I'm curious about something.
I never really grew up a Christian. My grandfather used to take us to an Episcopal church when I was little, but I never paid attention, and we stopped going when I was 8. Plus, my dad was a physicist, and my mom just didn't care, so it just wasn't discussed much.
I only got into comparative religion during High School, so my Bible knowledge is much more 3rd person removed than being in it, and I never really heard any of the abstract reasoning regarding some questions about the Bible. Not to mention, I doubt an Episcopal church would have bothered with some of the thornier things mentioned.
So anyway, I know a few of you are ex-"hardcore" Christian literalists; y'all would have some insight into the ways of church reasoning. The reason I bring all this up is because of a few points in The God Delusion I read last night, and I'd like to hear how a devoted person would respond.
NOTE: This is not necessarily a Xtian-bashing thread, or at least it is not intended to be. I am honestly interested in the ways SRS Xtians handle these issues.
Essentially, it's about the birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, and how the two just don't line up with each other regarding the circumstances of how they got to Bethlehem, and how the lineages documented in each gospel differ widely.
I know, these are trivial points, and not crucial to Christ's "let's be nice to each other" message, but I was just interested how a literalist would handle something like that.
Again, this is pure curiosity, and not yet another LOL XTIAN thread.
I don't know the super-literal everything-in-that-book-is-distilled-truth crowd's way of thinking that much either, as I was raised more Catholic, and specifically Jesuit-educated, where we took a much more freewheeling approach to things like "orthodoxy."
Their response is "No shit, the two books were written years apart and for different target audiences. One was more concerned with establishing Jesus as legitimate to the intellectual and religious elite of the day, and the other was making Jesus seem as impressive as possible to the common people." Or something. It's been years since I've had a real scripture course and I'm probably mixing the gospels and their authors up.
Yeah, I understand intellectually why the books are different; that's not really the issue here.
I suppose it's understanding how the rationalization would go, and how/where to draw the line between, "the apostle made that part up to appease their audience," and "but that part is 100% the True Word of God, and actually happened."
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 19, 2009, 03:32:12 PM
Yeah, I understand intellectually why the books are different; that's not really the issue here.
I suppose it's understanding how the rationalization would go, and how/where to draw the line between, "the apostle made that part up to appease their audience," and "but that part is 100% the True Word of God, and actually happened."
That's the real genius. The fact that one part of the "book written by the actual hand of god himself" can be discounted as a crock of shit, without bringing into question any of the rest of it. I'm interested in this too. It's like ninja-level cognitive dissonance.
Yeah. I mean, it's easy to have Authority say to some kid, "because I say so," but theology scholars and literalists must have to come up with an actual explanation for it. That's what I want to learn about.
I lost my religion when I was 13. Up til then I was a somewhat devout, good little Baptist boy. So my memory is a little foggy but what I do remember is that my church would pretty much just focus on the birth as accounted for in Matthew. There was never any, from what I remember, concerted effort to rationalize the two against each other or explain why there might be inconsistencies. It was just ignored and nobody ever brought it up.
JW's see Matthew as writing for a specific audience about the ministry of Jesus, while Luke was writing from a historical perspective and had done more investigation into the whole story. So Matthew provides a very abbreviated view of Jesus and his birth from a virgin through holy spirit, while Luke covers the side story of John and more detail about the family and their specific experiences.
In the same way, a person writing about the Bush administration might just briefly mention the 'questionable' election, focusing more on what he did in office... while a person wanting to write the whole account would probably talk about the full thing including the Supreme Court etc.
Quote
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Luke basically says so right from the start. I've never really understood how anyone could think that the slight variations in detail would be anything other than variations in detail. That God's Word is inspired, doesn't mean that God is a mimeograph that repeated himself four (or more) times... maybe he inspired Luke to focus on the history, because the main message had already been spread to Theophilus and his people.
Even Paul spoke about the difference between being babes drinking milk to growing up and eating meat as a spiritual metaphor. Luke is providing depth.
*takes off religion hat*
It's much better to focus on the fact that the whole thing is nonsense :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
comedian Steven Wright
" i have two pares of reading glasses .... one for fiction and one for nonfiction... i read the bible twice once with each pair ...."
"there was no difference"
LMNO you think that is contradictory read the 4 Gospel accounts of the resurrection
Just for fun map out Ghost Jesus' journey around and put down dates when he's suppose to be wear in each Gospel and see who...
I grew up thinking it was all stories. Not literally, ideologically or in any way representing things that actually happened. Like fairy tales that grown up people believed in & took seriously in ways I couldn't understand then & still find hard to fathom today. Growing up around kids with different faiths, it didn't come into
our play. As I got older, & having a friend of the family who was a Catholic priest, getting into arguments/discussions with him et cetera. The Catholic priest guy was more a theologian than a parish priest & a bit of an elitist when it came to religion. Oh the claims he used to make! I can see him now in my mind, his Jesuit intensity, & his booming expostulating gesticulating posturing & pontificating! Ahh, the good ole days. He was an enigma though. Fr'instance, as a Catholic priest, he was not obliged to perform marriage ceremonies between people of different faiths, however this was up to the individual priest to decide. He would therefore perform the marriage ceremony if the people were Catholic & Jewish but not if they were Catholic & Protestant. His rationale was the Catholic & Jewish traditions were more similar than the Protestant ones.
