|
Post by tigerlily on Jun 18, 2009 11:43:15 GMT
I knew the Ten Commandments were mentioned twice in the Old Testament (and there is a set of revised Commandments in the New Testament, unless I am much mistaken), but I never realised that some Christian faiths follow one set, and some the other.
The only reason I found out was that I did some research after someone commented elsewhere that I 'should not pick and chose' scripture' and they had taken their comment from the third Commandment in their Catholic bible.
I thought to myself, sure Catholics don't have different bibles to Anglicans, do they? And I'm sure 'Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain' is the third commandment in the Church of Scotland's catechism.
Well, it is, if you follow the set of Commandments in Exodus. It is the second if you follow Deuteronomy. And the Catholic church apparently uses Deuteronomy, while I grew up with the set found in Exodus.
No graven images for me! Deuteronomy omits that one, and has two different commandments dealing with covetousness.
You live and learn, eh?
|
|
|
Post by Beau Leggs on Jun 18, 2009 13:29:22 GMT
There is also different versions of the lord's prayer.
If the bible (both old and new testaments) were written today, then the publisher's sub-editor would have removed/modified all the errors/contradictions.
|
|
|
Post by tigerlily on Jun 18, 2009 13:35:25 GMT
Oh, I know the different versions of the Lord's Prayer, Beau.
I still find myself saying 'and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors'.
All this trespassing business confuses me horribly! We had to recite the LP each morning before lessons all the way through primary school, in Ullapool at any rate.
|
|
|
Post by Glen B Ogle on Jun 18, 2009 16:26:58 GMT
It's these contradictions in the Bible that make me smile whenever fundamentalists claim to believe everything that's written in the Book! It's also quite a serious matter - one Christian organisation I know of nearly schismed over just this matter - there was a motion that, "The .... believes absolutely in the Word of the Book" or some such. It's not even an academic organisation, but a fellowship one.
I also smile when asked to pray, "In the words our Lord taught us." Surely if He taught us the words we'd all use the same ones (and they wouldn't be in English, either 1662 version or modern).
Glen
(Firmly on the side of Trespasses)
|
|
|
Post by revmichael on Jun 19, 2009 6:30:15 GMT
It's these contradictions in the Bible that make me smile whenever fundamentalists claim to believe everything that's written in the Book! It's also quite a serious matter - one Christian organisation I know of nearly schismed over just this matter - there was a motion that, "The .... believes absolutely in the Word of the Book" or some such. It's not even an academic organisation, but a fellowship one. I also smile when asked to pray, "In the words our Lord taught us." Surely if He taught us the words we'd all use the same ones (and they wouldn't be in English, either 1662 version or modern). Glen (Firmly on the side of Trespasses) Many of these 'differences' have come about because of different translations - particularly modernized ones. In the church where my wife and I now worship we have a modern language version of the Lord's prayer but I have in my mind the language of the Authorized Version of the Bible. I tend to say, 'give us this day our daily bread' while everyone else says, 'Give us today our daily bread.' There is no difference in the meaning and both are quite obvious. Often 'contradictions' come about because of the emphasis being made or the purpose for which the words were written. An example of this is found in Galatians. In the Authorized (King James Version) verse 2 of chapter 6 says, 'Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ' while in verse 5 of the same chapter Paul writes, 'Every man shall bear his own burden.' When the context is looked at it is obvious that verse 2 is telling Christians to help each other but in verse 5 he is emphasizing the fact that despite that, we are all still responsible for our own actions.
|
|
|
Post by Beau Leggs on Jun 19, 2009 8:37:39 GMT
I am talking of contradictions of the last words of Jesus on the cross and in Genesis 1 - on the sixth day god created man and woman, but in Genesis 2 - Eve was created from Adam's rib after he saw that Adam was looking lonely. The list could go on and on and on, but would serve no other purpose than to prove that the bibles were written by many different folk and some had different agendas.
What I find funny and very dangerous is those fundamentalists who believe in the literal truth of the bible (ie the world is only 6000 years old). Dinosaurs roamed the Earth with man until the Great Flood, yet god told Noah was told to bring every animal that walked upon the Earth onto his boat. Where the dinosaurs out playing hide'n'seek at the time? Did the plesiosaurus just decide to stop swimming?
|
|
|
Post by idiotmittens on Jun 19, 2009 11:42:18 GMT
For me, it just sums up the total futility of basing your life's actions, and how you interact with the other organisms on this planet, on a book of fairy stories.
Believing that your imaginary friend is better than their imaginary friend is no basis for armed conflict
|
|
|
Post by Beau Leggs on Jun 19, 2009 12:18:40 GMT
For me, it just sums up the total futility of basing your life's actions, and how you interact with the other organisms on this planet, on a book of fairy stories. Believing that your imaginary friend is better than their imaginary friend is no basis for armed conflictThe worst battle have been when it was the same 'friend'.
|
|
|
Post by idiotmittens on Jun 19, 2009 12:30:25 GMT
The worst battle have been when it was the same 'friend'. Very true
|
|
|
Post by Fi on Jun 20, 2009 14:10:38 GMT
For me, it just sums up the total futility of basing your life's actions, and how you interact with the other organisms on this planet, on a book of fairy stories. Believing that your imaginary friend is better than their imaginary friend is no basis for armed conflict It has been cogently argued many times that, as religion's influence in the UK has been eroded, interactions between other organisms of the human kind have deteriorated to the the point that thay have caused serious social problems. I make no comment on the erosion of religious beliefs, but I rather wish that whatever took religion's place had replaced the bible with some other code setting out the sort of basic morality and responsibilites that would have avoided some of those problems.
Whilst I agree that religion has been the root cause of many awful conflicts as well as social inequities such as being an excuse to subjugate women over many centuries, I don't think that all of its influence has been bad.
And, whilst I know I'm being somewhat pedantic, the bible is far more than just a collection of fairy stories, or even for those that do believe, an account of morally acceptable behaviour based on religious beliefs - it's also a written account of the history of early Jewish people in the larger context of the eastern Meditteranean and the Middle East, much of which has subsequently been affirmed by archaeological investigations, predating other written histories by centuries. In that, it's unique and a matchless source for historians and archaeologists.
|
|