The Misunderstood and Mistranslated Bible

[Tsuga]

Based on my experience with Newsweek Bible articles, I'm just going to go ahead and skip this one.

[Momof3]

Do you mean "fact" when you say "true"? That's how I'm reading you, but I don't know if that's what you're saying. If that's the case, I would agree with you in that there's a difference, significant even.

 

I'm comfortable with a google definition of true: "1. in accordance with fact or reality. 2. accurate or exact." I believe that the original manuscripts (again, I'm not a KJV-is-perfect person, and I don't think every Hebrew/Greek manuscript we have today is perfect either) came from God who cannot lie, and so they are true (accurate, reliable, not false, not erroneous).

 

Yes, I see a significant difference as well. This is why I make a distinction between believing the Bible to be true...and not. Someone might believe the Bible is totally false/not true. Someone else might believe the Bible is partially false/partially true (e.g. Thomas Jefferson). Still another person might believe that the Bible contains truth...but would not be comfortable saying it is true. I guess I'm finding that some are okay blurring the lines in the third category?

I'm not sure I'm following you, but I don't think that's a good summary of liberal interpretation. It's not about reading the whole bible as a set of facts. Like you say, there's poetry, analogy, things that are clearly not meant to be factual.

 

Okay. I thought that's how you were defining a liberal interpretation. My bad.

Gotcha. His tone threw a lot of people off, I think.

 

I think what's implied here is that people who don't come away with the same general beliefs as you haven't sufficiently weighed both sides of the argument. It's the same thing the author is saying. If that's the case, I don't agree with either of you.

 

It's not that every person who sufficiently weighs both sides will agree with me. I'm only answering this article because I felt it didn't fairly represent "the other side." He presents a water-tight argument...but (I think) much of it is learning on straw men. 

 

;)

 

This is an illustration of the above.

To be fair, I don't know if he's a Christian, but it is the impression I walk away with after reading the article.

 

Sure. No problem. :)

 

Here's what the author says:

 

First off, "Careful readers" is obnoxious. Clearly a great many intelligent, educated Christians have read the creation stories carefully. They, like you, simply do not agree with his interpretations, and therefore his conclusions. Just felt like I wanted to get that out of the way. Don't know why. Maybe because it's sloppy and deceitful in my opinion to present opinions as careful journalism. I have a problem with Newsweek in general for this very reason. But okay, moving on...

 

Skeptics Annotated Bible has done the work for me:

 

You say,

 

I think the problem here isn't about the articulation (or lack thereof) regarding plants, but the order in which these things are offered to have literally happened, plants included. Either animals were created and then man was created (Gen 1), or man was created and then animals were created (Gen 2). Plants are part of the whole shebang, but the two accounts give opposite time lines, and the author proposes that's a problem for the fundamentalist position.

 

He said vegetation. I assumed this is referring to plants. But as to animals... Yes, I can see where you get man created before animals in Gen 2. My bad, I wasn't thinking of v.19 in that way. To me, the entire passage reads very naturally. I read verse 19 as referring to something that happened previously. God created Adam first...and then recognized the need for Adam to have a companion (v.18). I see v.19-20 as necessary repetition...to emphasize/explain Adam's loneliness, the reader must remember that God had created animals & birds...and though Adam was familiar with these, none were qualified to be a suitable companion. And so, the chronological details continue with v.21 where God makes Eve. I see no problem with the 6 days of Creation being taken figuratively...so Adam & Eve were not necessarily both created in a 24-hour period, but some would disagree with me.

 

But I have read Genesis many times...and am very familiar/comfortable with the style (repeating stories, adding details for emphasis, summarizing previous events, jumping around on the timeline)... I think the style to be very beautiful, personally. 

 

Here are some examples from the chapters following the Flood:

 

In Genesis 9, after Noah & his sons are off of the ark, v.19 says "These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread." This doesn't mean that the whole earth was populated with Shem/Ham/Japheth's descendants before the next verse begins with: "And Noah began to be a husbandman, and he planted a vineyard..." Verse 19 is peeking ahead...giving that overview of events... 

 

Chapter 9 ends with some notes about Noah's age at death, etc. Then chapter 10 begins: "Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood." I take that to mean simply that Noah's sons had sons of their own...after the flood. That could mean that they had children already before the story about Noah's vineyard/drunkenness/etc. The purpose is not to be strictly chronological. The purpose is to give a flow of details & events, unfolding the story of mankind and how he relates to God...particularly now that sin has entered the world.

 

Chapter 10 provides us with lists of descendants for each of Noah's sons. Some of them are not born chronologically until many chapters later. Chapter 11 begins with the story of how God confused the language and scattered the people...but verse 10 backs up... "These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood..." The rest of the chapter gives us Shem's descendants from Arphaxad all the way to Abraham...and succinctly tells the story of God calling Abraham out of Ur...which story is repeated with more details at the beginning of chapter 12. Chapter 11, with a focus more on the biological connection between Seth and Abraham, tells us that Abraham's father Terah moves the family to Haran...and references Terah's death. Chapter 12, with a focus on Abraham's relationship to God and his own journey of faith, leaves Terah out of the details, but tells about God speaking to Abraham, calling him to move to Canaan. So which is true? I believe both are. Each story has a different emphasis. The details are not contradictory...just complementary.

 

I apologize if that was more than you wanted. :) I could continue through the entire book of Genesis...and at least the historical books of the OT. Even the gospels are not meant to be chronological...except for Luke which I believe is...his is a sort of biography of Christ's life/ministry...

 

This isn't the only contradiction. Noah's ark is another supposedly historical fact for which the bible isn't reliable for information. The KJV bible (favorite with fundamentalists) says, "Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days" Genesis 7:17, but also "And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days" Genesis 7:24. You may say that means the rains came for 40 days but the floods kept rising, but the bible doesn't say that. His point is, if you're going to say that God created the earth in 6 days because the bible says so, then you have to accept that the floods came upon the earth for 40 days and also that the floods prevailed for 150 days because the bible says so.

 

What do you take "the waters prevailed upon the earth" to mean? I have always taken that to mean that the waters had sole occupancy for those 150 days... 7:17 says "And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth." So I take that to mean that it rained for 40 days/nights, during which time, the water level increased. 7:18 says, "and the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters." So when it says "the waters prevailed" I've always read that to mean that the water had covered everything by this point, and now the level has 'stabilized.' It's not raining anymore... The ark isn't rising, just floating around... 7:19 repeats the idea of "waters prevailing" and adds that everything was covered. 7:20 tells how high the water level was, and reminds us (in case we haven't gotten the full picture yet) that the mountains are covered. 7:21-23 tells us several times in several ways that everything is dead - v.23 reminds us that Noah & his family are on the ark, still breathing. 7:24 recaps, "And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days." So 7:18-24 takes place in 150 days. 

 

In chapter 8, the Flood story is again recapped with this: "And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark; and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged; The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; and the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated." This is a very brief recap...leaving out a bunch of details (the rain lasted 40 days, etc.) bc the purpose is to let the reader know that God remembered Noah...and the water did start to go down.

 

It's another reason I think his argument is sloppy - he's assuming fundamentalists see this discrepancy and opt to ignore it (to support their bigotry, dontchyaknow). I don't think that's an accurate depiction of a fundamentalist explanation. Nevertheless, there exists a glaring contradiction there. Contradictions are repeated throughout the bible, and that's a problem when the claim is made that the bible is factually accurate. There comes a point when a Christian has to wonder if all these explanations sound an awful lot like excuses and poorly constructed rationalizations, and he's banking on his audience being ready to wonder that with him.

 

 

 

[albeto.]

I'm comfortable with a google definition of true: "1. in accordance with fact or reality. 2. accurate or exact." I believe that the original manuscripts (again, I'm not a KJV-is-perfect person, and I don't think every Hebrew/Greek manuscript we have today is perfect either) came from God who cannot lie, and so they are true (accurate, reliable, not false, not erroneous).

 

Yes, I see a significant difference as well. This is why I make a distinction between believing the Bible to be true...and not. Someone might believe the Bible is totally false/not true. Someone else might believe the Bible is partially false/partially true (e.g. Thomas Jefferson). Still another person might believe that the Bible contains truth...but would not be comfortable saying it is true. I guess I'm finding that some are okay blurring the lines in the third category?

 

I think first you have to ask, where are these lines being drawn? By what objective measure can you confirm the lines are drawn accurately?

 

It's not that every person who sufficiently weighs both sides will agree with me. I'm only answering this article because I felt it didn't fairly represent "the other side." He presents a water-tight argument...but (I think) much of it is learning on straw men. 

I agree with you that he wasn't representing fundamentalism responsibly. He was proposing a foolish caricature, which certainly makes it easier to knock down. The contradictions he exposed do exist, however. His points are sloppy I think, but he's got a legitimate point under all that posturing.

 

He said vegetation. I assumed this is referring to plants. But as to animals... Yes, I can see where you get man created before animals in Gen 2. My bad, I wasn't thinking of v.19 in that way. To me, the entire passage reads very naturally. I read verse 19 as referring to something that happened previously. God created Adam first...and then recognized the need for Adam to have a companion (v.18). I see v.19-20 as necessary repetition...to emphasize/explain Adam's loneliness, the reader must remember that God had created animals & birds...and though Adam was familiar with these, none were qualified to be a suitable companion. And so, the chronological details continue with v.21 where God makes Eve. I see no problem with the 6 days of Creation being taken figuratively...so Adam & Eve were not necessarily both created in a 24-hour period, but some would disagree with me.

