Continued Discussion Rayskidude On Spong

[Neon Genesis]

Ray and I have decided to continue the discussion on Bishop Spong's book, Rescuing The Bible From Fundamentalism in a separate thread and anyone else can also join in if Ray doesn't mind: Here's my response from post #808 in the Questions For Christians About Biblical Inerrancy thread: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/25632-question-for-christians-about-biblical-inerrancy/page__st__800

 

 

 

 

 

"The devil made me do it!" - as I recall that was popularized by the comedian Flip Wilson - and I know of no Christian who has ever used for himself or accepted from others such an excuse for any sin. Satan tempts, but we sin when we're carried away by our own lust.

What about Ted Haggard?

 

Then Spong makes a judgement on the motives of fundies - they're "deeply insecure and fearful people." Their way of life is defined by their prejudices which "... provides an apporpriate and legitimate outlet for one's anger." This is just nonsense. Is Spong also a recognized certified psychologist? I have been in several fundy churches - though I parted with them years ago - but they're not insecure and fearful - they are simply people who place a high premium on truth.

I was raised a fundamentalist Christian and I've grown up around fundamentalists down here in the south. While of course this is not true of all fundamentalists, it has been true in my experience that many fundamentalists are very fearful and insecure people who can hardly tolerate any different beliefs or ways of living. How many times have you come across a fundamentalist Christian who refuses to watch Ellen's talk show just because she's a lesbian? How is that anything but fearful if someone can't bear to watch a harmless TV show because they might catch lesbian cooties? And that's just one example. I could come up with countless others where fundamentalist Christians get all worked up over the smallest reasons. There was even a group of KJV-only Christians who wanted to burn non-KJV bibles and books of Rick Warren and Billy Graham because they didn't consider them fundamentalist enough. Of course it doesn't apply to them all and there are closed minded liberals and there's open minded conservatives, but pretending people like this don't exist won't solve the problem.

 

 

 

Here's the Biblical principle - you can judge the fruit you see. But you cannot discern the motivation for the fruit, unless that person tells you his motivation. To try to discern motives is guesswork.

And many times with fundamentalists, you don't need to guess their motives because half of the time, they'll gladly tell you they refuse to watch Ellen because she's a lesbian. For example, my grandma is a bible-believing Trinitarian fundamentalist Christian and she has fully admitted she thinks gays and lesbians should not be allowed on TV because she's a bigot and yes, she fully admitted she's a bigot to gays and lesbians and proud of being a bigot. You don't need to guess when so many fundamentalists are open and proud of their bigotry.

 

How about all the liberal Southern Baptist seminary professors that signed doctrinal statements every year that they did not actually believe - just so they could keep their jobs! Does Spong discuss this liberal hypocrisy??

Spong has actually mentioned this in one of his lectures that's available on youtube. He brought up when the Southern Baptist voted on homosexuality and he saw this as proof that fundamentalist Christians have already lost the debate and it's only a matter of time before fundamentalists eventually accept homosexuality too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note it speaks of the women's desire to learn - commendable, no? But the prohibition is in questioning and challenging what is being taught. Believers are commended for studying to verify the truth of what's being taught - Acts 17:11; I John 4:1 - so Paul says that women should not publicly question or challenge what is being taught, but rather they should ask their husbands at home.

But this verse says nothing at all about women interrupting the pastor to ask a question. It clearly says that women should be submissive to men and it's the man women should turn to for all the answers. If it was an issue about speaking out of turn in the churches, why didn't Paul say that both men and women should keep silent in churches and that partners should ask each other? Why didn't he address little kids acting up in church? Why was only women accused of being shameful?

 

 

 

 

So those poor old Biblical writers were just ignorant (and apparently, so was God) of "emerging contemporary knowledge." Oh, and BTW, when's the last time you heard that new data gave us cause to jettison conventional wisdom? Doesn't this seem to happen pretty regularly? So, I'd hold off on what "social scientists" are telling us is fact.

It happens all the time. Why would we keep waiting until 30 minutes after we eat to go swimming if all the evidence shows it makes no difference? Are you saying you've never changed your mind on something because of facts before?

 

 

 

OMG - and OMG, again! Anyone who would be perturbed by Mr Spong's musings on Scripture must be living a fragile life. And then he says, "I will continue to argue these insights, drawn largely from that deep and impressive literature of biblical scholarship over the past 100 years." - again implying that the poor, dumb b_____ds that were studying beofre then just didn;t know better - it's not their fault.

