Bible translations with Dr. X.

[Goldielocks]

This should be interesting. Mostly cause I have so much to learn. 

I have spent a bit of time looking at numerous translations of the Christian Bible. But not from its original languages (like Dr. X has...)
I figured if 1000's of Christian scholars have learned these languages and been translating Bibles for many years what could I possibly learn or offer that they haven't already mastered? Especially since people are often only as good as their teachers were.

So when it comes to translations of the Bible (and contradictions within) we have a problem:
Dr. X claims to be a better Bible translator than all the people who have been in the industry for many decades. (maybe he is?)
Dr. X claims that some translations are CRAP. And that's the heart of my topic post. if you have the time Dr. please tell me how they are crap.

Hopefully you understand that many translations are for a purpose. IF you don't then you missed the obvious - boy would that be embarrassing. 
I have quite a few that I use for different reasons: NIV, KJV, NASB, Amplified, ESV, NLT, Good news, The Message (kinda silly but fun). Any helpful comments?

Dr. X claimed that some translations were superior. I'm very curious about this. I have tons of questions for you around this area.

As a side not - its funny that most of the Atheists I talk to endlessly tell me that the Bible is just bad poetry written by sand peasants. What is your professional view of this, especially since you are a language expert and know the deep literary skills of Greek.

[Larissa238]

KJV off the top of my head was altered to King James' wishes- hence it being called the "King James Version." I don't know exactly what was altered, just that some verses were changed to suit his needs. This would make it a CRAP translation.

NIV, as I was taught, went back to the original languages and translated it from there. IMO, this would make it a better translation than the KJV.

There are so many translations because some go word-for-word, and others go for idioms (common usage of words). An English example: "It's raining cats and dogs." A literal translation (into Spanish, because it's the other language I speak) would be "Está lloviendo gatos y perros" which is exactly what it says in English. This makes no sense in Spanish. An idiom translation would be "Está lloviendo mucho (or llueve mucho)" which means "It's raining hard." You can use something like translate.google.com, but it's very flawed. You can type "it's raining hard" in English and translate it to Spanish and get the word "duro" (something physically hard, like a rock) for hard, when the word "mucho" (much) is better. This is just the problem with 2 modern languages that millions of people understand.

Now imagine you are trying to translate these phrases in 2,000 years. How many people then are going to know the idiom "it's raining cats and dogs" to mean it's raining a lot? Into a language that nobody can imagine now, with words that don't exist now. That's what trying to translate the Bible is like.

[Goldielocks]

Thanks for joining in Larissa. I have the same feeling towards the KJV.

I've been looking at the histories of the different translations. The KJV was a work in progress. Yet some people claimed it had God's official stamp of approval. (It does use the word UNICORN numerous times.) It was useful but has its problems. Even the New KING JAMES version doesn't use all the resources at its disposal.

Its interesting the Bible uses the phrase; It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle..."
That's kinda like raining cats & dogs. 

[Larissa238]

Its interesting the Bible uses the phrase; It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle..."
That's kinda like raining cats & dogs. 

I feel the same way. It's been thought of as everything from literally an eye of a needle to a possible rock formation called "The Eye of the Needle" just to make it more palatable.

[Goldielocks]

I just heard about that rock formation a few months ago. I'm not sure i'm convinced that's what they were referring too. Maybe?

I like the idea that it's like the old phrase: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin. 

[jetson]

Try to also keep in mind some very obvious facts:

The Bible was not a commissioned work, in any way, shape, or form.

We do NOT know who all of the authors were for each of the books.

We do NOT necessarily know who their intended audiences were, nor their intended message.

We do NOT have ANY original text, in its original language.

Given these things, along with the amount of time it took to finally compile even the first complete Holy Bible, we can say with almost 100% certainty, that there has never been a single human in the entire history of language and/or writing, that undertands the Bible as a full body of text.  So, try as we might, we will NEVER be able to understand anything more than the contexts as they were supposedly originally written down, after a long oral tradition, for each individual book.  The best we can hope for is new information to add to the puzzle.

