PDA

View Full Version : "PC Bible Rewrite Rejected,GOD Hating Heathens Try Another Trick !"



megimoo
11-20-2010, 07:20 AM
New Bible drops gender-neutral language of '05 version

" PC Feminists Busy At The Work Of Changing The Word Of GOD ."

The world's best-selling Bible is getting an upgrade.
At stake are millions of dollars in publishing revenue and the trust of millions of churchgoers.

FAITH & REASON: New Bible revives older lingo, gender issues.
"Real Motive: GOD Hating P.C. Attacks GODS Word Meanings."

Since its debut in 1978, the New International Version — known as the NIV — has been the Bible of choice for evangelicals, selling more copies than any other version. But a 2005 gender-inclusive edition bombed after being condemned as too liberal.

Translators hope their latest edition, which debuted online this month, will avoid a similar fate. They've retained some of the language of the 2005 edition. But they also made changes — like going back to using words like "mankind" and "man" instead of "human beings" and "people" — in order to appease critics.

It's available for preview at BibleGateway.com, with print versions expected in March.
snip

"For Example:"
BIBLE LANGUAGE COMPARISON

Here is a comparison of Bible verses as written in the King James, Today's New International Version and the New International Version of 2011. Some language in the TNIV, which was published in 2005, was considered controversial.

Genesis 1:26

• King James: And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness ... "

• TNIV (Today's New International Version): Then God said, "Let us make human beings in our image, in our likeness ..."

• NIV, 2011: Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness ... "

Job 31:29

• King James: "If I rejoice at the destruction of him that hated me, or lifted up myself when evil found him..."

• TNIV: "If I have rejoiced at my enemies' misfortune or gloated over the trouble that came to them ..."

• NIV, 2011: "If I have rejoiced at my enemy's misfortune or gloated over the trouble that came to him ..."

Mark 2:27

• King James: "And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath."

• TNIV: Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath."

• NIV, 2011: Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
................
snip

Today, the Committee on Bible Translation, which translated the NIV, admits Today's New International Version, the revision released in 2002, was a mistake. They substituted "brothers and sisters" where the New Testament writers used "brothers."

They also broke a promise they'd made to James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, John Piper, pastor of Minneapolis megachurch Bethlehem Baptist, and other conservative pastors, not to produce a gender-inclusive NIV.

In response, Dobson accused translators of distorting the word of God.

"They picked a fight they didn't need to pick," said Jay Phelan, senior professor of theological studies at North Park Theological Seminary in Chicago.

Still, Phelan was a fan of the 2005 version. He worries that the translators have buckled under pressure from conservatives.

"The whole idea that we want to make this constituency or that constituency unhappy is wrong," he said. "You don't do a translation that way. You don't say 'this will make the liberals unhappy' or 'this will make conservatives unhappy.' Your job is to produce the most accurate translation possible."

Moo disagrees. He says that the new version of the NIV is accurate. But he also admits that the committee did some research to see what words evangelical Christians — who are most likely to buy the new NIV — prefer.

So far most of the critics of the last version have remained silent about the new one.

Focus on the Family had no comment. Neither did Piper or other vocal critics, some of whom have switched to the English Standard Version.

Denny Burk, a professor of New Testament at Boyce College, a Southern Baptist school in Louisville, has complained about one change in

1 Timothy 2:12. That verse from a New Testament letter from the Apostle Paul, used to read, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man."...Now it says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man."

The change from "have authority" to "assume authority" is huge, Burk argues. He believes that God gave men and women different jobs — and that women can't be pastors. Burk says the new Bible sides with his opponents.
.......................
"It appears, therefore, that the NIV 2011 comes down on the side of egalitarianism in its rendering of 1 Timothy 2:12," he wrote in a blog at BibleGateway.com.

But the debate on both the modern New International Versions hasn't been anything compared with how some Bible versions have been received in the past.

Translators of the 1950s-era Revised Standard Version changed the Hebrew word "almah" from "virgin" to "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14, which some Christians believe predicts the birth of Jesus.......But Revised Standard Version translators believed "young woman" was more accurate..."But GOD Said Virgin."

With that one change, all hell broke loose.

Critics said that the translators had transformed Jesus' mother from a saint to a sinner, said Peter Thuesen, professor of religious studies at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.

One minister was so angry that he burned the offending passage in front of an Associated Press photographer.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-11-19-newbible_N.htm

NJCardFan
11-20-2010, 08:31 AM
This is why I read the King James and nothing else.

Bailey
11-20-2010, 08:33 AM
Isnt there a passage where if you change anything in the bible you can expact a butt whopping in the after life?


This: Revelation 22:18-19

megimoo
11-20-2010, 09:34 AM
Isnt there a passage where if you change anything in the bible you can expact a butt whopping in the after life?


This: Revelation 22:18-19What do they have to lose ,They're already on the pathway to hell !

megimoo
11-20-2010, 09:37 AM
This is why I read the King James and nothing else.

WARNING: They Are Messing With Our K.J.V.
http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0161.htm

"I am the LORD, I change not."
Malachi 3:6
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdefns.htm

megimoo
11-20-2010, 09:38 AM
Isnt there a passage where if you change anything in the bible you can expact a butt whopping in the after life?


This: Revelation 22:18-19

The new versions have come up with some dangerous changes to the scriptures. The Lord God gives us stern warnings about changing His Word--

Revelation 22:18-19, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Proverbs 30:5-6, Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

fettpett
11-20-2010, 09:42 AM
I only use the KJV. I will look at other versions to get a different sense of the meaning and maybe some clarification on the wording. Can't stand the NIV and never have. I like the RSV for the most part. All the translations have issues, but the KJV is one of the better ones and is mostly punctuation issues

m00
11-20-2010, 12:56 PM
Or you guys could just start learning Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. :p

megimoo
11-20-2010, 02:39 PM
Or you guys could just start learning Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. :p

I don't have that much time left.To become rigorously trained in Semitic languages takes a lifetime of diligent work and years in school.

hampshirebrit
11-20-2010, 02:44 PM
What do they have to lose ,They're already on the pathway to hell !

No such place ... but from a language p.o.v I agree that the KJV is by far the best of the three.

FBIGuy
11-20-2010, 03:27 PM
No such place ... but from a language p.o.v I agree that the KJV is by far the best of the three.

Can you prove that or is this just another example of wishful thinking?

AmPat
11-20-2010, 04:10 PM
No such place ... but from a language p.o.v I agree that the KJV is by far the best of the three.

Your god like senses tell you this or is it wishful thinking? As for "place," as in a geographical location, I believe Hell is more of a state for your soul whereby you are eternally separated from God or any good spirit, and are eternally in the presence of pure evil.

Just because you don't believe you have a soul, you are not exempt from one of these states.

hampshirebrit
11-20-2010, 04:29 PM
Can you prove that or is this just another example of wishful thinking?

I can't prove it, but let's just say the probability of Hell actually existing is so vanishingly small that it merits very little effort on my part for me to completely ignore. *

*other than for the purposes of keeping a good CU thread going, obviously. :D

hampshirebrit
11-20-2010, 04:33 PM
Your god like senses tell you this or is it wishful thinking? As for "place," as in a geographical location, I believe Hell is more of a state for your soul whereby you are eternally separated from God or any good spirit, and are eternally in the presence of pure evil.

And you know this how, exactly?

As far as I am aware, when I pop my clogs, it's going to be a long moment of white noise that will last for f**ing ever.

You know what? It doesn't bother me, at all. I'll hardly be in a position or place to worry about it, after all.

Your mileage may vary. Good luck with that.

Bailey
11-20-2010, 04:35 PM
No such place ... but from a language p.o.v I agree that the KJV is by far the best of the three.

Since you know it all can you tell me who or what created the Universe or who will win the SB this year?

hampshirebrit
11-20-2010, 05:05 PM
Since you know it all can you tell me who or what created the Universe or who will win the SB this year?

I don't know it all. In fact, that's the whole point. I don't really know much at all. But neither does any human invented deity, nor is the truth likely to be revealed in any of the many human-derived scribblings, in whatever languages these scribbles end up being translated into.

I have an idea who will win the SB this year, but that's my opinion, which, I admit, I do have a small cash interest in being proven correct.

m00
11-20-2010, 05:05 PM
I don't have that much time left.To become rigorously trained in Semitic languages takes a lifetime of diligent work and years in school.

I used to read a bit of Hebrew. But in my opinion it's not that hard, for purposes of reading scripture.I think the vocabulary of the Old Testament for the most part draws from a fairly small set of root words. I think where the rigorous training comes in, for example, is where Moses uses "Egyptianisms" that have already been transplanted into Hebrew. Much later in the time of Jesus, the Sea of Galilee had developed some linguistic oddities.

I just find it a bit odd that arguments seem to center around which English translation is the genuine Word of God. In my mind really, the answer is none of them. I am in no way shape or form a Biblical scholar, but if you had to ask my opinion I tend to favor Tyndale's translation. But it's still a good idea to know where words come from, and form your own opinion.

megimoo
11-20-2010, 05:16 PM
No such place ... but from a language p.o.v I agree that the KJV is by far the best of the three.How would you know ? How Deeply have you read scripture ?

hampshirebrit
11-20-2010, 05:21 PM
I used to read a bit of Hebrew. But in my opinion it's not that hard, for purposes of reading scripture.I think the vocabulary of the Old Testament for the most part draws from a fairly small set of root words. I think where the rigorous training comes in, for example, is where Moses uses "Egyptianisms" that have already been transplanted into Hebrew. Much later in the time of Jesus, the Sea of Galilee had developed some linguistic oddities.

I just find it a bit odd that arguments seem to center around which English translation is the genuine Word of God. In my mind really, the answer is none of them. I am in no way shape or form a Biblical scholar, but if you had to ask my opinion I tend to favor Tyndale's translation. But it's still a good idea to know where words come from, and form your own opinion.

Good post, particularly the last sentence.

Anything (even if the content were not entirely composed from the various ramblings and alleged eye-witnesss accounts of schizophrenics and epileptics from the early iron-age Middle East) that has been translated over two millennia from at least three now- archaic languages into far more modern forms and by many, many people, should and must be subjected to very rigorous scrutiny, indeed.

I favour the KJV, as I said earlier, but on linguistic terms only. It probably is closer to the original texts in intent.

hampshirebrit
11-20-2010, 05:38 PM
How would you know ? How Deeply have you read scripture ?

Both very good questions. I'll answer them in reverse order:

I have read the scriptures, all of them, quite extensively. For the purposes of this thread, these are those of all three Abrahamic religions, i.e, the "real" two in the OT and NT, and the later one, the "pretender", in the Qur'an.

I read the first two as a child. I am the grandson of a methodist minister, and I really didn't have much choice in the matter.

It's partly why I'm almost inclined to insist on compulsory religious observance for school-children. There can be nothing more efficacious to guarantee the next generation of little atheistic bastards, other than to insist that they are forced to learn about such twaddle in school.

Anyway it gave me a lasting interest in religion, which is why I then went on to discover all the many bonuses (I've counted 72 so far) afforded to those who favour the upstart v3.0, Islam.

For your second question, I think I answered it above, but I'll just say that I don't know. I just state again that objectively, I am far more likely to be right in my assertion that the place known as Hell does not exist than any person taking the opposite view is.

Kay
11-20-2010, 06:04 PM
even if the content were not entirely composed from the various ramblings and alleged eye-witnesss accounts of schizophrenics and epileptics from the early iron-age Middle East

LOL....that tickled my funny bone.

Wei Wu Wei
11-20-2010, 06:05 PM
I don't understand. In each of those cases mankind or person or human being seemed like an appropriate synonym. The difference between the words in this context is really only superficial, and apparent in English. The Bible wasn't written in English you know....

FBIGuy
11-20-2010, 06:38 PM
I can't prove it, but let's just say the probability of Hell actually existing is so vanishingly small that it merits very little effort on my part for me to completely ignore. *

*other than for the purposes of keeping a good CU thread going, obviously. :D

Ahhh... wishful thinking. I suspected as much


So if it's exist is vanishingly small and it takes very little effort to ignore then why make an effort to point out that you wish it doesn't exists?

Your words say one thing but your actions say another. Thanks for playing.

hampshirebrit
11-20-2010, 06:53 PM
Your words say one thing but your actions say another.

Not really. I did say from the get-go that I'm out to drive traffic on this one.

You replied... how would you say I'm doing so far? :D

Seriously, I think you are the one who is guilty of wishful thinking.

I just can't figure out WHY you would want to be right about the existence of Hell. Why do you want it to be so, why would you prefer for there to be such a place?

FBIGuy
11-20-2010, 06:56 PM
Not really. I did say from the get-do that I'm out to drive traffic on this one.

You replied... how would you say I'm doing? :D

Losing, but hey! I admire people who don't quit.

hampshirebrit
11-20-2010, 07:04 PM
Losing, but hey! I admire people who don't quit.

Cute, but how about you answer my question:

Why are you so keen on maintaining your belief in Hell? What can possibly be in it for you for such a place to exist?

FBIGuy
11-20-2010, 07:23 PM
Cute, but how about you answer my question:

Why are you so keen on maintaining your belief in Hell? What can possibly be in it for you for such a place to exist?

Nothing is in it for me to state that it exists. It is just one of two possible destinations for my soul. Why must there be some kind of gain it, that encourages me to affirm its existence? I believe that the planet Pluto exists, but I've never seen it. What gain is there in it for me to state that it exists?

My belief in hell is based on my belief in Jesus. He said it is a real place so it is a real place. What I feel about its existence after that no longer matters.

What gain is in it for you to tell believers that it doesn't exist?

PoliCon
11-20-2010, 07:33 PM
Isnt there a passage where if you change anything in the bible you can expact a butt whopping in the after life?


This: Revelation 22:18-19 Actually that warning applies to Johns Apocalypse and not the bible as a whole since the Bible as a whole did not exist when John wrote his Apocalypse.

hampshirebrit
11-20-2010, 07:44 PM
N
What gain is in it for you to tell believers that it doesn't exist?

An excellent reply, not only the part I've quoted, but the whole post.

I'd say, in your case, that you should probably doubt that the planet Pluto exists, until such time that you have fully understood all the arguments and the evidence both for its existence and its non -existence.

From my own perspective, there is a good deal of evidence to support the idea of Pluto's existence, and very little nowadays to support the idea of it not existing. The fact that experiments can be conducted on the subject that will have repeatable outcomes tend to support the idea of Pluto existing, and serve only to add weight to the probability.

The same cannot be said of Hell's existence. The only references to Hell are contained in the various holy books of Abrahamic faiths. No experiments with predictable outcomes can be run to either prove or disprove its existence.

In reply to the specific question quoted, I gain nothing at all from informing believers that Hell doesn't exist. I'm still wondering why anyone wants to affirm such a belief.

Madisonian
11-20-2010, 08:40 PM
Cute, but how about you answer my question:

Why are you so keen on maintaining your belief in Hell? What can possibly be in it for you for such a place to exist?

I think from a philosophical sense, it satisfies the concept of divine retribution. That there are people that are so evil that just dying is not enough. "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord" (or something like that, I admit I am not a scholar on Biblical verse) allows for eternal punishment, not just an earthly one.

The converse of that, a Heaven, is a reward for living a moral life. It is true that morality should be its own reward, but some people need an enticement.

I had a (not close) relative die in a horrific way at the hands of a truly evil person. That person will spend the rest of their natural life in prison (where he is probably still committing evil). Without the thought that there is eternal damnation, you cannot imagine the earthly pain I would not only like to see happen to him, but would personally inflict if I had the chance and did not have to worry about eternal consequences. That there is even the remote possibility of Hell and all that it entails is of satisfaction.

hampshirebrit
11-20-2010, 08:47 PM
I had a (not close) relative die in a horrific way at the hands of a truly evil person. That person will spend the rest of their natural life in prison (where he is probably still committing evil). Without the thought that there is eternal damnation, you cannot imagine the earthly pain I would not only like to see happen to him, but would personally inflict if I had the chance. That there is even the remote possibility of Hell and all that it entails is of satisfaction.

I understand what you are saying, and I respect your views, but they are not for me.

I'm afraid to say that I would prefer to rely on my own means of retribution rather than placing trust in a maybe/maybe-not hell.

If anyone hurt me or mine in the way you've experienced, I would do my best to get retribution myself, whatever the cost. I would not want to outsource it.

Kay
11-20-2010, 09:10 PM
I am far more likely to be right in my assertion that the place known
as Hell does not exist than any person taking the opposite view is.

What makes you far more likely right?
The existance of hell can not be proven either way.
If you want to say "I am just as likely to be right" I
might buy that, but to say "far more likely" no.

Hell is probably the recycling of your soul having to come
back to earth for another tour instead of going to heaven.

hampshirebrit
11-20-2010, 09:37 PM
What makes you far more likely right?


Fair enough question.

I think that the following hypotheses are absurd:

There is an Invisible Pink Unicorn goddess
There is a Celestial Teapot in permanent low-earth orbit.
There is a Flying Spaghetti Monster deity
There is a Hell.

They are absurd in that not one of them can be either proven or disproven.

The hypothesis that the earth is a non-flat spheroid and the hypothesis that Pluto is a planet in our solar system can be subjected to testing by experimentation that will have very predictable outcomes in every case.

As I said, the case for hell cannot possibly be subjected to such testing. There is no evidence either for or against the possibility of its existence.

This alone makes it far likelier that I am right on the matter.

If you have no evidence that you can present for testing even on the generality of hell, then you have no right at all to make any claims at all on the specifics of hell.

Kay
11-20-2010, 10:01 PM
See the problem with that way of thinking Hamps, is that if you were talking to someone back in say the year 817 AD and something came up in conversation about a small device that a person could hold in the palm of their hand and instantly be talking to someone on the other side of the globe you would have been thought crazy and labeled the village idiot. Because everyone knew in 817 AD that was as much a possiblity of ever really happening as there was for someone to see an invisible pink unicorn goddess or a celestial teapot in permanent low-earth orbit.

I respect anyone's beliefs and don't try to push mine off on anyone.
But I always hate to see a closed mind. Yours seems to be nailed shut.

Odysseus
11-20-2010, 10:14 PM
I don't understand. In each of those cases mankind or person or human being seemed like an appropriate synonym. The difference between the words in this context is really only superficial, and apparent in English. The Bible wasn't written in English you know....
No, it was written in Greek. If you can cite the original language and provide your translations, we would be grateful.

Cute, but how about you answer my question:

Why are you so keen on maintaining your belief in Hell? What can possibly be in it for you for such a place to exist?
Have you never been to New Jersey?

I'm not a believer, which is why I don't think that I have any business rewriting the Bible to suit my beliefs. This is a fight in which I have no dog, but I do find the attempts to bowdlerize the Bible to be disturbing, because it is an attempt to manipulate the language and thus the beliefs of the faithful. I would object to an Orwellian reinterpretation of any great work, and the King James Bible stands on its own as both literature and a book of worship.

hampshirebrit
11-20-2010, 10:42 PM
I respect anyone's beliefs and don't try to push mine off on anyone.
But I always hate to see a closed mind. Yours seems to be nailed shut.

I think that's a bit harsh. I think that the opposite is true, that I have a very open mind. If you or anyone can provide me with a shred of evidence in support of a hypothesis, then I will consider it. I think that this typifies an open mind.

I take it that you do not believe in the IPU or the Celestial Teapot. I do not think, because you don't believe in these things, that you are closed minded. Give me the same courtesy.

I think you are making a mistake when you say you respect anyone's belief. I do not respect the extremist belief in the rectitude of flying commercial aircraft into office buildings. Do you? I doubt very much that you do.

Don't confuse respect in beliefs for respect for the right to have beliefs.

Madisonian
11-20-2010, 10:49 PM
See the problem with that way of thinking Hamps, is that if you were talking to someone back in say the year 817 AD and something came up in conversation about a small device that a person could hold in the palm of their hand and instantly be talking to someone on the other side of the globe you would have been thought crazy and labeled the village idiot. Because everyone knew in 817 AD that was as much a possiblity of ever really happening as there was for someone to see an invisible pink unicorn goddess or a celestial teapot in permanent low-earth orbit.

I respect anyone's beliefs and don't try to push mine off on anyone.
But I always hate to see a closed mind. Yours seems to be nailed shut.

Actually in 817 A.D. you would have probably been executed as a heretic or blasphemer for talking like that even if you could have conceived such a thing.
Its a good thing we live in an enlightened age where things like that don't happen anymore, unless you live in the Middle East cesspool, which has yet to progress to 800 A.D.

On that note, Hamp better be careful because with Sharia law becoming more accepted in the UK, the only thing that the Muslims hate more than homosexuals, Americans, western culture, Jews, Christians, adulterers and each other is heretics and blasphemers and denying the existence of God, especially theirs, could be seriously hazardous to your health and you may find out whether there is a Heaven or Hell for yourself sooner than you would care to.

Rockntractor
11-20-2010, 10:52 PM
Actually in 817 A.D. you would have probably been executed as a heretic or blasphemer for talking like that even if you could have conceived such a thing.
Its a good thing we live in an enlightened age where things like that don't happen anymore, unless you live in the Middle East cesspool, which has yet to progress to 800 A.D.

On that note, Hamp better be careful because with Sharia law becoming more accepted in the UK, the only thing that the Muslims hate more than homosexuals, Americans, western culture, Jews, Christians, adulterers and each other is heretics and blasphemers and denying the existence of God, especially theirs, could be seriously hazardous to your health and you may find out whether there is a Heaven or Hell for yourself sooner than you would care to.

He has a very fast car!:D

hampshirebrit
11-20-2010, 10:52 PM
No, it was written in Greek. If you can cite the original language and provide your translations, we would be grateful.

Have you never been to New Jersey?

I'm not a believer, which is why I don't think that I have any business rewriting the Bible to suit my beliefs. This is a fight in which I have no dog, but I do find the attempts to bowdlerize the Bible to be disturbing, because it is an attempt to manipulate the language and thus the beliefs of the faithful. I would object to an Orwellian reinterpretation of any great work, and the King James Bible stands on its own as both literature and a book of worship.


