Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

YYW on Literally Reading Scripture

YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 9:05:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
To literally read something, is to take it at face value and nothing more. So, for example, to read "spare the rod, spoil the child." That is literally read as "thou shalt beat thy children with a stick" or, at the least "God commands you to beat your children." When I say "scripture" I am referring to all holy texts; the Bible, Koran, etc.

Hermeneutics refers to the branch of knowledge which deals with interpretation of texts; specifically of scripture, the study of it began with Schleiermacher and Dilthey. Schleiermacher was a german theologian, philosopher and is noted for his scholarly writings on the Bible and its teachings. He proposed the idea that to understand any religious text, you have to appreciate the historical origins of that text, and more specifically, you must understand the words that laid behind the words you see to know what the words you see meant. It's a pretty straightforward concept, but he was the first to articulate it in the depth and with the level of precision that he did. This is called higher criticism, as contrasted with lower criticism which is merely face-value textual criticism. Dilthey was another German dude (as you read what I write about Christianity and philosophy, you will note that many of the dudes whose ideas have influenced what I write are German), was a historian, psychologist, sociologist, and hermeneutic philosopher who more or less wrote in the same tradition as Schleiermacher, and helped to give them new life. Dithey was a German romantic, but that's not really important for our purposes here. What is important is that his theory of human existence emphasized the historicality of man, which is to say that he understood and explained how man's being was necessarily historical. Dithey's works informed Heidegger's approach to hermeneutics, although Heidegger later distanced himself from Dithey by the time Heidegger wrote Being and Time (a book which I highly recommend to everyone who has at least completed three years of college at a Western university). Later on, another dude named Gadamer, who was influenced by Heidegger, criticized Dithey in that his works didn't really touch on the ontological aspects of truth, and did not really account for all the implications of how the interpreter--by the act of interpretation-- and, accordingly, the interpreter's interpretations were not outside of the historicocultural hermeneutic traditions surrounding textual interpretations, but occupy a particular position within it, i.e., have a temporal horizon. My position is that Dithey's method is more appropriate for scriptural analysis, although it goes without saying that Gadamer's is decidedly the better method for purposes of, for example, writing an intellectual history of Christian thought. They are both useful; the point is that they do different things.

Now that you've had a brief introduction to hermeneutics, I hope that you are all starting to consider what some of the implications of, for example, translating something like the bible over space and through time might have on its meaning. Most people when they are taught, for example, bible verses in sunday school, are never taught where the interpretations of those verses presented in, for example, the King James version of the bible, or the NIV, even came from. It's a fascinating account.

Basically, you've got to break biblical history into two discrete parts: Pre-Reformation history, and Reformation/Post Reformation history. The first instance of the Christian bible's parts being written is when God wrote on stone tablets delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai, about 3,500 years ago. They were written in ancient Hebrew. The earliest versions of the first five books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) are traditionally regarded --although the evidence is conflicting-- as the oldest books of the bible; Job may be the oldest book of the Bible... we really don't know. These were recorded on scrolls, made of animal skin, passed down through generations before the dawn of the printing press.

However, many people were illiterate at that time, and the interpretation of those texts was done only by the very few who had the education to be able to read what they said, much less access them. While these texts were painstakingly recorded, and while ancient hebrew is conducive to translation into english-like languages, the vast majority of them were not translated directly from ancient hebrew to english. Instead, they were translated to into ancient Greek (this translation was known as the "apocrypha"), and later into codexes --some of which date back to 300 AD.

Later on, another dude named Jerome translated the codexes into Latin, which formed the Vulgate, (Vulgate means "common translation" in latin) but Jerome did not know whether the codexes were meant to be all within the bible or whether they were just historical writings which were meant to supplement the new testament. Jermoe did the best he could, but he was aware of the limits of his translation. (Also, the Apocryphia was a part of basically every bible until the mid 1880s, although there remains a fervent debate as to whether the Apocryphia was in fact scripture or not.)

By 500 AD, the bible had been translated into more than 500 different languages, but this was disdained by the Catholic church (some say for political reasons; they say for scriptural and doctrinal reasons... by all reasonable accounts it was likely both, but that's another conversation for another day). The church mandated that the bible only be printed in Latin, but the problem was that only priests spoke Latin. The political reasons why the Catholic church insisted on only latin translations are obvious, when people realize that no one spoke latin other than priests and church people, and only priests, in large part, could read latin. So, that reinforced the church's power, when everyone else spoke early english, germanic, etc. languages. Normal people did not read at all, though. Illiteracy was the norm, so ignorance was the standard.