You don't have to explain to me why you take certain passages figuratively and certain ones literally. I believe you believe what you do, and I believe you've thought about this long and hard and are not making rash decisions. Nevertheless, his argument stands - when the claim is made that the bible is meant to be read literally, that it contains reliable information, there are significant factual, logical, and social problems that follow.

 

I apologize if that was more than you wanted.  :) I could continue through the entire book of Genesis...and at least the historical books of the OT. Even the gospels are not meant to be chronological...except for Luke which I believe is...his is a sort of biography of Christ's life/ministry...

And if every Christian agreed with you, the problem would be far easier to resolve, don't you think?

  

What do you take "the waters prevailed upon the earth" to mean? I have always taken that to mean that the waters had sole occupancy for those 150 days... 7:17 says "And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth." So I take that to mean that it rained for 40 days/nights, during which time, the water level increased. 7:18 says, "and the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters." So when it says "the waters prevailed" I've always read that to mean that the water had covered everything by this point, and now the level has 'stabilized.' It's not raining anymore... The ark isn't rising, just floating around... 7:19 repeats the idea of "waters prevailing" and adds that everything was covered. 7:20 tells how high the water level was, and reminds us (in case we haven't gotten the full picture yet) that the mountains are covered. 7:21-23 tells us several times in several ways that everything is dead - v.23 reminds us that Noah & his family are on the ark, still breathing. 7:24 recaps, "And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days." So 7:18-24 takes place in 150 days. 

That's an interesting solution, but the problem still stands - the bible says two different things happened (here and in a great many places). People who advocate accepting the bible as accurate accounts of history are required to juggle logical arguments to keep everything working. In other words, you may believe this explanation, but others find it a pretty sloppy excuse to continue believing the unbelievable. To avoid this, claims made in the bible must be carefully vetted out. The only way to do that is to find more information. His article introduces some of that information, and it changes the scope of the practical use of the bible from the conventionally respected book of facts, to the modern view of a book that is a snapshot in time, capturing the thoughts and social/religious beliefs of a people long ago and far away. His final point is that people who rely on faulty logic, who refuse to accept information, cannot be trusted with regards to knowing what's right and what's wrong, and that includes moral questions.

 

In chapter 8, the Flood story is again recapped with this: "And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark; and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged; The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; and the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated." This is a very brief recap...leaving out a bunch of details (the rain lasted 40 days, etc.) bc the purpose is to let the reader know that God remembered Noah...and the water did start to go down.

I understand that's how you've worked this out, but we know for a fact there was no event in earth's history in which water covered the whole earth. Not even for one day. People [actually, a select few followers of the Abrahamic religions] accept this claim on faith, and they have every right to do so, but they are wrong. We know this because their beliefs cannot be corroborated in any meaningful way. Not for lack of trying, mind you. There simply is no evidence for it happening, and overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  People who believe it anyway are working on faulty information and faulty logic. He's appealing to people who are increasingly questioning these claims to recognize the flaws in the arguments, and to recognize the hazards of trusting this logic to guide anyone with regard to understanding the natural world, and even moral issues.

 

Of course, his argument is that his understanding of the True Right Real Message of the bible is what we as a society will naturally want to utilize to answer the questions we have about life, the universe, us, etc. Needless to say, I don't personally agree. ;)

[Teannika]

I've read the article.

 

 

The problem with this piece is that Kurt Eichenwald has tried to cover too many things in a short amount of space. His arguments aren't well thought through, or backed up, or documented in any way. Therefor the reader can't really do much with what he has said unless they do their own research.

 

In typical form from a bible rejecting Christian, Kurt has rejected the words of God and made man's words his final authority.

 

A few main problems that need to be pointed out:

 

1. Kurt didn't tell his audience that there are two lines of manuscripts: one line is from Alexandria, the other is from Antioch. One line is Catholic, the other is not. You can't just morph both lines of manuscripts together and define it as 'the bible.' Of course there will be discrepancies when two religions, (with differing beliefs), have their set of texts being called one and the same. Of course there will be contradictions.

 

2. The bible is written in such a way that it has an inbuilt design that will trip people up. God has made it this way deliberately. The bible can be misunderstood, and it can be wrested (things taken out of context. See 2 Peter 3:10)

 

This may let a non-believer trust in his/her own wisdom over God's, and thus allow them to justify their own beliefs in their own eyes.

 

Or, it may test a believer's faith in God to reveal the true meaning of a passage. The believer must trust God in faith, and accept whatever God says, because God knows best. (Many times I have not understood a scripture, or I thought that something was really unfair or cruel even, only to later learn the reason behind it and realise that I was wrong, and God was right, all knowing, and just.)

 

3. There are no contradictions in the word of God. There is a method of study that is the only correct way to read and apply the bible. If you don't use it, then yes, there will be contradictions. So a Christian would be wise to follow the clear direction: 'study... rightly dividing the word of truth.' (2 Timothy 2:15.) Even the basic structure of the bible teaches this: It is already 'divided' into the OT and NT. Christians shouldn't stop there, but keep on dividing, between books of the bible, chapters, and even within the same verse in some places. Everything must be kept in context, and applied to the right person, living in the right time. There is more than two periods of time, (not just OT and NT), as God's plan has been revealed in steps in a progressive way.

 

4. Most Christians simply can't read and understand English. They don't have a basic understanding of grammar. They don't recognise something that is meant to be read literally, as opposed to something that is simply an expression. They therefor simply can't understand the plain speech of the bible and trip over it in many places. (I'm not trying to be mean, I'm the first to admit that my own skills in the written word are poor and lacking!)

 

5. Kurt talks about 'older manuscripts' that are 'closer to the originals.' How would he know? Has he seen 'the originals'? No he hasn't, therefor in this regard he is a liar and he can not know if what he has just said is true or not (in each place where he mentions the oldest manuscripts and originals in this article.)

[albeto.]

In typical form from a bible rejecting Christian, Kurt has rejected the words of God and made man's words his final authority.

 

To momof3:

 

this is a good example of the arrogant, and condescending tone inherent in this argument. The author has apparently rejected the bible, and very likely has rejected God. What must he think of the bible? Why does he hate Jesus? ;)

 

The stereotype that people who don't hold a fundamentalist interpretation don't really know the bible is patronizing and dismissive enough, but to suggest they reject it outright is no less obnoxious than the stereotype that fundamentalist Christians don't really know the bible any more than to find out verses here and there to support their bigotry, the sole purpose of study.

 

Forgive me for being less than supportive of you Christians, but I can't help but wonder why, if you are "little Christs," you lack this basic insight about each other. How in the world can you trust the holy ghost to guide you if it can't be counted on even to clear up these simple, hurtful misconceptions? After 2000 years, you guys are no closer to figuring this stuff out than you were at the beginning. That's not such a comforting track record in my opinion.

 

A few main problems that need to be pointed out:

 

2. The bible is written in such a way that it has an inbuilt design that will trip people up. God has made it this way deliberately. The bible can be misunderstood, and it can be wrested (things taken out of context. See 2 Peter 3:10)

 

This is a new idea for me! How fascinating. The idea that your god made the bible to be understood in layers isn't new to me, this Pesher method of interpreting the bible is as old as any of the texts, but to hear that he deliberately had it made to be confounding and confusing to those he wants to keep blind is. If it were any other character from history or mythology doing this, I suspect society would find characterize him as deceptive, untrustworthy, and capricious. It's almost as if you understand life to be a giant riddle to be solved, the game ends when you die. If you solved the riddle correctly, your reward is avoiding pain and suffering for all eternity. But of course, that would be the confusion talking.

 

This may let a non-believer trust in his/her own wisdom over God's, and thus allow them to justify their own beliefs in their own eyes.

 

Or, it may test a believer's faith in God to reveal the true meaning of a passage. The believer must trust God in faith, and accept whatever God says, because God knows best. (Many times I have not understood a scripture, or I thought that something was really unfair or cruel even, only to later learn the reason behind it and realise that I was wrong, and God was right, all knowing, and just.)

 

This is why I find the article doesn't go far enough. It isn't enough to expose fundamentalism as problematic when used as motivation for public policy and private behavior, but the idea that faith alone - regardless of any evidence, even the most obvious, and regardless of logic - is an [the most?] accurate source for information puts society in general at risk. There simply exists no accountability for this kind of thinking. People could do any heinous action and believe genuinely that their faith compelled them, and the rest of society would attribute it to mental health, but of course we would be blind to the truth according to this explanation.

 

What I take away from this argument you're presenting is that these behaviors may not necessarily be attributed to mental health, but to a genuine belief that one's actions were guided, or at least condoned by the holy hand of their god. That's not to say mental health isn't responsible for such things, but when following your logical argument as presented here, we're not talking about mental health. We're talking about faith. That, to me, is enormously problematic. Thank you for highlighting this very issue. I think if more people were aware of how religious believers think, we might be able to prevent at least some traumatic events in the future.

 

3. There are no contradictions in the word of God. There is a method of study that is the only correct way to read and apply the bible. If you don't use it, then yes, there will be contradictions. So a Christian would be wise to follow the clear direction: 'study... rightly dividing the word of truth.' (2 Timothy 2:15.) Even the basic structure of the bible teaches this: It is already 'divided' into the OT and NT. Christians shouldn't stop there, but keep on dividing, between books of the bible, chapters, and even within the same verse in some places. Everything must be kept in context, and applied to the right person, living in the right time. There is more than two periods of time, (not just OT and NT), as God's plan has been revealed in steps in a progressive way.

