Bible scholarship

[Tom Morris]

Anyone know of a good place on the Internet with a forum for discussing the Bible as a scholarly text? Preferably somewhere where a visitor isn't harrassed with evangelism - Christian or otherwise - but just allowed to discuss issues like translation, historical accuracy, authorship and how the Bible matches up with fact.

Also, as a quick straw poll - what's your favourite edition for these purposes? I've got a Good News Bible (American Bible Society - OT from Kittel's Biblia Hebraica and NT from United Bible Societies 1975 Greek text - plus it's got lots of nice pictures) and maybe a KJV.

For a wannabe sceptic, is it a good idea to get an annotated Bible with academic commentary? In most cases, if one is going to seriously try to look in to a piece, it's probably easier to have your favourite and use the online services to compare translations (etc.).

[Tricky]

You definately need to have a look at The Skeptics' Annotated Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/)

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Tom Morris
...what's your favourite edition for these purposes? I've got a Good News Bible (American Bible Society - OT from Kittel's Biblia Hebraica and NT from United Bible Societies 1975 Greek text - plus it's got lots of nice pictures) and maybe a KJV.

Just from my personal experience, the "Good News" bible is worthless for anything but personal study. Most conservative denominations don't even recognise it as valid.

Most of your dyed-in-the-wool Fundies are going to insist on KJV.

[Tom Morris]

Tricky: thanks, I love the Skeptic's Annotated Bible!

Piscivore: Thanks too. I blame the Catholic Church for this. Then again, I blame the Catholic Church when it rains or I can't find my wallet.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Tom Morris
Tricky: thanks, I love the Skeptic's Annotated Bible!

Piscivore: Thanks too. I blame the Catholic Church for this. Then again, I blame the Catholic Church when it rains or I can't find my wallet.

Really? I should try that the next time the kittens drag off a sneaker.

The only thing about the SAB is that, I'm fairly certain, it's the King James version and I've heard some whacko's denounce that one.

I blame Shakespeare.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Tom Morris
For a wannabe sceptic, is it a good idea to get an annotated Bible with academic commentary? In most cases, if one is going to seriously try to look in to a piece, it's probably easier to have your favourite and use the online services to compare translations (etc.). I regret that I know of no single source, but I can say that I have found enlightenment in many of the following:

Isaac Asimov's Commentaries on the Bible are excellent. Asimov does not discuss every verse, and there are many skeptical topics that are omitted. Nevertheless, I recommend this work. In particular, I recommend the edition that combines Old and New Testament commentaries into a single volume.

I also recommend Steve Allen's commentaries.

I further recommend Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason." Part 1 is a general indictment of religion based upon so-called revelation (which includes but is not limited to Christianity), and Part 2 is a scathing analysis of what Paine perceives as problem passages in the Bible.

If you check with the library of your local seminary, you should be able to find the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek, with translations provided and with variations on the text discussed. Many pastors have to learn at least some Hebrew and Greek, and these texts are valuable to them when they have to "go to the source" and their knowledge of ancient langages is a little rusty. These books are, understandably, quite large. Many pastors have used these books to point out inaccuracies in the various translations of the Bible.

There is also a book--which I have seen because one of my relatives owns it, but the title and author of which I do not know--that "explains" Biblical contradictions, anachronisms, scientific errors, and the like. The book is very matter-of-fact, and yet some of the "explanations" are so preposterous that I was left to wonder whether it might have been written by someone who was trying to establish that the Bible was full of nonsense.

I do not know of any annotated Bible that has a good skeptical commentary. The Skeptic's Annotated Bible is pretty good, but I'd recommend not taking everything said there at face value.

The KJV is often confusing, perhaps deliberately so. The RSV and NIV are better. The Living Bible (touted for a while by Art Linkletter) is easy-to-read and includes some good annotations, but I have heard many ministers denounce it as a "lousy translation."

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

Most of your dyed-in-the-wool Fundies are going to insist on KJV. Why not? Isn't it the one written in English which has been the least bit tampered with?

[Piscivore]

The NIV is the one I always used personally, back in the day.

[Skeptical Greg]

Here is a pretty good Gateway

http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/links_Biblical.htm

It should keep you busy for a while...

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why not? Isn't it the one written in English which has been the least bit tampered with?

