Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Étienne d'Angleterre on March 14, 2016, 06:03:35 PM
-
On another thread Hope said this:
"Your definition is pretty good - its very similar to the Oxford Dictionary definition - "Sovereignty or control". However, the word that is used in the Bible and translated 'dominion' in English, is more generally used in Jewish literature to refer to caring for and protection."
This seems a bit bizarre to me:
There seems to be the following options:-
1) It is simply a bad translation. In which case what does it mean for the rest of the Bible.
2) They meant that the true Jewish interpretation was closer to the 21st century interpretation of control and sovereignty.
3)The meaning was ambiguous and Hope is applying his preferred 21st century interpretation.
you would have thought that a God of the Omni's would be able to get his message though unambiguously but apparently not.
-
Well yes, it's faith based on something not a good deal more reliable than the messages in a game of Chinese Whispers.
-
It's a standard MO of Christians trying to defend what is in the Bible. A Christian will create definitions for words to suit their purpose without regard for the English language.
-
It's a standard MO of Christians trying to defend what is in the Bible. A Christian will create definitions for words to suit their purpose without regard for the English language.
Look's that way to me but interested to see what believers say.
-
Look's that way to me but interested to see what believers say.
Look back over the interminable debate over what "temptation" means in the Lord's Prayer! Whatever you might THINK it means certainly ain't what Hope and OMW tell us!
Mainly this is because they and the other believers were asked to explain why those praying should have to ask their god not to lead them into temptation or why he might do so!
-
you would have thought that a God of the Omni's would be able to get his message though unambiguously but apparently not.
As far as I'm aware, it is human socity that controls the development of language. It is, partly, why legislation sometimes has to be updated in order to take such developments into account. I suppose that if society decided to stop all language development, we could get away with using older translations. At the same time, the transferring of concets across languages doesn't always work smoothly. For instance, in the Nepalese Bible, there is no mention of the Lamb of God. Why? There are no sheep in Nepal. Comparably, and away from the Bible, there are half a dozen words for snow in the global forms of English; there are probably a dozen (not the famed 300/100/50) in Inuit languages.
-
As far as I'm aware, it is human socity that controls the development of language. It is, partly, why legislation sometimes has to be updated in order to take such developments into account. I suppose that if society decided to stop all language development, we could get away with using older translations. At the same time, the transferring of concets across languages doesn't always work smoothly. For instance, in the Nepalese Bible, there is no mention of the Lamb of God. Why? There are no sheep in Nepal. Comparably, and away from the Bible, there are half a dozen words for snow in the global forms of English; there are probably a dozen (not the famed 300/100/50) in Inuit languages.
I suspect my understanding of 'control' is very different to your's here. Please explain how language is controlled?
-
It's a standard MO of Christians trying to defend what is in the Bible. A Christian will create definitions for words to suit their purpose without regard for the English language.
Thanks for that, jeremy. Remember that the problem with the AV/KJV is that it was based on material that was often a translation of a translation of a translation. Since then, documents that predate that material has been found that provide a better understanding of the languages that the Bible was originally written in, with the result that more recent translations are closer to the original meanings. We are still not exactly the same simply because there are ideas and concepts that simply don't transfer to English (indicating that the English language is by no means perfect).
Then there are words in these earliest documents that are used, even within the material, in more than one way. For instance, in Luke 14, where some versions translate Jesus as saying 'If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, ... ' the Greek word Luke uses is μισεῖ. This can either mean 'detest/hate' or 'love less' - and it is used in these two ways within the same material. Was Jesus suggesting that people who became Christians shoud detest their families, or was it more along the lines of the famous passage from Genesis 2 - "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." There is no suggestion that either partner should begin to detest their parents when they get married; just that the love they felt towards those parents before their marriage changes to something less intense.
That is why reading the Bible as a whole is so important, as opposed to the way that some here (on both sides of the debate) like to cherry-pick a verse, or perhaps even a phrase within a verse to try to make a point.
-
Because obviously a collection of books has a unified meaning. Something that can't even be demonstrated for a single word.
-
I suspect my understanding of 'control' is very different to your's here. Please explain how language is controlled?
OK, let's take the examples of 'weekend' and 'gay'. Some 30 years ago, the French (Language) Academy tried to ban the use of the ever-more common phrase 'le weekend'. IIRC, the ban seemed to work for a while, but then lost its influence. On the other hand, English has allowed the change in meaning of 'gay' without much fuss.
Then, we've had the more recent developments whereby words such as 'wicked' and 'bad' (and others that have traditionally had negative connotations) have come to mean positive ideas. Society decides how language develops and how meanings change.
-
Society isn't a thing making decisions.
-
As far as I'm aware, it is human socity that controls the development of language.
This is no more and no less than a blatant evasion of Stephen's point, which is that - exactly as he said - a god of the traditional attributes would have no difficulty whatsoever in getting its message to mankind across clearly and without all the risks attendant upon translation and interpretation by fallible humans who work with limited knowledge, and/or make errors and/or have an agenda to push.
This point has come up so often before, only to be dodged each and every time by you, that I make no apology for quoting myself:
I'm suggesting that a god of the traditional omnimax attributes would not need to rely on getting its supposed message to humanity across by the inherently risky methods of multiple and regular translation, retranslation and interpretation not merely from language A to language B but within the same language, but would want, would know how and would be able to communicate clearly and unambiguously without these risky and imperfect tools and processes. Translation is a fine art and a constant trade-off between literal rendering and flavour; that's why the risk of misleading texts is significant and constant. A text needs to be interpreted only if it's ambiguous to start with, and that's patently inconsistent with a god of the usual attributes. I try to write as simply and as clearly as I can, but sometimes fail in full accuracy and clarity. That's because I'm a fallible human being of limited knowledge - I don't have unlimited capacities and capabilities as a god is deemed to have, and who would be entirely capable of transmitting a message with the maximum of clarity and the minimum of (in fact, zero) ambiguity.
Perhaps you don't believe in such a god. You seem reluctant to say, and I understand why. [March 2nd 2016]
and again:
I've asked this of some theists here (such as Hope) but have never received an answer.
Do you not think that the necessity of interpretation - which is by definition a subjective matter - and the existence of an omnimax god of the traditional attributes contradict each other? If we take the existence of said god as read for the sake of the argument, there would be no need for interpretation - if it has a message to get across to its creation it would (a) want to, (b) know how to and (c) be able to put it over with absolutely sparkling and unambiguous clarity to every living person, without any need for interpretation or translation from one language to another (or within the same language over historical time) with all the problems that that can give rise to. We know that purely human documents can be ambiguous, and only a text which is ambiguous to start off with requires interpretation. I submit that this is inconsistent with a god of the traditional attributes. [March 8th 2016]
You presumably think that the deity in which you believe is powerful enough to magic a universe into being out of nothing and to perform parlour tricks such as enabling a virgin to give birth and corpses to come back to life; but when it comes to being able to get across its message to its human creation in an absolutely crystal-clear, transparent way which doesn't allow for ambiguity or error or any other kind of unclarity, its supposed powers suddenly desert it and we're left with a hodge-podge of differing translations, frequently mutually contradictory, in a multiplicity of human languages, made by fallible, information-limited humans who may have an agenda to advance.
Why is that, exactly, in your view? I know full well what my explanation is, but I'm asking you for yours. [August 11th 2015]
-
Because obviously a collection of books has a unified meaning. Something that can't even be demonstrated for a single word.
OK, let's take Caesar's 'Commentarii de Bello Gallica'. Although there are 8 volumes, the last of which relates Caesar's death and was probably written by a 'follower' of Caesar's (the current belief is that this was one of Caesar's senior officers), we can be pretty certain that terms and concepts that occur in the 1st volume mean the same thing in the 7th. Or take some of the historical annals of various nations; they may have been written by different people and at different times, but very often the concepts referred to remain pretty constant. Obviously, this isn't always the case - for instance, the concept of Messiah for the Jews seems to have changed dramatically from very much a spiritual entity in the older books of the Hebrew Scriptures and around the time that the Jewish nation began to be invaded and oppressed by neighbouring nations in about the 2nd century - such as the Seleucids. From hereon in to Jesus' time, it became more of a military-political entity.
-
This is no more and no less than a blatant evasion of Stephen's point, which is that - exactly as he said - a god of the traditional attributes would have no difficulty whatsoever in getting its message to mankind across clearly and without all the risks attendant upon translation and interpretation by fallible humans who work with limited knowledge, and/or make errors and/or have an agenda to push.
This point has come up so often before, only to be dodged each and every time by you, that I make no apology for quoting myself:
and again:
The problem is, of course, is that people like yourself dodge the issue themselves by suggesting that God overrides what humans do. He could do - after all, he could quite easily override any decision anyon makes to not believe in him and force everyone, even against their will, to live in his presence for the rest of time. I realise that some atheists here seem to hope that that will happen, but I don't believe that God works like that. He gives humans freedom of choice and then respects that choice.
-
The problem is, of course, is that people like yourself dodge the issue themselves by suggesting that God overrides what humans do. He could do - after all, he could quite easily override any decision anyon makes to not believe in him and force everyone, even against their will, to live in his presence for the rest of time. I realise that some atheists here seem to hope that that will happen, but I don't believe that God works like that. He gives humans freedom of choice and then respects that choice.
Fascinating to you when you typed it, no doubt; but how about actually answering the points raised for a change?
-
Look back over the interminable debate over what "temptation" means in the Lord's Prayer! Whatever you might THINK it means certainly ain't what Hope and OMW tell us!
Do you have evidence for this claim, Owl? After all, the English language has changed dramatically over the last 100 years, and - despite a far sloer change in the previous 300 years - had still changed in that period.
Mainly this is because they and the other believers were asked to explain why those praying should have to ask their god not to lead them into temptation or why he might do so!
Perhaps you have forgotten that, at no point is the Bible, is temptation deemed to be a sin. The sin is giving into that temptation. All the Lord's Prayer does is ask that God help his followers from falling into that trap.
-
We really can't, you know be certain about what is meant. Leaving aside any possibility that Case are used secretaries who might add meaning, writing something one day or one instant by one person to have a consistent meaning would need them to know of the effects on them.of any activity that happens in between, which is obviously illogical.
Can you outline to me why you think the challenges of post modernism to meaning as you argue for it can be ignored? Can you explain how on the one case you argue that a notional entity such as society 'controks' language but at the same time posit contradictory position that the author controls it, and indeed the future? Leaving aside that fairly basic lack of understanding of the theory of meaning in language, can you outline how a reader could determine between the two models, which are contradictory, that you are proposing, can be used by a reader since that posits a third model, contradictory to the other two?
-
Fascinating to you when you typed it, no doubt; but how about actually answering the points raised for a change?
Clearly, since you have already made up your mind on this and other matters, you don't see (or perhaps choose not to see) the point. That's your prerogative. All I, and others, can do is answer your questions and leave you to decide whether to consider those answers or to stick with your own preconceived ideas.
-
Clearly, since you have already made up your mind on this and other matters, you don't see (or perhaps choose not to see) the point.
The point is that you clearly won't, because probably can't, give a clear and straightforward answer to a clear and straightfoward question when it's put to you. What on earth is new about that? It's your SOP.
All I, and others, can do is answer your questions and leave you to decide whether to consider those answers or to stick with your own preconceived ideas.
So given the monumental list of questions for which you've never provided or even tried to provide any answers, when do you plan to start doing this?
-
We really can't, you know be certain about what is meant. Leaving aside any possibility that Case are used secretaries who might add meaning, writing something one day or one instant by one person to have a consistent meaning would need them to know of the effects on them.of any activity that happens in between, which is obviously illogical.
Can you outline to me why you think the challenges of post modernism to meaning as you argue for it can be ignored? Can you explain how on the one case you argue that a notional entity such as society 'controks' language but at the same time posit contradictory position that the author controls it, and indeed the future? Leaving aside that fairly basic lack of understanding of the theory of meaning in language, can you outline how a reader could determine between the two models, which are contradictory, that you are proposing, can be used by a reader since that posits a third model, contradictory to the other two?
Well, since the English you use, especially in the second paragraph is somewhat ungrammatical, I could just guess at what you're trying to say, or ask you to reword your post so that it makes sense.
-
Well, since the English you use, especially in the second paragraph is somewhat ungrammatical, I could just guess at what you're trying to say, or ask you to reword your post so that it makes sense.
Other than the typos, it is perfectly grammatical. I was assuming you had a basic understanding of the theory of meaning, I take it that isn't correct. I'll come back and start at the very beginning for you sometime.
-
The point is that you clearly won't, because probably can't, give a clear and straightforward answer to a clear and straightfoward question when it's put to you.
But it is very rarely a clear and straightforward question. Often questions are worded in such a way as to try to force people to answer them in a particular way, and when we choose not to answer in that desired way, the questioner feels that the question hasn't been answered.
So given the monumental list of questions for which you've never provided or even tried to provide any answers, when do you plan to start doing this?
I started many months ago; you don't see the answers because I don't answer in the way that you think that your questioning style requires me to answer. These attempts to make a person answer in the way you want them to is pretty standard debating technique, by the way.
-
I started many months ago
Where?
Where is the answer/are the answers to the question: "What are the 'good reasons' [your phrase] as to why (I quote) 'homosexuality was viewed with revulsion through history and across cultures'?
Where is the answer to the question: "Where have I [Shaker] deployed the negative proof fallacy more than Hope, as asserted by the latter?"
-
Other than the typos, it is perfectly grammatical. I was assuming you had a basic understanding of the theory of meaning, I take it that isn't correct. I'll come back and start at the very beginning for you sometime.
Not, it isn't just the typos, NS. What, for instance, does " ... can you outline how a reader could determine between the two models, which are contradictory, that you are proposing, can be used by a reader since that posits a third model, contradictory to the other two?". This is just a semi-random juxtapositioning of phrases that has no real meaning as it stands.
-
Where?
On a number of threads.
-
Perhaps we could get back to the thread topic - the idea of translation.
-
On a number of threads.
Specify.
-
Not, it isn't just the typos, NS. What, for instance, does " ... can you outline how a reader could determine between the two models, which are contradictory, that you are proposing, can be used by a reader since that posits a third model, contradictory to the other two?". This is just a semi-random juxtapositioning of phrases that has no real meaning as it stands.
You posited societal 'control', and authorial 'control' of meaning separately in posts. You then covered in another post, the reader being able to determine meaning by means not available to either society or the author. Those are three models and they are contradictory. There is some elision in the sentence based on the context with earlier sentences, but then I am sure you would know that and realize that by quoting one sentence, as if it were not informed by context, and claiming you didn't understand it in isolation, would make you because of your earlier statements, a liar and a hypocrite.
-
Perhaps we could get back to the thread topic - the idea of translation.
Your theory of translation is dependent on your theory of meaning.
-
As far as I'm aware, it is human socity that controls the development of language. It is, partly, why legislation sometimes has to be updated in order to take such developments into account. I suppose that if society decided to stop all language development, we could get away with using older translations. At the same time, the transferring of concets across languages doesn't always work smoothly. For instance, in the Nepalese Bible, there is no mention of the Lamb of God. Why? There are no sheep in Nepal. Comparably, and away from the Bible, there are half a dozen words for snow in the global forms of English; there are probably a dozen (not the famed 300/100/50) in Inuit languages.