 

How interesting that everyone thinks they have the finger on the Right Way to interpret the texts, but you have the Really Right Way. I find it interesting how you use the same methodology as momof3 and the author, and yet this same exact method now reveals three diametrically opposing solutions to the problem of the right interpretation.

 

4. Most Christians simply can't read and understand English. They don't have a basic understanding of grammar. They don't recognise something that is meant to be read literally, as opposed to something that is simply an expression. They therefor simply can't understand the plain speech of the bible and trip over it in many places. (I'm not trying to be mean, I'm the first to admit that my own skills in the written word are poor and lacking!)

 

Do you mean only literate English speakers can understand the difference between literal and allegorical communication?

 

5. Kurt talks about 'older manuscripts' that are 'closer to the originals.' How would he know? Has he seen 'the originals'? No he hasn't, therefor in this regard he is a liar and he can not know if what he has just said is true or not (in each place where he mentions the oldest manuscripts and originals in this article.)

 

By this logic, we would ask you, How would you know? Have you followed the author around and watched what he has seen? Do you happen to personally see the line from Alexandria and the line from Antioch? No you haven't, therefore, we must conclude, in this regard you are a liar.

[Joanne]

I've read the article.

 

 

The problem with this piece is that Kurt Eichenwald has tried to cover too many things in a short amount of space. His arguments aren't well thought through, or backed up, or documented in any way. Therefor the reader can't really do much with what he has said unless they do their own research.

 

In typical form from a bible rejecting Christian, Kurt has rejected the words of God and made man's words his final authority.

 

A few main problems that need to be pointed out:

 

1. Kurt didn't tell his audience that there are two lines of manuscripts: one line is from Alexandria, the other is from Antioch. One line is Catholic, the other is not. You can't just morph both lines of manuscripts together and define it as 'the bible.' Of course there will be discrepancies when two religions, (with differing beliefs), have their set of texts being called one and the same. Of course there will be contradictions.

 

2. The bible is written in such a way that it has an inbuilt design that will trip people up. God has made it this way deliberately. The bible can be misunderstood, and it can be wrested (things taken out of context. See 2 Peter 3:10)

 

This may let a non-believer trust in his/her own wisdom over God's, and thus allow them to justify their own beliefs in their own eyes.

 

Or, it may test a believer's faith in God to reveal the true meaning of a passage. The believer must trust God in faith, and accept whatever God says, because God knows best. (Many times I have not understood a scripture, or I thought that something was really unfair or cruel even, only to later learn the reason behind it and realise that I was wrong, and God was right, all knowing, and just.)

 

3. There are no contradictions in the word of God. There is a method of study that is the only correct way to read and apply the bible. If you don't use it, then yes, there will be contradictions. So a Christian would be wise to follow the clear direction: 'study... rightly dividing the word of truth.' (2 Timothy 2:15.) Even the basic structure of the bible teaches this: It is already 'divided' into the OT and NT. Christians shouldn't stop there, but keep on dividing, between books of the bible, chapters, and even within the same verse in some places. Everything must be kept in context, and applied to the right person, living in the right time. There is more than two periods of time, (not just OT and NT), as God's plan has been revealed in steps in a progressive way.

 

4. Most Christians simply can't read and understand English. They don't have a basic understanding of grammar. They don't recognise something that is meant to be read literally, as opposed to something that is simply an expression. They therefor simply can't understand the plain speech of the bible and trip over it in many places. (I'm not trying to be mean, I'm the first to admit that my own skills in the written word are poor and lacking!)

 

5. Kurt talks about 'older manuscripts' that are 'closer to the originals.' How would he know? Has he seen 'the originals'? No he hasn't, therefor in this regard he is a liar and he can not know if what he has just said is true or not (in each place where he mentions the oldest manuscripts and originals in this article.)

This entire post is 1) insulting 2) limiting 3) an example of how Christians don't need Satan to woo people away from "the faith" 4) extraBiblical 5) crazy inaccurate.

[TranquilMind]

If the gentleman who wrote the article has a  better, more perfect, and trustworthy copy than all of the "bad copies, rewritten over hundreds of years" that the rest of us have, I wish he would produce it, in order to support his argument. 

 

Otherwise, he should shut up.  It's fine to debate, but that is not what he is doing.  He is arrogantly proclaiming others with different understandings as inferior to his high-minded beliefs.   He simply states that later "creative scribes" added and changed scriptures, but he produces no evidence of the "right" interpretation, which is, of course, his.  "No one" has ever read the Bible, but never fear....Mr. Eichenwald is here to tell us what it REALLY means, praise be to God!   He knows only what he has seen in what has survived of early works; however that is clearly sufficient for HIM to make authoritative statements, but not for the rest of us.    Then he drops abuptly drops that topic, as if his few caustic remarks are sufficient "evidence" of anything, and moves on to the fact that slighly different translations exist.  So what.  Big deal. 

 

I guess in my poor, befuddled, believing mind, I just trust God enough to get to me what I need to know in this day and age, and the rest will take care of itself.    I loathe heresy hunter types,  those who virtriolically denounce Christian believers with their slightly different beliefs and feel it is their duty in life to expose others publically, while keeping their own dirty little secrets well under wraps. 

 

The tone of the piece says it all, but then we know the purpose is to move magazines.   He isn't rationally discussing various interpretations and problems he sees with accuracy in a balanced way; he is denouncing all others but HIS "perfect" understanding and crudely caricaturizing believers .   This guy is actually preaching to the secularists/atheists and others similarly deeply hostile to the faith, and that is where he gained his support.  He clearly has an axe to grind here and he does it.   

 

Not worth the time I spent reading it.  There are so many actual scholars who have something important to say. 

 

And despite his false proclamations, some of us have actually read the Bible. 

[Tsuga]

 

This guy is actually preaching to the secularists/atheists and others similarly deeply hostile to the faith, and that is where he gained his support.

 

He is preaching to Newsweek readers. I feel like Newsweek just publishes stuff so that reporters can say that they are talking about something which occurred in print. It's like the Fox News / MSNBC of the print world, all in one handy little craptastic schizophrenic "news" magazine. It's where you publish your semi-defended hysterical opinions that nobody else will waste ink or tree pulp on. God I hate it. We used to get it for free when in the Peace Corps. How we hated it (all of us, Christians, atheists, pagans, Jews, conservatives, liberals, all of us, together).

 

It's a tabloid that appeals to people who flatter themselves as intelligent, but can't be bothered to put any effort into it.

 

I am somewhat disappointed this debate has gone on this long on this board. Newsweek blather is really not worth anyone's time.

[TranquilMind]

He is preaching to Newsweek readers. I feel like Newsweek just publishes stuff so that reporters can say that they are talking about something which occurred in print. It's like the Fox News / MSNBC of the print world, all in one handy little craptastic schizophrenic "news" magazine. It's where you publish your semi-defended hysterical opinions that nobody else will waste ink or tree pulp on. God I hate it. We used to get it for free when in the Peace Corps. How we hated it (all of us, Christians, atheists, pagans, Jews, conservatives, liberals, all of us, together).

 

It's a tabloid that appeals to people who flatter themselves as intelligent, but can't be bothered to put any effort into it.

 

I am somewhat disappointed this debate has gone on this long on this board. Newsweek blather is really not worth anyone's time.

On that point, we can agree.  ;)

[IdahoHomeschooler]

If the gentleman who wrote the article has a better, more perfect, and trustworthy copy than all of the "bad copies, rewritten over hundreds of years" that the rest of us have, I wish he would produce it, in order to support his argument.

 

Otherwise, he should shut up. It's fine to debate, but that is not what he is doing. He is arrogantly proclaiming others with different understandings as inferior to his high-minded beliefs. He simply states that later "creative scribes" added and changed scriptures, but he produces no evidence of the "right" interpretation, which is, of course, his. "No one" has ever read the Bible, but never fear....Mr. Eichenwald is here to tell us what it REALLY means, praise be to God! He knows only what he has seen in what has survived of early works; however that is clearly sufficient for HIM to make authoritative statements, but not for the rest of us. Then he drops abuptly drops that topic, as if his few caustic remarks are sufficient "evidence" of anything, and moves on to the fact that slighly different translations exist. So what. Big deal.

 

I guess in my poor, befuddled, believing mind, I just trust God enough to get to me what I need to know in this day and age, and the rest will take care of itself. I loathe heresy hunter types, those who virtriolically denounce Christian believers with their slightly different beliefs and feel it is their duty in life to expose others publically, while keeping their own dirty little secrets well under wraps.

 

The tone of the piece says it all, but then we know the purpose is to move magazines. He isn't rationally discussing various interpretations and problems he sees with accuracy in a balanced way; he is denouncing all others but HIS "perfect" understanding and crudely caricaturizing believers . This guy is actually preaching to the secularists/atheists and others similarly deeply hostile to the faith, and that is where he gained his support. He clearly has an axe to grind here and he does it.

 

Not worth the time I spent reading it. There are so many actual scholars who have something important to say.

 

And despite his false proclamations, some of us have actually read the Bible.

Oh, the irony....

[albeto.]

I am somewhat disappointed this debate has gone on this long on this board. Newsweek blather is really not worth anyone's time.

On that point, we can agree. ;)

 

Not me. I think this is a conversation that needs to happen often, as it comes up, and whenever appropriate until people stop hurting and killing because they're sure they have the inside track on the True Really Right Real Faith. I think it needs to happen any time empathy is eroded because one genuinely believes the honor of their deity is more important than the well-being of their neighbor/child/fellow human. I think it needs to happen until people recognize the faulty logic in trusting one's own faith as a source of reliable information, and until intellect and rational thought are no longer considered the enemy of moral good. So, I think as long as these ideas continue to inspire public policy and private behavior, it should be exposed as absurd, illogical, irrational, paranoid, hurtful groupthink.

 

 

[Tsuga]

Yeah, but when the basis is this person who is writing a "popular" article on an extremely complex subject--the question of historical authenticity, not just of the Bible but in general, as I understand it, is a raging debate in the classics--it just muddies the waters.

 

It's like a faux debate.

 

If someone posted archaeological evidence for discussion, fine.

 

But Newsweek is a big pile of clickbait.

 

It actually hurts the discussion to start with something that is both inflammatory and incomplete as an argument.

 

Start from common ground. Then you make progress. Otherwise it's just emotion and misunderstanding.

[Heidi]

 

Not me. I think this is a conversation that needs to happen often, as it comes up, and whenever appropriate until people stop hurting and killing because they're sure they have the inside track on the True Really Right Real Faith. I think it needs to happen any time empathy is eroded because one genuinely believes the honor of their deity is more important than the well-being of their neighbor/child/fellow human. I think it needs to happen until people recognize the faulty logic in trusting one's own faith as a source of reliable information, and until intellect and rational thought are no longer considered the enemy of moral good. So, I think as long as these ideas continue to inspire public policy and private behavior, it should be exposed as absurd, illogical, irrational, paranoid, hurtful groupthink.

 

 

Never mind. Not worth it. I don't care.

[TranquilMind]

Oh, the irony....

And what irony would that be, pray tell?  Do you think I am a heresy hunter, publicly excoriating other preachers?   Do I publically publish articles on how no one has the accurate scriptures, but I know them? 

 

Do tell. 

[Momof3]

 

I think first you have to ask, where are these lines being drawn? By what objective measure can you confirm the lines are drawn accurately?

 

I'm not sure what lines you mean? Who believes the Bible is true and who doesn't? I guess I'd take a person's word for it...? 

I agree with you that he wasn't representing fundamentalism responsibly. He was proposing a foolish caricature, which certainly makes it easier to knock down. The contradictions he exposed do exist, however. His points are sloppy I think, but he's got a legitimate point under all that posturing.

 

You don't have to explain to me why you take certain passages figuratively and certain ones literally. I believe you believe what you do, and I believe you've thought about this long and hard and are not making rash decisions. Nevertheless, his argument stands - when the claim is made that the bible is meant to be read literally, that it contains reliable information, there are significant factual, logical, and social problems that follow.

 

In this case it's not a figurative vs. literal interpretation. It is understanding the topical flow of this passage as opposed to the clearly chronological "day 1, day 2, etc." flow of chapter 1. There's no need not to understand the passage literally. God very literally created Adam. He very literally brought the animals to Adam, and there was no companion found for Adam among them. It's a question of timing. Did God make Adam or the animals first? Chapter 1 tells us outright that animals were first. So...animals were first. Why question that? Especially when chapter 2 can easily be understood to be topical...? I'm only saying that the Bible is not strictly chronological...I don't know any Christian who would disagree with me there. :) (There are many other reasons why a two-Creation accounts theory - where this Genesis 1-2 questioning really comes from - involves more logical juggling than a plain reading of the text as it is...)

 

And if every Christian agreed with you, the problem would be far easier to resolve, don't you think?

 

My explanation is not the only possible answer. :)

 

That's an interesting solution, but the problem still stands - the bible says two different things happened (here and in a great many places). People who advocate accepting the bible as accurate accounts of history are required to juggle logical arguments to keep everything working. In other words, you may believe this explanation, but others find it a pretty sloppy excuse to continue believing the unbelievable. To avoid this, claims made in the bible must be carefully vetted out. The only way to do that is to find more information. His article introduces some of that information, and it changes the scope of the practical use of the bible from the conventionally respected book of facts, to the modern view of a book that is a snapshot in time, capturing the thoughts and social/religious beliefs of a people long ago and far away. His final point is that people who rely on faulty logic, who refuse to accept information, cannot be trusted with regards to knowing what's right and what's wrong, and that includes moral questions.

 

If something is contradictory they can't be reconciled, right? So...if they can be reconciled, they aren't contradictory? 

 

Why is it "sloppy" to show what "waters prevailed" means in the context? You pulled two verses out of the passage. I am showing you what the adjoining verses say. You can read a contradiction into the passage, but you have to ignore a solution to do so. 

 

I don't believe the Bible is a "respected book of facts"...and I don't think that is the "conventional" Christian view, either.

 

You make it sound as if things that are "unbelievable" ought not to be believed in. :) That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I think it stands to reason that if there is a God, he would be able to do the "unbelievable." Human rationalization would not necessarily be enough to answer every question...and we would need something outside of what we can observe, handle, etc. to explain the "unbelievable." You say that you would like to have the Bible "vetted out", but you will not accept a "solution" to apparent contradictions. I guess I'm curious what you feel it would take for you to believe the Bible's claims?

 

 

I understand that's how you've worked this out, but we know for a fact there was no event in earth's history in which water covered the whole earth. Not even for one day. People [actually, a select few followers of the Abrahamic religions] accept this claim on faith, and they have every right to do so, but they are wrong. We know this because their beliefs cannot be corroborated in any meaningful way. Not for lack of trying, mind you. There simply is no evidence for it happening, and overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  People who believe it anyway are working on faulty information and faulty logic. He's appealing to people who are increasingly questioning these claims to recognize the flaws in the arguments, and to recognize the hazards of trusting this logic to guide anyone with regard to understanding the natural world, and even moral issues.

 

You've made some bold claims. :) This is probably not the thread for it...and I don't know that I have the time right now (we just started school again this week) but I would love to study the scientific implications of the flood more closely. My experience so far has been that scientists have been waging a debate about a myriad of observations, theories, etc. in support of or in opposition to the idea of a Flood... My understanding is that the majority of scientists discount the idea of a Flood...and that this is largely because a global flood is irreconcilable with evolution... The "evidence" can be reconciled with a Creation/global flood account, but because they don't want to believe in a global flood, they choose (as you have done) to dismiss potential solutions as "logical juggling" or, at best, an "interesting solution" (by which they imply that it doesn't deserve a second glance). I have started looking into the arguments on both sides these last days, and I haven't found any so far that could not "be corroborated in any meaningful way." But you can give me some suggestions of where to look at maybe... :)

 

I am comfortable with the idea that God is able to do the "unbelievable." The Virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ, the many miracles of Jesus...I don't accept these because science supports them... And 'history' is not always reliable... I don't believe God is obligated to leave a clear trail of proofs for Creation and/or the Flood in science/history... He could have written the Gospel in the sky where it would be indisputable. He chose instead to give us His Word. The amazing fulfillment of biblical prophecy, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ verified by thousands of eyewitnesses... As Abraham said in Jesus' parable (Luke 16), "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." That being said, I would love to do more study of the science behind the Flood. 

 

 

Of course, his argument is that his understanding of the True Right Real Message of the bible is what we as a society will naturally want to utilize to answer the questions we have about life, the universe, us, etc. Needless to say, I don't personally agree. ;)

 

Well...I will continue to check in here as I can...but with school now, I won't be able to live at the Hive for as long as I've been. ;) Also (I did skim the next several posts)...the tone is starting to turn less-than-civil, and will probably be less enjoyable for me to partake in... But thanks again for conversing!

[Teannika]

In typical form from a bible rejecting Christian, Kurt has rejected the words of God and made man's words his final authority.

To momof3:

 

this is a good example of the arrogant, and condescending tone inherent in this argument. The author has apparently rejected the bible, and very likely has rejected God. What must he think of the bible? Why does he hate Jesus? ;)

 

The stereotype that people who don't hold a fundamentalist interpretation don't really know the bible is patronizing and dismissive enough, but to suggest they reject it outright is no less obnoxious than the stereotype that fundamentalist Christians don't really know the bible any more than to find out verses here and there to support their bigotry, the sole purpose of study.

 

Forgive me for being less than supportive of you Christians, but I can't help but wonder why, if you are "little Christs," you lack this basic insight about each other. How in the world can you trust the holy ghost to guide you if it can't be counted on even to clear up these simple, hurtful misconceptions? After 2000 years, you guys are no closer to figuring this stuff out than you were at the beginning. That's not such a comforting track record in my opinion.

My tone does reveal what I think, I'm not going to sugar coat my thoughts on what he is stating to benefit my popularity status. Kurt's words give him away, and I'm pointing it out. Quote Kurt: "The Bible is a very human book." "Nowhere in the Gospels or Acts of Epistles or Apocalypses does the New Testament say it is the inerrant word of God."

 

The guy does not believe in the bible. He believes it is mans words, he rejects it as the words of the living God.

 

I don't think that I am better than Kurt, but we must be honest with his belief (unbelief) system, that it is not the same one as that of a bible believing Christian.

 

 

 

This is a new idea for me! How fascinating. The idea that your god made the bible to be understood in layers isn't new to me, this Pesher method of interpreting the bible is as old as any of the texts, but to hear that he deliberately had it made to be confounding and confusing to those he wants to keep blind is. If it were any other character from history or mythology doing this, I suspect society would find characterize him as deceptive, untrustworthy, and capricious. It's almost as if you understand life to be a giant riddle to be solved, the game ends when you die. If you solved the riddle correctly, your reward is avoiding pain and suffering for all eternity. But of course, that would be the confusion talking.

