Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Khatru on February 23, 2016, 10:49:28 AM
-
Found a contradiction in the Bible?
I've already touched on one with the two different lists of the Ten Commandments.
Please feel free to share any others here and perhaps a true believer or two may wish to correct the biblical errors.
In the meantime, here are a modest few:
"Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective."
James 5:16
vs
"As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one"
Romans 3:10
A clear contradiction. James talks about the prayers of righteous men while Paul tells us that no one is righteous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."
Genesis 6:6
vs
"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"
Genesis says that God repented while Numbers says he doesn't repent. Which scripture is correct?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am."
Genesis 22:1
vs
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man"
James 1:13
James tells us that God cannot tempt any man while Genesis tells us that God tempted a man. Whoops!
-
Found a contradiction in the Bible?
I've already touched on one with the two different lists of the Ten Commandments.
Please feel free to share any others here and perhaps a true believer or two may wish to correct the biblical errors.
In the meantime, here are a modest few:
"Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective."
James 5:16
vs
"As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one"
Romans 3:10
A clear contradiction. James talks about the prayers of righteous men while Paul tells us that no one is righteous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."
Genesis 6:6
vs
"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"
Genesis says that God repented while Numbers says he doesn't repent. Which scripture is correct?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am."
Genesis 22:1
vs
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man"
James 1:13
James tells us that God cannot tempt any man while Genesis tells us that God tempted a man. Whoops!
does it?
Which bit of Genesis are you referring to?
If it's the bit with Abraham he was tested wasn't he? Rather than tempted?
-
does it?
Which bit of Genesis are you referring to?
If it's the bit with Abraham he was tested wasn't he? Rather than tempted?
That's the bit.
The KJV version which I grew up with says "tempt"
-
That's the bit.
The KJV version which I grew up with says "tempt"
So, if you came across a document dating from 1600-odd using a certain word in a bit of legislation that is still in currency, you'd take the word's 21st century meaning as the relevant meaning, or the 17th-century meaning?
-
So, if you came across a document dating from 1600-odd using a certain word in a bit of legislation that is still in currency, you'd take the word's 21st century meaning as the relevant meaning, or the 17th-century meaning?
Which one would you take?
-
So, if you came across a document dating from 1600-odd using a certain word in a bit of legislation that is still in currency, you'd take the word's 21st century meaning as the relevant meaning, or the 17th-century meaning?
The Bible I have says "tempt". That's the word I'm goin with.
After all, I hear that the Bible is the inerrant word of the supreme cosmic mega being.
-
Good grief, we have been over this word before. Tempt had more than just the narrow definition we have today. When my KJV was translated, one of the definitions was trial. And this is the definition in Greek and Hebrew.
Now here is the proof that the definition has narrowed.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tempt
A smart person would want to know what the words meant in the day they were written. The word is used two ways in the Bible and if one accepts the definitions of that word when it was written, there is no contradiction and confusion. Confusion happens to the ones too lazy to look up the original definitions.
http://whatsaiththescripture.com/Fellowship/What.Bible.Says.Temptation.html
-
Which one would you take?
In a document written in the 17th century, I'd take the 17th century meaning. I wouldn't impose a 21st century meaning on a 17th century document.
-
The Bible I have says "tempt". That's the word I'm goin with.
Sorry, Khat, the Bible you have is largely a 1st century document which has ben translated into numerous languages over the subsequent centuries. Aas you have pointed out the translation you choose to use is a 17th century translation into English. The English language has changed quite considerably in the intervening 400+ years, especially in the last 100. If you choose to use a 400+ year-old translation you need to understand the vocabulay and grammar in a 400+-year old way, not in a 21st-century way. That has nothing to do with Biblical studies and everything to do with historical linguistics.
After all, I hear that the Bible is the inerrant word of the supreme cosmic mega being.
Not sure what you mean by this last phrase, nor what you understand by the term 'inerrant', but the Bible (or at least the New Testament section of it) was originally written almost 2000 years ago - and translations of it have taken place several times over the years.
-
Sorry, Khat, the Bible you have is largely a 1st century document which has ben translated into numerous languages over the subsequent centuries.
So nobody can be really sure what the authors actually meant.
-
So nobody can be really sure what the authors actually meant.
Just as I have already pointed out umpteen times!
Unless what is written is unequivocal, nobody can claim certain knowledge of the meaning, despite claims of divine guidance.
-
Sorry, Khat, the Bible you have is largely a 1st century document which has ben translated into numerous languages over the subsequent centuries. Aas you have pointed out the translation you choose to use is a 17th century translation into English. The English language has changed quite considerably in the intervening 400+ years, especially in the last 100. If you choose to use a 400+ year-old translation you need to understand the vocabulay and grammar in a 400+-year old way, not in a 21st-century way. That has nothing to do with Biblical studies and everything to do with historical linguistics.
So what you're saying is that the supposed "word of God" is not to be found in any of the various different bibles we have. Instead, I need to go right back to the original scrolls?
When it comes to reading scriptures, do you use the ancient scrolls?
Not sure what you mean by this last phrase, nor what you understand by the term 'inerrant', but the Bible (or at least the New Testament section of it) was originally written almost 2000 years ago - and translations of it have taken place several times over the years.
I guess you're one of those believers who accepts the fact that there are errors and contradictions in the Bible. You'd be amazed how many believers claim it's error free.
-
Sorry, Khat, the Bible you have is largely a 1st century document which has ben translated into numerous languages over the subsequent centuries. Aas you have pointed out the translation you choose to use is a 17th century translation into English. The English language has changed quite considerably in the intervening 400+ years, especially in the last 100. If you choose to use a 400+ year-old translation you need to understand the vocabulay and grammar in a 400+-year old way, not in a 21st-century way. That has nothing to do with Biblical studies and everything to do with historical linguistics.
Not sure what you mean by this last phrase, nor what you understand by the term 'inerrant', but the Bible (or at least the New Testament section of it) was originally written almost 2000 years ago - and translations of it have taken place several times over the years.