Well why doesn't he put in an appearance every few years to show us where we are going wrong? It's simple enough really.
-
Well why doesn't he put in an appearance every few years to show us where we are going wrong? It's simple enough really.
Even simpler - why not just get it clear the first time?
-
I started many months ago; you don't see the answers because I don't answer in the way that you think that your questioning style requires me to answer. These attempts to make a person answer in the way you want them to is pretty standard debating technique, by the way.
That is a blatant untruth.
I have asked you very simple questions and you simply don't answer. You either evade or simply ignore.
-
That is a blatant untruth.
I have asked you very simple questions and you simply don't answer. You either evade or simply ignore.
Ah. You noticed as well ::)
-
That is a blatant untruth.
I have asked you very simple questions and you simply don't answer. You either evade or simply ignore.
I only evade the answer - in your opinion - because you disagree with what my responses are. OK, I'm not on the siate all day and every day as some are, so I may have missed some questions - but I answer those I see.
-
I only evade the answer - in your opinion - because you disagree with what my responses are. OK, I'm not on the siate all day and every day as some are, so I may have missed some questions - but I answer those I see.
Another arrant lie.
-
Specify.
I could do so, I suppose, though many will no longer be available because of the necessity to cull unused threads. Put simply, I'd suggest just about every thread that deals with this kind of issue that still exists on the board. I accept that I haven't got involved in 100% of such threads, but I've visited a vast majority of them.
-
I could do so, I suppose, though many will no longer be available because of the necessity to cull unused threads. Put simply, I'd suggest just about every thread that deals with this kind of issue that still exists on the board. I accept that I haven't got involved in 100% of such threads, but I've visited a vast majority of them.
And have avoided and evaded every time.
-
Another arrant lie.
You're entitled to your opinion, but you are also often wrong.
-
You're entitled to your opinion, but you are also often wrong.
Feel free to point out examples of such.
-
Thanks for that, jeremy. Remember that the problem with the AV/KJV is that it was based on material that was often a translation of a translation of a translation. Since then, documents that predate that material has been found that provide a better understanding of the languages that the Bible was originally written in, with the result that more recent translations are closer to the original meanings. We are still not exactly the same simply because there are ideas and concepts that simply don't transfer to English (indicating that the English language is by no means perfect).
I don't know why you think any of the above is relevant to the point I was making.
Consider this, from Genesis 2:
"You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."
That's the NRSV translation, not the KJV. It makes a clear unambiguous statement and it's God talking. Now consider this from Genesis 3:
"You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
That's the Serpent talking. It's another clear unambiguous statement. Now, who was telling the truth: God or the Serpent? As the story unfolds, it turns out that God was lying and the Serpent was telling the truth. Yet, we have Christians bending over backwards to find a meaning that doesn't cast God as the bad boy in this story. Usually, they redefine the word "day" or "die".
This happens all over the place, whenever the Bible says something they find embarrassing. Often they will even try to make a blanket pronouncement ("you can't understand the Bible unless you are filled with the Holy Spirit" or some other bullshit) to avoid the truth that their holy book doesn't say what they want it to say.
That is why reading the Bible as a whole is so important, as opposed to the way that some here (on both sides of the debate) like to cherry-pick a verse, or perhaps even a phrase within a verse to try to make a point.
The trouble is that the Bible was not written as a whole. It is a collection of many separate documents whose authors, in many cases, were not aware of the other documents that would end up in the collection.
-
I don't know why you think any of the above is relevant to the point I was making.
Consider this, from Genesis 2:
"You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."
That's the NRSV translation, not the KJV. It makes a clear unambiguous statement and it's God talking. Now consider this from Genesis 3:
"You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
That's the Serpent talking. It's another clear unambiguous statement. Now, who was telling the truth: God or the Serpent? As the story unfolds, it turns out that God was lying and the Serpent was telling the truth. Yet, we have Christians bending over backwards to find a meaning that doesn't cast God as the bad boy in this story. Usually, they redefine the word "day" or "die".
This happens all over the place, whenever the Bible says something they find embarrassing. Often they will even try to make a blanket pronouncement ("you can't understand the Bible unless you are filled with the Holy Spirit" or some other bullshit) to avoid the truth that their holy book doesn't say what they want it to say.
The trouble is that the Bible was not written as a whole. It is a collection of many separate documents whose authors, in many cases, were not aware of the other documents that would end up in the collection.
I don't think it means God was lying, because I think those verses try and explain how death came into the world in the first place.
( like Pandora's box and all the pains of the world and hope ( not our Hope ;) ) as compensation, think Greek/roman stories)
So in that sense God wouldn't have been lying by saying what he did, but neither was the serpent because originally years ago the believers thought life was eternal. ( pre Apple)
They ate the apple and became mortal, but they also became responsible because they knew the concepts of good and evil.
Later, according to legends there were still humans who supposedly lived longer than became normal.
Noah was also supposed to have had a longer lifespan, as did Methuselah.
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/genealogy/did-adam-and-noah-really-live-over-900-years/
However if God was supposed to have made them in his image in the first place, and that means knowing the difference between good and bad, what was the point of the story about the tree, in the first place?
-
You posited societal 'control', and authorial 'control' of meaning separately in posts. You then covered in another post, the reader being able to determine meaning by means not available to either society or the author. Those are three models and they are contradictory. There is some elision in the sentence based on the context with earlier sentences, but then I am sure you would know that and realize that by quoting one sentence, as if it were not informed by context, and claiming you didn't understand it in isolation, would make you because of your earlier statements, a liar and a hypocrite.
NS, the piece I quoted was just one of several phrases/part sentences/etc that I could have guessed the meaning of, but then I might have guessed wrong. I preferred to get the clarification.
As regards the suggestion that I posited "societal 'control', and authorial 'control' of meaning" separately, there is, to a large extent some cross-over. For instance, a writer such as Charles Dickens had a number of meanings tied up in the language of his novels - both within a single novel and across the body of his work. Different people would have taken different messages and ideas from the material. So, yes, the author has some control of the meaning. The same applies to the Bible. For instance, the 4 Gospel writers and writers like Paul wrote for different audiences; it was only later, when the various documents were gathered together, that they became available to be read by other audiences - and at this point in time statements targetted at specific situations began to be principle-ised. You could argue that society - in the sense of the Christian community - began to impose meanings that might not have been there in the original writing.
Then, we have the way in which society develops language over time, such that a word changes its meaning over a period of time. I used the examples of 'wicked' and 'bad' in a previous post. If society didn't want to allow such changes to take place, it can quite easily refuse to include them in a reference book of word meanings - see the French attempt to ban the term 'le weekend'.
So, there is nothing contradictory about both 'authorial' and 'societal' control being at work.
You then suggest that there is a third concept - that of "the reader being able to determine meaning by means not available to either society or the author." I assume, by this, you are referring to reading within context. So, to return to my example oif Charles Dickens; a youngster reading a Dickens novel today may find it interesting, but unless that reader has an understanding of the historical context that Dickens was writing about and into, they will never fully understand the extent of Dickens' intentions and message.
None of these three 'controls' are contradictory; they all play a part in our understanding of written material. Even modern novels have to be understood in the context of the story: if you or I read a novel about life in - say - a rural village in Mid-Wales, we will only pick up parts of the meaning unless we know the cultural and historical context of the setting pretty well. As such novels and even histories can have a variety of different menings, for different people.
-
I only evade the answer - in your opinion - because you disagree with what my responses are. OK, I'm not on the siate all day and every day as some are, so I may have missed some questions - but I answer those I see.
Please show me were on the "Put me out of misery thread"
1) You identified a non-naturalist aspect of life.
2) A methodology where you can assess it's non-naturalness.
-
Another thtread flounders upon the rocks of Hope's willingness to spout any amount and form of total bollocks in a attempt to justify or explain the unjustifiable and inexplicable in Christian thinking, is there such a thing as a thinking Christian seeing as they seem to allow their "god" and their bible to do their thinking for them!.
-
Now, who was telling the truth: God or the Serpent? As the story unfolds, it turns out that God was lying and the Serpent was telling the truth. Yet, we have Christians bending over backwards to find a meaning that doesn't cast God as the bad boy in this story. Usually, they redefine the word "day" or "die".
Well, it depends on whether you believe that humans are simply physical, or whether we have other aspects to our beings. Interestingly, this is a Jewish story, and Christians take the lead in this from the Jews. Interestingly, the Hebrew verb 'to die' used in the Genesis 2 passage you quote is somewhat different from that used by Eve in the Genesis 3 passage, suggesting that they are referring to different forms of death.
This happens all over the place, whenever the Bible says something they find embarrassing.
I think that my reference above points to your comment being less than truthful.
I accept that English isn't always as flexible and nuanced as Hebrew and even Koine Greek, but that is partly why using publically available sources to study the material is so important.
... to avoid the truth that their holy book doesn't say what they want it to say.
Whereas people like you seem to believe that specific versions of the material - in English - are the only valid ones.
The trouble is that the Bible was not written as a whole. It is a collection of many separate documents whose authors, in many cases, were not aware of the other documents that would end up in the collection.
Whilst there is an element of truth in that, jeremy, the later authors, especially when it coes to the Hebrew Scriptures, would have known a lot about those matereials that came before theirs. As for the New Testament, much would seem to have come from the same sources with basically only the Pauline material being separate from those sources.
-
Another thtread flounders upon the rocks of Hope's willingness to spout any amount and form of total bollocks in a attempt to justify or explain the unjustifiable and inexplicable in Christian thinking, is there such a thing as a thinking Christian seeing as they seem to allow their "god" and their bible to do their thinking for them!.
I'm sorry Owl, that I'm not able to provide you with the answers that you want to hear, and feel is my duty to provide. It's all to do with something called debate.
-
Well, it depends on whether you believe that humans are simply physical, or whether we have other aspects to our beings.
You could always cough with some evidence of these 'other aspects', of course ...
-
Later, according to legends there were still humans who supposedly lived longer than became normal.
Noah was also supposed to have had a longer lifespan, as did Methuselah.
And as an aside, many people today live longer than had become 'normal'. I've been told by a doctor acquaintance that by the end of this century, living to be 150 could become quite common.
-
You could always cough with some evidence of these 'other aspects', of course ...
And you could always decide that purely physical evidence isn't the only way to discover reality. As I've said before, that is the stumbling block. Your insistence on there only being one acceptable form or definition of evidence means that you can't (or should that be 'won't') see beyond it.
-
I don't think it means God was lying, because I think those verses try and explain how death came into the world in the first place.
( like Pandora's box and all the pains of the world and hope ( not our Hope ;) ) as compensation, think Greek/roman stories)
So in that sense God wouldn't have been lying by saying what he did, but neither was the serpent because originally years ago the believers thought life was eternal. ( pre Apple)
And Rose immediately provides evidence to support my point.
-
I'm sorry Owl, that I'm not able to provide you with the answers that you want to hear, and feel is my duty to provide. It's all to do with something called debate.
That is the problem - You do not DEBATE!
In a debate people put up questions and others answer! It has been pointed out on more occasions that I care to count that the one thing that you NEVER do is answer the questions asked of you; you, by your own admission, answer the questions you see not the questions asked regardless of the number of times other people, more patient than I, explain to you the questions that they want answered! You don't want to answer, or are incapable of answering, those questions so you answer another question instead!
And you can tell me I am wrong as many times as you like it, but does not change the fact that I am not. I may be wrong on a lot of theings but not on your obfuscation.
-
Please show me were on the "Put me out of misery thread"
1) You identified a non-naturalist aspect of life.
2) A methodology where you can assess it's non-naturalness.
I'll answer the latter first. A methodology that relies of naturalistic physical evidence alone is never going to even recognise non-natural phenomena, and with some here refusing to accept that the naturalistic physical approach is not the only way to discover reality, then explaining such a methodology is difficult, if not impossible.
As for the first question - try my first post on the thread.
-
And you could always decide that purely physical evidence isn't the only way to discover reality.
You could decide that things fall to the ground when dropped because the planet sucks, if you want to; the point is, what's the methodology you're proposing to evaluate your claims and to ascertain whether they're true or not?
As I've said before, that is the stumbling block.
No, the stumbling block, as many of us old-timers know of old and as Stephen Taylor has recently found out, is that whenever you're asked to provide a methodology for evaluating your handy-wavy claims about other aspects of being and other realms of reality and whatnot, you bottle it.
Your insistence on there only being one acceptable form or definition of evidence means that you can't (or should that be 'won't') see beyond it.
That's because my methodology for finding stuff out is clear and consistently reliable and accurate - what's yours?
-
I'll answer the latter first. A methodology that relies of naturalistic physical evidence alone is never going to even recognise non-natural phenomena
So what methodology do you suggest for "recognising" these alleged "non-natural phenomena," beginning with ascertaining if they even exist in the first place?
-
So what methodology do you suggest for "recognising" these alleged "non-natural phenomena," beginning with ascertaining if they even exist in the first place?
FFS Shaker
Do you really enjoy smashing your head repeatedly again a stone wall?
-
I'll answer the latter first. A methodology that relies of naturalistic physical evidence alone is never going to even recognise non-natural phenomena, and with some here refusing to accept that the naturalistic physical approach is not the only way to discover reality, then explaining such a methodology is difficult, if not impossible.
You haven't explaining this alternative methodology at all though: not even once.
So now would be a good time to put us out of our misery.
-
FFS Shaker
Do you really enjoy smashing your head repeatedly again a stone wall?
Not in the slightest. I do however take an admittedly malicious delight in revealing just how hopeless Hopeless is at answering questions ;)
-
Interestingly, the Hebrew verb 'to die' used in the Genesis 2 passage you quote is somewhat different from that used by Eve in the Genesis 3 passage, suggesting that they are referring to different forms of death.
I think that my reference above points to your comment being less than truthful.
And Hope provides even more evidence to support my point.
I accept that English isn't always as flexible and nuanced as Hebrew and even Koine Greek
I don't. I accept that there may be nuances in Hebrew and Greek words that make them difficult to translate but I don't agree that the concepts cannot be expressed in English.
Whereas people like you seem to believe that specific versions of the material - in English - are the only valid ones.
I'm not the one claiming that the Bible is God-inspired. I'm not the one who treats it as a holy text. If your god is so powerful, he should have been able to ensure that the English language version doesn't portray him as a blatant liar.
Whilst there is an element of truth in that, jeremy, the later authors, especially when it coes to the Hebrew Scriptures, would have known a lot about those matereials that came before theirs.
That looks a lot like wild speculation. A lot of Greek speaking Jews in the period couldn't read Hebrew at all. We know this because the Septuagint exists. It's also the case that the New Testament - also Greek - tends to use the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew when quoting from scripture.
As for the New Testament, much would seem to have come from the same sources with basically only the Pauline material being separate from those sources.
The evidence doesn't support that assertion. We know for a fact that the synoptic gospels use at least two written sources, and all those letters expressing a profusion of theological ideas, sometimes contradictory, must have multiple sources.
-
with some here refusing to accept that the naturalistic physical approach is not the only way to discover reality, then explaining such a methodology is difficult, if not impossible.
