I just started reading an English translation and I think it is quite facniating. I wanted to see how many others here have read it. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Most people can't even be bothered to read the bible from cover to cover...
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Well thats because... you know I'm not really sure why that is. Last time I tried reading it was when I was 12 and I fell asleep in the process.
(then again I also fell asleep listening to the boring sermons from my minister) /not making fun, he was just very old and didn't make it exciting for kids/
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I was 14 when I read it. I was the only one in my sunday school class who took my faith seriously. (and as far as I know, I was the only one who lost it.)
I'm interested in reading the Quran. I think it's important to understand our enemies(*). But I think, being in a generally christian nation, I would re-read the bible first as it has more direct impact on my life.
Pix
(*) Standard disclaimer... Not all muslims are our enemies. Just the Terrorists and their support network.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'm waiting for the movie. Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Actually from what I've read it seems like Al Quada and Osama are doing everything they can to piss off Alah (think I'm spelling it right). Every act that they claim is done in his name is like an insult to the entire Muslim people and their faith. And I have yet to find anthing that suggests that Muslim women should be restricted so much. But then again I have barely gotten through the second chapter.
And Karl, not likely the Quran is not as... easily surmised into a form of media the way Gibson did with the Passion. Still don't have much love for that movie, after all for being so realistic they forgot to add that JESUS WAS BLACK!
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
You can't single out any on thing in the Quaran to make a movie out of it. Its too complex to be done. But maybe you can find an Audio tape of the Quaran if you don't have the patience to read it.
Is that better Karl?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
1. My first post was a joke. 2. I was not confused at all about your point on the difficulty of making the Quran into a movie. 3. My first post was a joke.
quote:JESUS WAS BLACK!
Joke? I don't get it. Serious? I don't get it.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Karl, I think it was a Dogma reference.
Everyone knows Jesus had long, pantene shiney, dishwater blond with blue eyes. Hippy.
Pix
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Actually, recent archaeological evidence suggests that Jesus was much more likely to have been a Prell user.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
You have your sect and I'll have mine. We'll have lots and lots of sects.
Posted by amira tharani (Member # 182) on :
I'm a Muslim and I am ashamed to admit that I haven't read the Qur'an all the way through. I know bits of it, especially the bits that crop up in the daily prayers, but I certainly haven't read it as a whole.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: You have your sect and I'll have mine. We'll have lots and lots of sects.
You're on. I think we can both agree, though, that the people who claim he used Pert are filthy lying heretics.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Technically, If its not in the original Arabic, its not the Qur'an. I have read the english translation of some excerts.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I've read about a third of it for school, as part of our 'Texts and Traditions' cirriculum.
I'll be going back and reading more as part of my preparation and research for my thesis.
Its very interesting in terms of a) its unique perspective and b) its comparision to the popular beliefs about social Islam. I distinctly remember some of my classmates having a difficult time accepting what they were reading as it seemed so dissimilar to what teachers and the media havae told us about Islam.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Shanna, I'll bet you'd get the same reaction with the differences between modern Christianity and the Bible.
I sometimes wonder about the differences between Mormonism and the Book of Mormon, myself.
It's all in the interpretations.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Very true Jenna. When we did our reading excerpts from the Bible, I tried to raise that exact point. But as most of my classmates attended Catholic schooling all their life, the topic was too close to them to accept the possibility of contradiction.
I actually need to find some Mormon missionaries. I had Mormon friends in high school, but as their religion made our Christian friends umcomfortable, we never discussed matters of faith. The Book of Mormon has been on my list of future reads for awhile now. I'll just have to find the time.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I've read only excerpts from the Quran. As for the Bible, I'd love to say I've read the whole thing through. I participated in a "read the Bible in a year program" but I'm going to be honest - I skipped through parts of Chronicles and some of the minor prophets.
I can say I've read the entire New Testament, many times.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I read the Quran, but I was rather young when I did.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: You have your sect and I'll have mine. We'll have lots and lots of sects.
And if one of your sects has a string orchestra, you can have sects and violins.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: I just started reading an English translation and I think it is quite facniating. I wanted to see how many others here have read it.
Not translation. Interpretation. Muslims are 100% when they say that reading the Qur'an in anything but the original Arabic isn't actually reading the Qur'an.
I've read parts of it. I was less than impressed with the part about Abraham being commanded to sacrifice Ishmael.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Technically, If its not in the original Arabic, its not the Qur'an. I have read the english translation of some excerts.
Then again, the same is true of the Hebrew Bible.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I'm waiting for the movie.
When I was little, DC put out a series of oversized comics. I mean, gigantic. Like 20"x15" or something. One of them was a graphic novel version of the Bible. I used to have that, but I don't any more.
Everything is easier to read in graphic novel form. I've never actually read Huck Finn. Reading in dialect annoyed me too much. When we did the book in high school, I relied on the Classics Illustrated version I'd read (and the animated movie).
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
I got a free Quran in the mail a while ago, but I haven't had the time to read any of it. Can anybody point me to a list of the most important sections or some website that would help me get the most out of my limited time available for reading it?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Hey (sL) that's great. I'll settle for the graphic novel version. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Technically, If its not in the original Arabic, its not the Qur'an. I have read the english translation of some excerts.
Then again, the same is true of the Hebrew Bible.
As you mentioned, Muslims are in 100% agreement that its not the Qur'an if its not in arabic. In contrast, only a tiny fraction that recognize the Bible as scripture insist that is not The Bible if it has been translated into a modern language. I think that the distinction is real and should be recognized.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Everything is easier to read in graphic novel form.
This, I think, depends on your learning style. I am completely incapable of reading anything in graphic novel form, because my brain is not visually oriented. I get halfway through, realize I am getting nothing out of it, and realize it is because I have been reading the words and not paying any attention to the pictures.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Technically, If its not in the original Arabic, its not the Qur'an. I have read the english translation of some excerts.
Then again, the same is true of the Hebrew Bible.
As you mentioned, Muslims are in 100% agreement that its not the Qur'an if its not in arabic. In contrast, only a tiny fraction that recognize the Bible as scripture insist that is not The Bible if it has been translated into a modern language. I think that the distinction is real and should be recognized.
Since I'm part of that "tiny fraction", I don't accept the distinction you're making.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Everything is easier to read in graphic novel form.
This, I think, depends on your learning style. I am completely incapable of reading anything in graphic novel form, because my brain is not visually oriented. I get halfway through, realize I am getting nothing out of it, and realize it is because I have been reading the words and not paying any attention to the pictures.
Wow. Okay, clearly I'm wrong about that.
I know I read comics differently than a lot of people, too. Once, back in Junior High, I wanted to trace a picture (I think of Supergirl). I had the exact image in my head, and I knew where to look for it. But it turned out that the image I was thinking of never existed. It was midway between two panels in a Supergirl comicbook I owned. The format flows for me so that my mind fills in the blanks between panels, and even though I could "see" what I was looking for in my mind's eye, it was just my imagination.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Hey (sL) that's great. I'll settle for the graphic novel version.
