Newton Joseph

ABOUT THE BIBLE
Newton Joseph, Ph.D.

I am not a bible scholar but it would seem to me that words spoken two thousand years ago would have a different meaning today. From its translation from Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English during the course of history these past two thousand years there is some words that get lost in translation. One other factor that we must take into consideration and that is the Nicene counsel in the forth century that took votes of what portion of the bible will be kept or discarded. Another aspect we must take into consideration, there were further changes in the bible by Monks sitting in their Monastery scriptorium rewriting worn out bibles to fit their religious and political views of their time. This is also true about the King James Version that used the king James English that changed the meanings of words. Just like each religious denomination does today to slant the meaning towards their denomination and interpretation of the Bible. Since the nineteen fifties religious denominations have changed the meaning of the bible yet again to extricate the vulgar language from the Bible. Did you know there was a time in the later part of the nineteenth century there were parts of the bible thought to be too pornographic and was censored by the moral police of the time? The truth be known, no one really knows what the bible means.

drnjoseph@socal.rr.com
www.atheistfellowship.com

alphi

Allow me to take the counter part. Let's have some fun with this. Regardless of all the stories of the bible, many of which go back thousands of years before Christianity, there is much wisdom that can be extracted from this ageless book. I believe it still averages out to be the best selling book in the world. As you say, it has been altered a number of times in the first four or five hundred years after the birth of Jesus. That is a fact. So what.

There are also many other books that fall in the same catagory as the bible from many other religions through out the course of time, from the Hindus to Chinese, the Tibetans and so on.

Yet, there is a silver thread that runs throughout the teachings of all of these so -called masters or teachers. And they all had their own way of saying the same basic things to help people live together and get along. They did not come to start religions.

If I knew what to say, would I say that same thing now, to you? Of what good would that do?

One of these masters has said, "When the student is ready, the master will appear." Another said, You must have the mind of a child to enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Wisdom is of a timeless nature. Is it not? Many of the characters in the bible have claimed to have had spiritual encounters, something that most human being will nevr encounter over a life time. One of the prophets of the old testiment said, "Be still. and know that I am the Lord thy God."

You say, "Truth be known, no one really knows what the bible means." What you are saying is that you don't believe that anyone knows what the bible means. You can only speak for yourself. If someone did, what good would that do you?

Alphi

Roland

The Old Testament is based on the premise that one group of people are "God's people" and everyone else isn't. In the Book of Joshua, God sends "his people" into the land of the "other people" with strict orders to massacre all those "other people." Exactly how is that designed to help people get along together?

In the New Testament, we discover that all people who do not become Christians are to be thrown into the Lake of Fire where they will suffer the torments of the damned forever and ever. So much for teaching everyone to "live together and get along."

TheBigKahoona

"Another aspect we must take into consideration, there were further changes in the bible by Monks sitting in their Monastery scriptorium rewriting worn out bibles to fit their religious and political views of their time. This is also true about the King James Version that used the king James English that changed the meanings of words"

COntrary to popular belief our current NTs do not stem from the texts copied down by the Monks of the Dark ages. The most famous example being the "Vulgate which contains one of the most heinous discrepancies, "Do Penance" instead of the correct "Repent".
Instead, our translations of the new testament came from the Byzantines who new there languages alot better than the monks did.

Ps. Sorry this post is alittle sloppy in a REALLY big hurry.

Gregg

Well, technically it does. "Live together and get along ... or ELSE!!"

Roland

Touche!

CX

One of the foundational aspects of text criticism is determining the meaning of passages from now defunct languages. Such is taken into heavy consideration by any scholar studying the texts of the Bible. Vis-a-vis the Koine Greek of the NT (which scholars at one time thought was a special language created by god for the NT) finds of common household records and correspondence in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, written in Koine, help considerably in determining the meaning of words and phrases. Even so, it is an imprecise science. As far as your comments on the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E., you suffer from a very common misconception that it had anything to do with establishing the canon. It didn't. It was concerned with the Arian controversy and established official church doctrine with respect to the substance of Jesus (ultimately concluding that he was consubstantial with God as stated in the Nicene Creed). Lastly, most modern scholarship does not depend on MSS from medieval monks, but rather 4th century and earlier texts. The NA27 uses Alexandrian texts including Codex Sinaiticus from the early 4th century as opposed to the KJV which is based on Latin Translations and the Byzantine family of Greek MSS.

CX

True.

False. Modern critical Greek Texts are based on the Alexandrian family of MSS. It is the Byzantine family of texts that is much later and upon which are based such inferior translations as the KJV.

Ishmael

Is Newton Joseph ever going to explain his crappy webpage?