Interpretation of the bible

[SteelerMan]

The bible is supposed to be the written word of god. Let's look at this for a second. The bible as written by 'god' has been translated many times as has been said in a few threads on this site. Kings have asked for their own translations. In those translations, words and phrases have been changed, omitted or added. The versions are different. Now with different versions there can be different interpretations. Do they all say the same thing? Now many christians defend the bible in different ways. Some say the bible is to be taken literally (i.e. devil/snake spoke to Eve in the garden of eden, Noah story, etc.). They argue 'why would he cloud man's thoughts or try to confuse him with something other than literal meaning'? Others say that portions are just stories or parables to be taken figuratively (i.e. four horsemen, Noah's ark). So what do we have? We have multiple versions (written by men) of a book (written by god) that are interpreted literally or figuratively. My question is which version of the bible is supposed to be the correct version and how is a christian supposed to interpret the bible? How can anyone make sense of any of this?

I'll stick with science.

[Kumbafu]

My question is which version of the bible is supposed to be the correct version and how is a christian supposed to interpret the bible? How can anyone make sense of any of this?

The world will never know. The Deas Sea scrolls are significantly incomplete. Even if they were 100% complete perfect translation and interpretation is near impossible.

I had a discussion on this with a zealot. He said that there was enough of the scrolls that survived where the holes could be filled in accurately.

It was like hitting a brick wall. There's nothing to do but walk away shaking your head.

Oh, he also says he knows the "signs" as to when the world will come to an end.

Part of them were an abundance of natural disasters. He pointed out that there have been a lot lately. I tried to explain that taking such a small segment of time [lately] and somehow gleaning a trend was insane.

Another will be wars between nations. Uh, when have we been FREE of wars between nations?

He said so many idiotic things that most of them escape me. I wish I had a video of the conversation.

[phrog]

One could spend days here (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/) and not grasp it all. You'll be amazed, amused, outraged, and most of all, taught a thing or two.

[Stumpy]

If it was the word of god why was it recorded by a bunch of nomads riding around on camels and living in tents? If it was truly THE text you would think that god could have been able to write it himself and leave a good copy lying around somewhere. :rolleyes:

[deltagear]

An interesting note I learned while I was a pagan.

Original Line:"Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live."
Post Translation:"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Pagans are considered witches by Christians...Which is not entirely inaccurate however the parallel to the bible reference,supplied by myself, above was what caught my attention.

[Stumpy]

Pagans are considered witches by Christians...Which is not entirely inaccurate however the parallel to the bible reference,supplied by myself, above was what caught my attention.

What viewpoint outside of Christianity do Christians not consider witches, devils or the like? Well, most of us atheists are considered communists, not sure how they link those two together but they often do...

[Logicat]

What viewpoint outside of Christianity do Christians not consider witches, devils or the like? Well, most of us atheists are considered communists, not sure how they link those two together but they often do...

From what I've read, the question of Atheism and communism became permanently linked due to the rantings and camapign of Senator Joe McCarthy in the 1940's and 50's. There were Atheists long before communism although the word 'Atheist' was only coined in 1846 by George Holyoake.

I constantly run into people that claim Adolph Hitler was an Atheist. Not only was he not an Atheist, but the belt buckles of his troops were all stamped with, "Gott mit uns" or "God with us". Certainly not something an Atheist would do.

I personally think most people refer to Hitler as an Athiest because that's the lowest degradation they can think of to call someone, but that's just my opinion.

[minorwork]

but the belt buckles of his troops were all stamped with, "Gott mit uns" or "God with us". Certainly not something an Atheist would do.

What an interesting bit of knowledge. I would love to be able to show pictures of this buckle and though I respect your reputation at Gnawed, I probe for at least a Wiki or better reference to this. It is a powerful rebuttal and I would like to be able to footnote it. Any help?

[lorryfach]

belt buckle pics (http://www.germanhelmet.com/4092.htm)
totally sourceless wiki ref (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns)
long column about it, incl. the point the phrase was also on WWI belt buckles (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance26.html)

I heart Google.

[home8896]

long column about it, incl. the point the phrase was also on WWI belt buckles (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance26.html)

I heart Google.

The last paragraph of that link is very odd. He quotes two founding fathers who called war a plague and scourge, then quoted another who called it the health of the nation. Which is it? The whole article seemed like someone who is not happy to have seen the light on some issues and is still trying to drown out reality with whatever he or she used to think was true. Odd article, as I said.

[minorwork]

Exactly what my lazy ass needed. You guys stand and deliver. Amazing. Thanks much.

