Religion Christianity: Conceptions and misconceptions

[Mycernius]

With respect to Mars Man and Pararousia and others that have been following the discussion under Missionaries In Japan you might have noticed that the thread has recently become off topic From about post 161 onwards. I have decided, therefore, to start a new thread dealing with various conceptions about Christianity in general ie: Various interpretations of the Bible and its origins.
Please keep the disscussion polite and enter it with an open mind. You might not agree with what is being said, but you should respect other peoples points of view. Thank you :wave:

 

[Pararousia]

Let's not limit it just to various interpretations of the Bible and its origins though, ok?

 

[lexico]

Q and the Evolution of the Gospels and the Bible

It is not clear whether there was a book of Jesus sayings during his life time. Sometime after his public service ceased to be, there came into being a now-lost note of sayings of Jesus that his students put down to writing to aid memory, as they too were getting old, and once dead, no one would know for sure what Jesus had said, and what his students said. In the past 100 years of biblical study, this hypothetical book came to be called the Book of Q or simply Q for quellen, 'what.'

Based on loosely identical copies of Q were born the three synopotic gospels of Matthews, Mark, and Luke; The Gospel according to John belonged to a different tradition characterised by a mild gnostic tendency. Although Q manuscripts were never discovered, it is highly probable that it was written by James, the brother of Jesus, who lead the church of Jerusalem.

In the formative years of primitive christianity, there was no bound christian bible of 66 books, but only scrolls of the Jewish bible, the Torah (pentateuch), the Nevim (the prophets), and the Kethuvim (the literature). What would later become part of the New Testament were hardly gathered together in one place, but scattered at different synagogues with different composition. The very fact that there are four gospels is proof that at least four different synagogues had each different ways of remembering the life and teachings of Jesus.

As the first generation of students of Jesus died out, and final authority of authentic sayings of Jesus became a serious problem, the church leaders gathered all available scrolls in the chruches, and limited only those written by the first generation to be included in the canon, for the direct personal contact with the historical Jesus was considered the only reliable criterion for credibility. Not all the ascriptions of the New Testament books are to be taken literally, as nobody even then was sure who had actually written them. They had only oral tradition regarding the author; if the author information was told by one of the first apostles, then it was deemed trustworthy.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I learnt something new about the Bible yesterday. In about 1650 Rev James Ussher calculated the age of the Earth using the chronologies in the Bible, arriving at 4004 BC as the date for the creation. I knew this already. What I didn't know was that from 1701 Ussher's chronolgy was incorporated in the margins of an authorized version of the Bible, and remained there for over 200 years. It became so entrenched that people forgot about the origins of the chronology with Ussher and assumed that it came from somewhere in the Bible. Even Darwin was surprised (and dismayed) to learn that the chronology was only a few decades old.

Interesting, huh?

 

[lexico]

Bible Tidbits and so-called Infallibility of the Bible

Holes in the Bible ?

In the best preserved editions of the Jewish bible, there are missing letters due to erosion over time. Do you think archeological discoveries comparable to the Cairo Geniza or the Dead Sea scrolls will some day provide the missing letters ?

Canaanite Torah ?

The Hebrew script is an off-shoot of what is known as the Aramaic script that grew out of the Canaanite script which, when found within the Jewish cultural context, is also called the paleo-Hebrew script. Since the Torah began to be written in Aramaic alphabet only since the Babylonian captivity, it is certain that there were Torahs written in the paleo-Hebrew alphabet although we have none that remains. This is partly due to the Jewish law that dictates all damaged manuscripts be interred to prevent descration. The Cairo Geniza was practically a graveyard of the sacred scrolls but above ground.

Vowels letters and Vowel marks ?

Vowels in the Hebrew script are aleph (a), yod (i), and vav (u); they were originally used to mark consonants (', j, w), but was later assigned vowel values that were part of the name of the letter. In the Dead Sea scrolls are seen traces of these three letters being added to make clear the reading of the bible.

Since the diaspora, two varieties of vowel marks were developed in Jerusalem and Babylonia. Jerusalem vowel marks eventually won out. Since the vowel marks were applied so late in the textual history, some vowels could have been chosen incorrectly or one of several equally compelling possible vowels could have been added.

So much for infallibiity of the bible; what would some church officials not do to excercise more control over believers ? Yet if the Bible can be considered a spiritually inspired writing, then either such minor blemishes or groundless claims should not be a major problem as long as we understand the spirit of the text; but sometimes the spirit can be misunderstood for a small techinical detail such a dot, jot, or iod.

 

[Mars Man]

Now there is some good information, and as far as I can see, very much right on the nail. According to what I have come across, I would say that the jury's still out, and maybe always will be, as to just exactly where Classical Hebrew came from because the scholars are pretty much split down the center--either Aramaic or Akkadian (How the Hebrew Language Grew; Dr. Edward Horowitz, 1960, pp xix,xx) Biblical Hebrew Step by Step, Vol. 1 (by M. Mansoor, p7) puts Hebrew and Aramaic as equal lines along with Canaanite-Phoenician and Ugaritic under the Northwest group of Semitic languagaes. And yes, although the scribes and priests were very careful, we know that there have been losses, interpolations, and spurious additions.

As far as I have checked it out, the Q theory is still pretty solid. There has been at least one hypothesis challenging part of the theory on to just what degree Q may have been relied on by the Synoptics. But of course, it was all oral tradition up until around the mid first century for sure ('it' means NT) every scholar will tell you that. Some in Higher Criticism in the past have tried to put the actual pennings well into the second century but now every scholar of religious knowledge that I've read will put them in the first (by using writing and wording styles on discovered papyri and leather fragments).

Even taking the texts to be relatively accurate to the originals, I have found it hard to escape the fact that Christian Bible, with or without the Apocrypha, is not so historically tight, in details of its claim to know what people said and did, but to see that one has to have an open mind, and apply simple scientific method.

Scientific method

I mean simply, one finds the book, and before one can say it is inspired by "God" and is thus inerrant, one has to look at the book and see if it itself can support such a claim, and if it does, then o.k. Also, when looking at the book, one would have to keep in mind natural laws, such a two contradicting claims on a single historical act or occurance cannot both be true.

Paraousia, when you check in here, let's please continue talking about these things in a academic, gentleman-like manner. I have enjoyed discussing these with you, even with the different angles that we are coming from. And here in the thread, I feel freer to answer and respond to everything you ask of me. PLEASE, Parasouia, PLEASE do understand that I WAS a believer at the beginning. I was involved with the Billy Graham crusade/rivival back in highschool, I have read the intire Bible, and more than just once, but that I have studied it rather deeply as well. I am fully aware of the various arguments for and on the concept of inspiration. I fully know the back sides of the texts which are used to support those arguments, and I would love to fully discuss each and every one with you, if you wish, to show just where it is that the religious leaders of old (ie. esp. post 2nd century-19th century) have gone wrong with their teachings. PLEASE do keep in mind that we are primarily discussing historical accounts, not the meanings of prophetical passages or the nature of the proverbs or such.

If I may, please, I would like to make it openly clear that as far as we humans can see and appreciate at the moment, time is a one time event in the system we are in (entropy effect), so if we were to record a conversation, it would always be the same when we played it back--word per word ! That's why those qoutes I had pointed out which are direct quotes (there are a few instances of indirect quotes in NT) cannot both be historical facts--even though the intended communication IS the same.

I really wish I could get your thoughts and understanding on that, YET, I will give you the floor first, and I will follow. PLEASE, to maintain sound argument format, may I suggest that we (as much as humanly possible) kind of stick to one point at a time until there has been understanding on it. (by this I mean one of us, any of us as far as that goes, answers to a point (in disagreement or agreement or unsure) before going to some other area) I could be wrong, but feel that that might just make our flow or reasoning more coherent.

O.K. I'm waiting to here from you all. Let's enjoy this great discussion. My hat's off to you Mycernius for so kindly helping us out here. Thank you !!
:wave:

 

[Mycernius]

No problem Mars Man.

I have only read the King James Bible, with the apocrapha included. I was quite insistant that it must have it in,as i feel that it must have some import on the rest of the text. I have recently purchased the Gnostic texts. They seem to be extra books to the NT that the early Catholic church left out. If anyone could shed some light on why, I would appreciate it. I have also got a copy of the Book of Enoch, which appears to be a Book to the OT, that early jews used, but has been dropped. From what I have read about it, it appears to be almost a reveation type text for the OT.

Tsuyoiko: I have heard about the Rev. and how he used the Bible to calculate the beginning of the world. I beleive he also calculated the month, October I think, and a date to go with it, but I cannot remember that. I will have to go digging.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Hi Mike: It was Saturday 22nd October at 18:00.

