Religious Threadjacks

[Suranis]

Religious Threadjacks. So Wonderful. So tasty. So poisonous. Belong here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the hills are alive.jpg (51.24 KiB) Viewed 30377 times

[Suranis]

I apologize, you are correct, it was not 1600 years. It was only about 1100 years between completion of the Jerome's Latin Vulgate (405CE) to John Wycliffe's full English version in the late 1400's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_tra ... to_English

Old English
Main article: Old English Bible translations

John Wycliffe is credited with producing the first complete translation of the Bible into English in the year 1382. In the centuries before this, many had taken on to translate large portions of the Bible into English. Parts of the Bible were first translated from the Latin Vulgate into Old English by a few monks and scholars. Such translations were generally in the form of prose or as interlinear glosses (literal translations above the Latin words).[3][self-published source?]

Very few complete translations existed during that time. Most of the books of the Bible existed separately and were read as individual texts. Translations of the Bible often included the writer's own commentary on passages in addition to the literal translation.[3]

Aldhelm, Bishop of Sherborne and Abbot of Malmesbury (639–709), is thought to have written an Old English translation of the Psalms.

Bede (c. 672–735) produced a translation of the Gospel of John into Old English, which he is said to have prepared shortly before his death. This translation is lost; we know of its existence from Cuthbert of Jarrow's account of Bede's death.[4]

In the 10th century an Old English translation of the Gospels was made in the Lindisfarne Gospels: a word-for-word gloss inserted between the lines of the Latin text by Aldred, Provost of Chester-le-Street.[5] This is the oldest extant translation of the Gospels into the English language.[5]

The Wessex Gospels (also known as the West-Saxon Gospels) are a full translation of the four gospels into a West Saxon dialect of Old English. Produced in approximately 990, they are the first translation of all four gospels into English without the Latin text.[3]

In the 11th century, Abbot Ælfric translated much of the Old Testament into Old English. The Old English Hexateuch is an illuminated manuscript of the first six books of the Old Testament (the Hexateuch).

Another copy of that text, without lavish illustrations but including a translation of the Book of Judges (hence also called the Old English Heptateuch), is found in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud Misc. 509.[3]

And that's just English. if you are talking Vernacular, i.e. local language, there are a lot more.

Complaining about translations and behaving as though all they had to do was pop them into google translate, and then making a conspiracy out of it is larking up the wrong tree. Books took a lot of extremely tedious labour to copy. Given the effort involved, it made more sense to copy books it in a language everyone who was literate across Europe could read. But vernacular translations were commissioned all the time, as there was nothing against doing them.

The motive certainly was not to have Sekret knowledge hidden away. Especially considering the Church was involved in education at the same time as preaching those very same Gospels.

[much ado]

I'm not sure what keith's point is. Is there a belief that the early church was actively trying to hide the Word from common folk? I have never come across that.

[Dr. Caligari]

I'm not sure what keith's point is. Is there a belief that the early church was actively trying to hide the Word from common folk? I have never come across that.

I have seen some Protestants make that accusation against the Catholic Church. I'm Jewish, so I have no idea if the accusation has any basis.

[raison de arizona]

I'm not sure what keith's point is. Is there a belief that the early church was actively trying to hide the Word from common folk? I have never come across that.

I have seen some Protestants make that accusation against the Catholic Church. I'm Jewish, so I have no idea if the accusation has any basis.

I'm sure I'll be corrected, but my recollection is that the Catholic church banned TRANSLATIONS of the Bible at one point way back when, and only allowed it to be read in Latin, thus preventing anyone that couldn't read Latin from reading it.

Also, thanks for the thread Suranis!

[Suranis]

Ya, I assumed that's what Kieth was driving at, as I've heard that too. Protestants seeing the Bible as the Sole source of Salvation, and therefore hiding stuff in the Bible was yet another reason Catholicism must be evil. And becasue they were evil Catholics must be doing it to deny salvation. Its a very circular logic.

The thing is, they are, deliberately or not, missing stuff the Church WAS doing. One of the things the Church did as Scientific discoveries were made was bend scripture to fit scientific Discoveries, not the other way round. The Bible was regarded as a huge metaphor by the church when ideas and notions that were en vouge at the time contradicted stuff that was in the Bible.

For example. For a while (I cant remember the dates, I'm looking back on stuff I learned nigh on 30 years ago) having Musical instruments in Church was regarded as profane. It was a very Stoic period in the Church. But considering the obvious passages in the bible about the Jews playing Musical instruments in front of the Ark and the LORD, they simply said that such instruments were *cough* metaphorsfor the Parts of the Human body doing singing. So Trumpets were the Mouth, Drums were the Voice box, Squeeze instruments were the Lungs, etc.