Heh. I LIVED in New Jersey. :D

I kind of share your view, up to a point. But when were each of the many rewrites of the scriptures not a bowdlerisation or plagiarism of the earlier edition?

Surely the KJV is not the first reliable version. As either a believer or non-believer, surely you understand my point, no? As great as it is linguistically, it is just one of the better translation attempts of a body of earlier, foreign language scripts.

hampshirebrit
11-20-2010, 11:00 PM
the Muslims

Oh, them.

They can kiss my atheist ass. I'm not afraid of them.

PoliCon
11-20-2010, 11:01 PM
Oh, them.

They can kiss my atheist ass. I'm not afraid of them.

Of them? I agree. Of their mindset and backwards religion . . . . that's another story.

Kay
11-20-2010, 11:07 PM
I'll agree with the second half of your post you got me there.
That is true, I have to retract that I respect anyone's beliefs,
for the reasons you stated.

But I'll stick a while longer with the belief that you have a closed
mind. At issue is the statement you made above claiming that
"you are far more likely right" that there is not a hell. You are
no more likely right that there is not one, than I can be in saying
that there is. It's a possiblity, but it cannot be proven either way
with man's current knowledge of the world.

I am equally open to the fact that you are right as I am to the
fact that you may be wrong. You're saying in your world something
doesn't exist till it is proven. Thus your mind is nailed shut on the
subject for now until someone gives you proof. But in my world,
anything is possible. I keep an open mind. I believe what we
know about this world and the next just barely scratches the surface.

PoliCon
11-20-2010, 11:13 PM
Hamps - what would you consider acceptable proof?

hampshirebrit
11-20-2010, 11:23 PM
I keep an open mind. I believe what we
know about this world and the next just barely scratches the surface.

In that case, we are in near full agreement.

We only disagree on the entry requirements for a hypothesis to be debatable. My position is that there must be a means to both prove and disprove a hypothesis, and that this will normally involve experiment that can be verified by peer review.

I take it that you do not hold any serious belief in the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, right? Why would you?

It is not a testable hypothesis, in any way. The fact that no Jew, Muslim, or Christian would make a statement of belief in the IPU makes me no more or less inclined to take one view or the other on the subject.

You see where I'm going with this? I hope so.

The concept of Hell is, for me, as outlandish and supernatural as any belief in the IPU. If you can present the hypothesis in a testable, peer reviewed form, then I will give it my full attention.

But I'm not going to hold my breath.

PoliCon
11-20-2010, 11:25 PM
In that case, we are in near full agreement.

We only disagree on the entry requirements for a hypothesis to be debatable. My position is that there must be a means to both prove and disprove a hypothesis, and that this will normally involve experiment that can be verified by peer review.

I take it that you do not hold any serious belief in the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, right? Why would you?

It is not a testable hypothesis, in any way. The fact that no Jew, Muslim, or Christian would make a statement of belief in the IPU makes me no more or less inclined to take one view or the other on the subject.

You see where I'm going with this? I hope so.

The concept of Hell is, for me, as outlandish and supernatural as any belief in the IPU. If you can present the hypothesis in a testable, peer reviewed form, then I will give it my full attention.

But I'm not going to hold my breath.What do you believe hell to be?

hampshirebrit
11-20-2010, 11:26 PM
Hamps - what would you consider acceptable proof?

Good question. I don't know.

But certainly neither voices in my head, nor the voice of priests.

hampshirebrit
11-20-2010, 11:29 PM
What do you believe hell to be?

The R0 Brussels Orbital "freeway" on a Friday afternoon is the nearest I've come to hell. If there's anything worse, I don't want to know about it.

Kay
11-20-2010, 11:42 PM
On the many various translations of the bible, I grew up with the KJV as most people in the US my age did. I was raised as an old school Lutheran by the way.

I do believe the bible writings were inspired by God, but I do not believe that He had only one best seller and then stopped writing. I've always been intrigued by all of the lost books of the bible and all of the ones that were thrown out and not included. Man decided centuries after the fact which books and letters would be included in the final bound book we use as our bible. God put the message and inspiration into the writer's heart and mind, but the way that inspiration then got interprited and put down on paper and later translated from language to language was entirely man's doing.

I see the bible more as a history book. It is a collection of stories that were told by word of mouth, gleaned from written letters and such by the people who were actually there at the time and witnessed the events. I doubt seriously that the specific things Jesus said to Paul are in the KJV of the bible just exactly as they were uttered out of his mouth.

djones520
11-20-2010, 11:50 PM
What do you believe hell to be?

Anne Rice's description of Hell seemed much more plausible to me that any other.

Kay
11-20-2010, 11:57 PM
I take it that you do not hold any serious belief
in the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, right? Why would you?

Maybe not, but I am open to the possibility that one might be out there. :p


You see where I'm going with this? I hope so.


Yes I know what you are saying;
you think it outlandish and so have closed your mind to it. :p:p
(just kidding, I get what you are saying)

What you are doing is trying to approach it from a scientific view,
using a hypothesis and then testing for probabilities and proof.
This is not an area that can be approached in that way. At this point
in man's lowly existence, it is something that is either taken on faith
or not. It has been proven to me in many ways over my lifetime by
events that I could never explain or tell you about in a way that you'd
get it. Faith is a very personal thing that either takes place within a
person, or not.

Rockntractor
11-21-2010, 12:11 AM
Hamps get me two jars, one with two units of hate the other with two units of love in it, I don't believe these substances exist!

Kay
11-21-2010, 12:25 AM
Hamps get me two jars, one with two units of hate the other with two units of love in it, I don't believe these substances exist!

Excellent analogy. You can prove the existance of heaven and hell by scientific
method just about as much as you can the existance of love and hate. You just
know it when you feel it.

PoliCon
11-21-2010, 12:27 AM
Good question. I don't know.

But certainly neither voices in my head, nor the voice of priests.

So you will not accept personal testimony?

PoliCon
11-21-2010, 12:28 AM
The R0 Brussels Orbital "freeway" on a Friday afternoon is the nearest I've come to hell. If there's anything worse, I don't want to know about it.

cute - but you know full well I meant the religious concept of hell - what do you understand it to be?

PoliCon
11-21-2010, 12:30 AM
Anne Rice's description of Hell seemed much more plausible to me that any other.

please elaborate. I've read very little anne rice.

hampshirebrit
11-21-2010, 12:30 AM
Hamps get me two jars, one with two units of hate the other with two units of love in it, I don't believe these substances exist!

Nice try. I can see the little trap you were trying to set.

No, you cannot put them in a mason jar. But they do exist.

The problem is that they are movable feasts, aren't they.

The 9/11 dickheads loved flying those aircraft into the towers. They did it for love of Allah and his pedophile prophet. I hate them for it.

See how dangerous language is here? And we're talking in one language, and look how easy it's manipulated and twisted and without need for translation.

djones520
11-21-2010, 12:37 AM
please elaborate. I've read very little anne rice.

Hell, or Sheol, is a place that God commands the Devil to be the master of. Human souls who are not ready to accept the truth about god go there apon death. Before the Devil took over, it was basically Limbo. The souls just floated around for eternity. God began letting the souls into Heaven when the Devil showed him that they came to accept his truth. For some this took centuries to millenia, if ever.

After the Devil took over, he turned it into a place of torment, in an effort to hasten their transition. To help them see the truth of God and to be accepted into Heaven.

Anne Rice showed the Devil and God as being much more companiable then commonly believed. But she also showed God as being fallable, at least through the Devil's eyes.

Memnoch The Devil was the name of the book. It's pretty stand alone, so you could read it without reading the others without to much issue. It's been about four years since I've read it, so thats a pretty basic summary.

hampshirebrit
11-21-2010, 12:37 AM
cute - but you know full well I meant the religious concept of hell - what do you understand it to be?

Like I said, no such thing.

I think what you're trying for is what does it mean for the religious. That's for them to say, not for me.

The old school says fire and brimstone, a lot of pain lasting for ever, with no tea-breaks.

The wooly Christian form we see nowadays talks about some vague separation from God. I'm already experiencing that, and to be honest with you, so far I'm not finding the experience to be particularly disagreeable.

Like I said, when I die, I'm expecting that there will be some static in my ears and eyes as my brain spins down and then a lot of nothing, for ever, which I shall be entirely un-aware of, since I will be permanently (as in for ever) dead.

This really does not bother me. I hope to have a happy rest of life, but thereafter, I really don't and won't care.

Rockntractor
11-21-2010, 12:37 AM
Nice try. I can see the little trap you were trying to set.

No, you cannot put them in a mason jar. But they do exist.

The problem is that they are movable feasts, aren't they.

The 9/11 dickheads loved flying those aircraft into the towers. They did it for love of Allah and his pedophile prophet. I hate them for it.

See how dangerous language is here? And we're talking in one language, and look how easy it's manipulated and twisted and without need for translation.

Why does one have merit over another, are they not just equal but opposite reactions to a given stimulus?

djones520
11-21-2010, 12:45 AM
Like I said, when I die, I'm expecting that there will be some static in my ears and eyes as my brain spins down and then a lot of nothing, for ever, which I shall be entirely un-aware of, since I will be permanently (as in for ever) dead.

This really does not bother me. I hope to have a happy rest of life, but thereafter, I really don't and won't care.


Thats my basic belief as well. I won't say that I dwell on it, but the thought does scare me a little. I know when it actually happens, I won't "exist" any longer to give a shit about it, but it's still a little unsettling.

Rockntractor
11-21-2010, 12:50 AM
Thats my basic belief as well. I won't say that I dwell on it, but the thought does scare me a little. I know when it actually happens, I won't "exist" any longer to give a shit about it, but it's still a little unsettling.

It is unsettling to everyone, Christian or atheist, no one is here with footage they took the first week after they died to prove anything to us.
Both sides take what happens to the human soul after death as a matter of faith, whether we like it or not.

hampshirebrit
11-21-2010, 12:51 AM
Why does one have merit over another, are they not just equal but opposite reactions to a given stimulus?

Depends on one's point of view. The whole issue is relativistic and context-driven. His love for Islam is also his loathing for pork and Christianity.

Rockntractor
11-21-2010, 12:57 AM
Depends on one's point of view. The whole issue is relativistic and context-driven. His love for Islam is also his loathing for pork and Christianity.

You are saying his position has the same merit at your's, you are driving down the road in your pride and joy hurting no one while he is flying a plane into a building killing thousands but one is no more right then the other.

hampshirebrit
11-21-2010, 12:59 AM
It is unsettling to everyone, Christian or atheist.

It is somewhat unsettling. I will not deny that. I do not like the thought at all, but it is inevitable, and that helps me deal with it.

The best I can hope for is a quick and painless exit. I'm mixed in mind as to how aware I want to be when the inevitable happens, but the outcome will be the same, no more me.

