Liberal churches report surge in participation in reaction to Trump presidency

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

2) have been morphed by centuries of translation to the point that we don't know what actually happened,

With respect, I don't really understand the point of this argument because we have numerous copies of the Bible in the original languages (far more than for other religious corpi such as the Mahayana Buddhist sutras, which were originally written in Sanskrit but are mostly extant in Chinese), unless the point is that there might be some uncertainty because many of the characters in the New Testament would have been speaking Aramaic rather than Greek.

[RINO Tom]

2) have been morphed by centuries of translation to the point that we don't know what actually happened,

With respect, I don't really understand the point of this argument because we have numerous copies of the Bible in the original languages (far more than for other religious corpi such as the Mahayana Buddhist sutras, which were originally written in Sanskrit but are mostly extant in Chinese), unless the point is that there might be some uncertainty because many of the characters in the New Testament would have been speaking Aramaic rather than Greek.

I didn't mean translation from one language to another so much as the story changing over time.  Additionally, I think some of the allegory might have made more sense to someone in the BC years than someone in 2017 (obviously) and so it should be interpreted that way.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

2) have been morphed by centuries of translation to the point that we don't know what actually happened,

With respect, I don't really understand the point of this argument because we have numerous copies of the Bible in the original languages (far more than for other religious corpi such as the Mahayana Buddhist sutras, which were originally written in Sanskrit but are mostly extant in Chinese), unless the point is that there might be some uncertainty because many of the characters in the New Testament would have been speaking Aramaic rather than Greek.

I didn't mean translation from one language to another so much as the story changing over time.  Additionally, I think some of the allegory might have made more sense to someone in the BC years than someone in 2017 (obviously) and so it should be interpreted that way.

Thanks for clarifying. There are plenty of people who do use this talking point about translation from one language to another and it annoys me to no end. My bad.

[RINO Tom]

2) have been morphed by centuries of translation to the point that we don't know what actually happened,

With respect, I don't really understand the point of this argument because we have numerous copies of the Bible in the original languages (far more than for other religious corpi such as the Mahayana Buddhist sutras, which were originally written in Sanskrit but are mostly extant in Chinese), unless the point is that there might be some uncertainty because many of the characters in the New Testament would have been speaking Aramaic rather than Greek.

I didn't mean translation from one language to another so much as the story changing over time.  Additionally, I think some of the allegory might have made more sense to someone in the BC years than someone in 2017 (obviously) and so it should be interpreted that way.

Thanks for clarifying. There are plenty of people who do use this talking point about translation from one language to another and it annoys me to no end. My bad.

No problem!   Interesting topic, for sure, I just don't hold it to the same logical rigor that we would discussing non-religious history.  That's not to say the Bible isn't a largely historical text, as I believe it is, but I think that applying some imagination to the more fantastic elements of Scripture - based on one's conception of God and His nature, based on scientific discoveries, personal experiences, etc. - is perfectly normal and doesn't fundamentally dillute one's religiosity.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

2) have been morphed by centuries of translation to the point that we don't know what actually happened,

With respect, I don't really understand the point of this argument because we have numerous copies of the Bible in the original languages (far more than for other religious corpi such as the Mahayana Buddhist sutras, which were originally written in Sanskrit but are mostly extant in Chinese), unless the point is that there might be some uncertainty because many of the characters in the New Testament would have been speaking Aramaic rather than Greek.

I didn't mean translation from one language to another so much as the story changing over time.  Additionally, I think some of the allegory might have made more sense to someone in the BC years than someone in 2017 (obviously) and so it should be interpreted that way.

Thanks for clarifying. There are plenty of people who do use this talking point about translation from one language to another and it annoys me to no end. My bad.

No problem!   Interesting topic, for sure, I just don't hold it to the same logical rigor that we would discussing non-religious history.  That's not to say the Bible isn't a largely historical text, as I believe it is, but I think that applying some imagination to the more fantastic elements of Scripture - based on one's conception of God and His nature, based on scientific discoveries, personal experiences, etc. - is perfectly normal and doesn't fundamentally dillute one's religiosity.

I'd agree with that to an extent, but I said in my AMA a little while ago that I'd reject any demythologization that diminishes the power of God by presupposing against the miraculous, and I stand by that. I don't think that's the only possible Christian position (although once one gets to the point of outright denying the Incarnation and Resurrection I'd say one is outside the bounds of Christianity) but it's one that I'm personally fairly insistent about.

[afleitch]

2) have been morphed by centuries of translation to the point that we don't know what actually happened,

With respect, I don't really understand the point of this argument because we have numerous copies of the Bible in the original languages (far more than for other religious corpi such as the Mahayana Buddhist sutras, which were originally written in Sanskrit but are mostly extant in Chinese), unless the point is that there might be some uncertainty because many of the characters in the New Testament would have been speaking Aramaic rather than Greek.

I didn't mean translation from one language to another so much as the story changing over time.  Additionally, I think some of the allegory might have made more sense to someone in the BC years than someone in 2017 (obviously) and so it should be interpreted that way.

Thanks for clarifying. There are plenty of people who do use this talking point about translation from one language to another and it annoys me to no end. My bad.

No problem!   Interesting topic, for sure, I just don't hold it to the same logical rigor that we would discussing non-religious history.  That's not to say the Bible isn't a largely historical text, as I believe it is, but I think that applying some imagination to the more fantastic elements of Scripture - based on one's conception of God and His nature, based on scientific discoveries, personal experiences, etc. - is perfectly normal and doesn't fundamentally dillute one's religiosity.

I think, from the outside looking in, the issue shouldn't be translation or collation as such, but the various ecumenical Councils that established a state Roman religion and made conscious decisions as to what Christians had to believe and what the nature of god was and obliterated, in some cases physically any textual or personal opposition to those understandings. And somehow this was 'sort of okay' because of logos, holy spirit etc. And then the posturing of purists in defense of this when they take shots at liberal interpretations.

[TDAS04]

Fantastic news.