 

Why do you think that Jesus spoke in parables?

It is for reasons similar to that.

God knows the hearts of men, and he gives them what they want. If a person wants to believe that there are contradictions and mistakes in his word, then God will let them have the 'evidence' that they desire.

 

 

What I take away from this argument you're presenting is that these behaviors may not necessarily be attributed to mental health, but to a genuine belief that one's actions were guided, or at least condoned by the holy hand of their god. That's not to say mental health isn't responsible for such things, but when following your logical argument as presented here, we're not talking about mental health. We're talking about faith. That, to me, is enormously problematic. Thank you for highlighting this very issue. I think if more people were aware of how religious believers think, we might be able to prevent at least some traumatic events in the future.

 

Yes, but the difference is what religion/faith you are talking about. You can't just tar everyone with the same brush.

 

 

How interesting that everyone thinks they have the finger on the Right Way to interpret the texts, but you have the Really Right Way. I find it interesting how you use the same methodology as momof3 and the author, and yet this same exact method now reveals three diametrically opposing solutions to the problem of the right interpretation.

 

This is the scriptural method. If you believe that the words of the bible are God's words, then obey them. Simple. Problem of interpretation solved.

If you don't believe in the scriptural method, then yes, let the free-for-all continue.

 

Do you mean only literate English speakers can understand the difference between literal and allegorical communication?

 

My comment may have been a little off-topic. I was drawing my conclusions as someone who reads and speaks English, having conversations with other English speaking Christians who can't seem to understand the basic grammar of sentences to understand the texts meaning. It gets frustrating and causes a whole heap of problems.

 

 

By this logic, we would ask you, How would you know? Have you followed the author around and watched what he has seen? Do you happen to personally see the line from Alexandria and the line from Antioch? No you haven't, therefore, we must conclude, in this regard you are a liar.

 

I'm not the one claiming that I have seen the originals, or that the earliest manuscripts best represent these unseen originals. My position comes from an acknowledged position of faith. My position comes from what I can observe about the two lines of manuscripts that we have. My position comes from acknowledging which were the manuscripts that were heavily edited by men, and which simply had a scribal error that could simply be corrected through comparison within the majority text. My position comes from factoring in historical enmity between two faiths systems. My position comes from acknowledging Satan's devices.

 

 

My belief factors in things Kurt does not:

 

• From the earliest times the word of God (the holy scriptures) has had attempts on it by man to corrupt it. The New Testament itself says that there are more people corrupting it than not (2 Cor 2:17)

   

• Satan likes nothing more than to corrupt God's. It is the first thing he did in the garden with Eve. "Yea, hath God said.."

   

• God has the ability to preserve his words.

   

• The earliest Greek manuscripts were written on papyri. They weren't made to last, and God did not expect humankind to have only the 'originals' as his true words. He let Christians copy his words down through the centuries, and they still remain to this day.

   

• Born-again Christians were persecuted and their manuscripts destroyed. This doesn't mean that this "type" of Christian needs to trust in manuscripts that were older, corrupted, pagan, gnostic.... Kurt needs to differentiate, and so do other Christians and non-Christians. Again, you can't morph two belief systems together and speak of it as the same, and two lines of manuscripts together and call it the same. He needs to define 'bible' for the benefit of his readers.

   

   

[albeto.]

You've made some bold claims. :)

 

Not at all.

 

This is probably not the thread for it...and I don't know that I have the time right now (we just started school again this week) but I would love to study the scientific implications of the flood more closely.

 

I would encourage you to do just that. I would encourage you to study it apart from religious explanations. Learn about the natural world and the information we can glean from it. There are all kinds of really great resources for those exploring this for the first time. I find this site to be easy to navigate, and good for limited attention spans.

 

My experience so far has been that scientists have been waging a debate about a myriad of observations, theories, etc. in support of or in opposition to the idea of a Flood...

 

This is a misconception. The scientific literature contains no such debate, and hasn't for decades and centuries (explained in the link).

 

My understanding is that the majority of scientists discount the idea of a Flood...and that this is largely because a global flood is irreconcilable with evolution... The "evidence" can be reconciled with a Creation/global flood account, but because they don't want to believe in a global flood, they choose (as you have done) to dismiss potential solutions as "logical juggling" or, at best, an "interesting solution" (by which they imply that it doesn't deserve a second glance). I have started looking into the arguments on both sides these last days, and I haven't found any so far that could not "be corroborated in any meaningful way." But you can give me some suggestions of where to look at maybe... :)

 

The evidence doesn't support this hypothesis.

 

I am comfortable with the idea that God is able to do the "unbelievable." The Virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ, the many miracles of Jesus...I don't accept these because science supports them...

 

There is no evidence to support any of that.

 

And 'history' is not always reliable...

 

I think you mean people are not always reliable with regard to understanding or analyzing historical events. Again, the more evidence we have, the more dots we can connect. The author of this article is encouraging people to accept evidence that exists outside the bible. The more you know...

 

I don't believe God is obligated to leave a clear trail of proofs for Creation and/or the Flood in science/history... He could have written the Gospel in the sky where it would be indisputable. He chose instead to give us His Word.

 

He could have left instructions written on the side of a mountain, or given us brains with a biological part that corresponds to his non-biological essence, or forgiven Adam and Eve in the garden, or made the wages of sin a really bad headache for a day. There's lots of things God could have done that we can never explore, confirm, or deny. We can, however, explore the natural world. We can become familiar with different aspects, we can delve into the details, and experiment with hypotheses. We can submit our ideas to the review of those who are trained in such areas. We can falsify claims and identify and correct mistakes. There is so much we can do. It's rather fascinating what we can learn about our world, our universe, and ourselves.

 

The amazing fulfillment of biblical prophecy, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ verified by thousands of eyewitnesses...

 

The only evidence for this claim is the same source that makes the claim - the bible. This is called circular reasoning and is dismissed in every other field. In fundamental religious theology, it's embraced.

 

As Abraham said in Jesus' parable (Luke 16), "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." That being said, I would love to do more study of the science behind the Flood. [/color]

 

You're saying the same thing Teannika is saying - the bible has a secret code that is revealed only to a select few deemed worthy, and it confuses and confounds others. Don't you find it interesting that while everyone thinks that, everyone disagrees about what that secret code really is?

 

Well...I will continue to check in here as I can...but with school now, I won't be able to live at the Hive for as long as I've been. ;) Also (I did skim the next several posts)...the tone is starting to turn less-than-civil, and will probably be less enjoyable for me to partake in... But thanks again for conversing!

 

Less than civil, or less than flattering?

[milovany]

This is the scriptural method. If you believe that the words of the bible are God's words, then obey them. Simple. Problem of interpretation solved.

If you don't believe in the scriptural method, then yes, let the free-for-all continue.

 

 

Teannika, I know how sold you are on the way you believe but if I could have one wish, it would be that you would see how incorrect this is.  Even if you stick to your understanding (which I respect that you have the right to do), you could at the very least acknowledge that there are other interpretations not just one.  "Problem of interpretation" can't be solved just by believing the words of the Bible are God's words.  So very, very many Christians wholeheartedly believe the Bible is God's written word to us, yet they still can come to diametrically opposed conclusions about what it says. So completely opposite that they can't both be right.  Please, please, please, try to understand that.  It's who/what is interpreting that brings about one's understanding of the Scriptures.  Everyone has to decide which interpreter/interpretation they trust and believe.  There's NO such thing as a "clear reading of scripture."

 

[Momof3]

To momof3:

 

this is a good example of the arrogant, and condescending tone inherent in this argument. The author has apparently rejected the bible, and very likely has rejected God. What must he think of the bible? Why does he hate Jesus? ;)

The stereotype that people who don't hold a fundamentalist interpretation don't really know the bible is patronizing and dismissive enough, but to suggest they reject it outright is no less obnoxious than the stereotype that fundamentalist Christians don't really know the bible any more than to find out verses here and there to support their bigotry, the sole purpose of study.

 

 

Forgive me for being less than supportive of you Christians, but I can't help but wonder why, if you are "little Christs," you lack this basic insight about each other. How in the world can you trust the holy ghost to guide you if it can't be counted on even to clear up these simple, hurtful misconceptions? After 2000 years, you guys are no closer to figuring this stuff out than you were at the beginning. That's not such a comforting track record in my opinion.

 

 

This is a new idea for me! How fascinating. The idea that your god made the bible to be understood in layers isn't new to me, this Pesher method of interpreting the bible is as old as any of the texts, but to hear that he deliberately had it made to be confounding and confusing to those he wants to keep blind is. If it were any other character from history or mythology doing this, I suspect society would find characterize him as deceptive, untrustworthy, and capricious. It's almost as if you understand life to be a giant riddle to be solved, the game ends when you die. If you solved the riddle correctly, your reward is avoiding pain and suffering for all eternity. But of course, that would be the confusion talking.

 

 

This is why I find the article doesn't go far enough. It isn't enough to expose fundamentalism as problematic when used as motivation for public policy and private behavior, but the idea that faith alone - regardless of any evidence, even the most obvious, and regardless of logic - is an [the most?] accurate source for information puts society in general at risk. There simply exists no accountability for this kind of thinking. People could do any heinous action and believe genuinely that their faith compelled them, and the rest of society would attribute it to mental health, but of course we would be blind to the truth according to this explanation.

