This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Working Title: The Bible: From YKTTW
Azukar: I think the entry should have another Death Trope, referring to the way Jesus' death had to happen to advance the story; there wasn't any alternative. I thought it was Plotline Death, but that turned out not to mean what I thought it did. Any ideas?
Sikon: Please don't kill me.
Fast Eddie: Seems pretty balanced, Sikon.
BT The P: I just love the spoiler text.
The Defenestrator: I just love how it's cited as an example of "fanon"
The Jerf: Ditto on the spoiler text.
The Defenestrator: also: "Jesus Taboo (averted)"
Sikon: I think "Jesus Taboo (averted)" should go because aversions are not examples.
Seth: They usually don't get listed at all. I'd leave it in just for the joke.
Bob: Hurray! Seth likes my joke! Now that a guy named after an Egyptian god has approved of one of my edits, the prophecy is nearing it's completion. Muahahahahaha!
Yo Adrian: The fact that we have spoiler cuts for the effin' BIBLE still kills me, for some reason.
Sniffnoy: Removed "New Testament" from Adaptation Distillation because it's an addition, not an adaptation, and for that matter, only adds things, which is the opposite of distillation.
Seth: Opposite of Adaptation Distillation would be... Continuity Polloution
Etrangere: Awww. What should it be then, is there a The Sequel trope of some kind?
Sci Vo: I would actually characterize it as a spinoff to an alternate continuity rather than a sequel, since of course Judaism continues to this day, and work on the Talmud (the original continuity from the Tanakh) continued until the 5th century (according to my ultra-quick search and skim).
Etrangere: Spin-Off sounds great. I wouldn't call the Talmud a sequel to the Torah / Tanakh though. It's more of an interpretation/commentary (put it as Epileptic Trees). Maybe Dis Continuity instead?
Seth: Spin-Off works. You know, as a Christian. I wonder if i should feel bad at how funny this is.
Sci Vo: @Etrangere, I don't mean that the New Testament and Talmud are direct analogs. To me, they effectively represent the alternate continuities of Christanity and Judaism.
Grimace: I know this was all a while ago most likely, but can I just say that the sillyness of the above conversation fills me with a sort of giddy joy I'm not really used to. And they say you can't discuss religion on the internet! :P
I just added a bunch of examples, some of which are not found in the Protestant Bible. Is this going to end up a canon-related flame war?
Sci Vo: No, we have the right tools for describing emotionally powerful disagreements in neutral ways. I just added Dis Continuity with an explanation. //Edit: But let's please avoid declaring them 'deuterocanonical' or 'apocryphal', thanks.
Fast Eddie: On the subverted spoiler thing... Isn't Jesus supposed to be the son of Him/Her/It? Not that I really care. All that religiosity stuff is pretty opaque to me.
Sci Vo: Yes, in Christian belief, Jesus is the Son of the Father, and He is also one of the three persons of the three-in-one God. (The third is the Paraclete, or Holy Spirit.) It is considered one of the Holy Mysteries that they are truly three persons — not just avatars like the different forms of a D&D god — while also being truly one God.
Fast Eddie: Thanks, although I now have to go off and think about whether I understand avatars correctly. Anyway. In other news... looking back at the history on this, I discovered that someone had figured a way to spoof my handle to bluenose the entry. Gap closed, now. Thanks, bluenoser. Always nice to find those little holes.
Sci Vo: It's possible that I misunderstood them, or even more likely that different authors have written them in different ways. Taking it to Dungeons And Dragons Discussion.
Lale: Actually, Christianity (at least, not all of it) doesn't adhere to the "purely allegorical" politically-correct approach.
HeartBurn Kid: The problem is that ascribing any value to Christianity as a whole would be much like ascribing a value to say, Europe as a whole — there's so many different factions therein, with different views and values, as to render any but the most basic, universal statements false to some degree.
Oh, and reverted this bit:
Because, even out here in that liberal stronghold known as California, I've never heard anybody seriously suggest the notion of banning the Bible. In fact, most of the book banners I've ever had the (dis)pleasure of speaking with cite the Bible as their main inspiration.
Lale: Of course, nobody could ever seriously demand any book be "banned" in America (1st Amendment, ya-da ya-da...). The technical term is "challenge" (when Media Watchdogs say kids shouldn't be exposed to things like Harry Potter for promoting witchcraft, Bridge to Terabithia for promoting sexual immorality, and anything published before 1960 for promoting racism); The Bible has made the list. "Banned books" just has Added Alliterative Appeal, I guess. Banned Book Week every September is actually about "celebrating the Freedom to Read," but I digress.