 

This is just chronological elitism - "we're smarter and more informed becasue were more modern." How is this not rank arrogance?

 

So, I look forward to reading Spong further.

How is it arrogant to speak the truth? Like I said, there are Christians out there who want to burn even Billy Graham and Rick Warren books and other bible translations that aren't KJV, so why is it hard to believe that closed minded Christians do exist? You might not be one of them, but as I said, pretending closed minded Christians do not exist does nothing to solve the problem. Bishop Spong has even been nearly shot at by these same Christians you claim are "true" Christians and there's even been fundamentalist Christians who have sent Bishop Spong bomb threats simply because they think he's going to hell, so how can you say these people don't exist?

[oddbird1963]

Dammit! Another book I wish I had.

 

 

Please guys, until I can get to that book, please provide brief but good enough quotes to follow the argumentation.

 

I know that's trouble. But to follow, I need to feel confident of what Spong actually says.

 

Please consider. . .

 

OB '63

[rayskidude]

Ray and I have decided to continue the discussion on Bishop Spong's book, Rescuing The Bible From Fundamentalism in a separate thread and anyone else can also join in if Ray doesn't mind: Here's my response from post #808 in the Questions For Christians About Biblical Inerrancy thread: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/25632-question-for-christians-about-biblical-inerrancy/page__st__800

 

Neon, Thnx for setting this up - I'll post a reply and more comments over the next few days.

 

OB - Amazon can get you a paperback for $12 pretty quickly.

 

C'ya

[rayskidude]

What about Ted Haggard?

 

What about Ed? Has anyone really taken his whining seriously - other than close, loyal friends blinded by personal allegiance? I have heard only calls for him to repent f his sin, reconcile his relationships, and never return to Christian ministry.

 

it has been true in my experience that many fundamentalists are very fearful and insecure people who can hardly tolerate any different beliefs or ways of living. How many times have you come across a fundamentalist Christian who refuses to watch Ellen's talk show just because she's a lesbian? How is that anything but fearful if someone can't bear to watch a harmless TV show because they might catch lesbian cooties?

 

This is just an inference on your part - as I said, fundies are generally motivated by a love for and defense of the truth. And I have been to fundy churches and conferences. Fear & insecurity aren't dominant issues - they see an opposition to Biblcal ethics that they believe will be deleterious to our society - which I agree with - I just didn't agree with their legalism and their methods to address opposition to Christianity. But generally, I found them to be caring people. Nothing more than that.

 

There was even a group of KJV-only Christians who wanted to burn non-KJV bibles and books of Rick Warren and Billy Graham because they didn't consider them fundamentalist enough. Of course it doesn't apply to them all and there are closed minded liberals and there's open minded conservatives, but pretending people like this don't exist won't solve the problem.

 

THe KJV-only people are fringe Christianity - not taken seriously by others. Even the fundamentalist Bob Jones Univ's top theolgian Stewart Custer wrote a book in the 80's very critical of their view. And I don't deny that uneducated, insecure, fearful, red-neck Christians don't exist. But Spong presents them as the norm. In this, Spong exhibits a great ignorance of conservative Christianity. He says mnay ministers aren't sufficiently educated. That's nonsense - most study all the issues he addresses - but from a conservative perspective.

 

For example, my grandma is a bible-believing Trinitarian fundamentalist Christian and she has fully admitted she thinks gays and lesbians should not be allowed on TV because she's a bigot and yes, she fully admitted she's a bigot to gays and lesbians and proud of being a bigot. You don't need to guess when so many fundamentalists are open and proud of their bigotry.

 

Your Grandm says proudly she's a "bigot?" She uses that exact word with the same meaning you place on that word? Or does she mean that she believes in a Biblical God & ethic - which condemns homosexuality as a depraved sin that should not be flaunted in our society? Again, I would agree that all people have freedom to express their views; and all others have the right to challenge any view different than their own. I wouldn't use your Grandma as characteristic of conservative Christianity.

 

Spong has actually mentioned this (liberal hypocrisy) in one of his lectures that's available on youtube. He brought up when the Southern Baptist voted on homosexuality and he saw this as proof that fundamentalist Christians have already lost the debate and it's only a matter of time before fundamentalists eventually accept homosexuality too.

