The New York Times has a lengthy look at an unorthodox way to spread the religious word: Halo 3 multiplayer matches. Churches across the country have adopted 'Halo Nights' as a way to get kids together in religious centers and church basements. "The alliance of popular culture and evangelism is challenging churches much as bingo games did in the 1960s. And the question fits into a rich debate about how far churches should go to reach young people. Far from being defensive, church leaders who support Halo -- despite its "thou shalt kill" credo -- celebrate it as a modern and sometimes singularly effective tool. It is crucial, they say, to reach the elusive audience of boys and young men." Just the same, the use of the game is raising concerns among some onlookers. GamePolitics reports that many faith communities are heavily debating the issue.
It's not the fighting or violence they're worried about; Halo doesn't support geocentricity, and the futuristic setting flies in the face of predictions that the second coming will be any day now.
By the way is it just me or is there something really wrong with trying to convert children? Why not wait until they're older and less easily seduced by things like video games before trying to convince them?
Something about older men saying "come inside kids, let's play video games", when they're not actually
the futuristic setting flies in the face of predictions that the second coming will be any day now
I am no biblical scholar, but I am pretty sure that the bible is pretty clear that no one will know when the second coming will occur. Hard science fiction is perfectly compatible with religion. As is hard science, heck, the Vatican operates a major observatory. Research highlights include:
Dark Matter and Energy in the Cosmos
The Acceleration of the Universe
Quasars
Globular Clusters http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/Research.html [arizona.edu]
There are plenty of examples of God showing himself to be love in the Old Testament and at least one example of God being a decisive judge on the wickedness of a man (and his wife)... Not to mention all that goes down in the book of Revelation.
The more you study the whole Bible, the more you recognize its unity.
My friends and I often have nights like this and a few have been church-sponsored. Halo, Mario Kart... whatever, as long as the game isn't too racy for the people holding the controllers (and the situation) then it's usually a non-issue. My pastor plays Halo on occasion. If he were against it, I'd still play because I know it's just fine with God. At the same time I'd respect the pastor's wishes and not bring it to the youth-oriented events. The article is just some guy trying
I don't think 'thou shalt not kill' ever refered to anything except humans. Otherwise, all the Christians that are eating meat will have some serious explaining to do.
I think this is a good idea for the church... Get the kids used to being at the church, and interacting with their friends there, possibly even friends that they never get to see otherwise. It establishes it as a friendly place that they want to be, the kids have some supervision while they play, and everyone involved is happy.
I don't think 'thou shalt not kill' ever refered to anything except humans. Otherwise, all the Christians that are eating meat will have some serious explaining to do.
Modern Christians say its actually thou shalt not murder with legally sanction killing being permissible. So yes, even humans can be killed.
Two points of contention. It is using the word "murder" in a MORAL and not only legal sense. Second, if it's the correct translation then it would also be correct to say that this is what the "original" Christians believed (Jews too obviously.)
Modern Christians say its actually thou shalt not murder with legally sanction killing being permissible. So yes, even humans can be killed.
While there's no question that God asked the Israelites to kill in His name repeatedly in the Old Testament and to punish certain crimes with death, it's an open question whether or not Jesus tightened the prohibition against killing with his commandments to "turn the other cheek" when one is wronged and to "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" when it comes to punishment of crimes.
It is quite reasonably arguable that even killing in self-defense is no longer allowed given the New Testaments focus on forgiveness and self-sacrifice, though few religious scholars would go that far. Gandhi, who was not a Christian, was one of the very few who did argue this -- even going so far as to say that England should not try to defend itself against the Nazis.
It's doubtful, though, that Christianity could've survived to be what it has become today if Constantine hadn't co-opted it into a warrior's creed.
Modern Christians say its actually thou shalt not murder with legally sanction killing being permissible.
Actually, the idea that the proper understanding of the sense of the commandment is a prohibition on murder (which doesn't necessary give unlimited sanction to any killing a government sanctions, either) and not all killing isn't some innovation that "modern Christians" invented; it was the general interpretation before Christ (its hardly as if ancient Israel viewed either war or capital punishment as forbidden), and also the dominant interpretation from the earliest Christianity.
If anything, the "innovation" throughout the history of Christianity has been finding progressively broader classes of acts of killing that are considered within the prohibition of the commandment.