Seven Seals: Hang on, what list? I've looked around a bit, but all I can find is people who use the notion of "banning the Bible" as a rallying cry (either for or against). If the Bible actually made the list of challenged books, that would be interesting, especially where and who.
First Amendment notwithstanding, when we're talking "banning" in America, you'd mean "thrown out of libraries and book shops altogether in certain areas". This is what the ALA calls "challenged", but of course the degree to which it is "challenged" varies.
Of course, outside the US the Bible has been banned in places where it doesn't agree with the state religion (or prohibition thereof) but that's another topic.
HeartBurn Kid: Let me rephrase, then; I've never heard of somebody seriously challenging the Bible (in the western world, anyway). The only calls I've ever heard for bible-banning were tongue-in-cheek rebuttals against book protesters, in order to say, "Practice what you preach".
Lale: Beethoven Was an Alien Spy? Very funny. In any case, it may be ancient history today, but not when it was written.
Pteryx: Bah, you got rid of the "earliest attempts at a shared universe" bit, Lale? That was my favorite part of the humor.
Caswin: Okay, it's back... and I still don't remember any Rape Is Love or Rape Is Okay When Its Female On Male. Where are those coming from?
Caswin: Removing as per above and tempted to cry foul. ("Many examples," honestly...)
Max: Far be it for me to try to correct someone else about the Bible (I refuse to read the damn thing because it's just plain boring,) but didn't...Lot, I think it was, didn't his daughters rape him while he was drunk? Maybe that's what they meant.
crapface: ok is puting spolertags on that guys name a runninggag on this websight?
Mark Z: Replaced the opening quote with the NIV, which is less clunky here.
Looney Toons: I know we already went through this extensively before the Great Crash, but Lord Seth, are you seriously claiming that there is only one error of fact in the whole Bible by deleting my list and replacing it with your one entry?
Lord Seth:Okay, here goes: Pi=3: I'm not entirely certain what the problem here is. Claiming that pi=3.14 is also incorrect. Claiming that pi=3.1416 is also incorrect. Claiming that pi=3.141592654 is also incorrect. No one has ever used the exact value of pi in calculations ever; EVERYONE rounds to a certain extent when using it. The other problem is: Who said the thing was perfectly circular in the first place?
Four-legged insects: Although I'm far from an expert on ancient Hebrew, it seems the original Hebrew word that was translated as insect has a lot more MEANINGS than just insect.
Square, flat earth with four corners: I don't know of any passages that actually call the Earth flat, but in regards to the "four corners" passage(s): Isaiah 11:12 does refer to the "four corners of the Earth" in some English translations. First: This expression is still in use today, with people who are aware the world is round, so who says it has to be taken literally? The second, and bigger problem is that the original word that was translated as corner actually didn't mean "corner" as in a square's corner. This kind of problem crops up when languages whose vocabulary isn't perfectly synchronous have to be translated into each other.
I don't see any problems with listing things that might actually be errors, but I don't think they should have a list that is actually an example of Did Not Do The Research in itself.
Looney Toons: I think you're forgetting that the last time we went through this discussion, I gave you chapter-and-verse quotes to support these. I'll have to do so again when I get home tonight.
Looney Toons (10 or so hours later): Okay, let's see...
- Pi = 3. 1 Kings 7:23, describing a ceremonial vessel for the temple, cites its dimensions as 30 cubits around and 10 cubits across. This calculates out to a value of 3, and this value has been on occasion seriously proposed by Biblical literalists as the only "correct" value of pi based on its presence in the Bible. (The stories of various states trying to enshrine the value into law are, however, apocryphal or outright jokes.)
- Four-legged insects. You are correct that the word here apparently has more meanings than just "insect". One of the most commonly used alternates (for Biblical translations, at least) is "bird". Thus, Leviticus 11:20-21 may be found to declare, depending on your choice of edition that either insects or birds "that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you." I'd certainly not disagree with that; a four-legged ground-bound bird would certainly be weird enough to count as an "abomination" in my book.
- Ah, here's one I had in the original text before The Great Crash, but forgot when I restored it: Hares that chew cud. Gotta put that one back in. Leviticus 11:6 and Deuteronomy 14:7 both explicitly specify that hares chew cud. Hares do not chew cud, they are biologically incapable of it
- Mustard seed. Matthew 13:31-32 not only mentions the non-existent mustard tree, but also claims — in the voice of one who is saying more or less "as you all know" — that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds. That's also a pretty bogus claim that could be disproven by anyone who's ever had a poppy seed bagel.