I was & (still am) interested in the various sacred texts & perspectives of different religions. I still thought (& think) of them all as stories, some more beautiful than others, some hold more meaning for me personally, but still, all a type of mythology, more metaphorically than literally true.
& then something happened in the last ten years or so. Like when someone told me something like, "The reason I'm so intolerant of ... is because I'm a Xian." Now this had me a trifle more confused than usual?
Whatever could they mean by that? Y'see when I was younger, most of my teachers were sorta hippyish in their beliefs about Jesus. Hhhmmm. Then I heard about this "rapture" thing? Wtf? People seemed to be somewhat enamored by this thing called the rapture & dreaming their cruel hypocritical fantasies of those unsaved & apparently unwashed folk who were *left behind*? Honestly, how demented can you get?
Then I started to look a little closer at that particular crowd, y'know the fundamentalists? & started to glean a little bit more about wtf it all signified? & it made me sick to my stomach. Good grief!
At some point in all this, I went back & re-read Douglas Adams'
The More Than Complete Hitchhiker's Guide the following quote is from Life, The Universe and Everything:
Quote"No," said Slartibartfast, with a slight quickening of his step, "the people of Krikkit have never thought to themselves, 'We are alone in the Universe.' They are surrounded by a huge Dust Cloud, you see, their single sun with its single world, and they are right out on the utmost eastern edge of the Galaxy. Because of the Dust Cloud there has never been anything to see in the sky. At night it is totally blank. During the day there is the sun, but you can't look directly at that so they don't. They are hardly aware of the sky. It's as if they had a blind spot that extended 180 degrees from horizon to horizon.
"You see, the reason why they have never thought, 'We are alone in the Universe' is that until tonight they didn't know about the Universe. Until tonight."
"Imagine," he said, "never even thinking, 'We are alone,' simply because it has never occurred to you to think that there's any other way to be."
He moved on again.
"I'm afraid this is going to be a little unnerving," he added.
...
They (the people of Krikkit) flew out of the cloud.
They saw the staggering jewels of the night in their infinite dust and their minds sang with fear.
For a while they flew on, motionless against the starry sweep of the Galaxy, itself motionless against the infinite sweep of the Universe. And then they turned round.
"It'll have to go," the men of Krikkit said as they headed back for home.
On the way back they sang a number of tuneful and reflective songs on the subjects of peace, justice, morality, culture, sport, family life and the obliteration of all other life forms.'
This made me giggle uncontrollably. Now, whenever I read or hear something from that routinely whining, rigidly idealogical mob, I think of that quote & laugh.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 19, 2009, 05:38:57 PM
LMNO you think that is contradictory read the 4 Gospel accounts of the resurrection
Just for fun map out Ghost Jesus' journey around and put down dates when he's suppose to be wear in each Gospel and see who...
Well, yeah. As I said, I know all that stuff. And from a scholarly viewpoint, I understand the nature of 80th person accounts 200 years after it happened, plus translation errors, and honest fabrications, and all the rest.
Again, it was the
way it was explained away that I am interested.
My experience is the same as RWHN's.
it was a non issue growing up. Surprisingly they never had a critical Q&A period of the sermon. :lulz:
See, that's why I was trying to figure out what theologians and absolutist literalists think.
Rat was pretty clear that his branch of the JWs dismissed the discrepancy in a fairly modern way, by saying "the facts weren't the same in each book because one was meant as a difinitive history, and the other was meant to lure the gentiles." But doesn't that call in to question the rest of Matthew, and whether is can be considered "accurate" or "beguiling"?
Sorry I didn't really answer the question. From the point of view of the Catholic Priest guy, he was, I think,
literally beholden to whatever the Catholic Church
told him to believe. If he was alive when they burned Joan of Arc, he would've believed
that was the right thing to do. If he was alive when that same church delcared her a Saint, he would've believed
that was the right thing to do. A form of crimestop where the Party is replaced with the Religion?
Quote"He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions - "the Party says the earth is flat," "the Party says ice is heavier than water" - & trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of reasoning & improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for instance, by such a statement as "two & two make five" were beyond his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind, an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic & at the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity was as necessary as intelligence, & as difficult to attain."
-George Orwell, 1984
Catholics, for certain, have taken an interesting dodge around the issue. Instead of the Bible, they put their faith in the Pope, who interprets the bible for them, as the Holy Nextel Pager of God. So instead of what the bible says, they listen to what the Pope says. Which is nice, for them.
LMNO you seem to be talking about Christian apologetics.. check http://www.carm.org
I've only recently got interested in such things myself
So far I've seen a few constant arguments, as well as these arguments explained by people looking at this stuff longer then I have.
