[ramblinman]

A lot of time can be spent trying to more or less soften or even discredit a piece of literature / history / spiritual treatise, and it's worth asking why it's even that important to people. If the book in question is largely contradictory and incoherent, why are we even talking about it? I mean, nobody really spends much time trying to discredit your average inebriated crackpot on the street, do they? I hear drunken babble all the time from my neighbors - doesn't do much good to try to form any opinions about what they're saying.... and I don't see forum threads addressing such. The difference here is that the Bible is held as less than unique, largely flawed, contradictory or irrelevant to some, while it is held as being coherent, comprehensible, inspired, and true by others. The ramifications of either belief can be considerable practically speaking, so there's a sort of inevitable conflict of ideas.

Personally, I think that at least some people in the first group undertake efforts to uphold their point of view simply because if they were to consider the possibility that the Bible's message (which, while it indeed shares a great deal with other religious literature, is completely unique in a few rather important particulars) actually were true, it would sort of put demands on people which are frankly unpalatable to all humans in their normal state of being: i.e., they'd actually have to submit to some other entity completely, and admit their powerlessness for self-salvation and any facades of self-righteousness, and acknowledge a serious need for a kind of help that no human can provide. These are things that your average "decent human being" cannot naturally palate.

It's hard - or impossible - to be unbiased about these things, and I don't make any exception for myself. Within the Bible itself, you can find predictions of these inevitable and opposite reactions to its message, too, which it recognizes as being, "the fragrance of life" or else "the stench of death". It all depends to a large degree upon where one is coming from, what they believe about life and themselves and God to begin with. To suggest that none of us has any presuppositions influencing the way we perceive something - whether the first time or the tenth, whether a culture, a cuisine, or a work of literature - is kind of unrealistic. We might feel we have good reasons for having arrived at those presuppositions - life experience, observation, etc - but can we be sure that these subjective categories to prove more reliable towards arriving at truth and reality than this particular ancient book?

It creates a bit of an inner battle, but the fact is that approaching any religious / philosophic / historical work - or even a good novel, for that matter - with an open mind and with the willingness to look a little deeper when things don't immediately make sense or when they seem to contradict is a very good idea. In my view, if we aren't willing to spend some time, diligent also towards escaping whatever prejudices we may subconsciously possess, it is almost guaranteed that we'll end up just believing what we want to, and probably not what is actually true.

Seeking some divine help might make all the difference, as well. For true athiests this will not be possible, obviously, since a "faith commitment" - namely, that there is no God (since His existence can be neither proven nor disproven) - precludes the possibility of asking for divine light. Agnostics of a certain stripe can still seek that help - for God might exist after all - unless their own faith commitment has already decided that if He exists, He is unknowable / uninvolved in the lives of people. For the rest of us, a sincere desire to know the truth, however inconvenient or repulsive it may be - is important and worth asking for, though most would probably shy away from it. I think of the two pills in the beginning of The Matrix.

The questions of whether religion promotes strife / war is kind of a side issue. Important, yes, but not really central to the question. That is to say, the message of a book like the Bible could be completely true and accurate, and still be quite easily used in bits and pieces - especially if proclaimed to those only slightly acquainted with its teaching - to justify all sorts of atrocious acts. In that sense I agree that "it's no different from any other book". Any writing, or idea, or cultural distinctive, or whatever can be and will be manipulated by greedy, brutal people towards greedy, brutal purposes, given any chance. That is not the fault of the book's author (or Author), but of those who desperately want it to say what is convenient for the achievement of their own purposes - which brings us back to the main problem I'm trying to highlight... If we treat it a bit summarily / carelessly, or else come to it with any desire to merely discover support for our own pre-existing convictions / ways of thinking, then we are really doing nothing different than they have. But hopefully nobody who's posted here can be rightly accused of that...

Regards,
-Eric

[Ratmagiclady]

Hi, there, Eric. Not quite sure you're really engaging with regards to all this, but a lot of the 'debate' about your Bible (in whatever translation to whatever degree) as innately 'special' seems to be part of how you frame some of your observations, there, as though the choice here is between treating it as special 'literally' or 'less' literally... This is of course, how Christians frame it, which in some ways is fair enough until they try to impose any version of that standard on *others.*

To treat that book as 'special' and 'authority' and only needing to be puzzled out regarding who gets to *wield* that presumptive authority is still presuming special authority and downplaying the fact that in *any* translation, people mostly see in it what they bring to it, and if there's wisdom in there, grow from it as they were inclined to.


When this gets political or interpersonal, this is of course problematic. In any translation, at any speed.

It becomes about presumptions of authority, not learning or wisdom: that becomes *secondary to claims about the source and interpreters,* and *most especially* secondary to those authority-claims, no matter how rigidly or not rigidly you say those claims apply outside your beliefs.

That's where a lot of these arguments go in circles, and in fact, they're designed to. Evolved to go in circles, we could say, even, cause if you don't, you're not in that circle.

Thinking and talking in circles of course *feels* like you're going somewhere, but of course without external referents, is like walking in those deserts Abrahamic monotheism is so fond of. You think you're going straight but are walking in circles, say for some nice tidy number like seven or fourty years...


Same process. I'm never down on lit crit, of any sort, but trying to divine presumed authority from book translations rather than starting with the *world* just doesn't *go anywhere good.* It just devolves into a fight over something you shouldn't *need.*


It's not the arguments, it's the presumptions in the arguments.

And what the arguments are *over,* really.

You know, a lot of atheists are saying your God doesn't exist, but the Jesuits don't care about that, I'm sure. They just want people to be thinking in terms of *their* God. and *the notion that if that God exists x and such follows* And that *human belief about this **does* something all-important.*

So what if that's just not the question.


They don't want anyone looking anywhere else.

*That's* both how it gets corrupt and never seems to resolve any of its own contradictions.

And manages to be just about as wrong on any given position as possible.

It's not 'fallen human nature,' or 'We predicted a lot of people would call this BS, so, that's more authority for us, somehow, rather than an admission it doesn't make any sense when we use it for prophetic authority.....'

It's a book.

Don't get me wrong, I love books, but never forget what it *is* and what it ain't.

As a Pagan, I prefer Gods no one can really edit. And I assure you, it wasn't for lack of anyone trying, either.

[ihasa]

trying to divine presumed authority from book translations rather than starting with the *world* just doesn't *go anywhere good.* It just devolves into a fight over something you shouldn't *need.*

I agree with that, but that leads me to trying to understand the world, and science & reason. So I understand Gaia as the sum total of ecology and natural processes which luckily for us tend to keep the environment in balance, rather than 'personified' as a Pagan god which I see as a typical 'pathetic fallacy' and the first step on the road to talking about authoritarian gods which 'smite us' for being 'naughty' etc.

[ramblinman]

Read that all several times and still not sure I'm getting it all clearly, but that's all right. I suspect the writer is more of a scholar (or philosopher) than I am.

Will make a couple of what I hope are something like responses, though:

1. I think the R.C. Church, perhaps not unlike other religious leadership earlier, did have a history of "wielding authority" and in a way kind of keeping the scriptures under wraps so that only the "experts" who allegedly could understand them would be able to "teach" them to the people: Hebrew vs. the more common Aramaic; Latin vs. whatever other languages worldwide; or else Syrian (in the Orthodox case) vs. a traditional language in South India, etc, etc. To me that's a little suspect and of course greatly increases the likelihood of misuse. In the days of Huss / Wycliffe, it was pretty much a crime to translate this book into any language that common people could understand - and thus they were burned at the stake. That made it a little difficult for people to take it "as it is" and let it speak to them whatever it might, as you suggest. Fortunately, things are different in the RC church these days.

2. Starting with the "world", as you also suggest, is a great idea. The biblical book of Romans, chapter one, makes reference to that, saying that what has been created is an expression of the one who's created it, and that we can learn many things about him by observing / studying it, even re: his "eternal power and godhead". This is known as "natural revelation" in theological terms, and plays a very important role in the discovery of truth.

