God's plan

[rubato]

The de-evolution of biblical literalism:

"The Bible is the word of god IF we had an original copy of all the texts but no one does so we just throw out the parts which are inconvenient to our own narrow beliefs."


Rimshot


'Beliefs come first, then we manufacture evidence to fit it.' M.Shermer


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

Well Meade, that's where you and I differ; there's a big difference between putting/sending someone away and giving them a divorce where their rights and concerns are addressed and respected. Looking at your various definitions of the more original words, it can mean send away or dismiss from the house or repudiate as well as let go free or release. I think this is important in the context of divorce, especially at the time when women generally had no means of supporting themselves if thrown out by their husbands. Just previously, Jesus talks about reconciling with those who have wronged you, and settling with your accuser on the way to the court house (hence paying your debt and making them whole) lest the judge hit you with the full weight of the law, why do you think he meant something different with divorce.

Reconciling and settlement does not necessarily mean getting back together or staying together (anymore than one must be a slave to one whom he has wronged), but it does mean one should act kindly and do justice. In such instances, one will not be judged because they have done what is right with their fellow man; likewise with divorce. I think jesus is condemning the practice of a husband throwing his wife out of the house and leaving her destitute, hence he is using the word in the sense of dismissing from the house and repudiation, not severing a contract here both sides are treated fairly. One who treats his wife fairly is not putting her away but letting her go free, releasing her from the debt of continued marriage under a contract previously made. And I think that's the point he was making when he discussed divorce with the Pharisees. Again, the Pharisees were looking for strict interpretation of the law so they could find the loopholes and design ways around its consequences. Jesus is saying, rather, no; even if you feel you are justified it is as wrong to dismiss your wife from the house and repudiate her as it is to carry hate in you heart against debtors (or lust in your heart for another). You must act kindly and justly.

As for whether jesus (or god) likes or dislikes divorce, who does like it? I know many divorced people and, while they are happy to be out of the past relationship, they are hardly advocates for it. But that does not make it objectively wrong or right.

[MajGenl.Meade]

The Supreme Being has made it clear - in the Bible. What is not clear?

Which Bible? I watched a BBC program last week about Bible Hunters, that found various versions of the Gospels knocking around in dusty old crypts, with enormous differences. They particularly cited the Gospel of Mark where the end has been changed several times over the centuries. These are the interpretations of MEN. I'll trust a copy of the Bible when I get one that's been signed by the author.

Well Daisy, I think you can rely pretty much on the ESV, the ASV, the NIV (silly people they are sometimes), the YLT, the Revised KJV, NAB, Darby, NCV, NLT, NRSV, RSV and even the good old KJV with all its antiquities. They all say the same thing, if in different ways. I wouldn't place too much reliance on a Jehovah Witness bible which definity distorts to suit their agenda and of course the Book of Mormon is utter rubbish. The Good News Bible is chatty but a bit weak at times on translation - but that's understandable, given their goals. I think the wisest course is to read 'em all.

The Gospel of Mark was discussed above - and the question remains "so what?". None of the "changes" have "changed" anything at all and no-one can be sure whether Mark (whoever he be) ended at 16:8 or not. This is not new news.

I do hope you place the same utter disbelief in the works of Homer, Plato and all other historians/ancient writers from whom there exist no autographs whatsoever and far larger gaps between their works (if they ever wrote them) and the later copies that have been found (in such paucity of number) than the gap between New Testament writings in particular and the first extant copies and citations (which are multiple and numerous).

I place considerably more faith in the work of scholars, even of non-believers, than I do in popular distractions issued by the BBC under the guise of actual knowledge. "Various versions of the Gospels knocking around in dusty old crypts" indeed! Those Bible Hunters must have been geniuses to scoop generations of scientific researchers

All interpretations of everything are by men (and women) - I don't know of anyone who says otherwise. So we're in a bit of agreement there I guess

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well Meade, that's where you and I differ; there's a big difference between putting/sending someone away and giving them a divorce where their rights and concerns are addressed and respected.

Granted the worthiness of all you say about treating people fairly (and your sentence above is noble, true and irrelevant) I simply do not understand on what authority you add things to the Bible that are not there? The entire subject has nothing whatever to do with Jesus saying that divorce is OK provided you treat the ex-spouse fairly. [Plus maybe you should speak to some feminists about whether Mosaic divorce as in Deuteronomy was EVER a matter of rights and concerns of the woman being addressed - a quaint notion]

Jesus simply says in contrast to men, God hates divorce*. He says that anyone who divorces his wife (for any reason other than adultery) is causing her to be an adultress. The Pharisees were certainly trying to make him say that divorce was OK - a subject they had been fiddling with for years. But he doesn't. And he doesn't say a word about being kind and forgiving and all of that.

