Bible Study

Originally Posted by Midna Fan

^To be fair, Christians ARE becoming more and more hated, it seems. We're constantly bashed by more and more people, and our rights and privileges to speak of God at all, even, in many places have been taken away, and ARE being taken away.

Since when have individuals representing themselves been losing the right to speak of God?

"One vage prophecy?" I just mentioned a couple different ones. And they HAVE happened. Not to sound snooty, but I ask, are you discounting it, or have you simply not read what I posted, simply because it happened a long time ago? In the Bible's defense (though it really doesn't need one) the world's been around a long time. Why should all of the prophecies mentioned early on only happen during OUR time and not back then, too?

Okay, I apologize for missing that post, but the only "prophecy" in your post worth considering was the "takeover" of foreign lands. I should add that a great proportion of theistic religions believe that their religion will one day have influence over a larger area. Not too long ago, I saw a video of muslim demonstrators in Pakistan (?) claiming "our flag will soon fly over London" followed by something about Allah. And chances are, one of these religions WILL have influence over a larger area (which is exactly what happened). Divine intervention/prophecy is not needed to explain this.

EDIT: Not to mention, as Vulpes said before, we're not entirely sure whether or not these predictions were predicted or added afterwards.

You address prophecies that have yet to come true in the following quote, using past prophecies that have come true as your evidence:

But yes, I believe the world WILL end in a scenario much like the one described in Revelations. Bible hasn't been wrong in its predictions yet, that I'VE heard, anyway.

It simply is too long a leap of logic to say "the Bible hasn't been wrong about things that happened in the past, so it won't be wrong about what happens in the future".

Anyway, this thread is beginning to get de-railed by bashing (surprising ;P).

What bashing? This is a thread about bible studies. In studies, all sorts of perspectives (especially those of skeptics) are addressed, otherwise it becomes a circle-jerk (and not SD-worthy). I insist that my post is relevant to the topic.

What is Christianity's stance on inter-religion marriage and what was stated about it in the Bible?

I apologize that I do not have much to contribute to the discussion, as I have not read much of the bible myself. However, there is one (small) section of the bible that does fascinate me, and that is the stories centered around the Tower of Babel. My question to those who have read this: Does it ever mention where this is? My friend seems to think it was in Babylon (the city, not the area), but I don't think that's right.

Babel does in fact refer to Babylon.

Regarding biblical prophecies, it is difficult to say which of them are, in fact, prophecies. Many books in both the Old and New Testaments were not written when they are traditionally thought to have been, are often the product of mutltiple authors, and have been altered from their original forms over the years. It is likely that many "prophecies" were actually added to the text after the events had taken place.

Originally Posted by !?

What is Christianity's stance on inter-religion marriage and what was stated about it in the Bible?

A few pertinent scriptures concerning interfaith marriage:

Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 7:3-4 (NASB)

"Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons.
"For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you.

Originally Posted by Exodus 34:12-16 (NASB)

"Watch yourself that you make no covenant with the inhabitants of the land into which you are going, or it will become a snare in your midst.
"But rather, you are to tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars and cut down their Asherim
—for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God—
otherwise you might make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land and they would play the harlot with their gods and sacrifice to their gods, and someone might invite you to eat of his sacrifice,
and you might take some of his daughters for your sons, and his daughters might play the harlot with their gods and cause your sons also to play the harlot with their gods.

Originally Posted by Nehemia 13:25-27 (NASB)

So I contended with them and cursed them and struck some of them and pulled out their hair, and made them swear by God, "You shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor take of their daughters for your sons or for yourselves.
"Did not Solomon king of Israel sin regarding these things? Yet among the many nations there was no king like him, and he was loved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel; nevertheless the foreign women caused even him to sin.
" Do we then hear about you that you have committed all this great evil by acting unfaithfully against our God by marrying foreign women?"

Originally Posted by II Corinthisans 6:14-15 (NASB)

Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?
Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?