1. There's the "It's a metaphor.." argument
which is fine by me. Just don't claim it's not when you come to things such as bats are birds, or the earth was created in 6 days, ect.
2. The "it used to say..." argument
Fine. But there is no way to say it used to say, and if your going to take out all the stuff that there is no evidence it was there to begin with that is a lot of the bible. 90 percent of the time people are just adding complete bullshit to it to have their sacred text make sense.
3. There's everyone's favorite.. "it's a miracle," or just "God did it like that"
Then again don't expect everyone to believe such nonsense.
4. There's the "You have to understand it in context..." argument
which is fine... if they are talking about historical context sure but see response to argument 1, plus does nothing to explain contradictions
5. There's the "it's just an error" argument
Obviously and error from the word of God
6. There is the "God works in mysterious ways..." argument
why yes... yes he does
7. There is the... well trying basically forcing it into a chronological order that makes sense. Why you have to force it say volumes.
Sometimes a molding of these arguments can make a little sense at first glance
like this explanation of why there is two conflicting genealogies of Jesus
http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/why-are-there-different-genealogies-jesus-matthew-1-and-luke-3
which at first makes sense
till you actually take they're suggestion of putting it in historical context and then go back to the text and you see the explanation actually very little sense, unless the two writers where in cohorts with each other
heres a list of explanations... though ironically i don't recall them talking about the birth
http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark
http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/luke-john-and-acts
read them... then go back to the texts and you will see what i mean...
its total nonsense
which is why I earlier mentioned I wonder if some religions is more about believing in the bullshit made to keep their text's coherent then the actual teachings of the text
Literalism tends to use number 7
Fundamentalism (there seems to be a difference between the two - this short video by John Dominic Crossan explains the difference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f0ZHaoSnf0&feature=channel_page) doesn`t even seem to bother... Kind of like an "Im just right" argument
Catholics also have their very own version of the Bible.
I think most of it comes down to apologetics & sophistry.
I also think people are still enthralled by the bloody parts, the bloodier the better.
Yeah, I was hoping it would be more clever than the "I adjust the parameters here, but I'll leave them alone there" gambit; if you have to cahnge the rules in one place, you have to change them everywhere else, unless you have a really good reason not to, in which case you're changing the entire rules of the game.
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 19, 2009, 05:56:17 PM
See, that's why I was trying to figure out what theologians and absolutist literalists think.
Rat was pretty clear that his branch of the JWs dismissed the discrepancy in a fairly modern way, by saying "the facts weren't the same in each book because one was meant as a difinitive history, and the other was meant to lure the gentiles." But doesn't that call in to question the rest of Matthew, and whether is can be considered "accurate" or "beguiling"?
I'm not sure I was clear if it came across like that... neither is considered 'lure', 'beguiling' or 'inaccurate'. They are seen as complementary accounts. The first being a letter from one of Jesus' disciples about what he was taught... thus a focus on the message and words of Jesus... Luke, on the other hand, never knew Jesus personally and was writing based on interviews and research (and inspired by God). Thus both are accurate and true and inspired... they just have slightly different areas of focus.
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 19, 2009, 02:00:30 PM
So anyway, I know a few of you are ex-"hardcore" Christian literalists; y'all would have some insight into the ways of church reasoning. The reason I bring all this up is because of a few points in The God Delusion I read last night, and I'd like to hear how a devoted person would respond.
NOTE: This is not necessarily a Xtian-bashing thread, or at least it is not intended to be. I am honestly interested in the ways SRS Xtians handle these issues.
Essentially, it's about the birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, and how the two just don't line up with each other regarding the circumstances of how they got to Bethlehem, and how the lineages documented in each gospel differ widely.
I know, these are trivial points, and not crucial to Christ's "let's be nice to each other" message, but I was just interested how a literalist would handle something like that.
Again, this is pure curiosity, and not yet another LOL XTIAN thread.
As some have already mentioned, different Christian groups are radically different in their approaches to interpreting the Bible. But you asked about a literalist ("everything in the Bible is true") so I'll throw my observation in the stew.
The book of Matthew was apparently written to Jews, and the book of Luke written to Gentiles. These are the only two Biblical books that tell details about the birth of Jesus.
Luke focuses on the more mundane nature of Jesus, and tells how shepherds came to see him lying in a manger very shortly after his birth. Matthew tells the story of the wise men/astrologers (yes, astrologers--then astronomers and astrologers were the same thing. the Bible states in Genesis 1:14 that part of the purpose of the sun, moon and stars was for signs) who visited Jesus when he was about two years old.
But as for contradictions, one of the often missed contradictions is in the beginning of Matthew. Isaac Asimov ponts it out in
Asimov's Guild to the Bible.
Matthew 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.Matthew lists all these generations. But the problem is, one of the three sections only lists 13 generations! Asimov thinks it was probably an error in editing somewhere a few hundred or so years ago. But a literalist wouldn't accept that--as God guided the writing and translating of the Bible, it (especially the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Version) has to be true.
