The reason any and all claims of inerrant Biblical literalism are highly problematic trace back to this reality. Even if you want to postulate complete Divine Guidance throughout the process from original inscription through your "inerrant" version rolling off the presses, the internal inconsistencies that have crept in over the centuries of this process will render such assertions unsupportable

Except, perhaps, from the standpoint of a "faith" that postulates a God Who created beings capable of reason, analysis, discernment, and logic, and then for whatever Divine reasons prohibits us from using those capabilities. Say, what?

skeptically,
Bright

[merrily]

74. Yes, but each kind of conversation has to have a context.

And a starting point.

If you start with "first, throw out the entire Bible," as you attempt to discuss things with a fundamentalist Christian, you are not unlikely to get anywhere at all. And, if you are talking with an atheist, you probably don't need to parse the Bible a whole lot in the first place.

I once attempted a conversation with a woman who started talking about Abraham, Sarah and Hagar, as the origin of present day Middle Eastern strife, then suddenly switched to the DNA project. My head spun.

[TygrBright]

76. Absolutely!

And not all fundamentalist Christians are inerrant literalists. I can have conversations with just about anyone. I'm always interested in learning more about what people believe and why.

At least up to the point where they start telling me why I should believe what they believe, then I usually try to make a graceful exit. They don't have to believe what I believe, either, and I've never found much point in conflict for conflict's sake.

There is certainly some metaphorical value in the interpretation of the story of Sarah and Hagar and their social context, in explaining modern tribalism among their theological descendents. But bringing DNA in on it would disorient me, too!

amusedly,
Bright

[longship]

22. The Bible is decidedly not Shakespeare.

At least Shakespeare is a single narrative.

If one wants to promote the Bible as literature, one had better be able to make a case that the creative elements survive the centuries of redaction and translations, with emphasis on the former. One cannot even get out of the Pentateuch (the Torah) before crashing head long into doublets where multiple sources clash with one another. How many Decalogue stories are there? The two Noah narratives are interleaved so one never knows what supposedly happens. First and second Kings are wholly repeated in first and second Chronicles. What's with that? Is this supposed to be history? Who killed Goliath? Which one is the story?

The Septuagint is a mess, and the New Testament is no better. The gospels don't help matters. And so-called Paul totally upsets the cart. Works? Belief? Which one? Then, there's the one really fun read in the New Testament, the Revelation of John. Maybe it rises to the Shakespeare's level, presumably if one is tripping on acid.

[merrily]

28. Never said it was. I said the words were was no harder for us than Shakepeare's words.

I am not at all sure Shakespeare is a single narrative, though. But, please, let's not debate that. Shakespeare's writing is not the point.

You will get no argument from me that the Bible is not easy to read, though very easy to read things into. Someone with skill can probably make any claim about what the Bible actually says and means and get away with it. And those without skill can do the same, if they speak to people who have never read the Bible.

I have a cousin (for whom I make no excuses whatever. I am not related to her via my intentions, I assure you). Whenever her daughter gives her any pushback, she claims "It's in the Bible," knowing full well that she has no clue what is in the Bible and what isn't.

[longship]

40. I understand your point.

Well put.

[merrily]

43. BTW, about tripping. I have often wondered what whoever wrote

Revelations was using.

Even all the books supposedly written by John don't sound as though they had the same author.

On the flip side, for something passed by oral tradition all over the then known world for a couple three centuries, there are a lot of similarities. I think oral tradition was a lot better when paper and pen--not to mention literacy--we harder to come by.

[longship]

47. Well, the attributions of the NT are certainly added later.

Last edited Wed Jul 23, 2014, 11:11 AM - Edit history (1)

None of the gospels are attributed to their entitled authors within the text. It is very likely that the attributions were added much later.

Paul, if such a person even existed, certainly did not write all the epistles attributed to him.

And who in the Hell was John of Revelation?

The history of the time is a bit fuzzy. And oral tradition cannot explain what certainly were the very many redactions made at a later time.

Interesting, Revelations seems to be one of the earliest texts, according to experts (of which I am decidedly NOT -- I just have an interest).

[merrily]

52. That is indeed very interesting. I did not know that Revelation was one of the earliest.

Yes, many of the books of the Bible drone on, but I soldiered through them without much pain. Reading Revelation, however, made my hair hurt.

For the life of me, I cannot quote a single verse and I barely have a general idea what it was about. And of all the books, I've seen the most bs interpretations of Revelation on TV.

[okasha]

120. There were at least two and possibly three Johns who made contributions to the NT.

The first is the author of the Gospel of John. The letters of John are attributed to a later author usually referred to as "John the Elder," sometimes "John the Priest&quot presbyteros). The "Revelation of John" may be the same as John the Elder but is probably a third author and is usually referred to as "John of Patmos."

