Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Biblical question to Biblical followers


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Biblical question to Biblical followers Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Biblical question to Biblical followers - 6/1/2006 2:30:19 PM   
ArtCatDom


Posts: 478
Joined: 1/20/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: darkinshadows

arsenokoites is also linked in texts elsewhere that has no mention of sexual perversion, but rather greed, cheating and the usage of 'foul mouthing'(whether that is meant to be swearing or gossip is up to debate).
 
Whilst a common understanding that malakos is 'soft' it is also common to define it as 'weak' - and with the association of arsenokoites especially in the tales of Zeus, it was defined of an agressor taking advantage of the 'weaker person' and by force - not by consent.
 
In the majority of cases that both arsenokoites and malakos are used, the acts are non consent and slavery.  There is no specific relation to homosexuality - but more to the economic abuse of minors or weaker individuals.
 
Peace and Rapture



Can you tell what texts it's used in that context in? I've never once heard such an interpretation for the word. It very literally means man-sex.

*meow*

(in reply to darkinshadows)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Biblical question to Biblical followers - 6/1/2006 2:46:25 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom

I utterly agree that it's about faith as opposed to blind faith, or tested faith as opposed to legalistic words.


If it isn't blind faith, produce one piece of empirical evidence that Jesus said one word that he was purported to have said. Produce one report written in his life time that documents what he is supposed to have said. The fact is there is none. It was all written after his death and some time after his death at that. Very little is actually known about the historical Jesus. While there is nothing improbable about a historical Jesus, much of the evidence offered as proof of Jesus are rationalisations. He is simply a shadowy figure that escaped all documentation by those supreme bureaucrats, the Romans.

Important events in certain gospels such as Pilate washing his hands of the execution of Jesus don't add up. Pilate was not the sort of person described in the gospels, he would not have thought twice about executing someone and while the trial was supposed to have been held by the Pharases, crucifixion was a Roman punishment. One can go through all of the gospels and cast doubt on the knowledge of the writers from well documented historical characters, known culture of the time and events.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 6/1/2006 2:57:00 PM >

(in reply to ArtCatDom)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Biblical question to Biblical followers - 6/1/2006 3:17:31 PM   
darkinshadows


Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

It very literally means man-sex.

No - it does not.  In one interpretation maybe - but the meaning is sketchy and very vague and isnt from the original meaning(which was perversion).
 
You cannot just taker a word and say it means in this example 'homosexual' without taking the rest of the context in.  And homosexuality is not used within the context of the texts you are stating.
 
The Thesaurus Lingua Graecae, which is the most of the texts written in greek from homer on to the fall of contantinople... states over 40 possible meanings of the word alone.
 
When defining a word, if there is no specific link, then scholars will try to link words together... if this is done, even with the word malakos, there is still no direct link to homosexuality - In the TLG lists, the division isn't clear, whether purely sexual(and not specific to homosexuality), purely economic, or some mixture of the two.
 
Both words are specific to pederastic male relationships.  There is no defining interetation specific to homosexual involvement but rather the age of the males involved(One older, one a minor).  One is always the 'aggressor'.... one is always 'weaker' and either enslaved, kidnapped or molested.
 
One definition is ' slave trader'  - this is placed in context of again - young boys... again... note that homosexual practises were common in greek history - that it is probable that the slave traders had sexual conduct with the slaves and that the slaves would on the whole be young as well as non consenting.  Another translation was of 'homosexual rape'... and another, yet again is 'non productive sexual intercourse'... which basically means sex without creating life...(so I guess thats the majority of the world fucked).
 
So taking the text for corinth. the translation would be 'those who trade in homosexual slavery' and the same could be said for timothy.  It is not an act but a position of authority - and not subject to male only slaves but also female ones.
 
TheOracula Sibyllina, states that the "arsenokoitai" will come from the north and steal the children.
 
 In the 4th centuary (long before the 12th century homosexual definiton of 'arsenokoites' ), St John Chrysostrom used the term arsenokoitai to mean "child molester".
 
I would be interested where you have gained your definition of arsenokoites from that you definately, without a doubt, can state it absolutely means homosexual - seeing as the literary and greek scholars are not even decided on its exact interpretation.
 
