Bible Reading And Translation

Here is a question that has always intrigued and bothered me: What do you think you're doing when you read the Bible, and, does this effect the translation you read?"

Now a lot of people, of course, think that they are reading the actual word for word Word of G_d. Curiously, many of these same people then pick the translation they read because it flows nicely or their fathers read it, or........ a whole variety of reasons that don't evidence a great deal of concern for accuracy to the original languages in which the parts of the Bible were written.

Further, what "accuracy" means is not simple. Is one talking about word for word accuracy, sentence by sentence accuracy, or accuracy only in the sense of being true to the translator's interpretation of what a given passage "really means"? Another way of putting that it is darn hard to capture all the implications of the text in the original language without copious footnotes as you go along.

Other comments on this question?

I know I'm not reading the original. I've got a UBS Greek NT and I've been trying to learn Greek, but it's slow going (someday I hope to learn Hebrew as well, but that'll be down the road a ways). I also know that even reading the original languages often isn't enough. There are idioms and metaphors that are lost on me because I'm not deeply immersed in the contemporary culture. I try to read a wide variety of different translations in order to tease out those nuances.

And here's the clincher: I ultimately believe in the perspicuity of scripture and that God has not been passive or un-Sovereign about making sure there are sufficiently accurate translations of his Word in all languages and accessible to all cultures. I have faith in God that when I read a contemporary version of the Bible with the aid of the Holy Spirit that I can truly gain a sufficient, if not perfect, understanding of what God is trying to communicate to me. I don't think the Bible (whether read in Hebrew, Greek or English, or whatever language you please) is a puzzle or an encryption code that we have to waste and wear out our lives trying to crack.

Nicely put, joeyday.
The pursuit of the Word is a lifetime engagement. God uses all of creation, and in particular, the canon, to reach us. I get struck ( in the Pauline sense) by His communications on a regular basis.

1. What do you think you're doing when you read the Bible, and, does this effect the translation you read?

That could be considered an odd question. It almost seems as if you're implying that whatever a person "thinks" they're doing, they're really doing something else -- potentially something that they don't truly understand. Or, it's possible to infer that your question means something like "what right do you have to be reading the Bible" -- similar to a policeman asking a suspicious person hanging around a crime scene, "what do you think you're doing here?" More likely, I suppose, is that the question means "Since the Bible is a special kind of book, do you typically read the Bible in way that differs from the way that you might read other texts -- and is your choice of translation related in some way to this special type of reading?"

As you see, I love to try out different interpretations of things that I read. I'm always interested in speculating on the potential for even seemingly simple, straightforward utterances to have alternate, maybe ironic, perhaps even subversive implications. I certainly almost always read the Bible this way.

For this reason, I typically read scriptural passages in multiple translations in order to try to extract the maximum of overt and latent content. The versions I always keep close to hand are: ESV, REB, Jerusalem, KJB, Good News, NRSV, NIV, Revised Standard, and NASB. And for the New Testament, Richmond Lattimore's translation. I'm trying to get a copy of Ronald Knox's translation.

Questions I nearly always ask myself include: What might have been the intent of the original author (or scribe)? Is it possible that there might have been ambiguity (conscious or unconscious) in that original intent? (I will then ask these same questions about the translator -- or team of translators) In what way might the ur-passage be considered "inspired" by God? How might any given specific translation be considered "inspired"?

Given enough time, the questions multiply and occasionally spiral out of control.

~2

I think that your efforts are admirable, and an example to us all.

I do not agree with your "beliefs" about the way in which G_d interferes in human affairs. As long as you understand that this is definitely a "leap of faith," however, it is perfectly legitimate.

~4

I have a feeling that we are not communicating to a certain extent.

For instance, you say "As you see, I love to try out different interpretations of things that I read. I'm always interested in speculating on the potential for even seemingly simple, straightforward utterances to have alternate, maybe ironic, perhaps even subversive implications. I certainly almost always read the Bible this way." In the abstract, and as pure literary interpretation, I think that is great.

However, that is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the Bible is composed of texts written in very unEnglish languages in places and times very unlike the cultures many of us posting to this Group live in today. We may never be able to exactly replicate the meanings in the original languages or the surrounding cultural and historical assumptions of the authors of the Bible, but we definitely can't do so by reading an English translation - where we typically do not know even the presumptions of the translator - and then using our contemporary imagination to ask what variants of that translation may mean.

In other words, we shouldn't fool ourselves about the authenticity and accuracy of what we are doing when we read a particular English translation of the Bible and then engage in free imagination. Something like the assumption Joey is making above is required if that is to work.

Your comparative methodology is, however, a good one, and one that most of us - except for the few truly dedicated persons like Joey - will ever accomplish.

As for obtaining a variety of Bible translations at probably the lowest cost possible, try Christianbook.com (which, oddly enough, also has a good selection of Jewish books along with the usual "Messianic" nonsense) and this website: http://www.sbible.ru/engbible.htm

For the Knox translation of the Vulgate see here http://www.4shared.com/file/2h_ra7dL/The_Knox_Translation_of_the_Vu.html or here http://www.ebay.com/sch/items/ronald%20knox%20bible?_dmd=1&_sop=12&rvr_i...

> 5. Authenticity and accuracy are, I'm afraid, chimeras under any circumstances. Even the very first readers of biblical texts didn't achieve accuracy of understanding, and the history of the Christian church is the history of misapprehension.

One of the major themes of the Bible itself is the failure of various personages to understand each other, and not just in the vicinity of Babel. The Gospels, for instance, especially Mark, are replete with incomprehension and misconstrual on all sides.

As for us, I mean modern readers & writers in general, we can't even interpret emails and tweets with accuracy. At least 30% of my work time is spent trying to rectify my own or someone else's failure to comprehend documents of the simplest kind, written, ostensibly at least, in English.

So all we have, in the end, are our speculations; the more the better, since then we have at least statistically a better chance of hitting upon something meaningful to us.

When understanding accuracy there are two ways to look at that. Word for word translation is one and thought for thought is the other.

Personally I read form several translations. Some I like better than others. God is not limited in what translations He uses to communicate with people. With the Holy Spirit guiding translations can reveal God.

>6 jburlinson: You hit the preverbal nail on the head. we can not always interpret correctly, that is where God comes in to guide our understanding.

What is the verse that addresses that? I will have to go look it up.

I spent a decade of my life—college an then graduate school in Classics--studying Greek and Latin, the culture(s) that produced the texts and the text themselves.(1)

So, in a sense, I've made my choice. I see and to some extent agree with the thrust of what you're asking, lawecon. I get hives when I hear a priest or a layperson talking about the Bible and making elementary mistakes of language or context. It drives me up the wall. If I were king, Christians (and Jews) would get a good deal more encouragement to bone up on the context issues, not just the text. Everyone would have at least two Bibles--one with gobs of commentary and another with no apparatus or verse numbers(2) and, preferably, composed of dozens of separate physical books.

That said, I think you can also overestimate the "distance" between Biblical texts and the present.

First, reading the Bible isn't like reading any old ancient author. Our culture isn't that of ancient Israel or first-century Palestine. But it's been shaped by those cultures to a great extent. The moral philosophy of Aeschylus or Seneca is simply more alien to us than that of St. Paul. Sometimes our surface familiarity can fool us. But there's also real value there.

Second, great literally texts ARE timeless. I remember the first time I read Thucydides seriously. It was quite late for a classics student. I'd already read a fair amount of Greek texts. But Thucydides popped out at me. His mind wasn't alien at all. He was SPEAKING TO ME. Thucydides was a voice and a mind speaking out across 2,500 years. Great literature does that.(3)

This is clearly also the case with the Bible. It's spoken to people for millennia. It continues to do so today. As a believer I think there's some element of this that relates to our thirst for God. We have a "God-shaped hole" as someone put it. (I think atheist should agree with this too, even if they regret it as an unfortunate byproduct of evolution, like our now-pointless desire to eat ourselves to death.) And, though the literary quality of the Bible isn't uniform, no sensible person can deny its power.

One shouldn't make an idol of the original language. It takes a LOT of study to get proficient enough in Greek or Hebrew that you make fewer errors than a good English translation--the product of a committee of people who've spent their lives doing it. I continue to read in English, and not just because I can do it a LOT faster. You can get very far with good translations, father with multiple translations, commentaries and so forth. And you can even get farther with a crappy translation, reading it slowly and thinking about it deeply. This is as true with Thucydides as it is with the Bible.

Lastly, even if your ideal is slow reading and footnotes, you should also read it fast, preferably out loud. Someone like St. Paul was writing for regular people. Regular people heard it read out in their community, some just once. Considering the mixed communities he wrote to, no doubt some didn't even speak Greek perfectly! He didn't write for perfect understanding, repeat reading or scholars. That too ought to affect how we read him.

---

1. I do not read Hebrew and my knowledge of the relevant times and cultures is weaker.
2. Some class I TAed at Michigan involved reading something from the Bible, and the xerox was from the RSV or something. Anyway, I found some of my students literally didn't know how to read a text with numbers strewn through it. They kept pausing and being uncertain, trying to make the text sound weird, instead of reading them as human texts.
3. This is, weirdly, more true in an English translation. Thucydides' Greek is irritating and very difficult.

~6

Well, and that is fine, but it implies a complete abandonment of what many Christians seem to want - a Bible that is some sort of manual from G_d by which to live their lives and order the world around them.

~7

Personally I read form several translations. Some I like better than others. God is not limited in what translations He uses to communicate with people. With the Holy Spirit guiding translations can reveal God.

>6 jburlinson: You hit the preverbal nail on the head. we can not always interpret correctly, that is where God comes in to guide our understanding.

===================================

I wonder if you two could explain that a bit more fully, because, frankly, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

If you believe that G_d guides and communicates with individuals, then it would seem that the consequence is something like what the Quakers call the "inner light" and "being moved by the spirit". But then you don't need a Bible at all. You just throw the Bible away and listen carefully to what G_d is saying to you. In fact, historically, I believe that many Quakers reached that conclusion or the very similar conclusion that they could read the Hindu or other Scriptures with as much guidance as the Christian Scriptures.

If, OTOH, you believe that G_d speaks through and in the Bible, then accuracy in translation and knowing what expressions his human scribes used and what presumptions they had is all important.

I don't see that there is really some "middle road" between these two. Either the Bible is special and Holy Writ or inspiration can be obtained as well by talking with people or reading other texts.

~8

Having spent over a year converting to Judaism and another 6 or 7 years now being a Jew, with my preconversion personality - inherited from my fore-bearers - of continually poking and prodding at everything I get involved in, I would come to the opposite of some of your conclusions. The several "Jewish societies" that existed from the time of Moses down to the destruction of the Second Temple were more alien than most people can imagine from the perspective of our society.

For one thing, there was very little individualism in any of those times. You obtained your identity from membership in groups. The main groups were a tribe or nation or "people" and, in Roman and Hellenistic society, the town or city. True, you may have had a particular occupation or profession that determined "your place" in the society. But it was your affiliation groups your identification with the City and with your Nationality on which your life depended. Your life could easily be taken away if your fellows started to perceive you as an outsider.

The notion of "individual salvation" was completely alien at the beginning of these periods and had made very little headway by the end. All that happened was that groups you were born into were now intermixed with groups that you joined. The Muslim notion of a Ummah or the Christian notion of the Church well represent the "individualist" strain in the last couple centuries of these worlds.

Hence, things like the Bible weren't read as instruction books speaking to individuals. They were national books, like Homer's Iliad and Odyssey or Virgil's Anead. The Gospels and Acts are also like that. It is only the Pauline letters that may superficially appear to differ, but even they are addressed to the Church of a particular City.

> Either the Bible is special and Holy Writ or inspiration can be obtained as well by talking with people or reading other texts.

These things are not mutually exclusive or even incompatible -- it's certainly not an either-or situation. I don't even stop with people and other texts. I can get inspired by an ant or a sonogram.

Sometimes I think that the patchwork nature of the Bible reinforces the sense that inspiration can come from the unlikeliest of places.

> 11. You obtained your identity from membership in groups. The main groups were a tribe or nation or "people" and, in Roman and Hellenistic society, the town or city. True, you may have had a particular occupation or profession that determined "your place" in the society. But it was your affiliation groups your identification with the City and with your Nationality on which your life depended. Your life could easily be taken away if your fellows started to perceive you as an outsider.

How does that differ from contemporary culture in most places on earth, including America?

>11 lawecon: there was very little individualism in any of those times. You obtained your identity from membership in groups. The main groups were a tribe or nation or "people"

That's one of the reasons the bible goes down so well in Africa and other traditional societies. They can identify with much of its cultural context. Since non-Europeans and -north Americans probably make up the majority of Christians in the world, we should not automatically assume that Christians cannot identify with biblical cultures.

If you believe that G_d guides and communicates with individuals, then it would seem that the consequence is something like what the Quakers call the "inner light" and "being moved by the spirit". But then you don't need a Bible at all.

Not at all. To say that God guides people toward better understanding doesn't mean we need dispense with something to understand. The whole deistic conception of God and the world as completely different spheres, with God "reaching in" on some occasions and not on others, is flawed. But even if you take such a view, it's clear the principle way God speaks to us is not crudely "supernatural." We have the Bible, other books, our brains, people and much else. Some Conservatives will take issue with me on this, but I firmly believe our greatest opportunity to see God will always come in knowing other people. Even the Bible makes no sense without that human context.

I find this attitude particularly weird from a Jewish perspective. The Talmud is considered to be inspired, but more than anything contains uncertainties and actual debates. It's not just polyvalent, it contains disagreements! Jews grow in understanding of it, and therefore of God, by diligent study and debate.

I don't see that there is really some "middle road" between these two. Either the Bible is special and Holy Writ or inspiration can be obtained as well by talking with people or reading other texts.

No Christian would deny that God can speak through other texts and people. If an atheist turns to you and says "you know, I've come to see that life is pointless without love" they are saying something true, not to mention Biblical. The "middle road" you can't see is the road every Christian walks down every day.

>11 lawecon: were more alien than most people can imagine from the perspective of our society

I agree with your example, but I think you take it a bit far. There certainly is much "individual" language in the Old Testament, and growing over time. And if we're talking about Second Temple Judaism--so far as we can reconstruct it--something like the Pirke Aboth is certainly concerned with the individual in a way that is shifted from earlier Judaism.

As for the New Testament, while I think most moderns--especially Protestants!--understand it with an "individualism" that is overdone, one finds numerous occasions in the Gospels and elsewhere of a starkly individual, internal understanding of man's relationship to God.

As for community, over and over Jesus emphasizes that being a Jew--being a member of the community--is not enough. It even starts with John the Baptist--in a saying that is particularly convincing because it rhymes in Aramaic--who urged individual repentance against community membership, because God could "make children of Abraham from these stones." In vein, my favorite would be Jesus' story in Luke 18:10 (NAB):

"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: 'God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.' But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!'

I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other."

Community is central to Judaism then and now, and to Christianity. But in the end we stand alone before God.

> 15. ... in the end we stand alone before God.

Do you mean that at some point in future time each soul (which to a greater or lesser extent resembles that person's current personality) will be judged individually by God?

Or, do you mean that, at bottom, we are always isolated in our individual person/prison, with only God as a companion?

Or is there an alternative that I'm missing?

>16 jburlinson:

Both, I think. Both at some future time (eg., when we die) and at every time, we are in different but important senses alone with God. Only God really knows our mind and heart, not to mention our history. Of course, in other senses, we are far from alone—and God wants us to be in relationships and communities and operate collectively.

I'm not sure how far I'd agree with "which to a greater or lesser extent resembles that person's current personality," but I have no alternative wording to propose.

>16 jburlinson: Do you mean that at some point in future time each soul (which to a greater or lesser extent resembles that person's current personality) will be judged individually by God?

Or, do you mean that, at bottom, we are always isolated in our individual person/prison, with only God as a companion?

Or is there an alternative that I'm missing?

I just happened upon this thread today, and was encouraged to discover such a reasoned and civil discourse taking place on a matter as open to varying beliefs and personal convictions as this tine-honored one inevitably is. No doubt Mr. Spalding will be presenting his own clear and concise response to these questions, whenever time presents him with a suitable opportunity to do so.

Meanwhile, I would find it helpful if you, jburlinson -- who has devoted a great deal of time and thought to the issues involved -- would please say a little more about these three things that are so heavily involved here:

a. on the soul - In referring to 'soul,' as Jesus occasionally did at some highly significant times in the Gospels, what is the understanding you have of what he meant or was likely referring to in using this word?

b. on inspiration as you personally view it - Some of your postings here refer directly to being inspired or finding inspiration in something. Might you elaborate a little further on just what you see this to consist of?

c. on that which matters most in your life - This is not to pry or ask you to go into great personal detail, but to simply indicate or even "file by title" if you will, the things, people, or matters that touch you deeply and affect you at your very core.

With genuine interest in this discussion,

Gene

Meh. Let's stay on the topic of inspiration, shall we? We only got into the soul because lawecon brought up that the ancient world was less "individualistic" than the modern. We agree on that, and on its importance to reading the Bible, although he draws out out somewhat further.

If you believe that G_d guides and communicates with individuals, then it would seem that the consequence is something like what the Quakers call the "inner light" and "being moved by the spirit". But then you don't need a Bible at all.

................
I find this attitude particularly weird from a Jewish perspective. The Talmud is considered to be inspired, but more than anything contains uncertainties and actual debates. It's not just polyvalent, it contains disagreements! Jews grow in understanding of it, and therefore of God, by diligent study and debate.
========================================
You need to read more carefully. It is not my attitude and it is not a Jewish attitude. It is an extension of what the poster was saying to whom I addressed this post.

============================================

I don't see that there is really some "middle road" between these two. Either the Bible is special and Holy Writ or inspiration can be obtained as well by talking with people or reading other texts.

No Christian would deny that God can speak through other texts and people. If an atheist turns to you and says "you know, I've come to see that life is pointless without love" they are saying something true, not to mention Biblical. The "middle road" you can't see is the road every Christian walks down every day.

==========================================

Well, perhaps sophisticated contemporary Roman Catholic Christians have that attitude, but many plain meaning Protestant Christians do not. For them, Jesus is the ONLY path to avoid hell fire and eternal torment. The Bible is the word for word WORD OF GOD and the ONLY word of G_d. Other texts are snares of Satan. And presuming that they are willing to allow that the Bible is sometimes ambiguous, the ambiguity is to be cleared up through prayer and personal communication with G_d, not through language or historical studies.

Community is central to Judaism then and now, and to Christianity. But in the end we stand alone before God.

========================

As I've mentioned several times now, this is simply untrue of earlier Judaism, and was generally untrue of the ancient world. Israel stood before G_d and failed or successfully carried out the task that G_d had set for her. The community policed the community, not G_d. G_d judged the Nation, the People.

Now some of that was changing in late Second Temple society, but, again, it was changing because of the pluralism that arose from the nature of the early Roman dominion and the ability to become a Citizen of Rome, albeit one was not born as such a Citizen. Greek culture and philosophy also played a part, and traditional Jews hated Greek culture and philosophy for just that reason. It was not until Maimonides that things started to shift.

> 5 "What I'm saying is that the Bible is composed of texts written in very unEnglish languages in places and times very unlike the cultures many of us posting to this Group live in today. We may never be able to exactly replicate the meanings in the original languages or the surrounding cultural and historical assumptions of the authors of the Bible, but we definitely can't do so by reading an English translation."

Lawecon,
While I agree that there is a large hermeneutical gap, both in time and culture, to imply that it is impossible to translate ancient texts with accuracy is to assert too much. There are always difficulties when crossing language barriers, whether those languages are 3000 years old or contemporary. But since languages are human forms of communication, there must be points of agreement. I have seen this first hand, both in Greek and in Hebrew. Admittedly, there are idioms that do not readily transfer from one language to the next, but there are very few situations where the meaning cannot be conveyed simply and clearly.

I also find it interesting that after you made the above comments, you later posted your thoughts about the Jewish/Hebrew perspective on community (> 11, 21). How can you be sure about the cultural ethos if you cannot translate their texts with accuracy? Are not the texts themselves the primary, if not the only, source by which we can make any such judgments about early Hebrew culture?

I apologize if I have misunderstood you, but it sounds to me like you are positing a sort of post-modern, deconstructionist argument, i.e. we can't know anything for sure because it is impossible to make any connection with a culture so chronologically remote. If, however, this is what you are saying, what, then, should be done with all of those cultural anthropologists, historians, and archaeologists who insist that it is possible?

For them, Jesus is the ONLY path to avoid hell fire and eternal torment

Certainly, and a Catholic would agree—while disagreeing strongly that this means what a conservative evangelical means by this phrase. But that doesn't mean inspiration is only available in the Bible. Other "texts" may be snared of Satan, but people who say that mean something very specific by "other texts," or they wouldn't themselves write books.

this is simply untrue of earlier Judaism

Okay, define earlier. I think we both agree that personal piety becomes increasingly noticed. Judaism in any case is not the religion of Moses. No Jews today, apart from a tiny handful of Karaites and Samaritans, are living but in rabbinic, Talmudic (some might think post-Talmudic) Judaism. Much can be truly said of early Judaism that's interesting but hardly relevant to contemporary belief and practice. It's quite clear early Judaism wasn't fully monotheistic at all. But you won't find any polytheistic (or henotheistic) Jews around today. So too understandings of community and individuality.

How can you be sure about the cultural ethos if you cannot translate their texts with accuracy?

Exactly so. Jews are in a worse boat here--the times are comparatively more distant, and the cultural context is very poorly attested from outside sources. Take language. There are all kinds of words in the Old Testament that aren't attested in any extra-Biblical texts and just aren't understood anymore.. There are precious few in the New Testament, which was written in a language far better outside of the New Testament than inside.

>23 timspalding: "There are all kinds of words in the Old Testament that aren't attested in any extra-Biblical texts and just aren't understood anymore."