[Nitram]

16. longship, I'm not a religulous person

but I find most modern translations rather dull. I find the King James, as a literary text, far more engaging. But that's just me.

[Stellar]

25. I stay away from books in the Old Testament, LOL...

I thought it was for those who needed it before Jesus was born. I thought the New Testament was for people of today.

The New Testament was suppose to replace the Old Testament, unless you want to learn the history of the Bible. IDK. Is that right or wrong? It's been awhile since I was into the Bible.

[merrily]

33. "The New Testament was suppose to replace the Old Testament..." Yes and no.

First, for whom? The NT sure doesn't replace the OT for those Jews who consider the NT heresy. And muslims seem to think that the OT and the NT got messed up and were set straight by Mohammed. And the rest of the world, other than fundamentalist (or fundamentalish) Christians, doesn't think any of those things.

For fundamentalist Christians, the NT renders a lot of the NT moot, but not all of it. If anywhere in the NT--as the Church handed us the NT--something from the OT is repeated, it applies to Christians. And, unfortunately, a lot of the NT as the Church eventually handed it to us, was supposedly written by Paul, who supposedly did "bring forward" a number of things from the OT that I personally consider undesirable.

[Alittleliberal]

44. Matthew 5:17 and 5:18

From the King James
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled"

From the NIV
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

That means the NT is supposed to replace the OT?

[TygrBright]

80. You can interpret that very credibly in highly conflicting versions.

One version is that Jesus was referring to those who will not listen to or accept his revelation, but that the Law as referred to remains an option for them to submit to the Will of God. Of course, later on, Paul points out the problems with this. But Jesus as chronicled doesn't seem to have had much interest in unpacking or reinterpreting his own words.

Another version is that Jesus simply acknowledges that the words of the Law will continue to be preserved, period. Not necessarily that adherence to the Law is required of Christians, merely that his coming is the fulfillment thereof, and the Law itself shall remain as the record of what was to be fulfilled. I like that one because it posits a sort of "Jesus the Historian" approach!

Another version is that you must read the narrative of the Law as it describes the evolution of the relationship between God and humanity, rather than as a set of "thou shalt nots/thou musts," and that in that sense, the Law does not cease to exist until humanity itself translates into perfect union with the Divine.

Those are just three off the top of my head. I could go on all day with it, and make credible theological cases for all of them.

Which is why using the Bible as a guide for anyone ELSE'S righteousness except your own is a very dicey business indeed.

exigetically,
Bright

[TexasProgresive]

27. "honest translation"???

"traduttore, traditore." The translator is a traitor. Anyone who has done translations will realize that it is nearly impossible to give a completely true rendition of a work in another language. One must make interpretations and substitutions because the from language has concepts foreign to the to language and the reverse is true.

A small example is that Greek has 4 words for love; agápe, éros, philía, and storgē. English has one and we use it to describe many things-(I love that car) which have nothing to do with love. That is my interpretation.

[merrily]

34. And then, there's them pesky lacunae, which get filled in by "translators."

"traduttore, traditore."

Nice. Never heard that before.

[longship]

35. Well, yup. There's that, too.

Plus, the Septuagint is a Greek translation of the putative original Hebrew, none of which are traceable to original scripts. Same with the New Testament -- no originals prior to obvious, significant redactions. Plus, the history of the period indicates multiple, conflicting Christian sects battling for their unique narratives. Just as in the Septuagint, the scribes did not like to take sides, so they included it all, conflicts not withstanding. Of course, the Roman church prevailed, but the conflicts survived nonetheless.

The Bible is an utter mess.

[okasha]

115. Well, he could always substitute,

...and Boaz had sex with Ruth, and saw in the ceiling mirror that it was good. Nine months later Jesse was born, and he had wild, hot, monkey sex with his wife--the sex was so good that he forgot her name--and then David was born. David was a real horndog, and he had sex with Jonathan (but we don't talk about that too much) then with (woo hoo! incest!) Jonathan's sister Michal and about half the female population of Judah, with the exception of Abishag. Solomon had three thousand concubines and died young of heart failure.....

And so forth.

[longship]

137. Very good, Okasha.

One wonders what the fundies would say about such a translation (especially the hot, monkey sex part).

[okasha]

138. It's the backstory, y'see...

The History Channel could make it all into a serial, the fundies would protest, then furtively swap pirated CD's in the church parking lot after Wednesday night prayer meeting.

[longship]

140. ROFL!

Of course! I did not think of the DVD marketing opportunities.