Kay
11-21-2010, 01:01 AM
Like I said, when I die, I'm expecting that there will be some static in my ears and eyes as my brain spins down and then a lot of nothing, for ever, which I shall be entirely un-aware of, since I will be permanently (as in for ever) dead.


Thats my basic belief as well. I won't say that I dwell on it, but the thought does scare me a little. I know when it actually happens, I won't "exist" any longer to give a shit about it, but it's still a little unsettling.

I find it sad that you'd both feel it will end this way.
Why bother living at all then if this is the best you hope for.

I myself being ever the adventurer, can't wait to see what's on the other side.
I'm ready to go whenever God lets me, and the older I get the more I'm looking
forward to it. I am certain that there is an afterlife and I can't wait to see what it
is all about. I'll come back and haunt you both to prove it to you if I can. Especially
you Hamps, I'm going to make it my mission in the afterlife to come back and give
you your proof. That creepy noise you hear at night will be me. :D

hampshirebrit
11-21-2010, 01:03 AM
You are saying his position has the same merit at your's, you are driving down the road in your pride and joy hurting no one while he is flying a plane into a building killing thousands but one is no more right then the other.

Hardly the same. I'm not out to kill anyone. The worst I'm aiming to do is to hurt someone's pride.

There is a big difference in merit.

hampshirebrit
11-21-2010, 01:07 AM
Why bother living at all then if this is the best you hope for.


That would be a very bad attitude for me to take. Should I live to die? Surely not.

The likelihood of no life everlasting gives me added incentive to live the one life I do have to the fullest.

PoliCon
11-21-2010, 01:16 AM
Hell, or Sheol, is a place that God commands the Devil to be the master of. Human souls who are not ready to accept the truth about god go there apon death. Before the Devil took over, it was basically Limbo. The souls just floated around for eternity. God began letting the souls into Heaven when the Devil showed him that they came to accept his truth. For some this took centuries to millenia, if ever.

After the Devil took over, he turned it into a place of torment, in an effort to hasten their transition. To help them see the truth of God and to be accepted into Heaven.

Anne Rice showed the Devil and God as being much more companiable then commonly believed. But she also showed God as being fallable, at least through the Devil's eyes.

Memnoch The Devil was the name of the book. It's pretty stand alone, so you could read it without reading the others without to much issue. It's been about four years since I've read it, so thats a pretty basic summary.

So your view is that hell is a physical place?

PoliCon
11-21-2010, 01:17 AM
Like I said, no such thing.

I think what you're trying for is what does it mean for the religious. That's for them to say, not for me.

The old school says fire and brimstone, a lot of pain lasting for ever, with no tea-breaks.

The wooly Christian form we see nowadays talks about some vague separation from God. I'm already experiencing that, and to be honest with you, so far I'm not finding the experience to be particularly disagreeable.

Like I said, when I die, I'm expecting that there will be some static in my ears and eyes as my brain spins down and then a lot of nothing, for ever, which I shall be entirely un-aware of, since I will be permanently (as in for ever) dead.

This really does not bother me. I hope to have a happy rest of life, but thereafter, I really don't and won't care.

Not at all. I'm asking you what YOUR concept of it is. I'm not asking you if you believe in it - only what your concept of it is.

hampshirebrit
11-21-2010, 01:28 AM
Not at all. I'm asking you what YOUR concept of it is. I'm not asking you if you believe in it - only what your concept of it is.

My concept? OK. Hell to me would be dying and then being forced into involuntary worship and adulation of a superior being, God, for ever.

This may well be your idea of heaven, but it would be my idea of hell. I would be bored well before eon #1 had ended.

I really would prefer to be just dead.

djones520
11-21-2010, 01:37 AM
So your view is that hell is a physical place?

In my view, Hell does not exist. Of fanciful notions of Hell, that has been my favorite.


I find it sad that you'd both feel it will end this way.
Why bother living at all then if this is the best you hope for.


TO BREED! :D

Why do I bother? Because I enjoy life. I enjoy being with my wife and my son. I enjoy eating. I enjoy hunting. I enjoy playing video games, and bullshitting with my friends. And I enjoy doing my job, especially when I hear about how it helped a 500lb GBU deliver a bad day to Sammy Jihad.

I live to live.

PoliCon
11-21-2010, 01:44 AM
In my view, Hell does not exist. Of fanciful notions of Hell, that has been my favorite.

. In your mind - the concept of hell is that of a physical place.

djones520
11-21-2010, 01:50 AM
In your mind - the concept of hell is that of a physical place.

Well you can think what you want, but in my mind hell does not exist period.

PoliCon
11-21-2010, 01:53 AM
Well you can think what you want, but in my mind hell does not exist period.

That is your belief - not your concept. I don't have to believe in something to have a concept of that thing. I do not believe in vampires - but that does not mean I cannot have a concept if vamps being sparkly emo's full of teenage lust and angst . . . . (AS IF)

wilbur
11-21-2010, 01:58 AM
This is all moot if you read and understand Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus".

The Gospels have more errors in them, than actual words (this is true) - the most original documents we have are written years after the events, by unknown authors. So quibbling over a couple different interpretations of a few words here and there is pointless.

The source material is bunk, through and through.

djones520
11-21-2010, 02:07 AM
This is all moot if you read and understand Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus".

The Gospels have more errors in them, than actual words (this is true) - the most original documents we have are written years after the events, by unknown authors. So quibbling over a couple different interpretations of a few words here and there is pointless.

The source material is bunk, through and through.

There is nothing "bunk" about oral tradition in passing knowledge along. The Kyrgyz have a tradition of reciting Manas, an epic poem that is just as long, if not longer then the Mahabharata.

It is a story that has been passed down through oral tradition.

So you cannot just simply claim that the bible itself is bunk because it wasn't written until 300 years after the death of Christ.

Odysseus
11-21-2010, 03:00 AM
Heh. I LIVED in New Jersey. :D

I kind of share your view, up to a point. But when were each of the many rewrites of the scriptures not a bowdlerisation or plagiarism of the earlier edition?

Surely the KJV is not the first reliable version. As either a believer or non-believer, surely you understand my point, no? As great as it is linguistically, it is just one of the better translation attempts of a body of earlier, foreign language scripts.
Can't argue with that, but as the dyslexic agnostic said, I don't have a God in this fight. :D

Anne Rice's description of Hell seemed much more plausible to me that any other.
I haven't read that much of hers, but if it's anything like her Sleeping Beauty books, it should be very interesting...

Hardly the same. I'm not out to kill anyone. The worst I'm aiming to do is to hurt someone's pride.

There is a big difference in merit.
Why hurt someone's pride? The thing that I dislike about many atheists is the need to "prove" that there is no God, to rebel, rather than simply not believing and letting others believe. It does not diminish you if others believe in God, so long as they do you no harm in acting on those beliefs. It is not their pride that is bothering you. Or, to put it another way, do you really want to be like Wilbur? And speak of the devil (metaphorically)...

This is all moot if you read and understand Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus".
As, of course, you did. Love the addition of "and understand." A lovely little dig at the unwashed masses at CU, but if I called you arrogant, you'd accuse me of having psychic powers. Can it be that you really don't realize how arrogant you come off when you say things like that? Are you that lacking in self-awareness? You must be, since the irony of you citing one obscure book as authoritative is completely lost on you, but suffice to say that what you consider "gospel" is not a reflection of intellectual superiority, but the pretense of it.


The Gospels have more errors in them, than actual words (this is true) - the most original documents we have are written years after the events, by unknown authors. So quibbling over a couple different interpretations of a few words here and there is pointless.

The source material is bunk, through and through.
Thank heaven (metaphorically, of course) that you are hear to set us all straight on the subject. Whatever would we do without you?:rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
11-21-2010, 09:24 AM
There is nothing "bunk" about oral tradition in passing knowledge along. The Kyrgyz have a tradition of reciting Manas, an epic poem that is just as long, if not longer then the Mahabharata.

It is a story that has been passed down through oral tradition.

So you cannot just simply claim that the bible itself is bunk because it wasn't written until 300 years after the death of Christ.

Ithink it's important to remember when oral traditions are passed down and then written down and translated multiple times over for centuries that nitpicking about specific word usage or minute grammar issues is going to be missing the point.

PoliCon
11-21-2010, 10:45 AM
This is all moot if you read and understand Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus".

The Gospels have more errors in them, than actual words (this is true) - the most original documents we have are written years after the events, by unknown authors. So quibbling over a couple different interpretations of a few words here and there is pointless.

The source material is bunk, through and through.

:rolleyes: and you wonder why people generally just tell you to STFU and GTFO.

PoliCon
11-21-2010, 10:46 AM
There is nothing "bunk" about oral tradition in passing knowledge along. The Kyrgyz have a tradition of reciting Manas, an epic poem that is just as long, if not longer then the Mahabharata.

It is a story that has been passed down through oral tradition.

So you cannot just simply claim that the bible itself is bunk because it wasn't written until 300 years after the death of Christ.

HUH? all of the NT texts were written within 100 years of his death. It may not have been fully compiled until 300 years after his death - but it was all written long before that.

PoliCon
11-21-2010, 10:51 AM
Ithink it's important to remember when oral traditions are passed down and then written down and translated multiple times over for centuries that nitpicking about specific word usage or minute grammar issues is going to be missing the point.

and yet when 70 Jewish scholars sat down and translated the TANACH into greek working independently they all agreed to within a few words on the translation. Funny how that works. Funny too how the Septuigent is the source for all of the NT quotes of OT passages. funny too that the Greek church has never translated the scriptures and have been using the same text for over 2000 years. Funny how ego centric people can be - especially protestants in America - in forgetting that the eastern church even exists. :rolleyes:

wilbur
11-21-2010, 11:58 AM
and yet when 70 Jewish scholars sat down and translated the TANACH into greek working independently they all agreed to within a few words on the translation. Funny how that works. Funny too how the Septuigent is the source for all of the NT quotes of OT passages. funny too that the Greek church has never translated the scriptures and have been using the same text for over 2000 years. Funny how ego centric people can be - especially protestants in America - in forgetting that the eastern church even exists. :rolleyes:

The early Christian movement was not comprised of literate and educated scholars, much less even literate people. Oral transmission in such an environment is certainly *not* reliable. And in such an environment there is no possible way to detect and correct errors.

Wei Wu Wei
11-21-2010, 12:03 PM
and yet when 70 Jewish scholars sat down and translated the TANACH into greek working independently they all agreed to within a few words on the translation. Funny how that works. Funny too how the Septuigent is the source for all of the NT quotes of OT passages. funny too that the Greek church has never translated the scriptures and have been using the same text for over 2000 years. Funny how ego centric people can be - especially protestants in America - in forgetting that the eastern church even exists. :rolleyes:

fair enoguh

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-21-2010, 12:14 PM
The early Christian movement was not comprised of literate and educated scholars, much less even literate people. Oral transmission in such an environment is certainly *not* reliable. And in such an environment there is no possible way to detect and correct errors.

I hate self righteous and arrogant people.

wilbur
11-21-2010, 12:21 PM
Why hurt someone's pride? The thing that I dislike about many atheists is the need to "prove" that there is no God, to rebel, rather than simply not believing and letting others believe. It does not diminish you if others believe in God, so long as they do you no harm in acting on those beliefs. It is not their pride that is bothering you. Or, to put it another way, do you really want to be like Wilbur? And speak of the devil (metaphorically)...