The Bible is certainly not written by God.  It is a very cobbled together set of writings, and will remain so for the rest of it's existence.  And the newer translations only get further from the original.

My opinion.

[velkyn]

it is interesting that a book from a supposed divine being isn't magial in that no one has to "interpret it" but it just is magically that way.  Why have a mutable book, written by humans created to be fallible, be the one way that God communicates with humanity?  As one of my favorite operas says:

If you'd come today
You could have reached the whole nation
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication
Don't you get me wrong....

I would think that any interpretation based on the oldest extant remanants would be best but we know that all copies don't have the same exact story and we also know that whole "gospels" were left out because of various reasons.  It becomes a problem of figuring out which is the "right" part. 

as fir the "eye of a needle", I've heard tales that it refers to a small gate in the walls of some city. 

[Goldielocks]

Some very useful comments Jetson. I imagine there are alot of Christians who don't know what you know about the Bible. It would be helpful if they did.

Its true the Bible was not commissioned. We do know some of the authors: but not all.

But I think we DO know who many of the books were written for. Usually the Israelites or Early Christians. Sometimes they are even named: Like Luke and Acts as well as Paul's letters.

No original text of course. Paper only lasts so long.

Was the Bible ever supposed to be one WHOLE book? Maybe/maybe not? It is 66 separate letters or scrolls. (probably less considering some are divided: 1 Kings, 2 Kings etc.)
But as a whole it makes alot of sense. The story of God's covenants with mankind. And his plan of salvation. Sounds like a perfect complete story to me - with some bonus poetry and wisdom literature thrown in for fun.

[jetson]

But as a whole it makes alot of sense. The story of God's covenants with mankind. And his plan of salvation. Sounds like a perfect complete story to me - with some bonus poetry and wisdom literature thrown in for fun.

This is where you lose me!  No offense, but I just don't get it.  I mean, I honestly feel that we could easily lose over 50% of the OT, and NOTHING will be lost.  But that's just me, I guess.

[Larissa238]

But as a whole it makes alot of sense. The story of God's covenants with mankind. And his plan of salvation. Sounds like a perfect complete story to me - with some bonus poetry and wisdom literature thrown in for fun.

This is where you lose me!  No offense, but I just don't get it.  I mean, I honestly feel that we could easily lose over 50% of the OT, and NOTHING will be lost.  But that's just me, I guess.

LOL I just opened the OT to a random page and looked at a random verse (I swear this was random) and this came up: Joshua 8:34-35 (NIV) "Afterward, Joshua read all the words of the law- the blessings and the curses- just as it is written in the Book of the Law. There was not a word of all that Moses had commanded that Joshua did not read to the whole assembly of Israel, including the women and children, and the aliens among them"

Talk about torture... having to sit through all the readings of The Book of the Law (which book of the Bible is that? Deut? Leviticus?). Because people really care about where the poop should be buried outside of camp.

[jetson]

Not to get too far off topic, but honestly, this is mythology - plain and clear.  It can't possibly be more obvious, yet here we are, discussing it as though it has literary merit on some scale worthy of an actual great book.  Makes no sense.

[Graybeard]

No original text of course. Paper only lasts so long.

Was the Bible ever supposed to be one WHOLE book? Maybe/maybe not? It is 66 separate letters or scrolls. (probably less considering some are divided: 1 Kings, 2 Kings etc.)
But as a whole it makes alot of sense. The story of God's covenants with mankind. And his plan of salvation. Sounds like a perfect complete story to me - with some bonus poetry and wisdom literature thrown in for fun.

I fail to see in what respect it, "makes a lot of sense." It is not reliable as a historical document, it is filled with inconsistencies, as a social document it fails and its overall message is "be superstitious and ignore the evidence against it."

If you test it as a "Perfect story" it fails here too. At Nicea, various books were included and others dismissed. Further, there were books that were unknown and have been later found that thus could not have been considered. Then there is the Apocrypha. The Bible then boils down to 66 chapters of a book chosen from perhaps 100. Hardly complete, hardly a story. And so many versions of it - all of them absolutely inerrant...