Peace and Rapture
 


_____________________________
.dark.



...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to ArtCatDom)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Biblical question to Biblical followers - 6/1/2006 3:45:41 PM   
ArtCatDom


Posts: 478
Joined: 1/20/2005
Status: offline 		You have a subcription to Thesaurus Linguae Graecae? Or do you own the CDs?

My sources are Greek dictionaries and scholars. They agree about what the literal meaning of the word is. There's no dispute on that. Arsenokoites is formed from the Greek words ahhren (man) and koites (bed, sex). Hence it is literally man-sex. Of course it can have other meaning in context, like all words can, but to deny what the basic literal meaning of the word is, well, that's just foolish.

*meow*

(in reply to darkinshadows)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Biblical question to Biblical followers - 6/1/2006 3:58:01 PM   
darkinshadows


Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom

You have a subcription to Thesaurus Linguae Graecae? Or do you own the CDs?

My sources are Greek dictionaries and scholars. They agree about what the literal meaning of the word is. There's no dispute on that. Arsenokoites is formed from the Greek words ahhren (man) and koites (bed, sex). Hence it is literally man-sex. Of course it can have other meaning in context, like all words can, but to deny what the basic literal meaning of the word is, well, that's just foolish.

*meow*

I have on Cds (no longer subscribed)
 
There is no literal meaning of the word - sorry to bust your bubble.
It is more foolish to be blind to the knowledge of many, than to rely on the bigotry of the few.
Isnt it possible that there was an agenda on the usage of this specific word(seeing as it has changed across the centuaries).  It has long been discussed that there are and were specific words attaining to homosexuality that Paul could of used if he was wishing to be specific about homosexual sex.(Not man sex).
We shall just have to agree to disagree, but I challenge you to search for your 'literal' meaning and be sure you will find equal scholars who dispute it.
(It has long been discussed that you cannot take a word and disect it in such a way as you have prescribed and find the definition of said word... ie... understand does not literaly mean to 'stand under' or to 'be under a stand'.... and even if we were to follow your 'example' that it means 'man - sex- that STILL does not equate to homosexuality.  It just means 'man sex.')
 
Peace and Rapture
 


_____________________________
.dark.



...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to ArtCatDom)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Biblical question to Biblical followers - 6/1/2006 4:17:08 PM   
ArtCatDom


Posts: 478
Joined: 1/20/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: darkinshadows

quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom

You have a subcription to Thesaurus Linguae Graecae? Or do you own the CDs?

My sources are Greek dictionaries and scholars. They agree about what the literal meaning of the word is. There's no dispute on that. Arsenokoites is formed from the Greek words ahhren (man) and koites (bed, sex). Hence it is literally man-sex. Of course it can have other meaning in context, like all words can, but to deny what the basic literal meaning of the word is, well, that's just foolish.

*meow*

I have on Cds (no longer subscribed)
 
There is no literal meaning of the word - sorry to bust your bubble.
It is more foolish to be blind to the knowledge of many, than to rely on the bigotry of the few.
Isnt it possible that there was an agenda on the usage of this specific word(seeing as it has changed across the centuaries).  It has long been discussed that there are and were specific words attaining to homosexuality that Paul could of used if he was wishing to be specific about homosexual sex.(Not man sex).
We shall just have to agree to disagree, but I challenge you to search for your 'literal' meaning and be sure you will find equal scholars who dispute it.
(It has long been discussed that you cannot take a word and disect it in such a way as you have prescribed and find the definition of said word... ie... understand does not literaly mean to 'stand under' or to 'be under a stand'.... and even if we were to follow your 'example' that it means 'man - sex- that STILL does not equate to homosexuality.  It just means 'man sex.')
 
Peace and Rapture
 



The CDs would be nice. I just have an online subscription.

Understand is a terrible example and if you're as familiar with language as you seem to be, you should know that. Understand comes from an earlier turn of phrase.

The only scholars I can find that dispute that it means man-sex (in the same sense that man-sex carries in English, except as a noun) are those who try to whitewash the condemnations of homosexuality in the Bible. It only means slave-trader when connected with young boys and that is only by virtue of its association with pederasty. Both Hellenic society and recent modern society have equated male homosexuality with pederasty (though obviously because of differant social motivators).

Finally, every lexicon I have checked so far indicates that it means a male who has sex with males (some of them note the secondary meanings of pederast and child slaver).

Feel free to check out my claims.