 

[Mars Man]

Good Morning Mycernius, Greetings from the Japan Alps,

May I take a stab at some of your very good questions there:

As far as I have studied, it seems that Jewish tradition holds that it was Ezra--a Jewish priest and scribe (post-exilic; 400BCE +-) who started the idea of a canon of the Jewish scrolls. Then, by the first century CE, there were the Palestinian canon, the Alexandria canon, the Samarian canon, and the Babylonian canon. Most of the areas outside the the Palestinian area just before and during the first century used the Septuagint (LXX) and there were a number of differences in just what scrolls were accepted by whom. Enoch I was in the Alexandrian group, if my memory serves me right, and was also quoted from by the writer of Jude (NT) verses 14,15. (I have a book on Enoch I and its influences on Christian text also.) The Christians used the LXX as their source for study and quotes, and that's why you get some problems in their quotes as well (and there is evidence of interpolations in the LXX they used). so around the year 98 CE or so, there was a meeting of the greater Jewish religious leaders ( this after the Romans had destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 CE) in Jenebh (sp?) where they decided to make a final canon rule, which they did, and it came out as, you got it, the Palestinian canon. They guys must have all felt sorry to the old town people. So, then suddenly you get scrolls that the Jewish religious leaders don't take heart of, which Christians seemed to have used here and there. No mass media, no World Wide Net, no real postal system (it was there in a way, but...) things moved slow and there were a lot of pockets of this and that. Flavius Josephus (first century) referred to 39 books (those of the Palestinian Canon and which the OT usually consists of today), Jerome, (compiler of the Latin Vulate around 405) avowed to the 39 books too, although by combining some his count was 22 {that was the same way Josephus had counted them}. The letters and narrations and prophetic writings which became the NT have only a few quotes from works other than the Palestinian Canon (which makes sense, they were practically ALL from that area) which also helped in that process.

The NT canon was also slow in coming about: The earlist know catalog of canon is that of the Muratorian Fragment (c.170). There is a bit missing, but the general books it doesn't mention are Hebrews and James, and 2 Peter is doubted in certain areas as being canonical. It mentions the Sheperd by Hermas was to be read, but not placed amongst the Prophets and Apostles. The apocalypses of John and Peter were to be taken only.

Then you have Irenaeus' catalog (Asia Minor c.180) which doesn't mention Philemon or James (maybe--text preservation problems) but which doubts Hebrews, 3 John, and Jude. There are a number of other ones ( some 13 in all) up to the conference of Carthage, in North Africa in 397. It is here where the NT canon was officially spelled out by the Roman Catholic Church, and that the OT and NT were setteled. Later opposition to the Apocrypha by the Reformation, was not really new; it had been under much debate before the Third Council of Carthage. In the NT, the most doubted book had always been 2 Peter.

I, like of number of scholars of religious knowledge, put the present canon of 'Scripture' (OT & NT) in a group with all the other scrolls and writings that didn't make it. That group is simply the 'religious writings' group. I mean, if after the test of time and growth in knowledge, all these historical based portions had held true, then maybe we could call them "The Word of God" or "inspired" or what have you, but they simply speaking, have not passed the test. Therefore, my guess (perhaps an informed guess) would be that the Apocrypha don't really bear any weight on, nor extend meaning to the OT, than, say, the Apostles Creed does on the writings left over by the first century Christians. That's how I'd put it. (ADDITION: almost all of the regular 'secular/family/political history in OT is trust worthy)

Good questions. I like the facts, as you all may be able to tell, the hard core, detailed facts. And I may err from time to time in my memories or quotes, but will try very, very hard not too. I am a member of the Society of Biblical Literature, so do have room to double check and cross-reference things, but being here in Japan makes it a little bit hard to get good library info. Now the rain has let up, I must go out and cut some weeds with the weed-eater. See you 'round :wave:

 

[Mycernius]

Thanks for the info Mars Man. It has cleared a few things up for me.

 

[Pararousia]

Honesty is a wonderful thing

Paraousia, when you check in here, let's please continue talking about these things in a academic, gentleman-like manner.

Marsy, Would it be ok if I discuss it with you in a lady-like fashion instead???
Needless to say, I'm back and rather far behind in posts and replies. (But I'm female, dadburnit!)

Mars_Man said:

PLEASE do understand that I WAS a believer at the beginning. I was involved with the Billy Graham crusade/rivival back in highschool

So can you share with us or email me privately and say what it was that hurt you or discouraged you from the body of faith? Did you ever have a born-again experience? Or was it simply a practice you fell into and then fell out of? I'd like to know more about your upbringing because it seems like something in your life went terribly awry. Do you still believe in God?

For all the many lines of discreditation you offer as to why this scroll, canon or fragment isn't accurate, there are biblical scholars who have studied, compared and collaborated the original languages, texts, etc., and have decided that our current canon is reliable. As I stated in a previous post, I'll take theirs, thank you very much. There exists scores of pages even online about the inspiration of the original autographa, like these, for example: http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt042.htm or
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=679
Can someone in a forum setting like this one really seriously try and refute scholarly research that has been done for hundreds of years? I think not.

That why in one of my other posts, I said the following:

"For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn預nd I would heal them." Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus glory and spoke about him." (John 12:39-41) So perhaps the answer for some of you is that you are unable to see Truth more than unwilling. Perhaps the two are the same, I don't know. I only pray that there are some of you out there who are reading this who are still honest in your search for Truth, because Jesus Christ is the way, the Truth, and the life.

Peace.

 

[Mars Man]

:gomen:

Marsy, Would it be ok if I discuss it with you in a lady-like fashion instead???
Needless to say, I'm back and rather far behind in posts and replies. (But I'm female, dadburnit!)
:gomen: :gomen:

Dear Pararousia, please do accept my humble apologies on that lack of forethought there. And I noticed that I may have mispelled your 'forum name' in the past. Sorry 'bout that.

I will answer your first concerns by 'private msg' since it would probably make this thread a bit lop-sided at far too early a stage. I'll do that tomorrow or tonight (Jpn time: now is 10:29 am Thurs.) But actually I would like to touch on the other things first, and now, please.


If I may point out, please, I fairly know the scholarly world on this subject, and in being a member of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) I do have contact with, and information from those who are the scholars themselves. I do hope that you will acknowledge this fact. May I point out, nevertheless, that there are essentially three groups of scholarship: scholars of religious knowledge, religious scholars, and scholarly religionists. The second group is the largest in Christiandom. Therefore, I really do hope that I can get your tacit acceptance of what little capability in biblical scholarship I may have, as we all discuss these things.

CANON

This means, basically, catalog. Which writings are included in the particular religious library. Yes, it was considered to be the 'inspired' library because it was done by the believers in the faith--that being Jewish or Christian. Politely I wish to point out that the Christian canon (NT) was sealed by that Council of Carthage. So whether, say, the book of 2 Peter is to be included in that canon, is no longer an academic exercise today--even though it had been in the past.

RECENSION

There have been a number of recensions over the past handful plus decades, but the latest are the best because of greater information more finds, better understanding, etc. What the recension is, is the attempt to get to the original writing because those have long been gone. Nestle-Aland's 27th edition is very nice. It shows the dubious passages (those which by lack of attestation were probably NOT in the original) and spurious passages (that were clearly NOT in the original--most of these are now left out of English translations and versions) Every recension will have published decisions which may (some will) be debated by scholars, but to little avail--because it is so very obvious that there will NEVER be any clear-cut answer. (Those in the scholarly religionist camp are oft the culprits here.)

RELIABILITY

The issue of the lack of reliability which I would strive to point out, is that the content of the works themselves, (esp. NT) provide many historical claims which cannot be true, and thus amount to unreliabilty. It's the statement that an act, event, had happened in the flow of time--history--that I wish to put in the spotlight. I, and many other scholars, trust me, know and have published works on the point that we are largely dealing with claims and statements saying 'this happened' , 'this person did this' 'he said this, to which this person answered such and such' (DISCLAMER: the above wording may mislead one to think I have also published works; I have written, but have not published) For example, in a correspondence from one J.P Meier of the theology dept. at Notre Dame, when discussing a possible Aramaic wording for Jesus' quoted reply at John 8:58, he gave me the following, and I quote: " For better or for worse, my answer concerning John 8:58 is a simple one: I do not consider this statement to be either a saying of the historical Jesus or a product of early Christian tradition. I think it is a clear creation of the Fourth Evanglist,. . ." I have more in the journals that I recieve, if you'd like further witnesses. If a person says that bloke A said, verbatum, "You are my son." then someone comes along and says that bloke A had said, verbatum, at that time, "This is my son." we have a contradiction. Both claims to know the historical event, fact, cannot be true--yet which one is? This is the problem of reliabilty. If someone says there were two men at that time who had said "have mercy on us" (a direct quote) then someone coming along later saying that there had been only one man at that time saying, " Please show me your mercy" (a direct quote) we cannot say that both represent true history--one has to be true, the other untrue.

I hope these points will help clear this portion up. What books belong in the canon is not in question today, so much. The truth value of all the claims to know historical events, occurances, acts, and words spoken is in decisive doubt today.

