The Bible

[steve_bank]

Time to discuss what Christians takes as 'the gospel truth'It appears debate on authority of the bible goes far back with both Christians and Jews.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible

The Bible exists in multiple manuscripts, none of them an autograph, and multiple canons, which do not completely agree on which books have sufficient authority to be included or their order (see Books of the Bible). The early discussions about the exclusion or integration of various apocrypha involve an early idea about the historicity of the core.[7] The Ionian Enlightenment influenced early patrons like Justin Martyr and Tertullian – both saw the biblical texts as being different to (and having more historicity than) the myths of other religions. Augustine was aware of the difference between science and scripture and defended the historicity of the biblical texts e.g. against claims of Faustus of Mileve.[8] ....Even from the earliest times, there was an awareness that parts of the scriptures could not be interpreted as a strictly consistent sequence of events. The Talmud cites a dictum ascribed to the third-century teacher Abba Arika that "there is no chronological order in the Torah".[11] Examples were often presented and discussed in later Jewish exegesis with, according to Abraham Joshua Heschel, an ongoing discourse between those who would follow the views of Rabbi Ishmael that "the Torah speaks in human language", compared to the more mystical approach of Rabbi Akiva that any such deviations should signpost some deeper order or purpose, to be divined.[12]...An educated reading of the biblical text requires knowledge of when it was written, by whom, and for what purpose. For example, many academics would agree that the Pentateuch was in existence some time shortly after the 6th century BCE, but they disagree about when it was written. Proposed dates vary from the 15th century BCE to the 6th century BCE. One popular hypothesis points to the reign of Josiah (7th century BCE). In this hypothesis, the events of, for example, Exodus would have happened centuries before they were finally edited. This topic is expanded upon in dating the Bible.

An important point to keep in mind is the documentary hypothesis, which, using the biblical evidence itself, claims to demonstrate that our current version is based on older written sources that are lost.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_literature

Theoldest complete Hebrew bibles are not very old. That makes sense since a cannon did not exist until the CE.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...-hebrew-bible/

History of Hebrew. There are no source documents for the bible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Hebrew_writings

History of translations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations

 

[ideologyhunter]

History (at least) tells us that man is a war monger, an aggressor toward the 'out' groups; that our species seems to be by nature obsessed with race; that our brain power makes us dominant in the physical world; to your OP point, that we are tellers of tales to explain our origins and to remove the sting of mortality. We are the inventors of deities and orthodoxies, and we have made up, worshipped, and shed thousands of 'em. Thousands. Religion comes out of our human nature. If instead, there was a true extrinsic revelation -- i.e., if 'the correct faith' existed and was a good way to acquire knowledge -- then there wouldn't be exponential numbers of orthodoxies. (I know, the religionists have more tricks than a centrifuge full of monkeys to explain why their god is hidden. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Pay attention to Oz, the Mighty Oz.)

 

[rousseau]

History (at least) tells us that man is a war monger, an aggressor toward the 'out' groups; that our species seems to be by nature obsessed with race; that our brain power makes us dominant in the physical world; to your OP point, that we are tellers of tales to explain our origins and to remove the sting of mortality. We are the inventors of deities and orthodoxies, and we have made up, worshipped, and shed thousands of 'em. Thousands. Religion comes out of our human nature. If instead, there was a true extrinsic revelation -- i.e., if 'the correct faith' existed and was a good way to acquire knowledge -- then there wouldn't be exponential numbers of orthodoxies. (I know, the religionists have more tricks than a centrifuge full of monkeys to explain why their god is hidden. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Pay attention to Oz, the Mighty Oz.)

For shits I decided to study Rastafarianism for a while, a few months ago. When I learned that the movement was, at it's most essential, about the promotion and superiority of the black race, in reaction to white supremacy, I knew it was all over.

Most of us just aren't built to acknowledge other living beings in any type of true, spiritual way, unless they're family.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Most of us just aren't built to acknowledge other living beings in any type of true, spiritual way, unless they're family.

