The Faith & Religion mega Thread

To answer my own broad question on Bible translations

• There seemed to be less passion for religion and God in Russia and other Byzantine/Ottoman countries
• Translation efforts were much more likely to be part than full translations
• The Orthodox religions lacked the 'Evil Villian' type figures who tortured and burned people.
• Translation wasn't banned generally.
• When Luther's translation came out (1525?) use was made of it in translating into other languages.
• People generally were content to read 1000 year old versions.

Wikipedia has historical lists of translations into various languages which make boring reading. Ezra's idea of "putting meaning" into his reading obviously didn't happen over there. Likewise the (Orthodox) Churches didn't give a monkey's if people read the Bible or not, whereas the Western church went ballistic.

You discover interesting bits on a journey like this. For instance, 40 years after his death, the bishops exhumed John Wycliffe, an early English translator and leader of the Lollards, burnt his bones into powder and scattered the ashes in a river.

The intention was to deny him a resurrection. IIRC, the Nicean creed which I once knew by heart, says something about 'a resurrection of the body.' They were trying to deny him a body.

Moffatt Translation alongside the ASV helped me initially with understanding The Bible.

I understand Moffatt DID meet with opposition and still does in some circles of Churchianity, @DavidMcCann.

@business_kid -- entusted with translating the Logos, yes, but then they committed deicide. The descendents of the Pharisees still exist and they make no bone about it.

deicide? Did I say that? Where? When? I'm not a believer in the Trinity, if that helps.

Generally speaking, the attitude to Scripture seems to have been funny and incredibly human.

• Under the Popes the attitude was "No you can't have the Scriptures, and we'll kill or torture anyone who disobeys. There was widespread clandestine disobedience, people were tortured and killed, but an awful lot were passionate about scriptures, and wars were fought over the Bible.
• In the East, the attitude seemed seemed to be "The Bible? Ok, it's in this 500 year old language and you may have to translate it, but here you are." When it wasn't forbidden, it was boring, and various people did translate the Bible, but nobody got rich out of the Bible.

The "2nd Timothy Test" has one very-obvious flaw: "What does the word 'scripture' refer to?" Was "Paul" talking about his own letters? Even, the very letter that he was writing at that time? The editorial decision of what was deemed 'canonical' and what was deemed 'heretical' (or, not yet known at all) was made centuries later in 'Ecumenical councils' which had, among other things, obvious political and patronage motivations.

As written, this verse is literally eating its own tail: it is literally "a circular reference." And we are supposed to accept that the original author intended it to be so. I doubt that he thought that he was "writing 'scripture' from scratch." And he did not bother to explain what he meant by the term. Therefore, it "means to you" whatever it means to you – or what you have been told that it means by your preacher, bishop or priest. The reference is either an "intentional self-reference by the author to his own(!) words," or it is ambiguous. You decide.

Meanwhile, "The Bible™" is a compilation that was assembled among many competitors. The "Old Testament" is mostly an existing Jewish compilation, but re-arranged. The "Apocrypha" is a committee compromise. The provenance of the "New Testament" is regarded by many as highly debatable. ("Debatable == 'a subject for [scholarly] debate.'") And so it goes.

As long as you understand what happened – or, well, even if you don't – you can believe as you choose. But these writings, at least, were not "handed down on stone tablets writ by the hand of God." There are many very interesting stories to be told. (And, this is only one of the world's great religions ...)

I must confess to boredom on this topic. Scripture included Genesis-Malachi as kept by the Jews(No Apocrypha), the 4 Gospels, and the letters if the Apostles and Jesus' fleshly half-brothers James and Jude. As I said, which books should be accepted were agreed by the best the early Christian church could offer writing lists, all concluded by 200 C.E. Most of the alternatives (Gospel of thomas, etc.) were available but were excluded. If it wasn't written by a Jew, it wasn't scripture. (Romans 3:1,2) Subsequent revisions if the Bible Canon had managed to squeeze some junk in, but it was largely ignored. The points in 2 Tim 3 are good pointers.