*meow*

(in reply to darkinshadows)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Biblical question to Biblical followers - 6/1/2006 4:39:21 PM   
darkinshadows


Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

The CDs would be nice. I just have an online subscription.

Understand is a terrible example and if you're as familiar with language as you seem to be, you should know that. Understand comes from an earlier turn of phrase.

The only scholars I can find that dispute that it means man-sex (in the same sense that man-sex carries in English, except as a noun) are those who try to whitewash the condemnations of homosexuality in the Bible. It only means slave-trader when connected with young boys and that is only by virtue of its association with pederasty. Both Hellenic society and recent modern society have equated male homosexuality with pederasty (though obviously because of differant social motivators).

Finally, every lexicon I have checked so far indicates that it means a male who has sex with males (some of them note the secondary meanings of pederast and child slaver).

Feel free to check out my claims.

*meow*

I think the word 'understand' fits well.  But I could use a number of others.  Football, butterfly, horsefly, settee, eyeball.  Basic (even complex) hermeneutics does not work on the word.  Even a literal translation does not suggest even remotely, homosexual acts, but rather power trips (sexually or otherwise)over a weaker person (not always male/male)
 
You can rubbish greek scholars all you like, does not make your interpretation correct.  No dignified scholar or institution who knows their greek history nor their translations suggest that they know what arsenokoites means - because there is no precise definiton - and for yourself  to claim that there is and call those who leave an open verdict on said definition as 'foolish' or 'whitewashers', is nothing more than trying to perpetuate hate.
 
Judgements are not for us (us as in generic us) as christians to make.  If you have a belief in God and a faith in Him, you know who does that.
 
Peace and Rapture


< Message edited by darkinshadows -- 6/1/2006 4:40:11 PM >

_____________________________
.dark.



...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to ArtCatDom)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Biblical question to Biblical followers - 6/1/2006 4:45:35 PM   
darkinshadows


Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline
That said - (my previous posts)..I will apologise to the OP(Kedikat) for drifting off the Original questions.  Although it has been an interesting debate, it is not construtive to the OP.
 
But surfice to say - it does answer one of the questions...
 
quote:

What are your worst conflicts with biblical writings/laws, and how do you deal with them?

By remaining informed and open minded and accepting that there is no exact right and understanding that there are political institutions that would have the scriptures mis-interpreted, and indeed, even removed from everyday lives.
There is only the right between my God and myself.
 
Peace and Rapture


< Message edited by darkinshadows -- 6/1/2006 4:47:46 PM >

_____________________________
.dark.



...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to Kedikat)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Biblical question to Biblical followers - 6/1/2006 9:41:13 PM   
leakylee


Posts: 747
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline 		Well it is interesting that ya'll debate the meaning of some of the original Greek words. Modern scholars now debate if the translation of the original "capenter" actually leaned more toward meaning that of teacher or scholar, which in essence would make sense. As to the question of the homosexuality issue, within the Greek Orthodox Church. It was an accepted practice (I cant remember the exact dates) for the monks to carry on intimate relationships with initates until such times that they could handle the requirements of celibacy.

love and light
lee


_____________________________

I am so not right, that I left..

(in reply to darkinshadows)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Biblical question to Biblical followers - 6/1/2006 9:49:52 PM   
jojoluvr


Posts: 441
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline 		Do you think the bible is the word of God? Or a collection of peoples histories and parables?
 
I'm pretty sure there are options in addition to these two :)  I understand the bible to be written by people who understood themselves to have some sort of special relationship with God.  Whatever the genre of literature (law, history, gospel, epistle, eschatology, poetry, etc), it expresses God and God's relationship with creation as the author(s) understood that relationship.  I don't understand any piece of it to be entirely accurate or entirely wrong.  Much like Saxe's poem about the Blind Men and the Elephant, each part expresses what it expresses.  So there will be contradictions, discrepancies, and the like.  It's the nature of any kind of writing about abstract concepts and/or about historical events -- the parts that get emphasized say as much about the reader as about the author.  e.g., all americans learn about the boston tea party in grade school -- but how many of us know about the whiskey rebellion?   we all know that we were founded on the notion that "all men are created equal" -- but how many realize that "men" there means propertied/educated males, not women, slaves, indentured servants, etc. 

