[Trek Realist]

If I didn't see it for myself while watching The Rachel Maddow Show I wouldn't have believed it. An actual, real, effort by conservatives to rewrite the bible to suit their right wing sensibilities. Check Conservpaeda for the goals of this group.

Mark Twain must be laughing his ass off right now with this effort to update God from being a "... malicious thug" to being Tony Soprano

[Shlomi of Vulcan]

Don't know why this surprises you. Several liberal and conservative thinking factions within both Christian and political circles have successfully rewritten the Bible several times over the millenia. Hell, that is basically how the New Testatment (NT) came into being in the first place. It was political leader Emperor Constantine that set into motion with the Nicene Council the idea of getting an acceptable NT canon in the first place. It took about another 200 years to get it all together, depending on the political element at the time, but it finally ended with pretty much the accepted canon today.

A similar circumstance surrounds the Jewish Bible - mistakenly referred to as the Old Testament, but that process began during the time of Ezekiel during the Babylonian exile when the Israelis no longer had a temple and the need for a canonical set of scriptures was seen....so, the remnant of Levitical priests and the rise of rabbis were instituted to perform that task so that by 70 years later when the Jews returned to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple, they had formulated a Torah Scroll that consisted of the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Writings (now known by most of the world as the OT). I would have loved to be a fly on the wall for both of those gatherings to see what and why some were accepted as canon and some weren't. I have no doubt all rejects were either politically or religious-biased based.

In recent times (within the last 50 years) there have already been two such renderings - One more liberal and one more conservative --

The first is called the NIV and the other is simply called The Book.

This post has been edited by Shlomi of Vulcan: 07 October 2009 - 02:57 PM

[sevnson_71]

Shlomi of Vulcan, on 07 October 2009 - 02:53 PM, said:

Don't know why this surprises you. Several liberal and conservative thinking factions within both Christian and political circles have successfully rewritten the Bible several times over the millenia. Hell, that is basically how the New Testatment (NT) came into being in the first place. It was political leader Emperor Constantine that set into motion with the Nicene Council the idea of getting an acceptable NT canon in the first place. It took about another 200 years to get it all together, depending on the political element at the time, but it finally ended with pretty much the accepted canon today.

A similar circumstance surrounds the Jewish Bible - mistakenly referred to as the Old Testament, but that process began during the time of Ezekiel during the Babylonian exile when the Israelis no longer had a temple and the need for a canonical set of scriptures was seen....so, the remnant of Levitical priests and the rise of rabbis were instituted to perform that task so that by 70 years later when the Jews returned to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple, they had formulated a Torah Scroll that consisted of the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Writings (now known by most of the world as the OT). I would have loved to be a fly on the wall for both of those gatherings to see what and why some were accepted as canon and some weren't. I have no doubt all rejects were either politically or religious-biased based.

In recent times (within the last 50 years) there have already been two such renderings - One more liberal and one more conservative --

The first is called the NIV and the other is simply called The Book.

What he said. Also the Torah is only the first five books of the OT as far as I knew. But they also chucked in things like the Psalms, historic and prophetic writings, But hey at least they're only monkeying with the King James Version.

The Nicene Council was the root cause of he first fracture in Christianity, because they chucked out a bunch of books used in what is now the the African(Coptic) and Eastern rites. Before that the apostles themselves were arguing about whether or not Christians were obligated to follow Mosaic purification rites or whether being Christian precluded them from them. The Universal edition I have(which I bought from the Parish where I was confirmed, they haven't used the St. Joseph one for thirty years or more) have all those books included, but marked as Apocryphal texts. I actually threw a curveball to a Mormon with that one

So I guess I'm not surprised that Conservatives are re-writing the Bible, actually loving your neighbor without judgment isn't their way, but I wonder how many of them will honestly give up their KJV Bibles because it no longer conveys "their message" any faster than they give up their "bed bottles".

[Trek Realist]

Yeah, I am aware of those little tidbits of history, I just find it ironic that the unimpeachable word of god needs a rewrite

[trekkin']

I can dig it, TR. Hey...conservatives have to do something with themselves. As a LIBERAL, I would prefer it if they left he bibles and torahs and korans in the fiction section of the library. I guess if they put it in the self help section, that would be okay. I dunno...

Funny though. Maybe they can make a red bible and a blue bible? That would rock! Jesus could be a bass player instead of a fisherman. Just a thought.

[Captain_THC]

Thats the beauty of bible. The bullphlox applies to all and at any moment in time and space. Cant argue with such a "truth" as it escapes rational, before the rational thinking can start.


And churches... all of them together, have more assets on the planet earth in their possesion, than all top corporations combined.

... anyone get it?

This post has been edited by Captain_THC: 07 October 2009 - 10:45 PM

[Captain Ezri Dax]

Trek Realist, on 07 October 2009 - 07:48 PM, said:

Yeah, I am aware of those little tidbits of history, I just find it ironic that the unimpeachable word of god needs a rewrite

The word of God was written by man in the name of God. The bible change from generation to generation with the reason why it is important. The bible changes how it is written from time to time. Up to say the 1970's there was only the King James Bible that came about during the 17th century if I am right with a manner of speaking that went out of use for over a century.

There are a number of new versions of the bible dealing with different faiths so the King James Bible in all fairness will go out of use in a century. Still, since it is a rewrite of a rewrite it always will lose its meaning and original value century after century. The problem with the bible, the last official cannon book is now almost 2000 years old with the last book written in the late 1st century. The older the books get from its time it was written it starts to lose its value. The bible in the 21st century is less important than the bible of the 20th century and will have less importance in the 22nd century. In the 31st century, the bible will have less importance, and more so in the 41st century.

[Captain_THC]

Ezri86, on 07 October 2009 - 11:02 PM, said:

The word of God was written by man in the name of God. The bible change from generation to generation with the reason why it is important. The bible changes how it is written from time to time. Up to say the 1970's there was only the King James Bible that came about during the 17th century if I am right with a manner of speaking that went out of use for over a century.

There are a number of new versions of the bible dealing with different faiths so the King James Bible in all fairness will go out of use in a century. Still, since it is a rewrite of a rewrite it always will lose its meaning and original value century after century. The problem with the bible, the last official cannon book is now almost 2000 years old with the last book written in the late 1st century. The older the books get from its time it was written it starts to lose its value. The bible in the 21st century is less important than the bible of the 20th century and will have less importance in the 22nd century. In the 31st century, the bible will have less importance, and more so in the 41st century.

Ezri girl... thanks for elaborating my thoughts.

[sevnson_71]

Ezri86, on 07 October 2009 - 11:02 PM, said:

The word of God was written by man in the name of God. The bible change from generation to generation with the reason why it is important. The bible changes how it is written from time to time. Up to say the 1970's there was only the King James Bible that came about during the 17th century if I am right with a manner of speaking that went out of use for over a century.

There are a number of new versions of the bible dealing with different faiths so the King James Bible in all fairness will go out of use in a century. Still, since it is a rewrite of a rewrite it always will lose its meaning and original value century after century. The problem with the bible, the last official cannon book is now almost 2000 years old with the last book written in the late 1st century. The older the books get from its time it was written it starts to lose its value. The bible in the 21st century is less important than the bible of the 20th century and will have less importance in the 22nd century. In the 31st century, the bible will have less importance, and more so in the 41st century.

You are missing a few editions there Ezri, KJV is neither the first or even necessarily an accurate translation. Remember the boys who wrote that were largely of Hebrew descent speaking and writing in a language that is largely dead to the modern world. I could argue that the Ethiopian church might have the closest version because there are some in their clergy that can read Hebrew and Aramaic.

But the point you make is valid, every time it is changed is a step apart from the original meaning, as it is adapted to suit the needs of the user, like KJV was by the Anglicans during the reformation, and with every step the words mean less.

[Captain_THC]

Bible issue is not big or "huge". Its quite simple and "small"

Lets talk about what say,.... Iraqi widow thinks about, not bible...... but us discussing the bible issue in here?

[sevnson_71]

Or we could stay on topic...

/hint

[Irene Brustad]

trekkin, on 07 October 2009 - 09:57 PM, said:

As a LIBERAL, I would prefer it if they left he bibles and torahs and korans in the fiction section of the library. I guess if they put it in the self help section, that would be okay. I dunno...

Well, since all religion is mythology, it should be in the fiction-section.

I know that this is a bit off topic, but it is about putting books in it's right place and it's probably one of the best videos on YouTube; Instruction Manual for Life [cc]

[sevnson_71]

Irene Brustad, on 08 October 2009 - 06:37 AM, said:

Well, since all religion is mythology, it should be in the fiction-section.

