Evolution interferring with religion?

[bumab]

Originally Posted by IrishEyes

I would be VERY interested to learn where you get your information.

As for the older sources that corraberate the KJV, the Dead Sea Scrolls and some of the texts found along with the Gnostic gospels match up really accuratly with the modern text (at least, that's what the translators tell me ) along with giving more records of the time period.

But a major point here is that ancient Greeks and Hebrews and others would not understand the same text in the same way. We might have preserved the words, but it's an entirely different to say we've preserved the meaning. The real valuable scholarly research comes from trying to understand what so and so meant when he wrote such and such.

The most obvious and common example is that "7 days and 7 nights" to us means a week, but the way it's written in the Hebrew suggests any length of time- and that's the origional (or closer to it) language it was written in.

As for meaning for meaning, I'm told the Living Bible gets closest at this point in time. But, it's attacked by some more conservative groups. Can't win for trying!

[lindagarrette]

Originally Posted by IrishEyes

Also, I think that verses and passages should be taken in context, rather than pulled apart and used to defend a certain philosphy or idea.

There is no way know the context of any biblical passage since the only record we have is the book itself. That's why it can be used to defend just about any notion. Without the facts, who can disagree?

[jp3089]

Originally Posted by lindagarrette

There is no way know the context of any biblical passage since the only record we have is the book itself. That's why it can be used to defend just about any notion. Without the facts, who can disagree?

That's not quite correct. The entire New Testament was written after 40 AD, so we can actually verify its claims, archaeologically as well as comparing it to other literary sources of the time to verify its accuracy.

Even Jesus is mentioned in many other manuscripts including writings by Josephus, Tacitus, and in approximately 34-35 AD, ossuaries (stone containers to hold deceased people's bones) began having writings on them such as "Jesus save me". Besides, the archaeological record has done nothing but back up what is written in the Bible. For a long time, the Hittite empire mentioned in the Old Testament was one of the biggest arguments against the validity of the Bible. However, in the 1960's the Hittite empire was discovered by archaeologists.... Just more evidence to support the accuracy of the Bible.

Anyway, if you take something like the Bible out of context, you CAN use it to justify just about any horrible thing. But if you take the time to read the verses in context, see the big-picture of the Bible, and compare the passages to other ones that help clarify, the Bible really is a story of God's love expressed through Jesus Christ that hinges on fallenness, redemption, and restoration.

-jp

[jp3089]

Originally Posted by bumab

As for the older sources that corraberate the KJV, the Dead Sea Scrolls and some of the texts found along with the Gnostic gospels match up really accuratly with the modern text (at least, that's what the translators tell me ) along with giving more records of the time period.

But a major point here is that ancient Greeks and Hebrews and others would not understand the same text in the same way. We might have preserved the words, but it's an entirely different to say we've preserved the meaning. The real valuable scholarly research comes from trying to understand what so and so meant when he wrote such and such.

The most obvious and common example is that "7 days and 7 nights" to us means a week, but the way it's written in the Hebrew suggests any length of time- and that's the origional (or closer to it) language it was written in.

As for meaning for meaning, I'm told the Living Bible gets closest at this point in time. But, it's attacked by some more conservative groups. Can't win for trying!

Thanks for taking care of that for me. Most of these things are easily accessible answers that can be looked up on the internet.

Have you ever had a chance to read The Message? I'm pretty sure it's even more paraphrase than the Living Bible. It's a lot of fun to read.

[jp3089]

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

I'm not speaking about translation, I'm speaking of interpretation. You would decide that one of Warhol's portraits suddenly was anything more than pop art, even if you happened to prefer Jagger over Monroe... To say you can decide whether it is allegorical in parts and literal in others pretty much makes it nothing more that a work of fiction that you can decipher as you will. I don't like that part about thou shall not kill, so I'll look at it as a fable, but over here it says the world was fooded, and darn it it was...The bible said so.

For it to any sort of reliable reference it needs to be exanmine in either light, allegory are litteral depiction of events, not pick and choose what is convenient to your POV they seem pretty much mutually exclusive POV's when looking at a single item.

It's not picking and choosing as I stated in an earlier post. That's not how Biblical scholars decipher literal and allegorical passages. To pick and choose is to do a disservice to the Bible. For Example: Allegorical passages sometimes are fairly obvious, such as most of Revelation. However, some are very literal, such as most of the Gospels, Kings, Chronicles, Judges... etc. Genesis happens to be a mix of allegory and literal writing.

There's no rule that says you have to pick one and apply it to the entire Bible. If YOU have a rule like that, that's fine for you. But the Bible doesn't need to follow YOUR rule to be a reliable reference.

-jp

p.s. To your credit, many people (even ones that call themselves Christians) take the Bible out of context and use it to justify horrible things. There were even people who tried to use the Bible to justify slavery during the civil war. That's just one example.

[jp3089]

Originally Posted by bumab

I agree. That's where I feel religion has to take a stand and say "There's something more to this, more then a set of evolutionarily constructed rules." If you can accept morality (and thus free will) as an evolutionary construct, then that's it. Religion, really, loses validity. If you can't accept that, then religion is a viable entity.

Thoughts?

I definitely agree. I think morality is too big of a player (in the minds of many) to be left up to evolutionary processes.

-jp

[jp3089]

Originally Posted by IrishEyes

I would be VERY interested to learn where you get your information.

"The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. It's a good read. Asks a lot of tough questions about Christianity, Jesus, and the Bible.

I even have a copy I'd be willing to send to you.

-jp

[lindagarrette]

Originally Posted by jp3089

That's not quite correct. The entire New Testament was written after 40 AD, so we can actually verify its claims, archaeologically as well as comparing it to other literary sources of the time to verify its accuracy.

Even Jesus is mentioned in many other manuscripts including writings by Josephus, Tacitus, and in approximately 34-35 AD, ossuaries (stone containers to hold deceased people's bones) began having writings on them such as "Jesus save me". Besides, the archaeological record has done nothing but back up what is written in the Bible. For a long time, the Hittite empire mentioned in the Old Testament was one of the biggest arguments against the validity of the Bible. However, in the 1960's the Hittite empire was discovered by archaeologists.... Just more evidence to support the accuracy of the Bible.

-jp

Most of the archeological evidence recently surfacing conflicts with the biblical stories and there is no corroborated evidence that Jesus as glorified in the gospels, ever existed. Biblical scholars have dismissed the external sources as forgeries. You can check the internet for multitudes of references for verification.

[lindagarrette]

Originally Posted by jp3089

There's no rule that says you have to pick one and apply it to the entire Bible. If YOU have a rule like that, that's fine for you. But the Bible doesn't need to follow YOUR rule to be a reliable reference.

How can a reference be reliable if it is not intersubjectively verifiable?

[Fishteacher73]

Was it not at aprox. 300 c.e. that the "church" took the writings and compiled what it wanted, and ignored other sources (Usually called aprocrypha, if I recall).