BANNED from the Bible - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-14-2006, 10:38 AM   #76
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
Quoting from the OT in regards to Christian divorce is meaningless. Jewish divorce customs were very liberal, and Jesus was preaching against them. Try to find a NT quote next time.

Many modern Biblical translations suffer from the burden of tradition. As such, archaic words of a dead language are often translated according to bias, rather than spending the time to study root words and similar applications of those roots in other parts of the Bible.
Did you look up Malachi? Hardly meaningless when it says “God hates divorce”. An since Jesus quotes Deuteronomy, and corrects the misinterpretation of the passage by the Pharresses of the day, the OT is hardly “meaningless” and from a scholarly perspective it would not follow to exclude the entire OT.


Quote:
Originally posted by melon
Regardless, what does this have to do with "porneia" and the divorce exception clause in Matthew? You're making a sweeping argument about sexual morality in the Bible, while I'm making an argument over a Greek word being misinterpreted to mean "sexual immorality" as a justification for divorce. There were other Greek words used to refer to other sexual practices that are more definitive in translation.
We’re trying to get to the meaning of the word “porneia”. A broader definition logically follows from the statements on sexual morality found throughout Scripture (as porneia is used many times, not just in the Matthew passage).


Quote:
Originally posted by melon
Secondly, I'd trust a Catholic Bible over a Protestant Bible anyday, because since the 1930s, the Vatican has held that Biblical scholarship to uncover the true meaning of the original texts will uncover the true word of God. As such, they do not care if they trample over certain "sacred cows" (particularly since they condemn Biblical fundamentalism, as well). Plus, since they have footnotes in all of their Bibles, ambiguous archaic words don't need definitive translations. They are then given an ambiguous word or phrase, such as with the translation of "porneia" being given "unlawful marriage" and then given extensive footnotes to discuss how they arrived at that translation. I may have my serious gripes with institutional Catholicism (particularly with their "tradition"), but the scholarship of their Bibles are excellent.
It sounds as if you are operating from a stereotype of Protestant biblical study. Granted, I have stumbled across some who consider the 1611 KJV as the definitive version, but I’ve found that their views are rejected in scholarly biblical review.

I’m glad the Vatican has returned to biblical study, even if they waited until 1930 to start. However, to suggest that such scholarly study is void on the Protestant side is foolish and empty. We personally own a small library of reference materials, a number of which are written by OT and NT scholars examining the root meaning of words in Hebrew and Greek. And I wouldn’t rely on just one set of study notes from one biblical translation. You don’t stop study when you find the one translation you happen to agree with personally.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-14-2006, 10:45 AM   #77
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint
Obviously, I'm not as well versed on the history of the church as some on this board are, but at its very basic, wasn't the Protestant Reformation designed to bring the priesthood back to the individual, to put the Bible in common language into the hands of the people, instead of them relying on the authority of the Catholic Church for explanation. (I know the intent was also to lessen the power and the wealth of the church) The result of this would be that each individual would interpret the words of it directly from the source, instead of relying on someone else's interpretation of it. What is the difference now with many Protestant sects preferring believers interpret through the sect's viewpoint than trusting the source itself to guide the individual?
It seems to me that many Protestant sects are as afraid now of letting the Bible into the hands of people who may not agree with their interpretation of it as the Catholics once were. They speak as if they have the "authority" of interpretation.
The Reformation was primarily designed to eliminate the priest as required intercessor as established by the Catholic Church. The individual should be able to pray directly to God. The individual should be able to read Scripture for themselves.

What is the basis for your judgment when you suggest that “many Protestant sects preferring believers interpret through the sect's viewpoint than trusting the source itself to guide the individual?”? That is largely conclusionary and lacking in any factual basis. I think you will find far more Protestants than Catholics opening a Bible to guide the individual.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-14-2006, 11:45 AM   #78
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 06:41 PM
I was very cautious in using the word "sect". Protestantism is a huge umbrella term with no centralization, although you will find strong alliances, and I had no intent to paint all Protestants with a broad brush. And you may be correct in general that Protestants are more inclined to read the Bible than Catholics. That has been my experience in a heavily Catholic area, but I'm not willing at this point to make that broad a generalization though I think it may be accurate.