There were, however, secret societies (they were secret because possession of a non-latin bible would get you executed) which translated the bible from latin to other languages, nevertheless. John Wycliffe was the dude who translated the vulgate to english. Wycliffe was an incredibly bright man, a professor at Oxford in the 14th century, and he and his minions produced many bibles in English. This did not go over well with the Catholic church. (For example, John Hus, who was a dude who championed Wycliffe's radical idea that people should be able to read the bible in their own language, was burned at the stake. The Catholic church was ok with this, because they believed that if Hus was acting in accordance with God's will, the heavens would open up and extinguish the fire. Talk about a trial by ordeal.)

Along the way, there were people who noticed that there were remarkable diffrences between the Vulgate and what remained of the sacred ancient texts. For example, Thomas Linacre, for example, taught himself Greek, read the codexes -to the extent that they were available to him- and compared them to the Vulgate. This almost got him killed, because he saw the problems. Same with John Colet, who only avoided execution (the church was at this point executing people who read the Codexes) because of his political connections. There were others along the way, but you get the point.

Enter Martin Luther, who, despite his late-life psychotic breakdown, is the father of the modern protestant church. Capitalizing on the fact that Gutenburg had invented the printing press in 1450something, he picked up on what Tyndale had started. Luther was disgusted by many of the disgusting things that the Catholic church had been doing, and he more or less declared "I've had enough of this!" and posted his 95 thesies on the Wittenberg church door, after being exiled for his radical ide
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 9:19:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
...after the Diet of Worms in 1521. There were translations of the Bible that emerged before Luther did his thing, but most if not all of them were burned (and their translators executed by the Catholic church). Miraculously, Luther was not executed. He translated the bible into some form of Middle German.

Later in Britain, a dude named John Rogers completed a translation based on a translation that was done by Myles Coverdale, which was based on the -corrupt- vulgate and Luther's translation of the -corrupt- vulgate in the 1540s. Many editions were published after this, with come contention, but King Henry VIII's political problems with the pope were what more or less solidified the eternal existence of the Bible in the english language.

But, there was no good translation around. They were all bad, and even if the translations were good, they were still based on the Vulgate which was, again, fraught with issues. John Calvin and John Knox sought to remediate this, with the Geneva bible. This is where you get numbered verses, and the first thing that looked like a "study bible" like we have today. But really, this was just the piecemeal conglomeration of other translations, most of which were based on the vulgate -which we know by reading them all side by side.

By the late 16th century, the Catholic church had decided that it had executed enough people for reading the bible -or, rather, a translation of the vulgate- in languages that were not latin. It was not until the 17th century that the earliest versions of the King James Bible was created. Many other translations followed, like the NIV, and others, but the King James Bible was -again- just a translation/reprint mostly of the Geneva bible, which was an indirect translation of the Vulgate, which was a translation of the Codexes, which were sort of based on ancient Hebrew scrolls. Content was added and removed over time, the bible was written in more or less common language -which varied tremendously across regions even within countries in Europe, much less through Europe itself.

Later versions were Collin's Family Bible, Webster's Bible, the English Revised Bible, the American Standard version, the New American Standard Version, and, in the 1970s, the New International Version, which was written to be understood by everyone, on about an 8th grade reading level. New translations and editions continue to emerge today.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 9:31:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Now, in terms of literally reading scripture... the problems should be pretty clear at this point: which version are you literally going to read? You don't have the dead sea scrolls, the codexes, etc. Are you going to literally read the NIV? How about the Geneva bible? Which one?

Throughout these translations, which have occurred in space and time, there have been consistencies. It is clear, for example, that there are certain things which remain constant in the Christian faith... the Basics, if you will. See generally, the Nicene and Apostles creed, although even there, in those cases, there are profound differences.

This is basically the problem with the foundation of Reformed Theology; it's based on literally reading the word, but the words that are being literally read do not account for (1) the issues raised by Schleiermacher's work in herminutics, or more troublingly, (2) those raised Gadamer's. The cold and hard truth is, though, that we can only get to Schleiermacher's ends through Gadamier's means, which is to say only by unwinding all the translational problems that Gadamier noted would have occurred in the course of translating the bible so many different times, in so many different languages, could we even have the kind of historical context we would need to get at Schleiermacher's end of understanding the ancient Hebrew, and even there, what we can know is limited... so limited in fact that it necessarily precludes a literal interpretation, because we can't unwind the diachronic evolution of so many languages, through so many authors and translators, in so many different places, at so many different points in time throughout history, with perfect accuracy. But, perfect accuracy is precisely what is required to be able to literally interpret something.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 9:50:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I began this OP by talking about a phrase that we are all probably familiar with: "Spare the rod, spoil the child."

It's a simplified version of Proverbs 12:24.

The NIV says this:
Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.

The New Living Translation says this:
Those who spare the rod of discipline hate their children. Those who love their children care enough to discipline them.

The English Standard Version says this:
Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.

The New American Standard Says this:
He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.

The King James Bible says this:
He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

The Holman Christian Standard Bible says this:
The one who will not use the rod hates his son, but the one who loves him disciplines him diligently.

