Bill would let schools teach Bible literacy (in Kentucky)
89 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Levithan;49924290]I hope Bill knows what he's doing letting kentucky do this[/QUOTE]
Ya it's pretty obvious what's going to happen, but the intent isn't bad, though it shouldnt be limited to Christianity, let it teach the history and social underpinnings of any religion as an elective
If it's taught the right way, I'm fine with that.
Honestly I believe that we should be teaching about every (major) religion in the world so that people actually have an understanding of what it actually is.
In theory, that's a great way to at least start getting more tolerance.
Nobody would bat an eye if a public university or community college offered this course
[editline]13th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49916625]Another thing I can never wrap my head around is people taking Revelations literaly.[/QUOTE]
I hate when Christian apologists say this. "The bible is not meant to be interpreted literally". So you're saying that jesus didn't exist, God doesn't exist, and none of the stories are literally true, but just metaphors for how we live our life and there is no such thing as heaven or hell or sin?
Of course you're not saying that. It's just become the western liberal approach to pick and choose which parts of the bible are interpreted literally or not. Jesus walks on water? Literal. God sends plagues down on the egyptians? Literal. 4 horsemen of death will come and cull mankind with numerous plagues and blights? Oh no that's not literal. Western liberals choose only the most violent and controversial parts to be interpreted metaphorically but all the nice parts about love and sharing literally. This is just an attempt to reconcile the barbaric religious and political beliefs of prehistoric Hebrews with modern liberal democracy so you don't have to admit that judaism and Christianity are fundamentally just as backwards and feudal as the fundamentals of islam.
Thats the thing about fundamentalism; they're following the fundamentals of your religion. you're not.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49925809]I hate when Christian apologists say this. "The bible is not meant to be interpreted literally". So you're saying that jesus didn't exist, God doesn't exist, and none of the stories are literally true, but just metaphors for how we live our life and there is no such thing as heaven or hell or sin?[/QUOTE]
Some is literal and some is figurative, just like most any book in existence. You generally figure out which is which based on the type of language being used (poetry, for example, is generally figurative).
It's also good to not confuse the idea of non-literal with useless or meaningless. For example, nobody takes Jesus literally when he says "I am the door." No one thinks that Jesus is literally a door sitting on hinges, but that doesn't take meaning away from the statement. The non-literal language is being used to make an idea clearer, not less clear.
The goal for interpreting any text is an exegetical approach where you try and figure out the meaning of the author based on language used, context, audience, etc. This comprehensive type of interpretation is much better than just taking everything literally, unless something is clearly meant to be taken literally (like biographical narrative).
My high school had a class called Bible Study. It was elective meaning it was completely optional to take. I stayed the fuck away from that class, and I don't recall anyone ever talking about it, not even those who took it. I remember one girl in my art class turning around to my table talking to the girl sitting next to me and asked her what she believed, not happy with the answer she simply said You're going to hell you know. That pretty much turned me off of religion forever permanently. Like bitch who the fuck you think you is
[QUOTE=sgman91;49926226]Some is literal and some is figurative, just like most any book in existence. You generally figure out which is which based on the type of language being used (poetry, for example, is generally figurative).
It's also good to not confuse the idea of non-literal with useless or meaningless. For example, nobody takes Jesus literally when he says "I am the door." No one thinks that Jesus is literally a door sitting on hinges, but that doesn't take meaning away from the statement. The non-literal language is being used to make an idea clearer, not less clear.[/QUOTE]
If James Hetfield can be a table then Jesus can be a door god dammit.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;49926254]My high school had a class called Bible Study. It was elective meaning it was completely optional to take. I stayed the fuck away from that class, and I don't recall anyone ever talking about it, not even those who took it. I remember one girl in my art class turning around to my table talking to the girl sitting next to me and asked her what she believed, not happy with the answer she simply said You're going to hell you know. That pretty much turned me off of religion forever permanently. Like bitch who the fuck you think you is[/QUOTE]
Oh god I got in an argument with some chick in HS once, she insisted the Bible has existed in its current form as was written shortly after Jesus.
