Shameless Hussy

Ah, well there you go! The KJV is probably the only version of the bible that still refers to it as The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews... because back in the 1600s Hebrews was still presumed to have been written by him. Since then, scholarship has cast serious doubts on Paul's authorship.

Barnabus and Appollos were two front-runners for the authorship prize. Don't know if there are other (better) candidates.

inquisitive01

There are two possibilities in these Verses (assuming these are accurate and true accounts, of course) as we have all noted. According to Paul (or whomever is writing about Paul and the Thessalonians), either "God" is actually God and is sending "strong delusion" because the people simply will have it no other way (they prefer lives of sin and unrighteousness), or Satan is portraying himself as God in those Verses that have been in question, which would mean that part of the text may have been lost prior to translation, or may have been translated somewhat differently than what was originally intended.

Therefore, I would prefer you did dismiss any/all assertions regarding II Thessalonians made in this thread, but draw your own conclusions (or assertions) based on your own knowledge of what is written in this Chapter. If for no other reason, because it is YOU who have studied it beneath the superficial layers SO MANY often skim over way too quickly. I also feel it's best not to simply read a verse and rely solely on other's interpretations of it. The Bible is just not that simple, and should not be read in a simple manner, in other words.

• Read a few Verses at a time - preferably in the KJV at first. One can always read the later translations later to see if he/she feels the same thing(s) are being said.
  
• See if you feel that you truly understand what has been written in these Verses.
  
• If not, read them again along with perhaps the last Verses of a preceeding Chapter, or the first Verses of the next Chapter to see what was/is going on prior to/after these Verses.
  
• When/if you feel you've reach an understanding of what has been written, THEN check what "scholars" have said about the same Verses to see if there are any similarities/differences in your interpretation and their interpretation(s).

Nobody said it would be easy either, as is demonstrated very well (good "evidence," if you will) in this thread. Put simply, I'm glad you questioned my assertions.

inquisitive01

Unfortunately, "serious doubts" do not equal "full certainty."

Shameless Hussy

Of course not! That is why most modern editions (that I've seen) leave the authorship blank... because they don't know.

inquisitive01

Exactly. There might be other reasons as well. While the KJV of the Bible is definitely not the "easiest" to read, it is generally not all that difficult for those who take the necessary time to actually try to read and understand it, rather than just skimming over the superficial stuff and concluding "Well, this doesn't make much sense!" Considering the continuing lack of understanding which still seems possible even with these "newer" translations, I don't see why they were attempted in the first place. Put simply, I thought their purpose would be to make it easier to understand, not just easier to read - especially in a superficial manner (i.e., now it's even easier to read superficially).

Shameless Hussy

Which doesn't necessarily mean a contradiction re: God of Truth, by the way. I mean, according to Christian theology. Though He is God of Truth, he is also God of Punishments and God of Hard Bargains, among other things.

True, although I see no reason to believe that part of the text was lost (anymore than that could be said if ANY part of the bible). And as I do not know what the original text said (major language barrier here) I have to go by comparing various translations, all of which point to God being God in this verse, not the lawless one. When they seem so much in agreement, I see no reason to look for doubts in translation. *shrug*

Do you feel that sometimes the Bible conveys a "personal" knowledge to those who read it, which is distinct to each individual? And if so, how does one then harmonize all those distinct, personal readings with The Message? Is there, in fact, A Message?

Why do you feel the KJV is preferable?

I do agree that it is important to do one's own reading of ANY text, however for me the Bible is the sort of text which is open to so much misinterpretation, and about which there is so much misunderstanding, and which is so enriched by an understanding of its language, history and scholarship, that for me, understanding does not (really cannot) precede research (secondary sources). It's the research, along with my own reading, that eventually adds up to an understanding.

And I'm glad you answered me. Thanks.

Vorkosigan

For scholars, serious doubts are very strong. Hebrews authenticity was questioned even in antiquity. Nowadays no mainstream scholar regards Hebrews as by Paul. And none use the KJV either; its problems are well known.

Daniel Wallace, an evangelical scholar, explains why the KJV is not a good translation.