The International Standard Version Says this:
Whoever does not discipline his son hates him, but whoever loves him is diligent to correct him.

The NET Bible says this:
The one who spares his rod hates his child, but the one who loves his child is diligent in disciplining him.

The Aramaic Bible in Plain English says this:
Everyone that spares concerning his rod, hates his son, and he that loves his son disciplines him earnestly.

The [Ironically named] God's Word Translation (which is pretty much the most pathetic version I have ever seen) says this:
Whoever refuses to spank his son hates him, but whoever loves his son disciplines him from early on.

The JPS Tanakh Version of 1917 says:
He that spareth his rod hateth his son; But he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

Notice the differences?

The constant theme is that parents have a duty to discipline their children, such that only a parent who did not care about their kid would ignore mistakes and let a child in error persist. That's the literal translation of the verse.

The principal, though, behind the verse is that when we see those who make mistakes where we are aware of what should be, we have a duty to them to show the person in error the path to success. The value behind the principal is community and solidarity; the end goal reflected by the verse is civil order and community stability.

The message is not, though, "thou shalt beat thy children with a stick."

I use this example to illustrate the point that although the principles behind the literal meaning of the bible's verses are clear and constant, the literal meanings are not. They change over time.

Our interpretation of what the verses should mean, reflecting the problems that Gadamer pointed out, are more a reflection of ourselves than a reflection of the verse's literal meaning. For example, it was taken for granted that the bible literally meant not only that parents should discipline their children, but that they should do it by caning them with a rod.

This is one of among several reasons why caning in English boarding schools was a common and accepted form of child discipline. It is why corporal punishment was regarded by almost all as an acceptable thing to do to children until the 1980s and 1990s. But that is NOT what was meant by proverb's 12:24.

What that example illustrates is that whenever we read anything, we do so against the totality of knowledge that we bring to the text we are reading; including knowledge of our cultural norms, or moral expectations, and social conventions that define how we live our lives.

The most egregious examples of mistranslation of scripture have been those which were used to justify slavery (as was the case before and until, really, the 20th century), and those used to persecute gay men and lesbians (as continues to this day) because of incompetent readings based on literal interpretations of mistranslated modern bibles. And that is the danger...

All of this danger could be avoided simply by gaining a firm understanding of the principles and values inherent in the Christian faith (love, benevolence, charity, hospitality, solidarity, community, family, etc.) and not the idiosyncratic ideas that very ignorant people imposed into the text over time in the course of their mistranslations.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 9:53:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are reasons, though, that literal interpretations were favored -really after the 1960s in the United States. I may go into those at a later date, but for now, this is enough to ruminate upon.
Tsar of DDO
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 10:08:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 9:50:51 PM, YYW wrote:
I began this OP by talking about a phrase that we are all probably familiar with: "Spare the rod, spoil the child."

It's a simplified version of Proverbs 12:24.


I may reply to this thread in the near future, but since at a glance I just noticed this, I wanted to point out that you are actually referring to Proverbs 13:24.

12:24 is also an interesting passage with as many variations in its English translations.

Anyways, I'll read through this thread and see if I can offer any substantive replies. In any case, this is an interesting topic and I appreciate that you have posted it.
Debate.org Moderator
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 10:16:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 10:08:09 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 9/26/2015 9:50:51 PM, YYW wrote:
I began this OP by talking about a phrase that we are all probably familiar with: "Spare the rod, spoil the child."

It's a simplified version of Proverbs 12:24.

lol yes

I may reply to this thread in the near future, but since at a glance I just noticed this, I wanted to point out that you are actually referring to Proverbs 13:24.

12:24 is also an interesting passage with as many variations in its English translations.

Indeed...

Anyways, I'll read through this thread and see if I can offer any substantive replies. In any case, this is an interesting topic and I appreciate that you have posted it.

right on
Tsar of DDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 11:29:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 9:53:26 PM, YYW wrote:
There are reasons, though, that literal interpretations were favored -really after the 1960s in the United States. I may go into those at a later date, but for now, this is enough to ruminate upon.

This is why all literature scriptural or not is understood by taking into account: the words used, the meaning of the words at the time of it's writing, the translation of the words from the original, the audience it is being written to at the time, the context of the passage within the rest of the story, ect...

Take for instance the popular saying Molon Labe. Which is often spoken in English as "Come and take them". Literally it is "You having Come, Now take IT!" But to get the understanding to translate over to a new people in a different place at a new time, the phrase is written as if spoken by a natural English speaker. Given enough time misunderstanding can erupt.

Or "Beati (mortui) qui in Domino moriuntur" Where I have seen it translated as "Blessed are the dead which die in a cloak"... Domino was a cloak in that day, but the speaker meant a pun for Dominus that means Lord.

