The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: xasop on June 30, 2021, 01:18:35 AM
-
This is a subject I've become somewhat interested in recently, and the issue has turned out to be a lot more complex and nuanced than I initially realised. Broadly speaking, the Christian Bible can be broken into three parts with their own distinct history, and all three have generated controversy to a greater or lesser degree, either in their translation or in their status as scripture.
Parts of the Bible
The oldest is the Hebrew Bible, which is the collection of ancient Jewish writings that have survived in the original Hebrew (or, for a few passages, Aramaic), and which are considered canonical by Jews and all Christian denominations. These were first translated into Greek (a translation now known as the Septuagint) in the 3rd century BC, which is the source of most controversy surrounding the translation. For example, in Isaiah 7:14, the Hebrew word הָעַלְמָה ("young woman") was translated with the Greek παρθένος, which can mean either "maiden" or "virgin". Because Isaiah 7:14 is talking about a pregnancy, it would have been considered unlikely to be read as "virgin" at the time of its translation, but in a modern Christian context it is often taken as a prophecy of the birth of Jesus. Jews, who regard the original Hebrew text as authoritative, do not accept this Christian interpretation.
Next come the deuterocanonical books or apocrypha, terms preferred by Catholics and Protestants, respectively. These are pre-Christian Jewish writings which appear in the Greek Bible, but not the Hebrew Bible. These have widely varying histories. Some were originally written in Hebrew, but the original texts have been lost. Some are parts added to books in the Hebrew Bible — for example, around half of the Greek book of Daniel is nowhere to be found in Hebrew. Others, like 2 Maccabees, were entirely authored in Greek by Hellenised Jews. Whatever the reason for their absence from the Hebrew Bible, they are not considered canonical by Jews or Protestants, some are included in the Catholic Old Testament, and a few more are also included by Eastern churches.
Finally, there is the New Testament, thought to be originally written in Greek, although some proposals of a Hebrew original for the Gospel have been floated. This is, obviously, rejected by Jews, but it is universally accepted, as the same set of books, by all major modern Christian denominations. It is nevertheless controversial in the choice of manuscript used as the translation source. The most widely known English translation of the Bible, the King James Version (KJV), was created centuries ago based on the Byzantine manuscripts known at the time. Modern Biblical scholarship prefers the older Alexandrian text-type, which is missing some verses that were presumably added later to the Byzantine text-type. Therefore, from the point of view of someone familiar with the KJV, modern translations of the New Testament have "missing" verses.
Ancient translations
The issue of which source to use for translation is further complicated by the fact that no originals survive — and, indeed, for the older books of the Hebrew Bible, the concept of an original may be inapplicable, as these very likely originated as oral traditions that were only written down centuries later.
For the Old Testament, the main sources are the 10th-century Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) and the 3rd-century-BC translation into Greek, the Septuagint (LXX), of which near-complete manuscripts survive from the 4th century AD. The Dead Sea Scrolls, from the 4th century BC, were discovered in the mid-20th century and have helped to improve the historical accuracy of recent translations.
The Latin Vulgate is also a useful point of reference, for two reasons. First, Jerome used the work of Symmachus when translating the Vulgate. Symmachus translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek, independently of the Septuagint. His translation is reported by ancient authors to be more natural Greek than the Septuagint, but survives only in fragments, making the Vulgate our best insight into Symmachus's work. Second, the Vulgate was the only version of the Bible ever read by most scholars in western Europe for about a millennium, thanks to the influence of the Roman Catholic Church.
For these reasons, modern Bible translations typically use multiple sources in different languages, especially for the Old Testament. Only by comparing different surviving manuscripts can we obtain a clear picture of what was meant by the original. Yet, for the selfsame reason, modern translations often differ in their reading of particular passages due to preferencing one translation over another. The better translations offer footnotes with alternate readings so that the reader is aware of the ambiguity.
Modern translations into English
No translation prior to the 1950s can be considered up-to-date with modern Biblical scholarship, for the simple reason that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not available to translators before then. Since the 1950s, there have been numerous translations made — too numerous to list here — with varying advantages and disadvantages.
Generally, translations are classified on a spectrum of formal equialence vs. dynamic equivalence. Strict formal equivalence would produce unintelligible English, because Hebrew and Greek grammar is so drastically different from English, so formally equivalent translations tend to take just enough liberties to produce grammatically coherent English sentences.
Dynamic equivalence tries to convey the same meaning in natural English, which necessarily involves different phrasing in some cases. For example, in Luke 15:8, the Greek word δρᾰχμή refers to a drachma, an ancient Greek coin, but such currency is totally unknown to most modern readers. Modern translations, even formal translations, generally replace it with "silver coin", although formal translations tend to explain the original word as a footnote. In other cases, ancient idioms may need to be rephrased to make intuitive sense to modern readers, where a formally equivalent translation may leave them as is.
Another difference between translations is how they handle the deuterocanonical books. It is not always practical to provide these in a way that is useful for both Catholics and Protestants. The book of Esther, in particular, has whole new sections added to it in the Septuagint, that — if included separately — would make reading Greek Esther quite cumbersome indeed. Instead, Catholic Bibles either replace translations of the Hebrew books with the Greek ones, or include the Hebrew Esther and the Greek Esther separately.
My opinion
I have been researching available translations and selected personal favourites from the available options. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) is generally accepted by Biblical scholars as the most accurate formal translation, and I now own a copy of the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NOAB), which is based on the NRSV and has a large number of annotations, maps and essays to explain how to interpret the scriptures. I love the NOAB as a reference, especially since it includes all deuterocanonical books, even those used by Orthodox churches but not the Catholic Church.
But the NRSV is not very amenable to easy reading, so I also now have a copy of the Catholic edition of the Good News Bible (GNB), which is written in clear, simple English, liberally seasoned with footnotes. I have been reading this for the past couple of weeks, and so far it is by far the smoothest translation I have ever laid eyes on.
Although it is quite popular, I do not like the New International Version, partly because of its Christian theological spin on the Old Testament (it uses "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14) and partly because it has fewer footnotes to explain alternate readings than the GNB. The KJV is right out for my purposes, as it is simply too old to benefit from modern Biblical scholarship.
But most of all, I'm glad I have researched the subject so that I have an understanding of how and why modern Bible translations differ, and what to expect. I have never actually read more than fragments of the Bible before, and the Good News Bible is making it extremely easy to do so, so I would wholeheartedly recommend that to any fellow Bible-curious folks.
-
Quite an impressive educational endeavor, I must admit.
As to the subject matter, when it comes to fiction, I find other works (the FE WIKI comes to mind) that are much more to my liking.
-
That's a pretty impressive dive into the weeds of the development of the modern Bible.
If someone is just trying to familiarize yourself with what's in The Bible, GNB is far and away your best choice. That's what I grew up with, it's the only one that's readable in my opinion. I tried a more ' authoritative' version after university at the peak of my anti-religious views, but multiple attempts at getting through the OT in the KJV failed miserably.
-
I tried a more ' authoritative' version after university at the peak of my anti-religious views, but multiple attempts at getting through the OT in the KJV failed miserably.
It's bizarre to me that people still consider the KJV authoritative, to the point that the Early Modern English of the 17th century is now associated with the Bible. It is highly noteworthy as literature and as an important historical translation, but it scores exceptionally poorly on both readability and accuracy, lacking the benefit of modern scholarship.
-
Yeah, that's why I threw in the quotations.
Brand recognition > product research in my case on that one. It seemed authoritative to me because it's the one that's been around I guess....but being around so long is the reason for its problems.
Interesting post.
-
You have not truly read the Bible until you've read it in it's original Klingon.
-
My limited research on the subject shows that the kjv is by far the most accurate, but decidedly not the most accessible to a modern audience. The nrsv (newly reviled substandard version, as it is known) is changed arbitrarily to sell new copies of it for profit :(
I highly recommend the pocket e-sword, and it is a shame it did not make the jump to modern mobile os's (it SORT of did, but in a vastly inferior form and for-profit, itself a violation of the scriptures and the ethos of the creator). No one translation can do the job, and it is often necessary to go to the "original" language/source as best you can (along with commentaries / translation / strongs concordance etc.). Blueletterbible.org is the next best thing, but it is utter shit by comparison to the ease of use and interface of the pocket e-sword.
