What constitutes a "valid" interpretation of the Bible?

[guillaumeb]

In Christianity, there are varying views.

One view, the hierarchical view, holds that only the Church hierarchy can determine what is the acceptable interpretation of the Bible, or verses in the Bible.

In the RCC, for example, the tradition in which I was educated, the following passages might help to understand how the RCC advises theists to read the Bible.

Know what the Bible is – and what it isn't. The Bible is the story of God's relationship with the people he has called to himself. It is not intended to be read as history text, a science book, or a political manifesto. In the Bible, God teaches us the truths that we need for the sake of our salvation.

http://www.usccb.org/bible/understanding-the-bible/index.cfm

And in that vein,

Granted that the expression of faith, such as it is found in the sacred Scripture acknowledged by all, has had to renew itself continually in order to meet new situations, which explains the "rereadings" of many of the biblical texts, the interpretation of the Bible should likewise involve an aspect of creativity; it ought also to confront new questions so as to respond to them out of the Bible.
Granted that tensions can exist in the relationship between various texts of sacred Scripture, interpretation must necessarily show a certain pluralism. No single interpretation can exhaust the meaning of the whole, which is a symphony of many voices. Thus, the interpretation of one particular text has to avoid seeking to dominate at the expense of others.

http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp3.htm

And also:

At Catholic Answers, we get questions all the time like, "What is the Catholic position on this Scripture passage?" Many people seem to have the idea that the Catholic Church has an official interpretation of every passage of Scripture. It isn’t true.
First, Scripture has more than one level of meaning. The two basic levels are the literal and the spiritual senses, the latter of which may contain up to three different kinds of meanings, depending on whether it foreshadows something in the New Testament, something at the end of time, or what moral lesson it may teach. Since the literal sense and the subdivisions of the spiritual sense can each be ambiguous (that is, they can carry more than one meaning by the author’s design), the multiplicity of meanings would guarantee that a commentary on the meaning of Scripture would run into the millions of propositions.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-limits-of-scripture-interpretation

The Pope does, of course, make certain pronouncements, speaking ex cathedra, on matters of faith and morals.

[TlalocW]

1. Basically

When it agrees with whatever you think.

You hate gays? The Bible can be made to say that.
Don't have a problem with gays? Same.
Women need to shut up and be subservient to men? Here are your Bible verses.
Women bring as much spiritually to the table as others? Here are some other verses.
God hates and will kick your ass if you misstep? Well, here's the OT for ya.
God is Love and Peace? Here's some NT for ya.

TlalocW

[guillaumeb]

2. And that happens.

It also happens when right and left speak about what is termed the "original intent" of the Founders of the US Constitution.

[marylandblue]

97. We may argue about intent, but nobody argues that the parts we don't like are metaphorical

Also, nobody says every word of it is perfect and cannot be changed.

[guillaumeb]

99. Yes, they actually do argue just that.

Scalia argued that the first half of the Second Amendment was, in his words, merely prefatory.

[marylandblue]

100. Prefatory is not the same as metaphorical

Metaphorical would be if he argued that they weren't real militias, but were actually cooperative farming ventures.

[guillaumeb]

101. The intent is the same.

[marylandblue]

102. So you are admitting that the intent of a metaphorical reading

is to subvert the actual intent of the document?

[mitch96]

35. "When it agrees with whatever you think. "

And if the people in power tell you what to think, that is the true meaning. Until those are overthrown and then the "truth" changes...
m

[MineralMan]

3. So, it means exactly what one thinks it means

at any given time. That's convenient, isn't it?

[guillaumeb]

7. And you feel differently?

Were you raised in a literalist tradition?

[trotsky]

17. You were raised in a literalist tradition.

Your (former?) church takes a considerable amount of the bible literally. As do you, since you still consider yourself a Christian.

Why are you a literalist, g?

[guillaumeb]

26. You know nothing of how I was raised.

Nor do you know what I was taught at school, nor what I experienced at university level.

[trotsky]

34. You yourself said you were raised in the RCC.

That is a literalist sect, because they take significant parts of the bible literally.

[guillaumeb]

41. OK.

No point in speaking further because you obviously know the entirety of my religious education.

