Quotes, context, and representing your God

[Tiassa]

Issue: re--Bible quotes in argumentation; context

I assert the following points:

* That the Bible is either a whole work or a fragmented anthology. It cannot be both, for reasons I would hope to explore in this topic.

* That to excerpt the Bible into a sound-bite argumentative point with no commentary leaves questions of context.

* That some Bible quotes used in argumentation at Exosci do not reflect their original context, thus invalidating themselves as argumentative points.

... God is no respecter of persons:
(Acts 10:34, KJV).

This excerpt is an argumentative point offered in Tony1's responses to Emerald's Definition of a Cult thread. To take it at its face value, we suddenly see why there are so many people who do not choose the Christian way.

Well, duh. Why worship a God who allegedly created us just to hold us in contempt?

Or is this a contextual misperception? Does the excerpt reflect the whole of the verse in Acts? Does the excerpt reflect the context of the Bible? Or does it reflect one person's ambitious twist from Biblical wisdom into a sound-bite?

To take this literally, as it stands, of course people want nothing to do with the God of the Bible.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Act/Act010.html#top is a copy of Acts 10, for context.

I think the fact that verse 34 is itself exscinded to form the above-cited blurb speaks much about either disregard for context, or a calculated manipulation of context which undermines the proclaimed legitimacy of the Bible through dishonest motives.

I'm going to hop around in the threads and pull up a few more, and even give some thought to the contextual differences, since that seems to be the point of this topic.

Anyone? Anyone? ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

[WildBlueYonder]

Tiassa: The above quote means that God does not respect position, such as kings, lords, the rich or powerful.
You should also borrow a New International Bible, we stopped speaking the "Kings' English" after about 1776, tell me when was the last time you used 'thee' or 'thou' in friendly conversation?
Live long and Prosper!

[Tiassa]

Randolfo--

The above quote means that God does not respect position, such as kings, lords, the rich or powerful.

You will find that, over the long run, I agree with such interpretations of excerpts as you have offered. I might have a slight disagreement over Acts 10.34, but you and I would find better common agreement based on your interpretation than I find with the excerpt offered in its original posting in Emerald's topic.

I would like to cite a few components--contiguous--from the thread in question. The boldface indicates the excerpt of rhetoric to which the poster is responding:
:
Rather, A priori "truth" is easier to cope with than the adventure of discovery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Really? Chew on this for a while.

... God is no respecter of persons:
(Acts 10:34, KJV).

The glass is half empty, and God stomps on everyone all the time, right?
And the butchery of Acts 10 does not stop there; it is resurrected in the same post:
You forget that Christians are required by doctrine--you know, that thing that happens when you try to figure out what it means to believeth?--to agree on certain things. Now that, good sir, is mindless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, there it is, folks. Christianity demolished. What was I thinking?

Oh, I know, that thing you were to chew on for a while...
... God is no respecter of persons:
(Acts 10:34, KJV).

The glass is half full, and the best that could ever happen to any person, God can make happen for you.

The a priori of the first quote is in response to the charge that the Bible is absolute truth, and that anything not found in it is useless. The second regards the issue of whether applying doctrine by obligation counts, essentially, as free thought.

Even accepting your definition regarding kings &c. (which I do not outright deny, but rather regard with the consideration of other possible meanings), I have a hard time accepting that this portion of Acts has been properly represented in the argument. Rather, it seems a string of words that conveniently indicate that if God respects no persons, then our poster, Tony1, needs not. It is part of his loading of the language, which description I cite from Emerald's citation in the Cult thread:
Sixth defining element is called "loading the language." Functional member vocabulary becomes simplified with the use of thought terminating cliches, expressions or words designed to end the controversy or conversation. They become the language of non-thought since they tend to stop discussion or prevent further consideration. There is always some simple cliche or slogan to answer a complex issue or difficult question.
What, if not a cliche do we call such smug misrepresentation of the Word of God in an effort to escape an argument that one is not prepared for?

You should also borrow a New International Bible, we stopped speaking the "Kings' English" after about 1776, tell me when was the last time you used 'thee' or 'thou' in friendly conversation?

I have access to several, and I believe a New Revised Version, or something not quite NIB. But I should let you know that I, personally, use thee, thou, thine, whence, thence, heretofore, wherefore, hither, thither, and other old words regularly. To be honest, I cringe when I hear "up until now," in a conversation when "hitherto" will suffice; in addition to the actual extra words of the expression, there are also other modifications to the sentence that take place:

* Up until now, she had always done this.
* She has hitherto done this.

In addition to adding a number of words in order to blanche the language of the Bible, there is a movement seemingly toward softening it. Read a King James, and read a Good News. I mean, it seems that the Bible's custodians in this country at least keep watering down the language in response to critical charges of savagery and violence. The NIB and other versions fill in the intervening stages of severity nicely.

Consider this, from Leviticus:

* And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever [he be] of thy seed in their generations that hath [any] blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man [he be] that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, * Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, * Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; * No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. He shall eat the bread of his God, [both] of the most holy, and of the holy. Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them. (Lv. 21.16-ff; KJV)

16 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying:
17 Say to Aaron: Whosoever of thy seed throughout their families, hath a blemish, he shall not offer bread to his God.
18 Neither shall he approach to minister to him: If he be blind, if he be lame, if he have a little, or a great, or a crooked nose,
19 If his foot, or if his hand be broken,
20 If he be crookbacked, or blear eyed, or have a pearl in his eye, or a continual scab, or a dry scurf in his body, or a rupture:
21 Whosoever of the seed of Aaron the priest hath a blemish, he shall not approach to offer sacrifices to the Lord, nor bread to his God.
22 He shall eat nevertheless of the loaves, that are offered in the sanctuary,
23 Yet so that he enter not within the veil, nor approach to the altar, because he hath a blemish, and he must not defile my sanctuary. I am the Lord who sanctify them. (Lv. 21.16-ff; Douay Rheims--1609)

The LORD said to Moses,
17
"Speak to Aaron and tell him: None of your descendants, of whatever generation, who has any defect shall come forward to offer up the food of his God.
18
Therefore, he who has any of the following defects may not come forward: he who is blind, or lame, or who has any disfigurement or malformation,
19
or a crippled foot or hand,
20
or who is hump-backed or weakly or walleyed, or who is afflicted with eczema, ringworm or hernia.
21
No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any such defect may draw near to offer up the oblations of the LORD; on account of his defect he may not draw near to offer up the food of his God.
22
He may, however, partake of the food of his God: of what is most sacred as well as of what is sacred.
23
Only, he may not approach the veil nor go up to the altar on account of his defect; he shall not profane these things that are sacred to me, for it is I, the LORD, who make them sacred."
24
Moses, therefore, told this to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites. (Lv. 21.16-ff; New American)

[quote]The LORD commanded Moses to tell Aaron, "None of your descendants who has any physical defects may present the food offering to me. This applies for all time to come. No man with any physical defects may make the offering; no one who is blind, lame, disfigured or deformed; no one wiht a crippled hand or foot; no one who is a hunchback or a dwarf; no one with any eye or skin disease; and no eunuch. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any physical defects may preseent the food offering to me. Such a man may eat the holy food offering and the very holy food offering, but because he has a physical defect, he shall not come near the altar curtain or approach the altar. He must not profane these holy things, because I am the LORD and I make them holy. (Lv. 21.16-ff; GNB)

Aside from shuddering off a rhetorical vision of national socialism, I find that the older translations to be a little more honest. But there is disagreement from translation to translation regarding whom God dislikes.

For instance, the older translations list "broken stones" (KLV) and "rupture" (D-R), which translates into "hernia" in the New American, yet the GNB lists "eunuch".

Frankly, I find that last transition hilarious; whereas a man was prohibited from these things by God's orders for merely having a hernia or getting his nuts cracked in a fight or an accident, or is impotent by birth, the GNB requires deliberate mutilation of one's genitals. Newer versions are translated under the pressure of modern social concerns. The older it is, the less sensitive the document is of human needs.

I'm actually leaving the Leviticus passages in this post, though I have decided they are either wholly irrelevant or else not illustrative of the aspect I'm advocating. Rather, I do not have the patience to go Bible to Bible searching for skull smashings, rapes, and other atrocities numbed down into smote, killed, or defiled. But the language softens, generally speaking, with each new translation, so as to accommodate human insecurity in the face of God. Truth be told, I would rather learn Hebrew and Greek--which may happen sometime in the next several years--and read the source documents so that there is no argument. However, KJV, NIB, GNB, NA, and other translations of the Bible are the translations upon which the people of Chrsitendom base their faith. If, however, you find that the difference of translation causes that significant of change in the interpretation of six words from the book of Acts, I would invite you to point it out. In the end, I merely want people who would quote God to make a point to not be intentionally misrepresenting God in pursuit of a personal rhetorical victory. Can you imagine if that was the tie-breaker in the Book of Life? After all else you have done in your life, I must condemn you to the Lake of Fire because you twisted my words in pursuit of your own foolish aims, and preached a Gospel that was not mine.

Salvation aside, it also prevents us from tangential posts, threads, and otherwise, to hammer out the meaning of a single phrase from the Bible.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

[ilgwamh]

Randolfo, I take it your not a Kjv- only advocate :D

Tiassa, James 2:1-4, Matthew 5:44-45, and Acts 12:3 for starters:

"But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." matt

"My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?" james

"Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died." acts

Plus already mentioned:

Acts 10:34-35: Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right."

I try to interpret scripture in light of other scripture a lot of times. IOW, I let the Bible interpret itself. I view it as a whole work but one must realize the different context and social conditions that existed during the composition of each book. Exempli gratia, I am not against women in ministry. I don't believe the Bible is either.

Peace,
Vinnie

[Tiassa]

It's not that those aren't wonderful quotes, or that they don't seem straightforward, but are you using them to prove an argumentiative point by employing them out of context? If not, I have no issue to protest your use of Bible passages.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

[ilgwamh]

That Leviticus passage applies to preists. Just as the sacrifice had to be unblemished so did the one offering it. It symbolizes Christ's perfect sacrifice I think. Leviticus in contemporary America and probably in many other places is an apologist's nightmare ;)

Peace,
Vinnie

[FA_Q2]

This is a good point but I would also like to take it one step further. Bible quotes in general are a moot point. In most cases the bible itself is the item ion question and quoting it does not help at all. Many people continually post nothing but bible gibberish and even if they are not taken out of context it is still fruitless. If I say the earth was created in a slow 5 billion year process, agued through many scientific proofs that it is and you return with genesis 1:31 – 2:2 all you are showing is the inability to debate intelligently. I don't propose that we ban biblical references, but that posters should understand that a bible quote just wont due as a complete argument. Something else is needed. I am partly speaking to tony1 who has plagued this board with one liners and has been "loading his language" ever since his appearance. To those who are not religious, the bible is not the end all tell all to everything. It would work if this were a debate on whether the bible commands this or that but for the most part it is a debate for and against Christianity.

[Tiassa]

Vinnie--

. Leviticus in contemporary America and probably in many other places is an apologist's nightmare

I think Leviticus makes a lot of sense, taken within its context. If I'm not mistaken, the book does not account for the better times of the Hebrews. Some of the laws in Leviticus are harsh, and have a practical reason: no tattoos, and no lacerations in mourning. Wandering the middle of nowhere, it seems a little unnecessary to have to cope with the infections resulting from such acts taking place in such an unsanitary environment. Hence, also, I think, the prohibitions against wasteful sex. Not that biology doesn't back up the prohibitions against incest, but buggery hardly serves the tribe well at this point.

At any rate, Leviticus is off my list of biblical conundrums for the time being. In this case, I was failing to make a point about the changing of the language expressed within the Bible, and the possible failures of language to convey the story. Perhaps some of our distracting arguments come from lifelong perceptions; if one learns softened imagery, perhaps the reaction to the violence of the Old Testament is reduced. Something along those lines, but I utterly missed. I only left that section intact because I had to type one of the citations by hand and if there's anything I can't stand, it's quoting from a book that doesn't like to keep its page.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

[tony1]

tiassa..

I was going to skip this thread altogether, but I thought, "what the heck?"

I see you're bummed out because God is no respecter of persons AND that I won't quote the Bible the way you want me to.

Plus, you think I don't respect you because God doesn't respect you.

You can take your pick...

God doesn't respect you because he places you no higher than anyone else, or
God doesn't respect you because he places you no lower than anyone else.

[Tiassa]

Otherwise your general lack of relevance only accomplishes the effect of making you look extraneous and, frankly, goofy. I'm sure you would enjoy much more a world in which everything was as simple as Tony's right and everyone else is jealous, but it doesn't happen that way, sir. I mean, who would envy your fear of what you are?

--Tiassa :cool:

[WildBlueYonder]

Several years ago, I was loaned a copy of 'Macbeth', with translations. On the right was the original, what I thought was ordinary English, on the left was the translation. Almost every phrase that looked like, was spelled like English, meant something different, to the English people of Elizabeth's time. It was almost like you had to decode it, I stopped reading it, it was too confusing. Shakespeare was a great writer, his works will probably live as long as someone speaks some form of English in the future. But most common ordinary people, don't speak that way or understand hidden meanings, almost unknowable, I personally prefer General American English, Spoken from California to the Midwest. That is also, how the NIV sounds to me, written for me, so that I can understand.

Live long and prosper!

[Tiassa]

You have raised an exceptionally important point:
Almost every phrase that looked like, was spelled like English, meant something different, to the English people of Elizabeth's time. It was almost like you had to decode it, I stopped reading it, it was too confusing.
This works toward both the critic and the proponent of various issues of biblical credibility. In terms of the English language, one of my close friend distrusts the King James Version on the grounds that a wholesale rewrite had taken place; I must confess I have never explored the details of this notion. However, as we look at more modern translations, we still encounter the same problem that you've described. Just as we can go back and compare notes on Shakespeare, so also can we compare notes on ancient Hebrew, and occasionally come to different conclusions. Even with as much of the historical record intact as there is, do we not see a similar problem as you've described with Shakespeare in terms of new translations from ancient Hebrew and Greek? I always noticed the number of italicized, unsettled terms in various Bibles I've used in research. Even terms of gender distinction, and articles such as "the" are in question from time to time.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool: