PDA

View Full Version : Religion Bible Shows Human Errors, Scholars Say


listopencil
08-23-2011, 01:22 AM
Contrary to the claims of evangelical Christians and many Orthodox Jews, the Bible does not appear to be the unalterable, inerrant word of God. Hebrew scholars been undertaking a project to publish an authoritative critical edition of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament for Christians) and trace every change made to the text over the millennia. What they have found is that the original Hebrew Bible was significantly different from the one Jews and Christians revere today. This does not make the Bible useless, however; it merely makes it human.

A group of Hebrew scholars have been working on publishing a comprehensive critical edition of the Hebrew Bible out of a small office in the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. According to Mattie Friedman of The Huffington Post, Bible Project scholars have spent years combing through manuscripts such as the Dead Sea scrolls (http://www.themonastery.org/jcontent/training-education/25-the-bible/198-dead-sea-scrolls?template=themonastery), Greek translations on papyrus from Egypt, a printed Bible from 1525 Venice, parchment books in handwritten Hebrew, the Samaritan Torah, and scrolls in Aramaic and Latin”. The work is so painstaking and attention to detail so rigorous that the group have completed only the first three of the Hebrew Bible’s twenty-four books (Christians divide the same texts up into thirty-nine books) since they began the Bible Project, as the endeavor is known, in 1958. Another book will be completed sometime during the following academic year. At that rate, the entire edition should be completed just over two hundred years from now.

http://blog.themonastery.org/2011/08/bible-shows-human-errors-scholars-say/

listopencil
08-23-2011, 01:24 AM
JERUSALEM -- A dull-looking chart projected on the wall of a university office in Jerusalem displayed a revelation that would startle many readers of the Old Testament: the sacred text that people revered in the past was not the same one we study today.

An ancient version of one book has an extra phrase. Another appears to have been revised to retroactively insert a prophecy after the events happened.

Scholars in this out-of-the-way corner of the Hebrew University campus have been quietly at work for 53 years on one of the most ambitious projects attempted in biblical studies – publishing the authoritative edition of the Old Testament, also known as the Hebrew Bible, and tracking every single evolution of the text over centuries and millennia.

And it has evolved, despite deeply held beliefs to the contrary.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/12/scholars-correct-mistakes-bible_n_925813.html

PornChief
08-23-2011, 01:24 AM
so you're saying people wrote the Bible not the magic fairies? that's such a shock.

listopencil
08-23-2011, 01:25 AM
so you're saying people wrote the Bible not the magic fairies? that's such a shock.

They could have been magic people. They could have been fairies. I doubt that they were magical fairies.

rrl308
08-23-2011, 02:05 AM
I'm shocked. :shake:

patteeu
08-23-2011, 06:53 AM
Were the changes divinely inspired? There's nothing wrong with a living Bible if it's God's will. Interesting, but not damning.

chiefforlife
08-23-2011, 08:02 AM
Were the changes divinely inspired? There's nothing wrong with a living Bible if it's God's will. Interesting, but not damning.

God realized he had made some errors, he got a hold of his editors and Voila.

Jaric
08-23-2011, 08:44 AM
Were the changes divinely inspired? There's nothing wrong with a living Bible if it's God's will. Interesting, but not damning.

You'd think if it was God's will they'd have gotten it right the first time.

As to the article, I commend the effort, but I'm not sure how you can hope to go back, what 3000 ish years, with any semblence of definitive accuracy.

patteeu
08-23-2011, 09:06 AM
You'd think if it was God's will they'd have gotten it right the first time.

Maybe it's been right all along, despite the changes.

Jaric
08-23-2011, 09:23 AM
Maybe it's been right all along, despite the changes.

You've lost me here.

listopencil
08-23-2011, 10:05 AM
You'd think if it was God's will they'd have gotten it right the first time.

As to the article, I commend the effort, but I'm not sure how you can hope to go back, what 3000 ish years, with any semblence of definitive accuracy.

