Emails from the Token

[StarCat]

Luis, do you really think a Cat only has nine lives? Silly boy. Maybe when I have time to think I'll provide more detail about that.

Cat

[LuisP]

Hehehe !!

Please do so, Cat.

And forget about the Math will you, please ? Too damn obvious !!

[StarCat]

I can forget the math. I forgot a patient visit the other day. I promise to get back to this when I'm at least semi- ciherent.

Cat

[re-rose]

Luis, I meant to ask, in regard to this statement of yours from page 12:

2- Now, sprinkle it with a fistful of Revelations 13:10 – “he that kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints”.

In the King James Bible, the last book is Revelation. Here, its usage as as plural noun is almost a shibboleth that distinguishes the pretender from the person who has actually studied the book. I know that is not so in your case, so I must ask, is it a plural name in your version? Is the book even in your version? For some reason, I thought it was part of the group designated as apocrypha.

rose, the every curious

[LuisP]

Very well spotted, Rose ! Yes, professionalism is quite abundant around here, thankfully !

You are correct, my Book is not even any English version at all, but the first edition (in my country), from 1998, of the “New Bible”, a fantastic and – I’d say – even “matchless” product of several years intense labor made by my country’s Friars of “Order of the Capuchins” (a Franciscan offspring, so to speak).

Its full name is “New Bible of The Capuchins - For The Third Millennium of the Incarnation”) and it comprehends extremely knowledgeable, explanatory "Introductions" to each Book, innumerous very helpful Notes, Indexes, Supplements, Chronological and TimeLine Tables, and is even filled with Illustrations and Maps. Not to mention, having, for the first time ever, eliminated the “social distance” towards God, by employing the informal, intimate kind of the second person pronoun of “Tu” when adressing Him !

A laborious, beautiful and socially revolutionary masterpiece, truth be said.

So yes, your question and even its inbuilt query about versions (Apocrypha) are quite correct, and very insightful.

To us here, the last Book of the New Testament is called “Apocalypse” (abbreviated “Ap”, not "Apc"), and it is as such that all its quotes are identified. But since this is me here talking to you there, across the pond, I know you call it differently and, yes, my true ignorance, calling it “Revelations” instead of “Revelation”.

Live and learn, so thanks. And, well spotted.

Luis, the pretender

[re-rose]

Thanks, Luis
When I was much (much1) younger, I was shocked to learn that there is no such thing as "THE Bible. Not only does every major sect has it's own version, many of those have been reintroduced in beautiful modernese. I am under the impression that the Aramaic version is the earliest compilation/interpretation. Is that so?

rose

[LuisP]

You are pushing the boundaries of my ability to answer you there, Rose ! Which is a fine thing which I like and thank, mind you, but I’d hate to assist in Error while doing it and that is why I will have to just answer “I don’t know”.

I’m not a scholar of the so called “Good Book” and have had enough trouble inside some circles tackling the question – rather moot, I believe – from my own Catholic (ahem) “sect”, regarding whether Jeremiah and Lamentations are to be considered as one or two books.

Food for theologians, which I’m not. More, I go under rather fast, in quicksand, as those circles proved to my satisfaction.

What I can tell you is that, far as I know, the original Bible compilation took centuries and several Councils to “define” (starting hundreds of years before the Nicaea one which commonly, and erroneously, takes “credit” for having “defined” it), was made from books some of which were written 3.500 years ago and done not in one but 3 languages, Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek, and that today it is read and spoken in …. something like 2.000 languages ! (I’d like to see a “white paper” on why and how come all that could happen, by the way).

And that the “renewal” of Catholic doctrine done by Vatican II and its “Dei Verbum” document, instructed that the Bible could – and should ! – be “properly and carefully” translated to several languages for Christian faith is not derived from “a book” but from the Incarnated Word, thereby giving rise to a multiplicity of revisions and adaptations to each language, all hopefully done in a “proper and careful” way.

Among us, The Capuchins took it to the letter and, far as I am concerned, excelled in it.

[re-rose]

Okay, you are off the hook, unless I have a question relating to Jermiah and Lamentations
Or want a quote from the Capuchin Bible.
Over to you, now, Catuchin

rose

[FM No Static At All]

If I may:

It was the Emperor Constantine during the Conventions of Nicaea, who directed the compilation of what was to become the 'New Testament" and thereby making the Torah the "Old Testament". Whether or not that constitutes what is commonly called The Bible, I must confess is beyond my knowledge at this time.

What I do know to be true though is that many 'Gospels' that were written during the days that Jesus lived were omitted by Constantine because they did not fit with the political policies he was looking to achieve.

[Fruitbat]

I may be of some small service here.

"The bible" as we know it varies from sect to sect. Each sect considers that their particular interpretation of the living word of god is some how "better" or "purer" than the others, but to quote from the book of Knopler, "Two men think they're jesus, one of them must be wrong"...

We can't possibly KNOW that god exists because we weren't around in the times depicted in the bible, and indeed many far cleverer people than me seem convinced that it's all a bunch of tall stories.

What we do however know to be true, is that the bible has had to be translated over the years, and that involves a certain amount of interpretation. We also know that many of the people doing that interpretation, or if you choose to be cynical "making it up as they go along" were motivated by a belief in good and evil, and that the aim of their religion was to teach the difference between good and evil.

Even though the various bibles are contain clearly observable differences, they are remarkably consistent about how they define good and evil acts. I find it difficult to countenance disrespecting a body of work that so many, many people have devoted many man centuries to refining and defining.

Certainly, as young and inexperienced in the world as I am, it seems that the bible contains much in the way of useful insights into the human condition, particularly when it describes the dynamics of human relationships and aspirations. There are few other works of human writing that have had so much work put in and endured so many challenges.

Of course, in the modern world we like to reinvent everything, and people are everywhere trying to improve on the teachings of the bible, and indeed a few brave souls are trying to find valid alternatives. Most people however, are too busy trying to pay the required and ever increasing protection money (rent or mortage and taxes) required to be allowed to stay in one place, without being "moved on" by "authorities" to pay much attention to things like good and evil. According to some it's a situation which was clearly described, and the cause explained a few millenia ago in documents that can be found in that very book...

FB.