I know that this is a bit off topic, but it is about putting books in it's right place and it's probably one of the best videos on YouTube; Instruction Manual for Life [cc]

I just think it sad they want to take all the good stuff out. Makes one wonder if they aren't our version of the Taliban.

[Shlomi of Vulcan]

Translations are one thing, but rewrites are something else altogether.

If one were to take Paul's words to his closest disciple Timothy literarly (as many conservatives do) then any attempt at a rewrite (or changing a text or word to fit the modern vernaculer) would be tantamount to heresey and blasphemy. Why? Because Paul told Timothy that "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." (II Timothy 3:16-17) (bold emphasis mine)

Now a translation could word the above as such:

"All Scripture comes from the breath of God and is profitable......." or "All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for...." or "Every scripture verse comes from the very Spirit of God and is profitable for......"

Those are all acceptable as translations because they convey the original thought without destroying the author's intent. It is understood by its current audience in the same way it would have been understood by its original audience regardless of the amount of time that has passed between the two. That is the purpose of a good translation.

A rewrite takes a passage (or entire text) and changes the wording in such a way that it alters it from its original meaning in order to make it fit a contemporary setting, thereby loosing its first and intended meaning for the sake of connivence in order to make a certain point or meet an agenda.

Here is a good example - and it was used by Paul himself near the end of the 1st Century to meet his agenda of changing the original meaning of the words of Jesus in order to make Paul's gospel more appetiting to a non-Jewish world of Romans and other Gentiles. I will use the KJV since that is the one most being talked about in the above examples.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matthew 5:17) - Jesus' supposed words.

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:3-4) (Paul's supposed words)

In order to meet his own personal agenda Paul "rewrote" the basic teaching of Jesus concerning the Law of Moses and God's purpose for it.

Every Jew in the 1st Century knew exactly what Jesus was saying in Matthew 5:17 and understood it completely and weren't at all offended by the comment because he was simply using a common Jewish idiom of the day which means simply - "I have not come to replace or destroy the Law of Moses, but to simply show you the correct way to interpret it and live it out in your lives." His Aramaic sentence structure was used quite extensively by Rabbis throughout Israel at that time during Shabbat services in Synagogues.

What Paul did was take the words of Jesus, said approximately 40 to 50 years earlier in Israel and made them fit Paul's own ministry of reaching out to a group of people who knew nothing about Jewish Law or what the supposed real Jesus had said to them about the importance of following that Law in a certain way. Paul literally says the Law, while holy, is weak due to humanity's frail fleshly tendencies and cannot be fulfilled, but Jesus' death on the cross fulfilled that Law for all those who believe in his death and resurrection, thus, negating the effects of God's Law (and personal, moral responsibility) for one's actions - it's all covered in the blood - to use a popular modern-day saying. Of course, as the New Testament usually did - it backtracks later in a letter to the Hebrew Christians in the 2nd Century and states that if one "...keeps on sinning after they have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sin is left." (Hebrews: 10:26) Statements like this make some NT scholars believe Hebrews wasn't written by Paul, which was supposed for centuries.

Of course Paul's rewrite totally disregards the actual supposed words of God Itself when the Diety told Moses and the Jews living at the time of the Exodus that concerning this Law they were given (Deuteronomy 30:11-14). I have also included the Hebrew version for those who wish to see it in the original tongue.
יא כִּי הַמִּצְוָה הַזֹּאת, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם--לֹא-נִפְלֵאת הִוא מִמְּךָ, וְלֹא רְחֹקָה הִוא. 11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off. יב לֹא בַשָּׁמַיִם, הִוא: לֵאמֹר, מִי יַעֲלֶה-לָּנוּ הַשָּׁמַיְמָה וְיִקָּחֶהָ לָּנוּ, וְיַשְׁמִעֵנוּ אֹתָהּ, וְנַעֲשֶׂנָּה. 12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?' יג וְלֹא-מֵעֵבֶר לַיָּם, הִוא: לֵאמֹר, מִי יַעֲבָר-לָנוּ אֶל-עֵבֶר הַיָּם וְיִקָּחֶהָ לָּנוּ, וְיַשְׁמִעֵנוּ אֹתָהּ, וְנַעֲשֶׂנָּה. 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?' <A name=14>יד כִּי-קָרוֹב אֵלֶיךָ הַדָּבָר, מְאֹד: בְּפִיךָ וּבִלְבָבְךָ, לַעֲשֹׂתוֹ. {ס} 14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.