See http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Exo&chapter=20#n35 [bible.org] (scroll to 20:13) for a consensus of several linguists and Bible scolars of the best modern english translation from the original language of the Bible including translatior's notes (so you can see context and decide if you agree).
Basically it says that murder (meaning unauthorised killing) is the closest word in modern english.
So, in modern english: You shall not murder.
Of course, we then get to argue forever on what authorize means who get's
Actually, a vast body of Old Testament law related to commanding and regulating animal sacrifice; although you could offer grain, animals were clearly "better", and you'd better not be some cheapskate offering bread if you had plenty of livestock.
These regulations also appear to be related to the post-Sinai period of Exodus, since they clearly assume a nomadic existence, so they can hardly be considered as contradicting the Ten Commandments (which in Jewish terms is pre-school stuff; God has a lot more to say about human conduct than things like "Thou shall not kill").
The nature of these commandments is fascinating because there is no independent historical or archaeological corroboration of the Exodus story. Although it is most historically probable that these regulations were reconstructed at a date later than the Babylonian captivity, they have a certain verisimilitude. The difficulties posed by reconciling a fixed lifestyle with commandments assuming a nomadic existence seems to confirm that in their folk memory at least, the Israelites were nomads.
In any case, anybody who cites Leviticus as proof that homosexuality or Wicca is an abomination will have a difficult time proving that they really consider the commandments of Leviticus binding.
I guess I don't see the big deal about this...growing up in the late 80s/early 90s, every Wednesday night we brought in our Nintendos/Segas to church to play video games with other kids. They supplied pizza, soda, a couple TVs, and a good time was had by all.
Granted stomping on turtles and shooting ducks might have been a little tamer than Halo, but it's still the same concept.
I don't think 'thou shalt not kill' ever refered to anything except humans.
Well... depends on who you ask. From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Various translations exist of the sixth commandment; the Hebrew words are variously translated as "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not murder". Older Protestant translations of the Bible, those based on the Vulgate and Roman Catholic translations usually render it "Thou shalt not kill", whereas Jewish and newer Protestant versions tend to use "You shall not murder". There is contr
And how about explaining the Crusades? Oh, I guess they were not humans at the time.
The support for military? The support for the death penalty? The support for these two comes directly from the so called religious crowd. Oh, but as long as they protest the abortion thing, I guess that makes it all better. They are not much different from the jihadists or other religious fanatics.
"Thou shalt not kill except for enemies of God and you can choose who is my enemy" - that seems to be how things are these days in both "devout christian" and "devout muslim" crowds while both proclaiming "peaceful religion". More people died in religious wars as percentage of population than any other wars in the history of this planet.
I guess the mod points here will depend who gets to read the message. I hope they don't declare some holy war or send a sniper my way. Sorry about the rant, but churches and religions are as much about "Thou shalt not kill" as much as it suits their goals. If their goals have any conflict with it, they have a very easy way around the so called "god's rules".
It is not "thou shalt not kill," it is "you shall not murder." Read the NIV, which is a superior translation to the KJV.
Hmmm.... I would be cautious about making such value statements.
Why would one assert that the NIV is a "superiour" translation? The King James Version was the dominant guide to Christian thought for English speaking people for more than 300 years. It would be curious to argue that the people who adhered to the guidance in the King James version were not (and are not) "inferiour" Christians
Why would one assert that the NIV is a "superiour" translation? The King James Version was the dominant guide to Christian thought for English speaking people for more than 300 years. It would be curious to argue that the people who adhered to the guidance in the King James version were not (and are not) "inferiour" Christians to those who now use the New International Version which has only existed for (almost) the past 30 years. Given the short history of this new translation, its value, for better of for worse, is yet to be proven.
I'd argue there's a case for judging whether something is a "superior" translation strictly on the basis of the quality of source materials available for the translator to work with (more direct translation vs a translation of a translation of a...) and better understanding of the nuances of ancient language that are made possible by more recent academic research. I'd say this is fairly independent of how the book was received as a religious text. It doesn't necessarily mean that the people who used that translation were inferior Christians but it may mean the texts they were using corresponded less closely to the older versions in ancient languages.
