Aspiring doctors would probably be interested in finding out who the Rambam (Maimonides) was. We Joos generally learn about him in our Hebrew school history courses. (From Moses to Moses, there was none like Moses.) You can get all you need by googling.
amen to all of that. i'm tired of people misquoting the Bible because they don't actually bother to read it.
Yeah, I can't stand those people who misquote the Bible for their own political ends. Take those people with the "God Hates Fags" placards, for example. I'd say that was judging the fate of another person's soul big time. And where does it talk about God hating anyone? Kinda thought he hated sin, but loved the sinner (that is, everyone). And someone tried to tell me recently that the only kind of true christians were those who also defined themselves as politically conservative. Can you believe that?! I'd be charging-up the thunderbolt gun if I was the Guy Upstairs. And don't get me started on the likes of the Kansas School Board and their ilk openining up the Bible to ridicule by insisting on giving classroom time to people who try and prove dinosaur bones are only a few thousand years old because they find any element of interpretation of the Bible abhorent. You'd think they would atleast make the effort of learning to read ancient Greek/ Hebrew and Aramaic to be able to read the original text in it's full unedited version, including all the bits that have been taken out and mistranslated by Emperors, Popes and Kings- right? I mean, anyone who was going to call themselves a fundamentalist would do that... erm, wouldn't they?
Hellman, haven't I already said that I don't agree with the methods of the "God Hates Fags" group? You're right that He hates sin and loves the sinner. We need the blood of Christ to cover our sin, and that's the only thing - the only thing - that makes us acceptable in God's sight.
I'm not going to say that true Christians should define themselves as politically conservative. Personally, I don't think the current liberal social agenda goes along with God's purpose for government, but it's too huge of a debate for this comment section.
And finally, I'm not Catholic so the pope has nothing to do with my Bible - I read it for myself to see what it says, and I don't particularly care what the pope says that it says. But can you give me some examples of some parts that were taken out and mistranslated from the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic? I know some people who do study the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic, and I haven't heard any outcry from them that there are parts that were taken out. I have never heard anything but the fact that the King James Version is a word-for-word translation of the original texts, without any interpretation put in - that's why a lot of people are KJV-only. Please give me examples of these portions that you know of that were taken out - that's interesting information that I'd like to pursue, and I'd also like to pass it along to the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic Biblical scholars that I know.
I'll look up some of this stuff and post on my blog.
But- let me clarify: I don't think the Bible as it stands as been edited/mistranslated. In fact, pretty much the entire thing can be assembled from documents dating from within the first couple of centuries AD, which are 99% consistent with other copies. I also have no truck with those who would seek to discredit the Bible based on the exclusion of contemporary texts that appear to contradict it from the cannon.
My point is that interpretation, especially of an ancient, translated document, is essential to derive meaning from it, and rigidly literal interpretation- rather than seeking to derive metaphysical meaning from the examples given- has gone in and out of favour, and I think it actually diminishes the power of the Book (the dinosaur thing). I do appreciate that you don't agree with the extreme anti-gay activists, was just giving them as an example of distortion at the opposite end of the political spectrum to those you were criticising.
To re-emphasise, interpretation of the Bible has changed greatly while the content has remained consistent, and the interpretation has tended to work in favour of those in positions of power, and, as such, should always be open to question.
Commenting by HaloScan
