|
| Thread: The Bible |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Romana
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
|
posted January 16, 2004 01:18 PM |
|
|
The bible is a difficult book. Ask any person and each will interpret it differently. So my question is : Is it the bible that changed countries or the people who interpretted it in a certain way (possibly the "wrong" way)?
I too believe in God, much like Privatehudson described. I do not find God in a book or a church, but in my heart and conscience.
____________
The darkest skies show the brightest stars
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
posted January 16, 2004 06:28 PM |
|
|
|
Britain as the country most influenced by the Bible? That's an interesting assertion, Consis. Could you provide some historical evidence to back it up? Your rhetorical questions are a tad vague...
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 16, 2004 08:30 PM |
|
|
Wait For PrivateHudson To Answer
Khaelo,
Let's wait for PrivateHudson to answer. I have a feeling he'll have plenty of things to say about my question. I'm waiting to see if he answers "yes, without it we would not be the nation we are today" or "No, it didn't make a difference". If he says 'no' then I'll give some historical evidence to support my theory. If he says 'yes' I expect he will provide plenty of proof. I've been reading through many of his posting histories and I'm sure this is a man that knows history, especially his own country's. In my opinion there's no mistaking the significance of the bible in Brittish history, more so than any other nation in the world.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 16, 2004 08:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Of all the countries in the world I believe yours
was influenced the most by the bible.
Based on? I would agree with Romana, it is the people's interpretations of the book and how that interpretation differs that caused the influence and change on the country, this would have been the same no matter the religon. Also for the best part of 500 years of a unified England, 99% of the country couldn't even read the bible in the first place, therefore it was the clergy who influenced the realm, not the book itself. And they could say whatever they liked and claim biblical support, the masses would never usually know the difference.
Quote:
Once again would you even exist? Maybe the barbarian tribes were united after the romans but how cohesive would they have remained after they left without the bible?
Yes, unfication came more from opposition to invaders such as Vikings than it did from any great religious background. As for the theory of unification anyway, this does not occur until some 600 years or so after the romans left, so it certainly was not the bible that held them together at all, they fell apart into warring nations for centuries before returning together in the face of foreign invasions and under the banner of strong rulers such as Canute (a viking, but...) and Alfred.
Quote:
Wouldn't it be logical to at the very least offer some sort of great acknowledgment to the bible for the role its played?
Why? The bible (or more accurately those differing in interpretation) caused civil wars in my country over such inane rubbish that it (as I mentioned before) has done as much damage to ourselves as it has done good. I see no need to sing it's praises or trash it for this frankly. More than religion plays a role in the creation of the modern UK, far more. To isolate it in such a way is trivial at best.
Quote:
America was started through a dislike of monarchy. Mind you I didn't say it was built on disliking monarchy just started. Whether that would have been English or some other european country I couldn't say.
Actually I'd argue that America was founded more because you didn't need the British to defend you anymore, your wealthy were sick of heavy Taxation (which is an entirely debatable point anyway) and representation being lacking. If you hated Monarchs and such systems so much it makes me wonder why your country allied itself to France late in the war, which you will note was lead by Louis XVI at the time, and their army by a Marquis.
You could concievably argue that the change in religion to protestant and therefore the change of bible did heavily influence the country and world at large I guess, but this had more to do with solid political and personal reasons half the time than religious ones. Henry VIII didn't drag the nation towards protestantism because he liked the idea, he did it because he wanted a divorce! He didn't sack the monastries because of any desire to bring them to heel, he did it because his treasury was broke!
It's also possible to say that the biblical theories of the end of the world dragged the Europeans into attacking the Americas, but since England was late of the scene here, that's for debate. I guess after that you could say it's part of our culture in wishing to spread protestantism to the world that helped spark the colonial period, but this ignores the effects of greed and resource grabbing that also went hand in hand with the religious aspects.
I can't think of many specific ways the bible changed the UK so much that it alone and no other text could have had that same affect. Then again I specialise in millitary history, political, economic and social history is not something I am too up to speed on, but I certainly do not believe only the bible caused us to be who we are now.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted January 16, 2004 10:45 PM |
|
|
What I don't understand is how Britain's history was more influenced by the Bible than, say, Israel's. The current geographical location of the nation of Israel is based on religious claims recorded in the Bible and made sacred by all who subsequently accepted the Hebrew Scriptures as holy writ. The Israelis use those scriptures and history directly to legitimize their claim on the Holy Land over that of the Palestinians. Without the religious weight imparted by the Hebrew Scriptures, the conflict would just be an ethnic squabble over a piece of desert.
