GENESIS: The Dissensus Bible Group.

S

sadmanbarty

Well-known member
my mum used to tell these very, very, very longwinded bedtime stories that repeated on and on and on and on in an ever so gentle and soft and tender and warm and nurturing tone of voice in an effort to make us fall a sleep out of sort-of-boredom. asmr.

it taps into that.
 
luka

luka

Well-known member
"God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Issac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads"
 
Corpsey

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
sadmanbarty said:
repetition is central to the bibles rhetorical style. mantra like. rituals rely on repetition. dance music. it's very much evoking appealing to that cognitive space.
Click to expand...

I could wiki this I suppose but

Was the Bible written for recitation? (ala. The Iliad)

Must have been, right, given that most people couldn't read it at one point.
 
pattycakes_

pattycakes_

Can turn naughty
If that's true then it means they wanted lots or as many people on board as possible, no? Why then make it so cryptic? Was this to weed out the dunces? Jesus loves you as long as you're not thick? Maybe. Or it could have been rewritten at some point to twist it more in the direction of a tool for control. Less likely but possible. Conspiracy aside It seems to me that most of this shit is fairly simple in the end, and has been made unnecessarily convoluted. But then I haven't read it so I guess that makes me one of the dunces *shrug*
 
luka

luka

Well-known member
Coptic in what sense? It says bless the lads and it means bless the lads. It's the most plain spoken book there is. Well there are some ambiguities but you'd expect that in a book which is 10million years old
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
If that's true then it means they wanted lots or as many people on board as possible, no? Why then make it so cryptic? Was this to weed out the dunces? Jesus loves you as long as you're not thick? Maybe. Or it could have been rewritten at some point to twist it more in the direction of a tool for control. Less likely but possible. Conspiracy aside It seems to me that most of this shit is fairly simple in the end, and has been made unnecessarily convoluted. But then I haven't read it so I guess that makes me one of the dunces *shrug*
Click to expand...
Well certainly in Europe for a long time it was illegal to translate the Bible from Latin, in other words it could only be read by the elite, the educated... priests basically. So in this respect access to the Bible and the word of God was totally about control, the populace could not argue back or really even debate the word of the lord that was handed down to them. Obviously this was later and the Bible wasn't created to allow the elite in Britain to subjugate the public but I can well believe that any complexity or cryptic elements certainly gave the priests a kind of hierophantic position right from the start... and thus status and power.
 
C

catalog

Well-known member
It's all to do with the state of reading/writing technology at the time. They had to make it cryptic cos they knew it would be going to a monastery for duplication, where anything contentious would be noticed. So true truth needs to be disguised. See Chester browns comic 'mary washed the feet of jesus' he's got a comic of Matthew wanting to write Mary as a whore but wanting to disguise it. So he gives her a pronounced lineage (begats etc) which includes a few other prostitutes. Granted Chester brown is obsessed with prostitutes, but I think it's a compelling argument
 
firefinga

firefinga

Well-known member
IdleRich said:
Well certainly in Europe for a long time it was illegal to translate the Bible from Latin, in other words it could only be read by the elite, the educated... priests basically. So in this respect access to the Bible and the word of God was totally about control, the populace could not argue back or really even debate the word of the lord that was handed down to them. Obviously this was later and the Bible wasn't created to allow the elite in Britain to subjugate the public but I can well believe that any complexity or cryptic elements certainly gave the priests a kind of hierophantic position right from the start... and thus status and power.
Click to expand...

I doubt this, the translations were not forbidden, there are early translations into other languages like Gothic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_Bible

Even the Latin translation itself was a bit controversial, since the original language of thw Old Testament was hebrew - and in the Septuagint Greek, the New Testament was Greek.

It had more to do with time and resources, you'd need some monks in a monestary to produce bibles bit by bit, also parchment was very rare.

By the time printing was introduced you had lots of bibles ("lots" in relative terms) available and also quickly translations in other languages. Luther for instance translated the Old Testament from its original Hebrew source, not from the greek Septuagint (so the Luther bible has a different order of books than the catholic bible based on the Latin Vulgate.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
It depends what you mean. For example the story of Lot's family is very straight-forward and literal... but to extract some moral lesson from it is not so easy. I think that the average person needs or needed some kind of authority to say "Well, what that means is... do what God says, don't look back - oh and just ignore the bit about letting your daughters get raped that's a trick" or whatever. The point is it needs some work to go from story to lesson and as the Bible is (purportedly) a book on how to live this is an intrinsic part of the whole thing.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
I doubt this, the translations were not forbidden, there are early translations into other languages like Gothic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_Bible

Even the Latin translation itself was a bit controversial, since the original language of thw Old Testament was hebrew - and in the Septuagint Greek, the New Testament was Greek.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure it was banned to translate it in the UK and probably also other parts of Europe during the middle ages, maybe it had been translated before that but that doesn't mean its translation was sanctioned by the church at all times.
OK, maybe it's a bit more complicated than that but....

Church attitudes toward written translations and the use of the vernacular in Mass varied by the translation, the date and location. For example, whereas the acts of Saint-Gall contain a reference to the use of a vernacular interpreter in Mass as early as the seventh century, and the 813 Council of Tours acknowledge the need for translation and encouraged such, in 1079, Duke Vratislaus II of Bohemia asked Pope Gregory VII for permission to use Old Church Slavonic translations of the liturgy, to which Gregory did not consent.
Click to expand...
And
A well-known group of letters from Pope Innocent III to the diocese of Metz, where the Waldensians were active, is sometimes taken by post-reformation scholars as evidence that Bible translations were forbidden by the church, especially since Innocent's first letter was later incorporated into canon law.
Click to expand...
I think I'm correct in the gist of what I am saying; that there were times when there was resistance from the elites to the great unwashed having a bible in their language and this was to stop them interpreting it "incorrectly" ie in a way that might inconvenience said elites. Although obviously I accept that there were times and places when this was not the case.
I thought Luther's translation was controversial at the time too although that may just be caught up in his being controversial in himself.

As for the Latin itself being a translation, yeah, sure, but there is no logic to this stuff. I've seen Americans wondering about whether mistakes could be introduced to the bible when it was translated out of its original language - English.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top