The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Bible Questions
Spectral Swallow
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
With the sudden influx of free time I've had, I started reading the bible. Now prior to reading it, I wasn't especially religious, but after reading a few 'chapters', I've kind of got some questions:
In Leviticus 4 starting at 27 it seems implied that you can be forgiven for sins?
Furthermore, in Leviticus 19:19 it says that you aren't allowed to even plant two different seeds in your field?
Essentially I have about 15 questions, along those same lines, but my real question is are those refuted? I mean, like at one point it says to kill 'mediums'. So where is the line drawn?
I've always kind of blindly accepted what I was told, but reading through it has raised a whole lot of questions even as far as the nature of death and stuff. Blah. Knowledge sucks.
In Leviticus 4 starting at 27 it seems implied that you can be forgiven for sins?
27 " 'If a member of the community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD's commands, he is guilty. 28 When he is made aware of the sin he committed, he must bring as his offering for the sin he committed a female goat without defect. 29 He is to lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and slaughter it at the place of the burnt offering. 30 Then the priest is to take some of the blood with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. 31 He shall remove all the fat, just as the fat is removed from the fellowship offering, and the priest shall burn it on the altar as an aroma pleasing to the LORD. In this way the priest will make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven.
Furthermore, in Leviticus 19:19 it says that you aren't allowed to even plant two different seeds in your field?
Essentially I have about 15 questions, along those same lines, but my real question is are those refuted? I mean, like at one point it says to kill 'mediums'. So where is the line drawn?
I've always kind of blindly accepted what I was told, but reading through it has raised a whole lot of questions even as far as the nature of death and stuff. Blah. Knowledge sucks.
Spectral Swallow on
0
Posts
People will, however, cite them for various reasons despite this fact.
Edit: Also, I use the term Christian loosely there.
Yep, ancient Jews practiced animal sacrifice in order to forgive sins.
In Acts chapter 15 verse 28-29 it is outlined that Christians don't follow a lot of the 'old rules'.
Just so you know, Christ is seen by Christians as the ultimate sacrifice. That sacrifice changes all the old rules the Jews were playing by.
My wife is a Christian scholar getting her PHD at the University of Chicago. PM me if you have any questions and I'll try to answer them the best I can.
Good luck.
And the site I'm reading from has multiple translations. I mean in the King James version, one of the commandments seems to read that there can be no graven images of anything, which was changed in the New International version just to no images of God. So I mean if the bible is supposed to be the word of God which one is right? How does it account for modern interpretations changing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWqgD7lGneU
This is one of the things that Islam has gotten right. Insisting that everyone read whatever Holy Book you have in the same language and you cut down on at least some issues between co-religionists.
I actually worked at work on Saturday. Also I went out on a date with a real life girl.
Can you like, permanently break the forums?
I missed the part where you were reading it on a website. I would suggest going out and picking up a Bible so you could read the same translation all the way through. They arent that expensive. Also, its true, it doesnt account for different translations. Except when you get down to it, its still the same Word of God. For instance, the commandment you mentioned. Correct me if Im wrong, I believe its the second. No graven images=no idols, of God or any other god. Or anything that you would worship as a god, such as the golden calf. Another example would be one translation using the word slave, while another uses servant. So there will be minor differences, but the overall picture and meaning should be the same throughout. If you wanted to read the original you better be brushing up on your Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic
Correct. Correct. Correct. Christianity pretty much picks and chooses its way around translation and interpretation. You've got sects like the Baptists who pretty much believe everything literally in King James format, and you've got New Age Christianity which is far more lax and adjusts a lot of the tenants to accommodate for civilized society.
But really, as a Christian, none of it matters. If you've gone through the requisite motions you can then abduct your neighbors wife and kill her while worshiping Bale on a Saturday and you're covered.
we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
Well, I wont say thats not meant to be taken literally, because in the days of the Israelites I'd say God very specifically meant what He said. I would argue that it doesnt contradict. Yes, "thou shalt not kill". Yet, God also commanded the Israelites on occasion to enter into a city and kill every man, woman, child, animal, etc. In that line God is also commanding that those who converse with spirits/demons should be killed as well. Or when the Philistines would invade, God had no problem with His people defending themselves.
But when Cain killed Abel, God had a problem. Or when King Saul had Abner kill the priests, that was a problem. So to sum it up, I always thought as the commandment being "thou shalt not murder".
I didn't mean the site had just different translations randomly thrown about, but like you can choose which translation to read. And sometimes while reading the International version, I'll be like, "That sounds weird" and switch to the King James to see how it's interpreted.
But my major thing is like, how it could be all wrong, ya know? Like right after 'thou shall not kill' they stone a dude to death for working on the sabbath. So I looked into it and apparently that was a mistranslation and it should have been 'though shall not murder' which is a big difference. I was just curious if it was addressed further in as far as which rules to follow, since there are a lot of them that I never even hear mentioned (No Tattoos?).
Unfortunately that doesn't mean much in practice. As far as I can tell, as a casual non-believing reader, both books are about love. It seems a lot of people around the world interpret them very, very differently.
But it does offer an outline on how to live peaceably and morally. And because religion is a personal matter, you can take what you will from it--just because the stories have hypocrites in them doesn't mean that you have to be one.
Yes, but God also told the Isrealites to rape virgins after killing all the men and non-virgins. Not to sure you can defend that one. I mean, I can see a landless people justifying killing off the occupants of the holy land, but rape? Hrmm.
God in the Old Testament is a lot different than the benevolent figure he is portrayed as in the New Testament via Jesus. With that being said, from a Christian perspective there is almost nothing to derive from the Old Testament except some poorly written history, half of which is not true or based on ancient Babylonian science.
we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
This is probably the best overall English translation of the Tanakh (aka: Old Testament) and New Testament available today if what you are interested in is accuracy. The King James is, despite its amazing poetry, riddled with translational problems and deliberate distortions.
However, since the above version is not available for free online (that I am aware of) here is the short, short version:
What modern English-speaking Christians refer to as "The Bible" is actually a collection of writings that took shape over the course of the better part of 1000 years.
A very important fact to keep in mind is that the order of the books as well as the verse and chapter divisions and book names of the Old Testament are completely artificial. They were created by Greek translators working for the early Ptolemys hundreds of years after most of the materiel had already been written (in various dialects of Hebrew). This version,called the Septuagint, is when the book titles were made up (no surprise there since most of them, such as "Leviticus" are actually Greek words) and the verses and chapters were divided up and numbered. Overall these translators did a pretty good job but some of the divisions really break up the flow of the narrative (the first part of Kings really belongs with Samuel II). It also sometimes puts things in a strange order. EG: All the books of the Prophets are put in order of length despite the fact this really mixes them up chronologically.
So what were they translating, these Greeks? A motley collection of materiel that was written over a great span of time and combines at least 3 very distinct groups of authors. Israel was, prior to bring conquered by the Neo-Babylonians (aka: Chaldeans) two distinct countries. Ephream (also called Israel) in the north and Judah in the south. Each country worshipped the same god (named Yahweh) and were briefly unified under David and Solomon but differed in many ways. They each had their own epic mythology that was, most likely, written down prior to being combined into a single set of documents. These two epics combined make up the bulk of the Old Testament. This explains a great deal of the repetitions and seeming schizophrenic nature of the narrative in many of the stories (eg: why there are two different creation stories in Genesis. Because they really are just two different stories from two different traditions set one after the other)
The third component is what is called the "priestly" source which provided a great deal of the cultic, ritual and genealogical information. Most likely this was all combined during the time when Deuteronomy was written (probably during or shortly after the reign of King Josiah). This is when the Old Testament would have first started to look something like its current form.
Remember when reading the OT that very old passages can be side by side with those written 500 years later. And religious attitudes changed a lot over that time. In the oldest parts of the bible (probably oldest: the Song of Deborah in Judges 5) Yahweh (this is the name of the Christian / Jewish god) is not omnipotent, omniscient, not even the only god (monotheism came much, much later). Yahweh is simply the god who leads his people in Holy War.
The fact that all the old materiel is still there, side by side with the new, is a testament to the remarkable honestly of those who compiled it. The priests of Deuteronomy were quite a shrewd bunch. They knew as well as anyone that it wasn't quite the same religion of their ancestors of the late bronze age anymore. And some of it just didn't make sense. But they kept seemingly as much as they could out of respect for the traditions of their people.
The New Testament is a completely different story. Its bits were written down relatively quickly. The Gospels all within half a century of each other. All of them were written after 70 AD (they all refer to the war with the Romans that resulted in the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in 70) but almost certainly prior to the Jewish Revolt which occurred around 115. Yeshua (Greek version: Jesus) of course had died sometime around 30-35 and so the writers of the gospels would be of the generation of the grandchildren or great-grandchildren of the people the books are named for.
It is generally considered by scholars that Mark was the first gospel to be written but there are (based on which gospels copy parts of others) several possibilities for the exact order. John is almost universally considered to be the last. When it comes to the other bits of the NT, about half of the letters of Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) were probably written by around the dates claimed (40-mid 50s, the other half of his epistles being written by his later followers and ascribed to him). These letters are quite interesting because while he never met Yeshua he did know his family and they are the only portion of the New Testament for which an author is known. And, more importantly, the only portion from before the massive war in the late 60s. A war which Yeshua's people lost and lost hard.
Acts came somewhat after the gospels, though a decent case can be made that it was by the same person or group (group more likely for any writing in antiquity) that wrote Luke. And of course Revelations came much, much later than any of them and is by far the most dubious to be included in the canon.
Anyway, must get off to bed now. I really hope you can get a copy of the Bible I mentioned above. It is a great starting point to a wonderful field of study. I can suggest a number of other books if you are interested.
Well first of all lets get some citation involved. I don't recall reading anything about raping virgins. I'm not even saying its not there, just that I dont remember. My answer would depend on where you found that passage, and the context in it. I will say I do remember about killing off the men and taking the virgins. At which point they took them as wives and the women were afforded more rights than they had in other ancient cultures. And, I recall something about if a man rapes a woman he must take her as his wife, and again, she is afforded all the rights a normal wife would have.
As it is, this thread seems to be steaming for D&D land real quick. For those who have negative views of the Bible, God, etc, thats fine. But I don't think this is the place for it. The OP is asking for clarification of Bible questions he has. This seems to be quickly degenerating into a "blah the Bible is stupid mythology", which seems to be neither help nor advice for the OP. And I would disagree with you saying "from a Christian perspective there is almost nothing to derive from the Old Testament...". Perhaps from a non-Christian perspective that is true, but I doubt you would find too many Christians who feel the same way.
Now for my own question. Where did you get that Yahweh was simply the God who led them in Holy War? I have never seen nor heard anything that would suggest that.
He starts out that way. Like any successful deity, he changed quite a lot over the years (edit: but again, read the Song of Deborah and consider that it is probably the single oldest bit in the entire bible). For example, he pretty quickly became a god of fertility once the Hebrews settled in Canaan and started farming (ie: after the Exodus).
Just to be clear, this is not my thesis. I am an amateur enthusiastic in this field. Not a scholar. That said, I would recommend the works of Frank Moore Cross (prof. emeritus of the Harvard Divinity School) or Robert Oden (president of Carlton College) as an excellent and very enjoyable start. They are both very good writers in addition to their scholarly merits.
Anyway, my point in all that is not the denigrate the bible. The way I look at it, the more one learns about the times and people involved in its creation the more one respects them as human beings. And the less it seems like an insane collection of random nonsense (which, frankly, describes a good portion of the King James).
Though I would also point out that it is my opinion that the more I learn about the bible and to respect those who created it the less I want to believe anything resembling the religion they are peddling.
Just wanted to point out that one of the best things about the Oxford Annotated version I linked above is it has copious notes about why a given translation for any controversial bit. Think the footnotes from a NSV but much more thorough.
There are some groups of Baptists who insist on King James only, but it's by far a minority (in my experience). From what I've heard, the King James is a pretty poor translation. I've heard political pressure was exerted on the translator(s) to translate some of the passages a certain way, or use a version of the text which appeared to be a forgery.
The commandment which is translated "Thou shalt not kill" in the King James is translated "You shall not murder" in most other translations, which seems to be more correct from a point of view of consistency. As you said, executions were certainly part of the Jewish justice system. I don't know Hebrew, so I can't comment on the relative validity of the two translations from a language point of view.
The Old Testament law wasn't revoked by Jesus: He specifically claims otherwise in Matthew 5:18, for example. On the other hand, He also claims that the Law isn't to be followed slavishly; which is also a common theme of many of the prophets. Basically, you're not supposed to become so focused on following all the minutia that you forget about love and justice.
Another point is that Leviticus was written as the code of Law for the Jewish nation about 6000 years ago, so some laws don't make sense outside of that context.
I'm not sure where "Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed." or the oft mocked "Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." fit in though. They're usually ignored by contemporary Christians; this is probably justified through use of passages like Acts 15:19.
Edit: I don't see the passage in the Song of Deborah which you claim is inconsistent with monotheism.