How do you know that when you haven't even tried?
-
I'll answer the latter first. A methodology that relies of naturalistic physical evidence alone is never going to even recognise non-natural phenomena, and with some here refusing to accept that the naturalistic physical approach is not the only way to discover reality, then explaining such a methodology is difficult, if not impossible.
As for the first question - try my first post on the thread.
Firstly, you need to define what the non-natural phenomena is you are talking about. You did not identify one in you first post on the other thread.
I do not refuse to accept that the naturalistic physical approach is not the only way. I will change my view when presented with a different methodology. The only constraint I apply is that such a method should be able to differentiate between likely true and likely untrue claims.
So far you haven't presented a methodology though.
Your evasion tactic consists of you insisting that people want your methodology to based on naturalistic methods, when I have never seen a single person do so.
This really is very simple. All we need is an example of a non-natural phenomena and a method for how you know it is a non- natural phenomena.
-
Firstly, you need to define what the non-natural phenomena is you are talking about. You did not identify one in you first post on the other thread.
I do not refuse to accept that the naturalistic physical approach is not the only way. I will change my view when presented with a different methodology. The only constraint I apply is that such a method should be able to differentiate between likely true and likely untrue claims.
So far you haven't presented a methodology though.
Your evasion tactic consists of you insisting that people want your methodology to based on naturalistic methods, when I have never seen a single person do so.
This really is very simple. All we need is an example of a non-natural phenomena and a method for how you know it is a non- natural phenomena.
Brilliantly put.
-
Dear Stephano,
you would have thought that a God of the Omni's would be able to get his message though unambiguously but apparently not.
Your new to the forum, so maybe you have missed all of my masterful postings.
The message is there in plain sight, this is where you start.
Matthew 22:36-40
The two Greatest Commandments, now if you are a non Christian, then only pay attention to the second Commandment, "Love your neighbour as yourself" why!! because in trying to practice the second you are loving God with all your heart, soul and mind.
It's there in black and white, only requires a little thought, one of the important bits is "and the second is like it".
For further reading try Karen Armstrongs " The Bible a Biography" or "The Case for God".
Can't remember which of the above books talks about the various Prophets from the old Testament, but Armstrong shows us that they are trying to preach that one simple message "Love your neighbour as yourself".
She also mentions a Rabbi Hillel who was a older contemporary of Jesus, a quote from her 2009 Ted Talk.
Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, who, when asked by a pagan to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching while he stood on one leg, said, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah and everything else is only commentary."
https://www.ted.com/talks/karen_armstrong_let_s_revive_the_golden_rule/transcript?language=en
As the Rabbi explains about the Torah, it is the same for the Bible, if you want to study the Bible, make sense of its teachings, first take the Second Greatest Commandment into your heart, live it breath it.
When you read the Bible and any part of it runs against the Second Commandment, challenge it, if it does not agree with the Second Commandment, if it steps away from the Second Commandment, ditch it, put a line through it.
Here Endeth the lesson. ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Stephano,
you would have thought that a God of the Omni's would be able to get his message though unambiguously but apparently not.
Your new to the forum, so maybe you have missed all of my masterful postings.
The message is there in plain sight, this is where you start.
Matthew 22:36-40
The two Greatest Commandments, now if you are a non Christian, then only pay attention to the second Commandment, "Love your neighbour as yourself" why!! because in trying to practice the second you are loving God with all your heart, soul and mind.
...
That may work for you but that isn't an unambiguous message from any god - it's your take on an old, incoherent and often self-contradictory collection of books, written by humans.
-
Dear Stephano,
Your new to the forum, so maybe you have missed all of my masterful postings.
I too have not been with the forum long enough to have read your masterful postings. Presumably they went in one of the purges.
The message is there in plain sight, this is where you start.
Matthew 22:36-40
If it is that simple, why is the Bible so long? Why is it that so many Christians have such a narrow definition of "neighbour"?
-
Dear Stephano,
Your new to the forum, so maybe you have missed all of my masterful postings.
The message is there in plain sight, this is where you start.
Matthew 22:36-40
The two Greatest Commandments, now if you are a non Christian, then only pay attention to the second Commandment, "Love your neighbour as yourself" why!! because in trying to practice the second you are loving God with all your heart, soul and mind.
It's there in black and white, only requires a little thought, one of the important bits is "and the second is like it".
For further reading try Karen Armstrongs " The Bible a Biography" or "The Case for God".
Can't remember which of the above books talks about the various Prophets from the old Testament, but Armstrong shows us that they are trying to preach that one simple message "Love your neighbour as yourself".
She also mentions a Rabbi Hillel who was a older contemporary of Jesus, a quote from her 2009 Ted Talk.
https://www.ted.com/talks/karen_armstrong_let_s_revive_the_golden_rule/transcript?language=en
As the Rabbi explains about the Torah, it is the same for the Bible, if you want to study the Bible, make sense of its teachings, first take the Second Greatest Commandment into your heart, live it breath it.
When you read the Bible and any part of it runs against the Second Commandment, challenge it, if it does not agree with the Second Commandment, if it steps away from the Second Commandment, ditch it, put a line through it.
Here Endeth the lesson. ;)
Gonnagle.
You would think that was clear wouldn't you and I'm sure there is not a Christian on here who would argue with it.
So all sorted there is a clear and simple message ! Hurrah!!
.... Ahhh, but then maybe not.
The problem then comes in understanding what loving your neighbour means. For me a clear example of loving my neighbour is to extended them the same rights and equality that I enjoy in my life.
I don't think we need to look to hard to find Christian members of this forum who may agree with the concept of loving your neighbour but actual seek to discriminate against people on the grounds of there sexuality or gender.
So all that has happened is that we have moved the problem back a step and now have to agree on what loving our neighbour actually means.
Again, some clear guidance from the boss man would not go amiss.
-
Dear Stephen,
The problem then comes in understanding what loving your neighbour means. For me a clear example of loving my neighbour is to extended them the same rights and equality that I enjoy in my life.
Understanding, correct, and yes that is a clear example.
But it is not simple, the Second Commandment is there to make you think, think deeply about what it means, here is another example of someone who thought deeply about the Golden rule.
"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
Almost every religion in the world embraces some definition of the Golden rule, it is important, it should be imprinted into every young brain way before they even learn the two times table.
I don't think we need to look to hard to find Christian members of this forum who may agree with the concept of loving your neighbour but actual seek to discriminate against people on the grounds of there sexuality or gender.
You may be right, and if you hear any Christian condemning anyone because of their sexuality or gender, point them to the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, call them a hypocrite, tell them to go and study the teachings of their leader, the man who put the First and Second Greatest Commandments above all other message in the Bible.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Stephen,
Understanding, correct, and yes that is a clear example.
But it is not simple, the Second Commandment is there to make you think, think deeply about what it means, here is another example of someone who thought deeply about the Golden rule.
Almost every religion in the world embraces some definition of the Golden rule, it is important, it should be imprinted into every young brain way before they even learn the two times table.
You may be right, and if you hear any Christian condemning anyone because of their sexuality or gender, point them to the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, call them a hypocrite, tell them to go and study the teachings of their leader, the man who put the First and Second Greatest Commandments above all other message in the Bible.
Gonnagle.
Quite commendable sentiments Gonners, we all share most of those thing with you, why the need for a man made and very unlikely Mr Magic anywhere in the background?
ippy
-
Dear Stephen,
You may be right, and if you hear any Christian condemning anyone because of their sexuality or gender, point them to the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, call them a hypocrite, tell them to go and study the teachings of their leader, the man who put the First and Second Greatest Commandments above all other message in the Bible.
Gonnagle.
Jeez, Gonnagle
This pointing of those on this forum who claim, some most forcefully, to be Christian and who condemn homosexuals and lesbians and MTF and FTM transexuals usually results in those doing the pointing to be labelled hypocrite.
There have been two or three Christian posters on here who have used the word hypocrite almost to extinction. I lost count of the nunber of times that I was called hypocrirte by one of them and almost lost count of the times when it has been used by another!
The hypocrisy of some Christians was and is one of my most abiding reasons for having rejected and continuing to reject Christianity.
Instance: I have yet to meet any Christian who can reconcile Exodus 22:18 with the Sixth Commandment. I only use this example because these verses have the possibility to affect me personally.
You, Gonners, are not, to my knowledge, one of those who use "hypocrite" as a term of abuse to us non-Christians.
-
Dear ippy,
Quite commendable sentiments Gonners, we all share most of those thing with you, why the need for a man made and very unlikely Mr Magic anywhere in the background?
No need, if the Golden rule is so imprinted in your brain that you live your whole life by it, then this Mr Magic as you call him will be quite happy.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Stephen,
Understanding, correct, and yes that is a clear example.
But it is not simple, the Second Commandment is there to make you think, think deeply about what it means, here is another example of someone who thought deeply about the Golden rule.
Almost every religion in the world embraces some definition of the Golden rule, it is important, it should be imprinted into every young brain way before they even learn the two times table.
You may be right, and if you hear any Christian condemning anyone because of their sexuality or gender, point them to the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, call them a hypocrite, tell them to go and study the teachings of their leader, the man who put the First and Second Greatest Commandments above all other message in the Bible.
Gonnagle.
I don't disagree with anything of those sentiments. If we were all to think more then the world would be a better place.
In the absence of a God, which is obviously the case for myself, the only thing we can do is try to work things out for ourselves. However, I think my point still stands that if there is a God who has wishes and wants to make them clear to us then he would do better if he gave us a personal update on a regular basis to show us were we are going wrong, rather than relying on words that have been translated over and over.
-
So all that has happened is that we have moved the problem back a step and now have to agree on what loving our neighbour actually means.
Again, some clear guidance from the boss man would not go amiss.
Agreed, Stephen. Jesus, at first glance, has set the standard very high - many would say impossibly high (but Christians would say this is a good thing, but they've always got the cop-out of St Paul, who says that because the standards are high, all you really need is faith). That apart, you then have to decide what exactly is meant by 'love' - and in the koine Greek of the NT there are apparently five words for this English word (don't know what the original Greek of the NT is in this instance). At any rate, Jesus was presumably speaking Aramaic, and I don't know how many words for 'love' there are in that language - or whether Jesus' words were translated accurately into Greek (always supposing he said anything of the kind anyway).
Hillel's dictum (cited by Gonnagle) is altogether more practical and helpful. Some might say it was easier to enact, but given the problems with Jesus' command, I'd say it was better to stick with Hillel, as his dictum presents fewer translation problems. Not harming your neighbour (as you would not harm yourself) in itself presents a difficult enough challenge.
-
Agreed, Stephen. Jesus, at first glance, has set the standard very high - many would say impossibly high (but Christians would say this is a good thing, but they've always got the cop-out of St Paul, who says that because the standards are high, all you really need is faith). That apart, you then have to decide what exactly is meant by 'love' - and in the koine Greek of the NT there are apparently five words for this English word (don't know what the original Greek of the NT is in this instance). At any rate, Jesus was presumably speaking Aramaic, and I don't know how many words for 'love' there are in that language - or whether Jesus' words were translated accurately into Greek (always supposing he said anything of the kind anyway).
Hillel's dictum (cited by Gonnagle) is altogether more practical and helpful. Some might say it was easier to enact, but given the problems with Jesus' command, I'd say it was better to stick with Hillel, and presents fewer translation problems. Not harming your neighbour (as you would not harm yourself) in itself presents a difficult enough challenge.
I thought you might find this interesting Dicky. Love in Hebrew is "Ahava" , which is made up of three basic Hebrew letters, . These three letters actually are broken down into two parts: a two letter base or root, , and the first letter, , which is a modifier. The meaning of the two letter base, , is "to give". The letter "aleph" , which precedes these two letters comes to modify the meaning of the base word, "give". The meaning of , is "I give" and also "love".
That sounds OK to me, summed up in the word, ''Charity'' but people (not us of course :), are often confused by that word, thinking it just means dishing out goods and money when being charitable is a general attitude - being kindly towards others, treating them with care and respect, sometimes making allowances etc, basically considering their individual needs.
(We mustn't forget that love is not rude; I used to think that was funny when I was a kid:-[)
-
I see your attack on my faith Rhi, and I see your faith as listing to the moaning of the wind, and taking the punishment of it's anger.
Now as far as translations. Good way to go about it is see what the world means in the Greek and Hebrew and what the word meant in English during the time of translation. It's not difficult, atheists.
-
Now as far as translations. Good way to go about it is see what the world means in the Greek and Hebrew and what the word meant in English during the time of translation. It's not difficult, atheists.
It's also, very, very far from an unambiguous message which one would hope any omnipotent, omniscient creator would have no difficulty at all in producing.
We are, instead, supposed to learn Greek, Hebrew and English at the time of translation and then deal with what is still an incoherent, disjointed and often self-contradictory text, together with all the sects, cults and denominations all telling us that they know the 'right' way to interpret it.
If your god exists, it's got a terrible communication problem...
-
It's also, very, very far from an unambiguous message which one would hope any omnipotent, omniscient creator would have no difficulty at all in producing.
We are, instead, supposed to learn Greek, Hebrew and English at the time of translation and then deal with what is still an incoherent, disjointed and often self-contradictory text, together with all the sects, cults and denominations all telling us that they know the 'right' way to interpret it.
If your god exists, it's got a terrible communication problem...
SKoS, what do you mean by saying that God has a terrible communication problem? Remember that he chose to come to the earth at a time when global communication was beginning to take off. Suddenly, a message could travel from the western edge of Europe to the sub-continent with minimal problems. Ironically, we are now at a point in time when a message can travel around the world in seconds. The Gospel is being shared with probably more people each day than ever in history.
-
Quite commendable sentiments Gonners, we all share most of those thing with you, why the need for a man made and very unlikely Mr Magic anywhere in the background?
ippy
Is there a Mr Magic anywhere in the background?
-
SKoS, what do you mean by saying that God has a terrible communication problem? Remember that he chose to come to the earth at a time when global communication was beginning to take off. Suddenly, a message could travel from the western edge of Europe to the sub-continent with minimal problems. Ironically, we are now at a point in time when a message can travel around the world in seconds. The Gospel is being shared with probably more people each day than ever in history.
As you say we can communicate rapidly across the world now so would it not have been better to have come now instead of when he did, or to pop back now and clarify any mistranslations that have crept in over the past 2000 years? ::)
I wonder why he doesn't.
-
Well, it depends on whether you believe that humans are simply physical, or whether we have other aspects to our beings. Interestingly, this is a Jewish story, and Christians take the lead in this from the Jews. Interestingly, the Hebrew verb 'to die' used in the Genesis 2 passage you quote is somewhat different from that used by Eve in the Genesis 3 passage, suggesting that they are referring to different forms of death.
Lets look at one of your favourite modern up to date versions and see what it says then.
Should be fairly unambiguous you would think?
The Message;
2; 16-17 God commanded the Man, “You can eat from any tree in the garden, except from the Tree-of-Knowledge-of-Good-and-Evil. Don’t eat from it. The moment you eat from that tree, you’re dead.”
3; 2-3 The Woman said to the serpent, “Not at all. We can eat from the trees in the garden. It’s only about the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘Don’t eat from it; don’t even touch it or you’ll die.’”
