The Bible Has Definitely Been Through Some Changes

[elliebean]

snip

My apologies as well. I was in a....mood...yesterday.

[elliebean]

Edit: Spammer removed. Thanks, Whitney =)

[Whitney]

thanks for the report...spam deleted and user IP banned (I just deleted the user and all of his posts since it was easier to do it that way)

[LoneMateria]

Cop out would suggest that this interpretation came about because of criticism of a literal interpretation. It did not. As far as I can tell there was a long history of this interpretation in Judaism well before the birth of Christ, and Jesus seems to carry on this tradition in his teaching. So cop out it is not. Instead it may be a return to the original meaning of the teachings of Christ. Now I am criticised sometimes for attempting to make more out of atheism than there really is, and I have tried to take this criticism on board. I know it is easier to attack a literal interpretation of the Bible, but make sure you are not trying to make theists an easier target by defending that literal interpretation.

I'm trying to figure out the argument you presented here.  I see a lot of words like, "seems to carry on", and "As far as I can tell", and "may be a return".  To me it looks like you aren't really sure and are just saying things.  The bible has been literally interpreted for thousands of years.  In the U.S. 1/3 the population claims to be Evangelical (and a healthy majority of them are fundamentalists).  Millions of people today believe in a literal interpretation of the bible and even more so did in the past.  These people who believe in the literal interpretation cop out when they look at the Old Testament and see laws like stone your unruly children to death, virgin women are forced to marry their rapists, and stories like bears tearing apart 42 children for calling someone bald, and say oh its just allegory, or interpretation.  All that is happening is they are dodging the realization that their book is very immoral.  

I actually find moderate theists more crazy in many areas.  So don't get me wrong.  While those who believe in a literal interpretation of the bible are crazy and will typically cop out when presented with much of the OT, the moderates can be just as bad (if not worse especially in areas like evolution).  Someone who has a non-literal interpretation of the bible will cop out in a similar way.  Instead of saying, "I don't know why God murdered 42 children for calling his prophet bald in 2Kings 2," moderates instead just ignore that by saying, oh well it doesn't really mean that (or the really annoying one liner, "Thats the old testament it doesn't count anymore" like that somehow justifies these things).  Though I might ask another 10 questions here it is typically pointless.  Because this is a cop out, it is a way of ignoring what is written and/or dodging a tough question by putting forth a claim that cannot be proven nor reasoned with.  

I will ask you this ... if God really wanted to convey a message wouldn't it just be easier to write it down how he meant it instead of leaving up to interpretation as a riddle in a story?  This type of nonsense reminds me of the crap Muslims say when science makes a discovery, "Oh the Koran predicted this thousands of years ago because it is perfect ... we just didn't notice until science made the discovery."

Your allegory of a medicine journal I don’t quite agree with. Medicine and spirituality are not the same thing, so I do not see why they should be taught in the same way.

I find my comparison valid for a few reasons.  1 Both books are meant to convey facts of their respective subjects.  2 Both books contain critical information about humans and both claim to save humans.  3 An improper understandings of both books can cause death (bible will do it on a grander scale).  4 The people who know their respected books very well are often times looked to as authority figures.  

However, if I stay with the metaphor then perhaps I could describe the allegory as this: any doctor will tell you that someone can read as many textbooks as they like, but nothing is as good as practical experience in the operating room. In the same way spiritual truth becomes all the more spectacular if it is arrived at through experience and experiment. However, unlike medicine, spirituality is much easier and safer to convey through allegory (no one will attack you for publishing a medicine journal, but allegory might hide you from the abuse that tends to attach itself to new spiritual masters-just see the Crucifixion or Crusade against the Cathars).

Will those same doctors tell you not to read textbooks because practical experience is better?  And since when did allegory did promoted from its status of symbolism to the status of experience and experiment?  

There is also the possibility that, like medicine, spirituality is a personal thing (what works for me may kill you) hence as an allegory can mean many things to many men perhaps this is the best way for humanity to arrive at the spiritual philosophy which suits them best.

I realise that the above is not perfectly typed, but it is not a dissertation. If anyone struggles just tell me and I will re-type.

Medicine is a personal thing?  If that was true then there would be no standard medical treatment for ailments.

[Dagda]

So you find moderates crazy because they don’t think they should stone adulteresses because it is in the Bible?  The Bible may have been literally interpreted for thousands of years, but it has also been metaphorically interpreted for thousands of years. I really don’t see your point: are you saying I should ignore the Bible because it is difficult to understand, or that I should be a fundamentalist?

As for personalised medicine I think the current theory is that as medicine advances it will become easier to make medicine work for the afflicted; we are slowly beginning to see different treatments for different people because doctors have realised that we are not all the same inside or out.

