What qualifications are needed to read the Bible?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Optimus

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2000
3,618
0
0


<< The Catholic Church came into existance hundreds of years after the Bible was completed (despite their claims). >>


The Church existed from day one (Christ). Christ declared Peter the head of the Church and every Pope has succeded Peter in order from that moment. There was a Pope, Bishops, Priests, etc from the first days of the young Church.
BUT, it was over time, and over many different breaks, spinoffs, and schisms that the Church had to keep narrowing its name to the Roman (follows the authority of the Pope in Rome) Catholic Church.



<< It is true that the Catholic Church attempted to keep the common people from reading it >>


No, they didn't. But the common folk could not read by an overwhelming majority. Literacy was limited to the VERY VERY few - usually the rich or the clergy themselves. The Church's very center sacrament is the Mass - it, like the Bible, was kept in Latin to preserve the meaning and language in the chaotic and changing times. Read even Shakespear (he isn't nearly as long ago as the Church goes) - the english is difficult and many words no longer exist or mean the same. Now read the Canturbury Tales or Beowulf - almost an entire other language! Not to speak of dialects, other countries, missionaries, etc!



<< but many translators - at the risk of their lives (and torture) and despite the Church's opposition - translated it into the languages of the common people. The Church wanted to keep it in Latin so only the Clergy could intrepret it (keeping power over the people). >>



Did you know that before the printing press, every book - Bible or otherwise - had to be hadn copied? Do you think ANYONE could afford them? The monks who spent thier entire lives copying the Bible letter for letter could barely make enough for the churches, let alone to sell in the streets!

The falacy that the Church stopped the spread of the Bible is common but completely false. The Church preserved the Bible, shared the Bible, and when the world could - distributed and translated the Bible. The problem was, it took a serious undertaking of time and thought for the Church to officially translate the Bible. And in that time several people decided they could do it themselves - creating a mismash of translations ranging from almost accurate to the absurd. But the Church simply declared those translations as false and incorrect - it did not ever hunt down and torture/kill people for it, although in those days I'm sure there were plenty of people using that as an excuse to kill/maim/attack one another!

But it was in the Mass that the Bible is read to all daily. Back then it was read as written - in latin. But then the priest would translate the stories into the common language during the sermon. He would explain and relate the Bible to the people in the Church.
If you could go back to the Midieval days you would be surprised at the knowledge the illiterate common people had of the Bible - all of it related to them daily by the clergy.

With the advent of printing and the change in the world toward literacy (and industrialism) came the ability for the Bible to be read. At that point the Church spent time doing an official translation (the Vulgate) and spreading it. To this day the Church spreads the Bible to all corners of the earth.



<< Get a copy in modern English and read it for yourself and think for yourself. >>



A great idea. :)

 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com


<< Lots of untruths here. The Church kept it in Latin because that is the Holy language. In fact the Church encouraged people to learn Latin and if you knew Latin you could read the Bible. The Church didn't mind people owning their own Bibles as long as it was in Latin. >>



You didn't say what you were presenting was the Catholic Church's viewpoint. In fact, rereading it again I cannot see how any reasonable person couls not see it was your own viewpoint.

I am no mindreader. And you will not get far flaming people by calling them &quot;idiots&quot; when it is YOU that has the problem.
 

Optimus

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2000
3,618
0
0


<< Not really. That is an excuse. Latin had died out with the Roman Empire EXCEPT for the Church. >>


That is exactly why it was chosen deliberatly by the Church. It was/is a dead language and therefore would not change! Therefore it was perfect for using it to preserve something like the Bible intact.


<< Anyway, the Bible was NOT written in Latin - the original languages were Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek (the common languages of their day). >>


Yes, completely true. It was translated into Latin to preserve it. Imagine if they had chosen English (Ye Olde Eengleesh). As I said earlier - look at the Canterbury Tales to see how far English (a living language) has evolved.

The same Latin the Chruch uses today would be fluent and normal in Ancient Rome.

Latin was the preserving ether - the clergy were the way the illiterate common folk were able to understand the stories.



<< Read a HISTORY book - read many - not Church propaganda. >>


Sigh. If you are going to dismiss me and my arguments completely with cries of &quot;propeganda&quot; then we have no hope of reasonable discussion. I have never based my beliefs or facts on any propeganda - I have read everything I could, be it from any source. I have studied and learned, thought, argued, and debated. But most of all I have listened.

Dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as products of propaganda is fruitless and a weak stance in a debate.

 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Optimus, what you are presenting is &quot;Official&quot; Roman Catholic History. (EDIT: Sorry for my use of the word &quot;propaganda&quot;.)

The rest of the world does not agree with their slant on &quot;history&quot;.

