Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/29/2002 8:07:24 AM EDT
Garandman, what do you think of the new politically correct Bible coming out in April? What a bunch of politically correct B.S.!!! It is supposed to be a gender nuetral version that the word "man" will be replaced with "people" and other fitting synonyms. So what is next? Jesus will no longer be refered to as Jesus or the Son of God? We will just call Jesus the Child of God, so we can be all nice and PC with gender neutrality? I think the new PC Bible is crazy. Why are they trying to rewrite history? [beer]
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 8:14:17 AM EDT
I hadn't heard of it, but its no surprise. They've been suggesting for years that we refer to God as a "she" or some other gender neutral term. More than likely, there is a profit motive by those looking to revise and publish this thing. They figger if they make the Bible sufficiently non-offensive and PC, then all you have left is the Bibles incredible poetry, wisdom, and literature. Who knows - maybe the revisors will come across teh passage that talks about how God regards those who deliberately change His words to suit their own needs.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 8:18:45 AM EDT
They will have to refer to God as "it" then before too long or someone may get the wrong idea that God is a He or a She. [beer]
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 8:23:12 AM EDT
Amazing how those people writing the Bible so many years ago knew English! [:P]
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 8:23:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By HighlandMac: They will have to refer to God as "it" then before too long or someone may get the wrong idea that God is a He or a She. [beer]
View Quote
I understand what youa re saying, but remember - The idea is NOT to be unoffensive, but to attack the truths of the Word of God. Thereby freeing themselves of the need to be obedient to it. THAT has been going on for thousands of years. This "PC Bible" (and I don't mean "personal computer" bible [:D] ) is just the latest manifastation of that.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 8:24:36 AM EDT
From the Minneapolis Red Star Tribune: [url]www.startribune.com/stories/614/1128619.html[/url]
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 8:25:54 AM EDT
Even I will have to call BS on this one. Gender neutral version? PC revisionist [b]bullshit[/b]... On a side-note, I saw where someone was convicted (or was it charged?) with smuggling bibles into china yesterday.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 8:29:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2002 8:29:43 AM EDT by Avalon01]
It seems to me that god is more of an "it" than a he or she. The Bible was written during a time when men were considered superior over women, therefore any reference would naturally have been in the masculine form. I don't belive god has ever shown himself to man (if you belive in god), it would seem nobody "knows" what he/she/it looks like. Av.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 8:36:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Avalon01: The Bible was written during a time when men were considered superior over women, therefore any reference would naturally have been in the masculine form. Av.
View Quote
Doesn't hold water. The Bible was also written during a time when men had numerous wives and concubines. And teh Bible DEFINTELY DOES NOT condone such an attitude. Further, since God communicated teh actual, specific, words to be used in Scripture, your statement would imply that God Himself had an anti-female bias. As God created the female, I seriously doubt He had any such bias. He declared ALL His creation good when He had finished. Lastly, historians have credited the Bible with lifting humanity out of their female prejudices, and elevating her to a status unparalleled in human history.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 8:39:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: Lastly, historians have credited the Bible with lifting humanity out of their female prejudices, and elevating her to a status unparalleled in human history.
View Quote
I sure do miss being able to just club a chick and drag her off by her hair! [beer]
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 8:40:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By HighlandMac:
Originally Posted By garandman: Lastly, historians have credited the Bible with lifting humanity out of their female prejudices, and elevating her to a status unparalleled in human history.
View Quote
I sure do miss being able to just club a chick and drag her off by her hair! [beer]
View Quote
Shoot - I haven't done that since the last time I rode my pet dinosaur. Ahhh, the good old days. [:D]
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 8:53:45 AM EDT
i wonder how much of the bible will be left? probly all the who begat who stuff
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 8:57:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Avalon01: I don't belive god has ever shown himself to man (if you belive in god), it would seem nobody "knows" what he/she/it looks like. Av.
View Quote
Moses might dispute that.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 8:58:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By cyrax777: i wonder how much of the bible will be left? probly all the who begat who stuff
View Quote
the pretty pictures.... wait, you mean they werent in the originals?
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 9:56:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2002 10:08:29 AM EDT by Avalon01]
Originally Posted By Norm_G:
Originally Posted By Avalon01: I don't belive god has ever shown himself to man (if you belive in god), it would seem nobody "knows" what he/she/it looks like. Av.
View Quote
Moses might dispute that.
