Christmas without Christ? Huh?

[John in Covina]

C.S.Lewis

Yes- Christian as well. If you want to know about basic Christianity I suggest reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. The book helped me to understand especially the triune montothiestic God. Not being raised with any religion of any kind it answered many questions I had. I'm not trying to force my faith on anyone, but I do genuinely think this book addresses many questions and misunderstandings about the basics of Christian faith in a way which shows for many that religion can co-exist with rational thinking.

*****
This is one of the books that comes recomended very highly by a lot of guys by my church too. I haven't read it, but it is suposed to give you a really goosd handle on what this whole Christianity thing is all about.

 

[Benny Holiday]

'K. I can dig it. Everybody's morality comes from somewhere.

True, my friend, very true. I still enjoyed the knowledge you imparted to me via that link. I enjoy discussing other viewpoints with fellow Loungers, sometimes it's a bit complicated to type it all out, but if we're friends, we've got to share something about ourselves, right? And just 'cause I'm old and set in my ways (well I'm mid-30's but sometimes feel old! lol ) doesn't mean I can't learn something!

 

[John in Covina]

I beg to differ. Changing doctrine IS the basic cornerstone of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam - they all started with the SAME book and went from there! And, even within these dogmas, doctine has changed over and over and over again - the Reformation v. Catholicism, Sunni v. Shia, Orthodox Jew v. Reform.

Quite to the contrary - Religion is constantly being adjusted to fit our desires.

*********
The Books don't change, but how they are interpeted does change. Scholars will argue of things but the best way to interpet Scripture is by using other Scripture. I think the word is Hermanetics or something like that. In the study of Scripture, you will find that there are "types" a portion of Scripture where something happens and it parallels stuff later on.

Too many people seem to take things out of context, looking for a snippet to support what they want instead of seeing the whole of an idea.

 

[carebear]

*********
The Books don't change, but how they are interpeted does change. Scholars will argue of things but the best way to interpet Scripture is by using other Scripture. I think the word is Hermanetics or something like that. In the study of Scripture, you will find that there are "types" a portion of Scripture where something happens and it parallels stuff later on.

Too many people seem to take things out of context, looking for a snippet to support what they want instead of seeing the whole of an idea.

"Any text, out of context, is pretext" is one of my pastors' favorite comments.

It applies to all things, religious or not.

That's one thing I like about Lewis. As a classicly trained scholar he prized internal consistency and logic, which is a necessity for correct doctrine.

In another life, I woulda been a Jesuit.

 

[deanglen]

*********
The Books don't change, but how they are interpeted does change. Scholars will argue of things but the best way to interpet Scripture is by using other Scripture. I think the word is Hermanetics or something like that. In the study of Scripture, you will find that there are "types" a portion of Scripture where something happens and it parallels stuff later on.

Too many people seem to take things out of context, looking for a snippet to support what they want instead of seeing the whole of an idea.

The "something like Hermeneutics", is "Exegesis". Hermeneutics is the application of doctrine in a sermon to the life of the hearer. "Exegesis" is the process of drawing the inherent meaning of the text from the original language according to the historical-grammatical nexus of its original transmission. "Isogesis" is imposing one's own message upon a text, where as CAREBEAR says, " a pretext" results in a spurious interpretation.

dean

 

[Mr. Lucky]

"Any text, out of context, is pretext" is one of my pastors' favorite comments.

It applies to all things, religious or not.

That's one thing I like about Lewis. As a classicly trained scholar he prized internal consistency and logic, which is a necessity for correct doctrine.

In another life, I woulda been a Jesuit.

"Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in!" - Michael Corleone.

Okay, the books DO change! There are numerous translations and versions. The versions include -