3. I don't see the "literal / non-literal" view of the book in question as an issue being all that important if we're talking about the difference between Judaism / Christianity and Paganism (though I confess considerable ignorance re: the latter, though I think I live among a brand of them up here in the Himalayan villages where I do the bulk of my photography these days): a) There is a great deal in the bible that can only be literal and which in some cases has been unequivocally proven to be; b) there is a great deal that is very clearly not and is at times identified as such by the text itself (i.e., Jesus, "destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days" - referring to his body - or "I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done with him whatever they wished - referring to John the Baptist); and c) then there are those things which not all agree upon - though in many of those cases, I'm not sure it really matters all that much, because the spiritual lessons / realities in view still would seem to stand and point us generally in the same direction whether literal or not; a direction quite different from the pagan one, I think.

4. In terms of being corrupted, from what I hear the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls did a lot toward demonstrating how carefully and accurately the text had been transmitted. It was not quite like copying out some chickenscratch in your notebook from Cliff's notes or something... I've heard that if the Jewish scribes so much as sneezed or glanced away from the page for a second, they had to tear the page they were working on and start over... so I don't think God has been "edited" - if He had been, I don't think you'd see book after book, chapter after chapter recounting stories describing how hopelessly messed up his people and their leaders were, when it was those very people who were doing the copying, incidentally.

5. Not sure why it "doesn't make any sense for prophetic authority". Example??? Also don't see where it's "as wrong on any given position as possible" - and the "unresolved contradictions", in my experience, tend to very often resolve themselves when we're willing to look a little closer. So I think this is where the completely differing perspectives, leading to totally different conclusions, show themselves. I do not deny that faith - on either side - is the key.

6. I am totally agreed when it comes to talking in circles, and don't feel I ever get anywhere with it. As long as the presuppositions differ and none of those presuppositions are challenged / thought challengable by either side, it's kind of inevitable.

7. Anyone who would tell another, "never forget what [the Bible] is and what it ain't", is not only personally pretty well decided on the matter, but is telling another to draw that conclusion as apparently the only reasonable one, too - which is contradictory in light of what that same person earlier condemned re: "imposing...that standard on others". Right? If it is "imposing" when Christians do it, what is it when pagans do the same???

[rm2]

Eric,

I liked what you wrote. I can see that you have thought a lot about the issue of "truth" and "bias".

As for the OP, I just want to say that the Bible was written many years ago and has had to survive many challenges. It is remarkable how well it has been preserved to our day. Yes, over the centuries, attempts were made to alter it in order to make it fit one idea or another. However, thanks to the work of dedicated historians and archeologists, we are now quite certain about what the original manuscripts said. Because of that, many spurious texts have been identified and removed from modern translations. Thanks to this, today’s translators are in a better position to translate the Bible than were people in the centuries that followed the dark ages, when some of the most popular translations (even today) where accomplished.

Of course, there is still the matter of translating it accurately and without bias. To that effect, I recommend the book "Truth in Translation" by David BeDuhn:

Amazon.com: Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament (9780761825562): Jason David BeDuhn: Books

Very enlightening on the subject.

[Ratmagiclady]

I agree with that, but that leads me to trying to understand the world, and science & reason. So I understand Gaia as the sum total of ecology and natural processes which luckily for us tend to keep the environment in balance, rather than 'personified' as a Pagan god which I see as a typical 'pathetic fallacy' and the first step on the road to talking about authoritarian gods which 'smite us' for being 'naughty' etc.

*peeking back in.* Well, on this, the problem with claiming 'science and reason' means the world and human experience thereof *are* purely mechanistic is that it tends to assume from the start what you're afraid of as 'the first step on the road:' really, that there's a singular authority laying down a singular set of 'laws,' which was pretty good for a while, (Particularly during 'the machine age,' when things were more ordinarily-comprehensible) but as the complexity of our understanding of the natural world *increases,* *science and reason themselves start getting treated like 'book-religion' (Either as one they cleave to or reject as a 'rival authority,') by those who either aren't so good at, trained in, or interested in it.

Which is probably why legalistic monotheism and science are so often seen as part of the same 'thing,' cause they kind of are... Competing for the same 'niche' in a lot of people's lives.

Even down to the 'belief first, then try to 'prove' it' modality.

I think our relationship with Mammagaia, (too often, lack of one) kind of shows it, actually: book monotheism tends to see the relationship as a hostile one, or Herself as at best fickle and needing to be dominated, science has perhaps so long treated that relationship as *indifferent* that even with terabytes and terabytes of *facts,* which of course may not say, 'This is the body of a Goddess, but sure *do* say it's past time we treated 'it' like one.'


'Belief' in this regard may not be 'existentially-crucial,' but it sure does *help one be aware,* ...and maybe not treat each other and the world like some zero-sum game of pain, punishment, pleasure, and 'sacrifice:' cause *as human beings we are not objective creatures. (Though we happen to be passing good at objectivity if we accept this) * We're *dreaming* creatures, first and foremost. And feeling animals second, the *thinking and labeling* is just part of what passes for fur and claws with us.

What this kind of means is the relationships are more important than the labels and laws. Cultures that, frankly, fear so much they can't navigate their own sleeping dreams are somnambulent at best in their waking ones.

As much as we know or think we do, too often we're afraid to apply it, or apply it badly because we're quite simply treating life as one might expect such a culture to treat our dreams: pushing away fears that came of treating dreams as 'evil,' and counting ourselves glad to be trapped in nonsense, when we're not dreaming of being stuck in rote tasks that seem important at the time. So it is for many in their waking, either fearing everything around or just sleepwalking and basically being trapped. Usually very much, either way, by struggling over what's 'real,' instead of experiencing it.

That's why I think at least relating to the world as *alive* in some way, it helps both life and one's capacity (not to mention desire) to *learn* the science, instead of arguing about what authority is 'real,' before one even starts.

Not incidentally, it also makes it a lot harder for charlatans to pull spiritual scams off on people, cause if you're in touch with the land and self-aware about it, you're already home.

Also, it so happens to help keep a handle on any worries about over-personifying the world or, shall we say the Gods, cause all you gotta do to see otherwise is breathe and look around.


Anyway, Ramblin:

7. Anyone who would tell another, "never forget what [the Bible] is and what it ain't", is not only personally pretty well decided on the matter, but is telling another to draw that conclusion as apparently the only reasonable one, too - which is contradictory in light of what that same person earlier condemned re: "imposing...that standard on others". Right? If it is "imposing" when Christians do it, what is it when pagans do the same??? ""

You're assuming I'm speaking from within Christian worldviews, which I'm quite familiar with, but I'm not so speaking.

What I mean is: It's a book. Calling it a *special* book doesn't change that. Without the reader reading, a book ain't much. It's an interactive thing, And it ain't the world, nor the ruler of it, nor the history and life of it. Also makes a pretty lousy lens, if more of a mirror than the salesclerks want to admit.

Maybe a piece of a song about a map, if you're very careful about it.

if we're talking about the difference between Judaism / Christianity and Paganism (though I confess considerable ignorance re: the latter, though I think I live among a brand of them up here in the Himalayan villages where I do the bulk of my photography these days)

Ah, unless I guess you're counting Tibetan Buddhists, maybe you mean Bon people or whatever local mixture? (Or, maybe you're in Nepal? ) Anyway, Western Pagans actually have a lot in common with, well, nearly everyone but Abrahamics, on a lot of things: you can be sure there's even a fair bit of cross-pollenation: we do tend to travel to *learn,* not convert. (And we do take a pretty dim view of missionaries, if you couldn't tell: we're pretty deeply aware of what getting colonized can do to a people: moreover, it's like leaning your food supply on monoculture: if everyone's the same, bad ideas propagate faster than good: a few sets of eyes on any given thing beats the same pair of eyes a few billion times over, looking at the same thing the same way 'or else' any day. )

Which brings us back to science: It's a good tool and an important language, but it shouldn't *become* the authoritarian religion the 'evangelicals' have been trying to make of it these many years.

And, frankly, that 'New Atheist' literature hasn't actually resulted in careful thought, observation, and reason, so much as an excuse for people to to snark at 'non-atheists' just as Abrahamic monotheists snark at non-Abrahamic-monotheists. (Just my luck, eh? Sometimes I feel like it's just not a real fight unless I'm taking fire from both sides of someone else's battle. )


Maybe thinking, reading, praying, *dreaming,* *doing,* ...*isn't a battle,* though, you know.

If all you have is a hammer, everyone else looks like a nail.

And whatever or whoever you're trying to nail down, it sucks to be a nail, and hammers aren't known for pretty faces either.

It's a book. It is what it is, and it ain't what it ain't. Making something *be* both what it is and what it ain't is either a lie, a joke, or poetry. Some might even say magic, for good, ill, a dance, or a laugh. Funny old world, ain't it?

[Ash]

The Bible 'debate' comes full circle many times with contributors to the discussion seemingly fixed in opinion...

What is a Christian? - PentaxForums.com
Islamophobia in Europe: Banning Minarets - PentaxForums.com
What/who wrote the bible? - PentaxForums.com
So my 2 Part Question - Is there absolute truth and who decides. - PentaxForums.com
What's your religious affiliation? - PentaxForums.com

[Ratmagiclady]

The Bible 'debate' comes full circle many times with contributors to the discussion seemingly fixed in opinion...

Well, Ash, it's kind of 'supposed' to be that way: we're talking about a darn circular thing: claims of Biblical authority are arguments for authority from authority ...of itself. The elaborations just make it seem like it's going somewhere, when it's a script that's been refined for centuries to the *purpose* of going nowhere but in circles: both monotheists and atheists proceeding from the assumption that if anyone 'wins' the argument, they get to dictate a 'one right way' for everyone to be, and there *is* no such animal.

This argument's just about keeping people busy and making certain books seem *important:* it's not *meant* to be resolvable, just to polarize and reinforce the notion there's 'authority' there, one way or the other.

[rm2]

The Bible 'debate' comes full circle many times with contributors to the discussion seemingly fixed in opinion...

What is a Christian? - PentaxForums.com
Islamophobia in Europe: Banning Minarets - PentaxForums.com
What/who wrote the bible? - PentaxForums.com
So my 2 Part Question - Is there absolute truth and who decides. - PentaxForums.com
What's your religious affiliation? - PentaxForums.com

I know what you mean. Even for someone like me that likes to talk about these subject, it can be intimidating to see how set in their ideas some people here are. But, I have to say that it is refreshing to have a place where one can openly discuss these issues. At least one can have a chance to voice a respectful opinion. Hopefully, it will be received in kind. Most places do not even allow that much:

I have been banned. An alien’s viewpoint

Most people are not really interested in getting to the bottom of these issues. However, I have seen several people change some very entrenched opinions lately. So that tells me that there are some humble and honest people still out there. (Honesty and humility are required to be able to change one's thinking in these matters.)

[DigiMack]

I don't consider myself religious as in the stereotypical sense of going to church on Sundays and making the yearly pilgrimage for religious events off the calender as a matter of fact, the last time i was in a church was to do my cousin's wedding

I am though a history buff of sorts and The Bible is just that too me, a book of historical events which may or may not have occurred; that's the funny thing about history, you don't truly know unless you've experienced it yourself in the making otherwise all knowledge is third party hand offs.
So far i've gotten one, King Jame's version and would like to know what else should i read?

Thanks.

As a "history buff", you may find the tome "MARTYRS' MIRROR" of interest (also referred to as "The Bloody Theater or Martyrs' Mirror"). Basically, it is the (factual) story of fifteen centuries of Christian martyrdom from the time of Christ to A.D. 1660. Once very widely read by "Anti-baptist" Pennsylvania Germans. While some of the early origional copies sell for many tens of thousands of dollars, you should be able to pick-up a more recent edition (used) for less than $30.
Incidently, to my knowledge, even the most recent editions have not been altered to make them more politically correct (they are what they are).
Enjoy! But don't come back on me if, after reading it, you can't sleep at nite.

[newmikey]

Eric,

As for the OP, I just want to say that the Bible was written many years ago and has had to survive many challenges. It is remarkable how well it has been preserved to our day. Yes, over the centuries, attempts were made to alter it in order to make it fit one idea or another. However, thanks to the work of dedicated historians and archeologists, we are now quite certain about what the original manuscripts said. Because of that, many spurious texts have been identified and removed from modern translations. Thanks to this, today’s translators are in a better position to translate the Bible than were people in the centuries that followed the dark ages, when some of the most popular translations (even today) where accomplished.

Of course, there is still the matter of translating it accurately and without bias. To that effect, I recommend the book "Truth in Translation" by David BeDuhn:

Amazon.com: Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament (9780761825562): Jason David BeDuhn: Books

Very enlightening on the subject.

Quite entertaining to see a book about the correct translation of the New Testament advertised as an argument in a discussion about creationism.

The New Testament is not now, and has never been a proper resource as it is dedicated to a different time and age than the one under discussion between evolutionists and creationists.

Certainly a false argument if I ever saw one. The source of your arguments all point towards on concerted PR effort out of the corner of the Jehova's Witness movement, in- and by- itself not unsuspected of manipulating facts, figures and people. Not a scientific source by any measurement, not even close. Not free of controversy even amongst your fellow christians.

Then your wild assumption/belief that "the Bible is a book of superior wisdom that has shown time and again its reliability, accuracy, and veracity. Even when predicting things in advance."

Again you mix & match arguments for creationism and against evolution with proof acquired from a book (or rather series of stories made into a book) that does not even consider creation to begin with. Creation was the subject of the Old Testament, not the new.

If the Bible has shown us anything, it is that its predictions have been disproven time and time again, that it is unreliable about simple basic things as time (your 6000 years argument), place and main actors.

The Bible (both OT and NT) are each at the pinnacle of human wisdom acquired at their respective times of writing, the most recent of which lies almost 2000 years in the past. Much wisdom has accumulated over those 2000 years and it is not to be found in the Bible to begin with.

I will not pretend I have an opinion as I missed that whole discussion, but I understand from your story here that you were triggered into a diatribe against "the evolution of species" by the word "evolution" where it was used in a totally different meaning.

You're an old hand at that particular forum, as I am, and you have read that forum's rules: "Refrain from discussing politics or religion. This is a global community, discussions on these subjects is sure to cause the start of a flame war and a disruption of the forums. Strictly Forbidden!"

You have the right to believe what you want and when invited, like on this forum, to advertise your beliefs. What you should not do is disguise religious beliefs of a somewhat sectarian nature as a kind of pseudo-science. What you should also not do is abuse the limited freedom on another forum by going expressly against the stated rules.

The difference between science and religion is that science believes it is right but is ready to be proven it is not, after which science actually changes. Religion simply knows it is right and does not change noticably over hundreds or thousands of years.

[DigiMack]

Everything evolves, even if ever so slowly, but things first need to be created before they can evolve.

Why look at the K-5. With the absence of stains and several Firmware updates, it has evolved into a remarkable camera.

[ihasa]

I know what you mean. Even for someone like me that likes to talk about these subject, it can be intimidating to see how set in their ideas some people here are. But, I have to say that it is refreshing to have a place where one can openly discuss these issues. At least one can have a chance to voice a respectful opinion. Hopefully, it will be received in kind. Most places do not even allow that much:

I have been banned. An alien’s viewpoint

Most people are not really interested in getting to the bottom of these issues. However, I have seen several people change some very entrenched opinions lately. So that tells me that there are some humble and honest people still out there. (Honesty and humility are required to be able to change one's thinking in these matters.)

rm2, your arguments against evolution are dishonest and superficial, cherry picking quotes from scientists who are working in the field of evolution to make it seem like the theory is on shaky ground. If that's "honesty and humility", Gaia help us!

In my mid twenties I started to question the beliefs that were handed to me by my parents and the society I grew up around. Among those beliefs was the theory of Evolution. After reading a few books on the subject, I came to the conclusion that Evolution is a myth based on circumstantial evidence and a biased religious belief.

Again, not sounding very humble. There are people who study ecology and evolution (the two things are inseparable) all their life, but you read a few books so you know better?

[GeneV]

3. I don't see the "literal / non-literal" view of the book in question as an issue being all that important if we're talking about the difference between Judaism / Christianity and Paganism (though I confess considerable ignorance re: the latter, though I think I live among a brand of them up here in the Himalayan villages where I do the bulk of my photography these days): a) There is a great deal in the bible that can only be literal and which in some cases has been unequivocally proven to be; b) there is a great deal that is very clearly not and is at times identified as such by the text itself (i.e., Jesus, "destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days" - referring to his body - or "I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done with him whatever they wished - referring to John the Baptist); and c) then there are those things which not all agree upon - though in many of those cases, I'm not sure it really matters all that much, because the spiritual lessons / realities in view still would seem to stand and point us generally in the same direction whether literal or not; a direction quite different from the pagan one, I think.

I'm curious about what has been unequivocally proven to be literally true in the Bible. There are many statements that are more probable than not, but unequivocally proven is a pretty high standard.

The same is true of determining which were intended to be taken literally and which not. The example of John 2:19 is an interesting one. Jesus is standing before the temple. He has just finished reprimanding the people for turning his father's house into a marketplace. He is asked what sign he would give of his authority, and he responds with the statement about rebuilding the temple. There is no contemporary description of where he is pointing. From their response, those present understood him to be talking about the Temple which the Jewish people built in 43 years. The author felt the need to step back from describing the events almost a century after Jesus' death, and add an editorial comment to explain that Jesus was talking about his own body. Without commenting on the truth of the observation, it seems that intent was apparent to no one present, and can't be determined from the statement, alone.

There is no editorial clarification about many parables. Are they true events or not? Was there a good Samaritan or a prodigal son? There is no editorial clarification about the creation story, either. Why are so many so sure that it was intended to describe the details of the birth of the universe, rather than a message about a cause?

[rm2]

Quite entertaining to see a book about the correct translation of the New Testament advertised as an argument in a discussion about creationism.

I'm glad you found it amusing. But, the reason I used that reference was not to entertain you. You see there is quite a controversy about the proper way to translate certain verses of the Bible. As that book shows, some translators have allowed their already held beliefs to influence the way they render some difficult passages. The book by Mr BeDuhn is a fascinating exploration of how, bias can enter into the translation of such an important work.

In this thread the link to that book is directly related to the OP (original post) topic. On the blog article I wrote, to which you are likely alluding to, I used it for a couple of reasons. The first one was because I wanted to make use of an insightful comment regarding bias found in that book. The second time I used it was more profound. As you are surely aware of, many people are skeptical, or even completely dismissive, of the Bible's claim to be the inspired "word of God". Some people claim that the original message of the Bible has been lost because of corruption of its text over time. As I explained there, that is simply not true. People also try to discredit the Bible by using certain mistranslated verses as proof that the Bible is nonsensical. That is the reason I brought this book up. Even people who believe that the Bible is the word of God need to examine the Bible that they choose to study to ensure that they are indeed reading what the original manuscripts actually said.

Please note that I do not use the Bible as the basis for my belief in intelligent design. The proof of that is in the design themselves. While the Bible is not a book meant to teach us the secrets of creation, it is always accurate when it speaks about scientific topics. It says very little about how the earth and life where created. But, that precious little is very useful, at least to many of us, as an aid to make the proper inferences from the available evidence.

By the way, I do not consider myself a "creationist" as the term is closely associated with those who believe that the world was created in 7 literal days, a belief to which I do not subscribe.

The New Testament is not now, and has never been a proper resource as it is dedicated to a different time and age than the one under discussion between evolutionists and creationists.

Actually, the Bible is very relevant today, as it has always been. Maybe not as a book where one can learn about science, but certainly as a book that holds the most reliable and inspiring wisdom ever recorded. The book stores of the world are filled with books offering advise and guidance on many subjects of primary importance to human happiness. Often these books, have to be revised and be brought up to date. This is not the case with the Bible. While some of its precepts were only meant for a specific time and people, the general principles and the whole of the Christian scriptures are universally applicable and always beneficial, regardless of the culture or time in history one lives in. Read the sublime "sermon of the mount" (Matthew chapters 5 through 7) as an example.

Certainly a false argument if I ever saw one. The source of your arguments all point towards on concerted PR effort out of the corner of the Jehova's Witness movement, in- and by- itself not unsuspected of manipulating facts, figures and people. Not a scientific source by any measurement, not even close. Not free of controversy even amongst your fellow christians.

Some people call it a "PR effort", other people see it as fulfillment of Jesus' words (Matthew 24:14). Regardless, I do not speak for Jehovah's witnesses. I speak only for myself. However, I do have to give credit to them for a lot of what I know, especially in regards to my understanding of the Bible. Of course it is controversial, especially among "Christians". But that is to be expected. And no one can accuse the witnesses of being secretive about their beliefs or about the basis of those beliefs. They are all out there for people to examine them and make their own conclusions.

Jehovah's Witnesses: Watchtower Society Official Web Site

I did, and as millions others, agreed with them. Others disagree. I find that this usually happens for emotional, rather than logical, reasons. I like to respectfully discuss these differences of opinion with those that are open minded. Doing that I have been able to overcome certain prejudices and misconceptions some people hold. But, I respect the right people have to make their own choices and to follow their own beliefs. I am sure you do to. We can be grateful for that.

Then your wild assumption/belief that "the Bible is a book of superior wisdom that has shown time and again its reliability, accuracy, and veracity. Even when predicting things in advance."

Again you mix & match arguments for creationism and against evolution with proof acquired from a book (or rather series of stories made into a book) that does not even consider creation to begin with. Creation was the subject of the Old Testament, not the new.

I hope I clarified above the reasons for bringing up the Bible in the discussion of evolution. If you read the comments of my blog post you can see that this is so.

If the Bible has shown us anything, it is that its predictions have been disproven time and time again, that it is unreliable about simple basic things as time (your 6000 years argument), place and main actors.

Care to give an example?

The Bible (both OT and NT) are each at the pinnacle of human wisdom acquired at their respective times of writing, the most recent of which lies almost 2000 years in the past. Much wisdom has accumulated over those 2000 years and it is not to be found in the Bible to begin with.

See above for my viewpoint on this often stated assumption.

I will not pretend I have an opinion as I missed that whole discussion, but I understand from your story here that you were triggered into a diatribe against "the evolution of species" by the word "evolution" where it was used in a totally different meaning.

Actually, it was more than the simple use of the word "evolution". The fact that the post you are referring to contained a link to a website dedicated to the propagation of the idea that Biological Evolution is a fact is what made me initially give a light hearted comment about it. People took issue with my comment and the discussion started. That initial discussion was purged from the thread and I do not have a record of it. What I posted on my blog was what ensued afterward.

You're an old hand at that particular forum, as I am, and you have read that forum's rules: "Refrain from discussing politics or religion. This is a global community, discussions on these subjects is sure to cause the start of a flame war and a disruption of the forums. Strictly Forbidden!"

You have the right to believe what you want and when invited, like on this forum, to advertise your beliefs. What you should not do is disguise religious beliefs of a somewhat sectarian nature as a kind of pseudo-science. What you should also not do is abuse the limited freedom on another forum by going expressly against the stated rules.

Yes, I was out of line. I should have just ignore the post. Oh well. But, I believe I already admitted that a couple of times on my blog. I don't know why you feel the need to rub it in.

The difference between science and religion is that science believes it is right but is ready to be proven it is not, after which science actually changes. Religion simply knows it is right and does not change noticably over hundreds or thousands of years.

For some religious people that is the case. Jehovah's witnesses do not see religion this way. They are interested in finding the truth. That is why, as their knowledge of the Bible has deepened, they have been willing to change their official position on certain doctrines. They are free from what Mr BeDuhn calls "the protestant burden".

He states that Protestantism "was and is a reformation of an already fully developed form of Christianity: Catholicism", and that "it did not re-invent Christianity from scratch, but carried over many of the doctrines that had developed within Catholicism over the course of the previous thousand years and more. In this sense, one might argue that the Protestant Reformation is incomplete, that it did not fully realize the high ideals that were set for it". He goes on to explain how this "burden" has affected the impartiality of the Protestant churches when translating the Bible. But as for Jehovah's witnesses, a group he does not belong to for whatever reason, he has this to say:

"... the Jehovah's Witness movement was and is a more radical break with the dominant Christian tradition of the previous millennium [...] This movement has, unlike the Protestant Reformation, really sought to re-invent Christianity from scratch. Whether you regard that as a good or a bad thing, you can probably understand that it resulted in the Jehovah's Witnesses approaching the Bible with a kind of innocence, and building their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there."

Since meeting Jehovah's witnesses, I have seen adjustments in their understanding of some Bible teachings that are not easily understood. And I am sure there will be more to come. They always explain in detail the reasons and the basis for such adjustments. I find that refreshing and reassuring. This is what one would expect from a religion that seeks the truth. As Proverbs 4:18 states: "But the path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established."