Whether the quality of the translation in terms of closeness to the original actually matters to the KJV as a holy book will doubtless be debated. I have friends who are convinced that the KJV is the one correct translation and I imagine they believe this on the basis of the content and on the basis of how they've been taught to interpret it - independently of what translators may describe as being technically the best. I'd say that it rather depends whether you believe you should follow the original texts as best understood academically, or whether you believe in a specific interpretation of the texts which you may feel to be superior spiritually somehow.
Personally I think it's very important to realise that all translations are likely imperfect, but that alternative translations could offer valuable insights into the subject matter and the process of how modern versions were arrived at.
Why would one assert that the NIV is a "superiour" translation?
Consider KJV:
1. We know more about Biblical culture now than anyone did in 1611, which affects translation. 2. We know more about Biblical language now than anyone did in 1611, which obviously affects translation. 3. Modern translations take into account hundreds of additional material sources that were not available in 1611, not the least of which are the Dead Sea Scrolls which account for very increased understanding of both 1 and 2. 4. The KJV New Testament was based in large part on the Latin Textus Receptus which meant a) it's a translation of a translation and b) the TR itself was rushed to beat other Greek texts and had hundreds of errors (many of which were corrected by the 3rd edition used for the KJV, but still, consider the source.) 5.. The KJV translation was extremely controversial at the time by the Roman Catholic Church, who would make the very same arguments about the KJV that you are making about the NIV right now. By the standards for controversy it was judged against, the KJV could still be argued to be a bad translation. 6. English has changed since 1611.
I'm not saying NIV it IS better, I'm saying why anyone would assert it's status as a superior translation, as you asked. No one was saying that Christians using the KJV were inferior Christians, but I think a case could be made for Bible translation affecting that. Consider if the (mis)translation said something like "Thou SHALL kill."
We know more about Biblical culture now than anyone did in 1611, which affects translation.
This gets moderated troll every time I post it. It is obvious the people moderating are both scared of the truth and have no idea what troll means. Regardless, I'll post again. Surely some will find probable truth interesting rather than be frightened of it.
Based on your comment, this becomes relevant. It is widely believed one of the worst translation errors occurs is that of Noha's Ark. The original translation means the world flooded, which we all know is impossible. It is now believed the proper translation means the entire valley or region flooded, not the world. Meaning, the flood should be regarded as a regional flood of epic proportions but not one of global scale. This change in scope also allows for the animals which would otherwise not been able to fit in the ark to suddenly fit as the variety is drastically reduced. In other words, things suddenly make sense and become believable; assuming one's faith is still in order. To boot, archaeological evidence has been gathered which supports this as the proper translation, based on some assumptions and details provided by the Bible.
People need to keep in mind that back then, "the world" actually meant the region and that there was, in fact, no word which literally meant "the world" as we know it today. The reason being, for most everyone, the entire world was made up of everything in that region and perhaps that of the surrounding regions, if one were well traveled, which was exceedingly rare.
So for a translation to mean "the world" as we understand today it places meaning on it which simply did not exist back when the word was recorded.
At my church (church of about 100 in a town of 2000) we happily use video games and things like that to bring teens in. While we have never used M rated games, we do have Wii tournaments from time to time. It is a great way to give the kids something safe to do (in a town of 2000 there isn't much) and gets them comfortable with the Church and the Youth Leaders we have.
In regards to Halo 3 though, I do know our Senior High Sunday School teacher used it as the basis for his lesson last week. He actually had me come up and give a brief overview of the story from Halo 1 and 2 to start things off;)
Churches do need to be careful to be "in the world, but not of it", but at the same time don't be afraid of using main stream culture and entertainment in new ways to both teach and to simply get people interested.
I've always wondered how churches like that can rationalize spending money on a 20 foot screen with a nice projector and 18" subwoofer when that money could be applied to more useful pursuits such as helping the poor. Every time I drive past a church that is building a new multi-million dollar extension with fine architecture on expensive land I wonder the same thing. Why not give that money to single mothers trying to keep their families above water or drug rehabilitation programs or education programs for ex-convicts?
If you sit back and think of the dollars tied up in religious infrastructure, it is absolutely astounding. Ask yourself, if you combine the equity of all religious property within a 2 mile radius of your house, how much do you get? I know for me, I would estimate it at around 2 million...