We have abundant evidence that you avoid like the plague making any definite, concrete statements about the god you claim to believe in, but given the traditional attributes of such a deity, in trying to get across its message to humanity (a) why would it rely on written documents which (b) supposedly need to be translated, retranslated and translated again, not only from one language to another but within the same language at regular intervals to keep up with the evolution of said language, with all the opportunities for mistranslation and other forms of error that that process entails.
Seems like shoddy work on the part of this alleged deity, I must say.
-
We have abundant evidence that you avoid like the plague making any definite, concrete statements about the god you claim to believe in, but given the traditional attributes of such a deity, in trying to get across its message to humanity (a) why would it rely on written documents which (b) supposedly need to be translated, retranslated and translated again, not only from one language to another but within the same language at regular intervals to keep up with the evolution of said language, with all the opportunities for mistranslation and other forms of error that that process entails.
Seems like shoddy work on the part of this alleged deity, I must say.
Absolutely!
It links nicely with the "What we have here is failure to communicate" thread.
Here we have the all-powerful supreme cosmic mega being whose words and messages can't stand up to the vagaries of translation.
What this deity should have done is to endow his words with a permanence that no translation could change. An omnipotent being could do that with greater ease than it takes for us to blink.
-
Absolutely!
It links nicely with the "What we have here is failure to communicate" thread.
Here we have the all-powerful supreme cosmic mega being whose words and messages can't stand up to the vagaries of translation.
What this deity should have done is to endow his words with a permanence that no translation could change. An omnipotent being could do that with greater ease than it takes for us to blink.
On the 'Searching for God' thread just now Alan Burns opined that this sort of talk has humans knowing better than God and having better ideas of what to do and how to go on.
Well, yes, precisely - this is not exactly unexpected when the god that theists purport to believe is alleged by them to be powerful enough to create a universe but when push comes to shove wouldn't be left in charge of a whelk stall.
-
Jeremy,
How silly of you. Of course we can know what the authors meant, only a lazy goof off can't be bothered to look up what the meaning of word was during the day.
-
On the 'Searching for God' thread just now Alan Burns opined that this sort of talk has humans knowing better than God and having better ideas of what to do and how to go on.
Well, yes, precisely - this is not exactly unexpected when the god that theists purport to believe is alleged by them to be powerful enough to create a universe but when push comes to shove wouldn't be left in charge of a whelk stall.
An incompetent psycho, in other words! >:(
-
The judgment of floo. Now that's a hoot!
-
I guess you're one of those believers who accepts the fact that there are errors and contradictions in the Bible. You'd be amazed how many believers claim it's error free.
There are some who, in a remarkable feat of disingenuity, claim that they believe that 'there are no errors in the original documents' (even if we don't possess any original documents, or exact copies of the same). This neatly sidesteps all problems of apparent contradiction in all subsequent languages, and in all examples of extant ancient manuscripts that we have. Truly a triumph of faith over reason.
However, I do accept in principle Hope's assertion that we can't automatically assume that the meaning of a 17th translation of a word in the scriptures is exactly the same as its meaning in modern English, and there is something to be said for going back to the context of the ancient languages if you can be really arsed about it. But as Jeremy and Len have succinctly pointed out, we can never be really sure what the original authors meant.
And yet - all that being said - there are certain definitive themes of contradiction throughout many parts of the Bible. The most notable in the NT is the contrast between the emphasis on faith as opposed to works, and vice-versa. The question of faith being the important element for 'salvation' is of course continually stressed in the writings of St Paul, though it is also present in some of the words ascribed to Jesus. The Epistle of James is notorious for expressing the completely contrary view. many Christians would want to downplay this (and Luther wanted the E of J excluded altogether). Unfortunately Jesus is also recorded as having stressed the absolute importance of 'works' for salvation on more than one occasion, with no mention of 'faith' at all (Matt 16 v27 and Matt 25 v31ff)
-
So nobody can be really sure what the authors actually meant.
In the same way that we can't really be sure what the likes of Newton, Galileo or Julius Caesar meant in their writings.
-
In the same way that we can't really be sure what the likes of Newton, Galileo or Julius Caesar meant in their writings.
A lovely wee touch of tea-time tu quoque there, Hope.
-
So what you're saying is that the supposed "word of God" is not to be found in any of the various different bibles we have. Instead, I need to go right back to the original scrolls?
It helps, in the same way that we can go back to ther original 'scrolls' of Julius Caesar or Newton, Galileo or the Venerable Bede, but more importantly, we need to use translatioos of the Bible that match our own language - so a French-speaker is unlikely to find an English translation that helpful.
When it comes to reading scriptures, do you use the ancient scrolls?
No, I use a translation of the Bible in modern, 20th/21st Century English, not a 17th century translation.
I guess you're one of those believers who accepts the fact that there are errors and contradictions in the Bible. You'd be amazed how many believers claim it's error free.
Actually, Khat, I accept that translations of the Bible - especially ones that use a different language to that which I use - can appear to be erroneous or contradictory, but when one actually studies the language of any translation and the context of the original authors audience, one can discover why people believe that there are contradictions.
-
But as Jeremy and Len have succinctly pointed out, we can never be really sure what the original authors meant.
It's odd that this argument is never used when dealing with documents written by other 1st century authors.
And yet - all that being said - there are certain definitive themes of contradiction throughout many parts of the Bible. The most notable in the NT is the contrast between the emphasis on faith as opposed to works, and vice-versa. The question of faith being the important element for 'salvation' is of course continually stressed in the writings of St Paul, though it is also present in some of the words ascribed to Jesus. The Epistle of James is notorious for expressing the completely contrary view. many Christians would want to downplay this (and Luther wanted the E of J excluded altogether). Unfortunately Jesus is also recorded as having stressed the absolute importance of 'works' for salvation on more than one occasion, with no mention of 'faith' at all (Matt 16 v27 and Matt 25 v31ff)
Yet, there is no contradiction in this area. Both Jesus and Paul make it clear that faith is the most important aspect in regard to salvation. But they also make it clear that faith, without the works that come as a result of it, is empty. James, in his epistle, makes exactly the same point. The argument that DU has made here has been being made for nigh-on 2000 years, yet without any success.