[Logicat]

What an interesting bit of knowledge. I would love to be able to show pictures of this buckle and though I respect your reputation at Gnawed, I probe for at least a Wiki or better reference to this. It is a powerful rebuttal and I would like to be able to footnote it. Any help?

minorwork, I've known about the belt buckles for many years. When I need a reminder of just what the wording is I put "belt buckles Hitler's troops" into a search engine. I use Google but I'm sure the same information is available just about anywhere. Please do check it out.

I value my integrity and reputation. That's one of the reasons I try to make sure I'm not saying anything that's incorrect although I have been led astray a few times. This is not one of those times. _^..^_

[minorwork]

Didn't know a thing about the buckles. I only had a few lines from Dawkins's God Delusion as to Hitler's beliefs in this area and had been probing for more. I too use Google. Used it once to see if Bill Clinton was right about the definition of sex. Led to some dark areas that only Grumpy could intelligently speak to.;)
</IMG>

[chasm]

Here's the full paragraph that the line "War is the health of the state" was taken from. And if this doesn't chill you ....

War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense. The machinery of government sets and enforces the drastic penalties; the minorities are either intimidated into silence, or brought slowly around by a subtle process of persuasion which may seem to them really to be converting them. Of course, the ideal of perfect loyalty, perfect uniformity is never really attained. The classes upon whom the amateur work of coercion falls are unwearied in their zeal, but often their agitation instead of converting, merely serves to stiffen their resistance. Minorities are rendered sullen, and some intellectual opinion bitter and satirical. But in general, the nation in wartime attains a uniformity of feeling, a hierarchy of values culminating at the undisputed apex of the State ideal, which could not possibly be produced through any other agency than war. Loyalty - or mystic devotion to the State - becomes the major imagined human value. Other values, such as artistic creation, knowledge, reason, beauty, the enhancement of life, are instantly and almost unanimously sacrificed, and the significant classes who have constituted themselves the amateur agents of the State are engaged not only in sacrificing these values for themselves but in coercing all other persons into sacrificing them.
http://struggle.ws/hist_texts/warhealthstate1918.html

[OldChurchGuy]

The bible is supposed to be the written word of god. Let's look at this for a second. The bible as written by 'god' has been translated many times as has been said in a few threads on this site. Kings have asked for their own translations. In those translations, words and phrases have been changed, omitted or added. The versions are different. Now with different versions there can be different interpretations. Do they all say the same thing? Now many christians defend the bible in different ways. Some say the bible is to be taken literally (i.e. devil/snake spoke to Eve in the garden of eden, Noah story, etc.). They argue 'why would he cloud man's thoughts or try to confuse him with something other than literal meaning'? Others say that portions are just stories or parables to be taken figuratively (i.e. four horsemen, Noah's ark). So what do we have? We have multiple versions (written by men) of a book (written by god) that are interpreted literally or figuratively. My question is which version of the bible is supposed to be the correct version and how is a christian supposed to interpret the bible? How can anyone make sense of any of this?

I'll stick with science.

As you have deduced, there is no universally agreed interpretation of the Bible. This is due mainly to the fact none of the original manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament are known to exist. So what was added, deleted, and/or modified from the original text is impossible to say with certainty.

Therefore, one can argue that any translation of the Bible is as accurate as any other. Others will argue that only certain translations are to be read (NASB seems to be the translation of choice for evangelicals while the NRSV is predominant among main stream denominations. The KJV can be found among almost any group.).

Religion, by it's very nature, is subjective so it makes sense that understandings / interpretations would be so diverse.

If you are wanting to apply scienctific standards to religion, then I am afraid you are in for disappointment and frustration.

Enough lecturing.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

[Logicat]

Religion, by it's very nature, is subjective so it makes sense that understandings / interpretations would be so diverse.

If you are wanting to apply scienctific standards to religion, then I am afraid you are in for disappointment and frustration.

OldChurchGuy

OCG and other "defenders",

With your knowledge on both sides of the science as well as theoretic slate, do you foresee a time, at ANY time, that science and religion will be on the same side?

Every now and then religion slides a little closer to science. It may be just an odd religion here and there that moves that way to start but religions do change their sermons on occasion. God only became such a loving symbol within the last few of generations or so. Before that he was seen as not much more than fire and brimstone to the majority from what I've seen. Parishoners could point and scold the sinners to show how righteous they were in comparison. Now we have laws against bullying, discrimination and soon, "lookism" so that behavior is not tolerated. We also have the modern medical miracles that correct or at least hide the most obvious deformaties. There had to be a way for god to still keep his position so it looks like the churches changed his position to being loving and forgiving.