So you get to Thurnez Isa's list of explanations...
But one also has Mary and Joseph permanent residents of Bethlahem, and the other has them as living in Galille, and just visiting. Those detail most certainly conflict, and don't resolve just because of the intended audience.
they also went to Egypt, unless you believe the other Gospel in which they reside peacefully in Nazareth
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 19, 2009, 06:11:17 PM
Catholics, for certain, have taken an interesting dodge around the issue. Instead of the Bible, they put their faith in the Pope, who interprets the bible for them, as the Holy Nextel Pager of God. So instead of what the bible says, they listen to what the Pope says. Which is nice, for them.
I don't know, when I was catholic I never really "put my faith" in the pope. Catholics aren't exactly biblical literalists either; was perfectly fine to see evolution as true, in fact we talked about it in the classes. The reason that Mathew and Mark were different is because they were written for different groups of people, from different perspectives, or thats the answer I got. The way the stories were told matched the cultural context they were being delivered to.
i wish i had more to offer this thread, but i haven't heard of any good direct explanation for the inconsistencies by literalists to share with you, i posted a question in another thread asking if any one had watched this
Quote from: fomenter on March 13, 2009, 11:28:00 PM
any pd'rs listen to pastor Melissa Scott?
i get a kick out of the language translation analysis of scripture she does, i don't know what kind of christian she is but her bible study show is interesting.
http://www.pastormelissascott.com/whoIsPastor.html
http://www.pastormelissascott.com/lcVideos.html video clips
i don't think she has ever tackled the question being asked, but she is a linguist who is fluent in 15 or more languages her thing is reading the modern bible and comparing it to the earlier versions in different languages and giving explanations of what the bible is trying to say based on the translation of the words.
it is the only religious TV with the ability to suck me into watching, there is something fascinating about what she does
Quote from: LMNO goes back to the Big Blue Cock on March 19, 2009, 07:25:53 PM
But one also has Mary and Joseph permanent residents of Bethlahem, and the other has them as living in Galilee, and just visiting. Those detail most certainly conflict, and don't resolve just because of the intended audience.
I think (digging through memory here), that Mary lived in Nazareth in the area of Galilee. Joseph, however was originally from the town Bethlehem, but he apparently had moved into Nazereth at some point, either when he got engaged or before. When the census was announced, the Jews had to travel to the city of their birth, in order to register with the census. Thus, they traveled to Bethlehem to register and just happened to pop out a kid while they were there (this was necessary since the Messiah had to come from Bethlehem).
At some not well defined point after these events, the Astrologers/Wise Men etc came to Jesus. This was not (as the songs and plastic donkeys would have you believe) in the manger. They found Jesus in a house.
After they left, the angel of God appears to Joseph and tells him that they must go to Egypt because Herod is about to kill every baby under the age of two (to wipe out the competition for the throne). This 'age of two' indicates strongly that an extensive amount of time had passed between when Herod and the Magi think Jesus was born and this point in time.
After Herod dies, Joseph and Mary return to Mary's hometown 'Nazareth' in Galilee.
Note Matthew:
QuoteAfter Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod;
an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt;
After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt 20and said, "Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel;
So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. 22But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth.
Luke:
QuoteSo Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.;
On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him.... When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.
Then it skips on to his older years.
Again, it all depends on how you choose to read the text. These accounts do not necessarily conflict. Of course, depending on how you read them they may conflict entirely.
Also, the reason Matthew was so specific, was that all of this moving about fulfilled prophecy. Prophecy said the Messiah would come from Bethlehem, Nazareth and Egypt.
When God sets your path, pray he's a AAA member.
Matthew, writing to the Jews, tried to link Jesus (who gave the New Testament law) to the Jews-accepted Moses (who gave the Old Testament Law). I've listed just a few of these links.
QuoteMatthew 2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
Pharoah (Moses' time as an infant) sought to destroy all the young boys.
Herod (Jesus' time as an infant) sought to destroy all the young boys.
Moses was hidden and kept safe in Egypt.
Jesus was hidden and kept safely in Egypt.
Moses, through adoption (the pharoahs), was recognized as part of the royal line (pharoahs were rulers of Egypt).
Jesus, through adoption (Joseph), was recognized as part of the royal line (David, ancestor of Joseph, was the ruler of Israel).
Moses went alone on Mount Sinai for 40 days and 40 nights. When he returned, he brought a new law for God's people.
Jesus went alone into the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights. When he returned, he brought a new law for God's people.
Moses led his followers based on a promise that would only happen right after his death (entering the promised land of Israel).
Jesus led his followers based on a promise that would only happen right after his death (entering the promised land of Heaven).
Moses died, but God made sure his body cannot be found. (It purposely wasn't recorded where he was buried).
Jesus died, but God made sure his body cannot be found. (He rose from the dead).