In that sense, the Bible is still relevant because people make it relevant.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 17, 2004 12:50 AM |
|
|
That Was Not My Question
Quote:
I can't think of many specific ways the bible changed the UK so much that it alone and no other text could have had that same affect. Then again I specialise in millitary history, political, economic and social history is not something I am too up to speed on, but I certainly do not believe only the bible caused us to be who we are now.
My question was: Of all the written texts made by mankind(bible being the most complete oldest known written record of mankind in existence) how great was the significance of the bible in the forming of Brittain's history?
Seperately; To answer Khaelo's question, Israel is predominantly Jewish in which case the majority of the people of that religion denounce the entire second half of the bible from the time Jesus was born to the rest. I'm trying to ask this question considering the whole bible not just half of it. My question posed to anyone reading in this thread is: What role(if any) did the whole bible play in the creation of your country today? Would you be the same country, with the same customs and practices, if there was never a bible?
PrivateHudson obstinately replied with: 'It's the people who formed my country while written texts didn't have nearly as much of an impact.' This response, I feel, is eluding my question. It sounds to me that you are gathering your thoughts rather than forming an opinion. Whether you like it or not this written text we call, 'The Bible', played a very significant role in shaping your country's history! I'm not doubting the significance of the people who made it all happen. I'm simply saying that you must atleast acknowledge the amount of its significance! This written record of the history of mankind is exactly that! It is a record that can be proven to be true! If you want examples that is very easy. Simply research the history of the Roman empire ruling over Jerusalum and you will clearly see that the bible correctly reflects(backed by tangible evidence that exists today) how the city was divided and how it was governed by roman senators and roman generals. Does this mean the book is true altogether? LoL, I haven't got a clue, but the evidence is undeniable and irrefutable as to the exact dates and places of such occurrences. This is how I view the bible. I view it as a very significant reliable source of historical record on mankind's history. That is exactly how we have come to set the dates for which year we are in today. There is no other record in existence today that is as correct, gives as much detail, and is as old as this record is.
Therefore I ask you again, Would your country still be Brittain(holding all of the same customs and practices) if there was never a bible to begin with? I get the feeling you are downplaying the significance of this proven historical record.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted January 17, 2004 01:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Israel is predominantly Jewish in which case the majority of the people of that religion denounce the entire second half of the bible from the time Jesus was born to the rest. I'm trying to ask this question considering the whole bible not just half of it.
Perhaps I should clarify my point: The Jews lay claim to the specific area known as the Holy Land based on the Hebrew Scriptures -- what Christians often call the Old Testemant and include in the Bible. Because both Christians and Jews regard these claims as holy writ, both take them as legitimizing the creation of the nation of Israel in that particular location. No, the holy-land verses are not in the Christian portion of the Bible. But, because the Christian Bible includes the Hebrew Scriptures and therefore renders those Scriptures sacred, Christians accept the Jewish claims to Jerusalem and surrounding areas. This has political ramifications. Do you see what I'm getting at here?
Quote:
My question posed to anyone reading in this thread is: What role(if any) did the whole bible play in the creation of your country today? Would you be the same country, with the same customs and practices, if there was never a bible? ... Whether you like it or not this written text we call, 'The Bible', played a very significant role in shaping your country's history! I'm not doubting the significance of the people who made it all happen. I'm simply saying that you must atleast acknowledge the amount of its significance!
What customs and practices? Do you have evidence? It's hard to tell what you're referring to here.
Quote:
This written record of the history of mankind is exactly that! It is a record that can be proven to be true! If you want examples that is very easy. Simply research the history of the Roman empire ruling over Jerusalum and you will clearly see that the bible correctly reflects(backed by tangible evidence that exists today) how the city was divided and how it was governed by roman senators and roman generals. Does this mean the book is true altogether? LoL, I haven't got a clue, but the evidence is undeniable and irrefutable as to the exact dates and places of such occurrences. This is how I view the bible. I view it as a very significant reliable source of historical record on mankind's history.