Originally Posted by I Corinthians 7:12-16 (NASB)

But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.
And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must notsend her husband away.
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified throughher believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.
For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

Long story short: The Bible urges Christians to not marry outside of Christianity. Obviously, throughout the Bible interfaith marriage happened. The Bible says that if an unbeliever converts, or if a Christian does marry outside of their faith, they are not to divorce their unbelieving spouse just because they are not Christian.

I've noticed that every Bible I've run across here in America and Canada contain a lot of differences from the Armenian Bible I grew up with. A lot of things get lost in translation. Sometimes, I wonder if you guys here in North America are actually getting the real story or just one that has been tinkered with over multiple translations.

Why is it that the Book of Wisdom and Book of Sirach are often omitted from the Bible, except in certain denominations?

I find them to be among the most inspirational.

@Tallgeese:

You know, I've never looked into the Armenian Bible. I'll have to look into it.

When I was a teenager I had that same worry. How do we know that the translation that we hold in our hands today says the same thing that the original ancient texts said?

After a bit of research I learned just how many different various ancient manuscripts that we have collected today. Although these ancient texts are from various time periods and various countries, by and large, they agree very consistently. For starters, that's how we can be very confident that we have reliable sources that really do repeat to us what the original ancient texts had to say. These collections of ancient texts are pretty readily available either in-store or online.

I then taught myself to read basic Koine Greek, learned enough of the Hebrew alphabet to follow along with Biblical Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries, bought an English/Greek Text New Testament and English/Hebrew Text Old Testament and Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries, and a 4 Translation Parallel Bible and started my way through. I didn't read the whole Bible through, translating every single word for myself, and I didn't compare each verse in each translation every time, but for scriptures that people often differ in opinion on, for scriptures that I didn't understand very well, and especially for any scriptures that differentiate my particular denomination from others, I looked at each of those word for word from the ancient texts themselves and compared 4 or 5 common English translations.

After several years of this, the conclusion that I basically came to was that the vast majority of historically and universally accepted translations (King James, New Revised, New American, Young's Literal, New International [1984 edition], New Living, etc.) all "basically" say the same thing. Sometimes they happen to use different words, but most often they almost perfectly line up word for word. Reading through the parallel Bible really helped me to notice this. It had all 4 translations very literally lined right up where you could read any verse in KJV, then NIV, then NLT, then NASB from left to right straight across. It was very easy to compare them.

There are exceptions to this rule though. Recently there was an "update" of the New International Version, which is far less faithful to the original texts than the 1984 edition. It completely ignores and removes any references to masculine divinity and places way too much emphasis on interpretation, rather than translation. It leads to some completely ridiculous and unfounded "quote-unquote-translations" of various scriptures throughout. Then there's the New World Translation that the Jehova's Witnesses use. Throughout, it just uses some squirrelly translations that most definitely have more to do with justifying their unique beliefs rather than being faithful to the original text.

I don't know the first thing about the Armenian Bible, but if the Armenian Bible is in fact a translation from the ancient texts into the Armenian language, the discrepencies between the Armenian Bible and the English Bibles you've looked at could just be a matter of translating from Hebrew/Greek to Armenian compared to translating Hebrew/Greek to English. If you've ever played around with googletranslater you know just how quickly things can get mucked up when translating from more than 1 language. In that case you'd be translating from Hebrew/Greek to both Armenian and English and then translating and comparing between Armenian and English.

TL;DR

It very well could be that the Armenian Bible and the English Bibles are both faithful translations and that the final translation between Armenian and English is the issue. I know that the vast majority of English Bibles are translated straight from the collections of Hebrew/Greek texts that we've found, and I assume that the Armenian Bible is the same thing, just to Armenian.

mattj: Armenian is incredibly similar to Greek. The two civilizations have been very close for a long time. The languages are very similar, so much that I wouldn't call the Armenian Bible a translation at all.

