The Misunderstood and Mistranslated Bible

[Χά�ων]

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/thats-not-what-bible-says-294018.html

 

Fascinating article.

[Momof3]

There are so many misstatements in this article it's going to be hard to get through. :( I'm halfway, and I've just got to stop to highlight this:

 

Jesus was born in a house in Bethlehem. His father, Joseph, had been planning to divorce Mary until he dreamed that she’d conceived a child through the Holy Spirit. No wise men showed up for the birth, and no brilliant star shone overhead. Joseph and his family then fled to Egypt, where they remained for years. Later, they returned to Israel, hoping to live in Judea, but that proved problematic, so they settled in a small town called Nazareth.

Not the version you are familiar with? No angel appearing to Mary? Not born in a manger? No one saying there was no room at the inn? No gold, frankincense or myrrh? Fleeing to Egypt? First living in Nazareth when Jesus was a child, not before he was born?

You may not recognize this version, but it is a story of Jesus’s birth found in the Gospels. Two Gospels—Matthew and Luke—tell the story of when Jesus was born, but in quite different ways. Contradictions abound. In creating the familiar Christmas tale, Christians took a little bit of one story, mixed it with a little bit of the other and ignored all of the contradictions in the two. The version recounted above does the same; it uses parts of those stories from the two Gospels that are usually ignored. So there are two blended versions and two Gospel versions. Take your pick.

So...where in the Bible does it say Jesus was born in a house? I can't see where the author is finding his information...but it's certainly not from the Bible.

 

The book of Luke tells the story of Jesus' birth in the stable in Bethlehem, of the 'no room in the inn', of Joseph & Mary living in Nazareth before His birth, etc.

 

Matthew tells the details of the wise men visiting (possibly some years after Jesus was born b/c Herod orders his soldiers to kill all babies 2 years & younger), of Joseph & Mary fleeing to Egypt & eventually returning to Nazareth, etc.

 

How are these details so obviously contradictory? What are "all the contradictions" I'm ignoring?

 

I just find it so irritating that the author is lumping all "Christians" together, misconstruing what "we" believe and distorting what the Bible says, while trying to make the point that "we" do the same?!?! 

 

Okay. I'm calm. :)

[Word Nerd]

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/thats-not-what-bible-says-294018.html

 

Fascinating article.

How so? What do you find fascinating about it?

[forty-two]

So...where in the Bible does it say Jesus was born in a house? I can't see where the author is finding his information...but it's certainly not from the Bible.

 

The book of Luke tells the story of Jesus' birth in the stable in Bethlehem, of the 'no room in the inn', of Joseph & Mary living in Nazareth before His birth, etc.

I know it's pretty much an annual tradition to have articles "debunking" traditional Christmas beliefs appear at Christmastime (and Easter gets the same treatment) - it has gotten to the eyeroll-inducing point by now - but my understanding is that the "no room in the inn", as popularly depicted as no hotel rooms available, and the idea of a stable/cave, and crèche, and other staples of Christmas scenes, are indeed not really accurate wrt 1st century Jewish culture.

 

Here's a podcast on the topic from a professor who holds to historic Christian beliefs (so different than the usual debunking approach): http://issuesetc.org/2013/12/24/the-first-christmas-dr-ken-bailey-1314/

[JadeOrchidSong]

Ferry woman of Hades, how do you find it fascinating? I remember you posted another link about Jesus was never a real person and Romans wrote the gospels and you also said it was fascinating. So what is your goal for posting these without sharing why you find them fascinating?

[Momof3]

I just lost the whole next post I was typing. :(

 

I can work on it again after I put my kids down...

 

Forty-two, this author has serious beef with the Bible - from cover to cover, not just the Christmas story. 

 

Anyhow...I'll try again later. :)

[WagsWife]

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/thats-not-what-bible-says-294018.html

 

Fascinating article.

 

I guess it would be fascinating...if you were trying to stir up trouble right after Christmas.  Other than that...I don't find it all that interesting.  

[gardenmom5]

I just lost the whole next post I was typing. :(

 

I can work on it again after I put my kids down...

 

Forty-two, this author has serious beef with the Bible - from cover to cover, not just the Christmas story. 

 

Anyhow...I'll try again later. :)

 

momof3 - you have a talent for understatement.  I congratulate you.  there is so much to be said for understatement - so many seem to underestimate it's value.

 

and consider the source.  some aren't worth dignifying with a response.  I won't quote what dh likes to say . . . .

[DawnM]

Eh, one man's opinion.  Not worth getting too worked up about it.  There have always been people who mock Christianity, the Bible, and Christians.  I find this no different.

 

I read in the comments that there was a verbal rebuttal and there will be a written one later this week.

[Momof3]

Okay, on second thought, I won't spend my evening debunking something that is no-contest. :) 

 

But if anyone has questions, I'm sure there are plenty of us here more than willing to try & answer. 

[Χά�ων]

Ferry woman of Hades, how do you find it fascinating? I remember you posted another link about Jesus was never a real person and Romans wrote the gospels and you also said it was fascinating. So what is your goal for posting these without sharing why you find them fascinating?

I never posted anything like that. I am confused. Maybe you have me confused with someone else.

[Χά�ων]

I just lost the whole next post I was typing. :(

 

I can work on it again after I put my kids down...

