(it occurs to me that this is wildly off-topic. but i can't see not posting it)
That would necessarily be the case, unless time goes backwards.
i have heard weirder arguments here. i know this sounds like common sense, and i'm actually glad that it does. but it's a challenge for some people. probably for a justifiable reason:
prophecy does kind put things backwards, doesn't it?
the issue comes when we start reading mere allusions as prophetic. there is a major logical problem when we say things like "david's 22nd psalm was prophetic of christ's dying words" over "christ quoted david's 22nd psalm." post-hoc propter-hoc is one fallacy on its own, but
pre-hoc propter-hoc is an entirely separate ballgame.
And, what you are saying may be the best we can do out here on earth, as humans.
Ironically, that may be good enough. The likelihood that the literal meaning of the original texts has not preserved 100% carries meaning in and of itself.
all we can do is our best. our best should also include the skills to help detect edits, and changes, and errors. indeed, a literal or
literary reading of the text is aware of the structure and history of the text. we cannot begin to understand the torah unless we understand how it was put together, and the separation of the sources.
It means that, for whatever reason, the god(s) to which the bible refers are incapable of maintaining that bible (if it was ever called for, in the first place).
i think that's jumping the gun. the bible is not so much a statement on god, but on man. it is our book. we wrote it. to suppose that god is incapable of maintaining presupposes that there
is a god, who at some point, delivered some inerrant word, and
we messed it up. but any view of the bible that eliminates the strong commentary on the human condition, and the personalities of the authors is a poor one. whether committed by a fundamentalist or an athiest -- both de-value the text in their assumptions.
as a side note, since the original documents, the integrity of the text has been maintained reasonably well. not to the point of miracle, mind you, but all the changes i've seen (and there have been changes) are minimal at best in the old testament. nt is a different story. it has more to do with the philosophy of the crowd keeping the text. jews didn't like revisions to sacred texts, christians were after agreement. neither was perfect in their quest.
There are many assumptions one can derive from that simple fact, many directions one can take. It may mean that some other force has since since acquired total control, and blocked that preservation.
i have joked that the devil seems to have more to do with the bible than god. honest study of the bible is a
real test of faith, and causes many people to lose theirs. possibly with good reason (but i have not made that decision yet myself). i can understand why fundamentalists are afraid to
actually approach the text with the kind of respect and literalness they claim to have.
quote:
Ecc 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
But, if one chooses to honor the bible for the sake of enough doubt, one may wish to take it word-for-word, in English, and in 2007.
word-for-word is not such a good expression, as there often is very creative use of language, and there is such a thing as being over-literal. i am against claims of figurative language because a text is
wrong (ie, genesis 1), but that does not mean the figurative language is not there. from idioms and cultural expressions, to tiny euphemisms (often for sex, genitalia, or waste), to outright extended metaphor (like the prophet ezekiel is fond of).
and english only goes so far. it becomes hard to understand those basic uses of figurative language without some cultural and linguistic context. i'm all for learning at least a little hebrew; it really helps more than i can describe. plus, knowledge of the grammar seems to hamper very many fundamentalist claims, and words-decoded games.
If people do that, they have good reason to make up their own minds about any inconsistencies, as trivial as they may appear.
inconsistencies are valuable information. i like to watch fundies squirm on this one:
quote:
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
it's especially ironic, because these verses are adjacent, as you will notice from the verse numbers. fundamentalists, who suppose that the bible is the direct and inerrant word of god that tells us how to live our lives are faced with a real problem. they can't both be right, because they are opposite. but clearly they are the words of an infallible god, so they both have to be. they like to come to a compromise, "one is right in one instance, the other in another."
well, that's great, but it doesn't tell us anything, does it? good advice, god,
when do i answer or not answer a fool?
but what is plainly obvious to anyone with the slightest bit of sense in their heads is that the book of proverbs is a
book of proverbs: a collection of colloquial sayings. these are not the words of god, but things your mother told you. this "contradiction" tells us that this book is a collection, and the person who collected it was
not concerned with providing a definitive answer for life's mysteries, just the things people said. in fact, we can be fairly sure that they are placed next to each other for a reason: one is the come-back for the other.
this should become a model for the entire text. it is a collection, more concerned with the history of tradition than the accuracy of the traditions themselves. they are concerned with accuracy to the original, not telling us how to live. and that we should be aware that the bible is a human text, and very often disagrees -- to the point where subjects are often philosophically debated at length.
inconsistencies tell us this about the bible, and tell us about the person who wrote each inconsistent text, and the people who collected it. contradictions dictate how we should read the bible, and tell us how to understand it. whitewashing them, as fundamentalists attempt to, is to me the equivalent of taking a glorious seven-course meal, pureeing it in a blender, and drinking it through a straw. who cares if the steak is inconsistent with the lobster?
it's ridiculous to think they should be the same. i'll chew my food, thanks.
That tells me that there's more to the story. It says that we were left to wonder about the meaning and value of any text that is said to guide us into observing this creature known as god.
i believe that god wants us to use our brains. (genesis 3 be damned)
That isn't a whole lot to go on.
that's why it's called "faith."
But, we can generally lump it into two categories. One is that the book, and all it writings are for real. And, the other is that it isn't even good bathroom reading material, because at least the National Enquirer gets sued in to issuing disclaimers every now and then.
i think the "all-or-nothing" approach does an
incredible disservice to the text. it is a very fundamentalist attitude, and is completely unfounded. let's suppose for a second that not a single event written about in he bible happened. none of the people described were real, and the book is a
total fiction. what's wrong with fiction, exactly? we read shakespeare. his plays are mostly fictional.
can you see
no worth in the bible? not even the poetry and music? or the lamentations? or the wisedom of solomon? can't you see it as a record of traditions, something like gilgamesh or beowulf? worthy of study because it tells us about our past, and how man thought 2000 years ago? can't you hear the human voices contained within it searching for meaning, just as we do?
it's not trash. sure, the census in numbers is dull, and the law is almost painful to read, and kings puts us to sleep like a history textbook. but that's not all there is. it's a widely varied set of texts, many of which are very interesting and important.
It just occured to me that some of you on this forum may have the impression that I support some "scientific" idea that life is meaningless, and that we all came about by chance.
to quote (what was attributed to) king solomon, "there is nothing under the sun" and then very ironically a few verses later
quote:
Ecc 1:14 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.
that life is meaningless is one of the many ideas that are found in the bible. it's not a new thought that has suddenly crossed the minds of people in the last 50 years, or with the advent of science. i'm not saying that you think this way, but it's important to know that people have for thousands of years. and it's especially important that the fundamentalists realize that the point they see as insulting is
actually in their own text.
I don't. But I also don't think we've been given, by any god, the mutual respect that we deserve. It just so happens that I, for one, am not stupid enough wait until after I die to get it. For me, the picture is very clear.
this is a very christian-influenced attitude. christianity tends to hold that we are wretched beings, whom god has every reason to hate and to kill on the spot, and that we do not deserve his respect. it is the people who claim such things that are not giving us the respect we deserve. one reading the law might easily come to the conclusion that god loves his people, and keeps his promises. if one examines the ten commandments carefully, one will find that it is a contract. it is not only founded on mutual respect, but it is the terms of that respect. fundamentalists sell god short, and sell man short. the bible is much more adult than they pretend.
™ Version 4.2