Can We Have a Bible Thread? (Catch-All?)

complexmath wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

I took a class on the Old Testament in college and there's a theory that this actually happened in a fashion and that they crossed the Reed Sea (not the Red Sea).

I've never understood this. It seems like the idea is that "reed" was mistranslated as "reed", but I'd imagine the words look and sound completely different in all but modern English. Can someone explain?

That one I've heard pop up and always assumed it was someone trying to be clever with oooh "red almost equals reed"... while ignoring the obvious language differences.

Other bits have had some interesting translation questions come up though... One that sticks with me was that the passage that says Jesus walked on water... the original text's word has a few translations and one of those could actually be he walked BY the water, suggesting that there was nothing miraculous about the event at all.

Honestly, I think both the Christian groups, historical researchers/archeologists, and such are all working towards differing goals which is going to lead to never knowing quite what to believe with all those little blurbs that pop up everywhere.

DSGamer wrote:

I took a class on the Old Testament in college and there's a theory that this actually happened in a fashion and that they crossed the Reed Sea (not the Red Sea).

I've never understood this. It seems like the idea is that "reed" was mistranslated as "red", but I'd imagine the words look and sound completely different in all but modern English. Can someone explain?

complexmath wrote:
Dr.Ghastly wrote:
God has made it clear that the penalty for sin is death.

This is one thing that always made me wonder... If the penalty for sin is death then what is hell for?

I don't think Hell is ever mentioned in the bible. Heck, the only place I'm aware that Satan appears is in Job as "the adversary", and Job is popularly considered a metaphorical story.

There are a few different words that are used for the concept of hell (including the word hell) in scripture. (Gehenna. Sheol[which can also mean death]. Hades. etc) The concept is mentioned over 50 times throughout the Bible and 17 times by Jesus Himself.

Sheol[which can also mean death].

I think it means "abode of the dead" rather than "death".

Robear wrote:
Sheol[which can also mean death].

I think it means "abode of the dead" rather than "death".

Yes, that is true as well.

Have you seen it translated as death? Just curious, no big deal.

Robear wrote:

Have you seen it translated as death? Just curious, no big deal.

Jacob speaks in Gen. 42:38b concerning his youngest son Benjamin, "If any calamity should befall him along the way in which you go, then you would bring down my gray hair with sorrow to the grave [Sheol]." Also two verses from the Psalms: Ps. 6:5, "For there is no mention of Thee in death; In the grave [Sheol] who will give Thee thanks?," and Ps. 89:48, "What man can live and not see death? Can he deliver his soul from the power of the grave [Sheol]?" In both these verses, the word "Sheol" is parallel to the word "death" because they mean the same thing.

If by "death" you mean "the place/state-of-being inhabited by the dead", then sure. Not so much if you mean "the process of becoming dead".

Filthy skimmer, here!

Anyone mentioned The Human Bible? Great podcast I've been listening to lately...and I'm not even religious.

Jacob speaks in Gen. 42:38b concerning his youngest son Benjamin, "If any calamity should befall him along the way in which you go, then you would bring down my gray hair with sorrow to the grave [Sheol]." Also two verses from the Psalms: Ps. 6:5, "For there is no mention of Thee in death; In the grave [Sheol] who will give Thee thanks?," and Ps. 89:48, "What man can live and not see death? Can he deliver his soul from the power of the grave [Sheol]?" In both these verses, the word "Sheol" is parallel to the word "death" because they mean the same thing.

Okay, just checking. The canonical translation is "the abode of death" (for example, Hades); or "a pit or abyss". I disagree with the reading, in that the English usage of "death" seems to be wider than the Hebrew, but I can see where you would come to that conclusion. In English, you can say "go down to death" and it makes some sense; in Hebrew, Sheol is a place, not a state of being, so the two (grave and death) don't seem to me to be synonymous.

But mostly I was curious as to the source of that reading. I like to check my sources against yours, since you have a lot of knowledge on the topic. Thanks!

Demosthenes wrote:

That one I've heard pop up and always assumed it was someone trying to be clever with oooh "red almost equals reed"... while ignoring the obvious language differences.

I've known about Red Sea vs Reed Sea for a while and had just assumed it was a quirk of historical English orthography. We represent the Long E sound currently with ee (among other ways), but it seems plausible that a single e could be used to represent that sound as well, prior to spelling standardization, which basically didn't happen until the printing press was invented.

Actually looking it up, however, the KJV was compiled at 150 years after that, so that theory is out.

Turns out it was the Greeks. Rather than translating directly, the translators of the Septuagint identified the Sea of Reeds as being the Red Sea, and used their name for it.

Garden Ninja wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

That one I've heard pop up and always assumed it was someone trying to be clever with oooh "red almost equals reed"... while ignoring the obvious language differences.

I've known about Red Sea vs Reed Sea for a while and had just assumed it was a quirk of historical English orthography. We represent the Long E sound currently with ee (among other ways), but it seems plausible that a single e could be used to represent that sound as well, prior to spelling standardization, which basically didn't happen until the printing press was invented.

