CplDavisI hunt the arctic SnonosJoin Date: 2003-01-09Member: 12097Members
edited March 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Mar 26 2005, 01:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Mar 26 2005, 01:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>Nice use of the KJV to try and get the effect you want.</b>
I think James Holding of Tektonics Apologetic Ministries said it best: "Whenever you run across any person who criticizes the Bible, claims findings of contradiction or error -- they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. They have to earn it from you."
From <a href='http://www.tektonics.org/af/calcon.html' target='_blank'>here,</a> which goes over just some of the reasons why these sorts of lists are inane. Especially when people like you choose to try and mix and match translations to prove their points.
Next time you try something like this, try looking at <a href='http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html' target='_blank'>Strong's Lexicon.</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wait.. people like me? And I'm claiming what? The next time I try something like this what?
It's almost like I simply stated "Im just curious as to how the forum felt about things like this."
Oh wait... I did. Im not critizing anything.
I never stated they are my own personal beliefs nor did I try to prove anything.
I posted them to see what you people thought of things like this.
Grendel, you confuse me, you near simultaneously start two threads where in one you are making various claims about the nature of a religious document and in the other you say that such debate, especially in the case of religion, is pointless. Or perhaps you have accepted the emotionally based decision process so much, you are actually guarding it and intentionally including it in your own processes.
(Expecting the emotionally based reaction to what can be interpreted as a minor attack)
(now expecting a slight bit of confusion as to the next course of action which will be resolved by making a sly comment)
(either it will rest there or be be upset by frustration)
Is there a point to these religion threads besides having an excuse for the god-fearing and the god-hating people of this forum to throw shots at each other, or am I just not getting it?
HAMBoneProbably the best CommanderJoin Date: 2003-04-02Member: 15139Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
edited March 2005
you are really, really wrong, have you actually read the bible? There are plenty of english bibles which are translated directly from the hebrew/greek scriptures, IMO the best english translations are The Tyndale(~1525), The Geneva Bible (1550), and Rotherham's Emphasized literal translation (late 1800s). William Tyndale was KILLED by the catholic church for translating the bible to english, the writers of the geneva bible were hiding in exile to do their translation, so dont confuse catholicism/anglican/protestant with christians, catholics have killed more christians than probably anyone else, their religion has very little to do with the bible other than to mock it, its like calling a jew a nazi or something. It wasnt until a few hundred years ago that the catholic church stopped putting people to death for translating/reading/owning the bible, so that shows you at least how powerful the corrupt church thought the bible was, that for ~1000 years they were KILLING people for reading it and BURNING any version that wasn't the corrupt vulgate. The KJV and the rhemes/duey were released only once they had to come to terms with the fact that the masses had the bible, so if they are going to have the bible, they may as well have our corrupt translation, even still, those translations arent _that_ bad, especially when compared to some of the more modern ones, but they aren't as good as the older ones.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Mar 26 2005, 10:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Mar 26 2005, 10:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now the word that was on the one of the orginal scripts of the bible was this. <!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1--> לַהֲרֹג <!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2--> Which means kill, for those that can not read hebrew. <!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1--> רֶצַח <!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2--> Murder looks like that. Which is why it is not murder. If you can not see the difference, I would take a magnifying glass and look at the screen. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, the word used in Exodus 20:13 is found <a href='http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=7523' target='_blank'>here.</a>
The word used in Exodus 32:27 is found <a href='http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=2026' target='_blank'>here.</a> The primary definition, as I said before, 'to smite.'
Two different words, two different meanings. GG critics.
I'll follow in suit, and condescendingly post the dictionary definition of smite for effect.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->smite Audio pronunciation of "smite" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (smt) v. smote, (smt) smit·ten, (smtn) or smote smit·ing, smites v. tr.
1. 1. To inflict a heavy blow on, with or as if with the hand, a tool, or a weapon. 2. To drive or strike (a weapon, for example) forcefully onto or into something else. 2. To attack, damage, or destroy by or as if by blows. 3. 1. To afflict: The population was smitten by the plague. <b>2. To afflict retributively; chasten or chastise.</b> 4. To affect sharply with great feeling: He was smitten by deep remorse. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Mar 26 2005, 02:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Mar 26 2005, 02:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As to why we non-religious folk feel the need to discuss religion so often... I don't know about anyone else, but in a lot of cases I'm just trying to understand the mindset of a (christian) religious person. I don't get it really, how can anyone have so much faith in something that (as far as I've seen) is so much baloney? I'm absolutely astounded by the crazy arguments that are used to justify this or that thing that someone did, or this or that thing that God did, or the way the OT God is so different from the God of the NT, or the way parts of the bible (that they believe are literally true) can be true in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary. I guess I don't understand faith. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That brings me to want to ask the question, what is faith? How can we describe it and show we have faith? We can say we have faith in something, but do we really? Or is faith just an illusion? Can get quite complex, especially changing the context of faith.
This is going a bit off tangent here, but you can not romanize the characters of the hebrew langauge. The same can be said for the egyptian hieroglyphs, mayan, aztec, celtic, or linear-a. There isn't anyway to correctly translate it into what it would look like romanized. Which is what that source of yours did.
One of the best examples I can possibly think of would be the sun god Ra.
<a href='http://images.google.com/images?q=Egyptian+Ra&hl=en' target='_blank'>Google search on Egyptian sun God Ra images</a> Just look at how many different "symbols" portray this one diety and it is probably the simplest of all the symbols to draw, other then counting by numbers of course.
I count six different ways on just one page. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> However, what the hebrew did look like, is what is posted on the previous page.
Faith... that is an excellent question Thaldarin, I could not even begin to tell you what faith is other then the dictionary definition of it. Sadly, I do not have enough "faith" to really define it other then believing something without seeing proof it exsists. I think that faith in anything other then yourself is really just showing you do not trust yourself to get you through life. I'm sure others will disagree.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Mar 26 2005, 04:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Mar 26 2005, 04:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This is going a bit off tangent here, but you can not romanize the characters of the hebrew langauge. The same can be said for the egyptian hieroglyphs, mayan, aztec, celtic, or linear-a. There isn't anyway to correctly translate it into what it would look like romanized. Which is what that source of yours did.
One of the best examples I can possibly think of would be the sun god Ra.
<a href='http://images.google.com/images?q=Egyptian+Ra&hl=en' target='_blank'>Google search on Egyptian sun God Ra images</a> Just look at how many different "symbols" portray this one diety and it is probably the simplest of all the symbols to draw, other then counting by numbers of course.