Here you go, KarlEd.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Has anybody ever been to The Brick Testament? Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Hey (sL) that's great. I'll settle for the graphic novel version.
I've actually read The Bible (or for sL, The King James Interpretation of Many Books of So-Called Ancient Scripture Collectively Referred to by Christians as The Bible ) cover to cover a couple of times. It really drags around the middle, but the beginning and ending are pretty good. I'd love to see it made into a Peter Jackson movie. Posted by Fahim (Member # 5482) on :
I first read the Bible (from cover to cover) when I was around seven I think. It was heavy going in parts for a seven year old but I was fascinated. It was about seven more years before I would actually read the Qur'an all the way through I think Or maybe it was three. I've read the Qur'an all the way through a couple of times since then but the thing is, at least here in Sri Lanka, we are taught how to read in Arabic but we have no idea what we are reading Fortunately, I lived a year in Saudi Arabia and know a smattering of Arabic. But I don't believe a translation does full justice.
But then again, even if you know Arabic, would you truly comprehend what is there or would you make your own interpretation of things? Muslims today interpret certain things in the Qur'an to suit their needs or forget certain things because they are "socially" accepted (or not accepted). The problem to me is that religion, no matter which religion, is only as good as the people who practice it. And the problem is with the people ... Yes, I'll get off my soap box now Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Since I'm part of that "tiny fraction", I don't accept the distinction you're making.
starLisa, So you see no difference what so ever in the fact that 100% of those who recognize the Qur'an as scripture say it is only scripture if it is in Arabic and the fact that the overwhelming majority of those who recognize the Hebrew Bible as scripture see translations as scripture? And your explanation for this is that you can not see the distinction because you are part of a tiny minority. Wow!!
I've never met someone who openly admitted being so completely unable to see beyond their own narrow views.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*bites tongue*
Nope, not gonna say it. Fahim, when I was 8 and 9 I went through my "reading-every-religious-text-I-could-get-my-hands-on" phase. So about the same age. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If you want to be that strict about the Bible, I wouldn't trust much of the Bibles that are sold around the world, especially not in the US.
The Bible we have today is NOT the Bible that was written a couple thousand years ago, and that's leaving the issues with translation out, which make the issue even more complex, and the distance even further.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
A couple thousand years ago??
The Bible is not that old. Some of the writings might be, but not all, and it certainly wasn't compiled that long ago.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Then I suppose what really matters is what you want to believe in. First of all, parts of the Old Testement ARE that old. But really, when does it matter when it was compiled? If all the parts of the Bible were written four thousand years ago (I know, none of them were), but weren't compiled until a couple hundred years ago, then are you really not concerned what changed in those books over the last few thousand years?
Much of what is the modern Bible was assmbled more than 1,500 years ago, and some of the individual books within it go back much further than that. The problem is that PRINTED versions of the Bible don't start popping up until around the 16th century. So you have a good thousand years of hand written Bibles and also non-written stories passed down vocally. By the time the printing press came around to bring some form of standardization, you'd be hard pressed to find more than a couple Bibles in history that are exactly the same.
Copiers changed things becuase of bad memory, because of accidents or carelessness, or simply because they didn't like what the real version said. And then those versions would be further copied and so on and on it went, mutating as it was copied over a thousand years (or more, depending on which section of the Bible).
And that's just in Greek, or other languages that aren't spoken today. Don't forget also how Constantine screwed up the Bible pretty hard core by just plain inventing Latin words to matchup with Greek words that had no equivilant.
To sum up, with the possible exception of old Hebrew texts (which only applies to a few books of the Old Testement), no Bible in the world today is exactly the same as the original Bibles (thank the Romans for that), and we'll never know what is missing.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I read the Qu'ran (translation into English, of course) in high school and for no good reason other than because I was curious. I haven't read it again since, except for bits and pieces here and there. I keep meaning to...
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Hey (sL) that's great. I'll settle for the graphic novel version.
I've actually read The Bible (or for sL, The King James Interpretation of Many Books of So-Called Ancient Scripture Collectively Referred to by Christians as The Bible ) cover to cover a couple of times. It really drags around the middle, but the beginning and ending are pretty good. I'd love to see it made into a Peter Jackson movie.
Someone should start a casting thread.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Since I'm part of that "tiny fraction", I don't accept the distinction you're making.
starLisa, So you see no difference what so ever in the fact that 100% of those who recognize the Qur'an as scripture say it is only scripture if it is in Arabic and the fact that the overwhelming majority of those who recognize the Hebrew Bible as scripture see translations as scripture?
No. Because the overwhelming majority of those who recognize the Hebrew Bible as scripture reject the entire context of the Hebrew Bible. As such, their views don't really count.
Look, a translation of those books may very well be every bit as good as the original for Christians. Better, even. Maybe. But that doesn't concern me. Those books don't say what Christians say they do. And yes, as a member of the people from whom those books were hijacked, I'm unwilling to give any credence to what the hijackers say about our holy books.
The KJV is not a translation of the Hebrew Bible. It is an interpretation. A misinterpretation. It may be a part of the Christian Bible, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Hebrew Bible.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: And your explanation for this is that you can not see the distinction because you are part of a tiny minority. Wow!!
I didn't say that. Go back and reread what I actually did say.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I've never met someone who openly admitted being so completely unable to see beyond their own narrow views.
Not at all. I know something you don't. That doesn't make my view narrow. Merely more informed.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: A couple thousand years ago??
The Bible is not that old. Some of the writings might be, but not all, and it certainly wasn't compiled that long ago.
'Scuze? You're quite mistaken. Everything in the Hebrew Bible predates the Common Era by centuries. The latest of the books in the Hebrew Bible being Chronicles, which was finished before Alexander crossed the Macedonian borders.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The problem is that PRINTED versions of the Bible don't start popping up until around the 16th century.
The oldest known complete copy of the Hebrew Bible dates to the 10th century CE. And it was known to have been copied in its entirety from earlier copies. No one even posits that it was assembled in the 10th century.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Copiers changed things becuase of bad memory, because of accidents or carelessness, or simply because they didn't like what the real version said.
That's an interesting theory. But you're not acquainted with the rigor involved in copying biblical books among the Jews. One letter being wrong renders the entire book invalid and unusable until fixed. And since there are religious requirements regarding the use of these books, it wasn't a trivial issue.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: To sum up, with the possible exception of old Hebrew texts (which only applies to a few books of the Old Testement),
Actually, with the exception of Daniel, which is mostly written in Aramaic, and Ezra, which has a number of passages written in Aramaic, every single book of what you call the "Old Testament" is one of those "old Hebrew texts". I don't know where you got the idea otherwise. No Romans had any influence whatsoever on the content of the Hebrew Bible. They didn't even know the language; they could hardly have interfered.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The problem is that PRINTED versions of the Bible don't start popping up until around the 16th century.
