The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[ZAKtheGeek]

Originally Posted by Nique

Since these parts require some understanding of the original writings, as I mentioned, I'm not sure what you mean.

Maybe you could give an example and we can take it from there?

Just a couple of posts back.

Originally Posted by me

Stuff like how many sons Abraham had, how many of Arah's kids returned from Babylon (a whole bunch of issues there, really), how old Ahaziah was when he took the throne (and therefore whether he was born 2 or 22 years before his own father), David's kill count, when the floodwaters dired, the genealogy of Jesus (or Joseph if you want), some crazy army size numbers, and so on.

Granted, some of these have been shown to be erroneous accusations, but the rest (and more) are quite clearly errors, even by admission of believers.

[Nique]

Just a couple of posts back.

Just kind of an apology here: I am sorry for not catching that earlier, but I am sort of refusing to participate in this thread religiously (pardon the pun!), so I am kind of just jumping in on points I can comment on. I can refrain if this approach is overly irritating, but I don't think I'm the only one doing this.

I can't comment in depth on every one of those issues at the moment, however, on cases where there appear to be serious contradictions in numerical values; In some instances, it is merely different items being counted, or only part of a group being numbered. Again, recognizing that modern translations don't give us every detail as well as they could as well as understanding the context of what was being done is huge here. I will do research on those however.

Jesus family line is an extremely basic misunderstanding that critics like to throw out there. What we have here is the geneology of both of Jesus' earthly parents. One is Mary's geneology expressed in a patriarchal format (thus, Joeseph's name replaces her in the family line) and the other is Joeseph's actual family line.

Granted, some of these have been shown to be erroneous accusations, but the rest (and more) are quite clearly errors, even by admission of believers.

I'm willing to concede only that modern translations of the bible don't express things the way they should be understood at times, and very rarely does this prevent us from finding an explination. Any contrary information in the bible that I've encountered has been met with a satisfactory explination.

I will examine some of those other points and get back to you on what I find soon!

[ZAKtheGeek]

I'm not necessarily saying there are "unexplainable issues" to be found among the contradictions (although I'm also not going to claim there aren't any); I'm saying there definitely is data contradiction, so it's quite wrong to claim that there isn't. If you want to argue about whether or not it matters, we could go from there.

Now that I think about it, it is fairly disturbing that numbers might ever be improperly copied over. You'd think that numbers would be the only things that could survive translation among languages.

[Nique]

Now that I think about it, it is fairly disturbing that numbers might ever be improperly copied over. You'd think that numbers would be the only things that could survive translation among languages.

There was an PBS special on the development of numbering systems - Consider the almost completly outdated roman numerals, and how complex those symbols get. Now imagine systems of calulation even worse than that, and you have, probably, a better chance of retaining accuracy in the words vs. the numerals? Don't take modern numerals for granted!

I'm saying there definitely is data contradiction, so it's quite wrong to claim that there isn't.

But, since most of these can be explained (not always easily, but actually, usually, pretty easily... esspecially big issues like Jesus' geneology) then there is, effectivly, no contradiction. Merely a misunderstanding.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Originally Posted by Nique

But, since most of these can be explained (not always easily, but actually, usually, pretty easily... esspecially big issues like Jesus' geneology) then there is, effectivly, no contradiction. Merely a misunderstanding.

You're just mincing words. Or I am. Both of us are! When it says that Ahaziah was 42 when he took the throne, I'm not "mistaking" the number 42 for the number 22, as it also says elsewhere. In no way is that a mistake on my part; that's a mistake in the bible. Or two mistakes, for all I know. But again, semantics; instead we should discuss the ramifications of these issues, if anything.

Originally Posted by Nique

There was an PBS special on the development of numbering systems - Consider the almost completly outdated roman numerals, and how complex those symbols get. Now imagine systems of calulation even worse than that, and you have, probably, a better chance of retaining accuracy in the words vs. the numerals? Don't take modern numerals for granted!

So you trust the translation of somebody who was too lazy to check their math when it comes to the "word of God?" More shady business. And for the record, what I meant was that numbers actually have precisely, perfectly translatable meaning; unlike words.

[Nique]

So you trust the translation of somebody who was too lazy to check their math when it comes to the "word of God?"

I was merely pointing out how difficult ancient numeral systems were. This was information for you. Not a part of the argument.

In no way is that a mistake on my part; that's a mistake in the bible.

Since in this case, '42' is so obviously incorrect added to the fact that the numbers were apparently very similar in appearance in the original writing, I don't really see how this is an issue. This "error" isn't present in the translation of the Bible I use, except for a referance explaining the discrepancy.

The ramifications of this would be, I guess, that realitivly unimportant errors are possible, are pretty rare, and are correctable? The Bible's word-for-word translation and over-all meaning is extremely well preserved for it's age. Essepecially with some of the very early copies that have been recovered for comparision. I can imagine that it would uncomfortable for critics to address this point though, eh?

As far as the "lazy" translator jab... does that really need to be entertained? I mean, that small numerical errors are possible, as even occurs at times in modern printing, means we discredit the entire work? Plus, we have had many more diligent, skilled, and correct translations available since the KJV v. 1.0 came out. This "error" has been corrected, ostensibly, some might claim under God's guidance.

On the other hand, I think it would be foolish to claim that God puts a magic shield around the Bible - If it was entrusted to imperfect humans, even under 'inspiration' and the best of intentions, small errors have likely crept in (and in some cases, out) over the course of the Bible's translation.