I count six different ways on just one page. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> However, what the hebrew did look like, is what is posted on the previous page.
Faith... that is an excellent question Thaldarin, I could not even begin to tell you what faith is other then the dictionary definition of it. Sadly, I do not have enough "faith" to really define it other then believing something without seeing proof it exsists. I think that faith in anything other then yourself is really just showing you do not trust yourself to get you through life. I'm sure others will disagree. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> My source, (which, by the way, is <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong's_concordance' target='_blank'>Strong's Concordance</a>) looks at the original hebrew, and assigns numbers to each word, then tracks those words all the way through the bible. Thus, the same word IN HEBREW will be numbered the same throughout.
By attacking Strong's Lexicon as a respectavle source, you show yourself to be totally incompentant, and reveal the fact that you have absolutely no idea how apologetics works, nor do you care. This is the same reason that I'm not going to post in the other thread anymore, and I suspect the same reason I will never take anything you say seriously, because you attack everything that you don't like to hear.
I don't care what it "looks like" romanticized, I care about what each of the words, in the original hebrew, means. The two words I linked to are two totally different words in Hebrew, and thus have two different meanings.
Sadly I do know what apologists do. Obviously you are very famailar with what to do as well. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Today the term "apologist" is colloquially applied to groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists are often characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term often has a pejorative meaning. The neutralized substitution of "spokesperson" for "apologist" in conversation conveys much the same sense of "partisan presenter with a weighted agenda," with less rhetorical freight. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Crisqo+Mar 26 2005, 11:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crisqo @ Mar 26 2005, 11:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->QUOTE (Legionnaired @ Mar 26 2005, 01:51 AM) I think I'll rip these to shreds before I crash, it'd be a nice midnight snack for my head.
QUOTE Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."
Best translated "Thou shalt not murder"
No, no it is not.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh boy, now someone who doesn't think the Bible isn't the Word of God is going to tell us what it actually means. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Whats so sad is that I shouldn't have to.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->you imply that killing someone, if there is legal grounds to do so, is acceptable. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Abortion anyone?
Yes, I know you don't believe the fetus is a person so it doesn't count. So don't say it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This isn't about <i>my</i> beliefs now is it? Christians seem to believe that abortion is wrong, even though it is a lawfull act, but execution (equally lawfull) is perfectly OK.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I mean, after all, if the state says its ok for me to execute my wife if she cheats on me, then is doing so ok in the eyes of God? Obviously not.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually... <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Rom. 13:4 He is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That basically meant that LAWFUL government, as God's servant, may execute criminals and fight just wars. While i'm not saying God approves of the slaying cheating wives, or that we should even do it... Just trying to clarify...something. If I could remember what it was I was talking about anyways.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh! I get it! The <i>Christians</i> get to decide who lives and who dies, how convienient! That is what you mean by LAWFUL right? A government that is just in God's eyes?
<!--QuoteBegin-Gwahir+Mar 26 2005, 08:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gwahir @ Mar 26 2005, 08:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The government is on His shoulders. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> umm.... what?
<!--QuoteBegin-Gwahir+Mar 26 2005, 08:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gwahir @ Mar 26 2005, 08:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Not Christians decide who lives or dies... God. We don't have the right. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe I'm just too tired, but what does that have to do with government?
You have mistakenly equaled Christian's eyes to God's eyes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh! I get it! The Christians get to decide who lives and who dies, how convienient! That is what you mean by LAWFUL right? A government that is just in God's eyes?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Gwahir+Mar 26 2005, 09:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gwahir @ Mar 26 2005, 09:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> this has gotten confused from multiple angles.
You have mistakenly equaled Christian's eyes to God's eyes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh! I get it! The Christians get to decide who lives and who dies, how convienient! That is what you mean by LAWFUL right? A government that is just in God's eyes?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, no, you miss understand what I'm saying. I'm saying, that "Thou shalt not kill (humans)", means that you shouldn't kill humans, for any reason, ever. I also pointed out that many christians (including several who regularly visit this forum) are hypocritical when it comes to this commandment, follwing it in the case of abortion, but not in the case of capital punsihment (for instance). He attempted to counter that argument (saying its OK for the government to execute criminals):
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Rom. 13:4 He is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That basically meant that LAWFUL government, as God's servant, may execute criminals and fight just wars..<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My response was mocking him. Because he is saying that when a "lawfull", is in God's eyes, government executes people, its ok. Which is rediculous, because who draws the line between what is a "lawfull" government and what isn't? Thats right, the Christians will be interpreting that one (in other words, they get to decide who lives and who dies). For whatever reason, they think that our government executing criminals is "lawfull", and our government allowing abortions isn't. Which to me is quite contradictory. Worse yet is that they believe that they are somehow qualified to make the judgement between who should die and who shouldn't, that kind of arogance is usually reserved for God.
So you see, thats why translating that passage as "Thou shalt not murder" is so rediculous. Since the government defines murder, but its only ok if its "lawfull", which is decided by... who? Not god, but the chrisitans interpreting his words!
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Mar 26 2005, 09:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Mar 26 2005, 09:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Gwahir+Mar 26 2005, 08:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gwahir @ Mar 26 2005, 08:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Not Christians decide who lives or dies... God. We don't have the right. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe I'm just too tired, but what does that have to do with government? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Nothing. You brought the government into this.
Interestingly enough the Leviticus does include capital punishment. But then again, the new testament brings about the forgiveness of sins, including to gentiles. Bring sight to the blind, take it from those who see, etc.
Personally I've never really comitted to a side on capital punishment. Some things draw me towards it, others away, though mostly away. Abortion I am against as there are no mitigating circumstances in the vast majority of cases. In the cases where death of one or both maybe die as a result I am open to persuasion so long as it is understood that it is still wrong, even in that case. As an example, the assassination attempt on Hitler was wrong, but the evil he did was a greater evil. The evil he did grew to the point were he must be stopped, but that act must be undertaken with the full knowledge that killing him is also evil. It's a difficult position, but I hope I explained it well enough.
Now I have heard from scholars that the 10C say murder, yet here mr. Legion has brought about evidence to the contrary. And there are God sanctioned wars in the Old Testament, someone remind me of any cases of such in the NT.