 

I don;t know the date of Spong's youtube adventure - but actually due to the fine work of Dr. Albert Mohler and other conservative scholars - most of the dishonest liberal professors at SBC seminaries have been canned - and the SBC is now even more decidedly conservative. And only a few liberal SBC churches have sought to leave the SBC. SO Spong is just wrong - again!

 

But this verse says nothing at all about women interrupting the pastor to ask a question. It clearly says that women should be submissive to men and it's the man women should turn to for all the answers. If it was an issue about speaking out of turn in the churches, why didn't Paul say that both men and women should keep silent in churches and that partners should ask each other? Why didn't he address little kids acting up in church? Why was only women accused of being shameful?

 

Read the passage in context - and also in conjunction with Paul's instruction in I Tim 2 re: women teaching (didactic theological teaching is specified) in a mixed setting. But I belioeve that you've inferrd things that aren't here.

 

But conservative churches commonly have women praying, singing, sharing a testimony, reading Scripture, leading ministries, etc with no ping in their conscience. We all understand that the restrictions on women refer primarily to theology proper. Paul didn't address the other issues you state because they weren't issues in the church of Corinth. Why do you assume that the Apostle Paul must address everything you think he should?

 

Are you saying you've never changed your mind on something because of facts before?

 

No, and I've chaged my mind several times re: Bible doctrine. From RCC to evangelical, from Arminian to Reformed, from pre-trib rapture to pre-wrath; from evolutionism to creationism, etc. I hope we're all in process of becoming more learned, more humble, and willing to change when presented with the uncontrovertible data.

 

How is it arrogant to speak the truth?

 

Well, isn't it just Spong's version of the truth? And don't people on this very site accuse me of arrogance when I present what I see as Biblical truth & bwhen I quote Scripture? You cannot have it both ways - if Christians are arrogant - well then to be consistent, so is Spong. It's that simple.

 

Like I said, there are Christians out there who want to burn even Billy Graham and Rick Warren books and other bible translations that aren't KJV, so why is it hard to believe that closed minded Christians do exist? pretending closed minded Christians do not exist does nothing to solve the problem. Bishop Spong has even been nearly shot at by these same Christians you claim are "true" Christians and there's even been fundamentalist Christians who have sent Bishop Spong bomb threats simply because they think he's going to hell, so how can you say these people don't exist?

 

I would be very comfortable challenging the faith of any of these people you referred to - these are not actions consistent with Christianity. They could be believers who've given into temptation - and they need to be lovingly yet firmly confronted about their sin. As I said - I don't deny these people exist - I deny that they are taken seriously by Christendom.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

What about Ed? Has anyone really taken his whining seriously - other than close, loyal friends blinded by personal allegiance? I have heard only calls for him to repent f his sin, reconcile his relationships, and never return to Christian ministry.

The point about Ted Haggard was that he blamed others for his own hypocrisy and that there are in fact Christians who blame others for their own mistakes.

 

 

This is just an inference on your part - as I said, fundies are generally motivated by a love for and defense of the truth. And I have been to fundy churches and conferences. Fear & insecurity aren't dominant issues - they see an opposition to Biblcal ethics that they believe will be deleterious to our society - which I agree with - I just didn't agree with their legalism and their methods to address opposition to Christianity. But generally, I found them to be caring people. Nothing more than that.

This is precisely what Spong is referring to when he says fundamentalists are fearful. If these fundamentalists were not fearful, why are they so afraid of diversity and the mere thought of anyone other than a "true" Christian having freedom and rights? If they were truly not fearful people, they would accept that people who live different lives from them exist and they wouldn't have to force their beliefs on others through their abuse of government authority to get people to believe them. That the only way they can get people to accept their views is to ban anyone who doesn't share the same views as them shows to me just how insecure they are.

 

 

 

Your Grandm says proudly she's a "bigot?" She uses that exact word with the same meaning you place on that word? Or does she mean that she believes in a Biblical God & ethic - which condemns homosexuality as a depraved sin that should not be flaunted in our society? Again, I would agree that all people have freedom to express their views; and all others have the right to challenge any view different than their own. I wouldn't use your Grandma as characteristic of conservative Christianity.

