Religious tolerance

[najaB]

Does it?

The trial before Pilate was the same day as Jesus was crucified, and following the crucifixion, John 19:31 states;

It does. In the NKJV it says:

13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus out and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha.

14 Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover, and about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, “Behold your King!”

15 But they cried out, “Away with Him, away with Him! Crucify Him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar!”

So he was tried and crucified the day before Passover according to John, but the Synoptics say that he was crucified after Passover (since the Last Supper was the Passover meal).

 

[Ediswan]

I don't think that reasoning works. There are very good reasons why two people might give answers that are slightly inconsistent: People slightly mis-remember things. People don't know about everything their friends are doing. And so on.

That's the whole point. The police would expect there to be slight differences in statements made by different people. It is when the statements all match exactly that suspicion arises.

 

[najaB]

That's the whole point. The police would expect there to be slight differences in statements made by different people. It is when the statements all match exactly that suspicion arises.

The point being made is that if the Bible is the true and exact word of God then there was only one author so there shouldn't be any differences at all since, unlike a human retelling a story and mixing up some of the details, God is infallible so would - by definition - get every detail exactly the same every time.

 

[scotrail158713]

And I'm puzzled about you commenting about not forcing someone to believe something, as if that's a choice you are making. Do you actually think that if you wanted to, it's even possible to 'force' someone to believe something? (I'm pretty sure it isn't possible, other than possibly with some brainwashing techniques)

Ok, maybe force wasn't the word I was looking for. I have my beliefs around religion, which I believe are backed up by evidence in the Bible, and IMO are pretty convincing. If people have doubts about certain things to do with any of this, I would show them this, and then let them decide for themselves whether that is convincing enough for them. I wouldn't say to them "this is what I believe, therefore you must too".

But *IF* the Bible is the Word of God then that would imply it was written by one single being. And I'm pretty sure that, according to any mainstream Christian theology, God doesn't forget things. So there would appear to be no reason for different books in the Bible to be inconsistent with each other.

It's the Word of God, written by many different people. And I personally don't see any ways in which they are inconsistent with each other. If I was to take the 4 gospels, what I personally see is 4 different men giving their accounts of Jesus' life. They may focus on slightly different parts of his life - e.g Mark makes no mention of Jesus' birth - but ultimately they all are talking about the same thing.

In the same way that if you ask two children who have been on a school trip to write about what happened throughout the day, they'll both mention broadly the same things, but it's from their own experience, so certain things may slightly differ e.g. one child may talk more about the journey there.

It does. In the NKJV it says:

So he was tried and crucified the day before Passover according to John, but the Synoptics say that he was crucified after Passover (since the Last Supper was the Passover meal).

The Passover is a week-long festival, so the way I read that is the crucifixion happened on the Preparation Day (Friday), of the week of the Passover festival.

 

[najaB]

...so the way I read that...

And there's the problem with the Bible being the word of God - surely He could have made it perfectly clear what He meant and not leave it up to (mis)interpretation?

 

[duncanp]

It does. In the NKJV it says:

So he was tried and crucified the day before Passover according to John, but the Synoptics say that he was crucified after Passover (since the Last Supper was the Passover meal).

One thing to remember about reading any copy of the Bible in English is that it is a translation from the original text, which was written in another language such as Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew or Latin.

So when you are talking about the phrase "...preparation day of the passover..." you have to remember that this is the interpretation of the person who translated the gospel into English of the original text. In other words, it is what the translator of the gospel thinks the original writer of the gospel meant, which may only be loosley related to what the gospel writer actually meant.

The other thing to bear in mind is that the Jewish festival of Passover lasts for several days (in 2021 it runs from March 21st to April 3rd) so the last meal that Jesus had with his disciples could have taken place at any time during the days of Passover.

Most people accept that Jesus was crucified on a Friday, as he had to be taken down and buried before the Sabbath began on Friday evening.

This problem of different people having different interpretations of what is meant in the Bible is at the root of a lot of religious misunderstanding and bigotry. People focus on one bit of the Bible that suits their own prejudices, the most notorious of which is Leviticus 18:22, which purports to condemn homosexuality, whereas it doesn't really, as the article below illustrates.