[DetlefK]

10. Will it be in the original Aramaic, the original Greek, the original Latin, the original German...

or the original English?


And I don't think that the Bible has a stand as a piece of literary art. It contains long lists of moral rules and judicial guidelines right in the midst between short stories. It has some inspiring ideas on an artistic level, but the format and language are horrible. Additionally it is full of contradictions and historical inaccuracies. If you judge the literary craftsmanship of the Bible against the literary craftsmanship of nowaday's novels, the Bible looses bigtime.

If the Bible had not the bonus of being considered a holy book, nobody would bother to read it anymore.

[cbayer]

12. American Standard Version is what this guy has chosen.

I think all of your criticisms are valid to some degree and I am not sure how the changes he is making will help, but it's an interesting project nonetheless, imo.

I guess it depends on what novels you are talking about. There is a tremendous amount of trash out there and there are many parts of the bible I would rather read that much of what is in the bookstores.

It's considered a holy book because so many people read it and it's still read by many, many people. Maybe not by you, but I think your final assumption is completely unfounded.

[merrily]

20. This is not a rhetorical question or a sarcastic one. I just don't know.

Was the OT originally written in Aramic, too, or only the NT? I don't think the OT was originally in Greek.

[DetlefK]

30. I think the OT was Aramaic or Hebrew.

I have heard somewhere that Jesus spoke Aramaic.

And once Christianity was established, it spread mainly towards Greece. People liked it, because it was so liberal and, contrary to Judaism, low on laws. ("Judaism light&quot That's where greek versions of the NT came from.

Then Christianity spread to the Roman Empire, where it was treated as a curiosity, as weird outsiders. (The feeding-Christians-to-lions thing was invented later by the Christians.)

Then Christianity became roman state-religion under Emperor Constantine.

Council of Nicaea, founding of the Vatican etc.

The Bible was written in Latin for centuries. Martin Luther was the first to dare to translate it to a language of commoners, German.

And shortly after Martin Luther came Henry VIII and eventually the King-James-Bible as an english translation.

[merrily]

37. Thanks. I knew the general history, but was looking for hard info on the specific issue.

I think, as concerns my specific question, your post boils down to "I don't really know." And that's fair enough. I don't know either.

[okasha]

127. The books of the OT were originally composed in Hebrew.

The original language of the NT as we have it is koine Greek. There are hints in the works of the early Church Fathers that there was once a Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, but if there was, it has not survived. (Or at least, we haven't found it yet.) While Jesus would have preached in Aramaic, a sort of colloquial cousin of Hebrew, some of the dialogue reported in the Gospels suggests that he may also have been fluent in Greek. That wouldn't be surprising, given that Nazareth was only four miles from Sepphoris, a Greek-speaking city razed at about the time of Jesus' birth and then rebuilt in toto.

Jerome created the Vulgate, or Latin Version. Luther's German Bible was preceded by about a century by Wycliffe's English Bible, a copy of which is listed among Richard III's books. Between it and the KJV, there were also the Great Bible, the Coverdale translation and a couple others. The Bible was being read in French translation by the 1520's. Anne Boleyn owned a French version of the NT.

[TygrBright]

94. The oldest extant OT texts are Hebrew...

...and that remains the "classic" language for the OT.

But just as the English of Beowulf and the English of Chaucer and the English of Shakespeare and even the English of Herman Melville are not the English of the Chicago Manual of Style or EB White, various iterations of Hebrew tend toward variable translation.

The western Church based in the Roman Empire co-opted the OT in the Vulgate Latin, which was the primary text for the KJV translators.

The NT was passed on largely in late classical Greek as that was the most widely shared common language of the early Christian churches, and in some ways the NT of the KJV is the more problematic translation because there were far more versions of the texts to be reconciled, including some widely-accepted Latin translations.

helpfully,
Bright

[merrily]

97. Thanks, Bright. I didn't know all the ins and outs, but

I thought the OT would have been in Hebrew, not Aramaic. And I do know that the Church, in effect, bogarted the Bible for a long time.

You make a very good teacher.

[TygrBright]

102. heehee "The Church bogarted the Bible!" I love that...

Yes, the Church was very much aware of how much variation in interpretation translation could validate. They needed to control the interpretation to minimize conflict and maintain control of the level of temporal power they'd accumulated.

A charitable imputation of their motives, to begin with. The early history of the Church and its role as temporal power-holder and "fair broker" among competing interests made them strongly aware of the potentially bloody consequences of schism.

Later, of course, as temporal power and control inevitably began to diffuse and migrate, those motives changed. Add in the rise of the Abbasid Caliphate as a serious threat, and the need to keep the most rigid possible control of doctrine, interpretation, and belief was pretty well calcified and became itself the primary problem.