Are you aware of how the bible was put together?
 
yep -- it's not my primary focus, but i have a master of divinity degree and am working on a phd in religious studies.  i preached from it for 10 years or so and work for a research institution with strong connections to many alternative gospels.  i find it all a fascinating story about the nature of power, belief, control, and so forth.  but i'm more likely to ascribe to rufus's suggestion from kevin smith's film dogma -- having pretty good ideas is about the best any of us can do.  having "belief" leads to broken relationships, wars, and some of the greatest atrocities in human history.... 

Are you aware there are other versions?
 
what do you mean by "versions"?  translations in addition to the king james?  "gnostic" gospels?  masoretic texts?  editors/translators of current bible translations use a combination of versions of books/fragments and render the best possible text -- in their opinion.  it's both an art and a science -- as with any translation, they are a close rendering of what's available.

Do you consider it infallable?
 
when i was growing up in the church (southern baptist), i was taught that the bible was infallible and inerrant (pretty much the same definition for both, but used differently in the church of my youth -- inerrant being a stronger term than infallible).  many people from my youth believe this strongly and have long, complicated explanations for any "discrepancies" pointed out to them (God's way of testing our faith, etc).  letting go of that belief would leave many of them rudderless, so it's cruel to make an issue of it.  my guess is that if/when they wish to consider different options, they will.  i try simply to offer gentle suggestions when the issue comes up.  but the answer is no -- based on how i understand it to have been developed, it would be somewhat ludicrous to consider it infallible.

How do you reconcile what you know of the bible, with a faith in it?
 
respectfully, while many may be guilty of biblioatry, my understanding of faith is that it is in a divine being/God/Spirit of the Universe or something -- not a written text.  i consider the bible useful and think it contains God's word as its authors have understood that word.  it offers instruction and inspiration and information that i use daily -- but my faith is in God, not the bible. 
 
What are your worst conflicts with biblical writings/laws, and how do you deal with them?

my conflicts are usually with dogmatic, instransigent, heavy-handed interpretations than with the writings/laws themselves.  most ofthem had a purpose at some point -- and often, the purpose they served is still relevant, even if the response 2000 years ago is no longer relevant....

i think there was another question somewhere re: whether i would have ended up where i am without the bible.  that's pretty much impossible to answer -- experience and knowledge so strongly shape existence that i'm not sure.  however, i do think that i would, at some level, believe in the connectedness of all things (simplified somewhat as the butterfly effect), think that what we do will come back to us in full measure "pressed down, shaken together," etc., and that kindness and respect are always a legitimate approach and response to the world around us.

and yes, i am a christian....although many who call themselves that might not agree.

jo 

(in reply to Kedikat)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Biblical question to Biblical followers - 6/1/2006 10:07:51 PM   
leakylee


Posts: 747
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline 		Dr Mitchell Reddish is the head of Religous Studies at Stetson University. He is a really really awesome professor. I just did a fast search, http://www.ebookmall.com/ebook119169-ebookhtm
If that text was done like our text books were. It was written from an academic stand point, but done with the intent to have a better understanding of bible. Not done to debuct. Hope that might help.

love and light
lee


_____________________________

I am so not right, that I left..

(in reply to pup75)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Biblical question to Biblical followers - 6/2/2006 12:18:25 AM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline 		Do you think the bible is the word of God? Or a collection of peoples histories and parables?

I think it is both and more. It is a book of poetry also. It is also a book of myth as well.

Are you aware of how the bible was put together?

Yes

Are you aware there are other versions?

Yes

Do you consider it infallable?
 
No, the men that wrote it are as imperfect as the creation they live in.

How do you reconcile what you know of the bible, with a faith in it?

The same way I reconcile the works of all great philosophies and religions.. I take what I need and leave the rest.

What are your worst conflicts with biblical writings/laws, and how do you deal with them?

The God portrayed in the Old Testament, well he wasnt a very nice God and he encouraged genocide and really bad acts of murderous violence and bouts of jealousy... Well, lets just say I have a problem with Him, and I am glad that He grew up when He became Jesus...smiles

I am an aetheist. But I am interested. It has a huge effect on our world.

