Comments to earthquake and bible is literal threads

[Jared at Pelican Parts]

did some checking, my mistake... D'oh

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Lmiller
What he said!

No, God, Jesus, Buddha and Allah are not one in the same and the only way to understand this is to read the Bible. But until you do that you only believe what others have told you to believe. I have not read the Buddha or Allah books so my only reference is the Bible…for me I don’t need to go any further. I trust the ones advocating the Buddha and Allah books have read them. And if you haven’t read any of them my point is made.

I agree the latest natural events are not the trumpets or the horsemen. Remember my initial post, we need that world power in Babylon first (and I don’t mean Babylon 5). See Zechariah 5:5-11. For you Bible students the “Ephah” (KJV) in verse 6 represents a "bushel basket", which in bible times represents commerce. The image being painted is two women called commerce going to Babylon carrying a basket with a woman called wickedness inside. The wickedness within the basket is covered or hidden. You are probably familiar with what eventually happens to this "women" in Revelation Chapter 17. What this "women" does prior to this is written in Daniel Chapter 7 and elsewhere.

The Bible is like a mystery; the only way to understand it is to read the entire book. You can’t understand the mystery by only reading the last chapter and/or a few sentences that you put on a bumper sticker.

No, I don’t own a Porsche. I am also not as rich as Abraham or King David was. I don’t know the scriptures as well as the Apostle Paul. And I don’t own my own business like Peter. But as long as I keep giving at least 10% to fund the preaching of the gospel surely God will keep giving me more or tell me to do something else with my time. I am very sure that the place I give my money is sending some of it to help those who are suffering.

There are just some opinions that really dont deserve to be given the time of day. Yours is indicative of an absolute lack of critical faculty. It is nothing more than dogma. "No, God, Jesus, Buddha and Allah are not one in the same and the only way to understand this is to read the Bible." You are in the same category as the nut bags who screamed "Allah Akbar" as they aimed aircraft at the WTC.

Please take your Xtian rantings back to the MB board.

Stuart

[Victor]

Originally posted by stuartj
Ah, god botherers. So where is your god? Not sufficiently omnipotent or omniscient to stop a natural disaster, it would seem.

Unless he meant to kill 100,000 of his children, ofcourse.

Stuart

You should know the god botherer get out clause for that is:

"The Lord works in mysterious ways".

[stuartj]

Ah yes, the "get of jail free" card.
In the meantime tho, we have this loon callng down the Horseman of the Apocolypse. Even the FBI says they are a dangerous cult.

Stuart

[werewulf]

why is it that you must be a religous zealot or be called a liberal? i am surely no liberal, nor do i believe in the literal text of a document with over 2015 known translational errors, when the bible was translated from greek.
thomas jefferson made numerous statements in "harpers weekly" that he was a diest and not a christian. this whole argument about americas forefathers as "all" christians, is completely historically false.
it has been church propaganda, to use the phrase christian in the place of god. most people who believe our forefathers were "all" christians, are too lazy to look it up. the first 9 years that the u.s. congress was in existence, they met on christmas day, as it wasnt a national holiday.

[djmcmath]

Originally posted by werewulf
document with over 2015 known translational errors, when the bible was translated from greek.

I keep hearing statements like this one, but am having a hard time substantiating any of them. What would it take to talk you out of a reference for that? A good website would be nice, or a good book by a scholar in the field would be a useful resource as well?

TIA,

Dan

[Milu]

The one that comes to mind is the translation of maiden (unmarried girl) from the greek (or was it aramaic?) as virgin.

A maiden giving birth is just another unmarried mother.

A virgin giving birth - much more impressive.

And then the embellishments can start.

[werewulf]

i would say that the politically correct "history channel" would be a good starting point, but even they have an agenda. one thing that comes to mind is the parting of the "red sea". upon examination, it appears that the actual translation is the "reed sea". two different locations.
even the language used in the bible when it was translated for king james is suspicious. the phrasiology in the bible was not in vogue at the time, but the translators thought by using ancient sounding words, it would sound more authentic.
thomas payne, a noted american patriot wrote "the age of reason". it was not his intent to be an athiest, as he was not. he like many of our forefathers were "diest" and believed in god, just not the bible. on oour money, is printed "in god we trust", not in "jesus we trust". he stated that by trying to pass the bible off to intelligent men, he would alienate them and turn them into athiest.
i had a gent talking about a picture of jesus. when i told him that nowhere in the scriptures is any discription of what jesus looked like. absolutely none and the picture that most accept was not historically correct, as people of the time didnt dress like that, but the medieval translators of the bible did. he went to church and confronted his pastor about this. the pastor told him he was walking with the devil, to question it.
how about the dreaded "666" mark of the devil! sounds scary enough to frighten little kids! in greek, letters have numerical equivelents. 666 was the name of "nero ceasar" who was doing some pretty nasty things at this point in history. a bad dude and maybe a "beast"!

