h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

re post 97
as an aussie I'm annoyed by this version as it really makes us out to be
cow cockies
sure it is assies slang,but not all of us talk like that, and I'm actually quite insulted at the level it is aimed at
Although I have no belief in the bible at all, I still feel it is a powerful book to many,many people and to see it degraded in this way is shameful

The bible to those who believe in it is a sacred item and it should not be degraded in such a way

my worth

Hel2

*at the risk of interupting a very well tempered thread, a personal aside to my fellow Canuck, anhaga*

>> ..isn't it "bibliophile"? <<

Now anhaga, we've had this discussion before. Whenever you see spelling errors in my postings, there is a 50/50 chance I did it deliberately. Either way, I encourage you to feel amused.


>> Or am I just being a Bibliophilistine? <<

Oh wait. Oh no!
"Bibliophilistine".



~jwf~

>> it should not be degraded in such a way <<

Degradation, like Beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Perhaps because it IS the greatest book ever written, representing the collective histories and myths of several ancient cultures, and because it possesses a power still (obviously) felt by millions, it invites, as do all established and powerful things beyond our immediate comprehension, both satire and the left-handed compliment of 'translation' into contemporary jargon, which is none-the-less sincerely intended to communicate as well as preserve the essential 'truths' of the stories.

In the late 1950s, there was much effort to create a 'beatnik' version of the holy texts. It was done with the same mix of reverence, giddy naughtiness ("Joy") and a sincere desire to update the retelling of the tale for both contemporary awareness and posterity. In the beatnik version the Holy Trinity is presented as 'Daddy-o, Laddy-o and Spook'.


~jwf~

Daddy-o, Laddy-o and Spook'

Post 59:
< Is there any biblical justification for that belief?>
It's based on Revelation 7:4-8, and 14:1-3. On the question 'Is the number 144,000 merely symbolic?', the Reasoning book says:
The answer is indicated by the fact that, after mention of the definite number 144,000, Revelation 7:9 refers to “a great crowd, which no man was able to number.” If the number 144,000 were not literal it would lack meaning as a contrast to the “great crowd.”

Post 88:

Isn't it named because of some other language, probably latin? I seem to recall that in bibliotheque is German for library, and that in several language words starting with 'bibl' mean book, or library, or something.

Post 96:

Yes, I remember. It was on a news report wasn't it? "If genuine, the page belongs at the beginning of the Bible and reads: 'To my darling Kathy, all characters within this book are fictitious, any resemblance to actual persons living or dead is purely coincidental.' The page has been universally condemned by church leaders."

Which fairly neatly demonstrates what a bunch of humourless people apply for the job of church leaders. If the theology is right it is hardly likely a tv programme is going to destroy it so lighten up. If it is wrong...well you work out the next bit.

<>

Amen. (Oops! Am I allowed to say "Amen" here? )

I'm rather glad that this thread was not about whether
God has a sense of humour. Or about some of the incon-
sistencies in the Bible. Some students figured out
that Methuselah would have lived until 120 years
*after* the great flood. There is no mention of Noah
giving him passage on the Ark. How did he survive?

Anyone who believes God doesn't have a sense of humour hasn't looked at a naked man recently!

Yes I have looked at a naked man recently. Me. And I don't find that sort of practical joke funny.

Insight. Bible comes from the name of the Phoenician city of Byblos.

144,000 from all the tribes of Israel, 12,000 from each, including the lost ones. Go figure.

Gog. Looked at your references and couldn't find anything at all to link them to Gog or to Rosh, Meschech and Tubal. But Isaiah 66:19 "...to Tarshish, to the Libyans and Lydians, Rosh (glossed as famous as archers), Meschech, Tubal and Javan (Ionia ie Greece)" - these comprising the Greek speaking world. Meschech is also known from insciptions of Ptolemy and Ramses III. The name Gog is probably being used like the family name Caesar, and with reference to Agag the Amalekite, Hebrew at this time being written without vowels.

Noggin

anhaga, interesting question! Origen believed there were 3 levels of interpretation, face value, figurative and ? (I don't remember). When I was a child, and first came across the Bible, I didn't take it all literally, even then... and I still don't.
Truth to tell, I make a *mental* barrier between the N.T., which I accept and the O.T., which I by and large don't. Jewish researchers, I've offended a couple of you before by saying this, but it is so.

>>The idea of Christ being the only way to Heaven is not merely a fundamentalist view: most denominations hold that as a basic tenant of their creed. <<
Or should... I have come across some churches and priests who should be social workers, because they care about people, but don't really believe in God. (Truly)
I believe in Christ's atonement. I believe it encompasses *everyone*
in other words, I believe in Universal Salvation.I can't say I know exactly how it works, though.

I'm glad you find the question interesting, Della.

I hope everyone realizes that I didn't really expect anybody to answer "yes" to the question.