- Ooh, here's a good one. Try this on an anti-Evolution Literalist some time: Genesis 30:37-39 claims Lamarckian evolution works. Or something close enough to really freak them out. Jacob makes his goats breed striped offspring by making them look at striped poles. New Revised Standard Version: Then Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the rods. He set the rods that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the rods, and so the flocks produced young that were striped, speckled, and spotted. If the Bible is inerrant and this actually works, then you can drive an entire system of evolution off of acquired characteristics. Of course, we know that Lamarckian evolution is hogwash. But it's fun to spot it popping up in the Bible.
- Flat earth. Okay, yeah, some of the passages are clearly poetic or symbolic, although try saying that to the Bible Literalists, who insist that every word in the Bible is literally true exactly as written and that there is no "allegorical" or "metaphoric" content to them at all. That aside, there are contradictions within the errors themselves. Some verses do describe a flat, four-cornered earth; there's Job 38:13, that actually says the earth is a flat sheet like a carpet that can be shaken out, and several others (including Job 9:6 and I Samuel 2:8) that say the earth rests on pillars that support it. Then again there's Isaiah 40:22, Proverbs 8:27 and Isaiah 40:22, all of which say the earth is a flat disc — so someone's confused. Is it a rectangle/square or a circle? Either way, one of those is in error, because they both can't be literally true.
- Job chapter 38 is very big on the idea of a stationary earth with a physical foundation on which it rests. Job 38:6 specifically quotes God saying he laid a cornerstone for the earth.
- And Psalms 93:1 blatantly states that the world doesn't move: "The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved."
Anyway, if you really want to shake up a literalist — particularly a female one — quote Revelation 14:1-4 at them, which states outright that the only ones who will get into heaven are 144,000 male virgins. Period. Then again, Heaven's rather small, only 1500 miles square, which is a bit smaller than Australia, so I guess they don't have the space for anyone else.
- Careful there. It's 1500 miles CUBED. Even if we assume that all the ceilings in the place are great glorious domes that put the Vatican itself to shame, it's still countless worlds' worth of floor space. The new Jerusalem is *humongous*.
- And there's another error there, too, because Job 11:9 says that heaven and hell's measurements are "longer than the earth And broader than the sea". So the earth must be smaller than Australia.
Lord Seth: Wow, I think you overdid that a little! The ironic thing is that my edit was an attempt at stopping some kind of "interpretation war" like...er...the one my edit apparently started. I won't repeat what I said before (such as on the subject of pi) to save space, but here goes:
- Rabbits don't chew what is in English "cud", correct. However, they do chew their food after digesting it. They don't do it in the same way as cows or animals that actually do chew cud, but it's similar enough that I could see a culture thousands of years ago putting the two together.
- Genesis 30:37-39: You're right, it does state that it seemed that the poles had the effect of adding stripes to the goats. However, this is shortly clarified via the Retcon in Genesis 31:10-13 which implies that God interceded and personally made the goats have the stripes, and that the animals looking at the poles had nothing to do with it.
- Flat earth: Way to pull out the examples, man! As I'm already taking up a great deal of space (and will also take up some with my next bit), I'll try to be brief and just respond to a few. Some, as you noted yourself, aren't meant to be taken literally in the first place. I personally interpreted the "foundation" and "cornerstone" of Job 38:6 and Job 38:13 to be referring to the formation of the Earth itself, not any kind of foundation it literally stands on.
- Revelation: No idea how the topic of Revelation came up, but I don't think it ever stated that only 144,000 made it into heaven, especially given that the great judgement that decides that doesn't even occur for four more chapters. Also, it didn't state that heaven was 1500x1500 feet, it was referring to a new version of Jerusalem that came out of heaven...which, to be fair, may be a LITTLE big.
The real problem I have is that the Did Not Do The Research examples (especially now) look more like a Take That! than anything else, especially with the "and many other blatant errors of fact" part. I thought my original edit at least made the phrasing kind of funny.
Big T: Moved this here per Lord Seth. In this case, Did Not Do The Research is being used subjectively, and it is not a Subjective Trope. Maybe there's a better trope out there to put these in, but until then, let's not intentionally invite controversy. This wiki is supposed to be fun. Anyways, most of these are translation-based examples of Adaptation Decay.
- Did Not Do The Research (Passages which describe mustard seeds growing into trees; proclaim a flat earth which is immobile; declare pi = 3; describe insects and birds as both having four legs; insist that hares chew cud like cattle; claims that goats that see striped poles will automatically have striped offspring; that a house or clothes can have leprosy and be cured of it; that consciousness resides in the kidneys; and many other blatant errors of fact.)
Big T: I think this go back out on the main page, sans examples, as they are just going to invite natter. Seth and LP have been good to keep it on this page, so let's go all the way. I'll try to reword as delicately as possible, though.
