Religion acting like a giant game of telephone?

The one thing I don't see in most religious discussions is the issue of time. I'm sure some of you have played the game telephone at one point in life, but I'll explain it for those who don't know. In telephone, you get a group of people and spread them in a staggered line across a field. One person doesn't play and times the game: The goal is to get a message made by the person at the front to the end as quickly as possible, and with the message as intact as possible. For example: The guy at the front thinks up a phrase, say, "I know a guy who got high on Oxi coton (I don't know how to spell that, btw)."
He runs to the next person, tells him the message, and runs back. By the time it gets to the end, the message might be "I know a guy in high school who uses Oxi-Clean." Religion might have a similar form of transportation. I remember hearing a story about Jesus getting a message about a sick man in a nearby town. By the time he got there, 3 days later, the man was dead. However, Jesus brought him back to life. Or so the story seems. I think the '3 days' part may be a bit exaggerated. i.e., it wasn't 3 days, more like a few hours. If I remember correctly, the man died just a few moments before Jesus got there. CPR? If he got there quickly, maybe it wasn't 'magic'. Eh?

That last part may or may not be right, but the point I'm trying to get across is that the story probably changed significantly over time.

Also, if this turns into a debate (it probably will) or belongs in the debate section, I request a mod to move it there.

Research what you're talking about first. The four books of the Gospel were written from first person accounts.

/Thread

...and then translated multiple times to different languages and different dialects by different people, William Shakespeare even.

I remember something about WS putting his name into Psalms or something, like "Will shakes his spear," or something like that, not sure if it's true though because I haven't read it.

*edit*

here's a link:
http://www.umsl.edu/~thomaskp/sbible.htm

There are many different translations, some more accurate than others. The majority of which are translated directly from the original language.

They were translated, yes, but I'm sure the Latin versions are still available.

But yah, time has caused a lot of... issues with religion, which is why the church and I don't always agree on things. No matter how bruised the outside of the apple gets, the core remains pretty much the same.

Dud Doodoo wrote:Research what you're talking about first. The four books of the Gospel were written from first person accounts.

/Thread

And several of those accounts were written 200-300 years after Jesus' death

Vigil wrote:

Dud Doodoo wrote:Research what you're talking about first. The four books of the Gospel were written from first person accounts.

/Thread

And several of those accounts were written 200-300 years after Jesus' death

^^This, and a similar thing happened with the Buddha.

The Buddhist religious scriptures or records or whatever they're called were written by his followers something like 100-400 years after he died.

Not exactly sure about Islam, but the actual split happened when Muhammad died, and the schism there is whether his followers or ancestors should be the leaders of Islam.

Not exactly sure about Judaism, but then again I don't know when the Torah was written, and it's not as centrally based on one person as the above three examples are.

Also, should this be in the debate section?

i though the Jewish holy book was the first five books of the Bible? be odd if i missed something like this ive been it church school for *Checks year* officially... 12 years, 14 if i count daycare... along the lines of modern teen slang... forever

Jewdiasm, Christianity, and Islam are all based off of the first few books of the bible


its the later details where they start hating / murdering each other about differences

yeah, thats the WTF? part, i blame the spanish

A lot of the old testament is based on earlier Babylonian writings and legends like Noah's flood.

Vigil wrote:

Dud Doodoo wrote:Research what you're talking about first. The four books of the Gospel were written from first person accounts.

/Thread

And several of those accounts were written 200-300 years after Jesus' death

So people were living past 300 back then?

TNine wrote:

Vigil wrote:

Dud Doodoo wrote:Research what you're talking about first. The four books of the Gospel were written from first person accounts.

/Thread

And several of those accounts were written 200-300 years after Jesus' death

So people were living past 300 back then?

no word of mouth, like the way Homer did his storys, thats why it can be called inaccuret

TNine wrote:

Vigil wrote:

Dud Doodoo wrote:Research what you're talking about first. The four books of the Gospel were written from first person accounts.

/Thread

And several of those accounts were written 200-300 years after Jesus' death

So people were living past 300 back then?

Jeezz, and you guys get on my case for 'misunderstanding' things...

Unless your being sarcastic? What Vigil said clearly was not intended as support for what Dud said.

well... yea, you misunderstood that ringleader... T-nine was adding to Vigil's point by pointing out that people don't live 300 years

Actually, he didn't phrase it like an addition so much as a counter question, and not one that directly supports what Vigil said. In fact, it's phrased as though it's directed against what Vigil said, instead of what Dud said.

Considering how unnecessary the addition was/could have been, (tacking on the fact that people don't live 250ish years after it had been established that the passage was written 250ish years after the actual event), I have to consider the possibility that it wasn't? There's always the possibility that he skimmed through what Vigil said, and just went from there.

