06-11-2003 14:12									#1
	Questions about Christian Fundamentalism Support Apolyton

As much as I like trolling fundamentalists , I created this thread to ask two serious questions about Christian fundamentalism.

As I understand it, "fundamentalism" is the strict obedience to the "fundaments", i.e the words of the Book. As such, as I understand it, "Fundamentalists" are the ones who consider both Old and New Testaments (as defined in the Nicaea council) to be true words of God, that should be followed literally.

The first question I'd like to ask is about the translations of the Bible. Since we don't have the original word of Jesus in Aramaic, we have to rely on translations. English-speaking fundies obey either King James' Bible or the modern translation, themselves translations from Latin versions, itself translation from ancient Greek, itself a translation of the original Aramaic message.

Now, what happens when there are discrepancies between translations? Say, what happens if the Spanish translation says something completely different than the English translation at some point? Who is more "right"? What version has the real truth, and which one is making a mistake? Does it shake your perception of the book as being perfect?


The other question is about the Law, as stated in the Old Testament. According to the Old Testament, the Law comes from God himself, and it is supposed to never change. Or decadent society is far from the word of God, and the fundies strive naturally to bring it closer: being against homosexuality, being against extramarital sex etc. are logical positions for the fundies.
But are you fundamentalists ready to follow the Law in its entirety? Do you strive to have raped women stoned to death, provided they didn't scream loud enough? Are you against pillows? Do you want adult males to be worth 50 shekels and adult females 30? There are tons of Laws that can be deemed absurd, yet they are the words of God. To put the question simply, what is your position towards them?

	06-11-2003 14:30									#2
	Suffering from ads?

Can I add onto your second question?

Why don't fundies keep kosher? The Law (Leviticus 11, IIRC) clearly prohibits eating pork, shellfish, and of course yummy, yummy rock badger (New Standard translation). Christ himself insists (Matthew 5, IIRC) that he has come not to overthrow the Law, but to enforce it. It's St. Paul who insists that Christians need not follow Jewish dietary laws, in flat contradiction of Christ (as well as the Jerusalem branch of the apostles, led by James). So why has Paul's version of Christianity won out over Christ's?

	06-11-2003 14:49									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Well, if I remember correctly. When St. Paul made that statement, there were a whole lot of gasps and, "Ooooh, you're going to get it now"'s. But nothing happened, so everyone just carried on eating pork and such as usual.

	06-11-2003 14:57									#4
	Tired of ads?

Yeah, Christ knew what it took to make a great religion. But Paul knew what it took to sell a religion. Too bad for JC.

	06-11-2003 15:02									#5
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

The fish ain't biting Spiff I was keeping a eye on this thread for an hour - I thought it might be fun.

-Jam

	06-11-2003 15:20									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Spiffor:

I'm tired, and your questions do not lend well to a short and snappy explanation.

I'll reply tomorrow, when I'm not so tired and rather more sharper.

A short answer is this:

Even within Fundamentalism, there can be different interpretations without taking away from the text, particularly with difficult passages.

The translation issue illustrates the importance for biblical scholars to go back to the Greek for the NT and the Hebrew for the OT to get the precise meanings of some words nailed down. It's not so much as an error in the translation, but in differences between languages, one bold example being the word 'love' in English can represent 4 different greek words. Going back to the Greek clarifies which love is intended.

Rufus:

"What goes into a man's mouth does not make him unclean, but rather what comes out of it."

Paraphrasing Christ, this is the reason why Christians are not required to keep Kosher.

Your larger issue merits a more lengthy response, as to the interactions between the OT and NT.

	06-11-2003 15:26									#7
	Increase Your PM Length

Ben:
Thanks for the short answer. I'll be less present on 'Poly for a week, but I'll keep an eye on this thread.

Jamski:
Well, I didn't want to create a "let's bash the fundies" this time. I expcet this thread to turn into a pseudo-theological thread once the original question has been answered

	06-11-2003 15:56									#8
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: It's St. Paul who insists that Christians need not follow Jewish dietary laws, in flat contradiction of Christ

Mostly because the number of people who wanted to convert to a religion that required their little friend be snipped (as James etc. required) were rather few, so Paul's recruiting went a hell of a lot better.

	06-11-2003 16:03									#9
	Suffering from ads?

So you're saying Paul was the first NON-Fundementalist Christian?