In any case, thanks for sharing! I haven't been involved in theosophy for quite some time, but this brings back some memories.
-
I'm fairly skeptical of the translations. Every word can mean several different things according to concordance dictionaries. Some people say it describes a flat stationary Earth, and here I used the top concordance results and translations to have it say that the Earth is moving upwards. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79554.0)
-
My limited research on the subject shows that the kjv is by far the most accurate, but decidedly not the most accessible to a modern audience.
I would be interested to know the reasoning for that. All of my research indicates indicates that the best available sources for both the Old and New Testaments were not known when the KJV was translated.
I'm fairly skeptical of the translations. Every word can mean several different things according to concordance dictionaries.
Well, yes, which is where it's handy to have a translation with footnotes that explain ambiguities or an annotated study Bible. Obviously, it would be ideal to read it in the original language, but for those of us who don't have years to spend learning to read Hebrew and Greek, finding a good translation is the next best thing.
-
Obviously, it would be ideal to read it in the original language, but for those of us who don't have years to spend learning to read Hebrew and Greek, finding a good translation is the next best thing.
They all claim to be good translations though. All of the translators claim to be well read on the matter and have expertise, justification, and the correct interpretation. Why would someone would write a version that they knew was false?
Majority rule on the matter is also fallacious since some people might like things like idol worshiping and round earth theories and some might not.
-
They all claim to be good translations though. All of the translators claim to be well read on the matter and have expertise, justification, and the correct interpretation.
That's not really true. Anyone who has ever seriously studied a second language knows that that there is no one correct way to translate every passage. Any translator worth their salt acknowledges this, and makes their priorities clear. Some prioritise literal accuracy, some prioritise ease of reading, some prioritise Jewish doctrine and some prioritise Christian doctrine. Some don't prioritise any of those, but try to aim for a balance between all of them.
Thus, it is a matter of choosing the translation that makes the trade-offs that make sense for you. Or, if you want to be sure you're not being misled by one person's interpretation, choose two or three and compare them. You don't have to learn Hebrew to make good use of the Bible.
If anyone does claim that their translation is the only correct one, that is a translation to be avoided. If they won't be honest with you about the translation process, I wouldn't trust the integrity of their translation either.
-
Thus, it is a matter of choosing the translation that makes the trade-offs that make sense for you. Or, if you want to be sure you're not being misled by one person's interpretation, choose two or three and compare them. You don't have to learn Hebrew to make good use of the Bible.
Three different versions are translating the parts of this passage very differently:
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/1-Chronicles/16/30
1 Chronicles 16:30
New American Standard Bible
"Tremble before Him, all the earth; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved."
King James Version
"Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."
Holman Bible
"tremble before Him, all the earth. The world is firmly established; it cannot be shaken."
The first author translates the second and third pieces of the passage as stationary. And authors two and three interchangeably have different interpretations for the meaning of the second and third parts of the passage as something to do with stability, but think the other is stationary.
Who should we believe and why?
Any answer to this shows that none of the translators can be trusted.
-
The first author translates the second and third pieces of the passage as stationary. And authors two and three interchangeably have different interpretations for the meaning of the second and third parts of the passage as something to do with stability, but think the other is stationary.
Who should we believe and why?
Are any of these translations intended to give an accurate description of the Earth? Last time I checked, the Bible was a book of religion, not geology. For the purpose of religion, your quotes all mean the same thing.
For the purpose of geology, they are all too imprecise to mean anything at all. The word "move" in English could mean several different things. If you are interested in geology, might I suggest a good textbook instead?
-
As someone who has taken multiple translation courses, I'd just echo what xasop said. Either trust none of them, trust all of them, hope they provide the explanation of what their goals were in dealing with each ambiguous line.....but the best bet is just to learn the original language
-
Are any of these translations intended to give an accurate description of the Earth? Last time I checked, the Bible was a book of religion, not geology. For the purpose of religion, your quotes all mean the same thing.
For the purpose of geology, they are all too imprecise to mean anything at all. The word "move" in English could mean several different things. If you are interested in geology, might I suggest a good textbook instead?
Your argument appears to be that we can't trust the translators to know what the people who wrote the bible meant, and we also can't trust the people who wrote the Bible to know what knowledge they are trying to convey from themselves or their divine influence.
If we can't trust something simple like the difference between stationary and stable from all involved sources then how can we possibly trust a translator to know what an ancient person of an ancient language meant about the nature of God and the true meaning of life hundreds or thousands of years ago?
-
Your argument appears to be that we can't trust the translators to know what the people who wrote the bible meant, and we also can't trust the people who wrote the bible to know what they are trying to convey from their divine influence.
That is not what I said at all. I am saying that neither the original authors nor the translators were writing a geology textbook.
If we can't trust something simple like the difference between stationary and stable then how can we possibly trust a translator to know what an ancient person of an ancient language meant about the nature of God and the true meaning of life thousands of years ago?
The passage you are talking about is obviously figurative. It makes no sense to insert a sentence about the literal nature of the Earth in the middle of a lecture on bowing before God. In that context, there is no difference between "stationary" and "stable", because "stationary" can be used figuratively to mean "stable".
Just three verses later, there is this gem:
The trees in the woods will shout for joy when the LORD comes to rule the earth.
Are you seriously telling me you have a problem with not knowing whether the Earth is stationary or stable, but you're fine with trees shouting?
If you try to use the Bible as a geology textbook, you are going to have a bad time, no matter what language you read it in.
-
Are you seriously telling me you have a problem with not knowing whether the Earth is stationary or stable, but you're fine with trees shouting?
I have a problem with that sentence too. I could take that sentence at various levels, figuratively or literally.
- It could be purely figurative.
- Maybe the demigods of nature exist and the nature-angles would angle the winds against the trees to make a happy sound.
- I've heard that plants can communicate by releasing chemicals, can talk to each other and to insects. Maybe the spirits of the trees caused them to release one of the joy chemicals and shouted for joy in their way that they and God would know.
- There are some theories that the Bible portrays early Earth as a gene experimentation lab. Maybe the trees had some kind of group sentience and did something to shout for joy, but they aren't as sentient anymore and lack their tree organs after some revisions and cleanup.
And this is assuming that the sentence is even translated properly.
Go Here: https://biblehub.com/lexicon/1_chronicles/16-33.htm
then click on the shout for joy part:
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7442.htm
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
aloud for joy, cry out, be joyful greatly, make to rejoice, cause to shout for joy
A primitive root; properly, to creak (or emit a stridulous sound), i.e. To shout (usually for joy) -- aloud for joy, cry out, be joyful (greatly, make to) rejoice, (cause to) shout (for joy), (cause to) sing (aloud, for joy, out), triumph.
It could just mean that they creaked.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/stridulous
Also strid·u·lant. making or having a harsh or grating sound.
God came to rule the earth and he makes a pressure wave and causes the trees to creak to signal his return. The trees are just trees in this scenario. They don't have minds of their own and just creak because they were made to creak. God is intending more shock than joy and isn't necessarily doing the happy fun joyous things the translators want.
One of the translations in the concordance definitions is also just 'properly'. It could mean that God came back and they were proper. And 'proper' might also some kind of synonym for joyous in the ancient languages, and many authors used it as 'joyous' but not this one, hence the confusion.
I doubt any translator knows what this passage actually means.
-
God came to rule the earth and he makes a pressure wave and causes the trees to creak to signal his return. The trees are just trees in this scenario. They don't have minds of their own and just creak because they were made to creak.
That is probably a valid reading (I am no expert on Hebrew so I can't say for certain). It doesn't make the one given in the GNB invalid. This goes back to what I said before: there is no one correct way to translate every passage, but that doesn't make all translations worthless.
I doubt any translator know what this passage actually means.
Insofar as the detail isn't there in the original, correct. If you are expecting a translation to add information that wasn't there in the source, you will be disappointed.