 

Forty-two, this author has serious beef with the Bible - from cover to cover, not just the Christmas story.

 

Anyhow...I'll try again later. :)

I hate it when I lose my posts. I am currently without a computer and typing on my phone is close to torture.

[forty-two]

I never posted anything like that. I am confused. Maybe you have me confused with someone else.

Maybe she's referring to this post: http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/528785-fascinating-article-re-roman-empire-and-christ/

[*Lulu*]

While a great many of the facts in the article I was already familiar with, the opinion wrapped around the facts made it feel very slanted against Christianity.

 

Reading this article was a very.....interesting experience. I absolutely hate when journalists present opinion pieces like straight up reporting. I also can understand why non-Christians who have dealt up close with some segments of the American church are frustrated at the anti-intellectualism that festers in places and makes biblical scholarship practically into a joke.

 

So I am left with the sense that the article had a lot of facts without being fair to Christians as a whole, or even a good number of evangelicals, while still feeling that this author's perception of Christianity and biblical scholarship is something that is understandable to me as a no-longer-evangelical/fundamentalist-Christian.

[Tangerine]

 

 

So...where in the Bible does it say Jesus was born in a house? I can't see where the author is finding his information...but it's certainly not from the Bible.

 

I have read previously that the word used for where he was born was the same word for where the Last Supper took place.  More of an upper room, likely a relative's house.  Also that inns were found only in heavily populated areas.  I, by no means, know if that is correct.  I just know I've read that before.

[Momof3]

While a great many of the facts in the article I was already familiar with, the opinion wrapped around the facts made it feel very slanted against Christianity.

 

Reading this article was a very.....interesting experience. I absolutely hate when journalists present opinion pieces like straight up reporting. I also can understand why non-Christians who have dealt up close with some segments of the American church are frustrated at the anti-intellectualism that festers in places and makes biblical scholarship practically into a joke.

 

So I am left with the sense that the article had a lot of facts without being fair to Christians as a whole, or even a good number of evangelicals, while still feeling that this author's perception of Christianity and biblical scholarship is something that is understandable to me as a no-longer-evangelical/fundamentalist-Christian.

 

This. I was trying to figure out how to say that. Thanks. :)

 

I would disagree that the article has a lot of facts...but I appreciate that you recognize the bias here. I agree that there are brands of Christianity that are anti-intellectual...we might disagree about which brands. :) 

[Eagle]

So...where in the Bible does it say Jesus was born in a house? I can't see where the author is finding his information...but it's certainly not from the Bible.

 

KJV Matthew 2:11

And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%202&version=KJV

[Jean in Newcastle]

KJV Matthew 2:11

And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%202&version=KJV

But most agree that that was not immediately after birth and was probably even over a year later.  

[Momof3]

I have read previously that the word used for where he was born was the same word for where the Last Supper took place.  More of an upper room, likely a relative's house.  Also that inns were found only in heavily populated areas.  I, by no means, know if that is correct.  I just know I've read that before.

 

Luke 2 says (three times) that Jesus was laid in a manger. 

 

While there is some question about the Greek word for "inn" (could mean guesthouse), there is no debate (that I know of) for the word "manger." And the Bible says that Mary laid Jesus in the manger "because there was no room for them in the inn."

 

So whatever the inn/guesthouse was, that was not where Jesus was born. He was born in a place where the manger was readily accessible, hence the stable/Nativity scenes.

 

I totally agree that a lot of traditional conceptions of the Nativity are unbiblical. But, once again, this guy's issue is not with "traditional" Christmas stories...he's out to demonstrate how the entire Bible is a farce because of supposed "obvious" contradictions like this one. And I just don't see where he's getting it from. :)

[albeto.]

I just find it so irritating that the author is lumping all "Christians" together, misconstruing what "we" believe and distorting what the Bible says, while trying to make the point that "we" do the same?!?! 

 

Okay. I'm calm. :)

 

 

Yeah, I found the article to start off quite patronizing and insulting, to say the least. 

 

 

They are God’s frauds, cafeteria Christians who pick and choose which Bible verses they heed with less care than they exercise in selecting side orders for lunch. They are joined by religious rationalizers—fundamentalists who, unable to find Scripture supporting their biases and beliefs, twist phrases and modify translations to prove they are honoring the Bible’s words.

 

Granted, I didn't read it (only skimmed), but I find when an article starts off so biased, it's easy to turn up the Skepticism Monitor. I'm an atheist, but even I know that fundamentalists believe in the fundamentals of the bible - they take certain passages to mean what they say. While this interpretation is rapidly falling out of favor, it's libelous to suggest they are unable to find scriptural support for their beliefs. The bible is precisely where they find the source and/or justification for their belief. 

 

In skimming the article, it appears this author wants everyone to know he is the Real Christian and everyone else has gotten the message wrong. How very convenient for him the holy ghost made sure that he gets it. We would all do well to trust his insight.  :cool:

 

But, he's right about the contradictions, and he's right about a few other things, imo.

 

 

When the illiteracy of self-proclaimed Biblical literalists leads parents to banish children from their homes, when it sets neighbor against neighbor, when it engenders hate and condemnation, when it impedes science and undermines intellectual advancement, the topic has become too important for Americans to ignore, whether they are deeply devout or tepidly faithful, believers or atheists.