 

What I take away from this argument you're presenting is that these behaviors may not necessarily be attributed to mental health, but to a genuine belief that one's actions were guided, or at least condoned by the holy hand of their god. That's not to say mental health isn't responsible for such things, but when following your logical argument as presented here, we're not talking about mental health. We're talking about faith. That, to me, is enormously problematic. Thank you for highlighting this very issue. I think if more people were aware of how religious believers think, we might be able to prevent at least some traumatic events in the future.

 

 

How interesting that everyone thinks they have the finger on the Right Way to interpret the texts, but you have the Really Right Way. I find it interesting how you use the same methodology as momof3 and the author, and yet this same exact method now reveals three diametrically opposing solutions to the problem of the right interpretation.

 

 

Do you mean only literate English speakers can understand the difference between literal and allegorical communication?

 

 

By this logic, we would ask you, How would you know? Have you followed the author around and watched what he has seen? Do you happen to personally see the line from Alexandria and the line from Antioch? No you haven't, therefore, we must conclude, in this regard you are a liar.

 

*Sigh* I think you are reading a lot into her tone. That's what you walk away with...and I think I've personally learned some things in this thread about how to avoid that take-away... but, with respect, IMO your post reads with a much more patrionizing and condescending tone. Teannika is defending the Bible...you are mocking her for it. 

 

I think you should let her define her terms. What does she mean by "rejecting the Bible"? 

 

Your issue with Christianity runs much deeper than your allegations that the Bible contains contradictions/error. Faith is a danger to society? Really? I totally agree that faith in a message of "go out and kill people" would be dangerous...but does it follow that faith is dangerous? I don't follow your logic. So all religions must be false because some religion could use faith to make people do bad things?

 

Yeah...I'm not really wanting to tackle all of this... Just when I thought I was done with this thread. :) Um...I don't think our different methodologies are problematic. Like I said, there is more than one way to resolve "problems" in the Bible. I don't claim to have the only possible solution. I'm saying some of the passages are not meant to be chronological...Teannika said the passages must be understood in proper context & time. I don't see that as "diametrically opposed." 

 

I'll let her answer the rest... Just one other note, the original manuscripts do not exist. That's why she said he cannot have seen them. Neither has Teannika, but I don't think she's claiming to have. ;) 

 

Okay...I've spent yet another entire naptime on the Hive... Gotta go, folks! Happy New Year! :)

[albeto.]

My tone does reveal what I think, I'm not going to sugar coat my thoughts on what he is stating to benefit my popularity status. Kurt's words give him away, and I'm pointing it out. Quote Kurt: "The Bible is a very human book." "Nowhere in the Gospels or Acts of Epistles or Apocalypses does the New Testament say it is the inerrant word of God."

 

The guy does not believe in the bible. He believes it is mans words, he rejects it as the words of the living God.

 

I don't think that I am better than Kurt, but we must be honest with his belief (unbelief) system, that it is not the same one as that of a bible believing Christian.

 

Actually, momof3 and I discussed this upthread.

 

hy do you think that Jesus spoke in parables?

It is for reasons similar to that.

God knows the hearts of men, and he gives them what they want. If a person wants to believe that there are contradictions and mistakes in his word, then God will let them have the 'evidence' that they desire.

 

That's neither here nor there, because the point of this article is that the fundamentalist argument is faulty, factually and logically. My point is that his argument is just as faulty, albeit more factual, and certainly more vague and evasive, than the fundamentalist argument. Your trying to convince me your argument is more sound than his is unnecessary.

 

Yes, but the difference is what religion/faith you are talking about. You can't just tar everyone with the same brush.

 

Setting aside the enormously offensive implication here, I'm not talking about any particular faith, but faithful thinking. The religious method, if you will. I'm not tarring anyone with any brush, I'm pointing out religious thinking has, by nature, certain components to it. You articulate some of these components for us, including the idea that unbelievers can never understand, and that superior information comes through supernatural means.

 

This is the scriptural method. If you believe that the words of the bible are God's words, then obey them. Simple. Problem of interpretation solved.

If you don't believe in the scriptural method, then yes, let the free-for-all continue.

 

This is an example of one of the conclusions the religious method has provided you with. The same methodology provides other people with different conclusions. I employed the same methodology and lost my faith. Eliana employs the same methodology and embraces Judaism (she and I had a really pleasant conversation a while back). Jenny in Florida is employing the same methodology and is finding a liberal Christian faith the most compelling conclusion. Guy Fawkes employed this same methodology and tried to blow up Parliament. Eric Rudolph employed the same methodology and set bombs in women's health clinics. Mother Teresa employed this same methodology and brought the plight of the most impoverished people to the world's attention. Using this same methodology, she also amassed great wealth in donated funds, but refused to provide the most rudimentary medical care when possible. Our author employs the same methodology and writes articles for the public to embrace a more liberal, vague form of Christianity.

 

So you see, people use this same methodology and find all kinds of different conclusions. I find that an important component of the religious method, and one worth recognizing. It's why I argue it's a completely unreliable methodology for gathering knowledge or understanding.

 

My comment may have been a little off-topic. I was drawing my conclusions as someone who reads and speaks English, having conversations with other English speaking Christians who can't seem to understand the basic grammar of sentences to understand the texts meaning. It gets frustrating and causes a whole heap of problems.

 

I think I got what you're saying. Thanks for clarifying for me.

 

I'm not the one claiming that I have seen the originals, or that the earliest manuscripts best represent these unseen originals. My position comes from an acknowledged position of faith. My position comes from what I can observe about the two lines of manuscripts that we have. My position comes from acknowledging which were the manuscripts that were heavily edited by men, and which simply had a scribal error that could simply be corrected through comparison within the majority text. My position comes from factoring in historical enmity between two faiths systems. My position comes from acknowledging Satan's devices.

 

I'm suggesting it's unreasonable for you to acknowledge these two lines of manuscripts without seeing them, but then call him a liar for acknowledging certain manuscripts without seeing them.

 

My belief factors in things Kurt does not...

 

Again, justifying your belief to me isn't necessary. You don't need to prove to me you have put careful thought into your beliefs. I believe you have. :)

[Teannika]

My interest in the discussion is 'the bible.' I am only really wanting to help people think about what the bible is. I am mainly writing my comments with other Christians in mind to help spark some thoughts. The conversation isn't going to get anywhere between believers and non-believers. And if I recall correctly albeto, your background was Catholic? (Perhaps you are more familiar with the Catholic bible?) I'm wondering how much knowledge you have about bible manuscript evidence?


Kurt's title is: 'The Bible: so misunderstood it's a sin.'


Again, I think that 'the bible', needs a clear definition before any discussion can be had about supposed contradictions. It's dishonest for someone to state as fact that there are mistakes and contradictions in 'the bible' when in reality that person has not pinned down the bible.

I do agree that Christians can misuse/misapply/misunderstand the bible, even the one from the faithful manuscripts.. with that angle I have no problem with.

Maybe I've gone off-topic, if so I apologise...
 

[Teannika]

Teannika, on 31 Dec 2014 - 08:12 AM, said:

Yes, but the difference is what religion/faith you are talking about. You can't just tar everyone with the same brush.

Setting aside the enormously offensive implication here, I'm not talking about any particular faith, but faithful thinking. The religious method, if you will. I'm not tarring anyone with any brush, I'm pointing out religious thinking has, by nature, certain components to it. You articulate some of these components for us, including the idea that unbelievers can never understand, and that superior information comes through supernatural means.

 

 

But you yourself display 'faithful thinking'. It may not be in the form of a religious text, but your text that you put faith in is also written by mankind. It is what other people are providing to you as 'evidence.'

 

Unbelievers can understand, if they want to. The bible uses plain speech on the major matters that relate to salvation.

But if they choose to not want to know or believe certain things, then they can easily find ways to explain truth away.

 

[Momof3]

Aargh! (pretend grimace) I need to get off this computer! :) 

 

Not at all.

 

I would encourage you to do just that. I would encourage you to study it apart from religious explanations. Learn about the natural world and the information we can glean from it. There are all kinds of really great resources for those exploring this for the first time. I find this site to be easy to navigate, and good for limited attention spans.

 

This is a misconception. The scientific literature contains no such debate, and hasn't for decades and centuries (explained in the link).

 

That depends on how you define science. :) I'm not really wanting a 101 on evolution...been there, done that. :) I would be more interested in some points of "science" that lead you to no possibility that a global flood could have covered the earth for a single day. I enjoy science, and I am not afraid of finding anything irreconcilable with the Bible. Like I said, I haven't seen anything like that yet... Scientists are often wrong...and scientific opinions do change with time...but it's always interesting to study. :)

 

The evidence doesn't support this hypothesis.

 

It depends on whose evidence you are looking at. :) 

There is no evidence to support any of that.

 

If you mean outside of the Bible account and (for the resurrection, at least) history, than, no. I take it nothing could make you believe in a "miracle" that happened 2000 years ago... No historical record, no eyewitness account, etc. You would only believe something that is scientifically plausible or could be repeated... Right? So, in your worldview, there is no room for anything beyond this existence...what we can see, feel, smell, etc. Do you see that this view takes as much faith as mine? 

I think you mean people are not always reliable with regard to understanding or analyzing historical events. Again, the more evidence we have, the more dots we can connect. The author of this article is encouraging people to accept evidence that exists outside the bible. The more you know...

 

Yes, this is what I mean. Sometimes. But the "more evidence" has to be right, valid, etc. The "evidence" this author is colored by his bias.