You can call it Putting Away (as indeed many Bibles do - I remember Joseph was minded to put her (Mary) away quietly) or divorce or etc. It makes no difference. You are not speaking of translation but of wholesale manufacture of things that just are not in the text.

I have no particular ax to grind here and I'm not the one doing the translating etc. I must suppose that Biblical scholars know more than either of us as to what was written and what it means. I believe what was written. You and I have always differed on that, I guess

As to rubato's silliness, well what does one expect? He makes up stuff about "throwing out parts" as if that has any valid meaning other than his own prejudicial and jaundiced view

Meade
*it's a bit dismissive Big RR to say that everyone hates divorce. They don't. 50% at least of the people who get divorced are pleased to do so, one way or another. if everyone hated it, the laws would never have been changed to make it as easy as changing one's shirt.

[Daisy]

I think the wisest course is to read 'em all.

Life is FAAAAAAR too short to bother with even one of them. I am custodian to our family bible, the most interesting about it are the flowers pressed by my parents in the early 70's in it.

Frankly other than commandments 5-10, which is reasonable advice for any society what else is there in the bible that we need to know. Do we REALLY need to believe that a holy deity got a virginal lass up the duff just so he could kill him to absolve mankind's sins? Probably not if we'd all stuck to 5-10 in the commandments in the first place.

My reference to the Bible Hunters program was this : How can we believe the bible is truly the word of God when those words have been translated by the subjectivity of humans (and who can trust them buggers) over the last two millennia?

Stick to 5-10 and you wont go far wrong in life. And if you simply must believe in a higher power chuck in 1-4, number two is a bit mental by any standards though.

[Sue U]

Granted the worthiness of all you say about treating people fairly (and your sentence above is noble, true and irrelevant) I simply do not understand on what authority you add things to the Bible that are not there? The entire subject has nothing whatever to do with Jesus saying that divorce is OK provided you treat the ex-spouse fairly. [Plus maybe you should speak to some feminists about whether Mosaic divorce as in Deuteronomy was EVER a matter of rights and concerns of the woman being addressed - a quaint notion]

Mosaic divorce has ALWAYS (at least back through the first millennium BCE) been a matter of the rights of the woman as well as those of the man. You are apparently focusing only on those few passages of the Torah that merely mention divorce only in passing; there is almost no elaboration on the practice. But according to Mosaic tradition, for as long as there has been the Written Law (torah she'b'khatav) there has also necessarily been the Oral Law (torah she'b'al peh), which was eventually written up centuries later in the Talmud. And the Oral Law has always provided guarantees and safeguards for the rights of women, allowing them to initiate divorce if a husband failed to provide adequate material and conjugal benefits, or cavorted with other women, or was abusive, or was otherwise deemed unfit in her eyes. Even the brief passage in Deuteronomy addressing remarriage after divorce notes the requirement of providing a written bill of divorce, which would have necessitated going to a court to get the scribes to write the legal document, with all that court proceedings entail.

When you exclude the temple-cult parts (in any event mooted in 70 CE), the fundamental purpose of Judaism was (and continues to be) to provide practical guidelines for living in and improving a functioning human society. Although general principles remain fairly constant, their application has always been adaptable to people's practical needs.

Jesus simply says in contrast to men, God hates divorce*. He says that anyone who divorces his wife (for any reason other than adultery) is causing her to be an adultress. The Pharisees were certainly trying to make him say that divorce was OK - a subject they had been fiddling with for years. But he doesn't. And he doesn't say a word about being kind and forgiving and all of that.

If you look at Jesus in the context of the proto-rabbinic framework for resolving issues arising under the traditions of the Oral Law, he is merely offering argument in support of his view of how the law should be applied. Seen in this light, he is following in the path of Hillel and Shammai, whose competing interpretations of the law in the late 1st Century BCE/early 1st Century CE established the foundations for modern ethical reasoning. As Hillel himself said, "What is abhorrent to you, do not do to another. That is the whole of the Torah, everything else is just commentary. Now go and learn."

[Gob]

Don't you think Meade, that some Catholic priest, equally as smart as you at putting spin on the bible, could interpret it to show it means the opposite?