Compare this to "Canterbury Tales" "Beowulf" or Shakespeare's plays; complete works conveying their message as the author intended.

with some bonus poetry and wisdom literature thrown in for fun

Your use of emotion does you no justice and does nothing for the Bible. There may be a few grains of gold but the most is dross for the reasons given above.

Like any set of instructions on Life, The Universe and Everything, several thousand years have not improved it. However, it is not completely useless; it gives an insight into the gullibility of bronze-age goatherders and their strange customs as censored by the Church fathers.

That its message has resulted in suffering for mankind over the millennia puts it more in a category of books, similar to the ramblings of various madmen throughout time and it should be treated with caution and not taken at all seriously.

I seriously doubt after your years of study that you will sit back and say, "Damn! I've wasted my time." but I don't think that your unalloyed defence of the indefensible is particularly meritorious.

[12 Monkeys]

Thanks for joining in Larissa. I have the same feeling towards the KJV.

I've been looking at the histories of the different translations. The KJV was a work in progress. Yet some people claimed it had God's official stamp of approval. (It does use the word UNICORN numerous times.) It was useful but has its problems. Even the New KING JAMES version doesn't use all the resources at its disposal.

Its interesting the Bible uses the phrase; It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle..."
That's kinda like raining cats & dogs. 

Why would you even worry about a crappy 2000 year old book,in its modern form it has been raped,edited to death

[velkyn]

Some very useful comments Jetson. I imagine there are alot of Christians who don't know what you know about the Bible. It would be helpful if they did.

Its true the Bible was not commissioned. We do know some of the authors: but not all.

  I am curious, which ones do you think we know?

But I think we DO know who many of the books were written for. Usually the Israelites or Early Christians. Sometimes they are even named: Like Luke and Acts as well as Paul's letters.

I agree somewhat with this.  This also explains why this "book" makes no sense to modern humans and reads like any other set of myths from this era.  It also explains why modern Christains have to do acrobatics in their efforts to try to make it makes sense.

No original text of course. Paper only lasts so long.

Again, I'm curious.  How long would the "originals" have to survive?  When was, say, the Noachic Flood?  We have papyrus from around 1550 BC (Ebers Papyrus, first I found in a quick look).  And if God was so concerned about having his words remain intact, why use something that disintegrates easily over time?  We have clay tablets in Sumeria, etc (interesting bit about the age of writing here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing)  Heck he could have had things written on cave walls and it would last longer (see Lascaux: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascaux)

Was the Bible ever supposed to be one WHOLE book? Maybe/maybe not? It is 66 separate letters or scrolls. (probably less considering some are divided: 1 Kings, 2 Kings etc.)
But as a whole it makes alot of sense. The story of God's covenants with mankind. And his plan of salvation. Sounds like a perfect complete story to me - with some bonus poetry and wisdom literature thrown in for fun.

Well, what do you think, goldie? Was it supposed to be one whole book?  You certainly seem to try to use it that way.  I know that soem Christians would heartily wish the OT didn't exist, but then that would make their JC rather pointless and where would they get the justification for a lot of their hatreds  

And constantly repeating something makes "sense" doesn't magically make that come true.  It doesn't make sense to me, someone who has read it a couple of times.  It is not a complete story, it is a pastiche of a god (and good evidence of a least a couple gods), who claims omnipotence and omniscience, but who can't quite figure out what it really wants to have as "salvation".  We have a petty god who is no different from the other gods of the time, very human in all aspects, just more powerful.  We have claims of events that have no evidence to support them and indeed evidence that shows that they simply aren't true.  We have outright failures on facts and direct contradictions on what God's teaching and desires are.  All in all, the bible is nothing special.

[Goldielocks]

Dr. X hasn't shown up yet to answer my original question. But hopefully he soon will.