As for the government part. This is obviously not the greatest of governments. Now please do not assume that the Christian definition of lawfull is as simple as what is defined by manly government. But as Christians we are to follow the laws of manly government unless that law comes into conflict with Biblical law, a priority based system if you will. I can't speak to the lawfullness of the American government...
For the sake of this discussion I will place myself against capital punishment.
Obviously there are a lot of loose ends in here as it was kind of a stream of conscious approach.
Also, SkulkBait, you seem to be far less mocking towards me, could it be I've gained at least an inkling of respect from you?
<!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+Mar 25 2005, 06:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Mar 25 2005, 06:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> These people then quote text from this <b>as the literal or even vaguely accurate representation of the word of God</b>? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's not even the worst of it.
The bible contains obvious copies of hymns to Baal et al!
I've some research in the past and here is an interesting link: <a href='http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm' target='_blank'>Ugarit and the bible</a>
And here is an excerpt:
"4. The Ugaritic Pantheon.
The prophets of the Old Testament rail against Baal, Asherah and various other gods on nearly every page. The reason for this is simple to understand; the people of Israel worshipped these gods along with, and sometimes instead of, Yahweh, the God of Israel. This Biblical denunciation of these Canaanite gods received a fresh face when the Ugaritic texts were discovered, for at Ugarit these were the very gods that were worshipped.
El was the chief god at Ugarit. Yet El is also the name of God used in many of the Psalms for Yahweh; or at least that has been the presupposition among pious Christians. Yet when one reads these Psalms and the Ugaritic texts one sees that the very attributes for which Yahweh is acclaimed are the same for which El is acclaimed. In fact, these Psalms were most likely originally Ugaritic or Canaanite hymns to El which were simply adopted by Israel, much like the American National Anthem was set to a beer hall tune by Francis Scott Key. El is called the “father of men”, “creator”, and “creator of the creation”. These attributes are also granted Yahweh by the Old Testament.
For instances, read KTU 1. 2 I 13-32 and compare it to many of the Psalms. Also, read Ps 82:1, 89:6-8mn!).
In 2 Kings 22:19-22 we read of Yahweh meeting with his heavenly council. This is the very description of heaven which one finds in the Ugaritic texts. For in those texts the “sons of god” are the sons of El. "
----------
Of course the last time I brought this to light I got all kinds of great comments about my research skills, how I never had read the Bible etc etc.
I would like to state for a record that I was a Christian for many years and have the read the Bible on more than one occasion.
In addition, I would like to point out that the Bible is supposed to be "sacred" no? As some Christians the last time seemed to cheerfully shrug this off as basically a God is allowed to put whatever suits him in his book. <b> It therefore strikes me as really odd that Yahweh would not want idols (the golden calf) made after him (like the other Gods) but would allow copied Baal et al. hymns to appear in his book </b>.
The other point to note here is that Israelites were not always monotheist.
<!--QuoteBegin-FilthyLarry+Mar 27 2005, 04:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Mar 27 2005, 04:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+Mar 25 2005, 06:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Mar 25 2005, 06:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> These people then quote text from this <b>as the literal or even vaguely accurate representation of the word of God</b>? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's not even the worst of it.
The bible contains obvious copies of hymns to Baal et al!
I've some research in the past and here is an interesting link: <a href='http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm' target='_blank'>Ugarit and the bible</a>
And here is an excerpt:
"4. The Ugaritic Pantheon.
The prophets of the Old Testament rail against Baal, Asherah and various other gods on nearly every page. The reason for this is simple to understand; the people of Israel worshipped these gods along with, and sometimes instead of, Yahweh, the God of Israel. This Biblical denunciation of these Canaanite gods received a fresh face when the Ugaritic texts were discovered, for at Ugarit these were the very gods that were worshipped.
El was the chief god at Ugarit. Yet El is also the name of God used in many of the Psalms for Yahweh; or at least that has been the presupposition among pious Christians. Yet when one reads these Psalms and the Ugaritic texts one sees that the very attributes for which Yahweh is acclaimed are the same for which El is acclaimed. In fact, these Psalms were most likely originally Ugaritic or Canaanite hymns to El which were simply adopted by Israel, much like the American National Anthem was set to a beer hall tune by Francis Scott Key. El is called the “father of men”, “creator”, and “creator of the creation”. These attributes are also granted Yahweh by the Old Testament.
For instances, read KTU 1. 2 I 13-32 and compare it to many of the Psalms. Also, read Ps 82:1, 89:6-8mn!).
In 2 Kings 22:19-22 we read of Yahweh meeting with his heavenly council. This is the very description of heaven which one finds in the Ugaritic texts. For in those texts the “sons of god” are the sons of El. "
----------
Of course the last time I brought this to light I got all kinds of great comments about my research skills, how I never had read the Bible etc etc.
I would like to state for a record that I was a Christian for many years and have the read the Bible on more than one occasion.
In addition, I would like to point out that the Bible is supposed to be "sacred" no? As some Christians the last time seemed to cheerfully shrug this off as basically a God is allowed to put whatever suits him in his book. <b> It therefore strikes me as really odd that Yahweh would not want idols (the golden calf) made after him (like the other Gods) but would allow copied Baal et al. hymns to appear in his book </b>.
The other point to note here is that Israelites were not always monotheist. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Lets reduce this down. If one were to say "Praise Baal," and some scribe thought it simply the most wonderful way to give praise and respect, would it be a sin to write "Praise Yahweh"?
The fact of the matter is, that the language surrounding worship is not important. If I were to call God 'The hottest chili-cheese-burrito this side of anywhere,' and did so with the true sense of awe and respect that comes when one realizes the full scope of God's power, it would not be sin. In fact, I would think God would be pleased by it. (I would further speculate that since I am created in God's image, and since I have a sense of humor he might get a kick out of it in the process. Though the theological grounds for such a claim are fairly nonexistant.)
Think about it. Do you really think it matters that people conclude prayer with 'Amen?' Do we have to say 'Amen' for a prayer to count? Amen simply means 'I agree!' If I were to say "Yes, Lord," or even "**** yeah Jesus," would it change the fact that I approved what was being said?
I find that link you posted extremely interesting, but irrelevant. It's the faith behind the words that counts.
<!--QuoteBegin-Gwahir+Mar 27 2005, 12:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gwahir @ Mar 27 2005, 12:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now I have heard from scholars that the 10C say murder, yet here mr. Legion has brought about evidence to the contrary. And there are God sanctioned wars in the Old Testament, someone remind me of any cases of such in the NT. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, I said it *does* say murder. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
However, murder is not defined by governmental standards.
Keep in mind that "Eye for an Eye" is expressed first (I believe, I might be wrong.) in Deuteronomy 19.
Also keep in mind that the book of Deuteronomy is set up as a treaty, and the laws within would likely have been excercised independantly of, but roughly on the same level of the laws of the land. However, these laws are based on the covenant with God, not on the legal system of the time.
This does not carry over to our own modern day legal system, as the United States does not have a covenant with God, and is not a Theocracy. Because of this, any debates over capital punishment are to be handled on the political level, not on the theological.
<!--QuoteBegin-Gwahir+Mar 28 2005, 12:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gwahir @ Mar 28 2005, 12:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> all this time I thought amen came out to "so be it" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> IIRC, if I recall correctly, these would both translate into roughly the same thing in the Hebrew. It's an expression of assent or approval. Saying "I agree" to a prayer is basically affirming that is what you would like to happen, and "so be it" is the same thing in a more direct way.
The two meanings are closely related, however.
EDIT: Holy crap, double post. My bad. Got overzealous with the quotes.
The fact that there are books left out of the Bible when it was compiled at Constantinople made me wonder how can you possibly be sure that they got the 'right' one. How can you possibly be sure that they didn't left out the one written by God's messenger and put in some mumbo jumbo?
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Mar 28 2005, 12:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Mar 28 2005, 12:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Gwahir+Mar 27 2005, 12:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gwahir @ Mar 27 2005, 12:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now I have heard from scholars that the 10C say murder, yet here mr. Legion has brought about evidence to the contrary. And there are God sanctioned wars in the Old Testament, someone remind me of any cases of such in the NT. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, I said it *does* say murder. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
However, murder is not defined by governmental standards. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then who does? God? Because, and I might be mistaken on this, being a lowly heathen and all, but I'm pretty sure that Jesus never said it was Ok to kill anybody. Ever.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Keep in mind that "Eye for an Eye" is expressed first (I believe, I might be wrong.) in Deuteronomy 19. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And countermanded by Jesus in Matthew 5: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This does not carry over to our own modern day legal system, as the United States does not have a covenant with God, and is not a Theocracy. Because of this, any debates over capital punishment are to be handled on the political level, not on the theological.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then are you agreeing with me? That it is hypocritical of Christians to support capital punishment?
---
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The fact that there are books left out of the Bible when it was compiled at Constantinople made me wonder how can you possibly be sure that they got the 'right' one. How can you possibly be sure that they didn't left out the one written by God's messenger and put in some mumbo jumbo?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I remember arguing about this in a thread about Gnosticism many moons ago, I never got a straight answer, I'd like to hear one. Specifically, the gospels of Thomas and Marry were discussed. Why are they not the word of God?
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Mar 28 2005, 12:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Mar 28 2005, 12:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Lets reduce this down. If one were to say "Praise Baal," and some scribe thought it simply the most wonderful way to give praise and respect, would it be a sin to write "Praise Yahweh"?
The fact of the matter is, that the language surrounding worship is not important. If I were to call God 'The hottest chili-cheese-burrito this side of anywhere,' and did so with the true sense of awe and respect that comes when one realizes the full scope of God's power, it would not be sin. In fact, I would think God would be pleased by it. (I would further speculate that since I am created in God's image, and since I have a sense of humor he might get a kick out of it in the process. Though the theological grounds for such a claim are fairly nonexistant.)
Think about it. Do you really think it matters that people conclude prayer with 'Amen?' Do we have to say 'Amen' for a prayer to count? Amen simply means 'I agree!' If I were to say "Yes, Lord," or even "**** yeah Jesus," would it change the fact that I approved what was being said?
I find that link you posted extremely interesting, but irrelevant. It's the faith behind the words that counts. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you maintain that the scribe copied hymns to Baal out of some sort of respect for Yahweh. That's an interesting thought, but I think it far more likely that in order to "sell" Yahweh, Yahweh would have to appear as mighty or even mightier than Baal. Not to mention the fact that Yahweh then gets to usurp Baal's status after the next generation forgets for whom that hymn was really intended.
Keep in mind that all you have to go on about Jesus etc. is the words contained in that book. It's all very well to say that "poetry" doesn't count or "its not the exact praise" that matters but frankly you're opening up a can of worms here, and each one of those little suckers is starting to scream things like "fake/copied/wannabe/misleading" and a bunch of other non-repeatables. In other words do you really want to admit that part of the text is dodgy but still acceptable?
And you didnt answer my point about the idol; why does Yahweh not want an idol, but he's ok with copied scripture? As far as I'm concerned you can claim absolutely no knowledge of Yahweh at all then except that He is incosistent in his actions, which also opens the afore-mentioned can of worms. IMO it speaks volumes about Yahweh; that he is about as real as Baal for one thing.
If I were to start my own religion taking a bunch of stuff from the Bible but twisting a bit here and there and adding some of my own ideas you would be jumping up and down telling me how my religion is just a blatant copy of yours and how I stole ideas etc.
You're only going to create a division of members with this thread.
With that said, I'll state my stance on the Bible, and the Christianity religion. I was born into a Christian family, so naturally, I was influenced by it. I really didn't understand the religion as a young kid, but I did like free donuts on sundays. =)
Anyway, as I got older, I did doubt if this was all fake at times. The fact is, religion is all faith. Believers really don't know if it is true or not, so that's why they trust it. Just as if you asked your friends to catch you when you fall backwards (forgot what this is called), you ARE walking a path blindly.
Today, I do believe in Christianity. Even with the Big Bang theory, I believe that was how God created everything. Somethings in this world you can not explain, and that I leave to my religion. Don't you wonder what was before the world was made or how all these different particles of matter were just "there"?
So in summary, Mr. Grendel, I respect your position as an atheist. If you live life on things that are proven, I'm not here to stop you. However, I do ask you to look at Christianity as any other topic meaning you agree or disagree, instead of insulting it and possibly offending other Christians.
You can criticize my beliefs, but you can't change them.
<!--QuoteBegin-FilthyLarry+Mar 28 2005, 01:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Mar 28 2005, 01:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Mar 28 2005, 12:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Mar 28 2005, 12:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Lets reduce this down. If one were to say "Praise Baal," and some scribe thought it simply the most wonderful way to give praise and respect, would it be a sin to write "Praise Yahweh"?