I have to go to work now. If this thread is going strong I will rejoin it.

It is a s-t-r-e-t-c-h to say the Catholic Church dates back to Peter as the rest of the apostles did not view him as Pope (and he was in fact corrected by Paul for teaching wrong doctrine). That one scripture about building the church on Peter is translated VERY differently by non-Catholic translaters - rather, it is built on the Rock, Jesus (not Peter).

I have always said, believe what you want to believe. I CAN give a defense for what I believe using History and the Bible to show why I do NOT believe the Catholic Church is the only church.

It's just that I am out of time now. Feel free to PM me or I will rejoin this discussion later.

BTW, I mean no disrespect toward ANY faith. I did not mean &quot;propaganda&quot; is such a negative way that you took it.

EDIT: Why chose Latin? Why not ANY of the other dead languages that did not change - perhaps Greek - Which Jesus himself spoke?

You are also forgetting the people burned at the stake simply for posessing a Bible in the common tongue during the Inquisition. Have you forgotten the abuses of the Inquisition?
 

meister

Senior member
Nov 9, 1999
293
0
0


Before you go off and tell someone to read a history book you better be prepared.

Latin WAS the language of diplomacy and gov't till into the 9th century. I AGREE that the church carried this practice too far and that other translations could have and should have occurred. I was simply pointing out that the original intent was good.

I'm not going to spout off my credentials as you obviously wouldn't listen anyway.

Mark


 

Optimus

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2000
3,618
0
0


<< Tunnel vision and closed mindedness perhaps? >>


Quite the opposite - it takes a VERY open mind to read any of the major religious texts. In fact, it is the very fact that so much is hard to accept and believe that most atheists have a beef with.
 

yellowperil

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2000
4,598
0
0
I have read the entire Bible, although it has been a long time since (6-7 years). I was probably too young to comprehend it fully back then (I'm 20 now) but I have attended probably >500 sermons, dozens of revivals, and countless meetings and conversations. I still read parts of the Bible on occasion when I'm discussing something with a Christian (I have a copy of the NIV version on my bookshelf). As an agnostic, I'd say the best qualification is to read it critically. Take into the account the author's background, culture, and motives. Read commonly cited texts in their context. Research disparities. Also whether you like it or not, the Bible has had an impact on Western society, and why that is is worth studying. I'm not a Bible scholar by any means, but I just found these helpful.
 

Optimus

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2000
3,618
0
0


<< I CAN give a defense for what I believe using History and the Bible to show why I do NOT believe the Catholic Church is the only church. >>



Thats fine, Apoppin. I just ask that you not dismiss MY side of the argument as &quot;propaganda&quot; or say that I'm simply towing the &quot;Official Church line&quot;. My beliefs are based on FAR more than that, and are based in so much research and study that to have them dismissed as some kind of indoctrination is both insulting and untrue.

I hope you do rejoin this later(provided this thread stays somewhat sane)! As you can see I don't call your arguments invalid or dismiss them - they are most welcome and a necessary part of the dabate! :)
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com


<< Latin WAS the language of diplomacy and gov't till into the 9th century. >>



ONLY because of the RC Church.


Thanks, Optimus. Reread my last post's edit. I apologized for my possible misuse of the word &quot;propaganda&quot;.

I HAVE discussed with many Catholic historians (I lived in Ireland for 3 years). From my experience it boils down to &quot;faith&quot;.

See you in a few hours.

Aloha.

PAX

 

yellowperil

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2000
4,598
0
0
BTW, I was raised in the Seventh-Day Adventist church. They're kind of out there in the religious spectrum, but one of their church leaders, Ellen G. White, wrote a book called The Great Controversy that details the atrocities committed by the Catholic church throughout history, as well as predicting the rise of the Religious Right (she wrote this in the 19th century) who attempts to combine church and state. It's a dense read, and White's Protestant biases creep in a lot, but as far as the factual information goes with the Church persecuting non-Catholics, it is historically verified. Just thought I'd throw that in there.
 

FrontlineWarrior

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2000
4,905
1
0


<< Pidge, that is what the fundamentalist think, Look at the garbage they produce. If there is any validity in the bible they seem to miss the mark badly. >>



Oh yes, and the Catholic interpretation is infallible right? HHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 

meister

Senior member
Nov 9, 1999
293
0
0
In these discussions it invariably happens that people try to make blanket statements when in reality there was a variety of reasons.

It looks like we have taken over Ross's thread and everyone can laugh at how the protestants and catholics disagree about a religion we say is simple and everyone can understand.

