A critical study of the Bible

[Maximus]

http://www.wayoflife.org/database/vernacularversions.html
1. THE COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE (1229) AND THE COUNCIL OF TARRAGONA (1234) FORBADE THE LAITY TO POSSESS OR READ THE VERNACULAR TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. NO EXCEPTIONS WERE MENTIONED.

The Council of Toulouse used these words: "We prohibit the permission of the books of the Old and New Testament to laymen, except perhaps they might desire to have the Psalter, or some Breviary for the divine service, or the Hours of the blessed Virgin Mary, for devotion; expressly forbidding their having the other parts of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue" (Allix, Ecclesiastical History, II, p. 213). The declarations of these Councils held power for centuries thereafter.

The councils that you have cited are not ecumenical councils of the entire Church (of which there are 21 recognized by the Catholic Church) but rather local councils of bishops from a given region. An important implication because the "councils" in question are not binding to the entire Church.

Also, you need to understand the context under which the Council of Toulouse was operating. The Council was brought together to combat the Albigensian heresy:

"Which held that there are two gods and that marriage is evil because all matter (and thus physical flesh) is evil. From this the heretics concluded that fornication could be no sin, and they even encouraged suicide among their members. In order to promulgate their sect, the Albigensians published an inaccurate translation of the Bible in the vernacular language. Had it been an accurate translation, the Church would not have been concerned. Vernacular versions had been appearing for centuries. But what came from the hands of the Albigensians was an adulterated Bible. The bishops at Toulouse forbade the reading of it because it was inaccurate. In this they were caring for their flocks, just as a Protestant minister of today might tell his flock not to read the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation."

http://www.catholic.com/library/Catholic_Inventions.asp (Second part of 3rd section)

 

[jmdrake]

I don't believe that combating "heresy" is a legitimate reason for restricting personal freedom. It is disingenuous to claim this was like some protestant pastor suggesting to his flock not to read a certain heretical book. (And frankly I don't know any Protestant Pastors who do that. Quite the contrary. When the Da Vinci code became popular Protestant pastors held seminars teaching their flocks how to refute it. The best defense to bad information is more good information). The Council of Toulouse empowered church leaders to punish "heretics". Cannon 1 gave bishops the power to search homes and even "subterranean chambers which lie under" and "any kind of hiding place all which we direct to be destroyed". Cannon 6 "Directs the house in which any heretic shall be found shall be destroyed".

See: http://books.google.com/books?id=rn...&resnum=4&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

And even if that wasn't binding on the "entire church" it does mean that local church authorities reserved the right to ban what they deemed to be "inaccurate translations of the Bible". It's no functionally different than the Taliban banning certain books because they found them "heretical to Islam".

Also the plain text of the cannon does not lend itself to the "they only banned inaccurate translations" argument. Any translation into "vulgar languages" was banned. A "vulgar language" meant the common language.

See: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm
The use of the vulgar tongue was a great principle with the Reformers. Luther and Zwingli at first compromised with Latin, but soon the old language disappeared in all Protestant services.

But even if it was only "mis translations" that were banned and even if it was only done "locally" and even if it was done to fight was "damnable heresy", breaking and entering into someone's private home to search and destroy "bad books" was still wrong.

The councils that you have cited are not ecumenical councils of the entire Church (of which there are 21 recognized by the Catholic Church) but rather local councils of bishops from a given region. An important implication because the "councils" in question are not binding to the entire Church.

Also, you need to understand the context under which the Council of Toulouse was operating. The Council was brought together to combat the Albigensian heresy:

"Which held that there are two gods and that marriage is evil because all matter (and thus physical flesh) is evil. From this the heretics concluded that fornication could be no sin, and they even encouraged suicide among their members. In order to promulgate their sect, the Albigensians published an inaccurate translation of the Bible in the vernacular language. Had it been an accurate translation, the Church would not have been concerned. Vernacular versions had been appearing for centuries. But what came from the hands of the Albigensians was an adulterated Bible. The bishops at Toulouse forbade the reading of it because it was inaccurate. In this they were caring for their flocks, just as a Protestant minister of today might tell his flock not to read the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation."

http://www.catholic.com/library/Catholic_Inventions.asp (Second part of 3rd section)

 

[jmdrake]

Right. But that’s only because society has recently become civil enough to separate the two. If it weren’t for said separation, religious association would be mandatory and individual liberty would be secondary. And since theocracy is the bulk of our history, I feel it is important to occasionally point out that the nature of religion is still oppressive to individual liberty.