So, we have Paul (or whoever) saying one thing and Moses (or whoever) saying something quite different. Since the Moses version is older (by about 2000 years) then Paul would be quilty of a total rewrite of the original idea. Jesus (or whoever) supported the original and had he been alive during the time of Paul, would have taken his supposed disciple to task for his rewrite of an ancient Jewish concept.

Several modern day rewrites of the Bible are guilty of the same thing. The most prominent would have been the 1960's rewrite that was titled the "Good News For Modern Man".

[Captain Ezri Dax]

sevnson_71, on 07 October 2009 - 11:34 PM, said:

You are missing a few editions there Ezri, KJV is neither the first or even necessarily an accurate translation. Remember the boys who wrote that were largely of Hebrew descent speaking and writing in a language that is largely dead to the modern world. I could argue that the Ethiopian church might have the closest version because there are some in their clergy that can read Hebrew and Aramaic.

But the point you make is valid, every time it is changed is a step apart from the original meaning, as it is adapted to suit the needs of the user, like KJV was by the Anglicans during the reformation, and with every step the words mean less.

Accurate translation, so you are telling me billions of people read and understand a faith that is not even accurate. What is next, the accurate translation was done when someone was drinking wine or beer? What is next, the accurate translation was done with someone that was on drugs at the time? What is next, the accurate translation was done for political reasons that has no understanding why?

[sevnson_71]

Ezri86, on 08 October 2009 - 11:29 AM, said:

Accurate translation, so you are telling me billions of people read and understand a faith that is not even accurate. What is next, the accurate translation was done when someone was drinking wine or beer? What is next, the accurate translation was done with someone that was on drugs at the time? What is next, the accurate translation was done for political reasons that has no understanding why?

To quote Bugs Bunny....

erm...COULD BE!

We don't know. We weren't there. For all we know Atlantis was real. We have ruins on islands, but no definitive proof. Faith, be it for good or for ill, isn't so much a belief in the tactile as the theoretical. Not really what is as what could be. For all we know we are just a bit of a electron circling a nucleus, our galaxy a cell, our universe being what we call God, Allah, Jehovah, Great Spirit, etc. Moreover we could be each a universe to ourselves, and somewhere within us some nano person could be worshiping us. Long story short it isn't what you know that makes this life exciting, it's the stuff we have yet to even grasp.


Just to clear up any confusion I am not stoned right now. That is how I think normally

[Shlomi of Vulcan]

sevnson_71, on 08 October 2009 - 12:07 PM, said:

To quote Bugs Bunny....

erm...COULD BE!

We don't know. We weren't there. For all we know Atlantis was real. We have ruins on islands, but no definitive proof. Faith, be it for good or for ill, isn't so much a belief in the tactile as the theoretical. Not really what is as what could be. For all we know we are just a bit of a electron circling a nucleus, our galaxy a cell, our universe being what we call God, Allah, Jehovah, Great Spirit, etc. Moreover we could be each a universe to ourselves, and somewhere within us some nano person could be worshiping us. Long story short it isn't what you know that makes this life exciting, it's the stuff we have yet to even grasp.


Just to clear up any confusion I am not stoned right now. That is how I think normally

A kindred spirit.

[Captain Ezri Dax]

Who knows, Earth could just be a hologram program with us just part of the program. The program could have been running for thousands of years, or, it could have been just turned on just five minutes ago. It really does not matter, as it is really the cultural viewpoint and the economic reality that determines what is or is not god. My viewpoint, I need god as much as I need a teddy bear. God and a teddy bear is just a need for childish security.

[Breachwood]

Is the bible like a self help book??? tells us how to live?? Luckily it is not taken literally anymore or we will be stoning each other.

My opinion is that we all write our own bible, metaphorically speaking. By that I mean, we take life's lessons and pretexts to form our own ways of living. Many factors affect the way we see life such as, race, religion, gender etc etc.

I don't say that in a religious sense as I don't follow mainstream religion. Come on, look at the devestation 'mainstream' religion has caused during the course of our history.

I speak philosphically, as all it is, is a theory.

[JulesLuvsShinzon]

Thanks for bringing this to our attention TR ~ I could do with a good laugh.

I must admit to be puzzled by the notion of "gender-inclusive" language and "emasculation" of the Bible since it's pretty much the most flagrantly male-authored, gender-exclusive book I could mention.

There are days when I wish Heathenism actually had a flag - so I could run it up a pole and salute it.

This post has been edited by JulesLuvsShinzon: 09 October 2009 - 12:06 PM