The oldest known complete copy of the Hebrew Bible dates to the 10th century CE. And it was known to have been copied in its entirety from earlier copies. No one even posits that it was assembled in the 10th century.
What's your point? Or rather, how does your point fit the quotation you used?
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:Everything in the Hebrew Bible predates the Common Era by centuries.
The post I was referring to didn't say HEBREW Bible. That would have made a big difference.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Copiers changed things becuase of bad memory, because of accidents or carelessness, or simply because they didn't like what the real version said.
That's an interesting theory. But you're not acquainted with the rigor involved in copying biblical books among the Jews. One letter being wrong renders the entire book invalid and unusable until fixed. And since there are religious requirements regarding the use of these books, it wasn't a trivial issue.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: To sum up, with the possible exception of old Hebrew texts (which only applies to a few books of the Old Testement),
Actually, with the exception of Daniel, which is mostly written in Aramaic, and Ezra, which has a number of passages written in Aramaic, every single book of what you call the "Old Testament" is one of those "old Hebrew texts". I don't know where you got the idea otherwise. No Romans had any influence whatsoever on the content of the Hebrew Bible. They didn't even know the language; they could hardly have interfered.
The only way your first point has any merit against my argument, is if you are suggesting that only Jews have ever copied Bibles around the world. I wasn't aware of the great Jewish tradition of copying Christian Bibles, but heck, maybe they were just good at calligraphy, you'd know that better than I would. So far as the Hebrew Bible goes, I have nothing to contradict you with there, I just don't know, but the Bible, as in, the Christian Bible, to which I am mostly referring to, well, I don't see how you could make that claim.
On your second point. Oops. You're right. With the exception that I find it hard to believe that no one, even scholars of the Roman Empire knew how to speak Hebrew.
Edit to add:
What I call the "old testament" is what billions around the world call the "old testament."
Shanna -
The "Hebrew Bible" or Old Testament is the first half of the Bible. You're still at least half wrong or all wrong depending on your interpretation.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Not at all. I know something you don't. That doesn't make my view narrow. Merely more informed.
I'm still not clear what it is you know that I or the approximately 1 billion citizens of the planet who consider translations of the Hebrew Bible to be scripture do not know. Perhaps when you could be more precise about what knowledge I'm lacking.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I think the Muslims and Jews that are adamant about maintaining the true original words of their holy texts are totally on the right track.
The Jews have been very careful about maintaining a character-by-character exact written record as far back as is possible, as have the Muslims. The fact that the vast majority of Muslims feel the original is the only true version and only a small fraction of Jews feel the same way is interesting to note.
Christians, so far as I know, have no care whatsoever about original languages, yet many will argue at the top of their voices about specific quotations justifying this or that or the other thing.
My opinion on the matter is if you're going to have faith in the text itself, you have to have the original source of the words. starLisa has very strong faith in her holy text, in its original, and I'm sure feels only distaste for those who speak of later language variations on the original as the "real thing".
However, as most of the world is not able to read Hebrew, they must rely on variations of the text in different languages if they are to have any access or understanding of the Jewish faith. The same can be said about the Quran (though there are far more speakers of Arabic than Hebrew, surely).
It's good that Advent is reading the English variation/interpretation/translation of the Quran to gain some insight into a culture that is foreign to him. It's good to read english language versions of the Hebrew Bible, as well. It gives you a greater picture on how people different from yourself think.
Of course, you can't then argue "this is what they mean!" or "this is what they believe!", since you are essentially playing a game of telephone. The best you can hope for is to ask a native speaker "Is this what this passage means? Can you help me understand?"
I would never think to read an English variant of the Hebrew Bible and tell starLisa what it says as if that were truth. But, if a passage struck me as strange or odd, I might ask her to give me the skinny on what the original says.
Now, I'm not one to take any written source as the ultimate "truth" - nor am I one to believe that any words were divinely inspired, or that anyone was divinely directed to write something down. That's what makes me somewhat areligious.
But for some nut to quote chapter and verse of the King James Bible as though it were literal, exact, direct-from-God's-mouth truth is just plain silly. That's a loooong way down the game of telephone.
That doesn't mean the KJV doesn't have meaning and wisdom, nor does it mean an english variation of the Hebrew Bible or Quran doesn't have truth or wisdom. Those are just not things one can get fanatically devout about, in my opinion, without coming off as willfully deluded.
That is not to say I don't feel people who believe in an original source as ultimate truth aren't (in some entirely different way) willfully deluded, but that's a matter of my not holding the same faith or beliefs as they do.
So, to cap a very long post, good show to Advent for opening his mind to new points of view, and to anyone who picks up a holy book (or other language variant) of a culture to broaden their horizons and maybe pick up some wisdom along the way.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It should be noted that most people reading a 3000-year old text are reading a translation, even if the paper contains the exact same characters. This is especially true for those whose first language differs from the language of the text.
Most people reading a second language are actually translating as they read, not reading in the second language. Of course, there are lots of people who do read in the actual language, and they probably do most of the reading of those texts that is done.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Christians, so far as I know, have no care whatsoever about original languages, yet many will argue at the top of their voices about specific quotations justifying this or that or the other thing.
That would come as a surprise to the thousands of Christian clergy who are required to study the original languages as a requirement for ordination. (For example, all the Presbyterians.) And even the ones who are not required by their denomination but only strongly encouraged.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
All presbyterians are required to speak and read Hebrew and Aramaic? Wow. Didn't know that. Guess that falls under the "so far as I know" category.
So, I retract "no care whatsoever" and replace it with "almost no care whatsoever". The thousands taken as a very small percentage of the several hundred million Christians in the world.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
All Presbyterian clergy are required to read Biblical Hebrew and Greek.
And I'm using that as an example -- the presbys have one of the most academically rigorous sets of ordination requirements. Some denominations only require Hebrew or Greek. But the ability to read the original languages, at least enough to research particular words, is valued in all the mainline denominations. You will not find a Biblical Studies professor in a mainline seminary who can not read the texts she or he teaches in the original languages.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Interesting to know.
I'm going to imagine that the ratio of "presbyterian clergy and christians who read and understand Biblical Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic" to the number of total Christians in the world has to round to less than a hundredth of a percent - possibly even less than a thousandth of a percent.
But it is nice to know that such folk are out there, and certainly such an absolute statement excluded this very small group. So, please amend that "almost" in there.
[ March 21, 2006, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: FlyingCow ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Not at all. I know something you don't. That doesn't make my view narrow. Merely more informed.
I'm still not clear what it is you know that I or the approximately 1 billion citizens of the planet who consider translations of the Hebrew Bible to be scripture do not know. Perhaps when you could be more precise about what knowledge I'm lacking.