-Jam

	06-11-2003 16:13									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Paul was a bit of a nutcase generally, Christianity would've been far better off without him.

	06-11-2003 16:15									#11
	Inflate your Upload Space

Its debatable if Christianity would ever have become more than just another Jewish messiah-cult if it wasn't for Paul "spreading the appeal" to non-Jews.

-Jam

	07-11-2003 02:21									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Rufus:

Lagging 'Poly server ate my first reply.

The citation for my quote would be Mark 7:15

"Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "

I encourage you to read all of Mark 7, which you can find here.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/...Mark+7&x=8&y=10

SO this would make it valid for Paul to say that a Kosher diet is not required based on Christ's earlier teachings.

Now, as for your second quote, you do not remember the wording correctly.

Matthew 5:17

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. "

What does fulfill mean? To bring to completion. How does Christ bring the Law to completion? Through his atonement for all sins, past present and future on the cross. This is why the OT sense of cleanness and uncleanness no longer makes sense as the old sacrificial system was the only way for people before Christ to receive atonement for sin.

Therefore, the standard now becomes one not of consumption, but of conduct.

	07-11-2003 02:24									#13
	Tired of ads?

I can't say any terms relating to anatomy, nor can I speak as to the legitamacy of your birth.

Nothing can stop me from thinking what you know I'm thinking though.

	07-11-2003 02:47									#14
	Got spare money?

Spiffor:

Here is my promised reply:

Your definition of a Fundamentalist is a good starting point, though even fundamentalists will not interpret the entire bible literally. If this were true, than the only Fundamentalists would be Catholics, since communion would not be a symbolic event.

A better definition would be taking the word as is, without looking at the context of the times, a word you will hear often in a more liberal church. Fundamentalists believe that the words of the bible are true for all cultures and times and places.

quote: The first question I'd like to ask is about the translations of the Bible. Since we don't have the original word of Jesus in Aramaic, we have to rely on translations. English-speaking fundies obey either King James' Bible or the modern translation, themselves translations from Latin versions, itself translation from ancient Greek, itself a translation of the original Aramaic message.

Okay, here's why your portrait is misleading. We have access to very early NT bibles, originals in about 200 AD or so, in Greek. So any interpretation in English would go back to the earliest Greek sources, and not through intermediaries such as the KJV, or Latin translataions.

So we would only have on step, from English to Greek. Secondly, there are a great deal of translations done, so any discrepancy becomes very easy to document and must be defended by the translator.

For the OT, we do have the Dead Sea scrolls, written as originals at around the time of Christ. After they were discovered, there were a few, though not many changes that needed to be made. So again, we really see only one step, from Hebrew to English, although with a much different time scale from the originals.

quote: Now, what happens when there are discrepancies between translations? Say, what happens if the Spanish translation says something completely different than the English translation at some point? Who is more "right"? What version has the real truth, and which one is making a mistake? Does it shake your perception of the book as being perfect?

First, you to have to take into account that different languages say the same thing in different ways. If there appears to be a conflict, all that needs to be done is to go to the Greek to decide which one is correct. I would seriously doubt that any widly distributed translation would have undocumented translation errors.

quote: But are you fundamentalists ready to follow the Law in its entirety? Do you strive to have raped women stoned to death, provided they didn't scream loud enough? Are you against pillows? Do you want adult males to be worth 50 shekels and adult females 30? There are tons of Laws that can be deemed absurd, yet they are the words of God. To put the question simply, what is your position towards them?

First, since you cite a case for the law, you must cite these passages. No lawyer is required to cite evidence against himself.

Secondly, if we take your assessments to be correct, my position can be taken to two forms. These laws were given to God to the people of Israel ruled under a King appointed by God and not the people. Until we are under such a situation, these laws cannot be enforced.

My second argument comes from Christ's assessment of the two greatest commandments, to love God and to love your neighbour as yourself. According to Jesus, these commandments take precedence.

	07-11-2003 02:58									#15
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi . "What goes into a man's mouth does not make him unclean, but rather what comes out of it." Paraphrasing Christ, this is the reason why Christians are not required to keep Kosher. .

IIUC, this was in the context of questions of eating food that had not been correctly tithed, and related issues of purity, NOT the commandments about forbidden species etc.

	07-11-2003 03:08									#16
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Spiffor: For the OT, we do have the Dead Sea scrolls, written as originals at around the time of Christ. After they were discovered, there were a few, though not many changes that needed to be made. So again, we really see only one step, from Hebrew to English, although with a much different time scale from the originals. .