Looney Toons: Got back from long vacation a couple days ago and am slowly working my way through changes; I finally got here. Despite your intentions, T, your execution comes across a bit heavy-handed and unilateral. Your revision is also missing a couple words and makes little sense as-is.
Lord Seth: Kind of have to agree, and was about to post on that. I switched it to something else, but then thought maybe I should post the idea and see what people think, so I switched it back. How about:
- Did Not Do The Research: Some people consider there to be scientific errors throughout the Bible. Examples include <section deleted due to potential Serious Business>.
Looney Toons: Re: rephrasing, I like it; I was disappointed when I saw you had reverted it in the page history. Especially since you reverted it to T's semi-illiterate thing. In regards to The Rashomon, no. That trope involves multiple eyewitnesses with multiple stories, and we know for a fact that at least two of the gospels were written decades after Christ's ministry by people who weren't there.
Lord Seth: Switched back, then. I'm still on the fence regarding listing The Rashomon; you're absolutely right, the gospels are not really an example of the trope, but listing it as an example seems inherently funny enough, at least in my opinion, to do so anyway.
HeartBurn Kid: I dunno, I think it kinda counts. After all, several of the gospels were written by people who actually were there (even if they did write them years later), and even they contradict each other.
Big T: You know, I almost come away from this discussion thinking that you guys were insulting me, not my (apparently sloppy writing). I really don't think you can call writing illiterate anyways. But you definitely weren't referring to me, as the fact that I could understand it makes me a better reader than you. :P
Uknown Troper: I'm Late to the Party on this, but concerning the "Pi=3" bit, I have some interesting reading for all of you:
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm
- "Um... Isn't "3.14" the approximation we all use for pi? Perhaps those Phoenicians were fairly accurate after all."
Obadiahthe Slim: I'm not sure what the person meant by the New Testament authors misquoting the Old Testament? They quoted out of the Greek Septuagint. This would lead to differences from the original Hebrew texts. This is even more glaring when you run the Greek translation through yet another translation to your English or <insert other language here> Bibles. So I edited that bit out of the entry.
- Also the whole 4 legged insects or birds. This is a bit of Lost in Translation. IIRC, its something like Walking legs vs creeping legs to describe who they walked around. You'd better ask a Hebrew language expert for that point and not me.
- Oh and the Pi = 3. Pi is exactly 3 if you use natural numbers which they were limited to.
- Also the Earth being immobile. Somebody failed physics there. If the Earth is used as a frame of reference, you can then use it as a basis for describing the motion of the sun and moon. It's just like modern high school astronomy calling the Sun immobile and the Earth and planets revolving around it. Its not technically correct, but its all a matter of relativity because the truth is a heck of a lot more complicated because it involves our motion relative to the center of the galaxy and the galaxy's motion.
Big T:
Later: Nevermind. I got it mixed up with Viewers Are Morons. Seems like I'm the one who doesn't know what it means! I put it back...
Fast Eddie: quote too long ..
- Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.Introduction to the Gospel of Luke, 1:1-4
Lord Seth: Is that really too long? I've seen longer, really, and it seems to fit the article well...
Big T: There ought to be a way to condense it. Pages seem naked without quotes. I'll try:
- [Since others have tried write down what has happened to us] ...it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you ... so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4 NIV, abridged)
I don't know, it seems to be a bit more Christian in its point of view. There's got to be a better quote.
Lord Seth: Put back the "Fan Sequel (The Book of Mormon)" example. I honestly don't see how it's a problem or even offensive (Rule of Funny!), but if someone feels it is feel free to bring it up here.
- Halcyon Umbra: As a Mormon myself, I found it very funny. The whole page is awesome.
Cakeor Death: I love the way there are spoiler tags in the text.
Inkblot: I'm an atheist, and because of this article I now want to read the Bible. Good job, tropers.
Sikon: By all means, do it (I say that as an atheist myself), if only to have one heck of Values Dissonance shock.
Scorpio3002: I'd recommend skimming (if not completely skipping) Leviticus: it has stopped many a curious reader dead in their tracks. This is because it was written almost completely by the P source, which is source of the dullest writing in the bible (nothing but lists and measurements, for the most part).
Meshakhad: Same with Numbers and Deuteronomy - both contain mostly laws and census data.
Kuruni: I'm Buddhist and must say The Bible is a good read.
Meshakhad: I don't think that The Bible should be listed under Literature. It really qualifies as Myth And Legend (though we'd need to get rid of the Oral Tradition page title).