I guess my first mistake was wondering how churches can _rationalize_ anything...
I've always wondered how churches like that can rationalize spending money on a 20 foot screen with a nice projector and 18" subwoofer when that money could be applied to more useful pursuits such as helping the poor.
Easy. Those are internal investments aimed at increasing the size of the congregation, and in turn, increasing the pot of donations.
A small humble 4 room chapel can be used for religious ceremonies, sure, but how many people could be packed in? How many would be inspired by the visage and get that whole religious experience thing? Not many and I should know: I vote at one and even though voter turnout is really low in the U.S. it completely overwhelms the facilities there.
Morality or helping the poor is only a facade/marketing trick.
As opposed to you seeking Slashdot karma by just simply outright lying.
Firstly, how about scoping this--does this apply to martyrs as well, or just a particular subset you have in mind? You know, beyond the absurd universal you have to express, even though you yourself know it's false as you say it.
Secondly, I'd like to compare hard numbers between churches' charitable giving, corporations, and you personally. The first two I can get--an
It's actually a common misconception that the Bible condemns killing. The misquoted verse from the 10 commandments was mis-translated in the KJV as "thou shalt not kill". Instead it should have been translated as "thou shalt not murder". The Bible (and God it's author) does not condemn killing in defence, punishment for a crime, or in wartime. What it does condemn is murder. So with this in mind Halo doesn't violate the 10 commandments at all.
Yes, I'm a Christian, and yes I love playing Halo.
but when i'm playing a game i don't want the "person" dead.. just the on screen representation of their actions in the game world. their "avatar" or whatever.
I was under the impression that god DIDN'T write the bible...I mean, after all, if god was the author, why do bible's have copyright dates? Is god afraid of someone spreading the word illegally?
The bible was written by man...just like the torah, just like the que'ran, just like every religious book. Written by men who thought the world was flat.
The Bible (and God it's author) does not condemn killing in defence, punishment for a crime, or in wartime.
Oddly enough the old testament seems to be advocating genocide. Shortly after Moses got the 10 commandments, god told Joshua to kill off everyone (including women and children) in cities who would not submit to the chosen people's rule.
I'd also like to point out many early non-Catholic Christians actually viewed the old testament as evil and written by the hand of a demi-urge. However the Papacy would have none of that and had most of these people put to death over the course of several thousand years.
Most notably were the Cathars and various other gnostic [wikipedia.org] sects. If the Papacy had only the new testament to work with then they would have little to justify their wars of religion and garner support from newly converted pagans who wished to continue their warring ways.
To be really fair, there is no mention of hell in the old testament and is actually only referred to as the physical location in the new testament in name (not the lake of fire in revelations which isn't referred to as directly as hell) which was pulled directly to Roman-pagan mythology hades as a form of underworld punishment rather then the concept of "separation of God".
And if really want to get to be a historical stickler there is no ancient Greek word for "homosexual" which Leviticus refers too but rather the word means "soft" which could mean weak willed by context.
At any rate, simply using the 10 commandments literally needs some context to the situation. You also have to remember there are plenty of other dietary and Jewish old testament laws that many people ignore which are just as important. I mean we still don't put people to death for working on the Sabbath (which according to Jewish law is Saturday by the way and not Sunday) nor do we sell our daughters into slavery.
Sure, it would be awesome at first, gibbing the Son of God. He'll keep turning the other cheek, keep getting fragged, keep resurrecting. Eventually it'll become boring and I'd grow tired of it. He wins by default.
As someone who has lived both a religious and nonreligious life (although moving in the opposite direction you have), I agree with your basic point - my basic concepts of right and wrong have not changed, and I certainly don't feel that a religious life is the only proper way to live. It works for me.
The important thing, as in so many things, is to be careful about who you lump together. I have a friend who is a rabbi (he doesn't have a pulpit, he's a headmaster at a jewish school.) He says that when he travels, and his seatmate finds out he's a rabbi, he inevitably gets a long story about the persons awful rabbi growing up, or their terrible hebrew school experience, or other disappointments with their jewish experience. The thing is, this guys is the epitome of tolerance, cheerfulness, and thoughtfulness. He takes it all in good humor, but I think is saddened to see people rejecting a religious life because of their bad childhood experiences, without realizing that there are other ways to do it.
