Bible targeted for obscenity - Page 2

AVengeance · 06-13-2007, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by redwards

I'm definitely missing something here.

For someone so convinced the Bible isn't worth anything, you sure don't know much about it.

Song of Solomon was written by a man with many wives. Lets just say he had an appreciation for female beauty

Anyway, Solomon was quite the poet (chics dig that), and Song of Solomon has numerous sensual references, hence my reference to it in this thread about obscenity.

If you haven't read the Song of Solomon, you really should.

Songs 2:3 (from the female perspective, as the book goes back and forth between "lover" and "beloved")

As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit sweet to my taste.

redwards · 06-13-2007, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

For someone so convinced the Bible isn't worth anything, you sure don't know much about it.

Right. I forgot. It's the duty of all atheists to memorize the bible. That makes sense.

Linzyhop · 06-13-2007, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by redwards

Right. I forgot. It's the duty of all atheists to memorize the bible. That makes sense.

i would think if you're going to try to denounce something, you should know your subject matter enough to shoot down the majority of the points. otherwise it's just ignorant ramblings.

Dumpy Dooby · 06-14-2007, 06:40 AM

One of my favorite stories about Moses...

One night during their 40 wandering years, God was about to kill Moses. His wife Zipporah, who I suppose saw God sneaking up on her husband's tent, had a brilliant idea. She grabbed their son's penis, and cut off his foreskin with a flint knife, and threw it at Moses. God was grossed out, and ran away. Moses escaped by the skin of his, uh, teeth.

The end

Now it came about at the lodging place on the way that the LORD met him and sought to put him to death. Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and threw it at Moses' feet, and she said, "You are indeed a bridegroom of blood to me." So He let him alone. At that time she said, "You are a bridegroom of blood"--because of the circumcision.
[Ex. 4:24-26 (NASB)]

Simius · 06-14-2007, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

i would think if you're going to try to denounce something, you should know your subject matter enough to shoot down the majority of the points. otherwise it's just ignorant ramblings.

I think that even most of the good Christians on this site didn't know what AVengeance was referring to. Not understanding that reference doesn't mean redwards can't shoot down the majority of the points. It just means he can't read minds.

AVengeance · 06-14-2007, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by Simius

I think that even most of the good Christians on this site didn't know what AVengeance was referring to. Not understanding that reference doesn't mean redwards can't shoot down the majority of the points. It just means he can't read minds.

I'm afraid I'd have to agree with that. There are a number of Christians that would have to denounce major traditions associated with their religion if they actually read the whole Bible. I mean, how can you be a sexual prude after reading and understanding Song of Solomon? Any Christian that thinks sex is inherintly dirty or sinful must have that book missing or something.

DosEquis · 06-18-2007, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by W.J. Wilczek

There are those that are so simple as to believe in the literal truth of the Bible. Some actually hold that it is the word of God; and still others argue over which version of the Scriptures is the true text. It is absurd. For example, William Tyndale translated the Bible into English; but he used the Greek and Hebrew texts rather than the Latin Vulgate prepared by St. Jerome in the 4th Century A.D. Sir Thomas More declared that Tyndale's Bible was heresy, and Tyndale a heretic. (Both More and Tyndale came to bad ends because of their religious beliefs.) The King James Bible was adapted from William Tyndale's translation; which was revised by committees of scholars and edited under the direction of Francis Bacon. So, if we assume that the King James Version of the Bible is the literal word of God, then must God be an Englishman? Perhaps it would be best to have a label on the cover of the Bible warning the unsuspecting public that the true meaning of the word of God may have been lost in translation.

up|dn · 06-18-2007, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by W.J. Wilczek

There are those that are so simple as to believe in the literal truth of the Bible. Some actually hold that it is the word of God; and still others argue over which version of the Scriptures is the true text. It is absurd. For example, William Tyndale translated the Bible into English; but he used the Greek and Hebrew texts rather than the Latin Vulgate prepared by St. Jerome in the 4th Century A.D. Sir Thomas More declared that Tyndale's Bible was heresy, and Tyndale a heretic. (Both More and Tyndale came to bad ends because of their religious beliefs.) The King James Bible was adapted from William Tyndale's translation; which was revised by committees of scholars and edited under the direction of Francis Bacon. So, if we assume that the King James Version of the Bible is the literal word of God, then must God be an Englishman? Perhaps it would be best to have a label on the cover of the Bible warning the unsuspecting public that the true meaning of the word of God may have been lost in translation.

Things are always lost in translation. I would probably take an extreme view of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis which states that there is an integral relationship between the grammar of language and how a person understands and experiences the world. In my view, it's not possible to take an ancient language and worldview and translate it into another language. We will never properly understand what was originally meant no matter how accurate the translation. Language is really just a set of symbols which conveys ideas to people who share similar ideas within a paradigm. The symbols can be translated, but unless the paradigm is kept, they will never be properly understood. (In case you hadn't noticed, this is a huge problem with Biblical interpretation).

To suggest that God would use something as fickle and ever-changing as human language to convey "his will" and all things necessary for eternal salvation seems like blasphemy at best and ridiculous at worst. Words and language are never static.

Linzyhop · 06-19-2007, 08:53 AM

yeah, go tell those who preach it word for word but conveniently forget that fact...

sabarama · 09-23-2007, 07:10 PM

the problem with this debate is, that everyone is going to have some form of an opinion on it.
Personally i believe that the people who are complaining about the bible being obsene obviously have no idea what the bible is about, from the small parts i hvae read it seems to basically just be obscene haha , but yeah if the asians have a problem with its obsenity, dont read it. Its pretty simple

hereticzero · 10-25-2007, 10:02 AM

Should be listed as fiction.

Linzyhop · 10-25-2007, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by hereticzero

Should be listed as fiction.

exactly. a good book of fiction. lessons should be taken from it, but not word for word.

AVengeance · 10-25-2007, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

exactly. a good book of fiction. lessons should be taken from it, but not word for word.

Just like the history books you read in schools.

Scrum · 10-25-2007, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Just like the history books you read in schools.

Comparing the bible to school textbooks.

Linzyhop · 10-25-2007, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Just like the history books you read in schools.

lots of school text books aren't 100% either. ever read "Lies my Teacher Told me"? points out a lot of false things in textbooks published over and over again.....

Rouger2 · 10-25-2007, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by up|dn

Things are always lost in translation. I would probably take an extreme view of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis which states that there is an integral relationship between the grammar of language and how a person understands and experiences the world. In my view, it's not possible to take an ancient language and worldview and translate it into another language. We will never properly understand what was originally meant no matter how accurate the translation. Language is really just a set of symbols which conveys ideas to people who share similar ideas within a paradigm. The symbols can be translated, but unless the paradigm is kept, they will never be properly understood. (In case you hadn't noticed, this is a huge problem with Biblical interpretation).

To suggest that God would use something as fickle and ever-changing as human language to convey "his will" and all things necessary for eternal salvation seems like blasphemy at best and ridiculous at worst. Words and language are never static.

The dead sea scrolls should point out just how much has changed from the early bible. It must be completely translated by now. I believe it was a copy of the old bible. I have often wondered how much difference there was but have heard nothing that seems kind of funny to me.

Jazzratt · 10-28-2007, 07:49 PM

What do you think? Should the Bible be listed as obscene?

On a wide scope in which I will incorporate all my political views, it should not be restricted to non-minors or anything like that. Any person is free to read any book they wish, any consequence thereafter is a concern of the parent and the child. It should probably be in a section of libraries grouped with more adult books, but if a child wants to read the Bible than nothing restricts them to.

Acting as a, I dunno, Capitalist or simply Statist, sure. It's a pretty untame book. One thing, however, is that most things portrayed in the Bible that they base their statement of the Bible's obscenity were portrayed as bad, the culprits were usually punished or stopped committing that act of obscenity, and therefore instead of influencing readers to do these things, rather, as God-fearing individuals should never commit such.

Either way, humans are capable of contemplation and some basic moral sense of their own.

up|dn · 11-02-2007, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Rouger2

The dead sea scrolls should point out just how much has changed from the early bible. It must be completely translated by now. I believe it was a copy of the old bible. I have often wondered how much difference there was but have heard nothing that seems kind of funny to me.

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain some copies of parts of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), but they're actually remarkably similar to other copies which are over a thousand years newer. That's not really the issue, in my opinion. It is the translation of an ancient worldview (in which heaven is seen as directly above the earth, for example) that can't really be conveyed in any translation.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are actually hundreds of manuscripts of all sorts of things. The theory is that either they are a library or collection of a single sect of Judaism, or perhaps the salvaged remains of a library containing works by all kinds of groups in Judaism.

AVengeance · 11-02-2007, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Rouger2

The dead sea scrolls should point out just how much has changed from the early bible. It must be completely translated by now. I believe it was a copy of the old bible. I have often wondered how much difference there was but have heard nothing that seems kind of funny to me.

I have a copy of what has been translated. Actually, a couple books on the subject. It's not really changed. There are some things that aren't in the Bible canon at all, but much of that is procedural stuff having to do with the specific sect in the area.

AVengeance · 11-02-2007, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by up|dn

...It is the translation of an ancient worldview (in which heaven is seen as directly above the earth, for example) that can't really be conveyed in any translation.
...

There's more than one "heaven". I suppose you could scratch out "the heavens" and replace it with "outer space", and your comprehension of the subject might improve. Deu 10:14

According to the Bible, there is a heaven above you. We call it the atmosphere. There's the heaven above that, which is outer space. There's Heaven, which is beyond that, which is where good little boys and girls go when they die.

You use a word in the English language in multiple ways, and don't have a problem with understanding its meaning in context. Try to apply the same latitude when reading the Bible. We have words for things nowadays (like "outer space" and "wrist") that they just didn't have back then.