People very rarely use "literal" words. In fact the definition of "literally" has been amended to relate the slang of the word when it is in fact totally opposite of "literal". Same thing happened words like "awe-full".

Then when we talk about concepts like "spirit" or "heaven" that are not readily available to people we use allegory and analogy.

This is true for even things that now we take for granted. Job is one of the oldest books written in the bible. When trying to communicate his fear he uses phrases like "At this my heart pounds and leaps from its place."

Man kind has used illustration to make a point for a very long time.
elvis_mylove
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 1:29:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 9:53:26 PM, YYW wrote:
There are reasons, though, that literal interpretations were favored -really after the 1960s in the United States. I may go into those at a later date, but for now, this is enough to ruminate upon. : :

If you don't possess the mind where all scriptures came from, you will never understand the scriptures.
ReformedPresbyterian72598
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 2:28:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 9:50:51 PM, YYW wrote:
I began this OP by talking about a phrase that we are all probably familiar with: "Spare the rod, spoil the child."

It's a simplified version of Proverbs 12:24.

The NIV says this:
Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.

The New Living Translation says this:
Those who spare the rod of discipline hate their children. Those who love their children care enough to discipline them.

The English Standard Version says this:
Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.

The New American Standard Says this:
He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.

The King James Bible says this:
He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

The Holman Christian Standard Bible says this:
The one who will not use the rod hates his son, but the one who loves him disciplines him diligently.

The International Standard Version Says this:
Whoever does not discipline his son hates him, but whoever loves him is diligent to correct him.

The NET Bible says this:
The one who spares his rod hates his child, but the one who loves his child is diligent in disciplining him.

The Aramaic Bible in Plain English says this:
Everyone that spares concerning his rod, hates his son, and he that loves his son disciplines him earnestly.

The [Ironically named] God's Word Translation (which is pretty much the most pathetic version I have ever seen) says this:
Whoever refuses to spank his son hates him, but whoever loves his son disciplines him from early on.

The JPS Tanakh Version of 1917 says:
He that spareth his rod hateth his son; But he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

Notice the differences?

The constant theme is that parents have a duty to discipline their children, such that only a parent who did not care about their kid would ignore mistakes and let a child in error persist. That's the literal translation of the verse.

The principal, though, behind the verse is that when we see those who make mistakes where we are aware of what should be, we have a duty to them to show the person in error the path to success. The value behind the principal is community and solidarity; the end goal reflected by the verse is civil order and community stability.

The message is not, though, "thou shalt beat thy children with a stick."

I use this example to illustrate the point that although the principles behind the literal meaning of the bible's verses are clear and constant, the literal meanings are not. They change over time.

Our interpretation of what the verses should mean, reflecting the problems that Gadamer pointed out, are more a reflection of ourselves than a reflection of the verse's literal meaning. For example, it was taken for granted that the bible literally meant not only that parents should discipline their children, but that they should do it by caning them with a rod.

This is one of among several reasons why caning in English boarding schools was a common and accepted form of child discipline. It is why corporal punishment was regarded by almost all as an acceptable thing to do to children until the 1980s and 1990s. But that is NOT what was meant by proverb's 12:24.

What that example illustrates is that whenever we read anything, we do so against the totality of knowledge that we bring to the text we are reading; including knowledge of our cultural norms, or moral expectations, and social conventions that define how we live our lives.

The most egregious examples of mistranslation of scripture have been those which were used to justify slavery (as was the case before and until, really, the 20th century), and those used to persecute gay men and lesbians (as continues to this day) because of incompetent readings based on literal interpretations of mistranslated modern bibles. And that is the danger...

All of this danger could be avoided simply by gaining a firm understanding of the principles and values inherent in the Christian faith (love, benevolence, charity, hospitality, solidarity, community, family, etc.) and not the idiosyncratic ideas that very ignorant people imposed into the text over time in the course of their mistranslations.

This is, in fact, Reformed theology. All that you have said regarding how we take Scripture literally, is what true Reformed theology does. The point of being called "reformed" is to do exactly what this is. There was bad theology, and because of eisegesis, and not exegesis. Calvin, Luther, Knox, Wycliff, all the way up to Gordan Clark and all those guys, looked to eliminate crappy theology and "make it better", so to speak. Hence, we call it reformed theology.
If you interpret the Bible correctly within the bounds of a grammatical(as you have shown) and historical context, then you have a literal translation.

Btw, that was great. A lot of key points, though I had know idea who many of those guys were. I've got some research to do.

If you really want to know what true Reformed Theology is, please read Gordon Clark. He does much of what you have pointed to here.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 8:14:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 9:53:26 PM, YYW wrote:
There are reasons, though, that literal interpretations were favored -really after the 1960s in the United States. I may go into those at a later date, but for now, this is enough to ruminate upon.