This is becoming less and less true. Much of the language that we found to be ambiguous or unclear in the Hebrew scriptures has become clear in light of current Ugaritic studies. Ugaritic, although written in a cuneiform script, belongs to Northwest Semitic, as does biblical Hebrew. There are many parallels between the two languages that have helped to clarify the Hebrew. In most cases, it has served to confirm Hebrew texts rather than alter our understanding of them.

>20 lawecon: Well, perhaps sophisticated contemporary Roman Catholic Christians have that attitude, but many plain meaning Protestant Christians do not

You could probably add Lutherans, Episcopalians/Anglicans, Orthodox and rather a lot of others to the 1.2 billion Catholics in the first part of that sentence. So you are not actually talking about "Christianity", but a historically and geographically rather small subset of Christianity which happens to be very visible in the USA?

The OP asks, What do you think you're doing when you read the bible? (my emphasis). I think it would be good if we were to give our own answers, which Tim appears to be doing, rather than bringing in stereotypical groups of Christians who haven't yet posted here.

> 5 "What I'm saying is that the Bible is composed of texts written in very unEnglish languages in places and times very unlike the cultures many of us posting to this Group live in today. We may never be able to exactly replicate the meanings in the original languages or the surrounding cultural and historical assumptions of the authors of the Bible, but we definitely can't do so by reading an English translation."

Lawecon,

........................................

I apologize if I have misunderstood you, but it sounds to me like you are positing a sort of post-modern, deconstructionist argument, i.e. we can't know anything for sure because it is impossible to make any connection with a culture so chronologically remote. If, however, this is what you are saying, what, then, should be done with all of those cultural anthropologists, historians, and archaeologists who insist that it is possible?

============================

Like Tim, you don't seem to be picking up on the context of my remarks. The context, here, is that there were a number of prior posters who look to "the Bible" for guidance in their everyday life, and, presumably, in answering contemporary questions of public policy. "The Bible" they looks to, is, of course, the plain meaning of some "fun translation" like the NIV. If it "isn't exactly right" then G_d will guide them in understanding it rightly. No need to worry about anthropology or text analysis or melding what we know from Classics and surviving ancient nontheological texts with what the Bible says. G_d will provide The Truth by guiding his sincere disciple who prays for guidance.

As someone who has spent his rather long life puzzling about issues in what might broadly be called the Humanities and Social Sciences, it is clear that this is not a theological view. It is an ideological view. Like most ideological views it rests on a variety of unstated assumptions and is basically a "faith position, " in the bad sense of "faith." See, e.g., http://www.shelfari.com/groups/29350/discussions/76359/Faith-vs-Religion

Further, I don't know how you possibly get from the statement that "We may never be able to exactly replicate the meanings in the original languages or the surrounding cultural and historical assumptions of the authors of the Bible..." to contending that I am advocating some sort of epistemological nihilism about our understanding of ancient texts or the ancient world. If we could get there easily or were already there then those "cultural anthropologists, historians, and archaeologists" wouldn't have anything to do. It is only because this enterprise is a struggle, and one in which there are numerous questions that aren't nearly resolved that they do have jobs.

The OP asks, What do you think you're doing when you read the bible? (my emphasis). I think it would be good if we were to give our own answers, which Tim appears to be doing, rather than bringing in stereotypical groups of Christians who haven't yet posted here.

================================

Really, they haven't posted here? So tell me what you think this phrase means: "God is not limited in what translations He uses to communicate with people. With the Holy Spirit guiding translations can reveal God."

this is simply untrue of earlier Judaism

Okay, define earlier. I think we both agree that personal piety becomes increasingly noticed. Judaism in any case is not the religion of Moses. No Jews today, apart from a tiny handful of Karaites and Samaritans, are living but in rabbinic, Talmudic (some might think post-Talmudic) Judaism. Much can be truly said of early Judaism that's interesting but hardly relevant to contemporary belief and practice. It's quite clear early Judaism wasn't fully monotheistic at all. But you won't find any polytheistic (or henotheistic) Jews around today. So too understandings of community and individuality.

==================================

You seem to have learned about Judaism from some Haredi "scholars," something I've noticed several times in our prior discussions.

Indeed, Judaism is not "the religion of Moses," since, even in Moses day, there were Israelites who weren't exactly Mosaic. Judaism always has been very diverse. But I'm not talking about JUST Judaism in the characterizations of ancient society that I've been expounding upon. The characteristics I mentioned were true of virtually ALL ancient society, at least all ancient society which was considered "civilized" and wasn't organized at the level of the Huns.

Ancient society simply wasn't individualistic. It certainly had no notion at all of a religion apart from a state or heresy apart from treason. I know that it is convenient for certain sorts of Christians to believe otherwise, but even they must admit that their "true Christian forebearers" were slaves meeting in secret, and not middle class or aristocratic members of respectable society.

As for all Judaism being rabbinic, you seem to be confusing a stage with an entire history and rabbis with rebbes or Catholic Bishops. Most forms of Judaism are and long have been "legalistic." Jews "worship" by doing certain things, not by believing certain things or "affirming a faith." Some interpretations of what they should do, in some variants of Jewish societies, had a major role for a rabbi as interpreter of the law in certain cases. Think of the role of Judges in an established legal system. Everyone can read the law, but there are sometimes uncertainties or disputes as to how to apply it. The importance of this rabbinic function is, however, context dependent. When Jews are under attack or existing in a predominate hostile Gentile culture - that is, when the time they must spend keeping alive and supporting themselves is most of their time - rabbis are very important.They teach the young and they the interpret for the adults. When Jews are not under such pressures, they become less important because Jews can spend more time thinking for themselves and arguing among themselves. They don't disappear, since experts are always very very handy, but they become less authoritative.

======================================

How can you be sure about the cultural ethos if you cannot translate their texts with accuracy?

Exactly so. Jews are in a worse boat here--the times are comparatively more distant, and the cultural context is very poorly attested from outside sources. Take language. There are all kinds of words in the Old Testament that aren't attested in any extra-Biblical texts and just aren't understood anymore.. There are precious few in the New Testament, which was written in a language far better outside of the New Testament than inside.

....................................

I don't know where this defensiveness is coming from, since I have never asserted the superior accuracy of Jewish interpretations of texts or understanding of prior cultures. Perhaps it again comes from learning about Judaism from too narrow a source. But if you think that the positions I've been espousing are somehow uniquely Jewish, take a look, for instance, at Augustine And The Jews or literally hundreds of other contemporary nonapologetic texts about the ancient world. They all say pretty much the same things I've been saying above.

> 27. Really, they haven't posted here? So tell me what you think this phrase means: "God is not limited in what translations He uses to communicate with people. With the Holy Spirit guiding translations can reveal God."

Whatever that phrase might mean, it was posted by an individual, whose LT profile can be easily viewed with a click of the mouse button -- a very interesting person, I might mention parenthetically.

It was not written by a "they", whoever or whatever "they" might mean.

One of the troubling things about this thread, and many others posted in the Christianity group, is the predilection of posters to conjure up communities of "them", with the assumption that there will be shared agreement as to the validity of these generalizations.

>29 jburlinson:

It's the whole community thing. We can't conceive of people as individuals! :)

> 18. on inspiration as you personally view it - Some of your postings here refer directly to being inspired or finding inspiration in something. Might you elaborate a little further on just what you see this to consist of?

Thanks for asking. To me, inspiration is pretty simple. I think it's a personal experience that has four components: (1) either having an entirely new thought or else having a familiar thought but with a sense that this thought is fully understood for the first time; (2) this thought is accompanied by feelings of some intensity, feelings that might range from delight to anguish; (3) regardless of the nature of the feelings involved, the combination of thought & feeling has something about it that affirms, that says "yes"; (4) from this sense of affirmation comes a resolution to do something, or act in a certain way. # 4 doesn't have to be earth-shaking -- it could simply be smiling at someone. But it nearly always has to do with making some change in the way I go about doing things.

The big question for me personally is whether or not I act on my inspirations. And I'm sad to say that I don't always, or even most of the time.

(15) tim, that was an excellent post. :)

~31

I am curious. These "inspirations" you have, could anyone but you point to anything that would indicate that one has occurred? Could you replicate them? Could you identify their preconditions?

I ask because a very important question in Western Philosophy for the last hundred years or so has been how one distinguishes between what is known as "metaphysics" or "nonsense" or "babble," on the one hand, and identification of specific meanings that can be intersubjectively communicated between people, on the other hand.

The first category has to do with things that people report they "feel, really really deeply" but which they can't exactly (or even inexactly) describe intersubjectively with respect to any common experiences of their fellow persons. They say things like "I saw a light, and was enlightened." But when questioned it becomes clear that the "light" was "metaphorical" and they have a lot of trouble identifying with any specificity how their enlightened states differs from their previous unenlightened state.

Personally, I think that this is a very important distinction and lies at the base of many of our problems in American society. When someone asserts something, we nod our heads and "politely" indicate assent, when frequently we should not do so. If what is being said is as important as it sounds, we are being improperly dismissive and probably cheating ourselves as well as failing to give respect where it is due if we assent to what we do not understand. If what is being said is babble, it is important to all concerned that it be identified as babble, so that something more constructive can replace it.

> 33. could anyone but you point to anything that would indicate that one has occurred? Could you replicate them? Could you identify their preconditions?

Sure, anyone with sensitive enough EEG and fMRI technology could verify that one has occurred. Replication is a little harder to accomplish with certainty, but improvements in performance can be correlated positively with exercise and practice. I would imagine that it's possible to induce one through focal brain stimulation, but I'm no expert in that. As far as preconditions go, I would say a relatively functional central nervous system would be needful. Specifically, good coordination between the cerebral cortex and the hypothalamus would be advantageous. I would also posit that elevated levels of excitatory neurotransmitters, such as Acetylcholine, might facilitate inspirational events.

How well I, or anyone else, might "intersubjectively communicate" an inspiration event will depend on how advanced the subject's language skills might be. I often find that poets achieve higher rates of success than people in other lines of work. George Herbert was pretty good at it. So was Gerard Manley Hopkins. Emily Dickinson ditto.

BTW -- "metaphysics", "nonsense" and "babble" are distinctly different things, although a properly pre-conditioned individual could find any of them inspirational.

>34 jburlinson: Sure, anyone with sensitive enough EEG and fMRI technology could verify that one has occurred. Replication is a little harder to accomplish with certainty, but improvements in performance can be correlated positively with exercise and practice. I would imagine that it's possible to induce one through focal brain stimulation, but I'm no expert in that. As far as preconditions go, I would say a relatively functional central nervous system would be needful. Specifically, good coordination between the cerebral cortex and the hypothalamus would be advantageous. I would also posit that elevated levels of excitatory neurotransmitters, such as Acetylcholine, might facilitate inspirational events.

Going with your argument in order to better understand the way you are using your terms and the specific referents each is connecting itself to, and taking two steps back to see more of the overall context involved: do you see inspiration as primarily an 'internal' event or is something more involved?

And, if it is largely, if not totally, internal -- then to what, if anything, do you attribute the special clarity, intensity, increased emotion or affective sensitivity (or whatever your way of describing it would be) that the experience quite frequently involves? Simply put: if it's all internal, then what accounts for its being there sometimes and not at others? What makes the "necessary and sufficient" difference?

>34 jburlinson: How well I, or anyone else, might "intersubjectively communicate" an inspiration event will depend on how advanced the subject's language skills might be. I often find that poets achieve higher rates of success than people in other lines of work. George Herbert was pretty good at it. So was Gerard Manley Hopkins. Emily Dickinson ditto

You're primarily focusing on the subject's language skills being involved in "intersubjectively communicating an inspiration event." Do not the language skills of the other party involved in the intersubjective communication play a role as well?

And, as a follow up on that. In general, it seems in such important events as "inspiration events" are (regardless of how they may come to be defined after the fact), that these events are almost always returned to and re-visited in the mind later -- often for years afterward. In this, many report finding additional "levels of meaning" and other significant discoveries adhering to the originating one. Are these, in your understanding, primarily a drawing out of what was essentially already there, or is it more akin to being an instance of almost equal import -- and "inspiration" -- as that which occurred in the first one?

These are not trick questions, nor measures to unnecessarily complicate, obfuscate, trivialize, or in any way discredit, your primary position as you're advancing it. Instead, it is to probe aspects other than those already touched upon in this discussion, in order to probe further into ascertaining the essentials involved in anything one might call an inspirational event.

And BTW -- I appreciate your indicating the different degrees of understanding possibly connected with such terms as 'metaphysics', 'nonsense', and 'babble' -- and, presumably, and a host of others.

~34

Your equation of meaningfulness in language with brain chemistry is revealing, but not at all an accurate equation.

Please also note, that "communication" means "communicate specific content," not communicate "whatever" or "suggestiveness".

I suppose what I'm asking, more directly, are your "experiences" something that merely make you "feel good" or are they something from which the rest of us can learn something new, something that can be taught. If they are purely of the former sort, then how are they to be distinguished from the advice to take certain chemicals because the speaker/former user has experienced "good trips" through the use of those chemicals.

> 35. do you see inspiration as primarily an 'internal' event or is something more involved?

I, as the subject, experience it as an internal event, certainly, but something else is involved, more often than not. Typically, something external serves as the stimulus. In the case of reading scripture, which, after all, is the topic under consideration here, such a highly "writerly" text, a la Roland Barthes, is particularly apt for this purpose. But inspiration doesn't come only from reading scripture, of course. In principle, I suppose, almost anything might suffice. After all, every moment of our lives is pretty content rich.

Do not the language skills of the other party involved in the intersubjective communication play a role as well?

Yes, certainly. If the other party is in the right frame of mind, there might even be an opportunity for an "inspiration exchange."

Are these, in your understanding, primarily a drawing out of what was essentially already there, or is it more akin to being an instance of almost equal import -- and "inspiration" -- as that which occurred in the first one?

I would think more likely the latter, since there would probably be a deeper resonance or a more matured or refined expression of the original.

> 36. are your "experiences" something that merely make you "feel good" or are they something from which the rest of us can learn something new, something that can be taught.

I think you're making something of a false distinction here. Theoretically, something that makes me "feel good" could be also be something from which others could learn something new and useful. I don't see how one cancels out the other.

Regardless of that, I'd like to try to make a couple of things crystal clear.

First, my "experiences" do not necessarily make me "feel good", although it's always nice when they do. Sometimes they make me "feel bad" -- feelings of pity, regret, shame, despondency, even anguish.

Second, I wouldn't presume to try to teach anyone anything. Everything I know has already been taught by people who were a whole lot better at teaching than I could ever be. I'm probably not divulging any secrets when I say that Jesus is one of them.

The beneficial consequences of my "experiences", if there are any such consequences, would only be the result of my acting adequately in response to inspiration. Maybe I'd be a little more charitable, or forbearing, or honest. But, as I said before, I don't always (or even very often) act adequately.

Although today I did help my wife save a golden breasted chat from our cat. She inspired me.

> 36. Your equation of meaningfulness in language with brain chemistry is revealing, but not at all accurate an accurate equation.

I don't understand. Are you saying that language isn't a function of brain structure?

At any rate, I never equated "meaningfulness in language" with brain chemistry. At least I didn't try to. Although meaningfulness and language are both mediated by the brain. Don't you think so?

~28

> 36. are your "experiences" something that merely make you "feel good" or are they something from which the rest of us can learn something new, something that can be taught.

I think you're making something of a false distinction here. Theoretically, something that makes me "feel good" could be also be something from which others could learn something new and useful. I don't see how one cancels out the other.
=====================

That was the function of the term "merely" in the sentence you quote. There is no "cancelling out," there is, however, a failure to fulfill an essential function of discourse.

You see, here is the problem. This thread and most of human interaction is about one person communicating with another, in a broad sense of "communication." Communications can be undesirable in nature, e.g., "Do this or I'll harm you." or they can be instructive or they can be merely communication of general approbation, e.g., "What a great person you are !!". But all these communications say something SPECIFIC and are meaningful to the hearer.

If what you are reporting is intrinsically "private," such that it has purely to do with "inner feelings," and communicates nothing specific to other persons then ........ what are you doing?
Couldn't you as well simply murmur a series of sounds with the same effect?

Now "inspiration" does have a specific content. It means, generally, ability to understand or perceive things one did not understand or perceive before. But such a change, if real, is identifiable and communicable. It isn't "purely private." Get the point?

> 36. Your equation of meaningfulness in language with brain chemistry is revealing, but not at all accurate an accurate equation.

I don't understand. Are you saying that language isn't a function of brain structure?

====================================

I am saying you are confusing two entirely different issues. A sufficiently sophisticated computer can create meaningful sentences. No brain chemistry involved. Conversely, brain chemistry can occur without any meaningful results.

=====================================

At any rate, I never equated "meaningfulness in language" with brain chemistry. At least I didn't try to.

=====================================

All I can do is look at what you have typed. What you typed was a discourse on brain chemistry in response to a discussion on meaningfulness in language. It would appear that the two are intrinsically interrelated in your conceptual world.

====================================

Although meaningfulness and language are both mediated by the brain. Don't you think so?

======================================

Al Capone was a Roman Catholic gangster. Therefore being Roman Catholic and being a gangster are the same. Don't you think?

>36 lawecon: Your equation of meaningfulness in language with brain chemistry is revealing, but not at all an accurate equation.

Please also note, that "communication" means "communicate specific content," not communicate "whatever" or "suggestiveness".

I very much agree with you, but in this instance 'clarity' is very much the issue at hand, is it not? And that, well, complicates things quickly. To me, the search for 'An Exactly Specified Language', as it is often referred to by many, has been a disappointing venture that has, thus far, yielded few useful results. (Though some of the distinctions it brings to just such discussions as the one we're having here have, I think, proved it can be helpful -- even if mainly serving to show the limits within which one is operating in any given instance.) What do we have but language to express ourselves through, though? But the precision found in mathematics and symbolic logic does not seem to obtain -- at least not widely -- when moving outside those terrains. It's amusing and instructive to look at the difference between Whitehead and Russell when collaborating on their Principia Mathematica in just this regard, don't you think? I, for one am glad we have both impulses working among and within us. Certainly Pascal was one who found great meaning, and much facility, in working in both of these areas. No one could slight him on either count. And when it comes to "language skills," I would place him right up there with any literary artists.

I suppose what I'm asking, more directly, are your "experiences" something that merely make you "feel good" or are they something from which the rest of us can learn something new, something that can be taught. If they are purely of the former sort, then how are they to be distinguished from the advice to take certain chemicals because the speaker/former user has experienced "good trips" through the use of those chemicals.

I like your way of formulating the issue as you do here. These are not extraneous issues -- though many view them that way. The fact is that we are learning much more about brain function now than we did before the veritable explosion of the various kinds of research available to us now. In some ways, our machines are putting us back in touch with our bodies after the infamous separating of Mind/Body stemming from Descarte's time right on into ours. But again, it is not as exact a science or bunch of methodologies as many (with vested interests) would have us believe. Take the "use of chemicals" item you referred to, for example, where an individual's biochemistry can be an extremely wide-ranging variable -- so that dosages for one are totally different in their effects from that for someone else.

When in training, I remember a physician at a treatment clinic for chronic alcoholics once commenting, "I know that my field (biochemistry) is important; but what I also know is that when someone hit's "rock bottom" his biochemistry didn't suddenly change." In other words, the desired change or "turn" or sudden difference couldn't be accounted for on the basis of his scientific specialty alone. I think this is relevant to our concern with any and all inspiration events of the kind we're addressing here.

In short, I don't believe these matters are "off topic" at all, but very much on.

>33 lawecon:
lawecon,
You appear to be seeking a scientific style of confirmation of the experience of inspiration.

Not a problem.
When I read jburlingson's #31 post, I thought he identified the phenomenon well. Those are the essentials of the experience.

Other experimenters have confirmed and repeated what he reports.

The reading of scripture helps to make one atuned to these moments, as the reader becomes more familiar with its subject. As I study my local birds, I have become atuned to their songs, and might hear birdsong that others in the same location might ignore and miss, because they lack the interest and focus.

As to whether the inspiration points -- "are they something from which the rest of us can learn something new, something that can be taught."

Yes. Much of my experience has been in wrestling with how to present my religion in a meaningful way to teenagers. (Whew! Tall order.)
Are you asking if these inspirations take us beyond what Church already teaches? No. What we experience is private revelation, and one of the tests of its origin is that it doesn't refute official teachings.

I can recommend Why God Won't Go Away: Brain science and the Biology of Belief by Andrew Newberg, where the discussion is precisely about the physical body manifestations of religious experience.

> 41. What you typed was a discourse on brain chemistry in response to a discussion on meaningfulness in language.

No, what I typed was a discourse on brain chemistry in response to two specific questions addressed to me personally concerning "inspiration".

To refresh your memory, the first question came in # 18. Here is the question in question: b. on inspiration as you personally view it - Some of your postings here refer directly to being inspired or finding inspiration in something. Might you elaborate a little further on just what you see this to consist of?

My response in # 31 then prompted a follow up question on "inspiration" addressed to me by you in # 33. I am curious. These "inspirations" you have, could anyone but you point to anything that would indicate that one has occurred? Could you replicate them? Could you identify their preconditions?

What resulted from that was my "discourse on brain chemistry". The topic was "inspiration", not "meaningfulness in language."

You appear to be equating "inspiration" with "meaningfulness in language". Are you? If so, I'd appreciate a meaningful explanation of this equation.

> 40. Now "inspiration" does have a specific content. It means, generally, ability to understand or perceive things one did not understand or perceive before.

I believe that is just what I said in # 31 (1) above -- although probably not with your eloquence and succinctness.

But such a change, if real, is identifiable and communicable. It isn't "purely private." Get the point?

I like the "if real" -- nice touch. ("Get the point?" also has a certain charm to it.) Certainly it is identifiable and, potentially, communicable. As I tried to say before, how successful anyone is at communicating their inspirations depends, at least to a certain extent, on their language skills. And, as GeneRuyle suggested, the language skills of the receiver(s).

However, a careful reading of this entire thread would demonstrate just how hard it is to communicate clearly.