 

I would amend this to replace " illiteracy of self-proclaimed Biblical literalists" with "religious believers," but that's because these same behaviors and trends can be seen by those who are not biblical literalists. More importantly I think, when religious beliefs are the foundation for public policy, accountability is replaced with assurance of earnest belief or special inside knowledge (exactly what the author is offering), and that's what's dangerous. Besides, we all know "pharisee," and "literalist" are code-words for "extremist" which is code word itself for "more conservative than I." In other words, yeah, he's the Real Christian and everyone else has gotten it wrong. 

[Momof3]

But most agree that that was not immediately after birth and was probably even over a year later.  

 

Yes. This. Because that verse is from Matthew. And in the same passage, when Herod sets out to have Jesus killed via the deaths of all Bethlehem babies in the same age bracket, he orders all infants 2 years & younger to be killed. So there's plenty of time here for Joseph & Mary to have moved to a house. Doubt they spent very long in that stable. :)

[Χά�ων]

Maybe she's referring to this post: http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/528785-fascinating-article-re-roman-empire-and-christ/

I recall the article, I do not recall stating a belief one way or the other.

 

Not just for you, but I find many things fascinating. http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/vanhalen.asp this is fascinating. Posting it does not mean I believe brown M&Ms are evil. Only that I found it interesting. I also find alien intervention in human evolution to be fascinated but that does not mean I believe that aliens created a sasquash alien hybrid creature to mine gold in Africa.

[Tangerine]

Luke 2 says (three times) that Jesus was laid in a manger.

 

While there is some question about the Greek word for "inn" (could mean guesthouse), there is no debate (that I know of) for the word "manger." And the Bible says that Mary laid Jesus in the manger "because there was no room for them in the inn."

 

So whatever the inn/guesthouse was, that was not where Jesus was born. He was born in a place where the manger was readily accessible, hence the stable/Nativity scenes.

 

I totally agree that a lot of traditional conceptions of the Nativity are unbiblical. But, once again, this guy's issue is not with "traditional" Christmas stories...he's out to demonstrate how the entire Bible is a farce because of supposed "obvious" contradictions like this one. And I just don't see where he's getting it from. :)

“The actual design of Palestinian homes (even to the present day) makes sense of the whole story,†Paul writes. “Most families would live in a single-room house, with a lower compartment for animals to be brought in at night, and either a room at the back for visitors, or space on the roof. The family living area would usually have hollows in the ground, filled with straw, in the living area, where the animals would feed.â€

 

From: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/23/jesus-christ-not-born-in-stable-theologian-new-testament

 

Herein lies the debate about the manger.

[Eagle]

But most agree that that was not immediately after birth and was probably even over a year later.

Yes, but it is confusing (or contradictory) with how I was taught about Jesus' birth, where the wise men visit Jesus right after birth in the manger. In Matthew the wise men visit at some undetermined time later, when Jesus is in a house.

 

This is not something I am deeply familiar with. I learned the story as a child and have heard it many times since, but only as a part of Christmas celebrations. After I read the article in Newsweek, I looked through Luke and Matthew to see what the author was talking about because I was curious. I see what he is referring to, that there are two accounts of Jesus' birth, with many similar details, but some different. He simply chose certain details from both Gospels to tell the story a different way than the story many are most familiar with. I found this to be a very interesting way to highlight how some of the stories many people know from the bible are actually a compilation from different sections. In the same way, the various translations each introduce changes from the original text.

 

The tone of the article was off-putting, but I found some of his thoughts about mistranslations and sections not found in the original Greek text to be thought-provoking.

[Momof3]

“The actual design of Palestinian homes (even to the present day) makes sense of the whole story,†Paul writes. “Most families would live in a single-room house, with a lower compartment for animals to be brought in at night, and either a room at the back for visitors, or space on the roof. The family living area would usually have hollows in the ground, filled with straw, in the living area, where the animals would feed.â€

 

From: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/23/jesus-christ-not-born-in-stable-theologian-new-testament

 

Herein lies the debate about the manger.

 

Interesting. I will have to do some reading about this...the idea of a manger in the living room? 

 

Even if, I don't see a contradiction between Matthew & Luke's gospel accounts. But I suppose this would make the 'house' theory possible. And the first article does imply that Jesus being born in a house negates the idea of a manger.

 

Thanks for the food-for-thought. :)

[Dory]

I find the fact that people actually teach their children that wise men were there at the stable rather odd. I had never heard that until I was in my teens. The article seems to be picking at things that aren't really there. He seems to have more of a beef with the error of Christian story telling then he does the Bible itself.

[Word Nerd]

I recall the article, I do not recall stating a belief one way or the other.

 

Not just for you, but I find many things fascinating. http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/vanhalen.asp this is fascinating. Posting it does not mean I believe brown M&Ms are evil. Only that I found it interesting. I also find alien intervention in human evolution to be fascinated but that does not mean I believe that aliens created a sasquash alien hybrid creature to mine gold in Africa.

 

Why do you find it fascinating? Surely you have some reason for posting the link. If you aren't doing it just to stir the pot, it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect you to actually share what it is about the story you linked that you find so fascinating.

[milovany]

I didn't realize this until a few years ago, but there is a spot that has traditionally been believed to be the birthplace of Christ since ancient times. It is a cave, which has a church built over/around it (Saint Helen commissioned the original in the 4th century).  It would be a fascinating place to visit. 