Just go back to original sources.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 4:53:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't get it. If you have a book that is supposedly perfect and handed down perfectly from God than the literal vs would survive intact through the translations. God would not allow his word to get lost. If God wanted to say "you discipline your kids" why not just directly say that, instead of trying to be poetic and say "spare the rod, and spoil the child"
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 5:06:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 4:53:47 AM, Wylted wrote:
I don't get it. If you have a book that is supposedly perfect and handed down perfectly from God than the literal vs would survive intact through the translations. God would not allow his word to get lost. If God wanted to say "you discipline your kids" why not just directly say that, instead of trying to be poetic and say "spare the rod, and spoil the child"

It wasn't written for fools, but for the believer.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 5:35:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 5:06:05 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:53:47 AM, Wylted wrote:
I don't get it. If you have a book that is supposedly perfect and handed down perfectly from God than the literal vs would survive intact through the translations. God would not allow his word to get lost. If God wanted to say "you discipline your kids" why not just directly say that, instead of trying to be poetic and say "spare the rod, and spoil the child"

It wasn't written for fools, but for the believer.

So he disguised his word because God hates people with Low IQs?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 11:31:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 5:35:15 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:06:05 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:53:47 AM, Wylted wrote:
I don't get it. If you have a book that is supposedly perfect and handed down perfectly from God than the literal vs would survive intact through the translations. God would not allow his word to get lost. If God wanted to say "you discipline your kids" why not just directly say that, instead of trying to be poetic and say "spare the rod, and spoil the child"

It wasn't written for fools, but for the believer.

So he disguised his word because God hates people with Low IQs?

According to the bible low IQ doesn't make you a fool.

But I see you are interested in slandering God instead of getting to know him or his word.

And if you knew his word you would know what the bible is and is not.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 4:10:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 11:31:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:35:15 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:06:05 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:53:47 AM, Wylted wrote:
I don't get it. If you have a book that is supposedly perfect and handed down perfectly from God than the literal vs would survive intact through the translations. God would not allow his word to get lost. If God wanted to say "you discipline your kids" why not just directly say that, instead of trying to be poetic and say "spare the rod, and spoil the child"

It wasn't written for fools, but for the believer.

So he disguised his word because God hates people with Low IQs?

According to the bible low IQ doesn't make you a fool.

But I see you are interested in slandering God instead of getting to know him or his word.

And if you knew his word you would know what the bible is and is not.

Sononly "insiders" can know his word? I have to believe in him and then I'llnget access to the bible's "true meaning"? Sounds stupid. If God were responsible for the bible he wouldn't hide the meaning of the passages for non believers and let the insiders know. He'd make it plain as day for everyone. If YYW's interpretation of "spare the rod and spoil the child" was correct, than instead of poetic language that can completely change the meaning of a phrase over time, God would directly say discipline your child or he'll grow up as undisciplined. He wouldn't hide the meaning from fools and non believers. Actually given the poetic language of the bible, he also hides his word from most believers as well.

Let's also forget the fact that you're not even quaifying your statements to me. For example you don't explain why only a certain group of people are allowed to see the word of the bible for what it is while it is hidden from others. You don't tell me specifically how the bible defines fool. You're just making a series of bare assertions, each one stupider than the rest
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 4:12:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 11:31:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:35:15 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:06:05 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:53:47 AM, Wylted wrote:
I don't get it. If you have a book that is supposedly perfect and handed down perfectly from God than the literal vs would survive intact through the translations. God would not allow his word to get lost. If God wanted to say "you discipline your kids" why not just directly say that, instead of trying to be poetic and say "spare the rod, and spoil the child"

It wasn't written for fools, but for the believer.

So he disguised his word because God hates people with Low IQs?

According to the bible low IQ doesn't make you a fool.

Oh yeah show me the passage.

But I see you are interested in slandering God instead of getting to know him or his word.


That presumes the fact that God is real, and that has never been shown to be the case. If it is the case make an argument for it or cite the scientific study that proves it.

And if you knew his word you would know what the bible is and is not.

His word is the bible, and I probably know the bible better than you do.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 4:35:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 11:31:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:35:15 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:06:05 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:53:47 AM, Wylted wrote:
I don't get it. If you have a book that is supposedly perfect and handed down perfectly from God than the literal vs would survive intact through the translations. God would not allow his word to get lost. If God wanted to say "you discipline your kids" why not just directly say that, instead of trying to be poetic and say "spare the rod, and spoil the child"

It wasn't written for fools, but for the believer.

So he disguised his word because God hates people with Low IQs?

According to the bible low IQ doesn't make you a fool.

But I see you are interested in slandering God instead of getting to know him or his word.

And if you knew his word you would know what the bible is and is not.