Wycliff was perhaps the most dangerous heretic of them all, from that standpoint.

Thanks for the kind words.

tendentiously,
Bright

[merrily]

105. I bookmarked because I need to look into Wycliff and the Caliphate, but

not now. (Too hungry for lunch.)

You have a lot of knowledge, whittle it down and present clearly, all hallmarks of a very good teacher.

[TygrBright]

84. If you look at how literary art has evolved...

...it's perfectly possible to make a case for the Bible in its English translations.

Tristram Shandy was considered a hilarious comedy bestseller in its day. Yes, it's funny, but as a casual read it's not very congruent with modern literary tastes.

Not all "literature" is novels or even fiction, not all is modern.

But I'll certainly agree with anyone who asserts that as a 21st Century beach read, it's got nothing on John LeCarre or even JK Rowling.

amiably,
Bright

[edhopper]

23. Hope will he write the NT as one narrative

when the four Gospels contradict each other. What will he choose as the "real" story?

[cbayer]

29. He's not re-writing anything at all and is not endorsing anything as

more real than anything else.

That's not even close to his agenda. Read the article, it's interesting but it's nothing like you have assumed.

[edhopper]

32. My mistake

he is just selling the sizzle, same content.

[cbayer]

36. Exactly. It's pretty, but I'm not sure that it's going to be practical.

Who is going to carry around 4 volumes and what churches are going to be able to accommodate that many separate texts?

[merrily]

41. I've always meant to--or thought I meant to--

copy and paste all four versions and see how much I could get to be consistent and how much just could not be reconciled. As just one example, I think there are at least two different version of how Judas died that cannot be reconciled.

But, since I've never gotten even as far as generating the copy and paste, maybe I didn't really intend to do it.

[edhopper]

130. The internet is your friend

just Google 'New Testament Contradictions'.

[safeinOhio]

31. I suggest reading

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why [Bart D. Ehrman]. Ehrman found the oldest surviving books of the NT and found they don't look anything like what we have now.

As for teaching the Bible, that always seem to include "what Jesus is saying here" or "what God is telling us here is". I think the only interpretation that is valid is what you think it means.

[cbayer]

38. Sound interesting.

I agree with you about the validity of the interpretation being personal and not definitive.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. Yes, let's take an enormous heap of

misogyny, murder, genocide, homophobia, a huge pack of lies and fabrications, and re-package it to make it a little more appealing to a modern society that rejects most of the material in it.

Makes sense to me.

[cbayer]

54. Or, let's take a very complex and varied set of books and paint

them all with an overreaching negative brush!! And then let's claim that "modern society" rejects most of what is in it, which is patently untrue!!

I'm more likely to give to his cause than that one. He means no harm but only wants to modernize how the best selling book in the world is printed.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Patently untrue?

When's the last time you stoned or burnt someone to death for adultery?

Deuteronomy 22:22
Leviticus 20:10
Leviticus 21

Matthew 19
Mark 10:11
Mark 10:12
Luke 16:18

"Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"


You HAVE read this stinking pile of evil trash book, haven't you?

[cbayer]

59. Pointing out 7 verses that don't make any sense in current times is not equivalent to

modern society rejecting most of what is in it.

Much as you might want that to be true, it's just not.

I have read it and came away with a completely different take than you. I suspect that is true for many books that we may have both read.

But you can not speak for modern society. You just don't have the standing to do so, nor do you have any data to back up your hyperbolic claim.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. lawl

Oh you are too much

[cbayer]

61. I have no idea what this means, but I am sure it is profound in some way.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. "don't make any sense in current times"

"DON'T MAKE ANY SENSE IN CURRENT TIMES"

You said it yourself. One may presume, it doesn't 'make sense' in 'current times' as a function of SOCIETY REJECTING IT.

'derp, doesn't make sense to me, not going to follow it' is a form of explicit rejection.

I mean, by current times, you were referring to the mores of modern society, not a collection of numbers humans refer to as the calendar date, right?

[cbayer]

67. Of course society has rejected some of the things in the bible, but that's

not equivalent to rejecting most of what is in the bible, which is what you said. If you meant some instead of most, then it makes perfect sense.

'derp? You have lost me again. Perhaps it's a generational thing.

I think that much of modern society continues to base many of its mores on religious teachings. You may not be one of those people, but you can not speak for everyone else.

And just to be clear, I am not saying that one needs religion to have morals, just that many people have religiously based morals.

See Peacetrains post for a nice list of them.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. Some of the things?