:snort: :big:

:hit: (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm#sept)

[scribble]

Originally posted by Brown

[/B]

I was going to quote parts of your post, Brown, but it's simpler just to say I second everything you said.


the KJV 1611 is the "Standard" bible most "fundamentalists" use, I'd go with that. If not, the only modern translation that gets good press is the NIV, but the NIV won't be recognized by some of the more fundy fundies.

The Good News Bible, as stated, is hardly worthy of being called a Bible.

And as for finding greek/hebrew, I wouldn't bother to buy a greek/hebrew bible, I'd just get a nice concordance. There are some online that I know of... I think http://www.blueletterbible.org has several concordances searchable online.

[Iacchus]

Then again there's Emanuel Swedenborg's (http://www.swedenborg.com) Apocalypse Revealed, a verse for verse accounting to the Book of Revelation which, was supposed to have been fulfilled in the year 1757. Of course this only applies if you wish to hear something profoundly different from the story we continue to hear today. He also wrote an excellent book called, Heaven and Hell, by the way, which illustrates how completely ethical God was in setting things up the way He did ... that basically people are in hell due their own choosing, based upon the things they regarded most (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=28) out of life. So, where lying and cheating are not tolerated in heaven, it pretty much rules the day in hell.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why not? Isn't it the one written in English which has been the least bit tampered with?

Actually, Iacchus, the NIV is generally considered to be a more accurate translation today. Up until the point of the NIV, the KJV 1611 was considered the most accurate, and it's been around long enough that most scholars are aware of where the mistakes in translation came through. Still, a good concordance is a good tool.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
[B]Then again there's Emanuel Swedenborg's (http://www.swedenborg.com) Apocalypse Revealed, a verse for verse accounting to the Book of Revelation which, was supposed to have been fulfilled in the year 1757.

It's been a long time since I've read Asimov on the Bible but if I recall, that's where I have read the most plausible verse-by-verse explanation of The Revelation of John. Even better than your 1757 comparison, Asimov manages to explain that everything John had to say was related to things happening *when he was alive* (ie: in John's time, not the future)

Which makes sense; we see in the apocryphal writings many examples of how the early church liked to "hide information in plain sight" -- to use codes and numbers that would only be meaningful to the initiated.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, where lying and cheating are not tolerated in heaven, it pretty much rules the day in hell. ;)

Just out of my own personal curiosity, Iacchus, how much weight do you give to such extra-biblical sources?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

Just out of my own personal curiosity, Iacchus, how much weight do you give to such extra-biblical sources? Just out of my own personal curiosity, scribble, how much weight do you give to biblical sources at all? You know, if you don't give credence to what came before, how can you give credence to what came after? It's all a bunch of ficticious lies and BS isn't it? Of course it is possible that the second rendition might render the first rendition more meaningful don't you think?

[scribble]

Damn, I must have pushed a hot-button. I didn't mean any offense.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Just out of my own personal curiosity, scribble, how much weight do you give to biblical sources at all?


In the context of studying the Bible, they must be given the ultimate weight. After all, they're the source text.

In a broader context, I have no conception of how much weight I give to the Bible. I can only assume it's more than I'd like, considering my intimate familiarity with it.


You know, if you don't give credence to what came before, how can you give credence to what came after? It's all a bunch of ficticious lies and BS isn't it? Of course it is possible that the second rendition might render the first rendition more meaningful don't you think?

I think you mean, "Sometimes it helps to have someone else explain things to you," and I agree completely.

As for how much BS is in the Bible, I don't see how that's relevant. If you want to derail the thread, I can go find some things in the Bible I think are probably true, if it'll make you feel better.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

It's been a long time since I've read Asimov on the Bible but if I recall, that's where I have read the most plausible verse-by-verse explanation of The Revelation of John. Even better than your 1757 comparison, Asimov manages to explain that everything John had to say was related to things happening *when he was alive* (ie: in John's time, not the future)Of course if there was anything Universal about the Book of Revelation to begin with which, most Atheists tend to disagree with, then this becomes an excellent way to lose sight of that.


Which makes sense; we see in the apocryphal writings many examples of how the early church liked to "hide information in plain sight" -- to use codes and numbers that would only be meaningful to the initiated. This is one way of looking at it suppose, but it only helps to obscure the fact that a God In Spirit does exist, that is, for those who wish to argue otherwise.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Of course if there was anything Universal about the Book of Revelation to begin with which, most Atheists tend to disagree with, then this becomes an excellent way to lose sight of that.