Truth matters, and some beliefs have a *high* potential to affect others. Every Christian is theologically motivated to convert others to their belief system and to orient their surrounding cultures to align with their views. Well, some of those views are wrong and need to be resisted.

And those of us who disagree with them have every right to speak against them. The double standard is *incredible*. The preacher on the street corner gets a nod of respect for shouting his beliefs at everyone. The atheist gets chastised for refusing to keep his views to himself.



As, of course, you did. Love the addition of "and understand." A lovely little dig at the unwashed masses at CU, but if I called you arrogant, you'd accuse me of having psychic powers. Can it be that you really don't realize how arrogant you come off when you say things like that? Are you that lacking in self-awareness?


Actually, I wouldn't say you have psychic powers for that - many of my words are arrogant. Of course, few here on CU practice humility, so I'm by no means unique there. My jabs about psychic powers are because you routinely claim to know the contents of others minds based on your own skewed, gross generalizations and assumptions about all liberals. You carelessly apply these bad assumptions on everyone - including me - and can hardly be bothered to investigate the actual beliefs of actual people you are conversing with.



You must be, since the irony of you citing one obscure book as authoritative is completely lost on you, but suffice to say that what you consider "gospel" is not a reflection of intellectual superiority, but the pretense of it.


Erhman is one of the foremost scholars of NT studies, and this book of his was a NYT bestseller - hardly obscure.



Thank heaven (metaphorically, of course) that you are hear to set us all straight on the subject. Whatever would we do without you?:rolleyes:

You'd be stupider. That enough arrogance for you?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-21-2010, 01:07 PM
The early Christian movement was not comprised of literate and educated scholars, much less even literate people. Oral transmission in such an environment is certainly *not* reliable. And in such an environment there is no possible way to detect and correct errors.


Truth matters, and some beliefs have a *high* potential to affect others. Every Christian is theologically motivated to convert others to their belief system and to orient their surrounding cultures to align with their views. Well, some of those views are wrong and need to be resisted.

And those of us who disagree with them have every right to speak against them. The double standard is *incredible*. The preacher on the street corner gets a nod of respect for shouting his beliefs at everyone. The atheist gets chastised for refusing to keep his views to himself.



Actually, I wouldn't say you have psychic powers for that - many of my words are arrogant. Of course, few here on CU practice humility, so I'm by no means unique there. My jabs about psychic powers are because you routinely claim to know the contents of others minds based on your own skewed, gross generalizations and assumptions about all liberals. You carelessly apply these bad assumptions on everyone - including me - and can hardly be bothered to investigate the actual beliefs of actual people you are conversing with.



Erhman is one of the foremost scholars of NT studies, and this book of his was a NYT bestseller - hardly obscure.



You'd be stupider. That enough arrogance for you?

Lucky people you aren't in power.
You'd try to outlaw religion, just like big daddy Stalin.

wilbur
11-21-2010, 01:10 PM
Lucky people you aren't in power.
You'd try to outlaw religion, just like big daddy Stalin.

Hahaha, uhh no.

m00
11-21-2010, 01:28 PM
HUH? all of the NT texts were written within 100 years of his death. It may not have been fully compiled until 300 years after his death - but it was all written long before that.

Yeah, but isn't that like a WWI vet recounting a conversation he had once with Charles Lindbergh? And then in 200 years someone writes it down? Surely while the "gist" of it may have remained the same, I highly doubt most of the original phrasing and exact words would have been preserved. Although I suppose the point of a parable is the meaning, and not the exact wording - I'm pretty sure Jesus would /facepalm if he knew that people were sitting around arguing whether he said "Lord" or "King" or "Ruler" instead of trying to put the message of the parables into practice.

I have a theory that Jesus spoke in parables because he saw how much arguing over triviality happened with the Torah, to the point where Jews (since the Babylonian Exile) were conforming entirely to the letter but not at all to the spirit. This was also a major theme of the Prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 2).

PoliCon
11-21-2010, 01:46 PM
The early Christian movement was not comprised of literate and educated scholars, much less even literate people. Oral transmission in such an environment is certainly *not* reliable. And in such an environment there is no possible way to detect and correct errors.

you are such a fucking cultural elitist it's disgusting. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
11-21-2010, 01:49 PM
Erhman is one of the foremost scholars of NT studies, and this book of his was a NYT bestseller - hardly obscure.



Oh well if he wrote a NYT best seller he HAS to be right. :rolleyes: I mean after all - the NYT Best sellers list is where ALL of the most scholarly works end up!

PoliCon
11-21-2010, 01:55 PM
Yeah, but isn't that like a WWI vet recounting a conversation he had once with Charles Lindbergh? And then in 200 years someone writes it down? Surely while the "gist" of it may have remained the same, I highly doubt most of the original phrasing and exact words would have been preserved. Although I suppose the point of a parable is the meaning, and not the exact wording - I'm pretty sure Jesus would /facepalm if he knew that people were sitting around arguing whether he said "Lord" or "King" or "Ruler" instead of trying to put the message of the parables into practice.

I have a theory that Jesus spoke in parables because he saw how much arguing over triviality happened with the Torah, to the point where Jews (since the Babylonian Exile) were conforming entirely to the letter but not at all to the spirit. This was also a major theme of the Prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 2).


I fail to see your point. If you're point is that we should not divide and argue over a single word here or there - then fine. I can agree with that. If your point is that we should not worry about how words are translated - I do not agree. If you are arguing that the fact that the various accounts do not agree word for word and that calls their veracity into question then I could not disagree more. Multiple witnesses always bring their own perspective to their testimony - and the authenticity of the accounts is in those differing perspectives.

wilbur
11-21-2010, 02:11 PM
I fail to see your point. If you're point is that we should not divide and argue over a single word here or there - then fine. I can agree with that. If your point is that we should not worry about how words are translated - I do not agree. If you are arguing that the fact that the various accounts do not agree word for word and that calls their veracity into question then I could not disagree more. Multiple witnesses always bring their own perspective to their testimony - and the authenticity of the accounts is in those differing perspectives.

The gospels aren't really independent testimonies that simply offer varied eyewitness accounts from differing perspectives.

Mark is the original and the other 3 are almost certainly derivative works, often using Mark as the source material, while adding their own embellishments and getting progressively more mystical over time.

And there's no solid evidence with which to conclude that Mark was even an eye witness account.

wilbur
11-21-2010, 02:16 PM
Oh well if he wrote a NYT best seller he HAS to be right. :rolleyes: I mean after all - the NYT Best sellers list is where ALL of the most scholarly works end up!

C'mon... he publishes both popular level books and scholarly works in academic circles. Google him if you're curious, but right now, your simply dismissing without bothering to look.

Again, he's a distinguished guy at the forefront of NT textual studies... not some random crank. Doesn't mean you have to believe him, but his words do have weight.

PoliCon
11-21-2010, 02:25 PM
The gospels aren't really independent testimonies that simply offer varied eyewitness accounts from differing perspectives.

Mark is the original and the other 3 are almost certainly derivative works, often using Mark as the source material, while adding their own embellishments and getting progressively more mystical over time.

And there's no solid evidence with which to conclude that Mark was even an eye witness account.

You just eat up the anti-christian stuff don't ya. :rolleyes: You have to love the people who have made it their lifes goal to destroy Christianity and the scriptures. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
11-21-2010, 02:29 PM
C'mon... he publishes both popular level books and scholarly works in academic circles. Google him if you're curious, but right now, your simply dismissing without bothering to look.

Again, he's a distinguished guy at the forefront of NT textual studies... not some random crank. Doesn't mean you have to believe him, but his words do have weight.

I have no reason to even bother reading his works. I've no interest in disproving the scriptures so I've no reason to read the work of some one who's made it their lifes work. But you go right a head and read it. I'm sure it's much easier that actually reading the scriptures and trying to apply the lessons found there in.

wilbur
11-21-2010, 02:34 PM
You just eat up the anti-christian stuff don't ya. :rolleyes: You have to love the people who have made it their lifes goal to destroy Christianity and the scriptures. :rolleyes:

Actually, you should look at Erhman's history:



He began studying the Bible and its original languages at the Moody Bible Institute and is a 1978 graduate of Wheaton College in Illinois. He received his PhD and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied under Bruce Metzger. He received magna cum laude for both his BA in 1978 and PhD in 1985.


He was a hardcore evangelical going to seminary school with the full intention and desire to defend the Bible. He de-converted and is now agnostic after being unable to reconcile all the textual problems in the NT with his old beliefs.

wilbur
11-21-2010, 02:36 PM
I have no reason to even bother reading his works. I've no interest in disproving the scriptures

Well, gee that says it all doesnt it? Proudly displaying a lack of intellectual integrity.. wish I could say it wasnt typical.

m00
11-21-2010, 03:48 PM
I fail to see your point. If you're point is that we should not divide and argue over a single word here or there - then fine. I can agree with that. If your point is that we should not worry about how words are translated - I do not agree. If you are arguing that the fact that the various accounts do not agree word for word and that calls their veracity into question then I could not disagree more. Multiple witnesses always bring their own perspective to their testimony - and the authenticity of the accounts is in those differing perspectives.

Yeah, but aren't witnesses considered the least reliable of evidence? And this is especially true when large amounts of time have passed between the event and the recalling of the event? Now this should have no bearing on whether you believe Jesus is the messiah; I don't think anyone should need to feel compelled to *prove* or *justify* their religious beliefs to anyone else. My points are the following:


It's somewhat unlikely that, even in the original, Jesus's accounts were recorded accurately word-for-word
Jesus spoke in parables, so the language doesn't really matter as long as the message is preserved
I think Jesus would rather people go out and follow his words, rather than argue about subtle connotations


I find #2 to be the most interesting, given the history of Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament (I don't know how much you follow that). I think Jesus was very aware of "misinterpretation" of religious texts, and deliberately spoke in parables to shift the focus from the language to the meaning. But despite that, how many conflicts and inquisitions have started over the translation of his words?

I think it's important to understand where words come from - as I said in my previous post. And it seems to me that everyone interested in enough to base their life (and afterlife) around a translated text should maybe think about taking a few language courses to understand the original and draw his own conclusions. But I also think spending too much time arguing about this word or that completely misses the point of Jesus's message.

Odysseus
11-21-2010, 04:38 PM
Truth matters, and some beliefs have a *high* potential to affect others. Every Christian is theologically motivated to convert others to their belief system and to orient their surrounding cultures to align with their views. Well, some of those views are wrong and need to be resisted.
Christians are theologically motivated, but not compelled. There's a difference. Again, they do you no harm when they preach, unless you consider their ideas dangerous and in need of suppression, which you do.