I think we have room in our heads for about 100 people. Those are 'real.' The rest, we can interact with, but they're just placeholders. Not someone that elicits the real response that the Real People do.

Probably evolved as our clan being real, those fuckers that make up the rest of the tribe aren't AS real, and those guys across the valley are just about the level of cattle. Maybe a little more obnoxious than OUR cattle...

Sadly, I filled up a lot of my slots with Kirk, Spock, Obi-Wan, Spider-Man...

 

[steve_bank]

Most Christians have no idea the path that led to the version they read. The series of language translations and the inevitable interpretation's that crept in for over 2000 years.

Yet they take it as the 'gospel' truth.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I wonder what % of Christians actually read the Bible...my impression is that the majority think that whatever church they attend does the work for them. Atheists typically do better on Bible literacy quizzes, because we think that shit is funny and we actually read it (and we read the totally lit Bible smack about slavery, genocide, capital punishment, that isn't much preached about.) I've known Christians who would tell you that the Bible is God's precious word to man, the perfect road map, etc, etc, but they didn't seem to want to sit and read God's precious message. Imagine that.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Not to mention the number of Faithful who think the Books explicitly says 23 October, 4004 BC. in there....somewhere.
Or 9 circles of Hell.
Or that the Flood was 40 days and nights, anyone talking about Noah needing a year of supplies is making shit up.


I actually knew a guy underway who was going to read the Bible, start to finish, as his Patrol Project.
He got confused about the two accounts of creation in Genesis, which didn't match what he KNEW had happened, and stopped reading. Confusion must be from Satan. So reading the Bible was probably not a good idea.

But someone else told me that the fact there are parts of the bible she didn't understand, that just confirms to her that God wrote it. Since man could not have...

 

[steve_bank]

While the RCC ruled Christianity it was forbidden to translate from Latin to a connon language.

There was time when it carries a death penalty.

What I have observed over the years here is that atheists are far more conversant on the bible than theists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible

The Tyndale Bible generally refers to the body of biblical translations by William Tyndale (c. 1494–1536). Tyndale's Bible is credited with being the first English translation to work directly from Hebrew and Greek texts. Furthermore, it was the first English biblical translation that was mass-produced as a result of new advances in the art of printing.

The term Tyndale's Bible is not strictly correct, because Tyndale never published a complete Bible. That task was completed by Miles Coverdale who supplemented Tyndale's translations with his own to produce the first complete printed Bible in English in 1535. Prior to his execution Tyndale had only finished translating the entire New Testament and roughly half of the Old Testament.[1] Of the latter, the Pentateuch, Jonah and a revised version of the book of Genesis were published during his lifetime. His other Old Testament works were first used in the creation of the Matthew Bible and also heavily influenced every major English translation of the Bible that followed.[2] ....

History[edit]

The chain of events that led to the creation of Tyndale’s New Testament possibly began in 1522, the year Tyndale acquired a copy of Martin Luther's German New Testament. Inspired by Luther’s work, Tyndale began a translation into English using a Greek text compiled by Erasmus from several manuscripts older than the Latin Vulgate of Jerome (c. AD 340–420), the only translation authorized by the Roman Catholic Church.[3][4]

Tyndale made his purpose known to the Bishop of London at the time, Cuthbert Tunstall, but was refused permission to produce this "heretical" text. Thwarted in England, Tyndale moved to the continent.[5] A partial edition was put into print in 1525 in Cologne. But before the work could be completed, Tyndale was betrayed to the authorities[6] and forced to flee to Worms, where the first complete edition of his New Testament was published in 1526.[7]

Two revised versions were later published in 1534 and 1536, both personally revised by Tyndale himself. After his death in 1536 Tyndale’s works were revised and reprinted numerous times[8] and are reflected in more modern versions of the Bible, including, perhaps most famously, the King James Bible.[citation needed]

