Okay, so I started researching the Bible, and I'm more confused than ever....

What initially got me started was my desire to see if the statements I hear people (Okay, the GOP) make referring to the Bible are actually stated accurately, or in the right context or with some measure of reason. The gay marriage argument, for example. Or marriage in general. Or abortion. I am just getting more and more confused.

A few questions:

-- 1 --
I found at least 15 current versions in English alone. If you read/follow/worship with a Bible, which version do you use?

-- 2 --
Have you ever used or studied a different one and switched? If so, did you find any substantive differences in meaning or message from one to another?

-- 3 --
It seems reasonable to me that given the centuries upon centuries of versions, originally written antiquated languages that very different from their modern forms, and cultural, even political biases might have naturally been taken on.
So, how would anyone definitively know, that these early translators understood the original meaning in it's original language form? Or be able to say, with some level of authority, that throughout (and despite) all these translations, interpretations, modernizations, etc, that one version, passage or meaning is more accurate than another?

-- 4 --
All of which leads me to back to wondering about the issues in dispute today: If subjective interpretation is assumed, then the arguments about what is specifically "right" or "wrong" or "sinful" or deserving of some other negative judgment? Take homosexuality, for example. It seems that there is a large number of people who agree that the Bible decries homosexuality as a sin. But from what I've read, it is no more or less a sin than adultery, and no one is having marches or voicing hate speech demanding that the Constitution be amended to include a specific law be incorporating stricter enforcement against adultery (which includes pre-marital and post-divorce sex - the latter for women, anyway)?

Am I being to naive to look at this so simplistically?


Thanks in advance for any responses and apologies for the long post...

Trust me.

surrounding literal interpretation of the Bible.

If only there were journalists with the analytical skills of DUers...

Thanks, too. : )

Strict.

it's good enough for the whole country, by jingo!

The only way to take the bible as the literal word of god is never to read it.

Fundamentalist churches do a very good job of flimflamming their members into focusing in on only a few very carefully chosen parts of the bible via issuing bible study workbooks that do so. Problem solved, since leisure time is spent completing the workbooks instead of straying outside prescribed limitations into the dangerous territory of self contradiction.

Yet one more powerful argument for not transforming interpretation into law. : )

Sounds like something that you'd think would be impossible, doesn't it?

Dangerous territory, indeed...

Appendix: Chapter Four
Bible translations

It has been estimated that there are more than five hundred English translations of the Bible. Translations are often classified on a scale from formal or “word for word” equivalence to functional (also known as dynamic) or “thought for thought” equivalence. For demonstration purposes, here are several different translations of Ezekiel 23:20, from most formal to most functional.

“For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.” (King James Version)

“There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.” (New International Version)
http://www.getraptureready.com/appendix/chapter-four/bible-translations.php
http://www.getraptureready.com/appendix/


http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/


http://www.bhpublishinggroup.com/buildabible/

is the literal word of God...why don't they read it in the original Hebrew?

Surely the original Jewish Bible is the most authentic version...?

:shrug:

I recently took a Bible study on one book and the teacher did mention several times what certain words meant in the original language, what the connotations would mean. It really does make a difference, although we were not studying anything considered controversial.

(2) In older versions like the King James, the translations of certain Old Testament passages were influenced by references to those passages in the New Testament. Newer translations tend to be more ethical.

(3) You can go much further than that and ask how we can know the books of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocryphal">Apocrypha were properly separated from the canon and that the books included in the Bible are absolutely God-inspired while the books omitted are absolutely not.

(4) It's a lot easier if you just accept that what you're reading is nothing more than the imaginative scribblings of our primitive, ignorant ancestors.

Some of us are not particularly attached to any one version, since the earliest manuscripts don't all agree entirely and since translational issues have been well-known for centuries -- such as the apparent mistranslation that led Michaelangelo to depict Moses with horns upon his head

Since the texts have been the object of continuous study and commentary, the problem of reconstructing meanings is eased somewhat (though not entirely) by recorded traditions: in Judaism, for example, the old Hebrew scrolls have been carefully recopied for several millenia, whereas the Christian texts are in classical Greek, which is another language which has been continuously studied (unlike, say, texts written in cuneiform or in Egyptian hieroglyphic -- both of which had to be decoded in more modern times). In my view, it is not at all unreasonable to inquire into political biases potentially embedded in the texts

How one weights various aspects of the texts depends on one views of the texts: a person who insists that a text must be read literally, in an eternal and unchanging way, will draw different conclusions than a person who regards the text as the footprint of an understanding from a particular historical time

knees and it would have been brilliant. (I know that's not your point...). Thank you for your insight and knowledge. I've been reading that the Bible was originally written in a classical (archaic? not sure if that's the right word) of both Hebrew and Greek, but I had yet to find an explanation - so thank you.

I completely agree with you on context, meaning, history - and I love your last paragraph...

It reinforces and perpetuates one of the things I'm most confused about, which is how subjective interpretation gets itself turned in to what I have basically assumed to be a largely secular (not sure if that's the right word) and deliberately separate of government and it's rule of law...

I know, there is swearing on the Bible for just about every elected official, swearing to God that testimony is truthful, it's in our national songs and on our money.... but I do believe the Founders (think it was them) who realized the importance the whole church/state thing... The Constitution is an amazing document - which we also do not take literally (at least in certain respects, as the specifics aren't acceptable in the literal sense, today...

I see a huge difference between the ritual formality of a senator swearing to God on his/her Bible to fulfill the duties of public service, and legislation being enacted or the Constitution amended and made into law based on the belief that the Bible demands that it's rules be followed (or, at least the ones in fashion at any given moment) by everyone whether they worship the Bible or not, see a different interpretation or practice Buddhism or Muslim faith in the privacy of their own homes, or who don't practice or follow anything but their own moral compass.

But I have many more questions and theories - religion an absolutely engrossing thing to study and discuss... : )

I like the translation, I like the great study notes that deal with the composition of the Bible as well as the themes. Plus, it has the Apocrypha as well. Recommended by this crazy atheist!

but it seemed to show up around 500 BC. Things were different back then. : ) They were still trying to work out the whole monotheistic vs. polytheistic - in real time. How confusing THAT must've been!

I don't know why so many translated have felt compelled to recreate the wheel. Normally the translation will not affect the general sense of the text, but occasionally it does. The most important rule is to NOT use a paraphrase like The Living Bible (if it is a paraphrase, it will be marked).

A good modern accurate translation is the New International Version. It was also based on the most ancient text available, which the King James and Revised Standard were not. Catholic Bibles (like the Douay, the Jerusalem Bible, etc) include fourteen additional books which were in a gray area and which Martin Luther kicked out of the canon.

As far as your question #3, in most cases I don't believe the translation is what makes the crucial difference in most cases. It is more the hermeneutics -- the rules of interpretation and how they are applied to individual passages. And with an incindiary subject like this, there are many approaches. It is safe to say that homosexual activity was condemned wherever it comes up. Whether Christians should take it as a universal permanent rule is where the controversy is.

Yes, there is definitely an emotional double standard in regard to adultery versus homosexual activity. You could argue that it reflects various parts of the Bible, but it's a matter of judgment.

By paraphrase, you mean the "page notes" or whatever they're called that I think may be in red text next to the original text to help clarify meaning?

So - wait. I don't it. I'm guessing you're not saying that the real text ought to be honored or followed in a more literal sense? That's confusing because even the most ardent fundamentalists interpret and pick and choose what is important and what they ignore. I don't think I understand your thought (no surprise, there... ) : ) Especially, when, as you say, much of this is a matter of judgment.

Sorry if my questions are trying.

It's not "Thou shalt not KILL", it's "Thou shalt not MURDER." Huge distinction when you're defending you family, self, country, tribe or whatever.

Additionally, there seems to be some small print missing from "Honor thy mother and thy father." Apparently, the parents have to honor their children as well before the contract kicks in. Got one of those "I'm out spending my children's inheritance" bumper stickers on your RV? Go to Hell, go straight to Hell.

Just two of my favorites, but if they got the biggest things wrong, imagine what they did to the finer points of the teachings.

from what I understand. There seem to be different versions, wording, etc. depending on denomination (I think). Heck, I thought I read yesterday that some faiths have (or had?) up to 15 Commandments (but I can't find the link, so I'm not sure on that).

I haven't read where "honor thy children" is part of that (?) I'd be interested to read up on that if you happen to have a link...

Clearly, this was not the case for Moses, his mother abandoned him (in a river, no less) according to the Bible...

One thing that I have never understood is when those who profess to be uber-faithful/religious (at least the ones I've seen in the news, friends and relatives, etc.) are highly selective in which Commandments they chose to live by, or choose to ignore. I can't stand it when these things work themselves into political platforms - especially when the "moral" right do things, promote or fight for things that would destroy the elderly (like their parents). Makes me ill.

Another thing I don't understand is the premise that one can't be moral unless one adheres to the word of and worships God. That's just not true...

So - I'm wondering... Are the Ten Commandments supposed to be more "powerful" because they're Commandments, or are they no more or less important than any directives in the Proverbs, for example. I wonder why they're separate - or whether that is significant (or not)? hm...

I was talking about the original version in the Torah, a.k.a., the Old Testament. Think about the differences and motives between murder (greed, lust, envy, hate) and killing in defense of self, family, country, etc... and it's obvious that no sane person would have changed "murder" for "kill". It doesn't make any sense.

And no, the language for "Honor thy Children" wasn't front-loaded in that commandment. From my limited reading of the subject, it basically says "Honor thy Mother and thy Father, unless they're using the shit out of you and your property and disrespecting you or your spouse." Basically, you have no obligation to mean and nasty people, even if they are family. However, you do have an obligation to try to make things work.

I am pretty sure that was the implied meaning by whoever first wrote down the text in question, but to decide that we have to extrapolate. The word certainly does NOT mean only "murder" in ancient Hebrew, although it has a more limited meaning in modern Hebrew. The word is "ratsach". Its etymology comes from words expressing tearing apart or smashing to pieces. It's used in the OT many dozens of times, in scenarios that include being killed by a lion (lions I assume we agree cannot murder) as well as a specifically legal and in fact commanded execution of murderers (we may or may not think execution is murder now, but in the context of the texts it is obviously not seen as such and is divinely sanctioned countless times).

Again, it's pretty much certain that the commandment is not telling Jews they should be Jain-like and avoid all killing in any sense, or much of the Bible becomes even more basically contradictory than it already is. No doubt the law is intended against unlawful killing, but a)all kinds of killing were lawful then and there that would not be now and here and b) that's definitely NOT the specific definition of the word as used.

The NJB is the best scholarly translation. The texts used in each case were the earliest ones available in their original languages -- Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek.

It is heavily footnoted. The footnotes are wonderful and explain some of the subtleties of translation, highlight literary cross references and even references to other existing religions. For example, one footnote explains that the Old Testament term for Satan, Ba‘al Zebûb (from which we get Belzebub), is probably an insulting pun against the god of other Semitic groups, that conflates "Lord of high places" with "Lord of the Flies."

The NJB has extensive essays (ie not Bible text) explaining how the books were written and what they have been interpreted to mean by scholars.

It's a very eye opening experience to study it. The takeaway for me is that in divinity school, using the NJB, they kind of tell aspiring clergy what the Bible "really says" as opposed to what they then have to go out and tell the lay audience what they want to hear. Most American Protestants are familiar with the King James version which is written in beautiful Shakespearean English, but isn't a very accurate translation.

I highly recommend it, and hope you'll find it lots of fun to read.

...don't apologize for writing a "long post". More people should be doing so when addressing relatively complex issues and what you wrote was nowhere near long. It's about one page in a book. If anyone here finds it a burden to read a single page on a subject like this they need to go the hell away and let grown-ups discuss it.

As for your questions:

1 and 2: If you're planning on looking at things literally then obviously the translation matters a great deal. If on the other hand you're planning on approaching the subject matter like a sane person, which I will assume you are, then I've found pretty much any translation gets things close enough to every other one, just avoid any that abandon trying to directly translate at all and go straight to paraphrasing in their own words. They have possible value as commentaries, none as source material if you're trying to study the bible directly.

3: Lacking the originals and a person from that contemporary time period to place them in the proper context, which nobody has of course, it's basically an educated guessing game. You're making a judgement call on how accurately the translations were performed from a technical standpoint... how much or little they were influenced either intentionally or unintentionally by the views of the translator, etc...

Nobody really definitively knows exactly how accurate the modern translations are in either content or spirit.

4. Pretty much. When it comes to actual practice it all breaks down to personal biases. People constantly pick and choose what they think God was "serious" about being a sin and what is kind of a minor infraction, despite the fact that their own theology also declares that all sins are considered mortal by God which is why nobody can get to Heaven without Jesus as their loophole to get them through the screening process even if they haven't committed any of the supposed "biggies" like murder, etc...

Is there any particular aspect of the bible you were looking to study? I find the four gospel accounts make for loads of fun when you try to stitch all the details in each one together into a single narrative of what is supposed to have happened instead of four different stories where the differences are shrugged off as being due to the vantage points of different authors. I have yet to manage to successfully do it without the result looking like a bad monty python sketch or something. It seems like Mark up to 16:8 was probably written first (both because it makes sense within the larger context of the collection of Gospels and because the earliest surviving manuscripts stop at that point), Matthew was written last, and between those two a LOT of embellishments were added. So we end up starting with Mark saying "Hey, Jesus's body is missing and I heard from this guy with a white robe on that he rose from the dead!" and by the time we get to Matthew many years later we end up with "There was a mighty earthquake! And angels descended from heaven and scared the guards into submission and rolled the rock away from the tomb! And Jesus was up and walking around! People totally SAW him! And, and, and the city authorities are engaged in a cover-up conspiracy, don't listen to them when they say some people just came and stole the body!!!"

It's kind of funny actually, it lays out like a classic snowballing rumor growing and growing in the retelling. Of course it would be funnier if it wasn't for the fact that so many people believe it all actually happened and act on that basis.

What would you say to this?

http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/harmony.html

I am just curious to get your opinion on that.

I'd say that that "harmonization" quietly snipped an awful lot of content out when it was writing it's little summary of what happened to make everything look like it flows right.

For example, just looking at the resurrection accounts since they're really the crux of the whole story and I have no desire to step through the entire gospel narrative in this post:

First Event: Listed as Matthes 28:2-4... and conspicuously absent from all other accounts.

"Angel rolls the stone away".

Ummm... ok. Notice they just kind of ignore the violent earthquake. Probably because it's easier to argue that all other accounts just forgot to mention who was responsible for rolling away the stone but rather difficult to explain how every other account somehow forgot to mention the whole earth violently shaking accompanying the lord and savior of the authors supposedly rising from the grave. You'd think that would be the kind of minor detail that would tend to stick in people's minds and show up across multiple tellings.

Also there's the matter of the description of said angel, which becomes important later and which is also absent from the cliff notes version of the harmonization.

Second event: They list this as what occurs in Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1-4, Luke 24:1-3 and John 20:1. What do they say happens here?

"Women come at dawn with spices."

The passages they list go into rather more detail than that obviously. Like, for instance, the fact that John quite specifically says they went to the tomb and found the stone rolled away while it was still dark, while Luke equally specifically says they went after sunrise... a time when it is, in my own experience at least, very much not "still dark".

But ok, let's shrug that off as minor and just assume one of them explained the time poorly or something. Who cares if it was before or after sunrise right? (Unless you're an inerrantist, a.k.a. a crazy person... then this needs explaining along with the other million things that contradict each other in the bible if you take it too seriously)

Third event: Listed as Matthew 28:5-7, Mark 16:5-7, Luke 24:4-8

"Angels appear to women."

Again... vague summaries are their friend here. In Mark, the women are said to have met a rather nondescript and apparently unremarkable young man dressed in a white robe sitting inside the tomb when they arrive. In Luke they are said to have entered the tomb to find it empty, then two men suddenly "appear" beside them dressed in clothes that "gleamed like lightning". Then by the time we get to Matthew we have a no-bones-about-it angel with "an appearance like lightning" who paralyzes Roman guards with fear with it's mere presence sitting on the rock outside the tomb when the women show up. Nice little progression huh?

Calling all three of those events nothing more than "angels appear to women" as if they all said basically the same thing happened seems a stretch. And let's not forget what John says happened here, which they just leave out entirely. He sayd Mary showed up, saw the stone rolled away, and immediately ran for it to go tell someone that "they've taken the Lord out of the tomb and we don't know where they put him" which is kind of hard to reconcile with the other three accounts where the women are specifically told Jesus rose when they show up at the tomb.

Fourth event: Listed as Matthew 28:8, Mark 16:8, Luke 24: 9-11, John 20:2

"Women run to tell disciples."

Woah... hold on now. Mark 16:8, last time I checked, said something rather like "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." That's kind of the opposite of running to tell the disciples. (Mark 16: 9 then proceeds to spin on it's heel and reverse course on that in a rather sharp U-turn of course... which is another strong indication (on top of the earliest surviving copies ending at this point) that somebody decided to do a little creative editing job on the story later on and give the story some more spice.)

And... well, you get the idea. If you step through the rest yourself you'll see this happening a lot.

Fifth and sixth event: Luke 24:12, John 20:3-10

"Peter and John inspect the empty tomb"
"Peter and John go home"

Well... ok. You could stretch and say that's consistent with all four accounts. Matthew says after the women ran off they encountered Jesus before they ever even made it to the disciples to tell them there was an empty tomb to inspect which you would think would warrant a mention (but it's easier if it's ignored, as seen later)... neither Matthew nor Mark ever mention any disciples inspecting the tomb at all with Mark seeming to say the disciples simply dismissed the reports from the women until they saw Jesus, and Luke only says Peter went... but whatever.

Seventh and Eighth event: John 20:11-13.. and absent from all three other accounts

"Mary Magdalene stands weeping by tomb"
"Mary sees two angels"

...and, one more time, vagueness is the friend of the person doing the harmonizing here. Those passages do not just have angels appearing to Mary. They have dialog. Significant dialog. Namely the angels ask her why she's standing there weeping and, yet again, John makes it clear that in it's version of this story the women never met any angels who explained one single thing to them until this very moment when she states, for the second time, that "They have taken my Lord away, and I don't know where they have put him". She still thinks someone has walked off with the body and stashed it somewhere. Up until this point in John there is not word one of Jesus having risen from the dead and the content of the account makes it clear this hasn't occurred to the parties involved yet, when in the other three accounts the women have all been clearly informed that Jesus rose from the dead... in Luke the informing being done by men who at least have garments that identify them as being in some way remarkable and in Matthew by an unmistakable angelic being no less. And here's Mary faced with angels, for the SECOND time if we believe the harmonization, telling them she doesn't know what happened after already having been told, BY ANGELS, that Jesus rose from the dead? Is she calling them liars or something so she didn't believe them the first time? If so, brave girl. Angels weren't exactly seen as being all sweetness and light and compassionate understanding back then. That's asking for a smiting that is.

Ninth event: Mark 16:9, John 20:14-17

"Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene"

According to the harmonization the first direct Jesus sighting. After the women have already been to the disciples, told their story, two of the disciples have come back to the tomb, inspected it, and left.

Luke never mentions Jesus appearing to Mary at all so you could just argue it was left out there... but are we just going to continue to ignore the fact that in Matthew 28:8-10 it says Jesus already appeared to the women while they were on their way to tell the disciples about the empty tomb? Apparently so, since:

Tenth event: Matthew 28:9-10

"Jesus appears to the other women"

Hey, THERE'S the Matthew appearance. It has somehow been transposed in time to after the informing of the disciples despite it specifically saying in Matthew that this happened as the women were on their way to tell the disciples what happened. That little detail has been completely ignored here.

Eleventh event: Mark 16:10-11, John 20:18

"Women report to the disciples"

Deja vu... they report again? We're well past this point already. If Peter and John have already run off to the tomb to inspect the thing, which the harmonization told us occurred all the way back at event number five, then the event that CAUSED them to run off and inspect it has already happened. And that event, as Luke rather clearly lays out, is the women reporting "to the eleven and all the others" what had happened. So, what... they were all subsequently struck by short term memory loss and forgot that happened, so they all repeated the entire scene?

This is the kind of monty-python-esque comedy that I was talking about resulting when people try to fit these things together. I mean seriously... this is just silly.

Etc...

I appreciate your response to my question. I was debating someone on issues such as these and was told about the "harmony" of the gospels books that exist. That website is obviously very vague and you pointed out many excellent examples of taking liberties. This website, http://www.dokimos.org/mmlj/ is a more "detailed" but I'm sure the same problems arise...such as leaving out key details and passages.

Also, do you have a link where I can see that the earliest surviving manuscripts stop at Mark 16:8? I don't want to be one of those people who is too lazy to look it up, but I have been unsuccessful on googling this.

Thanks again for your reponse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

Yes, I know... wikipedia. But it's actually fairly common knowledge. Heck, they even make the note directly in the bible in many cases... such as in this online version:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016

and this one:

http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Mark+16

Both of which include the disclaimers right in the text between verses 8 and 9.

Of course if you ask christian biblical scholars about it, although most of them will acknowledge it, many of them will say something like obviously the original ending was "lost" and some helpful individual later just filled in the details that were, of course, supposed to be there all along anyway. Because really... how could you possibly have a Gospel that didn't mention Jesus actually being seen risen from the dead? That's just silly talk that is.


Edit: And as for the 'more detailed' harmonization you linked, it appears to just list the full text from the gospels side by side in a rough chronological order and not even make the attempt of explaining away the discrepancies. So, it's not so much more detailed as just... wordier.

Thanks for the links...very interesting information there to say the least. A few people I know claim the resurrection is the big reason to believe in god because of all the eye witnesses. It does seem rather "odd" that after Mark 16:8, things start getting grander and grander.

I am interested in the development of religion and its influence on civilization. As the Old Testament is the foundation for three major religions, it's an important part of my study. However, to gain an understanding of the Old Testament, it helps to do some research on the religions of the ancient world which predated or influenced the development of Biblical text. Joseph Campbell wrote an excellent but fairly deep series of books on mythology, The Masks of God.

For example, two versions of creation are given in Genesis. The two versions differ significantly. In the second, the familiar Garden of Eden story, we find a garden, four rivers, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge and a serpent. This story resembles an older Sumerian myth which also had a garden, four rivers, a serpent but only one tree. A quick summery of the Sumerian myth can be found at:

http://www.ericnunnally.net/?p=171

The story of Noah and the ark is also common to many religions. Check out:

http://history-world.org/floods.htm

If you study the Old Testament you may find, as I did, that often the God portrayed is not always a kind, loving God. So beware. For example after the walls of Jericho fell all the inhabitants, men women and children, were put to the sword except for Rahab the prostitute and her family. Rahab had provided sanctuary for two Israelite spies. (The historical accuracy of this story is questionable.)

The Old Testament does condemn homosexuality:

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" (Lev 18:22).

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act." Leviticus 20:13.

The New Testament and Christ make few mention of homosexuality and indeed in some cases the correct translation may pose a problem.

Often it's difficult to interpret what the Hebrew or Greek terms actually meant in the times they were written.

In the Old Testament one of the Ten Commandments (the seventh) states:

Thou shall not commit adultery.

But adultery had a different meaning in those days.

The ancient Hebrews in particular had a very restricted understanding of the concept and limited it to just sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who was either already married or at least betrothed. The marital status of the man was irrelevant. Thus, a married man was not guilty of “adultery” for having sex with an unmarried woman.
http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandments/a/commandment07.htm

Studying and gaining an understanding of the Bible and its' message is an intimidating task that could take years. Remember this when you hear people preach to you what the Bible teaches. If all they have is a background of listening to a preacher at a pulpit, I would doubt that their opinion has any real relevance.






The Bible I use most often is The New Oxford Annotated Bible

http://www.amazon.com/Annotated-Apocrypha-Augmented-Revised-Standard/dp/0195288807/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242327251&sr=8-1

I find it very useful to use other books to explain the Bible as I read it. I would recommend:

Don't Know Much about the Bible ... Kenneth C. Davis

Biblical Literacy ... Rabbi Joseph Telushkin

How to Read the Bible ... Marc Zv Brettler

It's important to understand all that you've outlined when reading the Bible. Important to understand its value lies not in factual truth, but in a larger lesson that includes some history, some allegory, etc.

And yes, scholars very much disagree on the meaning of the two big "clobber" verses often used to justify bigotry against homosexuals. There is a great deal of room for disagreement with the notion that the letters attributed to Paul especially are actually referring to homosexual relationships, rather than, say, pagan temple worship, which might include sex: that of hetero men with male temple prostitutes, for instance.

Those who both claim inerrancy and that homosexuality is a huge sin are kidding themselves, I think.

And yes, I also agree that even if you agree that the verses condemn homosexuality, then homosexuality would just be one of many, many sins humans commit daily - and certainly no worse than adultry. But of course, condemning adulterers and treating them as gay folk are treated would be a problem, since so many of the "Bible believing" (or whatever exclusive term they use for themselves on the authoritarian right of Christianity) are committing that one daily. THEY can't be the bad guys in their narrative!

The common belief is that time is money. That's crap. Time is limited. It's much more valuable than money. People paying you wages are buying your life. What's it worth?


That religious crap ain't gonna get you nowhere.

Think about coconuts

interesting angle is to look at the politics of the time. Elaine Pagels wrote a really interesting book on it called Adam, Eve and the Serpent. When you take a look at the people in power (the romans) during that time certain practices such as homosexuality were socially acceptable. So in order to separate yourself from the status quo you would condone it. I am of course simplifying it but I do recommend it great read.

Another thing to keep in mind is that it condones things like homosexuality but casually talks about incest and other assorted acts as though they are no big deal.

Thomas Jefferson was against the “corruptions” of Christianity as portrayed in the Bible, and he was against the religious bigotry and hypocrisy of arrogant, self-important and self-righteous people who claimed to be Christian authorities.

Jefferson even compiled a reformed version of the gospels to rescue the philosophy of Jesus and the "pure principles which he taught," from the “corruptions and artificial vestments” which were established as “instruments of riches and power” for church patriarchs. Jefferson concluded that Jesus never claimed to be God, and he regarded much of the New Testament as corrupted with "palpable interpolations and falsifications." In other words, Jefferson separated ethical and true teachings from the religious doctrine and dogma and other fictional supernatural elements that were intermixed in the gospels between the mid-first century and the fourth century when the Christian Bible was compiled and edited. Jefferson called his book “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted Textually from the Gospels.” He didn’t publish it, because he regarded religious beliefs as a private matter. But now people know it as The Jefferson Bible.

In other words, you have to take the Bible with a grain of salt, because while there is still much truth in it, there is also much misleading nonsense and myths.