The nature of the state is oppressive to individual liberty. If the state adopts atheism as an official belief system it is just as oppressive (if not more so) than a state that adopts Islam or Christianity or Judaism as an official belief systems. There should never be any official state belief systems.

 

[YumYum]

I'll be honest. I've never given it much thought until now. My understanding of the problem is that the gospels have similarities that suggest a common source and yet they also have discrepancies? Well from the believers perspective that makes sense. Only Matthew and John actually knew Jesus. Mark and Luke knew people who knew Jesus. I could see Mark and Luke reading Matthew's gospel, then talking to other disciples (perhaps after the death of Matthew?), and finding other interesting information that was either left out or reported from a different perspective. From the links you gave the biggest similarities are between Matthew, Mark and Luke. John seems more independent and that makes sense considering that John could write his own account without needing to refer to Matthew's account. I suppose the skeptic view is that four gospels were written from the same "made up" source, but to what end? And why not make everything sync up perfectly?

Matthew, Mark and Luke are called the "Synoptic Gospels" because when you lay all three books out horizontally, and study the same accounts in the different gospels, they are not only very similar, but they are identical in some parts, word for word. "Syn" means "together", "optic" means "seen". "Seen together". So, this raises the question: If they are identical word for word, doesn't this mean that one author borrowed from another author? This is known as "literary dependency", and while today this is viewed as plagiarism, 2,000 years ago literary dependency was totally acceptable. But another question is raised by atheists, or those who doubt the gospels: If G-d wrote the gospels, why would He have to borrow from the other gospels "word for word"? Regardless of who took from whom, it doesn't make sense that the most powerful being in the Universe would have to "short-cut" the most important message to mankind when He is writing His book. I do not believe that G-d would practice "literary dependency", when He Himself is dictating a book to an author to write down. That is why it is important to examine this issue. That is also why I believe G-d may have inspired the writers of the Bible to get off their tails and do the research to write the books, but He didn't dictate to them what to write. What do you think?

 

[idirtify]

The nature of the state is oppressive to individual liberty. If the state adopts atheism as an official belief system it is just as oppressive (if not more so) than a state that adopts Islam or Christianity or Judaism as an official belief systems. There should never be any official state belief systems.

While your first statement is true, there are certainly some state systems that are MORE oppressive; such as theocracies. But starting with your second sentence, I’m not clear on what you are saying. Are you claiming that secularism is the same as “adopting atheism as an official belief system”? Doesn’t the first amendment make America a “secular” nation? Are you equating secularism with “belief”? If so, how so? Are you labeling secularism as America’s “official state belief system”? Are you labeling “the lack of belief” a “belief”? If so, why?

Before answering, just remember that a theocracy demands religious belief; secularism doesn’t.

 

[Dr.3D]

Well, let's see. One group believes there is a God and another group believes their is no God. Seems like two belief systems to me.

 

[Maximus]

I don't believe that combating "heresy" is a legitimate reason for restricting personal freedom. It is disingenuous to claim this was like some protestant pastor suggesting to his flock not to read a certain heretical book. (And frankly I don't know any Protestant Pastors who do that. Quite the contrary. When the Da Vinci code became popular Protestant pastors held seminars teaching their flocks how to refute it. The best defense to bad information is more good information). The Council of Toulouse empowered church leaders to punish "heretics". Cannon 1 gave bishops the power to search homes and even "subterranean chambers which lie under" and "any kind of hiding place all which we direct to be destroyed". Cannon 6 "Directs the house in which any heretic shall be found shall be destroyed".