One guiding hermeneutic many read the scriptures with, is that when the bible is talking about Israel, or God is instructing Israel, the laws are applicable only to Israel, with whom God has (note HAS not had) a special covenant relationship. Therefore, there are things which bound ancient Jews but NOT ancient gentiles. not all of the laws were MORAL per se, but had specifically to do with Israel's relationship with God (hence some of the seemingly odd requirements about not wearing mixed fabrics etc.)
YES Jesus fulfilled the law, but he did not abolish it.
Why don't jews sacrifice today? Because sacrifice takes place at hte temple which was destroyed. Why don't Christians sacrifice? because Jesus was the perfect sacrifice.
Now- on to comments like "the bible was never meant to be taken literally...talking animals?" How does he know? Was he there when it was written? If a God exists, which the Bible presupposes, then is making an animal talk all that hard for a God who already CREATED everything from NOTHING? The anti-supernatural presuppositions color the reading of the bible and require massive violence to be done to the text in interpretation.
If you're interested in learning how to interpret the bible check out
Introduction to Biblical interpretation (Blomberg)
Inductive Bible Study (Kay Arthur)
and Dispensationalism (Charles Ryrie) (this one will give you the tools you need to apply a consistent literal hermeneutic to the text, and put OT Law in it's proper place without arbitrarily jettisoning laws you just don't like.)
Send me a PM if anything is unclear, or if you have further questions. Even if you're not reading it to believe it or evaluate it- it's important to know what the text is actually talking about and saying so that when someone asks You a question in a forum you don't write from an uneducated opinion.
My advice? If you want to get in to watch the two sides go at it then feel free to post away (but in D&D). If you want to know about the apologetics of some specific verses then ask your pastor/priest/whatever, because they will give you something that is easier to swallow, and will make more sense in the context. I would not count on any question you asked getting a very good response.
Now, if you do want to study apologetics, or the arguments against Abrahamic religions, or religious thought in general do a search on Google and prepare to have your mind blown. Lots of very smart people spend their whole lives trying to justify the Bible, and lots of very smart people like to tear those arguments down in their spare time.
(I am trying very hard to keep my own opinions out of this, because you didn't really ask for that in the OP...but these discussions are a ton of fun!)
Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
STEAM
You're probably referring to Deuteronomy 20:14 or Numbers 31:18 with this statement. If you read elsewhere, God provides instructions where they (the Israelites) are instructed to take the virgins, allow them 1 month to mourn and then they are allowed marry them.
Sorry, cherry-picking scriptures and going "GOD COMMADNS RAPEZ!" really pisses me off.
You're right, because I'm sure the women were given a choice in that male dominated barbaric society. Also killing all the women who were not virgins was very spiritual. Top notch benevolence right there.
Yes, it was Numbers 31.
Maybe it's the same sort of cherry picking that basically every denomination of Christianity does to warrant any lifestyle or belief they have ranging from the archaic to the modern.
we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
This is not helpful at all. If you want to rail against the Bible and religion in general, I'm sure D&D will have you.
As for the OP, literally meaning is really the most basic form of understanding. Moving beyond that into metaphor, and finally into allegory. Although at this point a deeper understanding of historical and cultural context will help you to find what these allegories mean. Some transfer to modern times almost universally, and some require deeper understanding of where they come from (which is where questions usually arise). People have already suggested some helpful books to give context, but it is a difficult and complicated area that people spend lifetimes studying. It'll get as deep as you want it to.
Asking questions is a good step into further analysis. Good luck!
The New Living Bible or the New American Study Bible are good ones - the NLB is easy to read, but the NASB is more accurate. You have to read understanding the culture you're reading about, as well - eg women covering their hair in the young Christian church was necessary because only prostitutes in that culture uncovered their hair; it was about showing respect for the society they were living in at the time, even though Jesus had set them free from the old covenant (given by God in the Old Testament).
For paintings in progress, check out canvas and paints
"The power of the weirdness compels me."
Those parts of the Bible are the biggest evidence to me, as a Christian, that the Bible is not 100% the word of God. I believe that some parts of it are humans justifying their bad behaviour by saying God told them to do it. I don't believe that God would have told the Israelites to rape & forcibly marry the virgins. It's even internally inconsistent. The rest of the Old Testament has tons about about how Israelite men should not marry foreign women.
You just have to read the Bible critically, and use the brains and moral sense God gave you in order to figure out which bits should be taken literally, and which bits with a pinch of salt.
However, I do believe that the words of Jesus in the New Testament are the word of God, because Jesus never says anything that strikes me as less than wise & holy (unlike some of the Old Testament and some of the non-Gospel parts of the New Testament)