I don't know much about christian communities, and it sounds like you've seen a huge lack of humility, and a huge amount of hypocrisy. Religion isn't a cure all for bad behavior. At it's best, it provides a few guideposts for seeing where the pitfalls of being human are, and some clues as to how to approach them. At it's worst... well, there have been horrors visited on the world by the religious and nonreligious alike.
You say that you trust science over the "rantings of Jewish nomads". The term "science" is used in a couple of different ways in modern language. First we have the "scientific method" of hypothesis, testing, and observation. To my knowledge, this kind of science does not contradict the Bible.
Ok, here's one: according to the Bible, the rainbow is a sign of God's covenant with man that he will not destroy the world in a another great big flood. As we are led to understand, light did not refract prismatically before the flood, only after. Here's another one: snakes did not crawl on their bellies before the fall of man, that was a punishment by God. So snakes presumably bounced around on their tails coiled like springs as evinced in the Gospel of Qbert. We are told that Adam and Eve were the paren
We keep them away from sex until way beyond when they're physically ready for it, but we have no problem with them being indoctrinated in a religious faith long before they understand that some things their parents or other authority figures tell them might not be entirely the truth.
In other news, some people raise their children to believe that liquor (is|is not) good to drink, that meat (is|is not) OK to eat, that (conservatives|liberals) are smarter, and that (European|Asian|African) lineage is something to be proud of. None of those are objectively true but may have long-term ramifications on the child's social behavior. None of those are remotely considered child abuse, except possibly by people who are strongly in favor of the opposite position.
Don't cheapen real problems by equating random personal decisions with them. Punching your daughter in the mouth or burning your son with cigarette butts is child abuse. Raising them in the religious tradition you believe is necessary for them to enjoy a happy life (and afterward) is not.
Fight the false prophet (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
By the way is it just me or is there something really wrong with trying to convert children? Why not wait until they're older and less easily seduced by things like video games before trying to convince them?
Something about older men saying "come inside kids, let's play video games", when they're not actually
Sci Fi not in conflict with Christianity (Score:5, Informative)
I am no biblical scholar, but I am pretty sure that the bible is pretty clear that no one will know when the second coming will occur. Hard science fiction is perfectly compatible with religion. As is hard science, heck, the Vatican operates a major observatory. Research highlights include:
Dark Matter and Energy in the Cosmos
The Acceleration of the Universe
Quasars
Globular Clusters
http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/Research.html [arizona.edu]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are plenty of examples of God showing himself to be love in the Old Testament and at least one example of God being a decisive judge on the wickedness of a man (and his wife)... Not to mention all that goes down in the book of Revelation.
The more you study the whole Bible, the more you recognize its unity.
Re:Halo is nothing compared to the Bible (Score:4, Funny)
I could equally fairly ask, what kind of idiot thinks there is an omnipotent, omnipresent being?
Parent
It must be said (Score:3, Funny)
WWJF? (Score:4, Funny)
I'd love to go to one of these things, name my guy Jesus, and then berate anyone who frags me. "How dare you slay the son of god!?!?!?!?!"
Parent
Re:WWJF? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:WWJF? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My friends and I often have nights like this and a few have been church-sponsored. Halo, Mario Kart... whatever, as long as the game isn't too racy for the people holding the controllers (and the situation) then it's usually a non-issue. My pastor plays Halo on occasion. If he were against it, I'd still play because I know it's just fine with God. At the same time I'd respect the pastor's wishes and not bring it to the youth-oriented events. The article is just some guy trying
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I wouldn't want to play Jesus or Lazarus. They take like 3 days to respawn.
Does one of the Marys attack with a bottle of oil?
Re:WWJF? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Thou shalt not kill? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is a good idea for the church... Get the kids used to being at the church, and interacting with their friends there, possibly even friends that they never get to see otherwise. It establishes it as a friendly place that they want to be, the kids have some supervision while they play, and everyone involved is happy.
Re:Thou shalt not kill? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Thou shalt not kill? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Well, that's an interesting question. (Score:4, Insightful)
While there's no question that God asked the Israelites to kill in His name repeatedly in the Old Testament and to punish certain crimes with death, it's an open question whether or not Jesus tightened the prohibition against killing with his commandments to "turn the other cheek" when one is wronged and to "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" when it comes to punishment of crimes.