-
Actually, Khat, I accept that translations of the Bible - especially ones that use a different language to that which I use - can appear to be erroneous or contradictory, but when one actually studies the language of any translation and the context of the original authors audience, one can discover why people believe that there are contradictions.
Even if you allow for translation issues, and in fact even if you found the source documents and were satisfied with the expert translation of these, how would you ever know that the details and claims therein didn't contain mistakes or lies as part of the narrative? This has to be a risk: right?
After all, accurately translated lies or mistakes (or even inaccurately translated mistakes and lies) would be still be mistakes or lies would they not? So these are real risks that, as far as I can see, you guys just don't want to acknowledge.
-
A lovely wee touch of tea-time tu quoque there, Hope.
No, I'm just pointing out that, in order to understand what said folk mean, one has to study the language(s) in which they wrote and the culture(s) in which they lived.
-
Even if you allow for translation issues, and in fact even if you found the source documents and were satisfied with the expert translation of these, how would you know ever that the details and claims therein didn't contain mistakes or lies as part of the narrative? This has to be a risk: right?
Would you argue the same concerns when dealing with scientific and historical documents dating from comparable periods?
-
No, I'm just pointing out that, in order to understand what said folk mean, one has to study the language(s) in which they wrote and the culture(s) in which they lived.
No you aren't: you are employing fallacious reasoning by making entirely spurious comparisons with other documents rather than those you are defending.
-
It's odd that this argument is never used when dealing with documents written by other 1st century authors.
Tu quoque, again.
The argument that DU has made here has been being made for nigh-on 2000 years, yet without any success.
Says who, and in what ways do they fail?
-
Would you argue the same concerns when dealing with scientific and historical documents dating from comparable periods?
I'm not defending other documents from any period: but yes, if I were I'd be concerned about mistakes and lies in any document, and especially where the details and claims involved were wholly anecdotal and highly unusual.
-
When I read these threads on meaning treated as if it is a singularity, I want to cry out in my most Barthesian tone 'Did the author die in vain?'
-
As my wife says after a few drinks, meaning is a cline.
-
Jeremy,
How silly of you. Of course we can know what the authors meant, only a lazy goof off can't be bothered to look up what the meaning of word was during the day.
Here are your problems.
Firstly, the original text of the books of the Bible no longer exists. We only have copies and we do not know how many times removed from the original each copy is. Mistakes and deliberate editing inevitably creep in. Scholars have reconstructed what they think are the original words by careful analysis of extant manuscripts, but there is no guarantee that they have got it right.
Secondly, the New Testament was written in a language called Koine Greek. Nobody today speaks that language. When we translate a word in Koine Greek into English, we are making an educated guess as to what that word meant to first century inhabitants of the Middle East. We almost certainly miss some nuances of meaning and the translation may not capture the idea completely.
-
In the same way that we can't really be sure what the likes of Newton, Galileo or Julius Caesar meant in their writings.
I'll give you Julius Caesar, but we know precisely what Newton and Galileo were talking about, at least, as far as their scientific ideas were concerned. They used an invention called mathematics (you may have heard of it) to describe their ideas. The language of mathematics is designed to be precise notation for expressing mathematical ideas.
-
But as Jeremy and Len have succinctly pointed out, we can never be really sure what the original authors meant.
It's odd that this argument is never used when dealing with documents written by other 1st century authors.
I think you'll find that the relevant scholars argue endlessly about the precise meaning of various first century documents.
-
Here are your problems.
Firstly, the original text of the books of the Bible no longer exists. We only have copies and we do not know how many times removed from the original each copy is. Mistakes and deliberate editing inevitably creep in. Scholars have reconstructed what they think are the original words by careful analysis of extant manuscripts, but there is no guarantee that they have got it right.
Secondly, the New Testament was written in a language called Koine Greek. Nobody today speaks that language. When we translate a word in Koine Greek into English, we are making an educated guess as to what that word meant to first century inhabitants of the Middle East. We almost certainly miss some nuances of meaning and the translation may not capture the idea completely.
The word "love" springs to mind.
Apparently in Greek they had different meanings to the word love, which doesn't translate in the word love.
http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/marriage-and-family-the-missing-dimension/the-different-kinds-of-love
http://danielbwallace.com/2012/10/08/fifteen-myths-about-bible-translation/
-
This is an interesting link.
A Christian goes through what he sees as mistranslations
http://www.ittybittycomputers.com/Essays/Mistrans.htm#Relationship
If you scroll up, it lists them and claims that carpenter was a mistranslation
-
Found a contradiction in the Bible?
I've already touched on one with the two different lists of the Ten Commandments.
Please feel free to share any others here and perhaps a true believer or two may wish to correct the biblical errors.
In the meantime, here are a modest few:
"Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective."
James 5:16
vs
"As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one"
Romans 3:10
A clear contradiction. James talks about the prayers of righteous men while Paul tells us that no one is righteous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."
Genesis 6:6
vs
"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"
Genesis says that God repented while Numbers says he doesn't repent. Which scripture is correct?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am."
Genesis 22:1
vs
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man"
James 1:13
James tells us that God cannot tempt any man while Genesis tells us that God tempted a man. Whoops!
No contradiction... Old Testament = Old Covenenat.
New Testament = New Covenant.
Before the 10 commandments man sinned did not know it.
After 10 commandments man convicted of sin and did know it.
After New Covenant in Christ man sins paid for and now the righteousness of God through Christ Jesus.
Cannot be earned or obtained because all were sinners. It is a free gift of God.
So now all men the righteousness of God.
Abraham before the LAW....
