537 replies to this topic

[mylo]

In all seriousness, though, Costco is right that there is plenty in the Bible that is appalling -- sexism, racism, stonings, you name it.

Sexism and racism I can do without.

Reinstate stoning, however!



Cheaper than a lethal injection, without the burnt toast linger of the electric chair!

[Terry]

Come on Terry, get serious.  Everyone knows the Corinthians are best known for their leather car seats!  Didn't Ricardo Montalban teach you ANYTHING??  I mean, besides how to interact with hispanic midgets or wear fake chest pieces in outer space.

Hysterical! You know, it was a tossup between Ricardo and countertops! Oh my gosh, like minds!!!!

[CostcoLover]

The important point is that most mainstream Christian churches have repudiated the literal truth of the Bible and view its objectionable parts as a historical relic rather than an eternal imperative. 

Anyone know if the Bible is offered in a color coded version that highlights in yellow the repudiated sections?

[tessieca]

Per Cardinal Ratzinger (1993) "Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details. But by "literal interpretation" it understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development. It is opposed, therefore, to the use of the historical-critical method, as indeed to the use of any other scientific method for the interpretation of Scripture."

"The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations."

[folsom500]

Per Cardinal Ratzinger (1993) "Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details. But by "literal interpretation" it understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development. It is opposed, therefore, to the use of the historical-critical method, as indeed to the use of any other scientific method for the interpretation of Scripture."

"The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations."

So what you are saying is that the Bible is secular document from men that felt the way they did , when they did and put forth their thoughts of what they thought they heard and what they thought when they thought them....
Nothing divine ... mearly mortal ....

Right ?
Cheers
F5000

[fantomu]

i dont have anything against sand (censored)s, but seriously that thing is being like 200feet from my house, get that s--- away fro me!!!

[tessieca]

So what you are saying is that the Bible is secular document from men that felt the way they did , when they did and put forth their thoughts of what they thought they heard and what they thought when they thought them....
Nothing divine ... mearly mortal ....

Right ?
Cheers
F5000

Absolutely not. It is the word of God put memorialized in a way that men could understand, by men. It does not need to be read as a literal document.

[forumreader]

tessieca: Great quote from Cardinal Ratizinger.

To paraphrase another writing of our now Pope, it is important to remember that the Bible is the Word of God in human words. It has all the characteristics of human language and literature, yet its principal author is God. As Jesus Christ, the Word of God made flesh, is fully divine and fully human, the sacred Scriptures are both divine and human.

To fully understand Scripture, we must look at it in a contextual manner, and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Who, for example, would ever run outside to look for animals falling from the sky when they hear someone say, "It's raining cats and dogs"? Only a literalist!

Vatican II, among other things, brought the celebration of the Mass into the vernacular, and encouraged the faithful to read and pray with sacred Scripture. Regarding interpretation of Scripture, the Vatican II document, "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation," no. 12 states,

"Those who search out the intention of the sacred writers must, among other things, have regard for 'literary forms.' For truth is proposed and expressed in a variety of ways, depending on whether a text is history of one kind or another, or whether its form is that of prophecy, poetry, or some other type of speech. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances as he used contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of perceiving, speaking, and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the customs men normally followed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another."

[forumreader]

Another quote, in plainer English, which always makes me chuckle....

"The author of Genesis was no more under the illusion his audience believed snakes once talked to naked ladies in the park that Aesop (writing at about the same time) thought his audience believed tortoises and hares once made bets on impossible races." (William O'Malley, Biblical scholar)

[CostcoLover]

To paraphrase another writing of our now Pope, it is important to remember that the Bible is the Word of God in human words.  It has all the characteristics of human language and literature, yet its principal author is God. 

To fully understand Scripture, we must look at it in a contextual manner, and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. 

"Those who search out the intention of the sacred writers must, among other things, have regard for 'literary forms.'  For truth is proposed and expressed in a variety of ways, depending on whether a text is history of one kind or another, or whether its form is that of prophecy, poetry, or some other type of speech. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances as he used contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.  For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of perceiving, speaking, and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the customs men normally followed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another."

So many questions... where should I start?

1. My mother was here recently, and as is common for me, I was watching a scientific show about Einstein. He had stated that what interested him about science is to "know the mind of God"

As that statement was spoken, my mother physically recoiled on the couch and said, "Oh my God" as if one should not express an interest in God's thoughts and intention.