[albeto.]

I find the fact that people actually teach their children that wise men were there at the stable rather odd. I had never heard that until I was in my teens. The article seems to be picking at things that aren't really there. He seems to have more of a beef with the error of Christian story telling then he does the Bible itself.

 

 As I'm reading through it now, I've just read past the parts where he shows the specific problems with accepting the bible as an accurate account of history with regard to the creation of the earth, Noah's experience on the ark, Goliath's killer, the existence of dragons, as well as supporting a cultural moral code based on whether or not Jesus' teaching supersedes the Mosaic law, the role of women in society, the expectation of behavior towards government authority, conflict resolution, and so on. He provides specifics on each of these, pointing to the discrepancies found in the bible itself. One who reads the bible literally has a difficult task to rationalize which literal interpretation is meant to be accepted as is, and which is to be accepted as directed towards another culture in another time, or symbolic altogether. I think this is his main point - one cannot read the bible literally and be trusted to understand the real message. I don't agree with it for a number of reasons, but he certainly isn't picking at things that aren't really there. He's shining a light on stuff that is there, but many people don't know because their theology is learned through hearsay. 

[Momof3]

Yes, but it is confusing (or contradictory) with how I was taught about Jesus' birth, where the wise men visit Jesus right after birth in the manger. In Matthew the wise men visit at some undetermined time later, when Jesus is in a house.

 

This is not something I am deeply familiar with. I learned the story as a child and have heard it many times since, but only as a part of Christmas celebrations. After I read the article in Newsweek, I looked through Luke and Matthew to see what the author was talking about because I was curious. I see what he is referring to, that there are two accounts of Jesus' birth, with many similar details, but some different. He simply chose certain details from both Gospels to tell the story a different way than the story many are most familiar with. I found this to be a very interesting way to highlight how some of the stories many people know from the bible are actually a compilation from different sections. In the same way, the various translations each introduce changes from the original text.

 

The tone of the article was off-putting, but I found some of his thoughts about mistranslations and sections not found in the original Greek text to be thought-provoking.

 

But you recognize that the confusion comes from not having read the actual text... A lot of people believe wrong things about the Bible (the wise men at the Nativity scene is one example) because they haven't actually read the Bible.

 

I remember the first time I read the book of Exodus for myself and I realized some of the details I must have gotten from watching The Ten Commandments weren't there. :) I had this idea that Moses and Ramses were rivals...and that Moses' mother sent the basket floating down the river (instead of setting it in the bulrushes). :)

 

But (to get back to the Nativity) that's different than saying that the stories contradict one another. When he says there's 'no manger' 'no frankincense, myrrh, and gold' etc., and those details actually are in the text... I just don't get it. (I mean, I do. Some people just are out to rip the Bible to shreds.)

 

Some of the things he says about mistranslations are true. I'm not one to say the KJV is a perfect translation. :)

 

Some of the things he says are just not true.

 

The Trinity, for instance, is not stated explicitly in any single verse in the Bible. But that's not some big dark secret Christians are hiding from the rest of the world. :) We get the doctrine of the Trinity from the entire Bible taken as a whole. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are each said to have created the world. Also, they are all involved in raising Jesus from the dead.

 

And the deity of Christ likewise does not depend upon any single verse or passage. It is throughout the Bible, in both English and Greek. :)

 

Yes, there were scribal errors and yes there are fragmented portions of Greek manuscripts that span a large period of time...but the differences between manuscripts constitute a tiny portion the whole, and the differences are minor - mostly obvious - not major doctrinal contradictions.

 

Sorry if that was more info than you wanted. :) Anyway, I hope the article makes more people curious to actually read the Bible for themselves! :)

[ktgrok]

Luke 2 says (three times) that Jesus was laid in a manger. 

 

While there is some question about the Greek word for "inn" (could mean guesthouse), there is no debate (that I know of) for the word "manger." And the Bible says that Mary laid Jesus in the manger "because there was no room for them in the inn."

 

So whatever the inn/guesthouse was, that was not where Jesus was born. He was born in a place where the manger was readily accessible, hence the stable/Nativity scenes.

 

I totally agree that a lot of traditional conceptions of the Nativity are unbiblical. But, once again, this guy's issue is not with "traditional" Christmas stories...he's out to demonstrate how the entire Bible is a farce because of supposed "obvious" contradictions like this one. And I just don't see where he's getting it from. :)

 

From what I watched on PBS, animals were kept in the house, in a separate room (downstairs). So there was no room in the upper, people part of the house, so they stayed downstairs, with the animals. So not exactly a stable, but the same idea. And personally, that doesn't ruin the story for me at all. I like knowing/hoping/beliving that Mary had women around to help her give birth. 

[albeto.]

Anyway, I hope the article makes more people curious to actually read the Bible for themselves! :)

 

Ironically, the author indicates the same hope. 