Let me try again.

One way to "communicate" an inspiration is to try to verbalize it. That often (usually?) doesn't work. Another way, in my opinion a better way, is to live it. "Actions speak louder than words" -- the voices of my grandmothers ring in my ears, and more importantly, their deeds ring in my memory.

So, if I get "inspired," and I "communicate" it by paying my tithing, or volunteering at the food pantry, or just keeping my stupid mouth shut if I have a hurtful remark to make, then maybe I've done something more meaningful than taking it upon myself to preach or teach or screech.

> 44. Thanks for the link to Dr. Newberg's book. I've also found his Principles of Neurotheology interesting.

FYI -- NPR had an interesting series on this a couple of years ago called "Prayer May Reshape Your Brain ... And Your Reality". Audio can be found at:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104310443

> 41. Therefore being Roman Catholic and being a gangster are the same. Don't you think?

I decline to answer on the grounds that my response might tend to incriminate me.

~45

What resulted from that was my "discourse on brain chemistry". The topic was "inspiration", not "meaningfulness in language."

You appear to be equating "inspiration" with "meaningfulness in language". Are you? If so, I'd appreciate a meaningful explanation of this equation.

================================

What I'm trying to find out, as I've said several times now, is if your talk of "inspiration" refers to something that is "purely internal," and thus ineffiable, or whether it can be specifically communicated so that other persons can also find this thing called "inspiration." It is not that "inspiration" is "meaningfulness in language" it is whether "inspiration" is something that can be expressed with reasonable particularity - "communicated meaningfully" to another person.

I don't think that saying something like "I'm inspired !! We all know what that means!!" conveys much of anything in particular - other than you are happy. Used in this way "inspiration" seems to rely purely on emotive associations rather than specific meanings. I understand that you think that there is more there, but I am trying to get at what that "more" may be other than a black box into which one pours a less happy state and gets out a more happy state. Is there anything others can learn to transform their less happy state into a more happy state, or do you "just have to be there"?

Gene in post #42 above - a very good post - equates what I am doing with logical positivism. Actually, what I'm doing is much more like the successors to logical positivism - both of which reacted fairly negatively to logical positivism. Specifically, ordinary language analysis of the sort engaged in by Gilbert Ryle (among many others) and critical rationalism a la Karl Popper. While Popper probably wouldn't have agreed with what I am doing, he did draw distinctions like this, albeit "from the other end."

~48

Well, obviously it was not a serious question. What was meant was that two things may be sometimes associated without seriously maintaining that the one is "the cause of" the other.

> 49. What I'm trying to find out, as I've said several times now, is if your talk of "inspiration" refers to something that is "purely internal," and thus ineffiable, or whether it can be specifically communicated so that other persons can also find this thing called "inspiration."

It is internal, but it's not ineffable, or at least totally ineffable.

Frankly, I'm stumped by why we have arrived at what appears to be such a contretemps. People use the word "inspired" all the time to refer to what I tried, clumsily, to describe in #31 above. The words of John F. Kennedy "inspired" thousands to join the Peace Corps. The words of Winston Churchill "inspired" millions to persevere under almost unbearable conditions.

And it's not always words that serve as inspirational stimuli. In 1972, when Nick Ut photographed 9-year-old Kim Phuc running down a road, her body aflame with napalm, he turned a terrified girl into a living symbol of the Vietnam War's horror and inspired thousands of people to change their opinions of that conflict. The story is told fascinatingly in The Girl in the Picture: The Story of Kim Phuc, the Photograph, and the Vietnam War.

Do you deny that these "inspirations" happened? Or are you saying that if a person could not provide you with a verbal description of their internal state with "reasonable particularity", they really weren't "inspired" to join the Peace Corps or keep plugging away?

"As I've said several times now," the consequences of "inspiration" are usually not illocutionary speech acts or even performative utterances, but rather non-verbal forms of expressive action -- interventions in the course of human events.

> 50. Well, obviously it was not a serious question. What was meant was that two things may be sometimes associated without seriously maintaining that the one is "the cause of" the other.

That's OK, it wasn't a serious answer either.

Besides, I never said one was "the cause of" the other. I said one was mediated by the other.

> 42. What do we have but language to express ourselves through, though?

Lots of things. Silence, for example, can be very expressive. Although I suppose one could say that silence is a language act. But one would have to say it silently (or at least very softly).

>49 lawecon:
I'm sure you've had 'lightbulb moments' where your understanding of something suddenly clicks. (hmmm, I wonder what the metaphor was before electricity.)
Also, you've surely had internal dialogs.
You've probably also had sudden thoughts popping randomly into your head, from whence you can't fathom.

These can each be identified as points of inspiration. Some people keep a notebook handy to record the product.

~51 and 54

As I've said all along, there certainly is a coherent (public and communicable) use of the term "inspired". I think that jburlinson has just given us several examples, e.g., the WORDS of JFK inspired many people to join the Peace Corp. Presumably we can look at those words and the context in which they were spoken and learn something about motivational speaking. But each of these examples involves specific causal or claimed causal factors that can be examined and "understood." A person speaks certain words and another person takes certain actions. We can examine the link between the two.

To recognize that a term has certain coherent uses does not mean, however, that all of its uses are coherent. Suppose that a person accused of murder says "My upbringing forced me to kill her." What would you think that meant? Certainly it would not mean that the accused's upbringing held a gun to his head or that it physically pushed him such that he stumbled. It seems to "mean" something else, something that kindly might be called metaphorical or that rests upon some theory of hidden causation outside of the view of the rest of society.

Religious terms as well are often used in this metaphorical, and, frankly, not very coherent manner. "The Holy Spirit MOVED me to give testimony." "I was INSPIRED to feed the hungry." And so forth...... While I'm certain that the speaker in those instances FEELS really deeply that they have had some sort of EXPERIENCE, often, if questioned, the speaker can't describe what happened other than he did certain things he ordinarily wouldn't be found doing - like smiling uncontrollably or "speaking in tongues" or weeping, or feeding the hungry, etc. That is, the predicate causal factor is basically made up to explain unusual behavior - and the more obscure and nonexaminable it is, the better. That way, no one can say "No, that isn't what happened." as they very well might be able to say, e.g., in the JFK/Peace Corp example above.

~52

For instance, what does this mean: "Besides, I never said one was "the cause of" the other. I said one was mediated by the other." referring back, apparently, to "Although meaningfulness and language are both mediated by the brain. Don't you think so?" Now I presume that something coherent is being maintained here, but for the life of me, I can't tell what it is. Is it that there is a spirit world where we all "really" exist and the brain "mediates" our acts in that spirit world to the material bodies that are somehow connected to our spirits? Or is it like Hobbes thesis that human action is merely the movement of atoms.

But hardly any philosopher in the past hundred years would adopt such positions. The one involves some sort of mysterious connection, like Descartes pinal gland, between "two substances." The latter reduces one categories of problems to another category without establishing anything like firm causal links to justify the reduction. It is like asking a believing Christian to identify the location of the soul in the body. It simply misunderstands the "language game" being played.

> 56. re: use of the the term "mediated". This was probably an unfortunate choice of words on my part. I was using the term as it's often found in the medical literature, as in the following sentence: "The Humoral Immune Response (HIR) is the aspect of immunity that is mediated by secreted antibodies (as opposed to cell-mediated immunity)."

Perhaps a better, although more general, word for our purposes would have been "affected."

Would "Although meaningfulness and language are both affected by the brain. Don't you think so?" work better.

> 56. That is, the predicate causal factor is basically made up to explain unusual behavior - and the more obscure and nonexaminable it is, the better.

I disagree, although this issue is somewhat speculative and seems to amount to how much indulgence or forbearance (or charity) a person is willing to extend to someone who claims to have been inspired. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, and for at least two reasons:

1. Typically, the inspired person is much more fixated on the effect of the inspirational event than on the quality of the event itself and certainly more than the process by which the inspiration occurred. Just like Moses on Mount Horeb, the inspired person gets fired up by their mission or commission or resolution or "action plan". It's entirely possible that they could communicate the process of inspiration meaningfully if they were given enough time and sympathy, but, again, that is not what's uppermost in their minds. In your instance of the person who says: ""I was INSPIRED to feed the hungry," "feeding the hungry" is much more important to the person than accounting for their inspiration. According to the narrative in Exodus, staying with the Moses example, God is none too interested in elucidating to Moses the details of the process of inspiration, nor is He all that sympathetic to Moses' pointing out that he (Moses) is not the most eloquent person in the world; although He does make somewhat of a concession in allowing Aaron to accompany his brother. Probably everybody who's felt a powerful inspiration wishes they had a brother or sister who was a good talker.

2. Again, just like Moses, most people are not particularly eloquent under the best of circumstances. Although we might be perfectly capable of appreciating the nature of our inspiration experience, we just don't have either the vocabulary or the capacity for linguistic nuance that would do it justice. Any single inspiration event is likely so complex and variegated that it would strain the verbal resources of Cicero. Your person who says, "The Holy Spirit MOVED me to give testimony," could very possibly have started off by saying something like, "the convergence of many specific environmental, psychological and physiological factors, including but not limited to: the hardness of the pew bench, which, though relatively comfortable, induces a certain type of restlessness that needs resolution in kinetic motion, the reassuring pressure of my sweetheart's hand on mine, the decrease in barometric pressure that's resulting in my minor headache to abate, the faint memory of my grandfather's habit of blinking his eyes repeatedly before he would try to undertake a particularly demanding task, an odd association that I just made between my grandfather's habit and the passage from scripture that was just read from the pulpit, "Gird up thy loins now like a man; I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me," the realization that my grandfather probably did try to the best of his ability to "gird up his loins", but that his alcoholism was a soul-destroying addiction over which he had little control, and ... and ... and ...." And this is just scratching the surface. None of these things are particularly "obscure or nonexaminable", but, combined and experienced over the course of a compressed time period, like a few seconds or less, can constitute an almost insurmountable communication challenge to just about anyone. Much more pragmatic to say "I was INSPIRED to..."

~58

Since we are now talking about Moses and Israelites, let me assure you that many Jews simply don't talk this way. Motivation is secondary or dispensible in Judaism. Action is the focus. Moses isn't known for what he thought or what he felt in his innner spirit, but for what he did. He wasn't inspired, he was chosen and not allowed to shirk the choice.

Prophets in Judaism are generally not "inspired." (I can think of only one counterexample, and in that case the individual was raised to be a Prophet, so never had the chance to want something else.) They don't choose prophethood or want to be Prophets. They try to talk G_d out of his choice of them as a prophet.

Jews, in fact, didn't traditionally use terms like "spirit" to indicate more than what differentiated a living body from a dead body. So you can't, in principle, be "moved by the spirit" - unless the motion is physical.

There may be discussion at cross purposes here. There are different definitions for "inspired." I don't know about the Hebrew, but in Greek it basically means "God breathed." So when, in Timothy, it says all scripture is inspired, it does not mean the writers were hit by a good idea, and took off running with it, it means more the Hebrew notion of "thus saith the Lord." '

That "inspired" text can then inspire people to do great (or nasty) things.

~60

That is very interesting, I had never heard that point before.

I'm not sure Timothy(1) of all things should be normative for understanding the concept, but I'd be interested to hear more about what was understood by "inspiration" in the first few centuries.

1. Unless you mean me.

Judging by the way Scripture was used, inspiration usually meant something along the lines of "This is how you should practice faith" or "This is the correct way to understand the faith." The Church was pretty amorphous, and the authority of Scripture was basically used to win arguments. The person making the claim was often more important than the claim itself. "Paul wrote..." "Jesus (as recorded by Matthew) said.."

Ironically the church does NOT pick A gospel to tell the story of Jesus. They pick four, one of which is VERY different from the others. But John told the story correctly (not accurately, because his ordering is different from the others, but that did not seem to deter people from taking John's account as authoritative.)

In the Presbyterian Church we are more comfortable talking about authority rather than inspiration. We say the Scriptures are "infallible in all they affirm."

I think the early church was similar. Whether they thought God dictated to Paul et. al, or whether they thought Paul was overwhelmed by God enough to write Romans is almost beside the point for them. Paul is an authority (because he was an apostle) and his writing must be heeded.

~63 Very good points !!

But in citing authority we probably should consider matters such as this Forged: Writing In The Name of God

>63 Arctic-Stranger:

There are, I think, two issues--specifically how Jesus and the early church understood the inspiration of the Jewish Bible, and how the early church understood inspiration in the New Testament. I'd like to hear someone else on the topic, but I have the creeping feeling that the two don't work quite the same.

Most obviously, the New Testament's "scriptures" were the Jewish scriptures—which very much included the "apocrypha"—not the New Testament, which by definition didn't exist before it was written, and became canonical over time. A Christian may certainly believe on theological grounds that this ought to be extended. But it's worth looking at the problem squarely. Did the author of John think he was writing a new scripture? Perhaps. Did Paul? I really doubt it.

Then we have the actual scriptural interpretation employed, which was very varied--running from literal readings and even rather crude proof-texting, through a variety of Midrashic argumentation, and even allegory.

It's certainly interesting that the church picked four partially-overlapping Gospels—a much more complicated situation than Chronicles/Samuel-Kings—and the rest of the contents were something of a grab bag of letters and one—in some early reckonings—two apocalypses. Between the editing implicit in the synoptics, the final chapter of John and other early mentions it seems clear that the church and its scriptures were growing rapidly but unevenly. Some communities had some documents, some others, and reverence for texts grew faster than systematization. Some attempts were made at tidying this up—Tatians' Diatessaron and Marcion's revised Luke and bowdlerized Paul come to mind—but it was too late.

~65

It is important, I believe, to keep in mind that there was no "Jewish Bible" until well after Jesus' time. There was probably a fairly stabilized Torah by sometime around 300 BCE, but the Prophets and Writings were not canonized as a part of a Bible until sometime around the time that the Christian scriptures were canonized. Prior to that time some books, like Samuel I and II, were probably secure as holy writ, but they didn't have the status of the Torah. So Jesus and the very early Church understood nothing at all about "the Bible" as we have it today.

> 65. the New Testament, which by definition didn't exist before it was written,...

Not necessarily. If the Bible is the word of God, and the Word was "in the beginning," then it did exist before it was written.

Not necessarily. If the Bible is the word of God, and the Word was "in the beginning," then it did exist before it was written.

Argh. According to Saint John, ho logos was in the beginning, was with God and was God, and God created everything through it. Logos here means many things, but however tempting any exultation of the text is to some Protestants it simply does not mean the Bible. Just keep reading. No matter how fundamentalist you are, the Bible is neither God, not "with" God, nor the instrument of creation. The idea of an uncreated divine text is not a Christian idea. (It is in point of fact Muslim.)

So Jesus and the very early Church understood nothing at all about "the Bible" as we have it today.

If I may say, between the last debate issue and this, you have a knack for saying something partially true and then extending it through wild hyperbole. They understood "nothing"?

Yes, it's clear that the canon wasn't final in Jesus' time. But, whether you were in Alexandria or Palestine, there was very broad agreement on a bunch of texts that were definitely considered to be the inspired word of God. When Jesus refers to Genesis or Deuteronomy, the Psalms or Isaiah there would have been broad agreement that these were all divinely inspired texts.

In fact, the inspiration and the basic shape of the canon were well-defined. You get this in the Letter of Aristeas. You get it in Philo. Or take Josephus, just a generation after Jesus—and before Jamnah, or whatever—listing 22 inspired texts. There is, I gather, some doubt as to exactly how his 22 differed from the 24 of the later Canon, but nobody believes his 22 included books that didn't make it into the final canon. We're talking about 2-4 edge-case texts here, at most, and that's it. The only wrinkle worth talking about is that the New Testament—mostly the letters—quotes from Septuagint texts, like Wisdom and Sirach, that didn't make the Pharisaic cut, though an uncertain combination of linguistic, cultural and anti-christian reasons. But we're talking about a slight contraction of sacred scripture, not a sudden or new idea.

Having just returned to this discussion, after two days of being away from it -- and heavily involved in matters of a different kind altogether: . . .

Wow! WOW!! I trust my words to carry my meaning exactly as meant without further analysis or interpretation -- even in this group!. ;- )

An offhand personal report, of sorts: Just read the twenty-three postings since mine (>42 GeneRuyle:). Impressive. Full of substance, with much clarity, oftentimes elaborate refinement, and -- at least to my eyes -- all given in good faith with a sincere attempt to remain on topic. This, for me, is an uncommon occurrence; certainly something I never expected to find in a talk group. Now, in saying this, I'm by no means suggesting everything has been "covered" or that everyone is "on the same page" -- which they clearly aren't -- however, I take this to mean enough communication is occurring to bring into view at least the broader outlines of the positions being held (if not the "arguments being advanced"). I'd be interested in hearing what anyone else thinks of this -- though not here, for that would interrupt the flow and lead us elsewhere. (Kindly send a comment through my profile, if you will.)

I count five distinct strands in this discussion that are all "live" at the moment. Though of varying weight, each is of some real importance to me. Working from here backwards, these are: 1. Tim's interest in 'inspiration', as both practiced and/or understood principally by and within "the church" (a category not as readily recognized or even acknowledged by many of the evangelical free-church orientations as they exist today); 2. Arctic-Stranger's more "authority-oriented" emphasis, reflecting the historic tradition (Presbyterian) with which he most identifies, pointing to the four intermingling Gospel sources of the Synoptics and John, plus the Apocrypha (and Pseudepigrapha too?), and, of course, Paul, plus Tatian's (shall we say "spirited") Diatessaron, opposed by so many of the major church fathers (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, and Origen), all heavily involved in the great interpretation debates of the times; 3.Lawcon's Moses and the Israelites perspective , pointing out that "Motivation is secondary or dispensible in Judaism." where the emphasis is far more on the action that ensues or is the outcome, and moreover, that 'spirit', in that tradition, pertains more (is primarily viewed or found to be resident in?) the body -- particularly when seen in the living in contradistinction to the dead or lifeless; 4. Jburlinson's carefully reasoned and physiologically brain-based (as currently defined in an admittedly rapidly-changing field) and wide-ranging thoroughgoing inquiry, into most any source or kind of inspiration that might occur to someone, and be involved in his or her then expressing (or in some way further acting upon) these in ways found or believed to be meaningful or appropriate; 5. 2wondery's continuing pursuit of the word as a lifetime engagement", and being out there in the thick of things, "in the trenches" of trying to make her religion available to teenagers today. (And who, in general, finds Jburlinson's >31 jburlinson: to have adequately summed up "the essentials of the experience" of inspiration.)

A few others have made some interesting comments and observations along the way. But these seem to be the bulk of what we've come to at present. (But watch: as soon as I post this mere summary, I'll discover three or four new one's have appeared while I've been typing).

When this is up, I'll then add my simple responses to all of yours on what's been said so far.

ETA the specific church fathers to be numbered among Tatian's illustrious opponents

As expected, there are three new postings: >65 timspalding:, >66 lawecon:, and >67 jburlinson:. I'll read them before going ahead with anything more.

If, however, I cannot manage to catch this fast-moving train, then I'll quickly give up the attempt and wave goodbye from mid-track in the rapidly receding distance. ;- )

Before jumping into the three new postings (>65 timspalding:, >66 lawecon:, >67 jburlinson:) I think it's important to stress that the five strands delineated in my posting (>68 timspalding:) are, in my view, not to in any way be seen as "resolved." They are still very much open matters!

>66 lawecon: It is important, I believe, to keep in mind that there was no "Jewish Bible" until well after Jesus' time. There was probably a fairly stabilized Torah by sometime around 300 BCE, but the Prophets and Writings were not canonized as a part of a Bible until sometime around the time that the Christian scriptures were canonized. Prior to that time some books, like Samuel I and II, were probably secure as holy writ, but they didn't have the status of the Torah. So Jesus and the very early Church understood nothing at all about "the Bible" as we have it today.

Lawcon: I share much the same view. Aren't we in agreement about the Hebrew Bible (our "Old Testament" -- you know, I trust, I mean no offense but am using it here simply as a descriptive term to enable others to recognize exactly what is being talked about here)? It was Ezra's arrival in Jerusalem (5th-4th Century BCE) that marks the beginning of the selecting or canonization of Scripture, I think. A century or so later "the Prophets" (or the historical and prophetic writings) were included into these; and, by around the middle of the second century BCE all three parts of the Hebrew Bible were recognized, were they not? So that when Sirach's grandson goes down to Egypt (132 BCE) to make a copy of his grandfather's book of wisdom (which we know as our Apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus, he referred to it as "the law and the prophets and the others that followed them." So that his prologue sheds an interesting light on both the ongoing growth of Scripture you're referring to, as well as to the problems of translation, both ancient as well as modern.

So the phrase -- and one finds it used repeatedly in many places -- "the law, and the prophets, and the writings" became a phrase or formula for referring to Scripture as a whole? Because, of course, we're referring to the time when it existed mainly in the form of an oral tradition, memorized and talked about instead of anyone's having it in a book to carry around.

And as for what Jesus most likely was familiar with, it would have been what is found in the Targum, or the Aramaic translation of the Torah -- known to Jesus's disciples also, and used in the synagogues in Palestine in the first century as well. Used a little later probably by Matthew and by Josephus too. A good many scholars hold the view that the Targum may never had a fixed form, but was constantly revised to bring it into ever greater conformity with the Hebrew original. And, of course, what we have to keep reminding ourselves (and sometimes each other) of, is: No manuscript or version ever found is infallible!

At least this is the understanding I hold and see as most likely.

And before going on to respond to the other two latest postings, allow me to add an ingredient or dimension not yet taken into account in our discussion of these interesting matters so far.

Whether you agree or not with the particular interpretation, it can clear the pipes of debris to also allow for such "frames of reference" to creep in without our even being aware of these -- and yet, given the way human beings think and perceive, and the varying historical traditions we are (or aren't) subjected to, such things end up making a huge difference in where one comes out or finally stands.