View Quote
I thought Moses was the guy who spoke with a burning bush. Is god a burning bush? Av. Edited: meant to say a "burning" bush. Not a "burring" bush. Not sure which would have been worse! Edited again: Ghaa! I forgot about Deut. 34:10. Looks like Moses did meet god face to face. I was typing faster than I could think!
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 9:58:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By HighlandMac: I sure do miss being able to just club a chick and drag her off by her hair! [beer]
View Quote
Do you know why women were dragged by the hair? . . . . . Because if you dragged them by the feet they would fill up with sand & leaves & twigs & stuff. [:D]
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 10:03:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: Further, since God communicated the actual, specific, words to be used in Scripture, your statement would imply that God Himself had an anti-female bias. As God created the female, I seriously doubt He had any such bias. He declared ALL His creation good when He had finished.
View Quote
Ummmm.... god told humans what to write in the Bible. Humans are prone to error. Check the history of the Catholic Church, as different Popes would remove/reword passages to fit their own personal bias/opinions. The New Testament is filled with the political opinions of the Apostles at that time, I doubt those are the words of god. Ever read a book translated from say, German to English? Sometimes the translators can't get the right phrase across, so they do the best they can. How old is the Bible? How many times was it translated and transcribed? How many of the stories in the Old Testament were passed down by oral tradition, with no written record? The Bible is a book written and translated by humans. It is prone to errors and the opinions of the translators. While you may belive the words are god's, they were written by humans with flaws, opinions, and goals. Av.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 10:10:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Avalon01: The New Testament is filled with the political opinions of the Apostles at that time, I doubt those are the words of god. How old is the Bible? How many times was it translated and transcribed? How many of the stories in the Old Testament were passed down by oral tradition, with no written record? The Bible is a book written and translated by humans. It is prone to errors and the opinions of the translators. While you may belive the words are god's, they were written by humans with flaws, opinions, and goals. Av.
View Quote
You know, your staements would be SO much more convincing if you had a SINGLE documented case of ANY of the allegations you make. But you don't. And you know it. Were the writers human? Yes. But do you have a SINGLE piece of evidence that their humanness caused either any significant error (greater than a simple spelling error) or any skewing of God's word for personal reasons? I'm waiting for you to produce one. But NOT holding my breath.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 10:10:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: Doesn't hold water. The Bible was also written during a time when men had numerous wives and concubines. And teh Bible DEFINTELY DOES NOT condone such an attitude. Further, since God communicated teh actual, specific, words to be used in Scripture, your statement would imply that God Himself had an anti-female bias. As God created the female, I seriously doubt He had any such bias. He declared ALL His creation good when He had finished. Lastly, historians have credited the Bible with lifting humanity out of their female prejudices, and elevating her to a status unparalleled in human history.
View Quote
Maybe you can quote the part to me about the multiple wives and concubines, because I missed it. Seems like Solomon had plenty. David, too. Jacob had two wives. Abraham took his wife's handmaiden at her insistance. I don't recall a great deal of smiting going on as a result. I am interested in how "Wives, obey your husbands" comes out in gender-neutral-speak - Spouses obey your spouses. Nope, just doesn't cut it.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 10:16:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2002 10:19:04 AM EDT by garandman]
Originally Posted By Tinker: Maybe you can quote the part to me about the multiple wives and concubines, because I missed it. Seems like Solomon had plenty. David, too.
View Quote
Scripture SPECIFICALLY states that Solomons many wives drew his heart away from God.
Jacob had two wives. Abraham took his wife's handmaiden at her insistance. I don't recall a great deal of smiting going on as a result.
View Quote
Scripture records the MANY problems that resulted from multiple wives - jealousy between women, neglected children, etc etc. Scripture SPECIFICALLY states that God intends for one man and one woman to marry for LIFE, illustrative of the relationship between a human and their God.
I am interested in how "Wives, obey your husbands" comes out in gender-neutral-speak - Spouses obey your spouses. Nope, just doesn't cut it.