This is one way of looking at it suppose, but it only helps to obscure the fact that a God In Spirit does exist, that is, for those who wish to argue otherwise.

I can't make either heads nor tails of this post.

You do realize that in this thread I've said nothing doubting any portion of the Bible.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

Damn, I must have pushed a hot-button. I didn't mean any offense.No problem. ;) I didn't realize you had posted three posts, as this is the only one I saw when I opened up the thread.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

I can't make either heads nor tails of this post.

You do realize that in this thread I've said nothing doubting any portion of the Bible.What I'm trying to say is, that once you substitute the history for the mystery, then voila! the Bible doesn't mean anything. Or, it becomes that much easier to dismiss.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What I'm trying to say is, that once you substitute the history for the mystery, then voila! the Bible doesn't mean anything. Or, it becomes that much easier to dismiss.

Well, I've got to disagree. My personal belief is that once you understand the history and the context of the Bible, only then are you in a position to comment on what it says without falling into the category of "making **** up."

[Iacchus]

However, history means nothing outside of what was originally intended. In which case it either strikes a chord with you or it doesn't if, in fact there is any universal meaning to it at all. And yes, I do appreciate things from the historical standpoint as well.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
However, history means nothing outside of what was originally intended.

I'm sorry; the only way I can interpret this is that you are saying the original intent of the Biblical authors is no longer relevant to the meaning of the Bible.

Is that what you're saying? That the things the writers of the Bible were writing about are irrelevant to the words that we read an interpret today?

[Iacchus]

Okay then, Who is the original author of the Bible? Those who wrote it? Or, that which inspired them to write it? While there's no doubt those who wrote it added some of their own intent as well, however, that isn't to say the Bible does not have a Universal or, transcendent meaning. Otherwise there would be no point in discussing it.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Okay then, Who is the original author of the Bible? Those who wrote it? Or, that which inspired them to write it?

So your basic argument is, it doesn't matter what the writers meant, it only matters what God meant, and God didn't mean anything at all to do with that time period?

Well, you should be happy with a Good News Bible, then - it's just as good as a 1611 KJV, after all it's all about what God intended, not what was written - and who's to say what that is, eh?

Besides you, I mean.

[Doctor X]

Tom:

Welcome to the forums.

Two drink minimum . . .

. . . mind the hounds. . . .

Right, one major problem with the KJV is that it was based on poor textual witnesses. Here is my "quickie" list of inexpensive books.

OT:

Friedman has two wonderful works for a basic overview of the authorship:

Who Wrote the Bible? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060630353/qid=1088462911/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-7007341-3834325?v=glance&s=books)

The Bible with Sources Revealed (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060530693/ref=pd_sim_books_2/104-7007341-3834325?v=glance&s=books)

His second I list is a good text to use. It has some issues, but for those--do you use the MT or the LXX and DSS for this passage--you need to read scholarly works devoted to the passage/subject. Nevertheless, it is a great source for seeing how the texts are multiple texts stitched together.

NT:

Stop what you are doing and buy this book now:

Gospel Parallels (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0840774842/qid=1088463169/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-7007341-3834325?v=glance&s=books)


I wrote NOW!!!

I will wait.

Hmmm . . . hmmmm . . . Put on the 8-track . . . hmmmm . . . hmmmm

Right . . . this puts the gospel texts side by side to one another. The used and very cheap versions are fine. The translation is RSV which is fine enough--many scholars use it for the English and translate passages they disagree with.

With this you can see how Lk and Mt rewrote Mk. Q? You can see Q. It also has a good introduction to textual criticism. Granted he claims the texts for the NT are very certain--HA!--but that is just a bit of bias on his part. A wonderfully useful source.

You will note that the link to Friedman's first book offers a "deal" on this Mack book:

Who Wrote the New Testament (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060655186/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/104-7007341-3834325?v=glance&s=books&st=*)

this is also a great introduction.

--J.D.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

So your basic argument is, it doesn't matter what the writers meant, it only matters what God meant, and God didn't mean anything at all to do with that time period?No, I'm saying history means nothing without the mystery. Because it's the intent (mystery) which inspires the deed (history). So, if you don't understand anything of the original intent (God's), which must be Universal, how can you possibly duplicate the results yourself?


Well, you should be happy with a Good News Bible, then - it's just as good as a 1611 KJV, after all it's all about what God intended, not what was written - and who's to say what that is, eh?

Besides you, I mean. And what did I say about the King James Version above?

