It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Bible , Chapter & Verse ?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   
As most of us know the books that make up the Bible were never written with numbered chapter and verse .

The chapter divisions commonly used today were developed by Stephen Langton, an Archbishop of Canterbury. Langton put the modern chapter divisions into place in around A.D. 1227. The Wycliffe English Bible of 1382 was the first Bible to use this chapter pattern. Since the Wycliffe Bible, nearly all Bible translations have followed Langton's chapter divisions.

The stated reason for doing this was , The Bible was divided into chapters and verses to help us find Scriptures more quickly and easily.

Ok fair enough , right ? Perhaps not ?

It would seem that quoting scriptures is has become common place and we will often see a person ministering jumping from one " scripture " to another from one book to another , very rarely ever reading more then a sentence or two per " scripture " .

What other book would we ever attempt such a thing , specially if we were trying to " prove " or express a point ?

Just think of how much " doctrine " has been created by one scripture or another ? Just imagine all the different sects that have arisen as a result of one scripture or another ?

Could it be that by jumping from one sentence to another i.e " scripture " , we could be doing more of a disservice then service ? Could this practice be doing more to promote misconceptions rather then understanding ?

Could this practice be used in some instances to manipulate and or control people ?

If the desire was one of promoting understanding rather then an attempt of getting someone to except your interpretations would one not be better served to at least read the whole chapter , so that one might be able to understand the context that the statement was given ?




posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   


This is the reason why it not the word of God...they mess it up and change alot mistake over a thousand year.

It funny how they keep changing the bible over and over and over to make people understand better, I thought God is not the author of confusion.

I guess God forgot that we speak in better language than before...



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Max_TO
What other book would we ever attempt such a thing , specially if we were trying to " prove " or express a point ?


Actually, most. When writing papers, be they research papers or book reports, the general theme is expressed, or the thesis garnered from the sources of information is expressed in the author's own words, and is supported with one or two sentences taken from one place in the book, and other sentences taken from other places. Though the paper should remain true to the entire book being sourced, only bits and pieces are used that best exemplify what is being expressed.

The same thing happens when quoting scripture. Many areas of the new testament quote sentences from the old testament, though written before the chapter/verse separations were made. The same is true in many of the books of the Prophets (Old Testament) as well in other books of the Bible.

Imagine having to write a book report on War and Peace, have to quote the entire book (or the teacher will assume you're being dishonest about the story), and keep it under 20 pages...



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by IceDash
I guess God forgot that we speak in better language than before...


It's different language. How many people do you know speak Hebrew? Greek? How many people speak English the same groovy way they did in the 60s, even? How many people do you know who regularly speak using thee, thou and art?

It is translated into languages common people speak so common people can read it without having to rely on an intellectual elite to interpret for them. Now, while it's true that we still rely on those who do the actual translation to be true to the original text, we also have tools like studylight.org which contain the original Greek and Hebrew translations and a lexicon for direct translation, so we can check.

I would say translations today are far more accurate than they had been in the past to the original Word because there are more early manuscripts available, and more people checking each other's work -- someone really blows it or changes the meaning, many other Bible scholars will call them on it.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by junglejake
 


Good point you rase , one of the reason the Bible was numbered in the first place .

However , has it served us ?

As you mentioned many papers are written with parts of various " statements " that serve to form an argument .

The thing is , as happens with the bible , the examples satiated usually reflect the creators beliefs , factual or otherwise .

Given with different people you get different beliefs or interpretations and science theory is no different . One can pick just about any topic and see many different papers written on the same topic all " proving " there point or at the very least , offering up there best interpretation on the given topic .

The one thing about a book such as the bible , or war and peace , a " believer " can read this book on there own and do a follow up on any verse and see for them selves as to the context the various comments were made .

Could it be that this practice could be perpetrating misconceptions , either by ones own laziness to check for themselves or in some cases an intentional manipulation ?


[edit on 8-12-2009 by Max_TO]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
It's possible, but such things are not the result of the book, but rather the individuals who would seek to manipulate the contents.

The most important test when hearing a sermon, I believe, is testing it against scripture. As you implied, you can take a single verse from the Bible and base an entire theology around it, but is that theology in line with the rest of the book? If not, then that person was either honestly mistaken or trying to mislead.

The idea that you can take a single line out of context is not new to this numbering system, either. Jesus Himself addressed this in Matthew 5:38-42 (easier to find this way, no?
) when He said,

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.


What He quoted came from Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21, and from the context it appears as though that was a common thing to quote to/at people when contemplating revenge or justice. Yet, Christ points out that this is out of context of the heart of the Word and the Law, and that instead people should behave as He describes. (The phrase, by the way, was given as law to Israel, to be enforced by Israel's justice system, but by that time and earlier many Jews had taken that to mean it was their own responsibility to perform those functions. This is encountered again with the adulterous woman when Christ addressed the folk who wanted to stone her saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.")

So, though the numbers may have made it easier, and maybe even more acceptable to those listening, it is certainly not a new problem!



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by junglejake
 


Right again .

May I ask , do you think the Chapter and verse , as used , promote understanding or separation and misconceptions ?

Would a " teacher " not be better served promoting one of learning what the intended context was rather then a quote of one statement ?

Is that not what Jesus was attempting to do in the example you stated ?

Seems the quote was being used to promote a misconception .

