CJ -

It appears that profundity is more extensive than had been realised. BD recently followed Oliver over onto the technical thread just in case he hadn't heard enough yet on the Chosen Subject. He concluded with:-

"It would be GREAT if OLO allowed greek characters..we could have a field day with 'cases, declensions, verbs nouns, articles and tenses'

Oh happy day :) "BD does some happy clapping" "

So you see we have misunderstood him: he is indeed capable of hiding his light under a bushel - and we were hijacked by his lack of facility with the English language into not realising that he was in fact a Greek scholar. And to think - he never breathed a word!

You continue to miss the point, Boaz, to the extent that I wonder whether this is not just a cynical ploy to wear down contrary argument until it disappears.

>>"Son of God" may well have been added as you say.. shock horror... What you miss of course, is that even if it was added, as a kind of explanitory embellishment, it is in complete harmony with the rest of Scripture about which thee is no textual dispute.<<

That has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making.

If some versions have the text.

And other versions don't have the text.

Then there can be no possible objective assessment of its meaning.

Why is this such a difficult proposition for you to grasp?

You presented text for analysis.

I pointed out that it had been translated, and therefore had already been "tampered with".

You suggest that this doesn't make any difference, and proceed with your own version of an objective analysis of the text.

I pointed out that some of the words you used may, or may not, have been in the original, thus rendering pointless any attempt to derive from it untainted and objective meaning.

Look, you started this thread, and we are all know why.

>>It seems that one of the biggest barriers we face in bring our various passionate discussion to a point of agreement is this area of 'how' do we interpret a document<<

Your objective was to establish for yourself better credentials when offering your biased interpretation of Islamic texts.

Face it Boaz, you have not only failed spectacularly to achieve this, but you have also illustrated perfectly your unerringly flawed approach to the topic.

Bit of an own goal, really.

Incidentally...

>>only when you open the door will He come in. Now..you might counter "OH..but look at this unreliable text that your last sentense is based on"<<

The idea that my atheism has anything to do with the content of the Bible is frankly insulting.

>>You only have to answer to God<<

Nope.

None of us does.

Dear Pericles..no, wear_u_down? No, I'm just trying to bring them/you to the actual point of this thread.

Let me re-state it.. yet_again.

"How a text is interpreted AS IT STANDS".....by a faith community, and in the objective sense by ANY person who understands the language and its grammar.

Now.. [as it stands] may be

"The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ The Son of God"
OR..
"The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ"

EACH sentence has an objective meaning in terms of grammar!

So.. it doesn't matter (for the sake of this exercise) WHICH one you choose.. what matters is that the ONE you choose is properly understood AS-IT-STANDS..and how it used by a faith community. Sorry..but ur just not getting this..

Now.. it could be ANY chunk of text.

You said:

<<And other versions don't have the text.
Then there can be no possible objective assessment of its meaning.
Why is this such a difficult proposition for you to grasp?>>

Why is it so difficult for you to grasp that ur missing the point:)

There is an objective meaning of this very sentence I'm writing.
There is of any sentence. You seem to be hung up on the idea that I'm saying "The Biblical Text says this and only this so help me God"
Er..no, I'm saying that words on a page have meaning.

If you wish to discuss the CORRECT or MOST RELIABLE verrrrsion of that text, then it's a different topic already.

A Muslim cares VERY much what "Allah" is supposed to have said in the Quran. (and when "I" am mentioned there...so do I!)

http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s287380.htm
Sheikh Fehmi Iman
<<Islam is the clear clean page which doesn't change. It didn't change in the past, is not changing now, it will not change in the future.>>

Do you understand the objective meaning of that part of the transcript Pericles? (and of course he is just the Mufti of Australian Sunni's)

You see.. the Muslim community believes that the Quran is (not 'contains') "The dictated words of Allah".. a rather important point I'd have thought.

"The opening verse of Mark appears straightforwardly simple in the usual translations that treat it as almost the title of Mark's work: “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (NRSV). The phrase that appears in brackets in the Greek (“Son of God”) is acknowledged by a footnote saying that some ancient authorities lack it." - Reading Mark as Theology in the Context of
Early Judaism. - Marie Noonan Sabin (2002, p.34) - author. Oxford University Press.