If I were to call myself a Christian (which fundies like Pat Robertson make me want to deny that word, and things such as the Inquisition) I would consider myself a Gnostic. I find great value in most belief systems and enjoy finding out about what other people think of as the "Sacred". It does not shake my faith one iota to explore other beliefs because my "Higher Power" "God", or "Spirit" isnt threatened by it. If my faith in a Supreme Being is shaken because of new information, well maybe 1) I had no faith to begin with, or two2) no supreme being actually exists. I am not threatened by other's beliefs.

There is a reflection of nonreligious folks with conflicts with the law/society and biblical followers and it's complex laws/society.

Hmmmmm not for me, but many people think that their belief is the only belief, and if you do not believe as they do you should die... those types scare me.









_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Kedikat)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Biblical question to Biblical followers - 6/2/2006 1:05:56 AM   
Kedikat


Posts: 680
Joined: 4/20/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Littlepita

Do you think the bible is the word of God? Or a collection of peoples histories and parables? I believe the Bible is the word of God
Are you aware of how the bible was put together? The Bible is God’s letter to humanity collected into 66 books, written by 40 divinely inspired writers. These writers come from all walks of life (i.e., kings to fishermen) and spans over a period of 1,500 years or more.
Are you aware there are other versions? Yes
Do you consider it infallable?Yes
How do you reconcile what you know of the bible, with a faith in it? I don't understand this question, sorry.
What are your worst conflicts with biblical writings/laws, and how do you deal with them? I don't have any conflicts with it. I accept that it is right and therefore I believe it.




In your reply, the fact that you believe it to be infallible, could make the question you don't understand, irrelevant. That particular question would refer to someone who views the bible as not the verbatim word of an infallible god. But the person is still a follower of a biblical religion.

< Message edited by Kedikat -- 6/2/2006 1:57:06 AM >

(in reply to Littlepita)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: Biblical question to Biblical followers - 6/2/2006 1:56:20 AM   
Kedikat


Posts: 680
Joined: 4/20/2006
Status: offline 		When I refer to the other versions. I mean, some present day versions that are used by many sects and people, but have different books. Some additional, some deleted.
I also consider historical versions. The bible grew and shrank at various times and places. The Old Testament was the earliest part to be put in a final form and then quite carefully preserved through the centuries of copying. The New Testament went through various editions over time, again having books removed or added. There was divergance of latin and greek translations, the latin one being more completely frozen at some point, but sections of the Old Testament being dropped. ( much of those sections being disputed as devine word or just historical note ).
Aside from the problems of mistranslation, what I find most conflicting about the Bible being the devine and or inspired word, is the fact that books were included at some points, then dropped, others added. And it was quite a variety of folks who did this editing throughout the centuries. Their various motives and ideals often lost in time.

I am glad that many bible followers know of some or a lot of this and temper the words of the bible into their faith and day to day life.

I am a " believer " in science. To be that, I must always be prepared to have my beliefs shattered and remade. At the very least expanded regularly. Over the centuries the Bible has also been remade, though not as suddenly and jarringly as science often is. There may yet be times in our future when the Bible again grows or shrinks or is in part remade.

I have some new links to investigate, thanks for them.

(in reply to Saraheli)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: Biblical question to Biblical followers - 6/2/2006 3:40:11 AM   
darkinshadows


Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kedikat

I am a " believer " in science. To be that, I must always be prepared to have my beliefs shattered and remade. At the very least expanded regularly. Over the centuries the Bible has also been remade, though not as suddenly and jarringly as science often is. There may yet be times in our future when the Bible again grows or shrinks or is in part remade.


I am a believer in science - and I also believe and see that science and christianity(as well as any other religions ) can meld quite comfortably together.  I believe it would be blinkered to see any science as evil or against biblical teachings - after all it is a creation of God.(Well in my belief structure anyway)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kedikat

Aside from the problems of mistranslation, what I find most conflicting about the Bible being the devine and or inspired word, is the fact that books were included at some points, then dropped, others added. And it was quite a variety of folks who did this editing throughout the centuries. Their various motives and ideals often lost in time.

I am glad that many bible followers know of some or a lot of this and temper the words of the bible into their faith and day to day life.