[Typist]

It might be helpful if we could all specify in some detail which religion we are objecting to.  

I think what many posters on atheist boards are really trying to say is that they object to Christianity, and/or fundamentalist or conservative Christianity.   In other words, the religion they've seen, the religion they know about, they don't like.  

As example, I never see any focused informed discussions of say, Hinduism, on atheist boards.   I don't know much about it myself.   So we shouldn't be lumping Hinduism, and hundreds of other religious approaches, in to the single word "religion", until we know something about them.

I doubt any of us could even name all the religions, ya dig?

[elliebean]

Just a reminder; this thread is about the bible.

[Typist]

Ha, ha!  Point taken.  Duh...   Thanks for reminder.   I don't even see the post I was replying to now.   OMG, the pink unicorn removed the invisible non-existent post, and nobody even noticed, it's a miracle!

[LoneMateria]

So you find moderates crazy because they don’t think they should stone adulteresses because it is in the Bible?  The Bible may have been literally interpreted for thousands of years, but it has also been metaphorically interpreted for thousands of years. I really don’t see your point: are you saying I should ignore the Bible because it is difficult to understand, or that I should be a fundamentalist?

As for personalised medicine I think the current theory is that as medicine advances it will become easier to make medicine work for the afflicted; we are slowly beginning to see different treatments for different people because doctors have realised that we are not all the same inside or out.

I didn't realize only moderates think its crazy to stone people to death.  Maybe you should enlighten us with a practical definition because it seems we are on two separate pages.  Here ... instead of waiting for a response, which will ultimately take the conversation no where and ignore all the arguments I put forward again, let me tell you my definitions of fundamentalists and moderates and what I find crazy about both.  And to boot I will tie it in with the topic of the thread.  

Fundamentalist Christian:  A self-proclaimed Christian who believes the Bible is the infallible word of God, ignores an astonishing 95% of the bible, thinks the old testament doesn't count, thinks Jesus made statements on abortion, doesn't believe in evolution, believes everyone who holds opposing beliefs is crazy and should shut up but they have the right to freedom of religion (aka freedom of discrimination), believes they should run the government, hates everyone who is different (and think they are persecuted when they are not allowed to act on that hate), think all of our morals come from God, and refuses to accept scientific evidence in places where they stuck their God.

Seems crazy right ... this next one takes the cake.

Moderate Christian:  A self-proclaimed Christian who believes the bible to be inspired by God, ignores 99% of what is written, believes in scientific evidence and has found a way to compartmentalize discrepancies and illogical premises (such as evolution, the big bang and their god mixing.  They believe that God made the universe 14 billion years ago with the intent of creating a universe for us which is 99.999% deadly to us, with the knowledge that the earth will be made 9.5 billion years after the universe and his chosen species will be made between 4.3 and 4.4 billion years after that, and after that species evolves he waits more then 190,000 years before sending his son to die on the cross and forgive your sins so you can enter paradise.  By any estimate this is the most ineffective thing to do for an all powerful being who mysteriously makes all his actions look like natural causes.), who thinks that the bibles true meanings are hidden morals to stories that have been changed an uncountable number of times throughout its history and language translations, who believes that their beliefs depict reality yet won't take the time out to read the bible (in their own language much less Greek or Latin) or follow it's teaching.

Now that these have been defined (the best they can be in such little space, and some of each ones craziness pointed out) you still haven't shown me why allegory and layers of hidden information is a realistic way to put forth important information to people.  You and I can figure out that presenting the information in this format is stupid, unreliable, and can have negative consequences [as in the medical example].  If your god is omnipotent or smarter then us like he supposedly is then why can we figure this out but not him?  And why are you attempting to make excuses for this?

[Dagda]

I cannot speak for the rest of the Christian faith, but I will put forward my own theological theory. God is Love. However, He also wishes to be loved in return, and this presents a problem. Without free will the human race cannot love God freely, and when someone is forced to love it becomes, at most, a kind of lust or adoration. As such God gave us free will in the hope that He would be loved in return, however we used that free will to turn away from God (see Genesis chapter 3-4). In this we became imperfect and so could no-longer directly experience God (this is the metaphor of the Garden of Eden). At this point you may point out that only Adam and Eve sinned so why should we all be punished. Well the answer is simple; two bad apples infected the lot. Like a pitcher of water when a dot of ink is added, the imperfections of Adam and Eve quickly spread.

However, God does not give up and has, at various stages, handed down/inspired various religious texts to help humanity unite with the God-head once more-this is why most mystical texts have the same underlying message; they came from the same source.