[trotsky]

61. It's a statement YOU made in the post starting this thread, g.

Damn dude, you really think everyone else is stupid, don't you?

In the RCC, for example, the tradition in which I was educated, the following passages might help to understand how the RCC advises theists to read the Bible.

[guillaumeb]

74. Again:

In Christianity, there are varying views.

One view, the hierarchical view, holds that only the Church hierarchy can determine what is the acceptable interpretation of the Bible, or verses in the Bible.

In the RCC, for example, the tradition in which I was educated, the following passages might help to understand how the RCC advises theists to read the Bible.

Focus on the bolded portion, and then read the linked articles that all talk about the actual RCC position on Biblical interpretation.

And I said nothing about stupidity, but I did suggest reading the linked articles.

[trotsky]

86. I've read them.

They don't help you.

You are a literalist until you prove otherwise, demonstrating that you take NONE of the bible literally.

[guillaumeb]

87. You obviously created your own definition, and your own argument.

And I cannot argue with your creation. So have fun with it.

[marylandblue]

88. I think he is using your implied definition

Implied because you never actually stated it, but yours because you frequently accuse others of being literalists.

[guillaumeb]

89. But he states that I am a literalist in spite of my many posts,

including directly to him, that I am not.

And he has acknowledged that some of my posts are not aligned with RCC thinking, so the leap he makes that I am an unaligned non-literalist proves that I am a literalist is an Olympic caliber leap.

And this very thread, my thread, shows that literalism is not required or followed in the RCC.

[marylandblue]

90. You've often accused atheists of being literalists, despite their protestations

And the obvious contradictions between believing the Bible is a set.of fairy tales and taking fairy tales literally.

[guillaumeb]

91. I have accused SOME. Not all.

So his responses are still interesting.

And the articles that I referenced validate that a non-literal reading is acceptable.

[marylandblue]

92. His point is the same whether it is some or all

And the article is somewhat disingenuous in that Catholic doctrine does take certain things literally, such as the resurrection.

[trotsky]

94. But you are. You take much of the Christian bible literally.

So does the RCC. Certainly not ALL, but then you haven't required that a literalist do that. Merely quoting one verse to be taken literally - even in a hypothetical scenario - is enough for you to brand someone else a literalist, which you have done repeatedly.

[guillaumeb]

95. I understand your position.

And disagree with it.

[trotsky]

96. Then offer up an argument as to why I'm wrong.

You can't, so you're going to scurry away like you always do.

[guillaumeb]

98. It is useless to do so.

Not impossible, simply useless.

[trotsky]

104. Why?

Am I too stupid to understand?

[guillaumeb]

105. Not at all. eom

[trotsky]

106. Then offer up an argument as to why I'm wrong.

I bet you can't. That's why you won't.

Wouldn't you just LOVE to put me in my place for once? Show how I'm totally wrong, and you're totally right? You know, like so many people do to you here all the time?

Go for it. Prove me wrong. I dare you.

[guillaumeb]

107. Your reply validates my earlier response.

So I can add nothing to that.

[trotsky]

108. Still no response, because you can't provide one.

Last edited Thu Dec 20, 2018, 11:29 AM - Edit history (1)

Expected. You're gaslighting.

[trotsky]

93. It's an unresolved issue based on a question you've never answered.

How much of a holy text must one take literally in order to be called a literalist? Is 25% enough? How about 50%? Does it have to be 100%? Because if it's 100%, then NO ONE is a literalist and the term is meaningless.

Answer that question, and I'll know if you're a literalist or not.

But I bet you can't - or won't. So I'm left with the conclusion that you are a literalist.

[Voltaire2]

56. He didn't mean that literally.

[trotsky]

60. ...

[MineralMan]

20. I feel differently, yes.

For me, the Bible is a book some people use to guide themselves. I do not use it that way, but study it to understand those people who do better. As a child, I was presented with the Bible as a collection of factual stories. When I became an adult and actually began to study those things, I realized that it was a collection of myths, and was of little actual use.

If you ask atheists how they interpret the Bible, most will tell you that they don't interpret it at all, since it is mythical fiction.

[guillaumeb]

27. One can read the Bible as literal story.

And many do so.

But many theists do not.

As to interpretation, one can look at a story and find a meaning apart from the literal aspects of the story itself.