Not quite that simple. The jewish tradition of the Hebrew text goes back to the texts written in Israel in the 8th and 9th centuries CE(the Masoretic texts). The Greek text is based on a translation (the septuagint - dating to around 200 BCE, IIRC - but the earliest texts are later as you say. Now unfortunately some of the key proof texts cited in the gospels work better using the Greek text than the Hebrew - there are other discrenpancies as well. IIUC most Protestant translations follow the Hebrew text EXCEPT where that leads to a theological problem, where they follow the Septuagint, and they follow the Septuagint when there is a questionable reading. Thats why translations made under Jewish auspices are somewhat different from those made under Protestant auspices. (theres also a Samaritan textual tradition, but i know less about that)

Now IIUC the Dead Sea Scrolls did NOT show either textual tradition to be correct. They showed that BOTH textual traditions existed, and sometime in the same document. IE one version of a book might be closer to the Masoretic text, another to the Septuagint, and yet another might have elements of both.

	07-11-2003 03:13									#17
	Inflate your Upload Space

Fundamentalism, like all extreme ideologies, whether they be secular or religious, are repugnant to mainstream society.

	07-11-2003 03:14									#18
	Re: Questions about Christian Fundamentalism Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor The other question is about the Law, as stated in the Old Testament. According to the Old Testament, the Law comes from God himself, and it is supposed to never change. Or decadent society is far from the word of God, and the fundies strive naturally to bring it closer: being against homosexuality, being against extramarital sex etc. are logical positions for the fundies. But are you fundamentalists ready to follow the Law in its entirety? Do you strive to have raped women stoned to death, provided they didn't scream loud enough? Are you against pillows? Do you want adult males to be worth 50 shekels and adult females 30? There are tons of Laws that can be deemed absurd, yet they are the words of God. To put the question simply, what is your position towards them?

well to make sense of all those you need the oral law, which was passed down (according to the Talmud - speficially Pirke Avot) by word of mouth from Moses to Joshua to the judges to the prophets to the "men of the great assembly (dont ask) to the "pairs" (proto-rabbis) It wasnt written down till 200 CE, when Rabbi Yehuda Ha Nasi compiled the Mishnah. It was kept as an oral tradition until after the establishment of Christianity, in order (according to some) to keep the Christians from misinterpretating it, as they did with the written law.

	07-11-2003 03:21									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi "What goes into a man's mouth does not make him unclean, but rather what comes out of it."

	07-11-2003 03:22									#20
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

LoTM:

Thank you.

I know more about the NT documentation than the OT issues.

I was going to ask for a Jewish perspective on the translation of the OT documents.

Yes, you have the Protestant's interpretation correct, IIRC.

quote: IIUC, this was in the context of questions of eating food that had not been correctly tithed, and related issues of purity, NOT the commandments about forbidden species etc.

Read my link to Mark 7, it doesn't seem to be talking about anything to do with improperly tithed food.

	07-11-2003 03:31									#21
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi LoTM: Thank you. I know more about the NT documentation than the OT issues. I was going to ask for a Jewish perspective on the translation of the OT documents. Yes, you have the Protestant's interpretation correct, IIRC. Read my link to Mark 7, it doesn't seem to be talking about anything to do with improperly tithed food.

"of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed"

that is it was a ritual purity issue, about which people at the time were getting particularly obsessive (as can be seen in the dead sea scrolls, and there are some hints in the Mishnah as well) NOT the basic commandments about forbidden species.

	07-11-2003 03:33									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi LoTM: Thank you. I know more about the NT documentation than the OT issues. I was going to ask for a Jewish perspective on the translation of the OT documents.

well then the first thing to keep in mind, is that there IS NO jewish perspective on the translation of the OT. Since in Judaism there IS NO OT. Theres just the bible (Tanakh) - to avoid confusion (and to avoid offending either side) it is sometimes called "The Hebrew Scriptures" in English (despite a small bit of it being in Aramaic).

	07-11-2003 03:39									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

AFAIK Jewish translators continue to use the Masoretic texts as the basis for translation. Though the DSS are of great interest, AFAIK theres nothing in them that is considered to provide a basis for fundamental (oops) change.