Pararousia, I will send a private msg later. Thanks for dropping by and I really look forward to the discussion. Again, I apologize for my slight.
See you all !! Mars Man :wave:

 

[Kinsao]

Why would people think to take the Bible literally? :? To me it seems like some different accounts of happenings (I mean the synoptic gospels here), so, some writers got things differently from others, and in some things were the same. That's normal, I think? So should not 'argument' about meanings in the Bible be about the message, not small facts peripheral to the message? Or am I missing the point entirely? :worried: And as far for Old Testament, I was under the impression that much of this is symbolism, so what does the precision matter?

Of course, the Bible is holy book of Christians... but some people take every single word literally, and I think this is senseless (apologies to anyone I might offend :sorry: ) because it says some things (especially in Old Testament) that we know to be untrue (I can't think right out of my head now, but stuff about certain animals... :clueless: ).

What I'm saying is that, I think it is a little... unbalanced... to make a discussion on 'Christianity - conceptions and misconceptions' entirely about the Bible. Because although the Bible is obviously going to be important to Christians, it isn't the whole thing... I mean, the belief isn't only and simply a belief in the (literal) truth and/or interpretation of one book. There is more...

 

[Mars Man]

What I'm saying is that, I think it is a little... unbalanced... to make a discussion on 'Christianity - conceptions and misconceptions' entirely about the Bible. Because although the Bible is obviously going to be important to Christians, it isn't the whole thing... I mean, the belief isn't only and simply a belief in the (literal) truth and/or interpretation of one book. There is more...[/QUOTE]

Hi there Kinsao !! :wave: It's nice to hear from you; I appreciate your concerns and points made. If I may, I'd like to see if I can give any insight into any other perspective:

There are some tenants of dogma in Christendom which are not clearly derived from the Bible, yet which ARE, nonetheless, supported by applications of certain passages or texts from the Bible. One, for example, is the conception of a trinity--where there are three in one god-head. ( The best you can get from the NT is a duality, and at that even, if the works of John and his troupe had not survived, there would be extremely little room to make application of certain texts from Paul's writing to support it.) Another very big, and very relevant one is the concept of the inerrancy of the Bible. From what I have gathered, this is not as big an issue in Europe, as it is in the USA.

If there were any Christian groups which did NOT believe that what the NT writers had said about Jesus' acts, sayings and personality were true, they would hardly be considered Christian under present definitions, I would think. If they just believed that Joshua (his real name) was just another human like you and I that his followers played up after his death, they wouldn't likely quote from the bible at all, I would think.

If the contents of the NT were NOT a must for Christianity, then it would follow that the message of those contents would NOT be needed. If the contents had never been of any importance in the minds of the followers of the early Christians, then there would logically have never been any concern for which books were to be in a canon, and which were not.

For example, take the 'message' that Joshua had been resurrected by Yahweh, as claimed by the several writers. Is all that just some deep symbolic meaning without any historical reality behind it or not? Or, in the plain reading (as they say) are these accounts to be considered real historical events? Do you happen to know of any Christian groups which do not attempt to prove that it really happened by opening the Bible and reading from one or more of those accounts? There is an old latin maxim which goes something like: wrong in one, wrong in all. The details are of course important, because the truth value (validity) of the detals equal the truth value (validity) of the whole. Would you not feel that this is a valid point?

The Mosaic Law was a real law. It was written, most obviously, to be followed to the dot. There is very little room for symbolism. When it states that a women must bring a sin offering because of menstration, the actual historical woman had to do just that. When it demanded that when a male were caught laying with a male, that the both of them were to be killed without fail, it meant every single stupid, ignorant word of it. So you see, Kinsao, this is not and was not symbolism. It is very unfortunate that there has been SO much biblical illiteracy in the Western world, because it causes a lot of generalizations and misconceptions in the minds of followers of the faith as expoused by those who don't care about truth values.

I can see your point, I think, and if I somehow missed it, please do re-word it and pass it by me again. However, I must admit that I think the Bible is the very center of all Christian dogma and teachings, and is so largely considered to be the infalliable "Word of God", without error nor mere human wishfull thinking, that discussion of it here under this present theme is logical enough.