Most of the moral precepts in the bible actually pre-date the bible, such as the 'golden rule'. It's not from Jesus. Instances of it are apparent in human history more than 500 years before his birth.

Even the 'ten commandments', how did that society of people make it to that place at that point in time to receive those rules, if they had no sense of those rules prior to arriving?

You are ascribing credit to a source that does not deserve it, and overlooking all the material in it, that we don't follow anymore. Even ignoring those rules that were specifically just for the jewish people at a particular point in time.

Examples of law or moral doctrine in human history is much much broader than the bible, and no, we don't follow most of what's in the bible today. Even if we pretend it's an original work, it's still all over the map on things we don't currently use.

[cbayer]

82. I get it, you don't like the bible.

That's too bad. It is one of the more interesting set of books around, whether you agree with it or not.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. I don't like it, because I read it.

And it is chock full of horrors.

Edit: Keep in mind, what you just offered wasn't a counter-argument to my point either. The bible is full of things society does not observe anymore. If you want to refute that, please proceed. Otherwise, I'm going to assume you've given up the objection.

[cbayer]

93. I think it's a half empty, half full kind of thing except

that you see all empty. That is as objectionable as those who see it as all full.

Complex things are rarely black and white and those that see them as such generally have some very distorting glasses on.

As to the previous discussion, I am merely done with it. You made a blanket broad brush statement which is not true, although there is a grain of truth to it. I don't agree with you. Shakespeare is full of things we don't do anymore. So what? It doesn't make the whole story invalid.

[AtheistCrusader]

99. There is a difference between Shakespeare and the Bible.

One is purported to be revealed truth, the other is deliberate fiction.

Not true but a grain of truth... I find that statement confusing. I can catalog an enormous number of things that society today flat out doesn't respect/observe from the bible. I can find few things that are. There is very little linkage between biblical material and modern society. You have to go very, very 'squishy' in interpretation to cover much of anything.

[cbayer]

103. Purported to be revealed truth by some, but not by either

your or me or lots and lots of people, including religious people.

It is only the literalists who say you must swallow it whole or reject it whole.

You made a statement that was too broad and you can either step away from it or pretend like it didn't happen. I don't disagree with your more nuanced position that there are some things that society has rejected, I only disagree with your "most" statement.

If you are able to read past the superficial, culturally based stuff and get to the real meat, you will find that there is a great deal of linkage between biblical material and modern society. Just as there is for many religious texts and even ancient mythical stories.

But you have to be willing to look past the surface and see the deeper message.

[AtheistCrusader]

106. No, I stand by 'most'.

Nobody is forced to marry their rapist anymore. Dowries in the US are out the window. Nobody's 'suffering not a witch to live', etc. The bible is CHOCK FULL of stuff we don't do, as a society anymore. I would not use 'most' necessarily if I was speaking about the entire world, but in the US, the number of things in the bible that society does not reject, is very small.

And literalists like the WBC are roundly rejected by society.

[cbayer]

113. Ok, stand by it. It makes no difference. You win.

All I can say is the parts that are most important to me stand. Those that never meant anything to me anyway have fallen.

[AtheistCrusader]

114. If I may ask, what parts are important to you?

We just talking literature here? Or something else?

[cbayer]

116. As I have told you before, I was raised in the church.

I was surrounded by the "simple truths" as outline by Peacetrain in this thread. Whether I would have gotten those outside the church, I do not know. But the stories and the parables and the christian message were central to my upbringing. It was tightly wound into an ethic of social justice and civil liberties and taking care of the least fortunate and the golden rule.

I don't think these things are unique to religion, but when done right, religion is imbued with them.

So, for me, the bible and it's stories have a profound positive meaning, which is certainly diametrically opposed to what you have experienced.

Even though I don't really believe in a deity, I believe that the message of religion can be a powerful and positive force.

[Warren Stupidity]

132. " Shakespeare is full of things we don't do anymore"

did you seriously just make that argument? Do you have a clue why it is preposterous?

[Starboard Tack]

128. "I don't like it, because I read it" - What does that mean?

And why would you read something you don't like?
One more question: Did you really read it? Like, all of it?
I mean, I'm an avid reader. I read all kinds of stuff, from classics to instruction manuals to historical biographies to thrillers, sci-fi, graffiti and all kinds trash, but the Bible, really? Even when I was a believer, I found it tedious, boring, repetitive and ridiculous. So, why would you, Atheist Crusader, read it?

[Warren Stupidity]

133. It's a family affair!

[AtheistCrusader]

141. I read it cover to cover. I also use it as a reference tool.

In fact, I possess three editions. Not to mention many volumes of non-abrahamic religious mythology.