[Momof3]

 As I'm reading through it now, I've just read past the parts where he shows the specific problems with accepting the bible as an accurate account of history with regard to the creation of the earth, Noah's experience on the ark, Goliath's killer, the existence of dragons, as well as supporting a cultural moral code based on whether or not Jesus' teaching supersedes the Mosaic law, the role of women in society, the expectation of behavior towards government authority, conflict resolution, and so on. He provides specifics on each of these, pointing to the discrepancies found in the bible itself. One who reads the bible literally has a difficult task to rationalize which literal interpretation is meant to be accepted as is, and which is to be accepted as directed towards another culture in another time, or symbolic altogether. I think this is his main point - one cannot read the bible literally and be trusted to understand the real message. I don't agree with it for a number of reasons, but he certainly isn't picking at things that aren't really there. He's shining a light on stuff that is there, but many people don't know because their theology is learned through hearsay. 

 

As to Creation, in Genesis 2, God makes a mist to keep the ground moist, bc there wasn't any rain as yet. That's not a contradiction to Him separating the "waters from the waters" and creating earth "in between"...and creating the seas in chapter 1.

 

In Genesis 2, God plants a garden (the Garden of Eden) as a special place for Adam & Eve. That's not a contradiction to vegetation being created before sun/moon/stars in chapter 1.

 

There is no contradiction between animals & plants being created before man in Genesis 2 and man being created after plants & animals in Genesis 1. This is just poor, poor writing. :(

 

There is no contradiction between God creating Adam & Eve in Genesis 1, and the more detailed account of how He did it in chapter 2.

 

That's just the Creation account. I can continue, but I'd better help dh with the laundry for now. :)

[Momof3]

 As I'm reading through it now, I've just read past the parts where he shows the specific problems with accepting the bible as an accurate account of history with regard to the creation of the earth, Noah's experience on the ark, Goliath's killer, the existence of dragons, as well as supporting a cultural moral code based on whether or not Jesus' teaching supersedes the Mosaic law, the role of women in society, the expectation of behavior towards government authority, conflict resolution, and so on. He provides specifics on each of these, pointing to the discrepancies found in the bible itself. One who reads the bible literally has a difficult task to rationalize which literal interpretation is meant to be accepted as is, and which is to be accepted as directed towards another culture in another time, or symbolic altogether. I think this is his main point - one cannot read the bible literally and be trusted to understand the real message. I don't agree with it for a number of reasons, but he certainly isn't picking at things that aren't really there. He's shining a light on stuff that is there, but many people don't know because their theology is learned through hearsay. 

Okay...Noah.

 

The Bible (Old Testament especially) often repeats itself. Whether that's for clarity, emphasis, etc. I don't know. Probably it depends on the passage... God telling Noah to do something in chapter 6 and Noah doing it...and then repeating a part of that 'doing it' later on with more details...that's pretty typical of the storytelling style in the OT. So there's no contradiction there. And the second account adds the fact that the "clean" animals were to be taken into the ark by sevens. This isn't a contradiction. It's a storytelling style. 

 

Same thing with the getting-onto-the-ark repeats...

 

And Noah & his family are on the ark longer than the rain rains bc they wait for the flood to go down before they get off. :)

 

Any manuscripts that mention Elhanan killing Goliath (can't speak for which translations are among the 'many' the author cites) are a scribal 'typo.' That should be obvious since II Chronicles (a parallel account) tells us that Elhanan killed Goliath's brother. This is a great example of the type of variations between manuscripts. The vast majority are obvious scribal errors on really minor points (not major doctrines) that are easily resolved.

 

Isaiah 51 (Rahab & the dragon and all) is very figurative. Very. On a cursory reading (haven't studied this passage recently :)) I would say the dragon is referring to Satan...not sure about Rahab. Doubt that's a name given to the dragon...but I could be wrong.

 

"God plays with a sea monster Leviathan" is just such an irreverent and unscholarly statement, I hate to even answer it...but Leviathan is probably something like plesiosaur. If you read the actual description in Job, it fits very nicely with a huge water-based dinosaur. Same thing with 'behemoth' also mentioned in Job. And the KJV has some weird translations of Hebrew animal words. If they didn't know what animal it was, they just guessed, I guess. :) But the Hebrew manuscripts are still there for us to look at. No, the Bible does not support the idea of unicorns, etc. I don't know any Christian who believes that. :)

 

Well, that's all I have time for tonight... Goodnight, Hive! :)

[DawnM]

I have been there!  It is all fascinating.

 

I didn't realize this until a few years ago, but there is a spot that has traditionally been believed to be the birthplace of Christ since ancient times. It is a cave, which has a church built over/around it (Saint Helen commissioned the original in the 4th century).  It would be a fascinating place to visit. 

 

[albeto.]

As to Creation, in Genesis 2, God makes a mist to keep the ground moist, bc there wasn't any rain as yet. That's not a contradiction to Him separating the "waters from the waters" and creating earth "in between"...and creating the seas in chapter 1.

 

In Genesis 2, God plants a garden (the Garden of Eden) as a special place for Adam & Eve. That's not a contradiction to vegetation being created before sun/moon/stars in chapter 1.

 

There is no contradiction between animals & plants being created before man in Genesis 2 and man being created after plants & animals in Genesis 1. This is just poor, poor writing. :(

 

There is no contradiction between God creating Adam & Eve in Genesis 1, and the more detailed account of how He did it in chapter 2.