I hope this isn't derailing the topic.

Originally Posted by Tallgeese

mattj: Armenian is incredibly similar to Greek. The two civilizations have been very close for a long time. The languages are very similar, so much that I wouldn't call the Armenian Bible a translation at all.

I hope this isn't derailing the topic.

You're referring to the New Testament, then, I take it? Well, the New Testament was indeed written in Greek—Koine Greek. So translation is necessary to put it into modern Greek, let alone Armenian. However, I would imagine that it is easier to maintain linguistic structures and to convey the original meaning when translating into a relatively closely related language like Armenian.

How is it possible to deal with the distortion that the Bible has gone through? I imagine that there must be some standard version that is widely accepted as true, but then what does that make all of the other versions...?

That's always stood out to me. But anyway. On with the Bible study. If someone could shoot me a VM or post that'd be cool.

Originally Posted by Alex

How is it possible to deal with the distortion that the Bible has gone through? I imagine that there must be some standard version that is widely accepted as true, but then what does that make all of the other versions...?

That's why when some people read translations like the New International Version, New Living Translation, etc., they refer to the King James Version, too, since that's probably the most literal translation.

@Tallgeese:
Oh I definitely would think that Koine>Armenian is probably easier and more accurate than Koine>English, but yeah like Vulpe's said, the Old Testament would probably be no different translation wise. But in my experience, the collection of ancient texts that we have have been looked at and translated into English by so many people that if there were any serious translatory disagreement it would have been worked out in the 400 years since the King James Version. There are little places here and there where translators have historically disagreed on what the best translation from Hebrew/Greek to English should be, but off the top of my head the only one I can even recall would be I Corinthians 11, and that's just an issue of clearness and whether or not to use the word "veil" or "covering". In the bigger pictures these kinds of disagreements don't really have that large of a bearing on a person's understanding of the Bible.

@Alex:
If you look into it, there really isn't much evidence at all that the Bible has gone through much, if any distortion. There's a pretty common urban myth that the Bible has gone through dozens of translations throughout history, and that devious monks have inserted and removed different parts, but if you look into it at all there's really no solid evidence at all that either of those happened.

We have literally hundreds of thousands various ancient texts of the different 66 books of the Bible. They were found in various countries throughout various points in history. Some are very old and near the original texts, and some are fairly far removed, but found in very different places from around the world. There definitely are a handfull of places here and there where each of those hundreds of thousands disagree with each other, but by and large they're just issues of the normal evolution of language. Its much like how if you read the King James Version, you'll notice that English has changed quite a bit since 1611. Or go back even farther and read Beowulf in Old English (if you can). Because of this, we can be reasonably confident that the collection of ancient texts we have today portray a very accurate account of what the original ancient texts said.

Originally Posted by mattj

@Alex:
If you look into it, there really isn't much evidence at all that the Bible has gone through much, if any distortion. There's a pretty common urban myth that the Bible has gone through dozens of translations throughout history, and that devious monks have inserted and removed different parts, but if you look into it at all there's really no solid evidence at all that either of those happened.

We have literally hundreds of thousands various ancient texts of the different 66 books of the Bible. They were found in various countries throughout various points in history. Some are very old and near the original texts, and some are fairly far removed, but found in very different places from around the world. There definitely are a handfull of places here and there where each of those hundreds of thousands disagree with each other, but by and large they're just issues of the normal evolution of language. Its much like how if you read the King James Version, you'll notice that English has changed quite a bit since 1611. Or go back even farther and read Beowulf in Old English (if you can). Because of this, we can be reasonably confident that the collection of ancient texts we have today portray a very accurate account of what the original ancient texts said.

First of all, your response is appreciated.
Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (1/2)
Various Contradictions and Omissions in Bible Translations

I question the truth of that.

The last link states clearly that "the truth of statements" doesn't change, or something along those lines, but it also notes that the language has shifted drastically, and with that comes discrepancies of interpretation, wouldn't you say..?

