11 3

Claims of absolute knowledge of the bible annoy the crap put of me.

I was in a work meeting today and the claim was made that jade is mentioned in the bible. Someone, in all superiority, says no, no it's not mentioned in the bible. Absolutely not.

So I get back to me desk and Google it. Yes it is. 3 times, under a name it would have been called then.

Soooo.... here's my gripe. She had no idea because "jade" specifically isn't mentioned. Hmmm... translation... we all know the translations are murky and lead to inaccurate understandings of the bible.

Another problem I have. These mentioned are from the Jewish Orthodox Bible. How arrogant is she that no other bible matters, only hers? So if it's not in her bible, it's not in any bible??

I feel like I'm totally overacting, but isn't it possible that someone actually does know a bit more about the bible than she does? It just rubbed me the wrong way.

Rant over.

Alimacbean 7 Feb 13

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


My personal experience in my little sub-tribe of fundamentalism was that people were actually encouraged to compare and contrast different translations and to compare those to the original manuscripts, which is fairly simple to do even if you can't read Kione Greek (NT) or ancient Hebrew (OT) because there are concordances, literal translations with commentaries and notes on the tenses and possible alternate meanings, and similar tools. I will give them that much, they were serious about understanding what the damned thing actually said. If they had been equally serious about owning up to the inconsistencies and logical conundrums of what it actually said, I'd have actually respected the theologians. As it is ... they are just spouting cherry-picked, self-ratifying nonsense.

My point being that if I were still a believer today and someone had told me the Bible mentioned jade, the first thing I would do is look up what the ancient term would have been, what the word would be in the original language, and find that original word via an online search, and such a simple question could be settled in about 5 minutes.

That said ... you're right, though, the vast majority would tend to make ignorant comments and defend their ego investment in their answer preferred answer, pretty much without regard to it being a supportable position. And in any case, every sect has its own hermaneutic system and so each one comes up with their own custom assertions about the really interesting truth claims. Sometimes I think when people argue over stupid stuff like whether a particular term is mentioned in the Bible, it's to avoid substantive debates about free will, sin and forgiveness, eternal security, sexuality, etc. Because they ARE locked down on those sorts of questions.


That is the challenge we face with "believers." They hear only what they want to hear, and they will dismiss everything else, even it is a scripture that contradicts them. They'll find a way around it.


It can never be wrong because they choose how it is looked at for info.

True dat.

Exactly; for each denomination (or at least each theological school) an interpretive system (hermaneutic) is used to frame the approved / "correct" approach to studying and understanding scripture. So the real situation "on the ground" is that they claim to correctly and objectively interpret the Bible but outside a given denomination people have very ... shall we say ... spirited discussions about what the Bible means about very basic things. Is salvation the product of choice or predestination? Once obtained, can salvation be lost? Is homosexuality a sin? How should children be disciplined? Is the Bible to be taken literally or metaphorically? Is it infallible? Ask theologians from 50 different seminaries and you'll get at least 48 different answers.

You will even get invented doctrines that are 100% inferred and have no basis in holy writ -- doctrines of necessity or convenience such as "the age of accountability" or prohibitions against so much as drinking alcohol (despite that Jesus saw fit to turn water into wine and that Paul advised his protege Timothy to "drink a little wine for your health's sake" ).


The old proverb about not wrestling in the mud with a pig keeps coming to mind. You can’t win and the pig enjoys it.


Why are people even allowed to bring up the bible or religion in a work meeting?

I'd also be sending that particular co-worker an email explaining how she was wrong. I'd send it from my personal email account, just to keep work out of it.
I'd also be signing my name to it.

It was a comment from a presenter, with whom she disagreed.


There’s a newer translation of the OT. one would have to go back to the original Hebrew to be certain. Jews don’t consider the NT as the Bible.
Don’t waste your energy on know-it-all’s. Let it go.


I think this is where people say, "Get a life!"


Well at least I hope you feel better now ?seems to me they're all translations of a remake of a remake of a remake that was translated from a remake that all happened in a dream ?


If someone bragged to me about their knowledge of the bible, I would say "gee that's nice, but spend my time learning about important matters".


That us the way they think. The bibly WAS written in English, the King James version is the absolute word of god. It is the worst translation known, vut it sounds pretty.


Stop wasting your precious life thinking about this!

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:288442
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.