[MineralMan]

31. I don't know of any atheists who read the Bible

as a literal story. I can't think of even one. I know some Christians who do, though. I don't know them well, because they talk nonsense all the time, but I know some like that. I know some Christians who believe some of what's in the Bible, but take other parts as allegories or metaphors. I don't know anyone who takes the whole thing metaphorically, though, and who calls themselves Christians.

Most of that second group, though, is clear on what they take literally and what they do not. If I ask them, they'll tell me which parts they take either way.

I know a very few people who consider themselves to be Christians, however, who will not say what they take literally and what metaphorically. I'm not sure whether they don't know which is which or they are teetering on the edge of atheism. I know at least one such person here in the Religion Group.

[guillaumeb]

32. I understand.

And I am certain that you understand why anyone might not care to write a dissertation on their own faith.


My objective here is to discuss specific issues that I feel might be of interrest.

[MineralMan]

37. Oh, I recognize your objective here...

Yes, indeed.

[guillaumeb]

43. And I yours.

[marylandblue]

44. A dissertation would not be appropriate for DU

But something considerably shorter than a dissertation and longer than an oblique reference or a countercharge of "literalism" is often welcome.

[MineralMan]

64. Believe me, nobody wants a dissertation.

But, you could just copy and paste in whatever creed it is that you pledge and follow. Those creeds are generally concise statements of beliefs. But you knew that, of course, since Latin is one of your languages, right. "Credo..." "I believe..."

Here's the current version of the Nicene Creed, as spoken by every young Catholic at confirmation. You say you were raised in that tradition, so you must have recited or read this aloud to confirm your faith. Has that faith changed? The Creed is a statement of belief. No doubt you have made that statement. Do you still believe those basic things? If so, you needn't write anything, see, much less a dissertation.

The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

[trotsky]

65. It would go such a long way toward ACTUAL dialog in this forum...

were guillaumeb to respond to this, honestly and earnestly.

Therefore, I predict he won't.

[MineralMan]

67. I asked him once, but he punted.

Failed to convert in three tries, I suppose.

Here's the thing: If he was raised as a Roman Catholic, he no doubt took catechism classes and had a confirmation, where he would have recited that creed. It expresses the RCC beliefs in a nutshell. There are other creeds of Christianity, but they all say about the same stuff, with minor changes due to doctrinal disputes.

If one declares him or herself to be a Christian, there is a basic set of beliefs that goes along with that declaration.

Some people won't say what they believe, despite there being a short form expression of those beliefs readily available.

Some people are, I think, close to having no belief at all, really. They just haven't taken that last step.

[trotsky]

68. He's playing a game that believers who fancy themselves quite intelligent often do.

He no doubt holds some very specific beliefs about his creator fellow, who its messengers are, and what it wants from us. But he knows that to openly state any of those beliefs makes them easy to disprove, so he won't say what they are.

Basically he knows he can't defend them, so if he never declares them, he won't have to. They remain totally unchallenged and intact (in his mind).

[MineralMan]

69. I see it a little differently.

I think, like some others who have lost their way, he's searching around among belief systems, looking for one that is satisfactory for his "theism." One day, he'll quote from Rumi. The next, he has discovered Meister Eckhart from the 14th Century and is off into the world of Theosophy and spiritualism. Next, he may meet Madame Blavatsky, herself. He has reduced his deity to an amorphous "Creator." Our fellow Religion Group member is off on a journey that has no logical end other than disbelief.

I recognize the path, actually. I did somewhat the same as I headed toward atheism. Looking here and there for common ground among religions, you find all sorts of side journeys to take before you finally dismiss it all as myth and philosophy. I've been down all the side roads, and all ended up going to the same place, really.

It's a familiar journey, but some people get sidetracked in digging into related ideas and never take the last step and recognize religion for the man-made thing that it is.

[marylandblue]

72. I think you are right

He essentially worships the Great Nothing, which amounts to thinking like an atheist but pretending to be religious.

[MineralMan]

73. There's a logical progression. Some go through the steps quickly

when they're young. Others spend their entire lives on the journey and never quite reach a conclusion.