See: http://books.google.com/books?id=rn...&resnum=4&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

And even if that wasn't binding on the "entire church" it does mean that local church authorities reserved the right to ban what they deemed to be "inaccurate translations of the Bible". It's no functionally different than the Taliban banning certain books because they found them "heretical to Islam".

Also the plain text of the cannon does not lend itself to the "they only banned inaccurate translations" argument. Any translation into "vulgar languages" was banned. A "vulgar language" meant the common language.

See: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm
The use of the vulgar tongue was a great principle with the Reformers. Luther and Zwingli at first compromised with Latin, but soon the old language disappeared in all Protestant services.

But even if it was only "mis translations" that were banned and even if it was only done "locally" and even if it was done to fight was "damnable heresy", breaking and entering into someone's private home to search and destroy "bad books" was still wrong.

Protestants have burned books, set fire to Churches, and done plenty of wrong as well. Just like Catholics have. Your concept of liberty was not even remotely thought of in the year 1229. The people accepted the idea that a ruler had complete control over their lives. You generally can't judge people of the past based on our present standards today, because to these people that seemed just as natural as the sun rising in the East. The world hadn't yet received Locke, Rosseau, Jefferson, and Franklin, among others. You're making a huge deal out of something most people have never even heard of. I have studied much of Church history and have never heard of this supposed council. Again in 1229 there is no printing press. Books were hugely expensive (just ask any synagogue today how much their scrolls cost, its usually 50k+), even if the Bible was in a "vulgar" language, only the richest of the rich could afford one (and be able to read it). The vast majority of people in 1229 could not even read. They learned the faith and stories of the Bible through art; sculpture, paintings, tapestries, frescos, and through hearing the word. You don't need to read the Bible to know the Bible.

 

[idirtify]

Well, let's see. One group believes there is a God and another group believes their is no God. Seems like two belief systems to me.

If you insist on characterizing non-belief as a “belief system”, then I must ask you about your beliefs in santa claus, the tooth fairy, peter pan, mickey mouse, and the flying spaghetti monster. Regarding the existence of these beings, are you a faithful believer or are you atheistic?

 

[Dr.3D]

If you insist on characterizing non-belief as a “belief system”, then I must ask you about your beliefs in santa claus, the tooth fairy, peter pan, mickey mouse, and the flying spaghetti monster. Regarding the existence of these beings, are you a faithful believer or are you atheistic?

I believe none of those entities exist. I am a faithful believer that none of them are real.

 

[YumYum]

If you insist on characterizing non-belief as a “belief system”, then I must ask you about your beliefs in santa claus, the tooth fairy, peter pan, mickey mouse, and the flying spaghetti monster. Regarding the existence of these beings, are you a faithful believer or are you atheistic?

The challenge I propose to atheists is to pray to Jesus. People don't pray to Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, peter pan, mickey mouse or the flying spaghetti monster. People pray to Jesus and get results. Prayer is the key.

 

[robert68]

Your concept of liberty was not even remotely thought of in the year 1229.

You can’t possibly know that,

The people accepted the idea that a ruler had complete control over their lives. You generally can't judge people of the past based on our present standards today, because to these people that seemed just as natural as the sun rising in the East.

If someone is being ruled, then by definition, there are ruled that aren’t accepting.

 

[jmdrake]

Woah there Nelly! I'm making a big deal? I didn't even bring it up. Someone else did and "Today's Epistle Reading" asked for a reference. I gave him one. You want to make the "Catholics aren't like that anymore" argument, go ahead. I merely objected to the implication from the source you were quoting that this was just some priest suggesting to his flock "Don't read that book" when what happened was much more sinister.

As for the printing press not having been invented and books being expensive so what? What does that have to do with the fact that inquisitors were giving the right to invade people's homes, search for banned books, and destroy the homes of these "heretics" if the books were found? I find Gutenberg factoid totally irrelevant to the discussion.

And sure, protestants have done bad things too. I'm not defending that. My point is that the comparison of this description of persecution against "heretics" to some modern protestant minister telling his flock it's not a good idea to a Jehovah's Witness Bible makes no sense. If you want to compare what the council of Toulouse did to the excesses of Oliver Cromwell go right ahead. You'll get no argument from me. Like I said elsewhere in this thread, whenever there is an official state belief system it usually turns out bad.