Here was the formulation I'm referring to:

If you read the Gospel through Matthew, you're likely to come out a Roman Catholic. If you read the Gospel through Mark, you're likely to emerge generally as a Protestant. If you read the Gospel through Paul, you will probably come out a Lutheran. If you read the Gospel with a great emphasis on the classic eighth century prophets, you'll probably come out a Presbyterian. And if you read the Gospel primarily through John, you'll come out an Anglican.

I've seen this, as you may have, take other similar forms. But it does lift up the fact that our existing view of the issue at hand (in this case, Jesus and how you view his life and whatever meaning that does or doesn't have for you), can shift and move and come out in some strikingly different places. These intangible, inchoate "filter systems" run deep, and are at work in us all, it appears.

On to the other points people are putting on the table, but given my schedule, that will not be possible for me to pick up again on until tomorrow or the next day.

For those so inclined, do remember to please add or subtract anything you wish by leaving a message on my profile.

>64 lawecon:

okay, a show of hands

So Jesus and the very early Church understood nothing at all about "the Bible" as we have it today.

=====================

If I may say, between the last debate issue and this, you have a knack for saying something partially true and then extending it through wild hyperbole. They understood "nothing"?

Yes, it's clear that the canon wasn't final in Jesus' time. But, whether you were in Alexandria or Palestine, there was very broad agreement on a bunch of texts that were definitely considered to be the inspired word of God. When Jesus refers to Genesis or Deuteronomy, the Psalms or Isaiah there would have been broad agreement that these were all divinely inspired texts.

In fact, the inspiration and the basic shape of the canon were well-defined. You get this in the Letter of Aristeas. You get it in Philo. Or take Josephus, just a generation after Jesus—and before Jamnah, or whatever—listing 22 inspired texts. There is, I gather, some doubt as to exactly how his 22 differed from the 24 of the later Canon, but nobody believes his 22 included books that didn't make it into the final canon. We're talking about 2-4 edge-case texts here, at most, and that's it. The only wrinkle worth talking about is that the New Testament—mostly the letters—quotes from Septuagint texts, like Wisdom and Sirach, that didn't make the Pharisaic cut, though an uncertain combination of linguistic, cultural and anti-christian reasons. But we're talking about a slight contraction of sacred scripture, not a sudden or new idea.

======================

I think you've done an admirable job of repeating what you seem to think you're refuting, but in many more words. Everything you say confirms that Jesus and the very early Church didn't have, and therefore couldn't have "understood," ""the Bible" as we have it today." Of course there were many separate "holy texts" in circulation and each segment of Palestinian society selected from these certain texts that had more authority than others within that group. But these weren't the same texts (except for the books of the Torah), and what degree of authority any particular group gave to any particular nonTorah text is usually unclear. Hence, there was no ""the Bible" as we have it today.

Lawcon: I share much the same view. Aren't we in agreement about the Hebrew Bible (our "Old Testament" -- you know, I trust, I mean no offense but am using it here simply as a descriptive term to enable others to recognize exactly what is being talked about here)? It was Ezra's arrival in Jerusalem (5th-4th Century BCE) that marks the beginning of the selecting or canonization of Scripture, I think. A century or so later "the Prophets" (or the historical and prophetic writings) were included into these; and, by around the middle of the second century BCE all three parts of the Hebrew Bible were recognized, were they not? So that when Sirach's grandson goes down to Egypt (132 BCE) to make a copy of his grandfather's book of wisdom (which we know as our Apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus, he referred to it as "the law and the prophets and the others that followed them." So that his prologue sheds an interesting light on both the ongoing growth of Scripture you're referring to, as well as to the problems of translation, both ancient as well as modern.

================================

My understanding of the history and yours appears to differ in certain respects. When Ezra returned to Judea he had with him most of something like the present day Torah, with the possible exception of Deuteronomy. The Torah more or less as we have it today definitely stabilized and the scribal customs that made certain it was accurately transmitted were adopted sometime within the next century after Ezra's return.

About the same time that the Torah was completed and standardized, Psalms and the Prophets (particularly the Samuel/Judges Narrative) were emerging as a body of additional holy texts that were generally recognized as more or less standard authorities outside of the Torah.

But none of this, and certainly not the Writings, were "canonized," in the sense of being put in a single document (anthology of core writings) that was "the Bible," until four or five hundred years later - around 300 C.E. As far as I can tell, such an idea simply never occurred to anyone before that time. There was the Torah, that was "always" in one document. Then there was some collection of the Prophets. Then there was a jumble of other writings. Of course, text replication being what it was, even an upper class Jew was unlikely to have all such documents in his personal library. The notion of having a codex of an official "Bible" simply wasn't around.

I haven't time at the moment to do anything more than simply insert the names of Tatian's opponents.

But speaking of "opponents" -- in Tim's remark If I may say, between the last debate issue and this, you have a knack for saying something partially true and then extending it through wild hyperbole.

. . . I note his reference to an earlier debate issue in addition to this current one. Would someone kindly tell me where I might go to familiarize myself with this earlier debate -- especially since its effects seem to also be spilling over into this one? I seek to become as informed in this as the rest of you are.

Thanks.

Vote: Do you take anything that Bart Ehrman has written in the last 10 years seriously?

Ten years? Definitely. You're including Lost Scriptures and Lost Christianities? I'd agree there's been a major shirt toward popular polemic and a growing extremism of opinion in recent years. But ten is too long. (I'm voting "undecided.")

But these weren't the same texts (except for the books of the Torah), and what degree of authority any particular group gave to any particular nonTorah text is usually unclear. Hence, there was no ""the Bible" as we have it toda

No, they were almost exactly the same texts, and far, far beyond the books of the Torah. I'm sorry, but you're just disagreeing with clear evidence, or defining the question in such a way that nothing short of the JPS Tanakh would qualify. The canon of scripture was quite close to what it is now. The Jewish canon of Alexandria or Jerusalem were as close to what Protestants, Catholics or Orthodox that, if you deny there was a "bible," one must also say there is no Christian Bible, because there are some minor variants between Christians.

The notion of having a codex of an official "Bible" simply wasn't around.

Now you're defining it in purely physical terms? Yes, the codex wasn't around. (Jews still avoid them for their core sacred texts!) But the ancient world was quite familiar with works spanning multiple rolls of vellum or papyrus. One could, for example, speak of Herodotus' history, even though it took up a number of scrolls! Aristeas' account presupposes that a bunch of texts are in a key sense "one."

> 68. The idea of an uncreated divine text is not a Christian idea. (It is in point of fact Muslim.)

Does that mean it's wrong? Or that a Christian cannot entertain it? It's just an idea, after all.

And not a personal library, but each synagogue certainly had a fairly standard set of scriptural scrolls. See Luke 4:17

>78 jburlinson:

Well, the specific Biblical reference was, I think, a true misuse of the Bible. The Bible is polyvalent and we can all agree to respect interpretations we disagree with. But reading "the word" in John 1 as "The Bible" is just wrong. As I said, arrgh.

I don't think a Christian can entertain it. But certainly Islam may turn out to be right. When the lights come on, we'll see if we're holding the pearl or a piece of glass...

>79 2wonderY:

Personal libraries are a canard. Nobody had a decent personal library but the crazy super rich.

> 69. I'm awestruck at your ability, and willingness, to summarize a such wide-ranging and multifarious thread. Your words have inspired me to make the following observation.

The fundamental difference between us seems to involve how each of us might answer this question: Must a person have an understanding of authorial intent, cultural context and diachronic linguistics in order to properly read the Bible for profit or pleasure (or inspiration)? There are probably dozens of ways to frame this question, and I'd welcome any alternatives.

Absolutely yes, say many who've contributed to this thread, but agreement on that point leads to dispute on the specifics of "authenticity."

It helps, say others. In other words, the more you know about ancient cultures the more competent you are as a reader and, consequently, the richer (or at least more legitimate) your understanding.

No, say others (well, one other, perhaps.) The great value of the Bible (as with many other texts) is its capacity to generate a multiplicity of meanings and interpretations, to serve as a writerly text. It's possible that the Bible (in any translation, with or without Apocrypha) is the supreme example of such a text and that may (I say may) be one way of understanding it as the "word of God."

edited to correct obstreperous html tags

> 80. I don't think a Christian can entertain it. But certainly Islam may turn out to be right. When the lights come on, we'll see if we're holding the pearl or a piece of glass...

That's where we part ways, at least a little bit. A person could do a little discreet syncretizing and still call themselves a Christian.

I guess the Baal statues can go back up. :)

As long as it's wearing a cross. :)

If you read the Gospel through Matthew, you're likely to come out a Roman Catholic. If you read the Gospel through Mark, you're likely to emerge generally as a Protestant. If you read the Gospel through Paul, you will probably come out a Lutheran. If you read the Gospel with a great emphasis on the classic eighth century prophets, you'll probably come out a Presbyterian. And if you read the Gospel primarily through John, you'll come out an Anglican.

I am not sure I agree totally with this, but it rings kinda true.

When I was in Russia, spending time with in the Russian Orthodox Church, I noticed decided differences that I could not quite put my finger on. Sure, there were the obvious things, but there was a mentality that was slightly different. Then I saw a Russian Orthodox Bible. Not only do they number the Psalms differently, but the version I had, which the Longbeards used, had the Catholic Epistles, starting with Hebrews, right after Acts, NOT the Pauline letters. They read the NT through the CE's and not the Pauline letters. All of sudden it all fell into place, and I had a much greater appreciation of The Liturgy.

But these weren't the same texts (except for the books of the Torah), and what degree of authority any particular group gave to any particular nonTorah text is usually unclear. Hence, there was no ""the Bible" as we have it today
.....................

No, they were almost exactly the same texts, and far, far beyond the books of the Torah. I'm sorry, but you're just disagreeing with clear evidence, or defining the question in such a way that nothing short of the JPS Tanakh would qualify. The canon of scripture was quite close to what it is now. The Jewish canon of Alexandria or Jerusalem were as close to what Protestants, Catholics or Orthodox that, if you deny there was a "bible," one must also say there is no Christian Bible, because there are some minor variants between Christians.

=============================

O.K., well here's what I'd appreciate then.

You apparently have in mind certain "clear evidence." I have read a number of texts on these questions over the past ten years, so obviously I've missed your "clear evidence." In fact, I've missed these apparently numerous Jewish sources you are aware of from the time period (roughly 300 BCE to 300 CE) we're discussing. From my reading there are no numerous Jewish sources addressing these issues from that period. There is Josephus - who was hardly a religious scholar and not much of a Jew, but whose writings are at least extant - and there is Philo - albeit Philo seems to directly contradict many of your claims by presenting radically different restatements of some of the texts you seem to want to claim were standardized prior to his time - and then there are parts of the Talmud that may be as old as the latter half of this period, but which, routinely, describe matters which The Rabbis believed to be "the ideal" rather than matters as they actually existed. The Dead Sea Scrolls, for instance, don't seem to support what you are claiming at all. Most of the other sources are Pagan or Christian, and the Christians were hardly Palestinian Jews and generally were not even conversant with either Aramaic or Hebrew.

So, do me a favor and give me the specific sources you are relying upon.
=============================

The notion of having a codex of an official "Bible" simply wasn't around.

Now you're defining it in purely physical terms? Yes, the codex wasn't around. (Jews still avoid them for their core sacred texts!) But the ancient world was quite familiar with works spanning multiple rolls of vellum or papyrus. One could, for example, speak of Herodotus' history, even though it took up a number of scrolls! Aristeas' account presupposes that a bunch of texts are in a key sense "one."

============================

So in your view the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings were conceived of as all "one work" in a number of scrolls by most Jews at the time of Jesus? Hence Jesus and his Disciples would have been readily familiar with them all, or at least most of them, and, no doubt, could read them in the original Hebrew or Aramaic? Remarkable. I look forward to your evidence for such a claim.

~73 and ~77

Since we're asking for evidence, I'd really like some on this topic. I've been following Bart Ehrman for about ten years now. In my view, his writings have been getting progressively better and better during that period. His latest volume is a masterpiece. The only real clunker in that period is God's Problem. It is clunker solely because he seems to totally miss the obvious solution to the theodicy issue.

>86 Arctic-Stranger: am not sure I agree totally with this, but it rings kinda true.

When I was in Russia, spending time with in the Russian Orthodox Church, I noticed decided differences that I could not quite put my finger on. Sure, there were the obvious things, but there was a mentality that was slightly different. Then I saw a Russian Orthodox Bible. Not only do they number the Psalms differently, but the version I had, which the Longbeards used, had the Catholic Epistles, starting with Hebrews, right after Acts, NOT the Pauline letters. They read the NT through the CE's and not the Pauline letters. All of sudden it all fell into place, and I had a much greater appreciation of The Liturgy.

Thanks, Artic-stranger, for seeing that. As I said, the formulation of this observation may differ here and there, but what it's picking up on basically holds. These various "takes" people have on reading this or that text are -- in most all cases -- inevitably affected by the tradition that has affected one most, and is also influenced (positively or negatively) by the one an individual finds himself or herself dealing with at the moment. These are subtle yet pervasive influences at work in us all -- not easy to recognize or take into account -- which get in the way of or hinder our seeing in an undistorted way the text that is right before our eyes. As with the fight against prejudice, the way to combat and overcome it does not lie in trying to be without prejudice, but rather to recognize within yourself those you already have.

A further example to add to the great one you experienced first hand in Russia, is the reaction of Native Americans -- particularly those of the Central and Northern Great Plains (which is where I was born and raised) -- to the arrival of Christianity among them. Of the four Gospels, they found little common ground with Matthew, Mark, or Luke, but the one they could almost instantly take to was John. His whole way of speaking of and handling the presence of the divine in our midst resonated more with their already well-developed understanding of the Wakan-Tanka that permeated the world.

I took the liberty of viewing your profile, and was impressed by the simple ways in which your faith and beliefs flow into the rest of your life. In fact, it has some of the very same quality found in your tale of seeing through the eyes of the Orthodox biblical tradition.

My respects.

~80 & 65

So, if virtually no one had a decent personal library of such scrolls - certainly no small itinerate group of persons the most distinguished of whom was a former tax collector and most of whom were rural laborers- how were the members of such a group familiar with the numerous texts of "the Bible" so as to "understand" "the Jewish Bible" ?

>90 lawecon: So, if virtually no one had a decent personal library of such scrolls - certainly no small itinerate group of persons the most distinguished of whom was a former tax collector and most of whom were rural laborers- how were the members of such a group familiar with the numerous texts of "the Bible" so as to "understand" "the Jewish Bible"

I don't understand. Then are you completely dismissing the long-recognized prominence of the oral tradition altogether -- not only among the amma ha-aretz, so overwhemingly great in number (and which was about their only means of having any access to Scripture at all, since they had no viable means of observing the laws of purity rightly), and among most all the rest of the people as well? That's quite a sweeping claim, one I've never actually heard anyone else make before.

I'm wanting to make sure I understand exactly what the position is you're taking here.

A quick P.S. to >91 GeneRuyle:

The reason this is so startling to me, Lawcon, is that it was impressed upon me repeatedly that in Judaism the Oral Tradition was itself divine -- and therefore nothing less than an actual instance of the very inspiration which is our subject at hand.

I don't understand. Then are you completely dismissing the long-recognized prominence of the oral tradition altogether -- not only among the amma ha-aretz, so overwhemingly great in number (and which was about their only means of having any access to Scripture at all, since they had no viable means of observing the laws of purity rightly), and among most all the rest of the people as well? That's quite a sweeping claim, one I've never actually heard anyone else make before.
===============================

As I've said about three times in this one thread, people really really need to read what a post is referring to if they "don't understand". In this instance, this post is about a back and forth that Tim and I have had about the relationship of Jesus and the "early Church" to the "Jewish Bible." My position is simple. The Torah and certain of the Prophets were well known and distributed, albeit I certainly agree with Tim's position that there were few private libraries. What I don't agree with is Tim's apparent position that "the Bible," while not existing in a single codex during this period was a well recognized series of scrolls that everyone knew was "the Bible."

"The Bible" came later than Jesus, both for Jews and Christians. What there was was the Torah scroll and certain other scrolls commonly used in the proto-synogogues of the days, but no definitive and widely recognized "The Bible" other than the Torah, some of the Prophets and, maybe, the Psalms. The remainder of the Prophets and Writings were simply not canonized until much later.

Further, it is unlikely that Jesus and the early Church contained many functionally literate members with ready access to anything other than the Torah scroll.

~92

The reason this is so startling to me, Lawcon, is that it was impressed upon me repeatedly that in Judaism the Oral Tradition was itself divine -- and therefore nothing less than an actual instance of the very inspiration which is our subject at hand.

=================================================

Here is, perhaps, the problem. If one believes the interpretation of Orthodox Jews then, as this website http://www.beingjewish.com/mesorah/1_moses_to_joshua.html says:

" ....the Torah consists of two main parts: the Written Torah, and the Oral Torah. Both together make up the way of life that is Judaism.

Hashem taught Moses both the Oral Torah and the Written Torah in their entirety, in the Sinai Desert. Moses taught both to the Children of Israel. In this article, I hope to discuss that process, with Hashem's help."

So, as such Jews believe, the Talmud was known to Moses, even though it wouldn't be written for another 1200 + years.

Faith is a remarkable thing. But used in this manner, the term "faith" is little more than a rationale for being ridiculous. If Moses and his successors knew all of this for centuries, why was it only written down 1200+ years later, and why, if the answer is that it wasn't suppose to be written down, are the principal author/redactors held in such high regard by later Jews? Again, I suggest you read this link: http://www.shelfari.com/groups/29350/discussions/76359/Faith-vs-Religion

The alternative view is that Judaism is a growing understanding and civilization. The "Oral Law" is simply a name for the rabbinical rules for interpreting the written Torah, which rules grew up over centuries and over literally millions of debates among the learned. A rabbi is purportedly an expert on these rules, albeit, like all classes of human experts, some are more expert than others. The role of a rabbi is to act as a judge in making difficult borderline decisions in accord with these rules. Anglo-American law use to operate on similar principles, what was called "the common law."

Now, there is simply little or no evidence that anyone in the early Church was even a rabbi. Jesus himself is reported to have picked up a lot of the oral law at an early age, but the writings that report that have the same odor about them as the writings that report that he killed serpents in his cradle. In any case, the rest of the disciples, and apparently the rest of the "early Church" were mainly poor Jews, generally uneducated, probably illiterate, who, or whose wives, knew only so much of the oral law as was needed to run a household and observe the Holidays. They were not scholars. They were not rabbis. There is even some considerable doubt that Paul was a rabbi.

But, again, faith is a wonderful thing, and The Believer, believes what he wants to believe, despite a lack of evidence, and often a lack of common sense, for those beliefs.

>93 lawecon: In this entry, Lawcon, your growing irritation is quite visible -- as you go on to state "for about the third time" just what people "really really need to do if they don't understand." If you find my exchanges irritating to that degree, please feel free to ignore them at any time. Perhaps others find speaking with you to sometimes be a trying task as well (though you may not be aware of this) -- my guess is the difficulty levels are probably about the same on both sides for us all.

Let me assure you, I am giving this my level best -- respectfully listening to, taking in, and reflecting on what everyone is saying, and then responding as clearly and pertinently as it is within my power to do.

As for the compounding problem arising out of exchanges between you and Tim, I did ask for more clarity on what I might do to become better informed on just this issue:

. . . I note his reference to an earlier debate issue in addition to this current one. Would someone kindly tell me where I might go to familiarize myself with this earlier debate -- especially since its effects seem to also be spilling over into this one? I seek to become as informed in this as the rest of you are.

Thanks.

So far, no one has acknowledged this request in any way. I'm not complaining here, mind you, just endeavoring to keep things in the full perspective.

In the interests of civility,

G.

> 95. For some people, disagreeing with them means you don't understand them. "Listen, here -- I've already told you five times already and you still disagree!!! What's the matter with you? Let me tell you one more time, and maybe then you will finally understand, you dunderhead, you." That expostulation pretty well sums up my relationship with my father during my teenage years.

PS -- Civility as a virtue pales in comparison with the overwhelming need to educate the ignorant and benighted.

> 93. faith is a wonderful thing, and The Believer, believes what he wants to believe, despite a lack of evidence, and often a lack of common sense, for those beliefs.

Sometimes these qualities in a "believer" are coupled with an imagination.

They can also be supplemented by a degree of suffering that impels a person to be willing to relax rational rigor in search of some small measure of consolation.

Jesus himself is reported to have picked up a lot of the oral law at an early age, but the writings that report that have the same odor about them as the writings that report that he killed serpents in his cradle.

How else do you imagine he was able to survive into adulthood? Snakes were found throughout ancient Egypt, including the desert sands, in old walls, in fields, by the Nile and in its swamps, on threshing floors, in houses and in livestock enclosures and pastures. Poisonous snakes at the time of Jesus' infancy and boyhood posed a tremendous threat to humans and domestic animals alike.

Further, it is unlikely that Jesus and the early Church contained many functionally literate members with ready access to anything other than the Torah scroll.

The "functionally literate" part begs parsing. If by literate you mean people who can recognize characters on a page, Judaism had more than its share, because of the nature of their relationship to certain texts. It was a given among OT scholars at Duke that the Torah was compiled during the exile, and after the return, when Jews had neither the temple, nor the land in the traditional sense, the scrolls were important.

However even among people who did not understand characters on a page, there was an oral tradition, different from the halakoth (or is it Halakah?) that Gene referred to. In a semi-literate society people depend much more on memorization. Even today African kids who cannot read memorize huge sections of the Qur'an. (Many of them do not even understand Arabic.)

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain commentaries on many books of the "Bible," which is really their prime significance to the Academic Biblical community. The commentaries contain some of the earliest texts or partial texts we have of some books.

(And for the record I am using the word "books" loosely. If it bothers you, insert texts where I have written books.)

~98

What I am address, again, is the contention that Jesus and the early Church were familiar with the "Jewish Bible". I am not contending that Jews in general did not know enough of the "oral law" to run a household or observe the other principal customs of their societies. In fact, that is exactly what I stated in ~94. That they did have such knowledge.