But importantly on this subject, no-one tried to remove, or censor, or hide those passages from the Bible.

Of course, all this squinting your eyes and crossing your fingers about stuff in the Bible was, and is pretty ridiculous, and the cause of a bit of laughter these days. But it was taken fairly serious at the time. And it spawned stuff like Gregorian Chant, a direct result of the drive to create music without instruments. And I don't care what anyone says, Gregorian chant is fantastic.

Catholics, by the way, regard the Bible as a History book that has inspirtion from God, and contains wisdoms and lessons to guide you in your journey. It's importance has waxed and waned in Catholic thought through the Millennia. So all the "this part contradicts that part" wars on the internet as extremely ridiculous.

Scholar hat off.

[Foggy]

Catholics, by the way, regard the Bible as a History book that has inspiration from God, and contains wisdoms and lessons to guide you in your journey.

As you may remember, I had to take courses in the Catholic faith at my Jesuit university, Georgetown. I dropped a religion class, before I found one I could deal with.

In the one I dropped, the professor taught wearing a collar, and we were instructed in no uncertain terms that the Bible is 100% true, and what's more, it contains zero contradictions of any kind, and it is totally infallible. Any other answer on a test would be marked as a wrong answer, and he went to great lengths to make sure we understood that our personal thoughts after reading parts of the Bible were utterly irrelevant to anything he intended to discuss. There were no questions allowed in class, and the only time a student was allowed to speak was to read - word for word - sections of the Bible aloud. It was not even instruction, it was brutal indoctrination.

As far as thinking the Bible "contains wisdoms and lessons to guide you in your journey," we were given the harsher version, that it contains very strict instructions for running your life and thoughts, and those who refused to follow those instructions would lead to eternal torment and torture in THE BAD PLACE.

We were treated as untrustworthy children (I came late to college and was 27 years old at the time), and we had to sit at our desks in alphabetical order, and put our row number and seat number on every quiz and test. It was AWESOME, and I stayed a few extra days just to be amused and appalled.

But when I dropped it, I found an actually sane professor, one who didn't treat a group of adult women and men like we were unruly 6 year olds, and were capable of thinking on our own.

[Suranis]

In the one I dropped, the professor taught wearing a collar, and we were instructed in no uncertain terms that the Bible is 100% true, and what's more, it contains zero contradictions of any kind, and it is totally infallible.

Sounds like an asshole with serious inferiority problems.

It reminds me of a conversation I had with a bunch of the guys in Seminary (Catholic Seminary on Maynooth,) and this guy was talking about something that happened that day when they were discussing Catholic Doctrine on Contraception. So this guy asked a question about what about medical tests on semen and so forth, and the Lecturer (a priest) said that by doctrine "what you need to do is have a condom with a hole in it, so some of the semen gets where it was supposed to, and use the rest." The guy said he stared at the Lecturer with his mouth open. And then the lecturer said "Now if you ask me what *I* think, I think that's a ridiculous load of crap. But if you want to pass your exam, that's what you put down."

Go figure.

*Edit* My thoughts on "Inspired word of God" really come from my Dean in Maynooth who said pretty much that to me once while talking about the Bible. *Shrug*

[AndyinPA]

Not Catholic, but I went to a Catholic Women's University. We also had to take one class in religion, but I lucked out. It was Sister's first semester back for teaching. We got to attend a Buddhist Monastery, a synagogue, a beautiful Hindu temple, and a mosque. It was a great class, but it was four weeks of the semester out of class, and they never let her do that again. But Sister Ellie was very open to discussing all aspects of religion.

[Foggy]

Yeah, no harm done by the first prof, it's just a little story. I dropped it in time and took another class, no big deal. I remain angry, however, about my grade in "Theology and Sexuality". I thought it would be an interesting class, and it was. The professor, who was a Jesuit, knew way more about sex than a Jesuit should have known, IMHO. And at 27, I felt that sex was important in my life, and I had learned a lot about it. A lot. So I was glad he wasn't ignorant on the subject, and I really enjoyed the class.

The course was good, but the guy had us do a personal interview for a final exam. Biggest part of your grade, and it was "sit with me in my office and I'll ask you questions in private for 15 or 20 minutes".

Now, I got almost all straight As at Georgetown. I had read every single word of the assigned material and knew it cold. I spent so much time thinking about it that my Catholic girlfriend suggested I should change my major to Theology. I told her I didn't think a Jesuit school would appreciate an agnostic theology major, so I stuck with international economics.