-
It's even more complex than words maybe meaning another word. Maybe the words and concepts as you known them don't even mean what you think they mean on a more fundamental conceptual basis. Now go to that biblehub lexicon page for the passage (https://biblehub.com/lexicon/1_chronicles/16-33.htm) and click on the word 'trees':
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6086.htm
Under Brown-Driver-Briggs I see:
collective trees
figurative of source of (life and) happiness
place of illicit worship
olive trees
simile of great age
late (in Persian) used for executing criminals (? by hanging = gallows)
That one bolded was interesting. Place of illicit worship?
Lets check out the Thematic Bible:
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/themes/Deuteronomy/12/2#thematic_title_20179
Groves » Idols were worshipped in
Deuteronomy 12:2
You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess serve their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree.
1 Kings 14:23
For they also built for themselves high places and sacred pillars and Asherim on every high hill and beneath every luxuriant tree.
Jeremiah 3:6
Then the Lord said to me in the days of Josiah the king, “Have you seen what faithless Israel did? She went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and she was a harlot there.
Lets click on the link 'every green tree' on the right hand side:
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/phrases/Every-Green-Tree
Deut 12:2
Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree
2 Kgs 16:4
And he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree.
2 Chron 28:4
He sacrificed also and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree.
Isa 57:5
Enflaming yourselves with idols under every green tree, slaying the children in the valleys under the clifts of the rocks?
Jer 3:6
The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot.
Weird. Now trees are where the bad idol worshiping takes place, sacrifices are made, and places harlots gather.
Maybe it's saying that God will return and the illegitimate places of idol worship and their spirits will creak in shock.
-
Maybe it's saying that God will return and the illegitimate places of idol worship and their spirits will creak in shock.
Maybe it is. As someone with no knowledge of Hebrew, I have to rely on translators with a professional understanding of the language rather than reading a website for 5 minutes that says what words might have meant in some unspecified contexts, at some unspecified time in the Hebrew language's 3000-year history.
If you would rather learn Hebrew, more power to you. But don't confuse perusing a list of possible translations for each word with an understanding of the language.
-
Maybe it is. As someone with no knowledge of Hebrew, I have to rely on translators with a professional understanding of the language rather than reading a website for 5 minutes that says what words might have meant in some unspecified contexts, at some unspecified time in the Hebrew language's 3000-year history.
Those people with a 'professional understanding' are inherently biased though. They probably think God is good and stuff, so they interpret it as trees shouting for joy. Satanists and some scholars interpret the Bible as saying that Satan is God, so they might say that the places of evil and alternative worship (which we saw had some kind of synonym with trees) shouted for joy when the true God returned.
Your Bible Says Satan is God! What's Going On? | Dr. Gene Kim
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaVWgewj1Ts&ab_channel=REALBibleBelievers
-
Those people with a 'professional understanding' are inherently biased though. They probably think God is good and stuff
So did the people who wrote it in the first place.
-
They probably think God is good and stuff
So did the people who wrote it in the first place.
Some people don't think that is what they were writing:
https://www.fayobserver.com/entertainment/20170316/ruler-of-this-world-god-or-satan
Ruler of This World: God or Satan?
Many people are surprised by the evil in this world. Do you ever wonder, “If God is good or even exists, why is there so much pain and suffering? Why is it that bad things happen to me even when I work hard and try to be a good person?” I’ll tell you why. The Bible records that while God gave Adam authority over the world, Adam gave it over to Satan.
That’s right; Satan is the temporary ruler of this world:
“Satan, the ruler of this world, will be cast out.” (John 12:31)
“Jesus said, ‘The ruler of this world approaches. He has no power over me.’” (John 14:30)
“Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe the Gospel.” (2 Corinthians 4:4)
“We are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil spiritual rulers and authorities, and against mighty powers in this dark world.” (Ephesians 6:12)
“We know that the world around us is under the control of the evil one.” (1 John 5:19) “Who can win this battle against the world? Only those who believe that Jesus is the Son of God.” (1 John 5:5)
God is using Satan’s rebellion to reveal the hearts of men and women. Those who put their faith in God’s salvation will be raised from death and live for eternity with him.
“Jesus gave his life for our sins, just as God our Father planned, in order to rescue us from this evil world in which we live.” (Galatians 1:4)
“The world offers only a craving for physical pleasure, a craving for everything we see, and pride in our achievements and possessions. These are not from the Father, but are from this world. And this world is fading away, along with everything that people crave. But anyone who does what pleases God will live forever.” (1 John 2:16-17)
Why do I say that Satan is the temporary ruler of this world? Because the Bible tells us that Satan’s end has already been determined: “The devil was thrown into the fiery lake of burning sulfur, joining the beast and the false prophet. There they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. This lake of fire is the second death. And anyone whose name was not found recorded in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire.” (Revelation 20:10-15)
Rev. Dr. J. Robert Kretzu is pastor of Hope Mills United Methodist Church
Perhaps the Bible is saying that there is a good God somewhere, but the God of this world isn't it. When God, or the 'Lord', is present and doing things in our world in some passages it's possible that it's not the good one.
-
Some people don't think that's what they were writing
Great! I look forward to their published translation based on their interpretation, which I imagine is forthcoming any day now, if they know so much better than the experts.
-
Some people don't think that's what they were writing
Great! I look forward to their published translation based on their interpretation, which I imagine is forthcoming any day now, if they know so much better than the experts.
Well, there are entire books exploring the concept.
The Two Gods in the Bible
Andrew Scrima
https://books.google.com/books?id=g11PDwAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
You know, as much as we want to believe in the Bible in its entirety, so many curiosities and questions manifest and develop after even the most cursory reading that it makes any reconciliation between the Old Testament and the New virtually impossible. Why would God spend six days and six nights of his precious time creating mankind and the earth, only to realize he made a mistake? That’s right. It seems this God made a mistake. Scripture tells us “he was grieved” that he made man, and by page 6, he’s ready to destroy the earth and us both within what seems like moments of their creation?
~
The “God” in the Old Testament is angry, hateful, vengeful, murderous, and jealous; but the one in the New Testament is loving, kind, compassionate, and forgiving. Theoretically, and theologically, “the Lord” in the Old Testament “chose” the Hebrews “out of all the peoples” on earth to be his “children,” his “prized possessions,” but if we are all from Adam and Eve, what “choice” did he have? According to the Bible, they were supposedly and allegedly the only people on the planet.
Why would God “choose” a people “out of all the peoples on the earth” that even according to his own observations and admissions were “a brood of evil doers” (Is 1:4) and “they do all the evil they can” (Jer 3:5)? Right up front in chapter 6 of Genesis, the author tells us, “The Lord saw how GREAT man’s wickedness had become, and that EVERY INCLINATION of the thoughts of HIS HEART were only evil ALL THE TIME” (Gn 6:5). I guess he didn’t see that coming. Or did he?
How can so much evil and wickedness come from a loving and righteous “God”?
~
Is it purely coincidental that all the prophetic books call the “Hebrews” Jews, Israelites, whatever, evil, wicked, and according to Jeremiah 3:5, “They do all the evil they can”? If these men were so evil and wicked and their God said they were, why did he “choose” them, and why would he constantly command these “evil people” to kill, slaughter, and maim men, women, even children and infants? In some cases, they even killed the animals.
Why would he command them not to kill then command them to “destroy everything that breathes”? Why would he command them to kill “everything that breathes” then dictate “anyone who kills a human being must be destroyed,” all the while killing his own “children” by the tens of thousands at a time? If God made all mankind, why would he instruct one group of people, his “chosen” people, to exterminate all the other people who were apparently not “his people”? Theoretically, aren’t we all “his children”? Why would the Lord send Moses to ask Pharaoh to “set my people free,” all the while “Hardening” Pharaoh’s heart not to let them go? (Exodus 7:3). Why would this “God” instruct the Hebrews to plunder (rob) the Egyptians or all their silver and gold and then once out in the desert, have them pay him a “Ransom” for their freedom and their very lives? Did he need the money to pay bills or something? Why would he extricate the Hebrews from enslavement to the Egyptians, only to sell them “to their enemies ALL AROUND ...,” according to Judges 2:14? Then in turn, turn around and sell them again in Ju 3:8 and again inJu 4:2 and again?