Leviticus 18:22 – Queer Bible Hermeneutics

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”[1] It is not a surprise that this verse seems to say that gay male sex is forbidden in the eyes of God. The dominant view of western Christianity forbids same-sex relations. This verse is one of the clobber passages that people cite from the Bible to condemn homosexuality. This essay first looks at the various ways the verse is translated into the English Bible and then explores some of the strategies used to create an affirming interpretation of what this passage means for the LGBTQ community. More specifically, it presents the interpretation of K. Renato Lings in which Lev. 18:22 refers to male-on-male incest.

While Lev. 18:22 is used to condemn homosexuality, we must realize that the term “homosexuality” was only recently coined in the English language. So did this term exist in ancient Israel? Charles D. Myers, Jr. confirms that none of the prophets in the Hebrew Bible mention homosexuality.[2] He also contends that in ancient Israel same-sex relations were viewed as an ancient Near East problem. The ancient Near East tradition included pederasty and relations between an older man and a boy, which was the primary form of homosexual sex at the time.[3] While Myers’ theory is historically sound, it does not respond to questions about Lev. 18:22 raised by the queer community.

Bringing no answers from the history of ancient Israel, we must turn to the text itself. No matter how we read the Hebrew Bible, we must remember that we are not reading it in the original Hebrew language. Every Bible we read is translated from the original. Translations of Lev. 18:22 into English fluctuate. The KJV translates the verse as: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.” The NIV offers: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” The NRSV, 1989, states: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” The Priest for Equality translation makes a bold move with its translation: “Do not lie with a person of the same-sex in the same way as you would lie with a person of the opposite sex; it is detestable.” Interestingly translators of the Priest for Equality determined to not only forbid male same sex relations, but to blanket the statement to all same sex relations.[4]

As it is apparent, there is something happening in the various translations of Lev. 18:22. In order to understand this verse we must confer with scholars and their commentaries. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary reviews several interpretations, but most of its attention to Jacob Milgrom’s work on Leviticus. Milgron finds that the word used for male and female words in the verse features a singular version for the male and a plural word for female. Milgron shows that the phrase translated “as one lies with a woman” is only found here and in Lev. 20:13 the phrase “as one lies with” occurs five times in the Hebrew Bible. [5] “As one lies with” occurs four times where it references bed and does not indicate a sexual act. Genesis 49:4 designates a sexual act when Rueben sleeps with his father’s wife. Thus, Milgrom maintains that the phrase “as one lies with” should be understood as a place , not as a sexual activity.[6] Milgrom brings into question how Le. 18:22 been interpreted our contemporary society.

While Jacob Milgrom’s work may offer some doubt about our current interpretations, K. Renato Lings’ understanding of Leviticus 18:22 gives us a better idea about the meaning of the original Hebrew. Lings discovers that the text is not self-explanatoryin contrast to the version of most commentators. The Hebrew text is far more complex than English translators disclose.[7] Lings thus maintains that the English text should be translated on the basis of Hebrew linguistics. He builds on the work of David Stewart and the idea that this passage is really about male on male incest.[8] First, Lings notes that the word used for “man” is not the typical noun used for “man.” Instead, a word which translates to male occurs here. This noun for “male” includes both young and adult males.[9] Therefore, Lings translates the text of Lev. 18:22 as “And with a male you shall not lie.”[10]

Now that Lings has solved the linguistic problem with “man” and “male,” the first half of the verse is pretty straight forward. However, difficulties with translation start as one turns to the next phrase, “As with a woman” (NRSV). Lings contends that translators have taken liberties here by including the word “as”.[11] Many translations also include particles “with” or “like.” According to Ling, these words are not part of the original Hebrew text. Thus, he translates the verse so far as “And with a male you shall lie down the lyings of a woman.”[12]

Lings moves his work to the Hebrew word used for “lyings.”[13] This word appears in the plural, which Milgrom misses and, according to Lings, it is only found in these Lev. 18:22 and Genesis 49:4. The singular version of the Hebrew word is used frequently.[14] According to Ling the reference in Genesis 49:4 depicts “lyings” as incest.[15] Lings argues that the term “lyings” refers to an action that is of “arguably illicit nature.”[16] He claims we must follow the principle of seeking out the more difficult reading and not to take the easy way out when we translate a biblicaltext.[17] If we take into account Genesis 49:2 then, we discover the text refers to forbidden act of incest.[18]

Finally, Ling discusses the noun for “woman.” The KJV uses the word “womankind.” While the word used for “male” is clearly referenced elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible for all ages, the one used for “woman” refers to an adult woman. In fact, many times the word is translated as “wife” in English.[19] It is important to note that the Hebrew presents an adult woman only, but uses a non-specific noun for the male. The text can be talking about a young boy or a grown man, but “woman” is clearly a grown woman.