View Quote
I guess well have to wait and see how they get around that one. Should be pretty comical. I'm betting it will roughly read "Husbands, obey your wives." [:D]
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 10:29:31 AM EDT
Sorry garandman, I do have history on my side. I'll go backwards to the Greek language source documents. Before about 1560 AD and the Genevan New Testament, Bible scripture was not divided into verses. The Bible read much like a normal book. Earlier than that, the Greek texts were written without spaces or breaks between words. TheBiblelookedalotlikethissentance. But, earlier yet, the Greek manuscripts were written without differences of upper and lower cases. thebiblelookedalotlikethissentance. When we get back to about the Ninth Century AD, this Greek text was written in a scriptio continua called MINUSCULE WRITING or Cursives. This had the text not only unspaced but written in a handwritten script where all the letters were connected. A tough read. Too bad I can't reproduce that. If you were a Monk responsible for precisely copying about 300 times this much text, in that connected (English) script format above, by hand, one character at a time, are you SURE that your entire copy would be absolutely free of even a single copyist error? While the Bible is pretty accurate to the source documents, the writers of those source documents had their own agendas. Read the Gospel of St. Thomas. It was found about 1947 near the site of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Those writing contain many of the stories of the New Testament, but with out much of the political overtones. Av.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 10:37:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Avalon01: While the Bible is pretty accurate to the source documents, the writers of those source documents had their own agendas. Av.
View Quote
Ok, you give alot of old info about writing styles, none of which prove any translational errors, only stylistic differences COMPLETELY immaterial to the text and to its context. But the statement quoted above is the one I want documentation on. You accuse the writers of slanting the text to their political tastes. Which is a pretty serious accusation against people too dead to defend themselves against what I personally would consider, as I imagine they would, an attack on their charachter. GIVE ME PROOF OF (1) THEIR POLITICAL SLANT,a d (2) THAT IT IN ANY WAY AFFECTED THEIR TRANSLATION. Its and old trick, Avalon. You got this from one of your professors, and they didn't offer any proof either. They essentially said "well of course every idiot knows that it was human nature to slant things toward their political bias" and that professor cowed you and teh rest of teh class into believing that. I've seen it repeatedly.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 10:54:45 AM EDT
Just think about it. The Apostles were being hunted down and killed. They used the words of Jesus to convert people to their cause. Can I come up with concrete proof right now? Nope. I base my opinions on what is in the Bible. Read the stories in the New Testament. Many are stories about the politics of the time. Then find a copy of the Gospel of St. Thomas. Same stories, no politics. Leads me to belive that some of the stories have a slight "pro-Jesus, anti-Rome" slant. When I get home I'll dig through some of my old Archeology books. At least one dealt with the problems of an accurate Bible. Av.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 10:59:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Avalon01: Can I come up with concrete proof right now? Nope. I base my opinions on what is in the Bible. Read the stories in the New Testament. Many are stories about the politics of the time. Then find a copy of the Gospel of St. Thomas. Same stories, no politics. Leads me to belive that some of the stories have a slight "pro-Jesus, anti-Rome" slant. Av.
View Quote
I'd be interested to find out what Bible accounts you consider "political." Honestly, VERY interested. I read the King James version, and find it about as a-political as can possibly be. There are accounts of certain actions by political personages, but NOT any political bent in he text. One reason I am AGAINST trying to incorporate Biblical priciples into modern day gov't.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 11:20:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: I'd be interested to find out what Bible accounts you consider "political." Honestly, VERY interested. I read the King James version, and find it about as a-political as can possibly be. There are accounts of certain actions by political personages, but NOT any political bent in he text. One reason I am AGAINST trying to incorporate Biblical priciples into modern day gov't.
View Quote
I'll see if I can dig up some of the quotes tonight. I'll post the same quotes from St. Thomas with them. Av.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 11:20:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Avalon01: Simple grammatical errors, copied many times over the decades, may give a passage a different meaning. Once again, see reading a book translated from German to English. Sometimes what is written in the English version may not mean the same thing as what is written in the German version of the text.
View Quote
German to english is a VERY bad example. Liguists agree that of all the earths languages, hebrew and particualrly Greek were the PERFECT laguages for translation, due to their technical exactness, and numerous individual hebrew and Greek words for every nuance and connotative meaning that a word might have. English also being a nearly perfect recevier language, consequently, our current English Bible is quite precise to the original manuscripts in its meaning.
Also, the earliest WRITTEN manuscript is Book of Isaiah. During the Christian persecutions, the Romans destroyed any manuscripts.
View Quote
Not so. what do you think the catacombs were all about??? Are you saying that no original manuscripts of isaiah exist anywhere?? I'd like to see you prove that. besides, I beleive I've seen them (via picture) myself. I think you may have misspoke on Isaiah.
Which meant that the Bible was transmitted ORALLY. Leaves A LOT of room for error. Same thing. Av.