Knowing not to mix meat and milk dishes or what prayers to say on what occasions is not, however, familiarity with the "Jewish Bible." In fact, if you isolated the passages in the "Jewish Bible" dealing with those customs you would find yourself with a very small percentage of the total text, and, conversely, you would find that the overwhelming percentage of the Oral Law is not in the "Jewish Bible."

As Tim himself has now stated, very few people had a private library. Although Tim would like to think of the "Jewish Bible" as having been recognized as one book in many scrolls, only the very very rich and educated would have had most of those scrolls.

What may have existed in Jesus' time, although we don't really know for certain, is a number of rural and urban proto-synogogues where there were kept a Torah scroll and a scattering of other "books" from what would, at a later date, become the "Jewish Bible." While, again, we don't know for certain, the most recent studies generally conclude that most people could not read the Torah or any of these other books. They went to synogogue and listened to limited recitals from them. They may have discussed what they heard during their leisure time - what there was of it, which wasn't much. That was it. There wasn't any "familiarity" with a "Jewish Bible" or anything close.

As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, what they appear to illustrate is that there was no canon. There was a jumble of "books." Some ended up in the subsequent canon, some did not. Some that were apparently highly regarded by the Dead Sea community did not, and entirely disappeared from sight sometime thereafter.

~95

Honestly, I am not interested in discussions of my "tone". My background is in a rather contentious form of philosophy, in history of economic thought and methodology (neither of which field promotes decorum to the neglect of content and controversy) and in various forms of litigation. You may, therefore, dislike my tone. If so, please put me on ignore, since the tone is not going to be changed to accomidate your sensibilities.

But yes, you are right, in this instance and in addition to the foregoing, I am getting a bit testy. I am not getting testy because you and others responding to my posts have not read "previous discussions." Generally, I have no more knowledge of those discussions than you do. I am getting a bit testy because, apparently, many of those who appear suddenly and start commenting on a particular post have not read the previous posts in THIS thread. They thus draw conclusions from phrases ripped totally out of context and start lecturing on those conclusions. Such behavior does no one any good. It is at best distracting and at worst just plain rude.

As for Burlinson's comment in ~96, which is simply snide and unhelpful, there is a difference between dogmatically maintaining a position and several times stating a point relevant to a central theme in a discussion that is never answered or refuted. As with the above, if someone has a refutation it would be very helpful if it was stated the first time the point was made or the second time or the third time. By the fourth time, when the same point is made in response to the same or a very similar argument, it may be made with some justified irritation.

> 100. By the fourth time, when the same point is made in response to the same or a very similar argument, it may be made with some justified irritation.

Or, one may presume that people have read and understood the point the first, second, and third time and, for whatever reason, maybe tact, they just haven't responded to it. So it perhaps does not need to be made the fourth time after all.

It's also possible that lack of refutation means assent. That's an interpretation that might make a person feel better. I have made several comments in this and other threads that received no response of any sort -- and every time this happens, I assume it's because everyone has agreed with me.

simply snide and unhelpful

Unhelpful to whom? If it was intended to be helpful for anyone, it was meant for # 95 and I'll leave it up to him to decide if was helpful or un.

Also, "snide" is rarely simple.

See this link for an interesting discussion regarding Bible translation with some comments by the orginal KJV Bible translators, as well as what some others have said on the subject in the 400 years since the KJV was first published. http://bibletruthchatroom.com/2011/09/is-the-king-james-bible-a-divinely-inspire...

>102 Booksorting: Thanks, Booksorting. A very interesting and enlightening series of quotes.

You're welcome. And there's another one on that site dealing with the same thing, too. Here's the link.
http://bibletruthchatroom.com/2011/08/the-king-james-version-1611-2011%e2%80%95h...

Since 1842, the Joseph Smith Papyri which he translated as, The Book of Abraham and The Pearl of Great Price have been under attack. How does modern scholarship grade his translation? How do Mormons explain these apparent “pagan” roots to their faith?

Modern scholarship doesn't call any of these things translations. They're perfectly ordinary Egyptian papyri, "translated" by someone who didn't know that Champollion had recently deciphered the script.

He was making it up...

>106 timspalding:
Tim,
Is it possible (gasp) that you have erred? “The preface to every copy of the canonized Book of Abraham makes it very clear that that it was actually written by Abraham upon papyrus.:
"THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM
TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS, BY JOSEPH SMITH
A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. - The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."
In addition, Wilford Woodruff recorded in his diary on February 19, 1842 that the Book of Abraham was literally written by Abraham himself:
"Joseph the Seer has presented us some of the Book of Abraham which was written by his own hand but hid from the knowledge of man for the last four thousand years but has now come to light through the mercy of God." (Diary of Wilford Woodruff, entry of February 19, 1842, LDS archives; also in Jay M. Todd, The Saga of the Book of Abraham (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 1969), p. 221)”
Quoted in Mormonthink.com
The fourth largest church in the U.S. is a well respected, multi- billion dollar operation that is growing faster today than ever. Would they lie about something as important as this?

#108 a well respected, multi- billion dollar operation that is growing faster today than ever. Would they lie about something as important as this?

It's arguable that the LDS is universally well respected, but not a few multi-billion dollar operations have been known to lie, when it is in their interest to do so.

Besides, quoting from a book that argues its own veracity is no argument at all. I can do the same!

> 107. Would they lie about something as important as this?

"Lie" is such a stark word! Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Joseph Smith was being less than completely truthful when he told Wilford Woodruff his tales from the catacombs. If Wilford Woodruff then tells the very same thing to his next door neighbor, is he lying? No, because he's only telling what he heard and has taken to be the truth. Once the next door neighbor passes it on, it's become a game of telephone, and we all know where that leads.

Of course, this happened before the LDS church was either well-respected or billion dollar. Regardless of that, if they all believe that what's in the book is true, how can they be lying?

>109 jburlinson:

Right. One person lied. The rest are not lying—not unless they know something to be false. That's what "lying" means.

~110

The interesting question that we've already considered in this thread, however, is the difference between a claim being "a lie" and someone who relates that claim being "a liar." It is entirely possible that a claim is a lie (a statement of fact that was invented by someone who knew it was false) while the present source of that lie is not a liar. Conversely, that someone has honest intentions when he relates a lie to another does not make the lie less of a lie.

I remember sitting in a poli sci class discussing Malcolm X. The prof wondered how anyone as smart as Malcolm could buy into the clearly insane theology of Elijah Mohammed, and then said, "It is only slightly less whacky than the Mormon cockamamie story."

Three people got up and left, and never came back.

> 112. Did they fail that class?

“The Book of Abraham supports the concept of polygamy as Abraham took another wife as directed by the Lord. Perhaps what's even more significant is that God actually instructs Abraham to lie about it. God tells Abraham that he must lie to the Egyptians and tell them that his wife is really his sister so they wouldn't take her from him (Abraham 2:22-25). This is the only scriptural reference that we know of where God instructs someone to lie. This is important because Joseph lied to his congregations and to the public about his involvement in polygamy. If God would instruct Abraham to lie about his wives then it seems plausible that God could tell Joseph to lie about his wives as well.”

“The Book of Abraham also introduced the first and only scriptural basis for denying the priesthood to Blacks, the Church's official position until 1978. It described Pharaoh and the Egyptians as descendents of Ham and Canaan (the progenitors of the Negro race), and under the curse of Canaan and disqualified from the priesthood (Abraham 1:21-22, 26-27).”

“The plurality of gods is also a doctrine that is supported by the Book of Abraham. When the book of Genesis had been corrected by the Prophet the first time in 1830, the text he produced retained the Bible's (and Moses') emphasis that there is only one God. Joseph's 1842 translation of portions of the Book of Abraham, however, distinctly taught the plurality of gods -- a concept of deity Joseph had started teaching a few years earlier, but one which many Saints neither understood nor appreciated.”

“If it wasn't for the Book of Abraham, it is possible that two of the most controversial and objectionable doctrines of the LDS church (polygamy and denying the priesthood to blacks) would not have happened or have been as prominent as they were. Polygamy was already in practice by Joseph but perhaps it would not have been so prominently practiced by the members if there was no Book of Abraham to support the practice. It's also interesting to note that eventually the LDS church abandoned both of these doctrines, which were at one point taught as eternal principles.”

All quotations from Mormonthink.com

>112 Arctic-Stranger:

Surely part of is simply that most people—even Malcolm X—respond first to what they feel about it, and how it's changed their lives. For Malcolm X they did something like save his life. Anyway, he eventually got away from it. (Of course, then they killed him.)

For most Mormons it's a pretty nifty, wholesome thing. I think Mormonism has a core of deep craziness, but, stasticaly-speaking, mormons are pretty happy, long-lived, well-adjusted people, and well-educated to boot. If the point of religion was success and happiness, we could do a lot worse.

I think one could look at the Immaculate Conception and say the same thing about Catholics.

~112

Good for them.

"Mormonism" has fewer internal consistency problems than either traditional Christianity or traditional Judaism. (We Jews, in fact, being of an oriental cast of mind, believe that it is perfectly fine to acknowledge numerous logical contraries as "all true.")

You may not "believe" that "Mormonism" is historically true, presuming that you believe that there is such a thing as "historically true," but it is a perfectly legitimate formulation of religion. If the evidence for it has some holes in it, on a comparative basis, the holes are considerably less than the gaping evidentiary chasms of nothingness that exist in traditional Christianity.

> 116. I think one could look at the Immaculate Conception and say the same thing about Catholics.

Except that the Immaculate Conception doesn't seem to make Catholics especially happy, long-lived or well-adjusted.

> 117. Few people are as dumbfounded as Jews when they are called gentiles by Mormons.

...the holes are considerably less than the gaping evidentiary chasms of nothingness that exist in traditional Christianity.

Considering that Mormans accept most tenets of basic Christianity (at least that is what they tell me) then how do they come off so lightly in your screed?

>116 Arctic-Stranger:

Really? That she was born without sin? Surely that's a theological assertion about an intangible that's hard to disprove. Indeed, it's an intangible on top of another intangible you actually believe—that everyone else is born with sin!

I don't think that really compares to a factual statement that can be checked, has been checked and is demonstrably false, like whether or not these Egyptian documents translate to what they clearly translate to, or whether they translate to something totally different.

I don't know if mormons believe in original sin, but if they did and also asserted that some fellow was born without it, I certainly wouldn't focus on that as the crazy stuff.

Except that the Immaculate Conception doesn't seem to make Catholics especially happy, long-lived or well-adjusted.

It's been months since I wet the bed!

That ONLY Mary was born without sin, when everyone else in human history was.

Well, except for Jesus. Christians maintain that he was born without sin. That makes two, doens't it? Is that one equally unbelievable? Craaaazy! Also, core Christian belief.

I'd like you see and to distinguish between unverifiable doctrinal statements about unverifiable spiritual statuses and fantastic translations of texts we can damn well translate.

If there's a religion out there that says Bob was born without sin, or Sue is in the Golden Third Heaven, or John was born without a soul, well, great. I may disagree, but it's not like saying the earth is flat or that some obvious text—the Gettysburg Address, say--actually translates to the second book of Potash-Ezekahuel, if you know "reformed Egyptian."

Mormonism is an eminently "logical", even pragmatic, religion. Take polygamy, for example. Why did Mormons once practice polygamy and why do they plan to continue practicing polygamy in the afterlife? The answer is quite straightforward.

The Bible tells us God is our heavenly father. This means that, although we have fleshly parents in this world, in the spirit world before we were born, God was our spiritual father. Literally the father of each and every one of us. And we were engendered spiritually in the spirit world in exactly the same way that we were engendered physically in this world. In order to accomplish this prodigious feat, God must have more than one wife, obviously. Otherwise it would take too long and be pretty tough for God's wife.

When we die, good Mormon men will become gods on their own worlds. ("As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become." -- Lorenzo Snow, fifth LDS President). So they needs must have many wives in order to populate their worlds, just like God has done on this world.

~119

Speaking as a Jew, I understand exactly what they mean, albeit I do not agree with them. But then, I try to have respect for other peoples' coherent beliefs.

~120

Let me give you a few examples. There is the ever present problem of the "heresy of particularity" in traditional Christianity. The Mormons at least acknowledge that is a problem and offer a solution. Again, you may not think that the solution is one you like, but at least it exists.

There is the problem of the tri-partate G_d in traditional Christianity and the dualism between spirit and matter. The Mormons again have resolutions for those problems.

There is the problem of how G_d can suffer and die in traditional Christianity and how he can speak to himself on the cross.

Etc.

And I don't think that you are right about the Mormons accepting "most of the tenants of basic Christianity" - albeit I have really no idea what you think constitutes "the tenants of basic Christianity". I know that it has been in the interest of the main Mother Church to give that impression since the correlation movement, but it simply isn't true.

Mormons are Christians mainly in that they give an exhaulted position to Jesus of Nazareth. Most everything else is pretty different. Or maybe you can point to features of "basic Christianity" where there is continuing prophesy, where you can become a G_d of your own universe, where everything is some sort of matter including spirits and souls, where the equivalent of hell is much like an improved version of the Earth we live in today.........(should I go on??).

On Immaculate Conception

As i understand it, Immaculate Conception refers to the birth of Mary herself, not the birth of Jesus*, and is not = to a doctrine of virgin birth.

What was unusual about her conception and birth, is that she was born without original sin (all other human beings having been
born with it). The doctrine makes her as capable of comitting a sin as any other human being. Whether she ever sinned is
a different question, not part of the Immaculate Conception doctrinal question.

*It is however often incorrectly THOUGHT to pertain to the birth of Jesus, by both Catholics and non-Catholics.

>127 rolandperkins:

Yes, that was my point. The beliefs are distinct. But Christians also believe Christ was without sin. They've believed that since the beginning. I can't think of a Christian denomination that believes in original sin that doesn't believe Jesus was born without original sin, and none that believe he sinned. If it's absurd that Mary was born without sin—because "everyone else in human history was"—well, what about Jesus? That can't be absurd without undermining the very foundations of the faith.

The doctrine makes her as capable of comitting a sin as any other human being

I gather the church believes she never sinned. I find this a good deal harder to swallow than that she was born without original sin.

". . .The Church believes she never sinned. .. "

You are probably right about the Churchʻs belief.
My designation "capable of comitting a sin. . ." was based on
Jesusʻs saying : "Be perfect as your Father in heaven is
. . ."perfect" --implying that a sinless life is possible (even if unlikely) and therefore possible FOR ALL human beings. This
saying doesnʻt address the doctrine of Original Sin one way or the other.
My reading of the New Testament doesnʻt convince me that sin, original or contemporary, was a major topic with Jesus.
All I can remember Jesusʻs saying about sin in general is
(1) "Go and sin no more" and (2) "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." (the Resurrected Jesus to the original apostles). And I suppose these have tocarry the warning: Donʻt neglect the context. (1) certainly implies that a perfect NEW life right here on earth is possible. (2) raises questions of the nature of priesthood
and administering of sacraments, particularly the Sacrament of Penance -- notably whether this power of forgiveness
or retention could be passed on to future priests.

Wow, what an interesting thread!

Yes, I have read the entire thing, and here are my thoughts:

(67) "> 65. the New Testament, which by definition didn't exist before it was written,...

jburlinson wrote: : Not necessarily. If the Bible is the word of God, and the Word was "in the beginning," then it did exist before it was written."

There are verses in the Bible which speak of the word of God being eternal. "Forever thy word is settled in Heaven" comes to mind. I know I've read other verses, but my Bible is not with me here at work.

The Word of God is Jesus Christ (note the upper case use of 'W', see the Gospel of John, chapter 1), Who also has existed eternally with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

(20) "Well, perhaps sophisticated contemporary Roman Catholic Christians have that attitude, but many plain meaning Protestant Christians do not. For them, Jesus is the ONLY path to avoid hell fire and eternal torment. The Bible is the word for word WORD OF GOD and the ONLY word of G_d. Other texts are snares of Satan. And presuming that they are willing to allow that the Bible is sometimes ambiguous, the ambiguity is to be cleared up through prayer and personal communication with G_d, not through language or historical studies. "

That's pretty close to what I believe.

(35) "And, if it is largely, if not totally, internal -- then to what, if anything, do you attribute the special clarity, intensity, increased emotion or affective sensitivity (or whatever your way of describing it would be) that the experience quite frequently involves? Simply put: if it's all internal, then what accounts for its being there sometimes and not at others? What makes the "necessary and sufficient" difference?"

This was about 'inspiration'. "Inspiration" does mean "God breathed" and, as I understand it, refers to God telling the prophets what to say ('spake' as in 2 Peter 1:21) which words were then written down. That accounts for the differences in 'styles' between various books of the Bible: the scribes were human and imparted their own style of writing as they wrote down what was spoken by God. Often in the OT you will read "Thus saith the LORD" or something similar. The words that were spoken by the prophets were from God, and not of their own imagination.

You can choose to believe that or not, but that's what the word of God/Bible teaches, and that's what I believe.


(55) "religious terms as well are often used in this metaphorical, and, frankly, not very coherent manner. "The Holy Spirit MOVED me to give testimony." "I was INSPIRED to feed the hungry." And so forth...... While I'm certain that the speaker in those instances FEELS really deeply that they have had some sort of EXPERIENCE, often, if questioned, the speaker can't describe what happened other than he did certain things he ordinarily wouldn't be found doing - like smiling uncontrollably or "speaking in tongues" or weeping, or feeding the hungry, etc. That is, the predicate causal factor is basically made up to explain unusual behavior - and the more obscure and nonexaminable it is, the better. That way, no one can say "No, that isn't what happened." as they very well might be able to say, e.g., in the JFK/Peace Corp example above. "

What I find interesting, extremely interesting in this thread is the notion that "If I can't understand it, if I can't touch it, it can't be true!" So, if you can't PROVE that someone has had a spiritual communication with God, so what? It is written that the Jews require a sign, they need to SEE a miracle to believe, yet even when confronted with miracles by Jesus Christ, they refused to believe that He was from God.

It is also written that the Greeks/Gentiles seek after knowledge: they need to prove intellectually that something is real, but that is not what faith in God is about. As Paul wrote: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." If we could SEE God waving to us from the clouds (no offense intended) then we would not be relying on FAITH, but sight.

(96) > 95. For some people, disagreeing with them means you don't understand them. "Listen, here -- I've already told you five times already and you still disagree!!! What's the matter with you? Let me tell you one more time, and maybe then you will finally understand, you dunderhead, you." That expostulation pretty well sums up my relationship with my father during my teenage years.

PS -- Civility as a virtue pales in comparison with the overwhelming need to educate the ignorant and benighted.

I have to agree with this statement, even if it does make others 'testy'. If you don't believe it's true, then why get upset? If someone tells me that they believe in pink elephants living above the clouds creating snow, do I get upset or just shrug it off?

What can upset me is when people wrest my position and words to try to explain what I believe, and get it all wrong. I may not be terribly articulate, but I do try my best to convey, simply, what my faith entails.

I try to be civil, and hardly ever say anything that is not meant kindly (I'm not perfect, sometimes I feel sarcasm welling up inside me, but I usually keep it under check). I believe what I believe, and it's not meant as an insult to anyone here. We have freewill to accept or reject what messages God makes available to us.

If you don't agree with me, that's okay, that's your choice. I don't need anyone to agree with how I believe in order to justify or confirm what I believe. I have God's word, and His guidance through His Holy Spirit to help me understand God's will in my life.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

P.S. As far as Mormonism goes, I refer you back to Galatians 1:8, 9 (I'll paste it below for those who do not have a Bible readily available):

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

That includes John Smith's angel, 'Moroni' and the '600 winged angel' of Mohammed.

Uh oh, now I've done it.... ;)

Regarding the proposed 'sinlessness' of Mary, that can be disproved by reading Scripture.

For example, from Romans chapter 3:

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"

"There is none righteous, no, not one:"

All have sinned, none are righteous.

Also, if Mary were sinless from her birth, why did she have to make an offering for cleansing after Jesus' birth?

"And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; ...
And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons." - Luke 2:22, 24

A woman was considered unclean after giving birth. She had to go to the temple to make an offering for atonement.

Leviticus 12:
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:
7 Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.
8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

If she was sinless, then why would she need purification?

Why would she need atonement, reconciliation with God?

>128 timspalding: "If it's absurd that Mary was born without sin—because "everyone else in human history was"—well, what about Jesus? That can't be absurd without undermining the very foundations of the faith"

The bible teaches that sin entered the human race through Adam, even though Eve was the first to sin. That sinful state is inherited by the male line.
Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned"

It is totally different thing to say Jesus is without original sin than saying Mary is, because Mary had a human father to inherit that original sin from, Christ's father is God so he inherited perfection. For Mary to be born without original sin her father would have to be without sin, and for him to be perfect, his father would have to be... and so on...

And, as has been pointed out "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God".

The key point is that Christ was born without original sin, and did not sin in his life, so he is the only one fit to take the punishment on our behalf.

>131 fuzzi:

I won't argue with your point about Mary and Romans, but you severely, deeply misunderstand purification and sin.

In Judaism many things make a Jew ritually unclean. Every month, for example, a woman is ritually unclean for the duration of her menstruation. The same applies to the period after childbirth, not to mention touching dead bodies, having leprosy and so forth. None of these things involve or imply sin. They are different categories, and different words. The touch only insofar as sinning may make one impure ("the impurity of sin" as opposed to impurities of contact, etc.), and insofar as transgressing impurity laws may be a sin.

I'm sorry to be harsh but here we have EXACTLY the problem. Reading the bible alone had lead you to conflating two of the most basic categories of the Old Testament! Nor are they anything but central to the New Testament! When early Christians abandoned Jewish laws about cleanliness they weren't telling Christians they could now sin!

133

Word.

~133

You are correct to make the distinction, but I wouldn't have put it quite in that way.

For one thing, I'm not at all certain how one would get to that confusion, even if all one read was the Jewish Scriptures.