Speaking of such, how do the modern believers handle the admonition in the Bible that those with abnormalities and deformaties are "abhorred" and to be avoided? If, once their deformaties and obvious physical problems are corrected or hidden, does this mean they're accepted by god and the religious are protected from god's vengence of punishing them for the association? If this admonition can be dropped, along with planting two different crops side by side, or wearing clothes made of two different fabrics, and the laws concerning slaves, then would it not be possible to one day overlook the parts of the Bible that "abhor" gays? What about witches and fortune tellers? Even some churches have their "seers" and patriarchs to predict people's roles in their futures.

To me, there are a number of problems with the Bible that are not addressed in the average conversation. Isn't the providence of the churches to be the link between the public and their gods? Seems that people and their churches pick and choose what they want to hold on to or leave by the wayside. It's no wonder there are those that just can't "buy into" the religious notions. I've not seen a number of these instances addressed by anyone. Perhaps, one day, this too will change?

[OldChurchGuy]

OCG and other "defenders",

With your knowledge on both sides of the science as well as theoretic slate, do you foresee a time, at ANY time, that science and religion will be on the same side?

Every now and then religion slides a little closer to science. It may be just an odd religion here and there that moves that way to start but religions do change their sermons on occasion. God only became such a loving symbol within the last few of generations or so. Before that he was seen as not much more than fire and brimstone to the majority from what I've seen. Parishoners could point and scold the sinners to show how righteous they were in comparison. Now we have laws against bullying, discrimination and soon, "lookism" so that behavior is not tolerated. We also have the modern medical miracles that correct or at least hide the most obvious deformaties. There had to be a way for god to still keep his position so it looks like the churches changed his position to being loving and forgiving.

Speaking of such, how do the modern believers handle the admonition in the Bible that those with abnormalities and deformaties are "abhorred" and to be avoided? If, once their deformaties and obvious physical problems are corrected or hidden, does this mean they're accepted by god and the religious are protected from god's vengence of punishing them for the association? If this admonition can be dropped, along with planting two different crops side by side, or wearing clothes made of two different fabrics, and the laws concerning slaves, then would it not be possible to one day overlook the parts of the Bible that "abhor" gays? What about witches and fortune tellers? Even some churches have their "seers" and patriarchs to predict people's roles in their futures.

To me, there are a number of problems with the Bible that are not addressed in the average conversation. Isn't the providence of the churches to be the link between the public and their gods? Seems that people and their churches pick and choose what they want to hold on to or leave by the wayside. It's no wonder there are those that just can't "buy into" the religious notions. I've not seen a number of these instances addressed by anyone. Perhaps, one day, this too will change?

Sometime back I read statement that still gives me pleasure. It read something like when science scales the last great wall of knowledge they will find a shaded garden where God and the theologians are having tea. The gist being that science and theology will eventually find the same truths at some point in the future. Whether such an idea becomes reality or not, I find the picture amusing and comforting (but then again, I am a theist). :)

On the changing face of the chuch, it is my understanding during the 18th and 19th centuries of American history, the Old Testament was favored far more than the New Testament. This is because settlers and immigrants could more closely identify with the battles and conflicts that Hebrew Bible characters like Abraham, Moses, and David coped with. Once the land was settled and things were at a comparative peace, the New Testament became more relevant.

Regarding the paragraph on abhorance and abomination of people with abnormalities, it seems to me the church has been in a constant state of evolution about what is "critical" and what isn't. It is my understanding, for example, churches at the beginning of the 20th Century were faced with three great crises:

Paved Parking - Are we REALLY going to commit time and money to accomodate those @#$%^!! horseless carriages which are showing up more and more? Paved parking is hard on the horses hooves.
Telephones -What if the phone rings during a service? Who will answer it?
Indoor Plumbing - Do you really want those kind of bodily functions occurring in God's house?These were grave issues for churches even though they seem silly to us now. Likewise, the battle for what is acceptable to God and where a line MUST be drawn is never ending. Still, it does force us to examine an issue more closely and decide if upholding a given tradition is worthwhile. There are a variety of teachings from the OT concepts quoted in the Midrash and the Mishnah. Both are commentaries which have helped Jews through the centuries gain greater insight and understanding of the above verses and how they apply to today. Unfortunately, the Christian church has nothing similar and so is much more fractured.

I honestly think the church would have been better off to not cannonize the books and allow what seems to me anyway a continuing evolution of understanding and faith. But, that would have allowed the Gnostics to survive (among other movements) and there is no telling what Christianity would look like today. Perhaps Constantine made a mistake by elevating Christianity to a recognized state religion.