View Quote
Again not so. Not that I'm not willing to take your word for it, but the facts don't bear out your assertions. It is quite miraculuous that of all teh transaltions from all over the world, there is scant little difference in them at all. Given the complete and total lack of long distance communication, creating near complete isolation of the numerous translators, the several manuscripts bear almost no textual differences at all. it actually takes more faith to beleive these manuscripts were surreptitiously altered to maintain there similarity than it does to beleive they came from the very mouth of God. Again, you are presenting unfounded, non-specific allegations. I want SPECIFICS. I've asked repeatedly. You haven't delivered.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 11:25:22 AM EDT
If they want more accuracy out of the bible, how about starting with changing the image of Jesus from being a white guy, to being the brown skinned person that inhabited that part of the world then and now? Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't there always been a shortage of white guys in the Middle East? Seems a LOT more likely Jesus looked more like an Arab than the white dude he's usually portrayed as.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 11:28:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By M4: If they want more accuracy out of the bible, how about starting with changing the image of Jesus from being a white guy, to being the brown skinned person that inhabited that part of the world then and now? Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't there always been a shortage of white guys in the Middle East? Seems a LOT more likely Jesus looked more like an Arab than the white dude he's usually portrayed as.
View Quote
Show us where the Bible portrays Jesus as a white guy.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 12:14:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By M4: ...... hasn't there always been a shortage of white guys in the Middle East? Seems a LOT more likely Jesus looked more like an Arab than the white dude he's usually portrayed as.
View Quote
Somewhere out there is a 'Hun' that claims Jesus was a Jew !! Bet he was brown skinned too. [:D]
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 1:05:40 PM EDT
So, let me get this straight- the bible is the absolute word of god handed down and transcribed exactly as is to ancient peoples, translated [i]how many[/i] times, and eventually into English, several versions worth, apparently, to the final [i]definitive[/i] version that we have today? No further revision is necessary? Is that about it? And we're supposed to believe that the contents of the bible have no [i]political[/i] meaning, haven't been influenced by the original transcribers or any subsequent translators? That would mean that all the people involved in the entire process from the beginning until the KJV performed their tasks perfectly. All these people were perfect? Are people capable of this perfection? [?]
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 1:21:20 PM EDT
Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men. - Titus 3:1-2 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. - Romans 13:1
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 1:26:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DScott: So, let me get this straight- the bible is the absolute word of god handed down and transcribed exactly as is to ancient peoples, translated [i]how many[/i] times, and eventually into English, several versions worth, apparently, to the final [i]definitive[/i] version that we have today? No further revision is necessary? Is that about it? And we're supposed to believe that the contents of the bible have no [i]political[/i] meaning, haven't been influenced by the original transcribers or any subsequent translators? That would mean that all the people involved in the entire process from the beginning until the KJV performed their tasks perfectly. All these people were perfect? Are people capable of this perfection? [?]
View Quote
So many temptations but as an Agnostic I should not further participate so I won't.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 1:28:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DScott: So, let me get this straight- the bible is the absolute word of god handed down and transcribed exactly as is to ancient peoples, translated [i]how many[/i] times, and eventually into English, several versions worth, apparently, to the final [i]definitive[/i] version that we have today? No further revision is necessary? Is that about it? And we're supposed to believe that the contents of the bible have no [i]political[/i] meaning, haven't been influenced by the original transcribers or any subsequent translators? That would mean that all the people involved in the entire process from the beginning until the KJV performed their tasks perfectly. All these people were perfect? Are people capable of this perfection? [?]
View Quote
No one has EVER claimed there weren't spelling errors, or minor translational differences that DID NOT affect the accuracy of the text. An example - Assume you were entitled to the riches of Charlemagne as his descendant. Now assume a document was produced, SHOWING your legal right to his riches, but it wasn't the ORIGINAL document. Would you just say "Oh well" and forget all about your inheritance??? Nope. My attitude towrd Scripture is teh same. I'm not gonna throw the baby out with the bath water for some inconsequenstial differences in my source document that outlines my inheritance in Christ jesus. Bottom Line - Faith to beleive the above (as well as Creation, Salvation, etc etc) is a GIFT FROM GOD. Essentially, you will never beleive it UNTIL God gives you the ability to beleive it. Your attitude toward God's gift has ALOT to do with how willing He is to give you the ability to beleive it.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 3:19:08 PM EDT
OK, thanks!
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 3:56:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DScott: So, let me get this straight- the bible is the absolute word of god handed down and transcribed exactly as is to ancient peoples, translated [i]how many[/i] times, and eventually into English, several versions worth, apparently, to the final [i]definitive[/i] version that we have today? No further revision is necessary? Is that about it? And we're supposed to believe that the contents of the bible have no [i]political[/i] meaning, haven't been influenced by the original transcribers or any subsequent translators? That would mean that all the people involved in the entire process from the beginning until the KJV performed their tasks perfectly. All these people were perfect? Are people capable of this perfection? [?]