 

That's just the Creation account. I can continue, but I'd better help dh with the laundry for now. :)

 

Genesis 1:25-27 has humans created after the animals, whereas Genesis 2:18-19 has humans created before the animals. This is simply how it's written. How the text is interpreted is the part the Christian has to contend with. The author does not agree with your interpretation, and as time goes by, fewer and fewer Christians are persuaded as you are that the confusion is due to "poor, poor writing." But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Who killed Goliath? How long did Noah stay on the ark? How many animals did he bring with him? Don't get caught up in the details, but look to the bigger problem: The bible simply says more than one thing on many subjects, and sometimes those differences are in diametric opposition to one another. While you may find comfort in certain interpretations, without an objective source to confirm your hypothesis, your belief is as credible as his. This is the first part of his article - exposing the problem of accepting the bible as an accurate account of the historical record. It fails any credibility test without ever having to go elsewhere for outside information.

 

The second part of his article seems to be pointing out the hypocrisy in accepting the bible as a moral guide as used by fundamentalists. He asks, according to the bible, is the Mosaic Law superfluous (the answer is no)? What is the role of women in society (the answer is keep quiet)? How is the government to be treated (the answer is respect)? His argument is, if people are going to accept the bible to be correct as written, there's additional problems of hypocrisy. He points out that the conservative Christian community is going against the literal interpretation of the bible with regard to public policy (namely, women politicians, denying equal rights based on Mosaic Law, and disrespecting the government). 

 

You can justify these things to yourself, but you're an audience of one. The trick is justifying it to an audience the size of the American public. The justification you accept is loosing credibility as more information continues to be exposed, and as people actually read the bible rather than assume what they've been taught is reliable. He thinks, I think, that by reading his article fundamentalists will slowly, contritely, nod their heads and see that they've been misled, misguided, and mistreating others because of it. It's one reason I find his article patronizing and insulting. I think that by reading his article, conversations like this will continue, and people who hold traditional stories and beliefs accepted as true by virtue of faith will start to demand some support, some evidence, if they are to continue believing them. 

[Momof3]

Genesis 1:25-27 has humans created after the animals, whereas Genesis 2:18-19 has humans created before the animals. This is simply how it's written. How the text is interpreted is the part the Christian has to contend with. The author does not agree with your interpretation, and as time goes by, fewer and fewer Christians are persuaded as you are that the confusion is due to "poor, poor writing." But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Who killed Goliath? How long did Noah stay on the ark? How many animals did he bring with him? Don't get caught up in the details, but look to the bigger problem: The bible simply says more than one thing on many subjects, and sometimes those differences are in diametric opposition to one another. While you may find comfort in certain interpretations, without an objective source to confirm your hypothesis, your belief is as credible as his. This is the first part of his article - exposing the problem of accepting the bible as an accurate account of the historical record. It fails any credibility test without ever having to go elsewhere for outside information.

 

I don't have time to comment on everything here... But just to clarify... Genesis 2 does not have humans created before the animals. And he doesn't say that in the article either. He says, "in Genesis 2, plants and animals are first." So my poor writing comment was directed at the article, not at Genesis. In Genesis 2, God brings the animals to Adam so he can 'name' them, but nowhere does it say that they were created after him. 

 

It's not a matter of how the text is interpreted. It's just what's there and what's not there. If there's a contradiction, there's a contradiction. But it's unfair to state that these are 'obvious contradictions' that a 'careful reading' will show up - when that's just not true. And I don't think I gave hypotheses. I think I was stating what was actually in the text. Anyhow, I can keep working through it tomorrow if that helpful. :)

 

The second part of his article seems to be pointing out the hypocrisy in accepting the bible as a moral guide as used by fundamentalists. He asks, according to the bible, is the Mosaic Law superfluous (the answer is no)? What is the role of women in society (the answer is keep quiet)? How is the government to be treated (the answer is respect)? His argument is, if people are going to accept the bible to be correct as written, there's additional problems of hypocrisy. He points out that the conservative Christian community is going against the literal interpretation of the bible with regard to public policy (namely, women politicians, denying equal rights based on Mosaic Law, and disrespecting the government). 

 

I'll have to get to the rest of article later. FWIW, though, I don't believe in a 'literal' interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is a collection of 66 books - some are poetic, some are prophetic, some are personal letters, some are letters written to an entire congregation, etc. So I read & interpret each book according to it's own style. :) But I will get to the details tomorrow. :)

 

You can justify these things to yourself, but you're an audience of one. The trick is justifying it to an audience the size of the American public. The justification you accept is loosing credibility as more information continues to be exposed, and as people actually read the bible rather than assume what they've been taught is reliable. He thinks, I think, that by reading his article fundamentalists will slowly, contritely, nod their heads and see that they've been misled, misguided, and mistreating others because of it. It's one reason I find his article patronizing and insulting. I think that by reading his article, conversations like this will continue, and people who hold traditional stories and beliefs accepted as true by virtue of faith will start to demand some support, some evidence, if they are to continue believing them. 

 

[albeto.]

I don't have time to comment on everything here... But just to clarify... Genesis 2 does not have humans created before the animals. And he doesn't say that in the article either. He says, "in Genesis 2, plants and animals are first." So my poor writing comment was directed at the article, not at Genesis. In Genesis 2, God brings the animals to Adam so he can 'name' them, but nowhere does it say that they were created after him. 