I went to the guy's office and after the first few minutes he started pestering me to admit a belief in God. Using the teleological argument: If the existence of a watch implies a watchmaker, doesn't the complex order of the Universe imply a super-intelligence that created it? And I was pointing out the anomalies inherent in that kind of argument. I was being polite and non-confrontational, but I was also not going to admit a belief in something that I DID NOT BELIEVE, because that would be dishonest. I didn't want to be dishonest to get a good grade. I got all my straight As by hard work and honesty. He made me very uncomfortable, but I stayed polite and finished the "exam".

And the bastard gave me a C- for the semester. Not a damn thing I could do about it. (Luckily, my Catholic girlfriend gave me an A+ in Sexual Technique for the year, so I survived the experience.)

Only C I got in three years there. And I knew the material extremely well, so there is no doubt in my mind that it was simple discrimination against agnostics.

I don't give any munny to that school.

[AndyinPA]

I'd have freaked out over a C-. I had straight As, and one A- dropped me from graduating with a 4.0. And four A+s didn't cancel out the one A-.

[Suranis]

My Academic Career was pretty abysmal. I'd be lucky to get a C.

[Foggy]

I'd have freaked out over a C-.

Yeah, but what can you do? At the time, murdering a Jesuit priest was considered bad form. Pity, that. Even if I had gone crawling back to his office and tried to change my answers, it was too late for him to change the grade.

And I don't know what the administration knew about it. I took many, many other classes there, and none had personal interviews as the final exam. That should have been a flashing red light for the school ... if they knew about it. Did they know?

And it was my final semester. I graduated and left the school before I got my grades in the mail.

Nothing I could do except crab about it for the next 40-odd years. I'll get over it one a these days.

[AndyinPA]

I'd have freaked out over a C-.

Yeah, but what can you do? At the time, murdering a Jesuit priest was considered bad form. Pity, that. Even if I had gone crawling back to his office and tried to change my answers, it was too late for him to change the grade.

And I don't know what the administration knew about it. I took many, many other classes there, and none had personal interviews as the final exam. That should have been a flashing red light for the school ... if they knew about it. Did they know?

And it was my final semester. I graduated and left the school before I got my grades in the mail.

Nothing I could do except crab about it for the next 40-odd years. I'll get over it one a these days.

It was my final semester, too. But he was considered to be the toughest professor on the campus. I held off taking his classes, but in the end I had to take two of them, and I got an A in the other. Tough he was, but he ended up my favorite professor.

Back to topic.

[Foggy]

Off Topic

Yeah, and let's be honest, I'd have been a lot more upset if my girlfriend had given me a C-.

[AndyinPA]

[qbawl]

Off Topic

Yeah, and let's be honest, I'd have been a lot more upset if my girlfriend had given me a C-.

But then you could have requested an extra credit er.... assignment. To raise your uh... grade.

[Maybenaut]

I’ve had quite a bit of beer this evening, so please excuse me (if I were speaking right now I’d be slurring my words).

Anyhoo… I was raised catholic, went to a catholic school in Tennessee (which is not the hotbed of Roman Catholicism one might think). The Sisters of the Blessed Virgin Mary taught us that the Bible was allegory; that it should not be interpreted literally; that maybe the Jews in antiquity had a different way of measuring time; that Darwin was right and evolution was a thing. It was a fairly liberal education; I don’t think any of my public school contemporaries were taught evolution in TN in the 1960s.

I had never heard the thing about not translating the bible, which shouldn’t really come as a surprise since it was the Protestants who apparently cared more about that. The first time I heard about that was when I took an English lit class in college, and the topic was early American literature. The prof said that in order to understand where the earliest American writers were coming from, you had to understand Protestantism — that they believed that the word of God should be accessible bottom-up to the ordinary person from his own reading of the Bible, in contrast with the catholics’ belief that the teachings of the Bible were presented top-down by the church through the priest. Then he got into this whole “covenant of grace” versus “covenant of works” thing, which I had never hear of because I was raised catholic. As I understand it, that was something that was of importance to Protestants and represented a major theological difference of opinion, to the extent that a whole colony was created as a result (good job, Rhode Island!).

Anyway… My brother’s wife is Southern Baptist. She quoted scripture to me once, and when I kind of gave her this blank look she was like, “You know! Sermon on the mount!” And I was like, “Yeah, we’ll, I went to catholic school. We didn’t have to memorize scripture.”

I went to a catholic college (Saint Mary’s College of California (run by the Christian Brothers), and a catholic law school (University of San Francisco (run by the Jesuits), but there wasn’t any pro-catholic indoctrination at either school (or maybe there was and I was oblivious to it - if there was, it certainly didn’t take).

[keith]

OK, I'll explain myself a bit further.