King James Bible Genesis 15:6.
And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
You haven't found any discrepancies just a complete lack of knowledge and understanding concerning the bible, God and his people. You see before the law God accounted righteousness to Abraham because he believed what he had said.
After the law God again accounts righteousness to believers. Having removed the condemnation and punishment through Christ believers who believe what God has said about his son become the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus.
May be one day you might learn some biblical truth before you search for errors which really only exist in the mind of those who lack the wisdom of God.
-
And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."
Genesis 6:6
vs
"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"
Genesis says that God repented while Numbers says he doesn't repent. Which scripture is correct?
As God cannot sin how do you precieve the word 'repent'.
He regretted having made man... do you not think...
The Son of man...human and a sinner that he needs to repent.
Regret and confessing sin is two different things.
Look at the wording and anyone with knowledge of God knows that the word repent is to feel sorry/regret.
The first was to regret making man.
The second tells you that God does not sin so is not like man who needs to repent.
We all do things for the good of others which we does not always make us feel ok.
-
This is an interesting link.
A Christian goes through what he sees as mistranslations
http://www.ittybittycomputers.com/Essays/Mistrans.htm#Relationship
If you scroll up, it lists them and claims that carpenter was a mistranslation
And interestingly, if you look at places with a similar level of development as 1st Century Palestine, the stonemasons and the carpenters are often the same people. Can't remember which version I saw it in, but I remember the term 'artisan' being used in one.
-
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am."
Genesis 22:1
vs
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man"
James 1:13
James tells us that God cannot tempt any man while Genesis tells us that God tempted a man. Whoops!
Firstly NO LAW. If Abraham had killed his son he would not have committed a sin so not tempted.
So Abraham was not tempted to do evil.
Gods promise was to make Abraham a great nation through his son Isaac and God wanted you and I to know that Abraham did not love God just because of his promise. But we see Abraham believed that even if he killed the son he loved he knew God could still fulfill his promise that even death does not prevent God from being true to Abraham.
We see that God does not allow Abraham to kill Isaac. A test is not the same as tempting to do evil.
As the covenant of the law did not exist there was no sin or temptation to cause Abraham to sin.
As we see God is always faithful and no matter what happens we see the people of God have faith in Gods person and word.
-
And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."
Genesis 6:6
vs
"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"
Genesis says that God repented while Numbers says he doesn't repent. Which scripture is correct?
Khat, its perhaps worth, even in the KJV that you use, to compare the construction that the word 'repent' fits into in your two examples. Genesis 6:6 says '... it repented the Lord ...'; Numbers 23:19 says '... neither the son of man, that he should repent ...'. Now, what repented in Genesis 6 - it can't have been the Lord, as 'the Lord' is the object of the clause; in Numbers 23, 'he' (the Lord) is the subject of the clause. That said, its worth noting that the Hebrew word used in Genesis 6 is וַיִּנָּ֣חֶם; the Hebrew word used in Numbers 23 is וְיִתְנֶחָ֑ם. Clearly they are from the same root, but the first seems to be used to refer to regret, the latter to changing one's mind.
I'd also like to point out more generally that one doesn't do scientific research in isolation by, for instance, reading a single document in a single language. Most scientists will seek out several parallel and comparative documents, and if necessary try to get those that have been originally written in a different language to their mother language re-translated by a native speaker of that language - perhaps a colleague. The same applies to Biblical studies, and it should be common practice to compare different translations of the material, and - as appropriate - refer to the original languages.
-
Firstly NO LAW. If Abraham had killed his son he would not have committed a sin so not tempted.
So Abraham was not tempted to do evil.
Gods promise was to make Abraham a great nation through his son Isaac and God wanted you and I to know that Abraham did not love God just because of his promise. But we see Abraham believed that even if he killed the son he loved he knew God could still fulfill his promise that even death does not prevent God from being true to Abraham.
We see that God does not allow Abraham to kill Isaac. A test is not the same as tempting to do evil.
As the covenant of the law did not exist there was no sin or temptation to cause Abraham to sin.
As we see God is always faithful and no matter what happens we see the people of God have faith in Gods person and word.
Abraham committed a crime by being prepared to kill Isaac because of a voice in his head. If he had killed him he would have committed murder, there are no if and buts about that!
-
Abraham committed a crime by being prepared to kill Isaac because of a voice in his head.
Not sure that one can commit a crime by merely being prepared to do something. The crime is the committing. For instance, if I was to be prepared to help my wife commit suicide as a result of some horrific health condition she had - and she died from the condition before she could do the act, I would not be guilty of any crime. Furthermore, until a given action is deemed to be a criminal act, anyone performing that act can't be deemed to be a criminal.
-
Not sure that one can commit a crime by merely being prepared to do something. The crime is the committing. For instance, if I was to be prepared to help my wife commit suicide as a result of some horrific health condition she had - and she died from the condition before she could do the act, I would not be guilty of any crime. Furthermore, until a given action is deemed to be a criminal act, anyone performing that act can't be deemed to be a criminal.
He was supposed have put poor Isaac in the sacrifice position, which must have scared the wits out of him, so that was abuse. >:(
What in heck's name has assisted suicide got to do with this?
-
You haven't found any discrepancies just a complete lack of knowledge and understanding concerning the bible, God and his people.
So that's why I'm not qualified to pass comment on the Bible's flaws?
You missed out some other reasons that Christians often give:
I don't understand because I need to know how to translate Hebrew and Greek
I don't understand because I need to view it from a child's perspective
I don't understand because, unlike you, I'm not a "true Christian"
I don't understand because I'm not a biblical scholar
I don't understand because I took the scripture out of context.
I don't understand because it means something other than what it actually says
I don't understand because it's an allegory
I don't understand because my mind is far too feeble to comprehend your god's truth
I don't understand because I've not been filled with the holy spirit
Then of course, we have the "we're not supposed to understand it because God works in mysterious ways"
All of the above are used by believers in their efforts to defend the contradiction and error found throughout the Bible. I have no doubt you've used some of them yourself.