Being unclean has to do mostly with ineligibility to participate in certain Temple Rituals. Being sinful is an offense against other men and/or G_d. Such an offense may be partially remediated by taking part in rituals in the Temple, but that is never enough and, of course, rabbinical Judaism tended to substitute other things for Temple Rituals.

55) "religious terms as well are often used in this metaphorical, and, frankly, not very coherent manner. "The Holy Spirit MOVED me to give testimony." "I was INSPIRED to feed the hungry." And so forth...... While I'm certain that the speaker in those instances FEELS really deeply that they have had some sort of EXPERIENCE, often, if questioned, the speaker can't describe what happened other than he did certain things he ordinarily wouldn't be found doing - like smiling uncontrollably or "speaking in tongues" or weeping, or feeding the hungry, etc. That is, the predicate causal factor is basically made up to explain unusual behavior - and the more obscure and nonexaminable it is, the better. That way, no one can say "No, that isn't what happened." as they very well might be able to say, e.g., in the JFK/Peace Corp example above. "

What I find interesting, extremely interesting in this thread is the notion that "If I can't understand it, if I can't touch it, it can't be true!" So, if you can't PROVE that someone has had a spiritual communication with God, so what? It is written that the Jews require a sign, they need to SEE a miracle to believe, yet even when confronted with miracles by Jesus Christ, they refused to believe that He was from God.

=================================

I think that you're misinterpreting what I am saying, and what the other people that have made this sort of argument for about 50 years were saying. This does not have to do with some sort of materialism, this has to do with coherence in the use of terms.

In a certain view of the meaning of words (a view which I suspect you believe in whether or not you explicitly espouse it) , the meaning of a term is wholly "interior," "intuitive" and refers to a secret world unavailable to other persons. If, for instance, a child says "I am in great pain" while dancing around, smiling and giggling, there is, in this view of how terms get their meaning, no basis for saying to the child "No, you are not." What "pain" "really means" is what the child "sees inside of himself". You can't see it. Access to meaning, to whether a term is being correctly or incorrectly used (whether it relates to truth or a lie and what specifically it refers to) is privileged to the speaker.

As you will hopefully immediately grasp, that can't be how the term "pain" is really used, because if it were, there would be no way to assure that you and I were referring to the same thing when we used this term. We would not have a common language that communicates common meanings. You would have your "pain" and I wouldn't be able to see the "interior object" you label as "pain." Thus I would never know, in principle, whether you were in pain or not or what your "pain" "looks like." Similarly with you and my "pain." Yours may be a pink elephant and mine may be a cobra, but we'll never know that we are referring to entirely different things because the "true meaning" of the term is for each of us interior and walled off from other observers.

I suppose that is the way that Christians in fact use the term "sin," it is a state of the soul, not a definable act that we all can know about. It is exactly that usage which makes that term incoherent for so many "religious people."

(133) tim:

You believe that I am mistaken, because you have read other books besides the Bible, and possibly know more?

I wonder what other books besides the Bible John Bunyan should have read? And Dean Burgon? And Charles Wesley?

Poor ignorant fools...they didn't know any better... ;)

I do not need anything aside from the Bible to learn more about God, to understand what He wants me to do. I have been instructed in God's word to read, search and study it, which I do. I have not been told that I need to read books by 'learned, godly men' in order to understand God better.

I do read other sources, but when they do not agree with the Bible, then I believe God's word over the works of men.

To quote a preacher: “When the Bible says one thing and scholarship says another, scholarship can go plumb to the devil.”

:)

What does the above post have to do with anything?

And I find it ironic you quote the work of a man to justify your thoughts about the inadequacies of the works of men.

(136) lawecon wrote: "I suppose that is the way that Christians in fact use the term "sin," it is a state of the soul, not a definable act that we all can know about. It is exactly that usage which makes that term incoherent for so many "religious people."

Why, herein is a marvelous thing! The term 'sin' was not originated with the Christians, but can be traced back to the book of Genesis, from the Torah as well as the Christian 'Bible'.

Sin can be used as a verb (I sin), or to describe something else (a sinful act, a sinner, a sin offering) and is used throughout the Scriptures.

What is there not to understand? Why make it more complicated than it is? It's just a three letter word that is used extensively throughout the Bible, to describe that which we should not do. Here are a few examples:

"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." James 4:17

"An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin." Proverbs 21:4

"And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Romans 14:23

"The thought of foolishness is sin: and the scorner is an abomination to men." Proverbs 24:9

And one last quote:

“The Bible will always be full of things you cannot understand, as long as you will not live according to those you can understand.”

:)

(138) Arctic-Stranger:

What does the above post have to do with anything?

I was answering tim who wrote: "I'm sorry to be harsh but here we have EXACTLY the problem. Reading the bible alone had lead you to conflating two of the most basic categories of the Old Testament! "

So, I was explaining why I disagree with him.

The quote from Billy Sunday was one that made me smile, so I included it. It was not from the Bible, but I think you already knew that.

> 136. It's interesting that you use the example of pain, perceived and reported. Anyone who works in health care knows of the extreme variability in pain thresholds between people. This has resulted in the use by ER nurses of the Canadian Relativity Adjusted Pain Score, or CRAP Score, which is:

CRAP=(OPS+AF)(SC)(EC)

OPS=Old Pain Score
AF=Adjustment Factor
SC=Story Credibility
EC=Exam Credibility

The OPS (Old Pain Score) is the score that the patient him/her self reports, e.g. "on a scale of 1-10, I'm a 12".

The key value here is the Adjustment Factor. For "LPT" patients (Low Pain Threshold) this is calculated as follows:
* For every point over 10 which the patient reports, subtract one. If they say their pain is a "12" then subtract 2 points and start with an 8.
* For every visit the patient has had to your ER in the past 12 months for a painful condition that was either chronic or went undiagnosed, subtract 1 point.
* If you push on a non-painful or uninjured area of the patient's body, the shin for example, and they say "Ouch", subtract 1 point.
* For every allergy to a non-narcotic medication that could be effective for their condition, subtract 1 point.
* If they are wearing sunglasses, subtract 1 point.
* If they still have tape or EKG lead residue on their body from a prior hospital visit, subtract 2 points.

For "HPT" patients (High Pain Threshold) you will be adding numbers to their pain score:
* If a spouse or family member forced them to come in, add 1 point.
* If you check their records, and every time they've come to your ER for a painful condition something was torn, broken, ischemic, or perforated, add 2 points.
* If they have no allergies add 1 point.
* If they are tachycardic or hypertensive add 1 point.

Sin. Actually it is an eight letter word, if you are working out of the New Testament, Hamartia. Well, to be honest, the word is actually written as 'amartia--a comma at the beginning denotes the H sound.

And the word means a variety of things in Greek, from "missing the mark" to "dirty."

When Aeschylus used the word, and his Greek is much better than mine, he used to it to mean "tragic flaw."

Now let's assume that the language of the Bible itself is not especially inspired, ie that when Paul used a Greek word, it pretty much meant what it did when other people used the word. When we see HOW Paul uses it, in the contex t of the language he spoke, it can to our understanding of the notion of sin.

I learned all this from a book. A book on Greek grammar.

So, I was explaining why I disagree with him.

Forgive me, but this is hogwash. You aren't disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with truly uncontested facts. Your view here--which you apparently continue to hold--is baseless and indefensible. There is a clear difference between ritual purity and sin in the Old Testament, a distinction made all the strong in the New Testament. It is perfectly clear in Judaism as it is attested in the past and exits today. Most importantly--to you at least—a careful reading of the Old Testament would also have made this clear to you too.

Everyone is wrong sometimes. On another thread I confused LLCs and limited partnerships. Perhaps this is your moment to be wrong. But what interests me is how you are reacting to being wrong--dogged persistence in error and a flight to anti-intellectual rhetoric. This business of sin and pollusion is a fact. It is a fact about the world and it is most definitely a fact about the Bible. As such it could lead to increased understanding and depth of faith, even or even particularly for a fundamentalist.

~139

Why, herein is a marvelous thing! The term 'sin' was not originated with the Christians, but can be traced back to the book of Genesis, from the Torah as well as the Christian 'Bible'.

Sin can be used as a verb (I sin), or to describe something else (a sinful act, a sinner, a sin offering) and is used throughout the Scriptures.

===================================

That is right, for Jews "sin" refers to prohibited acts. For Christians, apparently, it refers to intentions and feelings. Read your sermon on the mount.

~141

That is very interesting. What does it have to do with the discussion we were having?

~143

I think you are missing the point, Tim. You see, Jews are just Jews. They don't REALLY understand their own scriptures or practices. Only Christians - the heirs of the "new covenant," can REALLY understand The Bible and what it REALLY means. (Yes, yes, I know, the Roman Catholic Church has said that Judaism is a different religion, but as Fuzzi has said and implied a half dozen times in this thread Roman Catholics aren't really Christians.)

As he also clarified in Post # 130, in case you missed it:

=================================

I said: " (20) "Well, perhaps sophisticated contemporary Roman Catholic Christians have that attitude, but many plain meaning Protestant Christians do not. For them, Jesus is the ONLY path to avoid hell fire and eternal torment. The Bible is the word for word WORD OF GOD and the ONLY word of G_d. Other texts are snares of Satan. And presuming that they are willing to allow that the Bible is sometimes ambiguous, the ambiguity is to be cleared up through prayer and personal communication with G_d, not through language or historical studies. "

Fuzzi responded: That's pretty close to what I believe.

============================

So you see, all that historical research and textual analysis mumbo jumbo is either just wrong or actually evil. One learns about The Truth by reading The Bible and praying for inspiration about its meaning from the Holy Spirit.The King James version is, of course, best, since King James was such an upright guy, and besides which it has all those neat expressions that aren't in the Hebrew.

Sort of reminds those few of us with perverse views about truth of the frequent times we hear the assertion that "everyone has a right to his opinion," facts and evidence don't really count, only one's humanity counts. What REALLY matters, the only thing that REALLY matters, is the sincerity with which one holds and the passion with which one expresses one opinions.

Strangely enough, most of the discussions in which you hear those particular formulations of that particular type of intellectual nihilism are about ideology. But as you can see, the syndrome exists far beyond just ideology. (In fact, it may be that true believers like the Nazis and the Soviets got their techniques in intellectual obscuritism and enslavement from a particular sort of Protestantism. At least there are some texts that argue for that position.)

> 145. What does it have to do with the discussion we were having?

Only to illustrate the radical subjectivity of language. Or, as Emile Benveniste has pointed out: The "basis of subjectivity is in the exercise of language" because there is "no other objective testimony to the identity of the subject except that which he himself thus gives about himself ". Further, language is “so organised that it permits each speaker to appropriate to himself an entire language by designating himself as I” and the “personal pronouns provide the first step in this bringing out of subjectivity in language”. (Problems in General Linguistics)

So, if we can't establish any sort of certainty about something as apparently self-evident as "pain," how can we hope to accomplish it with "sin"?

> 146. At least there are some texts that argue for that position.

Please name one, it sounds interesting.

> 143. There is a clear difference between ritual purity and sin in the Old Testament.

I wonder sometimes. Could the notion of sin be associated with the constant reminders of our animal nature (menstruation, defecation, gastric upset, decomposition, etc.) that seem so discordant with our "higher", "image of God" aspirations? Especially since it's so easy to associate our "animal" side with such unpleasant behaviors as predatoriness, murderousness, concupiscence, gluttony, etc.?

>149 jburlinson:

No, there's no question they slide into each other on occasion. The OT shows movement between the two concepts. But the anthropology of the OT is where I get off and someone else should get on.

~147

Oh, well, then, no wonder I didn't get it. You were speaking in jj-esse. And only you can "really" understand what that means.

~148

From Luther To Hitler

Liberty Or Equality

~149

There is a clear difference between ritual purity and sin in the Old Testament.

I wonder sometimes. Could the notion of sin be associated with the constant reminders of our animal nature (menstruation, defecation, gastric upset, decomposition, etc.) that seem so discordant with our "higher", "image of God" aspirations? Especially since it's so easy to associate our "animal" side with such unpleasant behaviors as predatoriness, murderousness, concupiscence, gluttony, etc.?

============================================

I think that you're missing the point entirely. Many of the things you list are associated with impurity. None of them that I know of are associated with sin. Perhaps you could give us some examples of the latter?

> 153. Many of the things you list are associated with impurity. None of them that I know of are associated with sin. Perhaps you could give us some examples of the latter?

Some of the items I listed are "predatoriness, murderousness, concupiscence, gluttony." These strike me as examples of sin. In fact, gluttony is one of the seven deadlies.

I'm speculating that it isn't too hard to associate these things with our status as animals. We observe them all the time in the animal kingdom -- just as we also observe the so-called "impure" bodily functions, which our animal brothers and sisters generally don't seem to be too bothered by, but which render us, in our minds, as unfit for sacred activities.

Once again, though, I appear to be speaking my own language, which, I guess, only goes to support my earlier comments about subjectivity.

As far as I know, animals aren't any of those things. Animals work off of "instincts." They aren't self-reflective and don't have a code of morality. So they can't, for instance, "murder," only kill. If they are of a predatory species they are probably predatory. If not, not. Bunny rabbits have sexual relationships all the time, but they neither fornicate nor engage in adultry.

And, again, "sin," at least sin in Judaism, if not in Christianity, has to do with ACTS, not with propensities or motivations or intent.
"Murderousness" is not a sin, murder is.

Even in Christianity, I would think, being "murderous" is not a sin if one does not murder. In fact, it arguably might make one more virtuous if one had "murderous" impulses and resisted them. But I'm probably wrong about that, given the Sermon On The Mount.

As for subjectivity in the use of language - that theory just plain makes no sense. Language, as opposed to babble, is how people COMMUNICATE. If Humpty Dumpty, rather than Alice, was right in opining that:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master that's all."

then language isn't language - it has no function.

And, again, "sin," at least sin in Judaism, if not in Christianity, has to do with ACTS, not with propensities or motivations or intent.

Right, right and wrong. Intent is considered in Judaism, indeed it is critical to the traditional classifications (ie., pesha, avon and chet). An unintentional violation of the Law differs from an intentional one differs from a full-scale rebellion against God. So, while "murderousness" is a sin, it matters what you were trying to do when the man you killed died. But it is the intent when you do the act, not the intention separate from the act.

Yes and no.

Yes, intent in doing an act does, to some extent, matter. Yes, murder is not JUST killing - despite the mistranslation in certain popular renditions of the "Ten Commandments." What is prohibited is murder, not killing under all circumstances. Similarly, what is prohibited is theft, not taking the property of another under all circumstances. What is prohibited is adultry or rape, not fornication. Etc. Further, we are told that a prayer said with attention and intent is better than a prayer said wholly from rote, albeit both are good if said properly.

No: What you seem to be missing about chet, avon and pesha is that are all TYPES OF SIN. Chet is an unintentional violation of a more important law, when it is first a violation of a negative commandment. For negative commandments, however, it begins as a violation of some commandment. For instance, you may not intend to kill, but if you intend to WRONGLY injure (injure without defensible justification) and end up killing, then your act still falls under "murder." This is a lot like Anglo-American tort law. For an act to be an intentional tort you may not have intended the consequence, but you intended to do the act.

Further, Chet is probably better used to refer to a failure to keep a positive commandment, rather than an unintentional violation of a particular negative commandment. Hence, it doesn't really apply to this discussion at all. It applies to failure, unintentionally, to do something you are obligated to do.

So, I repeat, "murderousness" is not a sin unless it is in fact followed by a wrongful killing. Jews are not tormented with Jimmy Carter's "but I lusted in my heart." You can lust in your heart all you want, so long as you don't rape or induce a married or betroved woman to have sex with you. (Well, there is the commandment about envy, but let's just talk about sex crimes right now.)

I don't think I'm missing anything and, except for your attack on me, I agree with your post.

But I do think you can overplay it. One can find numerous praises of having a pure heart in the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud. When the Pirke Aboth says "grow not thoughtless of retribution" it doesn't mean "Oh, PSHAW! There's no prudential or moral problem with spending your days and evenings meditating upon smashing the skull of someone as long as you never do it! I mean, as far as God is concerned, woo-hoo for smashed-head fantasies!"

> 155. Language, as opposed to babble, is how people COMMUNICATE.

No. Language is how people TRY to COMMUNICATE. The fact that they fail more often than they succeed is demonstrated constantly, including within this very thread.

The reason for that is that words are a whole lot less precise than you and Alice appear to believe they are.

Let me offer an example, a fairly recent one. In # 151, you wrote: "You were speaking in jj-esse." Now I presume you meant something particular by that. I, on the other hand, interpreted your declaration in several different ways, one of which was that you were providing an example of "babble," thus illustrating your point. Another possibility is that there is something in the world that goes by the name of "jj-esse" and that I have just never before encountered it. It's possible that both of these interpretations are accurate. At any rate, my point is that some ambiguity exists, and it is within my prerogative to try to achieve understanding as best I can with less than perfect evidence.

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with the statement, "You were speaking in jj-esse." What it lacks in clarity, it makes up for with a kind of charm, a certain je ne sais quoi. It exemplifies the fact that, as Humpty Dumpty says, you are the master of your utterance.

I claim only the right to be master of my reading of your utterance.

~159

You seem to be confusing "precise" and "having a single meaning." One can almost always interpret any ordinary language phrase in several ways. Albeit some of those ways may be considerably more of a "stretch" than others. Or you can use a phrase that might superficially appear to be an ordinary language phrase in a technical sense that has nothing to do with ordinary language.

That doesn't mean that language is subjective and peculiar to each of us. It means that it is contextual and sometimes ambiguous if it is under determined by the context. What you seem to want to do, as I suggested before, is have a language called jj-esse in which you can give any phrase any meaning. When you do that you are simply making up a particular technical language which has nothing to do with ordinary English and which only you speak or you are just confusing ambiguity with a total lack of communicative content.

To illustrate a technical usage of what might be misunderstood as an ordinary English term I above gave the example of the physicist explaining "force" to a thug and the thug misunderstanding, but illustrating what he thought that the physicist was "getting at" by slugging a passer-by in the face. "Same" word. But of course it is not the same word. It is two different words in two different languages (the language of Physics and the language of ordinary English.)


What that means is that our inquiry into meaning has at least two stages. First of all, we must separate out the broad context of whether a term is being using in a technical language or in a particular ordinary language. We then must separate out the possible meanings of the term in the ordinary language in question. In stage two we then ask WHICH meaning of a word one is "intending" in the ordinary language. That depends on (1) one's proficiency in the ordinary language being spoken (In ordinary language usage you can't be humpty dumpty, for whom ANY meaning is correct. You have to know things about POSSIBLE usages in the ordinary language in question For instance, you have to know that people who are in "great pain" in English usage don't laugh and smile and display pleasure actions. (2) In addition to knowing the possible meanings of "a term" in a particular ordinary language you also usually have to know the context in which the word is being used. (The language of Physics doesn't have hitting people in the face as one of the possible meaninigs of "force.")

What that means is communication of meanings is not always simple and intuitive. (One of my themes ever since I have been posting to these Groups.) It doesn't mean that it is impossible or that we REALLY are speaking separate languages and will never know what the other guy REALLY means. Taking care in a complex situation is not the same as the situation being impossibly complex and the attempt to take care being futile.

> 160. To illustrate a technical usage of what might be misunderstood as an ordinary English term I above gave the example of the physicist explaining "force" to a thug ...

Speaking of making words mean something other than what they appear to mean in ordinary language, what does the word "above" mean in the phrase above? Is it a technical term?

I would normally take it to mean something like "earlier in this internet thread," except that the story about the physicist and the thug doesn't make an appearance until post # 160.

You seem to be confusing "precise" and "having a single meaning."

Not really. I'm actually confusing "precise" with "marked by exactness and accuracy of expression."

(143) tim, I try to not tell falsehoods, and when I do slip I ask for forgiveness from the person I lied to and from my Lord. I try to keep 'short accounts' with God, not let any sins sit there and fester.

I do not see where I have "lied", I am explaining why I disagree.

"you are disagreeing with truly uncontested facts"

What truly uncontested facts are you referring to, and on what basis are they truly uncontested?

Perhaps it is just that you do not believe as I believe, or perhaps I am misinformed...or possibly you are?

I've read the OT in whole at least once per year in the last ten years, and have read and studied the individual books more than that. I'm not saying I'm an expert or a scholar, but I am a student of God's word, and I have some familiarity with the OT.

All this aside, I still do not see where the Scripture supports the idea that Mary was sinless all her life. I see the exact opposite in my study of Scripture.

Perhaps we could agree to disagree on this. :)

>162 fuzzi:

I am not asserting that "Scripture supports the idea that Mary was sinless all her life" is an uncontested fact. I was referring to the Biblical distinction between sin and ritual pollution. This truly is an uncontested fact.

(162) tim wrote: "I am not asserting that "Scripture supports the idea that Mary was sinless all her life" is an uncontested fact. I was referring to the Biblical distinction between sin and ritual pollution. This truly is an uncontested fact."

Where can I find this Biblical distinction between sin and ritual pollution? Would you kindly give me the references, book-chapter-verse?

I am not being facetious, I am serious. I have not heard of the term 'ritual pollution' before and I'd like to read the source for myself.

As far as your non-assertion of Scripture supporting the idea that Mary was sinless all her life, should I interpret that to mean that you think that Mary did sin at some point in her life?

~161

O.K., well "enjoy."

Where can I find this Biblical distinction between sin and ritual pollution? Would you kindly give me the references, book-chapter-verse?

I suggest Googling some combination of "ritual pollution" or "ritual defilement" and Judaism. For example:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%28ritual+polution%7Critual+defilement%29+Judaism

and reading whatever sites pop up that you'll accept. (I get the sense you're not going to accept most books and sites, though.) If this doesn't appeal to you, an early 20th century Protestant Bible Encyclopedia--a source I chose hoping you'd respect--lays out the basics.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915)
http://books.google.com/books?id=wYIPAAAAYAAJ&vq=ritual%20defilement&dq=...

