The Bible Has Definitely Been Through Some Changes

[i_am_i]

That's my problem with this book. It's been edited, parts kept in and parts thrown out, interpreted and translated and all of that according to the whim of who had the most to gain by having the bible say what they wanted it to.

All this stuff is from Wikipedia:

"James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy."

That's the King James Version, the one I guess most Christians read. King James gave the translators instructions to make the bible work for the Church of England. Smells fishy already.

"The Bible as used by Christians is divided into the Old Testament and the New Testament. The canonical composition of the Old Testament is in dispute between Christian groups: Protestants hold the books of the Hebrew Bible to be canonical and include them in what they call the Old Testament. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox additionally consider the deuterocanonical books, a group of Jewish books, to be a canonical part of their Old Testament. "

In dispute it says. This side says one thing and the other says another thing. It's all about "canonical composition."

"Pope Damasus I assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Council of Rome in AD 382. He commissioned Saint Jerome to produce a reliable and consistent text by translating the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin. This translation became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and in 1546 at the Council of Trent was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and official Bible in the Latin Rite."

Declared by the Church to be the official Bible. In 1546! Sorry, King James. Your 1611 version of the bible ain't official. Well, it is as far as you're concerned, and you're the king so hey! Why the hell not?

Now it doesn't take much imagination to figure that these people who were doing all this assembling and editing and translating under the influence of councils and kings weren't going to get every little thing exactly right. I mean, I'm still looking for the perfect translation of Crime and Punishment. My Russian speaking cousin tells me that such a translation is not possible, not really. So as someone who only speaks English I'll never know what it's like to read that book, not really.

So how in the Sam Hill, after so many people have had their hands on this collection of writings, after it's been through so many editions and versions and political fiddling about, how can anyone say that the Bible is the true undisputed word of God?

[bfat]

So how in the Sam Hill, after so many people have had their hands on this collection of writings, after it's been through so many editions and versions and political fiddling about, how can anyone say that the Bible is the true undisputed word of God?

Well, rationally, they shouldn't be able to.  But rationality has never really been the central concern of people who claim that a story book written by a primitive society is undeniably and irrefutably true (even without multiple translations and alterations).  Plus, most of the Christian mythology was based on pre-existing popular stories of the time (like the virgin birth myth, etc.).  Wasn't it the Concil of Nicea (or something like that) that decided what stories and myths would actually go into the book?  And that was like 300+ years later, when they decided to make all the holidays parallel the Pagan ones, so the other members of society wouldn't notice so much the encroaching monotheist nonsense in their culture...  

[LoneMateria]

I'm a big advocate of Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman.  If you want to look into different changes and the processes that created the bible translations we know today then you'd like this book.  

Some people don't realize that the bible has been changed and to what extent over the years.  They don't know of the Apocrypha and other heretical texts that have been around over the centuries that the orthodox church killed the followers of.  Hell some people don't know that the bible originally wasn't in English much less that the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were added centuries after the fact to make the bible seem more credible.  But many people who don't know these things wouldn't believe you if you told them it was the case.

You can't paint everyone with one brush and say just because the bible has been changed they shouldn't believe it.  Many may be ignorant of this fact, but many Christians like Reginus (one of our resident Christians in case you didn't know) who knows the bible has been changed will say that the book has been edited, just not to the point where the message has been changed.  He is half right here and I have to give credit where it is due.  You can't say it is unreliable if a few words here and there have been changed but the overall story/flow is nearly identical to previous translations.  However if this is the case you can't call the book the literal word of God but you can call it the inspired word of God.  This argument throws fundies and evangelicals under the rug but leaves moderate Christians intact.

I disagree with this of course and I can point to instances where the stories and the characters have been changed / added.  But thats irrelevant to the point i'm trying to make.  Which is just because a book has been changed it is not necessarily intellectually dishonest to still believe in it.  

Also I have found through many arguments that arguing the reliability of the bible will get you no where.  Instead you need to argue if the stories are plausible or depict reality.  Even if a story of zombies walking the streets is the original from 2000 years ago doesn't mean it depicts reality.

[Reginus]

This argument throws fundies and evangelicals under the rug but leaves moderate Christians intact.

A quick word: in my understanding, being evangelical doesn't necessarily being a being fundie. Evangelicalism is simply a branch of Christianity which places an emphasis on Jesus + being "born again." I don't see any conflict between this and moderate interpretation of the Bible.

Of course, a lot of Evangelicals are fundamentalists, but to be a pirate, you don't need to have a peg leg.

[elliebean]

My understanding of the definition of evangelicalism was always that it describes those sects of Christianity which engage in evangelism, or proselytising. At any rate, that's what I was taught in one of those kinds of churches, so not surprisingly, it's probably wrong: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evangelical

[SSY]

I'm a big advocate of Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman.  If you want to look into different changes and the processes that created the bible translations we know today then you'd like this book.  