Once one realizes that all religions are just variations on a theme, there's only one conclusion to draw, really. They're all products of the human mind. That's the real "Creator" of it all.

It's the search that is interesting. The search for understanding. But, there are many signposts that lead nowhere.

[Voltaire2]

84. Nah. It's just random splatter from rns.

Frequently the op has clearly not even read the text, the headline appeared to fit the agenda so it got posted here.

[MineralMan]

85. For some, that kind of random sampling

is the entire scope of capabilities. And limiting oneself to one or two sources saves time and effort. One needs an outlet, I suppose.

[Act_of_Reparation]

4. Define "valid".

[MineralMan]

5. It means that the person in question agrees with it.

More or less...

[guillaumeb]

9. What I wrote:

In Christianity, there are varying views.

One view, the hierarchical view, holds that only the Church hierarchy can determine what is the acceptable interpretation of the Bible, or verses in the Bible.

In the RCC, for example, the tradition in which I was educated, the following passages might help to understand how the RCC advises theists to read the Bible.

[Act_of_Reparation]

14. I am not asking you to repeat yourself.

I am asking you to define your terms. This isn't difficult.

[trotsky]

16. Allow me.

"Valid" means an interpretation that guillaumeb finds acceptable.

[marylandblue]

19. I intertepret "valid" differently

Last edited Wed Dec 12, 2018, 11:02 AM - Edit history (1)

A valid interpretation is any interpretation that allows guillaumeb to find any interpretation acceptable.

[MineralMan]

38. Acceptable at the moment, I think.

Or for the purposes of the immediate position taken, anyhow...

[Major Nikon]

22. Meaningful discussion requires both sides to answer relevant questions

Gil isn't interested in meaningful discussion, only providing sermons. This isn't surprising really when you consider that's exactly the tradition in which he was indoctrinated by.

[guillaumeb]

25. The term was defined in the sentences.

Read them again.

[trotsky]

36. Perhaps your sentences didn't do an adequate job defining the term.

Do you always simply assume everyone else is too stupid to understand you?

[guillaumeb]

42. Perhaps not.

But one of your responses in this thread makes me wonder if you read the linked articles.

[trotsky]

59. Or perhaps I did and they aren't the be-all, end-all "silence everyone who disagrees with me"...

masterpieces you THINK they are.

[Act_of_Reparation]

52. I am too stupid to decipher meaning from your prose.

Clarify.

[marylandblue]

6. The RCC may not have an authoritative interpretation for each verse, but

they have lines which you may not cross. You cannot deny the validity of the sacraments, for example. That would make you a Protestant.

[guillaumeb]

8. The Pope speaks on certain things.

And such ex cathedra speaking is considered authoritative and infallible.

Please forgive the Latin.

[marylandblue]

10. So what happens if you tell your priest his holy orders are worthless,

You don't want to eat the silly wafers ever again, you have nothing to confess, and you divorced your wife and now would like him to marry you and and your future husband?

[guillaumeb]

24. I would suggest that you ask a priest that question. eom

[marylandblue]

45. The Pope is allowed to use Latin because he is the Pope

However when he talks.to God, he should really use Hebrew or Greek, since God prefers those two languages.

[guillaumeb]

46. I use Latin, and I am not the Pope.

But I try to keep my Latin expressions ad minimum for those who have an aversion to lLtin.

[marylandblue]

48. Jesus spoke Aramaic and so you should too

[guillaumeb]

49. If I were Jesus,

I would indeed speak Aramaic.

Coincidentally, I know a Syrian Christian family that speaks Aramaic.

[edhopper]

11. Why is God

so obtuse?

You'd think a perfect being could be clearer.

[gtar100]

13. Maybe that's just it. God isn't perfect.

It's just a trip we lay on him. If we met him on the street, he might even have a limp.

[edhopper]

21. As Epicurus said

"Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

[guillaumeb]

47. But we cannot know what the Creator is wiling to do.

Nor can we know the Creator's ability.

[edhopper]

51. Then he is a proper wanker

for being so inscrutable as to cause untold suffering in his name.

Any being calling itself a God of love or goodness that allows or promotes is not worth the name.

Ans BTW the basis of every religion is knowing and telling us what the Creator means and wants, including yours.