You are correct that every Christian denomination is guilty to some degree of picking and choosing what they wish to believe and what they wish to ignore. Are the snake handling churches of the Appalachians less Christian then the Methodists? Are they more Christian?

Enough preaching.

OldChurchGuy

[stan2reason]

Sometime back I read statement that still gives me pleasure. It read something like when science scales the last great wall of knowledge they will find a shaded garden where God and the theologians are having tea. The gist being that science and theology will eventually find the same truths at some point in the future. Whether such an idea becomes reality or not, I find the picture amusing and comforting (but then again, I am a theist). :)

:)

To be fair to us atheists, we only proclaim that there is no evidence that God exists. Said another way, God's existence is as unlikely as Zeus' or Odin's or the Tooth Fairy's. On scaling that wall, if we find God or the Tooth Fairy or Odin or Zeus it would be entirely consistent with science to then believe. Although I suppose some of your brethren (not you I know) would say that God would not accept our belief at that point. It appears that, to some, belief without evidence is the point.

At any rate, I take some solace in the fact that there'd be one believer waiting for us named OCG who would not throw egg in our faces...right?

Cheers!
S2R

[phrog]

[snip]..interpretations would be so diverse.

OldChurchGuy
The more you read, diverse it gets.

[minorwork]

Some movement from both sides maybe? I can only think that some of the true bible thumping young earth creationists would not know their own God if He offered a critique of their positions. They seem the hard solipsist no matter their denial of the position. I think it must stem from the Aristotelian days when experimental verification was frowned upon in favor of intuition.

The Italian Copernicans, Bruno and Galileo, learned. Bruno the hard way. Speculating aloud that Copernican ideas opened the way to infinite space and the existence of other planetary systems, he was burned at the stake per order of the representatives of a loving God, by his choice. He was hoping that a post sentence deathbed partial recantation would soften Pope Clemente VIII's heart and spare his life. But, no do overs. Thirty three years later Galileo was given the chance to choose. The stake or life imprisonment. Nice to have a choice.

Giordano Bruno. The "Jesus" of science. No cross. A burning stake.

Quantum physics relies on consciousness as the "creator" of worlds. The role of the observer and his actions come into its own in the quantum theory. Combine Jung's active imagination techniques on the personal level and I think on that personal level an amalgam can be achieved.

But I am reluctant to mention to the old thumpers my incredulity on their position. The matter is decided, within limits, on their personal level.
If they have come to grips with their unconscious, then I cannot justify a viscious attack on a bible thumper without provocation. In their world, they are indeed God as much as I in mine.

[OldChurchGuy]

:)

To be fair to us atheists, we only proclaim that there is no evidence that God exists. Said another way, God's existence is as unlikely as Zeus' or Odin's or the Tooth Fairy's. On scaling that wall, if we find God or the Tooth Fairy or Odin or Zeus it would be entirely consistent with science to then believe. Although I suppose some of your brethren (not you I know) would say that God would not accept our belief at that point. It appears that, to some, belief without evidence is the point.

At any rate, I take some solace in the fact that there'd be one believer waiting for us named OCG who would not throw egg in our faces...right?

Cheers!
S2R

Of course right!

I have trouble imagining God would throw the lot of atheists to some oblivion. Even Thomas was given room to doubt and, to the best of my knowledge, was not condemned to any eternal punishment.

Doubt, from my perspective, brings investigation which brings enlightenment. For some, the investigation leads to conclude there is no tangible evidence for the existense of God. For others, the investigation leads to an affirmation of faith and, for others (me, for example) a much broader acceptance of diversity.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

[stan2reason]

You are correct that every Christian denomination is guilty to some degree of picking and choosing what they wish to believe and what they wish to ignore. Are the snake handling churches of the Appalachians less Christian then the Methodists? Are they more Christian

WARNING!!! Offensive Language

Or maybe these guys (http://www.godhatesfags.com/) have it right? Who's to know really?

[OldChurchGuy]

WARNING!!! Offensive Language

Or maybe these guys (http://www.godhatesfags.com/) have it right? Who's to know really?

First, I want everyone to know the links in my earlier post are not mine. Somehow my computer is having an affair with Amazon so phrases which are also book titles become links. Weird, but amusing at times.

Regarding the link you provided, I get the impression this man would find John Calvin was not rigid enough. Gray is definitely not in his vocabulary.

Were his message not so anti-Christian (at least as I understand Christianity) it would be funny. As it is, this rigid morality does nothing to further any message of hope or help or acceptance. Rather it thrives on hatred. But, as is pointed out in their website, they cling to their understanding of 5 points of Calvinism and ignore anything in or out of the Bible that may contradict it.