From the article it looks like an incredibly painstaking effort of translation. Something that will be completed in about two hundred years.

listopencil
08-23-2011, 10:06 AM
You've lost me here.

I assume he means that the message is the same regardless of the language.

Jaric
08-23-2011, 10:22 AM
I assume he means that the message is the same regardless of the language.

Ah. Well that remains to be seen I suppose.

listopencil
08-23-2011, 10:40 AM
Ah. Well that remains to be seen I suppose.

I'd like to see more examples of the inconsistencies in the various texts. I agree with the articles that this would make a bigger difference to people who see the Bible as the literal word of God, or use it to justify extremism.

Jenson71
08-23-2011, 11:02 AM
I'd like to see more examples of the inconsistencies in the various texts. I agree with the articles that this would make a bigger difference to people who see the Bible as the literal word of God, or use it to justify extremism.

Don't get your hopes up that this "revelation" (it's actually nothing new -- but compiling it all is a unique undertaking) will change how many fundamentalists revere some edition of the Bible -- usually the King James Version.

What will it take? A complete and total conversion to the wisdom of the Holy Mother Catholic Church. Just kidding, but it'd be nice. What it will take is more education from the top down, and a greater understanding of the philosophical and theological premises made by Christianity that comes with that education.

listopencil
08-23-2011, 11:06 AM
Don't get your hopes up that this "revelation" (it's actually nothing new -- but compiling it all is a unique undertaking) will change how many fundamentalists revere some edition of the Bible -- usually the King James Version.

What will it take? A complete and total conversion to the wisdom of the Holy Mother Catholic Church. Just kidding, but it'd be nice. What it will take is more education from the top down, and a greater understanding of the philosophical and theological premises made by Christianity that comes with that education.

I'd say that there are some worthy (although controversial) concepts within the Catholic faith that interest me. Being led through Biblical text by a scholar could be very fulfilling, and I do have respect for the basic premise of confession.

Jenson71
08-23-2011, 11:12 AM
I'd say that there are some worthy (although controversial) concepts within the Catholic faith that interest me. Being led through Biblical text by a scholar could be very fulfilling, and I do have respect for the basic premise of confession.

Yeah, confession, that nearly dead ritual of pre-Vatican II, does have some calming aspect to it. Whereas some find it therapeutic to openly speak of their sins, I see it as a communal recognition that our failings do not impact only ourselves.

And it's a myth that Catholics can't pick up a Bible and read it for themselves or can't come to some internal significance with a Scripture reading. Priests no more lead their parishioners through the Bible than any mainstream Protestant pastor does.

orange
08-23-2011, 12:37 PM
You'd think if it was God's will they'd have gotten it right the first time.

As to the article, I commend the effort, but I'm not sure how you can hope to go back, what 3000 ish years, with any semblence of definitive accuracy.

I'm sure that in the next 200 years forensic archaeology will make incredible advances. They may have to go back and redo the books they've got done up to now, though.

By the way, maybe we should hope they don't ever get this quite finished...

"Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out." http://downlode.org/Etext/nine_billion_names_of_god.html

patteeu
08-23-2011, 01:41 PM
You've lost me here.

Maybe, in God's infinite wisdom, people from the 3rd century needed to be taught his important lessons in one way, but people from the 21st century need lessons in a slightly different form.

One way He could make changes to the Word is by putting out a new book (New Testament) revising the old. Another way He could do it is to have His divinely inspired servants creatively translate His texts and transform them more subtly over time. :shrug:

Jaric
08-23-2011, 01:48 PM
Maybe, in God's infinite wisdom, people from the 3rd century needed to be taught his important lessons in one way, but people from the 21st century need lessons in a slightly different form.

One way He could make changes to the Word is by putting out a new book (New Testament) revising the old. Another way He could do it is to have His divinely inspired servants creatively translate His texts and transform them more subtly over time. :shrug:

That would certainly explains why the Old Testement God and the New Testement God act nothing alike.