I not only pointed out
1) that there are different Bibles out there, Lutheran, King James, gidean ect... That each have different wording and sections
2) the oldest records of the Bible show that the various Gospels weren't written until at least 150 years after Christ
3) the early church then decided which Gospels that were in circulation would be consolidated into the early Bible
4) various councils over the centuries have amended the Bible
5) the king James Bible itself is a translation of a translation of a translation , each time they translated it, they changed the wording to what they thought it meant.
But she stubbornly refuses in the face of logic...
[QUOTE=Sableye;49928876]Oh god I got in an argument with some chick in HS once, she insisted the Bible has existed in its current form as was written shortly after Jesus.
I not only pointed out
1) that there are different Bibles out there, Lutheran, King James, gidean ect... That each have different wording and sections
2) the oldest records of the Bible show that the various Gospels weren't written until at least 150 years after Christ
3) the early church then decided which Gospels that were in circulation would be consolidated into the early Bible
4) various councils over the centuries have amended the Bible
5) the king James Bible itself is a translation of a translation of a translation , each time they translated it, they changed the wording to what they thought it meant.
But she stubbornly refuses in the face of logic...[/QUOTE]
I mean, you're not much better it seems.
1) The vast majority of different Bible agree on basically everything barring a very small number of confusing verses that are not in any way integral to the Biblical narrative or meaning.
2) The earliest fragments are dated anywhere between 100-150 AD and creeds within some Pauline letters are thought to go back to just years, or months, after Jesus' death. (The creed in 1 Corinthians 15 is the most interesting because it contains essentially all the important bits of the Christian story and is thought to be the single earliest part of the entire New Testament. Even secular scholars will admit that it comes from a few years after Jesus' death. This is important because there hadn't been enough time for legend and myth to creep into the story.) There are also good reasons to believe that they were written before that. For example, Acts is written by Luke and after the Gospel of Luke, but it doesn't mention the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. That would have been a very important thing to mention because it confirms prophecy. It's very odd that he would have left out such an important element in a book of a historical nature.
3) The accepted gospels were already known long before the councils put them into an actual official cannon. Irenaeus, around the year 170 AD, for example, stated that the four gospels we use today were the only four real gospels.
4) The final canon was recognized by essentially all churches around the middle of the 3rd century, but they did not 'create' the canon, they simply recognized it. Yes, there were some books that not everyone agreed on, but none of them are key to the message of the Bible.
5) We can be sure of the accurate of our current translations based on comparisons with the thousands upon thousands of manuscripts available. The King James is actually one of the worst translations available because of it's comparably low number of manuscripts that were used.
Which epistles date just months after Jesus' supposed death date?
[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49928939]Which epistles date just months after Jesus' supposed death date?[/QUOTE]
The creed, not the gospel or entire epistle. Sorry if I wasn't clear. It includes:
- Jesus dying for sins
- Jesus being buried
- Jesus being raised on the 3rd day
- Jesus appearing to the 12 apostles
- Jesus appearing to over 500 people at once
Gary ludeman, a sceptical scholar, admits, for example, that it should be dated to within a couple years after Jesus' death.
No she was insisting that the Bible had been written in [i]english[/i] word for word in I assume King James style, shortly after Jesus's death
The Creed has nothing to do with it, the Gospels, are all each a retelling of the same story, the early church put those 4 books together for that very reason as they were the most widely circulated and accepted books, but other Gospels did not make the cut and those were circulated with early christians as well
And it doesn't matter what our modern translations are, the original translations were done without those, and changing only a few words can mean a hell of a lot of difference, subtle changes between nouns verbs and adjectives as translated and rephrased can change the intent and meaning of a passage, now we can go back and reanalyze these things but if you open the same passage in a modern Bible app and tab between translations, even today the exact wording is often quite different. Off the top of my head, just changing out shall for should or something similar changes a passage from a guideline to a command
[QUOTE=Sableye;49928945]No she was insisting that the Bible had been written in [I]english[/I] word for word in I assume King James style, shortly after Jesus's death
And it doesn't matter what our modern translations are, the original translations were done without those, and changing only a few words can mean a hell of a lot of difference, subtle changes between nouns verbs and adjectives as translated and rephrased can change the intent and meaning of a passage, now we can go back and reanalyze these things but if you open the same passage in a modern Bible app and tab between translations, even today the exact wording is often quite different. Off the top of my head, just changing out shall for should or something similar changes a passage from a guideline to a command[/QUOTE]
Honestly, you need to do some reading up on the topic. There are VERY good reasons to be sure that our translations are accurate (not perfect, of course, but very much accurate enough to read with surety). The exact wording differences are generally based on different translations of Greek that don't translate perfectly into English, not a doubt on the actual meaning of the passage.
[editline]13th March 2016[/editline]
The fact that a lot of incorrect manuscripts exist actually makes it easier for us to figure out the original. None of the parts that we're not sure about matter to the overall narrative of the Bible.
[QUOTE=Sableye;49928945]No she was insisting that the Bible had been written in [i]english[/i] word for word in I assume King James style, shortly after Jesus's death
The Creed has nothing to do with it, the Gospels, are all each a retelling of the same story, the early church put those 4 books together for that very reason as they were the most widely circulated and accepted books, but other Gospels did not make the cut and those were circulated with early christians as well
And it doesn't matter what our modern translations are, the original translations were done without those, and changing only a few words can mean a hell of a lot of difference, subtle changes between nouns verbs and adjectives as translated and rephrased can change the intent and meaning of a passage, now we can go back and reanalyze these things but if you open the same passage in a modern Bible app and tab between translations, even today the exact wording is often quite different. Off the top of my head, just changing out shall for should or something similar changes a passage from a guideline to a command[/QUOTE]
this is why when people go to seminaries to train to be priests they usually have to learn koine greek or hebrew so they can read the original bible, not to mention that they also learn latin
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49928978]this is why when people go to seminaries to train to be priests they usually have to learn koine greek or hebrew so they can read the original bible, not to mention that they also learn latin[/QUOTE]
I personally wish the modern church encouraged the learning of Koine Greek for everyone. I've been learning it little by little on my own, but it's tough going. The grammar is so different.
[editline]13th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sableye;49928945]The Creed has nothing to do with it, the Gospels, are all each a retelling of the same story, the early church put those 4 books together for that very reason as they were the most widely circulated and accepted books, but other Gospels did not make the cut and those were circulated with early christians as well[/QUOTE]
Like I said, they were already recognized as the only four trustworthy gospels by at least 170 AD, and that's just the earliest mention of an official statement of the sort. It doesn't mean they didn't know even earlier. Those were the most widely circulated BECAUSE they were the accepted gospels, not the other way around. Remember that copying and spreading books was an extremely difficult task back then. You only made a copy if a book was extremely important.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49928984]I personally wish the modern church encouraged the learning of Koine Greek for everyone. I've been learning it little by little on my own, but it's tough going. The grammar is so different.
[editline]13th March 2016[/editline]
Like I said, they were already recognized as the only four trustworthy gospels by at least 170 AD, and that's just the earliest mention of an official statement of the sort. It doesn't mean they didn't know even earlier. Those were the most widely circulated BECAUSE they were the accepted gospels, not the other way around. Remember that copying and spreading books was an extremely difficult task back then. You only made a copy if a book was extremely important.[/QUOTE]
I'm learning Latin myself so I can read the vulgate.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49913750]This shit will become more common, and the average person in the US who relies on public education, will become a blithering idiot unable to fit into a modern society.[/QUOTE]
That's the point. If the common man is stupid, he doesn't question the system, no matter how broken and dysfunctional it is.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49929136]I'm learning Latin myself so I can read the vulgate.[/QUOTE]
If don't mind me asking, why would you learn latin as opposed to greek or hebrew? It seems like you might as well go to the original language if you're going to learn a new language as opposed to the secondary language used in a translation. You would still be running into the same questions of interpretation that we have in English. (As well as the much older Septuagint)
[QUOTE=sgman91;49929184]If don't mind me asking, why would you learn latin as opposed to greek or hebrew? It seems like you might as well go to the original language if you're going to learn a new language as opposed to the secondary language used in a translation. You would still be running into the same questions of interpretation that we have in English. (As well as the much older Septuagint)[/QUOTE]
It's mainly for reading other texts too, most of them written primarily in Latin
[QUOTE=sgman91;49929184]If don't mind me asking, why would you learn latin as opposed to greek or hebrew? It seems like you might as well go to the original language if you're going to learn a new language as opposed to the secondary language used in a translation. You would still be running into the same questions of interpretation that we have in English. (As well as the much older Septuagint)[/QUOTE]
Well a ton of languages are based off of latin, so its a nice history lesson as well teaching how languages evolve.