The fact of the matter is, that the language surrounding worship is not important. If I were to call God 'The hottest chili-cheese-burrito this side of anywhere,' and did so with the true sense of awe and respect that comes when one realizes the full scope of God's power, it would not be sin. In fact, I would think God would be pleased by it. (I would further speculate that since I am created in God's image, and since I have a sense of humor he might get a kick out of it in the process. Though the theological grounds for such a claim are fairly nonexistant.)
Think about it. Do you really think it matters that people conclude prayer with 'Amen?' Do we have to say 'Amen' for a prayer to count? Amen simply means 'I agree!' If I were to say "Yes, Lord," or even "**** yeah Jesus," would it change the fact that I approved what was being said?
I find that link you posted extremely interesting, but irrelevant. It's the faith behind the words that counts. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you maintain that the scribe copied hymns to Baal out of some sort of respect for Yahweh. That's an interesting thought, but I think it far more likely that in order to "sell" Yahweh, Yahweh would have to appear as mighty or even mightier than Baal. Not to mention the fact that Yahweh then gets to usurp Baal's status after the next generation forgets for whom that hymn was really intended.
Keep in mind that all you have to go on about Jesus etc. is the words contained in that book. It's all very well to say that "poetry" doesn't count or "its not the exact praise" that matters but frankly you're opening up a can of worms here, and each one of those little suckers is starting to scream things like "fake/copied/wannabe/misleading" and a bunch of other non-repeatables. In other words do you really want to admit that part of the text is dodgy but still acceptable?
And you didnt answer my point about the idol; why does Yahweh not want an idol, but he's ok with copied scripture? As far as I'm concerned you can claim absolutely no knowledge of Yahweh at all then except that He is incosistent in his actions, which also opens the afore-mentioned can of worms. IMO it speaks volumes about Yahweh; that he is about as real as Baal for one thing.
If I were to start my own religion taking a bunch of stuff from the Bible but twisting a bit here and there and adding some of my own ideas you would be jumping up and down telling me how my religion is just a blatant copy of yours and how I stole ideas etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A quick <a href='http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=317' target='_blank'>Google</a> to solve that one.
As for grendels original post - pointing out that there have been 20 versions of the word "nice" - and then using that as a basis for saying that we can't "know" what the Bible really says - Christian apologetics has been around for about as long as the Bible has. I believe that humans can "know" to a high degree of accuracy what the Bible says - the same way we can read shakespear and "know" what he was saying. Among those who study the Bible for a living, there are relatively few interprative differences. The only time these differences come to light is when one person doesn't apply proper literary critique to the passage at hand. Often times critics of the Bible - at least the ones on this forum - completely ignore context, quoting one sentence against another and scream "discrepancy".
I've said it before and I'll say it again - context is everything. Single verses are fine and dandy, but without context they can be meaningless.
Skulkbait, the man issue I have with your approach to this topic is your assumption of what Christians think of you.
You have completely mistaken our views.
We do not think of you as any less of a person than any other. We know ourselves to be flawed, and we are not worthy to judge you. We just ask that you stop judging us in the same way.
Note that this does not change the fact that we believe you're wrong.
Comments
<b>Nice use of the KJV to try and get the effect you want.</b>
I think James Holding of Tektonics Apologetic Ministries said it best: "Whenever you run across any person who criticizes the Bible, claims findings of contradiction or error -- they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. They have to earn it from you."
From <a href='http://www.tektonics.org/af/calcon.html' target='_blank'>here,</a> which goes over just some of the reasons why these sorts of lists are inane. Especially when people like you choose to try and mix and match translations to prove their points.
Next time you try something like this, try looking at <a href='http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html' target='_blank'>Strong's Lexicon.</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait.. people like me?
And I'm claiming what?
The next time I try something like this what?
It's almost like I simply stated "Im just curious as to how the forum felt about things like this."
Oh wait... I did. Im not critizing anything.
I never stated they are my own personal beliefs nor did I try to prove anything.
I posted them to see what you people thought of things like this.
(Expecting the emotionally based reaction to what can be interpreted as a minor attack)
(now expecting a slight bit of confusion as to the next course of action which will be resolved by making a sly comment)
(either it will rest there or be be upset by frustration)
prove me wrong, please (not a dare, a request)
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->
לַהֲרֹג
<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
Which means kill, for those that can not read hebrew.
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->
רֶצַח
<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
Murder looks like that. Which is why it is not murder. If you can not see the difference, I would take a magnifying glass and look at the screen. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, the word used in Exodus 20:13 is found <a href='http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=7523' target='_blank'>here.</a>
The word used in Exodus 32:27 is found <a href='http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=2026' target='_blank'>here.</a> The primary definition, as I said before, 'to smite.'
Two different words, two different meanings. GG critics.
I'll follow in suit, and condescendingly post the dictionary definition of smite for effect.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->smite Audio pronunciation of "smite" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (smt)
v. smote, (smt) smit·ten, (smtn) or smote smit·ing, smites
v. tr.
1.
1. To inflict a heavy blow on, with or as if with the hand, a tool, or a weapon.
2. To drive or strike (a weapon, for example) forcefully onto or into something else.
2. To attack, damage, or destroy by or as if by blows.
3.
1. To afflict: The population was smitten by the plague.
<b>2. To afflict retributively; chasten or chastise.</b>
4. To affect sharply with great feeling: He was smitten by deep remorse.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That brings me to want to ask the question, what is faith? How can we describe it and show we have faith? We can say we have faith in something, but do we really? Or is faith just an illusion? Can get quite complex, especially changing the context of faith.
One of the best examples I can possibly think of would be the sun god Ra.
<a href='http://images.google.com/images?q=Egyptian+Ra&hl=en' target='_blank'>Google search on Egyptian sun God Ra images</a>
Just look at how many different "symbols" portray this one diety and it is probably the simplest of all the symbols to draw, other then counting by numbers of course.
I count six different ways on just one page. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
However, what the hebrew did look like, is what is posted on the previous page.
Faith... that is an excellent question Thaldarin, I could not even begin to tell you what faith is other then the dictionary definition of it. Sadly, I do not have enough "faith" to really define it other then believing something without seeing proof it exsists. I think that faith in anything other then yourself is really just showing you do not trust yourself to get you through life. I'm sure others will disagree.
One of the best examples I can possibly think of would be the sun god Ra.