I find it interesting to see the variable limits people put on "common sense". As an extreme example, some think it obvious that there is some sort of God while others find it equally obvious that there is none.

I just ran across this forum and thought I would add my two cents.
I am a Baptist. That does not mean I take everything in the bible as literal but it does mean that I take everything there as inspired by the same God who spoke to Moses. I once asked a Theologian if the
opposite of exogeting a verse was introgeting it.
He replied no Exogesis is bringing the meaning out of a verse in it's multiplicable forms. The opposite would be ascribing only one meaning to a verse. thus the opposite would be isogesis.
The Lamb of God is mentioned in many places one of which Rev5:6
gives this description: "And I saw A lamb as it had been killed but now was standing. he had seven horns and seven eyes which are the seven spirits of God that are sent out into every part of the earth"
Now I have never seen a seven eyed critter. This is obviosly symbolism.

Thanks, Shagbark. I agree, the Lamb of God is obviously symbolism. However, as I suggested in my previous post, the distinction is not always so obvious, or, at least, the obviousness is not agreed to by everyone. (in fact, I expect some few might argue that when the Final Days come, the Lamb will not only have wooly hair, four legs and cloven hooves, but also seven eyes.)

This is what I get for not finding this thread for several days.... Piles of backlog to wade through!

In answer to the original question, obviously no.

Where to draw the line between literal and symbolic? Everyone has a different answer of course, but mine would be that I take the bible seriously, but that doesn't mean that I take everything in it as literal or symbolic. I do however believe that everything in it is true - some way, some how - whether it be more literal or more symbolic.

For instance, in the above example of Jesus being the Lamb of God, I would say that he is the ultimate fulfillment of the literal passover lamb, meaning his designation as lamb is partially symbolic - obviously a man, not a lamb, and yet literally a substitute for the passover lamb.



The Aussie Bible reminds me of the "Cotton Patch Gospel" which was written in a Deep South/Hick/Hillbilly style. The basic truths were still there, but unless that happened to be the way you normally talked, you'd probably have trouble getting past the language and dialect to hear the truth. I guess it appealed to some people as being less stuffy than a standard translation though.

I'm trying to keep out of this thread, but I just wanted to correct something. The Dead Sea Scrolls are very different to the Bible as we know it today. That is why there is such a controversy about it, and why the Catholic Church has been trying to get monopoly on translating it.

>> ..some think it obvious that there is some sort of God while others find it equally obvious that there is none <<

There-in lies the difficulty of most conversations on these subjects. Polarised and pre-established opinions leave little room for discussion or debate and these threads often turn into rants, ill feeling and name calling. My continued congratulations to all.

Perhaps the earliest 'compromise' of literal interpretations came in the years of the great Evolution versus Fundalmentalism debates. Not much was ever resolved. But at least they allowed some people to begin seeing that 'symbolism' can be as valid a representation of certain eternal truths as the minds of men may grasp.

One of the reasons the bible stories have survived so long is that they represent universal truths not just 'symbolically' but sometimes, in the context of the limited understanding of the ancient world, we see intuitive reasoning and acute observation of the world.

For example: The 7-day Creationist timetable explained in Genesis is at least 'logical' in the order in which things occurred. While the timing may be 'symbolic' or 'representative' there can be no arguing that primitive man (yes, by our standards the earliest authors were) grasped the sequential nature of what we loosely call the 'evolution' of our planet.

There is no claim in Genesis or by any Fundamentalist that God just snapped his fingers and 'bang' there it all was. The 'representative' passage of time (7 days) allows that it did not all just happen at once but was (and is) an ongoing process.


~jwf~

No, the way things were created in Genesis are very different from the sequence they happened in according to science.

PS:

And for those who do not know it, may I recommend Karen Armstrong's "The History of God" which clears up most of the misunderstandings seen here and in almost every conversation about the 'byble'.

She traces primitive and ancient myth into Babylon and the convergence of these stories into the Genesis myth. Then proceeds to show how the first five books of the bible were preserved and modified by later scribes and prophets including the many Jewish and Christian variations that occurred between the rise of Greece and the fall of Rome. The Dead Sea scrolls (to the extent now limited by those in possesion of these texts) and the history of Islam's many branches are also included.

Her scholarship and study of ancient texts never gets in the way of her compassionate concern to bring enlightenment on all these questions which continue to anger and perplex millions. As a former Catholic nun overwhelmed by rationalism and disenchanted by the blind faith of millions she pursued 'God' to his roots and explains his many variations and the social and political forces that brought about these divisions of interpretion.

I consider 'The History of God' the greatest book ever written about the greatest book ever written.


~jwf~

I seem to remember the Biblical account of the creation says that God rested on the seventh day and the faithful are asked to do the same.

Does God still rest every seventh day? If so doesn't that make it God's day off rather than God's Holy Day and rather a good day for those who would wish to undo his work?

F