American Standard Version. Modern English, 1901. From the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus?
American King James Version. Modern English, 1999. Revision of the King James Version.
Amplified Bible. Modern English, 1965. Revision of the American Standard Version.
Analytical-Literal Translation. Modern English. From the original Hebrew and Aramaic, and the Majority Text.
Bible in Basic English. Basic Modern English, 1949. Paraphrase of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?
The Bible in Living English. Modern English, 1972. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?
Bishops' Bible. Early Modern English, 1568. From the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus?
Children's King James Version. Modern English. Revision of the King James Version.
Christian Community Bible, English version. Modern English, 1986. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Complete Jewish Bible. Modern English, 1998. Paraphrase of the Jewish Publication Society of America Version (Old Testament), and from the original Greek (New Testament).
Complete Moffatt Bible. Modern English, 1935. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Confraternity Bible. Modern English, 1941. Revision of the Challoner Revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible.
Contemporary English Version. Modern English, 1995. Paraphrase translation from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
A Conservative Version. Modern English, 2005. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Darby Bible. Modern English, 1890. From the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus?
Douai Bible. Early Modern English, 1609. From the Vulgate.
Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner Revision). Modern English, 1752. From the Vulgate.
EasyEnglish Bible. Basic Modern English, 2001. Paraphrase of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?
Easy-to-Read Version. Basic Modern English, 1989. Paraphrase of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?
English Jubilee 2000 Bible. Modern English. From the Reina-Valera, 1602 Edition.
English Standard Version. Modern English, 2001. From the Masoretic Text and a critical Greek New Testament text.
Ferrar Fenton Bible. Modern English, 1853. From the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus?
Geneva Bible. Early Modern English, 1560. From the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus.
God's Word (bible translation). Modern English, 1995. Paraphrase translation from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Good News Translation. Modern English, 1976. Paraphrase translation from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Great Bible. Early Modern English, 1539. From the Masoretic Text, the Textus Receptus, the Vulgate, and the Luther Bible.
Green's Literal Translation. Modern English. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Holman Christian Standard Bible. Modern English, 2004. From a critical version of the Masoretic Text and the Nestle-Aland Text.
Jerusalem Bible. Modern English, 1966. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de J?©rusalem.
Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. Modern English, 1844. Revision of the King James Version.
Julia E. Smith Parker Translation. Modern English, 1876. From the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus?
King James 2000 Version. Modern English, 2000. Revision of the King James Version.
King James Version. Early Modern English, 1611. From the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus.
Knox's Translation of the Vulgate. Modern English, 1955. From the Vulgate, with influence from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Lamsa Bible. Modern English, 1933. From the Peshitta.
The Living Bible. Modern English, 1971. Paraphrase of the American Standard Version.
The Message (Bible). Modern English, 2002. Paraphrase of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Matthew Bible. Early Modern English, 1537. From the Masoretic Text, the Textus Receptus, the Vulgate, the Luther Bible, and a French version.
Modern King James Version. Modern English, 1999.
The Modern Language Bible. Modern English, 1969. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?
James Murdock's Translation of the Syriac Peshitta. Modern English. From the Peshitta.
New American Bible. Modern English, 1970. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
New American Standard Bible. Modern English, 1971. From a critical version of the Masoretic Text and the Nestle-Aland Text.
New Century Version. Basic Modern English, 1991. Paraphrase of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?
New English Bible. Modern English, 1970. From critical versions of the Masoretic Text and the Greek New Testament.
New English Translation. Modern English, 2005. From critical versions of the Masoretic Text and the Greek New Testament?
New International Reader's Version. Modern English, 1998. Paraphrase of the New International Version.
New International Version Inclusive Language Edition (NIVI). Modern English, 1996. Revision of the New International Version.
New International Version. Modern English, 1978. From critical versions of the Masoretic Text and the Greek New Testament.
New Jerusalem Bible. Modern English, 1985. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de J?©rusalem.
New King James Version. Modern English, 1982. From the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus.
New Life Version. Modern English, 1986. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?
New Living Translation. Modern English, 1996. Paraphrase translation from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
New Revised Standard Version. Modern English, 1989. Revision of the Revised Standard Version.
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. Modern English, 1950. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Quaker Bible. Modern English, 1764. From the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus?
Recovery Version of the Bible. Modern English, 1985. Revision of the American Standard Version.
Restored Name King James Version. Modern English.
Revised Version. Modern English, 1885. Revision of the King James Version, but with a critical New Testament text.
Revised Standard Version. Modern English, 1952. From a critical version of the Masoretic Text and the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition. Modern English, 1966. Revision of the Revised Standard Version.
Revised English Bible. Modern English, 1987. Revision of the New English Bible.
Simplified English Bible. Basic Modern English. Paraphrase of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?
The Story Bible. Modern English. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?
Taverner's Bible. Early Modern English, 1539. Minor revision of the Matthew Bible.
Thomson's Translation. Modern English, 1808. From the Septuagint and the Textus Receptus.
Today's New International Version. Modern English, 2005. Revision of the New International Version.
Third Millennium Bible. Early Modern English, 1998. Revision of the King James Version.
Tyndale's Bible. Early Modern English, 1526. From either the Vulgate or from the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus.
Updated King James Version. Modern English, 2004.
A Voice In The Wilderness Holy Scriptures. Modern English, 2003. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?
Webster's Revision. Modern English, 1833. Revision of the King James Version.
Westminster Bible. Modern English, 1936. From the Vulgate.
Wyclif's Bible. Middle English, c. 1380. From the Vulgate.
Young's Literal Translation. Modern English, 1862. From the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus?