Nocbl2 wrote:The one thing I don't see in most religious discussions is the issue of time. I'm sure some of you have played the game telephone at one point in life, but I'll explain it for those who don't know. In telephone, you get a group of people and spread them in a staggered line across a field. One person doesn't play and times the game: The goal is to get a message made by the person at the front to the end as quickly as possible, and with the message as intact as possible. For example: The guy at the front thinks up a phrase, say, "I know a guy who got high on Oxi coton (I don't know how to spell that, btw)."
He runs to the next person, tells him the message, and runs back. By the time it gets to the end, the message might be "I know a guy in high school who uses Oxi-Clean." Religion might have a similar form of transportation. I remember hearing a story about Jesus getting a message about a sick man in a nearby town. By the time he got there, 3 days later, the man was dead. However, Jesus brought him back to life. Or so the story seems. I think the '3 days' part may be a bit exaggerated. i.e., it wasn't 3 days, more like a few hours. If I remember correctly, the man died just a few moments before Jesus got there. CPR? If he got there quickly, maybe it wasn't 'magic'. Eh?

That last part may or may not be right, but the point I'm trying to get across is that the story probably changed significantly over time.

Also, if this turns into a debate (it probably will) or belongs in the debate section, I request a mod to move it there.

So, basically, what you're saying is that if we assume that the Bible is exaggerated, then it was exaggerated? That, Nocbl, is called circular reasoning.

Vigil wrote:And several of those accounts were written 200-300 years after Jesus' death

Erm...the four gospels were written within a handful of decades of Jesus's death. If I recall, most of Paul's writings were written before the gospels. Anything pertaining to historical stuff about Jesus was written within a reasonable amount of time. It would be like saying that World War II veterans writing about their experiences in the war today would be inherently inaccurate.

Ringleader wrote:A lot of the old testament is based on earlier Babylonian writings and legends like Noah's flood.

Interesting fun fact: a legend of a world wide flood is noted in cultures that were not in communication, and generally speaking, many historians believe that there actually was some sort of cataclysmic flood. Whether or not it wiped out all life on Earth is obviously called into question, but the people of Canaan, Sumer, Ur, Babylon, and the Native Americans all note a horrible flood in their ancient teachings.

Vtrooper wrote:no word of mouth, like the way Homer did his storys, thats why it can be called inaccuret

Interesting fun fact (part 2): the Bible is the most well documented text in history. In fact, we have original manuscripts from just after it was assumed to be written, making it far more likely to be accurate than the works of Homer. Hell, it's probably even better documented than the works of Shakespeare. If you burned every single Bible in the entire world, you could reconstruct the entire Bible from extracts of various ancient historical writings.

Oh, and while we're at it, for some odd reason, when we fond really really old versions of the Bible, they just so happen to say pretty much the same exact thing that the ones today say. It's not like it was translated from Hebrew to Greek, and then the Hebrew version lost forever, and then from Greek to Latin, and the Greek version lost forever, and then Latin to German, and the Latin version lost forever, and then German to French, and the German version lost forever, and then French to English, and the French version lost forever, and then English to English (American), and the English version lost forever. Rather, it was like this: Hebrew to Greek, and then Greek to Latin and double checked with Hebrew, and then Latin to German and double checked with Greek and Hebrew, and then German to French and double checked with Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, etc etc. So really, it wasn't much like telephone at all, in that respect.

Ringleader wrote:Jeezz, and you guys get on my case for 'misunderstanding' things...

Unless your being sarcastic? What Vigil said clearly was not intended as support for what Dud said.

And TNine's wasn't supporting Vigil, but rather Dud. TNine was pointing out that if the four gospels were written 300 years after Jesus' death, then the authors, who were eye witnesses or second hand witnesses, would have had to have lived for 300+ years. He was pointing out the problem with Vigil's point.

Ringleader wrote:Actually, he didn't phrase it like an addition so much as a counter question, and not one that directly supports what Vigil said. In fact, it's phrased as though it's directed against what Vigil said, instead of what Dud said.

Considering how unnecessary the addition was/could have been, (tacking on the fact that people don't live 250ish years after it had been established that the passage was written 250ish years after the actual event), I have to consider the possibility that it wasn't? There's always the possibility that he skimmed through what Vigil said, and just went from there.

I think what KrAzY was trying to say is that you're stupid. Most of the gospels were written around 70AD (Jesus died in 33AD), from what I recall.

which is why people always say you read into things wrong

its obvious that T-nine was supporting vigil just by the contents of his post. the chance that he would be trying to defend dud with a completely stupid thing like claiming that people live 300 years is very unlikely

there is no point in you trying to defend this... its obvious what t-nine's intent was... people aren't like code, you can't read one line in one spot and automatically assume what their meaning is... you have to look at the intentions and the logic of the people making the post.

arguing this point with me will only prove peoples point that you just latch onto things and argue them no matter how logically unsound the argument is.




and no Rot, I wasn't calling RL stupid... I have no clue when the bible was written... its just obvious that T-nine doesn't think people live to 300 years old.... personally I think T-nine was backing up vigil by saying that the accounts written wern't first hand accounts

I actually have no idea when the gospels were written either, I was merely basing my point in that the way T-nine phrased his post was not clearly supportive of what Vigil said and can even be interpretive as counter argumentative, under the impression that they were written 300 AD as stated by someone else.

One case is that the gospels were written 70AD, and that T-Nine said what he did as sarcasm directed at the argument that the gospels were first hand accounts written 300 years later.