I believe you are quite correct - it is the 'missing books' and in fact the original translations that have been misinterpreted somewhat that can cause the conflicts.  If you believe in God, if you have any slight concept of Jesus and the HS - then you should at least gain a small grasp of the negative impact acting like 'sheep' has upon understanding.  I strongly believe that it is up to the individual involved to make sure that they study all texts for themselves - testing and retesting constantly - not rely on vicarious belief.  You don't have to be a greek scholar or wordfreak(like me) to learn them.  It just takes patience and time and the understanding that your knowledge will evolve... as well as God opening the words up to you personally(I have a huge faith in the ability to talk to Him, hear from Him and in the 'signs and wonders' - and no, I have never taken drugs...) 
 
But the emphasis would be that it isn't for everyone.  Some people and some denominations have this huge hang up about converting every last person to christianity.  It just doesn't work like that.  You can know your history - you can follow the scriptures devoutly, you can understand greek backwards and have read every single text that is available.  That still doesn't get you a guarenteed passage into 'heaven'  -
 
The only thing needed is a personal relationship with God - which ultimately, is yourself -
(But thats a whole different topic)
 
Peace and Rapture


_____________________________
.dark.



...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to Kedikat)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: Biblical question to Biblical followers - 6/2/2006 8:21:42 AM   
nightphoenix


Posts: 139
Joined: 1/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kedikat

When I refer to the other versions. I mean, some present day versions that are used by many sects and people, but have different books. Some additional, some deleted.
I also consider historical versions. The bible grew and shrank at various times and places. The Old Testament was the earliest part to be put in a final form and then quite carefully preserved through the centuries of copying. The New Testament went through various editions over time, again having books removed or added.


William Foxwell Albright (One of the world's foremost biblical archaelogists) is quoted as saying - "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about 80 AD."

The late Dr. John Robinson announced a strong conviction that the whole of the New Testament was written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

The other books that were "left out" of the New Testament weren't left out because of any kind of agenda...they aren't included because books such as the Gospel of Philip and Thomas weren't written until as late as 200 to 300 AD.

The New Testament has largely been in it's present form since the first or second century AD.  The closest thing to an "Alternate version" of the New Testament is when individuals tried to alter it (Such as Marcion in AD 140, ignoring the Old Testament and altering the New), which is part of why the Church made a comprehensive index to counter their influence.  The first solid index that matched the New Testament of today was given to us by Athanasius in 367 AD, though that list was pretty widely acknowledged long before that.


So, nothing was added, or edited, or changed by King James, etc...it's just an English translation of the same scriptures that were penned nearly 1700 years ago. 

(in reply to Kedikat)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: Biblical question to Biblical followers - 6/2/2006 8:42:43 AM   
ArtCatDom


Posts: 478
Joined: 1/20/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: nightphoenix

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kedikat

When I refer to the other versions. I mean, some present day versions that are used by many sects and people, but have different books. Some additional, some deleted.
I also consider historical versions. The bible grew and shrank at various times and places. The Old Testament was the earliest part to be put in a final form and then quite carefully preserved through the centuries of copying. The New Testament went through various editions over time, again having books removed or added.


William Foxwell Albright (One of the world's foremost biblical archaelogists) is quoted as saying - "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about 80 AD."

The late Dr. John Robinson announced a strong conviction that the whole of the New Testament was written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

The other books that were "left out" of the New Testament weren't left out because of any kind of agenda...they aren't included because books such as the Gospel of Philip and Thomas weren't written until as late as 200 to 300 AD.

The New Testament has largely been in it's present form since the first or second century AD.  The closest thing to an "Alternate version" of the New Testament is when individuals tried to alter it (Such as Marcion in AD 140, ignoring the Old Testament and altering the New), which is part of why the Church made a comprehensive index to counter their influence.  The first solid index that matched the New Testament of today was given to us by Athanasius in 367 AD, though that list was pretty widely acknowledged long before that.


So, nothing was added, or edited, or changed by King James, etc...it's just an English translation of the same scriptures that were penned nearly 1700 years ago. 


Such early dates for the entirety of the NT are highly disputed and not at all acepted by most scholars. Even many scholars who put forth that all the writings of the NT are that early express reservations and/or admit there is some evidence to the contrary.

Also, the Gospel of Thomas is widely believed to be one of the earliest Christian texts.

I can provide references if you would like.

*meow*

< Message edited by ArtCatDom -- 6/2/2006 8:44:58 AM >

(in reply to nightphoenix)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: Biblical question to Biblical followers - 6/2/2006 9:50:12 AM   
nightphoenix


Posts: 139
Joined: 1/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom

Also, the Gospel of Thomas is widely believed to be one of the earliest Christian texts.