Other texts also provide insight into issues of biblical text - notably the targumim - Circa 1st century Aramaic versions of the biblical books - though clearly not literal translations, more like a retelling, they provide insight into how the text was viewed at the time, which IIUC can be useful in understanding particular words. (BTW the Targum Esther makes that book A LOT racier than the Masoretic/Septuagint version)

Theres also insight provided by midrash (hermeneutic interpretations from 200 CE to 1000 CE) and the Talmud. Not just for the respective interpretations, but as clues to textual problems.

	07-11-2003 03:41									#24
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Fine.

On the books considered by the Christians to by the Old Testament.

Better?

Now, as for the ritual purity issue, that evades my argument to Rufus on the Atonement, rendering the whole 'cleanness' / 'uncleanness' part of the sacrificial system moot.

	07-11-2003 03:48									#25
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

the other thing that makes judaism different is a different approach to the text. if some schools of christianity can be accused of literalism, the traditional Jewish approach is "hyperliteralism" G-d put nothing superflous in scripture - that means that a repeated word, an extra Hebrew grammatical partical, an odd usage MUST HAVE MEANING. If you find there are "problems" in the text that require explanation reading it literally, there are gads MORE when you read it this way. But that wasnt a problem, cause one of traditional Judaism's main ways of interacting with the text was to creatively, hermeneutically reconcile texts and overcome problems - from this process can new concepts, new readings, and new spiritual ideas. This is called midrash, and is central to trad. Judaism and its view of scripture.


Note also that traditional Judaism accepts 4 ways of reading scripture - Peshat - direct - not quite literal, but almost. Drash - the midrashic method described above Ramaz - allegorical, Sod - mystical - in which people and things in biblical stories represent mystical aspects of G-d. As it happens the acronym for these methods is Pardes - garden, or Paradise.

For a good intro to the Jewish history of the scriptures, and to some other texts as well I recommend a book called "Back to the Sources"

	07-11-2003 03:54									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

"Therefore, the standard now becomes one not of consumption, but of conduct"

But you can atone, either through sacrifice, through christ, or (in post temple Judaism) through repentance prayer and charity, for Sins of conduct. So i dont see who the replacement of one method of atonement by another impacts this. Note also that the Hebrew scriptures dont as a rule distinguish "consumption" from conduct - consumption is just one more form of conduct that G-d chooses to regulate, along with sex, war, farming, trade, charity, and everything else.

	07-11-2003 04:01									#27
	Increase Your PM Length

Heres a very idiosyncratic view of bible translation, by Martin Buber, Jewish Existentialist philosopher, and co-author of what in all likelihood will prove to be the last translation of the bible into GERMAN under Jewish auspices. http://home.olemiss.edu/~djr/pages/...rman/buber.html

	07-11-2003 04:08									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi LoTM: Thank you. I know more about the NT documentation than the OT issues. I was going to ask for a Jewish perspective on the translation of the OT documents.

another aspect of the Jewish view - is that translation itself is not quite legitimate - its a compromise even more so than for Christians. Its not that long ago (well a couple of hundred years ago) that probably close to 90% of adult Jewish males had a working knowledge of biblical Hebrew. Today among the Orthodox the figure is close to 100% for both genders - the figure is much lower for Conservative Jews, but the elite that goes to day school can read with understanding, and the rest who get their hebrew a couple of days a week can read the Aleph bet( i mean unless theyre like poor students), and can understand a certain amount.

	07-11-2003 05:04									#29
	Suffering from ads?

Why the difference between conservative and Orthodox WRT to the Hebrew?

What about the non-religious Jewish population? What percentage know Hebrew?

	07-11-2003 10:55									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Ben -

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I'm not sure I would read Matthew 5 (not Mark 5; my mistake) the same way you do; after promising to fulfill the law, Christ goes on to specifically say that the law is not changing regarding a variety of specific things. In fact, regarding adultery and divorce, JC's verios of the law is actually more draconian! However, it's true that he doesn't specifically mention dietary law. So if he doesn't mention dietary law in Matthew 5, and then suggests that it doesn't apply anymore in Mark 7, that would explain it. Thanks.

I now wonder this, though. I've read somewhere that in the US, at least, divorce rates among fundamentalist Christians run as high or higher than the rates for the general population. And there in Matthew 5, Christ gets really strict about divorce. Do the churches, in your experience, uphold that strictness, regarding second marriages as adulterous (and, by implication, children of those marriages as illegitimate)? And if not, why not?

Anyway, thanks again. I had always been curious about that.