According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great
According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria
Herod died 4 bc and the Quirinius' census took place 7 ad and had no connection with Herod
Luke has Mary and Joseph traveling from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea
Matthew says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth after fleeing to Egypt
Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census - that absurd. The Romans would never have forced people to their place of birth. It would have been a bureaucratic nightmare
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 19, 2009, 08:37:41 PM
According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great
According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria
Herod died 4 bc and the Quirinius was governor around 7 ad
Luke has Mary and Joseph traveling from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea
Matthew says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth after fleeing to Egypt
Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census - that absurd never happened or will. It would have been a bureaucratic nightmare
These are almost all valid critisims. However, Matthew is entirely silent on where Joseph and Mary lived before or after Jesus' birth. Only that he was born in Bethlehem and later went to Egypt, then decided to go home to Judea, had a bad dream and went instead to Nazareth. That would make sense if Nazareth was Mary's hometown as Luke states.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 19, 2009, 08:49:55 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 19, 2009, 08:37:41 PM
According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great
According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria
Herod died 4 bc and the Quirinius was governor around 7 ad
Luke has Mary and Joseph traveling from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea
Matthew says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth after fleeing to Egypt
Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census - that absurd never happened or will. It would have been a bureaucratic nightmare
These are almost all valid critisims. However, Matthew is entirely silent on where Joseph and Mary lived before or after Jesus' birth. Only that he was born in Bethlehem and later went to Egypt, then decided to go home to Judea, had a bad dream and went instead to Nazareth. That would make sense if Nazareth was Mary's hometown as Luke states.
a problem lies with Matthew's Magi... Luke is unclear what happened till 8 days when they named in Jesus then they go to Jerusalem where they meet Simeon and Anna and went to Nazareth
Matthew is actually not unclear
it doesn't make sense that the problem
"
Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. "
This is clearly in Bethlehem... mind you it's also a house... so it's been suggested it's Nazareth, but that would make the fleeing to Egypt nonsensical cause they have to pass south through Bethlehem to get to Egypt trying to escape Herod's baby killing dragnet... and we would they have to go to Egypt while baby Jesus is fine way up north in Nazareth... so in this case he couldn't have made it for to meet Simeon (which Luke states happens immediately after the naming of the baby) cause he would be in Egypt
You can't have baby Jesus in Jerusalem after 8 days and in Bethlehem waiting for the Magi, or fleeing to Egypt, or going to Nazareth just to head back south towards the danger to flee it....
See the only way to make sense of this is to make shit up or do one of the points I made earlier
In order words have them go to Nazareth then flee just out of being scared. Again that falls apart cause they are told to flee by an angel acting on God's behave. What God didn't know he was actually safer up north.
Quote from: Honey on March 19, 2009, 06:21:54 PM
Catholics also have their very own version of the Bible.
No, the dipwads who use the King James have their own special Bible, (complete with censorship to match the politics at the time the translation was done). Catholics have an official translation, but my church was stocked with New American and New Living translations as well.
Requia I'm still stuck with my king James from high school
how is the New American translation?
worth the investment.
and by investment I mean investment in time going to the Chaplin here and seeing where i could pick up a free copy...
Im not big on reading online.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 19, 2009, 11:48:28 PM
Requia I'm still stuck with my king James from high school
how is the New American translation?
worth the investment.
and by investment I mean investment in time going to the Chaplin here and seeing where i could pick up a free copy...
Im not big on reading online.
Personally, I find http://www.biblegateway.com/ always useful for reference. Mostly I remember the Chapter o the book and can find it and quote quickly. And I love to use multiple versions, finding the one that most usefully pisses off the Christian or anti-Christian... respectivly ;-)
It depends on what you're after really. I recommend going to bible gateway, running through different versions of a passage, and figuring out whats readable to you. For me New American is the easiest to read, New Living is good for finding the things that might be mistranslated in other versions (though i don't entirely trust it). I recommend against any translation from before 1950, peer review on that kind of thing used to suck.
Quote from: Requia on March 19, 2009, 11:57:12 PM
It depends on what you're after really. I recommend going to bible gateway, running through different versions of a passage, and figuring out whats readable to you. For me New American is the easiest to read, New Living is good for finding the things that might be mistranslated in other versions (though i don't entirely trust it). I recommend against any translation from before 1950, peer review on that kind of thing used to suck.
:mittens:
Rat, you're familiar with Chris Bennet's work (oh, he liked my article, btw)...
How much validity do you think the KHN BSM people have? Were the esoteric secrets in the Holy Anointing Oil of Moses hidden through mistranslation?
Quote from: Telarus on March 20, 2009, 03:09:36 PM
Rat, you're familiar with Chris Bennet's work (oh, he liked my article, btw)...
How much validity do you think the KHN BSM people have? Were the esoteric secrets in the Holy Anointing Oil of Moses hidden through mistranslation?