If this doesn't work, why don't you list a few encyclopedias or commentaries you respect and we'll find it there. This is not, as I said, something any theologian doubts, wherever you are on the Protestant spectrum.

The basic Biblical thing is to read the Bible paying attention to the fact that different words are used (eg., sin, pure, impure, clean, unclean, defilement, pollution, abomination, etc.).

Take a read through the sections of the Bible that deal most frequently with the Law, especially Leviticus. You will find that Leviticus repeatedly speaks of the things that defile or render a person, or the temple, unclean. Examples include contact with dead people, contact with dead animals, contact with non-Jews, menstruation, ejaculation, skin disease. The laws thereto don't make sense as purely moral issues. Take for example Leviticus 11:24ff. (emphasis added):

“‘You will make yourselves unclean by these; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening. Whoever picks up one of their carcasses must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening.

“‘Every animal that has a split hoof not completely divided or that does not chew the cud is unclean for you; whoever touches the carcass of any of them will be unclean. Of all the animals that walk on all fours, those that walk on their paws are unclean for you; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening. Anyone who picks up their carcasses must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening. They are unclean for you.

What is going on here? Is God saying that touching a dead body or a dead animal is a sin? If so, what's this business about being "unclean till evening."? Did the ancient Jews believe or did God teach that sin is acquired in physical contact and discharged by the setting sun? What made them think this was additionally only true if you've washed your clothes?

Read on.

“‘Of the animals that move about on the ground, these are unclean for you: the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon. Of all those that move along the ground, these are unclean for you. Whoever touches them when they are dead will be unclean till evening. When one of them dies and falls on something, that article, whatever its use, will be unclean, whether it is made of wood, cloth, hide or sackcloth. Put it in water; it will be unclean till evening, and then it will be clean. If one of them falls into a clay pot, everything in it will be unclean, and you must break the pot.

Read this and ask yourself "is God talking about sin?" Even if touching a dead gecko is a sin--and note, it's touching, not only touching on purpose--does a piece of wood or a pot sin by contact with a gecko? (In the Mediterranean geckos go everywhere!) Does this make moral sense? Do pots sin? And does it make sense that a wooden box can be restored to sinlessness if you put it in water and wait for sun-down, but clay pots can never be restored?

What we are dealing with here is not, in the first instance, sin, but ritual purity--a state that made one unfit to do various things, like enter the temple, but which was not, in the first instance, a moral issue at all. (I say "in the first instance" because intentionally breaking God's non-moral laws is a moral transgression which, in turn, can make one ritually impure.) Jewish life, then, in Jesus' time and now is deeply concerned about these states of purity. Read, for example, a modern Jewish "how to" page Koshering Appliances and Utensils. There's been a lot of development, taking place in the Talmud and after, but Jewish housewives still distinguish between metal pots, which can be purified by immersion in water, and enamel-coated pots which, in accordance with Leviticus' rules on clay pots, cannot be made kosher.

I don't really know where to go from there. Perhaps someone else can chime in. The concept is ubiquitous in the Hebrew Scriptures and wrestling with the distinction between ritual purity and moral purity, the Law and the dictates of morality, is one of the central and recurrent topics of the New Testament.

>137 fuzzi: I do not need anything aside from the Bible to learn more about God, to understand what He wants me to do. I have been instructed in God's word to read, search and study it, which I do. I have not been told that I need to read books by 'learned, godly men' in order to understand God better.

fuzzi, I understand from this that you read the bible, and you understand what God wants you to do.

It therefore follows that when I read the bible, I can understand what God wants me to do.

And when each of those "learned, godly men" reads the bible, he also understands what God wants him to do.

Funnily enough, these all often lead to different understandings. Now it could well be a win-win situation where if you are right I can also be right (and the learned godly men too); I can live with that. But some of your statements suggest that if you are right, then I am wrong, not on small things but on rather major matters such as salvation. In that case, how do we know that it is you that is right rather than me? We are both studying the same scriptures, presumably with the same amount of prayer, sincerity and commitment.

Or am I misinterpreting your position? If so, apologies, and I'd be interested in clarification.

Thank you for your gracious replies, and inquiries.

I'm extremely fatigued from a very long day at work, and I'd like some time to think and pray upon my answers. I do not want to answer "off the cuff", but with consideration.

Will that be okay with you?

> 166. If one of them falls into a clay pot, everything in it will be unclean, and you must break the pot.

The pot may not have sinned, but if a person does not break the pot and proceeds to use it regardless of its unclean status, wouldn't that person have sinned?

Similarly, wouldn't any failure to behave in accordance with purity restrictions be considered sin?

>168 fuzzi:

Yes, thanks for the message.

>169 jburlinson:

Someone better qualified in Jewish law should answer this. But I believe the answer is:

Provided the person was Jewish, and the use was knowing and intentional, yes. If they didn't know, though they wouldn't have sinned, the pot would have still been unclean, as would any food cooked in it. Non-Jews don't have to follow any of these laws—though this didn't affect the status of their cookware, which was definitely impure and therefore not something a Jew could eat from—but only the Seven Laws of Noah (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah). The latter seems to be at play in Acts 15.

(167) johnthefireman wrote: "But some of your statements suggest that if you are right, then I am wrong, not on small things but on rather major matters such as salvation. In that case, how do we know that it is you that is right rather than me? We are both studying the same scriptures, presumably with the same amount of prayer, sincerity and commitment.

Or am I misinterpreting your position? If so, apologies, and I'd be interested in clarification."

No apologies are necessary.

I really want to answer you, so that you can understand me, and am very much aware of my inadequacies. I have prayed about this, and hope that with God’s help, I can be clear to you (and anyone else who might be interested) in my answer.

As an introduction, you should know that I came to faith very late, the year I turned 40. I was not raised in church, and was only mildly aware of the Bible and God. I have no deeply ingrained teaching/training to explain my faith.

God gives each person a measure of faith, enough to seek and understand Him, and His word…for without some authority, how do we know what God wants of us? Those without access to God’s word can be aware of the Lord through the glories of this world, the heavens that declare Him, (Romans 1:20) but what about those of us who have been blessed with more than that?

God has given us His word, the Scriptures, the Bible, so that we can learn more of Him and what He wants us to do and be.

But the Bible is a deceitful book in a way, because people can find anything they WANT to find when they read and study it. The enemies of God quote passages, mainly out of context, in order to discredit the Bible and try to destroy the faith of believers.

How do we know how to interpret and apply what we read?

We can pray for enlightenment, for the Lord to show us what His words mean, but we need to do that with sincerity, really wanting to know His will, even if it contradicts what we want or what we have been taught.

And since God looks upon the heart, He knows who is really desiring to learn more of Him, and not using His word to make points and win arguments (I’m guilty of doing that in the past, to my shame).

So, we need to pray sincerely to know what His will is, what He wants us to do. That’s the first thing I do.

But without a basis behind the prayer, without the foundation of God’s word, what do our prayers avail?

We need to read God’s word, the Bible, without preconceived notions of what it is saying, and without others telling us what it means. Many people put their trust in teachers, preachers, priests and other religious leaders, who could be mistaken in what they think. Some of them might also be teaching incorrectly for their own benefit (see any ‘Christian’ bookstore for examples of this).

The Bereans (Acts 17:11) searched the Scriptures to see if what they were being taught was ‘so’. They did not take as ‘gospel’ what was taught to them or preached to them.

In 2 Timothy 2:15, we are instructed to study God’s word, and to rightly divide it.

And Jesus Himself told us to search the Scriptures that testify of Him and of eternal life (John 5:39).

So, how do I know I am right and you or others, who don’t agree, are not?

Based upon what I have read in the Bible, comparing Scripture to Scripture, and relying on prayer as well as enlightenment from the Holy Spirit, I believe that my understanding about salvation is correct, that people must be born again by the Spirit, and not trust in church membership or deeds in order to achieve eternal salvation. We are saved through faith in what Jesus Christ did, dying for us, to take the punishment for our sins, and this only if we call upon His name (Romans 10:9, 13). No deeds, no rituals, no church attendance, nothing that we can do in this world will save us without the Lord.

And I will say this to you, personally: if you truly seek God’s will in your life, to know what He has for you, and you pray with sincerity, He will answer you in His time, His way.

It’s a long answer, but I felt that your question, so sincerely asked, deserved the best I could do. May the Lord take my words and clarify them for you.

Regarding the issue of whether Jesus and the Apostles were "familiar with the Jewish Bible," as was discussed in Post #99 above and previously:

"Turning to Verme's use of the terms 'Bible' and 'canonical' in his definition, a scholarly consensus now exist that in the Second Temple period there was no 'canon' of sacred Scriptures. The Jewish community did not promulgated an official canon of Scripture until after the end of the Second Temple period. There was no 'Bible' in Second Temple Judaism. Thus, it is an anachronism to use 'Bible' or its adjective 'biblical' to describe religious texts in that period, even if they became biblical at a later time. However, once we have made that statement that there was no Bible in Second Temple Judaism, it is equally clear that, especially in the second half of the period, there was a generally accepted body of sacred literature that was considered by Jews to be uniquely authoritative, ancient, in origin, and binding on the community ..., we will use the fairly generally accepted terms 'Scriptures' and 'scriptural to refer to these sacred texts... These texts included the five book of the Torah... and all or almost all of the entire prophetic corpus. The status of the corpus known as the Writings is much more uncertain."

Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture In Second Temple Times (Eerdmans Publishing, 2008) at Notes 22 and 23

Those interested in this topic might find that volume otherwise instructive as it discusses how the texts of the accepted scriptures stabilized only over time, and not entirely until several centuries into the common era - as is well exemplified by this other nonscholarly volume - The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible

>171 fuzzi: Thanks, fuzzi, for taking the trouble to answer so sincerely. I'm still not sure that it clarifies the issue for me completely, but it may be best to leave it at that for the time being. I'm sure it will come up again.

John, you are very welcome. I'm sorry I'm not terribly 'eloquent'.

"First of all, as we saw earlier, it is quite clear that there was no normative canon in Palestinian Judaism in Jesus day—the notion of a universally accepted “Palestinian canon” is a myth and flies in the face of all the historical evidence. Secondly, we have no reason to think that Jews in the diaspora were any more united on the matter than their Palestinian counterparts. There is practically no reason to think that Jews in the diaspora had a uniform opinion regarding which books were to be read. The most famous “Alexandrian Jew” of them all, Philo, never once cites from the apocrypha! Finally, while it is abundantly clear that the apocrypha were included in the LXX of the later centuries, we have very little data about the LXX used in Jesus’ day. As mentioned in Part 1, the Old Testament books were included in the LXX over time—beginning with the Pentateuch.1 Even if it could be established that Jesus used the LXX, it would not necessarily follow that Jesus accepted the deuterocanonical books.

http://www.thesacredpage.com/2006/03/loose-canons-development-of-old_06.html

"Philo never once cites from the apocrypha! . . ."

lawecom, I think it would be more surprising -- and more in line with your negative position on an existing canon of those times -- if Philo HAD quoted from the Apocrypha. His eschewing of what eventually was rejected in the Christian canon points toward (though it doesnt prove) an existing canon within Judaism.

I suppose that it depends on whether or not you think that "the
Bible" was a pre-existent book in the mind of G_d from the beginning
of time. If so, then Philo was simply reflecting what all Jews "really
knew." If not, then his not quoting from the "apocryphal books" AND
his not citing from other texts that eventually came to constitute some
present versions of "the Bible." tell us nothing about when "the Bible"
actually was canonized. (You may want to read the linked page and
the previous page to the linked page as a whole to get a better understanding
of what this author is contending as a whole.)

In any case, I hope that you have a better understanding of
what I've been maintaining, over and over again, than does Tim. As
I've repeatedly said, by late Second Temple times some of the books of
the present Canon were, ah, canonized, albeit that process did
not occur as it later occurred in Christianity and there were still
a number of alternative readings of those texts.

"(Philo's) not quoting from the "apocryphal books" AND his not citing from other texts that eventually come to constitute some present versions of "the Bible. . ."

Well, this changes, almost reverses my view of 175. You don'tmention the "other texts" in 175 -- except for their
tenuous connection with the LXX. I was assuming that you meant Philo doesn't cite the Apocrypha
and DOES cite what eventually became canonical.

By all means, use the word "scriptures" and the adjective
"scriptural" if you wish, rather than "Bible" and "biblical".
Your putting "the Bible" in quotes is right, I think we are talking
parallels to the Christian Bible, not historical origins of it.

The formation of what is canonical is a question of Christian rather than of Jewish History, but I wouldn't make the leap of saying
that Christian concern with the canonical had no forerunners in Judaism. The Christians could have kept it simple and just rejected the Jewish scriptures -- or more likely just ignored them (which is often a more effective form of rejection.) But, as it turned out, what we now call the Old Testament was retained, and this shows a continuing Jewish
influence. The Old Testament in fact is almost identical* with
what became canonical in Jewish Scripture.

*There are changes in the naming of subdivisions and of individual books: The second O. T. book, for example was called casually
"Names" (Shemoth) a word taken from the opening line; this was changed to the Greek word "Exodus" -- more explanatory of the whole c ontents. But then there was already a Greek "Old Testament", the Septuagint, before Christianity.

"The formation of what is canonical is a question of Christian rather than of Jewish History, but I wouldn't make the leap of saying that Christian concern with the canonical had no forerunners in Judaism."

I don't disagree with anything else you say, and probably don't disagree with the sentence above. But I am not certain.

There certainly was a concern for authenticity and authority of scriptural writings in Judaism, but there were also differences between the "canonization" of certain scriptures in Judaism and what happened in Christianity.

First of all, I have to reiterate what I said once or twice before - the Jewish Scriptures were mostly a "national literature." There were analogous to the Illiad and the Odessey for the Greeks or the Aeniad for the Romans. Yes, they were also about Hashem, but mostly about Hashem's interaction with the Israelites as a nation. Somewhat variant tellings of the same "stories" were therefore permissible. It was only with post Talmudic and probably post medieval attempts of extremist pseudo-Jews to turn Judaism into a "theology" with "a book" that this changed.

Second, back to the point I've been trying to make to Tim, that certain writings were canonized did not result in a "Jewish Bible" until quite late. To put it differently, the canon was not closed and a One True Text was not established until well after the time of Jesus. Hence, Jesus would have venerated some version of the Torah as from a Holy source and containing Jewish Wisdom, and he probably would have had similar if not so definite attitudes toward some version of Proverbs and certain of the Prophets, but he would have never thought of these as parts of some One Holy Work. Of course, it is entirely up in the air whether Jesus would have been able to read any of those texts, either in Hebrew or, less likely, in Greek, or whether he would simply have benefited from the Shabbat homilies that he regularly heard.

> 179. Of course, it is entirely up in the air whether Jesus would have been able to read any of those texts, either in Hebrew or, less likely, in Greek, or whether he would simply have benefited from the Shabbat homilies that he regularly heard.

According to Luke, 4:16-20, Jesus read in the synagogue from Isaiah. He even appeared to scan through the scroll to find the passage he wanted. Of course, Luke could have been lying. Or maybe all the English translators have gotten it wrong and the original text really says something like, "Jesus stared at the scroll for awhile and, being unable to read it, decided to quote from memory what he had heard from Shabbat homilies."

~180

According to Matthew 27 the righteous dead arose from their graves (tombs) and there was a great earthquake when Jesus died on the cross. Being common occurrences, these events apparently went unnoticed by any historians of the day.

The point is that the Gospels say many things about Jesus. One might question which things are extraordinary and unusually laudatory (e.g., he was a great scholar who disputed with the Elders of the Temple at age 12; he was exceptionally literate - while only 12% of the rest of the Palestinian population were at all literate and most of those were very rich) and which are mundane and utterly without any obvious ulterior motive (e.g., he was an ordinary tradesman of the sort who were typically unlearned and unlettered).

Which type of thing might be more believable to someone who doesn't already have a "faith commitment" ?

We've been over the issue of "lying" before. If someone just made up something about Jesus because it enhanced his reputation they were lying. The liar was not necessarily, however, the direct composer of Luke. He might have relied on a lie already long in circulation.

> 181. the righteous dead arose from their graves (tombs) and there was a great earthquake when Jesus died on the cross. Being common occurrences, these events apparently went unnoticed by any historians of the day.

Maybe this happened somewhere around modern-day Peoria.

... which are mundane and utterly without any obvious ulterior motive (e.g., he was an ordinary tradesman of the sort who were typically unlearned and unlettered).

It's much more startling and extraordinary that such a person could become the pivotal figure of a global religion that has survived for 2,000 years. Would that be believable to someone who doesn't have a "faith commitment?"

It seems to me that the notion that Jesus could read strains credulity a whole lot less than anything else about him.

>182 jburlinson:

Right. How widespread was literacy in his geographic and social universe at the time? It's unclear, but clearly neither universal nor unheard of either. Meanwhile, whatever else you think about him, Jesus was clearly a very gifted guy. Gifted people have learned to read in situations that were far less promising for it—take Frederick Douglas. Although he only reads once (as a teenager) and writes once (in the dirt, as a diversionary measure) in the Gospels, you'd assume he could from his career and from the general level of his discourse, even if you didn't have any evidence at all.

t's much more startling and extraordinary that such a person could become the pivotal figure of a global religion that has survived for 2,000 years. Would that be believable to someone who doesn't have a "faith commitment?"

=======================================

Yept, startling and extraordinary. Sort of like a shepherd who had been expelled by his adopted brother from his country for murder talking with G_d, returning to his country and liberating his relatives. Or then there was that poor orphan whose only salvation was that he married a rich older widow becoming the figure that united warring tribes and created a religion that conquered most of the then civilized world.

There are some difference, of course. While Moses liberated the slaves of a nation and molded them into a nation and while Muhammad united warring tribes into a nation that went on to conquer more territory than Alexander. Jesus didn't do any of those things. He was leader of only 12 people who Justin Martyr tells us were poor illiterates. He "acted out" on a visit to Jerusalem and was crucified as a rebel and/or criminal by the ruling Romans, with apparently none of his own People willing to defend him. He wrote nothing and dictated nothing and what purported teachings we have of his were wrenched into an entirely new paradigm by someone who he never met.

Truly startling and extraordinary. That certainly proves that Jesus could read, much more than what his purported own religion says about his background and what we know of people of that background from independent sources.

Jesus didn't do any of those things. He was leader of only 12 people who Justin Martyr tells us were poor illiterates. He "acted out" on a visit to Jerusalem and was crucified as a rebel and/or criminal by the ruling Romans, with apparently none of his own People willing to defend him. He wrote nothing and dictated nothing and what purported teachings we have of his were wrenched into an entirely new paradigm by someone who he never met.

You are, I think, aware what drivel this is. The only question therefore, is why you've stopped even pretending to make historical arguments or care about sources. I see it as merely a change of tactic.

> 184. He was leader of only 12 people who Justin Martyr tells us were poor illiterates.

Justin Martyr is an "independent source" unencumbered by a "faith commitment?"

... his purported own religion

Christianity is only "purportedly" the religion of Jesus? Even "independent sources" don't claim that it's not, do they?

No, wait a minute. He's got a point. All of those first and second century writers had "an agenda." If only we could hear from the other side - you know - someone who was antagonistic towards the Christian movement. Ah! Got one - Saul of Tarsus. Or was he a sell-out? You know pursuit of fame and riches can distort someone's testimony.

~185

Thanks, Tim. That is up to your usual standard for marshalling evidence and making logical arguments.

> 184. He was leader of only 12 people who Justin Martyr tells us were poor illiterates.

Justin Martyr is an "independent source" unencumbered by a "faith commitment?"

================================

No, Justin Martyr is a strong Christian who has no reason to make demeaning comments about his G_d and his G_d's immediate disciples. Thus when he says that said disciples were poor illiterates there is reason to believe the truth of that assertion.
==================================

... his purported own religion

Christianity is only "purportedly" the religion of Jesus? Even "independent sources" don't claim that it's not, do they?

========================================

Ah, another version of "the scholarly consensus." Well, since you don't know, let me tell you. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Paul's recrafting of Christianity is what was taught by Jesus of Nazareth. I don't know one "scholarly source" not located at a Southern Baptist seminary who would claim otherwise. But what Paul taught is what many Christians identify as Christianity.

> 189. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Paul's recrafting of Christianity is what was taught by Jesus of Nazareth.

Ah, how do we know what was taught by, ah, Jesus of Nazareth, other than the gospels, both canonical and non- -- along with other, ah, extremely scarce, fragmentary and disputed early documents ? Ah, and your opinion of the validity of the, ah, canonical gospels as adequate "independent sources" is pretty clear from post # 181 and, ah, passim. (I could get addicted to saying "Ah"!)

I'm making the assumption that you don't have any higher opinion of the reliability of the non-canonical gospels.

So, if the gospels are virtually worthless as "sources," how can we know if what Paul taught is any different than what Jesus taught?

#186: Christianity is only "purportedly" the religion of Jesus? Even "independent sources" don't claim that it's not, do they?

It seems to be a rather common theme, in fact, that Christianity was hijacked by Paul. http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/ says "the teachings of Yahshua and that of Paul, the supposed apostle, are not at all compatible with each other. It is Pauline doctrine that is the source of most of the problem in Christianity." The Wikipedia article on The Anti-Christ summarizes Nietzsche as saying "Paul used the promise of life after death as a way to seize tyrannical power over the masses of lower class people. This changed Christianity from a peace movement that achieves actual happiness into a religion whose final judgment offers possible resurrection and eternal life. Paul falsified the history of Christianity, the history of Israel, and the history of mankind by making them all seem to be a preparation for the crucifixion. "

Paul did take the story of Jesus, and ran with it. However, a) to the extent that we can believe any biblical sources, he spent a lot of time with the apostles who were with Jesus. And what he did and taught was approved, at least in theory by the Apostles.

b) Christianity evolved. Paul was a part of that process.

c) Something about Christianity apparently struck a chord with huge masses of people. There is much ink spilled in historical circles on whether Christianity was an upper class religion or had wide appeal. The consensus seems to be more with wide appeal, and for a variety of reasons. In any case, it both adapted to first century culture in ways that other religions did not.