[trotsky]

62. Sounds suspiciously like you made that all up. Complete fabrication.

Can you prove otherwise?

[MineralMan]

70. Well, not so, really. Here's what the French version of the

Roman Catholic creed says about your "Creator:"

"Le Père tout-puissant, créateur du ciel et de la terre"

"All-powerful," as I translate tout-puissant in my head. No limitations there. So, apparently we do know the "Creator's" ability, which has no limits. Now as for that entity's will, I suppose it can do anything it wishes to do, making its will infinite in nature.

See how simple. Now, I know you learned those words during your education. You may have learned them in both French and English.

Do you no longer believe them?

[guillaumeb]

75. Your little dissertation has nothing to do

with what I actually said.

[MineralMan]

77. No? Well, you see, I'm not constrained by your expectations.

Besides, it had more to do with it than you're willing to admit.

[Mariana]

50. No perfect being could possibly screw up as much

as the God character portrayed in the Bible stories does.

[guillaumeb]

28. Perhaps our human intelligence is not capable of discerning

what the Creator sees clearly.

[edhopper]

33. So it's up to us?

And a perfect, all knowing being can't figure out how to communicate with those less intelligent?

[guillaumeb]

40. I cannot answer for the Creator.

I can only give my opinion.

[Voltaire2]

57. So if a teacher cannot clearly explain concepts

to the children being taught, it is the children who are at fault.

Interesting.

[trotsky]

63. An interesting theory. You certainly do like to think of your fellow human beings as stupid.

But do you have any evidence at all to support it, or are you just making this up?

[MineralMan]

71. Or, perhaps there is no such Creator, eh, which means

we'll have to figure it out for ourselves. We're making some progress in that direction, I think.

[LongtimeAZDem]

76. If a creator requires its creations to follow its instructions, but does not give them the capacity

to do so, then that creator is either incompetent, malevolent, or both.

[MineralMan]

78. There is another possibility, where there is no creator, but only

a belief that such an entity exists. In that scenario, the instructions were drawn up by the "creations" themselves.

[LongtimeAZDem]

80. Which is why I expressed it as a conditional accepting the premise, so as not to leave open the

such argumentative escape routes.

If a person tries to play the "perhaps we can't understand god" card, the only proper response is "whose fault is that?", IMO.

[MineralMan]

81. Good point.

[gtar100]

12. That is interesting as I had not really heard what the RCC says about biblical interpretation.

This statement in particular: "In the Bible, God teaches us the truths that we need for the sake of our salvation". From one perspective, that is an assertive statement, a claim, so to speak. But I see more in it than that. I also see the church stepping back and acknowledging that the ultimate meanings are between one's self and God. Because what is more personal than one's salvation? It's why I am turned off by people going around telling others they must be saved. Yea right... you first... is one of my responses. But honestly, it's none of their business. I hold that as true for everyone. When I'm in an atmosphere of respect and around people I love and who love me, that's just how it works naturally. Nobody is going to force me to say things I don't believe or tell me what a rotten person I am on one hand and offer me an antidote from the other. Exactly what is my "salvation" is strictly between me and God. If any aspect of it is shared between us, it should be mutual and nobody should be coerced into doing something they don't feel right for themselves. I like to picture it as being born in the middle of a flowing river. That river is made up of stories, the ones we tell ourselves about who and what we are. The river came before us and will continue long after we die. In it there are my personal stories, yours, and there are stories we learned from our families, communities and the culture at large. These later ones often take on a life of their own and live on beyond one or two generations, sometimes taking on importance politically, socially, religiously, historically. They give us a perspective of who we believe ourselves to be in a wider context. They are our collective dreams. And our free will is that we get to decide what we think about them. We may have been fed the stories to believe and not believe - by the well-meaning and the devious alike. I was. I've been fed stories by public education, religious education, television and radio, now the Internet. But at some point it comes down to the individual having to decide which stories have meaning, value and relevance and which ones don't. Free will.