This is getting a little off topic but still fun. Although way too many questions coming at me. I don't want to bore you all with my thoughts anymore than possible. So I'll try and do one question at a time.
(I will remind you - unlike most Christians: the reason I come here and chat is not to evangelise but to collect questions and opinions about the Bible. And honestly - atheists ask the greatest things. The answers to these discussions would probably just annoy most of you. Believe what you want - you will anyway...but i like hearing your thoughts and concerns.)

Many cults and religions inform their believer's NOT to question some things. Christianity and the Bible says "Bring it on. We like a challenge."

Some very useful comments Jetson. I imagine there are alot of Christians who don't know what you know about the Bible. It would be helpful if they did.

Its true the Bible was not commissioned. We do know some of the authors: but not all.

  I am curious, which ones do you think we know?

Which authors do I think we know: Not as many as I'd like. But the authors aren't as important as the text.

Revelation : John
Jude : Jude
1 and 2 Peter : Peter
James : James
Philemon : Paul
Titus : Paul
1 & 2 Timothy: Paul
1 & 2 Thessalonians : Paul
Colossians : Paul
Philippians : Paul
Ephesians : Paul
Galatians : Paul
1 & 2 Corinthians : Paul
Romans : Paul
Acts : Luke
Luke : Luke
1,2,3 John : John
Gospel according to John : John
Gospel according to Mark : Mark
Gospel according to Matthew : Matthew
Malachi : Malachi
Zechariah : Zechariah
Haggai : Haggai
Zephaniah : Zephaniah
Habakkuk : Habakkuk
Nahum : Nahum
Micah : Micah
Jonah : Jonah
Obadiah : Obadiah
Amos : Amos
Joel : Joel
Hosea : Hosea
Daniel : Daniel
Ezekiel : Ezekiel
Jeremiah : Jeremiah
Isaiah : Isaiah
Leviticus : Moses (the source)
Exodus : Moses
Genesis : Moses

To be fair: you asked me which ones do I THINK we know. Those are the ones I THINK. Are they 100% factual answers? NO. Some are very good guesses and some are supported by numerous clues. I've heard many of the complaining obnoxious scholars over the last few years who doubt everyone of those authorships. Oh well. Whatever makes them happy and full of themselves. In most cases the actual author is not that important. Its all about the content.

[Goldielocks]

These quotes within a quote while quoting and borrowing quotes is getting on my nerves. I'll eventually read the HOW TO USE QUOTES link again. Although computers are not my passion. I'm a truck driving, guitar playing, theologian who enjoys studying religions. No time to play with computers in a cubicle. Anyway...

Velkyn quote:
"Well, what do you think, goldie? Was it supposed to be one whole book? "


Since it wasn't a book for most of history then it can't be that big a deal. People seem to of gotten along fine before and after the Church had it padlocked to a pulpit. As long as you got a letter or two from it you should be in good shape. Most people don't seem to bother to read the whole thing anyway. It would be helpful if they did.
This also explains the total unimportance of non-Biblical letters floating around that claim to be authentically from God.
My thought is: of course there's letters that tried to get in the Bible but failed. We wouldn't have a Satan if he didn't bother to at least attempt a fake or two.
Any time there's a great writing that's available: just wait a few days - all the wannabe authors will make a lame attempt at immortality.

Personally I'm very glad its all in one collection. I wish they'd throw in some of the Apocrypha and other unbiblical books just for fun. Stick them in the back so people can have a peak at them. Its not like they're a big secret.

[Zankuu]

Many cults and religions inform their believer's NOT to question some things. Christianity and the Bible says "Bring it on. We like a challenge."

Galileo: Hey guys, guess what? The earth isn't at the center of the universe.

Roman Catholic Church: ...what did you just say, heretic? Geocentric view, or GTFO!

[Goldielocks]

And that's why i'm not Catholic. 

[velkyn]

Velkyn quote:
"Well, what do you think, goldie? Was it supposed to be one whole book? "
Since it wasn't a book for most of history then it can't be that big a deal. People seem to of gotten along fine before and after the Church had it padlocked to a pulpit. As long as you got a letter or two from it you should be in good shape. Most people don't seem to bother to read the whole thing anyway. It would be helpful if they did.