May be one day you might learn some biblical truth before you search for errors which really only exist in the mind of those who lack the wisdom of God.
Will I be able to quote scriptures the way you do when your truth finally hits me?
In the meantime and while we're waiting, please consider these divine utterances:
al-Qu'ran
Surat Al-Ghashiyah
88:1 Has there reached you the report of the Overwhelming [event]?
88:2 [Some] faces, that Day, will be humbled,
88:3 Working [hard] and exhausted.
88:4 They will [enter to] burn in an intensely hot Fire.
88:5 They will be given drink from a boiling spring.
88:6 For them there will be no food except from a poisonous, thorny plant
88:7 Which neither nourishes nor avails against hunger.
88:8 [Other] faces, that Day, will show pleasure.
88:9 With their effort [they are] satisfied
88:10 In an elevated garden,
88:11 Wherein they will hear no unsuitable speech.
88:12 Within it is a flowing spring.
88:13 Within it are couches raised high
88:14 And cups put in place
88:15 And cushions lined up
88:16 And carpets spread around.
88:17 Then do they not look at the camels - how they are created?
There......Wasn't that great?
Did you feel your spirit soar when reading those words? Do you agree that the above quoted wisdom warrants consideration alongside yours?
Or perhaps like me, you find it worthless and devoid of meaning because you don't acknowledge the source authority as being the one true god whose messenger is Mohammed.
I'll be pleased if you don't accept it because it may give you an idea of how I feel when I see your colonic squirts of scripture.
-
Abraham committed a crime by being prepared to kill Isaac because of a voice in his head. If he had killed him he would have committed murder, there are no if and buts about that!
.
There is lots of ifs and buts about that.
If I'm prepared to rob a bank, but never do it, have I committed a crime?
Or am I guilty only by the act of doing so? ( assuming I haven't prepared as in made concrete plans and put them into effect, to do so)
If no laws were in place at the time of Abraham about killing his son, then he hadn't committed a crime.
Hearing voices in your head, telling you to kill someone has never been illegal as far as I know.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filicide
I do know that mothers who killed babies under a year old wasn't always considered a crime.
It still isn't in some places today.
I read this
"The practice of infanticide has taken many forms. Child sacrifice to supernatural figures or forces, such as that believed to have been practiced in ancient Carthage, may be only the most notorious example in the ancient world. Anthropologist Laila Williamson notes that "Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunter gatherers to high civilizations, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule."[6]:61
A frequent method of infanticide in ancient Europe and Asia was simply to abandon the infant, leaving it to die by exposure (i.e. hypothermia, hunger, thirst, or animal attack).[7][8] Infant abandonment still occurs in modern societies.[9]
In at least one island in Oceania, infanticide was carried out until the 20th century by suffocating the infant,[10] while in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica and in the Inca Empire it was carried out by sacrifice (see below)."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide
How old was Abrahams son?
I'm not sure if it would have been considered a crime or not.
It depends on their laws at the time.
In the ancient world he might not have been considered as committing a crime.
-
Jeremy,
How silly of you. Of course we can know what the authors meant, only a lazy goof off can't be bothered to look up what the meaning of word was during the day.
Really?
Christians can't even agree on who their god is.
-
In the same way that we can't really be sure what the likes of Newton, Galileo or Julius Caesar meant in their writings.
I'm no expert on what Julius Caesar wrote but I'm pretty sure he never used the scientific methodology and observation that Galileo and Newton used when setting out their explanations.
In other words, unlike Julius, we can in fact be very sure indeed about what Galileo or Newton meant.
-
He was supposed have put poor Isaac in the sacrifice position, which must have scared the wits out of him, so that was abuse. >:(
What in heck's name has assisted suicide got to do with this?
It's an example of where being prepared to do something but not doing it, isn't a crime.
-
Committing a crime doesn't necessarily = doing something wrong.
Also being innocent of a crime doesn't always = being right.
Because laws are written by people and the change ( country to country let alone through time).
Of course now most of us would consider Abraham wrong for thinking of killing his son.
100 years ago homosexuality was considered a crime.
It isn't now.
What is a crime, and what is not, changes.
Even what people think is right changes.
But a crime is something "authorities" decide on.
What the authorities thought in Abrahams day, I'm not sure.
Sassy seems to think it was allowable.
-
As God cannot sin how do you precieve the word 'repent'.
He regretted having made man... do you not think...
The Son of man...human and a sinner that he needs to repent.
Who are you to say what your god can and can't do? Or indeed what he needs?
It's clear enough. In fact, God didn't just repent making man but he also repented having made the animals. Poor animals - what did they ever do?
Want some more?
"And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
Exodus 32:14
"And when the Lord raised them up judges, then the Lord was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented the Lord because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them."
Judges 2:18
"It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the Lord all night."
1 Samuel 15:11
"And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel."
1 Samuel 15:35
"And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the Lord was by the threshing place of Araunah the Jebusite."
2 Samuel 24:16
" Therefore now amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God; and the Lord will repent him of the evil that he hath pronounced against you."
Jeremiah 26:13
"Thus hath the Lord God shewed unto me; and, behold, he formed grasshoppers in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth; and, lo, it was the latter growth after the king's mowings.
2 And it came to pass, that when they had made an end of eating the grass of the land, then I said, O Lord God, forgive, I beseech thee: by whom shall Jacob arise? for he is small.
3 The Lord repented for this: It shall not be, saith the Lord.
4 Thus hath the Lord God shewed unto me: and, behold, the Lord God called to contend by fire, and it devoured the great deep, and did eat up a part.
5 Then said I, O Lord God, cease, I beseech thee: by whom shall Jacob arise? for he is small.
6 The Lord repented for this: This also shall not be, saith the Lord God."
Amos 7:1-6
"And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."