Well, I read his book 'Green Gold' and I think he does a really great job covering some of the religions... the Kaneh mistranslation seems plausible, but I'm not at all convinced. I think it seems more probable than the 'calamus' translation, just based on the documented properties alone. Very interesting stuff, I'd love to have additional researchers and peer reviews of his work though.
question Rat... when you were a member of the JW... was there any discussion of contradictions with other members, leaders of the church, or just people who's door you came to?
and if there was did it even mentally register as a serious question, with your or with your JW friends?
and Im not sure you ever mentioned, what made you eventually lose your faith?
you don't have to answer the last if you want
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 20, 2009, 04:47:50 PM
question Rat... when you were a member of the JW... was there any discussion of contradictions with other members, leaders of the church, or just people who's door you came to?
and if there was did it even mentally register as a serious question, with your or with your JW friends?
and Im not sure you ever mentioned, what made you eventually lose your faith?
you don't have to answer the last if you want
Inside the organization hierarchy was always preserved. Basically, the logic goes like this;
1. Jesus chose 144,000 faithful humans to join him in heaven as Kings and Priests. This is the Anointed Class.
2. The 'remnant" of the Anointed that are alive on earth at any given time (last count I recall was somewhere near 8000) are the channel that God uses to direct his people. They are called "The Faithful and Discrete Slave"(FDS) (see Jesus parable about the Slaves and the monies). They give God's people "the proper food at the proper time".
3. Out of the FDS, 12 men are appointed as The Governing Body. They oversee all of the International Work, they set policy, they oversee all writings etc.
4. From the GB, the world is split into Districts, with overseers; then Circuits with overseers, then congregations with Elders. Any of these people may or may not be anointed.
5. So, the GB/FDS/Writing Committee basically set all the interpretations, beliefs etc. Questioning the GB or FDS is very close to the one unforgivable sin. If you outright state that they do not have God's spirit... then that is considered "Blaspheming against the Spirit" and makes you 'apostate' and you lose your chance to get in the New Order. This is worse than Murder, Adultery, etc... God will forgive you for all of that... but not for claiming that the FDS are just a bunch of confused old people.
"Questioning" was always encouraged... as long as it was followed up with 'research' and 'prayer and meditation' which should bring you to the same conclusion as the FDS/GB. If not, then you either pretend, shut up or try again. Questioning the Elders is acceptable, but in the end, they believe that they are sheep who should follow the shepherds. If the shepherds lead them off a cliff, then they expect God to deal with the Shepherd and protect them.
So... no not much questioning happens in their system. They do a lot of research, but that research is almost always from the current publications from the Watchtower Society. External sources can be used, but if they disagree with the Watchtower publications, the Watchtower is considered right (after all, God's faithful slave wrote it!).
Externally, was another matter. Many people think that they have GOTCHA questions, but most of the time, they are the same gotcha questions that every asshole at the door asks. The society publishes a book called "Reasoning From The Scriptures", which covers a couple hundred 'likely' questions, complete with scriptural references, hand picked quotes from other sources and a nice searchable index. They even encourage pulling the book out at the door and showing the householder (appeal to authority works well) along with the answers etc.
Usually, questions I got asked fell into three categories:
1) Stupid (Can God make an X so Y that he can't do Z ): Most JW's cut this one off because the householder always says "SO, let me ask you this, God can do anything right?" to which you reply, "No, God cannot Lie and God cannot do anything without a purpose (based on a Psalm I don't recall)". If the person has a brain, they'll realize that a big rock is purposeless and will go elsewhere in the conversation. However, some people seem stuck and just barrel through "But, he can do anything right? So can he make a rock..." at which point you say "It wouldn't serve any purpose, so No".
2) Anti-Bible: These are the people that always want to ask you about why obscure scripture X and Y don't precisely agree. Depending on which topic, there are different answers, again, JW's have the book and have spent a lot of time memorizing the right Answer.
3) Theistic: These are the people that want to talk about "You don't believe in Hell!", "You don't fight for your country!", etc. Usually, they either have a skewed view, or the Watchtower has a nicely prepared answer that disarms them.
Most of the time, stupid questions indicate that its a waste of time to talk to the person. Anti-Bible, can sometimes be converted and the Theistic ones are most likely to be converted (showing someone that the trinity or Hell isn't supported in their own bible is a good way to make them question their belief system).
I can't recall many questions that really made me think "Maybe I'm wrong!" though, it was almost always something I was prepared for.
I lost my faith through a number of events, the most obvious being an issue of interpretation. JW's have for decades claimed that Jesus took his throne in heaven as the King of God's Kingdom, in October 1914. This is based on a complicated bit of math involving a dream Nebuchadnezzar had and some line God told Moses "A day for a year". However, they have claimed that this was the second coming, or presence of Jesus, as he told his disciples about "When will be the conclusion of this system of things?" After describing wars and pestilence and earthquakes etc., Jesus said "This generation will by no means pass away until all these things come to pass."
So, JW's reasoned, the generation that saw 1914, WWI, the Spanish Influenza etc. would still be alive when the Great Tribulation and Armageddon come. Since the Bible says that man lived 70 years, or 80 if by special mightiness), that meant the end was close. They taught us that, they had it in the books and we went out and taught others (I was a regular pioneer, which meant I spent 90 hours a month preaching).