It also sounds (and appologies for being coarse) like giving a license to charlatans to bullshit the faithful.

orange
08-23-2011, 01:50 PM
Maybe, in God's infinite wisdom, people from the 3rd century needed to be taught his important lessons in one way, but people from the 21st century need lessons in a slightly different form.

What if a lesser human being-a Cates, or a Darwin-has the audacity to think that God might whisper to him? That an un-Brady thought might still be holy?

Why can't they make movies like that anymore? :(

patteeu
08-23-2011, 02:02 PM
That would certainly explains why the Old Testement God and the New Testement God act nothing alike.

It also sounds (and appologies for being coarse) like giving a license to charlatans to bullshit the faithful.

What if a lesser human being-a Cates, or a Darwin-has the audacity to think that God might whisper to him? That an un-Brady thought might still be holy?

Why can't they make movies like that anymore? :(

The trick is to figure out which version(s) of the Bible are divinely inspired and which ones are works of deceivers.

I didn't get the movie reference so I looked it up. I haven't seen it, but it has a strong rating on IMDB (8.1) so I'll add it to my netflix queue. I don't know if I've ever seen a movie with Dick York in it.

Pasta Giant Meatball
08-23-2011, 02:17 PM
We Landed On The Moon!!!

Jaric
08-23-2011, 02:27 PM
The trick is to figure out which version(s) of the Bible are divinely inspired and which ones are works of deceivers.

That it is.

Which as a species we've proven time and time again we kind of suck at doing that. Bullshit in the middle east right now as the most recent example (I'm obviously refering to religion in general, not just the Bible)

KC-TBB
08-23-2011, 02:50 PM
and scholars are NEVER wrong?????

KC-TBB
08-23-2011, 02:51 PM
and careful examination reveals: From the Huffington post..aka George Sorros's ass!

petegz28
08-23-2011, 03:19 PM
Color me shocked!! A book, written by men who had little clue of anything around them turns out to have some errors???

I refuse to believe such tripe!!!

KILLER_CLOWN
08-23-2011, 03:33 PM
Humans show Bible errors, Humans say.

Rain Man
08-23-2011, 05:50 PM
It'd be really nice to have two hundred years of research funding lined up.

Brock
08-23-2011, 06:04 PM
and scholars are NEVER wrong?????

LMAO

listopencil
08-23-2011, 06:08 PM
and careful examination reveals: From the Huffington post..aka George Sorros's ass!

So are you disputing the story because of where it was published? If so, what parts are you disputing? I am asking because this story does not appear to suffer from any significant bias.

chasedude
08-23-2011, 06:28 PM
Color me shocked!! A book, written by men who had little clue of anything around them turns out to have some errors???

I refuse to believe such tripe!!!

LMAO

Blasphemer! /signed Radical Bible Beaters

ClevelandBronco
08-23-2011, 10:29 PM
Humans make errors? As a believer I'm absolutely beside myself. This discovery has shaken my faith to the core.

go bowe
08-23-2011, 10:40 PM
Were the changes divinely inspired? There's nothing wrong with a living Bible if it's God's will. Interesting, but not damning.

aha! i knew you'd come around to the living document view...

you know, living bible, living constitution...

congratulations! :toast: :toast: :toast:

listopencil
08-24-2011, 12:50 AM
Humans make errors? As a believer I'm absolutely beside myself. This discovery has shaken my faith to the core.


A believer in what?

ClevelandBronco
08-24-2011, 12:56 AM
A believer in what?

Let's save ourselves the time we'd spend misunderstanding each other. I don't really come here for conversation.

Jenson71
08-24-2011, 09:08 AM
A believer in what?

Feel free to ask me more questions about Catholicism. I'm actually kind of starved for discussion on it.

Jaric
08-24-2011, 09:13 AM
Feel free to ask me more questions about Catholicism. I'm actually kind of starved for discussion on it.

Well, you asked for it.

What are your thoughts on the concept of papal infallability?