The text above, seems to support pursuit in knowing God's intention, as He is the author of the sacred text no?

2. In my family, and my wife's family, there are quite a few languages spoken (5). One thing that is quite common is the loss of meaning in a translation. There are expressions and concepts that when translated into English, simply don't have the same meaning. How many times has the Bible been translated?

3. Having all the characteristics of human language and literature would not only include nuances and double entendre of the time which would no longer be recognized, but would introduce all of the limitations of human language with all its gaps and flaws. Is that not so?

That would be like trying to understand a cell phone call when all you hear is every other word.

[mylo]

1. My mother was here recently, and as is common for me, I was watching a scientific show about Einstein.  He had stated that what interested him about science is to "know the mind of God"

I thoroughly enjoyed that program! A tad overboard on the acting scenes, but generally historically intriguing.

I would comment on the literal interpretation thing, but I'm one of those old school Christians that was taught the word of God was literal. Not one of these new-fangled modern American Christians that are caving to these so-called "scientists" whimsical ideas of monkies and womens rights!

[forumreader]

I would comment on the literal interpretation thing, but I'm one of those old school Christians that was taught the word of God was literal.  Not one of these new-fangled modern American Christians that are caving  to these so-called "scientists" whimsical ideas of monkies and womens rights!

mylo: I sincerely respect your beliefs. However, I would like to point out that the 2,000 year-old Catholic Church can hardly be considered "new-fangled modern" or "American," and that it clearly teaches a contextual rather than literal understanding of Scripture.

The Second Vatican Council which, by the way, did not change, but clarified Catholic teachings, and made many Church practices and goals consistent, states:

The Catholic Church, which sees inspiration in terms of divine influence and human response, holds that "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation." (Second Vatican Council, Revelation, no. 11) Inerrancy, therefore, relates to parts of the Bible whcich relate directly to human salvation.

For instance, the human authors of Genesis might have had an understanding of the world as resting on pillars instead of spinning through space. Such a primitive notion was meant to teach the spiritual truth that the world comes from God, rather than from nothing. (This truth that the world comes from God was inspired by God for the sake of our salvation.) The notion that the world rests on pillars is not taught as a truth directly addressing our salvation -- it merely sets the stage for the proclamation of religious truth.

So frequently, people take a passage from the Old Testament which speaks of an attitude of hatred or revenge. Ah ha, they say! The Bible teaches hatred, racism, sexism, etc. Or, the Bible is inconsistent....Jesus taught something different.

It should be remembered that the Old Testament authors lacked the full revelation which came only with Jesus Christ. Old Testament attitudes and questions are recorded, not as facts inspired by God for our salvation, but as testimonials of what some Israelites believed as they struggled to respond to life's demands and sought the wisdom of God. They help us to realize how much we need the full revelation of God's truth through Jesus Christ.

None of us would dream of pulling a random line or two from Chapter 3 of a book, quoting it out of context, and then stating that this quote was a meaningful explanation of the book's theme or message. Why do many do this with the Bible?

[forumreader]

Costco:

Good questions. I would say that yes, God wants us to seek understanding of Him, as He has revealed Himself to us. I would also agree with your points in question 3.

As for the history of Biblical translations leading up to an English translation, here is an interesting timeline:

English Bible History

[Ahnold]

None of us would dream of pulling a random line or two from Chapter 3 of a book, quoting it out of context, and then stating that this quote was a meaningful explanation of the book's theme or message.  Why do many do this with the Bible?

Or the Koran!
Or the Talmud!

I think all cultures are entitled to their own interpretation of the word of (their) god, and we're all limited by the fact that those words have been written and re-written by man for centuries, with all his bias and historical context. Which is where true theology and intelligent discussion of the meaning of these important documents is more critical now than possibly any other point in history.

[LexHillsmom]

Or the Koran!
Or the Talmud!

I think all cultures are entitled to their own interpretation of the word of (their) god, and we're all limited by the fact that those words have been written and re-written by man for centuries, with all his bias and historical context.  Which is where true theology and intelligent discussion of the meaning of these important documents is more critical now than possibly any other point in history.

Perhaps the most insightful comment made in this entire thread - kudos Ahnold!