Actually looking it up, however, the KJV was compiled at 150 years after that, so that theory is out.

Turns out it was the Greeks. Rather than translating directly, the translators of the Septuagint identified the Sea of Reeds as being the Red Sea, and used their name for it.

I just looked it up in Hebrew Wikipedia and they said that the "Red Sea" is a common name to what the bible mention "Sea of Reeds" or more specifically Typha (aka cattail ). In Hebrew we call it am Soof like the bible. The wikipedia article talked about the reflection of the red mountains of Jordan or red bacteria in the water. I've been there a few times and I can't recall any reeds , or red colored water.

Robear wrote:
Sheol[which can also mean death].

I think it means "abode of the dead" rather than "death".

I looked it up in Hebrew I know Sheol means "hell" . The wikipedia article talked about how the Sheol is consider bellow the earth and it's hungry for souls. They said that the term doesn't exist in other Semite languages And how talking with the dead is called "raising in Ov " . Going down to Sheol just means dying. They also talked about how Jacob said he didn't want to die in sorrow if something happened to Benjamin .

I still haven't read the bible for a while. I was in a Bar Mitzva about a year ago and I got lost as usual ( I was looking for the operating manual in the prayer book and couldn't figure it out). Bible study is a mandatory class in Israel So I did study some of it. Reading the bible is not as easy as it seems even to native Hebrew speakers. Modern Hebrew is a renewed language but I think I can read and understand the bible just fine. There are also annotated versions which make it easier to understand what's going on.

complexmath wrote:
Dr.Ghastly wrote:
God has made it clear that the penalty for sin is death.

This is one thing that always made me wonder... If the penalty for sin is death then what is hell for?

I don't think Hell is ever mentioned in the bible. Heck, the only place I'm aware that Satan appears is in Job as "the adversary", and Job is popularly considered a metaphorical story.

CNN has an interesting article on their front page this morning about 2 opposing views of Hell.

But death is not normal or natural—it’s an enemy and the consequence of sin.

"First, ignore everything you know about every other form of life in the world..."

Think of it in this way: God is the source of life. When we choose to live independently of God and rebelliously against God it is akin to unplugging something from its power source. It begins to lose power until it eventually dies.

It follows from this guy's argument that every other living in the world is "unplugged from God" and therefore suffers death. It's an incredibly medieval view, putting the entire focus on God's Special Creation, humans, because we matter more than anything else in creation.

Robear wrote:

It follows from this guy's argument that every other living in the world is "unplugged from God" and therefore suffers death. It's an incredibly medieval view, putting the entire focus on God's Special Creation, humans, because we matter more than anything else in creation.

I've always thought human superiority to other creatures was the consensus view for followers of the Abrahamic religions.

And the Earth is the center of the universe, too.

Not sure of the connection. A geocentric universe has long since been rejected by all but the most extreme believers, while man's superiority to other beings (dogs and cats lacking a soul, and so on) is still a relatively mainstream belief in the 21st century. I'm quite certain I know exactly zero people who subscribe to the former idea, but quite a few have said they believe the latter.

I just have a thing about literal readings of the Bible.

While most believers would probably reject the earth LITERALLY being the center of the universe, I'm sure many still consider the earth to be center of the universe in the more figurative sense. I'm not certain that is much of an improvement, really.

Even literalists are picking and choosing to support their views of the Bible.

Robear wrote:

Even literalists are picking and choosing to support their views of the Bible.

Literalists have to pick and choose, otherwise the contradictions would cause the entire literal argument to implode.

Robear wrote:

Even literalists are picking and choosing to support their views of the Bible.

`

If there is one thing that is abundantly clear in the last few years of reading your posts, it is that you greatly misunderstand the concept of a Biblical literalist. Even Wikipedia has a basic definition of Biblical literalism:

Wikipedia wrote:

The essence of this approach focuses upon the author's intent as the primary meaning of the text.[4] Literal interpretation does place emphasis upon the referential aspect of the words or terms in the text. It does not, however, mean a complete denial of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor).[5] Also literalism does not necessarily lead to total and complete agreement upon one single interpretation for any given passage.

There are two kinds of literal interpretation, letterism and the more common historical-grammatical method. Letterism attempts to uncover the meaning of the text through a strict emphasis upon a mechanical, wooden literalism of words. This approach often obscures the literary aspects and consequently the primary meaning of the text.[6] The historical grammatical method is a hermeneutic technique that strives to uncover the meaning of the text by taking into account not just the grammatical words, but also the syntactical aspects, the cultural and historical background, and the literary genre.

emphasis mine

Most "literalists" would fall into the category of the historical grammatical method.

Nomad wrote:

Most "literalists" would fall into the category of the historical grammatical method.

Eh... Not so much. That article sort of unintentionally delineates the differences between liberal and fundamental christianity. While I have met grammatical literalists since moving to more progressive climes, growing up mostly around fundamentalists the vast majority of my experience with christianity is by-the-book letter and verse literalism.