Unknown Troper: The problem with demands like this is that the Bible (and the Torah) have elements of historicity. What and how much is hotly debated by historians, archaeologists, and scientists even now. For someone to demand that the Bible as a whole be branded as a false myth speaks largely of their own personal beliefs about religion in general and Judeo-Christianity in specific. Seeing as how there are tropers who insist on labeling anything about religion as "mythology" as a form of Take That!, I'm not surprised to see someone make a demand like this, lacking in cautious editing judgement though it is.
((Draco Dei)): Regarding Crowning Moments of Awesome, David vs Goliath. The whole thing about "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight." seems a little off given that spears can be ranged weapons, and the fact that Goliath ALSO had a sword would imply to me that his was, indeed, designed to be thrown.
Lord Seth: Regarding Leviticus as mentioned above, does anyone else think that would make an example of Seasonal Rot? It's probably the most boring book in the entire Bible being nothing but a very lengthy list of rules, it sometimes gets redundant, and almost everyone thinks that most if not all of it is no longer applicable anyway.
Dammerung: I don't see why we have to treat the Bible with kid gloves like some editors appear to. There is no need to pretend that the Bible is a history book or can be interpreted "literally" by anyone without some kind of congenital brain defect. It is a simple and obvious fact to almost all of us that the Bible is a book primarily composed of allegory, myth, and legend. The parts of the Bible that ARE literally, historically true are closer to being an exception than a rule.
Just because many people might believe some very silly things doesn't mean we shouldn't call them on it. Many people have snakes in their heads! If a billion people got together tomorrow and claimed that reptilians from the planet Nibiru were controlling humanity through bio-organic nanomachines snuck into breakfast cereals, they would be rightly regarded as ridiculous by the rest of us. Why do we have to walk on eggshells about a story that includes talking snakes, an obviously fictional account of the history of the Hebrews, a geneology of people aged hundreds of years old, et cetera, et cetera?
Lord Seth: The whole point of the wiki is to have a bit of fun without offending anyone. It isn't the place to try to advance whatever your religious or political opinions are. Think the Bible is largely composed of nonsense? That's fine! But there's at least 2000 better places to discuss or talk about that than TV Tropes.
Lord Seth: Incidentally, think Jesus should be listed as a Memetic Badass?
Meshakhad: Repeating my earlier statement - this should be listed with other mythologies.
Lord Seth: (responded to this over at the Oral Tradition discussion page)
Specialist290: "There is no need to pretend that the Bible is a history book or can be interpreted "literally" by anyone without some kind of congenital brain defect."
I would like to make it known that I resent this remark. However, I won't press the issue any further.
TurkishDelight: So can we safely put in Omniscient Morality License? I mean, I know we're trying to avoid wacking a hornet's nest or stirring up unneeded controversy and we're all trying to avoid Serious Business, but honestly, read God's justification for sending out Satan to ruin Job's life. It can be summed up in one sentence: "I'm God. You don't judge me. I judge you."
Dalantia: Seemed more like Satan pestering God to let him do it, from what I read. >_>
Azazel: Let me paraphrase their conversation: God: Where did you come from? Satan: I've been traveling around here and there. God: Did you see my servant Job? There's nobody like him on earth, a just and perfect man. Someone who fears me and shuns evil. :-) Satan: Does Job really fear you? :-/ You protect him and all of his possessions, and you bless all of his works. But if you took everything away he'll curse you to your face. God: LOL Don't believe me? Here I'll give power over all his possessions, just do not touch him.
It doesn't look like Satan was pestering God into letting him torment Job.
fleb: So there's some question of whether the Jacob-wrestling angel was God, apparently?
- Jacob wrestled God for an entire night. God had to resort to cursing Jacob's hip in order to win.
- WHAT? He wrestled an angel, which had to leave by sunrise to sing praises to God and so injured Jacob's thigh. Trust me, God won't be beaten by a mortal.
- The "man/angel" was God Himself (Genesis 32:28, 30). Jacob's new name, "Israel", literally means "He who fights with God and wins", and God has taken physical shape before to eat a meal with Abraham in Genesis 18.
- Some have interpreted this to be one of several Old Testament appearances of Jesus.
- Jacob wrestled God for an entire night. God had to resort to cursing Jacob's hip in order to win.
Removed this
- Yes, but their testament was given to them by the Archangel Moroni. No, I'm not kidding, look it up. There were God's giant gold glasses, as well as an interesting but ultimately made up written language called New Egyptian, which was exposed as a fraud by Champollion's decyphering of hieroglyphics.
Because, aside from being incorrect or oversimplified on several points, it's also insultingly phrased, perhaps it's partially just the fact that I'm LDS (A mormon) but it seems like flame bait.
This whole entry has SOOO many needlessly-long points... I've been summarizing some, but am afraid to do more for fear of losing something important. The actual ideas are fine; it just needs to be cleaned up really badly...
What's the name of an "animal lives mean nothing" trope? Because the Bible's got that in spades drowning the entire Earth to wipe out humanity (which seems like a drastic overreaction, really, like burning down your house to kill mice), killing all of Egypt's animals (several times over, apparently. Not sure how that worked), slaughtering conquered peoples' livestock for no real reason, and the grandfather of them all, when he slaughters all life on Earth in Revelation. Even though the animals and plants didn't do anything...
Santander02 Many examples have devolved into natter betewen people that want to criticise the Bible and others that want to defend it, if it goes on like this, would it be too much suggest to keep this page example free? I thought people didn't come here to start religious debates, failing that this page needs a serious cleanup to keep it neutral, I would try to do it but then I am afraid I would be accused of being a butthurt Christian\Atheist\wathever.
"Let the sky fall..." Okay I went on ahead and sumarized the most problematic entries, If you disagree with any of those edits please feel free to dispute it here, just remember that I am simply trying to keep things neutral so that people don't get rilled up whenever they read an entry, Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment and all.
Starscream: No, seriously, what is with spoiler text here? It's not funny and never will be.
- Narvi: It is funny and will continue to be.
- David: It's funny because it's the part of the Bible that everyone's most familiar with.
- David: What does — mean? I saw it in the Page History about the Passage about The Devil being the Serpent, but it was quickly reverted by someone who said he could refute it.
- David: I just tested it in the Sandbox, and it's just a formatted Hyphen. What was the debate about?
- David: I get it now. People are making minor Edits & putting Natter as their Reason. That makes it much better.
- Santander02 I am the one that made those edits, I had no intention of cutting that part about the serpent, maybe I hit the wrong key or something. What I did cut was a specific example under Values Dissonance, the one about the bible saying that a women must marry the man that raped her, here is a little bit of context http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm, rather than refute with what says on that page and spark a discussion in the main page I just decided to cut it since that particular example is clearly wrong.
Thinks Too Much: Deleted the gay-bashing "Selective Enforcement" listing because it was a clear violation of the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement and had already collected more Natter than you could shake a stick at. Also, accuracy debatable since some say that those laws were in place to prevent gay rape of the enemy soldiers, but the Rule part is the reason it's deleted. Making it available for perusal.
- Selective Enforcement (Does anyone even recall the non-homosexuality laws given in Leviticus?)
- Yes. Jews remember and study them all, though some aren't practicable any more, since they depend on extinct species or currently nonexistent buildings.
- Homosexuality is confirmed to still be sinful in many passages in the New Testament.
- "Many" meaning "two". There are far more passages, in the Old and New Testaments, which would make modern Capitalism a sin. The early Christian community in Jerusalem is idealized as having held all property in common, distributing to each according to their needs.
- Though the anti-capitalistic passages don't explicitly condemn capitalism as sinful, but rather portray it as a less-desirable alternative; the anti-homosexuality passages are quite clear.
- It's also speculated that these passages were not about homosexuality as a whole, but about ritual gay prostitution.
- Yes. Jews remember and study them all, though some aren't practicable any more, since they depend on extinct species or currently nonexistent buildings.
Sabre Justice: Anyone else think this page would be better off divided up into the various Books? Or at least the main categories? It's a long and sprawling page already, and the Bible deserves a more thorough treatment. Besides, any Door Stopper gets less intimidating when divided into episodes of a sort, though of course the various 'chapters' are all kinds of different lengths.
Unknown Troper: As individual folders, that might work. I don't know about individual articles, though. Organizing it that way might head off some of the trollish examples that've been slapped onto the article previously.
Unknown Troper: A word about Broken Base and the people who have been trying to shoehorn religious differences into that trope; it doesn't work. Read the opening text for Broken Base. That trope deals with fandoms who turn on each other because parts of that fandom think the work sucks after a certain event or introduction of a certain character.
Real world disagreements and arguments within Christianity that create new denominations rarely, if ever, involve one side thinking the Bible sucks after a certain book. It's often a question of other differences—theological ones, arguments over organization and clerical practices, and so on. Look up the Great Schism. Or consider how the King of England broke away from the Catholic Church and formed his own just so he could divorce his wife and remarry. If you're going to keep using the "believer = fan" analogy, then this is more like fans starting new fanclubs over disagreements in practice.
It's for that reason I pulled out every instance of someone attributing the various denominations to being Broken Bases. Someone's going to have to come up with a trope that better fits what happens among religious followers.
There is a very fine line about being silly with calling religious people "fans," and using the tropes associated with fans to make something very important to many people look stupid, or to push a personal belief that religion (or this particular religion) is evil. I've seen how this trope attracts people eager to make the article speak in the latter senses, lacking any sense of cautious editing.
All too often, tropes that reference Real Life or things held to be Real Life eventually get cut with a warning to not bring the topic up again. Can we please refrain from letting this happen to the Bible?
Schizo Technician: Fine, Broken Base doesn't fit. But many of the edits of mine that you reverted did fit. Retcon, for instance- do you have a better trope for the elimination of dietary restrictions? At one point, I edited in a period to a sentence that was missing one- how is that controversial? Also, some mention must be made of the science having moved on; its one of the greatest examples of "was perfectly reasonable science at time of writing, but knowledge has advanced". I agree that it should be phrased as delicately as possible, as many things in this article should, but we have to be careful that we don't try so hard to avoid offending religious people that we end up offending non religious people, or religious people of non-abrahamic religions. I myself, as an atheist raised Jewish, felt vaguely offended by some of the changes you made in an attempt to be less offensive. As I have said elsewhere, the problem about Your Milage May Vary is that it includes high milage and low milage.
Fast Eddie: Declining the cut request. You guys who give a hoot about these religious issues will just have to find a common ground. As a guideline, I'd say keep it about the book.
The complaint about religious people being called "fans" ... lighten up, already. It fits, unless used in a derogatory fashion, which it wasn't. In a like fashion, no atheist people were being referred to in a derogatory fashion, so that contingent should chill, too. The article is not going to get more balanced toward either position by trying to tilt it one way or the other.
Schizo Technician: *Sigh*, I let myself be consumed by testosterone and rage again. Damn. Second time this week. I'd edit things to get it neutral, but, as in other articles I have had this problem with, I am emotionally invested in this enough that my idea of "neutral" differs significantly from other peoples', and I end up putting unfortunately phrased jokes in. If someone else were to repair this (I may not be able to say what is the proper format for this article without being a douche, but I'm fairly certain its a little too censored at the moment) I'd be incredibly grateful. At this point, I trust myself even less on this issue than I did on the scientology spectacle or the Global Warming/ State Of Fear fiasco, and so cannot be trusted to fix thing- I appologize for any offense my attempts may have caused. I may not know how it needs fixing, but as things are, its waaay too censored. I, personally, think that as-is its a bit too leaning towards the religious side of things, and that's the source of much of the censoring, but, as I said, I don't trust myself to be neutral anymore. Wiki Magic, its up to you to figure out how to decensor without uncovering something dangerous.
Unknown Troper: As far as I can understand the Retcon article and its associated examples, a Retcon means that overwriting past events—especially where Re Write is concerned. Re Vision is adding events to a Back Story ... and none of these fit what happened with the dietary laws from Leviticus. What happened in Acts and in Paul's epistles reads more like amendments to an existing law that addresses something whih hadn't been an issue before (whether or not gentiles were subject to the laws or not). It's a new event, not a rewriting of an old one.
However, I would say that Paul himself pulled a bit of a Re Vision for the dietary laws after they were amended in Acts. In Acts, the Apostles (including Peter) agreed that, for gentiles, they should "abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from immorality." However, in Corinthians, Paul says it's okay for mature Christians to eat meat offered to idols because mature Christians would not recognize the idol as a god—the implication that the dietary restrictions from Acts are in place for new Christians just so that they wouldn't be tempted to reconvert back into paganism.
As for Science Marches On, the problem was in how you were wording it:
- "Modern science has indicated that the dates and rate of creation contained therein may be less than entirely accurate."
As is explained elsewhere in the article, Genesis does not actually give dates or rates of creation. What is commonly translated in modern versions of the Bible as "day" really means something closer to "time period" in Hebrew. A previous version of this Science Marches On had a long skeptic's rant about how "it's still wrong because the creation of the Earth couldn't have been in six even time periods!!11" ... without ever considering that geologists do not give exacting quantities of time for epochs, periods, and ages, either (they are demarcated more by significant changes, states, or events than anything else
◊).
Therefore, your trying to put Science Marches On back into the article while asserting that science proved the Bible wrong on creation dates it never gives is ... not very couth and speaks more of your personal atheist bias rather than any attempt at being cautious with editing.
Schizo Technician: Ah, here I can speak. I agree that I had phrased things poorly. The origin of my making of it was this: The order of events isn't right, even discounting how the "days" in questions had to have been of drastically different length, despite it seeming like equal periods of time. It has the earth forming before the sun and moon, whereas it was in fact sun, then earth, then moon. In terms of biology, it has fish and birds appearing at the same time, whereas the sequence was actually fish->amphibians->reptiles->mammals and birds. Finally, the whole "evolution" thing, with creation being from simple chemicals to probionts to single cells and so on, rather than appearing out of nowhere, as the text makes it appear.