• Teaching - Has counsel in line with other scriptures. No apostasy tolerated. No waffly stories or allegories.
• Reproving - must clarify and not confuse or change other doctrines.
• Must not cause doubt about what's required of us. Must Add no apostasy.
• Setting things straight. Should clarify and not confuse in points of daily Living. You make no friends with this sort of talk.

Even John's Revelation got a hard time, many not using it. There were many "Last Warnings" and much severe counsel. People don't like that. There was absolutely no doubt about it's one author. But it was for the future.

As I've said here before, the book of Revelation was very controversial even at the time. Many people felt that it did not belong, and I am one of them. The first half of the book is a series of political messages concerning issues that were known to be floating in the churches at that time, while the last half of the book describes a god who is a sadist. Arbitrarily destroying countless people who of course can't fight back because they are not gods. A god which almost seems to be gloating over their misery and suffering.

Of course, "apocalyptic literature" was very popular. If you were "getting your ass kicked," you liked to read stories where God was going to come down and "kick ass" on your behalf. Many people believe that "666" was literally a code-word for "Nero," who of course was one of the most violent and bloodthirsty emperors who ever lived.

Since this thread is not titled nor polled as strictly about Christianity, it seems wise to remember that there have been quite literally thousands of gods. So anyone who is a Believer has generally picked one or a few and rejected thousands. Any of those believers that revere scripture as literally The Word of God, it bears asking which god and which scriptures since even in just Christianity there are hundreds of individual parts and hundreds of opinions and choices on which ones and in which translation of which language one choose and by claim or implication, which are rejected. A recent example is the Moffat Translation that is heralded by some as a near revelatory document and others, not only as mistaken, but actually Satanic.

Knowing all this I truly don't understand how anyone can claim literal truth to any scripture and not see them as collections of allegories and myths, since even proponents disagree whicjh and whom should be accepted and which thousands should be rejected. I simply eject one more than most.

So, if you know very little and care even less, how come you are exercised enough to comment here now? All you can add is your skepticism, which is off the point of when the Bible was whittled down to the Canonical books. You have the right to remain silent. If you don't have the ability, it undermines your skepticism.

C'mon, @business_kid: This has been "an open forum" for 11,168 posts until mine. Which is very likely an Internet record of some kind. "The Bible," like every other classic religious foundation-book, "is what it is." And it is therefore certainly well-equipped to handle both skepticism and scrutiny. No one needs to defend it.

What @enorbet is saying has literal merit. And, so does what you are saying. There does not need to be "a winner" between them.

FYI: In the original Jewish compilation, "Malachi" was not the final book. Their sequence ended with "2 Chronicles." Their ordering of the same material consisted of "The Law," "The Prophets," and then "The Writings." (I actually have no idea what strategy was behind the "Christian Bible" re-ordering ...)

I think that we need to draw a distinction – but, not a judgment – as to what a particular religious text "objectively is," versus what we individually choose "to believe that it is." The latter is intensely personal. Therefore, I feel that "there is a line here which – voluntarily – should not be crossed."

As, indeed, Paul observed when he talked about "food sacrificed to idols" (IIRC), which obviously was a serious "bone of contention" in his day. He realized that you could be "wrong," even when you were "right." If, by whatever you do, "you cause your brother to stumble," then by his accounting you have erred. There comes a point where the right thing to do is to give up the fight. The purpose is not "to 'win.'"

[excuse my UNdesirable presence here]

The word 'you' tends to lead to non-NVC (==violent communication)

The 'non-religion' I like, http://csl.org, says the Bible is 'allegorical'.

P/B. S. @#++==11171:
'canonical' (esp if LQsearch'ed) kinda creeps me out ... I'll have to go research that word (especially if Microsoft buys it!!!)

My true bottom line: Thot(=God)&'creates'ALL

Try: Crossing out the word God and replacing it with the word: thought or my/one's thought

"Undesirable presence here?" What is that? Welcome!

You will find no "internet censors" nor "fact checkers" here.

Religious foundational texts ... of every provenance and description ... "are what they are." And, each of us finally gets to decide for ourselves what "what they are" actually is. That's the beauty of it.

