T Nation

Conservative Bible Project

So…the Bible is “too liberal?”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34270487/

Is this really necessary? I thought the Bible was about your personal interpretation. As if that isn’t skewed enough by scholars,preachers,etc. Thoughts?

This is ridiculous, I understand that the Bible is put through tradition, but this is just ridiculous. It is like a bunch of Martin Luthers running around.

There is interpretations, and then there is what it means. Two different things, interpretations you can read something and take what it means to you because of how you see it at that specific time and what it is telling you of a certain situation.

Patently false Roman Catholic assertion.

This article is an example of a reporter not knowing what they’re talking about.

This.

You can buy critical Greek New Testaments and read it in its original language if you want. The Bible is not a political document except for the Israelite period where politics and religion were the same thing.

The issue with Bible translation from Greek and Hebrew is one of being true to the original Greek/Hebrew while still maintaining sentence readability in the language the Greek/Hebrew is being translated into. Greek is quite a bit different than English in more ways than just sentence structure. Often, literary aspects of the original text get lost in translation (word plays, alliteration, etc). It’s the job of the minister to bring these out in the sermon.

That said, politics has nothing to do with the Christian religion.

It sounds as though the Lawyers are moving into religion. I believe Religion has lost itâ??s moral compass. In my opinion they have lost their moral authority. I do my best to believe in God but I loath religion

Stories like this always make me think of buddy christ.

Buddy Christ is awesome. Thumbs UP!

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

There is interpretations, and then there is what it means. .[/quote]

But when different perceptions (people) read the same material, especially religious material, there will always be differing interpretations regardless of what the authors intended. This is why the tree of Christianity, alone, has well into the thousands of branches.

One viewpoint cannot have hegemony on a particular interpretation, the world is big enough for differences in opinion.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

Patently false Roman Catholic assertion.

This article is an example of a reporter not knowing what they’re talking about.

This.

You can buy critical Greek New Testaments and read it in its original language if you want. The Bible is not a political document except for the Israelite period where politics and religion were the same thing.

The issue with Bible translation from Greek and Hebrew is one of being true to the original Greek/Hebrew while still maintaining sentence readability in the language the Greek/Hebrew is being translated into. Greek is quite a bit different than English in more ways than just sentence structure. Often, literary aspects of the original text get lost in translation (word plays, alliteration, etc). It’s the job of the minister to bring these out in the sermon.

That said, politics has nothing to do with the Christian religion. [/quote]

Haha, I think whoever is this just grabbing at anything, even if it is false laity rumors of other religions.

[quote]spurlock wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

There is interpretations, and then there is what it means. .[/quote]

But when different perceptions (people) read the same material, especially religious material, there will always be differing interpretations regardless of what the authors intended. This is why the tree of Christianity, alone, has well into the thousands of branches.

One viewpoint cannot have hegemony on a particular interpretation, the world is big enough for differences in opinion.
[/quote]

There is a difference between what people call interpretations and scholarly differences. When a minister of the word reads a scripture and interprets it in a homily that is interpretation of what God is trying to say to the minister and the laity. There is a definite meaning behind scripture, what the author was saying. Yes, there is some difference between scholars, but most have the same ideas.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

There is a difference between what people call interpretations and scholarly differences. When a minister of the word reads a scripture and interprets it in a homily that is interpretation of what God is trying to say to the minister and the laity. There is a definite meaning behind scripture, what the author was saying. Yes, there is some difference between scholars, but most have the same ideas. [/quote]

I can’t agree with this due to my own direct experiences with religion. Let me explain why.

I grew up with a lunatic for a mother. One of her routines was to continually change the churches we attended every time she heard something she didn’t like. My sister and I were lugged around from the Mormon Temples (after the three or four visits she allowed to our apartment) to the hard-core Southern Baptist churches…and everything in between…including patronizing the local tribes by paying to watch their spiritual ceremonies (I always wondered how pissed off Catholics would be if a group from the Crow reservation showed up to mass and started clapping and taking fucking pictures!).

Out of this kluster, I was exposed to many differing points of view (some shockingly so…at one point, I had a Lutheran pastor tell me the man lived with the dinosaurs). Most of these were from ministers/pastors and fellow worshipers, but since she treated churches like they baseball fans treat ‘their teams,’ we also heard from many guest speakers (the scholarly types). Even these people would take the same verse and interpret it in a range that went from absolute fundy to secular (we had a guy come in and basically interpret the Gospels like Eckhart Tolle does).

If my mother was intentionally trying to expose us to numerous opinions so we became devout…it sure backfired. Hearing so many opposing points of view concerning the same material (hell, the same verse), has made it very difficult for me to not see Christianity (in specific, but establishment religion in general) as anything but another human enterprise.

But that’s just me.