It is quite reasonably arguable that even killing in self-defense is no longer allowed given the New Testaments focus on forgiveness and self-sacrifice, though few religious scholars would go that far. Gandhi, who was not a Christian, was one of the very few who did argue this -- even going so far as to say that England should not try to defend itself against the Nazis.
It's doubtful, though, that Christianity could've survived to be what it has become today if Constantine hadn't co-opted it into a warrior's creed.
Parent
Re:Thou shalt not kill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the idea that the proper understanding of the sense of the commandment is a prohibition on murder (which doesn't necessary give unlimited sanction to any killing a government sanctions, either) and not all killing isn't some innovation that "modern Christians" invented; it was the general interpretation before Christ (its hardly as if ancient Israel viewed either war or capital punishment as forbidden), and also the dominant interpretation from the earliest Christianity.
If anything, the "innovation" throughout the history of Christianity has been finding progressively broader classes of acts of killing that are considered within the prohibition of the commandment.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically it says that murder (meaning unauthorised killing) is the closest word in modern english.
So, in modern english: You shall not murder.
Of course, we then get to argue forever on what authorize means who get's
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Thou shalt not kill? (Score:5, Interesting)
These regulations also appear to be related to the post-Sinai period of Exodus, since they clearly assume a nomadic existence, so they can hardly be considered as contradicting the Ten Commandments (which in Jewish terms is pre-school stuff; God has a lot more to say about human conduct than things like "Thou shall not kill").
The nature of these commandments is fascinating because there is no independent historical or archaeological corroboration of the Exodus story. Although it is most historically probable that these regulations were reconstructed at a date later than the Babylonian captivity, they have a certain verisimilitude. The difficulties posed by reconciling a fixed lifestyle with commandments assuming a nomadic existence seems to confirm that in their folk memory at least, the Israelites were nomads.
In any case, anybody who cites Leviticus as proof that homosexuality or Wicca is an abomination will have a difficult time proving that they really consider the commandments of Leviticus binding.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Granted stomping on turtles and shooting ducks might have been a little tamer than Halo, but it's still the same concept.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well... depends on who you ask. From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Thou shalt not kill? except.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The support for military? The support for the death penalty? The support for these two comes directly from the so called religious crowd. Oh, but as long as they protest the abortion thing, I guess that makes it all better. They are not much different from the jihadists or other religious fanatics.
"Thou shalt not kill except for enemies of God and you can choose who is my enemy" - that seems to be how things are these days in both "devout christian" and "devout muslim" crowds while both proclaiming "peaceful religion". More people died in religious wars as percentage of population than any other wars in the history of this planet.
I guess the mod points here will depend who gets to read the message. I hope they don't declare some holy war or send a sniper my way. Sorry about the rant, but churches and religions are as much about "Thou shalt not kill" as much as it suits their goals. If their goals have any conflict with it, they have a very easy way around the so called "god's rules".
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm.... I would be cautious about making such value statements.
Why would one assert that the NIV is a "superiour" translation? The King James Version was the dominant guide to Christian thought for English speaking people for more than 300 years. It would be curious to argue that the people who adhered to the guidance in the King James version were not (and are not) "inferiour" Christians
Re:Wrong translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether the quality of the translation in terms of closeness to the original actually matters to the KJV as a holy book will doubtless be debated. I have friends who are convinced that the KJV is the one correct translation and I imagine they believe this on the basis of the content and on the basis of how they've been taught to interpret it - independently of what translators may describe as being technically the best. I'd say that it rather depends whether you believe you should follow the original texts as best understood academically, or whether you believe in a specific interpretation of the texts which you may feel to be superior spiritually somehow.
Personally I think it's very important to realise that all translations are likely imperfect, but that alternative translations could offer valuable insights into the subject matter and the process of how modern versions were arrived at.
Parent
Re:Wrong translation (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider KJV:
1. We know more about Biblical culture now than anyone did in 1611, which affects translation.
2. We know more about Biblical language now than anyone did in 1611, which obviously affects translation.
3. Modern translations take into account hundreds of additional material sources that were not available in 1611, not the least of which are the Dead Sea Scrolls which account for very increased understanding of both 1 and 2.