And those are just the ENGLISH versions! And then there are numerous STYLES of translation, including -
Dynamic equivalence translation
Formal equivalence translation (similar to literal translation)
Meaning-Based translation
Mother tongue translator
Idiomatic, or Paraphrastic translation, as used by late Kenneth Livingston
Paraphrase

What I am saying is that the books DO change, and are subject to human frailities and mistakes. In the most popular version of the Bible, the KJV, there are numerous mistakes. Among them are:
"Judas Bible" 1611: This bible has Judas, not Jesus, saying "Sit ye here while I go yonder and pray." (Matthew 26:36)
"Wicked Bible" or "Adulterous Bible" 1631: Barker and Lucas : omits an important "not" from Exodus 20:14, making the seventh commandment read "Thou shalt commit adultery." The printers were fined £300 (a lifetime's wages) and most of the copies were recalled immediately. Only 11 copies are known to exist today.
"More Sea Bible" 1641 "the first heaven and the first earth were passed away and there was more sea." rather than "the first heaven and the first earth were passed away and there was no more sea."
"Unrighteous Bible" or "Wicked Bible" 1653: Cambridge Press : another edition carrying this title omits a "not" before the word "inherit", making I Corinthians 6:9 read "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God?..." In addition, Romans 6:13 reads "Neither yield ye your members as instruments of righteousness into sin..." where it should read "unrighteousness".
"Printers Bible" bef. 1702: Psalm 119:161 reads "Printers have persecuted me without cause." The first word was changed, possibly by a typesetter, from "Princes".
"Sin On Bible": 1716: John 5:14 reads "Go and sin on more" rather than "Go and sin no more".
"Vinegar Bible": 1717: J. Baskett, Clarendon Press : the chapter heading to Luke 20 reads "Parable of the Vinegar" instead of "Parable of the Vineyard."
"The Fools Bible": 1763: Psalm 14:1 reads "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God", rather than "there is no God". The printers were fined three thousand pounds and all copies ordered to be destroyed.
"Denial Bible": 1792: The name Philip is substituted for Peter as the apostle who would deny Jesus in Luke 22:34.
"Murderer's Bible" 1801: edition in which "murmurers" is printed as "murderers", making Jude 16 read: "These are murderers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage."
"Lions Bible" 1804: Kings 8:19 reads "thy son that shall come forth out of thy lions", rather than "loins". This edition had another error in Numbers 25:18 which read: "The murderer shall surely be put together" rather than "put to death".
"To-remain Bible" 1805: in Galatians 4:29 a proof-reader had written in "to remain" in the margin, as an answer to whether a comma should be deleted. The note inadvertently became part of the text, making the edition read "But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit to remain, even so it is now."
"Discharge Bible" 1806: "discharge" replaces "charge" making I Timothy 5:21 read "I discharge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality."
"Standing Fishes Bible" 1806: "fishes" replaced "fishers" making Ezekiel 47:10 read "And it shall come to pass, that the fishes shall stand upon it from Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many."
"Idle Shepherd" 1809: Zechariah 11:17 reads "the idle shepherd" rather than "idol shepherd".
"Ears To Ear Bible" 1810: edition which makes Matthew 13:43 read: "...Who has ears to ear, let him hear." The correct phrase should be "ears to hear".
"Wife-hater Bible" 1810: "wife" replaces "life" in this edition, making Luke 14:26 redundantly read "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own wife also, he cannot be my disciple."
"The Large Family Bible" 1820: Isaiah 66:9 reads: "Shall I bring to birth and not cease to bring forth?" rather than "Shall I bring to birth and not cause to bring forth?".
"Rebecca's Camels Bible" 1823: "camels" replaces "damsels" in one instance, making Genesis 24:61 read "And Rebecca arose, and her camels, and they rode upon the camels, and followed the man: and the servant took Rebecca and went his way."