At the turn of the century, a new article came out which said the word "generation" was really intended to speak of a general attitude, rather than a specific amount of time.
Within a year, they had new publications to teach out of, which replaced the old ones and didn't say anything about generation etc.
Shortly thereafter, they wrote in a Watchtower article that "Some had thought generation meant... but the Faithful and Discrete Slave provided proper clarification..."
I called shenanigans.
Then I started really researching the history of the group. I learned that they had predicted the end many times (1888,1912, 1914, 192something, 1975, and a few others). I learned that they once had an estate in California called "Beth Saram" which was a home for the "princes" David, Samuel, Abraham etc. who were going to come back before the End and take over running the organization. They don't talk about that. They don't talk about our founder CT Russel who was measuring the pyramids in Egypt to determine when the end of the world would come. Nor do they talk about how his belief that everyone would go to heaven, fits with the current belief that most people will live in paradise on Earth.
All of that and more showed up in my reality tunnel within about 6 months, and that's how I lost my faith.
What did it feel like? Apocalyptic? Relief? Liberating? None of the above?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 20, 2009, 06:41:56 PM
What did it feel like? Apocalyptic? Relief? Liberating? None of the above?
Well, at first it was confusing. I couldn't figure out what to do. About that time my marriage started falling apart, my wife tried to commit suicide several times, eventually ended up in a psych ward, I tried suicide and failed... and life in general sucked.
Then, at some point, I kicked the wife out, went to one more meeting at the Kingdom Hall and I've never been back. That same week, I joined the SCA and a week later went to my first Con (Marcon). At the end of that weekend, I had gone from exactly 1 girl that I had really made out with to three girls (one each night of the Con). A week later was my first date and act of Fornication!!! WHOOHOO!
Since then its been like a continual liberation. I was learning fencing and self defense, which I had never had any concept of being a pacifist. I was dating and fucking lots of interesting women. One was a Wiccan priestess (LOL) who was teaching me magic, the other was a high school science teacher that was teaching me there was no God. Both were teaching me all sorts of fun in bed LOL.
I really feel now, as though the two years after I left were the basis for a strong new imprinting. At the height of this, where I'd decided that Wicca was silly and Science didn't help me figure out my past experiences, I found She What Done It All. Reading the PD was as cathartic as all of this other stuff had been... I'd gone from KNOWING to SEEKING to that profound moment when it became obvious that it was all a fucking game.
I'd just started dating Sjaantze and she was definately poking my pineal gland on purpose. Her Dad (an old school Discordian hippie), was slowly eroding my belief in anything, as he gave me a new book every week or so... I was reading The Diegesis, alongside Quantum Psychology, Illuminatus Trilogy alongside Angel Tech, Book Four alongside a commentary on the Stichen Guide etc. Books on the Tarot, astrology, alchemy and UFO's... and in the end, I said to him "How can you believe all of this?"
And he said "Why the hell would I believe any of it? Have you read this shit?"
Then he gave me another load of books....
:lulz:
I envy you a bit in the fact that the PD enlightened you. By the time I read it I was already well in on the joke but I felt it was so well put together I kinda wished it had been that that flicked on my lightbulb :cry:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 20, 2009, 07:00:59 PM
I envy you a bit in the fact that the PD enlightened you. By the time I read it I was already well in on the joke but I felt it was so well put together I kinda wished it had been that that flicked on my lightbulb :cry:
Yeah, I think its why I have such a soft spot for it... I know a lot of people got enlightenment through other means, but for me the PD was a perfect fit... I think, though, that young disillusioned Christian may have been the target audience anyway ;-)
QuoteAnd he said "Why the hell would I believe any of it? Have you read this shit?"
:lulz:
Headkick!
Thanks Rat
that was very interesting
Ratatosk interesting info about JW. Knew some of that, but not all.
As for your conversion story, here's a suggestion:
Rewrite it to stand alone. I think it will make good reading. Somebody will probably want it for an Intermittens issue. Like maybe me?
I can't believe that I missed this thread until now.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 19, 2009, 11:48:28 PM
Requia I'm still stuck with my king James from high school
how is the New American translation?
worth the investment.
and by investment I mean investment in time going to the Chaplin here and seeing where i could pick up a free copy...
Im not big on reading online.
NIV or GTFO!
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 22, 2009, 02:21:16 AM
Thanks Rat
that was very interesting
THIS. I know that you've shared all of that before but it is still a fascinating story, Rat. My deconversion is very boring in contrast.
As for the OP, trying to understand litearlist logic is very confusing. The best way to get into that headspace is to actually go talk to them. I can make a big list of Christian forums when I get home if you'd like. You can start with CARM since Thornie already suggested it. For fun start off by asking them how Judas died or who visited Jesus's tomb. :wink:
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on March 23, 2009, 08:54:19 PM
NIV or GTFO!
