4 ms·

Non contentious? Don’t a large portion of Christians believe the Bible is divine and any words included are there because of God?

defrost 3y ago
There are a large number of camps that don't align about this issue. The King James Only movement alone: asserts the belief that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is superior to all other translations of the Bible. and has been divided into five subgroups with varying opinions about the text and its relation to God. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement This barely scratches the surface of the many opinions held about the collections of smaller books that are bound as versions of "The Bible"; which books, which translations, which interpretations, etc.
- ShamelessC 3y ago
  Thanks! Very interesting.
  - graemep 3y ago
    There is a lot of disagreement about even what documents should be in the Bible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon and lots of disagreement about translation and interpretation.
- HeckFeck 3y ago
  > asserts the belief that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is superior to all other translations of the Bible. As one who is fond of classical English literature, I am compelled to agree.
Jedd 3y ago
Well, we get into murky territory here. I'd suggest a large portion of self-identified Christian believers really haven't thought much about it at all, beyond (as you say) some orthodox assumptions about divine nature etc. But as per my link above to wikipedia (Marcan Priority) the larger consensus amongst religious historians / researchers is that Mark was written first, Luke & Matthew were written subsequently, and based heavily on a combination of Mark + some unknown source ('Q').
- ShamelessC 3y ago
  Fascinating! Thanks I’ll have to read up on this mysterious Q figure and why it’s believed to be a ghost writer of sorts (is that accurate? Or is possibly just information lost to time?)
  - NeoTar 3y ago
    Q is a not a figure, but a document or a number of documents. It could have been written by a single figure, or compiled by many individuals. What is interesting is that is appears to be a book of quotations, rather than a narrative - so Matthew and Luke agree more than expected when directly quoting Jesus. At the time the theory was proposed we hadn't discovered any gospels like this, but now at least one such book of Jesus quotations has been found.
    - Jedd 3y ago
      I had a look around for this recently discovered book, but can't find references -- can you point me towards some please, it'd be fascinating to read the contents / context.
      - spacebacon 3y ago
        I can’t find anything either. Q is probably an aggregate of the best creative free form half truth conspiracy writings that one was able to gather from various internet sources mixed with a garden variety of new age mystical belief and a dash of pure fn magic.
        djur 3y ago
        I think you're talking about a different Q. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source
        spacebacon 3y ago
        Yes, good to know that one isn’t the mainstream.
willsoon 3y ago
[dead]
keiferski 3y ago
I think a more charitable (and interesting, sociologically) interpretation is that certain Protestant groups want the authority of God to not be vested in a temporal organization like the Catholic Church, and so the book itself serves as a replacement for this. The problem of determining what that means arises then, and not initially from a desire to only follow the book directly.
kragen 3y ago
well, non-contentious among scholars, not cosplayers
otabdeveloper4 3y ago
Such a belief would be heretical and very much outside the bounds of any canonical Christianity. (The phrase you're looking for is "divinely inspired", but Christianity also teaches that all of world history is also divinely inspired. It's a very broad category.)
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  Isn't it an article of faith for some Christian groups that the King James version of the Bible was produced by 100 scholars each translating a Greek text independently, and each producing the exact same English translation, thus proving that God had directly guided them in this translation, and essentially making the KJV almost literal word of God?
  - telotortium 3y ago
    Maybe for some very fringe groups but probably not. That sounds more like someone confusing the KJV with the Septuagint, which has a similar legend - that 70 Hebrew scholars independently produced the same Greek Translation of the Old Testament.
  - angiosperm 3y ago
    All making the same embarrassing mistakes, in either case, would have been quite the miracle. It is a small lie from among an enormously larger corpus.

defrost 3y ago

There are a large number of camps that don't align about this issue. The King James Only movement alone: asserts the belief that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is superior to all other translations of the Bible. and has been divided into five subgroups with varying opinions about the text and its relation to God. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement This barely scratches the surface of the many opinions held about the collections of smaller books that are bound as versions of "The Bible"; which books, which translations, which interpretations, etc.

ShamelessC 3y ago
Thanks! Very interesting.
- graemep 3y ago
  There is a lot of disagreement about even what documents should be in the Bible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon and lots of disagreement about translation and interpretation.
HeckFeck 3y ago
> asserts the belief that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is superior to all other translations of the Bible. As one who is fond of classical English literature, I am compelled to agree.

Jedd 3y ago

Well, we get into murky territory here. I'd suggest a large portion of self-identified Christian believers really haven't thought much about it at all, beyond (as you say) some orthodox assumptions about divine nature etc. But as per my link above to wikipedia (Marcan Priority) the larger consensus amongst religious historians / researchers is that Mark was written first, Luke & Matthew were written subsequently, and based heavily on a combination of Mark + some unknown source ('Q').

ShamelessC 3y ago
Fascinating! Thanks I’ll have to read up on this mysterious Q figure and why it’s believed to be a ghost writer of sorts (is that accurate? Or is possibly just information lost to time?)
- NeoTar 3y ago
  Q is a not a figure, but a document or a number of documents. It could have been written by a single figure, or compiled by many individuals. What is interesting is that is appears to be a book of quotations, rather than a narrative - so Matthew and Luke agree more than expected when directly quoting Jesus. At the time the theory was proposed we hadn't discovered any gospels like this, but now at least one such book of Jesus quotations has been found.
  - Jedd 3y ago
    I had a look around for this recently discovered book, but can't find references -- can you point me towards some please, it'd be fascinating to read the contents / context.
    - spacebacon 3y ago
      I can’t find anything either. Q is probably an aggregate of the best creative free form half truth conspiracy writings that one was able to gather from various internet sources mixed with a garden variety of new age mystical belief and a dash of pure fn magic.
      - djur 3y ago
        I think you're talking about a different Q. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source
        spacebacon 3y ago
        Yes, good to know that one isn’t the mainstream.

willsoon 3y ago

[dead]

keiferski 3y ago

I think a more charitable (and interesting, sociologically) interpretation is that certain Protestant groups want the authority of God to not be vested in a temporal organization like the Catholic Church, and so the book itself serves as a replacement for this. The problem of determining what that means arises then, and not initially from a desire to only follow the book directly.

kragen 3y ago

well, non-contentious among scholars, not cosplayers

otabdeveloper4 3y ago

Such a belief would be heretical and very much outside the bounds of any canonical Christianity. (The phrase you're looking for is "divinely inspired", but Christianity also teaches that all of world history is also divinely inspired. It's a very broad category.)

tsimionescu 3y ago
Isn't it an article of faith for some Christian groups that the King James version of the Bible was produced by 100 scholars each translating a Greek text independently, and each producing the exact same English translation, thus proving that God had directly guided them in this translation, and essentially making the KJV almost literal word of God?
- telotortium 3y ago
  Maybe for some very fringe groups but probably not. That sounds more like someone confusing the KJV with the Septuagint, which has a similar legend - that 70 Hebrew scholars independently produced the same Greek Translation of the Old Testament.
- angiosperm 3y ago
  All making the same embarrassing mistakes, in either case, would have been quite the miracle. It is a small lie from among an enormously larger corpus.