Also! There's a big issue certain fundamentalist groups have with using anything but the KJV or even claiming that KJV might not be as correct as they think. I'm going to hell for using a translation partly derived from Westcott & Hort texts, apparently.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Originally Posted by Nique

The ramifications of this would be, I guess, that realitivly unimportant errors are possible, are pretty rare, and are correctable? The Bible's word-for-word translation and over-all meaning is extremely well preserved for it's age. Essepecially with some of the very early copies that have been recovered for comparision. I can imagine that it would uncomfortable for critics to address this point though, eh?

I imagine so as well. Of course, such an argument only needs to be used if one actually thinks the original texts were divinely inspired in the first place. Keep reading to see why I used it...

Originally Posted by Nique

On the other hand, I think it would be foolish to claim that God puts a magic shield around the Bible - If it was entrusted to imperfect humans, even under 'inspiration' and the best of intentions, small errors have likely crept in (and in some cases, out) over the course of the Bible's translation.

That's basically my whole point. I just don't want people to think they're dealing with a perfect reference. That's plain delusion.

Originally Posted by Nique

As far as the "lazy" translator jab... does that really need to be entertained? I mean, that small numerical errors are possible, as even occurs at times in modern printing, means we discredit the entire work?

Well, first of all, what original modern content deals with matters nearly as important as those purported in the bible? There's an entirely different level of certainty I would think people would want in their infallible divine text. That's just me though. Second, again, I aim not to discredit the work entirely, but to remove it from the pedestal of perfection, as though it really could be the word of God, verbatim. What also really annoys me is when people use a single line from the bible to try to support some idea, or use the semantics and basic meticulous grammar of a particular sentence as though it carries significance. That's really what bothers me. "Hey, check out Matthew 4:10. Notice how that's worded kinda weird? Maybe it means something!" *actually looks up Matthew 4:10* Hm.

[Kikuichimonji]

Originally Posted by 42PETUNIAS

That's an enormous problem right there. A lot of my problems with christianity stem from the idea that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus gets to live in hell for the rest of eternity. If the bible had that down as "a time", I'm sure the views would be much more understandable.

I can't really believe I'm posting in this, but...

At least for Catholic social teaching(I can't speak of other denominations), Hell isn't as much a punishment as a choice to forever be separate from God. In fact, Hell's existence would represent an act of God's love - he would allow a person he loves to reject him and live in isolation. I don't buy into the whole 'pain for eternity' thing, either, though. And that's not really pushed that much anymore other than individual priests, as far as I know.

If you're going to criticize the idea of an eternal Hell, then you need to understand that Hell would actually be outside of time. Which makes no sense to us, because we are beings that exist in and through time. It could be best described as a state of being away from God where constancy is an infinite understatement, the same way that Heaven would be a state of being together with God.

I'm a senior at a Jesuit (Catholic) high school, so I consider myself mildly authoritative on Catholic social teachings.

[BitVyper]

Hell isn't as much a punishment as a choice to forever be separate from God.

But whether you accept or reject God is still decided in life, right? So it really has more to do with whether or not you accept an imperfect, mortal institution's interpretation of God. A mortal institution that has been shown to be corrupt. No, you can't really blame religion or the church for its corrupt members, but it certainly does colour one's view, and if you're deciding whether or not to isolate yourself from God in this life, that image is really all you have to go on.

Of course, Romans something something tells us everyone starts with that faith, but in that case it really comes down to God's personal choice.

And that's not really pushed that much anymore other than individual priests, as far as I know.

It's not pushed because everyone already assumes it. It's still there. It's just something you don't really have to say. It's also a lot less socially acceptable to talk like that too, which is kind of nice.

[Kikuichimonji]

Originally Posted by BitVyper

But whether you accept or reject God is still decided in life, right? So it really has more to do with whether or not you accept an imperfect, mortal institution's interpretation of God. A mortal institution that has been shown to be corrupt. No, you can't really blame religion or the church for its corrupt members, but it certainly does colour one's view, and if you're deciding whether or not to isolate yourself from God in this life, that image is really all you have to go on.

Of course, Romans something something tells us everyone starts with that faith, but in that case it really comes down to God's personal choice.

Actually, from what I know, it's at the point of death. The thing, though, is that you could actively make steps towards isolation from God in life, i.e. sins, especially mortal. The reason that anyone who dies in a state of mortal sin would go to Hell is that they have made a full, free decision to do so. This freedom is obviously restricted by knowledge. Therefore, anyone who honestly has never made a statement (through thought or action) of full contempt and disregard for God is not automatically damned. (In fact, in my personal opinion, such an act is impossible for any rational being, because it would be completely illogical to deny a true God in order to follow a less-fulfilling worldview. Although the option for that would still be open, no one would ever take it.)

No earthly individual or family is perfect. The material Church is not. However, saying that imperfection would seriously deter a person from experiencing an intense and meaningful spiritual connection or admitting it would be like saying you can't love your wife because she has an annoying voice. Any inability to love her in this situation stems from personal problems moreso than from the Church's imperfections. Do they inhibit the connection from forming? Yes. Do they make it impossible? No.

Saying the Church is corrupt because of the evils it proliferated in the past would be like saying Europe is corrupt because of Nazi Germany.

It's not pushed because everyone already assumes it. It's still there. It's just something you don't really have to say. It's also a lot less socially acceptable to talk like that too, which is kind of nice.

That could potentially be part of it.