Interpreting Theology

In hopes that this doesn't become another on-going debate, I'll say that I regard almost everything the Bible says as a kind of tool.

I think that needs clarification. When I read something from the Bible (or any other ancient religious text), it immediately becomes SMACKING of pyschological play. I never really give the literal text any credit, though.

I just see the entire thing as an overly-obvious control device.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Minion

Plus as Lisztman (Fjordor) pointed out, we have manuscripts that date back to a time when people who actually witness the events could have verified them. From a historical standpoint, the Bible doesn't live up to the standards most historians use to qualify something as "legend" or folklore.

Yea, witnesses to historical events are never biased or never skew them.

I mean, even look at the Civil War. The South still thinks they WON in some parts of the nation.

Its all about perspective and interpretation. (Whether or not the Bible was mutialted intentionally is up for grabs. I think yes. But, you know, it is impossible to pass down literature in so many languages for so many years and have it stay as intact as it was when it was first written down. IMPOSSIBLE.)

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Minion

Impossible according to whom? I mean, why would people assume these things. Copying the Bible was something a lot of poeple were wroking on independently. If two people copy something independently and you compare their copies and they agree, chances are, it's right. It doesn't take a lot of proof to show this. We use this kind of proof to put people in jail and on death row all the time. It's called corroborative evidence.

Have you ever even tried a simple game of telephone. You can't even get a drawing of a house to go through 20 people and come out accurately on the other end. I've tried it.

You don't understand behavioral sciences? Life is about perspective - it's about what a person sees, and the output from what they see. Its impossible for every person to see and duplicate things exactly as they saw them. Thats what we call "nature of man." Its a great thing. Theres no such thing as perfect! I am sure even YOU can agree with that.

Also, there are far too many factors involved. Mathematically, you know that the chances of getting something PERFECTLY INTACT after going through 2000 years of translation(thousands of factors alone there, esppecially when its translated into every language on the face of the planet, essentially) and being passed on or editted out (there's proof of it out there. Even the exclusion of important information) in a pure form is mathematically impossible.

But if you want to keep believing that it is and defy everything you've ever learned in your academic career, go ahead. It's your money and your religion.

The only factor you have on your side is that the Bible is the word of God - which even today is debatable.

You need to understand that there are THOUSANDS of religions out there claiming that THEY have the word of god in their hands. You're silly to think YOU have the right answer. You don't. And I would never claim that I had "a right answer" either.

Man has been pondering the "truth" about the world since day one. Theres a reason no one has any proof of any truth - because one doesn't exist in a united, tiny little bundle. Truth is in perception. It is the one constant.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Minion

First of all, you're not making any sense in comparing it to telephone. It's nothing at all like that. People have always, even to this day, made copies from the oldest source available. And, like we've mentioned a thousand times before, even though there is a gap between the dead sea scrolls and the 2nd oldest OT, they are identical. So, where's you telephone now? Quit talking out of your ass.

You're apparently very upset that I tried to explain how I view religion and it's followers.

I am sorry I do not see life the way you see it. We ARE talking about theology here. Thats pretty broad, once again.

I am saying that I have no interest in reading (and BELIEVING) anything that came out of an era from thousands of years ago.

And yes, its VERY SIMILAR to telephone, in a graphic sense. And thats even HARDER to duplicate.

Would you like to discuss what certain things mean in certain languages? The "language barriers?" Things that are hard-pressed to be properly translated from one language into another? Meanings that are lost entirely through either translation or natural evolution of words?

Maybe I should get Pang into this. He knows an awful lot about this.

I am telling you - AGAIN - that it is mathematically impossible to keep an original document's meaning and clarity intact after 2000 years of copying and translating. The meat of the matter is lost, leaving a skeleton of text, IF THAT.

This is why I put a lot of belief in the value of tradition instead of text

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Minion

Except, like I've said, a million times, it's not 2000 years of copying because we have manuscripts that date back to 100 something AD. So, I guess we couldn't keep our shit straight for a few decades. Or maybe people back then were just incompetent? I don't know. You're the one making outlandish assumptions. You tell me.

