A question of faith.

[Wiccy of the Fraternity]

We certainly don't want a bible debate starting up discussing what things have changed and how, we would be here forever if that happened, lol.

[AdamGarou]

True... and the same could likely be said of any book purported to be a principle written doctrine of any faith--the Koran, Dhammabada (the Sayings of the Buddha), etc.

Of course, the key word there is "faith."

For the Christian, it seems to me that faith and prayer are equally important in addressing those so-called "fallibilities"--faith that God would not allow the most important core parts of the Bible to be mistranslated or misinterpreted to the point of being unrecognizable from His original intent, and prayer for aid in interpreting what is read to be applied correctly to the Christian life.

In most of the worship services I attend, the pastor takes the Biblical text for his message from a particular translation--such as the New King James Version, for example--but after reading it he calls on other members of the congregation to read the same text from other translations (such as New American Standard, Living Bible, New International Version, and the original King James Version) to see how the text is presented there.

That way, we all gain a better idea of the main point of the text and the instruction/direction it gives without limiting ourselves to one particular way of expressing it.

Obviously, none of this is quite as good as having someone who can actually read the original Hebrew and Greek texts, but we're just a simple country church--we're working on that!

[Gemathustra]

Actually, some of the first problems occurred when the Greek scribes who were translating the Bible from Hebrew into Greek misunderstood some of the words, like, when they confused "unicorn" for "auroch."
Also, in many translations of the Bible, Moses is described as having "horns," in that, this stems from a misunderstanding that the Hebrew word for "horn" is also the word for "ray of light," much like the way "ray" in English means either a beam of light or any various flattened cartilaginous fish.

[Wiccy of the Fraternity]

Adam, I like the practice your pastor has of having people read different versions of the same passages, it lets people get the pouint and draw their own conclusions to the meaning, as we all see things differently

I am also able to end an argument with someone tomorrow when I head into town, I found a copy opf the bible in the referrence section of my local library that has a penctacle in it, which the christian church used for a while. More importantly, the pentacle is point up and he insists tha tthe point up is an American creation The bible is a copy of the original the library once had, what happened to it I have no idea, but it is a direct copy of the book, so the contents are intact The argument has been going on for nearly a month now.

If I remember right, it also has the line "thou shalt not poison a witch to live" in it somewhere, but I forget whereabouts that verse was in the bible.

Now if only I could find that typo'd copy of the American Constuitution I once saw, I love the line that says "we have the right to arm bears"

[Gemathustra]

So, what does "thou shalt not poison a witch to live" mean, anyhow?

[Corrupted_Loremaster]

I don't know. Don't feed a witch hemlock, then steal that life saving potion she has, maybe?

[AdamGarou]

So, what does "thou shalt not poison a witch to live" mean, anyhow?

Wiccy, that library must have gotten that copy of the Bible from a factory outlet mall. There are actually stores where you can buy a copy of the Bible with typographical errors in it... so, you could find a passage that talks about "Gob" creating the world.

I think the verse is actually two different translations, although I could be wrong--this is a story I was told in college, rather than something I read with my own eyes.

The verse has two different translations, according to the story I was told:

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

and...

"Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live."

Supposedly the second verse was the way the text originally read, but due to "political pressure" (i.e., the king or some powerful nobles might have poisoned some of their family to gain their positions) it was changed to "witch" instead.

Has anyone else (preferably someone with an academic or Christian theological background) heard anything like this? I don't have my Bible with me at work, so I can't check my translation of the text.

[Wiccy of the Fraternity]

The line "thou shalt not poison a witch to live" was changed a couple of centuries ago to "suffer a witch to live". I forget the actual time it was altered though. basically it was to coincide wit hthe anti-pagan movements at the time and meant that to allow a witch to live would be to cast suffering on others, or words to that effect. I have no idea why it needed changing though, both the terms mean the same thing, lol.

The bible also contains different additions and ommisions depending on the faith, something I always found odd really.

I think that bible I got that line from was translated from old English into modern(ish) english around the beginning of the 20th century, I remember it was pretty old. In fact, the most recent printing I looked through in the library while looking through various bibles and looking int othe history of the witch trials was written/translated in the 1950's.

I need to get back down the library sometime for another look through the books again when I have a few weeks spare to browse through the books I would suspect to find certain things.

[Charlatan]

How can you discuss biblical typos and not mention 7th Day Advent Hoppists?