Since I don't share his theology, from his viewpoint I am doomed with the rest of you. So be it.

OldChurchGuy

[phrog]

I find Fred Phelps proof that no god exists. If indeed there were a god in heaven he would surely strike the likes of WBC down with all the might of Zeus!
Of course their existance also shows that we haven't evolved as a species as far as we will or are likely to in the next few million years.

[minorwork]

How do they stand themselves? Wonder if they could be sicced on command.

Anybody seen the 1983 movie Videodrome? Trailer here: Videodrome

Religious fanatics put cleansing of earth into practice. Totally freaky show. Not a light hearted musical comedy. James Woods and Deborah Harry.

Why does the Westboro Baptist Church bring this David Cronenberg work to mind?:rolleyes: Death to Videodrome! Long Live the New Flesh!
</IMG>

[stan2reason]

First, I want everyone to know the links in my earlier post are not mine. Somehow my computer is having an affair with Amazon so phrases which are also book titles become links. Weird, but amusing at times.

I've had the same thing happen--it's problematic in a forum where people commonly link to other sites or reference the source of their argument. David, if you're reading--is there a way for these links to be highlighted in a different color so we know when a link is the author's?

[stan2reason]

Since I don't share his theology, from his viewpoint I am doomed with the rest of you. So be it.

On reaching Hades, wanna grab a pint with phrog, minorwork and me? We'll be in the 6th circle of Hell with all the other heretics. If this lunatic is right, the place will be very hip, well educated, beautifully decorated and we'll all be stylishly dressed. Now that I think of it, might be hard to find a pint--we may have to settle for an appletini. I kid because I love! :)

Of course you don't share this madman's theology and I don't mean to insinuate that. He illustrates quite effectively, however, the problem with belief. The 5 points of Calvinism and the specific hatred espoused on his site have a solid theological foundation. There's little that can be offered as an argument against his beliefs unless subjective criteria are applied and weight assigned to theological principles. I can certainly find theological arguments for the kind of loving Christianity you practice (and I hope I practiced when a Christian) but I can also find theological arguments for hatred. When I was a Christian I simply chose to put more weight on areas of scripture and theological principles that were more palatable to me or that, quite frankly, wouldn't get me arrested.

There are many ways to rationalize theological choices--I used them all. Perhaps most commonly Christians choose to be non-literalists. The bible was written by men influenced by their time and as such reflects society of yesteryear. The principles within are God's guiding light for us today. This is perhaps the easiest way to ignore bone-crushingly horrible acts of hatred documented throughout the text. The flaw here, of course, is that the good bits are also subject to the same qualifications. What if the part about loving your neighbor and the Sermon on the Mount were the words of someone caught up in the first century A.D.'s version of Woodstock? What if Phelps is right? It's just as likely. If I'm a Christian, the only thing that makes me think he's wrong is that...well...I think I'm right!

Life's even more displeasing if you choose the literalist route. In this case you're much more likely to come out thinking Phelps is right even if you think he's wrong. The texts are there, we all know it.

So why am I rambling on about this. Several reasons: 1. I very much enjoy civil discussion with very smart people of opposing views, 2. I like to hear the sound of my own voice (I'm really quite full of myself), and 3. I think there's a better way.

Belief has benefits, there's no way around it. For the individual, it can provide peace and actualization. For some groups it provides a framework for altruism. On balance, though, it's fatally flawed. It should not allow for the likes of Phelps and when his kind crawls out from under the rock there oughta be a text that says, "people of Earth, this is God speaking. I don't hate gay people and neither should you. As a matter of fact, I don't want to see you hating anyone, ever, period. Oh, and stay away from trans fats--that stuff'll kill you*." The atheist has an easier time with his ilk. I'm able to say "no, it's not right to say those things because: a) it's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, and b) that book you're reading is a fairy tale.

Belief, in particular moderate or non-literalist belief fails here for two reasons. First, it has no credible argument against his vapid meanderings. Second, by accepting scripture as a work in need of interpretation it provides the likes of Phelps a tacit endorsement. The parts of the bible and corresponding theology that are hateful should not be given less weight or a more palatable interpretation, they should be rent from the book--vocally and with great fanfare by sensible people. If it's wrong, it's wrong--condemn it! Didn't Jesus say, "if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out?"

Now I've got you writing a new version of scripture. I'm not sure you've got that kind of time. A much simpler solution would be to consider the whole lot poppycock...no? Just checking.
:)

Cheers!
S2R

*Apologies to Sam Harris