:(

Anyway,

The thread question actually goes to what we are discussing. Who and how do we understand the Bible,(if we believe it is God's word and we should care)

Mark
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
31,020
2,685
126
Whats needed?
Two eyeballs. :p

As we all know, the Lord, Jesus Christ Himself founded the Catholic Church as described in the Holy Bible; and thus we Christians are further benefited by reading the same.

edit : :p
 

Dually

Golden Member
Dec 20, 2000
1,628
0
0


<<

<< Lots of untruths here. The Church kept it in Latin because that is the Holy language. In fact the Church encouraged people to learn Latin and if you knew Latin you could read the Bible. The Church didn't mind people owning their own Bibles as long as it was in Latin. >>



You didn't say what you were presenting was the Catholic Church's viewpoint. In fact, rereading it again I cannot see how any reasonable person couls not see it was your own viewpoint.

I am no mindreader. And you will not get far flaming people by calling them &quot;idiots&quot; when it is YOU that has the problem.
>>



I flamed you cause you flamed me and argogence won't get you far buddy. I am a nice guy until someone flames me. Where in the quote is the &quot;I&quot; viewpoint. How could you not see that I am giving the history of why the Church had the position they did?

To others the Cathlolic Church wasn't founded by Jesus, they are seperated by hundreds of years.
 

Dually

Golden Member
Dec 20, 2000
1,628
0
0


<< In these discussions it invariably happens that people try to make blanket statements when in reality there was a variety of reasons.

It looks like we have taken over Ross's thread and everyone can laugh at how the protestants and catholics disagree about a religion we say is simple and everyone can understand.

:(

Anyway,

The thread question actually goes to what we are discussing. Who and how do we understand the Bible,(if we believe it is God's word and we should care)

Mark
>>



The Bible isn't God's word, only part of it is and thats if you beleive in God. Most of the Bible is man's word.
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
31,020
2,685
126
Yes, Jesus founded Catholicism Dually. There was no Christianity until he arrived. The Roman Catholics if even separted by 100s of years as you described still point to the fact that its roots emerege from his work.

 

RossGr

Diamond Member
Jan 11, 2000
3,383
1
0
Optimus &amp; Elita1, Thank you for your input, unfortunatly life has reared its head and I will not be able to contemplate your responses yet, Will be heading out to work shortly. If we have a slow nigth I sould be able to respond.


Thanks again to all who have contributed.
 

PCResources

Banned
Oct 4, 2000
2,499
0
0
You need to be able to read and comprehend, that is about it...

It's no different from reading batman, just replace batman with God, Robin with Jesus and the Joker with the devil...

The same myths are repeated and if you believe in it, that is your choice, i will not hold it against you, but if you try to tell me how very true it is and how i have to believe it so i will not end up being tortured by the Joker, well then, you are talking to the wrong guy...

Patrick
 

UG

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,370
0
0
Stark said:

a. literacy.
b. life experience.
c. liberty.
d. open mind.
e. open heart.

However, missing from the list was Critical Intelligence, obviously an unnecessary commodity.

 

PCResources

Banned
Oct 4, 2000
2,499
0
0


<< In fact, it is the very fact that so much is hard to accept and believe that most atheists have a beef with. >>



That is so true, i mean, it is a collection of stories, that is all that it is if you look at it from my standing point, sure some things can be proven, but that is almost always the case if the book is historic in any way...

Some people choose to believe in these stories, why they do so is a complete mystery to me, i could just as well believe in Batman as in Jesus, both stories are too outrageous (actually, Batman's story sounds a bit more credible to me) but i choose not to believe in either...

However, some people told me in another thread that they believe in the X-men.. ;-)

The sun is shining, the women are pretty, the water is cool and i am hot, i am in heaven!!

Patrick
 

Elita1

Golden Member
Nov 17, 2000
1,757
0
0
PCResources---I don't think you have to worry about anyone in this thread trying to convert you. So rest assured. Thanks for that completely useless batman post.

UG--I believe Rossgr's question was about what is needed to READ the bible. Not believe the bible, accept the bible or take the bible as literal scientific fact. It's shame you couldn't resist the opportunity to slip in an insult.

Apoppin--


<< It is a s-t-r-e-t-c-h to say the Catholic Church dates back to Peter as the rest of the apostles did not view him as Pope (and he was in fact corrected by Paul for teaching wrong doctrine). That one scripture about building the church on Peter is translated VERY differently by non-Catholic translaters - rather, it is built on the Rock, Jesus (not Peter). >>



I'm very interested in what you said here.
Where and on what was Peter corrected by Paul?
How do you know the apostles did not consider Peter their leader?

Sincerely not trying to bait/flame you I am honestly curious to find out. :)
 

UG

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,370
0
0
Elita1,

The shame is not mine for expressing an opinion, the shame is yours for characterizing my opinon in such a way as to suit your own purpose.

Criticality is not always reflective of intelligence, no?