He could have left instructions written on the side of a mountain, or given us brains with a biological part that corresponds to his non-biological essence, or forgiven Adam and Eve in the garden, or made the wages of sin a really bad headache for a day. There's lots of things God could have done that we can never explore, confirm, or deny. We can, however, explore the natural world. We can become familiar with different aspects, we can delve into the details, and experiment with hypotheses. We can submit our ideas to the review of those who are trained in such areas. We can falsify claims and identify and correct mistakes. There is so much we can do. It's rather fascinating what we can learn about our world, our universe, and ourselves.

 

 

The only evidence for this claim is the same source that makes the claim - the bible. This is called circular reasoning and is dismissed in every other field. In fundamental religious theology, it's embraced.

 

If you choose to reject evidence outside of the Bible, than yes, all that you have left is the Bible. :) But history supports the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and the resurrection account. So ?

 

You're saying the same thing Teannika is saying - the bible has a secret code that is revealed only to a select few deemed worthy, and it confuses and confounds others. Don't you find it interesting that while everyone thinks that, everyone disagrees about what that secret code really is?

 

No, I'm telling you what the Bible says. There are people who would like to blame God for their unbelief - If I'm going to believe in Him, He's going to have to make it more obvious... God is asking for you to believe on Him because He says to...and the evidence for His existence is all around us...

 

Less than civil, or less than flattering?

 

Less than civil.

[albeto.]

*Sigh* I think you are reading a lot into her tone. That's what you walk away with...and I think I've personally learned some things in this thread about how to avoid that take-away... but, with respect, IMO your post reads with a much more patrionizing and condescending tone. Teannika is defending the Bible...you are mocking her for it. 

I enjoy Teannika's company quite a bit, one reason is because she responds to my words, not any "tone" she may infer. So, while I can appreciate your wanting to defend her from me, if she doesn't agree with what I say, I trust her to explain how, and correct my misrepresentations. But please don't confuse my challenging her claims with mocking them.

 

I think you should let her define her terms. What does she mean by "rejecting the Bible"? 

I do let her define her terms, but I'm not focused on hers or anyone's personal religious beliefs, so I don't have an interest in this detail.

 

Your issue with Christianity runs much deeper than your allegations that the Bible contains contradictions/error. Faith is a danger to society? Really? I totally agree that faith in a message of "go out and kill people" would be dangerous...but does it follow that faith is dangerous? I don't follow your logic. So all religions must be false because some religion could use faith to make people do bad things?

I do think the religious method is a danger to society because it encourages people to ignore facts, embrace beliefs understood to have been received through a supernatural agent, and suppress empathy, at least in some measure (some more so than others). When the facts ignored are small and insignificant, or when the beliefs understood are beneficial to humanity, there is no problem. When the facts ignored are great and the beliefs understood are irrational and delusional, there is a big problem. The thing is, the methodology itself is impervious to accountability, and that puts us all in danger, at the mercy of those using this methodology to do so benignly.

 

Okay...I've spent yet another entire naptime on the Hive... Gotta go, folks! Happy New Year! :)

Oh darn! I know how precious nap times are! I've enjoyed our conversation, and I hope you catch up on your rest and peaceful moments soon.

 

:)

[Teannika]

Teannika, I know how sold you are on the way you believe but if I could have one wish, it would be that you would see how incorrect this is.  Even if you stick to your understanding (which I respect that you have the right to do), you could at the very least acknowledge that there are other interpretations not just one.  "Problem of interpretation" can't be solved just by believing the words of the Bible are God's words.  So very, very many Christians wholeheartedly believe the Bible is God's written word to us, yet they still can come to diametrically opposed conclusions about what it says. So completely opposite that they can't both be right.  Please, please, please, try to understand that.  It's who/what is interpreting that brings about one's understanding of the Scriptures.  Everyone has to decide which interpreter/interpretation they trust and believe.  There's NO such thing as a "clear reading of scripture."

 

 

A definition is needed here as well. Believing the words of God comes in two forms:

 

1. The bible is God's own words which has simply been copied and translated word for word down throughout the centuries.

 

2. The bible contains the truth of God's words, but is not God's actual words. It can be responded to by the individual based on what they feel it should say.

 

 

Where this applies to our modern day bibles can be seen through the idea of 'dynamic equivalence' (invented by Eugene Nida 1960's), as opposed to 'formal equivalence.'

 

 

 

I think that you believe point 2 is true, whereas I believe that point 1 is true.

If we are both starting from different points, we can't really have much of a fruitful discussion about interpreting God's words, as we are not on the same page to begin with.

 

[Teannika]

Yeah, I enjoy these types of convos' if for no other reason than to find answers to what I believe and search things out further..


If I mock, there is no hatred behind it, seriously it's just my flesh wanting to be a "smarty pants." :lol:
If I sound blunt, it's because sometimes I want to get straight to the point, and the issue might be one that I take very seriously. (I don't actually believe that I know everything and nor am I above correction. Lots to learn here!)
 

[albeto.]

My interest in the discussion is 'the bible.' I am only really wanting to help people think about what the bible is.

So is the author.

 

I am mainly writing my comments with other Christians in mind to help spark some thoughts. The conversation isn't going to get anywhere between believers and non-believers.

On the contrary, I think there's been lots of helpful information and interesting insight shared.

 

And if I recall correctly albeto, your background was Catholic? (Perhaps you are more familiar with the Catholic bible?) I'm wondering how much knowledge you have about bible manuscript evidence?

Yes, I was Catholic.

 

Kurt's title is: 'The Bible: so misunderstood it's a sin.'

An obnoxious title for an arrogant, condescending article, in my opinion. But anyway...

 

Again, I think that 'the bible', needs a clear definition before any discussion can be had about supposed contradictions. It's dishonest for someone to state as fact that there are mistakes and contradictions in 'the bible' when in reality that person has not pinned down the bible.

Christians have been trying to define the bible, and the faith, for some 2000 years. This ought to illuminate the complexity of the problem, and the problem with the simplistic solution that the faith will make it all clear to those who really, truly believe.

[Teannika]

Teannika, on 31 Dec 2014 - 09:22 AM, said:

My interest in the discussion is 'the bible.' I am only really wanting to help people think about what the bible is.

So is the author.

 

 

 

Except that we both have different goals in this:

 

Mine is to encourage a person's faith and trust in the reliability of the bible.

 

His is to undermine the trust that a person can have in the written words of God.

[albeto.]

But you yourself display 'faithful thinking'. It may not be in the form of a religious text, but your text that you put faith in is also written by mankind. It is what other people are providing to you as 'evidence.'

 

This is a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the scientific method (an alternative method to religion for understanding the world).

 

Unbelievers can understand, if they want to. The bible uses plain speech on the major matters that relate to salvation.

But if they choose to not want to know or believe certain things, then they can easily find ways to explain truth away.

 

We've talked about this, though. This same methodology does not produce uniform conclusions. Your assurances are in competition to the assurances of other believers of the Abrahamic faiths, assurances that provide completely different results.

[albeto.]

If you mean outside of the Bible account and (for the resurrection, at least) history, than, no. I take it nothing could make you believe in a "miracle" that happened 2000 years ago... No historical record, no eyewitness account, etc. You would only believe something that is scientifically plausible or could be repeated... Right? So, in your worldview, there is no room for anything beyond this existence...what we can see, feel, smell, etc. Do you see that this view takes as much faith as mine? 

 

A miracle is simply an event explained through supernatural means. Until someone can explain the supernatural in a consistent, reliable way, there is no reason to consider it.

 

Yes, this is what I mean. Sometimes. But the "more evidence" has to be right, valid, etc. The "evidence" this author is colored by his bias.

 

One of the functions of the peer review process is to identify and weed out personal biases. Over time, this methodology provides a self-correcting tool. Errors in logic, cognitive biases, sloppy application of variables, and other things are identified by others. The feed-back and open-source communication contribute to a foundation of knowledge that has a track record of accuracy and reliability. This is notably different from the religious method that relies on claims of divine revelation. Divine revelation has a history of inaccuracy and unreliability.

 

If you choose to reject evidence outside of the Bible, than yes, all that you have left is the Bible. :) But history supports the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and the resurrection account. So ?

 

That's what Mormons and Muslims say about their holy books, too.

[albeto.]

I think the idea that there's one religious methodology (or a single religious epistemology) is as wrong as the idea that there's one way of reading the Bible. 

 

I'm using the concept of religious methodology to refer to relying on supernatural revelation as a reliable method of obtaining information. There are sources that record and relay this revelation, and people will differ in their opinions about the validity or interpretations of these sources, but a supernatural (outside the confines of the natural world) revelation a source of information. In the Abrahamic religions, this supernatural source is understood to be divine.  That doesn't mean everyone applies all the same variables, or that they follow the same path, but the thing that unites them all is believing that certain claims are true by virtue of some divine revelation.

[albeto.]

Yeah, I enjoy these types of convos' if for no other reason than to find answers to what I believe and search things out further..

 

 

If I mock, there is no hatred behind it, seriously it's just my flesh wanting to be a "smarty pants." :lol:

If I sound blunt, it's because sometimes I want to get straight to the point, and the issue might be one that I take very seriously. (I don't actually believe that I know everything and nor am I above correction. Lots to learn here!)

 

 

That's one of the reasons I like conversing with you. There's no assumption of a hidden message through tone (mockery or ridicule, for example). I don't get the impression you're trying to be a "smarty pants," but rather that you're trying to communicate a particular idea. You say what you mean, and you keep it on topic. If I come across as mocking you, please know it's not my intent. I too try to just "get straight to the point."

[Joanne]

 

Except that we both have different goals in this:

 

Mine is to encourage a person's faith and trust in the reliability of the bible.

