A question for the christian scholars

1

InfoGeek

on Jun 24, 2005

God has multiple personalities and he was speaking for them all.

Sybil, call central casting...

IG

2

dharmagrl

on Jun 24, 2005

God has multiple personalities and he was speaking for them all.

So, god was schizophrenic? Interesting thought....that would explain how he can be so angry, jealous and vengeful in the Old Testament and loving, caring, and nurturing in the New....

3

MasonM

on Jun 24, 2005

Traditionally, God is represented as a trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It's a bit complicated but essentially they represent three facets or aspects of God, hence the plural.

4

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 24, 2005

The word was translated from the Hebrew "Elohim" which CAN mean multiple gods, but was translated by King James scholars to express the concept of the trinity. Hebrew does not translate readily to English.

Does this preclude the idea of multiple gods? No, but does this necessarily lend Biblical support to the idea? Again, no.

Good question.

5

stutefish

on Jun 24, 2005

Actually, he's both in both, d-girl.

Also, "schizophrenic"? Might as well say "I don't understand it; it must be broken".

6

dharmagrl

on Jun 24, 2005

Hebrew does not translate readily to English.

Which again leads me to question the true meaning of the bible. If hebrew doesn't translate readily, doesn't that mean that there are errors? That things have been manipulated and mis-translated, that in fact some parts of the bible as it is today might be totally wrong?

Traditionally, God is represented as a trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Actually, the trinity is a man-made concept.

http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Christianity/Other_Articles/the_holy_trinity.htm

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html#_1_8

http://home.inu.net/skeptic/trinity.html

So, if it came about in the 4th Century, thousands of years after the bible was written, that cannot explain the reason behind the plural in the first chapter of genesis. Unless the bible was altered to reflect that, of course, which calls into question it's 'divine'-ness.

Also, "schizophrenic"? Might as well say "I don't understand it; it must be broken".

That was an attemot at humor, stute. I'm not going to get into my christian past again, so I'll just say that i DO understand the bible....and that lead to a rejection of modern christianity on my part.

7

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 24, 2005

Which again leads me to question the true meaning of the bible. If hebrew doesn't translate readily, doesn't that mean that there are errors? That things have been manipulated and mis-translated, that in fact some parts of the bible as it is today might be totally wrong?

Long answer. I'm too tired from flipping burgers at the fast food joint to reply right now. I'll try again later...lol

8

drmiler

on Jun 24, 2005

Actually, the trinity is a man-made concept.
Link
Link
Link
So, if it came about in the 4th Century, thousands of years after the bible was written, that cannot explain the reason behind the plural in the first chapter of genesis. Unless the bible was altered to reflect that, of course, which calls into question it's 'divine'-ness.

The problem with this thought can be summed up in one sentence.

Many scholars believe that the Trinity, as taught by Christians, comes from Plato as suggested in the Timaeus, but the Platonic trinity is itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples.(3)

"Believe" being the key. No one knows any such thing positively.

9

dharmagrl

on Jun 24, 2005

"Believe" being the key. No one knows any such thing positively.

Which is the issue with the whole bible, as far as I'm concerned. You can 'believe' what you want; the truth may be something quite different. There is more evidence that the trinity is a man made concept than not.

Long answer. I'm too tired from flipping burgers at the fast food joint to reply right now. I'll try again later...lol

Cool, I'll look forward to your reply!

10

MarcieMoo

on Jun 24, 2005

Which again leads me to question the true meaning of the bible. If hebrew doesn't translate readily, doesn't that mean that there are errors? That things have been manipulated and mis-translated, that in fact some parts of the bible as it is today might be totally wrong?

I tend to look at this from hmmm...I guess I don't know...a different perspective than some people do. I look at it this way: If God really put those words into the hearts of the men that wrote the Bible, and He is supposedly all-knowing, and all-powerful, how could He, knowing that there would be billions and billions of people over ALL time that speak thousands upon thousands of languages, allow that word to be mistranslated?

I'm not talking about Marcie's translation of the Bible, because I could get the original Greek and Hebrew texts and "translate" myself, you know? Or I could just write my own version of the Scriptures and call it the "Bible," too. I'm talking about widely read and accepted versions of the Bible, like the King James Version or the New International Version or even one of the newest versions that written in simpler language that I've been dying to get my hands on, The Message.

Wouldn't this question be true for the Koran, too? Or any other religion that originated outside of England and the United States? Wouldn't the Book of Mormon be the only religious writing that needed to be translated into OTHER languages versus it being translated into English?

Actually, the trinity is a man-made concept.

Link

Link

Link

So, if it came about in the 4th Century, thousands of years after the bible was written, that cannot explain the reason behind the plural in the first chapter of genesis. Unless the bible was altered to reflect that, of course, which calls into question it's 'divine'-ness.