Furthermore, Lings considers the context in which Lev. 18:22 is written. He explains that the passage “deals with various illicit relationships in the sexual realm: one marrying two sisters (18:18), intercourse with a menstruating woman (18:19), infidelity (18:20), and bestiality (18:23).”[20] Most of Leviticus 18 deals directly with incest. Notably, the list of laws from Leviticus 18 is reordered in Leviticus 20. In Leviticus 18 the order of the topics is ambiguous, but in chapter 20 the so-called homosexual law appears within a list referring to incest.[21] Lings’ linguistic study leads him to conclude that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 continue the theme of incestuous relationships.[22] Thus, the passage should be paraphrased: “Sexual intercourse with a close male relative should be just as abominable to you as incestuous relationships with female relatives.”[23] Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 forbids male incestuous relations.

Because of Ling’s linguistic study that we find relief for the LGBTQ community finds from the homophobic interpretations of Lev. 18:22. Lings’ interpretation illustrates that this verse and many other clobber passages do not stand solid ground. Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 forbids male incestuous sexual relations.

Speaking as someone who attends church regularly, I just wish people would pay half as much attention to their own faults as they do to those of other people, as indeed the Bible tells you to. The world would be a lot better place if this were to happen.

It is also worth noting that Jesus himself was very vocal in condemning the religious hypocrites of his day, which is the main reason he was crucified, as he was a threat to the established religious order of the day.

 

[scotrail158713]

And there's the problem with the Bible being the word of God - surely He could have made it perfectly clear what He meant and not leave it up to (mis)interpretation?

It is clear in my view, see also @duncanp is in agreement above. John isn't making it up. His gospel mentions many other things that match up the other gospels - Peter's denial (John 13:38), the tomb being found empty on "the first day of the week" (Sunday) (John 20) to name a couple.

 

[najaB]

One thing to remember about reading any copy of the Bible in English is that it is a translation from the original text, which was written in another language such as Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew or Latin.

But He created all languages and He knows all things so surely there shouldn't be any discrepancies in the translations?

It's either the inerrant word of God or it's a work of fallible man. It can't be both.

For the avoidance of doubt, I think that the Bible is one of the most important documents ever written, given its impact on Western society and there is a lot to be said for living by (some of) the values it teaches, but the mental gymnastics required to hold it up as anything other than one of the many great collections of stories, tales, myths and legends is more than I am capable of.

 

[duncanp]

But He created all languages and He knows all things so surely there shouldn't be any discrepancies in the translations?

It's either the inerrant word of God or it's a work of fallible man. It can't be both.

For the avoidance of doubt, I think that the Bible is one of the most important documents ever written, given its impact on Western society and there is a lot to be said for living by (some of) the values it teaches, but the mental gymnastics required to hold it up as anything other than one of the many great collections of stories, tales, myths and legends is more than I am capable of.

The Bible is the work of many different men (and possibly women) over a period of several hundred years.

The people who wrote each book of the bible did not realise, at the time they were writing, that their work would one day be included in a book called "The Bible".

Some Christian denominations have versions of the Bible where there are books which are not included in the versions used by other denominations.

The Bible is a collection of history, poetry, songs and prophecy which might have the alternative title "The Complete Works of God" in a similar way to "The Complete Works of Shakespeare".

I think it is the work of "fallible man" as you say rather than "The Word of God". In any case, different people have different understandings of what is meant by "The Word of God".

Up until relatively recently in human history, a large proportion of the population were unable to read, and certainly coudn't afford to have their own copy of the Bible. So their only contact with the Bible was what was preached to them in church.

When people did learn to read and were able to obtain their own copies of the Bible, they began to question some of what they had been taught, which didn't go down too well with governments who wanted to use religion as a tool to control the masses.