Chiefshrink
08-24-2011, 09:30 AM
Feel free to ask me more questions about Catholicism. I'm actually kind of starved for discussion on it.

In reference to Salvation which is it?

Faith plus Works = Salvation

or

Faith alone which produces Works = Salvation

Which is it?

Jenson71
08-24-2011, 10:05 AM
Well, you asked for it.

What are your thoughts on the concept of papal infallability?

Yeah, that's a tough one. I won't give you the apologetic answer, although, of course, there is one that delves deep into assumed truths, Church Father recitations, and stacking careful premises up to a logical proof.

And there is that always-present disclaimer that it only applies in certain situations and it's only really ever been used once.

I will give you my historical take on it: It was an enunciation that would have been better off left unsaid. And whatever the Papal Infallibility is on faith and morals may be, there is no doctrine of a papal infallibility in politics and diplomacy. And so it probably was a mistake to reaffirm something that can be so easily misunderstood, even though the Church has always held that position.

That's not the apologetic position, of course. Now, why did they push it? It was a tumultuous era, not too long after Napoleon's conquering of Europe (and his imprisonment of the Pope: can you imagine that today? Insanity), and then the Revolutions of 1848, the pronouncements of Marxism and other materialist creeds, and very close to home was Garibaldi and the plans for Italian unification, a serious power shift.

So there you have it. My take is that it's pronouncement was not incorrect, but the result of a group of people with their eye focused too much on the present and not enough on the future.

Jenson71
08-24-2011, 10:18 AM
In reference to Salvation which is it?

Faith plus Works = Salvation

or

Faith alone which produces Works = Salvation

Which is it?

Of your two choices, I think the Church would find the second choice preferable, although that doesn't necessarily mean that the first choice is wrong or that the second one could be entirely correct. Pope Benedict speaks of a faith that works through love as justifying man.

listopencil
08-24-2011, 10:20 AM
Feel free to ask me more questions about Catholicism. I'm actually kind of starved for discussion on it.


My sister was married to a Catholic guy. I got to meet him only one time, when my grandfather passed away. We spent a lot of time just shooting the breeze in the garage. We're both smokers, so we ended up hanging out there.

This was quite some time ago but he mentioned that there was a change in the way that confessions were done. He was saying that there wasn't going to be the physical partition between the confessor and the clergyman hearing the confession. Neither he nor I cared for that setup. Our thinking was that you are more likely to be able to unburden yourself without the face-to-face contact.

Is that true, that it has been changed? This was about ten years ago and I don't know if it actually was changed or even if it was just something that a local church was doing.

Jenson71
08-24-2011, 10:33 AM
I think local churches can adopt practices within a certain regulated parameter, but the grid is still the typical option, as far as I know. I've gone through face-to-face (in a school gym, no less, with classmates 25 yards behind me -- have to speak real quiet) and with the grid. And in the confessionals now, you can sit and face the priest, like sitting in a corner.

listopencil
08-24-2011, 10:42 AM
I think local churches can adopt practices within a certain regulated parameter, but the grid is still the typical option, as far as I know. I've gone through face-to-face (in a school gym, no less, with classmates 25 yards behind me -- have to speak real quiet) and with the grid. And in the confessionals now, you can sit and face the priest, like sitting in a corner.

I understand that you have to use what's available, maybe it's the ritual that pleased me.

Jaric
08-24-2011, 11:15 AM
Yeah, that's a tough one.Hey you asked for it :) A very reasonable response though. I personally think that papal infallability borders on blasphemy. I understand the church's position though and get what they're saying on why it's not. I just disagree with them.

I'm going to change gears on you here. I know it's from the Old Testament but what is your takeaway from the Book of Job?

Jaric
08-24-2011, 11:16 AM
My sister was married to a Catholic guy. I got to meet him only one time, when my grandfather passed away. We spent a lot of time just shooting the breeze in the garage. We're both smokers, so we ended up hanging out there.

This was quite some time ago but he mentioned that there was a change in the way that confessions were done. He was saying that there wasn't going to be the physical partition between the confessor and the clergyman hearing the confession. Neither he nor I cared for that setup. Our thinking was that you are more likely to be able to unburden yourself without the face-to-face contact.

Is that true, that it has been changed? This was about ten years ago and I don't know if it actually was changed or even if it was just something that a local church was doing.
When I was still catholic, our confessionals did not have the screen. You just went into a little room with the priest and told him your sins and he told you how many hail marys to say.

EDIT: This was about 15 years ago.

Dave Lane
08-24-2011, 11:17 AM
The oddest thing is there is not one thing in the bible that wasn't known to the simplest of folk at the time. Yet they are hundreds of prophecies in the bible and plenty of "prophets" telling the future, end of the world etc. Yet NONE of them knew anything that was divinely inspired about the future.

Jaric
08-24-2011, 11:20 AM
The oddest thing is there is not one thing in the bible that wasn't known to the simplest of folk at the time. Yet they are hundreds of prophecies in the bible and plenty of "prophets" telling the future, end of the world etc. Yet NONE of them knew anything that was divinely inspired about the future.

I'm sorry Dave, you've lost me here. I'm not sure what you're arguing.

Jenson71
08-24-2011, 11:27 AM
Hey you asked for it :) A very reasonable response though. I personally think that papal infallability borders on blasphemy. I understand the church's position though and get what they're saying on why it's not. I just disagree with them.

I'm going to change gears on you here. I know it's from the Old Testament but what is your takeaway from the Book of Job?

It's kind of like the Bob Dylan song, Buckets of Rain, where he sings, "Life is sad, life is a bust; all you can do, is do what you must; you do what you must do, and you do it well; I do it for you, honey baby, can't you tell"

But I see the book entirely metaphorically and don't believe God would play with Satan like that.

Jaric
08-24-2011, 12:00 PM
It's kind of like the Bob Dylan song, Buckets of Rain, where he sings, "Life is sad, life is a bust; all you can do, is do what you must; you do what you must do, and you do it well; I do it for you, honey baby, can't you tell"

But I see the book entirely metaphorically and don't believe God would play with Satan like that.

You're right that the whole Trading Places thing going on between God and the Devil seems a bit odd and out of place.

I go back and forth with Job. It seems to be trying to answer the question of why bad things happen to good people (and important question) and seems to answer it with "because God says so."

Dave Lane
08-24-2011, 02:56 PM
I'm sorry Dave, you've lost me here. I'm not sure what you're arguing.

Not really arguing, just musing on the fact a divinely inspired book by a all knowing god contains a large number of "prophecies" yet doesn't contain any knowledge people of the time didn't know.

For example if there was a statement about nuclear weapons or penicillin or Boeing 747s it would go a long way to the credibility of the book.

Jaric
08-24-2011, 03:20 PM
Not really arguing, just musing on the fact a divinely inspired book by a all knowing god contains a large number of "prophecies" yet doesn't contain any knowledge people of the time didn't know.

For example if there was a statement about nuclear weapons or penicillin or Boeing 747s it would go a long way to the credibility of the book.

Why would God tell the Hebrews about nuclear missles?

EDIT: And if he did, wouldn't it make more sense to make allusions to them rather than name them outright? He'd just confuse them because they wouldn't know what he was talking about.

Dave Lane
08-24-2011, 03:30 PM
Why not say "write this down. You won't understand why but someday they will."

Or better yet say here's the solution to infection: bread mold.

Jaric
08-24-2011, 03:49 PM
Why not say "write this down. You won't understand why but someday they will."

Or better yet say here's the solution to infection: bread mold.

***Warning, circular argument in progress***

Well, if God is real and all knowing, the reason for doing it they way he did is sound even if we don't understand it. Because he's all knowing. And since we're not, we shouldn't expect to understand what he's doing.

***End circular argument***

If memory serves though, there are some passages in revelations that could be taken to be references to nuclear weapons. I would think if it was included, it would be done in that manner rather confuse the ancient Hebrews with stuff they don't understand.