By the way, "Christianity" certainly does not have an exclusive claim to this ancient conundrum ... Pick any religion, and you will certainly find people who are willing to debate – endlessly – just how many angels can dance upon the head of a pin.

Well, business_kid, I didn't say I know very little on this subject and I actually care a great deal especially about the inherent drift when some form of religion grows hungry for political power and/or tries to subvert what little human progress has been wrested at great cost from the nature of existence and our own frailties. On an individual basis it's something like the concept of "Friends don't let friends drive drunk" when considering the deleterious effects of any person imagining they know the mind of God and have the sanctimonious delusion that only those who interpret scripture the way they do have a direct line "beyond the veil".

To be absolutely clear I'm not in any way trying to convince anyone to abandon their beliefs in a Creator, the "Hereafter" or indeed anything of a spiritual nature. What I'd like to see is spirituality remain private and personal and avoid institution. Historically, that drift has not played out well or there would not exist words like "heretic", "Inquisition" and "Witch Hunt". I imagine you may find me offensive, possibly heretical, but as for my part, I sincerely wish you well.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs FYI: In the original Jewish compilation, "Malachi" was not the final book. Their sequence ended with "2 Chronicles." Their ordering of the same material consisted of "The Law," "The Prophets," and then "The Writings." (I actually have no idea what strategy was behind the "Christian Bible" re-ordering ...)

Just out of interest (it's a minor point), it was Jews and not Christians who rearranged the order of books in the OT. The Hebrew OT does indeed follow the order Torah-Prophets-Writings, but by the turn of the era, there were more Jews living outside Palestine than inside and they mostly spoke Greek, not Hebrew. So a Greek translation was commissioned and made in Alexandria. Supposedly there were seventy translators so it was called the Septuagint. All the OT quotes in the New Testament come from the Septuagint; as far as the early Christians were concerned, the Septuagint was the Old Testament, mistranslations and all.

One thing the translators did was to rearrange the books into what their Greek minds saw as a more logical order. Chronicles is clearly a historical book, so they placed it after Kings. Then came the miscellaneous writings and then the prophets. They also incorporated a few extra books which were regarded as canonical by diaspora Jews (and therefore by early Christians) but not by palestinian ones. That caused a lot of embarrassment later.

Let us simplify: The Jews had their 22 accepted scrolls, which probably not ordered. To judge from what was accepted as canonical, no book after the death of John was accepted. Likewise, the Jews accepted no works after Malachi whose book was probably written after Ezra (who wrote Chronicles) & probably shortly after Nehemiah.

EDIT:@enorbet: I don't find you offensive or heretical, in fact I agree with most of your points. You are correct there's no direct communication between humans and any other world, SETI notwithstanding. I see no problem in one way communication as 1 Pet.1:12 indicates, although you'd want to read 10-12 for context.

Originally Posted by @enorbet: What I'd like to see is spirituality remain private and personal and avoid institution.

Well, history tells us that this is never going to happen. Especially in the days of which we are now speaking, "organized religion" was and in many ways still is the fastest track to pure political power. We very simply cannot pretend not to understand this. And, when we talk about "religion," we cannot ignore it.

There are two(!) distinct manifestations of "religion." One of them is intensely personal – "pray in secret, and your Father who hears in secret will hear you." But the other one is as public, and as political, and as power hungry(!), as any human endeavor possibly could be. And, there's really nothing that any of us can do about it except to recognize it.

There are plenty of people, at plenty of levels, who are not content that you should "personally" believe as you "personally" choose to do. They very-emphatically want to tell you what to think, and what to believe. Once again, I think that you simply need to "arm yourself." You need to be aware that this dynamic is going on. That it has always been going on. That it always will be.

Your personal response to this can, of course, be anything that you like. As long as you are aware that you have just made one. Let no man do your thinking, or believing, for you. Because, like it or not, they will surely try.

When anyone tries to tell me that this-or-that way of thinking is "correct," I smile and politely tell them that "I will now properly take your opinions into consideration." And with that, I bid them good day.

But: a great many nations still do have "a State Church." For example, "The Church of England." Or, "the State Church of the Entire World," which the Romans continue to maintain at The Vatican City. It is real, and it is not going away.