<a href='http://images.google.com/images?q=Egyptian+Ra&hl=en' target='_blank'>Google search on Egyptian sun God Ra images</a>
Just look at how many different "symbols" portray this one diety and it is probably the simplest of all the symbols to draw, other then counting by numbers of course.
I count six different ways on just one page. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
However, what the hebrew did look like, is what is posted on the previous page.
Faith... that is an excellent question Thaldarin, I could not even begin to tell you what faith is other then the dictionary definition of it. Sadly, I do not have enough "faith" to really define it other then believing something without seeing proof it exsists. I think that faith in anything other then yourself is really just showing you do not trust yourself to get you through life. I'm sure others will disagree. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
My source, (which, by the way, is <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong's_concordance' target='_blank'>Strong's Concordance</a>) looks at the original hebrew, and assigns numbers to each word, then tracks those words all the way through the bible. Thus, the same word IN HEBREW will be numbered the same throughout.
By attacking Strong's Lexicon as a respectavle source, you show yourself to be totally incompentant, and reveal the fact that you have absolutely no idea how apologetics works, nor do you care. This is the same reason that I'm not going to post in the other thread anymore, and I suspect the same reason I will never take anything you say seriously, because you attack everything that you don't like to hear.
I don't care what it "looks like" romanticized, I care about what each of the words, in the original hebrew, means. The two words I linked to are two totally different words in Hebrew, and thus have two different meanings.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Today the term "apologist" is colloquially applied to groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists are often characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term often has a pejorative meaning. The neutralized substitution of "spokesperson" for "apologist" in conversation conveys much the same sense of "partisan presenter with a weighted agenda," with less rhetorical freight.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think I'll rip these to shreds before I crash, it'd be a nice midnight snack for my head.
QUOTE
Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."
Best translated "Thou shalt not murder"
No, no it is not.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh boy, now someone who doesn't think the Bible isn't the Word of God is going to tell us what it actually means.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whats so sad is that I shouldn't have to.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->you imply that killing someone, if there is legal grounds to do so, is acceptable. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Abortion anyone?
Yes, I know you don't believe the fetus is a person so it doesn't count. So don't say it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This isn't about <i>my</i> beliefs now is it? Christians seem to believe that abortion is wrong, even though it is a lawfull act, but execution (equally lawfull) is perfectly OK.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I mean, after all, if the state says its ok for me to execute my wife if she cheats on me, then is doing so ok in the eyes of God? Obviously not.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Rom. 13:4 He is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That basically meant that LAWFUL government, as God's servant, may execute criminals and fight just wars. While i'm not saying God approves of the slaying cheating wives, or that we should even do it... Just trying to clarify...something. If I could remember what it was I was talking about anyways.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh! I get it! The <i>Christians</i> get to decide who lives and who dies, how convienient! That is what you mean by LAWFUL right? A government that is just in God's eyes?
umm.... what?
Maybe I'm just too tired, but what does that have to do with government?
You have mistakenly equaled Christian's eyes to God's eyes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh! I get it! The Christians get to decide who lives and who dies, how convienient! That is what you mean by LAWFUL right? A government that is just in God's eyes?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have mistakenly equaled Christian's eyes to God's eyes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh! I get it! The Christians get to decide who lives and who dies, how convienient! That is what you mean by LAWFUL right? A government that is just in God's eyes?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, no, you miss understand what I'm saying. I'm saying, that "Thou shalt not kill (humans)", means that you shouldn't kill humans, for any reason, ever. I also pointed out that many christians (including several who regularly visit this forum) are hypocritical when it comes to this commandment, follwing it in the case of abortion, but not in the case of capital punsihment (for instance). He attempted to counter that argument (saying its OK for the government to execute criminals):
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Rom. 13:4 He is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That basically meant that LAWFUL government, as God's servant, may execute criminals and fight just wars..<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My response was mocking him. Because he is saying that when a "lawfull", is in God's eyes, government executes people, its ok. Which is rediculous, because who draws the line between what is a "lawfull" government and what isn't? Thats right, the Christians will be interpreting that one (in other words, they get to decide who lives and who dies). For whatever reason, they think that our government executing criminals is "lawfull", and our government allowing abortions isn't. Which to me is quite contradictory. Worse yet is that they believe that they are somehow qualified to make the judgement between who should die and who shouldn't, that kind of arogance is usually reserved for God.
So you see, thats why translating that passage as "Thou shalt not murder" is so rediculous. Since the government defines murder, but its only ok if its "lawfull", which is decided by... who? Not god, but the chrisitans interpreting his words!
Maybe I'm just too tired, but what does that have to do with government? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nothing. You brought the government into this.
Interestingly enough the Leviticus does include capital punishment. But then again, the new testament brings about the forgiveness of sins, including to gentiles. Bring sight to the blind, take it from those who see, etc.
Personally I've never really comitted to a side on capital punishment. Some things draw me towards it, others away, though mostly away. Abortion I am against as there are no mitigating circumstances in the vast majority of cases. In the cases where death of one or both maybe die as a result I am open to persuasion so long as it is understood that it is still wrong, even in that case. As an example, the assassination attempt on Hitler was wrong, but the evil he did was a greater evil. The evil he did grew to the point were he must be stopped, but that act must be undertaken with the full knowledge that killing him is also evil. It's a difficult position, but I hope I explained it well enough.
Now I have heard from scholars that the 10C say murder, yet here mr. Legion has brought about evidence to the contrary. And there are God sanctioned wars in the Old Testament, someone remind me of any cases of such in the NT.
As for the government part. This is obviously not the greatest of governments. Now please do not assume that the Christian definition of lawfull is as simple as what is defined by manly government. But as Christians we are to follow the laws of manly government unless that law comes into conflict with Biblical law, a priority based system if you will. I can't speak to the lawfullness of the American government...
For the sake of this discussion I will place myself against capital punishment.
Obviously there are a lot of loose ends in here as it was kind of a stream of conscious approach.
Also, SkulkBait, you seem to be far less mocking towards me, could it be I've gained at least an inkling of respect from you?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not even the worst of it.
The bible contains obvious copies of hymns to Baal et al!
I've some research in the past and here is an interesting link:
<a href='http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm' target='_blank'>Ugarit and the bible</a>
And here is an excerpt:
"4. The Ugaritic Pantheon.
The prophets of the Old Testament rail against Baal, Asherah and various other gods on nearly every page. The reason for this is simple to understand; the people of Israel worshipped these gods along with, and sometimes instead of, Yahweh, the God of Israel. This Biblical denunciation of these Canaanite gods received a fresh face when the Ugaritic texts were discovered, for at Ugarit these were the very gods that were worshipped.