Some people don't realize that the bible has been changed and to what extent over the years.  They don't know of the Apocrypha and other heretical texts that have been around over the centuries that the orthodox church killed the followers of.  Hell some people don't know that the bible originally wasn't in English much less that the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were added centuries after the fact to make the bible seem more credible.  But many people who don't know these things wouldn't believe you if you told them it was the case.

You can't paint everyone with one brush and say just because the bible has been changed they shouldn't believe it.  Many may be ignorant of this fact, but many Christians like Reginus (one of our resident Christians in case you didn't know) who knows the bible has been changed will say that the book has been edited, just not to the point where the message has been changed.  He is half right here and I have to give credit where it is due.  You can't say it is unreliable if a few words here and there have been changed but the overall story/flow is nearly identical to previous translations.  However if this is the case you can't call the book the literal word of God but you can call it the inspired word of God.  This argument throws fundies and evangelicals under the rug but leaves moderate Christians intact.

I disagree with this of course and I can point to instances where the stories and the characters have been changed / added.  But thats irrelevant to the point i'm trying to make.  Which is just because a book has been changed it is not necessarily intellectually dishonest to still believe in it.  

Also I have found through many arguments that arguing the reliability of the bible will get you no where.  Instead you need to argue if the stories are plausible or depict reality.  Even if a story of zombies walking the streets is the original from 2000 years ago doesn't mean it depicts reality.

I think in this case, I may disagree with you. I agree, denouncing books because a few words change, but the flow and meaning is retained, is not logical, but that is not what is happening here. Books of the bible were choosen, by people, to be included or not, large parts were left out, the editing was done with an intent to change the message the bible (make Jesus look more miraculous, more convincingly the son of god). If I were publishing a report about the earthquake situation Haiti right now, and the international relief effort, and you then, edited it, but excluding the aid contributions of certain countries, for instance, I would say that compromises the integrity of the report.

[LoneMateria]

I think in this case, I may disagree with you. I agree, denouncing books because a few words change, but the flow and meaning is retained, is not logical, but that is not what is happening here. Books of the bible were choosen, by people, to be included or not, large parts were left out, the editing was done with an intent to change the message the bible (make Jesus look more miraculous, more convincingly the son of god). If I were publishing a report about the earthquake situation Haiti right now, and the international relief effort, and you then, edited it, but excluding the aid contributions of certain countries, for instance, I would say that compromises the integrity of the report.

I totally agree with you here.  The point I was trying to make was that theists aren't necessarily irrational/idiots for believing in a book that has been changed.  Many are ignorant of the fact it has been changed in the first place.  However those who do know this and still believe can make the case that it hasn't been changed enough to change the meaning.  I would, of course, disagree and argue that 1: the word of god was voted on, 2: many things were changed intentionally, and 3: we don't know who the authors are much less their intentions when writing the bible.  I was just saying that to leap to the point that everyone who believes in the bible is irrational because the bible has been changed is logically fallacious.

This argument throws fundies and evangelicals under the rug but leaves moderate Christians intact.

A quick word: in my understanding, being evangelical doesn't necessarily being a being fundie. Evangelicalism is simply a branch of Christianity which places an emphasis on Jesus + being "born again." I don't see any conflict between this and moderate interpretation of the Bible.

Of course, a lot of Evangelicals are fundamentalists, but to be a pirate, you don't need to have a peg leg.

I am aware of this and thats why I used the word and.  It may be the area I live in (bible belt) but I haven't met a moderate evangelical though i've heard a few stories about them.  They are usually trying to convince other evangelists that evolution is true.  Besides how big does the general population have to be before we refer to the moderates as the minority?

[bfat]

Something that I could never quite comprehend, though, is people who believe that some of the bible is metaphorical (like genesis, and the flood, etc., therefore allowing for a belief in evolution), but insist that other parts of it are entirely true.  My mother is one of these people.  She's a Catholic who believes in evolution and that many of the early stories of the bible are metaphorical, but that everything involving Jesus is true.  I guess, since the old testament and new testament were compiled so far apart, that this is where she makes the distinction.  But knowing that it was MEN who put together all the stories into one book (as mentioned above) and declared it the word of God... this seems to fall apart.  Since the various sections of the bible are so vastly different, and sometimes contradict each other, and knowing that at least some of the bible is metaphorical... why is it so impossible for some people to accept that it's possible that all of the bible is metaphorical?

And of course there is the argument that some of the bible is historical, and this is true, but setting a metaphor or an allegory, or even a "fairy tale," in a historically accurate setting doesn't make it true.

It just frustrates me that people who accept that some of the bible isn't absolute truth won't admit to the possibility that the rest of it could also be untrue...