If Scientology were to announce tomorrow that the Christian Bible was part of their new scriptures, along with the Collected Writings of Tom Cruise, and used a "translation" of the Christian Bible that translated "Jesus" as "Xenu", I think most Christians would also reject that as being scripture. They'd claim that they had the Gospels first, and the Gospel "versions" the Scientologists were using were certainly not the real thing. Certainly not to be seen as scripture.
This really isn't any different.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: However, as most of the world is not able to read Hebrew, they must rely on variations of the text in different languages if they are to have any access or understanding of the Jewish faith.
You're completely right. And I don't actually have any problem with translations. So long as the reader is aware that they are reading a translation, and that it is, by necessity, not fully accurate. Not truly what the Hebrew Bible says. No more than an approximation.
I said earlier than I've only read a small amount of the Qur'an in the original. I've read the whole thing in English. I just don't consider that to be the same thing.
And I'll even use an English translation of the Hebrew Bible if I'm looking for something quickly. I can scan when reading English. I can't when reading Hebrew. Or not well. But if I need to know what it really says, I go over to the Hebrew.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
starLisa,
The real distinction I spoke of originally was the distinction between a disputed claim and undisputed claim. All Muslims agree that the Qur'an is only the Qur'an if it is in Arabic. Only a small minority of people in the Judeo-Christian tradition believe that the Bible isn't holy scripture if it isn't in Hebrew. The one position is universally accepted, the other is highly disputed. If you claim to have read the Qur'an, but you read an English translation you are making a claim that all Muslims would see as invalid. If you claim to have read the Bible, but read an English translation rather than the Hebrew, you are making a claim that virtually all Christians and Jews would see as a valid claim. Even if you are one of the minority that view this second claim as invalid, you should be able to see a difference between making a claim based on a widely accepted definition vs making a claim that is contrary to a universally accepted definition.
To see and that accept that distinction, doesn't require one to accept or reject the validity of either claim.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I think that reading any text in its original language can be preferable to reading it in translation, but I also think that people over inflate their ability to read a language that is not their mother tongue accurately. Unless you truly understand all the subtleties of language, your understanding of the original text could easily be worse than translators.
I am a fluent German speaker. I have had numerous upper level (including graduate) German literature courses. I have read scientific papers in German. I have lived and worked in German speaking countries and even taught workshops in German. Still when I have compared German texts to an English translation, I find that when my understanding of the German differs from the translation it is as likely to be my error as the translators. There are subtleties in every language that are often impossible to translate. But at the same time, a non-native speaker often misses those subtleties.
The situation becomes even more complex because the Hebrew Bible and the Qur'an were not written yesterday. Words are not static, their connotations and denotations drift with time. I can think of numerous English words whose meaning has changed substantially during my lifetime. If I read things written only a few generations ago, I find even greater differences. For example, one of the early explorers of the Pacific Northwest referred to the "awful grandeur" of Mt. Rainier. In that context, its pretty obvious that either “awful” or “grandeur” had a substantially different connotation in the 19th century than it has today. But if I came across the word “awful” in another context, that different connotation would likely be invisible to me and I could easily misunderstand the intent of the author.
It is one thing to be able to read the Bible in Hebrew or the Qur'an in Arabic and to understand what the words mean in a modern context. It is an entirely different thing to be able to read the words in Hebrew or Arabic and understand what they meant to the author when they were written. This distinction is particularly important when considering religious texts because the interpretation of scriptures has resulted in changes in the connotation of the words within the language. For example, the connotation of the English word “charity” has changed dramatically because of its use in the King James Bible. The way we understand words like sacrifice, prayer, worship, forgiveness, atonement, etc. have been shaped by centuries of theological debate and religious tradition. If this has happened to English words, it certainly happens to words in other languages as well. When reading a 16th century English text, one could go back to other 16th or even 15th century texts and research the connotation held by the word when it was written. Unfortunately, Moses had no contemporary authors whose works have survived to this day.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: starLisa,
The real distinction I spoke of originally was the distinction between a disputed claim and undisputed claim. All Muslims agree that the Qur'an is only the Qur'an if it is in Arabic. Only a small minority of people in the Judeo-Christian tradition believe that the Bible isn't holy scripture if it isn't in Hebrew.
See, but I don't recognize a "Judeo-Christian tradition" as existing. What Christians think is what Christians think, and it has as much to do with what Jews think as what Scientologists think about what Christians think. If that.
I'm talking about the Hebrew Bible. That's ours. To the extent that it's been co-opted by other religions, they'll obviously do with it as they see fit, but I will reiterate that they are mistaken if they think that their translations of our books are the same as the books themselves.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The one position is universally accepted, the other is highly disputed.
Rabbit, "if 50 million people say a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing." That's Anatole France. The jist of it is that the number of people saying a thing has nothing whatsoever to do with its truth or lack thereof.
So I will repeat that the universality you mention makes no difference.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you claim to have read the Qur'an, but you read an English translation you are making a claim that all Muslims would see as invalid. If you claim to have read the Bible, but read an English translation rather than the Hebrew, you are making a claim that virtually all Christians and Jews would see as a valid claim.
What Christians think about the matter doesn't concern me. Nor does what uneducated Jews think about it. There's a difference between an opinion and an informed opinion. Sheesh.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Even if you are one of the minority that view this second claim as invalid, you should be able to see a difference between making a claim based on a widely accepted definition vs making a claim that is contrary to a universally accepted definition.
No. And again, no. Truth is truth. It does not change because many people espouse it or because few people espouse it. I can't even believe you're suggesting otherwise.
There's an issue of categories here. You're setting up a category of Muslims on the one hand, and a category of "Judeo-Christians" [sic] on the other. I could posit a category of monotheists, give Christians entry to that category simply for the sake of argument, and say that the view that the Qur'an must be read in Arabic to really be the Qur'an is a minority view. That'd be no different than what you're doing.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
That is all true.
In my personal opinion, having an english language translation/adaptation doesn't really make a lick of difference, because I wouldn't be reading any of these holy texts as "truth" or "scripture". I would be reading them to glean whatever wisdom I might.
The Tao te Ching actually starts off saying something along the lines of "the Way that can be spoken of is not the constant Way" and "the Name that can be named is not the true Name". They understood that true meaning can't be carried with words, and that the words are only a shadow of truth. So, the Tao te Ching is flawed, simply by way of it being written or spoken.
That, of course, doesn't mean there is no wisdom in it, or that one shouldn't read it and try to adapt its words to a greater context in their own lives.
I feel the same way about the Bible, the Quran, etc, etc. The exact wording, to me, is not important, because it is not "scripture" to be quoted, and it was not divinely inspired. It's text that holds wisdom and teaching from thousands of years ago, which can be digested and applied to a different context today.
YET, those who feel it important to quote scripture as ultimate truth (read: not me), to focus on some exact literal meaning of the words, cannot, in my opinion, legitimately do so with a non-original version of the text.
All those quoting chapter and verse of the King James Bible while denying variations in other versions seem silly - both versions are adaptations of words not even in the English language.