Can you quote chapter and verse for IQ testing? Many thanks.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 4:47:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 11:31:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:35:15 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:06:05 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:53:47 AM, Wylted wrote:
I don't get it. If you have a book that is supposedly perfect and handed down perfectly from God than the literal vs would survive intact through the translations. God would not allow his word to get lost. If God wanted to say "you discipline your kids" why not just directly say that, instead of trying to be poetic and say "spare the rod, and spoil the child"

It wasn't written for fools, but for the believer.

So he disguised his word because God hates people with Low IQs?

According to the bible low IQ doesn't make you a fool.

But I see you are interested in slandering God instead of getting to know him or his word.

And if you knew his word you would know what the bible is and is not.

So what you're saying is that you have to know what your holy book means to say before you can understand what it says? That doesn't make a lot of sense,
Geogeer
Posts: 4,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 4:50:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 9:05:37 PM, YYW wrote:

I'm sorry, but what a bunch of codswallop.

There were numerous partial translations into German prior to Luther. And definite full German translations prior to Luther or the printing press.

http://www.newadvent.org...

The "apocrypha" also known as the deuterocanonical books were part of every bible until the advent of Luther.

The canon of scripture, including the deuterocanonical books was affirmed at:
The council of Rome - 382
The council of Hippo - 393
The coulcil of Carthage - 397
By Pope Innocent I in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse - 405
Another council of Carthage reaffirmed this list and asked Pope Boniface once again "confirm the canon" - 419
The seventh ecumenical council of Nicea - 787
Council of Florence - 1442
Council of Trent - 1546
Vatican I - 1870
Vatican II - 1965

Hell the Gutenberg Bible even had the Deuterocanonical books in it...

What the Church had a problem with was bad translations, that changed the meaning of the text. Heck the Jews kept their Bible in Hebrew until the 19th century. Jews were just expected to learn Hebrew.

I could continue, but the amount of ignorance shown in this diatribe is amazing!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 5:01:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 4:12:25 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/28/2015 11:31:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:35:15 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:06:05 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:53:47 AM, Wylted wrote:
I don't get it. If you have a book that is supposedly perfect and handed down perfectly from God than the literal vs would survive intact through the translations. God would not allow his word to get lost. If God wanted to say "you discipline your kids" why not just directly say that, instead of trying to be poetic and say "spare the rod, and spoil the child"

It wasn't written for fools, but for the believer.

So he disguised his word because God hates people with Low IQs?

According to the bible low IQ doesn't make you a fool.

Oh yeah show me the passage.

But I see you are interested in slandering God instead of getting to know him or his word.


That presumes the fact that God is real, and that has never been shown to be the case. If it is the case make an argument for it or cite the scientific study that proves it.

And if you knew his word you would know what the bible is and is not.

His word is the bible, and I probably know the bible better than you do.

Simply put I know there is a war going on. We already see words change meaning, redefined by those that want no god. Even Einstein admits that we learn things by analogy. Assimulating knowledge by how it relates to what is everyday to us. These analogies, like a rubber sheet and marble, don't accurately describe the truth but more a relationship.

So Jesus spoke and parables so that a relationship and truth can be understood across time and liberal redefinitions of words.

Its why marriage of adam and eve isn't ever called a marriage. But called two are made one flesh. It didn't take long for the fools to distort this into a wife being property.

So plain wording would lose more of the lords intent with different cultures and time.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 6:19:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 9:50:51 PM, YYW wrote:

All of this danger could be avoided simply by gaining a firm understanding of the principles and values inherent in the Christian faith (love, benevolence, charity, hospitality, solidarity, community, family, etc.) and not the idiosyncratic ideas that very ignorant people imposed into the text over time in the course of their mistranslations.

I would agree the interpretations and translations of those early scrolls has been bastardized beyond recognition, which only tends to serve they were written by those who attempted to explain their personal versions of their beliefs claiming divine inspiration. Surely, no god would ever pen that which those men claimed were inspired by their god regardless of those mangled interpretations and translations. A god would be very clear, concise and accurate in any meaning it wished to get across to us, such that there would be no misrepresentations of his words. They would be clearly understood by all. And, if they managed to get distorted along the way, that god would simply show up and fix it rather than letting his own words turn into something completely different.

Not only that, but certainly the Christian faith did not originate the concepts of love, benevolence, charity, hospitality, solidarity, community, family, etc., they were concepts understood and practiced long before Christ was even a twinkle in God's eye by earlier civilizations. The Christian faith was merely a plagiarized version encapsulated into scrolls. If anything, for that is about all those efforts can be acknowledged.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 6:44:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 5:01:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:12:25 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/28/2015 11:31:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:35:15 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:06:05 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:53:47 AM, Wylted wrote:
I don't get it. If you have a book that is supposedly perfect and handed down perfectly from God than the literal vs would survive intact through the translations. God would not allow his word to get lost. If God wanted to say "you discipline your kids" why not just directly say that, instead of trying to be poetic and say "spare the rod, and spoil the child"

It wasn't written for fools, but for the believer.