4. The KJV New Testament was based in large part on the Latin Textus Receptus which meant a) it's a translation of a translation and b) the TR itself was rushed to beat other Greek texts and had hundreds of errors (many of which were corrected by the 3rd edition used for the KJV, but still, consider the source.)
5.. The KJV translation was extremely controversial at the time by the Roman Catholic Church, who would make the very same arguments about the KJV that you are making about the NIV right now. By the standards for controversy it was judged against, the KJV could still be argued to be a bad translation.
6. English has changed since 1611.
I'm not saying NIV it IS better, I'm saying why anyone would assert it's status as a superior translation, as you asked. No one was saying that Christians using the KJV were inferior Christians, but I think a case could be made for Bible translation affecting that. Consider if the (mis)translation said something like "Thou SHALL kill."
Note: I am not an expert on ANY of this.
Parent
Re:Wrong translation (Score:4, Interesting)
This gets moderated troll every time I post it. It is obvious the people moderating are both scared of the truth and have no idea what troll means. Regardless, I'll post again. Surely some will find probable truth interesting rather than be frightened of it.
Based on your comment, this becomes relevant. It is widely believed one of the worst translation errors occurs is that of Noha's Ark. The original translation means the world flooded, which we all know is impossible. It is now believed the proper translation means the entire valley or region flooded, not the world. Meaning, the flood should be regarded as a regional flood of epic proportions but not one of global scale. This change in scope also allows for the animals which would otherwise not been able to fit in the ark to suddenly fit as the variety is drastically reduced. In other words, things suddenly make sense and become believable; assuming one's faith is still in order. To boot, archaeological evidence has been gathered which supports this as the proper translation, based on some assumptions and details provided by the Bible.
People need to keep in mind that back then, "the world" actually meant the region and that there was, in fact, no word which literally meant "the world" as we know it today. The reason being, for most everyone, the entire world was made up of everything in that region and perhaps that of the surrounding regions, if one were well traveled, which was exceedingly rare.
So for a translation to mean "the world" as we understand today it places meaning on it which simply did not exist back when the word was recorded.
Parent
Halo? Eh. (Score:4, Funny)
Well, we haven't do that exactly... (Score:5, Insightful)
In regards to Halo 3 though, I do know our Senior High Sunday School teacher used it as the basis for his lesson last week. He actually had me come up and give a brief overview of the story from Halo 1 and 2 to start things off
Churches do need to be careful to be "in the world, but not of it", but at the same time don't be afraid of using main stream culture and entertainment in new ways to both teach and to simply get people interested.
Spending priorities? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you sit back and think of the dollars tied up in religious infrastructure, it is absolutely astounding. Ask yourself, if you combine the equity of all religious property within a 2 mile radius of your house, how much do you get? I know for me, I would estimate it at around 2 million...
I guess my first mistake was wondering how churches can _rationalize_ anything...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've always wondered how churches like that can rationalize spending money on a 20 foot screen with a nice projector and 18" subwoofer when that money could be applied to more useful pursuits such as helping the poor.
Easy. Those are internal investments aimed at increasing the size of the congregation, and in turn, increasing the pot of donations.
A small humble 4 room chapel can be used for religious ceremonies, sure, but how many people could be packed in? How many would be inspired by the visage and get that whole religious experience thing? Not many and I should know: I vote at one and even though voter turnout is really low in the U.S. it completely overwhelms the facilities there.
Now, look at a church. Imposing an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to you seeking Slashdot karma by just simply outright lying.
Firstly, how about scoping this--does this apply to martyrs as well, or just a particular subset you have in mind? You know, beyond the absurd universal you have to express, even though you yourself know it's false as you say it.
Secondly, I'd like to compare hard numbers between churches' charitable giving, corporations, and you personally. The first two I can get--an
Killing != Murder (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I'm a Christian, and yes I love playing Halo.
Re:Killing != Murder (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Sinful thoughts are still sins, so..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Except for cheaters.
Parent
Re:Killing != Murder (Score:5, Insightful)
The bible was written by man...just like the torah, just like the que'ran, just like every religious book. Written by men who thought the world was flat.
Parent
Re:Killing != Murder (Score:5, Interesting)
Oddly enough the old testament seems to be advocating genocide. Shortly after Moses got the 10 commandments, god told Joshua to kill off everyone (including women and children) in cities who would not submit to the chosen people's rule.
I'd also like to point out many early non-Catholic Christians actually viewed the old testament as evil and written by the hand of a demi-urge. However the Papacy would have none of that and had most of these people put to death over the course of several thousand years.
Most notably were the Cathars and various other gnostic [wikipedia.org] sects. If the Papacy had only the new testament to work with then they would have little to justify their wars of religion and garner support from newly converted pagans who wished to continue their warring ways.
To be really fair, there is no mention of hell in the old testament and is actually only referred to as the physical location in the new testament in name (not the lake of fire in revelations which isn't referred to as directly as hell) which was pulled directly to Roman-pagan mythology hades as a form of underworld punishment rather then the concept of "separation of God".
And if really want to get to be a historical stickler there is no ancient Greek word for "homosexual" which Leviticus refers too but rather the word means "soft" which could mean weak willed by context.
At any rate, simply using the 10 commandments literally needs some context to the situation. You also have to remember there are plenty of other dietary and Jewish old testament laws that many people ignore which are just as important. I mean we still don't put people to death for working on the Sabbath (which according to Jewish law is Saturday by the way and not Sunday) nor do we sell our daughters into slavery.
Parent
Playing against Jesus would be boring (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Playing against Jesus would be boring (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Halo != Halo (Score:5, Funny)
They do realize that "Halo" may not mean the same thing that they're used to, don't they?
Gives new meaning... (Score:5, Funny)
Games are an excellent outreach tool for youth (Score:3, Funny)
Headshot for Jesus! (Score:3, Funny)
I cast you <slap!> OUT demons! Along with your brains!
A deep, rumbling voice echoes from the dark sky: "HuMiLiAtIoN!"
Re:GAME NIGHT! (Score:4, Interesting)
That is nonsensical on so many levels. Christianity makes my brain hurt.
Parent
Re:one other thought, hollywoodizing religion (Score:5, Interesting)
The important thing, as in so many things, is to be careful about who you lump together. I have a friend who is a rabbi (he doesn't have a pulpit, he's a headmaster at a jewish school.) He says that when he travels, and his seatmate finds out he's a rabbi, he inevitably gets a long story about the persons awful rabbi growing up, or their terrible hebrew school experience, or other disappointments with their jewish experience. The thing is, this guys is the epitome of tolerance, cheerfulness, and thoughtfulness. He takes it all in good humor, but I think is saddened to see people rejecting a religious life because of their bad childhood experiences, without realizing that there are other ways to do it.
I don't know much about christian communities, and it sounds like you've seen a huge lack of humility, and a huge amount of hypocrisy. Religion isn't a cure all for bad behavior. At it's best, it provides a few guideposts for seeing where the pitfalls of being human are, and some clues as to how to approach them. At it's worst... well, there have been horrors visited on the world by the religious and nonreligious alike.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You say that you trust science over the "rantings of Jewish nomads". The term "science" is used in a couple of different ways in modern language. First we have the "scientific method" of hypothesis, testing, and observation. To my knowledge, this kind of science does not contradict the Bible.
Ok, here's one: according to the Bible, the rainbow is a sign of God's covenant with man that he will not destroy the world in a another great big flood. As we are led to understand, light did not refract prismatically before the flood, only after. Here's another one: snakes did not crawl on their bellies before the fall of man, that was a punishment by God. So snakes presumably bounced around on their tails coiled like springs as evinced in the Gospel of Qbert. We are told that Adam and Eve were the paren
Re:child abuse (Score:4, Insightful)
In other news, some people raise their children to believe that liquor (is|is not) good to drink, that meat (is|is not) OK to eat, that (conservatives|liberals) are smarter, and that (European|Asian|African) lineage is something to be proud of. None of those are objectively true but may have long-term ramifications on the child's social behavior. None of those are remotely considered child abuse, except possibly by people who are strongly in favor of the opposite position.
Don't cheapen real problems by equating random personal decisions with them. Punching your daughter in the mouth or burning your son with cigarette butts is child abuse. Raising them in the religious tradition you believe is necessary for them to enjoy a happy life (and afterward) is not.
Parent