Yes, she flat out said she was a bigot. And while other conservative Christians may not state their views as bluntly as my grandma, the Pew group has done surveys that show the more frequently Christians went to church, the more closed minded they were, so this is hardly the view of a minority group of conservatives.

 

I don;t know the date of Spong's youtube adventure - but actually due to the fine work of Dr. Albert Mohler and other conservative scholars - most of the dishonest liberal professors at SBC seminaries have been canned - and the SBC is now even more decidedly conservative. And only a few liberal SBC churches have sought to leave the SBC. SO Spong is just wrong - again!

I think you're missing Spong's point. Spong's point was that the mere fact the SBC had to even vote on homosexuality is enough evidence that they've lost the debate because if it was so self-evident homosexuality is immoral, why would they have to even bother reaffirming their belief?

 

But where in 1 Timothy does the author ever indicate that he's only addressing women's roles in the church and why did it take Christians so long to figure it out that the bible does not forbid women the right to vote or to have secular leadership roles?

 

Well, isn't it just Spong's version of the truth? And don't people on this very site accuse me of arrogance when I present what I see as Biblical truth & bwhen I quote Scripture? You cannot have it both ways - if Christians are arrogant - well then to be consistent, so is Spong. It's that simple.

Because there's a difference between stating the facts as they are and insisting that everyone must agree with you on your beliefs. Furthermore, Spong is not threatening everyone who doesn't agree with them with eternal torture after they die.

[Shyone]

That the only way they can get people to accept their views is to ban anyone who doesn't share the same views as them shows to me just how insecure they are.

They effectively ban anyone simply by saying that those who do not conform are "not True Christians^TM." In that way, they contend that only their views are the right ones, and all True Christians^TM agree with them - which is right by definition.

[chefranden]

In my humble opinion, an effort to rescue the bible from fundamentalism is a fools errand.

 

It is high time to write an altogether new bible so that 2000 years from now it can be rescued from the new fundamentalists.

[oddbird1963]

Fundamentalism's view of scripture is that all things in one's life should be filtered through a literal translation of scripture. You can't rescue the bible from that group of people.

 

Any scripture should be filtered by a process that lies outside of sacred text. In other words, thee is no one set of scripture that contains all necessary Truth. There are truths in just about any scripture, but those truths can only be taken so far or you have a circular, delusional process in control of the way you think.

 

The only way to rescue the Bible from Fundamentalism is to change the way fundamentalists think about scriptures. Good luck with that.

[Neon Genesis]

In my humble opinion, an effort to rescue the bible from fundamentalism is a fools errand.

 

 

I don't think it's entirely impossible to rescue the bible from fundamentalists. Protestants rescued the bible from the Catholics before and Christianity went through a reformation in the past. It's all in the matter in how successfully can progressive Christianity promote their faith in the marketplace of ideas.

[Deva]

Yes, there is no rescuing the Bible. There is some truth in it - scattered around. But its all been said before elsewhere and in a better way. It should be trashed.

[dagnarus]

I don't think it's entirely impossible to rescue the bible from fundamentalists. Protestants rescued the bible from the Catholics before and Christianity went through a reformation in the past. It's all in the matter in how successfully can progressive Christianity promote their faith in the marketplace of ideas.

 

The bible speaks of committing genocide on the heathen, killing non-virgin brides, hating one own family for the sake of the religion, and how everyone not subscribing to it's believe needs to get stomped. Even if you don't take this stuff literally it has a horrible message, For the majority of the thing the only way to get an actually good message out of it is to either ignore it or interpret it the exact opposite of what it says. I agree with Randen, rewrite.

[Neon Genesis]

But then Plato also supported slavery yet that doesn't mean we go around saying the rest of Plato's philosophy is therefore useless. Ayn Rand was a homophobe yet does that mean libertarian atheists shouldn't read her because of that?

[dagnarus]

But then Plato also supported slavery yet that doesn't mean we go around saying the rest of Plato's philosophy is therefore useless. Ayn Rand was a homophobe yet does that mean libertarian atheists shouldn't read her because of that?

 

Personally I look upon this as a red herring. Plato's works are not looked upon as being divinely inspired, neither are Ayn Rand's. The bible is however looked upon as being divinely inspired by Christianity, whether it be liberal or fundamentalist (although maybe not Spong). This will therefore make it difficult for any such group to be able to ignore the nastier aspects of the bible.

