FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-30-2001, 03:30 PM   #1
svensky
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Emerald City, Oz
Posts: 130
Question Copyist Errors and Context

I figured i'd start a new thread for this, as the old one is getting quite long.

I've been asked a number of times about this problem in the bible or another. On a number of occasions i have replied simply that what is being claimed for a peice of evidence is invalid becasue the quote is taken (sometimes wildly) out of context.

Can somebody please tell me why this is a problem ? If you've been following the other thread on Biblical Errancy Lists, i posted a comment about an article claiming that the bible teaches flat earth. Then proceeded to say that 5 of the 6 proof verses where invalid simply becasue they where taken out of context from the verse in question. I found another site claiming the earth was flat and found the evidence cited as being out of context as well.

You will however notice that I did not say all where out of context, and even suggested that the author might have some shread of merit to his argument on this point. I didn't by the argument, but at least the verse cited was in context.

I am asking this question, becasue so often i'm told here is a contradiction, problem etc in the Bible, only to check and discover that the person who made the statement has taken a verse out of the context in which is was written and made an absolute claim about somthing that is obviously figartive.

I dont always claim this, but seem to be forced to a lot simply becasue it is the case.

I also ask this question becasue either the persons involved are deliberatly taking a verse out of context to make a point that isn't there, and therefore being deliberatly deceptive, or they have the reading comprehension and attention span of a hyperactive 10 year old.

I expect te be called all sorts of names for posting this, and am not really expecting any sort of coherent respone (please surprise me) but can somebody explain to me why i should be expected to ignore the context of a passage ?

Jason
svensky is offline  
Old 10-30-2001, 03:51 PM   #2
kctan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Heaven, just assasinated god
Posts: 578
Post

You're saying that it is out of context.

To you it maybe out but to the other it is not.

So who is interpreting it correctly ? Nobody knows because its just too damn subjective.

You're with the bible, so naturally you'll try to defend it & see what others considered valid as invalid, these are all as subjective as it can be thus when you start crying foul that people are taking bible passages out of context, its merely your opinion only.

Of course the person quoting those verses are also interpreting it to what they see it as so in the end all what you & the other person is doing is merely speculating on what a 2000 yr old story is trying to convey to its readers.

Yes all speculations are valid but are as empty as the sepculations that they are.
kctan is offline  
Old 10-30-2001, 04:18 PM   #3
deank
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: St. Simons Island, GA, USA
Posts: 87
Post

Svensky,

Regarding Genesis: I think if you read Genesis with a prescientific mind it makes perfect sense. I think you've got it in your head that everyone knows that the earth is spherical, that it swings in a gravitational pull around a star, and that the moon is not a light. If you were in, say, 800 B.C., could you say the same thing?

Obviously you believe that the Bible is written by God, so why is he so inaccurate in his descriptions of the earth's surroundings? Ancient humans were definately ignorant on a modern level, but they would believe anything Yahweh told them, right? So why didn't he tell them what it was really like? Genesis may sound mythic and awe inspiring to us, but to them it was a false lesson on the nature of the universe. There is no "firmament." The moon is not a light. The sun and stars are not different celestial beings. And as we all know, above us is only sky.

Please, will you tell me how I'm taking the Bible out of context??
deank is offline  
Old 10-30-2001, 05:03 PM   #4
Echo
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Winter Park, Fl USA
Posts: 411
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by svensky:
I figured i'd start a new thread for this, as the old one is getting quite long.
Yes, and not once did you address either of my three posts in that thread. I was quite disappointed.

Quote:
I've been asked a number of times about this problem in the bible or another. On a number of occasions i have replied simply that what is being claimed for a peice of evidence is invalid becasue the quote is taken (sometimes wildly) out of context.
And whose context is the correct one? This question isn't as nitpicky as it looks. Many of the problems between Jews and Christians arise over disagreements about the correct context of passages that are alleged to be messianic prophecies. So this is important.

Quote:
Can somebody please tell me why this is a problem ? If you've been following the other thread on Biblical Errancy Lists, i posted a comment about an article claiming that the bible teaches flat earth. Then proceeded to say that 5 of the 6 proof verses where invalid simply becasue they where taken out of context from the verse in question. I found another site claiming the earth was flat and found the evidence cited as being out of context as well.
*Maybe* the passages in question are metaphors or poetry...or maybe not. We do know that the idea of a flat earth was common in ancient times. I won't quibble over this one. I don't see enough textual evidence in the bible to reach much of an informed opinion about what the authors thought about the shape of the earth.

Quote:
You will however notice that I did not say all where out of context, and even suggested that the author might have some shread of merit to his argument on this point. I didn't by the argument, but at least the verse cited was in context.

I am asking this question, becasue so often i'm told here is a contradiction, problem etc in the Bible, only to check and discover that the person who made the statement has taken a verse out of the context in which is was written and made an absolute claim about somthing that is obviously figartive.
"Obviously figurative" is going to be problematic. Even Christians disagree over which parts of the bible are obviously figurative, and sometimes these disagreements have a profound impact on doctrine. Some Christians think the passages referring to Hell are "obviously figurative" and others do not. Some Christians think the six days of creation are "obviously figurative" and others think the six days are six literal 24 hour days.

Quote:
I dont always claim this, but seem to be forced to a lot simply becasue it is the case.