As I said in my first 'justification' to Suranis of my statement, there were indeed several, perhaps many, translations of parts of the Bible during the missionary period. These were produced mainly so the missionaries could speak to the communities they were trying to convert in their own language. In at least one case the translation was produced for the express purpose of establishing a written language where there was none before.

By the year 500, parts of Scripture had been translated into over 500 languages, BUT by the year 600 LATIN was the ONLY language allowed for scripture. Never-the-less, an Anglo-Saxon translation of the New Testament appeared around 945. I understand that there was also work by the Cathari on a translation in the 13th Century, but I can find no reference to it now. This work may have been more in the way of commentaries than translation, as they rejected the authority of the Church and of Priests to be the sole interpreter of the Bible.

No translation to a vernacular language of the entire 80 books of the Bible was carried out between Jerome and Wycliffe. AND THERE REALLY WAS NO POINT IN DOING SO - there were very few who could have read it outside of the Church! So Rome had a defacto absolute monopoly on the Bible and its interpretation.

John Wycliffe's beliefs were more closely aligned with those of the Cathari that those of Rome. He denied transubstantiation, and considered that preaching of the scriptures was more important that obedience to Papal doctrine which did not have Scriptural justification. Wycliffe got off relatively lightly however. He was charged with Heresy, and forced out of Oxford, but never tried, so remained a Communicate. His followers, called 'Lollards' were not so lucky. Wycliffe's ideas caught on especially with workers, peasant, artisans, and tradespeople and were declared heretic and some were burned at the stake. Meanwhile, the Church proceeded to suppress the Wycliffe translation (they pretty much failed), and in the Oxford Convocation of 1408, it was declared that no new translation could be produced without express Papal approval.

Now most of the foregoing is irrelevant to my original point. That stuff above is historical fact and context, but I'm not arguing that stuff, I am making no value judgment about it, and there is much detail and nuance necessarily left out.

What I am doing is comparing the statements by a contemporary conman and an historical figure to show a common tactic of "gas lighting".

So to recap:
1) Mike Lindell says about his data: "he can't release his data because then other people would alter it, and then the narrative would be about the altered data."
2) Bob remarked: "Which is basically what Arpaio and Zullo said ... almost six years ago."
3) And I observed: Basically what the Church said about the Bible too.

I justified my observation with a quote from Henry Knighton, a student of Wycliffe, an Augustinian Canon, and an British historian who said about the translation 'the jewel of the church is turned into the common sport of the people'. (That is the common people are too stupid to understand the word of God without a Priest to explain it to them.

My observation is that these are 3 examples of 'gas lighting'. I am not criticizing the Church, whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, or AnaBaptist, Jewish or Sikh, Islamic, Buddhist, or Hindu. I am pointing out examples of 'gas lighting' used for similar ends.

[LM K]

Ya, I assumed that's what Kieth was driving at, as I've heard that too. Protestants seeing the Bible as the Sole source of Salvation, and therefore hiding stuff in the Bible was yet another reason Catholicism must be evil. And becasue they were evil Catholics must be doing it to deny salvation. Its a very circular logic.

That's extremely inaccurate. Access to scripture or knowledge of scripture isn't necessary for salvation. Being born again, accepting Christ as your savior is the sole source of salvation, is the only path to salvation.

John Ch 3:

1. Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council.

2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’

8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things?

11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.

12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,

15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.


35 The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands.

36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.

That said, I might be misunderstanding what you mean about scripture as the sole source of salvation.

[keith]

I'm not sure what keith's point is. Is there a belief that the early church was actively trying to hide the Word from common folk? I have never come across that.

No, that was not my point. Hiding is not the point. The general population was illiterate, there was no point in producing interpretations for an illiterate population.

But it is fact that the Church reserved the right to interpret scripture to itself. And it is fact that much of the Church doctrine was seen by dissidents as having no justification in scripture.

Also note that this part of the discussion is peripheral justification to my point about a history of gaslighting.

[Suranis]

So... uh in response to the very very long list I gave of English translations of the Bible. You said it was PARTS of the Bible and therefore don't count and therefore Catholics are evil and suppressing the Bible.

I say that's complete hogwash. I gave a reason for it (the difficulty of copying books) and the fact is the Church did NOT have complete control of the Bible. The Bible was available for those who had the education to read it Europe wide. It wasn't censored. No parts were suppressed. And I've never heard of the "convocation of Oxford" and a google search does not throw anything about it up either. The idea that you are controlling the word by putting it in a different language THAT YOU THEN TEACH is so ludicrous its laughable. Its like the Russians having secret messages and giving the key codes away.