as long as it isn't a required course, what's the problem?
[QUOTE=Map in a box;49929449]Well a ton of languages are based off of latin, so its a nice history lesson as well teaching how languages evolve.[/QUOTE]
I have absolutely nothing against learning latin. It just doesn't make sense if your goal is Biblical study, but, like he said, it's mainly for other things.
They already teach breif units on each world religion and its impact during high school here, why do we need more?
If you're from one of the Northern states, I say let this happen.
If courses like Bible literacy blow up in popularity in those stupid states, you Northerners will have less people to compete with resulting in better chances for good jobs for you guys.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49928944]The creed, not the gospel or entire epistle. Sorry if I wasn't clear. It includes:
- Jesus dying for sins
- Jesus being buried
- Jesus being raised on the 3rd day
- Jesus appearing to the 12 apostles
- Jesus appearing to over 500 people at once
Gary ludeman, a sceptical scholar, admits, for example, that it should be dated to within a couple years after Jesus' death.[/QUOTE]
None of the oldest extant versions of the bible contain Christ's resurrection (Sinai bible, Vatican bible, Alexandrian bible etc, also copies of Mark from 6th century Ethiopia). Indeed, rising from the dead doesn't appear in any copy of the bible older than the 12th century AD.
Similar for the virgin birth, again no mention in older copies of the bible or the gospels.
[QUOTE=AlexConnor;49945449]None of the oldest extant versions of the bible contain Christ's resurrection (Sinai bible, Vatican bible, Alexandrian bible etc, also copies of Mark from 6th century Ethiopia). Indeed, rising from the dead doesn't appear in any copy of the bible older than the 12th century AD.
Similar for the virgin birth, again no mention in older copies of the bible or the gospels.[/QUOTE]
Since when? The Vulgate has these things in it and it's been around since the 4th century.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49945610]Since when? The Vulgate has these things in it and it's been around since the 4th century.[/QUOTE]
The Vulgate has been the subject of endless revisions down the ages, and the oldest existing copy is the 8th century Codex Amiatinus. I'd be interested to see if the Codex Amiatinus does indeed contain the verses of Mark describing Christ's ressurection (can't find the text online), but in any case it's a much more recent book than Codex Sinaiticus/Vaticanus etc which don't have any mention of rising from the dead.
[QUOTE=AlexConnor;49945908]The Vulgate has been the subject of endless revisions down the ages, and the oldest existing copy is the 8th century Codex Amiatinus. I'd be interested to see if the Codex Amiatinus does indeed contain the verses of Mark describing Christ's ressurection (can't find the text online), but in any case it's a much more recent book than Codex Sinaiticus/Vaticanus etc which don't have any mention of rising from the dead.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure that the majority of historians and biblical scholars agree that the bible is largely more or less the same as the bible that was read in the Roman Empire. The bible was assembled in its modern form no later than the 4th century.
[QUOTE=AlexConnor;49945449]None of the oldest extant versions of the bible contain Christ's resurrection (Sinai bible, Vatican bible, Alexandrian bible etc, also copies of Mark from 6th century Ethiopia). Indeed, rising from the dead doesn't appear in any copy of the bible older than the 12th century AD.
Similar for the virgin birth, again no mention in older copies of the bible or the gospels.[/QUOTE]
I mean, you're just wrong. We have manuscripts of Mark from the 4th century with the resurrection.
What I mentioned about the very early creed from 1 Corinthians is not even in dispute between secular scholars. You're just way out on this one.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.