So he disguised his word because God hates people with Low IQs?

According to the bible low IQ doesn't make you a fool.

Oh yeah show me the passage.

But I see you are interested in slandering God instead of getting to know him or his word.


That presumes the fact that God is real, and that has never been shown to be the case. If it is the case make an argument for it or cite the scientific study that proves it.

And if you knew his word you would know what the bible is and is not.

His word is the bible, and I probably know the bible better than you do.

Simply put I know there is a war going on. We already see words change meaning, redefined by those that want no god. Even Einstein admits that we learn things by analogy. Assimulating knowledge by how it relates to what is everyday to us. These analogies, like a rubber sheet and marble, don't accurately describe the truth but more a relationship.

So Jesus spoke and parables so that a relationship and truth can be understood across time and liberal redefinitions of words.

Its why marriage of adam and eve isn't ever called a marriage. But called two are made one flesh. It didn't take long for the fools to distort this into a wife being property.

So plain wording would lose more of the lords intent with different cultures and time.

I really don't believe that. I can read Cicero's writing from around the same time as the New Testament writings and the meanings are more clear in Cicero's writings, despite having less flowery language.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 8:22:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Forgive me, but sparing the rod is not poetic at all. It means exactly what it says. Correction at that time was a beating. Even your book of Proverbs is specific about that. I can't remember the verse just no but it reads that 'the blue of a wound cleanseth away wrath as to stripes on the inward parts of the belly'. The same book recommends stoning of adulterers and rebellions teenagers at the city gates. To try to soft soap it the way you are is dishonest at the very least.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 9:17:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 6:19:04 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/26/2015 9:50:51 PM, YYW wrote:

All of this danger could be avoided simply by gaining a firm understanding of the principles and values inherent in the Christian faith (love, benevolence, charity, hospitality, solidarity, community, family, etc.) and not the idiosyncratic ideas that very ignorant people imposed into the text over time in the course of their mistranslations.

I would agree the interpretations and translations of those early scrolls has been bastardized beyond recognition, which only tends to serve they were written by those who attempted to explain their personal versions of their beliefs claiming divine inspiration. Surely, no god would ever pen that which those men claimed were inspired by their god regardless of those mangled interpretations and translations. A god would be very clear, concise and accurate in any meaning it wished to get across to us, such that there would be no misrepresentations of his words. They would be clearly understood by all. And, if they managed to get distorted along the way, that god would simply show up and fix it rather than letting his own words turn into something completely different.

Not only that, but certainly the Christian faith did not originate the concepts of love, benevolence, charity, hospitality, solidarity, community, family, etc., they were concepts understood and practiced long before Christ was even a twinkle in God's eye by earlier civilizations. The Christian faith was merely a plagiarized version encapsulated into scrolls. If anything, for that is about all those efforts can be acknowledged.

You don't understand plagiarism, I suggest you keep your surface understanding of biblical stories to yourself. It makes you seem like one of the so called fools. Like many people who think similarity means copied, you simply assert that a pre-existing connection must have been true, you have no evidence. And when you consider that even the Egyptians had numerous books of the dead and those stories weren't uncovered to well after the scribes of the bible had written their stories, they couldn't have had access to them. So if you can prove word of mouth, go ahead, but I won't hold my breath.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 1:55:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 9:17:38 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/28/2015 6:19:04 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/26/2015 9:50:51 PM, YYW wrote:

All of this danger could be avoided simply by gaining a firm understanding of the principles and values inherent in the Christian faith (love, benevolence, charity, hospitality, solidarity, community, family, etc.) and not the idiosyncratic ideas that very ignorant people imposed into the text over time in the course of their mistranslations.

I would agree the interpretations and translations of those early scrolls has been bastardized beyond recognition, which only tends to serve they were written by those who attempted to explain their personal versions of their beliefs claiming divine inspiration. Surely, no god would ever pen that which those men claimed were inspired by their god regardless of those mangled interpretations and translations. A god would be very clear, concise and accurate in any meaning it wished to get across to us, such that there would be no misrepresentations of his words. They would be clearly understood by all. And, if they managed to get distorted along the way, that god would simply show up and fix it rather than letting his own words turn into something completely different.

Not only that, but certainly the Christian faith did not originate the concepts of love, benevolence, charity, hospitality, solidarity, community, family, etc., they were concepts understood and practiced long before Christ was even a twinkle in God's eye by earlier civilizations. The Christian faith was merely a plagiarized version encapsulated into scrolls. If anything, for that is about all those efforts can be acknowledged.

You don't understand plagiarism

Yes, I do, it's the taking of someone else work or ideas and claiming them as your own. Don't worry, Christianity doesn't hold a monopoly on plagiarism, other religions have been doing it for a long time.