Protestants have burned books, set fire to Churches, and done plenty of wrong as well. Just like Catholics have. Your concept of liberty was not even remotely thought of in the year 1229. The people accepted the idea that a ruler had complete control over their lives. You generally can't judge people of the past based on our present standards today, because to these people that seemed just as natural as the sun rising in the East. The world hadn't yet received Locke, Rosseau, Jefferson, and Franklin, among others. You're making a huge deal out of something most people have never even heard of. I have studied much of Church history and have never heard of this supposed council. Again in 1229 there is no printing press. Books were hugely expensive (just ask any synagogue today how much their scrolls cost, its usually 50k+), even if the Bible was in a "vulgar" language, only the richest of the rich could afford one (and be able to read it). The vast majority of people in 1229 could not even read. They learned the faith and stories of the Bible through art; sculpture, paintings, tapestries, frescos, and through hearing the word. You don't need to read the Bible to know the Bible.

 

[jmdrake]

While your first statement is true, there are certainly some state systems that are MORE oppressive; such as theocracies. But starting with your second sentence, I’m not clear on what you are saying. Are you claiming that secularism is the same as “adopting atheism as an official belief system”? Doesn’t the first amendment make America a “secular” nation? Are you equating secularism with “belief”? If so, how so? Are you labeling secularism as America’s “official state belief system”? Are you labeling “the lack of belief” a “belief”? If so, why?

Before answering, just remember that a theocracy demands religious belief; secularism doesn’t.

There is a difference between a secular nation and an atheist nation. America is not and has never been an atheist nation. China, Cuba and the former Soviet Union are all examples of atheist nations. America is a secular nation with a Christian majority. Iraq was a secular nation with an Islamic majority. An atheist nation actively suppresses religion. (For example, you can't be a member of the ruling class in China unless you are an atheist). For more on state atheism see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

 

[jmdrake]

Matthew, Mark and Luke are called the "Synoptic Gospels" because when you lay all three books out horizontally, and study the same accounts in the different gospels, they are not only very similar, but they are identical in some parts, word for word. "Syn" means "together", "optic" means "seen". "Seen together". So, this raises the question: If they are identical word for word, doesn't this mean that one author borrowed from another author? This is known as "literary dependency", and while today this is viewed as plagiarism, 2,000 years ago literary dependency was totally acceptable. But another question is raised by atheists, or those who doubt the gospels: If G-d wrote the gospels, why would He have to borrow from the other gospels "word for word"? Regardless of who took from whom, it doesn't make sense that the most powerful being in the Universe would have to "short-cut" the most important message to mankind when He is writing His book. I do not believe that G-d would practice "literary dependency", when He Himself is dictating a book to an author to write down. That is why it is important to examine this issue. That is also why I believe G-d may have inspired the writers of the Bible to get off their tails and do the research to write the books, but He didn't dictate to them what to write. What do you think?

I can only agree with you. I've always believed the Bible was thought inspired as opposed to word inspired. I think the words are important mind you. I think it's important to understand what a particular writer was trying to say and when. But I do not believe an angel whispered to Mark or Luke exactly what to say. Further I was taught the idea of "thought inspiration" in a protestant Christian school, so it's not a new or foreign idea. We didn't look at Matthew, Mark and Luke specifically, but that all makes sense. Mark and Luke could have taken Matthew as a starting point and then talked to other people who personally knew Jesus and "filled in the blanks". And that doesn't bother me a bit.

 

[YumYum]

I can only agree with you. I've always believed the Bible was thought inspired as opposed to word inspired. I think the words are important mind you. I think it's important to understand what a particular writer was trying to say and when. But I do not believe an angel whispered to Mark or Luke exactly what to say. Further I was taught the idea of "thought inspiration" in a protestant Christian school, so it's not a new or foreign idea. We didn't look at Matthew, Mark and Luke specifically, but that all makes sense. Mark and Luke could have taken Matthew as a starting point and then talked to other people who personally knew Jesus and "filled in the blanks". And that doesn't bother me a bit.

Good. I'm glad you are not "spooked" by any of this, because you have a very good grasp of the scriptures. Some Christians can't stomach these issues, but they must be addressed if we are to engage non-believers in a meaningful discussion. Another thing that I am reading up on and I want to understand better, is the interpolations that Christian copyists added to the New Testament and the gospels. When the copyist would make a copy of a book, they would add things they felt were needed in the text. As you may know, these insertions are "interpolations". Again, this hurts the argument that G-d wrote the Bible, because this means would He have someone hundreds of years later go back and add something to the original text, as if He left something out because He forgot. That is why we have spurious scriptures, and it raises the issue that if the Bible has been guided and protected through the centuries by Holy Spirit, why were these spurious scriptures allowed to be injected into the Holy Cannon? I just wanted to point out some of these things that the skeptics bring up. I think we can get a lot further with atheists/agnostics in accepting Jesus when we are not so dogmatic about the infallibility of the Bible. And yet, I can thank the gospels for being the vehicle that lead me to Jesus.

Here is what we are up against:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bible_interpolation

 

[Maximus]

Good. I'm glad you are not "spooked" by any of this, because you have a very good grasp of the scriptures. Some Christians can't stomach these issues, but they must be addressed if we are to engage non-believers in a meaningful discussion. Another thing that I am reading up on and I want to understand better, is the interpolations that Christian copyists added to the New Testament and the gospels. When the copyist would make a copy of a book, they would add things they felt were needed in the text. As you may know, these insertions are "interpolations". Again, this hurts the argument that G-d wrote the Bible, because this means would He have someone hundreds of years later go back and add something to the original text, as if He left something out because He forgot. That is why we have spurious scriptures, and it raises the issue that if the Bible has been guided and protected through the centuries by Holy Spirit, why were these spurious scriptures allowed to be injected into the Holy Cannon? I just wanted to point out some of these things that the skeptics bring up. I think we can get a lot further with atheists/agnostics in accepting Jesus when we are not so dogmatic about the infallibility of the Bible. And yet, I can thank the gospels for being the vehicle that lead me to Jesus.

Here is what we are up against:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bible_interpolation

The Bible is a product of the Church, and the Holy Spirit guides and protects the Church. The "interpolations" fall into this category. Even though someone was adding/editting the text, this person was a member of the Body of Christ, and the Church accepted the Scriptures as being God's written revelation after said changes. This does pose a problem to those who believe that God wrote the Bible word for word, but not to those who trust in the guidance of the Church Jesus established on this earth.

 

[YumYum]

The Bible is a product of the Church, and the Holy Spirit guides and protects the Church. The "interpolations" fall into this category. Even though someone was adding/editting the text, this person was a member of the Body of Christ, and the Church accepted the Scriptures as being God's written revelation after said changes. This does pose a problem to those who believe that God wrote the Bible word for word, but not to those who trust in the guidance of the Church Jesus established on this earth.

So, to what degree do you believe that "All Scripture is G-d breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"? (2Timiothy 3:16) Other translations have "inspired" instead of "G-d breathed".

What you are saying is that an author would write a book, and that the Holy Spirit would have copyists, hundreds of years later, add to the text? Why was this necessary for the Holy Spirit to do this? Also, why aren't interpolations being added today by the Holy Spirit?

 

[jmdrake]

Hey there. I'll read the link when I get a chance, but let me explain why this isn't a problem and why you don't have to worry about questions like "which body of Christ is actually right" to deal with it. A Lutheran translation can be just as good as a King James (Anglican) translation or a Catholic translation.

The problem isn't that God "forgot" anything. It's that different languages require different word usages. If you ever study sign language you'll find out that it's very efficient. So some words simply get left out. Signers don't typically sign words like "a" or "the" for instance. So if God spoke today through a deaf prophet and someone else wrote down the message for him, the translator would have to add in transitions words to "keep message not sound Tarzan talk".

We see "transition" words all the time in law. Someone writing down legal opinions my add words that the judge left out in order to make the meaning clear. But these words are put in parenthesis and everyone who's studied law knows why those words are there and how to use them.