View Quote
The answer, as you are already well aware of is that it is a highly imperfect work. Highly subject to generations of political agenda, misinterpretation either intentionally or unintentionally, and chock full of kooky hocus pocus stories of the absurd. Humans are imperfect, and motivated by a VERY wide variety of factors(greed, power, control in some form...). As well as some well intentioned people with various credentials. With the number of people who had a hand in the creation of the bible, it's not what I would exactly call "divine".
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 4:00:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By M4: If they want more accuracy out of the bible, how about starting with changing the image of Jesus from being a white guy, to being the brown skinned person that inhabited that part of the world then and now? Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't there always been a shortage of white guys in the Middle East? Seems a LOT more likely Jesus looked more like an Arab than the white dude he's usually portrayed as.
View Quote
Show us where the Bible portrays Jesus as a white guy.
View Quote
OK, maybe the bible never has, but come on Mark, after your jungle bunny comments somehow I doubt your vision of Christ is that of an Arabic lookin' guy. The Western world almost exclusively portrays him as a white guy. Christians, Catholics...on and on. Why would they propigate something so obviously erronious?
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 4:36:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By M4:
Originally Posted By DScott: So, let me get this straight- the bible is the absolute word of god handed down and transcribed exactly as is to ancient peoples, translated [i]how many[/i] times, and eventually into English, several versions worth, apparently, to the final [i]definitive[/i] version that we have today? No further revision is necessary? Is that about it? And we're supposed to believe that the contents of the bible have no [i]political[/i] meaning, haven't been influenced by the original transcribers or any subsequent translators? That would mean that all the people involved in the entire process from the beginning until the KJV performed their tasks perfectly. All these people were perfect? Are people capable of this perfection? [?]
View Quote
The answer, as you are already well aware of is that it is a highly imperfect work. Highly subject to generations of political agenda, misinterpretation either intentionally or unintentionally, and chock full of kooky hocus pocus stories of the absurd. Humans are imperfect, and motivated by a VERY wide variety of factors(greed, power, control in some form...). As well as some well intentioned people with various credentials. With the number of people who had a hand in the creation of the bible, it's not what I would exactly call "divine".
View Quote
Well, according to Mark it is. That's what's interesting, that some can so fervently believe one thing and others another. Maybe that's the point of religion, to provide a satisfying answer that resolves this (and other) inevitable conflicts in the perception of reality. Psychologists call something like it "cognitive dissonance." Kinda like the "Tastes Great! Less Filling!" dilemma, solved by a leap of faith. Sadly, some find the answer to the problem by refusing to drink at all. [:(]
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 4:39:08 PM EDT
Great article on the "historical Jesus" here, BTW (with some rather caucasian looking guy depicting Jesus): [url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/tikkun.html[/url]
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 2:39:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Avalon01: ...Then find a copy of the Gospel of St. Thomas. Same stories, no politics...
View Quote
AFIK the Gospel of Thomas was directly connected with the post-apostolic movement of gnosticism which was a large part in the decision against its canonization. I would therfore posit that it is nothing [b]but[/b] political.
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 5:27:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2002 5:29:19 PM EDT by Avalon01]
Both correct and incorrect. While the Gospel of St. Thomas was tied to the Gnostics, the parchment it was written on was dated to about the second half of the first century, a few decades after the crucifixion. That would put it BEFORE the New Testament gospels. When the Jesus Seminar, and international group of biblical authorities, debated the reliability of various of various historical sources, they determined that of 9 New Testament parables, the Thomas version was closest to the original in 6 cases. Av. Edited for a link to the Jesus Seminar website. [url]http://www.westarinstitute.org/Jesus_Seminar/jesus_seminar.html[/url]
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 8:06:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2002 8:10:26 PM EDT by colinjay]
Originally Posted By Avalon01: ...That would put it BEFORE the New Testament gospels...
View Quote
which is based upon your opinion that the Gospels are post-apostolic also, im not sure what the Jesus seminar uses as their source for the gospels, Q? Q1 is dated to roughly 50CE
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 8:18:34 PM EDT
for anyone interested in reading the gospel of Thomas here it is [url]http://home.epix.net/~miser17/trans.html[/url] also i had to look for the dates for Q3 which are dated to 80AD both of these quoted dates are from Burton Mack
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 8:21:34 PM EDT
also, the Gospel of Thomas is more accurately dated between 70 and 90CE
Top Top