The Bible is not a "history of mankind." It is the history of a very particular people -- the Jews -- over a length of time. It is also a mythologized work. Some of the stories are historical, and some of them are legend. You cannot judge the veracity of one passage by the evidence supporting another.
An example: Herodotus was a Greek histographer. He's one of our sources for the Persian wars (one of the many events in mankind's history that the Bible omits  ). In the subject of the Persian wars, we can rely on him. There is archeological, epigraphical, and other textual evidence to support his accounts. However, in the subject of the flying snakes that live in Arabia(!), we should take Herodotus with a grain of salt. You cannot say that Herodotus was right about the Athenians winning the battle of Marathon; therefore he must be right about the flying snakes. It just doesn't work that way. I read the Bible with the same shaker of salt in hand. 
Quote:
That is exactly how we have come to set the dates for which year we are in today.
Irrelevant. The date's four or five years off, anyway.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 17, 2004 01:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
My question was: Of all the written texts made by mankind(bible being the most complete oldest known written record of mankind in existence) how great was the significance of the bible in the forming of Brittain's history?
Uhmmm hang on a second there, you cannot claim that because of the dead sea scrolls the bible is the oldest most intact record in existence given the editing that took place throughout the christian period, whole books and gospels were edited out due to their controversial nature. Other books (though not written down for some time) are also claimed to be much older. Khaelo is aloso right, it is not a record of mankind's existence as it first and foremost deals with the Jewish history. It's main parts that you might claim deal with mankind's history, the period between the creation and the flood are Myths and legends, not in the least a factual record.
Quote:
PrivateHudson obstinately replied with: 'It's the people who formed my country while written texts didn't have nearly as much of an impact.' This response, I feel, is eluding my question. It sounds to me that you are gathering your thoughts rather than forming an opinion
Unless you missed it I claimed no great opinion on religious and social history as it is not a topic that interests me. What you did miss though is the following statement:
More than religion plays a role in the creation of the modern UK, far more. To isolate it in such a way is trivial at best.
Would we be the same country without the bible? Of course not, to claim otherwise is pointless. It's anyone's guess as to just how different we would be though, we would probably still be united and covering the same geographical area for one though. To claim though that the bible is the most influencing matter on our social history is laughable, and I'm willing to bet I could provide examples too.
Quote:
Whether you like it or not this written text we call, 'The Bible', played a very significant role in shaping your country's history!
Nothing close to as important as other matters believe me.
Quote:
This written record of the history of mankind is exactly that! It is a record that can be proven to be true!
Totally misleading, the parts of Roman records that prove the Jewish occupation period do not prove that the flood nearly wiped out the entire population of the earth. Nor does it make the bible the authority you claim on the history of mankind.
Quote:
Does this mean the book is true altogether? LoL, I haven't got a clue, but the evidence is undeniable and irrefutable as to the exact dates and places of such occurrences.
No it doesn't. No more than me writing 2 chapters on the battle of britian with correct dates would ensure that the rest of a book on WWII is garunteed to be accurate.
Quote:
I view it as a very significant reliable source of historical record on mankind's history.
It records a very small area of history, namely the middle east. Without using metaphors or fiddling with names can you find the part of the bible that tells you of the splendour of North America? Surely this would be in such a record. It is no more or less than a biased record of Jewish history, not mankinds.
Quote:
That is exactly how we have come to set the dates for which year we are in today.
Not really, that was arbitarily laid down by the church some few centuries afterwards with precious little use of the bible to go on. Most people think it's out by some years, with good reason.
Quote:
Therefore I ask you again, Would your country still be Brittain(holding all of the same customs and practices) if there was never a bible to begin with?
Stop asking pointless questions, of course we wouldn't be exactly the same. I am no social history scholar though, but I would claim it's influence is no more or less than other factors, so I see no need to acknowledge it any more than the geography of the country or the changing nature of the weather.
Quote:
I get the feeling you are downplaying the significance of this proven historical record.
Ok, first I have no opinion either way other than to say it's impact is little more than other matters. Second it's "proven" history is mostly written down about 50+ years after the events (ie those NT books you mention). Given this I could quite easily find a number of writings written around or before then that are way more accurate than the bible.
If I'm not answering you it's probably because:
A) Religions bore me, thefefore their books bore me, therefore drawn out debates on such subjects bore me eventually. I like talking about battles, wars, that kind of stuff, not dusty books with no relevance to me.
B) I have stated my opinion and my level of knowledge on Social history, if this is not enough, then tough. I deal with millitary history, not social.
All the influence it may have had on my country makes it no more relevant to my life right NOW. However my country came to exist, it did so because of a number of factors, not just the bible. Whatever these are though is through it was still those who interpreted the book that took the actions and made the difference, the book itself is so vague as to have had both good and bad influences. Even assuming you are right, the book is still to me vague, in parts unchristian and not very relevant as a whole work.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
|
posted January 17, 2004 09:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Uhmmm hang on a second there, you cannot claim that because of the dead sea scrolls the bible is the oldest most intact record in existence given the editing that took place throughout the christian period, whole books and gospels were edited out due to their controversial nature.
Actually, those scrolls serve as solid evidence that the Bible has not been edited for content, as 95 percent of the scrolls' content remain consistent with modern translations of Isaiah, with the other five percent being slips of the pen and variations in translation. Scribing was by no means an exact practice. The way scribes judged a book had been translated correctly back then was by counting the number of words in the both the language to be translated and the language that the book as being translated into and if the middle words of both translations were the same, then it was deemed a successful scribing. If not, the book was edited until the middle words were the same.
Also, the New Testament has over 24,000 known manuscripts in existence, all of them relatively consistent. Compare that to the second most well documented ancient literary work, Homer's Iliad, which has only 643 known manuscripts in existence. Now take into account that between the time the New Testament was written to the time the first manuscript was uncovered, only about 25 or so years had passed. That's not much time for any major editing. The first manuscript of the Iliad was recorded 1300 years after the story was supposedly first concocted. That's quite a bit of room for the retelling of the story to twist around the plot events and other details about the tale, much like a hyperextended game of telephone, yet few have ever questioned the historical merit of that story.
____________
>_>
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 17, 2004 10:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
whole books and gospels were edited out due to their controversial nature.
You will note this part. Books were removed by the catholic church for mainly reasons of it adding no further insight into god/christianity or being too controversial compared to the rest of the surviving books. The fact that Isiah and some others is intact does not mean other parts of the bible were not later removed by the church. This I count as editing, the fact that what's left may be mostly accurate does not mean no editing took place of what was originally there.
Not that I care anyway, intact or otherwise it's hardly either immensely accurate or particularly a clear reference book, so as a book it's use to me is very minimal. As a guide to leading my life, religious or otherwise it's use is almost nothing.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
|
posted January 17, 2004 11:20 PM |
|
|
Now I'm curious. These books were excluded from the Bible because of what controversial nature? Perhaps they were simply gleaning man-made passages that were not inspired by God, but this brings up another question. How did they decide what was worthy to be included in the Bible and what was not? They could have chosen to eliminate three of the gospels had they seen fit, why didn't they? I doubt that men that wrote the Bible, spanning three continents and thousands of years, would have agreed on what stays and what goes. The Catholics may have taken it upon themselves to handle that job, even though it may not have been called for.
____________
>_>
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 17, 2004 11:23 PM |
|
|
Complete Apathy
Hey no big deal. The bible doesn't matter. Yeah because it has caused just as many problems as it has solved. It's like the book doesn't even exist. So since this book means nothing I guess it's just another blank piece of paper that makes people fight and become friends. Yep, better off without it. I mean hey, having no bible would be like those conflicts and companionships would never exist either right? Yeah no big deal. It's just some contraversial piece of paper that won't ever affect my life. It has no meaning, isn't entirely true, and it's thick too. Yeah I hate reading that much. As for books, if they aren't completely true then I won't read them. Yeah even if one sentence is incorrect then the whole thing is a lie. I think I'll go look for a book that positively says the sky is blue and the grass is green. Yeah those will be short, easy, and they'll have lots of meaning. I don't need compassion and guilt. Having a conscience is pointless. Ya life is good. It's so simple. The sky is blue and the grass is green. That's all I need to know.
Oh hey by the way can I have that sandwich you're eating? What? No it wasn't! It was mine! Give it here or else!
Does this sound familiar Eeor(donkey from Winne the Pooh)?
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 18, 2004 12:49 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Hey no big deal. The bible doesn't matter
I said it was less important than you claim and no more important than other aspects of our history. Blantantly misreading my words to make my argument seem unreasonable was not something I would expect.