Another case is that they were 300 AD, and T-Nine was supporting the point that they were written later as non first hand accounts through sarcasm.

At any rate, I'm no theologian so...

whatevs

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Vigil wrote:And several of those accounts were written 200-300 years after Jesus' death

Erm...the four gospels were written within a handful of decades of Jesus's death. If I recall, most of Paul's writings were written before the gospels. Anything pertaining to historical stuff about Jesus was written within a reasonable amount of time. It would be like saying that World War II veterans writing about their experiences in the war today would be inherently inaccurate.

Gospel of John?

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Ringleader wrote:A lot of the old testament is based on earlier Babylonian writings and legends like Noah's flood.

Interesting fun fact: a legend of a world wide flood is noted in cultures that were not in communication, and generally speaking, many historians believe that there actually was some sort of cataclysmic flood. Whether or not it wiped out all life on Earth is obviously called into question, but the people of Canaan, Sumer, Ur, Babylon, and the Native Americans all note a horrible flood in their ancient teachings.

Link to an article or two on this information?

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Vtrooper wrote:no word of mouth, like the way Homer did his storys, thats why it can be called inaccuret

Interesting fun fact (part 2): the Bible is the most well documented text in history. In fact, we have original manuscripts from just after it was assumed to be written, making it far more likely to be accurate than the works of Homer. Hell, it's probably even better documented than the works of Shakespeare. If you burned every single Bible in the entire world, you could reconstruct the entire Bible from extracts of various ancient historical writings.

Oh, and while we're at it, for some odd reason, when we found really really old versions of the Bible, they just so happen to say pretty much the same exact thing that the ones today say. It's not like it was translated from Hebrew to Greek, and then the Hebrew version lost forever, and then from Greek to Latin, and the Greek version lost forever, and then Latin to German, and the Latin version lost forever, and then German to French, and the German version lost forever, and then French to English, and the French version lost forever, and then English to English (American), and the English version lost forever. Rather, it was like this: Hebrew to Greek, and then Greek to Latin and double checked with Hebrew, and then Latin to German and double checked with Greek and Hebrew, and then German to French and double checked with Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, etc etc. So really, it wasn't much like telephone at all, in that respect.

Most well documented? What do you mean by that? And how do you know they were original? Or even correct? After all, you said it yourself that most of the Bible was written within several decades of Jesus' death. Perhaps a few things were missed or tacked on?

And while we're at it, for some odd reason, those really really old Bible copies may be hoaxes or not written around the time of Jesus' death. And they may have been mistranslated, or misunderstood. And you obviously have never played a game of telephone. It IS like telephone. The previous knowledge is still retained by the people that have it, it's just not passed on.

I'm currently laughing my ass off at the interpretations of my post. I should probably tell you what i meant, but this is too fucking funny.

Rot wrote:So, basically, what you're saying is that if we assume that the Bible is exaggerated, then it was exaggerated? That, Nocbl, is called circular reasoning.

hehe, that's funny, considering the source.

rot wrote:It would be like saying that World War II veterans writing about their experiences in the war today would be inherently inaccurate.

If those WWII veterans were the only ones writing about it, and there weren't any other documentations of a "World War II," we'd probably think they were pretty crazy.

KrAzY wrote:its obvious that T-nine was supporting vigil just by the contents of his post. the chance that he would be trying to defend dud with a completely stupid thing like claiming that people live 300 years is very unlikely

That's not how I read it. Dud said that the Gospels were first-hand accounts. Vigil then pointed out that some of the accounts of Jesus were written upwards of 300 years after his death.

T-nine was not necessarily supporting either argument. He was, however, pointing out the fact that Vigil's post was irrelevant, as dud was NOT referring to the accounts written 300+ years later, but of those who were supposedly alive at the time of Jesus' life.

I think T-nine was mocking Vigil for acting as though dud was referring to accounts written 300 years later when he was instead referring to firsthand accounts.

Either way, how fucking appropriate for us to be having an argument like this in a thread about Telephone.

ReconToaster wrote:

rot wrote:It would be like saying that World War II veterans writing about their experiences in the war today would be inherently inaccurate.

If those WWII veterans were the only ones writing about it, and there weren't any other documentations of a "World War II," we'd probably think they were pretty crazy.

But they wouldn't have been crazy.

ReconToaster wrote:That's not how I read it. Dud said that the Gospels were first-hand accounts. Vigil then pointed out that some of the accounts of Jesus were written upwards of 300 years after his death.

Actually, Vigil said "several of those", meaning that he was specifically referring to the gospels. Vigil is correct in the sense that many things in the bible were not recorded for centuries after their origin, but such is not the case with the gospels.

You left out the part where from the original texts the Church only picked certain books to be in the bible while leaving out many others. So yes it is a game of telephone where the person being talked about is also playing the game.

Ironically, most of the "accounts" that were written 300+ years after Jesus' death were not included in the Bible, because they weren't universally recognized as canonical. The Gnostic Gospels aren't exactly a good example to use when trying to say the Bible was written much later, when they weren't part of the Bible.