I suggest you keep your surface understanding of biblical stories to yourself. It makes you seem like one of the so called fools.

Ah, isn't that cute, a so-called fool. Should be no problem for you to devastate anything I say, then.

Like many people who think similarity means copied, you simply assert that a pre-existing connection must have been true, you have no evidence. And when you consider that even the Egyptians had numerous books of the dead and those stories weren't uncovered to well after the scribes of the bible had written their stories, they couldn't have had access to them.

And, you are certain of that how, exactly?

So if you can prove word of mouth, go ahead, but I won't hold my breath.

Good idea, you might pass out.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 2:32:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 1:55:24 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/28/2015 9:17:38 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/28/2015 6:19:04 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/26/2015 9:50:51 PM, YYW wrote:

All of this danger could be avoided simply by gaining a firm understanding of the principles and values inherent in the Christian faith (love, benevolence, charity, hospitality, solidarity, community, family, etc.) and not the idiosyncratic ideas that very ignorant people imposed into the text over time in the course of their mistranslations.

I would agree the interpretations and translations of those early scrolls has been bastardized beyond recognition, which only tends to serve they were written by those who attempted to explain their personal versions of their beliefs claiming divine inspiration. Surely, no god would ever pen that which those men claimed were inspired by their god regardless of those mangled interpretations and translations. A god would be very clear, concise and accurate in any meaning it wished to get across to us, such that there would be no misrepresentations of his words. They would be clearly understood by all. And, if they managed to get distorted along the way, that god would simply show up and fix it rather than letting his own words turn into something completely different.

Not only that, but certainly the Christian faith did not originate the concepts of love, benevolence, charity, hospitality, solidarity, community, family, etc., they were concepts understood and practiced long before Christ was even a twinkle in God's eye by earlier civilizations. The Christian faith was merely a plagiarized version encapsulated into scrolls. If anything, for that is about all those efforts can be acknowledged.

You don't understand plagiarism

Yes, I do, it's the taking of someone else work or ideas and claiming them as your own. Don't worry, Christianity doesn't hold a monopoly on plagiarism, other religions have been doing it for a long time.
You missed my point. I know you understand the definition of plagiarism. My point is you have absolutely no proof of chain of custody and I'm certain you aren't up on the most recent thinking in regards to Christian scribes. Ex. Horus, not born from a virgin. You have to take from numerous different books of the dead from different "societies" in Eqypt to even get similarities. Not to mention the writings weren't available for Christians scribes. Second Sargon and Moses. The earliest physical evidence in regards to Sargon, actual written information that shows some parallels with Moses, is actually found on tablets written AFTER the earliest we have on Moses. And the basket in the river part, atypical behavior of river communities during that time, Sargon wasn't what Moses was based on, That's current scholarly thinking. Isis didn't resurrect Osiris , she reanimated him. I.e. gathered body parts and put him back together. She had sex with a phallus then gave birth to Horus . Having sex isn't a virgin birth.
I suggest you keep your surface understanding of biblical stories to yourself. It makes you seem like one of the so called fools.

Ah, isn't that cute, a so-called fool. Should be no problem for you to devastate anything I say, then.

Like many people who think similarity means copied, you simply assert that a pre-existing connection must have been true, you have no evidence. And when you consider that even the Egyptians had numerous books of the dead and those stories weren't uncovered to well after the scribes of the bible had written their stories, they couldn't have had access to them.

And, you are certain of that how, exactly?
Ummm, because archaeologists uncovering the written stories determined that they have been buried before biblical scribes wrote the stories and they didn't have access to them. Its called reading current information.
So if you can prove word of mouth, go ahead, but I won't hold my breath.

Good idea, you might pass out.
Exactly, nothing to the point. Same uneducated parroting of misinformation. Here read about Horus to start your education.
http://www.jonsorensen.net...
This will be a good start, I have others as well. Just name the so called plagiarized story. And then look into religious stories that were similar by societies that existed at the same time but were incapable of communication with each other. Parallel thinking is a recognised phenomenon. It's simple logic. Just because A occurred before B doesn't mean B was the result of A.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 2:35:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 4:53:47 AM, Wylted wrote:
I don't get it. If you have a book that is supposedly perfect and handed down perfectly from God than the literal vs would survive intact through the translations. God would not allow his word to get lost. If God wanted to say "you discipline your kids" why not just directly say that, instead of trying to be poetic and say "spare the rod, and spoil the child"

Not if there are hundreds of translations and revised translations, as well as the fact that earlier manuscripts were not found until rather recently.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 2:43:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 2:32:47 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
She had sex with a phallus then gave birth to Horus . Having sex isn't a virgin birth.
It's masturbation, irrelevant to virginity.
Do you really believe that virgins don't masturbate?
WOW.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin