The Christian text's main problem is the disagreement between texts, the disagreement on which -are- in fact valid, the time lag, and the translations, which include such gems as the King James Version.
Scribes did their job well enough.
There is also the question of the process of the canonization of the texts and why should one ancient text that claims to tell the true life of Jesus should be considered more authoritative than the other.
Valid points which we could debate, however my point is the New Testament is worthy of being quoted and discussed. It has not been vastly changed like some people would have you believe.
Edit: Good night all
There is evidence that it has been changed in ways that matter. For example, there is the Comma Johanneum and the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery.
About the comma: who cares? It's not like the Trinity would be any less logically contradictory if the clause was in an original document.
Even without the clause there are other passages that Christians have used to support the Trinity. The clause might be interesting if we were debating the merits of the Athanasian Creed and Oneness doctrine, but as we both probably reject Christianity wholesale as well as all the little heresies I feel like there are better things for us to concentrate on.
Jesus forgiving the adulteress also has a rather insignificant effect on Christian doctrine as Christians believe all sinners can be forgiven through their faith in Jesus—also, from a Calvinist point of view, Jesus can forgive whom he will for his glory. While this controversy might be important for sectarian theological differences within Christianity, there are more interesting things for atheists to harp on.
The comma is important because most mainstream sects believe in the trinity and that is the only place where the trinity is specifically mentioned. If one of the only pieces of evidence that the trinity, a huge part of nearly all major Christian sects, wasn't originally in the Bible, that is a huge blow to the authority of the Bible as an accurate text. The trinity is not a small part of Christian belief. It is as important as all of the miracles that Jesus supposedly did. It shows that the Bible has been changed in areas that matter.
Most translations have now removed the Comma. It isn't a necessary in providing scriptural basis for the Trinity, and if someone bought one of the recent translations of the bible, it would read without the amendment.
Most of the translations still have them. The only difference is that there is a little asterisk or something in brackets saying that it might not have been in the original text. It might be possible in providing scripural basis for the trinity, but it would be a lot harder and look like crappy evidence in comparison to if the comma was legitimate. There is no other direct reference to the trinity. Most of the other supposed references to the trinity are inferred.
Which translations would they be? New American Standard, English Standard Version, New King James, Holman Christian Standard Bible , New International Version, The Good News Translation all don't have it.
The New International Version, New American Standard, English Standard, and probably more of those you listed do have it.
Do you actually know what you are talking about? The text added to the verse is highlighted in bold:
5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
Do you actually know what you are talking about? The text added to the verse is highlighted in bold:
5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
Which does not exist in any of the translations I listed.
"6 This is the One who came by R237 water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with F35 the water only, but with F35 the water and with F35 the blood. It is the R238 Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three R239 that testify: 8 the F36 Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in F37 agreement. "
The only difference is the wording is designed to be easier to read.
Do you actually know what you are talking about? The text added to the verse is highlighted in bold:
5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
Which does not exist in any of the translations I listed.
"6 This is the One who came by R237 water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with F35 the water only, but with F35 the water and with F35 the blood. It is the R238 Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three R239 that testify: 8 the F36 Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in F37 agreement. "
The only difference is the wording.
That text is not in dispute. The text that is in dispute (the text which was added) is what I have bolded above, which has been removed from modern translations.
I'm sorry if you felt that my response was only directed at you... it was not. Frankly, I find the whole idea of using the bible to prove itself, by quoting it as some kind of valid source of information, to be ridiculous no matter who is doing it or for what purpose. The bible has been changed, edited, corrupted, and mis-translated so many times as to make anyone who relies on what it says verbatim completely without an intellectual leg to stand on. It simply doesn't hold any kind of weight with me. And again, Incen has a completely valid point... many people who are fluent in Ancient Greek and even freaking Aramaic can't agree on how the words themselves should be translated... hell, "know them" could have meant bring them a nice fish sandwich for all anyone knows. So... yeah. There ya go.
Do you hold this belief for all ancient texts or just the bible?
I, personally, hold this belief for all ancient texts. They must be corroborated with as many other sources of information as possible. Just look at Herodotus, "The Father of History". Historians also refer to him as the "father of lies", considering he wrote down pretty much everything he heard, whether it was true or not (like ants as big as foxes), he completely fabricated speeches supposedly made by Persians, and he lied and lied and lied. A lot. But still, "the father of lies" is far less well known than "The Father of History".
It's important to not take everything at its word. Skepticism is invaluable, particularly when evaluating history.
I think this is a different issue than the one Manning and the other dude are arguing. They're not arguing about whether the Bible is a good history text, they're arguing if translators and copyists have been able to preserve the "original text" of the Bible.
Manning, I'm on your side with this one. Early Christians were pretty good about copying their texts, and the variations we have found in alternate copies are not major.
People still discuss and criticize the works of Plato and they are not preserved nearly as well as the original texts of the Bible. Same goes with any mythology.
And it's not like the "original" gospels and OT texts were really and truly the word of God, or were any more true than the supposedly "corrupted" versions we have now.
Now, this says nothing about the sources used by the gospel writers or the suspected additions to the gospel texts by early Christians. Or the rather arbitrary way the early Christians picked and chose texts to include in the canon.
That is simply not true. Early Christians were HORRIBLE about copying the bible. Paul or whomever would send a letter to each town explaining his teachings and asking that the letter be recopied and distributed to nearby villages. The people who copied those letters were barely literate... not to mention the language of the time was hard for those who were literate to translate, let alone those who had never been schooled in letters. You might be imagining a bunch of Monks sitting in a monastery, what you should be imagining is a barely literate, town moron copying a letter he can't read nor understand in a back rectory. That would be a more accurate description of the event.
As far as I know, people aren't using old texts as a rule of law... for example, I'm not reading Pyramis and Thisbe and demanding that a huge wall be built between every teenage male or female.
There was no punctuation, no spaces between words... no Paul there saying "this is what I really meant." Add to that the fact that several words had multiple, completely different meanings, and that these letters were copied and sent hundreds of times, AND that some of the earliest writings we have came decades or centuries after they were written, and you can see just how little sense taking the bible as anything more then an interesting book is a horrible idea.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Do you hold this belief for all ancient texts or just the bible?
This may be late, but were you really expecting people to answer this question with "no, I consider every religious text besides the bible to be completely infallible and factual"? What was the point of even asking this?
Do you hold this belief for all ancient texts or just the bible?
This may be late, but were you really expecting people to answer this question with "no, I consider every religious text besides the bible to be completely infallible and factual"? What was the point of even asking this?
Has anyone even mentioned the story of Jesus and the prostitute? The "he who is without sin cast the first stone?" and how that didn't appear in the bible until 700 years after that gospel was written??
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Has anyone even mentioned the story of Jesus and the prostitute? The "he who is without sin cast the first stone?" and how that didn't appear in the bible until 700 years after that gospel was written??
Yes, but no one cares because it doesn't change or add anything to the existing scriptural theology.
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
This entire argument is based on taking the Bible as absolute truth... if I'm writing a paper for a class and I write a statement based on something some scrawled into a margin, then that component of the paper isn't worth shit. At least, not as a factual document.
Just like the bible.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
This entire argument is based on taking the Bible as absolute truth... if I'm writing a paper for a class and I write a statement based on something some scrawled into a margin, then that component of the paper isn't worth shit. At least, not as a factual document.
Just like the bible.
I thought this argument was on the accuracy of the bible, and the amount it has changed in history. There is evidence in this case that even though it does not exist in some early manuscripts, does not mean it is an addition, as Didymus (an early Greek Christian scholar) was aware of the verse. So some early manuscripts must have contained this passage.
I read your link... the evidence is just as good that it did not. I suppose like most things having to do with the bible it comes down to faith.
That being said, don't quote that shit at me expecting it to mean anything. You may as well be quoting Marmaduke.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Haha... sure. Okay. I suppose basing things I've read from biblical scholars (Erhman) is also out, huh? I mean, wouldn't want to open up your book of fairy tails to criticism. After all, Erham's work is scholarly, peer-reviewed... whereas the Bible is really all you need to prove what's in it, right?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Whether or not it is fairy tales, doesn't mean those fairy tales deviate from their original source. You have yet to offer some sort of convincing argument that the New Testament we have today is radically different from the original scriptures, which is what you initially claimed.
And not all of those peer reviews are kind to his work.
I haven't read this thread, so if I'm repeating something, sorry.
The first thing you need to understand, when trying to look at Judaism, is that you CANNOT look at it like you would look at Christianity.
Judaism is not about the afterlife. It is not about trying to buy your way into heaven through belief or deed. It is about how to live your life as best as possible. There are 613 laws that are applied to Jews; you probably know ten or so of them . Lesser known are the seven laws which Juadism actually applies to non-Jews (google the Noahide laws sometime.)
Judaism, in practice, is a constant balance between tradition and personal exploration. My grandfather, who came from Kozinice, Poland, was one of the more obsevrant Jewish figures in my life, when I was growing up. However, even though he kept kosher, and observed the Sabbath, he seemed to look down "religious" people. When I told him I was considering becoming a Rabbi, he said I would be wasting my time, and I should be something useful, like an accountant. When I made a comment to him about the future arrival of the Messiah, he said "Feh! Moshiach already came; it was David Ben-Gurion!" (first Prime Minister of Israel.) Part of this was the fact that he, as a Holocaust survivor, watched his mother ignore the chances that she had to escape the Holocaust, instead waiting around in her home town, insisting that God would protect her. I myself am an Agnostic, but if God does exist, I can tell you that he didn't protect her, in the end.
I was raised in a Conservative Jewish household. On the rare occassion that I pray (usually at a house of mourning, or when a tenth man is needed in order to fulfill the quorum for specific prayers) I feel most comfortable at a service that is at least conservative, if not more observant. It is funny, I think, that even though I don't necessarily believe in God, I'm still uncomfortable with Reform services. This is really the essence of Judaism, though. Jewish agnostics are plentiful, because Judaism teaches that you SHOULDN'T follow blind faith.
According to Judaism, Abraham was a great man because he tried to talk God out of sdestroying towns filled with nothing but sinners; daring to question God's decisions. Abraham later "failed" a test from God, though, when he was actually willing to sacrifice his son. Yes, it showed devotion to God, but God also never spoke to Abraham again after that point.
You asked, though, how Jews choose what to follow. Asside from simply following what you grew up with, many Jews follow particular Rabbis, whose particular brand of Rabbinic logic makes sense to them. Since Judaism is a list of 613 commandments, which are a few thousand years old, that leaves PLENTY of things open for discussion.
For instance, the Torah says nothing explicitly about gay marriage. One Rabbi might decide that since the Torah only mentions marriage between a man and a woman, than means that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, because had it been otherwise, it would have said so. Another rabbi, though, might say that the Torah goes out of its way to say that men should not lie together as they do with women, but does not go out of its way to make the same statement about marriage, which means that gay marriage is okay, bu8t we must always keep in mind that it exiswts for a different purpose than does straight marriage, and the two should be treated differently. A more liberal rabbi might say that since his congregants already eat cheeseburgers, and drive on the sabbath, there is no harm in allowing gay marriages accros the board, since that commandment is no different from others being ignored, and to be inclusive of the gay community is more important. That is an over-simplification, but it should give you an idea.
In addition to the Tanakh (Jewish Bible, containing the three sections of Torah (law), Nevi'im (Prophets), and K'tuvim (writings)) there arte also the books of the Talmud, which are the rabbinical writings, begining around two thousand years ago, as transcripts of rabbic discussions of the meanings and implications of Judaic law, and containing commentary on those discussions, as well as layers upon layers of commentary upon commentary. It is important to note that if you sit down to read these transcripts, often they are heated arguments between two or more respected rabbis, sometimes turning nasty, and sometimes without any sort of a decision ever reached. Judaism is not a simple religion, where all you do is believe in God, nor is it a clear cut religion, where you know exactly what you must do, and just go and do it. Judaism is, basically, a way of life that each Jews is given as both a burden and a blessing. It adds meaning to one's life, but it is not a easy path to take, and this is why converts are actually discouraged, since Jews must adhere to the 613 laws, while, according to Judaism, non-Jews only have to adhere to 7 laws.
Let me leave you with a story that takes place around the year 30 B.C.E. If ti is familiar to the Star Trek Fans out there, remember that Shatner and Nimoy were both Jews.
"A wealthy gentile man sought to understand the purpose behind Judaism, but was not interested in devoting the time to study. He decided instead to pay a Jewish sage to simply explain the deep meaning to him in a couple of sentances. He first approached Rabbi Shammai, one of the greatest Rabbis who ever lived, and asked him, 'Rabbi Shammai, please can you tell me the whole Torah on one foot?' (meaning, sum up all of the Jewish law in a sentance or two.) Shammai was offended, and yelled at the man, 'You fool! Of course I cannot tell you the Torah on one foot. I could not tell you the Torah in one lifetime! The Torah is a persciption for a way of life and touches all facets of life.' With that, Shammai kicked the man out of his school. Not to be dettered, the man approached Rabbi Hillel, a rabbi whose notoriety through time eclipses even that of Shammai, and asked him "Rabbi Hillel, please can you tell me the whole Torah on one foot?' Hillel stared at the man for a moment, then raised one leg off of the ground and said 'Do not do unto others that which is hateful to yourself. That is the entire Torah; the rest is commentary. Now, go and study it.'"
Many culutures have their own "Golden Rule Story", but it is worth noting that, for Jews, the "golden rule" as stated by one of the greatest rabbis to ever live as a summary of the meaning of all of Judaism. This was before Jesus, too.
Still, you cannot forget the message of Shammai, that Judaism is about all of life. Judaism is not a religion where belief in God is all that matters, in fact, there is no commandment in all of Judaism to believe in God (only not to worship other Gods.) Judaism is about how you live your life, and finding ways to follow Judaic law as you live in the world, not to change the world to follow Jewish law (you don't see Jews talking about Intelligent Design. :P )
Whether or not it is fairy tales, doesn't mean those fairy tales deviate from their original source. You have yet to offer some sort of convincing argument that the New Testament we have today is radically different from the original scriptures, which is what you initially claimed.
And not all of those peer reviews are kind to his work.
Unfortunately, I lent the book to a friend of mine, so I won't go to that source. However, I can safely assume you've never read the earliest works of the bible in their original greek or Aramaic, so you cannot tell me absolutely that they haven't been. Which is my entire point. It is simply stupid to assume that something that has been translated back and forth from a number of different languages for the past 2000 years could not have been mistranslated horrendously during that time.
Almost the entire hatred of the gay people comes from the words "to know them.." and I argue that basing your anti-gay rhetoric (not you specifically, I mean those who do it) on this one sentence is stupid... for the reasons I stated above.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
I wish Christians wouldn't pick and choose things from the old testament to bandy about. It doesn't make sense, to me, to eat cheeseburgers and ham, but hate gay people.
And, another interesting fact, for the record. While many Christians seem to like to say that they worship the same God as the Jews, most Jews would refuse to say that they worship the same God as the Christians.
I have never read the ancient manuscripts, and there are no original manuscripts to check whether the ones we have now are accurate or not. But we do have a large amount of manuscripts from different areas of the world, and different times. In these the majority of the differences are grammatical, and only a few large differences exist, none of which change or add to biblical doctrine.
I take this to mean the bible/manuscripts we have now can be considered close enough to be accurate to the original documents.
I wish Christians wouldn't pick and choose things from the old testament to bandy about. It doesn't make sense, to me, to eat cheeseburgers and ham, but hate gay people.
And, another interesting fact, for the record. While many Christians seem to like to say that they worship the same God as the Jews, most Jews would refuse to say that they worship the same God as the Christians.
There is enough scripture in the New Testament to provide a belief that homosexuality is against what God deems to be the right way.
As for Jews refusing to say we worship the same God, this would probably be similar to Christians refusing to say that Mormons worship the same God.
I wish Christians wouldn't pick and choose things from the old testament to bandy about. It doesn't make sense, to me, to eat cheeseburgers and ham, but hate gay people.
And, another interesting fact, for the record. While many Christians seem to like to say that they worship the same God as the Jews, most Jews would refuse to say that they worship the same God as the Christians.
There is enough scripture in the New Testament to provide a belief that homosexuality is against what God deems to be the right way.
As for Jews refusing to say we worship the same God, this would probably be similar to Christians refusing to say that Mormons worship the same God.
Not exactly. I don't remember Mormans adding pieces to God, only to the Religious stories.
I have never read the ancient manuscripts, and there are no original manuscripts to check whether the ones we have now are accurate or not. But we do have a large amount of manuscripts from different areas of the world, and different times. In these the majority of the differences are grammatical, and only a few large differences exist, none of which change or add to biblical doctrine.
I take this to mean the bible/manuscripts we have now can be considered close enough to be accurate to the original documents.
There are HUGE differences between the Christian Old Testament and the Jewish bible.
I wish Christians wouldn't pick and choose things from the old testament to bandy about. It doesn't make sense, to me, to eat cheeseburgers and ham, but hate gay people.
And, another interesting fact, for the record. While many Christians seem to like to say that they worship the same God as the Jews, most Jews would refuse to say that they worship the same God as the Christians.
There is enough scripture in the New Testament to provide a belief that homosexuality is against what God deems to be the right way.
As for Jews refusing to say we worship the same God, this would probably be similar to Christians refusing to say that Mormons worship the same God.
Not exactly. I don't remember Mormans adding pieces to God, only to the Religious stories.
Mormons view God differently to the way the major Christian denominations view Him, in terms of who He is, the Trinity and other aspects.
As for differences with the Jewish bible, do you have a reference I can check up on. I've never checked this out.
I wish Christians wouldn't pick and choose things from the old testament to bandy about. It doesn't make sense, to me, to eat cheeseburgers and ham, but hate gay people.
And, another interesting fact, for the record. While many Christians seem to like to say that they worship the same God as the Jews, most Jews would refuse to say that they worship the same God as the Christians.
There is enough scripture in the New Testament to provide a belief that homosexuality is against what God deems to be the right way.
As for Jews refusing to say we worship the same God, this would probably be similar to Christians refusing to say that Mormons worship the same God.
Not exactly. I don't remember Mormans adding pieces to God, only to the Religious stories.
Mormons view God differently to the way the major Christian denominations view Him, in terms of who He is, the Trinity and other aspects.
still less of a step.
both religions are still about how to get into heaven
In Judaism heaven exists, but it is not a place that people go when they die, it is basically just God's office. Jewish God doesn't want you to believe in him blindly, he wants you to study his laws, and question them, before eventually finding a way to be a good person through them.
As for differences with the Jewish bible, do you have a reference I can check up on. I've never checked this out.
The differences are numerous, and since I don't have my copy of the Old Testament in front of me (my Tananakh I do have, of course) I cannot pick out anything specific. Off hand, though, there is actually a difference or two in the ten commandments, although I do not remember it exactly. There are, of course, a bunch of others. A big part of this is that the King James translation, which most modern versions of the Christian bible at least borrow from, from written to reflect what Christianity had already become by that point. Since Jews still keep the Tanakh in its Hebrew form, when we write up english versions, they are a LOT closer to the original text.
Of course, they are not exactly the same. Those of us who can read the Tanakh in Hebrew get to see even LARGER gaps. ;-)
According to Judaism, Abraham was a great man because he tried to talk God out of sdestroying towns filled with nothing but sinners; daring to question God's decisions.
I disagree with Judaism on this point. If Abraham had been a great man, he would have told God to change those sinners who so offended Him into good people, thus negating the need to smite them. Then he would have gone back to doing whatever he was doing before YHWH interupted him.
According to Judaism, Abraham was a great man because he tried to talk God out of sdestroying towns filled with nothing but sinners; daring to question God's decisions.
I disagree with Judaism on this point. If Abraham had been a great man, he would have told God to change those sinners who so offended Him into good people, thus negating the need to smite them. Then he would have gone back to doing whatever he was doing before YHWH interupted him.
You are making assumptions about the nature of God and free will that Judaism does not make.
As for differences with the Jewish bible, do you have a reference I can check up on. I've never checked this out.
The differences are numerous, and since I don't have my copy of the Old Testament in front of me (my Tananakh I do have, of course) I cannot pick out anything specific. Off hand, though, there is actually a difference or two in the ten commandments, although I do not remember it exactly. There are, of course, a bunch of others. A big part of this is that the King James translation, which most modern versions of the Christian bible at least borrow from, from written to reflect what Christianity had already become by that point. Since Jews still keep the Tanakh in its Hebrew form, when we write up english versions, they are a LOT closer to the original text.
Of course, they are not exactly the same. Those of us who can read the Tanakh in Hebrew get to see even LARGER gaps. ;-)
The wikipedia entry for the OT and Tanakh seems to think there are not many differences. Is this inaccurate?
In Christianity, Abraham is great because he had faith in God.
As for differences with the Jewish bible, do you have a reference I can check up on. I've never checked this out.
The differences are numerous, and since I don't have my copy of the Old Testament in front of me (my Tananakh I do have, of course) I cannot pick out anything specific. Off hand, though, there is actually a difference or two in the ten commandments, although I do not remember it exactly. There are, of course, a bunch of others. A big part of this is that the King James translation, which most modern versions of the Christian bible at least borrow from, from written to reflect what Christianity had already become by that point. Since Jews still keep the Tanakh in its Hebrew form, when we write up english versions, they are a LOT closer to the original text.
Of course, they are not exactly the same. Those of us who can read the Tanakh in Hebrew get to see even LARGER gaps. ;-)
The wikipedia entry for the OT and Tanakh seems to think there are not many differences. Is this inaccurate?
In Christianity, Abraham is great because he had faith in God.
Wikipedia is not the most credible of sources.
And I know about the discrepency, where Christians say that after the binding of isaac, God never spoke to abrham again because Abraham had shown so mch faith that it wasn't needed. It is interesting to note the difference, but also an important point in how different the two religions truely are.
Christianity is based in what you believe, Judaism is based in what you do.
For the record, the "significance" of Abraham being great is because, when Noah is introduced, he is called "a great man in his time", but when abraham is introduced, he is simply called "a great man". The fact that these two stories fall together means that there must be some significance in this difference.
The rabbis took this to mea that while Noah was a great man in his time, that was just relative to the rest of the world. had he lived in any other time, Noah would not have been such a great man. This is evidenced by the fact that, when God told Noah that he was going to kill off everyone in the world, Noah shrugged and built a boat.
Abraham, on the other hand, argued with God about killing off even just a bunch of sinners, showing that he was truely a great man overall, irrespective of his time.
The biggest difference between Jewish and Christina understandings of the Ten Commandments is the emphasis given, though this hasn't anything to do with differences in translations. The other differences are in how the Ten are divided up, though again this hasn't anything to do with translation.
The only difference I could find was that in older translations, Christian bibles rendered the 6th commandment as "Thou shalt not kill" instead of the more accurate "Thou shalt not murder", though modern translations include the more accurate rendering of this commandment.
I was raised a reform Jew, but I'm non-practicing now. Frankly, I find the idea of practicing any religion without looking at how it was formed, how it has evolved, and how it has interacted with society patently ridiculous. A lot of Christians believe that modern Christianity sprung into being at the moment of Jesus's death (and rebirth, I suppose), when this is patently false. The letters from Paul and his whole "anti-mosaic law" thing are proof of that. The only reason he was against that is that he needed to find a way to demonize Judaism in order to win more converts to Christianity. The Christians certainly weren't about to attack the Romans, who despite popular opinion they had a fairly good relationship with.
I guess for me, being pragmatically atheist and hopefully agnostic, the whole idea of religion just frightens and irritates me.
If by "good relationship" you mean fed to lions then yes early christians and romans were best friends.
Yeah... popular misconception. Typically Christians being fed to lions were for other reasons, not just because they were Christian. Turns out the Romans fed a lot of people to lions. And even then the number of Christians fed to lions was extremely small.
To what period does the book refer? I would be interested in what primary sources it gathers its evidence from. Christianity was a religion that was punishable by death during a large portion of the Empire's life. Christians were blamed for burning Rome during Nero's reign and suffered heavily for it. The letters of Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan show that Christianity was punishable by death. Before Constantine placed Christians alongside the Roman Pantheon as equals there was Diocletian and Galerius. Their reigns mark the high-watermark of anti-Christian pogroms.
Christianity was one of the few persecuted religons in the Empire. Alongside some of the cults of Bacchus.
Posts
A quick search of crosswalk says you're wrong.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=1+John+5%3A7%E2%80%938§ion=0&version=esv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=1jo&NavGo=5&NavCurrentChapter=5
http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=1+John+5%3A7%E2%80%938§ion=0&version=nkj&new=1&oq=&NavBook=1jo&NavGo=5&NavCurrentChapter=5
http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=1+John+5%3A7%E2%80%938§ion=0&version=nas&new=1&oq=&NavBook=1jo&NavGo=5&NavCurrentChapter=5
Did you actually search for it?
Do you actually know what you are talking about? The text added to the verse is highlighted in bold:
5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum
Which does not exist in any of the translations I listed.
The only difference is the wording is designed to be easier to read.
That text is not in dispute. The text that is in dispute (the text which was added) is what I have bolded above, which has been removed from modern translations.
That is simply not true. Early Christians were HORRIBLE about copying the bible. Paul or whomever would send a letter to each town explaining his teachings and asking that the letter be recopied and distributed to nearby villages. The people who copied those letters were barely literate... not to mention the language of the time was hard for those who were literate to translate, let alone those who had never been schooled in letters. You might be imagining a bunch of Monks sitting in a monastery, what you should be imagining is a barely literate, town moron copying a letter he can't read nor understand in a back rectory. That would be a more accurate description of the event.
As far as I know, people aren't using old texts as a rule of law... for example, I'm not reading Pyramis and Thisbe and demanding that a huge wall be built between every teenage male or female.
Here is an example of how those letters looked...
Thereasonithinkthatthebibleisnotvalidhasnothingatalltodowithmypersonalfeelinsaboutthesubjectbutratherwhathistoryhasshownmehasbeenanissuewithorganizedreligioningeneral
There was no punctuation, no spaces between words... no Paul there saying "this is what I really meant." Add to that the fact that several words had multiple, completely different meanings, and that these letters were copied and sent hundreds of times, AND that some of the earliest writings we have came decades or centuries after they were written, and you can see just how little sense taking the bible as anything more then an interesting book is a horrible idea.
This may be late, but were you really expecting people to answer this question with "no, I consider every religious text besides the bible to be completely infallible and factual"? What was the point of even asking this?
An attempt at the "Oh ho ho but wait!" thing.
Yes, but no one cares because it doesn't change or add anything to the existing scriptural theology.
Which would be?
Aside from that, there is evidence it existed in early greek manuscripts, with a reference to it from Didymus the Blind (c313- 398): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericope_Adulter%C3%A6#Textual_History
This entire argument is based on taking the Bible as absolute truth... if I'm writing a paper for a class and I write a statement based on something some scrawled into a margin, then that component of the paper isn't worth shit. At least, not as a factual document.
Just like the bible.
I thought this argument was on the accuracy of the bible, and the amount it has changed in history. There is evidence in this case that even though it does not exist in some early manuscripts, does not mean it is an addition, as Didymus (an early Greek Christian scholar) was aware of the verse. So some early manuscripts must have contained this passage.
That being said, don't quote that shit at me expecting it to mean anything. You may as well be quoting Marmaduke.
Also, I believe Metzer's work is seriously disputed on this point, but I don't have time to do the research tonight.
Ok. Don't parrot things you have heard about the bible you have no idea about and we have a deal.
And not all of those peer reviews are kind to his work.
The first thing you need to understand, when trying to look at Judaism, is that you CANNOT look at it like you would look at Christianity.
Judaism is not about the afterlife. It is not about trying to buy your way into heaven through belief or deed. It is about how to live your life as best as possible. There are 613 laws that are applied to Jews; you probably know ten or so of them
Judaism, in practice, is a constant balance between tradition and personal exploration. My grandfather, who came from Kozinice, Poland, was one of the more obsevrant Jewish figures in my life, when I was growing up. However, even though he kept kosher, and observed the Sabbath, he seemed to look down "religious" people. When I told him I was considering becoming a Rabbi, he said I would be wasting my time, and I should be something useful, like an accountant. When I made a comment to him about the future arrival of the Messiah, he said "Feh! Moshiach already came; it was David Ben-Gurion!" (first Prime Minister of Israel.) Part of this was the fact that he, as a Holocaust survivor, watched his mother ignore the chances that she had to escape the Holocaust, instead waiting around in her home town, insisting that God would protect her. I myself am an Agnostic, but if God does exist, I can tell you that he didn't protect her, in the end.
I was raised in a Conservative Jewish household. On the rare occassion that I pray (usually at a house of mourning, or when a tenth man is needed in order to fulfill the quorum for specific prayers) I feel most comfortable at a service that is at least conservative, if not more observant. It is funny, I think, that even though I don't necessarily believe in God, I'm still uncomfortable with Reform services. This is really the essence of Judaism, though. Jewish agnostics are plentiful, because Judaism teaches that you SHOULDN'T follow blind faith.
According to Judaism, Abraham was a great man because he tried to talk God out of sdestroying towns filled with nothing but sinners; daring to question God's decisions. Abraham later "failed" a test from God, though, when he was actually willing to sacrifice his son. Yes, it showed devotion to God, but God also never spoke to Abraham again after that point.
You asked, though, how Jews choose what to follow. Asside from simply following what you grew up with, many Jews follow particular Rabbis, whose particular brand of Rabbinic logic makes sense to them. Since Judaism is a list of 613 commandments, which are a few thousand years old, that leaves PLENTY of things open for discussion.
For instance, the Torah says nothing explicitly about gay marriage. One Rabbi might decide that since the Torah only mentions marriage between a man and a woman, than means that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, because had it been otherwise, it would have said so. Another rabbi, though, might say that the Torah goes out of its way to say that men should not lie together as they do with women, but does not go out of its way to make the same statement about marriage, which means that gay marriage is okay, bu8t we must always keep in mind that it exiswts for a different purpose than does straight marriage, and the two should be treated differently. A more liberal rabbi might say that since his congregants already eat cheeseburgers, and drive on the sabbath, there is no harm in allowing gay marriages accros the board, since that commandment is no different from others being ignored, and to be inclusive of the gay community is more important. That is an over-simplification, but it should give you an idea.
In addition to the Tanakh (Jewish Bible, containing the three sections of Torah (law), Nevi'im (Prophets), and K'tuvim (writings)) there arte also the books of the Talmud, which are the rabbinical writings, begining around two thousand years ago, as transcripts of rabbic discussions of the meanings and implications of Judaic law, and containing commentary on those discussions, as well as layers upon layers of commentary upon commentary. It is important to note that if you sit down to read these transcripts, often they are heated arguments between two or more respected rabbis, sometimes turning nasty, and sometimes without any sort of a decision ever reached. Judaism is not a simple religion, where all you do is believe in God, nor is it a clear cut religion, where you know exactly what you must do, and just go and do it. Judaism is, basically, a way of life that each Jews is given as both a burden and a blessing. It adds meaning to one's life, but it is not a easy path to take, and this is why converts are actually discouraged, since Jews must adhere to the 613 laws, while, according to Judaism, non-Jews only have to adhere to 7 laws.
Let me leave you with a story that takes place around the year 30 B.C.E. If ti is familiar to the Star Trek Fans out there, remember that Shatner and Nimoy were both Jews.
"A wealthy gentile man sought to understand the purpose behind Judaism, but was not interested in devoting the time to study. He decided instead to pay a Jewish sage to simply explain the deep meaning to him in a couple of sentances. He first approached Rabbi Shammai, one of the greatest Rabbis who ever lived, and asked him, 'Rabbi Shammai, please can you tell me the whole Torah on one foot?' (meaning, sum up all of the Jewish law in a sentance or two.) Shammai was offended, and yelled at the man, 'You fool! Of course I cannot tell you the Torah on one foot. I could not tell you the Torah in one lifetime! The Torah is a persciption for a way of life and touches all facets of life.' With that, Shammai kicked the man out of his school. Not to be dettered, the man approached Rabbi Hillel, a rabbi whose notoriety through time eclipses even that of Shammai, and asked him "Rabbi Hillel, please can you tell me the whole Torah on one foot?' Hillel stared at the man for a moment, then raised one leg off of the ground and said 'Do not do unto others that which is hateful to yourself. That is the entire Torah; the rest is commentary. Now, go and study it.'"
Many culutures have their own "Golden Rule Story", but it is worth noting that, for Jews, the "golden rule" as stated by one of the greatest rabbis to ever live as a summary of the meaning of all of Judaism. This was before Jesus, too.
Still, you cannot forget the message of Shammai, that Judaism is about all of life. Judaism is not a religion where belief in God is all that matters, in fact, there is no commandment in all of Judaism to believe in God (only not to worship other Gods.) Judaism is about how you live your life, and finding ways to follow Judaic law as you live in the world, not to change the world to follow Jewish law (you don't see Jews talking about Intelligent Design. :P )
Dylan had a great song about this called "Neighborhood Bully".
Unfortunately, I lent the book to a friend of mine, so I won't go to that source. However, I can safely assume you've never read the earliest works of the bible in their original greek or Aramaic, so you cannot tell me absolutely that they haven't been. Which is my entire point. It is simply stupid to assume that something that has been translated back and forth from a number of different languages for the past 2000 years could not have been mistranslated horrendously during that time.
Almost the entire hatred of the gay people comes from the words "to know them.." and I argue that basing your anti-gay rhetoric (not you specifically, I mean those who do it) on this one sentence is stupid... for the reasons I stated above.
And, another interesting fact, for the record. While many Christians seem to like to say that they worship the same God as the Jews, most Jews would refuse to say that they worship the same God as the Christians.
I take this to mean the bible/manuscripts we have now can be considered close enough to be accurate to the original documents.
There is enough scripture in the New Testament to provide a belief that homosexuality is against what God deems to be the right way.
As for Jews refusing to say we worship the same God, this would probably be similar to Christians refusing to say that Mormons worship the same God.
Not exactly. I don't remember Mormans adding pieces to God, only to the Religious stories.
There are HUGE differences between the Christian Old Testament and the Jewish bible.
Mormons view God differently to the way the major Christian denominations view Him, in terms of who He is, the Trinity and other aspects.
As for differences with the Jewish bible, do you have a reference I can check up on. I've never checked this out.
still less of a step.
both religions are still about how to get into heaven
In Judaism heaven exists, but it is not a place that people go when they die, it is basically just God's office. Jewish God doesn't want you to believe in him blindly, he wants you to study his laws, and question them, before eventually finding a way to be a good person through them.
The differences are numerous, and since I don't have my copy of the Old Testament in front of me (my Tananakh I do have, of course) I cannot pick out anything specific. Off hand, though, there is actually a difference or two in the ten commandments, although I do not remember it exactly. There are, of course, a bunch of others. A big part of this is that the King James translation, which most modern versions of the Christian bible at least borrow from, from written to reflect what Christianity had already become by that point. Since Jews still keep the Tanakh in its Hebrew form, when we write up english versions, they are a LOT closer to the original text.
Of course, they are not exactly the same. Those of us who can read the Tanakh in Hebrew get to see even LARGER gaps. ;-)
I disagree with Judaism on this point. If Abraham had been a great man, he would have told God to change those sinners who so offended Him into good people, thus negating the need to smite them. Then he would have gone back to doing whatever he was doing before YHWH interupted him.
You are making assumptions about the nature of God and free will that Judaism does not make.
The wikipedia entry for the OT and Tanakh seems to think there are not many differences. Is this inaccurate?
In Christianity, Abraham is great because he had faith in God.
Wikipedia is not the most credible of sources.
And I know about the discrepency, where Christians say that after the binding of isaac, God never spoke to abrham again because Abraham had shown so mch faith that it wasn't needed. It is interesting to note the difference, but also an important point in how different the two religions truely are.
Christianity is based in what you believe, Judaism is based in what you do.
The rabbis took this to mea that while Noah was a great man in his time, that was just relative to the rest of the world. had he lived in any other time, Noah would not have been such a great man. This is evidenced by the fact that, when God told Noah that he was going to kill off everyone in the world, Noah shrugged and built a boat.
Abraham, on the other hand, argued with God about killing off even just a bunch of sinners, showing that he was truely a great man overall, irrespective of his time.
http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm#Written makes a passing reference to some differences in translations, but I couldn't find a list of them.
As for a summation of Christianity, I would agree with that.
The only difference I could find was that in older translations, Christian bibles rendered the 6th commandment as "Thou shalt not kill" instead of the more accurate "Thou shalt not murder", though modern translations include the more accurate rendering of this commandment.
I got this off: http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm
To what period does the book refer? I would be interested in what primary sources it gathers its evidence from. Christianity was a religion that was punishable by death during a large portion of the Empire's life. Christians were blamed for burning Rome during Nero's reign and suffered heavily for it. The letters of Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan show that Christianity was punishable by death. Before Constantine placed Christians alongside the Roman Pantheon as equals there was Diocletian and Galerius. Their reigns mark the high-watermark of anti-Christian pogroms.
Christianity was one of the few persecuted religons in the Empire. Alongside some of the cults of Bacchus.