To say that the message is still the same makes sense, but it still seems like the book has been distorted to an extent.

also somewhat relevant

Evolution of the Bible? | Sabbath School Net

I dunno, it's all quite odd.

Originally Posted by Alex

First of all, your response is appreciated.

As is your calm, reasonable demeanor!

Originally Posted by Alex

Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (1/2)
Various Contradictions and Omissions in Bible Translations

Yeah, to be honest, I've actually read and compared probably every single one of those examples of discrepancies between the KJV and other English texts at one time or another. I'm a member of a strongly fundamentalist church that by and large sticks to the King James Version of the Bible. The KJV is not a bad translation, but nearly all scholars agree that there are errors in it. With the exception of the end of Mark 16 (which just didn't come to memory when I last posted, or I would have mentioned it), I Corinthians 11, and little places here and there like Proverbs 5:16 (which really made me lol as a teen when I first compared the different translations and realized the KJV translated a rhetorical question as a command, thus commanding you to let anyone sleep with your wife), if you look at any of those "nitpicks" from that site you'll quickly realize they aren't a big deal. The KJV says:

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Newer translations looked at all available ancient texts and realized that the word "firstborn" wasn't actually there in any, or any of the most reliable, ancient texts so they all say:

And knew her not till she had brought forth her son: and he called his name JESUS.

Was Jesus not really Mary's firstborn because this one verse doesn't mention the word "firstborn"? Nah, he still was. It says it in many other places. The real issue is that for whatever reason, either they had some odd text that actually did include the word "firstborn", or they thought it "ought" to go there in that verse due to context, or they just felt like inserting it.

Personally, I see these updates as an extremely positive thing. One major criticism that Christianity commonly receives is that they blindly follow the Bible without ever questioning it. In this case, scholars throughout the years took a second, third, fourth, fifth and so on look at what all of the ancient texts that we have today really say, and said "You know, it doesn't actually include that word there. We really need to make that clear."

And one thing I really must point out is the bias of that source. Its actually a pretty decent site, but you've got to understand that they're what's called a "King James Only" site. They, for whatever largely baseless reason, believe that the King James Version of the Bible was directly inspired by God and is free of all errors.

Originally Posted by from that site's homepage

It is my belief that the KJV, originally known as the Authorized Version, first published in the year 1611, is God's word in the English language without admixture of error. This site is here to help tell you why I believe that.

If you look at the available evidence, this simply is not true. Translating 66 ancient books from various time periods and languages is a daunting task for anyone. And I actually do think the King James translators did a dang good job. But they didn't have all the information that modern translators have today. They didn't have as many ancient texts at their disposal. They didn't have as much literature on the ancient languages involved. They didn't have an extra 400 years to think things over. There are errors in the KJV bible. The vast majority of which (sans I Cor 11, Mark 16, and little verses here and there) really do not make much of a theological difference at all though.

See, what you've got to do when reading your Bible, which ever version that is, is realize that it is a translation that was translated by people just like you. They made mistakes. You've gotta compare. You've gotta look around for yourself. You've gotta ask questions. You've got to pray about it. That's what the church is for. Not to force all the answers on you, but to discuss things with. Does Proverbs 5 really say I should whore out my wife, or is that just a simple mistake of translating a hypothetical question as a command? Does I Cor 11 say that women must wear veils, or does it mean they just shouldn't cut their hair, or does it mean something else entirely? Should the end of Mark 16 really be there? Does it fit with the rest of the Bible? What does all available evidence say?

Originally Posted by Alex

I question the truth of that.

The last link states clearly that "the truth of statements" doesn't change, or something along those lines, but it also notes that the language has shifted drastically, and with that comes discrepancies of interpretation, wouldn't you say..?

You know, I wouldn't totally disagree with that. I remember reading a while back about a dead sea scroll they found with a completely intact copy of the book of Isaiah. Just google dead sea scroll book of Isaiah. It was from over a thousand years earlier than any other complete copy of the book of Isaiah that anyone had ever found. Amazingly, the only differences between that copy and the copies from a thousand years later were issues of the evolution of the Hebrew language (just like how English has changed over several hundred years). The texts themselves still said the same thing, but it was like they had to translate from two different languages because they had changed so much.

Really, I don't see this as much of an issue. Whenever any translator goes to translate an older ancient manuscript, they've got to translate it from the language that it is written in any way. The Bible is 66 separate books, written at various times in various places in various languages. Bible translators already have to treat every single thing they look at as a unique translation effort anyway. When they compare, say, those two ancient manuscripts of Isaiah to translate a new English version, they've literally have to translate from Old Ancient Hebrew to English and then from Ancient Hebrew and compare. They don't just like say "well this one uses this word and the other doesn't, so we're gonna go with this this time." They look at both of them, and if they agree that's the translation they use. If they disagree, they look at other available ancient manuscripts and try to determine why they disagree, if its a serious issue, and what both the majority of ancient texts and the most ancient of those texts have to say. I can tell you that literally 100% of the time, if you have anything but one of those cheap 1$ Bibles you can get in the Dollar Store, if there's a disagreement over what the ancient manuscripts say there will be a footnote explaining it at the bottom of the page. None of this stuff is hidden or covered up or anything.

Originally Posted by Alex

To say that the message is still the same makes sense, but it still seems like the book has been distorted to an extent.

Oh yeah, I'll definitely admit that none of any of our existing translations are all 100% completely flawless and without error whatsoever. But in my very honest study of this subject, reading through 4 translations at once, looking up the roots and definitions of these ancient words one by one for myself when a serious issue was spotted, and looking into our current, modern collection of hundreds of thousands of ancient manuscripts, other than I Cor 11, Mark 15, and little spots here and there (which upon my further inspection don't really bother me) I'm a firm believer that "in general" the common, current, modern English translations that we have today are acceptably faithful to the original author's intent to such a degree as to enable us to know the specific will of the God of the Bible.

In that case, are we allowed to marry other religions as long as the spouse doesn't take us away from faith?

Originally Posted by mattj

. . . <snipped text>

Long story short: The Bible urges Christians to not marry outside of Christianity. Obviously, throughout the Bible interfaith marriage happened. The Bible says that if an unbeliever converts, or if a Christian does marry outside of their faith, they are not to divorce their unbelieving spouse just because they are not Christian.

I'd have to say no. That verse in Corinthians is for unbelievers who convert, but their spouse doesn't, or for Christians who make the emotional decision to marry an unbeliever. The other verses are pretty clear that one shouldn't marry an unbeliever in the first place.

Originally Posted by !?

In that case, are we allowed to marry other religions as long as the spouse doesn't take us away from faith?

You certainly COULD I suppose. However, there is a verse in the bible (and gosh darnit I don't remember where) that says something like "Your spouse will either fan your "flames of faith" for God and help them burn strong, or they will be like a bucket of water poured onto your "faith flames." It says this near a verse where it talks about believers and nonbelievers being married and all the dangers that poses.

So yes, I think you COULD....but...it would pretty much guarantee not to help you grow stronger with God.

Also, and this may be just me, but I don't know if I'd love someone like a spouse if they weren't with God like me. Not truly. They'd just be too...different...attitude and such-wise.

What does the Bible say about pagan nature-worshippers such as myself?


Also, periodically my dad (who's an atheist, and I doubt he's even touched a bible) tells me there's one story in which Jesus pushes a kid off a roof and kills him. I always wondered if this is true, or is he just saying some random thing?

I've never heard of that before, I woudn't take much into it.

The bible says the Jesus is the one true path. It's your choice no one can force you, so if your happy then people should leave you be, but that is what the bible says.