Makes me cringe. Some years ago, one the main complaints about “the Left” - especially beginning in the 60s - was that they made everything political. There was no sphere of life that couldn’t be political - and now “the Right” is becoming guilty of the same sins.

You can’t exorcise all politics out of the Bible or its interpretation - but this project isn’t worth much. If corrections need to be made to be truer to the text as it was written, I have no problem with that - that is Biblical scholarship - but shoehorning a political ideology into it to have it read more amenable to modern “conservatives” (as if the prophets and scribes of the 4th century were writing to massage the pleasure buttons of 21st century right-wing types) is a bad and hypocritical idea.

[quote]spurlock wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

There is a difference between what people call interpretations and scholarly differences. When a minister of the word reads a scripture and interprets it in a homily that is interpretation of what God is trying to say to the minister and the laity. There is a definite meaning behind scripture, what the author was saying. Yes, there is some difference between scholars, but most have the same ideas. [/quote]

I can’t agree with this due to my own direct experiences with religion. Let me explain why.

I grew up with a lunatic for a mother. One of her routines was to continually change the churches we attended every time she heard something she didn’t like. My sister and I were lugged around from the Mormon Temples (after the three or four visits she allowed to our apartment) to the hard-core Southern Baptist churches…and everything in between…including patronizing the local tribes by paying to watch their spiritual ceremonies (I always wondered how pissed off Catholics would be if a group from the Crow reservation showed up to mass and started clapping and taking fucking pictures!).

Out of this kluster, I was exposed to many differing points of view (some shockingly so…at one point, I had a Lutheran pastor tell me the man lived with the dinosaurs). Most of these were from ministers/pastors and fellow worshipers, but since she treated churches like they baseball fans treat ‘their teams,’ we also heard from many guest speakers (the scholarly types). Even these people would take the same verse and interpret it in a range that went from absolute fundy to secular (we had a guy come in and basically interpret the Gospels like Eckhart Tolle does).

If my mother was intentionally trying to expose us to numerous opinions so we became devout…it sure backfired. Hearing so many opposing points of view concerning the same material (hell, the same verse), has made it very difficult for me to not see Christianity (in specific, but establishment religion in general) as anything but another human enterprise.

But that’s just me.[/quote]

Actually you do agree with me, the interpretation of the text can be interpreted 1000’s of a different ways just matters the situation the person and their experiences. Here is an experiment, go to a Catholic Church on Sunday in the morning, and go to another Catholic Church the same day but in the evening or something. You’ll get two different interpretations of the text, from two different people.

However what I was talking about the scholarly understanding of text (at least in Catholicism) is pretty much the same and there is some arguments about text, but the understanding is similar.

[quote]
Schlafly’s project is distinctive, though, because non-experts collaborate Wiki-style on the Internet to produce their version.

“The best of the public is better than a group of experts,” said Schlafly[/quote]

What a fool. These are the same sort of people who think that the “best of the public” are better judges of things like evolution as well. Perhaps we should open up a wiki-style page for producing a more legitimate analysis of evolution. If people who have never held an ancient manuscript are qualified to comment on critical editions of the Bible, surely people who have never looked into a microscope are qualified to appraise evolution.

At this rate, maybe in a few years we could hold a vote on whether or not the Riemann Zeta Hypothesis is correct.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
You can buy critical Greek New Testaments and read it in its original language if you want. The Bible is not a political document except for the Israelite period where politics and religion were the same thing.

The issue with Bible translation from Greek and Hebrew is one of being true to the original Greek/Hebrew while still maintaining sentence readability in the language the Greek/Hebrew is being translated into. Greek is quite a bit different than English in more ways than just sentence structure. Often, literary aspects of the original text get lost in translation (word plays, alliteration, etc). It’s the job of the minister to bring these out in the sermon.[/quote]

Regardless of being made to in some sense study Greek in seminary, it seems to me that few ministers are competent in it. They may even make it up.

I had a pastor who in one sermon made a major point of the distinction between (transliterating here) dunamis and exousia. Choosing various verses, he had seven cases that he alleged were one or the other.

On checking when I got home, he was wrong 4 out of 7 times. (No, I cannot read Greek but I can look things up.)

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
You can buy critical Greek New Testaments and read it in its original language if you want. The Bible is not a political document except for the Israelite period where politics and religion were the same thing.

The issue with Bible translation from Greek and Hebrew is one of being true to the original Greek/Hebrew while still maintaining sentence readability in the language the Greek/Hebrew is being translated into. Greek is quite a bit different than English in more ways than just sentence structure. Often, literary aspects of the original text get lost in translation (word plays, alliteration, etc). It’s the job of the minister to bring these out in the sermon.[/quote]

Regardless of being made to in some sense study Greek in seminary, it seems to me that few ministers are competent in it. They may even make it up.