Why was this “God’s” power apparently limited to the point where he couldn’t defeat a people that had “iron chariots” in Judges 4:3? Why does the Bible tell us “God” doesn’t lie or change his mind in Numbers 23:19 then supply dozens of examples where the Lord changes his mind and seemingly lies? Why does the Bible only date Adam and Eve back 5,777 years when we know for a fact that mankind existed long before that? Heck, we’ve found pottery older that that!
Why does the Bible tell us Jesus said, “no one has ever seen God,” when in the adverse opposite, it repeatedly tells us he “appeared” and plenty of people have claimed to have seen him?
Why does the Bible tell us in 2 Samuel 24:1 that it was “the Lord” that incited David to take a census of the people, but then in 1 Chronicles 21:1, it says, “Satan rose up AND INCITED David to take a census”? Yes. It was the same census. Compare the two.
All these questions should invariably lead to the quintessential query: Was “the (Old Testament) Lord” really God, the Creator? You may be surprised at the most obvious, absolute, and unequivocal answer.
This one doesn't appear call him out as Satan specifically like the above, but goes to lengths to show that there are passages showing that there are multiple managing Gods in Abrahamic scripture:
Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity
Peter Schäfer
https://books.google.com/books?id=E4ivDwAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA6&pg=PA6#v=onepage&q&f=false
The title of this examination, Two Gods in Heaven, is pointedly based on the rabbinic phrase “two powers in heaven” (shetei rashuyyot), which clearly implies two divine authorities side by side. This does not refer to two gods who fight each other in a dualistic sense (“good god” versus “evil god”), as we are familiar with primarily from Gnosticism, but rather two gods who rule side by side and together—in different degrees of agreement and correlation. Scholarship has developed the term “binitarian” to describe this juxtaposition of two powers or gods, analogous to the term “trinitarian” associated with Christian dogma.”
The theme of two divine authorities in the Jewish heaven is not new. Almost all pertinent studies follow the key rabbinic concept of “two powers,” concentrating on the period of classical rabbinic Judaism. After the pioneering work of R. Travers Herford, the revised dissertation of Alan Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, is con- sidered a milestone in more recent research.10
A theologian of middle ages wanted to interpret the scriptures as professing that Satan was a co-equal to God, and was subsequently condemned as heretical by Church authorities who 'set the record straight' for us:
Satan: A Biography
P. G. Maxwell-Stuart
https://books.google.com/books?id=S2uoAwAAQBAJ&lpg=PT90&ots=En_mbqBjz3&pg=PT90#v=onepage&q&f=false
It is clear from this catalogue of creedal points that, according to Andreas — Pietro seems to have been puzzled by a number of things Andreas was telling their interrogators, either because he was poorly instructed in his creed or because Andreas’s beliefs were more singular than those of other Cathars — there were two gods of equal status and equal eternity, and that one of them, the Devil, is constantly distinguished from a persona called ‘Lucifer’. Even though both share a history which was recounted by orthodox Catholic theology as that of a single entity, they act partly as though they were confederates on a number of enterprises — the creation of the world, the creation of Adam and Eve — and partly as though they were separate and individual powers. The Devil wanted Adam to be immortal, Lucifer did not, and Lucifer got his own way. The Devil sent the Flood; Lucifer rescued Noah and his family. The Devil created Babel and a cacophony of languages; Lucifer began to pretend he was the good god and issued laws and prophecies via Moses and the prophets. In other words, we are presented with two personifications of evil, one the equivalent of God and the creator of evil and darkness, the other a fallen angel who repents of his sin and begins to intervene in human history in a number of ways not altogether wicked.
So unorthodox are these views that, even if Cathars apart from Andreas did not necessarily subscribe to every jot or tittle of theirs, we can scarcely be surprised they were condemned as heretical, as indeed happened at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, which made it clear that the Devil was not a co-equal with God, but a creation of His, which turned bad of its own free will. ‘There is no doubt that the Devil and the other demons were created by God with a good character, but became wicked through their own actions. Humankind [literally, ‘the Man’, to Adam] sinned at the Devil’s prompting Let them receive according to what they have done, whether this be good or evil — those who keep company with the Devil, everlasting punishment: those who keep company with Christ, eternal glory’. Increasing episodes of this kind of heresy and of a variety of others throughout the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, thus caused the Church not only to address herself to those criticisms of clerical behaviour which provided fodder for many of these deviations, but also to return to the central problem of evil and its manifestations in the world.
-
Here's an article by a Professor of Religion at Roanoke College:
THE BIBLE’S MANY GODS
by Gerald McDermott
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/01/the-bibles-many-gods
The idea that there are other “gods” who exist as real supernatural beings, albeit infinitely inferior to the only Creator and Redeemer, pervades the Bible. The Psalms fairly explode with evidence. “There is none like you among the gods, O Lord” (86:8); “For great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised; he is to be revered above all gods” (96:4); “Our Lord is above all gods” (135:5); “Ascribe to Yahweh, [you] gods, ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength” (29:1, my trans.); “He is exalted above all gods” (97:7); “For Yahweh is a great god, and a great king above all gods” (95:3, my trans.). And so on.
But it’s not just the Psalms. In Exodus Yahweh predicts that he will execute judgments “on all the gods of Egypt” (12:12). The author of Numbers then declares that that is indeed what happened: “Yahweh executed judgments against their gods” (33:4). There is no hint that Yahweh is the only God. Instead it is clearly implied that Egypt has her own gods, and Yahweh will defeat them.
When Yahweh gives his people the Ten Commandments, the first commandment implies the existence of other gods: “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exod. 20:3; see also Deut. 5:7). In Exodus 23:32–33 Israel is told not to covenant with or worship other gods; there is no suggestion that the gods of Israel’s neighbors do not exist.
In Deuteronomy 4:19 the Israelites are forbidden from worshipping “the sun, the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven . . . [which] Yahweh your god has allotted to all the peoples everywhere under heaven.” In other words, they were told not to worship other gods, not because those gods did not exist, but because they were supposed to rule other peoples, not Israel.
Yahweh himself, who created and rules the other gods, would rule Israel directly. He would rule the nations indirectly through the delegated authority of other gods. This, apparently, was the original intent behind the strange passage regarding the “prince of Persia” in Daniel 10: “The prince of Persia withstood me [perhaps the angel Gabriel] twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me” (v. 13).
Something had gone terribly wrong in Psalm 82. The supernatural beings He had appointed to rule the nations justly had failed to perform. They were supposed to rule with justice, executing judgments on behalf of the poor, the widows and the rest of the nations. But because they did not judge properly, Yahweh would judge them. And the punishment was ferocious.
[Yahweh] has taken his place in the divine council,
In the midst of the gods he passes judgment. . . .
And all of you, sons of Elyon [God Most High]
Instead like Adam you shall die,
And like one of the ‘Shining Ones’ you shall fall.”
“Arise, O Yahweh; Judge the earth!
May you take possession of all the nations!”
If these “gods” were really human beings, verse 7 would not make sense, for all humans die like Adam. Why would this be a special punishment? Instead, there is a hint in this verse of cosmic rebellion against Yahweh. It calls to mind Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, where the king of Babylon and prince of Tyre are condemned for their rebellious pride. In Isaiah 14:13–14, the rebellion is explicit. The “Shining One, son of Dawn” (the same phrase used here in Ps. 82:7) tried to place himself above “the stars of El [the highest God, or Yahweh]” to “sit enthroned in the Mount of Assembly (of the gods),” to “be like Elyon [the fuller name for the Most High God].”
The drift of these passages is that the gods—which are sometimes regarded in the Hebrew Bible as fallen angels and arguably are the genesis of Paul’s “principalities and powers”—are condemned to death not simply because of their failure to rule with justice, but more importantly, for their rebellion against their Maker, Yahweh. Their unjust rule of the nations was simply one of many expressions of their rebellion, which was the principal reason for Yahweh’s discipline.
Christians later came to see these two stories in the prophets as allusions to Satan’s fall from grace. Once created as God’s most gifted and beautiful supernatural being, Satan abused his authority and then led a rebellion against Yahweh. God punished him by limiting his authority on earth; he is still the “god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4) but his authority is checked by God’s sovereign purposes, and his final destruction is decreed.
