Subject:
|
Re: Saving the Xtian Church From Itself
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 8 Aug 2003 05:52:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
227 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
Interesting, but perhaps you can explain some inconsistencies with that
explanation. Not all Christian religions use the King James version of the
bible - certainly the Catholics don’t (and their views on homosexuality
differ little from most Protestants), and I would imagine that
Eastern/Greek/etc Orthodox don’t, either. For that matter, the King James
version of the bible I would imagine is not used by non-english speaking
countries. Thus, the set who depend on it are english-speaking Protestants.
So...how do all the other Christian religions view homosexuality and why,
since they are not depending on some mistranslation by the council that
produced the King James version? Or the same religions in different,
non-english speaking countries?
|
I can’t answer you question directly because I have not made an exhaustive
survey on the subject from the perspective of non-English Xtian faiths, but I
will answer it this way...
You can use books like Strong’s Concordance to get at a closer meaning of the
bible by cross-referencing passages and in many instances checking out the
meaning of the word in the oldest known copy of the work in question. For
example in the passage I lifted from that website the Hebrew word under
discussion is “YADA.” The meaning and history of the word is a known thing --
so if the KJV translators took liberties with their work, and they took
hundreds of such liberties, then the resulting translation is at least partly
faulty -- as all translations ultimately are as they balance the twin arts of
pure translations against a certain kind of lyric readability factor.
Sometimes a translator takes liberties because it sounds better in English to
say a thing a particular way. At other times less noble motives may be at
work.
|
Any translation is subject to introducing error. Usually, though, Bible
scholars seem for the most part encouraged that modern translations seem
consistent any time they find a really old fragment. But I’m hardly enough of a
Bible scholar to be on firm ground.
| |
King James is relevant to us as it is the primary text in English. It is
not, obviously, a flawless text from the standpoint of translation and that’s
why you have to access things like Strong’s Concordance if you want to
understand things more deeply. This is ultimately no different than if you
looked up the meaning of any English word in the Oxford English Dictionary --
the etymology of a word is entirely the point, esp. when it comes to
translating an ancient text.
|
One of the things I was trying to get at is that the King James version of the
Bible is only really important to english-speaking Protestants (i.e. a minority
of Christians). If you have a major segment of Christianity agreeing with what
you site as a mistranslation that do not depend on the KJV, then either there is
a deeper rooted problem (in which case, citing only the KJV isn’t enough), or
the KJV would not seem to be in error. Either way, viewing it in isolation
would not seem to be sound.
| |
We know that the ancient world of the bible does not mesh with known facts.
For example, slaves were not used in the building of the ancient Egyptian
monuments -- to the contrary, it was considered a duty and pleasure on the
part of Egyptian citizens to contribute to their collective culture by
spending some time building those very monuments each year. This work was not
done by slaves, not as I have understood recent archeological findings.
|
It’s been forever and a day since I have read the Old Testament (and that was to
write a report in college on Akhnaten, and somehow I got a Bible quote in there,
which is where I noticed that it was not a KJV, and I also snuck in my favorite
accrediation of my college career, under author: Various, with the assistance of
a Holy Ghost Writer). So, digression aside: were the Jews being forced to work
on monuments something that the Bible claims, or an invention of Cecil B.
Demille (how does one argue with the voice of God, after all)? For that matter,
literal slavery, or figurative?
| |
For that matter Moses, if indeed he was an Egyptian of a kind, was not the
first known monotheist in any case. There’s nothing revolutionary about Moses
at all. Moses comes after another Egyptian known as Akhnaten, the famous
“Heretic” pharoah and the first monotheist. If there is another predating
Akhnaten, I have not learned of it yet. Mosaic Law too derives from another
source: the laws of Hammurabi -- which is rather like contrasting a fictional
advent against an historical one. Maybe Moses existed, maybe not. We know
from linguistic studies of the first five books of the bible that there are
several voices within those texts. Often the biblical tales are repeated in
such a way as to suggest that some kind of pastiche of even older texts was
made to form the Pentateuch, probably politically motivated to appease
competing factions amongst the ancient Israelites. The two main factions in
question were probably the followers of Moses and the followers of Aaron. Go
figure.