[andycook]

Wow.. I didn't think anything could generate as much flaming as Bastardizing a Pcar, but I guess I was wrong!!!

After reading down through this thread I found it very interesting to see the two (or more) sides expressing their opinions. Opinions remind you that everyone is entitled to have.

I would like throw my $.02 in (we must be up to almost $100 by now aren't we?). I for one am a non-believer and tend to be very steadfast in that. Myself and my Christian sister have some very heated discussions about the topic.

Everyone has the right to believe as they see fit. The Christians, Muslins, Buddhist, Jewish, and any other denomination that may be out there. I will not generalize or reference any other posts in this thread, but I will say that it is generally the inability of those who choose to believe to accept those of us who do not.

When the topic is approached by any religious aquaintance, I simply ask for tangible evidence to be produced to substantiate the existence of a "Higher Power". That is generally met with the "Religion is based on Faith" rebuttal. My personality is that of which want's something tangible to comprehend prior to adjusting my beliefs or lifesytle accordindly. For those who have the "faith" and use it to enhance thier lives so be it. That is their right. I don't feel by being a non-believer makes me anti-religion.

Alot of the animocity between the believers and non-believers comes from the believers who find it incomprehendable anyone who does not. Again, we all have the right to choose, and we must all work to accept others as they are.

The only topic I would like to take exception to is the comments about the seperation of church and state. It was referenced that "why should we change our ways for those who choose to move here". The reference was also made as to the necessity to accept other cultures when we place ourselves in that culture. Very well put.

The only problem I have with that is that I did not move here. I am 150% American and very proud of it. So perhaps some of the arguments regarding the further seperation of church and state are not culture based, but more individual based. Just an observation.

And lastly, imagine if all the energy and feeling that was put into this thread was put into the Grid Girls thread! After all, it's only up to like 70 pages or so...

[stuartj]

Originally posted by andycook



Alot of the animocity between the believers and non-believers comes from the believers who find it incomprehendable anyone who does not. Again, we all have the right to choose, and we must all work to accept others as they are.

Sigh. Admirable, Andrew, the tolerance you show, but I fear that when you have argued with godbothers for a few more years perhaps, you might come to a different few.

Some opinions are not worthy either of respect or of your tolerance. For example, female circumcision (or male for that matter, when done on religous grounds). It cannot, should not, be tolerated or cultural or religious grounds.

Ive posited in a similar thread- if I advanced to you the proposition that Pluto was made of jelly, you would (correctly) laugh at me. Even though no one has been there to say comprehesively it is not jelly, you can reasonably assume form your knowledge of the order of things, Pluto is not made of jelly. Anyone who would implore you to believe such on the basis of "faith" is simply not rational.

One group of nutters prepared to kill another group of nutters on basis of beliefs in gods that dont exist. That just about defines insanity.

Some opinions are not worthy either of respect or of your tolerance. Dont be led to believe you have to respect the opinions of the insane.

stuart

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by stuartj


Some opinions are not worthy either of respect or of your tolerance. For example, female circumcision (or male for that matter, when done on religous grounds). It cannot, should not, be tolerated or cultural or religious grounds.

huh? Please elaborate.

[stuartj]

My bad. Should read "It cannot, should not, be tolerated ON cultural or religious grounds.

[lendaddy]

Why?

[djmcmath]

Originally posted by Milu
The one that comes to mind is the translation of maiden (unmarried girl) from the greek (or was it aramaic?) as virgin.

Alright, good start -- a popular misconception is that maiden and virgin are interchangeable, and that Mary is only described as someone who wasn't married. However, our translation is built on rather a lot of classical Greek text, and there are a number of places that really leave no room for doubt. (Aside from obviously translating the word parthenos.) I'll pick an easy one, for starters: Matthew 1:18, "...Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child..." The expression "to come together" is sunelthein, which any lexicon will tell you is defined as "coming together in sexual union, intercourse." We've been neatly protected from the truth by prudish translators, sadly. (sigh) We don't merely have one word that might sometimes have been translated "maiden" instead of "virgin" by conservative suits in the translation house, we also have a moderately graphic description of what hadn't been done. Whether or not you agree with what the text says is an entirely different question; the text is quite clear, and the translation is excellent.

