How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (1 Viewer)

[IvanKaramazov]

You know I can understand how among a community of believers the certain stylistic flair of the King James Version of the bible can be appealing. But if one's goal is to meet people where they are and spread the good news I cannot imagine how that this text is helpful for more than a tiny subset of people. Seems like more of expecting people to come to you then the other way around.

Agreed. I like the KJV in small doses, but it's not the version that I'm going to pull off the shelf if I'm reading a passage seriously. People should just pick whatever translation they're most comfortable with. If they want a paraphrase like The Message, fine. I hate that personally, but whatever works for you.

It important that the translation doesn't leave out important words that change doctrines and some do. Personally, I don't like the paraphrase versions because they and change the meaning of passages to make them mean what they want them to rather than what it actually says.

I understand why people feel this way, but I totally disagree for pretty much the same reason as BFS. Adults vary widely in their reading ability. If somebody reads a paraphrase and that helps them find Jesus, mission accomplished. If they end up with a screwy idea about the trinity or dispensationalism or something, so what. People who get hung up on that stuff aren't the ones who are reading paraphrases in the first place.

 

[Zow]

Grace is when God does something for you that you cannot do for yourself.

Like send you to hell for eternity if you don’t have faith. Quite graceful.

That's the one thing God requires of us all. How can God trust you with anything if you don't trust Him?

Because H/he created us in his own image (as the theory goes)?

 

[dgreen]

Regarding translations, I think it's important to consider that they are all interpretations. That's just the nature of translating. We use the word "translation" which might make us feel like we're getting something that we don't actually have, so personally I prefer to think of any translation I read as that translator's interpretation. And I don't say that as a knock. I'm not qualified to criticize their work. It's interesting how much I hear average Christians criticize "scholarship" and "academics" while probably not realizing the amount of academic scholarship that went into their favorite translation. I'm really grateful for all the translation work that has happened. I think we're continually getting better and better translations and I assume future generations will have even better translations.

 

[Captain Cranks]

It's interesting how much I hear average Christians criticize "scholarship" and "academics" while probably not realizing the amount of academic scholarship that went into their favorite translation.

Most people aren't interested in hearing things that challenge their thinking/understanding. One of our many psychological flaws.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

My view of an afterlife is a lot different than most Christians but I will briefly share because it seems to register with folks who are into science and sometimes are held back from the Bible because they discuss things that simply defy all logic and I don't accept certain things as they are written. The Epiphany is one I just shake my head at. I don't believe 2,000 years ago when folks thought the Earth was flat that they truly understood the universe. Much of the scripture is trying to get a foundation for people to stand on and develop their relationship with God/Jesus, all good.

When we die whether we are cremated or buried or whatever, you eventually go back down into the Earth, ashes to ashes and dust to dust
Well the Earth will eventually get sucked into the sun when it burns out or the Earth will be lifeless but eventually the whole thing will get sucked into a black hole but as we have discovered those turn into "Star Births" the start of new stars in the universe and our energy and matter will get spit out and part of a new world

We might not ever see it in terms that we understand here on Earth but eventually we are all going to die along with the Earth and the universe will carry on, we think.
That's how I view Heaven or an after life, in my mind it won't be anything like what is discussed in Church on Sunday Mornings
That doesn't mean i can't have a relationship with Christ. I don't know who made up all the rules or is able to judge how others live, focus on yourself and you'll do much better IMHO

 

[Paddington]

Regarding translations, I think it's important to consider that they are all interpretations. That's just the nature of translating. We use the word "translation" which might make us feel like we're getting something that we don't actually have, so personally I prefer to think of any translation I read as that translator's interpretation. And I don't say that as a knock. I'm not qualified to criticize their work. It's interesting how much I hear average Christians criticize "scholarship" and "academics" while probably not realizing the amount of academic scholarship that went into their favorite translation. I'm really grateful for all the translation work that has happened. I think we're continually getting better and better translations and I assume future generations will have even better translations.

The whole problem with translations is that some groups like to use them to twist Scripture and push false Doctrine. I believe that Jehovah's Witnesses do this with their "Translation". You have to be very careful and compare words to the Bible Dictionaries, Greek and Hebrew.

 

[Paddington]

It's interesting how much I hear average Christians criticize "scholarship" and "academics" while probably not realizing the amount of academic scholarship that went into their favorite translation.

Most people aren't interested in hearing things that challenge their thinking/understanding. One of our many psychological flaws.

That's true. That's why it's so hard to change people's minds on most things, even showing them factual information because they don't like to change their formed opinions.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

It's interesting how much I hear average Christians criticize "scholarship" and "academics" while probably not realizing the amount of academic scholarship that went into their favorite translation.

Most people aren't interested in hearing things that challenge their thinking/understanding. One of our many psychological flaws.

That's true. That's why it's so hard to change people's minds on most things, even showing them factual information because they don't like to change their formed opinions.

The reason it's hard to change minds is because you can't. Has nothing to do with translations. If one comes at this stuff as if they are right and everyone who doesn't think the same way is wrong, you're missing 99.999999% of the point by default. Ultimately the relationship with God is a personal journey. Yes, we are all on the same path, but experiencing it individually. We can help each other with obstacles and share our experiences, but those are all going to be different given the uniqueness of each relationship with God

 

[Captain Cranks]

I struggle to understand how anyone truly knows the authors' intents and meanings without being able to ask them directly. It's like saying you know what the lyrics to a song are about without getting confirmation from the writer. We can obviously have our own interpretations, but there is no single "this is how it should be interpreted" solution.

 

[Zow]

I struggle to understand how anyone truly knows the authors' intents and meanings without being able to ask them directly. It's like saying you know what the lyrics to a song are about without getting confirmation from the writer. We can obviously have our own interpretations, but there is no single "this is how it should be interpreted" solution.

This is my take as well. I was fortunate enough to study direct with Father Dale Launderville who was tasked with translating Hebrew into English for the St. John's Bible that came out like 15 years ago (the one written in ink with the cool illustrations - I got to see those getting developed to). It was eye opening because he'd explain to me that there were legitimate differing ways to translate each passage. Further, if not obvious, the language contained phrases that probably meant something different at that time period than its literal translation. For example, if somebody were to read this paragraph that I just wrote 500 years from now and literally translate it into another language, they'd probably be very confused and perhaps argue about the phrase "cool illustrations" and wonder what temperature had to do with illustrations (they were done in Minnesota, but why would they be outside?). Further, Father Launderville describe just how even the slightest nuance to the translation could drastically change its meaning when put into English. So, yeah, it's very understandable why there are differing versions of the Bible - which, to me at least, logically supports the argument that the Bible, at least as its translated today, cannot be read literally.

Hopefully for reasons apparent, this enlightening experience is one of several notable time markers on my journey from devout believer to atheist.

 

[Zow]

It's interesting how much I hear average Christians criticize "scholarship" and "academics" while probably not realizing the amount of academic scholarship that went into their favorite translation.

Most people aren't interested in hearing things that challenge their thinking/understanding. One of our many psychological flaws.

That's true. That's why it's so hard to change people's minds on most things, even showing them factual information because they don't like to change their formed opinions.

Factual information is saying something like, "the Book of X was uncovered in Qumran in [insert year - I'm not looking it up] in a preserved clay pot. It was translated 5 years later by person so and so."

Opinion information is saying something like, "God wants us to do X because it says so in the Bible."

 

[BlackCrowes]

Which version isnt a “translation”?

 

[dgreen]

I struggle to understand how anyone truly knows the authors' intents and meanings without being able to ask them directly. It's like saying you know what the lyrics to a song are about without getting confirmation from the writer. We can obviously have our own interpretations, but there is no single "this is how it should be interpreted" solution.

I'd argue there is a single "this is how it should be interpreted" solution and that's precisely what any interpreter should be seeking. But, yes, that single solution can be hard to find. And maybe that's what you mean when you say there is no single solution; that it's just hard to find and maybe even impossible to know whether or not you've found it. Even when we're talking to each other, it takes effort to interpret our words. How much more difficult it must be when separated by thousands of years and vastly different cultures!

 

[Captain Cranks]

This is my take as well. I was fortunate enough to study direct with Father Dale Launderville who was tasked with translating Hebrew into English for the St. John's Bible that came out like 15 years ago (the one written in ink with the cool illustrations - I got to see those getting developed to). It was eye opening because he'd explain to me that there were legitimate differing ways to translate each passage. Further, if not obvious, the language contained phrases that probably meant something different at that time period than its literal translation. For example, if somebody were to read this paragraph that I just wrote 500 years from now and literally translate it into another language, they'd probably be very confused and perhaps argue about the phrase "cool illustrations" and wonder what temperature had to do with illustrations (they were done in Minnesota, but why would they be outside?). Further, Father Launderville describe just how even the slightest nuance to the translation could drastically change its meaning when put into English. So, yeah, it's very understandable why there are differing versions of the Bible - which, to me at least, logically supports the argument that the Bible, at least as its translated today, cannot be read literally.

Not the mention the many interpolations and redactions strewn throughout the Bible.

 

[dgreen]

I struggle to understand how anyone truly knows the authors' intents and meanings without being able to ask them directly. It's like saying you know what the lyrics to a song are about without getting confirmation from the writer. We can obviously have our own interpretations, but there is no single "this is how it should be interpreted" solution.

This is my take as well. I was fortunate enough to study direct with Father Dale Launderville who was tasked with translating Hebrew into English for the St. John's Bible that came out like 15 years ago (the one written in ink with the cool illustrations - I got to see those getting developed to). It was eye opening because he'd explain to me that there were legitimate differing ways to translate each passage. Further, if not obvious, the language contained phrases that probably meant something different at that time period than its literal translation. For example, if somebody were to read this paragraph that I just wrote 500 years from now and literally translate it into another language, they'd probably be very confused and perhaps argue about the phrase "cool illustrations" and wonder what temperature had to do with illustrations (they were done in Minnesota, but why would they be outside?). Further, Father Launderville describe just how even the slightest nuance to the translation could drastically change its meaning when put into English. So, yeah, it's very understandable why there are differing versions of the Bible - which, to me at least, logically supports the argument that the Bible, at least as its translated today, cannot be read literally.

Hopefully for reasons apparent, this enlightening experience is one of several notable time markers on my journey from devout believer to atheist.

I think it might be apparent how this was a marker in your transition, but I'd love to hear you unpack that and explain how this contributed.

 

[dgreen]

Which version isnt a “translation”?

I'd say everything we have is a translation/interpretation.

 

[Zow]

I struggle to understand how anyone truly knows the authors' intents and meanings without being able to ask them directly. It's like saying you know what the lyrics to a song are about without getting confirmation from the writer. We can obviously have our own interpretations, but there is no single "this is how it should be interpreted" solution.

This is my take as well. I was fortunate enough to study direct with Father Dale Launderville who was tasked with translating Hebrew into English for the St. John's Bible that came out like 15 years ago (the one written in ink with the cool illustrations - I got to see those getting developed to). It was eye opening because he'd explain to me that there were legitimate differing ways to translate each passage. Further, if not obvious, the language contained phrases that probably meant something different at that time period than its literal translation. For example, if somebody were to read this paragraph that I just wrote 500 years from now and literally translate it into another language, they'd probably be very confused and perhaps argue about the phrase "cool illustrations" and wonder what temperature had to do with illustrations (they were done in Minnesota, but why would they be outside?). Further, Father Launderville describe just how even the slightest nuance to the translation could drastically change its meaning when put into English. So, yeah, it's very understandable why there are differing versions of the Bible - which, to me at least, logically supports the argument that the Bible, at least as its translated today, cannot be read literally.

Hopefully for reasons apparent, this enlightening experience is one of several notable time markers on my journey from devout believer to atheist.

I think it might be apparent how this was a marker in your transition, but I'd love to hear you unpack that and explain how this contributed.

I've been meaning to lay out the main time markers of my "journey" in this thread. Just haven't had the time yet.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I'd argue there is a single "this is how it should be interpreted" solution and that's precisely what any interpreter should be seeking. But, yes, that single solution can be hard to find. And maybe that's what you mean when you say there is no single solution; that it's just hard to find and maybe even impossible to know whether or not you've found it. Even when we're talking to each other, it takes effort to interpret our words. How much more difficult it must be when separated by thousands of years and vastly different cultures!

I think it's impossible to know period. Imagine you watch Mulholland Drive 2,000 years from now (or any movie that leaves the audience to guess the message or story) and that you're confused by what the Cowboy is supposed to represent. You don't have access to David Lynch to ask him directly, but you have learned that some parts of the dialogue have been redacted or interpolated by other directors so what you watched isn't necessarily what Lynch himself intended. Now you may have a theory on what the Cowboy represents, but without being able to ask Lynch directly, you will never know.

 

[dgreen]

I'd argue there is a single "this is how it should be interpreted" solution and that's precisely what any interpreter should be seeking. But, yes, that single solution can be hard to find. And maybe that's what you mean when you say there is no single solution; that it's just hard to find and maybe even impossible to know whether or not you've found it. Even when we're talking to each other, it takes effort to interpret our words. How much more difficult it must be when separated by thousands of years and vastly different cultures!

I think it's impossible to know period. Imagine you watch Mulholland Drive 2,000 years from now (or any movie that leaves the audience to guess the message or story) and that you're confused by what the Cowboy is supposed to represent. You don't have access to David Lynch to ask him directly, but you have learned that some parts of the dialogue have been redacted or interpolated by other directors so what you watched isn't necessarily what Lynch himself intended. Now you may have a theory on what the Cowboy represents, but without being able to ask Lynch directly, you will never know.

By "impossible", do you mean we can't ever get to 100% certainty? I'd agree with that. Or do you mean we can't reach a high enough probability to say we're confident in the intended message?

Do you apply this to the entire text or just parts? So, with the Mulholland Drive example, is it just the Cowboy that could potentially be impossible for future civilizations to understand or the whole movie? (I'm not familiar with the movie.)

Do you think there are things future civilizations can discover in order to move closer to the meaning of the Cowboy. For example, can watching David Lynch's other works shed light on this? If they watch movies from similar genres of our time, will that help? Is the movie based on a book that they could also find and use to help in the interpretation? Could they uncover an interview with Lynch where he explains the Cowboy? Of course, all of those things would also have to be translated and interpreted, but I do think they are pieces of the puzzle. Not pieces of the puzzle to get to 100%, but to get closer and closer.

 

[dkp993]

It’s been proven that eye witness testimony is incredibly unreliable even just a few minutes or hours after an event and we all know how incredibly reliable verbal communication is via the “telephone game“ yet we are to believe the bible is accurate relying on the techniques mentioned above decades after (at the earliest) the events occurred. Color me HIGHLY skeptical.

 

[dgreen]

It’s been proven that eye witness testimony is incredibly unreliable even just a few minutes or hours after an event and we all know how incredibly reliable verbal communication is via the “telephone game“ yet we are to believe the bible is accurate relying on the techniques mentioned above decades after (at the earliest) the events occurred. Color me HIGHLY skeptical.

I think believers tend to be far too dismissive of the complexities and like to think that everything was transmitted perfectly with absolutely no errors. On the flip side, I think skeptics/non-believers are far too critical and throw the baby out with the bathwater. When I'm talking to fellow believers, I like to challenge them to think about the complexities and challenge their presuppositions about how the Bible came to be. Since you've put yourself in the skeptic basket, I'll tend to want to challenge what appears to be your criticism and desire to dismiss it all because of the complexities. In other words, I agree with you about there being complexities and plenty of room for skepticism, but I'm going to take the other side of the argument here.

For starters, let's start with the telephone game analogy. I think Joe posted something about this before. Basically, it's just not the best analogy for how the Bible came together. The game is played by one person whispering a message to one person and then that person whispers it to one person and that continues for however many people you have. The problem is that the message of the Bible wasn't communicated from one individual to another to another to another. If we just take, for example, one of Jesus' teachings, we can reasonably assume that he spoke to a crowd of people and not just one person. Additionally, it's likely that he taught the same lessons multiple times to multiple groups. So, we have a message that is loudly proclaimed to many people in multiple settings. That provides plenty of opportunity for checks and balances on what was said and what wasn't said. Also, this telephone game argument has been used as it relates to the transcribing of the actual writings and it's an even worse analogy for that because of the process in place for the scribes. It was rigorous and all evidence points towards high accuracy across manuscripts. (Although, admittedly, some errors/variants which believers should acknowledge and not turn a blind eye.)

But, to your point, there's still the eyewitness problem. Just because a lot of people heard a teaching or witnessed an event, doesn't mean they are going to recall all the details accurately. You question how someone can be asked to believe the Bible is accurate when we can assume that even direct eyewitnesses are going to have trouble remembering details. The common question is: Is the Bible accurate? To answer that, we have to figure out what it's trying to be accurate about. I don't believe it was trying to be accurate about all the historical details. In fact, I'm confident there are quite a few details that never actually happened the way they are described. That's because the authors' goal wasn't to write something that meets 21st Century American sensitivities when to comes to writing about events of the past (what we call History). They did things differently and they should be measured by what they were trying to do, not by what we want them to have done. They didn't write about the past for the purpose of recording exactly what happened. They did it for what we'd call theological reasons. That's what they wanted to be accurate about.

Now, I understand that's not the typical argument by American Christians. I think you bring up great questions. They are questions I've asked and received many unsatisfactory answers from well-meaning believers. I think, over the years, I've found a much more reasonable (and more meaningful!) way to think about these things which must be rooted in their culture and not ours.

 

[dkp993]

It’s been proven that eye witness testimony is incredibly unreliable even just a few minutes or hours after an event and we all know how incredibly reliable verbal communication is via the “telephone game“ yet we are to believe the bible is accurate relying on the techniques mentioned above decades after (at the earliest) the events occurred. Color me HIGHLY skeptical.

I think believers tend to be far too dismissive of the complexities and like to think that everything was transmitted perfectly with absolutely no errors. On the flip side, I think skeptics/non-believers are far too critical and throw the baby out with the bathwater. When I'm talking to fellow believers, I like to challenge them to think about the complexities and challenge their presuppositions about how the Bible came to be. Since you've put yourself in the skeptic basket, I'll tend to want to challenge what appears to be your criticism and desire to dismiss it all because of the complexities. In other words, I agree with you about there being complexities and plenty of room for skepticism, but I'm going to take the other side of the argument here.

For starters, let's start with the telephone game analogy. I think Joe posted something about this before. Basically, it's just not the best analogy for how the Bible came together. The game is played by one person whispering a message to one person and then that person whispers it to one person and that continues for however many people you have. The problem is that the message of the Bible wasn't communicated from one individual to another to another to another. If we just take, for example, one of Jesus' teachings, we can reasonably assume that he spoke to a crowd of people and not just one person. Additionally, it's likely that he taught the same lessons multiple times to multiple groups. So, we have a message that is loudly proclaimed to many people in multiple settings. That provides plenty of opportunity for checks and balances on what was said and what wasn't said. Also, this telephone game argument has been used as it relates to the transcribing of the actual writings and it's an even worse analogy for that because of the process in place for the scribes. It was rigorous and all evidence points towards high accuracy across manuscripts. (Although, admittedly, some errors/variants which believers should acknowledge and not turn a blind eye.)

But, to your point, there's still the eyewitness problem. Just because a lot of people heard a teaching or witnessed an event, doesn't mean they are going to recall all the details accurately. You question how someone can be asked to believe the Bible is accurate when we can assume that even direct eyewitnesses are going to have trouble remembering details. The common question is: Is the Bible accurate? To answer that, we have to figure out what it's trying to be accurate about. I don't believe it was trying to be accurate about all the historical details. In fact, I'm confident there are quite a few details that never actually happened the way they are described. That's because the authors' goal wasn't to write something that meets 21st Century American sensitivities when to comes to writing about events of the past (what we call History). They did things differently and they should be measured by what they were trying to do, not by what we want them to have done. They didn't write about the past for the purpose of recording exactly what happened. They did it for what we'd call theological reasons. That's what they wanted to be accurate about.

Now, I understand that's not the typical argument by American Christians. I think you bring up great questions. They are questions I've asked and received many unsatisfactory answers from well-meaning believers. I think, over the years, I've found a much more reasonable (and more meaningful!) way to think about these things which must be rooted in their culture and not ours.

Thanks @dgreen, a reasonable and well-thought-out post of which I have come to appreciate from you.

My previous post aside, which was largely made to prove a point, I’m not sure I disagree with much of what you posted above. And to be clear while I am certainly a skeptic, specifically of the organized religion angle, I’m not throwing everything out with the bathwater. My belief is Jesus was very likely a real person of the time who gained a following for his proselytizing. Many of his teachings and beliefs took hold, and here we are today. Many of those teachings are good ways to guide your path through life.

I do not believe he was the son of God, nor am I sure I believe in God, at least in the classic sense, and I certainly don’t believe in organized religion as the all true one path.

 

[dgreen]

It’s been proven that eye witness testimony is incredibly unreliable even just a few minutes or hours after an event and we all know how incredibly reliable verbal communication is via the “telephone game“ yet we are to believe the bible is accurate relying on the techniques mentioned above decades after (at the earliest) the events occurred. Color me HIGHLY skeptical.

I think believers tend to be far too dismissive of the complexities and like to think that everything was transmitted perfectly with absolutely no errors. On the flip side, I think skeptics/non-believers are far too critical and throw the baby out with the bathwater. When I'm talking to fellow believers, I like to challenge them to think about the complexities and challenge their presuppositions about how the Bible came to be. Since you've put yourself in the skeptic basket, I'll tend to want to challenge what appears to be your criticism and desire to dismiss it all because of the complexities. In other words, I agree with you about there being complexities and plenty of room for skepticism, but I'm going to take the other side of the argument here.

For starters, let's start with the telephone game analogy. I think Joe posted something about this before. Basically, it's just not the best analogy for how the Bible came together. The game is played by one person whispering a message to one person and then that person whispers it to one person and that continues for however many people you have. The problem is that the message of the Bible wasn't communicated from one individual to another to another to another. If we just take, for example, one of Jesus' teachings, we can reasonably assume that he spoke to a crowd of people and not just one person. Additionally, it's likely that he taught the same lessons multiple times to multiple groups. So, we have a message that is loudly proclaimed to many people in multiple settings. That provides plenty of opportunity for checks and balances on what was said and what wasn't said. Also, this telephone game argument has been used as it relates to the transcribing of the actual writings and it's an even worse analogy for that because of the process in place for the scribes. It was rigorous and all evidence points towards high accuracy across manuscripts. (Although, admittedly, some errors/variants which believers should acknowledge and not turn a blind eye.)

But, to your point, there's still the eyewitness problem. Just because a lot of people heard a teaching or witnessed an event, doesn't mean they are going to recall all the details accurately. You question how someone can be asked to believe the Bible is accurate when we can assume that even direct eyewitnesses are going to have trouble remembering details. The common question is: Is the Bible accurate? To answer that, we have to figure out what it's trying to be accurate about. I don't believe it was trying to be accurate about all the historical details. In fact, I'm confident there are quite a few details that never actually happened the way they are described. That's because the authors' goal wasn't to write something that meets 21st Century American sensitivities when to comes to writing about events of the past (what we call History). They did things differently and they should be measured by what they were trying to do, not by what we want them to have done. They didn't write about the past for the purpose of recording exactly what happened. They did it for what we'd call theological reasons. That's what they wanted to be accurate about.

Now, I understand that's not the typical argument by American Christians. I think you bring up great questions. They are questions I've asked and received many unsatisfactory answers from well-meaning believers. I think, over the years, I've found a much more reasonable (and more meaningful!) way to think about these things which must be rooted in their culture and not ours.

Thanks @dgreen, a reasonable and well-thought-out post of which I have come to appreciate from you.

My previous post aside, which was largely made to prove a point, I’m not sure I disagree with much of what you posted above. And to be clear while I am certainly a skeptic, specifically of the organized religion angle, I’m not throwing everything out with the bathwater. My belief is Jesus was very likely a real person of the time who gained a following for his proselytizing. Many of his teachings and beliefs took hold, and here we are today. Many of those teachings are good ways to guide your path through life.

I do not believe he was the son of God, nor am I sure I believe in God, at least in the classic sense, and I certainly don’t believe in organized religion as the all true one path.

Thanks. This has become a hobby/passion of mine recently. I'm motivated by finding what I consider to be a better way to see things and I really enjoy talking to others about it. I've spent most of my time talking to other believers, so the FFA is a great place for me to hear from people like you with different perspectives.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

It’s been proven that eye witness testimony is incredibly unreliable even just a few minutes or hours after an event and we all know how incredibly reliable verbal communication is via the “telephone game“ yet we are to believe the bible is accurate relying on the techniques mentioned above decades after (at the earliest) the events occurred. Color me HIGHLY skeptical.

I think believers tend to be far too dismissive of the complexities and like to think that everything was transmitted perfectly with absolutely no errors. On the flip side, I think skeptics/non-believers are far too critical and throw the baby out with the bathwater. When I'm talking to fellow believers, I like to challenge them to think about the complexities and challenge their presuppositions about how the Bible came to be. Since you've put yourself in the skeptic basket, I'll tend to want to challenge what appears to be your criticism and desire to dismiss it all because of the complexities. In other words, I agree with you about there being complexities and plenty of room for skepticism, but I'm going to take the other side of the argument here.

For starters, let's start with the telephone game analogy. I think Joe posted something about this before. Basically, it's just not the best analogy for how the Bible came together. The game is played by one person whispering a message to one person and then that person whispers it to one person and that continues for however many people you have. The problem is that the message of the Bible wasn't communicated from one individual to another to another to another. If we just take, for example, one of Jesus' teachings, we can reasonably assume that he spoke to a crowd of people and not just one person. Additionally, it's likely that he taught the same lessons multiple times to multiple groups. So, we have a message that is loudly proclaimed to many people in multiple settings. That provides plenty of opportunity for checks and balances on what was said and what wasn't said. Also, this telephone game argument has been used as it relates to the transcribing of the actual writings and it's an even worse analogy for that because of the process in place for the scribes. It was rigorous and all evidence points towards high accuracy across manuscripts. (Although, admittedly, some errors/variants which believers should acknowledge and not turn a blind eye.)

But, to your point, there's still the eyewitness problem. Just because a lot of people heard a teaching or witnessed an event, doesn't mean they are going to recall all the details accurately. You question how someone can be asked to believe the Bible is accurate when we can assume that even direct eyewitnesses are going to have trouble remembering details. The common question is: Is the Bible accurate? To answer that, we have to figure out what it's trying to be accurate about. I don't believe it was trying to be accurate about all the historical details. In fact, I'm confident there are quite a few details that never actually happened the way they are described. That's because the authors' goal wasn't to write something that meets 21st Century American sensitivities when to comes to writing about events of the past (what we call History). They did things differently and they should be measured by what they were trying to do, not by what we want them to have done. They didn't write about the past for the purpose of recording exactly what happened. They did it for what we'd call theological reasons. That's what they wanted to be accurate about.

Now, I understand that's not the typical argument by American Christians. I think you bring up great questions. They are questions I've asked and received many unsatisfactory answers from well-meaning believers. I think, over the years, I've found a much more reasonable (and more meaningful!) way to think about these things which must be rooted in their culture and not ours.

Amen and you say a lot of things that I feel about it and yet I still like the spirit of it all(doing right to others and yourself) and the 'unconditional love" aspect

 

[Captain Cranks]

By "impossible", do you mean we can't ever get to 100% certainty? I'd agree with that. Or do you mean we can't reach a high enough probability to say we're confident in the intended message?

Do you apply this to the entire text or just parts? So, with the Mulholland Drive example, is it just the Cowboy that could potentially be impossible for future civilizations to understand or the whole movie? (I'm not familiar with the movie.)

Do you think there are things future civilizations can discover in order to move closer to the meaning of the Cowboy. For example, can watching David Lynch's other works shed light on this? If they watch movies from similar genres of our time, will that help? Is the movie based on a book that they could also find and use to help in the interpretation? Could they uncover an interview with Lynch where he explains the Cowboy? Of course, all of those things would also have to be translated and interpreted, but I do think they are pieces of the puzzle. Not pieces of the puzzle to get to 100%, but to get closer and closer.

Fair questions. I think you can reach a high enough probability to feel confident about the intended message, but not so confident that you'd be able to tell someone with an alternative theory (assuming it's reasonable) that they're wrong. Referring back to Mulholland Drive, it's not that future civilizations can't reach legitimate conclusions about the purpose of the Cowboy character or what the entire movie was attempting to explain, but that they could never truly know because there is no confirmation mechanism. Certainly if you were able to unearth writings or video footage of Lynch's intentions, that would settle a lot of debate. Unfortunately, we don't have that with the Bible.

Ultimately, it's not the theories themselves I take exception to. It's the confidence at which I see people declare them.

 

[Paddington]

It's interesting how much I hear average Christians criticize "scholarship" and "academics" while probably not realizing the amount of academic scholarship that went into their favorite translation.

Most people aren't interested in hearing things that challenge their thinking/understanding. One of our many psychological flaws.

That's true. That's why it's so hard to change people's minds on most things, even showing them factual information because they don't like to change their formed opinions.

The reason it's hard to change minds is because you can't. Has nothing to do with translations. If one comes at this stuff as if they are right and everyone who doesn't think the same way is wrong, you're missing 99.999999% of the point by default. Ultimately the relationship with God is a personal journey. Yes, we are all on the same path, but experiencing it individually. We can help each other with obstacles and share our experiences, but those are all going to be different given the uniqueness of each relationship with God

Jesus said that the way to Eternal Life is narrow and Broad is the way to destruction. Jesus said that He is the way the truth and life no one comes in the father but by him. A true Christian must believe Jesus and take him for what He says. He says he is the Door we must enter in at the Door in order to be saved.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

It's interesting how much I hear average Christians criticize "scholarship" and "academics" while probably not realizing the amount of academic scholarship that went into their favorite translation.

Most people aren't interested in hearing things that challenge their thinking/understanding. One of our many psychological flaws.

That's true. That's why it's so hard to change people's minds on most things, even showing them factual information because they don't like to change their formed opinions.

The reason it's hard to change minds is because you can't. Has nothing to do with translations. If one comes at this stuff as if they are right and everyone who doesn't think the same way is wrong, you're missing 99.999999% of the point by default. Ultimately the relationship with God is a personal journey. Yes, we are all on the same path, but experiencing it individually. We can help each other with obstacles and share our experiences, but those are all going to be different given the uniqueness of each relationship with God

Jesus said that the way to Eternal Life is narrow and Broad is the way to destruction. Jesus said that He is the way the truth and life no one comes in the father but by him. A true Christian must believe Jesus and take him for what He says. He says he is the Door we must enter in at the Door in order to be saved.

No real clue why you responded to my post with this one.

 

[Paddington]

It's interesting how much I hear average Christians criticize "scholarship" and "academics" while probably not realizing the amount of academic scholarship that went into their favorite translation.

Most people aren't interested in hearing things that challenge their thinking/understanding. One of our many psychological flaws.

That's true. That's why it's so hard to change people's minds on most things, even showing them factual information because they don't like to change their formed opinions.

The reason it's hard to change minds is because you can't. Has nothing to do with translations. If one comes at this stuff as if they are right and everyone who doesn't think the same way is wrong, you're missing 99.999999% of the point by default. Ultimately the relationship with God is a personal journey. Yes, we are all on the same path, but experiencing it individually. We can help each other with obstacles and share our experiences, but those are all going to be different given the uniqueness of each relationship with God

Jesus said that the way to Eternal Life is narrow and Broad is the way to destruction. Jesus said that He is the way the truth and life no one comes in the father but by him. A true Christian must believe Jesus and take him for what He says. He says he is the Door we must enter in at the Door in order to be saved.

No real clue why you responded to my post with this one.

Because you said that we are all on the same path. Jesus said there is only one path that leads to eternal life. Just trying to make a point, that's all.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

It's interesting how much I hear average Christians criticize "scholarship" and "academics" while probably not realizing the amount of academic scholarship that went into their favorite translation.

Most people aren't interested in hearing things that challenge their thinking/understanding. One of our many psychological flaws.

That's true. That's why it's so hard to change people's minds on most things, even showing them factual information because they don't like to change their formed opinions.

The reason it's hard to change minds is because you can't. Has nothing to do with translations. If one comes at this stuff as if they are right and everyone who doesn't think the same way is wrong, you're missing 99.999999% of the point by default. Ultimately the relationship with God is a personal journey. Yes, we are all on the same path, but experiencing it individually. We can help each other with obstacles and share our experiences, but those are all going to be different given the uniqueness of each relationship with God

Jesus said that the way to Eternal Life is narrow and Broad is the way to destruction. Jesus said that He is the way the truth and life no one comes in the father but by him. A true Christian must believe Jesus and take him for what He says. He says he is the Door we must enter in at the Door in order to be saved.

No real clue why you responded to my post with this one.

Because you said that we are all on the same path. Jesus said there is only one path that leads to eternal life. Just trying to make a point, that's all.

We are. We are all created on the same path. If you prefer, we are all reading the same "choose your own adventure" book. And we get to choose of the options provided. Your post still doesn't address that fact though. Hopefully my point is clearer now though.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It’s been proven that eye witness testimony is incredibly unreliable even just a few minutes or hours after an event and we all know how incredibly reliable verbal communication is via the “telephone game“ yet we are to believe the bible is accurate relying on the techniques mentioned above decades after (at the earliest) the events occurred. Color me HIGHLY skeptical.

I think believers tend to be far too dismissive of the complexities and like to think that everything was transmitted perfectly with absolutely no errors. On the flip side, I think skeptics/non-believers are far too critical and throw the baby out with the bathwater. When I'm talking to fellow believers, I like to challenge them to think about the complexities and challenge their presuppositions about how the Bible came to be. Since you've put yourself in the skeptic basket, I'll tend to want to challenge what appears to be your criticism and desire to dismiss it all because of the complexities. In other words, I agree with you about there being complexities and plenty of room for skepticism, but I'm going to take the other side of the argument here.

For starters, let's start with the telephone game analogy. I think Joe posted something about this before. Basically, it's just not the best analogy for how the Bible came together. The game is played by one person whispering a message to one person and then that person whispers it to one person and that continues for however many people you have. The problem is that the message of the Bible wasn't communicated from one individual to another to another to another. If we just take, for example, one of Jesus' teachings, we can reasonably assume that he spoke to a crowd of people and not just one person. Additionally, it's likely that he taught the same lessons multiple times to multiple groups. So, we have a message that is loudly proclaimed to many people in multiple settings. That provides plenty of opportunity for checks and balances on what was said and what wasn't said. Also, this telephone game argument has been used as it relates to the transcribing of the actual writings and it's an even worse analogy for that because of the process in place for the scribes. It was rigorous and all evidence points towards high accuracy across manuscripts. (Although, admittedly, some errors/variants which believers should acknowledge and not turn a blind eye.)

But, to your point, there's still the eyewitness problem. Just because a lot of people heard a teaching or witnessed an event, doesn't mean they are going to recall all the details accurately. You question how someone can be asked to believe the Bible is accurate when we can assume that even direct eyewitnesses are going to have trouble remembering details. The common question is: Is the Bible accurate? To answer that, we have to figure out what it's trying to be accurate about. I don't believe it was trying to be accurate about all the historical details. In fact, I'm confident there are quite a few details that never actually happened the way they are described. That's because the authors' goal wasn't to write something that meets 21st Century American sensitivities when to comes to writing about events of the past (what we call History). They did things differently and they should be measured by what they were trying to do, not by what we want them to have done. They didn't write about the past for the purpose of recording exactly what happened. They did it for what we'd call theological reasons. That's what they wanted to be accurate about.

Now, I understand that's not the typical argument by American Christians. I think you bring up great questions. They are questions I've asked and received many unsatisfactory answers from well-meaning believers. I think, over the years, I've found a much more reasonable (and more meaningful!) way to think about these things which must be rooted in their culture and not ours.

Thanks @dgreen. I agree with the points on the telephone analogy. A general thought there to is the goal of handing down the stories. The bible stories were transferred from one to another where there was extreme care and diligence focused on keeping the stories correct. For the party game of Telephone, the goal is to go as fast as one can and the implied goal is actually getting the end story goofily wrong.

I agree completely though with @dkp993 in that's a logical and totally fair question to ask.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Now, I understand that's not the typical argument by American Christians. I think you bring up great questions. They are questions I've asked and received many unsatisfactory answers from well-meaning believers. I think, over the years, I've found a much more reasonable (and more meaningful!) way to think about these things which must be rooted in their culture and not ours.

Thanks @dgreen. Was wondering if you could expand on this.

What is the typical argument you see from American Christians on this? And what kind of unsatisfactory answers did you get?

Can you elaborate more on the the specifics of the way you've found that is more meaningful to think about these things?

 

[Paddington]

It's interesting how much I hear average Christians criticize "scholarship" and "academics" while probably not realizing the amount of academic scholarship that went into their favorite translation.

Most people aren't interested in hearing things that challenge their thinking/understanding. One of our many psychological flaws.

That's true. That's why it's so hard to change people's minds on most things, even showing them factual information because they don't like to change their formed opinions.

The reason it's hard to change minds is because you can't. Has nothing to do with translations. If one comes at this stuff as if they are right and everyone who doesn't think the same way is wrong, you're missing 99.999999% of the point by default. Ultimately the relationship with God is a personal journey. Yes, we are all on the same path, but experiencing it individually. We can help each other with obstacles and share our experiences, but those are all going to be different given the uniqueness of each relationship with God

Jesus said that the way to Eternal Life is narrow and Broad is the way to destruction. Jesus said that He is the way the truth and life no one comes in the father but by him. A true Christian must believe Jesus and take him for what He says. He says he is the Door we must enter in at the Door in order to be saved.

No real clue why you responded to my post with this one.

Because you said that we are all on the same path. Jesus said there is only one path that leads to eternal life. Just trying to make a point, that's all.

We are. We are all created on the same path. If you prefer, we are all reading the same "choose your own adventure" book. And we get to choose of the options provided. Your post still doesn't address that fact though. Hopefully my point is clearer now though.

I guess I just disagree with you. We all should be on the same path, but most are not on the same path. The straight path is to place your faith and trust in Jesus Christ as your Lord, believing that He died and rose again, shedding His blood as a Sacrifice for your sins. Most don't believe that. Maybe I'm not looking at it the same way. Maybe you mean that we are all seeking the truth and some find it and most don't. Is that what you mean? Jesus said that He was the only Way to the Father. Is that what you meant? That we are all seeking the truth, but not all find it and Hindus, Muslims, ect. are definitely not on the same path as Christians. Agreed?

 

[shadrap]

I struggle to understand how anyone truly knows the authors' intents and meanings without being able to ask them directly. It's like saying you know what the lyrics to a song are about without getting confirmation from the writer. We can obviously have our own interpretations, but there is no single "this is how it should be interpreted" solution.

This is my take as well. I was fortunate enough to study direct with Father Dale Launderville who was tasked with translating Hebrew into English for the St. John's Bible that came out like 15 years ago (the one written in ink with the cool illustrations - I got to see those getting developed to). It was eye opening because he'd explain to me that there were legitimate differing ways to translate each passage. Further, if not obvious, the language contained phrases that probably meant something different at that time period than its literal translation. For example, if somebody were to read this paragraph that I just wrote 500 years from now and literally translate it into another language, they'd probably be very confused and perhaps argue about the phrase "cool illustrations" and wonder what temperature had to do with illustrations (they were done in Minnesota, but why would they be outside?). Further, Father Launderville describe just how even the slightest nuance to the translation could drastically change its meaning when put into English. So, yeah, it's very understandable why there are differing versions of the Bible - which, to me at least, logically supports the argument that the Bible, at least as its translated today, cannot be read literally.

Hopefully for reasons apparent, this enlightening experience is one of several notable time markers on my journey from devout believer to atheist.

whatever you feel is best for you & family is the way to go. I feel a certain calmness when embracing that Jesus died on the cross for us. Calm is good. to each their own.
I truly love it. the choices we make.

 

[Paddington]

I struggle to understand how anyone truly knows the authors' intents and meanings without being able to ask them directly. It's like saying you know what the lyrics to a song are about without getting confirmation from the writer. We can obviously have our own interpretations, but there is no single "this is how it should be interpreted" solution.

This is my take as well. I was fortunate enough to study direct with Father Dale Launderville who was tasked with translating Hebrew into English for the St. John's Bible that came out like 15 years ago (the one written in ink with the cool illustrations - I got to see those getting developed to). It was eye opening because he'd explain to me that there were legitimate differing ways to translate each passage. Further, if not obvious, the language contained phrases that probably meant something different at that time period than its literal translation. For example, if somebody were to read this paragraph that I just wrote 500 years from now and literally translate it into another language, they'd probably be very confused and perhaps argue about the phrase "cool illustrations" and wonder what temperature had to do with illustrations (they were done in Minnesota, but why would they be outside?). Further, Father Launderville describe just how even the slightest nuance to the translation could drastically change its meaning when put into English. So, yeah, it's very understandable why there are differing versions of the Bible - which, to me at least, logically supports the argument that the Bible, at least as its translated today, cannot be read literally.

Hopefully for reasons apparent, this enlightening experience is one of several notable time markers on my journey from devout believer to atheist.

whatever you feel is best for you & family is the way to go. I feel a certain calmness when embracing that Jesus died on the cross for us. Calm is good. to each their own.
I truly love it. the choices we make.

The reason you feel the calmness is because that is the only way of Salvation. You must believe that Jesus died on the cross and rose again, shedding His blood as a Sacrifice for your sins. That's how you apply it to your account.

Romans 10;9,10-13

that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation......13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Hi @Paddington. Please check your Private Messages. I had a question there. Thanks.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It’s been proven that eye witness testimony is incredibly unreliable even just a few minutes or hours after an event and we all know how incredibly reliable verbal communication is via the “telephone game“ yet we are to believe the bible is accurate relying on the techniques mentioned above decades after (at the earliest) the events occurred. Color me HIGHLY skeptical.

I think believers tend to be far too dismissive of the complexities and like to think that everything was transmitted perfectly with absolutely no errors. On the flip side, I think skeptics/non-believers are far too critical and throw the baby out with the bathwater. When I'm talking to fellow believers, I like to challenge them to think about the complexities and challenge their presuppositions about how the Bible came to be. Since you've put yourself in the skeptic basket, I'll tend to want to challenge what appears to be your criticism and desire to dismiss it all because of the complexities. In other words, I agree with you about there being complexities and plenty of room for skepticism, but I'm going to take the other side of the argument here.

For starters, let's start with the telephone game analogy. I think Joe posted something about this before. Basically, it's just not the best analogy for how the Bible came together. The game is played by one person whispering a message to one person and then that person whispers it to one person and that continues for however many people you have. The problem is that the message of the Bible wasn't communicated from one individual to another to another to another. If we just take, for example, one of Jesus' teachings, we can reasonably assume that he spoke to a crowd of people and not just one person. Additionally, it's likely that he taught the same lessons multiple times to multiple groups. So, we have a message that is loudly proclaimed to many people in multiple settings. That provides plenty of opportunity for checks and balances on what was said and what wasn't said. Also, this telephone game argument has been used as it relates to the transcribing of the actual writings and it's an even worse analogy for that because of the process in place for the scribes. It was rigorous and all evidence points towards high accuracy across manuscripts. (Although, admittedly, some errors/variants which believers should acknowledge and not turn a blind eye.)

But, to your point, there's still the eyewitness problem. Just because a lot of people heard a teaching or witnessed an event, doesn't mean they are going to recall all the details accurately. You question how someone can be asked to believe the Bible is accurate when we can assume that even direct eyewitnesses are going to have trouble remembering details. The common question is: Is the Bible accurate? To answer that, we have to figure out what it's trying to be accurate about. I don't believe it was trying to be accurate about all the historical details. In fact, I'm confident there are quite a few details that never actually happened the way they are described. That's because the authors' goal wasn't to write something that meets 21st Century American sensitivities when to comes to writing about events of the past (what we call History). They did things differently and they should be measured by what they were trying to do, not by what we want them to have done. They didn't write about the past for the purpose of recording exactly what happened. They did it for what we'd call theological reasons. That's what they wanted to be accurate about.

Now, I understand that's not the typical argument by American Christians. I think you bring up great questions. They are questions I've asked and received many unsatisfactory answers from well-meaning believers. I think, over the years, I've found a much more reasonable (and more meaningful!) way to think about these things which must be rooted in their culture and not ours.

I agree with this pretty much entirely.

Remember when we used to argue about this stuff all the time, like 15-20 years ago? One of our non-believing friends (I don't remember which one, but I think it might have been one of several posters with a Spock avatar -- just trying to give credit) used to post a challenge to folks like us to describe exactly what happened during Easter week in a clear, continuous timeline. The idea was that the gospels contain lots of little details about the events of the passion, and some of those can't be easily reconciled with one another.

That sort of thing never bothered me, and still doesn't, for exactly the reasons that you describe. It's very easy for me to imagine people getting little details wrong when they're retelling this story, and it's easy to image that different people will remember things differently. That's fine. But there is no telephone game where you go from "Jesus was a an interesting and quirky guy who was kind of cool to hang out with" to "Jesus was the incarnate son of God who died and was resurrected." And the big picture stuff is what's important.

Of course, the price for holding that position is that you have to more or less abandon biblical inerrancy, at least in the sense that most people would understand that idea. I know there are other people out there who view the Bible more or less the way I do, but I don't think this viewpoint is typical for the average person sitting in a pew.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I know there are other people out there who view the Bible more or less the way I do, but I don't think this viewpoint is typical for the average person sitting in a pew.

Thanks @IvanKaramazov I'm not sure you have a minority view there. I see a lot of that and agree with a lot of that. It's sort of what I was talking about earlier when I think lots of people don't get hung up on creation being 7 literal 24 hour days. Or trying to determine the age of the earth. I think lots of people take it more in a bigger picture view.

Of course, the obvious counter to to not taking every letter of every word as literal perfect truth, one starts the slide into us deciding what we think it means and that can be problematic of course. But one I think is doable. So it's a challenge.

 

[dkp993]

But there is no telephone game where you go from "Jesus was a an interesting and quirky guy who was kind of cool to hang out with" to "Jesus was the incarnate son of God who died and was resurrected."

I couldn’t disagree more. There 100% absolutely can be a thread of story telling as you describe, especially over decades of time. Passionate belief in almost anything often begets exaggeration and glorification to make a point or change a behavior. Hell there are people who believed David Koresh was the literal son of god. It’s incredibly easy to see that leap happening imo.

 

[Paddington]

You know I can understand how among a community of believers the certain stylistic flair of the King James Version of the bible can be appealing. But if one's goal is to meet people where they are and spread the good news I cannot imagine how that this text is helpful for more than a tiny subset of people. Seems like more of expecting people to come to you then the other way around.

Agreed. I like the KJV in small doses, but it's not the version that I'm going to pull off the shelf if I'm reading a passage seriously. People should just pick whatever translation they're most comfortable with. If they want a paraphrase like The Message, fine. I hate that personally, but whatever works for you.

It important that the translation doesn't leave out important words that change doctrines and some do. Personally, I don't like the paraphrase versions because they and change the meaning of passages to make them mean what they want them to rather than what it actually says.

I understand why people feel this way, but I totally disagree for pretty much the same reason as BFS. Adults vary widely in their reading ability. If somebody reads a paraphrase and that helps them find Jesus, mission accomplished. If they end up with a screwy idea about the trinity or dispensationalism or something, so what. People who get hung up on that stuff aren't the ones who are reading paraphrases in the first place.

I can see an argument to use the paraphrase in some circumstances as you said. Yes, I agree, if it helps someone find Jesus, than great. Some Doctrines can't be compromised. Some are non essential to Salvation. I would argue that the Trinity is essential to Salvation. I don't believe that Dispensationalism is essential to Salvation, although I am a strong proponent of it. People must believe who Jesus really is, that He is God in the flesh. I do understand your point of view on this. I have a friend who is an Engineer and a Catholic, he is very technical, but he has trouble understanding most Translations because he isn't familiar with the Scriptures until a few years ago. He uses the paraphrase versions and I see benefit in it for him. But as far as getting a deeper understanding of Doctrine, I would try to find Translations that are as Literal as possible and study the Greek and Hebrew also because, like I said, it is very easy to change the meaning of a passage or verse in a paraphrase.

 

[dgreen]

I agree with this pretty much entirely.

Remember when we used to argue about this stuff all the time, like 15-20 years ago? One of our non-believing friends (I don't remember which one, but I think it might have been one of several posters with a Spock avatar -- just trying to give credit) used to post a challenge to folks like us to describe exactly what happened during Easter week in a clear, continuous timeline. The idea was that the gospels contain lots of little details about the events of the passion, and some of those can't be easily reconciled with one another.

That sort of thing never bothered me, and still doesn't, for exactly the reasons that you describe. It's very easy for me to imagine people getting little details wrong when they're retelling this story, and it's easy to image that different people will remember things differently. That's fine. But there is no telephone game where you go from "Jesus was a an interesting and quirky guy who was kind of cool to hang out with" to "Jesus was the incarnate son of God who died and was resurrected." And the big picture stuff is what's important.

Of course, the price for holding that position is that you have to more or less abandon biblical inerrancy, at least in the sense that most people would understand that idea. I know there are other people out there who view the Bible more or less the way I do, but I don't think this viewpoint is typical for the average person sitting in a pew.

Yep, I remember those conversations and that challenge. And I think this will be a good way for me to respond to @Joe Bryant 's question above about what do I see as the typical argument, why were they unsatisfactory, and why do I find a different way more meaningful. I wasn't sure how to respond, but the topic of the passion provides a good example.

There are various differences between the Gospels. For example, Matthew and Mark have Jesus being offered wine twice (before he's on the cross and then again when he's near death) and Luke and John only once (when he's on the cross near death). In the first offering, Matthew says it's wine with gall. Mark says it's wine with myrrh. And Mark uses a different word for wine in the first offering. All the other uses are more a vinegar but Mark's first offering to Jesus is the real stuff. So, which is it and why do they report it differently?

I'd say the "typical argument by American Christians" is to come up with an answer on why both can be historically accurate. In other words, if we had a video camera at the scene, we get to see that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all right in their reporting. Luke and John excluding the first one would simply be that they didn't include it. It happened and only Matthew and Mark decided to include it. But, Matthew and Mark describe the first "wine" differently. Some typical theories would be that they are either describing different events or that the wine included both gall and myrrh. None of that explains why Mark would use a different work for that first offering. He uses the vinegar word for the second offering, so he knows that word and could have used it the same way Matthew did if he wanted to. Regardless, this typical approach is to basically say, "Both Matthew and Mark have to have accurately described what happened because if they didn't then this can no longer be the inspired word of God. We'll come up with theories on how both could have happened as described because that's the best way to resolve these differences."

Another approach is like what Ivan is saying here. It's basically a "Who cares? One or both may have got that detail wrong, but they are both right that Jesus was crucified and that he rose from the dead. That's the important detail and it's unlikely they messed that up in their retelling of the story. We can be confident that Jesus resurrected because that's much more memorable than what he was offered to drink before going on the cross." I definitely like this better than the above approach because it doesn't deny the difference or explain it away as if it's not really a difference at all. However, I believe it doesn't give the authors enough credit. I think another approach is to accept that there are differences that can't be reconciled if we just had a camera at the event and to assume the author intentionally told it differently for a purpose. I'm ok if some of the details of Biblical stories are historically inaccurate because of memory errors, but I favor explanations that assume the author said exactly what he wanted to say.

An interesting thing I learned about the crucifixion is that some scholars think there are aspects that mirror a Roman Caesar Triumph/Coronation. Mark, likely being written to a Roman audience, connects more of the dots than the other Gospels. The Praetorium guards gather around Caesar, they put a robe and crown on Caesar, and lead him on a procession along with a sacrifice. They go to a place in Rome that basically translated as Head Hill and Caesar is offered wine and he refuses it and pours it out. As they preform the sacrifice, Caesar if flanked by two officials on his right and left. Caesar is declared as lord and god and they wait for a sign to confirm that truth.

Jesus' crucifixion is very similar. He was taken by the Praetorium guards, they put a robe and crown on him, and led him towards Golgotha (the place of the skull/head). And, he's offered wine with myrrh which he refuses. He's sacrificed on the cross and we're told there are others to his right and left. The tearing of the temple curtain could be the sign and Mark has a centurion being the one to proclaim that this Jesus was the son of God.

While all the Gospels include several of these, I think scholars argue that Mark seems to put an extra focus on this comparison and includes details that drive the point home to his Roman audience. Mark's point isn't that all these things happened as he described. His point is that Jesus is King and Lord and God, not Caesar. His point is that this is what a real triumph looks like. It's not about conquering other nations. It's about sacrifice for others. Mark starts with "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God." Everything in that sentence is subversive towards Rome and Caesar. It was Caesar who was the son of god and it was Caesar who proclaimed a gospel to his empire, but Mark tells the story of a different gospel of the true son of God.

So, was it vinegar with gall or wine with myrrh? I don't care. And, honestly, I'm not even sure I care whether he was even offered anything. I care more about what theological point the author is making rather than whether or not it happened. If we had that camera there and we saw he wasn't offered anything to drink, I'm ok with that. I'm ok if the authors inserted an un-factual event in order to tell me more about who they think Jesus was.

I've read some scholars who disagree with this comparison between the crucifixion and a Caesar coronation. And that's fine. Maybe it's wrong. Maybe that's not what Mark was doing. But, to me, it's a better theory because it is drenched in their culture and it gives meaning to the details.

I have no problem with contradictions. I don't have a need to explain them all away but I also don't want to just say they don't matter. I admit a bias that the details matter. I think the contradictions matter in a positive way. I think it's more likely that contradictions are intentional as a way to make a point. Each author said exactly what he wants to say. Interestingly, I've heard Bart Ehrman make that point. He's a former believer who is now a non-believer partly because of the contradictions and the difficulty to really know what happened. However, I heard him once talk about how instead of ignoring or explaining away the contradictions, we should be paying attention to them because they are part of the message the author is trying to deliver.

In addition to contradictions, I think we do this with the historicity, science, and prophecy. Critics are good at pointing out any time something doesn't line up and believers tend to try to prove that they do line up regardless of the evidence. I find just about all of those explanations unsatisfactory. I used to find them unsatisfactory because of the mental gymnastics to reach many of the answers. Now I find it unsatisfactory because I don't think we even need to defend against many of these critiques.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks @dgreen. That's super helpful and I see lots of that the same way. I see some that make a detail contradiction the focus and I'm more with you on this. Thanks for the thoughtful sharing.

 

[WVU Alum]

I am having trouble separating history and archeology from faith. Recent years there have been finds of scrolls that are essentially pre kingdom of Judah that shows Yahweh with a wife just as one example.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I couldn’t disagree more. There 100% absolutely can be a thread of story telling as you describe, especially over decades of time.

Especially when it's necessary to keep the story together. Before his death, Jesus was the messiah of the Jewish people who would reign here on earth. When he was crucified, that narrative needed to change.

A recent example of how people deify humans. Haile Selassie

"Haile Selassie’s death was described by his followers as his ‘disappearance’, since they refused to believe he had passed away. And when the subject came up, the phrase ‘lies of Babylon’ was frequently used in the Rasta community. Many Rastas believed the white-dominated structure they called Babylon had propagated a falsehood in an attempt to undermine the then fast-growing Rastafarian movement. Others discounted the news by pointing out that Jah (the Rasta name for God) had temporarily occupied the earthly body of Haile Selassie. The passing of Haile Selassie’s body was merely a sign that Jah was not just a human being but also a spirit."

 

[dgreen]

I am having trouble separating history and archeology from faith. Recent years there have been finds of scrolls that are essentially pre kingdom of Judah that shows Yahweh with a wife just as one example.

When you say "separating history and archeology from faith", do you mean that you think history and archeology should inform our faith? Or are you saying you find it hard to maintain faith as we learn more about history? Both? Something else?

 

[Paddington]

I am having trouble separating history and archeology from faith. Recent years there have been finds of scrolls that are essentially pre kingdom of Judah that shows Yahweh with a wife just as one example.

I guarantee you if you look into this it's not as it seems. There is a constant ongoing attack on the Christian Faith. Dig deeper.

 

[WVU Alum]

I am having trouble separating history and archeology from faith. Recent years there have been finds of scrolls that are essentially pre kingdom of Judah that shows Yahweh with a wife just as one example.

I guarantee you if you look into this it's not as it seems. There is a constant ongoing attack on the Christian Faith. Dig deeper.

I have looked into the newer finds of scrolls with stories like the one I referred to. I am confident that the translations are legit as is the authenticity of the time frame I described.

 

[dkp993]

I am having trouble separating history and archeology from faith. Recent years there have been finds of scrolls that are essentially pre kingdom of Judah that shows Yahweh with a wife just as one example.

I guarantee you if you look into this it's not as it seems. There is a constant ongoing attack on the Christian Faith. Dig deeper.

so what's your take on Christian Nationalism movement?

seems like they have an ongoing attack on pretty much everything/everyone that isn't them

If you’ve kept up with the thread you’d see his frequent (despite multiple warnings) extremely disparaging posts about the left and liberals, which probably leads to the answer to your question.

 

[dgreen]

I am having trouble separating history and archeology from faith. Recent years there have been finds of scrolls that are essentially pre kingdom of Judah that shows Yahweh with a wife just as one example.

I guarantee you if you look into this it's not as it seems. There is a constant ongoing attack on the Christian Faith. Dig deeper.

so what's your take on Christian Nationalism movement?

seems like they have an ongoing attack on pretty much everything/everyone that isn't them

If you’ve kept up with the thread you’d see his frequent (despite multiple warnings) extremely disparaging posts about the left and liberals, which probably leads to the answer to your question.

And probably a topic that's best not discussing if we want to keep this thread going.

 

[dkp993]

I am having trouble separating history and archeology from faith. Recent years there have been finds of scrolls that are essentially pre kingdom of Judah that shows Yahweh with a wife just as one example.

I guarantee you if you look into this it's not as it seems. There is a constant ongoing attack on the Christian Faith. Dig deeper.

so what's your take on Christian Nationalism movement?

seems like they have an ongoing attack on pretty much everything/everyone that isn't them

If you’ve kept up with the thread you’d see his frequent (despite multiple warnings) extremely disparaging posts about the left and liberals, which probably leads to the answer to your question.

And probably a topic that's best not discussing if we want to keep this thread going.

Agreed.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I am having trouble separating history and archeology from faith. Recent years there have been finds of scrolls that are essentially pre kingdom of Judah that shows Yahweh with a wife just as one example.

I guarantee you if you look into this it's not as it seems. There is a constant ongoing attack on the Christian Faith. Dig deeper.

so what's your take on Christian Nationalism movement?

seems like they have an ongoing attack on pretty much everything/everyone that isn't them

If you’ve kept up with the thread you’d see his frequent (despite multiple warnings) extremely disparaging posts about the left and liberals, which probably leads to the answer to your question.

And probably a topic that's best not discussing if we want to keep this thread going.

Agreed.

Thank you. Yes.