N. T. Wright calls this “creational monotheism,” which means that Yahweh rules over a cosmos thick with not only good angels but also fallen angels masquerading as the true God. Wright insists that “we have very few examples of ‘pure’ monotheism anywhere, including in the Hebrew Bible.”
For the biblical authors, these weak and beggarly “gods” helped explain why this cosmos seems to be at war, both spiritually and politically. They believed the ancient pagan religions were animated by powers hostile to Yahweh, actively fighting Yahweh’s control of the cosmos. It was no surprise to them that history is full of conflict, because its driving animus is conflict between supernatural forces, which are visibly represented by both religious and political communities.
In other words, wars between nations were really only the shadowy surface of the deeper and more fundamental combat between spiritual powers. So Samuel Huntington, the Harvard political scientist whose Clash of Civilizations claimed the real inspiration for modern wars would be cultural and religious, was making what might be seen as a biblical argument.
Gerald McDermott is the Jordan-Trexler Professor of Religion at Roanoke College. He is the co-author of A Trinitarian Theology of Religions (forthcoming from Oxford University Press).
-
Not a big fan of the Good News, the language is too simplistic for me, almost childish.
Good for when you're young or I guess if you're reading in a second language.
I don't like The Message much, more of a paraphrase and tries to be a bit too cool for school.
On the other end of the scale, I don't understand people who insist on the King James, as though that's the "original" - which is wrong in multiple ways, one of which being it wasn't even the first English translation.
More of an NIV man, myself. Although I agree with jackNumbers that looking at a range of translations and commentaries is a good idea.
Gives you a more rounded view of things and helps deal with the inherent difficulty of translation.
I quite like it when preachers who have looked into this explain more about what the original Greek or Hebrew words mean.
So in the famous "seek and you should find", the sense of the word "seek" is an imperative, and it's in the present continuous tense.
So it's more of a command to do it urgently and keep doing it. I believe the same goes for "ask" and "knock" in the same passage.
Gives a much more rounded view than the plain English ever can.
-
The 'Two Gods in the Bible' book had an interesting example:
Why does the Bible tell us in 2 Samuel 24:1 that it was “the Lord” that incited David to take a census of the people, but then in 1 Chronicles 21:1, it says, “Satan rose up AND INCITED David to take a census”? Yes. It was the same census. Compare the two.
Okay. Lets take a look.
For the first one there are at least 27 translations of the Bible, which all say LORD or God.
http://biblehub.com/2_samuel/24-1.htm
International Standard Version
Later, God's anger blazed forth against Israel, so he incited David to move against them by telling him, "Go take a census of Israel and Judah."
New American Standard Bible
Now the anger of the LORD burned against Israel again, and He incited David against them to say, “Go, count Israel and Judah.”
King James Bible
And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
...
For the second one, there are at least 27 translations, which all say Satan:
https://biblehub.com/1_chronicles/21-1.htm
International Standard Version
Then Satan attacked Israel by inciting David to enumerate a census of Israel.
New American Standard Bible
Then Satan stood up against Israel and incited David to count Israel.
King James Bible
And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
...
Maybe these are different events.
From NIV:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2024&version=NIV
2 Samuel 24
David Enrolls the Fighting Men
24 Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.”
2 So the king said to Joab and the army commanders[a] with him, “Go throughout the tribes of Israel from Dan to Beersheba and enroll the fighting men, so that I may know how many there are.”
3 But Joab replied to the king, “May the Lord your God multiply the troops a hundred times over, and may the eyes of my lord the king see it. But why does my lord the king want to do such a thing?”
Again, from NIV:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Chronicles+21&version=NIV
1 Chronicles 21
David Counts the Fighting Men
21 Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. 2 So David said to Joab and the commanders of the troops, “Go and count the Israelites from Beersheba to Dan. Then report back to me so that I may know how many there are.”
3 But Joab replied, “May the Lord multiply his troops a hundred times over. My lord the king, are they not all my lord’s subjects? Why does my lord want to do this? Why should he bring guilt on Israel?”
Two different books of the bible interchangeably use Satan and Lord for the same event.
-
None of this is relevant to translations of the Bible. Do you have any evidence that these inconsistencies don't exist in the original Hebrew?
-
None of this is relevant to translations of the Bible. Do you have any evidence that these inconsistencies don't exist in the original Hebrew?
If the translators across the ages of Bible translation are translating some specific words to the same thing it kind of suggests that there isn't a translation issue on that narrow area. The original writers are sometimes saying that Satan is the Lord.
Some passages suggest that Satan is the 'god of this world'. Fairly interesting. There could be a fundamental issue with what some people think the story of the Bible says. Anyone biased to think that the 'Lord' is the good God would shape their interpretation of other passages as appropriate. Happy trees when the Lord comes to rule, for example.
-
If all translators across the ages of Bible translation are translating the words to the same thing it kind of suggests that there isn't a translation issue. The original writers are sometimes saying that Satan is the Lord.
That is one possible interpretation, but not the only one, nor the most likely one.
It is possible that the authors of Samuel and Chronicles simply have different versions of events. Neither can be dated with certainty, but it is thought that they were written more than a century apart. To the author of Chronicles, Samuel was probably as old as 19th-century literature is to us.
Alternatively, the Hebrew word שָׂטָן ("satán") originally meant "adversary", and my New Oxford Annotated Bible suggests that that is its intended meaning in 1 Chronicles 21:1. The anger of the Lord certainly sounds adversarial. You'll notice that I didn't need to learn Hebrew to establish this, because I have a Bible translation produced by experts that explains the ambiguity.
Another possibility relates to the fact that monotheism was a relatively late development in the Old Testament chronology. Early Jews were polytheistic, and later merged their various gods together into one. This is why the Bible refers to God by many names, and it is possible that in this process of deity merging, some events became reattributed between God and Satan.
These are just a few possibilities I found in about 10 minutes of thinking and reading about the issue, as someone with no knowledge of Hebrew and little knowledge of the Bible. You are jumping to conclusions.
There could be a fundamental issue with what some people think the story of the Bible says. Anyone biased to think that the Lord is the good God would shape their interpretation of other passages as appropriate. Happy trees when the Lord comes to rule, for example.
Yes, there could be, and the entirety of the Hebrew Bible could be the ramblings of drunken lunatics. Why care about what the Bible says at all, if you're going to speculate wildly about possibilities for which you have no evidence?
-
Arguably the oldest relevant literature pertaining to the Bible will be found on the cuneiform tablet originals of the Epic of Gilgamesh (2100 BC), predates the Hebrew Bible by a few hundred-a thousand years. Since the stories were poems, intended to be sung to music, the history of the Bible and all translations of the relevant stories, originates here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ARRP5i2nw8
The Epic of Gilgamesh predates many of the narratives present in the Bible, making the Hebrew Bible a sort of mega anthology of cultural stories present at that time and place. Noah's Ark and the flood story, the garden of eden and loss of innocence caused by a snake story, beings created by gods from ribs, all originated from ancient Sumerian poetry.
Kind of crazy if you think about how Noah's Ark is likely a story that has survived in social and cultural circulation for over 5000 years.
-
It is possible that the authors of Samuel and Chronicles simply have different versions of events.
Your explanations all involve the writers being wrong about what they said in the Bible. My explanation is what the Bible is saying, which is quite different.
Theologians accept the axiom that the writers of the Bible wrote it through the hand of God. A writer of the Bible believing that Satan is the God or the 'Lord' in some parts of the Bible is fairly significant to Biblical scholars.
Bill Donohue also thinks that the Bible is saying that God is Satan:
856 Is God of Old Testament Satan Part 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmmEB40O96Y&ab_channel=BillDonahue
Bill Donohue is the president of the Catholic League and sits on the board of the National Association of Scholars:
https://www.catholic.com/profile/bill-donohue
William A. Donohue began his teaching career in the 1970s working at St. Lucy’s School in Spanish Harlem. In 1977, he took a position as a college professor teaching at La Roche College in Pittsburgh. In 1980, Bill was awarded his Ph.D. in sociology from New York University.