It's just as silly, to me, as someone reading Shakespeare in Arabic, Greek or Japanese. Shakespeare's great strength is the wordcrafting, and that does not translate to different languages, let alone different alphabets. The same goes with almost any poetry - I mean, look at all the different translations of Homer.
Of course, my focus when reading holy texts is not on the precise wording, but in the overarching messages and wisdom handed down from earlier cultures. Getting too caught up in what is "right" and what is "scripture" and what is "truth" and all that is, to me, not seeing the forest for the trees.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The situation becomes even more complex because the Hebrew Bible and the Qur'an were not written yesterday. Words are not static, their connotations and denotations drift with time.
That's precisely why God gave us the Torah with both written and oral components. And with a system by which it would be taught, so as to maintain the correct meaning.
The 6th commandment is lo tirtzach. We know what that means. In King James' time, they translated it as "Thou shalt not kill", which was fairly accurate. Today, that's a completely inaccurate translation, and does not match the actual meaning of the words. Because retzach, which is what's forbidden in that commandment, doesn't mean "taking a life". That's what "kill" means today, after all: "taking a life". But that's not what it meant at the time of King James. A better translation of that commandment today is "Thou shalt not murder".
We know what the commandment means, in all its details, because we were the ones who received the Torah from God. And He told us what the meaning was. The 8th commandment, ordinarily translated as "Thou shalt not steal"? Is actually a prohibition against stealing a human being. It's a prohibition against kidnapping. The several prohibitions against stealing things appear elsewhere in the Torah.
God didn't just toss us a book and say, "Read up, people. Catch ya later."
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It is one thing to be able to read the Bible in Hebrew or the Qur'an in Arabic and to understand what the words mean in a modern context. It is an entirely different thing to be able to read the words in Hebrew or Arabic and understand what they meant to the author when they were written.
Exactly.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Unfortunately, Moses had no contemporary authors whose works have survived to this day.
Since Moses wasn't the author, that's not really relevant. God was, and He did give us detailed information as to intent.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:See, but I don't recognize a "Judeo-Christian tradition" as existing
OK, so you don't recognize the existance of a religion followed 1.2 billion people and which has existed for over 2000 years. I will remember this in future converstation.
It is clearly impossible to engage in intellegent discussion with someone who does not recognize the existence of my religion and considers my beliefs to be a "foolish thing" .
Our credo here at Hatrack is that we speak with passion and listen with respect. Your clear lack of respect of Christians and Jews who disagree with you is repugnant. If you can not listen and treat other traditions with respect, there is no point in your participating in these discussions.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:That's precisely why God gave us the Torah with both written and oral components. And with a system by which it would be taught, so as to maintain the correct meaning.
This does not solve the problem because the words in both the written and the oral traction drift in their meaning.
Despite the most intense scrutiny and the strictest rules, the written Hebrew Bible has not been preserved with out error for the past 2000 years let alone the past 4000 years. The evidence for this is clear and can not be logically disputed since their are differences between the Masoritic texts and the Qumran texts. It is well known the oral traditions are much more plastic than written texts. What you are claiming is that the Jewish tradition which you follow is fundamentally different from all other human traditions. That while all other human traditions have not been and can not be passed down perfectly over even a few generations let alone thousand of years, yours has been. That claim is a matter of faith. If you expect those who do not share your faith to see it as anything other than idol babling, then you are very naive.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:See, but I don't recognize a "Judeo-Christian tradition" as existing
OK, so you don't recognize the existance of a religion followed 1.2 billion people and which has existed for over 2000 years. I will remember this in future converstation.
Aw, Rabbit. At least pretend to realize that everyone here is capable of reading what I really wrote. It makes no sense whatsoever for you to try and twist my words when my words are right there for anyone to read.
I never said I don't recognize the existence of Christianity. Although the fantasy of "over 2000 years" is a little funny. There was no Christianity 2000 years ago.
I said:
quote:See, but I don't recognize a "Judeo-Christian tradition" as existing
And I repeat it. Judaism and Christianity are not two parts of one thing. There's nothing "Judeo" about Christianity, and there's certainly nothing Christian about Judaism.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It is clearly impossible to engage in intellegent discussion with someone who does not recognize the existence of my religion and considers my beliefs to be a "foolish thing" .
Find where I said I don't recognize the existence of your religion, and I'll take it back. I'll apologize. I'll print it out on the laser printer down the hall, and I will tear it into little pieces and eat each piece. I will jump up onto my desk right here at work and shout at the top of my lungs, "I'm an idiot!"
Alternatively, stop pretending that I said something I didn't.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Our credo here at Hatrack is that we speak with passion and listen with respect.
Does the "listen with respect" part include attributing statements to others that they never said? That's fascinating.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Since Moses wasn't the author, that's not really relevant. God was, and He did give us detailed information as to intent.
The Oral Torah was not written down until the second century CE. It is my understanding that it was not written down, but was passed orally from generation to generation, because it was intended to be fluid. Though it was intended that the principles remain the same, the application of those principles was meant to be adaptable to new times and circumstances. Given this history, it takes an enormous leap of faith to believe that the Oral Torah has preserved unchanged the will of God even when the written Torah could not.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
starLisa, No, I don't think anyone here understands what you mean when you say you "don't recognize a "Judeo-Christian tradition" as existing". Perhaps you can explain it in a way that is less offensive so that I might have some chance of understanding.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:oes the "listen with respect" part include attributing statements to others that they never said? That's fascinating.
What words did I attribute to you that you never said? I thought I cut and pasted them directly from your post. It was not my intent to misrepresent you. If I did, it is because I honestly misunderstood your intent.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
To be completely honest, I didn't even bother to read the first post, much less the Quran...
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:That's precisely why God gave us the Torah with both written and oral components. And with a system by which it would be taught, so as to maintain the correct meaning.
This does not solve the problem because the words in both the written and the oral traction drift in their meaning.
The words aren't as important as the meanings of those words. The words provide an anchor, is all.
For example, the verb nasa in biblical times meant "lift up". By Talmudic times, it was used for "to marry". But there isn't any confusion, because we're always quite aware of the context. We know that when the word is used in the Bible it doesn't mean "marry".
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Despite the most intense scrutiny and the strictest rules, the written Hebrew Bible has not been preserved with out error for the past 2000 years let alone the past 4000 years.
In fact, it has.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The evidence for this is clear and can not be logically disputed since their are differences between the Masoritic texts and the Qumran texts.
The Qumran texts belonged to a small sect in the desert. They weren't a part of the mainstream Jewish culture. Your logic is impaired, Spock.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It is well known the oral traditions are much more plastic than written texts.
Funny thing about things that are "well known". They aren't always true. This is a case in point. If you want to maintain the meaning of a text, an oral tradition is almost invariably going to be more accurate. "Plastic", only in the sense of "flexible", but that's a good thing.