[SSY]

Something that I could never quite comprehend, though, is people who believe that some of the bible is metaphorical (like genesis, and the flood, etc., therefore allowing for a belief in evolution), but insist that other parts of it are entirely true.  My mother is one of these people.  She's a Catholic who believes in evolution and that many of the early stories of the bible are metaphorical, but that everything involving Jesus is true.  I guess, since the old testament and new testament were compiled so far apart, that this is where she makes the distinction.  But knowing that it was MEN who put together all the stories into one book (as mentioned above) and declared it the word of God... this seems to fall apart.  Since the various sections of the bible are so vastly different, and sometimes contradict each other, and knowing that at least some of the bible is metaphorical... why is it so impossible for some people to accept that it's possible that all of the bible is metaphorical?

And of course there is the argument that some of the bible is historical, and this is true, but setting a metaphor or an allegory, or even a "fairy tale," in a historically accurate setting doesn't make it true.

It just frustrates me that people who accept that some of the bible isn't absolute truth won't admit to the possibility that the rest of it could also be untrue...

It's only the obviously silly things they take like that, obviously made up=Allegory/metaphor, harder to disprove=fact. Why some bits of it are true, and others false, and why god felt the need to obscure some of his divine truth in a load of made up superstition, they usually never get around to explaining.

snip

True dat.

[BadPoison]

He could have put everything allegorical in italics. Too bad god didn't invent italics until the 15th century.

[LoneMateria]

Something that I could never quite comprehend, though, is people who believe that some of the bible is metaphorical (like genesis, and the flood, etc., therefore allowing for a belief in evolution), but insist that other parts of it are entirely true.  My mother is one of these people.  She's a Catholic who believes in evolution and that many of the early stories of the bible are metaphorical, but that everything involving Jesus is true.  I guess, since the old testament and new testament were compiled so far apart, that this is where she makes the distinction.  But knowing that it was MEN who put together all the stories into one book (as mentioned above) and declared it the word of God... this seems to fall apart.  Since the various sections of the bible are so vastly different, and sometimes contradict each other, and knowing that at least some of the bible is metaphorical... why is it so impossible for some people to accept that it's possible that all of the bible is metaphorical?

And of course there is the argument that some of the bible is historical, and this is true, but setting a metaphor or an allegory, or even a "fairy tale," in a historically accurate setting doesn't make it true.

It just frustrates me that people who accept that some of the bible isn't absolute truth won't admit to the possibility that the rest of it could also be untrue...

My best friend is the same way and it too is very frustrating.  He flat out told me when I started reading the bible that i can't treat it like other books that I have to look at it under some different lens.  I guess he was trying to say I needed to just accept it and not think about it.  I've asked him about parts of the bible and he made the mistake once saying that it was metaphor (I don't remember the part now but he is a YEC so it wasn't about genesis) I asked him how can he separate fact from metaphor in the bible and he said to me, "You have to do it very carefully".  What?!?! So I said this and he never brought up metaphor again, "How do you know what you are reading is metaphor and what is literal?  You can't tell the difference all you are doing is picking and choosing what you believe without justification all the while trying to avoid the realization that it was written by bronze age barbarians with no clue about the universe who were so insecure with not knowing that they made shit up which you read today and ignore 95%+ of it."

Never heard a word about it again.

[G-Roll]

He flat out told me when I started reading the bible that i can't treat it like other books that I have to look at it under some different lens. I guess he was trying to say I needed to just accept it and not think about it.

they always loose me with that part. like i have to trick myself or dumb myself down to understand it. by understand i mean buy into it. i doubt i will ever understand why someone would still cling to "the word of god."
if a group of people (apologetics) need to be formed just to make it relevant, make since, and/or coherent then how is it not utter bs?

[Reginus]

How do you know what you are reading is metaphor and what is literal?

That's a good question, and I don't have an answer off the top of my head.

My question is: why would it even be necessary for a Christian to know? (esp. with regards to the OT)

[G-Roll]

because the OT is the roots of the NT?

and if the whole book could be taken as metaphorical, would that not be some good info to know?

[LoneMateria]

How do you know what you are reading is metaphor and what is literal?

That's a good question, and I don't have an answer off the top of my head.

My question is: why would it even be necessary for a Christian to know? (esp. with regards to the OT)

Well if you are basing your faith off of this book wouldn't it make sense to 1: read it and 2: understand it?  After all a CHRISTian should be aware of the Christ they follow right?  Also they should be aware what their Christ said and done and if it based on fact.  Oh and without the OT there would be no NT.  The NT exists because Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies (supposedly) so if the OT is crap then the NT is founded on that same crap.  After all Jesus taught and believed in the laws of the OT and says so in the NT.  The OT is just embarrassing to Christians and thats why they try and brush it under the rug or try and flat out ignore it.  Who would Jesus be without the Old Testament?