Subject:
|
Re: Saving the Xtian Church From Itself
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 8 Aug 2003 17:04:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
314 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
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.
|
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 beautiful than a beloved’s body and nothing more normative than taking
pleasure in a beloved’s beauty; but you just know that such a passage causes a
scandal. But why? This would be the guy’s wife we are talking about, right?
Is he supposed to dislike his wife? Is he supposed to think his wife is
unappealing sexually?
The bottom line is that sexuality has long scared those that seek social
control.
| |
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.
|
I think I am understanding you now, but I think the differences are less than
you may think. While the section called the Apocrypha is still published in the
Vulgate editions of the Bible, there’s no other HUGE difference between what a
catholic is reading versus what a Protestant is reading. For that matter, my
copy of the Tanakh is very like most Old Testaments I have read.
But now you have me thinking about Jewish mysticism and the rampant sexuality of
material like the Kabbalah. While Hasidic jews were originally ostracized and
while their numbers seem small today, their practices would seem to place them
amongst some of the more conservative Jewish sects around. But, one needs to
consider how radical the manner in which they embrace the Kabbalah seems to
other Jews.
Again, social control because of fear of sexuality. But perhaps I should shut
my mouth and allow a Jewish person to chime in, if such a one exists here in the
wilderness of debate!
| |
So, digression aside: were the Jews being forced to work on monuments
something that the Bible claims
|
I’d have to reread frankly, but it is implied certainly. There’s at least that
whole bit about making bricks with and without straw.
| |
I think that Akhnaten is the first that we can find record of, but his
experiment didn’t exactly go over well.
|
Yeah, that’s what I meant to say.
| |
The really salacious parts are always expurgated. :-(
|
Right! But again, why? Social control / fear of sexuality.
| |
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.
|
Indeed, but there’s a whole history behind this and a life as a Roman
Centurian’s lover may not have been that bad, considering. Also, since we are
talking about pederasty, and given the concept of first sexual impression, and
given practices like arranged marriages, choice may not have been the issue in
the ancient world that we think it is today. It’s not that I have moral
blinders on, I am just trying to think like an ancient. I mean, Jesus himself
did not rebuke the man for being A) a Roman, B) a Centurian, C) a keeper of
slaves, or even D) a probable pederast! All these years later you want me to
condemn a relationship, whatever it may have been, when Jesus did nothing but
praise the faith of those involved?
Not I!
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Saving the Xtian Church From Itself
|
| (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 8-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
|
|
|
|