In fact, there's a 1001 Arabian Nights reference inscribed on the block of a 1600cc dual port bug motor in my garage.*


How do you propose one discovers if they like material if they don't know what is in it? Granted, it sort of sucks when you discoverer something is utter bollocks, but I have this character flaw where I 'stay to the end' even in shitty movies.
I found The Silmarillion tedious, boring, repetitive, and ridiculous. I still finished reading it.

*1001AN is technically Persian folklore, not mythology, but it is recognized to have been heavily influenced by Indian mythology, when it was written.

[Starboard Tack]

143. Well, I have to hand it to you, you are tenacious.

Personally, I didn't need to read that much of it before deciding it wasn't my cup of tea. There were some stories I liked as a kid, like Jonah and the whale, till I started reading about real whales. There was the walking on water bit, but then I figured he just knew where the rocks were. The virgin birth never meant much until I learned what a virgin was and then I thought "Wow! That's some weird shit!"
Then there was Job! What a bummer that was! And all the smiting kinda did my head in.
Fortunately, we had a public library filled with lots of more interesting and exciting books.

[Peacetrain]

57. Condensed Bible.. or Scripture is is written by man..

God wrote.. I am.. with a fiery finger.. and the 10 commandments.. other than that.. all scripture is historical interpretations of whatever times the biblical writers were living in..

You can drive yourself crazy with the contradictions.. and taking verses out of context..



So simply put.. the metaphor of God asking man and woman one thing.. (do not eat the fruit of tree of knowledge) of course that goes against the very nature of humans God let evolve.. and so he tried some different

Maybe a little more structure would help..

God gave Moses the 10 commandments.. pretty good rules for anyone to live their lives by..

Man and Woman being the creature we are.. expanded that to over 600 laws no one could keep.. so if you can't keep one, why keep any..

In comes Jesus.. and we get this.. which is wisdom given to everyone and prophets in other faiths

All things that you would want done for you, Do for others.. Matt. 7:12
Christianity

What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowman...Talmud: Shabbat 31a
Judaism

Hurt not others in ways that you would not find hurtful Udana-Varga 5,18
Buddhism

This is sum of duty, Do naught unto others, which would cause you pain if done to you.. Mahaebharata 5,1517
Brahmanism

Surely it is the maxim of loving kindness: Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you
Analects 15,23
Confucianism

Regard your neighbors gains as your own gains and your neighbors loss as your own T'ai Shang Kan Yingp P'ien
Taoism

That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself
Dadistan-I-Dinik 94,5
Zoroastrianism

No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother which he desires for himself. Sumnah
Islam

_______________________________________________________________________

And still we see human beings ignoring the simple truths and trying to tease out of it, but but but ... from this like prosperity theology, to people trying to use biblical humans and their times as a reason to take rights and things from others..

Its not the religions that went wrong.. they really all are very simple when distilled down.. so simple 99.9% of people do not want to deal with that love of other as you would love yourself.. they want to eradicate the other..

Human nature ..

_____________________________________________________________________

[cbayer]

68. What a great list of the simple truths.

It is the underpinning of decent human behavior, whether it be religiously derived or not.

[trotsky]

71. Then quit calling other people demons.

If you value decency, that is.

[Peacetrain]

78. Yep it is ..

Its the one I used with my son and our nieces and nephews. You do not have to drive yourself crazy trying to remember this teaching or that teaching.. it is just be decent and caring to the person next to you (I used this example with them. you would not throw garbage out the window, because then it would hurt the person who lived where that garbage landed or animals who ingested things.. just think before you act) and do not make gods out of things.. like money , power.. its amazing what we value above those around us..

So simple so easy and its very simplicity lies the problem.. the but but but .. kind of like when the kids were little.. but but but

[cbayer]

79. It's a wonderful way to raise a family, peace train.

I was raised in the church and learned all of these things in that environment. Then I raised my own kids outside of the church and taught them the exact same things.

All of them are decent, kind, loving individuals who endeavor to live out these simple truths, whether they realize it or not.

There is so much push and pull in life that we all often forget how simple it is to just be good.

[Peacetrain]

87. I am with you on that.. you do not need the church to teach those simple truths

Its there for any of us.. Karl Marx was trying to reach that is his own way.. It is the community that gave me that to pass on to them in my case.. but those truths are for all of us.. that is just my path .. Sounds like you raised your family wonderfully also.. giving them a base to move from..

[Warren Stupidity]

134. Like telling people here to "take a nap"? That kind of decent behavior?

[phil89]

77. So just ignore the rape and slavery parts?

If it's all god inspired, why should we?