This isn't like playing "telephone" at a kid's party. Among the differences are that in telephone, a single word is whispered by one person at each stage, and with the Torah, thousands upon thousands of people spend their lives studying it with extreme care each generation. It's a system with a tremendous degree of redundancy.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: What you are claiming is that the Jewish tradition which you follow is fundamentally different from all other human traditions.
Thank you. Praise the Lord, we have a winner. Yes. A system of law and lore created by God and given to a group of people He charges with the sacred responsibility of maintaining it according to rules embedded in the system itself is fundamentally different from all other human traditions.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: That while all other human traditions have not been and can not be passed down perfectly over even a few generations let alone thousand of years, yours has been.
Well, see, God's not a dummy. When He gives a Torah that contains "eternal covenants" and "eternal statutes" and so on, it'd be fairly lame not to do so in a way that would facilitate (if not guarantee) its integrity. I mean, I couldn't do it. You couldn't do it. But God is different. He's not bound by time. If the system He gave didn't work out the way He wanted it to, He could have given it differently, ab initio. The point of equilibrium is where no changes are needed. Think it through.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: That claim is a matter of faith.
Only in the sense that the existence of God is a matter of faith. I don't actually think it is.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you expect those who do not share your faith to see it as anything other than idol babling, then you are very naive.
You mean "idle babbling". And I'm not naive.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: starLisa, No, I don't think anyone here understands what you mean when you say you "don't recognize a "Judeo-Christian tradition" as existing". Perhaps you can explain it in a way that is less offensive so that I might have some chance of understanding.
I did. Judaism is Judaism. Christianity is Christianity. The idea of a "Judeo-Christian" tradition is sort of like "jumbo shrimp". Or "military intelligence".
(That's a George Carlin reference, so please don't bash me for making a joke about the military.)
We don't share a tradition. We never have. We've continued on our merry way, and you must have taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I understood what she meant by denying a "Judeo-Christian tradition". It combines two religions into one tradition, whereas she is pretty adamant about there being a definite and clearly delineated distinction between Judaism and Christianity.
While Christianity may have roots in the texts she places at the center of her religion, it is not "Judeo" in any sense of the word she accepts.
By the same token, Judaism (with the exception of Jews for Jesus, which is an entirely different thread) really has no connection to the Gospels or anything Christian.
It seemed she was rejecting the tie between the two religions that you had offhandedly lumped together.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:We don't share a tradition. We never have. We've continued on our merry way, and you must have taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque.
Wrong.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:We've continued on our merry way, and you must have taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque.
Of course, by mentioning Christianity as being a "wrong turn"... that's a little inflammatory, methinks. It's that "I'm right and you're wrong so there" sort of thinking that gets no one anywhere.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:There's nothing "Judeo" about Christianity, and there's certainly nothing Christian about Judaism.
I disagree. (Well, actually I agree with the second phrase and I can see why as a Jew you would say that.) But Christianity was born from a Jew, and follows the same God that was the God of the Jews, according to Christians. So Christians (meaning I) will say they see a lot of Judaism in Christianity. Since you're not Christian, you can't with any credibility announce that Christianity has nothing "Judeo" about it, when the Christians themselves recognize their Jewish roots and use Jewish scripture.
However, I can certainly see why you'd say there's nothing Christian about Judaism. In fact I'd say it's pretty certain that the phrase "Judeo-Christian" came from Christians who recognize their Jewish roots, and NOT from Jews who accept Christianity as anything similar to them. I never thought of this before, but I guess the term "Judeo-Christian" might only have meaning to you if you're a Christian.
Or if you're an atheist and want to lump us all together. Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Dag, it's a square/rectangle thing, I think.
All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
All christian faiths have their roots in jewish tradition, but not all those with roots in jewish tradition have connection to christian faiths.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Christians themselves recognize their Jewish roots and use Jewish scripture.
Danger Will Robinson! Danger!
::waits for the inevitable starLisa explosion::
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Or if you're an atheist and want to lump us all together.
As an atheist, I generally use "the three major monotheistic religions" in this context. Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
This thread has really enlightened me more about on the topic of why many Christians don't view Mormons as such.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Four, if you count Pastafarianism.
Still, though, I think I may go look into grabbing some free holy texts from wherever they're available. I'm pretty sure the Mormons give out free books of Mormon, and the Gideon Bible seems pretty easy to get ahold of. Someone said they got a free copy of the Quran?
If nothing else, they'd be good to have (I'm a bibliophile), but they'd be worth reading through just on principle.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Four, if you count Pastafarianism.
Well, it doesn't qualify as "major." That goes for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, too.
Added: And Invisible Pink Unicornism.
Added 2: Wait, I've got my signals crossed. Pastafarianism is the same as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, no? >_<
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
FlyingCow, Mormons'll give you a free Bible too.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I believe they are one in the same, twinky, though I may be lumping together different traditions in my ignorance.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
All about the free books. Of course, I can hardly make it from the door of my room to my bed for all the books, but what's a few more?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: Since you're not Christian, you can't with any credibility announce that Christianity has nothing "Judeo" about it, when the Christians themselves recognize their Jewish roots and use Jewish scripture.
You do realize, though, that to us, Christianity is a heretical sect that got out of hand. So even if you view your religion as having Jewish roots, using the term "Judeo-Christian" seems gratuitiously offensive. Very "in-your-face", if you know what I mean. If that's what you think about Christianity, then "Christian" is a good enough descriptive, no?
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: However, I can certainly see why you'd say there's nothing Christian about Judaism. In fact I'd say it's pretty certain that the phrase "Judeo-Christian" came from Christians who recognize their Jewish roots, and NOT from Jews who accept Christianity as anything similar to them.
Well, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it had been either invented or at least heavily used by assimilated Jews who wanted to cozy up to the dominant members of society.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Four, if you count Pastafarianism.
Still, though, I think I may go look into grabbing some free holy texts from wherever they're available.
Sacred Texts Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Perhaps Christians consider Judaism to be a group that became heretical. Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:You do realize, though, that to us, Christianity is a heretical sect that got out of hand. So even if you view your religion as having Jewish roots, using the term "Judeo-Christian" seems gratuitiously offensive. Very "in-your-face", if you know what I mean.
I didn't realize it, no, until you said something. In general I do just use the term "Christian", because to me, the "Judeo-Christian tradition" isn't one religion; it's just an attempt to distinguish "the group of Founding Fathers who were mostly Jews and Christians and all had the same 10 commandments," from "the Pagans and Muslims and Hindus and others." It was sort of a throw-back to a supposedly less diverse era in America, when everybody supposedly had a similar moral code on which all our laws were based.
I've never thought of it as offensive, because to me it is obvious that we have commonalities. But now that you mention it, I totally understand it, because it's the same way I feel about the break-off sects of "Fudamentalist Mormons" using the term Mormon or Restorationist. They may have the same beginnings as we do, but we feel there is no part of THEM in us.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:You do realize, though, that to us, Christianity is a heretical sect that got out of hand. So even if you view your religion as having Jewish roots, using the term "Judeo-Christian" seems gratuitiously offensive. Very "in-your-face", if you know what I mean.
And most Christians believe that they are the true followers of the ancient Jewisth tradtion and it is you who are the heretical sect. We could just as well claim its very "in-your-face" of you to call yourselves Jews.
Try to show a bit of respect for other peoples religious believes starLisa and you will get alot more respect for your own.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean:
quote:You do realize, though, that to us, Christianity is a heretical sect that got out of hand. So even if you view your religion as having Jewish roots, using the term "Judeo-Christian" seems gratuitiously offensive. Very "in-your-face", if you know what I mean.
I didn't realize it, no, until you said something. In general I do just use the term "Christian", because to me, the "Judeo-Christian tradition" isn't one religion; it's just an attempt to distinguish "the group of Founding Fathers who were mostly Jews and Christians and all had the same 10 commandments," from "the Pagans and Muslims and Hindus and others." It was sort of a throw-back to a supposedly less diverse era in America, when everybody supposedly had a similar moral code on which all our laws were based.
I've never thought of it as offensive, because to me it is obvious that we have commonalities. But now that you mention it, I totally understand it, because it's the same way I feel about the break-off sects of "Fudamentalist Mormons" using the term Mormon or Restorationist. They may have the same beginnings as we do, but we feel there is no part of THEM in us.
Bingo.
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
I was just debating whether to ask or not, but I really would like to understand, if someone would care to explain. Why IS it offensive for a Christian church to claim Jewish roots? I don't get that.
EDIT: I am LDS and subconsiously roll my eyes about fundamentalist Mormon's because of the confusion it creates but it's not offensive to me, especially if I'm having a conversation with someone about it and no offense is meant.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:You do realize, though, that to us, Christianity is a heretical sect that got out of hand. So even if you view your religion as having Jewish roots, using the term "Judeo-Christian" seems gratuitiously offensive. Very "in-your-face", if you know what I mean.
And most Christians believe that they are the true followers of the ancient Jewisth tradtion and it is you who are the heretical sect.
You could also claim that 1 + 1 = 34. Our God gave eternal statutes. Yours abrogated them. The burden of proof is on anyone who splits off, wascally wabbit.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: We could just as well claim its very "in-your-face" of you to call yourselves Jews.
Or kill us. That worked wonders for centuries.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Try to show a bit of respect for other peoples religious believes starLisa and you will get alot more respect for your own.
Judaism and Christianity cannot both be true. They are inherently in conflict. But the argument between you and me here started when you decided to claim that you have as much right to determine what our books mean as we do. More, actually. And based on a "majority-rules" kind of argument, to boot.
There are other people I don't argue like this with. Ask yourself why.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I am ethnically Jewish, but decided that it was outdated. I'm all about the new made up religions like Scientology and Church of Englandism.
I tried reading it when I was 17 or 18ish, to try to figure out why the crazy people did what they did. Whenever it said "enemies" or "infidels", I forget which, someone had written in "Jews." I was kinda turned off and gave it back to the Library.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:No. And again, no. Truth is truth.
starLisa, If you had made even the slightest attempt to understand my point, you would have recognized that I wasn't talking about eternal Truths, I was talking about communication and language.
The word "Bible" and the word "Qur'an" are just random collections of sounds. They only have meaning because English speaks have come to a consensus that we will use these words to mean certain things. Webster's dictionary defines the Koran as "the book composed of sacred writings accepted by Muslims as revelations made to Muhammad by Allah through the angel Gabriel". If those books have been translated into English (or any other language) Muslims do not accept them as the revelations made to Muhammad, therefore by the common definition they are not the Koran.
In contrast, the Bible is defined as "the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament b : the sacred scriptures of some other religion such as Judaism " and the common definition of the Hebrew Bible is "the common portions of the Jewish and Christian canons." Based on these most common definitions, using the "Bible" or the phrase "Hebrew Bible" to refer to a translation is consistent with common usage. If I said someone claimed to have read the Hebrew Bible, when they had read an English Translation, they would have communicated a truth to most English speakers based on what we as the majority of English speakers have decided that arbitrary arrangment of letters and sounds means. Even if you don't agree that the Hebrew Bible is Holy Scripture unless it is in the original Hebrew, the person has still made a true claim based on the most commonly used accepted meaning of the English words. This would not be true for the Koran.
The real distinction I referred to was a distinction about whether either claim contains any eternal truth. The distinction was about communication and whether the ideas communicated were true based on the most commonly accept definitions of utterly arbitrary words. It is relevant if you consider communication to be important.
The fact that you have a much narrower definition of "Hebrew Bible" than the one that is commonly accepted by other English speakers, doesn't exempt you the obligation to effectively communicate with others.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote: You could also claim that 1 + 1 = 34. Our God gave eternal statutes. Yours abrogated them. The burden of proof is on anyone who splits off, wascally wabbit.
You just don't get it do you Lisa? This is religion we're discussing. What your rationalization of Jewish law, traditions, and historical actions boils down to is that the God you believe in said to do it, so you did and do. That is the exact same thing that people of other faiths believe- that God wants them to do what they're doing.
I acknowledge that you have a fierce belief in your God. Perhaps you could recognize that others have the same strong beliefs in their God (or gods). There's really no reason to act superior about it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Judaism and Christianity cannot both be true. They are inherently in conflict. But the argument between you and me here started when you decided to claim that you have as much right to determine what our books mean as we do. More, actually. And based on a "majority-rules" kind of argument, to boot.
No starLisa, I have never claimed that I could decide what your books mean. I have never claimed or even implied that could determine what books you recognize as the sacred word of God nor have I ever attempt to dictate to you what they mean. What I have been claiming all along is that in the English language (and every other language) the meaning of words is determined by majority rule.
If you wish to define the term "Hebrew Bible" in a way other than that understood by the majority of English speakers, such as "those books which starLisa believes to be the word of God.", then you will have to recognize that you are going to have a great deal of difficulty communicating with other English speakers.
quote:Or kill us. That worked wonders for centuries.
Neither I nor any of my ancestors for more than 10 generations have killed or persecuted Jews. In fact, my family gave refuge Spanish Jews during the Inquisition. The anti-semitic autracities performed by some Christians against Jews in the past in no way justifies your bigotry.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote: You could also claim that 1 + 1 = 34. Our God gave eternal statutes. Yours abrogated them. The burden of proof is on anyone who splits off, wascally wabbit.
You just don't get it do you Lisa? This is religion we're discussing. What your rationalization of Jewish law, traditions, and historical actions boils down to is that the God you believe in said to do it, so you did and do. That is the exact same thing that people of other faiths believe- that God wants them to do what they're doing.
I'm not objecting to that. I object to members of other religions claiming ownership of our holy texts. I object even more to people like Rabbit, who think that the claims of the many are somehow stronger than the claims of the original owners.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by sweetbaboo: I was just debating whether to ask or not, but I really would like to understand, if someone would care to explain. Why IS it offensive for a Christian church to claim Jewish roots? I don't get that.