Vorkosigan

Joshua Adams

The length of my posts has no bearing on the clarity or ambiguity of yours. What do you mean by "accuracy" that I should be devoting my attentions to? Do you mean all the verses that just happen to not contradict each other? Verses that present an accurate portrayal of general historical information? What? A book as mammoth as the Bible better DAMN have gotten a few things right. I, other atheists, and also scholars, are well aware of these things. They do not mean we should ignore the not-so-correct parts.

I'm sorry, I meant "75% of each post", (It is just a guesstimate--I didn't count the number of letters) but by the time I noticed my gaffe the expiration date was up on the edit button.

You have completely ignored just about every point I have made or at best glossed over them, giving only a brief, generalized reply which doesn't actually address any of the specific points of my post.

Here are the main points you ignored:

1. The contradiction between Jesus' and Paul's views of the Mosaic Law
2. The contradiction between 1 Corinthians 1 and 1 Timothy 1 & 2 Timothy 4 on whether Paul himself is authoritive
3. The well-known existence of pseudepigraphal works, including ones attributed to Paul

Please especially consider number 3. The fact that they exist means that there is at least the potential for it--and given all other considerations there is excellent reason to believe some of the Pauline epistles are pseudepigraphal.

Diversions about evolution and cosmology do not belong here, right. I wasn't talking about those. Sorry for my confusing choice of words. That's what happens when I keep it under two paragraphs.

I never mentioned the "meaning of life", although anybody here could answer that--I was talking about an accurate knowledge base concerning the authors of the Bible. Scholars aren't trying to discredit the Bible; they're trying to know as much as possible about it. They do not begrudgingly admit that it appears Romans is authentic (aw, damn), trying to find loopholes that allow them to claim otherwise (well, at least not any with a semblance of objectivity). If someone claims that Romans is a forgery I will demand they back up this assertion with linguistic evidence.

Also, as far as "Hebrews" goes, or any other non-Pauline epistle: we do not have indication that these were either advised by Paul or based on his teachings. As I pointed out several times, the thought in them explicitly contradicts that of the genuine epistles, indicating that they had nothing to do with Paul.

Finally, your opinion on textual scholarship is amusingly ironic, since the depth of your analysis is to say, "Well, Paul's name is at the top..." You are going on about how easy it is to disguise one's literary style and yet it never hits you that it's even easier to just write someone else's name on your letter?!

Amaleq13

"Full certainty" or "100% certainty" is really only appropriate when faith is the primary source of the conclusion. Rational thought, unlike faith, can never exclude the possibility of error or new evidence so "100% certainty" is simply not realistic in that context.

In other words, applying such an unrealistic standard to the conclusions of science or scholarly efforts is irrational despite any sense of comfort it might provide.


"Humans may crave absolute certainty; they may aspire to it; they may pretend, as partisans of certain religions do, to have attained it. But the history of science--by far the most successful claim to knowledge accessible to humans--teaches that the most we can hope for is successive improvement in our understanding, learning from our mistakes, an asymptotic approach to the Universe, but with the proviso that absolute certainty will always elude us." --Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, p.28

inquisitive01

However, if a human authority, such as a judge, inflicts or assigns punishment(s) to someone, it is because ("for what cause") of what that person has done. We generally tend to accept that (human-authority judgement) without questioning it, even though the punishments often don't seem to result in fairness. As an example, a person who steals a car or is involved in fraud, especially as a repeat offender, might spend more time in prison than someone who actually killed another human being. Which do you feel is more of a threat to society, though... the one who steals something or the one who actually ends someone's life via murder?



Keyword: various.


Because it has a better chance of being closer to the original texts than these newer versions. However, like I said before, one can always check the newer translations to see IF they feel the same things are being said by each (as compared with the KJV, which it seems these newer translations are derived from).


Since it is indeed open to so much misinterpretation/misunderstanding, it is important to realize that even some "scholars" (which ones would be unknown to us) could potentially interpret something much differently than we might. Does that make us wrong? No, it does not (unless we get ridiculous with it, as is sometimes the case in these forums). Could it make the "scholars" wrong? Well, you never know (both humans and scholars make mistakes). It's even possible that a certain "scholar" that helped form the deciding basis for translation may have had one too many the night before and perhaps wasn't paying as much attention to detail on the day the decision was made. Things happen.


You're very welcome.