So, the bible is not intended to be one whole book?  If it's "not that big of a deal", we can ignore parts of it at will?  Various parts of the bible contradicts other parts.  If you get one "letter" or two, you'll get vastly different stories. Let me give a for instance: the role of women.  Read the gospels and it seems that women are pretty much equal.  Read Timothy and women are to be silent, to not teach men ever, etc.  Which is the "right" answer? 

And yes, I agree, it would be helpful if more people actually read what they claimed to beleive in. That makes more atheists than any other method I've seen.  I've also seen where Christians claim that the bit in Revleation that says nothing should be added to this "scroll" means the whole bible, which means some Chrsitians do see it to be as a whole book.  Same in Deuteronomy 4:2. I'm not sure at that time what was considered the bible, which would be interesting to see again what Christians, the emperors, Popes, etc have ignored. 

This also explains the total unimportance of non-Biblical letters floating around that claim to be authentically from God.

Umm, how?  It is assumed by Chrsitians that there was some magical way to determine which books should be accepted as what  God "really" meant.  What the evidence shows is that it was completely political. 

My thought is: of course there's letters that tried to get in the Bible but failed. We wouldn't have a Satan if he didn't bother to at least attempt a fake or two. Any time there's a great writing that's available: just wait a few days - all the wannabe authors will make a lame attempt at immortality.

  I love random claims of Satan.  Hilarious.  Your god can't keep its adversary from corrupting the ONLY thing that tells humanity about it.  Again, we have idiocy raising its head by claiming that you somehow know what is the satanic bits.  Nice decoder ring there. 

Personally I'm very glad its all in one collection. I wish they'd throw in some of the Apocrypha and other unbiblical books just for fun. Stick them in the back so people can have a peak at them. Its not like they're a big secret.

I agree, see just how similar the myths are.  We can have Jesus killing his friends and rasing them, making mud birdies, and have Mary as an equal apostle and Judas doing what he needed too, because all humanity would be damne if JC wasn't killed.

as for the authors, oh my.  You really think that is true?  Sad, sad.  A guess is still a guess and clues?  Not really.  Sorry, goldie, I'm familiar with biblical scholarship and your list is hotly debated. It's not even remotely accepted universally.  and poor baby, "obnoxious scholars" dare to doubt you and your ilk.  And again, you ignore the fact that your claims are nonsense, try to claim the "message" is all that is important, all the while ignoring the fact that the "message" is not consistant at all over these supposed divinely inspired books. 

and I am curious if you have any answers for this, quoting myself

Again, I'm curious.  How long would the "originals" have to survive?  When was, say, the Noachic Flood?

[Zankuu]

And that's why i'm not Catholic. 

William Pynchon: Hey guys, check out my book "The Meritorious Price of Our Redemption".

Protestant Colony: Non-Christian work? Burn it.

[Goldielocks]

Velkyn quote: So, the bible is not intended to be one whole book?  If it's "not that big of a deal", we can ignore parts of it at will?  Various parts of the bible contradicts other parts.  If you get one "letter" or two, you'll get vastly different stories. Let me give a for instance: the role of women.  Read the gospels and it seems that women are pretty much equal.  Read Timothy and women are to be silent, to not teach men ever, etc.  Which is the "right" answer? 

And yes, I agree, it would be helpful if more people actually read what they claimed to beleive in. That makes more atheists than any other method I've seen.  I've also seen where Christians claim that the bit in Revleation that says nothing should be added to this "scroll" means the whole bible, which means some Chrsitians do see it to be as a whole book.  Same in Deuteronomy 4:2. I'm not sure at that time what was considered the bible, which would be interesting to see again what Christians, the emperors, Popes, etc have ignored. 