It's a little offensive, in that the single most fundamental aspect of Judaism is to worship God alone and to obey His commandments. Okay, that's two things. And by the standards which existed prior to the birth of Christianity, Christianity abrogated both of those.
But that's not what I was complaining about. Regardless of where Christianity came from, we have absolutely nothing in common. We have a lot more in common with Islam than we do with Christianity. The term "Judeo-Christian" is what offends me.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Regardless of where Christianity came from, we have absolutely nothing in common.
Nothing? Now that's just silly hyperbole.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: In contrast, the Bible is defined as "the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament b : the sacred scriptures of some other religion such as Judaism "
No. That's the Christian Bible. The Bible is just what you erroniously call the "Old Testament".
However, I've been using the term "the Hebrew Bible" in order to avoid confusion, because I'm aware that just saying "the Bible" would be confusing. You, on the other hand, don't seem to care about that at all. You insist on misusing the term "Bible" as though only what the Christians call "the Bible" matters.
In a context of Jews only, I would never speak of "the Hebrew Bible". I'd just say "the Bible". And I could understand you doing the same in a context of Christians only. But that's not really the Christian way, is it. It's certainly not your way.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: and the common definition of the Hebrew Bible is "the common portions of the Jewish and Christian canons."
Bunk. Those aren't "common definitions". They're Christian definitions.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Based on these most common definitions, using the "Bible" or the phrase "Hebrew Bible" to refer to a translation is consistent with common usage. If I said someone claimed to have read the Hebrew Bible, when they had read an English Translation, they would have communicated a truth to most English speakers based on what we as the majority of English speakers have decided that arbitrary arrangment of letters and sounds means.
No. They'd be wrong. They'd have read a rough approximation of the Hebrew Bible.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The fact that you have a much narrower definition of "Hebrew Bible" than the one that is commonly accepted by other English speakers, doesn't exempt you the obligation to effectively communicate with others.
Wrong. I have a Jewish definition. You have a Christian definition. And you're trying to pass your Christian definition off as the definition.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Regardless of where Christianity came from, we have absolutely nothing in common.
Nothing? Now that's just silly hyperbole.
Name one thing. We believe in one God. You believe in three. And if you claim that you believe in one, all I can say is that it's a linguistic problem, because your definition of "one" would be very, very different from ours.
We believe that God gave His commandments forever (partly because He said so). You don't.
You believe in Original Sin and Hell. We don't even not believe in those ideas. We won't even get close enough to them to disbelieve in them.
There is absolutely no commonality whatsoever between the two religions. They are like matter and anti-matter.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
I believe in Original Sin and Hell. I believe that God gave His commandments forever. I am a Christian. Does this mean I must cease to exist as the solution to my own paradox? Or perhaps you are just wrong.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Wrong. I have a Jewish definition. You have a Christian definition. And you're trying to pass your Christian definition off as the definition.
She's passing it off as the English definition.
quote:No. They'd be wrong. They'd have read a rough approximation of the Hebrew Bible.
No, you see. They have read the "Hebrew Bible" as the word is meant. They have read a rough aproximation of "the thing that starLisa refers to as the Hebrew Bible."
Think back on your complaints about how some people use anti-Semite to see why this is so. Words mean what people believe them to mean.
The problem is you are insisting on having a discussion about Truth, when Rabbit has been discussing linguistics.
The other problem is that you pick and choose which linguistic principles you wish to use based on which ones supports whatever you wish to take outrage at on any given day.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
starLisa exists in a world where there are absolutes. She will not accept a broader definition. She will not accept a definition that contradicts her own.
It won't happen.
It's no use arguing with her on this point, because she's part of a strong willed minority that is almost militantly resistant to change. It will only get you frustrated.
It's like arguing with a mountain. There will be no winner - you'll just make yourself tired, and the mountain will still be there. I learned this a couple weeks back. She's a fanatical devotee of her faith, and lives in a world different from the vast majority.
I respect that she feels so strongly, but, because of that, I know I need to take anything she says with a significant grain of salt. Faith-based logic and secular-based logic do not mix well.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
On a side note, is it possible to "play semantics" in the context of a linguistics debate? And if so, will this mixture cause your ears to explode?
--ApostleRadio
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I believe that God gave some of His commandments forever. I don't believe in original sin or in hell in the same way that many Christians do. I am also a Christian.
Perhpas ApostleRadio and I cancel each other out and can both continue to exist?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Name one thing.
We both believe that the universe was created by and is sustained in existence by God.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
starLisa, I am not a scholar of Torah but I am aware that one of the greatest rabbinic scholars (Rabbi Hillel) summarized the whole the Torah by saying "That which is hateful to you, do not unto others."
Look at your arguments with an objective eye and you will see how arrogant and offensive you are being to the Christians on this board. If you are offended by those who have criticized and persecuted Jews for "Apostacy" through the ages, do you not have an even greater obligation to show respect to the beliefs of others?
[ March 21, 2006, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Name one thing. We believe in one God. You believe in three.
...we do?
-pH
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The Bible is just what you erroniously call the "Old Testament".
On what basis do your deam by usage erroneous? Is the meaning of modern English words also designated within your infallable oral tradition?
That was a quote from the Webster Dictionary and therefore represents a concensus of American English speakers.
The definition given in the OED, which is the definitve source for the English language, is as follows.
quote:. a. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. (Sometimes in early use, and still dial., used for the Old Testament; e.g. ‘neither in the Bible nor the Testament.’) the open Bible: the Bible accessible to all in the vernacular.
If my use is erroneous, so is the usage by the overwhelming majority of English speakers.
While you may choose to define and use any word to mean something other than what it means in standard English, you will not be able to effectively communicate with other English speakers if you insist on non-standard definitions.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:It's a little offensive, in that the single most fundamental aspect of Judaism is to worship God alone and to obey His commandments. Okay, that's two things. And by the standards which existed prior to the birth of Christianity, Christianity abrogated both of those
That's curious. Rabbi Akiva taugh that the most important principle of the Torah was to "Love your fellow as your self".
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The problem is you are insisting on having a discussion about Truth, when Rabbit has been discussing linguistics.
The other problem is that you pick and choose which linguistic principles you wish to use based on which ones supports whatever you wish to take outrage at on any given day.
No, The key problem is that starLisa is so filled with hatred of Christianity and Christians that she can't see past the tip of her nose.
And now that I have violated my own principle and stooped to personal attacks, I'll bow out of the discussion.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) cover to cover a couple of times. It really drags around the middle, but the beginning and ending are pretty good. I'd love to see it made into a Peter Jackson movie. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Or maybe it was three. I've read the Qur'an all the way through a couple of times since then but the thing is, at least here in Sri Lanka, we are taught how to read in Arabic but we have no idea what we are reading ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)