Robear wrote:

It follows from this guy's argument that every other living in the world is "unplugged from God" and therefore suffers death. It's an incredibly medieval view, putting the entire focus on God's Special Creation, humans, because we matter more than anything else in creation.

If you believe that humans are the only rational animals, then humans are the only ones who can choose to "unplug" from God. So Hell should be entirely free of non-humans.

ruhk wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Most "literalists" would fall into the category of the historical grammatical method.

Eh... Not so much. That article sort of unintentionally delineates the differences between liberal and fundamental christianity. While I have met grammatical literalists since moving to more progressive climes, growing up mostly around fundamentalists the vast majority of my experience with christianity is by-the-book letter and verse literalism.

More or less. There are evangelical sects that look at the bible, cover to cover, as irreductible fact and history. While the prevailing aproach it to understand that the bible is made up of many styles of writing, for multiple authors, and often are written far outside of the time they referance.

American Evangelism does not always recognize this, and often treats every word as beamed down directly into the mind of a prophet who then wrote it down. These are the nuts who see no incongruity between Genesis 1 and 2, or the Book of Job and Revelation with everything else.

If there is one thing that is abundantly clear in the last few years of reading your posts, it is that you greatly misunderstand the concept of a Biblical literalist. Even Wikipedia has a basic definition of Biblical literalism:

My experience has been with people who believe that every word in the KJV, or in the Greek and Hebrew texts upon which it was based, is literally true and inerrant. They do recognize poetry and the like when it shows up. Largely Southern Baptists, Fundamentalist Methodists and independent Bible Believers. I've had long discussions about this with several of them over the years, and they are all part of similarly thinking communities which support them. I'm not misunderstanding; I think perhaps you are simply not seeing many of these people in your life.

Bear in mind, literalism holds that the Bible, outside of allegorical or poetic sections, is essentially history and truthful statements about the world, and the Bible should be read simply and plainly. And if it's inerrant - a common position - then there are *not* multiple correct readings of history or facts about the world. What fascinates me, one thing among many, is that there are and have been so many different "literal" interpretations of the Bible. As the article you cited notes, there are no fixed criteria on what's allegorical, and what's not. So what today's literalists believe is not the same as what was believed in the early Church, or by Martin Luther, although the closer you get to the Great Awakening, the more you're going to find in common with modern literalism. And between different sects, there are different beliefs. (Snake handling is based on literalism, but only a few churches sanction it...)

So I question the literalist approach, and I certainly question inerrancy. I'm not alone in this - heck, Augustine and many other church fathers throughout history have held similar positions.

Robear wrote:
If there is one thing that is abundantly clear in the last few years of reading your posts, it is that you greatly misunderstand the concept of a Biblical literalist. Even Wikipedia has a basic definition of Biblical literalism:

My experience has been with people who believe that every word in the KJV, or in the Greek and Hebrew texts upon which it was based, is literally true and inerrant. They do recognize poetry and the like when it shows up. Largely Southern Baptists, Fundamentalist Methodists and independent Bible Believers. I've had long discussions about this with several of them over the years, and they are all part of similarly thinking communities which support them. I'm not misunderstanding; I think perhaps you are simply not seeing many of these people in your life.

Yep. The belief I've encountered is that the Bible is the literal word of God and is therefore inerrant and complete. If Genesis says the world was created in 7 days then it was literally created in 7 solar days. It's not just evangelical types either. I know (and am related to) devout Catholics who are the same way.

complexmath wrote:
Robear wrote:
If there is one thing that is abundantly clear in the last few years of reading your posts, it is that you greatly misunderstand the concept of a Biblical literalist. Even Wikipedia has a basic definition of Biblical literalism:

My experience has been with people who believe that every word in the KJV, or in the Greek and Hebrew texts upon which it was based, is literally true and inerrant. They do recognize poetry and the like when it shows up. Largely Southern Baptists, Fundamentalist Methodists and independent Bible Believers. I've had long discussions about this with several of them over the years, and they are all part of similarly thinking communities which support them. I'm not misunderstanding; I think perhaps you are simply not seeing many of these people in your life.

Yep. The belief I've encountered is that the Bible is the literal word of God and is therefore inerrant and complete. If Genesis says the world was created in 7 days then it was literally created in 7 solar days. It's not just evangelical types either. I know (and am related to) devout Catholics who are the same way.

That Wikipedia entry may be the definition of Biblical literalism for academics and some denominations, but that isn't the definition for a lot of people I've encountered here in Colorado Springs (the evangelical capitol of the West).

While I cannot speak to an entire sect numbering in the billions, no devout Catholic should believe in the literal and inerrant text of the Bible; that's fundamental to the idea that the clergy is required as a conduit between the parishoners and God.

This is me parrotting my confirmation class rhetoric here, so I'm reasonably confident in my assertion.

Devout for some definition of devout, I suppose. The Catholic in question does missionary work and attends church every day, no matter where he is or how inconvenient the trip may be for himself or those with him. He just also spends a lot of time studying the Bible and believes the world was created in 7 days, yadda yadda.