The point being this - Rigidity in attitudes towards a dogma rife with human frailty is not the best application of the INTENT of faith! The WORD does change because it is delivered through an imperfect vessel! The Bible, whatever version, MAY be the literal word of God, but it sure ain't the perfect word of God because it's messenger, man, in flawed.

 

[John in Covina]

The "something like Hermeneutics", is "Exegesis". Hermeneutics is the application of doctrine in a sermon to the life of the hearer. "Exegesis" is the process of drawing the inherent meaning of the text from the original language according to the historical-grammatical nexus of its original transmission. "Isogesis" is imposing one's own message upon a text, where as CAREBEAR says, " a pretext" results in a spurious interpretation.
dean

***********
It's all Greek or Hebrew to me!

 

[carebear]

There's a whole body of literature and criticism (religious and non) on Scriptural translations and occasional typographical errors. In brief, a misprint or occasional inconsistant and unique translation does not a "revision of doctrine" make.

Again, when there is a question of doctrine you go back, as far as one can, to original sources and gain not only a "majority view" but also a sense of continuity. When it comes down to meaning, you go to non-Scriptural writings by the early church fathers such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons. These early church fathers and others were taught either by the Apostles themselves or by those taught directly by the Apostles. They got "what we saw with our own eyes and what we meant in what we wrote" straight from the horses' mouths.

I don't hold with the Papacy but there is much to be said for Apostolic sucession when it comes to Biblical research and matters of doctrine.

 

[Benny Holiday]

I was fortunate enough to have a Pastor for six years who was Greek and whose Bible was, naturally enough, in Greek, the language the New Testament was written in. He shed some interesting light on the difference in translations and the meanings of some of the original Greek words. Most notably, I reacll his fascinating explanation of the misreading of the conversation between Jesus and the dying thief on the cross, dealing with the lack of punctuation in the original Greek and its effect on translations in the Middel Ages and ever since.

 

[carebear]

That's why the better newer versions go back to the original texts as much as possible instead of just the Vulgate and/or Textus Receptus.

We now have more and better access to the orginal documents than Erasmus and the medieval scholars did and better historical and cultural understanding to place the writings in context of the writers and intended audiences.

Translations are actually getting better and more accurate than ones made earlier.

 

[Lauren]

It seems like many people have had their say... now can we go back on topic? I'd love to hear what others have to hear about the original issue.

 

[Viola]

That's why the better newer versions go back to the original texts as much as possible instead of just the Vulgate and/or Textus Receptus.

We now have more and better access to the orginal documents than Erasmus and the medieval scholars did and better historical and cultural understanding to place the writings in context of the writers and intended audiences.

Translations are actually getting better and more accurate than ones made earlier.

Did the Israelites cross the Reed Sea yet?

Viola

 

[flat-top]

I'm experiencing something totally opposite of what most of you are seeing. I work in a department store that is owned and operated by Jewish folk, yet they are ALL about Christmas, and I mean CHRISTmas! Last week one of the special give-aways was a Holy Family figurine set, this week was a full Nativity set. A few weeks ago, one of the give-aways was a candle that said "peace". I had a customer complaining that there was nothing for Jewish customers, and she won't shop in a store that alienates her and her faith. I explained that the company was run by Jewish people, and she said "Well, there are Jews and there are JEWS!" I didn't even know how to respond to that.

 

[carebear]

They could offer these...

http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=23059

Heck, I'd buy one.

 

[Viola]

I had a customer complaining that there was nothing for Jewish customers, and she won't shop in a store that alienates her and her faith. I explained that the company was run by Jewish people, and she said "Well, there are Jews and there are JEWS!" I didn't even know how to respond to that.

Probably better that you didn't. But bless you for working the floor in retail, that stuff's not easy.

I know some (Jewish) kids who work retail who were biting their tongues HARD at the grocery store when several different people were taking ALL the milk out of the refrigerators, looking for non-kosher milk, because they were afraid kosher milk would "turn them Jewish."

I would have got fired REAL FAST.

Viola

 

[carebear]

because they were afraid kosher milk would "turn them Jewish."