I can't say I trust anything thats been copied and translated so many times - even if it was only 500 years old, sir. (I won't even talk about how laughable it all is - I fear I will only enrage you more with my completely unrelated tangent!)

I just don't work like that. Sorry it offends you.

Besides. I've never been the kinda gal to hang on to every word of a book and hold it as a truth. I take things in stride and try to look at a bigger picture.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Minion

How do you even know how many times it was copied? Seriously.

I guess being a Christian means YOU DO KNOW how many times it's been copied?

I don't know the exact number - and I guarantee you no one does, but I know monks made a living of it, people have translated it for decades upon decades, and people have pondered over the meanings and proper portrayal of some of the translated words.

Before the press, the Good Word had to travel SOMEHOW. That was through any NUMBER of personal endeavors, independant or not.

Are you really that upset about it?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Minion

So you're entire argument about historical accuracy is based purely on assumption, devoid of fact? Cool. Fascinating discussion we're having here.

I don't know. You seem to be dodging pretty well. Interesting indeed. Annnnd, we have the old "I didn't bring it up" dodge. You actually ARE the one who brought it up. Click! Second paragraph. I DID instigate an argument if only because you can't ASSUME that witnesses are unbiased.

There is little to do with actual histotry in the Bible as it has to do with GOD. Sure, theres some accurate fact in there regarding some of the events of the time.

But I was under the impression that as a Christian, you follow the Bible not as a good historical novel, but as a guideline for your morals in your life.

Which is a pretty heavy topic to place on such a very old book. THATS what I am saying.

EDIT: And since we're getting complaints, I won't humor anything else from Minion about the validity of 1000+ (happy?) year old scriptures RIGHT AFTER I REPLY TO HIM.

We're supposed to be discussing theology and ALL FORMS thereof, yea?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Minion

See, when you say things like this, I can't help but get annoyed and not take you seriously. The Bible is the best source of ancient history we have. Literally, it has never been wrong regarding archeology. Sure, someone people thought it was from time to time, and then they'd find what they were looking for.

We're not even getting into how terrible a job they did if they did tamper with it. I mean, their savior riding into town on a donkey? Being spit on and taking it? Having women as the first messengers of the gospel (would have been very sketchy back then)? The list goes on. And what's with all the pointless detail in the Bible about which way Jesus went and when to what town and what river he cross and what road he followed? What purpose does that serve in a made up story? You don't hear about what route little red ridinghood took to go to grandma's house, do you? That's because myths don't generally bother with details, but when someone is recording history, they do bother with the details.

The Bible smacks of being a historical document and not a made up story.

The majority of it, sir, in MY opinion - is just that. Made up.

If it were about recording history, it wouldn't really speculate on inner working of the mind of the characters in it. It would tell the dry facts.

It was written, as you admitted, years AFTER the fact. So many years that generations would have passed.

The story works for you. Good. Great. Run with it! Don't expect everyone to follow suit.

And now, can we please stop with the shit about the validity of the Bible? I don't agree with you, you don't agree with me, and thats all it is - a matter of opinion. DEAL?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Minion

Nope. Since this thread is about debating, I don't think we're gonna stop doing that anytime soon. It's not like you can claim we're off topic.

I was trying to be courteous to other posters, but if you think you can exhaust ME with inane discussions about your beloved Bible, by all means. Try me.

I just thought it might be nice for, you know, you and I to shut the fuck up so other people won't be drowned out. Other people DO have opinions. I know you hate that.

And technically, we ARE kind of off topic. The topic is "theology." Not "the validity of the Bible."

Quote:

It's got both. Why does it talk about what Jesus is thinking? Because it's important. Literature can serve many purposes at once, can't it? Especially if it's good literature. Besides, there weren't text books back then. This is the way history was told.

Its not historic is it's speculation on the innerworking of a person's mind. Thats presumption.

Unless, of course, you want to argue that the Bible was actually written by god himself.

And "stories" and "fiction" are also classified as "literature." Is it a historical novel? Perhaps a THRILLER MYSTERY? If it weren't for the RELIGION section of Barnes & Noble, Minion, which shelf would the Bible be placed upon? I don't think it even qualifies for the philosophy section!

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Minion

Theology is the "knowledge of God." Since the Bible is about God, it and anything about it are fair game.

But we're not even discussing God.

Quote:

Maybe the author was told what the historical figure in question was thinking about by the person himself?

There's more than one author of the Bible, Minion.

Not to mention, like you said, written GENERATIONS AFTER the events occurred. These are your words.

People didn't live up to 100 back then, dude. They were lucky to see 40.

Quote:

First of all, it generally has it's own section. Unless you go to a second-rate B&N that has more varieties of latte than it has books. Secondly, what's your point? If there was no mystery section, where would Sherlock Holmes go? Who cares?

My point is that if it were used as a historical document exclusively, it would be in the history section. Not right next to the New Age Wicca books in the religion section.

I re-iterate: There is some historical truth in the Bible. But thats not it's expressed purpose. That would be "to spread the word of God."

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Minion

It's like hearing about it from your grandpa.

"Back in the day, when I was a kid, I walked 30 miles in the snow BAREFOOT to get to school! You little ungrateful BASTARDS!"

That was always totally true and historic. ALWAYS BELIEVE YOUR GRANDPA!

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Minion

Not everyone's grandpa was senile. Besides, if they only lived till they were 40 (many lived longer) their bodies deteriorated before their minds ever could. No reason not to trust their memory. Especially, like I said, when so many of them agree on something.

The only benefit you get is that this tradition doesn't get translated a WHOLE BUNCH OF TIMES over again. People just add their own little spin.

And remember - anything that comes out of a human's mouth has a spin.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Minion

But remember - if several humans, independent of each other say the same thing, it's probably true. Or at least true enough to get you the chair if these people claim you murdered someone. I'd say we as a society have a great deal of faith in this kind of evidence.

Aren't you the one who thinks if something is said in majority, it is the right decision?

I bet burning Joan of Arc was a great idea. Let's not forget those Nazis! And the Inquisition? Perhaps running the American Natives off of their land entirely? Yea. Those weren't bad decisions at all.

Historically speaking, thats very, very wrong. Especially when you're talking about something abnormal like an apparition, a UFO, or maybe a voice from God.

It's out of the ordinary. People WANT to believe in these things. So they will. They are COMFORTED by each other. But don't fool yourself into thinking that if MANY believe, then its TRUE.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Minion

We're not talking about majority decsions. Look, if 5 million people see a UFO and they all describe it the same way, then it probably happened. The idea that many people can hallucinate or will lie about something the exact same way? Now, THAT'S mathematically impossible.

BUT MINION!:

Originally Posted by Minion

But remember - if several humans, independent of each other say the same thing, it's probably true.

Do you have any idea how many people have claimed to see the same exact kind of UFO flying around in the sky - no knowledge of each other or other sightings - and have the SAME EXACT VISION?

HOLY SHIT, I GUESS THAT MEANS THEY DO EXIST!

Come on. You've got a scientific brain. Use it.

All I am saying is that its a great story -I NEVER denied that. But thats all it is: One giant fable. And I have a feeling thats what it's original intention was. People just manipulated it through it's evolution.

You should read Canticle for Lebowitz. ^_^

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Minion

Don't tell me you have information if I want it. Post it. Quit telling us what you know and show us.

Just curious: Don't scream at me.

What if he has to copy and past the said information?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Minion

Then he's not debating. He's plagarizing. That's not even legal.

I beg to differ.

If he posts the source of his information and he is using it as a debating aide, I don't see whats wrong with it.

Perhaps a link would suffice?

I am just asking because, you know, I don't want to get threatened with thread bans because I would post some data from another site with a link. PLEASE do not flip out on me, Minion. ;_;

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Minion

Referencing is not copying and pasting verbatim a source. Try that with one of your professors. See if you don't get expelled.

Are you going to answer my question, or are you going to bark at me some more?

Besides which, this is the internet. Not a thesis on the historical validity of the Bible. Would it be a compromise if he gave you a link? Or would you not accept that, either?

Relax, Minion. Come listen to NPR with me in the truck with a cup of coffee. ;_;

Jam it back in, in the dark.