The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by YesItsMe Christianity is the only religion whose symbol is a torture instrument.

Yeah, but so what? If the early Christians had happened to choose a triangle as their symbol (e.g., to represent the trinity or something like that), would that have made Christianity any different?

Christianity is, among other things, the replacement state religion of the Roman Empire. Constantine used it to throw the former set of priests out of power and to replace them all with others who were much more loyal to himself. The religion today bears the unmistakable imprint of this history and of this official role. The Vatican City contains many embassies. The role and the power of the Pope is unlike that of any other person on earth, and in many ways superior to all.

Religions of all stripes are fundamental tools in the exercise of the power of the state, and in persuading the plebeians to conform to it. They were especially powerful when most of that population was illiterate. And, we recall that there was considerable opposition to the Bible ever being printed, and translated into the common tongues from the Latin which in general only the clergy could read. This opposition was in response to what the clergy perceived as a threat to its power, which was and still is vast. (Especially among devout Catholics.)

I make these observations neutrally, "neither to bury Caesar nor to save him." It is what it is. This is what happened, and why. Make of it what you will.

If yoy can't imagine being born-open-source as hard\soft\ware: to human likenessed-gods then I'm sorry these times yell at children-you-humanity... don't teach your kids, we will?!.

Maybe, mandatory robot nannies?.edThem not u... unless you can evolve¿:P

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Christianity is, among other things, the replacement state religion of the Roman Empire. Constantine used it to throw the former set of priests out of power and to replace them all with others who were much more loyal to himself. The religion today bears the unmistakable imprint of this history and of this official role. The Vatican City contains many embassies. The role and the power of the Pope is unlike that of any other person on earth, and in many ways superior to all. Religions of all stripes are fundamental tools in the exercise of the power of the state, and in persuading the plebeians to conform to it. They were especially powerful when most of that population was illiterate. And, we recall that there was considerable opposition to the Bible ever being printed, and translated into the common tongues from the Latin which in general only the clergy could read. This opposition was in response to what the clergy perceived as a threat to its power, which was and still is vast. (Especially among devout Catholics.) I make these observations neutrally, "neither to bury Caesar nor to save him." It is what it is. This is what happened, and why. Make of it what you will.

For once, I largely agree with you. So the Roman Empire wasn't Christianized (except in name), but Christianity was paganized. Of course the clergy didn't want folks reading the Bible in a language they could understand. It might make Christians out of them - we could never have that! This briefly explains why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIgSgLFwEMs

What was interesting was that this attack on Bible translation was carried on throughout the world. Early Bible translations were done all over Europe, the Far East, Pacific Islands - a list of over 60 languages; and they're just the early ones. China, Russia, Japan, Greece, and many African tongues all had translations. In many cases the translator(s) were martyred or executed for their attempt. But Germany seemed to have a good environment politically for this work. One of the better English jobs, the Geneva Bible was done there.

Geneva is in Switzerland, not Germany! Specifically it is in French-speaking Switzerland, which is where John Calvin created his Presbyterian republic. The Geneva Bible was created for Scottish Presbyterians.

Originally Posted by hazel Geneva is in Switzerland, not Germany! Specifically it is in French-speaking Switzerland, which is where John Calvin created his Presbyterian republic. The Geneva Bible was created for Scottish Presbyterians.

Yes, I had a temporary lapse in Geography. I kind of glaze over at bickering 16th Century Protestants. I thought it got done because all the useful Bible translators had to do arrange their own hasty exit while Queen Mary was trying to truncate their life expectancy. The Geneva was actually an excellent translation - complete with study notes.

It was very influential on format too. Before that, all English Bible translations were written in gothic script and full page. The Geneva Bible was in Roman script and two columns with page-by-page informative headers. That became the Bible format for centuries.

I have a couple of books which discuss the story behind the King James Bible – certainly an outstanding work of scholarship and also the source of some of the most beautiful phrases in the English language. The overall story has many interesting tidbits – including the fact that one of the most-innocent and least-described disciples was renamed after their patron!

Even the King placed himself at a certain amount of political risk in those days for formally backing the project. But what matters in the end is: "he did, and they did it."

The New International Version (NIV) translators, who of course are quite contemporary, also wrote a description of their project while they were doing it. This text is a bit unusual for all of its footnotes, many of which have to do with their source materials and with differences in those source materials.

I have one very interesting (and, very thick ...) book – done only for the New Testament – which lists six different translations in parallel. Of course you can now easily find the same thing online, for as many translations as you like. Once again you get a glimpse into the thinking and the workings of the respective teams. As all of you know by now, I find such very human things to be fascinating.

What I specially like about the King James Bible (we call it the Authorised Version over here) is that its translators took very seriously the idea that this is the word of God and should be uniquely authoritative for Christians. So they were careful to translate it more or less word for word, effectively providing a crib for Christians who didn't speak Hebrew or Greek. If the result of a word-for-word translation didn't make sense, they added words until it did, but they added them in italics do that readers could see at a glance which words were biblical and which ones were added by the translators. If they didn't agree with the result, they were free to mentally remove the italicised words and see if, with the help of the Holy Spirit, they could make their own sense of what remained.

Modern translations treat the Bible like any other ancient text. That is, they write in their language what they believe the original authors were trying to say in their own. That last sentence is quoted almost word for word from the preface of the 1960s New English Bible, but I believe all modern translators would endorse it. This means of course that the translator's private opinions about what the original author "was trying to say" takes precedence over what the original author actually wrote. Sometimes alternative readings are given as footnotes but there is no breadcrumb trail to show you how the translator arrived at his version rather than the alternative.

I really wish there was a modern English translation that was made according to the same philosophy as the AV.

Personally I feel the AV is one of the worse Bible versions. King James told the translators what the Bible must, and must not say; the translators caved in completely (e.g. Genesis 25:29). God's name app0ears nearly 7000 times in the Hebrew but it only appears 4 times. It also has, I believe, what Henry VIII wanted any Bible to say and not say. Even the Hebrew & Greek texts then available were very late, so they had poor starting material.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Christianity is, among other things, the replacement state religion of the Roman Empire.

It is not a good thing to have a state religion in the 21st century where people are expected to think for themselves. It was not a very peaceful time when the idea of having a state religion led to Charlemagne's genocide of the Saxons.

I've always found it very interesting, and troubling, how so very much of European history was the state-level battle between the "Catholics" and the "Protestants." They were always at each other's throats, even though both of them claimed to be "Christian."

In the US, there is Constitutional "separation of church and state" which is highly unusual. The Church of England, for example, is still extremely powerful in state affairs. Most coronations throughout the world are presided over by clergy.

In every developed country around the world, you can never divorce religion from the state, nor the state from religion.

Of course you can. The problem is that most countries don't even try, for reasons yet to investigate.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs I've always found it very interesting, and troubling, how so very much of European history was the state-level battle between the "Catholics" and the "Protestants." They were always at each other's throats, even though both of them claimed to be "Christian."

+1 on that. But a cursory look at Scripture shows that war is not a Christian pastime. Killing folks is prohibited, and Christians should be neutral in politics. But ours is not a popular viewpoint, as we were imprisoned in the UK & US and sent to Concentration Camps or beheaded in Germany.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs In the US, there is Constitutional "separation of church and state" …

Try pointing that out to your state's legislature with its anti-abortion and anti-LGBT legislation.