El was the chief god at Ugarit. Yet El is also the name of God used in many of the Psalms for Yahweh; or at least that has been the presupposition among pious Christians. Yet when one reads these Psalms and the Ugaritic texts one sees that the very attributes for which Yahweh is acclaimed are the same for which El is acclaimed. In fact, these Psalms were most likely originally Ugaritic or Canaanite hymns to El which were simply adopted by Israel, much like the American National Anthem was set to a beer hall tune by Francis Scott Key. El is called the “father of men”, “creator”, and “creator of the creation”. These attributes are also granted Yahweh by the Old Testament.
For instances, read KTU 1. 2 I 13-32 and compare it to many of the Psalms. Also, read Ps 82:1, 89:6-8mn!).
In 2 Kings 22:19-22 we read of Yahweh meeting with his heavenly council. This is the very description of heaven which one finds in the Ugaritic texts. For in those texts the “sons of god” are the sons of El. "
----------
Of course the last time I brought this to light I got all kinds of great comments about my research skills, how I never had read the Bible etc etc.
I would like to state for a record that I was a Christian for many years and have the read the Bible on more than one occasion.
In addition, I would like to point out that the Bible is supposed to be "sacred" no? As some Christians the last time seemed to cheerfully shrug this off as basically a God is allowed to put whatever suits him in his book. <b> It therefore strikes me as really odd that Yahweh would not want idols (the golden calf) made after him (like the other Gods) but would allow copied Baal et al. hymns to appear in his book </b>.
The other point to note here is that Israelites were not always monotheist.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not even the worst of it.
The bible contains obvious copies of hymns to Baal et al!
I've some research in the past and here is an interesting link:
<a href='http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm' target='_blank'>Ugarit and the bible</a>
And here is an excerpt:
"4. The Ugaritic Pantheon.
The prophets of the Old Testament rail against Baal, Asherah and various other gods on nearly every page. The reason for this is simple to understand; the people of Israel worshipped these gods along with, and sometimes instead of, Yahweh, the God of Israel. This Biblical denunciation of these Canaanite gods received a fresh face when the Ugaritic texts were discovered, for at Ugarit these were the very gods that were worshipped.
El was the chief god at Ugarit. Yet El is also the name of God used in many of the Psalms for Yahweh; or at least that has been the presupposition among pious Christians. Yet when one reads these Psalms and the Ugaritic texts one sees that the very attributes for which Yahweh is acclaimed are the same for which El is acclaimed. In fact, these Psalms were most likely originally Ugaritic or Canaanite hymns to El which were simply adopted by Israel, much like the American National Anthem was set to a beer hall tune by Francis Scott Key. El is called the “father of men”, “creator”, and “creator of the creation”. These attributes are also granted Yahweh by the Old Testament.
For instances, read KTU 1. 2 I 13-32 and compare it to many of the Psalms. Also, read Ps 82:1, 89:6-8mn!).
In 2 Kings 22:19-22 we read of Yahweh meeting with his heavenly council. This is the very description of heaven which one finds in the Ugaritic texts. For in those texts the “sons of god” are the sons of El. "
----------
Of course the last time I brought this to light I got all kinds of great comments about my research skills, how I never had read the Bible etc etc.
I would like to state for a record that I was a Christian for many years and have the read the Bible on more than one occasion.
In addition, I would like to point out that the Bible is supposed to be "sacred" no? As some Christians the last time seemed to cheerfully shrug this off as basically a God is allowed to put whatever suits him in his book. <b> It therefore strikes me as really odd that Yahweh would not want idols (the golden calf) made after him (like the other Gods) but would allow copied Baal et al. hymns to appear in his book </b>.
The other point to note here is that Israelites were not always monotheist. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lets reduce this down. If one were to say "Praise Baal," and some scribe thought it simply the most wonderful way to give praise and respect, would it be a sin to write "Praise Yahweh"?
The fact of the matter is, that the language surrounding worship is not important. If I were to call God 'The hottest chili-cheese-burrito this side of anywhere,' and did so with the true sense of awe and respect that comes when one realizes the full scope of God's power, it would not be sin. In fact, I would think God would be pleased by it. (I would further speculate that since I am created in God's image, and since I have a sense of humor he might get a kick out of it in the process. Though the theological grounds for such a claim are fairly nonexistant.)
Think about it. Do you really think it matters that people conclude prayer with 'Amen?' Do we have to say 'Amen' for a prayer to count? Amen simply means 'I agree!' If I were to say "Yes, Lord," or even "**** yeah Jesus," would it change the fact that I approved what was being said?
I find that link you posted extremely interesting, but irrelevant. It's the faith behind the words that counts.
Actually, I said it *does* say murder. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
However, murder is not defined by governmental standards.
Keep in mind that "Eye for an Eye" is expressed first (I believe, I might be wrong.) in Deuteronomy 19.
Also keep in mind that the book of Deuteronomy is set up as a treaty, and the laws within would likely have been excercised independantly of, but roughly on the same level of the laws of the land. However, these laws are based on the covenant with God, not on the legal system of the time.
This does not carry over to our own modern day legal system, as the United States does not have a covenant with God, and is not a Theocracy. Because of this, any debates over capital punishment are to be handled on the political level, not on the theological.
IIRC, if I recall correctly, these would both translate into roughly the same thing in the Hebrew. It's an expression of assent or approval. Saying "I agree" to a prayer is basically affirming that is what you would like to happen, and "so be it" is the same thing in a more direct way.
The two meanings are closely related, however.
EDIT: Holy crap, double post. My bad. Got overzealous with the quotes.
That is all.
Actually, I said it *does* say murder. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
However, murder is not defined by governmental standards.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then who does? God? Because, and I might be mistaken on this, being a lowly heathen and all, but I'm pretty sure that Jesus never said it was Ok to kill anybody. Ever.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Keep in mind that "Eye for an Eye" is expressed first (I believe, I might be wrong.) in Deuteronomy 19.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And countermanded by Jesus in Matthew 5:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
This does not carry over to our own modern day legal system, as the United States does not have a covenant with God, and is not a Theocracy. Because of this, any debates over capital punishment are to be handled on the political level, not on the theological.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then are you agreeing with me? That it is hypocritical of Christians to support capital punishment?