Jonah 3:10
How can an omnipotent, omniscient entity be sorry for so much? Looks like your god is pretty careless.
All of the above are lifted from the Bible. If you don't believe what the Bible says it looks like you've got a problem.
Regret and confessing sin is two different things.
Look at the wording and anyone with knowledge of God knows that the word repent is to feel sorry/regret.
The first was to regret making man.
The second tells you that God does not sin so is not like man who needs to repent.
We all do things for the good of others which we does not always make us feel ok.
The NT scripture says your god doesn't repent. I note the backflips and somersaults in your attempted apologetics.
-
Committing a crime doesn't necessarily = doing something wrong.
Also being innocent of a crime doesn't always = being right.
Because laws are written by people and the change ( country to country let alone through time).
Of course now most of us would consider Abraham wrong for thinking of killing his son.
100 years ago homosexuality was considered a crime.
It isn't now.
What is a crime, and what is not, changes.
Even what people think is right changes.
But a crime is something "authorities" decide on.
What the authorities thought in Abrahams day, I'm not sure.
Sassy seems to think it was allowable.
The reason for all the arguing is that "right" and "wrong" don't actually exist outside the human mind, but some humans love to maintain that they do. Because they are human inventions, there are as many moral codes of "right" and "wrong" as there are human opinions.
-
Firstly NO LAW. If Abraham had killed his son he would not have committed a sin so not tempted.
So Abraham was not tempted to do evil.
Why do you think that Cain was punished after killing his brother?
It cannot be because he broke any law as we can see there was
NO LAW.
...and thus he had committed no sin by that act.
-
What in heck's name has assisted suicide got to do with this?
You made out that thinking about something that might be regarded as criminal is criminal. Sorry if you can't see the relevance of your accusation to my scenario
-
I don't understand because I need to know how to translate Hebrew and Greek
I don't understand because I need to view it from a child's perspective
I don't understand because, unlike you, I'm not a "true Christian"
I don't understand because I'm not a biblical scholar
I don't understand because I took the scripture out of context.
I don't understand because it means something other than what it actually says
I don't understand because it's an allegory
I don't understand because my mind is far too feeble to comprehend your god's truth
I don't understand because I've not been filled with the holy spirit
Then of course, we have the "we're not supposed to understand it because God works in mysterious ways"
Can't say that I've ever heard non-Christians giving any of these reasons, let alone Christians, Khat. Do you have any independent sources to support the list?
All of the above are used by believers in their efforts to defend the contradiction and error found throughout the Bible. I have no doubt you've used some of them yourself.
As I've said, do you actually have any evidence to support these claims?
In the meantime and while we're waiting, please consider these divine utterances
Do you have evidence that these utterances were made by a divine being? I've always understood that the Quran was written by a human being without any intervention of a divine being in human form. Are you telling me that I've been informed wrongly by Muslim friends? ;)
-
(Khatru: I don't understand because I took the scripture out of context).
Can't say that I've ever heard non-Christians giving any of these reasons, let alone Christians, Khat. Do you have any independent sources to support the list?
Well here's a start: for some reason I can't link to the actual page of results but I typed the word context into the search thingy with Hope as the author. There are thirty results.
(Khatru: I don't understand because I need to view it from a child's perspective).
A recent effusion of this viewpoint:
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg593275#msg593275
I'll go through some more on the list when I have more time.
Do you have evidence that these utterances were made by a divine being?
There's no evidence of divine beings of any kind, only belief in such.
I've always understood that the Quran was written by a human being without any intervention of a divine being in human form. Are you telling me that I've been informed wrongly by Muslim friends? ;)
Quite disastrously so - it's standard Islamic belief that the Quran was dictated to Muhammed by the angel Gabriel.
Are you sure these friends of yours are actually Muslim?
-
There's no evidence of divine beings of any kind, only belief in such.
Quite disastrously so - it's standard Islamic belief that the Quran was dictated to Muhammed by the angel Gabriel.
Are you sure these friends of yours are actually Muslim?
And is Gabriel a divine being in human form with a big black greyhound dug called Bob? I think you will find not! You probably think that pink unicorns that fart rainbows and squeal 'Neymar ate my fig' are equivalent to orange unicorns that belch the alphabet and sing 'Suarez ate my central defender'?
-
There's no evidence of divine beings of any kind, only belief in such.
There is remarkably little evidence for anything, Shakes. Almost everything is to do with belief. So, your argument is ... ?
Quite disastrously so - it's standard Islamic belief that the Quran was dictated to Muhammed by the angel Gabriel.
Wasn't aware that angels, even Gabriel, are regarded as divine beings. Heavenly beings, yes, but not divine - so I would suggest that those Muslim frends I know who have said just what you have said, have been telling the truth.
Are you sure these friends of yours are actually Muslim?
Well, they said exactly what you said, but then qualified that by pointing out what I did - that angels aren't divine beings. I would number imams amongst the group.
-
There is remarkably little evidence for anything, Shakes.
Speak for yourself - some knowledge of science would help immensely here.
Almost everything is to do with belief. So, your argument is ... ?
See above.
Wasn't aware that angels, even Gabriel, are regarded as divine beings. Heavenly beings, yes, but not divine
What's the difference?
so I would suggest that those Muslim frends I know who have said just what you have said, have been telling the truth.
Well, they said exactly what you said, but then qualified that by pointing out what I did - that angels aren't divine beings. I would number imams amongst the group.
What's the definitional difference between heavenly and divine being in what passes for your lexicon? The Free Dictionary defines the word divine thusly:
adj. di·vin·er, di·vin·est
1.
a. Having the nature of or being a deity.
b. Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity: sought divine guidance through meditation.
c. Being in the service or worship of a deity; sacred.
2. Superhuman; godlike.
3.
a. Supremely good or beautiful; magnificent: a divine performance of the concerto.
b. Extremely pleasant; delightful: had a divine time at the ball.
which means that 1a is out but 1b, 1c and 2 are in.