If you want to ignore parts of the Bible you can. That takes the fun out of it. Scholars for over a 1000 years have put alot of effort into figuring out which books are authentic and from God. The rest is up to you. Trust whichever scholars you want, believe whatever your heart tells you to. Be a lot sceptical.
But if you ask the right questions, you'll find some interesting answers.
When I was a kid and first realized that not all Pastors and Christians agreed on issues like Baptism, worship, tithes, Catholic doctrine, authority of the Bible etc. I started with a foundation: "I'm going to believe this Bible is true until someone proves it otherwise."
30 years later i'm still convinced its true. And I've read 1000s of claims against the Bible. I've also looked into every contradiction I could get my hands on. I heard both sides of the stories (and sometimes I've heard 10 different sides of the stories). Its most fun when all the atheist scholars can't agree on what opinion is fact - and they start fighting each other.
If there's a God he'll give you the info to put the truth together. If there's not? then it'll play itself out in the puzzle pieces. I believe the quest for truth about the Bible is way more freaky than most people could possibly recognise. Anyway...

I believe there are NO contradictions in the Bible. I think God made it a little strange at times. It would be boring if he didn't.
Hate to upset everyone and their boring view of God but; I don't think he wants everyone to easily find the truth, say the magic words and go to heaven. The Bible is tricky enough to allow an evil heart to run its full course. Its fun watching atheists and Muslim's and other false religions stumble all over this book. Its what keeps me a Christian. And i'm not that smart...
Just cause something isn't simple to understand - does not make it wrong.

Next question:
Women in the Bible.
Women are equal in many areas. Even more equal in some. But God would appreciate it if women would let men be incharge in church. It seems to smooth out a few issues. You can't have two cooks in the kitchen. Someone needs to be incharge. And God would appreciate women being submissive in this area of Worship and teaching. Men have to be submissive in some areas too. Is it really that much to ask? And if they do happen to teach or lead worship: is it the end of the world? NO. Doesn't mean they go straight to hell. Its just a request from God. ITs a deeper issue - but thats the gist of it.

I'm pretty sure the end of the Book of Revelation was just referring to the content of John's book.
Revelation 22:18
"I warn everyone who hears the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them...blah blah blah."

Not all the Bible is a prophecy. Some it is just a record of history and thoughts. So it is most likely only referring to Revelation.

[Goldielocks]

Umm, how?  It is assumed by Christians that there was some magical way to determine which books should be accepted as what  God "really" meant.  What the evidence shows is that it was completely political. 

Not magical; just scholastic. Honestly it just seems like the Bible fell into place as a whole. Sure there was a few people with different opinions. but in general most people just agreed and went with it. No huge conspiracy or hidden books. The church organization had very little to gain by the way the Bible came out. If anything it removes the authority of the Bishops and Popes from our lives. (that's why i'm not Catholic.)

I've been reading everything i can about the history of the Bible from A.D. 100 to A.D. 400. Its alot less exciting than most people think. A.D. 367 was an interesting year. As was 393 and 397.

[Larissa238]

If you want to ignore parts of the Bible you can. That takes the fun out of it. Scholars for over a 1000 years have put alot of effort into figuring out which books are authentic and from God. The rest is up to you. Trust whichever scholars you want, believe whatever your heart tells you to. Be a lot sceptical.

How do you know if a book is from God? http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html This site says it's been pretty much set for the last 1,600 years. Still, why are there books that are not in there? The Gospel of Judas is very interesting, and shines a lot of light on things. It makes a lot of logical sense, but says things that people don't want to believe- that Judas was chosen by God for the sacred task of giving Jesus up for sacrifice.

But if you ask the right questions, you'll find some interesting answers.
When I was a kid and first realized that not all Pastors and Christians agreed on issues like Baptism, worship, tithes, Catholic doctrine, authority of the Bible etc. I started with a foundation: "I'm going to believe this Bible is true until someone proves it otherwise."
30 years later i'm still convinced its true. And I've read 1000s of claims against the Bible. I've also looked into every contradiction I could get my hands on. I heard both sides of the stories (and sometimes I've heard 10 different sides of the stories). Its most fun when all the atheist scholars can't agree on what opinion is fact - and they start fighting each other.