And then there's the church. In this case, the RCC that has lasted for almost two thousand years with roots going back even further. That's no short story in an encyclopedia. That's a tradition, a central pillar for millions of people. That is an epic, a grand story that people find important to keep alive generation after generation. It has attracted scoundrels and saints, of course, but also people just wanting to connect to something meaningful and sometimes mysterious. Back to the article, it states church has no official position on interpretations of scripture and I think that is good. I see the RCC as a place one can go to practice purposeful rituals of one type or another, gain an orthodox perspective on reality and, in essence, feed one's soul. It is a rich fountain of information and community that, if it speaks to you, it's available. Or should be. If the relationship between each individual and God is respected, there is great power in the church. Which is why the abuses of power, manipulations of people's minds, the sexual abuse going on within its walls, and general fuckery that people do with religion is so abhorrent. All those things are poisoning what should be something that should be a place for people to find refuge, community and guidance if wanted but a place to always be respected as a living being regardless of the conditions or circumstances of their lives. It should be that, it's our story to tell and it seems to be the story it's trying to tell.

These excerpts tell me that there are people within the church who know this which is why it lives on. But it's got some serious problems. It's like how the republican party is attracting nazis, racists, anti-semites, fundamentalists, and generally cranky people. It's bringing them down. It's also happening to the Catholic Church as well. Choking on some serious poisons. I hope that the good isn't killed off with the bad. But, as I see it, it needs to get off its high horse and get rid of the people who are abusing it. I'm not going to wait around for things to get better, though. I don't trust the power structure as it is. It's not my church either but I've had the good fortune to meet some really great people in the church who helped me get through some tough times...without the pressure to be anybody but myself or be "saved by Jesus". I know the power of good is there, it's in the people in the congregation, and the priests, bishops and popes and everyone in between ought to realize they are there to serve the communities of people that gather there. What a privilege! I'll get off my soap box... it just pisses me off to see the privilege abused and the pain, anger, hatred and resentment it causes. If the story dies, maybe it deserved to.

[guillaumeb]

29. Thank you for your answer.

I liked your point that meaning is part of a relationship, and part of a discovery process.

In any large organization, there will be people who do very bad things to others. This is a feature of humanity, and is not caused by membership in an organization.


And I also appreciate your point about the community of believers. Humans are social creatures, and a church is one place for people to find the community that we all need.

And, we all acknowledge our imperfection as we attempt to behave better everyday.

I learned much about interpretation from the Jesuits who taught at the university I attended.

Finally, I think that your response here would make an excellent stand alone post.

[trotsky]

15. Every interpretation is valid.

Because your god won't say who is right.

[uriel1972]

39. which is also to say every interpretation is invalid as well.... nt

[trotsky]

58. You got it! n/t

[Cartoonist]

18. Multiple meanings

Scripture has more than one level of meaning. The two basic levels are the literal and the spiritual senses, the latter of which may contain up to three different kinds of meanings
_

In other words, Scripture is meaningless.

And what's that bullshit about how it is not meant as a science book? Tell that to Galileo.

[guillaumeb]

30. #s 1 and 2 of your response are contradictory. eom

[Lordquinton]

54. They aren't

read them again.

[Major Nikon]

55. You mean like theism and deism?

Oh wait, those things actually are contradictory.

[trotsky]

66. LOL. Classic gil.

[Major Nikon]

23. The modern church needs excuses on why it's no longer a good idea to murder disobedient children

...or sell your daughters into sexual slavery.

So they give people a pass on those rules, but still require adherence to others some of which have no biblical imperative. If you're wondering who gets to decide on these things and why, it ain't you.

[keithbvadu2]

53. What makes it valid? Choose the interpretation that reads the way you want it to. There are many ver

What makes it valid? Choose the interpretation that reads the way you want it to. There are many versions.

[woodsprite]

79. Just had this conversation with daughter

I feel the only true version is the original written in Aramaic on scrolls, and even that one is suspect since it was written from so many different viewpoints.

Sooooo, for me, the current Bible is more like the Pirate Code. Who has come up with tons of versions? Usually the leaders in a community. Leaders in a community are also sometimes known as politicians. I think you could trust politicians in Jesus' day just about as much as you can trust them to tell the full truth now.

[Voltaire2]

83. Greek.

The evidence for Aramaic as the original language for any of the gospels is slim. The general consensus is that the were originally written in Greek.

[Ferrets are Cool]

82. Laughter?

[Buckeye_Democrat]

103. If it comes from the Church of the Third Revelation...