I'll have remember that, in case it turns out all that conspiracy stuff turns out to be true. Get in on the winning side...

I guess I'll add "people who think kosher products can cause involuntary conversion" to my list of people who wouldn't be allowed to vote in my world.

 

[moustache]

I ventured in to do one of my intro to computers classes for seniors shortly thereafter. In the lobby, where a Christmas tree & decorations are now forbidden, the display cases had displays on Hannukah, Ramadan and other celebrations from around the world, but absolutely no reference or mention of Christmas or Christianity. The explanation from staff was some people are offended by Christmas and Christianity. Fine, agreed...but if that's the excuse, why is it then OK to showcase other religions & their secular celebrations? What if I'm offended by that? Apparently...I can lump it. And there was protesting over the issue.

elections. Suddenly they find the money so the building's pretty much off limited Halloween till New Years the year after big protests over a holiday double-standard...how convenient.

Does seem to be a double standard in our country.I have seen the same here where i live.All religious tolerance for other beliefs except the one that helped shape the country.

A friend of mine said"Why would an athiest object to a holiday about God ?
He/she doesn't believe in the existance of said God,so why object?

Seems that people get their feelings hurt.!!???Since when does it hurt someones feelings when another person practices their own religion?/

We have digressed to become a nation so PC that any possible word that might offend someone is being erased from the language.

Next thing you know,"hello!How are you ?" will be discouraged due to it's intrusive nature."How dare you ask me that!" will be the norm.



JD

 

[Andykev]

We are doomed

It's not religious anymore- not in mass produced and shiny America. ...- but are we, as a culture, based anymore on religion? Definately not. And in our quest to make a "holiday" accessable to everyone we have changed it into a feast of snowflakes, trees, ornaments, and presents with Santa as the patron saint of materialism.

Harsh, I know, but that's my opinion.

God help us then. The FOUNDING FATHERS based this land on GOD, and freedom of religion, to worship GOD, in your own way.

Our coins state "In God We Trust". So, do we?

This is what happens when we become a society that shuns God or the mention of "JESUS". Oh my, was I just Politically INCORRECT?

The CRASS commercialism of HALLOWEEN (All Saints Day), EASTER (Resurrection of our Lord), and CHRISTMAS (Birth of our Savior) have been turned into "non-religious events".

WHY? Because SIN and Evil pervade our society!!

What else to expect in a culture that condones birth control for pre-teens, abortion on demand, and "anything goes" sexuality?

Is there a Moral Majority? What is that?

Our society is going to Hell in a hand basket.

 

[carebear]

I'd just be happy if they gave all the holidays a little historical context:

On Halloween use it to discuss that some early peoples celebrated Samhain and some other people's celebrated Halloween (no need to go into the theological "whys" for the young 'uns). That historically the Christmas celebrated by some also falls at around the same time as the Solstice and Ramadan and Hannukah celebrated by others and what the events being celebrated meant to those people. There's no necessity for value judgements to do that, no value judgement, no offending (except for the offense hypochondriacs).

Trying to strip religion out of history because some might be offended by a basic recitation of beliefs is as dangerous as trying to strip out war, or greed or any other major human motivator. All context and chance for real knowledge is lost.

 

[Viola]

God help us then. The FOUNDING FATHERS based this land on GOD, and freedom of religion, to worship GOD, in your own way.

Our coins state "In God We Trust". So, do we?

This is what happens when we become a society that shuns God or the mention of "JESUS". Oh my, was I just Politically INCORRECT?

The CRASS commercialism of HALLOWEEN (All Saints Day), EASTER (Resurrection of our Lord), and CHRISTMAS (Birth of our Savior) have been turned into "non-religious events".

WHY? Because SIN and Evil pervade our society!!

What else to expect in a culture that condones birth control for pre-teens, abortion on demand, and "anything goes" sexuality?

Is there a Moral Majority? What is that?

Our society is going to Hell in a hand basket.

The Founding Fathers were mostly religiously moderate, or not religious at all. They certainly didn't base this country on religion.

Our coins state a sentiment that went on in the '50s. Are our memories that short? What a false foundation for a country.

What society shuns religion? Not the US. The US is one of the most religious of all first world countries.

Viola
P.S. I personally condone abortion, birth-control, and the option of free sexuality, but that's a discussion that should go to PM, I think. Drop me a note if you feel like it.