[Iacchus]

The mystery is like the recipe which goes into the loaf of bread. While the bread itself which, is certainly a good thing to have, becomes the history. However, there's no possible way we can bake the loaf of bread for ourselves if, we don't have the recipe. ;)

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The mystery is like the recipe which goes into the loaf of bread. While the bread itself which, is certainly a good thing to have, becomes the history. However, there's no possible way we can bake the loaf of bread for ourselves if, we don't have the recipe. ;)

Yes, but I'm not writing the Bible, I'm just reading it. Are you saying it's impossible to understand the Bible unless you are God (ie: the recipe-holder?)

If so, why bother at all?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble


Yes, but I'm not writing the Bible, I'm just reading it. Are you saying it's impossible to understand the Bible unless you are God (ie: the recipe-holder?)

If so, why bother at all? No, all I'm saying is the Bible means nothing unless you understand the mystery behind it which, is what it's supposed to entail, the mystery of God.

And how would you know? By applying the recipe (what you gleen from the Bible) in your own life. In other words the Bible has more to do with the recipe itself, and having the ingredients on hand (your understanding) to bake the loaf of bread yourself.

[phildonnia]

Someone mentioned the Skeptics Annotated Bible. I also like to use http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.html since it has a nifty search, multiple versions, and concordances.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
By applying the recipe (what you gleen from the Bible) in your own life.

So now the recipe isn't what God meant when he wrote the Bible... now the Recipe is what I get when I understand the Bible.

Congratulations, you've argued yourself in a circle.

Once again, you can't get your understanding (recipe) unless you know what the hell the author (be it God or Man) was talking about.

[scribble]

Originally posted by phildonnia
Someone mentioned the Skeptics Annotated Bible. I also like to use http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.html since it has a nifty search, multiple versions, and concordances.

Yeah... it's a good reference. Somoene beat you to it. I guess some someones are more noticable than others.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

So now the recipe isn't what God meant when he wrote the Bible... now the Recipe is what I get when I understand the Bible.

Congratulations, you've argued yourself in a circle.

Once again, you can't get your understanding (recipe) unless you know what the hell the author (be it God or Man) was talking about. Is the Bible merely an historical artifact, in which case it can be dismissed as such or, is there a true mystery (God's) behind it?

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Is the Bible merely an historical artifact, in which case it can be dismissed as such or, is there a true mystery (God's) behind it?

I think regardless of whether God's mystery was behind it or not, it IS a historical document, and in order to be understood, you must understand it's context.

If you think not, then I challenge you to give a copy of the KJV1611 Bible to a child and ask him what it means. If he needs help, he is only allowed to go to a dictionary. Understanding the context is not important, you say.

No one in this conversation is talking about dismissing the Bible except you.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

I think regardless of whether God's mystery was behind it or not, it IS a historical document, and in order to be understood, you must understand it's context.Is there more to the Bible than history and politics or, is there a genuine mystery behind it? Because without the mystery, there certainly is no reason to believe in God now is there?

In context with what? The history so-called scholars wish to accept, denigrated by the lack of mystery? Like I said, are you looking to validate it or, looking to dismiss it?


No one in this conversation is talking about dismissing the Bible except you.Yes, except that everyone else has on this thread has already refuted it as, merely an historical document.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
[B]Is there more to the Bible than history and politics or, is there a genuine mystery behind it? Because without the mystery, there certainly is no reason to believe in God now is there?


I don't know - is it even possible to answer that question before you've learned enough about the Bible to know what isn't a mystery? (ie: when the books were authored, what was going on at the time, what the idioms of the day mean, etc)

How do you know if the Bible holds any mystery when you refuse to examine the facts? Yes, when you have your head buried in the sand 24/7, the world outside your sand-hole is a big mystery. Some of us prefer to take our heads out of the sand and learn what we can, and let the mysterys be where they are. Some of us feel there are enough unknowns without manufacturing them from willful ignorance.



In context with what? The history so-called scholars wish to accept, denigrated by the lack of mystery?


You might think knowing the facts ruins the fun, but I don't share that opinion. If God is out there, he's going to be just as cool if I know all I can about his book, as he will be if I remain a willful ignoramus as you seem to endorse.


Like I said, are you looking to validate it or, looking to dismiss it?

If by "validate it," you mean I study it wish a sincere wish for there to be a God, then yes. I read it with a desire to validate it. So far, I have been unsuccessful.

