Bible vs. Bible

[GELongstreet]

What about the real Bible vs Bible? I mean, the American churches split over and over in the decades before ... for sure there were more versions than just a universal King James Bible available?

 

[unionblue]

For at least 1,500 years, religion sided with slavery for the most part. Southerners didn't have to 'invent' or 'force' any interpretation, however, the abolitionists were the ones that had to 'force' a new interpretation.

Thank God.

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

Yes but fundamentalists religion allowed themselves the luxury of scanning the Bible for liberal interpretations of text- i.e believed ( and still do ) that everything written there is from God personally. Non fundamentalists believe only the Gospel texts were Holy, everything else was written by mere man plus Old Testament and New are not to be taken together as ' Word of God'. Point being it wasn't always Bible v Bible- only segments of the population whose religious teachings swore by fundamentalist perspective could argue those points.

I do not have from the top of my head which religions were fundamentalist in those days. Catholics were ( and are ) not, hence one of the reasons there was so much prejudice. How dare anyone suggest this was not an entirely Holy book? It isn't ,as some religions knew very well. Book of Psalms contains love poems which somehow made the final cut. Chastising women doesn't work out very well these days either.

 

[ForeverFree]

What then would you call slavery in Ethiopia, brown people deciding what was best for society in disregard of the darker brown people?

I believe I've already stated that I believe the New Testament is a product of the early Greek philosophers and their beliefs in justice, virtue, etc. Paul was educated in Greek philosophy.

Doesn't the below sound familiar?

http://blogs.loc.gov/law/2012/02/abolition-of-slavery-in-ethiopia/
Emperor Haile Selassie had a twofold diagnosis as to why his predecessors' efforts to curb or end slavery had failed: a combination of failure to put in place enforcement mechanisms to accompany numerous laws issued over the years, and the enormity of the problem due to the fact that slavery was "deeply rooted in tradition" (Haille Sellassie, Vol. I, p. 80; Vol. II, P. 175). He was convinced that "it was impossible to uproot such an ancient institution simply by writing laws." He also feared that a sudden end to slavery would create an influx of a large underclass with no means to support itself; that would have created two million destitute people overnight (Pankhurst, 1968, p. 118; Comyn-Platt p. 164).

Same source. This also sounds familiar.

Ethiopia also needed to show results in its fight to end slavery so as to deny European powers an excuse they could use to take it over, particularly Britain, France and Italy, whose colonies at the time surrounded it.

This was particularly true for Britain, whose opposition to slavery in Ethiopia was "based primarily on imperialist and strategic designs,"

What does Ethiopia have to do with a discussion of slavey in the US? Are you saying that Ethiopia was a role model for US slavery... or what?

- Alan

 

[1SGDan]

I think it would be well to remember that anything can be propagandized...even the Bible.

 

[James B White]

What about the real Bible vs Bible? I mean, the American churches split over and over in the decades before ... for sure there were more versions than just a universal King James Bible available?

As far as I know, the King James Version was the one used by almost all churches, other than those who used non-English translations.

 

[YankeeDoodle]

Fluff. The Gospel had nothing to do with slavery in America. The words can be interpreted to mean anything one likes to believe. Pray with venomous snakes? Sure. Peyote? OK. Polygamy? Why not? James Jones? Could he have had a good idea?

One tends to find in the Bible whatever one's justification needs.

The Bible was used as justification for slavery throughout the South.,.,its obvious its writers both old and new believed slavery was a good thing ...part of the Divine will..but you are right,,,the Bible was written by many people and has many different meanings and ideas..and slave holders used it to justify their actions...

 

[YankeeDoodle]

OK, I get it, I think.

It was a sin to bring slaves to America and use them as slave laborers.

But it was not a sin to keep the descendants of those stolen in slavery. In fact, "religion" had nothing to do with it, it was a matter of whites determining how best society should be, for themselves.

- Alan

You put your finger on a contradiction they realized...if slavery was a good thing,.,why not open the slave trade? One preacher went so far as to say that God led the Negros to the west coast of Africa to await passage to the New World where they could learn the blessings of Christianity! Yes that is what he said!

 

[jgoodguy]

Less rhetoric about the bible and more period quotes please.

 

[OpnCoronet]

All men are by nature equal, made all of the same earth by one Workman... Plato
Yet if one reads Plato's Republic, they'll understand he meant equal before the Creator only. IMO, the New Testament is more of an offshoot of Plato and the early Greek philosophers than the Old Testament or Judaism.

Very informative, about pagan philosophers. However, more relevant to this particular thread, the Bible actually says 'All men are by nature sinful and unclean' and are therefore condemned by that nature, except for the Grace of God.

 

[dvrmte]

OK, I get it, I think.

It was a sin to bring slaves to America and use them as slave laborers.