~
Bill is currently the President and CEO of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization. The publisher of the Catholic League journal, Catalyst, Bill is also an adjunct scholar at The Heritage Foundation and serves on the board of directors of the National Association of Scholars and the New York State chapter of NAS.
The Catholic League is an organization treated favorably with endorsement from the Catholic Church:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_League_(U.S.)#Association_with_the_Catholic_Church
Association with the Catholic Church
The Catholic League is a lay Catholic organization that is independent of the Catholic Church. However, it is listed in The Official Catholic Directory (see the Miscellaneous section under the Archdiocese of New York). According to a New York Times interviewer, the organization "maintains close ties to the New York Archdiocese leadership. Several bishops make personal donations. Cardinal O'Connor spoke at the group's 25th anniversary reception in 1998 and vacated part of his suite for its expanding operations, said Joseph Zwilling, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York."[1] The League includes on its website endorsements from many prominent clerics.
So scholars do believe or follow this line of thought.
Maybe that's why the Catholic Church seems to use a lot of questionable symbolism in its designs -
https://newagora.ca/inside-popes-reptilian-audience-hall-vatican-city/
The Pope's Audience Hall looks like a snake's head:
(https://newagora.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/outside-1.png)
The Pope speaks from the mouth of a Snake:
(https://newagora.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/eyes-1.jpeg)
At center stage behind the Pope is a statue of Christ arising from the ashes of apocalypse. Christ's head looks suspiciously like a snake:
(https://newagora.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Screen-Shot-2017-11-15-at-11.57.43-AM-1.png)
(https://newagora.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Christ-Snake.jpeg)
-
Your explanations all involve the writers being wrong about what they said in the Bible.
No, they don't. If you are going to make up nonsense, there is really no point in continuing the discussion.
-
It is possible that the authors of Samuel and Chronicles simply have different versions of events.
Your explanations all involve the writers being wrong about what they said in the Bible. My explanation is what the Bible is saying, which is quite different.
Theologians accept the axiom that the writers of the Bible wrote it through the hand of God. A writer of the Bible believing that Satan is the God or the 'Lord' in some parts of the Bible is fairly significant to Biblical scholars.
Bill Donohue also thinks that the Bible is saying that God is Satan:
856 Is God of Old Testament Satan Part 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmmEB40O96Y&ab_channel=BillDonahue
Bill Donohue is the president of the Catholic League and sits on the board of the National Association of Scholars:
https://www.catholic.com/profile/bill-donohue
William A. Donohue began his teaching career in the 1970s working at St. Lucy’s School in Spanish Harlem. In 1977, he took a position as a college professor teaching at La Roche College in Pittsburgh. In 1980, Bill was awarded his Ph.D. in sociology from New York University.
~
Bill is currently the President and CEO of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization. The publisher of the Catholic League journal, Catalyst, Bill is also an adjunct scholar at The Heritage Foundation and serves on the board of directors of the National Association of Scholars and the New York State chapter of NAS.
The Catholic League is an organization treated favorably with endorsement from the Catholic Church:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_League_(U.S.)#Association_with_the_Catholic_Church
Association with the Catholic Church
The Catholic League is a lay Catholic organization that is independent of the Catholic Church. However, it is listed in The Official Catholic Directory (see the Miscellaneous section under the Archdiocese of New York). According to a New York Times interviewer, the organization "maintains close ties to the New York Archdiocese leadership. Several bishops make personal donations. Cardinal O'Connor spoke at the group's 25th anniversary reception in 1998 and vacated part of his suite for its expanding operations, said Joseph Zwilling, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York."[1] The League includes on its website endorsements from many prominent clerics.
So scholars do believe or follow this line of thought.
Maybe that's why the Catholic Church seems to use a lot of questionable symbolism in its designs -
https://newagora.ca/inside-popes-reptilian-audience-hall-vatican-city/
The Pope's Audience Hall looks like a snake's head:
(https://newagora.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/outside-1.png)
The Pope speaks from the mouth of a Snake:
(https://newagora.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/eyes-1.jpeg)
At center stage behind the Pope is a statue of Christ arising from the ashes of apocalypse. Christ's head looks suspiciously like a snake:
(https://newagora.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Screen-Shot-2017-11-15-at-11.57.43-AM-1.png)
(https://newagora.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Christ-Snake.jpeg)
That is the most convincing argument I ever saw proving that the Catholic Church is actually an army of demons, and that the pope is Satan. That would explain the atrocities committed by the Catholic Church throughout history.
I mean, think about it. An organization that is responsible for the following:
- Pope Pius XII Denying Eyewitness Reports Of Mass Execution During The Holocaust
- Systemically Covering Up Tens Of Thousands Of Cases Involving Sexual Misconduct
- Terrorizing Jews And Muslims For 300 Years
- Pope Boniface VIII who raped women and children and destroyed an entire city for no reason.
- Executed Joan Of Arc For Dressing Like A Man
- Executed William Tyndale For Making a Bible For The Masses
- Absolving Sins For Cash Payments, Including Sins Not Yet Committed
- Orchestrated The Fall Of The Knights Templar
- The Joust Of Whores Organized By Pope Alexander VI
- Imprisoning Galileo In His Home For Years Because He Suggested Science Was Greater Than God
- Literally dozens of massacres with death tolls in the thousands
- Actively directed the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Indigenous populations in Canada and Australia
- Actively covered up the systematic raping of 100,000 total victims of clerical sexual abuse.
And this is just a short list of atrocities and crimes against humanity that can be attributed to the Catholic Church. It doesn't exactly sound like what a house of God would go about doing - but it does make a lot of sense if the Catholic Church is actually an army of child-raping genocidal snake demons.
-
Do you know who else thought the Catholic Church was worshiping Satan and who interpreted the Bible as describing God to be Satan?
Look no further than the Cathars. The Cathars were a large sect in the middle ages with castles and communities who believed that the Bible described two Gods; an evil God who is God of the Earth and physical and material life, and a good (or sometimes called benign) God who is God of the spiritual world.
The people with the 'professional understanding' in the Roman Catholic Church didn't like their herecy and so they slaughtered them during the Crusades.
https://www.cathar.info/cathar_beliefs.htm
Cathars clearly regarded themselves as good Christians, since that is exactly what they called themselves. On the surface, their basic beliefs seem unremarkable. Most people would have difficulty in distinguishing the principle Cathar beliefs from what are now regarded as conventional orthodox Christian beliefs. However, pursuing their fundamental beliefs to their logical conclusion revealed surprising implications (for example that Roman Catholics were mistakenly following a Satanic god rather than the beneficent god worshipped by the Cathars.)
~
The Cathar view was that their theology was older than that of the Roman Church and that the Roman Church had corrupted its own scripture, invented new doctrine and abandoned the beliefs and practices of the Early Church. The Catholic view, of course was exactly the opposite, they imagined Catharism to be a badly distorted version of Catholicism. In addition to accusing the Cathars of faulty theology, they imagined a range abominable practices which would have been amusing except that, converted into propaganda, they led to the death of countless thousands through the Cathar Crusades and the Inquisition.
The Roman Church seemed to have successfully extirpated Cathars and Cathar beliefs by the early fourteenth century, but the truth is more complicated. For one thing, modern historians have shown that many Catholic claims were false, while they have vindicated many Cathar claims; and there is a case that the Cathar legacy is more influential today than has been at any time over the last seven hundred years.
Cathars were Dualists. That is, they believed in two universal principles, a good God and a bad God, much like the Jehovah and Satan of mainstream Christianity. As Dualists, they belonged to a tradition that was already ancient in the days of Jesus. (The revered Magi in the nativity story were Zoroastrians - Persian Dualists). Dualism came, and still comes, in many flavours. Even the Cathar variety came in more than one flavour, but the principal one was this: The Good God was the god of all immaterial things (such as light and souls). The bad God was the god of all material things, including the world and everything in it. He had contrived to capture souls and imprison them in human bodies through the process of conception. As Cathars put it, we are all divine sparks, even angels, imprisoned in tunics of flesh.