I like how you say how the atheist scholars can't agree- what about the 30,000+ denominations of Christian? Are you a Bible literalist? Do you believe the world was created 6,000 years ago? Was Noah's Ark real? Are we saved by grace, faith, or works?

If there's a God he'll give you the info to put the truth together. If there's not? then it'll play itself out in the puzzle pieces. I believe the quest for truth about the Bible is way more freaky than most people could possibly recognise. Anyway...

I studied the Bible extensively on my own for years. I keep it by my computer for discussions like this. It's easier for me to pull it out, find the scripture I want rather than do an internet search sometimes. My Bible is well-worn and underlined in many places. But now, instead of the truth getting clearer (which it never did), it just gets more and more cloudy.

I believe there are NO contradictions in the Bible. I think God made it a little strange at times. It would be boring if he didn't.
Hate to upset everyone and their boring view of God but; I don't think he wants everyone to easily find the truth, say the magic words and go to heaven. The Bible is tricky enough to allow an evil heart to run its full course. Its fun watching atheists and Muslim's and other false religions stumble all over this book. Its what keeps me a Christian. And i'm not that smart...
Just cause something isn't simple to understand - does not make it wrong.

If there were no Biblical contradictions, this sub-forum would not exist. And please, do tell me, at what *exact* point are we saved? The Bible isn't really clear about that.

Next question:
Women in the Bible.
Women are equal in many areas. Even more equal in some. But God would appreciate it if women would let men be incharge in church. It seems to smooth out a few issues. You can't have two cooks in the kitchen. Someone needs to be incharge. And God would appreciate women being submissive in this area of Worship and teaching. Men have to be submissive in some areas too. Is it really that much to ask? And if they do happen to teach or lead worship: is it the end of the world? NO. Doesn't mean they go straight to hell. Its just a request from God. ITs a deeper issue - but thats the gist of it.

How does a man being in charge of a church "smooth out things?" I used to go to USC, and the pastor at the church there is female. Didn't have any problems there. When I was in the church/cult, sometimes this situation would happen- Woman converts on a trip, goes home and there is no male in her area from the same church (and they were *quite* picky about it only being *their* church) to teach. How was she supposed to convert men? She couldn't teach them- does that mean they shouldn't be saved?
Or this one- I went to high school with 3 other girls from the church. For a while it was just the 3 of us, and we were happy. Then, a guy joins the church from our school. He is the "youngest" Christian of us all, and since he was male he had to lead us. He was not comfortable in his position, since it was unfair. He "fell away" shortly after, unable to stand the pressure of having to teach women who knew a lot more about the Bible than he did.
And as for "not having two cooks in a kitchen?" I guess you have never even been to a McDonald's, where everything is of course prepared by the one cook in the kitchen. That's why it takes 3 hours to get your food. It's not like an assembly line where there are many cooks, flipping burgers, making fries, toasting buns, and putting it all together.

In a relationship, someone does not need to be "in charge." Geo and I are equals. In any major issue, we decide together what to do. What apartment complex to live in, how to deal with the car, jobs, etc. For minor issues, we trust each other to do what's best. I don't "submit" to him, and he doesn't "submit" to me. We talk things out and deal with it like adults.

[Aaron123]

Goldielocks, can you please fix your quotings?  The nested quotes makes it confusing to tell which words are yours, and which are from others.

[Zankuu]

I started with a foundation: "I'm going to believe this Bible is true until someone proves it otherwise."

This was a completely illogical decision. Rather than erasing the proverbial chalk board and placing yourself at the default position of skepticism by viewing all religions as equal, you decided to place 100% belief in the religion that you were told to believe in. This is nothing more than you being a product of your personal environment factors.

I believe there are NO contradictions in the Bible.

There are. A lot. I look forward to discussing them with you.

I think God made it a little strange at times. It would be boring if he didn't.

I find nothing strange about Yahweh. He is everything I would imagine for a barbaric middle eastern god created by dramatic, homophobic, sexist, and superstitious middle eastern men.

But God would appreciate it if women would let men be incharge in church.

I'm disgusted by this. Almost as much as when your god savors the smell of burning animal carcasses.