To answer your question about allegory, it is quite simple. The Gospel of Thomas put it well: when Thomas was asked to divulge the secret teachings of Christ ‘Thomas replied, ‘If I tell you what he said you’ll pick up stones and hurl them at me’. It is easy to forget that not so long ago saying the wrong thing could quickly lead to death (see stoning of James the Just, the execution of Cathars etc). The reason texts such as these are written in metaphor and allegory is that when the Inquisition came knocking you could appear more innocent and orthodox than you otherwise would appear.

Most mystical traditions (Cabbalists, Greek Mystery Schools, Indian mystics etc) seem to indicate that the information contained in these allegories could be dangerous in the wrong hands. To use your own example Elisha killed a number of children for calling him bald (the concept of God and His actions in the world would require another few paragraphs, but it is more the power of God rather than God Himself who killed those children) is an anecdote. It may have been true or false, but that is not the point. What it is saying is that those who received that secret information (Elisha) can do great damage (killing children etc). This is yet another reason that this mystical information is conveyed in allegories-it prevents the information falling into the wrong hands.

Obviously the major problem of conveying any information in symbolism is that it is very difficult to interpret (kind of the point), and this the reason for the constant re-interpretation. Hope this enlightened you as to my beliefs concerning metaphor in the Bible.

[LoneMateria]

Very interesting response Dagda.  I think that it merits it's own thread.  I don't want to get us more OT so i'm just going to respond to the parts that have to deal with the thread.  If you want to copy/paste and start a new thread I would be more then glad to go in depth into the theology with you.  Most days when I debate people it's mainly Fundamentalist Christians and not Roman Catholics.  I know your theology is different, as is your bible, and I find it strange that you reference the Gospel of Thomas (non-canonical).  It would make for fun conversation.

To answer your question about allegory, it is quite simple. The Gospel of Thomas put it well: when Thomas was asked to divulge the secret teachings of Christ ‘Thomas replied, ‘If I tell you what he said you’ll pick up stones and hurl them at me’. It is easy to forget that not so long ago saying the wrong thing could quickly lead to death (see stoning of James the Just, the execution of Cathars etc). The reason texts such as these are written in metaphor and allegory is that when the Inquisition came knocking you could appear more innocent and orthodox than you otherwise would appear.

This seems like a hypothetical answer to me and let me explain why.  First off this answer would only apply to the New Testament since Jews existed for a few thousand years before Christians.  Next Christians were not supposed to fear persecution (at least not according to Matthew 5:10-12).  Yes the Orthodox Church has been hunting heretics like Marcion for different bible interpretations for a long time.  However in the process they destroyed many heretical texts (some are gone forever) and their text has been one of the biggest contributers to the bible to date.  To claim that their text is full of hidden messages to avoid persecution from themselves is not logical.  The only way to attempt to salvage the argument then is to say they were persecuted by the Pagans.  At first the pagans thought Christians were atheists since they claimed to worship the god of the Jews but didn't follow any of his laws.  However once that was cleared up the only time Pagans really gave a damn about Christians was when a natural disaster would happen and they would interpret it that their gods were angry with the Christians for not giving offerings (they really didn't give a damn until Christians started killing them).  However there are only a few recorded cases of this, not enough to claim they were persecuted to the point where they needed to hide their true messages in code.  

And even if I were to buy into this, the coded messages will almost certainly be lost in translation from Greek to Latin (or English or any other language).  Now even if we were to postulate this very, very minute possibility of there being hidden messages in the bible, how would that lend any credibility to whether or not its true or that you even have the right message?  When you start taking large books like the bible and start looking for hidden messages there are enough words and letters that you can imagine some hidden meaning that isn't really there.  Again this is the same crap that goes on in Islam when they credit the Koran for recent scientific breakthroughs saying that the Koran predicted this 1500 years ago.  When you want there to be a message you will find conveniently find one.  

Most mystical traditions (Cabbalists, Greek Mystery Schools, Indian mystics etc) seem to indicate that the information contained in these allegories could be dangerous in the wrong hands. To use your own example Elisha killed a number of children for calling him bald (the concept of God and His actions in the world would require another few paragraphs, but it is more the power of God rather than God Himself who killed those children) is an anecdote. It may have been true or false, but that is not the point. What it is saying is that those who received that secret information (Elisha) can do great damage (killing children etc). This is yet another reason that this mystical information is conveyed in allegories-it prevents the information falling into the wrong hands.

How does this lend any credibility to your argument?  Some mystics have said that they can cast a spell on you and witches can do the same thing.  Saying this doesn't lend any credibility to if magical witches exist or that an collection of noises from a mystic can kill you magically.   Just like mystics and superstitious traditions don't lend credibility to the assertion that messages hidden in the bibles allegories and symbolism are dangerous in the wrong hands, or that these messages exist.

Oh and how does a just and loving God rationalize the slaughter of 42 children for calling his prophet bald?  That is neither just or an act of love and is devoid of morals.  Would it be okay for you (if you were all powerful) to kill 42 kids for calling your brother bald?  Then why would it be for God?

Obviously the major problem of conveying any information in symbolism is that it is very difficult to interpret (kind of the point), and this the reason for the constant re-interpretation. Hope this enlightened you as to my beliefs concerning metaphor in the Bible.

The major problem here is that the supposedly hidden information is critical information that your god wants people to know.  This information is the difference between a life of bliss or torment and torture (which is another barbaric system within itself and the topic of a different discussion).  Instead of saying, "I love you and I want to help you and this is what I need" there are stories of the slaughter of children, cities, babies, heretics, and chosen people to demonstrate the power and jealousy and rage of a supposed loving being.

The interpretation of symbolism and allegory is just an attempt to avoid the nasty parts of the bible that believers don't like so they don't have to think about their beliefs.  All you've done here is postulate a hypothetical scenario to avoid your justification for this belief.  You haven't presented anything remotely resembling evidence to justify your claim that the true meanings in the bible are hidden in symbolism and allegory and that these messages somehow survived through all of the errors, and translations of the bible 1900 years later and is intact.  Until you can present something tangible and rational as evidence to your claim I can only conclude that your belief in these hidden messages is irrational and unsupported.

[Typist]

Very interesting response Dagda.   If you want to copy/paste and start a new thread I would be more then glad to go in depth into the theology with you.  

Ditto, same here, interested in what you have to say Dagda.

Regarding the Bible...

Did you ever play that game in elementary school where the class lines up, and the teacher whispers something to the first kid, who whispers it to the next, and the next etc, to the end of the line.   When the final kid says the message out loud, it usually bears little resemblance to what the teacher originally said.

That's my theory of the Bible, and all holy books.   Somebody has an interesting insight, and then it gets mangled in translation by a series of others who didn't have the insight.   Many of these people are sincere, some are power tripping scammers, and it becomes an ever bigger mess as time goes on.

[LoneMateria]

Very interesting response Dagda.   If you want to copy/paste and start a new thread I would be more then glad to go in depth into the theology with you.  

Ditto, same here, interested in what you have to say Dagda.

Regarding the Bible...

Did you ever play that game in elementary school where the class lines up, and the teacher whispers something to the first kid, who whispers it to the next, and the next etc, to the end of the line.   When the final kid says the message out loud, it usually bears little resemblance to what the teacher originally said.

That's my theory of the Bible, and all holy books.   Somebody has an interesting insight, and then it gets mangled in translation by a series of others who didn't have the insight.   Many of these people are sincere, some are power tripping scammers, and it becomes an ever bigger mess as time goes on.

The NT wasn't written until about 50 years after Jesus, supposedly, died.  The stories until that point were hearsay. Imagine that game on a grand scale.  After the NT was written the first hundred years or so the only people that copied them for distribution were "literate" members of the Christian community (when the church was poor and they were considered more of a cult and couldn't afford to hire scribes to make copies of the NT).  Literate back in those days meant that they could sign their own name.  They were the ones who made copies of copies of copies for a few hundred years.  Once Christianity finally came to power and its leaders started making money they had professionals and monks take over the copying, though it didn't solve the problem it severely reduced it.  However the damage was done, but even with professionals and monks doing this there were still an uncountable number of changes and variations.  Imagine before the monks got a hold of it. I really can't figure out why anyone would hold the book as accurate much less "infallible".

[Typist]

I really can't figure out why anyone would hold the book as accurate much less "infallible".

Yea, I agree with you there, but....

...It is interesting that billions of people are still talking about the main character in the New Testament 2,000 years after his death.   Here we are, on an atheist forum, still talking about him too.

We could theorize that people are idiots, and have fallen like suckers for a huge scam.   Which could be true.

But why did billions of people over thousands of years fall for this particular "scam" in such historic numbers, over such a long period of time, in nearly every culture of the world to at least some degree?

If we had absolutely perfect 100% PROOF that the entire Bible is completely false, we'd still have some big questions to chew on.

[i_am_i]

If we had absolutely perfect 100% PROOF that the entire Bible is completely false, we'd still have some big questions to chew on.

1. Books are written by human beings.
2. The Bible is a collection of books.
3. The books contained in the Bible were written by human beings.

It has nothing to do with being accurate or false. It has nothing to do with why or how. It has everything to do with where these books came from, and about that there can be no question.

If you or anyone else wants to believe that there was some supernatural power behind the writing of these books then that is absolutely your right. However, you'll have to admit that this is a pretty out-of-left-field way to think about a book, or about anything else for that matter.