 

Now if they were to rewrite the bible with all the "uninspired" bits left out then they could potentially have a good book, filled with good teaching. That said just as chefranden said that would just have to be rescued from the future fundamentalists. The best course of action would undoubtedly be for them to simply admit the whole thing is a man made work. Then they can read it and appreciate it for what it is, part man's search for understanding, part tool to control the population, and a pinch of actually good advice.

[Neon Genesis]

That's the kind of Christian reform Spong is advocating for. Spong believes the bible is purely a human made document and that it is not divinely inspired by God but it was written by humans who were in search of God.

[dagnarus]

In which case I'd tend to think that the term rescuing, is somewhat misleading. That and if he were going that far he wouldn't be rescuing the bible from fundamentalism but rather from Christianity as a whole.

[Neon Genesis]

The title for Spong's book probably has more to do with his publishing company than Spong himself though since Spong has said before that his publishing company ends up choosing a different title for most of his books then what he proposes, so I don't think Spong has much control over what titles his publishing company wants to use for his books.

[dagnarus]

Fair enough.

[rayskidude]

That's the kind of Christian reform Spong is advocating for. Spong believes the bible is purely a human made document and that it is not divinely inspired by God but it was written by humans who were in search of God.

 

Well - here's some comments on Chap 1. I'll use shorter posts to make communication (hopefully) more efficient & effective.

 

(1) He says that he one day realized Paul's quotes of Jesus (if authentic) were from oral tradiation. My answer - "Well, DUHHHHH!!!!

But then Spong goes on to disparage oral traditions and reliance upon memory >> but he gives NO DATA. He assumes problems with this system, but he bases that on our memory system - what nonsense!

 

Reinventing Jesus has an entire chapter that addresses the role of memory in that culture,and how memories were well-preserved. It's just stupid to compare our use of memory with theirs. And Hugh Schonfeld, Jewish historian of first century history & religion, author of The Passover Plot is certainly no conservative Christian - he states that its known that Mark took notes of what Peter related about the teachings and actions of Jesus - and there's nothing that precludes the Apostles from taking and maintaining notes from their eyewitness observations.

 

Genghis Khan used memory effectively to fight battles across 100's of mile of a battle lines. How did he maintain his strategy with all his units? By using mneumonic devices to make sure orders were understood and remembered - often putting his battle commands to music. So SPong shows a great ignorance of history and the ability of memory to be effectively used and preserved.

 

(2) His Mom saw God as father & judge. Well, his Mom's faith was certainly defective. No mention of God's love, grace, forgiveness, mercy - how does this qualify as a Biblical faith???

 

(3) He disparages "literal" reading of Scripture. But Christians don't read the Bible literally - we read the Bible "naturally" - we recognize various genres such as historical narrative, parables, poetry, prophecy, allegory, etc - and we read the passages naturally and appropriately. One example - he states that the Bible forbids jewelry - but please read Luke 15:22; Zech 3:4; Gen 41:42; Dan 5:7,16,29. God speaks of rings and jewelry as signs of His blessing of prosperity. Again, more nonsense from Spong.

 

(4) Spong asks why should timeless, eternal, unchanging truth be in one old book? I ask "Why not?" So he just shows his bias again.

[rayskidude]

That's the kind of Christian reform Spong is advocating for. Spong believes the bible is purely a human made document and that it is not divinely inspired by God but it was written by humans who were in search of God.

 

(1) Spong talks about the Aramaic language of Jesus - fine, this presents no problem. But it's a well-known fact thbat koine Greek was the lingua franca for that part of the world. Which, of course, is the reason that the NT was written in koine Greek.

 

(2) So Spong goes into his camel vs rope deal - wher hwe claims that camel yeilds a "mixed metaphor" - to which I reply "SO what?" Maybe that was done for further effect. But even if 'rope' is the proper word - Spong admits that the meaing of the passage is not changed at all.

 

(3) He speaks of the sin of adultery - and somehow Abraham & Isaac didn't take that seriously - since they exposed their wives to adultery. I grant that they sinned grievously. But they also lied, and showed a lack of faith in God. And yet both accounts show God's protection of His people DESPITE their sin. And God turned the tables and He used Abrahma's sin to educate the pagan peoples about the true God. And all sermons/lessons taught on the passage by Christians criticize both Abraham & Isaac. So does Spong think we're blind to their sin or that we don't condemn their sin? What is his point?

 

(4) Spong says Moses was a murderer. Really? Ask yourself this - If you personally we're among the race of slaves and you saw your own countrymen being beaten and horribly mistreated by a member of the elite class - and you came to their rescue, and ended up killing a specifc criminal - would you consider yourself a murderer? Would you condemn Moses to capital punishment for this crime?

 

Would you convict a Jewish concentration camp prisoner of murder if they killed a cruel guard?

 

But read the entire passage >> keep in mind that Moses did take matters into his own hands, which the Jews recognized - for which God exiled him the Midian for 40 years. Why? I beleive to humble Moses - God doesn't need human means to accomplish His goals. And Moses was humble - because he had been bold to kill the Egyptian, but now he's reluctant to face Pharoah and lead the Jewish nation - even at God's command.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

 

 

(3) He disparages "literal" reading of Scripture. But Christians don't read the Bible literally - we read the Bible "naturally" - we recognize various genres such as historical narrative, parables, poetry, prophecy, allegory, etc - and we read the passages naturally and appropriately.

And yet how come Christians can't agree on how to read the bible? You claim Christians read the bible "naturally", but how do you determine what to read naturally? Is the book of Job a poetry book or is it a historical account? Does Revelation speak of a literal Rapture and will there literally be microchips with the mark of the beast on them or is all that symbolic? You have to know the genre but Christians can't even agree on what genres the biblical books should be classified as, so how can Christians claim to read it "naturally"?

 

One example - he states that the Bible forbids jewelry - but please read Luke 15:22; Zech 3:4; Gen 41:42; Dan 5:7,16,29. God speaks of rings and jewelry as signs of His blessing of prosperity. Again, more nonsense from Spong.

How do you explain the obvious contradiction with 1 Timothy 2:8-9 then?

I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; 9also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes,

 

Spong asks why should timeless, eternal, unchanging truth be in one old book? I ask "Why not?" So he just shows his bias again

So, why did God need to send Jesus to give the Christians a new revelation in the NT? If one book is good enough for God, why wasn't the OT good enough for God?

 

(2) So Spong goes into his camel vs rope deal - wher hwe claims that camel yeilds a "mixed metaphor" - to which I reply "SO what?" Maybe that was done for further effect. But even if 'rope' is the proper word - Spong admits that the meaing of the passage is not changed at all.

Spong's point is that words and meanings can be lost in translation and English translations can sometimes fail to capture the feeling of the original. It might not have any impact in those instances, but there are instances where it does have an impact. In his book Jesus Interrupted, the biblical scholar Bart D Ehrman brings up that in the story of Jesus and Nicodemus in the gospel of John, the phrase "born again" does not exist in Aramic. The phrase is dependent on a Greek pun that doesn't exist in Aramic and this has grave implications on how historically accurate this passage is if it's impossible to exist in the Aramic language.

 

Spong says Moses was a murderer. Really? Ask yourself this - If you personally we're among the race of slaves and you saw your own countrymen being beaten and horribly mistreated by a member of the elite class - and you came to their rescue, and ended up killing a specific criminal - would you consider yourself a murderer? Would you condemn Moses to capital punishment for this crime?

But Moses was supposedly an authoritative figure when he was an Egyptian, so why didn't Moses use his power to stop the Egyptian? And Moses later commands the murder of the Isrealites who worshiped the golden calf, where was the justification then? What was the justification for God to murder the innocent babies with the angel of death?

 

Would you convict a Jewish concentration camp prisoner of murder if they killed a cruel guard?

Expect Moses wasn't as a concentration camp prisoner. He had higher authority over the cruel guard and could have easily used his authority to stop him if he wanted to.

[Shyone]

In his book Jesus Interrupted, the biblical scholar Bart D Ehrman brings up that in the story of Jesus and Nicodemus in the gospel of John, the phrase "born again" does not exist in Aramic. The phrase is dependent on a Greek pun that doesn't exist in Aramic and this has grave implications on how historically accurate this passage is if it's impossible to exist in the Aramic language.

 

What was the justification for God to murder the innocent babies with the angel of death?

I have always thought that while the gospel writers were busy writing all of the clever things that they thought Jesus would have said (using the same inspired method used today, 'What would Jesus have said'), that they would have written things that were familiar to them out of whole cloth.

 

It would be like if Jesus told the parable of the pointy toed cowboy boots; they are more useful than bare feet or sandals for stomping cockroaches in corners. It would make sense to me (being from Texas), but probably not to a culture that had never seen a cowboy boot - or any boot with pointy toes.

 

----

 

Killing innocents is big in the bible. Every parent knows how much it hurts to lose a child, even if they have never lost one. And if you wanted to really hurt someone, you couldn't hurt them worse then to kill their children.

 

It all makes sense when talking about inflicting pain on enemies - until we stop to think of the children themselves. Are children merely pawns in a game of "let's see who can hurt the other more"?

 

I'd like to jam a pointy toed cowboy boot into the ass of whoever thought up the idea of killing children to hurt their parents. Despicable.

[Neon Genesis]

 

It would be like if Jesus told the parable of the pointy toed cowboy boots; they are more useful than bare feet or sandals for stomping cockroaches in corners. It would make sense to me (being from Texas), but probably not to a culture that had never seen a cowboy boot - or any boot with pointy toes.

I also sincerely doubt that if the passage about the camels and the eye of a needle was mistranslated in English that it would have no impact on how Christians read the bible whatsoever. For as long as I can remember, Christians have always tried to come up with witty explanations to explain how Jesus' metaphor of the eye of the needle makes logical sense. Like I've heard historical exploitations that the eye was the name of a gate or something, but if this passage is a mistranslation, then all those "historically accurate" claims about how Jesus was talking about a gate have been completely disproved yet Ray wants us to believe that a mistranslation has no impact on Christian faith whatsoever.

[Shyone]

 

It would be like if Jesus told the parable of the pointy toed cowboy boots; they are more useful than bare feet or sandals for stomping cockroaches in corners. It would make sense to me (being from Texas), but probably not to a culture that had never seen a cowboy boot - or any boot with pointy toes.

I also sincerely doubt that if the passage about the camels and the eye of a needle was mistranslated in English that it would have no impact on how Christians read the bible whatsoever. For as long as I can remember, Christians have always tried to come up with witty explanations to explain how Jesus' metaphor of the eye of the needle makes logical sense. Like I've heard historical exploitations that the eye was the name of a gate or something, but if this passage is a mistranslation, then all those "historically accurate" claims about how Jesus was talking about a gate have been completely disproved yet Ray wants us to believe that a mistranslation has no impact on Christian faith whatsoever.

So Ray says it's a mistranslation, and you say it was written in Greek by a Greek.

 

It seems to me that either explanation destroys any idea of inerrancy of the bible.

 

Am I mischaracterizing someone?

[Neon Genesis]

The Greek pun about the born again phrase was from a different story. But in the story about where Jesus says it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than a rich man to enter heaven, Ray is arguing that even if it was a mistranslation, it has no impact at all on how Christians interpret the bible and it's no big deal. I used a different story where Jesus tells Nicodemus to be born again as an example of how meaning can be lost in translation and how these issues can impact how we read the bible but I don't buy Ray's argument that the mistranslation of the verse about camels and the eye of the needle has no impact on Christianity because it does have an impact on traditional Christian explanations of this passage. Why did God divinely inspire the original authors of the bible but he didn't inspire the translators and why don't Christians ever explain why he didn't inspire the translators?

[rayskidude]

You claim Christians read the bible "naturally", but how do you determine what to read naturally? Is the book of Job a poetry book or is it a historical account? Does Revelation speak of a literal Rapture and will there literally be microchips with the mark of the beast on them or is all that symbolic? You have to know the genre but Christians can't even agree on what genres the biblical books should be classified as, so how can Christians claim to read it "naturally"?

 

Job is obviously an historical account - but when people speak, we all use colloquialisms, figures of speech, play-on-words, etc so all those could be there, as well. It's almost always not rocket science to determine genre. That people don't always agree? Gee, wht do you insist that Christians must all be so monolithic? We have no problem 'agreeing to disagree' about theological points that are not crucial to salvation.

 

And where do you get rapture and microchips from Revelation?

 

How do you explain the obvious contradiction with 1 Timothy 2:8-9 then?

I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; 9also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes,

 

What obvious contradiction?? Paul simply states that women are to place a higher priority on inner character and modest dress rather than outer expensive clothing and jewelry. Where do you see a prohibition against jewelry?

 

So, why did God need to send Jesus to give the Christians a new revelation in the NT? If one book is good enough for God, why wasn't the OT good enough for God?

 

Since you claim to have a knowledge of Scripture - go back and read Hebrews. And then Gal 4:4; then Deut 18:15 - then Acts 3; then Isa 52 & 53; then Luke chap 2; Matt 1:21 - why Jesus got His name and what He would do and where He would rule. Is this news to you - that God has a plan that He performs in His time to accomplish His holy purposes? Do you have difficulty reading books and determining the theme? The Bible is a book - to be read like other literature with people and accounts and events and meaning; yet the Bible also presents the eternal message of divine grace which conquers evil and sin to redeem the lost. Are you saying God is wrong to limit His revelation & inspiration to 60% of human history? Do you feel left out & cheated that God doesn't employ direct revealtion today???

 

Spong's point is that words and meanings can be lost in translation and English translations can sometimes fail to capture the feeling of the original. It might not have any impact in those instances, but there are instances where it does have an impact. In his book Jesus Interrupted, the biblical scholar Bart D Ehrman brings up that in the story of Jesus and Nicodemus in the gospel of John, the phrase "born again" does not exist in Aramic. The phrase is dependent on a Greek pun that doesn't exist in Aramic and this has grave implications on how historically accurate this passage is if it's impossible to exist in the Aramic language.

 

Spong has no point. And BTW - I never said this was a mistranslation that didn't matter - as some have claimed that I said. I stated that Spong had no point - because he even admitted that this error of either translation or transcrption made no difference in the passage. I maintain that the translation is fine - if some think it's a mixed metaphor - that's your prerogative. BTW, are you absolutely sure this was not a local colloqualism of that time?

 

And re: Bartman's statement - hogwash, pure & simple. It makes no difference that the phrase "born again" doesn't occur in Aramaic. Do you know what lingua franca means? Koine Greek was the lingus franca of the Eastern Mediteranean area, a language which everyone spoke, primarily for business purposes. If you go to Armenia today - people speak Armenian & Russian - sometimes interchangebly >> and employing jokes and "sayings' from each language. In India, its Hindi and the local vernacular; in the Philippine - its togalog and the local language; in Kenya its kiSwahili and the local language!!! Have you spoken to, or overheard even 2nd generation Hispanic people in America converse - it's a combo of English & Spanish - whatever works best in a given situation.

 

This is cultural ignorance - bordering on stupidity - pure & simple. In much of the world - even today - multiple langauges are spoken by people in everyday discourse. They will employ the language which communicates what they want to say. I am shocked that Bartman is ignorant of what happpens a myraid of times everyday on this planet. So guess what >> Jesus spoke Aramaic and Greek (and maybe other langauges, too); using whichever language suited His purpose. Do you deny Him that freedom? Must He speak only in the language that YOU want Him to speak in?

 

If this level of 'scholarship' is the best that you all can come up with - this is going to be a very disappointing discussion.

 

But Moses was supposedly an authoritative figure when he was an Egyptian, so why didn't Moses use his power to stop the Egyptian? And Moses later commands the murder of the Isrealites who worshiped the golden calf, where was the justification then? What was the justification for God to murder the innocent babies with the angel of death?

 

First, let me note that you did not answer my question - and I know why; because you would not have considered yourself a murderer under those conditions. Ergo, you bring up other situations that Spong does not. We can get to those, when Spong does.

 

Expect Moses wasn't as a concentration camp prisoner. He had higher authority over the cruel guard and could have easily used his authority to stop him if he wanted to.

 

Again - you assume all this (from a Bible you don't trust, BTW). But how do you know that Moses could have easily used his authority to stop this? Are you sure Moses wasn't on the 'outs' with Pharoah? Moses fled when his action became known - where did all his authority go? Why couldn't he just throw his royal weight around and justify his action by saying he was protecting Pharoah's assets(healthy slaves)?

 

Seems to me, that if it were so easy, he would have. Because his actions caused his exile from his khown family and people to Midian. But obviously, something drove him to protect his countrymen - even to the point of killing the cruel slave-master. And yet - you would convict him of murder when he came to the rescue of helpless slaves - what does that say about you?