Two different 'deaths' there?
-
Dear ippy,
No need, if the Golden rule is so imprinted in your brain that you live your whole life by it, then this Mr Magic as you call him will be quite happy.
Gonnagle.
What Mr Magic Gonners?
ippy
-
SKoS, what do you mean by saying that God has a terrible communication problem? Remember that he chose to come to the earth at a time when global communication was beginning to take off. Suddenly, a message could travel from the western edge of Europe to the sub-continent with minimal problems. Ironically, we are now at a point in time when a message can travel around the world in seconds. The Gospel is being shared with probably more people each day than ever in history.
And ignoring it wholesale too, being irrelevant it mostly goes unnoticed.
ippy
-
Firstly, you need to define what the non-natural phenomena is you are talking about. You did not identify one in you first post on the other thread.
I do not refuse to accept that the naturalistic physical approach is not the only way. I will change my view when presented with a different methodology. The only constraint I apply is that such a method should be able to differentiate between likely true and likely untrue claims.
So far you haven't presented a methodology though.
Your evasion tactic consists of you insisting that people want your methodology to based on naturalistic methods, when I have never seen a single person do so.
This really is very simple. All we need is an example of a non-natural phenomena and a method for how you know it is a non- natural phenomena.
Bump
-
Not in the slightest. I do however take an admittedly malicious delight in revealing just how hopeless Hopeless is at answering questions ;)
Surely I cannot be the only one who only reads his posts to see exactly what load of bovine and equine excrement he has tried to pass off as fact? Going by his performance on this forum he would make a damn good politician!
I have seen worms on a fishing hook that do not wriggle as much as Hope does when his stupidity and ignorance of the real world are pointed out to him!
-
SKoS, what do you mean by saying that God has a terrible communication problem?
Exactly the same as what has been said to you several times before and which you have ducked, dodged evaded and ignored every single time - that a deity which you (presumably?) believe has powers sufficient to create a universe from nothing, perform miracles (amongst them the resurrection of corpses, etc.) cannot get its message across to humanity save by a nebulous collection of selectively-chosen (by biased and partial humans) documents which have to be translated from one language to another and in effect translated within the same language periodically in order to keep up with the evolution of language, then requiring "interpretation."
I ask you honestly: does that strike you as the work of omnipotence?
-
I see your attack on my faith Rhi,
"People please!, everything OMW mentions in his posts can be challenged and also brought back to his attention on a later date and used in an argument. If he's gonna cry about it, he would do better finding a spine donor. If we have to tolerate his daily attacks then he will have to accept the same treatment with regards to himself and all he posts. Truth is he targets certain people for nothing but belittling comments. He never actually debates anything Sass posts for example. He just jumps in to make stupid, childish, infantile, stunted put downs. So he can stop the crocodile tears, I am not fooled."
-
Bump
Bumpety Bump Bump
-
SKoS, what do you mean by saying that God has a terrible communication problem? Remember that he chose to come to the earth at a time when global communication was beginning to take off. Suddenly, a message could travel from the western edge of Europe to the sub-continent with minimal problems. Ironically, we are now at a point in time when a message can travel around the world in seconds. The Gospel is being shared with probably more people each day than ever in history.
What I mean is that there is no "The Gospel" to be shared. There is the bible - which is incoherent and self-contradictory and there is the even more incoherent and contradictory messages of those who claim to be following it, and then there are all the other supposed messages and books from other faiths.
If this is an attempt by a god to communicate clearly to its creation, then that god has serious communication issues...
-
"People please!, everything OMW mentions in his posts can be challenged and also brought back to his attention on a later date and used in an argument. If he's gonna cry about it, he would do better finding a spine donor. If we have to tolerate his daily attacks then he will have to accept the same treatment with regards to himself and all he posts. Truth is he targets certain people for nothing but belittling comments. He never actually debates anything Sass posts for example. He just jumps in to make stupid, childish, infantile, stunted put downs. So he can stop the crocodile tears, I am not fooled."
Spine transplant?
I would have said that he needs treatment for his reproductive organ problem, his intestinal problem AND his back problem, all of which can be treated by transplant - no balls, no guts and no spine!
He sits there sqwarking if we post anything we see as wrong with the US or Canada yet spends and awful lot of HIS time denigrating the UK and Europe.
Truly POT KETTLE BLACK!
This is why I no longer reply to him!
Oh and he IS a troll!
-
What I mean is that there is no "The Gospel" to be shared. There is the bible - which is incoherent and self-contradictory and there is the even more incoherent and contradictory messages of those who claim to be following it, and then there are all the other supposed messages and books from other faiths.
If this is an attempt by a god to communicate clearly to its creation, then that god has serious communication issues...
Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion SKoS, but I think you will find that there a couple of billion of people worldwide who believe that there is a 'The Gospel' to be shared. As for the Bible, which you claim is incoherent and self-contradictory - I suppose it depends on how you read it. If you choose to read it as a series of unrelated sentences, then of course it appears to be self-contradictory; if you choose to read it as if it is a record of what happened last year - and read it through a filter of modern thinking, then it will obviously not make sense.
-
Lets look at one of your favourite modern up to date versions and see what it says then.
Should be fairly unambiguous you would think?
The Message;
2; 16-17 God commanded the Man, “You can eat from any tree in the garden, except from the Tree-of-Knowledge-of-Good-and-Evil. Don’t eat from it. The moment you eat from that tree, you’re dead.”
3; 2-3 The Woman said to the serpent, “Not at all. We can eat from the trees in the garden. It’s only about the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘Don’t eat from it; don’t even touch it or you’ll die.’”
Two different 'deaths' there?
Seb. I've already dealt with these two pairs of verses, earlier in the thread. #44
-
Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion SKoS, but I think you will find that there a couple of billion of people worldwide who believe that there is a 'The Gospel' to be shared.
Giving the argumentum ad populum/numerum an airing, I see ... ::)
-
Seb. I've already dealt with these two pairs of verses, earlier in the thread. #44
Does the depiction of the story as described in The Message version for those verses, accurately convey the true meaning?
-
Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion SKoS, but I think you will find that there a couple of billion of people worldwide who believe that there is a 'The Gospel' to be shared.
But they can't agree amongst themselves what it is. If they could, Christianity would not be split into so many different denominations.
-
Seb. I've already dealt with these two pairs of verses, earlier in the thread. #44
No you didn't. You applied Christian obfuscation to pretend that "die" means something other than "become dead".
-
"People please!, everything OMW mentions in his posts can be challenged and also brought back to his attention on a later date and used in an argument. If he's gonna cry about it, he would do better finding a spine donor. If we have to tolerate his daily attacks then he will have to accept the same treatment with regards to himself and all he posts. Truth is he targets certain people for nothing but belittling comments. He never actually debates anything Sass posts for example. He just jumps in to make stupid, childish, infantile, stunted put downs. So he can stop the crocodile tears, I am not fooled."
Oh come on, you all attack him. Stop making out it is all OMW.
Perhaps he doesn't disagree with Sass, but he doesn't have to, does he?
Oh yes I forgot, to be part of a clique, he has too.
I don't see any crocodile tears, just someone standing up for their beliefs when they are under attack.
If he attacked paganism like some of you attacked Christianity with personal insults, constantly and persistently, he would probably get banned.
If you dish it out, expect to get it back.
Both from Sass, OMW, Alan Burns and Hope. All those posters are attacked on a regular basis.
Sometimes they get far more than just criticism of their posts, but personal insults as well.
But let them dish it out, and their attackers feel hard done by.
It's tough! Innit!
-
The death in Genesis refers to spiritual death, surely? That is what I have always understood to be meant by the passages quoted from Genesis. Both Adam and Eve lived to a great age so it wasn't physical death that was feared.
-
The death in Genesis refers to spiritual death, surely?
It doesn't say that, it just says "you will die".
That is what I have always understood to be meant by the passages quoted from Genesis. Both Adam and Eve lived to a great age so it wasn't physical death that was feared.
Thanks for making my point for me. You redefined "death" to try to overcome the embarrassment of God being portrayed a liar.
-
Firstly, you need to define what the non-natural phenomena is you are talking about. You did not identify one in you first post on the other thread.
I do not refuse to accept that the naturalistic physical approach is not the only way. I will change my view when presented with a different methodology. The only constraint I apply is that such a method should be able to differentiate between likely true and likely untrue claims.
So far you haven't presented a methodology though.
Your evasion tactic consists of you insisting that people want your methodology to based on naturalistic methods, when I have never seen a single person do so.
This really is very simple. All we need is an example of a non-natural phenomena and a method for how you know it is a non- natural phenomena.
Any chance of an answer, or do you require further clarification of the question?
-
It doesn't say that, it just says "you will die".
Thanks for making my point for me. You redefined "death" to try to overcome the embarrassment of God being portrayed a liar.
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Your confusing being told you will die with DROP DEAD INSTANTLY....
This verse might explain if you can actually be bothered to read the passage.
22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
Adam and Eve died because God took away their right to eat from the tree of life.
So Gods words came true. Eating from the tree meant they lost the right to eat from the tree of life.
They were sent from the Garden unable to eat from the tree of life and so died.
Just for confirmation they had the right to eat from the tree of life:-
8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
It is Gods will that man might once again eat from the tree of life.
King James Bible
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
So God isn't a liar. You are not educated by way of the truth in the bible anyone could understand, had they bothered to read it. ::)
-
It doesn't say that, it just says "you will die".
Thanks for making my point for me. You redefined "death" to try to overcome the embarrassment of God being portrayed a liar.
I didn't feel any embarrassment jeremy, just said what I thought. In Hebrew, ''death" and "die'' have more than one meaning - but I wasn't thinking of that when I wrote the above. How can God be a liar if you don't believe in Him anyway? People are liars. People also often express things clumsily but the Genesis passages you quoted seem straightforward enough to me, unlike some other Biblical passages which take a lot of understanding.
None of this matters to you anyway, it's only of importance to those who believe in God.
-
Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion SKoS, but I think you will find that there a couple of billion of people worldwide who believe that there is a 'The Gospel' to be shared.
There may well be but it's not like they all agree about what it is, is it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members
As for the Bible, which you claim is incoherent and self-contradictory - I suppose it depends on how you read it. If you choose to read it as a series of unrelated sentences, then of course it appears to be self-contradictory; if you choose to read it as if it is a record of what happened last year - and read it through a filter of modern thinking, then it will obviously not make sense.
I chose to read it to see what it said - something I wish Christians would do - rather than reading it to find the bits that confirm what they already 'know'.
As I said, no clear message.
If there really was a god that could communicate clearly, we wouldn't be having this discussion...
-
If there really was a god that could communicate clearly, we wouldn't be having this discussion...
And that's the central point that Hope won't touch with a bargepole.
-
And that's the central point that Hope won't touch with a bargepole.
And of course, just about every post I make touches pretty firmly on that central point - but you just don't like the answer, Shaker, because you don't want to accept that God works through his followers.
-
And of course, just about every post I make touches pretty firmly on that central point
No they don't - that's either a lie or delusion on your part. Nowhere have I seen you address the points raised in various places and collated in #11 on page 1 of this thread, just the same as you continually dodge what methodology you think you have for evaluating your claims about other alleged realms of reality.
but you just don't like the answer, Shaker, because you don't want to accept that God works through his followers.
How do you propose to back up your assertion of a god working through its followers as compared to no god and only a few people who believe in such a thing?
-
And of course, just about every post I make touches pretty firmly on that central point - but you just don't like the answer, Shaker, because you don't want to accept that God works through his followers.
Which doesn't really help matters, since there are so many of them and since they don't all agree - sounds to me like your God could do with a review of its communication strategy (such as by having one).
Of course all these 'followers' could be barking up the wrong tree.
-
And that's the central point that Hope won't touch with a bargepole.
And of course, just about every post I make touches pretty firmly on that central point - but you just don't like the answer, Shaker, because you don't want to accept that God works through his followers.
No matter how you think this god of your works, the fact remains that if there was a god who was both able and willing to communicate clearly to us, we would all agree as to what the message was (even if we didn't like it).
As it is there are just a lot of groups of religious people in the world who disagree with each other.
If there is a god, either it doesn't want to communicate clearly or it is unable to.
-
No matter how you think this god of your works, the fact remains that if there was a god who was both able and willing to communicate clearly to us, we would all agree as to what the message was (even if we didn't like it).
I doubt we would all agree! We're individual human beings after all and would take away different things from the message.
-
No matter how you think this god of your works, the fact remains that if there was a god who was both able and willing to communicate clearly to us, we would all agree as to what the message was (even if we didn't like it).
I doubt we would all agree! We're individual human beings after all and would take away different things from the message.
No, not at all. The whole point is that a god of the traditional omni attributes with a message for humanity would want to share it and would know how to share it and would be able to share it with the utmost clarity and without any ambiguity whatsoever - no individual interpretation from person to person and from sect to sect at all.
-
I doubt we would all agree! We're individual human beings after all and would take away different things from the message.
If it was long and complicated, we might take away different things from it to an extent, but there is no reason why the basics of the message should be at all unclear. There should also be no uncertainty that there is a message and that it's from god.
There is certainly no reason for the disagreements we see about whether there are any gods and if so, what they or it are saying.
This is a clear indication that, if there is a god, it is either unable or unwilling to communicate clearly.
-
Your confusing being told you will die with DROP DEAD INSTANTLY....
Incorrect. God said Adam would die in the same day, not instantly. Adam actually lived for more than 300,000 days in the end (according to the Bible). God was wrong by six orders of magnitude.
Adam and Eve died because God took away their right to eat from the tree of life.
So what? They didn't die the same day, did they?
So Gods words came true. Eating from the tree meant they lost the right to eat from the tree of life.
But they didn't die that day.
They were sent from the Garden unable to eat from the tree of life and so died.
But not on that day.
Just for confirmation they had the right to eat from the tree of life:-
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
God said that they would die the same day. Did they die the same day? No. God was lying.
-
I didn't feel any embarrassment jeremy,
Nevertheless, the fact that one of the earliest stories in the Bible portrays the Christian god as a liar is an embarrassment. Otherwise, why do you people keep coming up with these feeble apologetics?
-
Nevertheless, the fact that one of the earliest stories in the Bible portrays the Christian god as a liar is an embarrassment. Otherwise, why do you people keep coming up with these feeble apologetics?
jeremy, I am only saying what I think, not trying to come up with an argument. I do not see that particular issue as showing God to be a liar, not because I am not prepared to admit God is a liar. You believe the Bible portrays God as a liar - that's your prerogative and I won't dispute it with you because I accept you do not believe in God.
-
jeremy, I am only saying what I think, not trying to come up with an argument. I do not see that particular issue as showing God to be a liar, not because I am not prepared to admit God is a liar.
You apply an unjustified interpretation to the words of the story. I can think of no other reason than you don't want to admit that God is portrayed as a liar.
You believe the Bible portrays God as a liar
Because it does.
-
It doesn't say that, it just says "you will die".
If you look at the Hebrew it actually says "die die" but you knew that.
-
I have been pondering over this and found the following:
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/die.html
Probably won't mean much to many of you. In truth, I prefer to read a passage and interpret it myself, already said I find it quite straightforward. However some may find it interesting.
-
I have been pondering over this and found the following:
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/die.html
Probably won't mean much to many of you. In truth, I prefer to read a passage and interpret it myself, already said I find it quite straightforward. However some may find it interesting.
Herein lies the problem!
When the Hebrew bible was translated into Greek, by seventy scholars - hence its name - the Septuagint - these translators found that they had trouble (please remember that these were the top scholars of their day, approximately 354 BCE) with some of the Hebrew.
The seventy consulted the most eminent Talmudic scholars for help. Unfortunately there turned out to be two problems. One, Hebrew is a contextual language, the same words can have different meaning depending on context, and so, if you haven't got the context right, you are going have trouble getting the translation right. Two, the Talmudic scholars had to admit to t4jhe seventy that the Hebrew that they were trying translate was, in places, so archaic that even the most eminent Talmudic and Hebrew scholars could not be 100% sure exactly what had been written.
How many times has Genesis been translated, re-written, and edited etc. etc. etc. since 354 BCE? Thus, it is highly unlikely that anyone knows exactly what the original writings said.
Now, unfortunately, when I have posted this before on this forum, Hope, Sassy, 2 Corrie and OMW have dismissed what I have said because it is not in their interests for me to be right.
I make my comments above as the results of research that I have conducted from various sources at the British Library. I am not asking you to accept them unconditionally, I just ask that you do not dismiss them out of hand.
-
Incorrect. God said Adam would die in the same day, not instantly. Adam actually lived for more than 300,000 days in the end (according to the Bible). God was wrong by six orders of magnitude.
So what? They didn't die the same day, did they?
But they didn't die that day.
But not on that day.
God said that they would die the same day. Did they die the same day? No. God was lying.
Yes they did die that day because they could no longer eat from the tree of life and live forever.
As for the rest of your argument...you don't have an argument. You stamping your feet, shoving your fingers in your ears and refusing to accept the Hebrew definition of 'die' is only letting you down personally as a scholar of any type.
The fact remains that Adam died two ways that day. He dies spiritually, separated from God and he began to die physically because he could not longer eat from the tree of life. In the day he ate of the fruit he died and so did Eve.
You cannot change what has been understood since God gave it to Moses.
It was given to Moses from God and so was the truth it contained. It is clear when God tells Adam and Eve...
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
King James Bible
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
That there was no dropping dead there and then ever intended.
Nice try but anyone reading scroll of the Torah would know that there was no chapter and verse but just the events of what happened. It was never the writers intention or Gods that people should believe what you have decided to claim.
The whole account shows it was never on the cards or intended that way.
-
God said that they would die the same day. Did they die the same day? No. God was lying.
Yes they did die that day because they could no longer eat from the tree of life and live forever.
Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'die' that I wasn't previously aware of...
::)
-
Yes they did die that day because they could no longer eat from the tree of life and live forever.
Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'die' that I wasn't previously aware of...
::)
Hebrew word in Torah is 'die,die and so it if you think about Christs teachings.
"Fear not those who kill the body, but rather God who after death has the power to throw both body and soul into hell."
The fact is that even after physical death there is still God to face.
It is clear from the whole story that at no time was it intended to mean they would drop down dead.
I am not sure why people do not take into account the write and the author.
-
Hebrew word in Torah is 'die,die and so it if you think about Christs teachings.
"Fear not those who kill the body, but rather God who after death has the power to throw both body and soul into hell."
The fact is that even after physical death there is still God to face.
It is clear from the whole story that at no time was it intended to mean they would drop down dead.
I am not sure why people do not take into account the write and the author.
That is NOT a FACT, only your belief! ::)
-
That is NOT a FACT, only your belief! ::)
It's just one Sass's daft beliefs in the midst of a load of others. ;)
-
It's just one Sass's daft beliefs in the midst of a load of others. ;)
I suppose one should feel sad for her. :(
-
Is there a reason why the Sass constantly quotes from the most corrupt translation of the bible?
-
Hebrew word in Torah is 'die,die and so it if you think about Christs teachings.<SNIP>
No it's not. It's two separate words which a literalist like yourself should know is translated as "dying thou shall die"
-
Yes they did die that day
That really is a stupid statement. The Bible goes on to say Adam lived for another 900 years give or take.
because they could no longer eat from the tree of life and live forever.
There's a difference between dying and knowing you will die at some point in the future.
As for the rest of your argument
I am only stating the facts, not arguing anything.
The fact remains that Adam died two ways that day. He dies spiritually, separated from God and he began to die physically
But he didn't actually die as God said he would.
-
That really is a stupid statement. The Bible goes on to say Adam lived for another 900 years give or take.
And there is also a difference between dying physically and dying spiritually.
-
Yes there is, Hope. Being spiritually dead is not the same as physical death.
I know that some Christians, maybe some on here though they may not say so, have experienced something akin to spiritual death, eg ''being in the wilderness''. Maybe that is something for another thread.
I noted someone above mentioned the King James Bible and said it was a ''Corrupt translation''. That's news to me. I tend to use modern translations but cannot see anything wrong with the KJV, the writing is very beautiful too.
(Edited for grammer)
-
But he didn't actually die as God said he would.
An animal died the same day instead of him, to provide clothing.
-
True:
Genesis 3:21
And the LORD God made clothing from animal skins for Adam and his wife
The story (which I believe is allegorical), is one of disobedience. ''Adam and Eve'' disobeyed the Lord and were spiritually dead. However they lived on in the flesh and had opportunity to do better. It couldn't have been an easy life, which was their punishment. They had to work very hard and experienced pain, illness, all the stuff that we experience without the modern benefits.
-
True:
Genesis 3:21
And the LORD God made clothing from animal skins for Adam and his wife
The story (which I believe is allegorical), is one of disobedience. ''Adam and Eve'' disobeyed the Lord and were spiritually dead. However they lived on in the flesh and had opportunity to do better. It couldn't have been an easy life, which was their punishment. They had to work very hard and experienced pain, illness, all the stuff that we experience without the modern benefits.
Yeah! IF, IF IF you believe the story!
-
Nobody says you have to, Owlswing. This is the Christian Topic forum so we are bound to talk about the Bible sometimes!
-
And there is also a difference between dying physically and dying spiritually.
The Bible says "you shall surely die". It doesn't qualify the word with "spiritually".
-
An animal died the same day instead of him, to provide clothing.
God said "you shall surely die" not "one of the animals shall surely die".
-
Nobody says you have to, Owlswing. This is the Christian Topic forum so we are bound to talk about the Bible sometimes!
I am sorry Brownie, but if a Christian can go onto the Jewish Topic and slag Jews off for not posting there in case they should get b*******d for crucifying Christ, and also go onto the Pagan Topic to tell pagans that because they deny Christ they are nothing but a bunch of stupid ignorant people who believe in magic and false Gods and non-existent Goddesses and will find out just how stupid they are when they are thrown into the pit of Hell to suffer for the sin of blasphemy agaisnt the one and only true God, then I cannot see why I cannot come on here and make comments like that to which you replied as quoted above!
You cannot have it both ways. You are, I am glad to say, one of the more moderate Christians in your attitude to others, non-Christian others, please keep it that way, do not become another Hope, or worse another Sassy, or, even worse still, another Ad_O or Bashful Anthony.
-
Look back over the interminable debate over what "temptation" means in the Lord's Prayer! Whatever you might THINK it means certainly ain't what Hope and OMW tell us!
Mainly this is because they and the other believers were asked to explain why those praying should have to ask their god not to lead them into temptation or why he might do so!
Think of it as being similar to Jesus's prayer in the garden of Gethsemane, where he asked God to "let this chalice pass over me".
(We, of course, do not use the KJV )
-
Is there a reason why the Sass constantly quotes from the most corrupt translation of the bible?
The KJV is not corrupt at all. The Jewish scholars believe it to be the closest translation to their Torah.
Besides you would know that because they cannot change anything God wrote so they actually made it so that you knew when a word of nearest definition to original Hebrew was replaced.
-
And there is also a difference between dying physically and dying spiritually.
I doubt it.
-
No it's not. It's two separate words which a literalist like yourself should know is translated as "dying thou shall die"
Actually, it is dying, they shall die according to the same text used in Numbers 26:65 just as in Genesis 2:17.
They did not die instantly either but died before they entered the promise land.
Either way Adam died Spiritually that day and died physically at 930 years.
Why anyone argues that it means instant death is silly because what happened to Adam applied to the whole of mankind.
Even though not yet born it clearly shows that God never intended for Adam to die on the spot.
Genesis 3:22-23King James Version (KJV)
22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
As I said Adam died Spiritually that day and he also brought physical death to himself and mankind.
Adam and Eve as well as mankind would be the 'THEY. The "the" and "that" were actually the English added.
-
That really is a stupid statement. The Bible goes on to say Adam lived for another 900 years give or take.
There's a difference between dying and knowing you will die at some point in the future.
I am only stating the facts, not arguing anything.
But he didn't actually die as God said he would.
Look JeremyP,
Nothing stupid just your ignorance and unwillingness to learn what the bible says and address each point made before.
As it teaches they died spiritually that day and also died physically in that death was in the body as it aged so they eventually physcially died. Tell me are you closer to your impending death or nearer your birth. You haven't died yet, but tell me does that mean you won't die? So if someone tells you that you are going to die are they right or wrong? No they are not giving you a date. But we both know one day you are going to die.
So Adam knows he has died spiritually and that he will die physically.
When Cain slew Abel it is clear that Adam and Cain knew they could be killed/die.
Not sure why you cannot see the obvious truths before you. That the OT was never about Adam dropping dead instantly.
Just in the day he sinned he could not longer live in the Garden of Eden or eat from the tree of life, which would have given him eternal life.
-
The Bible says "you shall surely die". It doesn't qualify the word with "spiritually".
Literally, "dying they shall die", is what it means. So Adam lives 930 years and dies.
So all the time he lives he knows he is dying and eventually will die.
Just as you know you are dying though you haven't yet died. So as you age so you get closer to your death.
The whole of the OT shows that it was never meant to mean what you try to twist it into.
-
I am sorry Brownie, but if a Christian can go onto the Jewish Topic and slag Jews off for not posting there in case they should get b*******d for crucifying Christ, and also go onto the Pagan Topic to tell pagans that because they deny Christ they are nothing but a bunch of stupid ignorant people who believe in magic and false Gods and non-existent Goddesses and will find out just how stupid they are when they are thrown into the pit of Hell to suffer for the sin of blasphemy agaisnt the one and only true God, then I cannot see why I cannot come on here and make comments like that to which you replied as quoted above!
You cannot have it both ways. You are, I am glad to say, one of the more moderate Christians in your attitude to others, non-Christian others, please keep it that way, do not become another Hope, or worse another Sassy, or, even worse still, another Ad_O or Bashful Anthony.
What a load rubbish. You are the perfect example of an hypocrit and all you claim above are lies. Look in the mirror, you see the person who is guilty of attacking believers and those like you.
If you can't tell the truth then don't say anything at all.
-
Look back over the interminable debate over what "temptation" means in the Lord's Prayer! Whatever you might THINK it means certainly ain't what Hope and OMW tell us!
Mainly this is because they and the other believers were asked to explain why those praying should have to ask their god not to lead them into temptation or why he might do so!
Jesus taught everyone the Lord's prayer before his crucifixion and resurrection.
The prayer he taught was to the Jews. But he also taught an important teaching...
King James Bible
Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
King James Bible
Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
God gives good things to those who ask from him. He would never give them something harmful.
Even Jesus Christ was tested by Satan but we see he does not fall or fail because of the word of God.
When Christ died and rose from the grave we received the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
And we are taught that greater is he who is in us than he who is in the world.
Flesh and the world can still tempt believers but we have an advocate with the father so if we sin and we confess we can be forgiven.
At that time the Kingdom had only come near to the Jews as he told the disciples to tell people when he sent them out before his resurrection. But the Kingdom of God is within a person and to be part of that Kingdom people must be born of the Spirit and the truth. God no longer a requires a earthly high priest to intercede for man with sacrifices because Christ has become the way in which all mankind can come to God and speak with him personally.
Some here could be 'tempted' to rebuke you as you speak falsely about the things which you cannot or do not want to understand. One of the post I previously answered saw you casting dispersions on others those things you are guilty of doing to others. However we speak the truth and understand what we are speaking about. Knowing you are ignorant and unable to win your point you insult and cast dispersions on others.
If you are unable to reason and speak in a suitable manner about matter relating to a persons faith, should you be saying anything at all?
-
Jesus taught everyone the Lord's prayer before his crucifixion and resurrection.
The prayer he taught was to the Jews. But he also taught an important teaching...
King James Bible
Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
King James Bible
Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
God gives good things to those who ask from him. He would never give them something harmful.
Even Jesus Christ was tested by Satan but we see he does not fall or fail because of the word of God.
When Christ died and rose from the grave we received the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
And we are taught that greater is he who is in us than he who is in the world.
Flesh and the world can still tempt believers but we have an advocate with the father so if we sin and we confess we can be forgiven.
At that time the Kingdom had only come near to the Jews as he told the disciples to tell people when he sent them out before his resurrection. But the Kingdom of God is within a person and to be part of that Kingdom people must be born of the Spirit and the truth. God no longer a requires a earthly high priest to intercede for man with sacrifices because Christ has become the way in which all mankind can come to God and speak with him personally.
Some here could be 'tempted' to rebuke you as you speak falsely about the things which you cannot or do not want to understand. One of the post I previously answered saw you casting dispersions on others those things you are guilty of doing to others. However we speak the truth and understand what we are speaking about. Knowing you are ignorant and unable to win your point you insult and cast dispersions on others.
If you are unable to reason and speak in a suitable manner about matter relating to a persons faith, should you be saying anything at all?
Talking to yourself again. ;D
-
Talking to yourself again. ;D
Says the person who said she had met Christians who did not believe Christ rose from the dead...
I would find talking to myself preferable to actually saying something of that nature. At least I would know what I was talking about but in your case, you make it up as you go along and that said it all....
-
I have to home in on one bit of your post, Owlswing. This bit: "... but if a Christian can go onto the Jewish Topic and slag Jews off for not posting there in case they should get b*******d for crucifying Christ... ''.
When the R&E forums were started, they were supposed to be an alternative to the BBC forums and, on the whole, things were replicated fairly well. However I do remember often visiting the Jewish Topic and being appalled at the attitude there. On the BBC Jewish forum that would definitely not have been allowed and the majority of posters were Jewish which is surely how it should be. It was interesting too. Non-Jews posted sometimes but they asked polite questions and listened to the answers - if they didn't they were pushed off! Jews would be hounded out from here. Knowing some of the moderators, I am really surprised about this or perhaps they've not bothered to look. At the start (don't know what it is like now), practically every thread was started by a Christian poster, proselytising. The same on the Muslim Board - I haven't looked at the Pagan Forum.
I voiced my opinion more than once and cannot be the only person to have felt like that. It was disappointing. We live in a country where we have religious freedom and respect for the right of people to believe as they choose. There was no respect on the Jewish Topic.
-
Says the person who said she had met Christians who did not believe Christ rose from the dead...
I would find talking to myself preferable to actually saying something of that nature. At least I would know what I was talking about but in your case, you make it up as you go along and that said it all....
I have stated the TRUTH, I know some Christians who believe the resurrection is allegorical!
-
I have stated the TRUTH, I know some Christians who believe the resurrection is allegorical!
Likewise, but then since it is not us who decide whether or not our beliefs satisfy the tests that God applies, but God, one can legitimately question whether people claiming that belief are actually Christians. I question the beliefs of loads of people who call themselves Christians. Its to do with discernment and testing.
-
I have to home in on one bit of your post, Owlswing. This bit: "... but if a Christian can go onto the Jewish Topic and slag Jews off for not posting there in case they should get b*******d for crucifying Christ... ''.
When the R&E forums were started, they were supposed to be an alternative to the BBC forums and, on the whole, things were replicated fairly well. However I do remember often visiting the Jewish Topic and being appalled at the attitude there. On the BBC Jewish forum that would definitely not have been allowed and the majority of posters were Jewish which is surely how it should be. It was interesting too. Non-Jews posted sometimes but they asked polite questions and listened to the answers - if they didn't they were pushed off! Jews would be hounded out from here. Knowing some of the moderators, I am really surprised about this or perhaps they've not bothered to look. At the start (don't know what it is like now), practically every thread was started by a Christian poster, proselytising. The same on the Muslim Board - I haven't looked at the Pagan Forum.
I voiced my opinion more than once and cannot be the only person to have felt like that. It was disappointing. We live in a country where we have religious freedom and respect for the right of people to believe as they choose. There was no respect on the Jewish Topic.
How many Jewish posters - and I mean religious as opposed to ethnic - have we ever had on this forum? Despite having been a moderator in the past, I would have to admit not knowing.
-
I don't know Gordon. Maybe there were some when it started who migrated from the BBC site but they didn't stick around. Why would they?
-
How many Jewish posters - and I mean religious as opposed to ethnic - have we ever had on this forum? Despite having been a moderator in the past, I would have to admit not knowing.
I cannot ever remember any Jewish posters on this board. There were not that many on the BBC Board, which was dominated by Ebenezer/Pennywhistler/Cuppa Joe, and whoever he was falling out with at any particular time. There was one older lady who lived in Israel, one younger lady from the UK, and a couple of young blokes, one of whom used the name "Arch Stanton" and always referred to God as "G-d" (the other one I think was "Adam"). Most of the discussions as I remember were either people discussing the modern state of Israel, or asking questions about the Jewish faith. I only posted there a handful of times, and I was on almost every BBC board that was functioning.
-
I remember all those you mentioned very well, Humph, and some others whose names escape me. I found the discussions extremely interesting and some entertaining. Wish they were here! At least we'd have a Jewish presence on the board.
-
What a load rubbish. You are the perfect example of an hypocrit and all you claim above are lies. Look in the mirror, you see the person who is guilty of attacking believers and those like you.
If you can't tell the truth then don't say anything at all.
My truth or yours!
Typical Christian - if someone disagrees with you they are lying - if you disagree with someone you are pointing out the truth! - you brainwashed dupe!
-
My truth or yours!
Typical Christian - if someone disagrees with you they are lying - if you disagree with someone you are pointing out the truth! - you brainwashed dupe!
It was ever thus! ;D
-
It was ever thus! ;D
Agreed, but you try getting them to admit it.
-
My truth or yours!
Typical Christian - if someone disagrees with you they are lying - if you disagree with someone you are pointing out the truth! - you brainwashed dupe!
What you wrote here are lies...
I am sorry Brownie, but if a Christian can go onto the Jewish Topic and slag Jews off for not posting there in case they should get b*******d for crucifying Christ, and also go onto the Pagan Topic to tell pagans that because they deny Christ they are nothing but a bunch of stupid ignorant people who believe in magic and false Gods and non-existent Goddesses and will find out just how stupid they are when they are thrown into the pit of Hell to suffer for the sin of blasphemy agaisnt the one and only true God, then I cannot see why I cannot come on here and make comments like that to which you replied as quoted above!
You cannot have it both ways. You are, I am glad to say, one of the more moderate Christians in your attitude to others, non-Christian others, please keep it that way, do not become another Hope, or worse another Sassy, or, even worse still, another Ad_O or Bashful Anthony.
I have never ever said that about anyone who is Jewish. Not here and not on any other forum.
So you are lying...
-
What you wrote here are lies...
I have never ever said that about anyone who is Jewish. Not here and not on any other forum.
So you are lying...
No - you didn't OMW did!
-
Matty,
Shame on you, I've never posted on the Jewish thread and I have never blamed the Jews for killing Christ. I have always blamed the pagan Romans, because the fact is the pagan Romans did the actual killing. What is it with you? I have also never suggested that Jews won't post from fear of being blamed. Clear your fog dude!
And let's have a look at your contribution to the Jewish section. Go on, LOOK! Your entire contribution is an endless tantrum, rant and silly infantile name calling. Pathetic, however, my biggest fan, one of your posts over there was a kicker, a real gem that I'm going to put on forum best bits.
The Highest Jew reply 184, matty screaming at Bashers.
"It stands for "Sweet Fanny Adams", Little Miss Purity Panties!"
I have to borrow that "little miss purity panties" zinger, Matty, I know you will feel highly honoured when I do so.
-
God said "you shall surely die" not "one of the animals shall surely die".
Depending on its context, the word translated "in the day" can be understood to mean either: on a particular, literal day, or at a more general point in time, for example in Genesis 30:33 which says,
Young's Literal Translation
"...and my righteousness hath answered for me in the day to come, when it cometh in for my hire before thy face; -- every one which is not speckled and spotted among my goats, and brown among my lambs -- it is stolen with me".
This seems to be the sense in which the word is used also in Genesis 2:4, 5:1,2.
John Mackay says,
"Genesis 2:17 implies the process of physical death of humans came about exclusively as a result of man’s disobedience to God’s command. The grammatical construction is very similar to the way Mosaic law threatened capital punishment – ‘he will surely die,’ or ‘they will surely die’ (Exodus 21:12; Lev. 20:9-16). These were formulaic ways of declaring a death sentence. God was not saying Adam and Eve would die immediately but that death would certainly follow disobedience. This can be seen in the curse man received from God in Genesis 3:19."
http://askjohnmackay.com/did-god-kill-animals-clothe-adam-and-eve-or-did-he-create-new-skins/
-
Adam and Eve did nothing wrong, imo.
-
Thank God your opinions don't mean anything.
-
Look JeremyP,
Nothing stupid just your ignorance and unwillingness to learn what the bible says
I know what the Bible says, it says Adam would die the same day and he didn't.
As it teaches they died spiritually that day and also died physically in that death was in the body as it aged so they eventually physcially died.
But not the same day.
Tell me are you closer to your impending death or nearer your birth.
I'm nearer to death but, if you told me I am going to die today, I'd be somewhat sceptical and if I am still here tomorrow, I'll tell you that you were wrong.
So Adam knows he has died spiritually and that he will die physically.
He must have known that from the beginning or he wouldn't have known that he needed to eat from the Tree of Life. God didn't change anything about Adam, he merely withheld the drug that kept him immortal.
Not sure why you cannot see the obvious truths before you.
A child can read Genesis and understand that I am right and you are wrong.
-
The KJV is not corrupt at all. The Jewish scholars believe it to be the closest translation to their Torah.
Besides you would know that because they cannot change anything God wrote so they actually made it so that you knew when a word of nearest definition to original Hebrew was replaced.
Really.. You think that the KJV was translated by Jewish Scholars. I think you are confusing the KJV with the Sepuginant.
For example, we know that the KJV "authors" wouldn't understand Koine Greek, the original language of the New Testament. Koine Greek had been a dead language for over a thousand years when the KJV was published for the first time in 1611.
In fact, the translators of the KJV wouldn't have even known what Koine Greek was.
In fact, the composers of the KJV just wholeheartedly lifted sections of other earlier English translations of the NT that King James liked and stuck them in their "translations". John Wycliffe’s Bible was translated from Latin into English and hand copied in the 1400s. In 1526, almost 100 years before the KJV was first published, William Tyndale’s English translation of the Greek New Testament was published. “After Tyndale’s, a number of other versions were produced. Among them were the Coverdale Bible, the Matthews Bible, the Great Bible [authorised by Henry VIII], the Geneva Bible, and the Bishops’ Bible.”[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/kjvdebat.html]
In fact, much of the KJV borrows heavily from earlier English translations, especially the Bishop’s Bible.
There is evidence that they also lifted certain translations from the Greek New Testament written by Erasmus. One of the major problems is these "translations" were corrupted by the translators to remove certain aspects they disagreed with and retranslate with aspects they believed should be contained, known as "corrections". [https://bible.org/article/conspiracy-behind-new-bible-translations].
-
No - you didn't OMW did!
Most Popular Boards By Posts
Christian Topic 856 posts of the member's 8745 posts (9.79%) 856 General Discussion 260 posts of the member's 8745 posts (2.97%) 260 Literature, Music, Art & Entertainment 130 posts of the member's 8745 posts (1.49%) 130 Prayers, Thoughts and Announcements 95 posts of the member's 8745 posts (1.09%) 95 Faith Sharing Area 89 posts of the member's 8745 posts (1.02%) 89 Politics & Current Affairs 60 posts of the member's 8745 posts (0.69%) 60 Religion and Ethics 33 posts of the member's 8745 posts (0.38%) 33 Moderation & Admin 18 posts of the member's 8745 posts (0.21%) 18 Pagan Topic 7 posts of the member's 8745 posts (0.08%) 7 Science and Technology 6 posts of the member's 8745 posts (0.07%) 6
Most Popular Boards By Activity
Prayers, Thoughts and Announcements 95 posts of the board's 526 posts (18.06%) 18.06% Faith Sharing Area 89 posts of the board's 744 posts (11.96%) 11.96% Literature, Music, Art & Entertainment 130 posts of the board's 3184 posts (4.08%) 4.08% Moderation & Admin 18 posts of the board's 614 posts (2.93%) 2.93% Christian Topic 856 posts of the board's 32543 posts (2.63%) 2.63% General Discussion 260 posts of the board's 20139 posts (1.29%) 1.29% Pagan Topic 7 posts of the board's 688 posts (1.02%) 1.02% Politics & Current Affairs 60 posts of the board's 7266 posts (0.83%) 0.83% Religion and Ethics 33 posts of the board's 4636 posts (0.71%) 0.71% Sports, Hobbies & Interests 6 posts of the board's 911 posts (0.66%) 0.66%
I have not posted on the Jewish topic board according to my post and thread count.
I also know I would never blame the Jews for the Romans were the only people who could sentence Christ to death.
The Jewish law at that time forbid the Jews to sentence anyone to death.
If you knew the bible you would see when pilate washed his hands in public it was to show the death of Jesus was not his fault.
We often say it ourselves.." I wash my hand of you" in other words I want nothing to do with what happens here on in.
If you are going to make accusations at least make sure they are true.
As it was Gods will for Jesus to give up his life to save us, I am not sure why any Christian would have a go at the Jewish people.
-
Really.. You think that the KJV was translated by Jewish Scholars. I think you are confusing the KJV with the Sepuginant.
The Septuagint is a Greek version of the Hebrew books prepared at Alexandria by Jewish Scholars of the 3rd-2nd Century bc.
The vulgate is a Latin version of the bible prepared by Jerome in 4th Century
John Wycliffe did the first English translation of the vulgate bible in around 1380.
The translation out of original tongues of the New Testament and the Pentateuch was by William Tyndale 1525-34.
Miles Coverdale published the first complete English Bible in 1535.
The English translation or Authorised Version was prepared in the time of James 1 and issued 1611.
For example, we know that the KJV "authors" wouldn't understand Koine Greek, the original language of the New Testament. Koine Greek had been a dead language for over a thousand years when the KJV was published for the first time in 1611.
In fact, the translators of the KJV wouldn't have even known what Koine Greek was.
In fact, the composers of the KJV just wholeheartedly lifted sections of other earlier English translations of the NT that King James liked and stuck them in their "translations". John Wycliffe’s Bible was translated from Latin into English and hand copied in the 1400s. In 1526, almost 100 years before the KJV was first published, William Tyndale’s English translation of the Greek New Testament was published. “After Tyndale’s, a number of other versions were produced. Among them were the Coverdale Bible, the Matthews Bible, the Great Bible [authorised by Henry VIII], the Geneva Bible, and the Bishops’ Bible.”[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/kjvdebat.html]
In fact, much of the KJV borrows heavily from earlier English translations, especially the Bishop’s Bible.
There is evidence that they also lifted certain translations from the Greek New Testament written by Erasmus. One of the major problems is these "translations" were corrupted by the translators to remove certain aspects they disagreed with and retranslate with aspects they believed should be contained, known as "corrections". [https://bible.org/article/conspiracy-behind-new-bible-translations].
I think we can say that the KJV came down from the original tongues version of the bible.
The Septuagint is the LXX 70-72 Jewish scholars worked on the translation under he patronage of Ptolemy Philadelphius at Alexandra. It applies to the Pentateuch. But we know that first bible was the translation out of original tongues of the New Testament and the Pentateuch was done by William Tyndale 1525-34.
Miles Coverdale published the first complete English Bible in 1535.
So not sure why think any corrupt translators involved???
-
You can't say anything of the sort, Sass. ::)
-
You can't say anything of the sort, Sass. ::)
Had you ever studied the bible history you would have known I was talking about facts... But when have you ever been one for learning facts... :o ::)
-
Had you ever studied the bible history you would have known I was talking about facts... But when have you ever been one for learning facts... :o ::)
You wouldn't know a FACT about the Bible if it bit you on the bottom. ;D
-
You wouldn't know a FACT about the Bible if it bit you on the bottom. ;D
So how come I wrote all these facts?
The Septuagint is a Greek version of the Hebrew books prepared at Alexandria by Jewish Scholars of the 3rd-2nd Century bc.
The vulgate is a Latin version of the bible prepared by Jerome in 4th Century
John Wycliffe did the first English translation of the vulgate bible in around 1380.
The translation out of original tongues of the New Testament and the Pentateuch was by William Tyndale 1525-34.
Miles Coverdale published the first complete English Bible in 1535.
The English translation or Authorised Version was prepared in the time of James 1 and issued 1611.
Do you actually know where your bum is?
-
So how come I wrote all these facts?
Do you actually know where your bum is?
Do you actually believe that everything you say is gospel?
-
Do you actually believe that everything you say is gospel?
Did you believe everything God said was gospel?
Everything I say, doesn't have to be gospel so what would be the point of believing it was or not?
It isn't of any real weight in the great scheme of things.
Now if you asked me if I believed every word of God was the truth.
Then my answer would be a resounding , 'YES'.
It matters not one iota what I believe about what I have written. But it does matter if you can tell what is biblical and if you can show and understand what I say is true. If you cannot tell and show evidence it is wrong then how can you question if I believe what I say is true?
-
Did you believe everything God said was gospel?
Everything I say, doesn't have to be gospel so what would be the point of believing it was or not?
It isn't of any real weight in the great scheme of things.
Now if you asked me if I believed every word of God was the truth.
Then my answer would be a resounding , 'YES'.
It matters not one iota what I believe about what I have written. But it does matter if you can tell what is biblical and if you can show and understand what I say is true. If you cannot tell and show evidence it is wrong then how can you question if I believe what I say is true?
Except that "God" doesn't exist, so he couldn't have written any of it, my dear.
It was written by men who were deluded into believing that "God" was guiding them, just as you have been hoodwinked into believing them.
-
Except that "God" doesn't exist, so he couldn't have written any of it, my dear.
It was written by men who were deluded into believing that "God" was guiding them, just as you have been hoodwinked into believing them.
That isn't an argument Leonard.
In fact it a statement without any evidence just your 'wants' and 'beliefs' about God.
You cannot by any means prove Gods word is none existence or truth.
-
That isn't an argument Leonard.
In fact it a statement without any evidence just your 'wants' and 'beliefs' about God.
You cannot by any means prove Gods word is none existence or truth.
And nor can you, Sass. :)
-
So how come I wrote all these facts?
Did you write them from your own personal knowledge or copy them as facts having read them from elsewhere?
-
The Septuagint is a Greek version of the Hebrew books prepared at Alexandria by Jewish Scholars of the 3rd-2nd Century bc.
The vulgate is a Latin version of the bible prepared by Jerome in 4th Century
Correct - but you claimed that the KJV is:.. not corrupt at all. The Jewish scholars believe it to be the closest translation to their Torah.
I informed you that No Jewish Scholars were involved in writing the KJV.
Your response was:John Wycliffe did the first English translation of the vulgate bible in around 1380.
The translation out of original tongues of the New Testament and the Pentateuch was by William Tyndale 1525-34.
Miles Coverdale published the first complete English Bible in 1535.
In what way is John Wycliffe a Jewish scholar?
The English translation or Authorised Version was prepared in the time of James 1 and issued 1611.
I think we can say that the KJV came down from the original tongues version of the bible.
No, we can't. In fact, we can show it can from the exact opposite, it was written by people who didn't even know Koine Greek existed. You know the original tongue of the NT.
The Septuagint is the LXX 70-72 Jewish scholars worked on the translation under he patronage of Ptolemy Philadelphius at Alexandra. It applies to the Pentateuch. But we know that first bible was the translation out of original tongues of the New Testament and the Pentateuch was done by William Tyndale 1525-34.
Which was corrupted by the EDITORS of the KJV to suit their purposes and again Tyndale never translated the actual Hebrew, but took his influences from the Greek translations of the Hebrew Testaments about their G-d and took choice passages from the work of Desiderius Erasmus, who made the Greek New Testament available in Europe, to suit his teachings.
Miles Coverdale published the first complete English Bible in 1535.
Taking his cues from Tyndale, with all his flaws and retranslations...
So not sure why think any corrupt translators involved???
Because every translation was created by someone with an agenda - I struggle to see how you cannot understand that!!
I'm going to stop engaging with you about the bible. Your knowledge of how it was created is shockingly absent!!
-
Poor Sass, 'twaddle' must be her middle name! :(
-
I used to try educated "Sass" many years back about her misunderstanding of the bible, both OT and NT, in the Old NGL days..
Fallen on ignorant ears obviously!!
LOL
-
I used to try educated "Sass" many years back about her misunderstanding of the bible, both OT and NT, in the Old NGL days..
Fallen on ignorant ears obviously!!
LOL
Sass is stone deaf to anything that disagrees with her version of Christianity.
-
Sass is stone deaf to anything that disagrees with her version of Christianity.
Deaf and blind if this forum is anything to go by!
-
Sass is stone deaf to anything that disagrees with her version of Christianity.
She has demonstrated that over and over again throughout the years.
-
Pots and kettles, takes one to know one, floo. Please play another tune.
-
Correct - but you claimed that the KJV is:
I informed you that No Jewish Scholars were involved in writing the KJV.
You are wrong:-
King James authorised a commission of 47 men, all were outstanding scholars who were really great literary men who knew Greek, Latin and Hebrew fluently, and they decided that a good new translation was needed in English. So they got together this whole group of Biblical scholars.--Hebrew scholars, Greek scholars, Latin scholars, men who really knew what they were doing--and they worked on this new English translation of the Bible for a good many years.
As you can see Hebrew Scholars did translate the Hebrew section of the bible. It took over 6 years to write and the scholars went over and over it, all translated from the original tongues. The scholars even compared it to the Latin Vulgate. Tyndale's and Wycliffe's and the Vulgate and Huss' and all the translations they compared.
Your response was:
In what way is John Wycliffe a Jewish scholar?
No, we can't. In fact, we can show it can from the exact opposite, it was written by people who didn't even know Koine Greek existed. You know the original tongue of the NT.
I guess you could not see beyond Wycliffe and the others to the truth of how the KJV was done.
Which was corrupted by the EDITORS of the KJV to suit their purposes and again Tyndale never translated the actual Hebrew, but took his influences from the Greek translations of the Hebrew Testaments about their G-d and took choice passages from the work of Desiderius Erasmus, who made the Greek New Testament available in Europe, to suit his teachings.
Taking his cues from Tyndale, with all his flaws and retranslations...
As the men were fluent in the language who did the authorised version, I do not see what the above has to do with it.
They took the originals and compared it to the others however they compared all in their version.
Because every translation was created by someone with an agenda - I struggle to see how you cannot understand that!!
I'm going to stop engaging with you about the bible. Your knowledge of how it was created is shockingly absent!!
Well, it is you who sadly lack the truth. All the buff about corrupt versions etc. The Jewish scholars in all cases would have had ONE agenda NOT to change the word of God. Because the Jews learned the scriptures off by heart and still do today.
Any Hebrew Scholar in any time would be able to translate the Hebrew bible. Because we see that even the disciples learned it by heart. It is proved when the actions of Christ bring the words to mind.
If you choose to stop conversing that is your choice. But at least do it for a valid reason. In this case you were wrong.
You choose like everyone else what you want to believe, but you never check it out or reason it through.
The KJV is even today, believed by HEBREW JEWISH SCHOLARS to be the NEAREST TO THEIR OWN OT WRITINGS.
-
Poor Sass, 'twaddle' must be her middle name! :(
Where Twaddle is your first name. Oh, should that be ignorant?
At least I know what I am talking about. You are just happy to bask in your own ignorance.
It is okay everyone else gets embarrassed for you, especially Shaker who I believe will watch what he
defends you on, in future.
-
I used to try educated "Sass" many years back about her misunderstanding of the bible, both OT and NT, in the Old NGL days..
Fallen on ignorant ears obviously!!
LOL
Says the person who doesn't even know the history of the KJV bible and just believes the ignorant rumours. In the old NGL days
you rarely took anything on board. It was you who learned from myself. Now you are off with the fairies looking for whatever suits your cause and choice of beliefs.
Never mind! You don't even check... that is obvious from your last post.
-
Deaf and blind if this forum is anything to go by!
Thank you for letting me know I get to you. It is a sure sign of your own failures when you many gang up on one person.
He who is in me is greater than he who is in the world.
I suppose you believe mockary, childhood tactics bullying and making such remarks somehow excuses the ignorance you all display when answering biblical or Christian teachings.
But it doesn't you just stoop to a new level of adding it to your sarcastic replies and defeat when faced with the truth from believers whom you can give no scholarly or educated reply to.
Good to know you prove God right about those who believe the message of Christ foolish because they really have no wisdom in these matters...
-
Where Twaddle is your first name. Oh, should that be ignorant?
At least I know what I am talking about. You are just happy to bask in your own ignorance.
It is okay everyone else gets embarrassed for you, especially Shaker who I believe will watch what he
defends you on, in future.
Pot and kettle Sass, your ignorance knows no bounds. You seem to be very ignorant of the crazy way you present yourself to others, but it was ever thus. ::)
-
Pot and kettle Sass, your ignorance knows no bounds. You seem to be very ignorant of the crazy way you present yourself to others, but it was ever thus. ::)
O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
Robert Burns
If the power were given to us - I wonder exactly what Sassy would see, but I am not sure that I really want to find the answer, but I rather think it would be far different to what she would seem to think she woud see!
-
Thank you for letting me know I get to you. It is a sure sign of your own failures when you many gang up on one person.
He who is in me is greater than he who is in the world.
I suppose you believe mockary, childhood tactics bullying and making such remarks somehow excuses the ignorance you all display when answering biblical or Christian teachings.
But it doesn't you just stoop to a new level of adding it to your sarcastic replies and defeat when faced with the truth from believers whom you can give no scholarly or educated reply to.
Good to know you prove God right about those who believe the message of Christ foolish because they really have no wisdom in these matters...
-
We love you really, Sass. :)
It's just that usually you post such arrant nonsense that you make it difficult to resist pointing out how wrong it is. :)
-
Quote from: Sassy on 24-03-2016, 06:32:33
Thank you for letting me know I get to you. It is a sure sign of your own failures when you many gang up on one person.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sassy,
You couldn't get to me if you were standing five feet in front of me.
I have listened, over the last sixty or so years to so many so-called experts (ex = something or someone that is or has been - xpert (pronounced "spurt") = a drip under pressure) spout gallons and gallons and reams and reams of total and utter twaddle and hoigs wash.
You are living proof that there are none so blind as those who will not see, your arrogance in your belief that you are the only one who knows the truth and your vilifyication of any who dare to disagree with you and your world view makes you, and you would realise this if you bathered to read what is posted about you and your views, about as popular as a pork chop at a Bar Mitzvah.
Ignorance, they say, is bliss. You must be totally blissed out!
If you are on FaceBook there is apicture circulating showing a depiction of Jesus holding up a sign that says"My Dad says that if I can get 1m likes I can come back to Earth again! Get "Like"ing Sassy! Much good may it do you.
-
Quote from: Sassy on 24-03-2016, 06:32:33
Thank you for letting me know I get to you. It is a sure sign of your own failures when you many gang up on one person.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sassy,
You couldn't get to me if you were standing five feet in front of me.
I have listened, over the last sixty or so years to so many so-called experts (ex = something or someone that is or has been - xpert (pronounced "spurt") = a drip under pressure) spout gallons and gallons and reams and reams of total and utter twaddle and hoigs wash.
You are living proof that there are none so blind as those who will not see, your arrogance in your belief that you are the only one who knows the truth and your vilifyication of any who dare to disagree with you and your world view makes you, and you would realise this if you bathered to read what is posted about you and your views, about as popular as a pork chop at a Bar Mitzvah.
Ignorance, they say, is bliss. You must be totally blissed out!
If you are on FaceBook there is apicture circulating showing a depiction of Jesus holding up a sign that says"My Dad says that if I can get 1m likes I can come back to Earth again! Get "Like"ing Sassy! Much good may it do you.
Thanks for confirming I do get to you.
Seems you are more interested in me, than I will ever be in you. But if, I was interested in you, I would get the things I say about you right. It is truth which I am interested in, and the truth about you, I always get right.
I bet you wish you could be as sure about your beliefs, as I am about mine. I see it gets to you that someone can be so sure about God and his word. I doubt however, you could cope with what my family and I, have been through and come out the other side of it.
Your attempts to insult get worse as your posts increase in number by way of reply to me. If that is the best you have I suggest you give up now and quietly back down. You are good at making yourself look rather silly and uneducated when it comes to Christians and being able to answer them. Knock yourself out, and try and post something original and even true will do.
To be honest the only people you will knock out on the forum with posts like this, is the readers who will fall asleep from boredom.
1/10 for effort.
Note to Owlswing: Must try harder...trying everyone's patience does not count... LOL.. :-*
-
Thanks for confirming I do get to you.
Seems you are more interested in me, than I will ever be in you. But if, I was interested in you, I would get the things I say about you right. It is truth which I am interested in, and the truth about you, I always get right.
I bet you wish you could be as sure about your beliefs, as I am about mine. I see it gets to you that someone can be so sure about God and his word. I doubt however, you could cope with what my family and I, have been through and come out the other side of it.
Your attempts to insult get worse as your posts increase in number by way of reply to me. If that is the best you have I suggest you give up now and quietly back down. You are good at making yourself look rather silly and uneducated when it comes to Christians and being able to answer them. Knock yourself out, and try and post something original and even true will do.
To be honest the only people you will knock out on the forum with posts like this, is the readers who will fall asleep from boredom.
1/10 for effort.
Note to Owlswing: Must try harder...trying everyone's patience does not count... LOL.. :-*
You do add colour to the forum Sass, I like your eccentricities, where you go wrong most times is your reliance on baseless assertions, you're nowhere near the nut job as good old Sparkie or poor old ~TW~ are, but you do need to be able to find some way of substantiating your excessive amount of unsupported assertions.
Contrary to what you may think Sass I wish you well, ippy
-
jeremy, I am only saying what I think, not trying to come up with an argument. I do not see that particular issue as showing God to be a liar, not because I am not prepared to admit God is a liar. You believe the Bible portrays God as a liar - that's your prerogative and I won't dispute it with you because I accept you do not believe in God.
I can understand why you wouldn't want to admit that the god of the Bible lied. It's the same reason that so many believers won't admit that their god was wrong in not condemning slavery.
Because if they do then they are also admitting that they have a higher standard of morality than their god; which, of course, would ruin everything.
-
You are wrong:-
As you can see Hebrew Scholars did translate the Hebrew section of the bible. It took over 6 years to write and the scholars went over and over it, all translated from the original tongues. The scholars even compared it to the Latin Vulgate. Tyndale's and Wycliffe's and the Vulgate and Huss' and all the translations they compared.
I guess you could not see beyond Wycliffe and the others to the truth of how the KJV was done.
As the men were fluent in the language who did the authorised version, I do not see what the above has to do with it.
They took the originals and compared it to the others however they compared all in their version.
Well, it is you who sadly lack the truth. All the buff about corrupt versions etc. The Jewish scholars in all cases would have had ONE agenda NOT to change the word of God. Because the Jews learned the scriptures off by heart and still do today.
Any Hebrew Scholar in any time would be able to translate the Hebrew bible. Because we see that even the disciples learned it by heart. It is proved when the actions of Christ bring the words to mind.
If you choose to stop conversing that is your choice. But at least do it for a valid reason. In this case you were wrong.
You choose like everyone else what you want to believe, but you never check it out or reason it through.
The KJV is even today, believed by HEBREW JEWISH SCHOLARS to be the NEAREST TO THEIR OWN OT WRITINGS.
No, I'm not "wrong".
You can keep wittering on about HEBREW as much as you like, that's not the issue.
The issue is the Original Koine Greek texts, if they even knew they existed, were unreadable to these "translators".
Aye, they might have had classical Greek as a part of their translation armoury, but the NT wasn't constructed in posh "Classical Greek" but in the common tongue of the underclass. Which was foreign to these "translators".
The translators of the KJV 1611 were untrained in Koine Greek.
Koine (“common”) Greek is the original language of the New Testament. Koine Greek had been a dead language for over a thousand years when the KJV was published for the first time in 1611. The translators of the KJV didn’t even know what Koine Greek was. Some people believed that the Greek language of the NT was a unique, Spirit-inspired dialect.[5] It was not until the late 1800s and during the 1900s, when tens of thousands of papyri documents were discovered – many written in Koine, that we could begin to understand the language more fully.[6] Unlike the translators of the KJV, modern translators of the New Testament are scholars of Koine Greek.