And those of us who disagree with them have every right to speak against them. The double standard is *incredible*. The preacher on the street corner gets a nod of respect for shouting his beliefs at everyone. The atheist gets chastised for refusing to keep his views to himself.
The preacher on the street isn't imposing his view on me. I can walk away and not be bothered. The atheist who sues to remove a cross from a war memorial or from the county seal of Los Angeles is imposing his view on all of us, regardless of belief.
Or, as someone else once put it,

Bigoted speech is bigoted speech... AND protected speech. But if people think you are a bigot after saying bigoted things... well then, no laws protect against that.

Actually, I wouldn't say you have psychic powers for that - many of my words are arrogant. Of course, few here on CU practice humility, so I'm by no means unique there. My jabs about psychic powers are because you routinely claim to know the contents of others minds based on your own skewed, gross generalizations and assumptions about all liberals. You carelessly apply these bad assumptions on everyone - including me - and can hardly be bothered to investigate the actual beliefs of actual people you are conversing with.
Many of your words are arrogant because you are arrogant. It's not a bug, it's a feature. And once again, I've had quite a while to learn your positions and beliefs, which you have put on display for all of us. I don't guess at your positions, I simply go back and look at them.


Erhman is one of the foremost scholars of NT studies, and this book of his was a NYT bestseller - hardly obscure.

Have you seen the NYT circulation numbers lately? It's getting harder to be more obscure than the Times. This is like the peer-review issue on global warming. Being well-liked by those who hold the same prejudices isn't exactly

You'd be stupider. That enough arrogance for you?[/QUOTE]
More than enough. Proves my point, and then some.

C'mon... he publishes both popular level books and scholarly works in academic circles. Google him if you're curious, but right now, your simply dismissing without bothering to look.

Again, he's a distinguished guy at the forefront of NT textual studies... not some random crank. Doesn't mean you have to believe him, but his words do have weight.
And yet, if he's that important, why castigate us for not reading him? When I want to expose people to new ideas, I do this odd thing involving the "quote" button. That way, people can read what I have read and draw their own conclusions, and it doesn't insult them. But, that's the point, isn't it? Insulting your intellectual inferiors is so much more fun than informing peers, isn't it?

And you wonder why I think that you're a narcissist?

PoliCon
11-21-2010, 05:04 PM
Actually, you should look at Erhman's history:



He began studying the Bible and its original languages at the Moody Bible Institute and is a 1978 graduate of Wheaton College in Illinois. He received his PhD and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied under Bruce Metzger. He received magna cum laude for both his BA in 1978 and PhD in 1985.


He was a hardcore evangelical going to seminary school with the full intention and desire to defend the Bible. He de-converted and is now agnostic after being unable to reconcile all the textual problems in the NT with his old beliefs.
like I said - anti-Christian.

PoliCon
11-21-2010, 05:07 PM
Well, gee that says it all doesnt it? Proudly displaying a lack of intellectual integrity.. wish I could say it wasnt typical.

You just don't get it. You and your friend the ant-Christian textual critic share a common error - you both thing that something has to be perfect to be good and useful and true. I do not buy that lie.

PoliCon
11-21-2010, 05:47 PM
Yeah, but aren't witnesses considered the least reliable of evidence? And this is especially true when large amounts of time have passed between the event and the recalling of the event? Now this should have no bearing on whether you believe Jesus is the messiah; I don't think anyone should need to feel compelled to *prove* or *justify* their religious beliefs to anyone else. My points are the following:


It's somewhat unlikely that, even in the original, Jesus's accounts were recorded accurately word-for-word
Jesus spoke in parables, so the language doesn't really matter as long as the message is preserved
I think Jesus would rather people go out and follow his words, rather than argue about subtle connotations




You and your friend wilbur both keep discounting the reality that people with established ORAL TRADITIONS are more than capable of remembering a conversation accurately word for word even after 50 or more years. It's been proven in modern experiments.




I find #2 to be the most interesting, given the history of Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament (I don't know how much you follow that). I think Jesus was very aware of "misinterpretation" of religious texts, and deliberately spoke in parables to shift the focus from the language to the meaning. But despite that, how many conflicts and inquisitions have started over the translation of his words? Knowing a bit more of history than do most - I know that most of the problem with regards to the 'Jewish' interpretation of scriptures as criticized by Christ were culturally based and not textually based. The problem with the pharisees was not that they enforced the law - but how they enforced it culturally so as to make the law of no effect. For them the appearance of being the good 'Jew' was more important than the substance of being a good Jew since they set themselves at opposition to the Hellenic Sadducees who were content to keep the core of Judaism and place a nice enlightened coat of greek culture over the top so as to make things more palatable.


I think it's important to understand where words come from - as I said in my previous post. And it seems to me that everyone interested in enough to base their life (and afterlife) around a translated text should maybe think about taking a few language courses to understand the original and draw his own conclusions. But I also think spending too much time arguing about this word or that completely misses the point of Jesus's message. You don't need to take language courses - you can draw on the original language with a good dictionary/concordance - such as Strongs or Thayer. It also pays to know history and how people have observed these passages in the past - especially in the early church. I mean when we look at the oldest extant document in Christendom - a document that predates every text of the NT and it speaks 'thus' about an issue - I'm always baffled by people who try to claim that the early church believed differently.

AmPat
11-21-2010, 05:59 PM
And you know this how, exactly?

As far as I am aware, when I pop my clogs, it's going to be a long moment of white noise that will last for f**ing ever.

You know what? It doesn't bother me, at all. I'll hardly be in a position or place to worry about it, after all.

Your mileage may vary. Good luck with that.

I "know" what I believe. You "know" what you believe. One of us is right. I consider myself a brave man but insulting God is not a risk I'm willing to take. Apparently you are comfortable with it. If I'm right, that face-to-face conversation between you and Jesus won't have you answering so flippantly.

We all make choices and choices have consequences.:cool:

Rockntractor
11-21-2010, 06:41 PM
Heaven is going to be crowded enough as it is, why are we advertising?:confused:

djones520
11-21-2010, 08:02 PM
HUH? all of the NT texts were written within 100 years of his death. It may not have been fully compiled until 300 years after his death - but it was all written long before that.

Really? Can you provide proof of this, cause I looked pretty extensively online for a lot of this, and only saw mention of Thessalonians being written, within 50 years of Pauls death I believe it was. The rest, there was no documentation of any of it being written down for at least a couple hundred years later.

Kay
11-21-2010, 08:17 PM
A good estimate of dates here.
All NT within 100 yrs AD.

http://carm.org/when-was-bible-written-and-who-wrote-it

wilbur
11-21-2010, 08:43 PM
Really? Can you provide proof of this, cause I looked pretty extensively online for a lot of this, and only saw mention of Thessalonians being written, within 50 years of Pauls death I believe it was. The rest, there was no documentation of any of it being written down for at least a couple hundred years later.

No one can say definitively when the gospels were written. Christian scholars have been enthusiastic to promote the idea that they were all within a few decades of the death of Christ to stave off criticisms that the testimonies are not reliable. Critical historians usually estimate things with less favoritism... and think that the gospels were invented not quite so close to Christ's death. It could be anywhere from a few decades after to a couple centuries, as you say.

Either way, it's more than enough time for legendary embellishments to creep into the stories, even conceding the best case estimates by Christian scholars.

Though even that really doesn't matter - the gospels could have been written the day after Christ was executed, it doesn't make their stories plausible.

wilbur
11-21-2010, 08:49 PM
I "know" what I believe. You "know" what you believe. One of us is right. I consider myself a brave man but insulting God is not a risk I'm willing to take. Apparently you are comfortable with it. If I'm right, that face-to-face conversation between you and Jesus won't have you answering so flippantly.

We all make choices and choices have consequences.:cool:

Yea, but if turns out that Moloch is real, you're fucked too. Maybe you should bet on him instead.

wilbur
11-21-2010, 09:32 PM
Christians are theologically motivated, but not compelled. There's a difference.

What's your point? Nobody mentioned the word "compelled". Motivation is good enough for me.



Again, they do you no harm when they preach, unless you consider their ideas dangerous and in need of suppression, which you do.


They do no harm? Says who? You? Thanks for settling that there, buddy.



The preacher on the street isn't imposing his view on me. I can walk away and not be bothered.


Same with the atheist who talks about his views on a message board. You can walk away and not be bothered. But you do get bothered... interesting.



The atheist who sues to remove a cross from a war memorial or from the county seal of Los Angeles is imposing his view on all of us, regardless of belief.


Yea, we've been over this crap before... sorry you havent taken the lesson to heart. I'll say it again... confirmation bias... it's real.

Surf some atheist news sites for once, and you'll be privy to ever single instance where a religious person acts militantly, either using the law or acting outside the law, to impose his beliefs upon another unfairly - read Christian news sites, and you'll see every instance when an atheist does the same. Unfortunately, scanning the web for anecdotes on either side of the aisle isnt going to get you an accurate picture of reality.

Your little anecdote does nothing to tell us anything about the real world, but it does give us a glimpse at how sloppy and biased your thinking is.



Many of your words are arrogant because you are arrogant. It's not a bug, it's a feature.


Fine, I'm arrogant - there are worse character flaws. Don't care - next issue.



And once again, I've had quite a while to learn your positions and beliefs, which you have put on display for all of us. I don't guess at your positions, I simply go back and look at them.


No, you don't learn my positions and beliefs, you assume and presume... then when I clarify what my beliefs *ACTUALLY* are, you - like many others here - accuse me of evasiveness or "dancing around the subject", or some other such thing. Again, not saying good things about the way you think.



Have you seen the NYT circulation numbers lately? It's getting harder to be more obscure than the Times. This is like the peer-review issue on global warming. Being well-liked by those who hold the same prejudices isn't exactly


Go look him up - he's a damn scholar - and not an obscure one, and pretty damn famous one. Are we to believe that every single scholar with views that make you or others uncomfortable is corrupt and "fudging" the facts? Un-fucking-believable.

You don't even know who this guy is, and you've already dismissed him as obscure and are now acting as if he is corrupt. Maybe learn the guys name first, before you start spouting off this BS.



And yet, if he's that important, why castigate us for not reading him?


I don't think I castigated anyone for having not read him. I've been castigating people for dismissing him as a crank without even knowing who he is.



When I want to expose people to new ideas, I do this odd thing involving the "quote" button. That way, people can read what I have read and draw their own conclusions, and it doesn't insult them. But, that's the point, isn't it? Insulting your intellectual inferiors is so much more fun than informing peers, isn't it?


I was flippant yea.. but so what? Can't take it?

As usual, as long as the insults on this board aren't directed at conservativism or religiosity, they are the picture of class and common sense, and noble and good. But damn... get a little of what you give and all hell breaks loose. It's ironic that you want to lecture me about self-awareness in the midst of all this... please.