I also ask this question becasue either the persons involved are deliberatly taking a verse out of context to make a point that isn't there, and therefore being deliberatly deceptive, or they have the reading comprehension and attention span of a hyperactive 10 year old.

I expect te be called all sorts of names for posting this, and am not really expecting any sort of coherent respone (please surprise me) but can somebody explain to me why i should be expected to ignore the context of a passage ?

Jason
Welcome to the world of human beings. We don't always agree on the correct context of a passage, whether it is in the bible or a Shakespeare play.

I'm not sure exactly where you are going with all of this, so perhaps you could take a moment to answer the questions I posted on the other thread. This would help us to understand your position.

1) What do you mean when you say the bible is inspired?

2) How did you go about determining that God inspires in this manner?

3) How did you go about determining that this particular collection of writings is inspired in this manner?

4} Are any other writings outside of this collection inspired in a similar fashion?
Echo is offline  
Old 10-30-2001, 05:32 PM   #5
svensky
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Emerald City, Oz
Posts: 130
Post

1) What do you mean when you say the bible is inspired?

The bible is the Word of God. Not the works of humans about God.

2) How did you go about determining that God inspires in this manner?

I actaully read the bible. I have also done a number of comparisons to other religious books, and i do find them wanting. Although to be fair i've only really looked in any depth at the koran and the book of mormon.

3) How did you go about determining that this particular collection of writings is inspired in this manner?

Read it. I did find it compelling that a book written over several thousand years is so consistent. Most other holy books of seen aren't internally consistent and at least with the koran and the book of mormon where handed down in one go (well comparitivly).

4} Are any other writings outside of this collection inspired in a similar fashion?

Good question. If you mean inspired as in, should be added to the canon, no i dont think so. I do think some christian authors are inspired by God, but no not really in the same way.

I know these answers are pretty subjective, but i'm not sure what you where expecting. I find the argument for the inspriation of scripture (at least in the origianl manuscripts, as you can guess i dont beleive the copies to be inspired in the same way) to be compelling. The book(s) near as i can tell do appear to have the hand of God behind them.

Does this answer your question.

Jason
svensky is offline  
Old 10-30-2001, 05:45 PM   #6
svensky
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Emerald City, Oz
Posts: 130
Post

Echo,

In answer to your other questions about context.

You can determine context a lot of the time, and not all interpretations of a passage are equally valid.

for example is it valid for me to suggest that an accurate interpretation of what you wrote, was a manual for performing tooth extraction for a dentist. Obviously this is not a valid interpretation, in fact i think you would doubt the literacy skills or sanity of someone who proposed such an interpretation, but it could be an interpretation no matter how absurd. But this does not mean it is given equal standing.

When it comes to context, many of the verses i've complained about contain more than enough context surrounding it to figure out what it meant.

By way of example. Are Christians supposed to Judge. Go and read Matthew 7:1. Now actaully read the whole of Matthew 7. Yet still I see in several lists of contradictions, and am told, that christians are not to judge people, and this verse cited as evidence. But just reading around the verse what is meant is obvious. So ... what conclusion is to be drawn from this ?

The same applies to references to psalms. It is quite obviously a collection of songs. In fact the top of each psalm says as much. Is it fair to interpert songs as accurate reflections of reality ? Sometimes, but metaphor is something that is used in songs all of the time. Yet still i see contradictions cited where a psalm (remeber a song, so possible metaphor and hyperbole) says something as an absolute, and else where it may not be so absolute. But again, context is important.

Does this answer your question, or at least convey where i'm coming from ?

Jason
svensky is offline  
Old 10-31-2001, 01:04 AM   #7
Jack the Bodiless
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 5,815
Post

Svensky, why do you insist that "flat-Earth" verses are "quoted out of context"?

Such verses mesh perfectly with Hebrew cosmology: a flat Earth under a solid firmament dome, supported by pillars, with Sheol underneath. There is no indication at all that the authors of the Bible knew or suspected that the Earth was spherical. There is no reason to assume that the authors didn't mean eaxctly what they said.

You are seeking to impose your own context, to twist the words of the Bible.
Jack the Bodiless is offline  
Old 10-31-2001, 01:49 AM   #8
Grand Nubian
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: mich
Posts: 33
Post

Gen.11:7
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech

1 Cor.14:33
For God is NOT the author of confusion...

Jer. 20:7)
O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived....

2 Thess.2:9-12
...God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may becondemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness
Grand Nubian is offline  
Old 10-31-2001, 02:40 AM   #9
Grand Nubian
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: mich
Posts: 33
Post

Matthew 11:11 "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist."

Job 25:4: "How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?"


Wasn't jesus born of a woman?
Grand Nubian is offline  
Old 10-31-2001, 05:12 AM   #10
3DChizl
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 160
Post

Your original question:
Quote:
Can anybody point me to a list of biblical errors, that isn't a complete load of crap ?
Above we find:
Quote:
1) What do you mean when you say the bible is inspired?
The bible is the Word of God. Not the works of humans about God.
Someting you said in the earlier thread:
Quote:
I dont suppose many of you have noticed that i am infact a christian, and am merely interested in learning.
Your first question can only be answered "no" because of your second answer. IMO the third is a deception for the sake of continuing the argument.
3DChizl is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:25 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.