If I were looking to dismiss it, I certainly wouldn't spend so much time studying it. I would just dismiss it. I could have done that a long time ago.


Yes, except that everyone else has on this thread has already refuted it as, merely an historical document.


Everyone else refuted it? Everyone but you? Everyone but you and me? I think you're making things up. In fact, it remains true that NO ONE has said that it is either "refuted" nor "merely" a historical document.

Except you.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

Everyone else refuted it? Everyone but you? Everyone but you and me? I think you're making things up. In fact, it remains true that NO ONE has said that it is either "refuted" nor "merely" a historical document.

Except you. Regardless, it doesn't deny the fact that all we have is the history, without the true mystery. And hey, maybe it isn't there? ;)

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Regardless, it doesn't deny the fact that all we have is the history, without the true mystery. And hey, maybe it isn't there?

That's a fact, is it? -- you're stating as fact that the Bible has no mystery to it, and can be entirerly described as a historical document, and in that perspective, there are no more mysteries?

Bulls**t. You haven't got a clue what you're talking about anymore, you're just making words fit together.

Here's a tip: there are *plenty* of thoughtful, non-ostrich-acting Christians out there who study the Bible the same way I do. They don't feel that knowing what God said ruins His mystery.

Neither do I. I think you gotta' know what God said before your'e qualified to even talk about Him. How you get off saying the less you know about God the better you know Him is beyond me - but that's the kind of thought process that leads to severe internalization and eventually can even lead to things like solipsism, which is, of course, only rebranded insanity.

You're walking down a dark, dangerous path. And not the one God would want you to walk; Jesus Christ himself is famous for his time spent fondly debating the law (ie: the old testament). He made sure he understood it inside and out, or so we are told. Should you not attempt the same?

I know actually studying the Bible is a lot harder than maintaining the belief that the less you know about the Bible, the more you love God.

But that doesn't make your stance any more appreciable to me. A method which has only ease as it's appeal does not appeal to me.

[Tricky]

I'm uncertain what is meant by "historical document". Certainly it was created in history, but so are all other published books. It is just a matter of how far back in history. To me, a historical document is about the past, which a great deal of the bible is. However, it is much more. It is folklore, when it tells the Sumarian flood story in Genesis. It is a lawbook when it lays out rules Exodus and Leviticus. It is proverbs when it provides comfort and words to live by, like in the Psalms. It is love poetry, like when it talks about lovemaking in The Songs of Soloman, and of course, it is philosophy when it discusses the teachings of Jesus. And it is prophecy, when it makes predictions, like in Revelations. The vast majority of the Bible has little do do with history, other than that it has a historical setting.

So why, Iacchus, are you making the claim here that everyone here regards it as only history? Is this just your way of saying "most people here don't think it was divinely inspired"? If so, then that is certainly true, at least among the atheists here, because atheists, by definition, don't think anything is proven to be divinely inspired. However, it can still be beautiful and inspirational and guiding and sexy and thought provoking and deadly boring, and of course, historical. The Bible is all these things, in different parts.

Are you sure you've read this book?

[ReasonableDoubt]

Well said!

[triadboy]

Tricky's the bomb!

[Doctor X]

Much easier to blather incoherently about what you want a book to mean if you do not bother to read it or the scholarship concerning it.

--J.D.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

That's a fact, is it? -- you're stating as fact that the Bible has no mystery to it, and can be entirerly described as a historical document, and in that perspective, there are no more mysteries?No, I'm referring to the collective perspective here, particularly to those who subscribe to this board, not mine.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tricky

So why, Iacchus, are you making the claim here that everyone here regards it as only history? Is this just your way of saying "most people here don't think it was divinely inspired"? If so, then that is certainly true, at least among the atheists here, because atheists, by definition, don't think anything is proven to be divinely inspired.By Jove, I think you've got it! ... :clap: :clap: :clap:

By the way, if you insist that we consider it merely from an historical standpoint, might I suggest that you're only reading the half of it?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tricky
I'm uncertain what is meant by "historical document". Certainly it was created in history, but so are all other published books. It is just a matter of how far back in history. To me, a historical document is about the past, which a great deal of the bible is. However, it is much more. It is folklore, when it tells the Sumarian flood story in Genesis. It is a lawbook when it lays out rules Exodus and Leviticus. It is proverbs when it provides comfort and words to live by, like in the Psalms. It is love poetry, like when it talks about lovemaking in The Songs of Soloman, and of course, it is philosophy when it discusses the teachings of Jesus.Oh, tricky, I didn't know you had it in you! :eek:


And it is prophecy, when it makes predictions, like in Revelations.Really? ... How so?