[Peacetrain]

85. There is tremendous violence in the bible.

. things that people of their times wrote and valued.. but the simple truth is.. "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you" is the basis of most religions.... and no matter how much anyone wants to get around it.. we are all responsible for the welfare of others as best we can help..

The violence is not God inspired..but it is human beings trying to explain the times they live in.

Now I am not an OT scholar by any means.. so I think.. its is Judges and Joshua that explain basically the same time period.. very different.. one more historical.. and one meeting the needs of a people who were enslaved with a violent hero who slayed 1000s of their enemies with the jaw bone of an ass

Now I am a Christian and that is my perspective from my particular Christian view point.. you will have to ask others theirs.. I can't speak for them..

[phil89]

90. You're just making things up.

How do you know the violence is not god inspired? Based on what objective standard? It's clearly in the bible, instructions on how to treat your slaves, stoning unruly children, etc...if you're just using your own good judgment and common sense, what's the use of a god or a book giving authoritarian instruction?

[Peacetrain]

95. Very old book.. historically very authoritarian, brutal

reflects the times the writers lived in.. If you look at any writings at that time period you will see pretty much the same ugliness of spirit.. because most people until very recent history had all religious texts interpreted for them by some powerful religious leaders.. these are books written by man

I am not a magical thinker.. that some super person will swoop down and change the world.. that is our job.. don't believe in a person who looks like Zeus(always cracks me up how God is portrayed like an old man)


If I find, that in my church a truth to live my life by.. and that is for me

It is so much our nature not to want to be responsible for what happens to our fellow human beings..

To find the but but but.. these texts written thousands of years ago were brutal and horrid.. (true) so I can ignore the truth of a basic simple truth found in most religions and philosophies.. Love thay neighbor as thyself???

We all find our way.. this is mine

[trotsky]

107. And that's all great and wonderful, to be sure.

But Fred Phelps found his own way too. And if he truly believed that homosexuality offended god, then doesn't it logically follow that trying to scare people out of homosexuality was "loving" them, as best as he could understand it? If he truly believed they were in danger of god's judgment and eternal torture, wouldn't he be justified in trying to get people to turn away from "sin"?

[Peacetrain]

108. People many times.. basically most times

will do anything to avoid personal responsibility for the well being of others.. they look for a magical being that will smite the other that they are so uncomfortable with.. or they wonder why a magical being has not intervened to protect others.. why would God let such a thing happen if there were a God..

trotsky you have asked a very complicated question that people want to avoid like the plague.

Its a good question. The answer from my perspective (that is all I can address here) is that we all have that choice to make in the few years we have on this earth.. phelps choice is clear to me.. he chose fear.. and fear lead to hate.. and hate eats at our very soul..

What a personal hell that must have been to live like that.. to hate like that..

The judgement in the end.. comes from within us.. not from without..

We all live in our own little version of the "end times" We all have the capability to choose how we view the world, how we interact in it.. how we play out the image of God we are all made in. That battle that some talk about .. Armageddon .. is within all of us..from our birth to our death.

I will leave you with thought.. Leon Trotsky who I guess you are using as your moniker.. (if I am wrong, I apologize, but the analogy will still work).. was a founder of the Russian revolution..which led later to communism, which North Korea calls itself as one of the last bastions of communism and holds hundreds of thousands in prisons.. and starves its people... would Leon Trotsky recognize that philosophy which others bastardized..of course not..It happens with religious thought and practices also. Especially when they get to be 1000s of years old, and all that with it in that 1000s of years. It does not diminish the basic truth. That is why I never deny my faith..its a wonderful way to live my life.. but I do not deny for a second many try to use it for power grabs 180 degrees opposed of the intention..

[trotsky]

109. But you need to understand that from his perspective, what he hated was "evil."

If he truly wanted to save souls from judgment and punishment, what he did was good, in his eyes. He fought against evil; he tried to get more people to "get right with god."

It is easy for you or liberal Christians to simply write him off as "choosing hate," but I think we do a great disservice to the problem when we wave it off like that.

(FYI, my username doesn't have anything to do with Leon Trotsky. Yes, I understand that is confusing, so no prob.)

[Peacetrain]

110. I see what you are saying

Yep.. but as liberal Christians, we are given the great commandment to base all our judgements from.. This is the final word for us. .......Phelps chose to go 180 degrees opposite of that...... And you could rightly blame historical writings in the bible.. As I said earlier in this thread.. the bible is written by man.. over 1000's of years.. and it reflects the value systems at the time the biblical writer lived.

Jesus was asked this very question. The 10 commandments morphed into over 600 laws no one could keep up with.. and Jesus instructed Christians.. (and this same text can be found earlier in the bible) to use this great commandment as a scale to make judgements with.

Mark 12:28-31 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[c] There is no commandment greater than these.”

And especially today, there is no excuse to try and get away from it. I probably hold people in a different time to a different level of responsibility because they had to trust what was told them.. but we do not have that excuse today.

I don't think we have chatted before.. but I have had these conversations with others.. and most Christians are not Christians.. They do not want the responsibility of it.. they look for passages here and there in historical biblical writings to try and get away from it. You have to be willing to call people out and hold them to the standard if they want to carry the name..

(I know what you mean about the name confusion.. I just happen to like the song Peace-train.. has nothing to do with a philosophical outlook so to speak.. )

[trotsky]

112. But again, Phelps could very well have been following the same commandment.

"Loving" his fellow neighbors to him meant trying to keep them from being sinful and therefore punished for all eternity.

We disagree in that I think anyone who calls themselves a Christian, is one. It is not my place to judge who a "true" Christian is. Evidently you think it IS your place, so you can "call them out" on how their behavior fall short of the ideal you have defined.

Which, coincidentally, is exactly what Fred Phelps thought he was doing.

[Peacetrain]

126. I have no issues with saying that is not Christian practice..

I embrace my faith.. and standing at a dead soldiers funeral and causing their families so much pain in addition to what they have lost.. I fail to see how Fred Phelps or anyone else for that matter can say that is an act of loving ones neighbor as thyself..

In the farthest reaches of his delusional mind how did he ever think that was a compassionate and loving way to treat people..


So yep, not a problem in the world saying that does not represent the faith I embrace.

[trotsky]

144. That you fail to see how Phelps and his gang are following the same faith as you,

just following their own interpretation of it (which is just as valid as yours) just exacerbates the problem.

Neither of you can prove the other one is wrong. And in fact, you must allow for the possibility that god spoke directly to Phelps and commanded him to do what he did. You follow a revealed religion - that's the whole basis for one. Your god could bring a new message to anyone he chose.

I understand you don't think there is a problem saying Phelps wasn't a Christian. But let me ask you this: do you believe you have a perfect understanding of what Christianity is?

[Peacetrain]

145. Yes... the great commandment defines it for us.. It is my perfect understanding

for the followers of Christ. So simple in his teachings.. Everything has to be viewed through the prism of loving your neighbor as yourself.

There is no magical being who is going to swoop in and make things right and clear for any of us.

[trotsky]

147. Phelps thought he had a perfect understanding, too.

It's the hallmark of a religious fanatic to think one has all the answers.

[Peacetrain]

149. Its the pits isn't it?

[Warren Stupidity]

136. The council of christian churches in uganda is very enthusiastic about their new anti-gay

laws. The bible tells them so.

[Warren Stupidity]

135. Oddly the bible says quite clearly god not only inspired it, he ordered it, and frequently

did it himself or through the aid of his demi-god minions.

[Peacetrain]

146. Six thousand plus years of writings

by human beings.. trying to interpret the world they lived in the best way they could.. pulling from various cultures.. No magical beings wrote the bible..

[Warren Stupidity]

148. Sure: inventions of people. Not the point.

The point is that modern people continue to insist that revealed truth from divine entities is contained therein.

[Peacetrain]

150. Can't help you with that one

[rug]

58. It's easier to read Beowulf than some parts of the Bible.

[okasha]

131. Well, Beowulf was written in Anglo-Saxon, not English

Speaking of which, and speaking of cultural perspectives, there's a West Saxon poem called Der Heiland.(The Savior) which presents Jesus very much in the manner of a warrior hero and the Apostles as his loyal thanes gathered for a victory feast.

[rug]

139. That's a long epic poem, isn't it?

[okasha]

142. Yes.

It's written pretty much in the same format as Beowulf, with the alliteration and a pause in the middle of the line. The language is also very similar. If you can read West Saxon, you can read Anglo-Saxon, and vice versa.

[rug]

64. BTW, the video at the link is well worth watching.

http://vimeo.com/99418117

Content aside, this guy knows what a book is. And the typeface he designed for this is beautiful.

[cbayer]

70. How did you do that?

I tried but could not embed this video. Please give me instructions.

And I agree, it's a good video and really speaks to what he is trying to accomplish here.

[rug]

72. Right click it and a menu pops up. One choice is copy link, or words to that effect. Then paste it.

[cbayer]

83. It didn't give me that option.

That's what happens when I get a u-tube video, but it didn't come up with this vimeo link. I even went to the vimeo site, but couldn't get it.

It might be my browser.

[rug]

86. You've exhausted my technical expertise.

[AlbertCat]

129. Guffaw!

Nothing like making the unerring word of god better!