I will respectfully disagree with you on that. The word "trinity"...yes. That's man-made. But the Bible is very clear about all three "parts" of God. There's the God in the OT, and He becomes the "Father" of the New Testament, then Jesus as the Son. Later, when Jesus is being baptized, the Holy Spirit descends upon him as He is in the river. Jesus also promises His people that His Spirit will be with them when He ascends into Heaven.

One thing I don't understand is...if God set about creating all of us...all of us...He must have known that humanity would turn away from Him and that He would have to die on the cross for us...why did He do it at all? Are those of us who love Him and follow Him enough? I don't think it is that way...

I'll say this, too: There are some things about the Bible...lots actually, that I don't understand either. It's a tough book to read and understand and apply. I think lots of people expect Christians to know everything...and the fact is that we don't. We know enough to accept it as Truth and then try to figure the rest out as we go...

Karen...I just adore you. Thank you for your honest, respectful questions.

11

Zoomba

on Jun 24, 2005

The issue of translation makes things really difficult for people who want to take the bible word-for-word literally. Even if you go back to ancient hebrew texts, you're still dealing with a translation issue.

Let's assume for a moment that these are the recorded acts of men following God's mandate. Here's the general (simplified) path from God, to the book you have in your bookshelf.

God -> Man (Prophet) -> Friends recount story -> Gets passed down multiple generations as an oral history ->Finally written down -> Translated from Hebrew to Greek -> Greek to Latin -> Latin into modern languages -> Umpteenbajillion different "Translations" distributed -> Your bookshelf

Ever play Telephone or Whisper Down The Alley when you were little? After 3 or 4 people, a single sentence typically didn't end up anything like it started out. That's one line, with a small group of people passing it along within a very short time frame. Now, multiply the number of people, the distance, the time involved and the volume of information to deal with and it's amazing we have anything even remotely coherent.

Man has worked over and twisted these words for most of history. It's impossible to view it as a literal account anymore.

12

dharmagrl

on Jun 24, 2005

to look at this from hmmm...I guess I don't know...a different perspective than some people do. I look at it this way: If God really put those words into the hearts of the men that wrote the Bible, and He is supposedly all-knowing, and all-powerful, how could He, knowing that there would be billions and billions of people over ALL time that speak thousands upon thousands of languages, allow that word to be mistranslated?

Ok, now look at the statement from a non-believer's POV....HOW could he?

The Message.

I have 'The Book' as well as a king James and a NIV. I like The Book the most.

But the Bible is very clear about all three "parts" of God. There's the God in the OT, and He becomes the "Father" of the New Testament, then Jesus as the Son. Later, when Jesus is being baptized, the Holy Spirit descends upon him as He is in the river. Jesus also promises His people that His Spirit will be with them when He ascends into Heaven.

But that's my point to mason about why the 'us' part couldn't refer to the trinity. Because the three part harmony didn't come about until waaaaaayyyy after Genesis had been written.

I'm thoroughly enjoying this, Marcie. No name calling, well thought answers...this is a good debate!

13

drmiler

on Jun 24, 2005

The issue of translation makes things really difficult for people who want to take the bible word-for-word literally. Even if you go back to ancient hebrew texts, you're still dealing with a translation issue.

Let's assume for a moment that these are the recorded acts of men following God's mandate. Here's the general (simplified) path from God, to the book you have in your bookshelf.

God -> Man (Prophet) -> Friends recount story -> Gets passed down multiple generations as an oral history ->Finally written down -> Translated from Hebrew to Greek -> Greek to Latin -> Latin into modern languages -> Umpteenbajillion different "Translations" distributed -> Your bookshelf

Ever play Telephone or Whisper Down The Alley when you were little? After 3 or 4 people, a single sentence typically didn't end up anything like it started out. That's one line, with a small group of people passing it along within a very short time frame. Now, multiply the number of people, the distance, the time involved and the volume of information to deal with and it's amazing we have anything even remotely coherent.

Man has worked over and twisted these words for most of history. It's impossible to view it as a literal account anymore.

I have said this for a long time. The bible is literally someones translation of what was written. How are we to be sure that what we're reading and trying to live is correct?

14

dharmagrl

on Jun 24, 2005

Man has worked over and twisted these words for most of history. It's impossible to view it as a literal account anymore.

YES!!!!!!!!! YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's what I'm talking about!!!

So, if that's the case, why are we still having the evolution vs creationism debate in schools?

I'd also like to point out that I personally think that some branches of Christianity have got too involved in trying to interpret the bible. They get so caught up in scripture and verse that I think they lose sight of the 'big picture'...and if they were to take a step back and see the message as a whole things would be much more peaceful.

15

Ionolast

on Jun 24, 2005

God has multiple personalities and he was speaking for them all.

Why would He talk to Himself?

So, god was schizophrenic?

People with multiple personalities are not schizophrenic.

I used to have The Other Bible. It has lots of different scriptures such as Gnostic and Hebrew.