~
"The Bad God filled humankind with temptations to frustrate souls from ever making that reunion. They could be tortured by disease, famine and other travails, including man's own inhumanity to his fellow man. Yet the Bad God had no power over the soul - a divine spark of the Good God. His remit was confined to material things. Any hell that existed was here on this material earth."
So Satan is the 'God of this world' who the Catholic Church worships and we are actually living in the closest thing to hell. Makes sense to me.
-
It is also interesting to compare some translations into languages other than English. Genesis 2:23 is especially interesting, which the GNB renders as (emphasis mine)
Then the man said, “At last, here is one of my own kind — Bone taken from my bone, and flesh from my flesh. ‘Woman’ is her name because she was taken out of man.”
The English words "woman" and "man" resemble each other in form, just like the Hebrew words "אִשָּׁה" and "אִישׁ" that they are used to translate, but this is not true of their equivalents in every language.
The Septuagint has
καὶ εἶπεν ᾿Αδάμ· τοῦτο νῦν ὀστοῦν ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων μου καὶ σὰρξ ἐκ τῆς σαρκός μου· αὕτη κληθήσεται γυνή, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς ἐλήφθη αὕτη·
which makes somewhat less sense. There is no connection between the words "γυνή" and "ἀνήρ", even though the text seems (to my amateur Greek eyes) to imply one.
The Vulgate restores the connection between these words.
dixitque Adam hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis et caro de carne mea haec vocabitur virago quoniam de viro sumpta est
"Virago" is not the usual Latin term for a woman (Genesis 2:22 uses the more common "mulier"), but in this case it is substituted to convey the meaning of the Hebrew. I am curious how Symmachus dealt with this in Greek, but sadly his translation is lost.
Then we come to modern translations, which deal with this in a variety of ways. I will start with Dutch, because it is the only language other than English I can read fluently. One translation, Het Boek, has
‘Ja, dit is wat ik nodig had!’ riep Adam uit, ‘zij is echt een deel van mijn lichaam. Ik zal haar mannin noemen, omdat zij is genomen uit de man.’
This follows the original Hebrew, but in an extremely awkward and jarring way. "Mannin" is not a word anyone has ever used or will ever use outside this context. It is an artificial formation from the word "man" and the feminine suffix "-in", comparable to saying "manness" in English, which strains credibility to breaking point in order to preserve the Hebrew correlation.
Another Dutch translation, De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling, instead removes the implied connection between the commonplace words "vrouw" and "man".
Toen riep de mens uit: 'Eindelijk een gelijk aan mij, mijn eigen gebeente, mijn eigen vlees, een die zal heten: vrouw, een uit man gebouwd.'
This has a footnote explaining the connection between the Hebrew words. This is a much more natural way to translate the verse, without leaving any information out.
In French, La Nouvelle Bible Segond handles things similarly.
L’homme dit : Cette fois c’est l’os de mes os, la chair de ma chair. Celle-ci, on l’appellera « femme », car c’est de l’homme qu’elle a été prise.
This also comes with a footnote to explain the original, but unlike De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling, the French word "car" still implies a link where there is none between "femme" and "homme".
Compare, however, Bible en français courant, which rephrases the verse entirely.
En la voyant celui-ci s'écria: « Ah! Cette fois, voici quelqu'un qui est plus que tout autre du même sang que moi! On la nommera compagne de l'homme, car c'est de son compagnon qu'elle fut tirée. »
This is saying that she is called "companion of man", because she was taken from "her companion". Again, it also has a footnote explaining what the original says.
Finally, let's take a look at An Bíobla Naofa, the only complete modern translation of the Bible into the Irish language.
Dúirt an duine ansin:
“Is cnámh de mo chnámha-sa í seo ar deireadh,
Agus is feoil de m'fheoilse í.
Tabharfar bean (ís-seá) uirthi
Mar gur baineadh as an bhfear (ís) í.”
The Irish words "bean" and "fear", which have no connection with each other, are accompanied by the non-words "ís-seá" and "ís". These are actually Irish phonetic spellings of the Hebrew words "אִשָּׁה" and "אִישׁ", respectively. This technique serves the same function as the footnotes in the Dutch and French translations.
So, while none of Greek, Latin, Dutch, French or Irish has any resemblance between their usual words for "woman" and "man", they have tried various strategies to convey the meaning of the original Hebrew. Some of these are more literal, others are more natural, as is typical of Bible translations in general. But I do find the diversity of approaches fascinating.
-
The Gospel of Judas is an interesting non-cononical scripture that didn't make it into the Bible by the Church authorities. This one goes into detail, explaining that there are multiple gods and the evil/mischievous God is the one people are praying to. Coincidence?
https://youtu.be/BhQmLFHxsBw
It is also interesting to compare some translations into languages other than English. Genesis 2:23 is especially interesting, which the GNB renders as (emphasis mine)
Then the man said, “At last, here is one of my own kind — Bone taken from my bone, and flesh from my flesh. ‘Woman’ is her name because she was taken out of man.”
The English words "woman" and "man" resemble each other in form, just like the Hebrew words "אִשָּׁה" and "אִישׁ" that they are used to translate, but this is not true of their equivalents in every language.
Why is it that the concordance dictionaries have 'marry' as a synonym for 'taken'
Lexicon for Genesis 2:23:
https://biblehub.com/lexicon/genesis/2-23.htm
Click on 'she was taken':
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3947.htm
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a prim. root
Definition
to take
NASB Translation
accept (8), accepted (3), accepts (2), bring (18), brought (13), buy (1), buys (1), capture (2), captured (2), carry (3), caught (2), exact (1), find (1), flashing (1), flashing forth (1), get (25), gets (1), got (2), has (1), keep (1), married (9), married* (6), marries (1), marry (5), obtain (1), placed (2), procured (2), put (1), raise (3), receive (20), received (12), receives (3), receiving (1), seize (3), seized (2), select (1), selected (1), sent (1), supply (1), take (355), taken (74), takes (15), taking (2), took (352), took away (1), use (1), used (1), wins (1).
Since this very specific man-woman connection is in there it seems that the translation could be 'woman was her name because she married man', and the sexist Church authorities interpreted it as taken from man, like they reframe everything else to manipulate the story to suit themselves.
-
It all becomes clear when you receive the Holy Spirit. Until then you haven't given yourself to God and walk in darkness, fog.
-
Since the last post in this thread, a newly revised version of the Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling from 2004, the de facto standard in Protestant churches in the Netherlands, has been released. It can be read for free online (https://debijbel.nl/bijbel/NBV21) and purchased in the Nederlands-Vlaams Bijbel Genootschap's webshop (https://shop.bijbelgenootschap.nl/nbv21). Very unusually, the general public was consulted for feedback on the first edition in preparing this revision.
This looks like a very nice publication. I don't own a physical Dutch Bible yet, but I am seriously considering adding this to my collection.
-
I acquired a copy of the NBV21, and it is a very well produced book. It just feels so nice to hold in one's hand. The translation is beautifully done, too.
I would like to take this opportunity to focus on 2 Chronicles 7:19, which includes a feature that is notoriously difficult to render into idiomatic English: the use of a plural "you" in Hebrew, where a singular interpretation of the English word "you" could also make sense. Of course, Dutch and Irish both have plural forms for "you", so there is no ambiguity there.
Maar mochten jullie je van Mij afwenden en je afkeren van de bepalingen en geboden die Ik jullie heb opgelegd, en in plaats daarvan andere goden gaan vereren en voor hen neerknielen,
Ach má iompaíonn sibh uaim, agus nach gcoimeádfaidh sibh m'aitheanta agus mo reachtanna a chuir mé romhaibh, ach imeacht agus seirbhís a dhéanamh do dhéithe eile agus iad a adhradh,
Predictably for how outdated it is, the KJV in English also makes this distinction clear — but perhaps not so clear to modern readers who haven't studied Early Modern English.
But if ye turn away, and forsake my statutes and my commandments, which I have set before you, and shall go and serve other gods, and worship them;
On the other hand, the NRSV uses the ambiguous "you" of Modern English, but with a footnote illuminating the reader as to its plural sense in Hebrew.