 

It's not a matter of how the text is interpreted. It's just what's there and what's not there. If there's a contradiction, there's a contradiction. But it's unfair to state that these are 'obvious contradictions' that a 'careful reading' will show up - when that's just not true. And I don't think I gave hypotheses. I think I was stating what was actually in the text. Anyhow, I can keep working through it tomorrow if that helpful.  :)

.

.

.

I'll have to get to the rest of article later. FWIW, though, I don't believe in a 'literal' interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is a collection of 66 books - some are poetic, some are prophetic, some are personal letters, some are letters written to an entire congregation, etc. So I read & interpret each book according to it's own style.  :) But I will get to the details tomorrow.  :)

 

You're justifying your beliefs again, but with respect, I'm not confused. I am familiar with the arguments you present. I'm also familiar with the arguments the author presents. Interestingly, you both take time to study the text, you both take time to learn from others who have studied the texts, you both take time to learn about the pertinent history, and you both use your own personal experiences and general philosophies as a backdrop to confirm your understanding of these interpretations. In short, you both presume your understanding is the right one, you both use the same methodology, and yet you come to opposing conclusions. You are presuming that I should agree with you in the same way the author is sure you should agree with him - if only we understood better.

[idnib]

.

[lionfamily1999]

I found this interesting...

 

:lol:

[Momof3]

You're justifying your beliefs again, but with respect, I'm not confused. I am familiar with the arguments you present. I'm also familiar with the arguments the author presents. Interestingly, you both take time to study the text, you both take time to learn from others who have studied the texts, you both take time to learn about the pertinent history, and you both use your own personal experiences and general philosophies as a backdrop to confirm your understanding of these interpretations. In short, you both presume your understanding is the right one, you both use the same methodology, and yet you come to opposing conclusions. You are presuming that I should agree with you in the same way the author is sure you should agree with him - if only we understood better.

 

Sure. I mean, if that's the way you want to see it, I don't know that's it's worthwhile for me to continue. I think if someone wants to make the point that the Bible is full of contradictions, then the burden of proof is on that person to prove where those contradictions lie.

 

I'm not out to convince you that it's true, just that no one should definitively say it's full of errors based on evidence like that.

 

He can say, I choose to read these verses as contradictory instead of complementary...recognizing he has a bias against the Bible and that is coloring his lens...and I can say that I choose to read them as complementary rather than as contradictions, recognizing I am a "Bible-believer"...

 

It may frustrate you that Bible-believing Christians have a convenient answer for every "error" :)...but we do have an answer. So....then it's up to you to take your pick. Either believe the Bible, or don't. :)

 

If you have any specific questions about anything else from the article, please feel free to ask. I do love discussing the Bible...and I know I'm not the only one on the Hive. :) 

[Momof3]

Genesis 1:25-27 has humans created after the animals, whereas Genesis 2:18-19 has humans created before the animals. This is simply how it's written. How the text is interpreted is the part the Christian has to contend with. The author does not agree with your interpretation, and as time goes by, fewer and fewer Christians are persuaded as you are that the confusion is due to "poor, poor writing." But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Who killed Goliath? How long did Noah stay on the ark? How many animals did he bring with him? Don't get caught up in the details, but look to the bigger problem: The bible simply says more than one thing on many subjects, and sometimes those differences are in diametric opposition to one another. While you may find comfort in certain interpretations, without an objective source to confirm your hypothesis, your belief is as credible as his. This is the first part of his article - exposing the problem of accepting the bible as an accurate account of the historical record. It fails any credibility test without ever having to go elsewhere for outside information.

 

The second part of his article seems to be pointing out the hypocrisy in accepting the bible as a moral guide as used by fundamentalists. He asks, according to the bible, is the Mosaic Law superfluous (the answer is no)? What is the role of women in society (the answer is keep quiet)? How is the government to be treated (the answer is respect)? His argument is, if people are going to accept the bible to be correct as written, there's additional problems of hypocrisy. He points out that the conservative Christian community is going against the literal interpretation of the bible with regard to public policy (namely, women politicians, denying equal rights based on Mosaic Law, and disrespecting the government). 

 

You can justify these things to yourself, but you're an audience of one. The trick is justifying it to an audience the size of the American public. The justification you accept is loosing credibility as more information continues to be exposed, and as people actually read the bible rather than assume what they've been taught is reliable. He thinks, I think, that by reading his article fundamentalists will slowly, contritely, nod their heads and see that they've been misled, misguided, and mistreating others because of it. It's one reason I find his article patronizing and insulting. I think that by reading his article, conversations like this will continue, and people who hold traditional stories and beliefs accepted as true by virtue of faith will start to demand some support, some evidence, if they are to continue believing them. 

Now, in answer to your statements here...

 

The Mosaic Law... Here a quote from the article...

 

Some of the original disciples said yes, an opinion that seems to find support in words attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets....†The author of Matthew made it clear that Christians must keep Mosaic Law like the most religious Jews, in order to achieve salvation. But Paul, particularly in Galatians and Romans, says a person’s salvation is won by his or her faith in Christ’s death and resurrection—nothing more. Those who try to follow Mosaic Law, Paul believed, risked losing salvation.

 

Now, the burden of proof is on him to show where "the author of Matthew made it clear that Christians must keep Mosaic Law...in order to achieve salvation." He has quoted Jesus in Matthew 5:17, but he stops before finishing the verse...