It would be interesting to look at the spread of Christianity as something akin to a biological process. It clearly had some kind of superiority (in the same way that natural selection aids "superior" adaptations).

To say that Paul "hijacked" Christianity is to put a needless pejorative term on how Christianity spread. Paul no more hijacked Jesus than Madison hijacked Locke.

#192: To say that Paul "hijacked" Christianity is to put a needless pejorative term on how Christianity spread.

To say that Paul hijacked Christianity is an accurate description of how some people feel on the matter. It may be wrong, but it's not a needless pejorative.

Paul no more hijacked Jesus than Madison hijacked Locke.

If I believed that Locke was God manifest on Earth, and I didn't believe that Madison was a prophet, I would believe that Madison hijacked Locke.

I thought we were having an academic discussion.

If you want to approach it from that direction, "hijacked" is an inappropriate word. But if the question is "is Christianity the religion of Jesus?" (as per 186), and we're viewing it through secular eyes, I have to say no. Madison's government was not the government of Locke and Lenin's government was not the government of Marx. In Christianity, Paul's works changed everything, and left a system that could no longer be attributed solely to Jesus.

I agree with that mostly, given the caveats I mentioned in 192. We do see hints of Paul in the biblical Jesus, mostly in the Gospel of John.

There's no question Paul had a major role in the development of Christianity. But it's quite clear that his thinking is a strand, not the only strand, in what ended up in the New Testament, and what became Christian doctrine. Paul was in a conversation, and influenced it greatly, but he wasn't the only one talking, and he entered into a conversation others had started--the "Jesus movement" was growing rapidly in numbers and had spread across the Mediterraean long before Paul got into the game.

Nietzsche

Nietzsche was a 19th century philosopher and hater of Christianity. He said a lot of interesting things, but he wasn't a trained, original or even deep historical critic. (Among philologists he's perhaps best known for saying that God wrote in bad Greek--funny, but also a sign of parodic linguistic snobbery, since "God" wrote in the ordinary Greek of the time.) What did he have to say about Zoroastrianism? I don't know, but I'm sure, if I knew, I wouldn't take his word about it.

~192

Paul did take the story of Jesus, and ran with it. However, a) to the extent that we can believe any biblical sources, he spent a lot of time with the apostles who were with Jesus. And what he did and taught was approved, at least in theory by the Apostles.

===========================================

Yes, indeed. Paul created a certain brand of Christianity. That brand triumphed with no little aid from Constantine and his successor's legions killing off the advocates of other brands and burning their scriptures, and with the appeal that you didn't have to learn Hebrew or keep kosher or be circumcised to convert to the Paul Brand Christianity. Thus the remaining scriptures after all the killing and burning somewhat inconsistently portray Paul as getting on more or less well with Jesus' real disciplines. My, how extraordinary. One would have never guessed that would be the case. Surely they at least pointed out that all of Jesus' original disciples were Jews and thought that Jesus was talking to Jews when he did things like preached in the Temple rather than in Tarsus or Syria or Egypt. But apparently not......

But the REAL problem is, of course, that in addition to having the benefit of 300 years of critical thinking on these topics, beginning with Hobbes and Spinoza, contemporary scholars are no longer limited to what The Bible Says. As it turns out, not all the competing scriptures were destroyed. Not all the "authoritative nonBiblical texts" were rewritten without the rewriting being detected. And, worse, not all the archaeological evidence or contemporary "Pagan" histories were destroyed. Most inconvenient and becoming more so every decade as we get a better and better view of what Jesus' environment looked like. Stating to feel like a Mormon?

Incidentally, the rest of your post I agree with, albeit I suspect we have different reasons to explain some of your observations . I would again recommend this volume Augustine and the Jews if you want to take a divergent look at what Jesus' world and the post-Jesus centuries looked like, apart from what is in the New Testament. There are a number of other rather dry scholarly discussions, but this one has real literary character as well as a lot of scholarly underpinnings.

Paul is the direct author of a large part of the New Testament, and most of the other side of the conversation has been lost while Paul's side was canonized. Moreover, I see it some of the argument about Paul himself as moot; a conversation, a movement, is more than capable of taking a belief system far away from anything its founder would have approved of.

Nietzsche

In making the case that the argument that Christianity is not the religion of Jesus is not a new one or a particularly rare one, Nietzsche's lack of originality is hardly a bad point. I was more looking for Russell or Shaw, but Nietzsche is the one whose quotes popped up.

>199 prosfilaes:

So I think there are two different claims here, or partially here. Please correct me and put them in your words, but I think we can usefully distinguish between them:

1. The Christian movement such as we come to know it in New Testament and other early documents either does not always or even commonly reflect or at least that it cannot be securely traced to the views of its putative founder, Jesus of Nazareth.
2. The Christian movement was hijacked somehow by Paul, and represents primarily what he thought, which was a radical departure in stark opposition to what other Christians were saying and thinking—or maybe there weren't really any others because Paul "made it up out of whole cloth."

Opinion one has problems and we could argue it, but there's a plausible case to be made here. It's not a nutty theory, but something you can argue for based on the evidence. Option two is provably false conspiracy theory based on ignorance of the evidence.

Do you accept the distinction I'm drawing?

#200: I'll accept that distinction.

Okay, shall we agree that 1 is arguable and 2 is weak tea?

For 1, it's certainly arguable what Jesus believed, how accurate the gospels are, and how he would have felt about Christianity, both then and now.

For 2, I would say that it's clear that Paul entered an existing Christian movement and through the use of words alone influenced the section of it that was to survive the next few centuries. lawecon blames Constantine, but a quick troll through Wikipedia makes it look like Paul was well-established by then; Marcion and the Gnostics seem more interested in co-opting Paul to support their cases then rejecting him. Some think the Clementina has a veiled attack on him but if so that seems to be the exception. Christians at the time generally approved of Paul, which presumably meant his thinking wasn't too radically new.

I can't dismiss it as strongly as you, but I think mainly because I'm not as confident in my understanding of early Christian history as you are.

But to turn now to another point, it may be well to call the attention of the readers to a few quotations from MacGregor Mathers' "Kabbalah Unveiled," which was published in 1888. This work is a translation of Knorr Von Rosenroth's "Kabbalah Denudata." (Sulzbach,1677)
The Kabbalah--the Hebrew esoteric doctrines--is a system of teachings with which only the very learned usually attempt to wrestle. It is claimed to have been handed down by oral tradition from angelic sources, through Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, the Seventy Elders, to David and to Solomon. No attempt has normally been made to commit this sacred knowledge to writing, till, in the early centuries of the Christian era (authorities differ widely as to the date) the pupils of Rabbi Simeon ben Joachi put his teachings into writing; and this in later ages became known as the "Zohar," or "Book of Splendor." Around the name of this Rabbi Simeon ben Joachi, as one scholarly writer puts it, "cluster the mystery and the poetry of the religion of the Kabbalah as a gift of the Deity to mankind." The Zohar, which is only a part of the Kabbalah, is the great store-house of the esoteric teaching of the ancient Hebrews.

Returning to the quotations referred to above, MacGregor Mathers in his preface to the 1888 edition says: "I wish particularly to direct the reader's attention to the stress laid by the Kabbalah on the feminine aspects of the Deity, and to the shameful way in which any allusion to these has been suppressed in the ordinary translations of the Bible, also to the Kabbalistical equality of male and female."{p. 107}

Referring to the Sephiroth (the ten Kabbalistical attributes of God), Mr. Mathers says:
"Among these Sephiroth, jointly and severally, we find the development of the persons and the attributes of God. Of these, some are male and some are female. Now, for some reason or other, best known to themselves, the translators of the Bible have carefully crowded out of existence and smothered up every reference to the fact that the Deity is both masculine and feminine. They have translated a feminine plural by a masculine singular in the case of the word Elohim. They have, however, left an inadvertent admission of their knowledge that it was plural in Genesis iv., 26: 'And Elohim said: Let US make man.'

"Again (v., 27), how could Adam be made in the image of the Elohim, male and female, unless the Elohim were male and female also? The word Elohim is a plural formed from the feminine singular ALH, Eloh, by adding IM to the word. But inasmuch as IM is usually the termination of the masculine plural, and is here added to a feminine noun, it gives to the word Elohim the sense of a female potency united to a masculine idea, and thereby capable of producing an offspring. Now we hear much of the Father and the Son, but we hear nothing of the Mother in the ordinary religions of the day. But in the Kabbalah we find that the Ancient of Days conforms himself simultaneously into the Father and the Mother, and thus begets the Son. Now this Mother is Elohim."

The writer then goes on to show that the Holy Spirit, usually represented as masculine, is in fact feminine. The first Sephira contained the other nine, and produced them in succession. The second is Chokmah (Wisdom), and is the active and evident Father to whom the Mother is united. The third is a feminine passive potency called Binah (Understanding), and is co-equal with Chokmah. Chokmah is powerless till the number three forms the triangle.{p. 108}

"Thus this Sephira completes and makes evident the supernal Trinity. It is also called AMA, Mother, the great productive Mother, who is eternally conjoined with the Father for the maintenance of the universe in order. Therefore is she the most evident form in whom we can know the Father, and therefore is she worthy of all honor. She is the supernal Mother, co-equal with Chokmah, and the great feminine form of God, the Elohim, in whose image man and woman were created, according to the teaching of the Kabbalah, equal before God. Woman is equal with man, not inferior to him, as it has been the persistent endeavor of so-called Christians to make her. Aima is the woman described in the Apocalypse (ch. 12)."

"This third Sephira is also sometimes called the Great Sea. To her are attributed the Divine names, ALAIM, Elohim, and IaHVeh ALHIM; and the angelic order, ARHLIM, the Thrones. She is the supernal Mother as distinguished from Malkuth, the inferior Mother, Bride and Queen. . . . In each of the three trinities or triads of the Sephiroth is a dual of opposite sexes, and a uniting intelligence which is the result. In this, the masculine and feminine potencies are regarded as the two scales of the balance, and the uniting Sephira as the beam which joins them."
In chapter viii. we read: "Chokmah is the Father, and Binah is the Mother, and therein are Chokmah (Wisdom) and Binah (Understanding), counterbalanced together in most perfect equality of Male and Female. And therefore are all things established in the equality of Male and Female; if it were not so, how could they subsist? . . . In their conformations are They found to be the perfections of all things--Father and Mother, Son and Daughter. These things have not been revealed save unto the Holy Superiors who have entered therein and departed therefrom, and have known the paths of the Most Holy God, so that they have not erred in them, either on the right hand or on the left."

In a note in regard to Chokmah and Binah the author says: "Chokmah is the second and Binah is the third of the Sephiroth. This section is a sufficient condemnation of all those who wish to make out that woman is inferior to man."
The Kabbalah also speaks of the separation of the sexes as the cause of evil, or as the author puts it in a note: "Where there is unbalanced force, there is the origin of evil." Further on it is written:

"And therefore is Aima (the Mother) known to be the consummation of all things; and She is signified to be the beginning and the end. . . . And hence that which is not both Male and Female together is called half a body. Now, no blessing can rest upon a mutilated and defective being, but only upon a perfect place and upon a perfect being, and not at all in an incomplete being. And a semi-complete being cannot live forever, neither can it receive blessing forever."{p. 109}
The following is the author's comment upon the above: "This section is another all-sufficient proof of the teachings maintained throughout the Kabbalah, namely, that man and woman are from the creation co-equal and co-existent, perfectly equal, one with the other. This fact the translators of the Bible have been at great pains to conceal by carefully suppressing every reference to the feminine portion of the Deity, and by constantly translating feminine nouns by masculine. And this is the work of so-called religious men!"

A learned Jewish Rabbi, says: "Those who write on the Bible must be very careful when they come to speak of the position of woman to make a clear distinction between the Old and the New Testaments. In the Old Testament, except in the second chapter of Genesis, woman occupies a true and a dignified position in society and in the family. For example, take the position of Sarah, of the Prophetess Miriam, the sister of Moses, and Deborah the Prophetess. They all exemplify the true position of woman in the Old Testament. While Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, and the chief writer in the New Testament, condemned woman to silence in the Church and to strict obedience to her husband, making her thereby inferior to the man, the Old Testament gave free scope to the development of the Holy Spirit in woman. To intensify this teaching upon the position of woman, we find even the voice of the Deity telling Abraham: 'Whatever Sarah tells thee, thou shalt hearken unto her voice,' showing that woman in her own home was the guiding power."
In regard to another point this Rabbi says: "The learned Jewish Rabbis of modern times do not take the rib story literally. And this may be said of many of the olden times."{p. 110}

The Kabbalah and its learned expositors may be said to be "the throbbing heart" of the Jewish religion, as was graphically said of the mystic teachings of another occult fraternity. And in view of the Kabbalah's antiquity, and the fact that it is the fountain head of the body of the Old Testament teachings, these quotations as to the real Kabbalistic teachings in regard to woman, or to the feminine aspects of the Deity, are of first-class importance in such a book as "The Woman's Bible." In Kabbalistic teachings "there is one Trinity which comprises all the Sephiroth, and it consists of the crown, the king and the queen. . . . It is the Trinity which created the world, or, in Kabbalistic language, the universe was born from the union of the crowned king and queen."

The rib story is veiled in the mystic language of symbolism. According to occult teachings, there was a time before man was differentiated into sexes--that is, when he was androgynous. Then the time came, millions of years ago, when the differentiation into sexes took place. And to this the rib story refers.

The Zohar, Pritzker Edition has now published Volume Six of a proposed ten volume study of the Five Books of Moses. This volume completes the Zohar’s commentary on the book of Exodus. Some of the volume focuses on the Dwelling (or mishkan) built by Moses and the Israelites in the Sinai Desert. The mishkan symbolizes Shekhinah, the feminine presence of God who “dwells” on earth. The construction of the misken is intended to ensure Her intimacy with the people—and especially with Moses who is actually called her husband.

Here is a great review:

"In an Oxford lecture earlier this year, literary critic James Wood suggested that the "New Atheists" might be well served by looking to the modern novel. He says atheists -- and some Christian fundamentalists -- insist too much on polemic literalism. Novels, he said, are a vehicle to explore theological arguments and make real the often inherent contradictions of belief. And although Wood mentions 1998 Nobel Literature laureate José Saramago, a reader can't help but wonder just where Saramago's final novel, Cain, fits in that picture.

Cain is an assiduous indictment of the God of the Old Testament by re-imagining the brief tale the Bible tells of the title character. Saramago, who died last year, made his position clear on the book's release in Europe in 2009. He said the Bible depicts a "cruel, spiteful, vengeful, jealous and unbearable God" and recommending people not trust that God. The book is Saramago's extended literary argument on that point, frequently from Cain's mouth.

Saramago's story of Cain killing his brother Abel is just the starting point. God's judgment after Abel's death is for Cain to be "a restless wanderer." In Saramago's hands, he wanders the Book of Genesis, aided by the fact he can go back and forth in time. Cain visits the Tower of Babel, is present as Abraham prepares to sacrifice Isaac and joins Noah on the ark, but not in the chronological order in which these events appear in the Bible........"

Read the full review online at LT; then read the book.

Gen 45:8
So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God: and he hath made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house, and a ruler throughout all the land of Egypt.

In Stranger in the Valley of Kings, Ahmed Osman argues that Joseph was known in Egypt as Yuya.

Yuya was the minister to two pharaohs duing the eighteenth dynasty although he was not of royal blood, his tomb is found in the Valley of the Kings. Although Yuya is considered of little importance, today, his is the only tomb in which the title “ it ntr n nb tawi-“Holy Father of the Lord of Two Lands” is found. It occurs once on one of his ushabti ( royal funeral statutes), and more than twenty times on his funerary papyrus.

#206: Do you ever get the feeling you're carrying on a monologue?

~205
""In an Oxford lecture earlier this year, literary critic James Wood suggested that the "New Atheists" might be well served by looking to the modern novel. He says atheists -- and some Christian fundamentalists -- insist too much on polemic literalism."

While I'm always a bit concerned about an expert on a technical subject whose credentials are that he is a "literary critic" (or equivalent), this thesis seems to have a lot to recommend it. Interesting how much the "New Atheists" and the most naive religious fundamentalists have in common, isn't it?

~206 and 207

Here, let me help. "AMEN BROTHER." (That feels better. I've wanted to get that out ever since reading the other "Reading the Bible" thread. And it alleviates the concern that no one else is listening. Listening, not hearing, since I generally don't have a clue what quicksiva is talking about.)

>206 quicksiva: and 207 I always read quicksiva's posts with great interest, although like lawecon I'm not sure I always understand it all. Likewise, "AMEN".

Yes, very learned posts. It is a shame that I don't have the background to be able to appreciate and get more out of them them more than I do. Sigh. I had a good friend and mentor of cherished memory who often told me that I should learn more about ancient Egyptian society. Apparently, he was right

#206: Do you ever get the feeling you're carrying on a monologue?

=========
Most of the time, but not all of the time. If it weren't for LT, I'd be shouting to the guys at St Dunkins;)

I don't always get, or appreciate Quicksiva's posts, but I appreciate that he never belittles other people to (try to) make himself look smarter.

And I have always found esoterica very interesting. It is like non-euclidean geometry for religion.

~213

"I don't always get, or appreciate Quicksiva's posts, but I appreciate that he never belittles other people to (try to) make himself look smarter. "

Since you and I know what that "really means" due to our correspondence, consider this: Could the difference have anything to do with there not being numerous other people who go on and on and on about what their intuitions and moral instincts tell them about fine points in ancient Egyptian history, when they don't have a clue about ancient Egyptian history?

Naw, couldn't be. It must be that some people are "just mean" when they criticize such nonsense activities as, ah, nonsense activities.

About "The Incident at the Inn": Exodus 4:24-26
After God commissions Moses as His emissary to lead His people into freedom, He tells him that all who tried to kill him are dead. He almost immediately tries to kill him, Himself. The attack is bizarre and seemingly inexplicable. Who does Zipporah think she is talking to? Does God have these episodes often?

Does this material belong here, or is it some sort of error?

~213 and above

Let me also add that I tend to discount criticisms of quicksiva and what he posts as "not original," on the basis that what he posts is usually interesting. There are waaaay too many people posting to these forums who are highly original, as well as boringly repetitive in their arrogance, ignorance and down right wrongness. Better less original and more interesting and more accurate.

> Better less original and more interesting and more accurate.

Usually, most of the posters you're objecting to are talking about their own personal beliefs and thoughts. Thus, they are nearly always blindingly accurate, if not particularly original and/or interesting.

There's a difference between "not original" and "copied wholesale without attribution" and a non sequitur to boot. But I respect that bad arguments must stick together.

~218

Yes, and I also respect your consistency. It is nice to have an example to refer to when someone claims that no such person exists.

Hello,

I've got one question: Why in protestant Bible there is lack of several scriptures from Old Testament??

>220 Camilo_Loco:

I assume you're referring to the apocrypha. Those books were not agreed to be inspired by God in the same way as the rest of scripture. In fact, I think I'm right in saying the Catholic church treats them as different to the rest of the bible too.

I'm sure someone else can tell you more about it...

The books of the Apocrypha were in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures used by most early Christians. (For Paul this WAS the Bible.) Most of the books of the Apocrypha were translated, but there were a few that were later, and have no Hebrew text behind them.

Short simple version is that after the temple was destroyed, Jewish tradition become centered on the Book. (The Land, and the Temple were no longer there.) Over time a decision was made that the Holy Books had to be in Hebrew. None of the apocryphal books were, and were basically jettisoned.

Since the early Christians used the Septuagint, and did not really care what the rabbis had decided, they kept the Apocrypha in the Vulgate version.

When Martin Luther came around, he decided that since Jews did not use the apocryphal books, Christians shouldn't either. So he compiled his Bible without it. (He also put James at tail-most end, just before Revelation.)

If you want that "old time religion" which was good enough for Paul, you will use the Apocrypha. If not, and you like the modern, new-fangled innovations, then you can go without.

>221 eclecticdodo: I think I'm right in saying the Catholic church treats them as different to the rest of the bible

I'm not sure that is true. We tend to name them "deutero canonical" rather than "apocryphal" and we recognise the history which Arctic-Stranger explains, but as far as I know for Catholics they are part of the canon of scripture just like any other book.

Thanks for the info!

~29

I am just curious, jburlinson, after the rather extensive example of the Reading Your Bible Through In One Year thread, are you still denying the existence of a community of Protestant plain meaning Christian fundamentalists, as you were in this thread at the cited to post?

> 225. are you still denying the existence of a community of Protestant plain meaning Christian fundamentalists

Post # 29 was a response to # 27, which was a question about # 7.

# 7 was written by someone who, to the best of my memory, didn't submit a single post to the "reading your bible through..." thread. (I may be wrong about that, though. There've been over a thousand posts to one or the other versions of that thread.) At any rate, the opinion expressed in # 7 is quite different from the belief of the originator of the "reading your bible through..." thread, who claims special status for the KJV translation.

So these two individuals, at least, don't seem to agree with each other. They don't seem to be in much of a "community", as far as I can tell.

As for the "reading your bible through..." thread(s), there are all kinds of opinions expressed helter skelter there, including yours and mine. Even the 3 or 4 people you seem to have in mind are hardly interchangeable with each other. The differences are far more interesting than the similarities.

~226
"Even the 3 or 4 people you seem to have in mind are hardly interchangeable with each other. The differences are far more interesting than the similarities."

Well, I suppose it depends on what you are interested in. Personally, I am interested in how certain patterns of justification repeat in religious and political fundamentalism, be said fundamentalism Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Marxist-Leninist or Nazi.

You are apparently interested in questions like the difference between a particular heresy in Marxist Leninism and The True Faith. It is rumored that among those in each camp are persons with blond hair and persons with brown hair, an undoubtedly interesting difference for those who are taken with such differences.