|
I think that Akhnaten is the first that we can find record of, but his
experiment didn’t exactly go over well. In any case, he was hardly the first,
since pantheons were undoubtedly formed by individual gods being glued together
due to cultures joining, with all the attendent conflict that implies - witness
Hera and Zeus, Trimurti (resolved in a way that can only make Christians shudder
or laugh, depending on their pruddishness), the Vanir and Aesir, and the
constant supplanting of the “supreme” god in Egypt.
| |
Those facts take nothing away from the intriguing story of the Exodus or of
the laws of Moses. In the main, the old testament is just a fictionalized
account of life in the ancient world. The ancient Israelites were themselves
probably pasturalist followers of the god Moloch. How do I know this?
Because Mosaic laws continually condemns the practices of the fire god
Moloch. Why make laws about things people aren’t doing? That’s right, you
make laws about the things people are doing. Of course...
|
Rule number one: weed out the competition! So how is Bill Gates different from
God?
Sorry, don’t know what brought that on....
| |
And let’s not forget that there are many texts that are not part of any
“official” canons, but no one doubts the actual existence of these texts --
what they question is the vailidity of those works. But why? Obviously, those
more “questionable” texts do not serve the needs of politically motivated
organized faiths. Really, it’s as simple as that. At the same time you
won’t find a Protestant claiming that the Nag Hammadi library doesn’t exist,
it’s just not part of the accepted canon.
|
The really salacious parts are always expurgated. :-(
| |
You can build with Dave!’s clone DAT library, it’s just not part of LDraw
canon, right?
Getting back to the history of Xtian condemnation of homosexuality, what you
have is no more than an attempt to hijack “the word” of god to a specific
purpose. Why? I don’t know -- I suppose some people have a problem with
homosexuals. But I’ll tell you this: you don’t make laws about things that
people aren’t doing. When Xtian culture decided to condemn homosexuality you
can bet that there were plenty of homosexuals around. Given the flimsy
evidence in the original biblical cites I’d say it’s time for this particular
witch hunt to come to an end.
|
I suppose it says something that the people that the Jews really couldn’t stand
were the Greeks, so I’m not so sure of that. Corinthians were the worst, too
(ahhh, those lusty sailors!).
| |
If you are a modern Xtian: Do you avoid lobster? Do you eat pork? Why, or why
not? Did Jesus condemn homosexuals, or did he actually save a Roman slave
boys life so that he could continue in his homosexual lifestyle?
|
Lobster! Mmmmmmmmmm. Swine! Mmmmmmmmmm (sorry, Chris). Fish on Fridays!
Mmmmmmmm. Sacred Cow makes the best hamburger!
I thought He saved Mary Magdalene so he could continue is his hetero lifestyle?
Clearly, what do I know? :-)
Oh, so the slave boy could continue in his homosexual lifestyle! I thought
you meant...ahem. Anyway, note the word: slave. Not his sexual preference by
choice.
-->Bruce<--
(by the way, those are actually supposed to be lightning bolts zapping me, in
case anyone ever wondered about my sig)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Saving the Xtian Church From Itself
|
| (...) Yeah, I wouldn't be too sure about that either. The Dead Sea Scrolls supposedly have lengthy sexual passages like one where Noah speaks lyrically in the first person about the beauty of his wife Sarah's breasts. To me, nothing could be more (...) (21 years ago, 8-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Saving the Xtian Church From Itself
|
| (...) I can't answer you question directly because I have not made an exhaustive survey on the subject from the perspective of non-English Xtian faiths, but I will answer it this way... You can use books like Strong's Concordance to get at a closer (...) (21 years ago, 7-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