I think religion is a private matter. The problem I have with most religious people is not that they're religious per say, just the ones that keeping trying to convert everyone else to their religion, or force it on the rest of us by any means nessecary (like reelecting Bush). In their hearts, they may mean well, but the still offend the hell out of me. And I deeply suspect that too many of them do what they do less for God's glory and more for their own.

[AdamGarou]

How can you discuss biblical typos and not mention 7th Day Advent Hoppists?

*shakes head sadly*

Yep. Or reading the Book of "Germesis" for the story of "Sadam and Eve"?

I think religion is a private matter. The problem I have with most religious people is not that they're religious per say, just the ones that keeping trying to convert everyone else to their religion, or force it on the rest of us by any means nessecary (like reelecting Bush). In their hearts, they may mean well, but the still offend the hell out of me. And I deeply suspect that too many of them do what they do less for God's glory and more for their own.

I think you're right--religion IS a private matter. In a way, there's nothing more private or personal to anyone, anywhere. For those who profess a faith in a particular religion, their beliefs shape who they are and how they view the world, including moral absolutes like right and wrong.

I know that the Assembly of God church teaches the importance of sharing our faith with those without, and it's sometimes a difficult task, due to the possibility of persecution or (more likely) simple rejection. And I think a big reason for that rejection is so-called "Christians" (or Muslims, or whoever) whose faith supposedly espouses certain standards of behavior that they acknowledge with their lips but deny by their lifestyle. People--especially people who have encountered it in the past--are quick to spot hypocrisy in any form, and to call it out... and it serves to strengthen the position that all "religious" people are just nuts.

In attempting to avoid this hypocrisy (and the "high-minded" attitudes that turn people off of "religion"), I'm reminded of a quote by the actor Stephen Baldwin. He said the most effective way he'd found to share his newfound faith was simple, quiet conversation. Someone would ask him how "that church thing" was working out for him, and he'd simply smile and say "Great. I've got peace like I didn't know was possible." Then he'd pause a few seconds and simply return the question. "How are YOU doing without it?"

The very fact that he didn't try to force his religious view down anyone's throat made them more interested in talking to him about it.

If I understand Charlatan correctly, it sounds as though he believes that the President's reelection was a primarily a move by the religious right to force their views on the rest of the country. While the national news told us that most Bush supporters voted on "moral issues" and most Kerry supporters voted on "economic issues", I think any election when it comes down to it is an attempt to force a set of values on the rest of the country--the idea is that the candidate who wins is closer in his own views to that of the majority of the country. That's why it works as well (and as poorly) as it does.

In any case, having been flogged with a cat o' nine tails made from cold spaghetti (get away from me, Dru!) for another off-topic post on another thread, I'll step off the soapbox.

Um... actually it's kind of a long way down. Anyone have a Cloak of the Bat or a Potion of Flying they could spare?

[Charlatan]

If I understand Charlatan correctly, it sounds as though he believes that the President's reelection was a primarily a move by the religious right to force their views on the rest of the country. While the national news told us that most Bush supporters voted on "moral issues" and most Kerry supporters voted on "economic issues", I think any election when it comes down to it is an attempt to force a set of values on the rest of the country--the idea is that the candidate who wins is closer in his own views to that of the majority of the country. That's why it works as well (and as poorly) as it does.

Well, that was actually a bitter joke. I'm a liberal Democrat from a family of liberal Democrats, I suspect I'm genetically predisposed to hate Bush. I think it's been proven that the number of people voting based on religious beliefs was not signifigantly higher than last time.

[Wiccy of the Fraternity]

I'm a liberal Democrat from a family of liberal Democrats

I also plead guilty to that

[Nathan of the FoS]

Latter-day Saint, better known as "Mormon".

[Nathan of the FoS]

Being one of those people who have to count things, I bring you this compiled list--our respondents number:

6 atheists
5 Protestant Christians
4 Roman Catholics
3 Orthodox Christians
3 agnostics
2 Pagans
1 each for hedge wizardry (if that's the correct term, Wiccy?), Unitarianism, deism, Judaism, Pantheism, Extropianism, Taoism, Baha'i, and Mormonism.

I've simplified answers to whatever people gave as a "base religion", and lumped Charlatan in with the agnostics--hope that's okay, Charlatan.

[Charlatan]

Fine. My father's side of the family is Methodist, in fact one of my aunts is a minister. I can't recall any specific denomination of my mom's side however.