If no one took the Bible literally, then no one would ever open it and say 'Jesus said, "blah,blah,blah..."', because such quoted words would not be literal history--if the writers had only intended to be symbolic in everything. I hope you can visualize my point. Hope to hear more from you, and thanks a lot for sharing your ideas. :wave:

 

[Mycernius]

Why would people think to take the Bible literally? To me it seems like some different accounts of happenings (I mean the synoptic gospels here), so, some writers got things differently from others, and in some things were the same. That's normal, I think? So should not 'argument' about meanings in the Bible be about the message, not small facts peripheral to the message? Or am I missing the point entirely? And as far for Old Testament, I was under the impression that much of this is symbolism, so what does the precision matter?

Of course, the Bible is holy book of Christians... but some people take every single word literally, and I think this is senseless (apologies to anyone I might offend ) because it says some things (especially in Old Testament) that we know to be untrue (I can't think right out of my head now, but stuff about certain animals... ).

In some cases the Bible is a book with various passages that are full of symbolism, the best example is the book of Revelations, but it also charts the history of the early Jewish nation and the ministry of Jesus. These are subjective and that is where various problems start to come in. There are people who accept the Bible as the Word of God passed onto the writers of the testaments. To them every word and passage is true and they do take every passage literally. JWs and other conservative Christians groups do not see the symbolism, what they see is the truth. They set up workshops and Bible study groups to work through the problems that are obvious to anyone who has an open mind. Pseudo-science is used to answer some of the more awkward questions that have been disproved by new understanding, or just ignored. Even established religious organisations will look on new discoveries with blinkers despite the evidence before them (The Catholic church took until the late 20th century to accept Galileos version of the cosmos) Yet some Christians do accept new scientific discoveries and can take these without crictism and adapt to it. Chritianity itself not only takes from the Bible for its imagery and symbols, but also from other texts, religious or otherwise. Dantes Divine Comedy was a piece of satire, but many symbols of that have been taken into Christian Theology. The ideas that inspired Dante about his route through Hell were early Christian concepts of Hell that cannot be found in the Bible, yet they came from someone and it evetually became part of the Christian myth. Christianity is an evolving religion and has been from its inception, yet their are always people who will not expand with it and with this you start to get your differing viewpoints that can led to intolerance within their own religion or even denomination.
(got a feeling I started to ramble and went of track somewhere? :? Oh hum :clueless: )

 

[Mars Man]

In some cases the Bible is a book with various passages that are full of symbolism, the best example is the book of Revelations, but it also charts the history of the early Jewish nation and the ministry of Jesus. These are subjective and that is where various problems start to come in.

I think I got your point, and agree. It made me recall one consideration I had intended to mention earlier; that is the matter of independent witness. When looking at these historical portions in NT, not the symbolic prophetic passages--as you so well pointed out, Mycernius--those who wish protect the concept of the Bible's having unity, or whatever, attempt to point out that the several writers were simply different individual humans who wrote what they had heard through the oral tradition, that's all (so what's the big deal?) But, the big deal is just that, I'd say--there are four individual witnesses to the Gospel story, and they all differ in major ways, which only goes to show that the stories do form one single story by one superlative individual ("God"). You either have one omniscient, omnipotent witness who does not lie, direct the all the historical recounting, or you have four humans with limited memory, insight, and mental ablilities, spread over time and locality and purpose do it. I just don't see how we can more than one witness and one witness at the one and same time. :clueless:

 

[Tsuyoiko]

This subjective view is important. Even things that on the surface seem to have an obvious message can be taken any way you want. Take the story of Adam and Eve's expulsion from the Garden of Eden. They were willful and disobedient, led astray by an evil being, and deserved their punishment. It never occurred to me that there was another way of looking at it, until I read His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman, which led me to reading about Pullman's influences. He suggests that Adam and Eve were not led astray by evil, but were going through the naturally questioning phase that teenagers go through, and were simply rebelling against their 'parent'. Pullman suggests that rebellion against control is necessary for young people to be able to move on from the family home. After this I read Paradise Lost, and came to the opposite conclusion to what Milton intended.

 

[Mycernius]

You've read Paradise Lost? I've heard that is a very difficult book to read ie: long and boring. I might try it someday, but I think I've really got to be in the mood.

 

[Kinsao]

"Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven."

(Sorry - can't resist sticking my nose in where not needed! :sorry: )

 

[Tsuyoiko]

You've read Paradise Lost? I've heard that is a very difficult book to read ie: long and boring. I might try it someday, but I think I've really got to be in the mood.

It is difficult - not particularly long, but certainly boring in places. An easier book on a similar theme is Dante's Divine Comedy - it is much more readable but very, very long.

"Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven."

(Sorry - can't resist sticking my nose in where not needed! )

Your nose is always welcome! It was the quotable bits like that that kept me reading Paradise Lost, even through the boring bits!