My question is , does the " verse " system do more to promote these various misconceptions or correct them ?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Wow! Does this take me back. When I was a kid our local preacher loved to relate his opinion of chapter and verse. His favorite parabol was that Langton edited the holy word while riding his ass. Everytime the donkey took a step Stevie started a new verse and everytime the jackass stumbled he started a new chapter.

Anyone stupid enough to be deceived by the translation or editing of the scripture deserves to be fooled. Wants to be fooled.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Max_TO
 

You forgot one thing, in the orginal languages there were also no spaces between words.

This system of separating verses and broad subject areas into chapters is used in the analysis of all ancient documents as a way of references sections.

Can it be misused?

Nuclear energy can be used to image a broken bone or destroy a city...
CO2 can facilitate normal Oxygen exchange in your cells and increase plant respiration...
...or it can be used as the pretext to tax world citizens and take away their soveriegnty.

Nothing is neutral...it depends how we use it.







posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
I would say it would depend on the context of the message. For example, if we were putting together a message about the church as the Bible describes it, the books of Ephesians and Colossians have a ton of information throughout. However, there are specific statements Christ said, some proverbs, as well as information in Revelation that is also extremely significant, not to mention the other epistles. In Ephesians and Colossians, the church is typically seen as the central theme, but that doesn't mean the other references aren't important.

So, in that example, I believe referencing scripture throughout the Bible would emphasize to those unfamiliar that the Bible needs to be taken as a whole (especially when using other scriptures located elsewhere to qualify the primary scripture). It draws the Bible away from being a collection of books and turns it into a single book.

On the other hand, a study into who Jesus was as a pastor could best be explored by going through the entire Gospel accounts to get a large perspective of His full character. If someone were to just take the scriptures talking about Him messing up all the moneychangers' tables in the Temple as His pastoral method, it would draw up a schism between the rest of scripture. If that teacher were well respected by the student, it is very possible that the student would believe this to be an acceptable practice to drive home a point, and do so themselves, thereby separating scripture into sentences whose function is to prove whatever point is on your mind at the time, regardless of the context or the message of the Bible as a whole.

So, once again, I would say it is not the numbering system that would be responsible, but rather individuals. It's been my experience that if someone is dedicated to the message God sent us through His Word, His whole message, they're going to strive to seek and explain the Bible as a whole, though they must do so in pieces. If, on the other hand, someone is dedicated to one cause or another, they will use the Bible to further that cause, regardless of context or the message as a whole.

One example of this comes out of the 20s, where the Teetotalers were seeking to ban alcohol from the US. They took on a verse from scripture as their motto: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!" This came from Colossians 2:21. Many thought and still think to this day that that is a Biblical mandate. Yet, let's look at the verse in context:


Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.


In context, Paul was chastising the Colossian church for adopting such a legalistic behavior, not saying to practice it. The message was one of Grace, talking about Christ's sacrifice being enough, and that by accepting Him and having the Holy Spirit dwell within, it is He we must turn to, because the Word also says that it is Christ who is our strength, when we are weak, it is then that He is strong, and that it is Christ who is our perfecter, not our ability to follow a bunch of rules.

And, with all that quoting in the last paragraph, not a single chapter/verse needed to be given



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by junglejake
 


1Allow me to help the OP push his point. 2The verse segmentation we see can be used to manipulate because we do not hear what was said before and after the quoted verse. 3if I were to say,4You are an idiot 5 for believing Bbama is the antichrist.....

Happyfeet 1:4 You are an idiot!

AMEN

In and of itself, the passage I wrote above is harmless, but when four words are given their own verse, they become distorted and an abusive saying.

"judge not lest you be judged" is an example of the opposite, where people take a line from a verse and have used it out of context.

The original as grabbed from NIV says "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

The point remains that by separating, you can distort, if you can distort, you can manipulate, we seem to have a buttload of manipulation going on in churches today now don't we?



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   

What other book would we ever attempt such a thing , specially if we were trying to " prove " or express a point ?

Paragraph numbering and line numbering are both common practices when working with any reference document. This site uses the nearly ubiquitous practice of page numbering, for the same reason.

The Bible is an interesting book. It can be read with profit from cover to cover, in the order printed, or any other order the reader likes. For that purpose, chapter divisions, and especially verse numbering, are superfluous.

But the Bible is also a reference book. And for that, an effective and efficient way to cite specific passages is a practical necessity.

I would agree that chapter divisions based on meaning can interfere with reading, and possibly even alter meaning. I was stumped the other day why Luke's narrative about the women who come to Jesus' tomb is split by a chapter boundary (between 23 and 24).

But for reference purposes, it doesn't have to be "right," it just has to be what we can all live with. I don't sense much conspiracy here.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
The King James 1611 Bible with Apocrypha is the most accurate regardless of the old English style.

I went to see the Dead Sea scrolls in the Royal Ontario Museum and it matches very closely to the KJV with a little more detail in some scriptures.

(example)
KJV: Thou shall not kill
Dead Sea Scrolls: Thou shall not murder.
(niv says this too but it is not as good as original KJV)



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   
I quote scripture a good bit. I would LOVE to post entire chapters and such, because the context of them fully does matter.

But it takes up less space, and you can get more to the point you are quoting it from out of a few verses.

I know what you are talking about however.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join