Tyndale's Pentateuch was published at Antwerp by Merten de Keyser in 1530.[9] His English version of the book of Jonah was published the following year. This was followed by his revised version of the book of Genesis in 1534. Tyndale translated additional Old Testament books including Joshua, Judges, first and second Samuel, first and second Kings and first and second Chronicles, but they were not published and have not survived in their original forms.[10] When Tyndale was martyred these works came to be in the possession of one of his associates John Rogers. These translations would be influential in the creation of the Matthew Bible which was published in 1537.[10]

Tyndale used a number of sources when carrying out his translations of both the New and Old Testaments. When translating the New Testament, he referred to the third edition (1522) of Erasmus's Greek New Testament, often referred to as the Received Text. Tyndale also used Erasmus' Latin New Testament, as well as Luther's German version and the Vulgate.

Scholars believe that Tyndale stayed away from using Wycliffe's Bible as a source because he did not want his English to reflect that which was used prior to the Renaissance.[11] The sources Tyndale used for his translation of the Pentateuch however are not known for sure. Scholars believe that Tyndale used either the Hebrew Pentateuch or the Polyglot Bible, and may have referred to the Septuagint. It is suspected that his other Old Testament works were translated directly from a copy of the Hebrew Bible. He also made use of Greek and Hebrew grammars.[10]

Reaction of the Catholic Church and execution[edit]





The Tyndale Bible on display at the Bodleian Library, Oxford
Tyndale’s translations were condemned in England, where his work was banned and copies burned.[12] Catholic officials, prominently Thomas More,[13] charged that he had purposely mistranslated the ancient texts in order to promote anti-clericalism and heretical views,[14] In particular they cited the terms "church", "priest", "do penance" and "charity", which became in the Tyndale translation "congregation", "senior" (changed to "elder" in the revised edition of 1534), "repent" and "love", challenging key doctrines of the Roman Church.

Betrayed to church officials in 1536, he was defrocked in an elaborate public ceremony and turned over to the civil authorities to be strangled to death and burned at the stake. His last words are said to have been, "Lord! Open the King of England's eyes."[15]

 

[ideologyhunter]

Murder & Religion have always made such a committed, faithful couple.

 

[rousseau]

It's almost as though people who literally believe in religion religion, political dogma, philosophies have a psychological inability to realize their own ignorance.

Socrates said 'all I know is that I know nothing', but I don't think that's quite right. Instead it should be, 'all I know is that my understanding is incomplete'.

But hey, maybe when all your friends believe too, it's really Socrates getting you killed.

 

[rousseau]

Most of us just aren't built to acknowledge other living beings in any type of true, spiritual way, unless they're family.

I think we have room in our heads for about 100 people. Those are 'real.' The rest, we can interact with, but they're just placeholders. Not someone that elicits the real response that the Real People do.

Probably evolved as our clan being real, those fuckers that make up the rest of the tribe aren't AS real, and those guys across the valley are just about the level of cattle. Maybe a little more obnoxious than OUR cattle...

Sadly, I filled up a lot of my slots with Kirk, Spock, Obi-Wan, Spider-Man...

It took me a long time to understand that people work this way. For a good long while I couldn't understand why friends who were no longer a part of my daily life didn't want to stay in touch any longer. To a large extent it makes sense, but I was always a person with an innate curiosity about other people, and that curiosity had no limits. If I had the opportunity to continue a relationship with someone I would take it, no questions asked. I didn't understand that other people weren't like that.

It's a funny way to be because it's so fucking easy to become friends with someone by showing literally any concern at all for their well being. Hell, just ask a stranger how their day is going, or if their business is busy today and you'll have made a friend.

But I think there is an innate logic in most humans that makes a mental calculation about how valuable any given person is to them, and the relationship with the person ends up being derived by that value, rather than by the fact that they're a feeling/sentient being.

In sum ~ most human beings are not consciously aware of why they do the things they do, but their instincts keep them alive by showering attention on those who contribute to their material well-being, and shunning those who don't. In a mathematical universe this makes a lot of sense, and I think you could define 'enlightenment' as having the ability to act contrary to this reality.