Unknown Troper: Yes, the misordering is readily apparent from my inclusion of the geological clock, there. I take personal issue with some of your judgements (that "evolution and creation are mutually exclusive;" there is such an idea as theistic evolution, which many prescribe to), but that's neither here or there.
I was and still am opposed to your slipping Science Marches On back in as it was written. For one thing, Science Marches On is a trope that deals with changes on scientific knowledge. You (and the previous tropers who wrote that example) harped on how the Bible itself was "wrong" about the age of the Earth, when that was actually an attempt by early historians using known history they were aware of in conjunction with the Bible, rather than geology.
If your trope example had stressed that it was an attempt by historians using what they knew then of world history, rather than saying it was the Bible itself, then there wouldn't be a problem. Given that you're trying to push the idea that science discredited a specific part and interpretation of a religious text, though, I'm still opposed to your slipping it back in on grounds that you're using the trope for the wrong purpose. Your repeated claims that the article is "too censored" and "religiously biased," and the actions you take to "correct" that perceived imbalance, are worrisome to say the least.
Schizo Technician: As I said, I am all too aware that I am personally far too biased to be able to define what is "neutral" on this issue, much less reach it. I've tried to put it in the article with better phrasing and such, please fix it as you see neccesary.
Unknown Troper: Well, I edited your example so that it properly matched the trope you keep trying to slap onto here—and yet you insist on wanting the trope to be more about "science pwning the Bible" rather than "science disproving previous scientific findings." That's unacceptable.
Furthermore, your saying that you're "too biased to be able to define what is 'neutral'" doesn't make sense. It's rather easy to be neutral about a work—just add trope examples as they appear within, without trying to add in your own Alternate Character Interpretations or personal beliefs about the work. That's where a lot of the Natter crops up. Remember what Fast Eddie said earlier: "as a guideline, I'd say keep it about the book." It's really just that simple.
Schizo Technician: Er, science error within book due to not having fossil evidence=trope example as it appears in book, if the trope in question is "science error due to knowledge improving since work was written"- addressing a trope as it appears; it is your idea for the entry that brings in the fandom rather than purely the contents of the work. I'm not trying to have it be about science pwning the bible, or else I'd harp on miracles, neccesity of genetic diversity with regards to 1 breeding pair vs. a sustainable population, impossibility of lifespans such as displayed by Methusela, and so on- but I'm not. If you are defining "science pwning the bible" as "saying anything that disagrees with something contained within the bible", then we have reached an impasse, as I consider that to be slanting the article towards the religious side of the issue- my conception of "neutral article" is "treat it like any other book, taking more care than usual not to offend its fanbase. Don't treat it as absolute truth, don't treat it as absolute tripe". From my perspective, they made a logical assumption writing it, which was proven wrong by fossil evidence later, a perfect example of the trope. I'm going to add it in one more time, and then I'm going to go to bed and hopefully, someone else, someone saner will have resolved this by the time I next look at this tomorrow afternoon.
Unknown Troper: At this point you should take your issue to the Just Bugs Me page. I've already said plainly that what you're trying to add does not jive with the trope's purpose.
Schizo Technician: Okay, for the record, the Most Triumphant Example on Broken base was not Crowning Moment Of Awesome. It was "this example is the best illustration of the trope in question", quality of being an extremely broken base, not quality of good or bad.
Fast Eddie: Locked it. You guys who care about religious issues may be needing a day or so off.
Schizo Technician: We did that already; I took off a few days in the hopes that both of us would cool down- and the moment I started back up again, trying desperately to be as diplomatic as possible, we end up at each other's throats again, due in large part to different interpretations over what the tropes we are arguing over are. Somehow fitting, really.
Unknown Troper: Well, I can't argue the point about Broken Base any more. Fast Eddie took the nasty tone out the Broken Base addition that Schizo Technician added (again), calling it a "legit reference." Given he's a TV Tropes admin, I figure his word is law.
That being the case, though, I'm going to revamp the introduction to the Broken Base article later so that it's more clear that denominational/religious differences of opinion over The Bible fit into that trope. The way Broken Base is currently introduced does not work with the realities over how people percieve the Bible, and it needs to have a more inclusive explanation than just "fans fight with each other because a group thinks the series sucked after a certain point." The opinions people have about the Bible are a lot more complex than that, and there's clear evidence in this article's very discussion page.
Also, in case Fast Eddie didn't see his discussion page: I think you misread my initial comment about Broken Base. I didn't request for this article to be cutlisted; what I was asking was for people to not cause the article to fall into a flame war.