Above, Sabin suggests that "Son of God" was added-in, not taken-out from the original. In the context of her book, the former shorter version was for the Jews and the "Son of God" version for the Christians. That is, are there two audiences over time? First the Jewish, then the Christian. I feel any Bible version footnote should be fully annotated to show this series of events in full. Not "some manuscripts omit", rather, "original Jewish manuscripts omit": It begs the reader to question. Questioning is good.

Boazy, Do you believe the Tsimshian resurrection story? What about turtledoves and ravens from heaven. Similiarities? What if 200 years latter someone added, the Son, He, returned as the Son of God?

Is this truncated poem, written by Lucretius, first century BCE, easier to understand the Bible? Why is the Bible so vague? This poem is esoteric but understable, methinks:

No need to closely examine word-by-word, just read fluently.

Now here is something we must not think probable,
Since space is infinite on every side,
Since atoms numberless throughout the mighty universe
Fly here and there, by motion everlasting, e’er implied,
That this one world of ours, this earth and sky
Alone were brought to birth.

Beyond the confines of this earth we know,
Nature does nothing.
Particularly as the world we know
Was made by Nature thus:
The atoms of their own accord
Jostled from time to time by chance,
In random fashion, clashed, and blindly, heedlessly
And oft in vain,
Until at last were unions suddenly achieved
To be the starting points of mighty things,
Of earth and sea and sky, of every living thing.

And so I say again, again you must confess
That somewhere in the universe
Are other meetings of the atom stuff resembling this of ours;
And these the aether holds in greedy grip.
For when the atom stuff is there,
And space in which the atom stuff may move,
And neither thing nor cause to bring delay,
The process of creation must go on; things must be made.

Now as it is,
If atom stocks are inexhaustible,
Greater than power of living things to count,
If Nature’s same creative power were present too
To throw the atoms into unions -- exactly as united now,
Why then confess you must
That other worlds exist in other regions of the sky,
And different tribes of men, kinds of wild beasts.

...

As much as ever human body here on earth,
As much as every class of things,
Abounding in examples, kind by kind.

The meaning is clear as crystal, I posit. Why not the Bible?

Hi Oly :)

Good thoughts about the footnotes, the story behind each would be too voluminous to fit. The Bible then would be 90% footnote explanations and 10% Bible.

Just out of curiosity.. on topic and regarding my last post "The words on a page have meaning".. do you see where I was heading with that? My contention all along is how to interpret the text as 'your/my' group accepts it(the_text).

So.. "love one another as_I_have_loved_you"

is a very straightforward command, which assumes a known meaning of 'love' and also a knowledge of 'how' Jesus demonstrated that quality.

There are easy ones and harrrrd ones.. I mean really hard.. such as

"It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me" While I know what that means myself.. in terms of language alone, it surely does raise some/many issues of exactly how to interpret it no?

To your question.

No, I don't believe the Tsimshian myth. I believe it is their way of understanding their relationship to the cosmos and how they find self understanding. My wifes kinship/ancestral geneologies go back a longggg way.. name after name after name.. until after many many names.. they come to one 'Arang Bawang' who's father was.. the sun:)
His name means 'hanging around the place' in coloquial Aussiespeak:)

Here is a good one too..I worked among these people and was named after a headman there.

<<One popular myth among the Kelabit is that all human kind were originally from the highlands until a BIG FLOOD flooded the whole earth. Many people had to build rafts to survive and were brought to the coastal areas by the water. However, some had build big and heavy rafts, and therefore were stranded on the highlands. And, that is why and how the Kelabit remained on the highlands to this day.>>

http://www.unimas.my/ebario/community.html

TSIMSHIAN myth of CJ.
I was right:) "spirits help us"
See http://www.shannonthunderbird.com/Pacific%20Northwest%20Coast.htm
Section "The way it was"

"Living a good life depended on having good relations with the spiritual world"