PoliCon
11-21-2010, 11:04 PM
Really? Can you provide proof of this, cause I looked pretty extensively online for a lot of this, and only saw mention of Thessalonians being written, within 50 years of Pauls death I believe it was. The rest, there was no documentation of any of it being written down for at least a couple hundred years later.

critics confuse lack of extant texts from that time with lack of it having been written at that time. :rolleyes:



The evangelist who composed the gospel of Matthew was probably a Jewish Christian, possibly a scribe. The historical evidence suggests that he wrote between 80 and 90 CE
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/mmmatthew.html


Dating

Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus [31]) view as follows:

* Mark: c. 68–73,[32] c 65-70[3]
* Matthew: c. 70–100.[32] c 80-85.[3] Some conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
* Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[32] c 80-85[3]
* John: c 90-100,[3] c. 90–110,[33] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates. Some historians interpret the end of the book of Acts as indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; as Acts does not mention the death of Paul, generally accepted as the author of many of the Epistles, who was later put to death by the Romans c. 65.[citation needed] Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, which is believed to have been written before Acts, and therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50s. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible (for a fuller discussion see Augustinian hypothesis):

* Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
* Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s
* Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
* John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70

Such early dates are not limited to conservative scholars. In Redating the New Testament John A. T. Robinson, a prominent liberal theologian and bishop, makes a case for composition dates before the fall of Jerusalem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel


Dates of composition

The earliest works which came to be part of the New Testament are the letters of the Apostle Paul. Most scholars generally agree on the dating of many books in the New Testament, except for those some believe to be pseudepigraphical[citation needed] (i.e., those thought not to be written by their traditional authors). The Gospel of Mark is dated from as early as the 50s, although most scholars date between the range of 65 and 72.[57] Most scholars believe that Matthew and Luke were written after the composition of Mark as they make use of Mark's content. Therefore they are generally dated later than Mark although the extent is debated. Matthew is dated between 70 and 85. Luke is usually placed within 80 to 95. However a select few scholars disagree with this as Luke indicates in the book of Acts that he has already written the Gospel of Luke prior to writing the introduction to Acts. The earliest of the books of the New Testament was First Thessalonians, an epistle of Paul, written probably in A.D. 51, or possibly Galatians in 49 according to one of two theories of its writing. Of the pseudepigraphical epistles, scholars tend to place them somewhere between 70 and 150, with Second Peter usually being the latest.[citation needed]

In the 1830s German scholars of the Tόbingen school dated the books as late as the 3rd century, but the discovery of some New Testament manuscripts and fragments from the second and 3rd centuries, one of which dates as early as A.D. 125 (Papyrus 52), disproves a 3rd century date of composition for any book now in the New Testament. Additionally, a letter to the church at Corinth in the name of Clement of Rome in 95 quotes from 10 of the 27 books of the New Testament, and a letter to the church at Philippi in the name of Polycarp in 120 quotes from 16 books. Therefore, some of the books of the New Testament were at least in a first-draft stage, though there is negligible evidence in these quotes or among biblical manuscripts for the existence of different early drafts. Other books were probably not completed until later, assuming they must have been quoted by Clement or Polycarp. There are, however, many discrepancies between manuscripts, though the majority of the errors are clearly errors of transcription or minor in scope.

On the other extreme is the dating proposed by John A. T. Robinson. He claimed that, since he believed none of the writings in the New Testament showed clear evidence of a knowledge of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (in A.D. 70), which Robinson thought should certainly have appeared considering the importance of that event for Jews and Christians of that time, that every book which would come to form the New Testament was therefore written before A.D. 70.[58] Given Robinson's appeal to the absence of evidence, his view is widely rejected by New Testament scholars.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#Dates_of_composition

Odysseus
11-21-2010, 11:50 PM
What's your point? Nobody mentioned the word "compelled". Motivation is good enough for me.
They do no harm? Says who? You? Thanks for settling that there, buddy.
The burden of proof is on you. What harm do they do, besides offending your sense of your own rationalism?


Same with the atheist who talks about his views on a message board. You can walk away and not be bothered. But you do get bothered... interesting.
Oh, you're no bother.


Yea, we've been over this crap before... sorry you havent taken the lesson to heart. I'll say it again... confirmation bias... it's real.

Surf some atheist news sites for once, and you'll be privy to ever single instance where a religious person acts militantly, either using the law or acting outside the law, to impose his beliefs upon another unfairly - read Christian news sites, and you'll see every instance when an atheist does the same. Unfortunately, scanning the web for anecdotes on either side of the aisle isnt going to get you an accurate picture of reality.

Your little anecdote does nothing to tell us anything about the real world, but it does give us a glimpse at how sloppy and biased your thinking is.
Nice sidestep, but then, you're good at that, aren't you? Don't respond to the point that was made, but try to define the argument on terms that you choose. Seen it before, and you didn't impress me then, either.


Fine, I'm arrogant - there are worse character flaws. Don't care - next issue.
Okay, you're narcissistic, bigoted and utterly lacking in any tolerance of dissent. Shall I continue?


No, you don't learn my positions and beliefs, you assume and presume... then when I clarify what my beliefs *ACTUALLY* are, you - like many others here - accuse me of evasiveness or "dancing around the subject", or some other such thing. Again, not saying good things about the way you think.
It says more about the way that you dance. Or are you really incapable of defining the word "great" without assistance? If that really was true, then it would be a wonder that you had the brainpower to type at all.


Go look him up - he's a damn scholar - and not an obscure one, and pretty damn famous one. Are we to believe that every single scholar with views that make you or others uncomfortable is corrupt and "fudging" the facts? Un-fucking-believable.
I never said that he was fudging the facts. I've never heard of him. I just found your introduction to his work, assuming that we were incapable of understanding it, to be condescending and arrogant, which we agree is one of your character flaws.


You don't even know who this guy is, and you've already dismissed him as obscure and are now acting as if he is corrupt. Maybe learn the guys name first, before you start spouting off this BS.
I never said that he was corrupt, although I certainly consider the NYT to be. But, as I said, when I want to expose people to new ideas, I present the ideas, rather than simply presuming ignorance. In this case, I admit to being ignorant of him, but I've managed to live my life quite well up until now without having heard of him or his theories, and I am fairly well-read, so I'm going go back to my description of him as "obscure." Regardless, the approbation of the NYT doesn't do much for me, nor does yours. If you have read and understood him, then feel free to present his ideas and let us decide if they're valid.


I don't think I castigated anyone for having not read him. I've been castigating people for dismissing him as a crank without even knowing who he is.

But you certainly did imply that we were rubes who might not even be capable of grasping his ideas. As you said:

This is all moot if you read and understand Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus".
So, not only does the mere existence of his argument render all opposing arguments moot, but we are not even bright enough to understand him. Again, what would we do without you?

I was flippant yea.. but so what? Can't take it?
Wilbur, I've had Drill Sergeants and TAC Officers screaming in my face for months at a time, and they were a lot smarter and wittier than you'll ever be. Don't flatter yourself, or at least, don't flatter yourself more than you usually do.

Besides, when you make a ridiculously sweeping and false generalization, it's "flippant" but when anyone else does it, it's intellectual sloppiness? I guess it's easy to meet your own standards if they are lower than the ones that you hold us to.

As usual, as long as the insults on this board aren't directed at conservativism or religiosity, they are the picture of class and common sense, and noble and good. But damn... get a little of what you give and all hell breaks loose. It's ironic that you want to lecture me about self-awareness in the midst of all this... please.
Wilbur, I do not believe that I have ever called you stupid. Arrogant, insufferable, narcissistic, self-absorbed and oikophobic, certainly, but I have always made it a point to try to prove why I consider you all of these things, using your own quotes, rather than simply calling you names. If calling us "stupid" because we disagree with you isn't an indication of your opinion, then you are not as precise a writer as you claim, and if it is, then it proves my point.

Rockntractor
11-21-2010, 11:58 PM
Poor Wilbur, Ody trounces your ass every time!:D
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/owned50.jpg?t=1290401812

noonwitch
11-22-2010, 10:42 AM
I used the NIV when I was in high school, and involved in Young Life. It's the old NIV from the 80s, I still have it, it's all marked up and underlined from those days.

I was given an RSV in 3rd grade at church. I don't use it much, these days, because it is falling apart. I use it to store funeral cards of friends and family members.

I use the KJV for general reading, because I like the language. It's the best version for reading the Psalms, because the James' translators did a pretty good job on the poetry angle.

When I do Bible study, I use the NRSV. The language is clear, and I have the Oxford edition with the apocrypha and all the study notes. It's a good edition for group study, because everyone else will bring whatever version they like and it won't be too difficult to deal with the differences, from a leader's perspective.


The churches I attend are all over the place with translations. The Unity denomination usually sticks to the NRSV, but our minister likes the NKJV, for some reason. The evangelical chuch uses the NIV (the older one, not the "inclusive version") or The Message, and as far as the latter goes, I hate paraphrases because they take too many liberties in translation and because they also use slang, which is demeaning. They occasionally use the NKJV, too. I've never really looked at that translation, though.

The Night Owl
11-22-2010, 01:58 PM
Wilbur, I do not believe that I have ever called you stupid. Arrogant, insufferable, narcissistic, self-absorbed and oikophobic, certainly, but I have always made it a point to try to prove why I consider you all of these things, using your own quotes, rather than simply calling you names. If calling us "stupid" because we disagree with you isn't an indication of your opinion, then you are not as precise a writer as you claim, and if it is, then it proves my point.

If you are a Christian then you are required to think of infidels as being foolish.

Odysseus
11-22-2010, 02:04 PM
Poor Wilbur, Ody trounces your ass every time!:D
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/owned50.jpg?t=1290401812
It's not like he makes it hard.

I used the NIV when I was in high school, and involved in Young Life. It's the old NIV from the 80s, I still have it, it's all marked up and underlined from those days.

I was given an RSV in 3rd grade at church. I don't use it much, these days, because it is falling apart. I use it to store funeral cards of friends and family members.

I use the KJV for general reading, because I like the language. It's the best version for reading the Psalms, because the James' translators did a pretty good job on the poetry angle.

When I do Bible study, I use the NRSV. The language is clear, and I have the Oxford edition with the apocrypha and all the study notes. It's a good edition for group study, because everyone else will bring whatever version they like and it won't be too difficult to deal with the differences, from a leader's perspective.


The churches I attend are all over the place with translations. The Unity denomination usually sticks to the NRSV, but our minister likes the NKJV, for some reason. The evangelical chuch uses the NIV (the older one, not the "inclusive version") or The Message, and as far as the latter goes, I hate paraphrases because they take too many liberties in translation and because they also use slang, which is demeaning. They occasionally use the NKJV, too. I've never really looked at that translation, though.

That sounds much easier than scrolls and stone tablets. :D


If you are a Christian then you are required to think of infidels as being foolish.

I don't know that it's a requirement. Being Jewish, I'm not in a position to say, but as a general rule, our view of non-Jews runs the gamut of emotions between abject terror and sexual arousal, depending on whether the person in question is a young man in an SS uniform or a hot babe in an SS uniform, and if there is an afterlife, I'm sure that I will suffer for all eternity, for that joke if nothing else.

AmPat
11-22-2010, 02:33 PM
The R0 Brussels Orbital "freeway" on a Friday afternoon is the nearest I've come to hell. If there's anything worse, I don't want to know about it.

You claim you don't want to know about it? Doesn't knowing about the R0 Brussels Orbital "freeway" on a Friday afternoon assist you in making a choice on avoiding it? I'd want to know about the existence or even the possible existence of any hell so that I can plan avoiding them.