What is more likely, Goldielocks - that a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe just so happens to be a male and wants all his male creations to hold authority over his female counter-parts OR that ancient goat herders saw women as subservient lesser beings and wrote about a god that wanted all the same things they did? Feel free to answer honestly.

[Graybeard]

Which authors do I think we know: Not as many as I'd like. But the authors aren't as important as the text.

Revelation : John
Jude : Jude
1 and 2 Peter : Peter
James : James
Philemon : Paul
Titus : Paul
1 & 2 Timothy: Paul
1 & 2 Thessalonians : Paul
Colossians : Paul
Philippians : Paul
Ephesians : Paul
Galatians : Paul
1 & 2 Corinthians : Paul
Romans : Paul
Acts : Luke
Luke : Luke
1,2,3 John : John
Gospel according to John : John
Gospel according to Mark : Mark
Gospel according to Matthew : Matthew
Malachi : Malachi
Zechariah : Zechariah
Haggai : Haggai
Zephaniah : Zephaniah
Habakkuk : Habakkuk
Nahum : Nahum
Micah : Micah
Jonah : Jonah
Obadiah : Obadiah
Amos : Amos
Joel : Joel
Hosea : Hosea
Daniel : Daniel
Ezekiel : Ezekiel
Jeremiah : Jeremiah
Isaiah : Isaiah
Leviticus : Moses (the source)
Exodus : Moses
Genesis : Moses

To be fair: you asked me which ones do I THINK we know. Those are the ones I THINK. Are they 100% factual answers? NO. Some are very good guesses and some are supported by numerous clues. I've heard many of the complaining obnoxious scholars over the last few years who doubt everyone of those authorships.

If you are trying to expound some opinion of value, it would be helpful if you did not throw in gratuitous comments. Why "obnoxious"? Simply because you are right? It comes across as arrogant.

Oh well. Whatever makes them happy and full of themselves.

More subjective garbage

In most cases the actual author is not that important. Its all about the content.

Really? So if I wrote something "Godly" it would be a little more important than the garbled genealogies of the OT? I must write to Nicea, do you have an address?

My opinions of what Benny Hinn might write and what P Z Meyers might, are quite different. Your arguments in support of your "thinking" are basically weak.

I'll give you that Wiki may not be as precise as we might like but when explaining and informing in general terms, it is fair. so...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

Seven letters are generally classified as “undisputed”, expressing contemporary scholarly near consensus that they are the work of Paul: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Six additional letters bearing Paul's name do not currently enjoy the same academic consensus: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. The first three, called the "Deutero-Pauline Epistles," have no consensus on whether or not they are authentic letters of Paul. The latter three, the "Pastoral Epistles", are widely regarded as forgeries though certain scholars do consider St Paul to be the author.[2] There are two examples of pseudonymous letters written in Paul’s name apart from the alleged New Testament epistles: These are the Epistle to the Laodiceans and 3 Corinthians. Since the early centuries of the church, there has been debate concerning the authorship of the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews, and contemporary scholars reject Pauline authorship.[3]

Would I be justified in questioning your critical thinking skills?

[Graybeard]

Goldielocks, can you please fix your quotings?  The nested quotes makes it confusing to tell which words are yours, and which are from others.

+1

If Goldielocks is that bright, he can work it out.

[Jim]

Indeed.

Goldie, do you need help figuring out quotes and how to organize your posts?  There is a test area where you can play around with forum functionality until you get it to appear correctly.

[Tykster]

Not to get too far off topic, but honestly, this is mythology - plain and clear.  It can't possibly be more obvious, yet here we are, discussing it as though it has literary merit on some scale worthy of an actual great book.  Makes no sense.

My thoughts exactly, it seems like such a waste of time beyond a mere exercise in pedantic intellectualism. I view "doctors" of theology with a mixture of sadness, disdain and annoyance. They've studied a fairy tale for eons, and somehow they think it worth while, it baffles me.

To me, bible study is on par with the deepest study of Robin Hood or King Arthur.