I can provide references if you would like.

*meow*


This is also highly disputed.  I too can provide references if you like.  I believe (as do many scholars) the Gospel of Thomas to have been written in the mid to latter 2nd century.  But even those that support the Gospel of Thomas having been written earlier agree that the fluidity of the writings make it hard to put a date on it.

And even before Constantine, scholars (Such as Origen) were denouncing the Gospel of Thomas as being invalid - or were considered writings that attempted to claim authenticity under an earlier disciple's name.  History shows that in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, writings such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, or the Gospel of Philip were considered false gospels by the overwhelming majority of Christians worldwide.  (Eusebius, "The History of the Church", translated by G.A. Williamson).

Of course though, I am aware that most scholars accept the original 4 gospels as being written in 80-90 AD, which is why an announcement from someone like John Robinson stating his strong conviction that it was written by 70 AD was a shock to the scholarly world.

< Message edited by nightphoenix -- 6/2/2006 10:25:52 AM >

(in reply to ArtCatDom)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: Biblical question to Biblical followers - 6/2/2006 2:19:35 PM   
Kedikat


Posts: 680
Joined: 4/20/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: maybemaybenot

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kedikat
A question to you.
If the bible did not exist. Christianity did not exist. Do you think, you would have found your " faith " anyway? Does it exist in you in some way apart from anything?
In a way, my so called faith does.



darkinshadows answered this question very similarly to how I would answer it. Prior to reading darkinshadows post, my thought was that Christianity existed prior to the Bible, by word of mouth. ie: Roman Times when the Christians were sent to the Collosieum to be killed.

quote:

 darkinshadows:
I know this was not to me, but I have the desire to respond.
Christianity does not exist because of the bible.  If the bible did not exist, if the words were not written down, then the teachings would be passed on a differnet way. Christianity exists because of the existance of christ.  It is a system of beliefs based on the teachings of Jesus. The bible, technically, has nothing to do with christianity.



I also am unsure if that is the exact question you were asking of me, or if you were asking if Christianity and the Bible did not exist, would I Have faith in something else or be a woman of faith.
If that be your question, I can easily answer yes. I suspect I would be Jewish, simply because we share the same beginnings, with Christianity having it's foundation built upon Judiasm. < I know some here will disagree with that statement>. I am a firm believer that humanity and society  need faith in something to live in  relative harmony. There needs to be something to which we hold ourselves accountable, above ourselves or anarchy would reign.
Ahhh, but that is a discussion for another thread.

More personally, I cannot imagine a life without faith. For me, it would be a hopeless existance.

                   mbmbn


The question came to mind some time ago, when talking with a hardline christian. He said that I could not know what was right or wrong, or moral, if I did not believe in a biblical inspired religion. Of course the vast majority of Christians would disagree whith him quite a bit. But a disturbingly large number of religious people of all sects voice such a narrow idea at times.
So I asked him that question. He would not accept even the premise, and gave no answer.
The question doesn't mean, you would somehow invent a complex religion to fill some void in your life, but would you still have evolved your ideas of right/wrong, morality and such, in a world with no religions as such.

(in reply to maybemaybenot)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: Biblical question to Biblical followers - 6/2/2006 2:58:53 PM   
Kedikat


Posts: 680
Joined: 4/20/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: darkinshadows

That said - (my previous posts)..I will apologise to the OP(Kedikat) for drifting off the Original questions.  Although it has been an interesting debate, it is not construtive to the OP.
 
But surfice to say - it does answer one of the questions...
 
quote:

What are your worst conflicts with biblical writings/laws, and how do you deal with them?

By remaining informed and open minded and accepting that there is no exact right and understanding that there are political institutions that would have the scriptures mis-interpreted, and indeed, even removed from everyday lives.
There is only the right between my God and myself.
 
Peace and Rapture



Absolutely no apology required. The thread replies have been interesting and very civil and informed. I fully expected diversions, and they have been interesting. I have muzzled myself from getting too worked up, as religion in general is a touchy subject for me. But I want opinions and ideas, so I try to refrain from being argumentative in this thread. You can find my more blunt opinions on many things here and there in these forums.

(in reply to darkinshadows)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Biblical question to Biblical followers Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109