 

His is to undermine the trust that a person can have in the written words of God.

 

Teannika,

 

I am certain I am not alone in this but your approach to "encourage a person's faith and reliability of the Bible" is a turn OFF.

 

I don't agree that his motive is to undermine trust a person can have. I believe his motive (and it was a cursory, sweeping, not well done treatment) is to confront the truth that the Bible IS contradictory, flawed, incongruent, ambiguous. But that his God was bigger and the Bible true in the important sense - spiritually.

 

Being continually forced to frame Christianity from your perspective didn't enhance my faith or add to it. The closest I came to the fullness of faith was when  - for a fleeting moment -  I was able to relax into the fullness of Christ and the important truth of the Bible.

 

Why, as a Christian, would you continually bring animosity and hate and hostility to that? How is that in any way matching the "one anothers" of the NT?

[milovany]

A definition is needed here as well. Believing the words of God comes in two forms....

 

See, though -- this just goes to prove my point.  Even this reply is opinion not fact. You're bringing your definition and understanding into it and making it the foundation, but that doesn't mean it's the only, right one. It's foundational for your thought/interpretation/understanding. But that's just it ... it's yours; other people have different opinions/thoughts/understandings that form the foundation of their beliefs about what it means to believe that the Bible is the Word of God. I don't think there are "two forms" of believing in the written words of God even though you do. I think the written word is secondary to the divine Word of God (the living Jesus) and the Church through whom He is now presented to the world (His "Body"). You don't have to agree with me, that's fine.  I accept that you see it differently through the lens you use and that you're wholehearted and sincere and that according to what you believe, what you're saying makes sense for you. What I wholeheartedly believe (described above) creates the foundation of my faith and I believe it to be true (and believe there's more historical, spiritual and Scriptural backing for approaching it this way rather than the way you describe). We can't both be right, but we can both accept that what each of us believes is based on a chosen perspective/interpretation.  

 

Anyway, peace to you, peace to all. 

[Liz CA]

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

 

Yes, no SUV's. Wise men took a while to get there.

[Jenny in Florida]

 

Teannika said:

Except that we both have different goals in this:

Mine is to encourage a person's faith and trust in the reliability of the bible.

His is to undermine the trust that a person can have in the written words of God.

 

Teannika,

 

I am certain I am not alone in this but your approach to "encourage a person's faith and reliability of the Bible" is a turn OFF.

 

I don't agree that his motive is to undermine trust a person can have. I believe his motive (and it was a cursory, sweeping, not well done treatment) is to confront the truth that the Bible IS contradictory, flawed, incongruent, ambiguous. But that his God was bigger and the Bible true in the important sense - spiritually.

 

Being continually forced to frame Christianity from your perspective didn't enhance my faith or add to it. The closest I came to the fullness of faith was when  - for a fleeting moment -  I was able to relax into the fullness of Christ and the important truth of the Bible.

 

Why, as a Christian, would you continually bring animosity and hate and hostility to that? How is that in any way matching the "one anothers" of the NT?

 

What Joanne said.

 

As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, I've actually been moving closer toward Christianity in the last few years. But posts like the ones Teannika has shared here make me feel I'm moving in the wrong direction.

 

If, as she says, there's only one "right" way to read and understand the bible and that way is the one she describes, then it's clear I'm not welcome in that club.

 

I guess I really didn't understand the whole thing, after all.

[albeto.]

And I'm disagreeing with you that this is a methodology shared by all people who consider themselves religious. Perhaps you would consider being specific and speak about the dangers of relying on supernatural revelation as a method of obtaining information instead of using the term "religious methodology"?

 

I don't mean anything sarcastic or insulting by the term, only to show the juxtaposition between the two methodologies. One method refers to the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, analysis of data, peer review, etc, the other refers to the belief that otherwise unobtainable information is revealed through divine means.

 

One danger with this second methodology is that any accountability is self-imposed. One finds the community of believers with similar beliefs and dismiss the rest. Any time you accept a claim as true because you believe it is true, you run the risk of believing the wrong thing. Sometimes that Wrong Thing creates problems for people that otherwise they wouldn't have to face. From ignoring climate change, to putting autistic school children in isolated, padded boxes, to promoting the ideologies of vengeance-as-justice, we undermine our own objectives when we disregard information and rely instead on religion. And the problem with this is methodology is in trying to reason with someone whose rationalization is impervious to reason and logic because they're sure they're right because they have faith they're right, they know because their religion guides them. Well, you can argue like Teannika and momof3 are - they know the mind and will of God better. Of course, when you press them for details, you'll find they disregard facts and information, and apply faith in lieu of such things. That's not a reliable method, regardless of who employs it.

 

I've been told here that people answer to a "higher authority" and have no ethical problem with breaking the law if it interferes with their faith. They offer this as a testament to the strength of their faith, and honestly, all I can think about is religious terrorism is justified by the very. same. virtue. That's bothersome, and problematic, and thank goodness, most people don't act as seriously as they talk.

[Jasperstone]

 

 

 

 

What Joanne said.

 

As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, I've actually been moving closer toward Christianity in the last few years. But posts like the ones Teannika has shared here make me feel I'm moving in the wrong direction.

 

If, as she says, there's only one "right" way to read and understand the bible and that way is the one she describes, then it's clear I'm not welcome in that club.

 

I guess I really didn't understand the whole thing, after all.

 

 

 

 

I find it very strange that you would put your trust and belief system into what Teannika says. It's unfair to make it *appear* that Teannika is *responsible* for your disbelief, or growth. Seriously.....

 

If that's not emotional blackmail- you better stop sharing your views, otherwise I won't touch your the Faith.... you are turning me off, and you are totally responsible for that etc....Then I don't know what is.

[albeto.]

I understand that you don't mean anything sarcastic or insulting by it. My objection is its accuracy, not your tone. You're picking one aspect of some people's religion (reliance on supernatural explanations) and essentializing it as the definition of what you're calling "religious methodology."

 

I'm talking about the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). I mentioned that upthread, but perhaps not enough. Divine revelation is the fundamental element of these religions.

[Joanne]

I find it very strange that you would put your trust and belief system into what Teannika says. It's unfair to make it *appear* that Teannika is *responsible* for your disbelief, or growth. Seriously.....

 

If that's not emotional blackmail- you better stop sharing your views, otherwise I won't touch your the Faith.... you are turning me off, and you are totally responsible for that etc....Then I don't know what is.

 

Are you a Christian? If so, how does this response fit in with encouraging other believers?

 

Do you not see/read the PAIN in her post?

 

Instead of call Teannika out on her approach to BELIEVERS, you choose to belittle Jenny?

 

Seriously...........

[Jasperstone]

Are you a Christian? If so, how does this response fit in with encouraging other believers?

 

Do you not see/read the PAIN in her post?

 

Instead of call Teannika out on her approach to BELIEVERS, you choose to belittle Jenny?

 

Seriously...........

 

No, I didn't read at as being in pain.... How I saw it is being a manipulation to silence her from sharing.

 

I'm truly sorry if that's the case....

[albeto.]

I am speaking from within that tradition. While belief in divine revelation is a necessary element of these religions relying on supernatural explanations as a methodology for understanding the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world is not.

 

To some extent it is. Whether than line is conservatively drawn at the origins of the earth as described in the book of Genesis, or as vague as the idea of "sin," at some point, divine revelation is used as fact regarding some aspect of the natural world.

 

[milovany]

No, I didn't read at as being in pain.... How I saw it is being a manipulation to silence her from sharing.

 

I'm truly sorry if that's the case....

 

You might want to take a look at Jenny's new thread on the main chat board.  I did read it as seeking/searching not as emotional manipulation. 

[Jasperstone]

You might want to take a look at Jenny's new thread on the main chat board.  I did read it as seeking/searching not as emotional manipulation. 

 

I just saw it now.  :blushing:

 

I hate how one can read 'tone' into things online, when it's not there. :sad:

 

My bad..... I apologize.

[albeto.]

I am disinclined to rule out as "non-Christian" (or non-Jewish or non-Muslim) the people I know who self-identify as such and disagree with you. However, I make a distinction between using something as a conceptual framework to organize facts and using it as a source of facts. Perhaps you don't acknowledge that distinction?

 

I don't understand what you're saying. Can you explain?

[Rosie_0801]

No, I didn't read at as being in pain.... How I saw it is being a manipulation to silence her from sharing.

 

I'm truly sorry if that's the case....

 

That is hardly Jenny's style.

[albeto.]

I can try.

 

I'm saying that there are Christians, Jews, and Muslims (also a few Buddhists and one Hindu) that I know personally who use the scriptures and teachings of their religious traditions as a framework for organizing thoughts but not as a source of facts about the physical world.

 

"Sin" as used in your earlier post I would consider an organizing concept rather than a supernaturally revealed "fact."

 

Thanks. "Sin" is absolutely a divinely revealed "fact." There is no such physical component in the physiology of the human body, and there is no trait of "sinfulness" that can be explained through natural means. Behavior can be explained without the concept of violating God's will (which is what sin is).

 

 

[Jasperstone]

That is hardly Jenny's style.

 

I don't know her style..... that's the annoying thing online....I don't think we've communicated before. Or if we have in the past, I haven't noticed. Like I have said previously, I'm sorry for taking it like that.

 

 

[lea_lpz]

Because it's not the least bit biased to Christianity ?

[Rosie_0801]

"Sloth is a sin" is a fact. (Could be true or false, but is a statement of fact.) "Sin" isn't. It's a concept.

 

 

Statements are not facts unless they are actually true.