 

Jesus said, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets: [remember, the book of Matthew was specifically addressing Jewish audience] I came not to destroy but to fulfill."

 

Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the OT Law. In verse 20, Jesus says, "For I say to you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven..."

 

He then proceeds to quote the OT Law, and demonstrate His higher standard. The Law said, Do not kill. Jesus says, If you are angry without cause you are in danger of damnation. The Law said, Do not commit adultery. Jesus says, If you have lust in your heart, you are guilty of adultery. He concludes in verse 48, "Be therefore perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect."

 

This is no way contradicts Paul's writings. 

 

The book of Romans (chapters 1-5) beautifully expound on this idea...that Jesus came to fulfill the Law, because we cannot. The Law is a higher standard than can be humanly kept. No human being can be perfect as God is perfect. And so we are all disqualified from eternal life. The only way any person can have eternal life is through faith in the work that Jesus Christ did on the cross. His death satisfied the wrath of God for my sins. His righteousness enables me to have a relationship with God and eternal life.

 

In both Romans and Galatians, Paul addresses those Jews who had believed in Jesus, but were still holding to their Mosaic Law rituals. In Galatians he teaches that those who taught that new believers should also be circumcised, etc. [aka, keep the Mosaic Law] were clouding the doctrine of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone.

[unsinkable]

I found

interesting...

 

:lol:

That was awesome! :lol:

[JadeOrchidSong]

Maybe she's referring to this post: http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/528785-fascinating-article-re-roman-empire-and-christ/

Thank you for linking it. That is the one OP posted a year ago, also without telling us why she found it fascinating.

[forty-two]

I found

interesting...

 

:lol:

I love Lutheran Satire! "teaching the faith by making fun of stuff" :lol:.

[bolt.]

Well, I thought it was an interesting article full of food for thought. I like it when people who have alternate perspectives (different from mine) on the things that matter a lot to me invite me to understand how they got to that understanding and what it's fruits are.

 

I wasn't able to read the whole article because my tech sucks, but what I did read (maybe the first half?) was normal food for thought that I mostly already knew (via seminary) and am completely reconciled to as a believer and a biblical 'scholar'. The negative bias and spin was the fascinating part: 'I know "that" but I don't think "that" about it -- I wonder why not? How do I process similar info in such a different way? What factors are involved in the process?'

 

As for the Christmas issues:

 

1. It was far more likely to be a 'guest room' in the home of a extended family member, than a 'guest house' (a business) that was unavailable to M&J. The likely reason would have been a combination of crowding/space/privacy (due to the census); and ritual purity laws -- a labour and delivery would have made the room and residents 'unclean' and in need of washing-and-waiting before they could participate in various religious activities.

 

2. Having animals and a manger indoors, downstairs, at night would be normal. It is likely that the manger would have been washed and repurposed intentionally. It's not like it makes a terrible baby-holder shape-wise. It's a bit like using a dresser drawer for a cradle.

 

3. It is very unusual to believe that the magi arrived for the birth -- that belief *does* imply a strong lack of familiarity with the text. To think so would imply that the star appeared significantly before Jesus was born.

 

4. The birth narratives in the different gospels, while they don't 'contradict' each other -- each one certainly has their own distinct story arc, focus, mood, style etc. We loose a lot of that message, meaning and gravitas by blending them as if they were providing different details of the same story for no reason at all.

 

About mosaic law: while Matthew does not assert that mosaic law is essential for salvation, it is definitely Torah-positive in its outlook, it has an affirming role towards to those who are accustomed to Jewush observance. It is an excellent source of balance -- something that helps express freedom and variety in Christian expression, especially when paired with the strident 'ok to not observe' messages of some epistles. (Which I imagine the article identifies as a 'contridiction'.)

[Laurie4b]

Happy holidays, Charon !

[Χά�ων]

You're justifying your beliefs again, but with respect, I'm not confused. I am familiar with the arguments you present. I'm also familiar with the arguments the author presents. Interestingly, you both take time to study the text, you both take time to learn from others who have studied the texts, you both take time to learn about the pertinent history, and you both use your own personal experiences and general philosophies as a backdrop to confirm your understanding of these interpretations. In short, you both presume your understanding is the right one, you both use the same methodology, and yet you come to opposing conclusions. You are presuming that I should agree with you in the same way the author is sure you should agree with him - if only we understood better.

You hit the nail on the head. What it comes down to is the beliefs are justified on the grounds that anyone who does not believe the same way therefore does not understand.

[Χά�ων]

FYI My laptop is dead and the loaner laptop had to be returned. I will use speech to text, so it could get interesting.

[Χά�ων]

 

I find it fascinating that humans will believe almost anything that they've been told to believe even against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. the more I learn the more I explore in depth the Bible the translations the mistranslations and expectations of said Bible the more I am convinced those who are using the Bible to know that it is not real but still use it to further their own personal agenda by twisting and turning the words to support their own agenda. you do not have to be a believer in order to twist words or something just hit your own agenda he just has to convince other people that you are a true believer as you rake in the millions of dollars the power prestige at the expense of those who truly do believe. keeping those true believers ignorant of the whole, the history, the errors and the mistranslations is a great way to maintain your control. control of the masses is easy to do when the masses are ignorant illiterate or unwilling to put forth the effort and energy to truly understand the cultural context the historical point of view and time frames.