AmPat
11-22-2010, 02:38 PM
Yea, but if turns out that Moloch is real, you're fucked too. Maybe you should bet on him instead.

Fools only place fools bets. Be my guest, you're already in the club.

Odysseus
11-22-2010, 02:40 PM
Beautiful letters (http://beautifulletters-bls.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2010-11-17T03%3A55%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=3) had one that fit this to a "T". Enjoy.


Wednesday, November 17, 2010Gaia Heart Episcopalian Growth Plan
From the desk of the Reverend Mary Moonbeam Black Crow O'Shannasey-Mitchell:

Dear Congregants,

I realize that many of you have become concerned with the decreasing size of our faith community here at Gaia Heart Episcopal Church and Gay Dating Service. I further realize that we have of late lost many of our less enlightened members to those bigoted "churches" which oppose full rights for our LBGTPB (Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, Transgendered, Pedophile, Bestiality) community. However, after discussing this matter with some of my fellow clergy, I believe we have hit upon a solution. It appears there are large numbers of the LBGTPB community residing within the restrictive, patriarchal, homophobic churches of some of the so-called "christian" churches around us. What we need to do is increase our outreach to these individuals, so that they may come out from those churches and into a welcoming, friendly congregation that will accept them where and who they are.

Here are some of the ideas I have for Gaia Heart Episcopal Church and Gay Dating Service:

1) LGBTPB affirmation day. We will take out ads in all local papers, billboards, and the adult services section of Craigslist. We need to let these folks know there's a place where they can come to get their thing on, whatever it is, and still be accepted. I believe if we can get the word out like this, especially on Craigslist, it will really help our membership drive.

2) We need to advertise our alternate views class of religious history and get more clergy in here to take part. I really think our "Baal, misrepresented icon of male sexual prowess" and "Dagon, the fun god of sun and surf" classes could be quite attractive to many of the LBGTBP community.

3) Now that we have a local Pagan community, we need to reach out to them by stressing that being a christian and a Pagan do not have to be exclusive choices. We'll accept you as both! Considering the increasing size of the local Pagan community, this should open up quite a lot of membership possibilities to us.

4) Increase funding for our legal defense fund. As you know, the current fascist police state we live under is highly oppressive to our LBGTBP community. By increasing the amount of money we can pay to top-notch defense counsel we should be able to attract many new members who may need defense counsel from time to time. This is especially true of the "P" community, who remain stigmatized and demonized by most of our fellow "christians". By showing that we will warmly welcome them just as they are we should be able to attract all kinds of new members!

5) Finally, we need to distribute the new bibles we have finally received from Mephistopheles Press Publishing. I love that they have finally had the courage to excise the collected writings of the apostle Paul, which were clearly apocraphyl, and have replaced it with the gospels of Thomas, Judas, Mary Magdalene, The Seven Sons of Sceva, The Confessions of Caligula and the Remembrances of Nero. I believe this new version, with its updated text, is just what we need to reach the LBGTBP community being persecuted in churches all around us!

These are just some of my thoughts. Please feel free to add any ideas of your own, and remember to always use protection on that first date!

I look forward to seeing you at our Friday night "love feast" (and everyone remember to bring your own lubricants this time).

In deepest Eros,

The Right Reverend Mary Moonbeam Black Crow O'Shannassey-Mitchell

The Night Owl
11-22-2010, 02:51 PM
I don't know that it's a requirement. Being Jewish, I'm not in a position to say, but as a general rule, our view of non-Jews runs the gamut of emotions between abject terror and sexual arousal, depending on whether the person in question is a young man in an SS uniform or a hot babe in an SS uniform, and if there is an afterlife, I'm sure that I will suffer for all eternity, for that joke if nothing else.

Psalm 14 teaches that infidels are fools. Is Psalm 14 wrong?

noonwitch
11-22-2010, 02:55 PM
I don't know that it's a requirement. Being Jewish, I'm not in a position to say, but as a general rule, our view of non-Jews runs the gamut of emotions between abject terror and sexual arousal, depending on whether the person in question is a young man in an SS uniform or a hot babe in an SS uniform, and if there is an afterlife, I'm sure that I will suffer for all eternity, for that joke if nothing else.



If you are doomed to suffer eternity in hell for that joke, I am doomed likewise for laughing at it.

Odysseus
11-22-2010, 09:19 PM
Psalm 14 teaches that infidels are fools. Is Psalm 14 wrong?
Remember what I said about not caring about your agenda? Hasn't changed.

If you are doomed to suffer eternity in hell for that joke, I am doomed likewise for laughing at it.
Okay, we'll take turns fanning each other when the demons aren't looking. :D

AmPat
11-22-2010, 10:45 PM
Oh well if he wrote a NYT best seller he HAS to be right. :rolleyes: I mean after all - the NYT Best sellers list is where ALL of the most scholarly works end up!By that logic, O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, and Palin are all scholars.

:D

m00
11-22-2010, 11:02 PM
I don't know that it's a requirement. Being Jewish, I'm not in a position to say, but as a general rule, our view of non-Jews runs the gamut of emotions between abject terror and sexual arousal, depending on whether the person in question is a young man in an SS uniform or a hot babe in an SS uniform, and if there is an afterlife, I'm sure that I will suffer for all eternity, for that joke if nothing else.

Is she asking to join her for a quick shower?

djones520
11-22-2010, 11:06 PM
By that logic, O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, and Palin are all scholars.

:D

Don't forget Bush. He's #1 right now.

Rockntractor
11-22-2010, 11:10 PM
Don't forget Bush. He's #1 right now.

I'm going to get his book.

Odysseus
11-22-2010, 11:19 PM
Is she asking to join her for a quick shower?

I can see that it's going to be crowded in Hell...

m00
11-22-2010, 11:22 PM
I can see that it's going to be crowded in Hell...

Well, considering Heaven is a place of eternal study and worship what are ya gonna do :D

wilbur
11-22-2010, 11:22 PM
By that logic, O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, and Palin are all scholars.

:D

"The logic" that you are so snidely poking fun at, which pointed out that Erhman's book was a NYT bestseller, wasn't to demonstrate that he was a scholar - it was to rebut the wildly inaccurate assertion by our dear friend Odysseus that Erhman was obscure. A (par for the cource) demonstration of his propensity to make up shit off the top of his head and act as if its fact.

But a quick Google search will show you that the guy is a scholar... a scholar produced by seminary school, no less.

And as a matter of fact, Erhman is neither obscure as a popular author, or as an academic.

djones520
11-22-2010, 11:58 PM
I can see that it's going to be crowded in Hell...

I'll buy you a beer.

Odysseus
11-23-2010, 12:26 AM
"The logic" that you are so snidely poking fun at, which pointed out that Erhman's book was a NYT bestseller, wasn't to demonstrate that he was a scholar - it was to rebut the wildly inaccurate assertion by our dear friend Odysseus that Erhman was obscure. A (par for the cource) demonstration of his propensity to make up shit off the top of his head and act as if its fact.

But a quick Google search will show you that the guy is a scholar... a scholar produced by seminary school, no less.

And as a matter of fact, Erhman is neither obscure as a popular author, or as an academic.
Ooh, not just a scholar, but a scholar! Very impressive italics, and a superb demonstration of your slavish devotion to the ivory tower.

I don't make anything up, Wilbur, and I defy you cite an example where I did.

I'll buy you a beer.
I doubt that there is beer in Hell, it being, well... Hell. In fact, I suspect that the worst thing about Hell will be listening to Wilbur droning on and on and on...

megimoo
11-23-2010, 10:47 AM
Well, considering Heaven is a place of eternal study and worship what are ya gonna do :DNo need to study with instant knowledge .Only worship !

Odysseus
11-23-2010, 12:58 PM
No need to study with instant knowledge .Only worship !

No research? Will there be internet connections? I know that Hell will only have dial-up and the only sites available will be MSNBC and DU. :eek:

megimoo
11-23-2010, 02:52 PM
No research? Will there be internet connections? I know that Hell will only have dial-up and the only sites available will be MSNBC and DU. :eek: Study Rublev's Icon and get back to me .

hampshirebrit
11-23-2010, 03:00 PM
No need to study with instant knowledge .Only worship !

And that's the real problem of the concept of heaven.

I would get bored very quickly, faced with an eternity of only worship. It seems to be a pointless existence if that's all that heaven has to offer.

megimoo
11-23-2010, 03:59 PM
And that's the real problem of the concept of heaven.

I would get bored very quickly, faced with an eternity of only worship. It seems to be a pointless existence if that's all that heaven has to offer.
If you do make it as I believe that you will, you will be sans body and only spirit.A disconnected memory of your past life's failings with an overwhelming sense of awe and gratitude .Surrounded with wonders impossible to grasp Your spirit will have little reason to become restless .

A far better educated critter than you or I is currently struggling to maintain his atheist machismo in the face of his possible death.His education,society and the sterile life of an intellectual he has lived deny him an open mind concerning GOD.

He rails that GOD is not great but now that he faces the Abyss what else is there but hope.You foresee 'white noise', I see A black screen hoping for an eventual flood of pure light .

Odysseus
11-23-2010, 04:15 PM
If you do make it as I believe that you will, you will be sans body and only spirit.A disconnected memory of your past life's failings with an overwhelming sense of awe and gratitude .Surrounded with wonders impossible to grasp Your spirit will have little reason to become restless .

A far better educated critter than you or I is currently struggling to maintain his atheist machismo in the face of his possible death.His education,society and the sterile life of an intellectual he has lived deny him an open mind concerning GOD.

He rails that GOD is not great but now that he faces the Abyss what else is there but hope.You foresee 'white noise', I see A black screen hoping for an eventual flood of pure light .

No virgins? :eek::mad:

noonwitch
11-23-2010, 04:21 PM
And that's the real problem of the concept of heaven.

I would get bored very quickly, faced with an eternity of only worship. It seems to be a pointless existence if that's all that heaven has to offer.


It all depends on how good the music is in heaven.

megimoo
11-23-2010, 04:41 PM
No virgins? :eek::mad:And without a dingus what would you do with them ?:D

Odysseus
11-23-2010, 05:50 PM
And without a dingus what would you do with them ?:D

Beats me. What do suicide bombers do with them after they've blown theirs off?

AmPat
11-23-2010, 06:15 PM
And that's the real problem of the concept of heaven.

I would get bored very quickly, faced with an eternity of only worship. It seems to be a pointless existence if that's all that heaven has to offer.

The "real" problem is your concept of Heaven. Even if the concept of endless worship were true, it would be preferable to endless torment.

megimoo
11-23-2010, 06:15 PM
Beats me. What do suicide bombers do with them after they've blown theirs off?Their idea of a god is a false one and primitive savages will believe anything .

Odysseus
11-23-2010, 06:49 PM
Their idea of a god is a false one and primitive savages will believe anything .

Okay, you've killed my satiric snark mode.

For now...

Kay
11-23-2010, 09:27 PM
I doubt that there is beer in Hell, it being, well... Hell.

The good news is that there will be beer in hell.
The bad news is all they serve is lukewarm Pearl in a can.