The KJV translation of the NT is based on relatively recent Greek manuscripts.
As well as relying on previous English translations, the 1611 edition of the KJV relied on a critically edited Greek text that was “for the most part based on about half a dozen very late manuscripts (none earlier than the 12th century AD).”[7] These late manuscripts include editions of the Greek New Testament by Erasmus[8], as well as Robert Estienne’s (a.k.a. ‘Stephanus’) edition (1550) and Theodore Beza’s edition (1598). Unfortunately, one of the manuscripts Estienne and Beza used for their Greek editions contained a few “corrections” that downplayed the importance of women in the church.[9]"
http://newlife.id.au/church-history/7-things-about-the-king-james-bible/
http://www.ibri.org/Tracts/trkjvtct.htm
The KVJ was constructed of a mistranslation, of a mistranslation, of a mistranslation, ad infinitum!!
-
No, I'm not "wrong".
You can keep wittering on about HEBREW as much as you like, that's not the issue.
Let us study this together. The Holy Spirit always spoke through the Prophet's and we know Christ himself said:-
"My words are SPIRIT and they are Life." Given the fact that all were given the word by the Spirit and that the very same Spirit teaches all who are born of Spirit and truth then for the believer it is not an issue of language.
Acts 2.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
So where you have the problem of knowing the truth and put it down to worldly scholarly matters like language.
The believer in Spirit and Truth does not have that problem. The OT and the NT show clearly God giving them the words to speak and opening their minds to scripture. The truth you fail to grasp like so many is that the believer has God to teach them through the Holy Spirit. No problems with definitions or languages.
The issue is the Original Koine Greek texts, if they even knew they existed, were unreadable to these "translators".
Aye, they might have had classical Greek as a part of their translation armoury, but the NT wasn't constructed in posh "Classical Greek" but in the common tongue of the underclass. Which was foreign to these "translators".
The KVJ was constructed of a mistranslation, of a mistranslation, of a mistranslation, ad infinitum!!
But as explained the Christian disciples did not require either. The word of God in OT learned by heart hence the disciples referred to it when they saw the things Jesus did. The NT did not exist and as Christ promised the Holy Spirit taught them.
I DO understand your worldly problem as a non believer but as a believer there is no problem because it is not longer in the letter but the sword of the Spirit.
The Hebrew being learned by heart even for Jews would always be the closest for OT and the NT believers had the same as the OT Prophets to teach them and bring the word of God.
When God wants a person to know something language has never been a barrier as Acts 2 reveals.
So whilst I understand the predicament for you. It will never be a problem for those in the Spirit as example shows.
-
I reckon Sass and Thrud love each other really, and enjoy their spats! ;D
-
As far as I'm aware, it is human socity that controls the development of language. It is, partly, why legislation sometimes has to be updated in order to take such developments into account. I suppose that if society decided to stop all language development, we could get away with using older translations. At the same time, the transferring of concets across languages doesn't always work smoothly. For instance, in the Nepalese Bible, there is no mention of the Lamb of God. Why? There are no sheep in Nepal. Comparably, and away from the Bible, there are half a dozen words for snow in the global forms of English; there are probably a dozen (not the famed 300/100/50) in Inuit languages.
I suppose Klingons would have some difficulty there too, the sheep.
ippy
-
So where you have the problem of knowing the truth and put it down to worldly scholarly matters like language.
The believer in Spirit and Truth does not have that problem.
Ah yes, that fits the third and ninth in my list of reasons that Christians regularly trot out to explain why they get it but I don't.
I don't understand because I need to know how to translate Hebrew and Greek
I don't understand because I need to view it from a child's perspective
I don't understand because I'm not a "true Christian"
I don't understand because I'm not a biblical scholar
I don't understand because I took the scripture out of context.
I don't understand because it means something other than what it actually says
I don't understand because it's an allegory
I don't understand because my mind is far too feeble to comprehend your god's truth
I don't understand because I've not been filled with the holy spirit
-
Ah yes, that fits the third and ninth in my list of reasons that Christians regularly trot out to explain why they get it but I don't.
I don't understand because I need to know how to translate Hebrew and Greek
I don't understand because I need to view it from a child's perspective
I don't understand because I'm not a "true Christian"
I don't understand because I'm not a biblical scholar
I don't understand because I took the scripture out of context.
I don't understand because it means something other than what it actually says
I don't understand because it's an allegory
I don't understand because my mind is far too feeble to comprehend your god's truth
I don't understand because I've not been filled with the holy spirit
Like it, a good post.
ippy
-
Like it, a good post.
ippy
Ditto!
-
Fools seldom differ.... :D
-
Fools seldom differ.... :D
You should know Sassy.
ippy
-
Fools seldom differ.... :D
No problem, unless, of course, you are classifying yourself in the other half of that saying, which, of course, with your usual dishonesty, you left out - just for clarity the saying is, in full "Great minds think alike - fools rarely differ".
In other words there is no difference between the two groups. Pull your skirt down Sassy, your duplicity is showing again!
-
Fools seldom differ.... :D
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good".
Psalm 14:
Is that the kind of fool you're talking about?
-
You should know Sassy.
ippy
Well I wasn't one of those agreeing...but you most definitely were... :-*
-
Well I wasn't one of those agreeing...but you most definitely were... :-*
Oooow, not the dreaded sharp tongue Sassy.
ippy
-
I reckon Sass and Thrud love each other really, and enjoy their spats! ;D
I guess it all goes "Whooooooosssshhhhh" above the air you call a head!
-
No problem, unless, of course, you are classifying yourself in the other half of that saying, which, of course, with your usual dishonesty, you left out - just for clarity the saying is, in full "Great minds think alike - fools rarely differ".
In other words there is no difference between the two groups. Pull your skirt down Sassy, your duplicity is showing again!
Quote from: Khatru on April 12, 2016, 01:27:48 PM
Ah yes, that fits the third and ninth in my list of reasons that Christians regularly trot out to explain why they get it but I don't.
I don't understand because I need to know how to translate Hebrew and Greek
I believe you will find that translation has nothing to do with Christian understanding. And why in my case you would be SOOOOO wrong...
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
To understand what God is saying you only need ears.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
I don't understand because I need to view it from a child's perspective
Not what is really said:-
King James Bible
And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Trust in Christ as a child trusts their parents.
I don't understand because I'm not a "true Christian"
Is that for atheists or believers?
It would a pointless exercise for someone not a believer.
I don't understand because I'm not a biblical scholar
Wrong again... biblical scholar or not...
King James Bible
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
Back to the drawing board for you. Anyone can be a biblical scholar but God has made foolish the wisdom of the world.
I don't understand because I took the scripture out of context.
King James Bible
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
How do you take a scripture out of context?
I don't understand because it means something other than what it actually says
Not a clue where you got that one from....
I don't understand because it's an allegory
Do you mean parables? Not to worry sometimes it was done deliberate.
I don't understand because my mind is far too feeble to comprehend your god's truth
You definitely made that one up. LOL.
I don't understand because I've not been filled with the holy spirit
Really! Whose fault is that and what is it you do not understand? (like we need to actually ask given this post)
I suppose sometimes a lesson to amend your own ignorance is required.
You first! Oh, I forgot, you claim ignorance according to your list but then make a statement that a lesson is needed to amend our ignorance. What ignorance is that? We know the answers it is you who is claiming otherwise for yourself.
Take a load off....
I guess you Owlswing, want to withdraw your stupid remarks given your ignorance of the facts.
Try reading the posts.
-
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good".
Psalm 14:
Is that the kind of fool you're talking about?
What kind/type of fool would that be?
The type of fool who because of lack of belief does corrupt or abominable works, so not doing the good they should?
Which people is God referring to in those words?
Who is King David referring to? As a King would he know his own people?
You need to be more specific....
-
What kind/type of fool would that be?
The type of fool who because of lack of belief does corrupt or abominable works, so not doing the good they should?
Which people is God referring to in those words?
Who is King David referring to? As a King would he know his own people?
You need to be more specific....
You are hilarious, sadly you can't see it! ::)
-
What kind/type of fool would that be?
The type of fool who because of lack of belief does corrupt or abominable works, so not doing the good they should?
Which people is God referring to in those words?
Who is King David referring to? As a King would he know his own people?
You need to be more specific....
I need to be more specific?
I was just quoting the Bible.
Do you agree with that scripture?
-
I need to be more specific?
I was just quoting the Bible.
Do you agree with that scripture?
No! You wrote a verse from the scripture and so far have shown no understanding of that verse.
So given the facts about the writer, who he was and who he was speaking about.
Give us an explanation of the words he used and why he called them what he did.
His history is a good place to start... if you know any of it...
-
No! You wrote a verse from the scripture and so far have shown no understanding of that verse.
So given the facts about the writer, who he was and who he was speaking about.
Give us an explanation of the words he used and why he called them what he did.
His history is a good place to start... if you know any of it...
You're all over the place, Sass.
All I asked was whether you agreed with the scripture.
A simple yes/no answer will suffice.
-
You're all over the place, Sass.
All I asked was whether you agreed with the scripture.
A simple yes/no answer will suffice.
It is you... caught out with absolutely NO understanding... Now go away and wait till you actually know something about Christianity before you attempt discussions.
-
It is you... caught out with absolutely NO understanding... Now go away and wait till you actually know something about Christianity before you attempt discussions.
Understanding christianity Sass, it wouldn't matter how much anyone understands christianity, understanding christianity doesn't make any of it true, I don't know why you find this so difficult to understand?
Think about it Sass, you could do several thousand of your boring chapter and verse dirges, quoting all sorts of your bible's contents, as you usually do, these endless boring dirges still don't amount to anything like proof that your god/Jesus idea has anything to it, how come you find this so difficult to grasp/understand?
ippy
-
Just because people desperately want something to be true doesn't mean it is if there is no evidence to support it.
I want there to be no god or afterlife, and whilst there is no credible evidence to indicate that there is, I would be really silly if I stated that it was true there is no god or afterlife.
-
It is you... caught out with absolutely NO understanding... Now go away and wait till you actually know something about Christianity before you attempt discussions.
Time to quote an earlier post of mine:
It's a simple enough question but it seems to cause you problems.
What is it with believers and their reluctance to answer questions?
Unlike the believers, I think most unbelievers will always try to answer a question posed by another person, regardless of the question, or indeed, who is posing it.
Will we always answer it to complete satisfaction?
Sometimes we will, sometimes not at all and sometimes never. However, as a believer, I for one really dislike walking away from a question without at least trying to answer it. Seems that this is a personal standard shared by many unbelievers and not-so-many believers. It's a good quality.
Sure, we can be seen as arrogant at times; even forceful in our pursuit of accountability. Unlike believers, we have no problem being scrutinised and we are also able to elucidate in a way that can be understood by anyone willing to apply the same effort at understanding that we place ourselves out there to be scrutinised.
What I notice with theists is they like to jut the chin out and challenge. However, try asking them a question that requires them to inspect what they think and you'll find they will try to shift the point of discussion to some sort of "only I can understand it" slant.
So, it's rare you run across an atheist that won't put themselves up to be picked apart or explain why they think as they do.
If it can be understood by one, it can by all, no desire or faith required.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11564.msg589963#msg589963
I asked you a simple question and you continually fail to answer it.
Why is this?
The answer is that you wholeheartedly agree with the scripture I quoted. The reason you refuse to admit it is because you don't like what you see when you examine your beliefs on this.
It's an ugly ju-ju that you subscribe to.
-
The ''fool'' is a bad person, or ''vile'' person which is the Hebrew equivalent. It doesn't necessarily mean 'stupid' which is more or less what we mean by 'fool' today, but somebody wicked. David was speaking of 'fools' generally, not to anyone in particular.
-
The ''fool'' is a bad person, or ''vile'' person which is the Hebrew equivalent. It doesn't necessarily mean 'stupid' which is more or less what we mean by 'fool' today, but somebody wicked. David was speaking of 'fools' generally, not to anyone in particular.
Where Sass's faith has clearly failed and left her afraid to face up to a simple question, at least you have had a go and I thank you for that.
So, if I've got you right, David is not saying that fools are stupid but that they are abominable, bad, vile and evil.
Why? Because they have not embraced the god of the Bible.
Let's have another look at this verse...
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Does it make believers feel good to lump the billions of people in the world who do not believe in the Bible god into one category as corrupt, abominable and doing no good?
The way I see it is that if the believer agrees with the second part then they are sick and they had better be prepared to prove their claim.
If the believer doesn't agree with the second part then they have a problem in that they are conceding that the Bible doesn't always get it right.
It's easy to see how Sass's faith has failed her and left her with no option other than to run away from the question.
-
The ''fool'' is a bad person, or ''vile'' person which is the Hebrew equivalent. It doesn't necessarily mean 'stupid' which is more or less what we mean by 'fool' today, but somebody wicked. David was speaking of 'fools' generally, not to anyone in particular.
David's behaviour wasn't exactly commendable.
-
The ''fool'' is a bad person, or ''vile'' person which is the Hebrew equivalent. It doesn't necessarily mean 'stupid' which is more or less what we mean by 'fool' today, but somebody wicked. David was speaking of 'fools' generally, not to anyone in particular.
If this particular David ever existed?
ippy
-
David's behaviour wasn't exactly commendable.
The Bible tells us that David was "perfect in the ways of the Lord"
David is a hero of the Bible and it seems that being "perfect in the ways of the Lord", includes adultery and murder.
-
If this particular David ever existed?
ippy
Yes, there is that.
Archaelogy is no friend to the Bible and this particular David had little (if any) evidence to show that he even existed.
-
I believe you will find that translation has nothing to do with Christian understanding. And why in my case you would be SOOOOO wrong...
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
To understand what God is saying you only need ears.
Not what is really said:-
Trust in Christ as a child trusts their parents.
Is that for atheists or believers?
It would a pointless exercise for someone not a believer.
Wrong again... biblical scholar or not...
King James Bible
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
Back to the drawing board for you. Anyone can be a biblical scholar but God has made foolish the wisdom of the world.
King James Bible
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
How do you take a scripture out of context?
Not a clue where you got that one from....
Do you mean parables? Not to worry sometimes it was done deliberate.
You definitely made that one up. LOL.
Really! Whose fault is that and what is it you do not understand? (like we need to actually ask given this post)
You first! Oh, I forgot, you claim ignorance according to your list but then make a statement that a lesson is needed to amend our ignorance. What ignorance is that? We know the answers it is you who is claiming otherwise for yourself.
Take a load off....
I guess you Owlswing, want to withdraw your stupid remarks given your ignorance of the facts.
Try reading the posts.
Apologies for the delay in responding to the above, but I have been without internet since 23.04 - will not get it back (at home) until 19.05 - so I am using the library which, for once, has a terminal free.
Trouble is, Sassy, that I find all your quotes and remarks to be as stupid as you find mine - I do so because you are so totally blind to anything other that your own prejudices as enshrined in the pile of shit you call the bible!
-
Look's that way to me but interested to see what believers say.
Well believers on here are few and far between also very liberal and wishy washy.Now my understanding of sovereign would be that God has his finger on the button and knows what is going on.I hope that helps.
~TW~