BigChiefFan
08-24-2011, 04:04 PM
Dave,
Try reading revelations and then tell me your point of view on the matter.

chasedude
08-24-2011, 04:38 PM
Let me know when they uncover more info about the Great Green Arkleseizure.

Aaachoo!

listopencil
08-24-2011, 05:49 PM
Not really arguing, just musing on the fact a divinely inspired book by a all knowing god contains a large number of "prophecies" yet doesn't contain any knowledge people of the time didn't know.

For example if there was a statement about nuclear weapons or penicillin or Boeing 747s it would go a long way to the credibility of the book.


Yeah, I do see what you mean. I'll take it a step farther. Why...

1) become so involved in human activity that faith is unnecessary in one time period

2) inspire sacred texts to lay out a plan of action for your followers in a different time period

3) send prophets to help teach and guide your followers

4) send a messiah to lead them closer to your vision in yet another time period

5) inspire more sacred texts when he's gone

6) then do nothing whatsoever afterward that would tend to help people even believe you exist, much less follow your loving guidelines



That makes no sense.

orange
08-24-2011, 06:13 PM
Why would God tell the Hebrews about nuclear missles?

EDIT: And if he did, wouldn't it make more sense to make allusions to them rather than name them outright? He'd just confuse them because they wouldn't know what he was talking about.

Couldn't God have said,

"Children, one day man will fly above the birds... all the way to the moon. He will sail under the waves and cast his voice beyond the mountains. This is my gift to you, my children. It is your birthright. So let it be said, so let it be done."

KILLER_CLOWN
08-24-2011, 06:26 PM
Father forgive them, for they know not what they do. Yup that about sums it up.

listopencil
08-24-2011, 06:27 PM
Father forgive them, for they know not what they do. Yup that about sums it up.

Forgive them for trying to understand the sacred text that their entire lives are built upon?

Zebedee DuBois
08-24-2011, 06:28 PM
It doesn't matter how faithfully or accurate any translation is. Man will always interpret/misinterpret it to fit whatever conception he had in the first place.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-24-2011, 06:30 PM
Forgive them for trying to understand the sacred text that their entire lives are built upon?

The believers already "Understand" the sacred text, at least those texts which are inspired.

orange
08-24-2011, 06:33 PM
The believers already "Understand" the sacred text, at least those texts which are inspired.

That's why there is no disagreement about that sacred text, anywhere, ever. Not a cross word is ever said.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-24-2011, 06:40 PM
That's why there is no disagreement about that sacred text, anywhere, ever. Not a cross word is ever said.

You don't have to agree/disagree with anyone, as there is no point in arguing about it as you can't defend your faith.

listopencil
08-24-2011, 07:20 PM
The believers already "Understand" the sacred text, at least those texts which are inspired.

No, actually they don't. It would be impossible to understand a text that doesn't agree with itself. Believers "Believe" the sacred text, not "Understand" it.

listopencil
08-24-2011, 07:21 PM
You don't have to agree/disagree with anyone, as there is no point in arguing about it as you can't defend your faith.

And yet massive disagreements occur over how to interpret the Bible, even when everyone involved is using the same one.

Ugly Duck
08-24-2011, 07:25 PM
I feel inadequate. I actually read the Bible. Cover to cover. I've done research, but still don't really understand what "faith" and "spiritual" mean. I've read General Relativity & found it far more understandable. How people can believe the stuff in the Bible is just beyond my ability to comprehend. To me, it all boils down to
http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/hurr_durr.jpg

KILLER_CLOWN
08-24-2011, 09:51 PM
I feel inadequate. I actually read the Bible. Cover to cover. I've done research, but still don't really understand what "faith" and "spiritual" mean. I've read General Relativity & found it far more understandable. How people can believe the stuff in the Bible is just beyond my ability to comprehend. To me, it all boils down to
http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/hurr_durr.jpg

It is not given for Raider fan to understand.