I like the NIV and its variations. They don't censor the dirty parts like some of the other translations.
http://www (http://www).getraptureready.com/appendix/chapter-four/bible-translations.php shows different translations of Ezekiel 23:20. Ezekiel has not only some proto-science fiction, it has entire chapters devoted to sexually explicit descriptions. But this verse stands out.
Quote"For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses." (King James Version)
"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." (New International Version)
"She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey's and emissions like those of a horse." (New Living Translation)
"There she had longed for her lovers. Their private parts seemed as big as those of donkeys. And their flow of semen appeared to be as much as that of horses." (New International Reader's Version)
"She was filled with lust for oversexed men who had all the lustfulness of donkeys or stallions" (Good News Translation)
"She wanted men who behaved like animals in their sexual desire." (New Century Version)
"She eagerly wanted to go to bed with Egyptian men, who were famous for their sexual powers." (Contemporary English Version)
"That whetted her appetite for more virile, vulgar, and violent lovers--stallions obsessive in their lust." (The Message)
I love EZ 23:20. My favorite passage ever.
Seems like being a size queen isn't new, hmm?
I grew up Catholic, too, and it was a non-issue. My mother had not yet sent her brain to the Pope in a jar, so she was sensible about it all. I never asked and always assumed they were mostly stories.
And then, I hit Confirmation classes. This was the first time I had ever run into a Catholic fundie. She railed against cafeteria Catholics and people who didn't take it literally. :eek: If I hadn't already been a heathen, it would have turned me.
Anyway, she was against taking it metaphorically and I was too shocked or I would have asked something about it.
guess I got to the party late :lulz:
sorry LMNO.
Rat, I used to love to go head-to-head with your former affiliation. it was like doctrinal fencing.
the way my particular brand got around such issues was labeling apparent contradictions "apparent contradictions". they might actually be contradictions (I don't much care anymore), but some of them actually do seem to be contradictions only because of bizarre translation, or different parts of the story being highlighted by different authors so that 2 events get lumped together as one and then it looks like the timeline has been switched around. for instance, jesus' two family trees. also, we used dispensationalism to explain away a lot of the difference between the OT and NT. that was handy. it got really, really messy though when a contradiction couldn't be solved, and the MOG (man of god) got "revelation" to explain it.
Quote from: Laughtrack on March 24, 2009, 10:19:47 PM
Seems like being a size queen isn't new, hmm?
Size thing may not be new, but the part that you want big I think is. I read that Michangelo's statute of David has relatively large testicles and a relatively small penis because there was only so much stone to work with--there wasn't enough to make both large. So M went with what was then considered the most important, and made large testicles. I think the ancient Greeks also went for big balls, not a whopping willy.
Ironically, it seems to be men who are obsessed with large genitals, not women.
Truth.
I sing the praises of average.
I mean, I'd take 6" over 4", but I'd also take 6" over 8".
Quote from: Sheered Völva on April 24, 2009, 10:07:33 PM
Quote from: Laughtrack on March 24, 2009, 10:19:47 PM
Seems like being a size queen isn't new, hmm?
Size thing may not be new, but the part that you want big I think is. I read that Michangelo's statute of David has relatively large testicles and a relatively small penis because there was only so much stone to work with--there wasn't enough to make both large. So M went with what was then considered the most important, and made large testicles. I think the ancient Greeks also went for big balls, not a whopping willy.
Ironically, it seems to be men who are obsessed with large genitals, not women.
Ancient Greeks apparently considered large genitalia to be beastly and barbaric.
I can't say much since I don't honestly remember a lot of specifics about this topic, but as I understand it, the Baptists teach the lineages are different because one focuses on lineage from King David, and the other focuses on lineage through Mary, apparently taking different routes to the same conclusion. I seem to remember something about the OT prophesies requiring a direct line from King David to the Messiah but for obvious (theological) reasons the lineage couldn't pass through Joseph.
Mostly, though, they just tend to ignore it since it takes a lot of bullshit to explain it away and exposes the frail foundation of their faith a little too starkly.
Quote from: vexati0n on April 28, 2009, 06:48:49 PM
I can't say much since I don't honestly remember a lot of specifics about this topic, but as I understand it, the Baptists teach the lineages are different because one focuses on lineage from King David, and the other focuses on lineage through Mary, apparently taking different routes to the same conclusion. I seem to remember something about the OT prophesies requiring a direct line from King David to the Messiah but for obvious (theological) reasons the lineage couldn't pass through Joseph.
Mostly, though, they just tend to ignore it since it takes a lot of bullshit to explain it away and exposes the frail foundation of their faith a little too starkly.
Yes, this is also part of the argument commonly used. To satisfy Jewish Law, Jesus would have to have come through the line of David on his father's side. Joseph's lineage gave him that credibility. However, Joseph wasn't REALLY Jesus' Dad, so he was also related to David through Mary. He had lineage on both sides which showed he was the legitimately genetic heir.
Yeah, its stupid... but its a common argument on the topic.