Webster's College Dictionary actually lists heavenly as a synonym of divine:
adj. -vin•er, -vin•est, adj.
1. of, like, or from a god, esp. the Supreme Being.
2. addressed or devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred: divine worship.
3. heavenly; celestial: the divine kingdom.
4. Informal. extremely good; unusually lovely.
5. being a god; being God.
6. of superhuman or surpassing excellence.
7. Obs. of or pertaining to divinity or theology.
-
Well here's a start: for some reason I can't link to the actual page of results but I typed the word context into the search thingy with Hope as the author. There are thirty results.
And your argument is ... what? That context is something that only non-Christians forget to take into account? Incidentally, 6 or 7 of these 30 mentions aren't even in threads that relate to religion or faith - but politics and current affairs.
-
And your argument is ... what?
*sigh* baby steps again, I see ...
Khatru listed various excuses that theists typically trot out to "explain" why the sceptical and the rational don't follow the beliefs of the theists or accept their pseudo-arguments, and/or why the non-theists are deemed to be unable to pass judgement on the numerous flaws, contradictions and other inconsistencies of the Bible. One of those excuses was:
I don't understand because I took the scripture out of context.
to which your response was:
Can't say that I've ever heard non-Christians giving any of these reasons, let alone Christians, Khat.
You claim to be a Christian, and I provided a list of a few dozen instances of where you invoke the perennial get-out clause of 'context.' That's the argument.
Incidentally, 6 or 7 of these 30 mentions aren't even in threads that relate to religion or faith - but politics and current affairs.
... leaving the great majority which do.
-
Speak for yourself - some knowledge of science would help immensely here.
[And an appreciation that all science is based on human understanding would also help you to understand that there is remarkably little independent evidence for anything, Shakes. Or are you telling us that there is a some sort of independent source outside of the human mind that corroborates findings that human beings make?
See above.
Precisely; nothing independent to human beings
What's the difference?
(see below)
What's the definitional difference between heavenly and divine being in what passes for your lexicon?
Rather than just concentrating on 'divine being' and 'heavenly being', I've included 'angel' in my trawl of the Oxford Dictionary. I generally place this source as more reliable than any other and on a par with the Cambridge Dictionary.
divine (being)
adjective (diviner, divinest)
1 Of or like God or a god:
heroes with divine powers
paintings of shipwrecks being prevented by divine intervention
1.1 Devoted to God; sacred:
divine liturgy
noun
1 dated A cleric or theologian.
2(the Divine) Providence or God.
Clearly, the first of these two does not fit the context of our discussion
heavenly (being)
adjective
1Of heaven; divine:
heavenly Father
2 Of the heavens or sky:
heavenly constellations
Bearing in mind that both Christianity and Islam are monotheistic faiths, and there are hundreds of angels, they can't be deemed to be God, and are consequently, not divine. They are 'of heaven' yes, but not divine.
To complete the triple:
angel
noun
1 A spiritual being believed to act as an attendant, agent, or messenger of God, conventionally represented in human form with wings and a long robe:
1.1An attendant spirit, especially a benevolent one:
Note that Jesus, as messenger of God isn't represented as having wings and a flowing robe, so he can't have been an angel.
-
*sigh* baby steps again, I see ...
I've noticed; you really do need to develop from that level.
I don't understand because I took the scripture out of context.
to which your response was:
Can't say that I've ever heard non-Christians giving any of these reasons, let alone Christians, Khat.
You claim to be a Christian, and I provided a list of a few dozen instances of where you invoke the perennial get-out clause of 'context.' That's the argument.
And I pointed out that in order to understand anything, context is a vital aspect. I've also pointed out previously, that scientists understand the importance of context - so that this isn't a 'faith-related issue but a purely communicative issue. That is where my point differs to the argument that Khat was putting.
... leaving the great majority which do.
And your point here ... is? The oldest example here is 7 months old. I've used the idea of 'context' in plenty of posts and threads over the past 5 or so years. Some have had religious/faith contexts, others have had politics and current affairs contexts - possible even some of the other 'General Discussion' topics.
-
[And an appreciation that all science is based on human understanding would also help you to understand that there is remarkably little independent evidence for anything, Shakes. Or are you telling us that there is a some sort of independent source outside of the human mind that corroborates findings that human beings make?Precisely; nothing independent to human beings
That's right. Science is a human endeavour - what else do you expect?
The way we ascertain the rightness of any findings are the tried and tested (daily) ones - repeatability (sometimes), shareability, anonymous peer review and so forth.
Rather than just concentrating on 'divine being' and 'heavenly being', I've included 'angel' in my trawl of the Oxford Dictionary.
Here we go; the ducking, diving and dodging starts.
I generally place this source as more reliable than any other and on a par with the Cambridge Dictionary.
That's up to you. It's no concern of mine.
Bearing in mind that both Christianity and Islam are monotheistic faiths, and there are hundreds of angels, they can't be deemed to be God, and are consequently, not divine. They are 'of heaven' yes, but not divine.
Except that some dictionaries treat divine and heavenly as synonymous and I've cited examples of that usage, given that dictionaries are descriptive and not prescriptive, reflecting actual usage rather than passing comment on what ought or ought not be the case.
-
I've noticed; you really do need to develop from that level.
It's not my level as I'm not the one manifestly unable to follow a simple discussion a few posts at a time - you are.
The oldest example here is 7 months old. I've used the idea of 'context' in plenty of posts and threads over the past 5 or so years. Some have had religious/faith contexts, others have had politics and current affairs contexts - possible even some of the other 'General Discussion' topics.
... all of which points are irrelevant to the fact that you invoke context when it suits you to do so including in a religious discussion. You opined that you haven't heard of any Christian doing so - well, you must have forgotten that you yourself (purporting to be a Christian) have done it umpteen times.
Which doesn't surprise me one little bit.