---
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The fact that there are books left out of the Bible when it was compiled at Constantinople made me wonder how can you possibly be sure that they got the 'right' one. How can you possibly be sure that they didn't left out the one written by God's messenger and put in some mumbo jumbo?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I remember arguing about this in a thread about Gnosticism many moons ago, I never got a straight answer, I'd like to hear one. Specifically, the gospels of Thomas and Marry were discussed. Why are they not the word of God?
The fact of the matter is, that the language surrounding worship is not important. If I were to call God 'The hottest chili-cheese-burrito this side of anywhere,' and did so with the true sense of awe and respect that comes when one realizes the full scope of God's power, it would not be sin. In fact, I would think God would be pleased by it. (I would further speculate that since I am created in God's image, and since I have a sense of humor he might get a kick out of it in the process. Though the theological grounds for such a claim are fairly nonexistant.)
Think about it. Do you really think it matters that people conclude prayer with 'Amen?' Do we have to say 'Amen' for a prayer to count? Amen simply means 'I agree!' If I were to say "Yes, Lord," or even "**** yeah Jesus," would it change the fact that I approved what was being said?
I find that link you posted extremely interesting, but irrelevant. It's the faith behind the words that counts. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you maintain that the scribe copied hymns to Baal out of some sort of respect for Yahweh. That's an interesting thought, but I think it far more likely that in order to "sell" Yahweh, Yahweh would have to appear as mighty or even mightier than Baal. Not to mention the fact that Yahweh then gets to usurp Baal's status after the next generation forgets for whom that hymn was really intended.
Keep in mind that all you have to go on about Jesus etc. is the words contained in that book. It's all very well to say that "poetry" doesn't count or "its not the exact praise" that matters but frankly you're opening up a can of worms here, and each one of those little suckers is starting to scream things like "fake/copied/wannabe/misleading" and a bunch of other non-repeatables. In other words do you really want to admit that part of the text is dodgy but still acceptable?
And you didnt answer my point about the idol; why does Yahweh not want an idol, but he's ok with copied scripture? As far as I'm concerned you can claim absolutely no knowledge of Yahweh at all then except that He is incosistent in his actions, which also opens the afore-mentioned can of worms. IMO it speaks volumes about Yahweh; that he is about as real as Baal for one thing.
If I were to start my own religion taking a bunch of stuff from the Bible but twisting a bit here and there and adding some of my own ideas you would be jumping up and down telling me how my religion is just a blatant copy of yours and how I stole ideas etc.
With that said, I'll state my stance on the Bible, and the Christianity religion. I was born into a Christian family, so naturally, I was influenced by it. I really didn't understand the religion as a young kid, but I did like free donuts on sundays. =)
Anyway, as I got older, I did doubt if this was all fake at times. The fact is, religion is all faith. Believers really don't know if it is true or not, so that's why they trust it. Just as if you asked your friends to catch you when you fall backwards (forgot what this is called), you ARE walking a path blindly.
Today, I do believe in Christianity. Even with the Big Bang theory, I believe that was how God created everything. Somethings in this world you can not explain, and that I leave to my religion. Don't you wonder what was before the world was made or how all these different particles of matter were just "there"?
So in summary, Mr. Grendel, I respect your position as an atheist. If you live life on things that are proven, I'm not here to stop you. However, I do ask you to look at Christianity as any other topic meaning you agree or disagree, instead of insulting it and possibly offending other Christians.
You can criticize my beliefs, but you can't change them.
The fact of the matter is, that the language surrounding worship is not important. If I were to call God 'The hottest chili-cheese-burrito this side of anywhere,' and did so with the true sense of awe and respect that comes when one realizes the full scope of God's power, it would not be sin. In fact, I would think God would be pleased by it. (I would further speculate that since I am created in God's image, and since I have a sense of humor he might get a kick out of it in the process. Though the theological grounds for such a claim are fairly nonexistant.)
Think about it. Do you really think it matters that people conclude prayer with 'Amen?' Do we have to say 'Amen' for a prayer to count? Amen simply means 'I agree!' If I were to say "Yes, Lord," or even "**** yeah Jesus," would it change the fact that I approved what was being said?
I find that link you posted extremely interesting, but irrelevant. It's the faith behind the words that counts. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you maintain that the scribe copied hymns to Baal out of some sort of respect for Yahweh. That's an interesting thought, but I think it far more likely that in order to "sell" Yahweh, Yahweh would have to appear as mighty or even mightier than Baal. Not to mention the fact that Yahweh then gets to usurp Baal's status after the next generation forgets for whom that hymn was really intended.
Keep in mind that all you have to go on about Jesus etc. is the words contained in that book. It's all very well to say that "poetry" doesn't count or "its not the exact praise" that matters but frankly you're opening up a can of worms here, and each one of those little suckers is starting to scream things like "fake/copied/wannabe/misleading" and a bunch of other non-repeatables. In other words do you really want to admit that part of the text is dodgy but still acceptable?
And you didnt answer my point about the idol; why does Yahweh not want an idol, but he's ok with copied scripture? As far as I'm concerned you can claim absolutely no knowledge of Yahweh at all then except that He is incosistent in his actions, which also opens the afore-mentioned can of worms. IMO it speaks volumes about Yahweh; that he is about as real as Baal for one thing.
If I were to start my own religion taking a bunch of stuff from the Bible but twisting a bit here and there and adding some of my own ideas you would be jumping up and down telling me how my religion is just a blatant copy of yours and how I stole ideas etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A quick <a href='http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=317' target='_blank'>Google</a> to solve that one.
As for grendels original post - pointing out that there have been 20 versions of the word "nice" - and then using that as a basis for saying that we can't "know" what the Bible really says - Christian apologetics has been around for about as long as the Bible has. I believe that humans can "know" to a high degree of accuracy what the Bible says - the same way we can read shakespear and "know" what he was saying. Among those who study the Bible for a living, there are relatively few interprative differences. The only time these differences come to light is when one person doesn't apply proper literary critique to the passage at hand. Often times critics of the Bible - at least the ones on this forum - completely ignore context, quoting one sentence against another and scream "discrepancy".
I've said it before and I'll say it again - context is everything. Single verses are fine and dandy, but without context they can be meaningless.
You have completely mistaken our views.
We do not think of you as any less of a person than any other. We know ourselves to be flawed, and we are not worthy to judge you. We just ask that you stop judging us in the same way.
Note that this does not change the fact that we believe you're wrong.