I had a pastor who in one sermon made a major point of the distinction between (transliterating here) dunamis and exousia. Choosing various verses, he had seven cases that he alleged were one or the other.

On checking when I got home, he was wrong 4 out of 7 times. (No, I cannot read Greek but I can look things up.)[/quote]

One could only wish that the issues stopped at translating the ancient language. That’s generally the easy part though.

As for ministers being competent in Greek, I’m somehow not surprised. I often hear ministers (or pastors, preachers, whatever you want to call them) spout out words or phrases in Greek and wonder whether their knowledge starts and stops at those words or if they possess substantive knowledge of ancient Greek and ancient manuscripts.

A good example of an often quoted bit of Greek is John 1:1, where preachers love to mention that the Greek word for ‘word’ is ‘logos’ and then mention that ‘logos’ means ‘word’, as if that much wasn’t apparent from the translation. Unfortunately they don’t mention either the much more common uses of logos, like its normal meaning more akin to ‘reason’, nor do they mention what connections the word generally has with the neoplatonic “trinity” of reason, beauty (or the one) and the world soul (sound familiar?) which would have been well known at the time the gospel of John was written. Of course, the mere mention of that historical association will probably be scoffed at by most modern day Christians, who feel more comforted thinking that the author of John wrote that line with the intention of ‘logos’ referring to a book (the Bible) which wouldn’t be put together for another 400 years.

Oh well.

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:

A good example of an often quoted bit of Greek is John 1:1…by most modern day Christians, who feel more comforted thinking that the author of John wrote that line with the intention of ‘logos’ referring to a book (the Bible) which wouldn’t be put together for another 400 years.

Oh well. [/quote]

You sure you’ve got the right passage? Because John 1:1 is about Christ. I’ve never heard anyone (in my own religious life) suggest otherwise. Honestly, they can’t, really. The book (bible) bit is a new one to me.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:

A good example of an often quoted bit of Greek is John 1:1, where preachers love to mention that the Greek word for ‘word’ is ‘logos’ and then mention that ‘logos’ means ‘word’, as if that much wasn’t apparent from the translation. Unfortunately they don’t mention either the much more common uses of logos, like its normal meaning more akin to ‘reason’, nor do they mention what connections the word generally has with the neoplatonic “trinity” of reason, beauty (or the one) and the world soul (sound familiar?) which would have been well known at the time the gospel of John was written. Of course, the mere mention of that historical association will probably be scoffed at by most modern day Christians, who feel more comforted thinking that the author of John wrote that line with the intention of ‘logos’ referring to a book (the Bible) which wouldn’t be put together for another 400 years.

Oh well. [/quote]

You know I am loathe to correct you but you royally fucked that up ^^(emphasis mine), my dear pseudo Bible scholar. For you to come riding in here on your high horse criticizing those who seek to interpret Scripture and then totally blow something like that is beyond amusing.

Oh well.

And no, I don’t even feel compelled to explain it to you. Google practically any Bible commentary for the lessons you missed when pursuing your divinity degree.

You really should’ve handcuffed yourself to the Preamble to Your State Constitution thread. That’s where your intellect really shined. [cough] (Sorry, but the smoke from your weed is drifting up from the next post)[/quote]

Please, yes, yes, ‘logos’ refers to Christ, I know that. I’m not that dumb. What I was saying, in the context of my bashing bad interpretations, was that I’ve heard many preachers also associate ‘logos’ with the Bible, in order to draw connections between Christ and the word of God. I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clear, but since I was talking about bad translations I thought that would have been obvious. Further, the entire point of that paragraph wasn’t to point out what the author of John intended ‘logos’ to refer to, but what the historical connotations of the word are, historical connotations that Greek-happy preachers are all to quick to forget when it’s not expedient.

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
[Please, yes, yes, ‘logos’ refers to Christ, I know that. I’m not that dumb. What I was saying, in the context of my bashing bad interpretations, was that I’ve heard many preachers also associate ‘logos’ with the Bible, in order to draw connections between Christ and the word of God. I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clear, but since I was talking about bad translations I thought that would have been obvious. Further, the entire point of that paragraph wasn’t to point out what the author of John intended ‘logos’ to refer to, but what the historical connotations of the word are, historical connotations that Greek-happy preachers are all to quick to forget when it’s not expedient. [/quote]

I guess the problem I had was that you claimed: [quote] most modern day Christians, who feel more comforted thinking that the author of John wrote that line with the intention of ‘logos’ referring to a book (the Bible) which wouldn’t be put together for another 400 years.[/quote]

I don’t know, but I’ve never heard anyone present this passage in such a way. So, I certainly question the notion that a majority of us understand it to have this meaning. If one hasn’t caught on to what (rather, whom) is being discussed by John 1:14…well, there’s no doubt after reading John 1:14.

‘And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.’