[Iacchus]

The Bible is merely a recording of something we (most of us) don't understand. This is what makes it a mystery, and this is what's lacking if we wish only to view it from an historical standpoint. ;)

By the way, anyone know how many times the words, God, Lord, Jesus, Christ, Son of Man, prophet, disciple or, any words derived therefrom are listed in the Bible? 25,000 times perhaps? 50,000 times? 100,000 times? More? It would be interesting if someone could actually do a search and find this out?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Iacchus
By Jove, I think you've got it! ... :clap: :clap: :clap:

By the way, if you insist that we consider it merely from an historical standpoint, might I suggest that you're only reading the half of it?
Thank you, but I believe I just stated that we should not consider it from merely an historical standpoint. How can I be any clearer?

Originally posted by Iacchus
Oh, tricky, I didn't know you had it in you!
Why not? I told you I used to be a Christian. I have read the entire bible (even the boring parts).

Originally posted by Iacchus
Really? ... How so?
LOL! Really, Iacchus. I thought you knew the Bible better than this. Revelation is just packed to the seams with prophecy, like
this passage. (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?
passage=REV+20&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
Revelation 20:7
When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison
8
and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth--Gog and Magog--to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore.
9
They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them.
10
And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Now admittedly this book reads like a bad acid trip, and the author can't seem to keep his tense constant, but it is certainly not history. What would you call it?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tricky

Thank you, but I believe I just stated that we should not consider it from merely an historical standpoint. How can I be any clearer?Well my main point being, and it's the only point I wished to make, is that if you take the mystery away from religion, then it's reduced to nothing more than politics which, can then be explained from its historical side. And I'm afraid that's not religion. And it's at this point that I don't wish to hear someone's political interpretation of the Bible, not unless it entails some spiritual understanding as well. Which, can be a big leap for a lot of people to take I guess?


Why not? I told you I used to be a Christian. I have read the entire bible (even the boring parts). Well that one seems to have slipped my mind then.


LOL! Really, Iacchus. I thought you knew the Bible better than this. Revelation is just packed to the seams with prophecy, like
this passage. (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?
passage=REV+20&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)

Now admittedly this book reads like a bad acid trip, and the author can't seem to keep his tense constant, but it is certainly not history. What would you call it? And yet you don't actually believe it's a revelation from God do you? Which, is basically what I was getting at.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well my main point being, and it's the only point I wished to make, is that if you take the mystery away from religion, then it's reduced to nothing more than politics which, can then be explained from its historical side.
Sorry, but that's a definition of "mystery" with which I am unaware. There is plenty of mystery in the Bible. Where did Cain's wife come from? Who opened Jesus' tomb? There are all sorts of things that aren't really explained satisfactorily. In fact, if anything, it is the religious people who take away the mystery by applying the "God did it" all-purpose-answer to all of the mysteries.

In fact, it almost seems as if you are worried that these mysteries might get solved, so poking around for the facts is discouraged.

Originally posted by Iacchus
And I'm afraid that's not religion. And it's at this point that I don't wish to hear someone's political interpretation of the Bible, not unless it entails some spiritual understanding as well. Which, can be a big leap for a lot of people to take I guess?
No, not at all. One can have spiritual understanding without having spiritual belief. I was confirmed in the Episcopal church. I have a pretty good grasp of the spiritual side and of the "mysteries". I simply don't believe them.

Now are you really saying that you only want to hear the interpretations of believers? I surely hope not.

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet you don't actually believe it's a revelation from God do you? Which, is basically what I was getting at.
Again you seem to be saying that if I don't believe it then it doesn't count. Come on, Iacchus, it's a prophecy. In my opinion, it is a lunatic prophecy, but a prophecy nonetheless.

I am saddened that you only seem to respect the opinions of those who feel the same way you do.

[LW]

Originally posted by Tricky

Again you seem to be saying that if I don't believe it then it doesn't count. Come on, Iacchus, it's a prophecy. In my opinion, it is a lunatic prophecy, but a prophecy nonetheless.


You may want to reconsider your wording or at least add a small definition for "prophecy". You see, there are people for which "prophecy" means that it is something that came from God and that is true.