"But if you turn aside and forsake my statutes and my commandments that I have set before you, and go and serve other gods and worship them,
Finally, we come around to my favourite English translation, which is an exceptional case here in treating this passage with the clarity it deserves in Modern English that everyone can understand.
But if you and your people ever disobey the laws and commands I have given you, and worship other gods,
Of all these translations of this verse, I actually like An Bíobla Naofa the most. It's slightly more literal (based on comparison with the very literal NRSV) than the Dutch, while conveying the message in clear and (as far as I can tell with my current level) idiomatic Irish. But in terms of reaching the greatest number of people, the Good News Bible is the clear winner, with a simple yet accurate rendering in the world's most widely spoken language.
-
I have spent long enough considering Bible translations in different languages now that I have been able to articulate the criteria by which I evaluate a translation. These are, of course, subjective to my reasons for reading the Bible — as a cultural influence and a (somewhat biased) historical document, without any particular religious affiliation.
My criteria are, in descending order of importance:
1. It must include the Deuterocanonical books.
Aside from the Jewish Tanakh, no Christian denomination — whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant — excluded these books until around the 19th century. Martin Luther himself asserted that they should be read, but not considered to be scripture in the same way that the other books are. Thus, they were placed in their own section of the Luther Bible, rather than among the Old Testament books where Catholics prefer them. The refusal by many Protestants to read them at all is a modern invention. In any case, since they were universally treated as scripture prior to the Reformation, they are just as important to the cultural influence of Christianity as the rest of the Bible.
Of the Bibles I own, the Good News Bible, the New Revised Standard Version and the NBV21 all include the Catholic Deuterocanonical books separately from the Old Testament, which is ideal, as it makes the separation of sources clear to the reader. They vary in the order of books within this section and the inclusion of additional books not considered canonical by the Latin Church — they all include the Prayer of Manasseh, but beyond that there is considerable variation.
An Bíobla Naofa, on the other hand, includes only the Catholic canon in the Vulgate order. This is not surprising, since — unlike the ecumenical translations mentioned above — this is a translation commissioned by the Catholic Church. This approach somewhat masks the distinction between Hebrew scripture and the later Greek additions, especially in books like Esther and Daniel with extensive insertions of entire passages, but is acceptable.
Many Protestant translations fail this test and are immediately eliminated. The New International Version is a notable such failure.
2. It should be as faithful to the original as possible, according to scholarly consensus based on available manuscripts.
This is nebulous in some cases — for example, is 1 Corinthians 7:36 about a betrothed couple, or a father and his daughter? Both are valid scholarly interpretations of the Greek, so neither one makes a translation any more or less acceptable based on this test. But there are translations that ignore scholarly consensus in favour of traditional (mis)translations, particularly where there are valid interpretations of the Greek Old Testament which do not reflect the original Hebrew.
My go-to example for this is Isaiah 7:14. If that verse contains the word "virgin", it is not an accurate translation of the Hebrew. It may be an accurate translation of the Greek, but every good translator knows you don't translate a translation if you can help it. The New International Version fails this test too, as does the King James Version. (The latter case is forgivable because modern Biblical scholarship did not yet exist in the 17th century; what is not forgivable is that such an outdated translation is still so widely relied upon.)
All four of the Bibles I own pass this test with flying colours. It is an issue I am not willing to compromise on.
3. It should be written in clear, straightforward, idiomatic and modern language, in whichever language it is translated into.
This is obviously quite subjective. Regular church-goers will have a much easier time understanding Christian jargon than the irreligious. My personal view is that while translations that try to render every word of the original Hebrew and Greek (formal equivalence) have their place as study Bibles, a good general-purpose translation is one that uses natural language to convey the same ideas that the source texts would have conjured up in early Christians (dynamic equivalence).
In practice, this is a spectrum and every translation does this to a greater or lesser degree. (Simply translating each word by itself would result in incomprehensible gibberish, while some concepts cannot be rendered into natural English without needing some background explanation — the archetypal example being the tetragrammaton.) As such, it is more of a way to choose between two translations than a test that can be applied to a single translation.
The Good News Bible passes with flying colours, and the NBV21 only slightly less so. The Bijbel in Gewone Taal does better than the NBV21, but it lacks the Deuterocanonical books, so it is already eliminated by this point. The New Revised Standard Version does not do very well here, being very literal, but that is acceptable for a study Bible. This does not really apply to An Bíobla Naofa, which is the only complete translation of the Bible into modern Irish, and therefore has nothing to be compared with.
Notably, this is where the King James Version truly proves its irrelevance. The New International Version doesn't score too badly here, but still loses out to the Good News Bible.
4. It should include ample footnotes where alternative readings are possible.
This comes last because a Bible that scores well on the other points is still an excellent reading experience, even without providing the reader with the opportunity to consider alternatives. But for a Bible that passes the other tests, this is the icing on the cake.
The Good News Bible is excellent at this. The New Revised Standard Version is also good, and the specific edition I have it in — the New Oxford Annotated Bible — includes a plethora of additional notes and essays with further detail and scholarly commentaries. The NBV21 includes ample footnotes — though not as many as the Good News Bible — while An Bíobla Naofa includes no footnotes at all (but does have introductory essays for each book).
I feel like I have a much clearer understanding of why I like the Good News Bible now, and a better appreciation of how to measure others by the same yardstick.
-
Some people don't think that is what they were writing:
https://www.fayobserver.com/entertainment/20170316/ruler-of-this-world-god-or-satan
Ruler of This World: God or Satan?
Many people are surprised by the evil in this world. Do you ever wonder, “If God is good or even exists, why is there so much pain and suffering? Why is it that bad things happen to me even when I work hard and try to be a good person?” I’ll tell you why. The Bible records that while God gave Adam authority over the world, Adam gave it over to Satan.
That’s right; Satan is the temporary ruler of this world:
“Satan, the ruler of this world, will be cast out.” (John 12:31)
“Jesus said, ‘The ruler of this world approaches. He has no power over me.’” (John 14:30)
“Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe the Gospel.” (2 Corinthians 4:4)
“We are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil spiritual rulers and authorities, and against mighty powers in this dark world.” (Ephesians 6:12)
“We know that the world around us is under the control of the evil one.” (1 John 5:19) “Who can win this battle against the world? Only those who believe that Jesus is the Son of God.” (1 John 5:5)
God is using Satan’s rebellion to reveal the hearts of men and women. Those who put their faith in God’s salvation will be raised from death and live for eternity with him.
“Jesus gave his life for our sins, just as God our Father planned, in order to rescue us from this evil world in which we live.” (Galatians 1:4)
“The world offers only a craving for physical pleasure, a craving for everything we see, and pride in our achievements and possessions. These are not from the Father, but are from this world. And this world is fading away, along with everything that people crave. But anyone who does what pleases God will live forever.” (1 John 2:16-17)
Why do I say that Satan is the temporary ruler of this world? Because the Bible tells us that Satan’s end has already been determined: “The devil was thrown into the fiery lake of burning sulfur, joining the beast and the false prophet. There they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. This lake of fire is the second death. And anyone whose name was not found recorded in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire.” (Revelation 20:10-15)
Rev. Dr. J. Robert Kretzu is pastor of Hope Mills United Methodist Church
Perhaps the Bible is saying that there is a good God somewhere, but the God of this world isn't it. When God, or the 'Lord', is present and doing things in our world in some passages it's possible that it's not the good one.
Here's where all this confusion comes from. Most Christians assume that the Bible makes sense, that it's cohesive, that while not written by a single author directly that a supreme being directed it to be written the way it is.
The truth is, and this is not controversial, the Bible is a collection of stories crammed together over thousands of years that were often completely unrelated. If it seems like the character of God shifts wildly over the course of the Bible its usually because its written about several different gods.
Most Christians can't handle this so they come up with a lot of stupid nonsense trying to reconcile all the contradictions.
I sometimes think that atheists are more interested in the Bible because once you see it's not a great holy book you realize it's a fantastic historical document. A lot of religious scholars are starting to see it this way.
-
If it seems like the character of God shifts wildly over the course of the Bible its usually because its written about several different gods.
Correct. That was the thesis provided; that the Bible is about different gods.