But it was not a sin to keep the descendants of those stolen in slavery. In fact, "religion" had nothing to do with it, it was a matter of whites determining how best society should be, for themselves.

- Alan

If you can figure out how to separate religion from morality and philosophy, you might have a point, but I doubt you can. Since slaves were considered part of the white, black or Indian family owning them, then according to the divine order(Great Chain of Being), keeping them enslaved was in their best interest as well.

 

[dvrmte]

What does Ethiopia have to do with a discussion of slavey in the US? Are you saying that Ethiopia was a role model for US slavery... or what?

- Alan

I guess I'm not allowed to answer that, but it doesn't make sense that they could be a role model since the quotes were from the 20th century.

 

[Allie]

As far as I know, the King James Version was the one used by almost all churches, other than those who used non-English translations.

Catholics did not use the King James.

I believe the commonly used Catholic translation in the 1860's would have been the Challoner version of the Douay-Rheims. The Catholic Bible includes several books which are considered part of the Apocrypha by Protestants, most importantly as far as doctrinal difference, the books of Maccabees which contain instructions to pray for the dead. I'm not familiar with the standing of the Apocrypha in most Protestant denominations but Episcopalians consider them suitable for devotions but not authoritative.

 

[Allie]

This is a list of translations of the Bible published in the nineteenth century. As you can see there are many - most of these don't seem to have seen wide use.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/versbib9.html

 

[rhettbutler1865]

I have not read this book from cover to cover, but I own it and use it as a reference. Very interesting and comprehensive. It should be available at large libraries.

God's Almost Chosen Peoples: A Religious History of the American Civil War - George Rable

Throughout the Civil War, soldiers and civilians on both sides of the conflict saw the hand of God in the terrible events of the day, but the standard narratives of the period pay scant attention to religion. Now, in God's Almost Chosen Peoples, Lincoln Prize-winning historian George C. Rable offers a groundbreaking account of how Americans of all political and religious persuasions used faith to interpret the course of the war.

Examining a wide range of published and unpublished documents--including sermons, official statements from various churches, denominational papers and periodicals, and letters, diaries, and newspaper articles--Rable illuminates the broad role of religion during the Civil War, giving attention to often-neglected groups such as Mormons, Catholics, blacks, and people from the Trans-Mississippi region. The book underscores religion's presence in the everyday lives of Americans north and south struggling to understand the meaning of the conflict, from the tragedy of individual death to victory and defeat in battle and even the ultimate outcome of the war. Rable shows that themes of providence, sin, and judgment pervaded both public and private writings about the conflict. Perhaps most important, this volume--the only comprehensive religious history of the war--highlights the resilience of religious faith in the face of political and military storms the likes of which Americans had never before endured. George Rable

- Alan

Thank you, Alan, for tying this talk about members' views on religion and theology into the Civil War, where it should be.

 

[Allie]

One belief that I have encountered among modern fundamentalists doesn't seem to have existed at the time of the Civil War: the belief that the King James translation was itself uniquely blessed, perfect, and not to be tampered with.

This page quotes an 1850 discussion within the American and Foreign Bible Society, a Baptist organization, which sheds light on their attitude towards the King James in response to a proposed new translation that would correct the many errors they believed to exist in the King James:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/abu.html

Nevertheless, most Baptists at the time were not inclined to support any revision of the KJV. At the meeting of the Society held in 1850, many members strongly objected to the project. A report of the meeting records that one member (Mr. Turnbull of Hartford, Conn.) protested that "He must confess that his reverence for the Bible had been greatly wounded by the language which had been used in regard to the imperfections of the present version. He did not like to hear it said that it contained 20,000 errors. Dr. Blaney had said the same thing of the Greek original from which the translation was made, but upon examination they proved of a very insignificant character. He hoped that these trivial imperfections, whether in a Greek manuscript or in the English version, would not be forced into a magnitude which did not belong to them." Another member (the Rev. Dr. Ide) waxed eloquent with the following words: "We have learned this English Bible at our mother's knee. Ought we to shake the confidence of the people? Can you put any stop to the course of the Infidel, if you thus shake the confidence of the community in the Bible? Whatever differences there may be between the various denominations of Christians, while we have that good old English Bible, there is a broad golden band that unites us all together—that still makes us one family and household of faith. If we have a new Bible, this band will be sundered. We shall be the Ishmaelites of Christendom. Even if we voted for a new version, it would be impossible to carry it into effect. You may appoint a congress of theologians; but think you that the associations of two hundred and forty years can thus be erased? Think you that Christians who have learned to lisp their Saviour's name from this book, can thrust it aside and take up with a new version? Dear old English Bible! we will not forsake thee ... " 3 Near the end of this emotional assembly, Cone expressed his disappointment:

Although the group argued in favor of the KJB and eventually decided against a new translation, the reason given was not that the KJB was inspired or perfect but that it was familiar.