So, when you use "prophecy" in context of the Revelations, those persons might take that to imply that you agree that the text came from God and the events it predicted either happened or will happen.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by LW
You may want to reconsider your wording or at least add a small definition for "prophecy". You see, there are people for which "prophecy" means that it is something that came from God and that is true.

So, when you use "prophecy" in context of the Revelations, those persons might take that to imply that you agree that the text came from God and the events it predicted either happened or will happen.
Perhaps, but the "capital P" Prophecy again requires belief, so it appears that a non-believer would be prohibited from using that word. What can a non-believer use to describe Revelation then? "Little p" prophecy? Drunken ramblings? ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tricky

Sorry, but that's a definition of "mystery" with which I am unaware. There is plenty of mystery in the Bible. Where did Cain's wife come from? Who opened Jesus' tomb? There are all sorts of things that aren't really explained satisfactorily. In fact, if anything, it is the religious people who take away the mystery by applying the "God did it" all-purpose-answer to all of the mysteries.

In fact, it almost seems as if you are worried that these mysteries might get solved, so poking around for the facts is discouraged.Actually, the mystery of God should be much easier to answer if, in fact God resides within us, right? In which case all these "lessor mysteries" would pretty much take the back seat to the whole thing, don't you think?


No, not at all. One can have spiritual understanding without having spiritual belief. I was confirmed in the Episcopal church. I have a pretty good grasp of the spiritual side and of the "mysteries". I simply don't believe them.However, there is a difference between knowledge and the actual experience of something.


Now are you really saying that you only want to hear the interpretations of believers? I surely hope not.Nope. I could care less. Why? Because it's something we all have to make up our own minds about. If I can't see it, then what point does it serve if I have to rely on somebody else, especially if they're in the same boat I'm in? In which case you get, the "blind leaders of the blind." It's funny because you almost have to become the goat, rather than the sheep, in order to understand.


Again you seem to be saying that if I don't believe it then it doesn't count. Come on, Iacchus, it's a prophecy. In my opinion, it is a lunatic prophecy, but a prophecy nonetheless.

I am saddened that you only seem to respect the opinions of those who feel the same way you do. I suppose you could say false prophecy, but compared to what, true prophecy? And where would that come from? If the word has no meaning which, is what you seem to suggest, then why include it in the dictionary?

Actually, I think LW was right-on about what he or she had to say.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Actually, the mystery of God should be much easier to answer if, in fact God resides within us, right? In which case all these "lessor mysteries" would pretty much take the back seat to the whole thing, don't you think?
Sure it would be easier to answer. Just decide that God is a "fact" and it all falls into place. The answer would be a simple statement of belief, so it would be a whole lot easier than messing with all that "evidence" business.
(Is a lessor mystery one in which you are wondering where you will get the rent money? ;) )

Originally posted by Iacchus
However, there is a difference between knowledge and the actual experience of something.
And what makes you think I have not experienced it? I had genuine belief, my friend. I don't think it is for you to decide whether or not I "actually experienced" spirituality.

Have you ever "experienced" atheism?
Originally posted by Iacchus
Nope. I couldn't care less.edited by Tricky to correct an annoyingly incorrect cliche. Why? Because it's something we all have to make up our own minds about. If I can't see it, then what point does it serve if I have to rely on somebody else, especially if they're in the same boat I'm in? In which case you get, the "blind leaders of the blind." It's funny because you almost have to become the goat, rather than the sheep, in order to understand.
Here we disagree. I don't think we ever have to "make up our minds". I think we should constantly re-evaluate to see if the evidence has changed. As I grew up, I gathered more evidence and my position changed. This in no way means that my previous position was not heartfelt.
Originally posted by Iacchus
I suppose you could say false prophecy, but compared to what, true prophecy? And where would that come from? If the word has no meaning which, is what you seem to suggest, then why include it in the dictionary?
I do not suggest the word has no meaning. The word "unicorn" has meaning too, though that doesn't mean one exists.

Is your position that all Prophecy is true? How then can you call things that are as yet unanswered "Prophecy"? If the test is truthfulness, then you are only expressing your belief that it will turn out to be Prophecy.

My definition is that prophecy is any prediction based on zero or scant evidence that a person expects to come true.


Originally posted by Iacchus
Actually, I think LW was right-on about what he or she had to say.
It was a valid point, but I think I have addressed it properly.

How do you define prophecy? Would you agree with Muslims that Muhammad is rightly called a prophet?