Quote:
Yeah because it has caused just as many problems as it has solved
If you can say otherwise do please refute the claim, being sarcastic about it is just lowering the tone of the discussion and the value of your opinion.
Quote:
like the book doesn't even exist.
Not completely. It's my opinion that the country would be similar, not the same without the bible. Again I refer to my point about your sarcastic tone, which for the sake of ease I shall hereafter refer to as ST.
Quote:
So since this book means nothing
ST Again. I said it meant almost nothing to me as a religious work as I do not feel the need or desire to refer to a book in my spirtual life. I also did not claim that overall it means nothing, I said those remarks in regards to ME. I am more than aware that to some the book is the be all and end all of their guide to life. To them it means a lot, I have never tried to insinuate that the bible "means nothing" as it means something different to us all. To me though, it has little use.
Quote:
I guess it's just another blank piece of paper that makes people fight and become friends. Yep, better off without it.
Never said that either, so your ST is uncalled for here. My remarks have been something along the lines of it needing editing severely to reduce it's content to what is the core of christian ideals and beliefs and removing the vast amount of contradictory information and laws contained within it. I actually feel it would have a use, just not precisely in it's present form as it confuses as much as it guides. I have never seriously made the remark that we would be better off without a bible.
Quote:
I mean hey, having no bible would be like those conflicts and companionships would never exist either right?
I would claim there has been more at work in each of the wars and civil strife in my country than simple religious divide each time. I shall give an example I know from the Tudor history I studied in A' Levels. In this many if not most of the rebellions against the king/queen of the time came during a year of famine and/or high taxation. Now I'm perfectly aware that relgious strife was part of the reasons for the rebellions, but the fact that they occurred consistently during periods of other social strife would tend to indicate that in reality much more than simply religion causes conflict or enough tension to lead to it. Since this has always been my stance I fail to see how on earth you conclude that I consider that without the bible there would have been no social strife.
Quote:
Yeah no big deal. It's just some contraversial piece of paper that won't ever affect my life.
Finally, you actually write something close to what I did say rather than what you thought I insinuated. I don't think it has or will influence my life to any great degree no. I follow my own morality and I will base my life on what I experience, not on a 2000 year old book. I do not though expect this to be the same for everyone.
Quote:
It has no meaning, isn't entirely true, and it's thick too.
To save you the trouble, I've put Italics around what I did say for you. The bible is not entirely true no, since I have not tried to denounce all of it though for these innacuracies and I fail to see why you then conclude that I consider it "thick". I have in this very thread stated that I consider it to contain some moral guidance and have it's uses. I have not tried to denounce it's words for using mythology in it's pages, indeed I stated that I understood why it would do this and considered it necessary. What I do think is that the bible needs updating in order that it more links to what modern humans understand.
And had you paid attention you will note that I have said it has meaning, especially to others. It has little meaning to me though given my own beliefs.
Quote:
Yeah I hate reading that much. As for books, if they aren't completely true then I won't read them
Yeah even if one sentence is incorrect then the whole thing is a lie. I think I'll go look for a book that positively says the sky is blue and the grass is green. Yeah those will be short, easy, and they'll have lots of meaning.
Laughably ST. I have 1/2 of the walls in my room covered in full book shelves and 8 boxes filled with those I cannot fit on the shelves at this moment. Contary to your claim is it not? As is your idea that I do not read the bible. I do, I have read large chunks of it, though not all. What I do happen to do is discount the book as of little relevance to myself and until proven otherwise the history in the bible unless other texts back it up. As I would discount the text of the Torah or Koran unless it's writings had some basis in what history can prove to be true.
And for your information, I do read alternative histories and fiction based on history, so I do happen to read more than text books also.
Quote:
I don't need compassion and guilt. Having a conscience is pointless
Ok, left sarcasm and entering insulting tone. You believe that guilt and conscience comes only from what the bible can teach you? I doubt this, so unlike you I will not jump to that conclusion and accuse you of this. I do need compassion and guilt, but I consider them and other such matters to come from the soul of each person. Not a book or a church. My conscience comes directly from my soul, I need no book to tell me what is right from wrong. I might use writings to guide me a little, but I certainly don't allow myself to be tied completely to the morality of one set religion if it does not concur with my conscience. I find it quite insulting that you believe I lack both of these given the total lack of proof for this you can have got from this thread.
Frankly you have just completely lowered the whole point you may have been trying to make. Do at least attempt debate and reason rather than sarcastically rebuke others simply because they fail to agree with you. I somehow expected higher from yourself, I expected at least that you would read what I said rather than what you believed me to say in order to suit your needs.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 18, 2004 01:02 AM |
|
|
Shadowcaster:
Well to be perfectly honest, by knowledge on that specific subject mostly from someone else. I happened to remark on another forum on one of the books removed from the bible, but at the time had no idea why. I was told that during one of the catholic church's councils they removed many books due to their lack of relevance to Jesus' life or the church's lack of ability to agree on what they meant to the faith as a whole (ie controversial as they went against established doctrine too much). I neither know their names or their content to be honest. I don't think any were written by a disciple of Jesus, so I would guess that the gospels remained due to them being written by those closest to him.
Given my lack of knowledge I cannot comment on whether the editors (for lack of another name) had the right reasoning or not, but the way in which many consider the book the word of god would tend towards indicating that they had no right whatsoever. That's just my opinion though. As for "catholics" the important point is that there was only one western church then (and I'm not sure if the split between roman and orthodox had taken place either sorry, so it could just be one), the editing that took place was adopted by both catholic and protestant bible. I'm lead to believe that the coptic church's bible in Egypt contains some of the works left out of the catholic one though.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
|
posted January 18, 2004 01:10 AM |
|
|
My guess would be that if anything was left out, it was done without permission or because the stories had already been recounted, were unimportant, or were added onto the Bible but were not necessarily part of it. Who knows, though? I don't think that I am well enough informed on this subject to make a qualified assertion. Those are, as it says, only guesses.
____________
>_>
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted January 18, 2004 01:31 AM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 17 Jan 2004
|
EDIT: Oh, man! Three thoughtful posts go up while I'm composing one! Bold added.
Shadowcaster:Quote:
Now I'm curious. These books were excluded from the Bible because of what controversial nature? Perhaps they were simply gleaning man-made passages that were not inspired by God, but this brings up another question. How did they decide what was worthy to be included in the Bible and what was not? They could have chosen to eliminate three of the gospels had they seen fit, why didn't they? I doubt that men that wrote the Bible, spanning three continents and thousands of years, would have agreed on what stays and what goes. The Catholics may have taken it upon themselves to handle that job, even though it may not have been called for.
I think the editing in question took place a little too early for the church be considered "Catholic" in the modern sense. The modern Catholic Bible includes a couple more books than the Protestant ones -- I'm not sure why.
As far as gospel-picking goes: The early church had all sorts of branches, some of which were declared to be heresy by the people who came to dominate the Christian community. Gnosticism and Manicheeism were a couple of the most persistent strains declared to be out of line. We have records of church fathers ranting against these sects. Therefore, some early texts were omitted from canon because the people in charge thought they were "tainted" with heresy. The example that comes to my mind is the Gospel of Thomas, because that's the one I've read. It was cut because some of its ideas are too Gnostic (spark of divinity in all people, etc). The four gospels of the Bible aren't 100% consistent with one another (IMO), but they were consistent with the theological views of the people picking the canon. Maybe this was the Holy Spirit's influence; maybe it was just power politics. Take your pick.
I'm not sure how the rest of the New Testament was selected, nor do I know the history of the Old Testament's transmission. You're right about scribing being an inexact art, but I suspect the transmission of the Hebrew Scriptures is pretty good compared to other ancient texts. When each and every word is sacred, people would tend to be more careful. That gives the Old Testament credibility in matters of history. However, I don't think transmission's particularly relevant (to outsiders) when it comes to prophecy, such as the Book of Isaiah. If someone wouldn't have bought the prophecy when it was first revealed, why would they buy it thousands of years later, even if it has been faithfully carried down?
Consis:
1) People have fought and bonded over many texts, not just the Bible. It is not special in that respect.
2)Quote:
As for books, if they aren't completely true then I won't read them. Yeah even if one sentence is incorrect then the whole thing is a lie.
You're strawman-ing the argument. No one said the entire Bible is a lie as far as I've seen, nor should anyone say so. It is invalid to judge the entire book on a single passage. To use my previous example, you cannot say that because Herodotus' account of the Persian wars is correct, he must be right about the flying snakes. You also cannot say that because he is wrong about the flying snakes, he must have made up the Persian wars. A Biblical example: You cannot say that the Bible is right about the Roman government of Judea, therefore it must be reliable on the resurrection of Christ. You also cannot say that the Bible is inaccurate about how many animals fit on an ark, therefore it must be wrong about the resurrection of Christ. Each passage must be taken on its own merit.
3)The Bible is not synonymous with morality or religion. Personally, I have an entirely different faith. Christ doesn't figure in it. Yahweh doesn't figure in it. Why should the Bible matter to me?
Hmm, I think my first post underestimated my enthusiasm for debating ancient texts and religion. Sorry 'bout that...
|
|
Tyler
Known Hero
|
|
posted January 18, 2004 11:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Much of that "nonsense" has historical evidence to back it up.
Like what? Heaven and hell, Moses and the spliting of the seas, The big flood and the big boat(i've actually heard a story about the boat being on the top of a big mountain in Turkey, and somehow is imposible to get somebody up there to verify that ), the Pope and the magical glass from wich Jesus drunk at the last supper ...
The story may go on; these are only a part of the whole bools$$it ....
So what historical evidence do we have here?
____________
Sir, we are surrounded! Excellent, now we can attack in any direction!
|
|
Tyler
Known Hero
|
|
posted January 18, 2004 11:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The bible is a difficult book. Ask any person and each will interpret it differently. So my question is : Is it the bible that changed countries or the people who interpretted it in a certain way (possibly the "wrong" way)?
I too believe in God, much like Privatehudson described. I do not find God in a book or a church, but in my heart and conscience.
ok Romana so taking away the book like u say, where do u get GOD from then, without the stinky book ?
____________
Sir, we are surrounded! Excellent, now we can attack in any direction!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 18, 2004 04:09 PM |
|
|
Nerve-Wracking
Quote:
Each passage must be taken on its own merit.
Khaelo,
That's what I think. That's how I approach the bible.
PrivateHudson,
I apologize for my rudeness. I just feel a bit sad because there is something about the book. Something that causes a person to create some of the greatest works of art in all of mankind's history. MichaelAngelo and others like him were mere artisans until they were affected by this book. Once the influence set in these people created something so beautiful and fantastic as to forever inspire my life and the lives of countless others. Sometimes after brooding over the excess of wars and discontent in our world I look at these things and I wonder what it was that brought such love into their lives. My wife says I've missed the boat because I regularly claim not to know if there really is a God. But I am always drawn to ask what it was that brought these people such love. I still don't know. Sometimes I ask myself if maybe I have the same ability to express love as these brilliant sculptors and painters that were 'touched by God'. I may never know but I want to find out because the more I stare at the painting, sculptor, or chapel, the more at peace I become with life as a whole. Once again I apologize for my rudeness but to me downplaying the significance of a book that has made clear connections to such people makes me feel like you don't see the masterpiece. Like I said I stare for hours and hours and sometimes it brings tears to my eyes. I don't know why. I simply feel at peace and I feel this book had something to do with that which has compelled so many people to create such beautiful and inspiring works of art. You say over and over that it does not affect you while its meaning to others may be great. Don't you ever wonder why that is? Ask yourself, "What could possibly compel a person to spend their entire life committed to expressing love and peace under God." I don't even know if God exists but these paintings are real enough. Don't you wonder why we humans stick to wars and conflict until touched by some unexplainable love? It grabs me, takes control, and I let it win. I will never get tired of absorbing that which a piece of such beauty has to offer. It won't affect you while it affects others? Fine but don't drag the rest of down with your hints of pessimistic views that allude to a world where we are all victims of power-craving dictators. Research to your heart's content how this battle went or that siege ended. You won't find peace there I guarantee it. You are human and there will come a time when the interest of wars will poison your mind. You may be young now but if you grow old never having known the difference between bloodshed and compassion then I pity you.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Romana
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
|
|
posted January 18, 2004 05:16 PM |
|
|
Tyler: Well I use the term "God" cause that's what people understand..I think. What I believe in is a higher power. I have never read the bible (atleast not completely) yet still I have always had the feeling there was something more, even when I was still too young to read anything.
You can ridicule me all you like, won't change a thing in my beliefs though ( or should I say morals?)
|
| |
|
|