Don't you think that the sentiments expressed are not worthy of an omnipotent being? Just petty spitefulness? Why the fuck would an omnipotent being be so fucking screwy about who shags who?

The Bible is bunk.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Gob: interpret what to show it means the opposite of what? I put no 'spin' on anything in the Bible but if you think that, then please identify this "spin" of which you accuse me. Which sentiments do you refer to and can you explain your fourth question coherently? It's interesting that you so enjoy starting threads merely to resort to such intellectually rigorous argumentation such as "The Bible is bunk". You are the rubato of biblical studies

Sue U: indeed a purpose of the Pharisees was to have Jesus go for one or another of the interpretations in commentaries outside Torah, which as seems to be his usual practise he deftly avoided doing. I accept your correction of my too narrow focus on Deuteronomy itself and acknowledge that even such apparently barbaric (as some people seem to think) things as "an eye for an eye" were in fact prescriptive restrictions on vengeance and designed to facilitate a structured society with socially responsible laws. Hillel's statement has the weakness of merely recommending we don't to others what we wouldn't care to have done to us - well and good, except that it is only negative and not at all the same thing as "do to others as you would have them do to you". The first is law whereas the second is righteous, calling for love of God and love of neighbour which summarises all of the commandments. Hillel's application falls short, IMO. There is a huge moral gulf between the law and Jesus - about the same size as the gap between the Sermon on the Mount (which is eminently understandable) and the actual practise of almost all Christians, including me sadly.

Daisy: well, you asked "which Bible?" and I answered. The purpose of reading something is to find out what it says. The purpose of not reading something is to remain ignorant of it. That's why I don't bother with Thomas Mann or James Joyce. A sensible reader checks multiple sources to understand things - whether that's the Bible or the history of the Crimean War. And I like to turn to what is actually in the Bible to see if what unbelievers say about it is accurate or not. Usually the answer is "not".

It's not necessary to believe what you said - a crude pastiche of Christian belief - in order to be saved. And as to translations, there seems to be a practical problem with your assertion of unreliability . The documents that have been translated into English are in existence now as they were written then - in Greek and Latin and Hebrew, even Aramaic - whether that be copies of the letters of the early church fathers (1st and 2nd century) quoting great chunks of the New Testament or Mss. themselves (complete versions dating mostly from 300-400 AD but thousands of fragments from the 1st century). The translations have - aside from improvements in scholarly knowledge of ancient languages - always been consistent one with another and continue to be investigated and translated without deviation. Now if you could only find seven vastly different ancient versions of (say) Paul's letter to the Romans that outright contradict each other - or even two - you might be on to something. What is so subjective about these translations - do you have different ones the world should know of?

(And I rule out such late fictions as the Gospel of Thomas and all the other spurious creations of would-be scripture. Those who criticise the canon seem to think it would be improved by including contradictory rubbish that is proven to be fake. No doubt if they were included the criticism would be how inconsistent the entire shebang is).

As I understand it, broadly speaking there are two kinds of translation - those that try to get close to the literal words (ESV for example) and those that try to put the author's idea into more modern modes or concentrate on the meaning rather than the actual words used (NIV is of that kind). So the old KJV speaks of "kidneys" where these days modern Bibles speak of the "heart" as being the seat of emotion, bravery etc.

The whole thing is either the most interesting and important issue in the world - or it's just, as Gob says and Daisy seems to agree, "bunk". That's how the world divides - as Christians believe it's eternal life for both - just a different venue.

Meade

[Gob]

Gob: interpret what to show it means the opposite of what? I put no 'spin' on anything in the Bible but if you think that, then please identify this "spin" of which you accuse me. Which sentiments do you refer to and can you explain your fourth question coherently?

Pure spin!!

If you look at Jesus in the context of the proto-rabbinic framework for resolving issues arising under the traditions of the Oral Law, he is merely offering argument in support of his view of how the law should be applied. Seen in this light, he is following in the path of Hillel and Shammai, whose competing interpretations of the law in the late 1st Century BCE/early 1st Century CE established the foundations for modern ethical reasoning. As Hillel himself said, "What is abhorrent to you, do not do to another. That is the whole of the Torah, everything else is just commentary. Now go and learn."

It's interesting that you so enjoy starting threads merely to resort to such intellectually rigorous argumentation such as "The Bible is bunk". You are the rubato of biblical studies

You know how to hurt a guy!

[MajGenl.Meade]

1. Tee hee. You are quoting Sue U - not me.

2. Don't I just? We need charts! Have you charts?

[Econoline]