The same is true for the Bible. In most Bibles such transition words are either put in italics or in parenthesis. Anyone who know what he is doing and teaches a class on Bible study will tell his students how to spot those words and what that means. If you're unsure if the meaning has been changed, you can always leave the transition words out and see if it still makes sense.

Here's an example that I came opened my Bible to by random.

2 Chronicles 16:1-3


1In the six and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah, and built Ramah, to the intent that he might let none go out or come in to Asa king of Judah.

2Then Asa brought out silver and gold out of the treasures of the house of the LORD and of the king's house, and sent to Benhadad king of Syria, that dwelt at Damascus, saying,

3There is a league between me and thee, as there was between my father and thy father: behold, I have sent thee silver and gold; go, break thy league with Baasha king of Israel, that he may depart from me.

Now let's take out the words in bold (they are in italics in my Bible) and see if it reads the same.

2 Chronicles 16:1-3


1In the six and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah, and built Ramah, to the intent that might let none go out or come in to Asa king of Judah.

2Then Asa brought out silver and gold out of the treasures of the house of the LORD and of the king's house, and sent to Benhadad king of Syria, that dwelt at Damascus, saying,

3 a league between me and thee, as between my father and thy father: behold, I have sent thee silver and gold; go, break thy league with Baasha king of Israel, that he may depart from me.

Verse 1 is a little hard to read, but the meaning seems the same to me. Verse 3 is just fine.

But you have other ways of making sure translations are correct. Many pastors will learn to read Biblical languages in college. But there's no reason today that others can't do that. So if you think something has been changed there is the possibility of learning how to read that for yourself. That said, with all of the myriad of Bible scholars around the world going back and re-reading the ancient texts and comparing them to modern translations, if something is really off then somebody somewhere can find it. Plus you can now read multiple translations online and see if they jive. I love http://www.biblegateway.com for this very reason. One of my favorite versions for this purpose is Young's literal translation. It's pretty much a word for word translitteration from the original text (although you will occasionally see a transition word). Here's the above text via Young's.

2 Chronicles 16:1-3

1In the thirty and sixth year of the reign of Asa, come up hath Baasha king of Israel, against Judah, and buildeth Ramah, so as not to permit any going out and coming in to Asa king of Judah.

2And Asa bringeth out silver and gold from the treasures of the house of Jehovah, and of the house of the king, and sendeth unto Ben-Hadad king of Aram, who is dwelling in Damascus, saying,

3`A covenant [is] between me and thee, and between my father and thy father, lo, I have sent to thee silver and gold; go, break thy covenant with Baasha king of Israel, and he doth go up from off me.'

I hope that helps.

Good. I'm glad you are not "spooked" by any of this, because you have a very good grasp of the scriptures. Some Christians can't stomach these issues, but they must be addressed if we are to engage non-believers in a meaningful discussion. Another thing that I am reading up on and I want to understand better, is the interpolations that Christian copyists added to the New Testament and the gospels. When the copyist would make a copy of a book, they would add things they felt were needed in the text. As you may know, these insertions are "interpolations". Again, this hurts the argument that G-d wrote the Bible, because this means would He have someone hundreds of years later go back and add something to the original text, as if He left something out because He forgot. That is why we have spurious scriptures, and it raises the issue that if the Bible has been guided and protected through the centuries by Holy Spirit, why were these spurious scriptures allowed to be injected into the Holy Cannon? I just wanted to point out some of these things that the skeptics bring up. I think we can get a lot further with atheists/agnostics in accepting Jesus when we are not so dogmatic about the infallibility of the Bible. And yet, I can thank the gospels for being the vehicle that lead me to Jesus.

Here is what we are up against:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bible_interpolation

 

[reillym]

The challenge I propose to atheists is to pray to Jesus. People don't pray to Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, peter pan, mickey mouse or the flying spaghetti monster. People pray to Jesus and get results. Prayer is the key.

What results? I beg one example with proof.

 

[YumYum]

What results? I beg one example with proof.

I got results. Immediately. I'm sure there are others on this forum who got results. I asked them to come forward.