Werewulf, you make some excellent points, and I won't disagree with you, for the most part. I'll still hit them one by one, just for fun:
"red sea" vs "reed sea" -- This is a classic story, and the proponents of each side go back and forth. I would hold that if it was so shallow that Moses could walk across, how could it be deep enough to drown all of Pharoah's army? If you take OT Survey, you'll learn that archaeology points to a missing Egyptian army, but is a little vague on the reason. Before concluding that the text is incorrect, we'll have to figure out where that army mysteriously disappeared to, as well as explain the mysterious release of the entire slave population of Egypt. Secular historians generally hold that the Egyptian portion of the history is true (missing army, loss of slaves), and that, while the Biblical account may be one explanation, they are holding out for something secular to explain it. Good for them; I applaud men who can stand up for their faith. As for me, I'll settle for the Biblical explanation, because it fits the historical facts.

"King James is a bad translation" -- I won't argue with that one. The KJV is tough to read. If you happen to know both Greek and old English, then the translation isn't bad at all. Unfortunately, most of us have almost no background in either. I mean, technically, it's excellent. There's nothing wrong with the translation, per se, except that none of us speak the language they translated it into. For normal English speakers, either NASB or NIV translations (the two most popular, by leaps and bounds) are recommended.

"The Bible never gives us a physical description of Jesus" -- again, absolutely true. You've certainly uncovered a "pastor" who probably needs to spend some more time in the Bible. However, I'm not sure how a mis-taught idea can be blamed on a bad translation of the Bible? Can you clarify? (I can certainly sympathize with your reaction to this one -- I'd respond about the same way! "He's teaching _what_?! How foolish!!")

in greek, letters have numerical equivelents. 666 was the name of "nero ceasar"

In Greek, the expression is written hexakosioi hexakonta hex, which, for those of you proficient in Greek, readily translates to "six hundred and sixty six."


My point, in all of this, is not to humiliate anyone or to make any mockery of beliefs, or to try and force anyone into anything -- your choice is your own. In the bad ol' days, the clergy were the gateway to God. If you wanted in, you had to get through the clergy -- and they abused that power to do whatever they wanted. That was the whole point of the Reformation. Today, with the proliferation of knowledge, it is far more difficult to lead people into stupidity with such a simple ruse as a mistranslation. Of course, you can say whatever you want -- but the only people who believe you will be people who wanted to believe what you're saying in the first place. For anyone who's interested in verifying the veracity of a particular statement, the means are more than readily available -- especially to an internet-savvy and well-educated group like the Pelicans. Sadly, there are still a lot of half-truths floating around, utterly inverified by the people who pass them on -- like your friend who was renounced by his pastor for truthfully noting that the Bible never describes Jesus. (sigh) Continue to think, continue to approach these problems with a critical eye, and you're very likely to continue producing truth.


Dan

[stuartj]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Why?

Because this is an infringement by one person on another person of their inalienabe rights, liberties and freedoms.

stuart

[djmcmath]

This is like a landmark. Like when I agreed with Aurel. I don't know whether to be happy at the peace we can share or sad at the cost ... I agree with StuartJ! Aaagh!!

Stu, I'm right there with ya -- Female circumsion, encouraged forcibly in fundamentalist Muslim societies, is a terrible thing. (shudder) Nasty.

[stuartj]

And male circumcision, encouraged forcibly in (not so) fundamentalist Jewish society?

There may be hope for you yet, Shadowfax.

Stuart

[djmcmath]

lol, male circumcision actually has some medical arguments in its favor, and has relatively few serious drawbacks. I mean, aside from the sheer pain and agony you'd have to go through to have it done late in life, that is.

There may be hope for you yet, Shadowfax.

Funny, I was about to say the same about you.

Dan

[stuartj]

Originally posted by djmcmath
lol, male circumcision actually has some medical arguments in its favor, and has relatively few serious drawbacks. I mean, aside from the sheer pain and agony you'd have to go through to have it done late in life, that is.


Funny, I was about to say the same about you.

Dan

Yep, it does- have had an intimate acquaintance with just that situation myself with one of my little sons. But this is the exception- the question is of the practice when conducted as a religous ritual by an old man who chants incantations to his god while mutilating a new born with a wicked knife.

[djmcmath]

Oh, no argument there, my friend. If you did believe in a supreme deity, I'm sure you'd agree that nothing we could ever do -- especially silliness like chanting and mangling ourselves with intentionally primitive tools -- will restore a wrong relationship with said supreme deity.

FYI, the original intent of circumcision doesn't seem so different from a modern practice of some Christians: having a cross (or similar) tattooed on their shoulder to remind them of the suffering that Christ endured on their behalf. The circumcision was supposed to be an outward sign of an inward change; the Jews, being human, turned it into a frighteningly legalistic religious practice. Sadly, we have learned little since then -- even those who rarely go near religious buildings could probably list off religiously legalistic ceremonies.

hahaha, I went to a church once in jeans, and the greeter looked at me funny and said, "You don't plan on wearing those jeans in here, do you?" That's an easy answer, "No, I don't, actually." And I turned and walked away. Come on, people, Jesus didn't come to change our clothes, he came to change our lives!


Dan