Having grown up Protestant, raised in a fundamentalist-lite denomination, we were taught infinitely more to memorize scripture than we were to analyze it. Tele-evangelists interpreted it for you, thousands of people look to the Left Behind series for their interpretations and I found that interesting phenomenom (across the board incidentally, not limited to religious discussion) of reaching a conclusion, and then looking to the text to bolster your argument as opposed to reading it with an open mind. I've been guilty of that and I know the mechanics of doing that, so I can pretty well see it being done by others. I've seen it in the religious right who use it to condone war, big business, all authority of which they approve, capital punishment, and even the very fact that this man was elected President.
In church, I heard precious little of the red words except for the parables and the words on the cross during Easter, because once you got past the feel good of the red words, you began to underststand the uncomfortable challenge underneath. But I heard plenty of Paul, because beneath it all, people like to follow rules rather than change the underpinnings of their human natures.

And I've heard you disregard the validity of other people's interpretations (as has been done to you) because it did not gibe with yours. Individual presthoods will lead to individual interpretations and there is no divine authority for interpretation even if you grant divine authority for the words.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 01-14-2006, 07:07 PM   #79
New Yorker
 
AvsGirl41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 2,948
Local Time: 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
That is largely conclusionary and lacking in any factual basis. I think you will find far more Protestants than Catholics opening a Bible to guide the individual.
This is lacking in factual basis too.

Most of my friends are Catholic. One in particular is Polish and so *fervently* Catholic, he doesn't question the Church at all and frowns on those who do. (He also pats me on the head and says "poor baby" when he remembers I'm Lutheran.)

They can quote the Bible more than anyone else I know, and when they do, it's pretty obvious they've read and understood it for themselves. The Pole in particular has an understanding and intimacy with Scripture that none of my Lutheran and Baptist relatives have. That's just an anti-Catholic stereotype.

I'm sorry to say my relatives, and most of the devout Protestants I've been friends with don't even understand what the big words mean. They depend *heavily* on a pastor or the church to tell them what they do. Needless to say, I feel they receive more personal opinion and institutional doctrine than religious understanding.

It depends on the individual whether they choose to pick up a Bible for themselves, or depend on their church's interpretation. It's not exclusive to one brand of Christianity.
__________________
AvsGirl41 is offline  
Old 01-14-2006, 08:01 PM   #80
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 06:41 PM
I will defer to AvsGirl.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 01-14-2006, 08:49 PM   #81
New Yorker
 
AvsGirl41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 2,948
Local Time: 03:41 PM
But I was going to defer to you!

Our experiences really seem to have been the same though. My religious upbringing was very similar to yours, I went to a Lutheran school.

We did have our own assigned Bibles and we did Bible study in class. Once we had to memorize all the books of the Bible and recite them back to the teacher. Not the actual text, just the name. I'm still not sure what that was supposed to accomplish. But it wasn't like we read the Bible for our own understanding and guidance, it was just a school assignment!
__________________
AvsGirl41 is offline  
Old 01-14-2006, 09:20 PM   #82
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 06:41 PM
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 01-14-2006, 11:03 PM   #83
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AvsGirl41
It depends on the individual whether they choose to pick up a Bible for themselves, or depend on their church's interpretation. It's not exclusive to one brand of Christianity.
I would not argue that biblical study is exclusive to one denomination or religion over another. I only referenced a tendency, and one that is not unreasonable on a global scale.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-14-2006, 11:12 PM   #84
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 11:41 PM
I can only say in my experience Protestants tend have a better knowledge of the Bible than Catholics.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 01-15-2006, 06:35 AM   #85
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 08:41 AM
Thanks rev. Ian... I agree!
__________________

__________________
Kieran McConville is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com