PLUS you are making the mistake of equating Vernacular with English.

The Codex Gigas from the 13th century, held at the Royal Library in Sweden.

When ancient scribes copied earlier books, they wrote notes on the margins of the page (marginal glosses) to correct their text—especially if a scribe accidentally omitted a word or line—and to comment about the text. When later scribes were copying the copy, they were sometimes uncertain if a note was intended to be included as part of the text. See textual criticism. Over time, different regions evolved different versions, each with its own assemblage of omissions, add

itions, and variants (mostly in orthography).

The earliest surviving complete manuscript of the entire Bible in Latin is the Codex Amiatinus, a Latin Vulgate edition produced in 8th-century England at the double monastery of Wearmouth-Jarrow.

During the Middle Ages, translation, particularly of the Old Testament was discouraged. Nevertheless, there are some fragmentary Old English Bible translations, notably a lost translation of the Gospel of John into Old English by the Venerable Bede, which is said to have been prepared shortly before his death around the year 735. An Old High German version of the gospel of Matthew dates to 748. Charlemagne in ca. 800 charged Alcuin with a revision of the Latin Vulgate. The translation into Old Church Slavonic was started in 863 by Cyril and Methodius.

Alfred the Great, a ruler in England, had a number of passages of the Bible circulated in the vernacular in around 900. These included passages from the Ten Commandments and the Pentateuch, which he prefixed to a code of laws he promulgated around this time. In approximately 990, a full and freestanding version of the four Gospels in idiomatic Old English appeared, in the West Saxon dialect; these are called the Wessex Gospels. Around the same time, a compilation now called the Old English Hexateuch appeared with the first six (or, in one version, seven) books of the Old Testament.

Pope Innocent III in 1199 banned unauthorized versions of the Bible as a reaction to the Cathar and Waldensian heresies. The synods of Toulouse and Tarragona (1234) outlawed possession of such renderings. There is evidence of some vernacular translations being permitted while others were being scrutinized.

The complete Bible was translated into Old French in the late 13th century. Parts of this translation were included in editions of the popular Bible historiale, and there is no evidence of this translation being suppressed by the Church.[14] The entire Bible was translated into Czech around 1360.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations

If the Cathars were making Changes to the Bible, damn right the Pope should have banned unauthorised versions of it. Yo are missing that part of it, that in their Vernacular Translations they were altering the bible to fit therir idea. And as you can see complete translations were bien gmade less than 100 years after Innocents ban, and vernacular translations existed at the same time with no problems,

ANyway I gotts run. Later.s

[Foggy]

Actually, Suranis is the only one here who has written "Catholics are evil." Before this post, the word "evil" appears 5 times in the thread, and every one of those five times it was Suranis who wrote it.

Why do you think Catholicism is evil, Suranis? Or maybe the real question is, why do you falsely accuse others of saying it's evil, when THEY DID NO SUCH THING?

Honestly, you're too sensitive to discuss this topic, IMHO.

The truth is, nobody here gives a shit about the fact that you are Catholic, and the slightest criticism of the Catholic church IS NOT AN ATTACK ON YOU. And many people here have some Catholic education, and are clearly aware of what parts of the church are worthwhile, and what parts are not. That's why none of us, except you, ever call the church "evil".

Example: I am a vocal critic of the church. But ...

But ... I went to a good Catholic university, and I I really value the experience. Those Jesuit fellers are smart as heck, and I have always been proud that I went to Georgetown and graduated from the School of Foreign Service.

But ... you gave me a Celtic Cross, and I still have it hung in the window of my bedroom, because I think of you as a friend, and that thing means a lot to me.

But ... all three of my long-term girlfriends before I got married were Catholic ladies, and I love all of them still today.

And because I had so much experience with the Church in the US and have known so many Catholics in my personal life, I feel I can discuss the good and bad parts of the religion. But I don't ascribe any aspect of church to you personally. You're one of the best Catholics I know. I don't even have to work hard to make a big distinction between you and the Catholic church.

So, for the hundred and fiftieth time, cool your fucking jets, man.

[raison de arizona]

CFB4E883-87EA-4893-A2F2-0617FF92ACE7.jpeg (185.51 KiB) Viewed 30086 times

[jcolvin2]

In the late 1980s, my ex-wife and I met an elderly Chinese gentleman in a restaurant in NYC's Chinatown (it may have been Sey Ohm Lok - Cantonese for 4-5-6). He was a soldier during the Sino-Japanese War in the 1930s and 1940s. At one point, his unit was trapped and starving, and he ended up eating part of one of his dead compatriots. He relayed that humans taste like lamb/goat. Not sure if he was telling the truth, but it was one odd conversation.