-
... all of which points are irrelevant to the fact that you invoke context when it suits you to do so including in a religious discussion. You opined that you haven't heard of any Christian doing so - well, you must have forgotten that you yourself (purporting to be a Christian) have done it umpteen times.
I don't say, as Khat implies, that people don't understand because "(I) took the scripture out of context". I simply point out that if people took context into account, as any good debater or student of a field of study should, they might come to a different conclusion to the one they are arguing. That isn't the same as Khat's rather dismissive reference to context or the lack of it.
-
Khat, its perhaps worth, even in the KJV that you use, to compare the construction that the word 'repent' fits into in your two examples. Genesis 6:6 says '... it repented the Lord ...'; Numbers 23:19 says '... neither the son of man, that he should repent ...'. Now, what repented in Genesis 6 - it can't have been the Lord, as 'the Lord' is the object of the clause; in Numbers 23, 'he' (the Lord) is the subject of the clause. That said, its worth noting that the Hebrew word used in Genesis 6 is וַיִּנָּ֣חֶם; the Hebrew word used in Numbers 23 is וְיִתְנֶחָ֑ם. Clearly they are from the same root, but the first seems to be used to refer to regret, the latter to changing one's mind.
Trouble is, there are plenty of other scriptures which inform us that God repented over something. Do you have to deconstruct every single sentence to get the true meaning? Surely that's not what's required to interpret the holy scriptures.
I'd also like to point out more generally that one doesn't do scientific research in isolation by, for instance, reading a single document in a single language. Most scientists will seek out several parallel and comparative documents, and if necessary try to get those that have been originally written in a different language to their mother language re-translated by a native speaker of that language - perhaps a colleague. The same applies to Biblical studies, and it should be common practice to compare different translations of the material, and - as appropriate - refer to the original languages.
Sure, you can study the Bible by going back to the source language and cross referencing. That's exactly what a renowned biblical scholar like Bart Ehrman does. He finds plenty of contradictions.
-
Why do you think that Cain was punished after killing his brother?
It cannot be because he broke any law as we can see there was
...and thus he had committed no sin by that act.
This always makes me laugh.
Cain's punishment was to get his stuff and leave home.
Cain was marked and God announced that anyone who killed Cain would suffer Cain's punishment sevenfold.
So anyone who killed Cain would have to leave home seven times?
8)
-
Can't say that I've ever heard non-Christians giving any of these reasons, let alone Christians, Khat. Do you have any independent sources to support the list?
As I've said, do you actually have any evidence to support these claims?
Do you have evidence that these utterances were made by a divine being? I've always understood that the Quran was written by a human being without any intervention of a divine being in human form. Are you telling me that I've been informed wrongly by Muslim friends? ;)
Waaah!!! I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Sassy.
I'm not going to answer this, I'll just hurl insults instead.
Sorry...I was in Sassy mode.
I have my own experience. Trust me, I've heard most of the items on that list wheeled out as part of Christian reasoning.
The angel Gabriel is pretty divine?
-
Waaah!!! I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Sassy.
But you were talking to the board as well, and there is nothing in the board rules that says that posters can't respond to points made to an individual or group of posters.
I'm not going to answer this, I'll just hurl insults instead.
Typical response from people who can't make a rsponse to an argument.
The angel Gabriel is pretty divine?
Clearly Islam is unsure of the status of angels in their celestial hierarchy.
-
When I read these threads on meaning treated as if it is a singularity, I want to cry out in my most Barthesian tone 'Did the author die in vain?'
Not quite sure whom you are addressing specifically here, NS. It is certainly true that with many authors, "what goes in may not be what comes out", and the meanings which may be derived from Shakespeare and many other great writers may indeed be multi-layered, with implications for the reader which the writer may not have consciously intended (However, a very great writer may well have deliberately imbued his text with a dense possibility of meanings).
However, when we come to the question of the Bible (in particular), there are certainly very deeply held convictions about the nature of its text which assert that the meanings it contains are completely intentional - since they have been imbedded in the text by God. Sometimes the meaning may be a singularity, but often, following the traditions of the Jewish pesher , continual meanings may be derived from the text, but even here, I think believers would insist that there was no arbitrariness in the process. "God has planted the meanings there - humans must continually use their ingenuity to discover them". Probably the most notorious examples of this in the Christian tradition are the exegeses of Origen. And the most well-known (and laughable) example of this kind of thing is interpreting the message of the Song of Solomon as "The love which exists 'twixt Christ and his Church".
-
I have my own experience. Trust me, I've heard most of the items on that list wheeled out as part of Christian reasoning.
As have many of us. Hope is just being typically disingenuous (I'm trying to be polite - if he continues in this manner I may be less so).
-
Clearly Islam is unsure of the status of angels in their celestial hierarchy.
Even if that was true, does it really matter in the end as they seem to be clear that angels can only do the bidding of God.
And if that is the case then Gabriel is the archangel responsible for revealing the Quran to Muhammad - only on the bidding of God - and that makes it just about as divine as it can get as far as I can see.
-
But you were talking to the board as well, and there is nothing in the board rules that says that posters can't respond to points made to an individual or group of posters.
Typical response from people who can't make a rsponse to an argument.
Did you really miss the sarcasm in my post?
I doubt it, hence you being deliberately disingenuous by omitting to quote this part of my post:
Sorry...I was in Sassy mode.
Clearly Islam is unsure of the status of angels in their celestial hierarchy.
Yeah, let's compare that uncertainty to Christianity whose adherents can't even agree on who their god is.
That's religions for you - ever the divinities of doubt.
-
Did you really miss the sarcasm in my post?
I doubt it, hence you being deliberately disingenuous by omitting to quote this part of my post: ...
I'm afraid that I didn't even associate the comment about Sass with the previous paragraph. I just thoght that you were doing a bit of Sass-bashing.
Yeah, let's compare that uncertainty to Christianity whose adherents can't even agree on who their god is.
That's religions for you - ever the divinities of doubt.
Who God is for Christians is pretty widely accepted by Christians. I am fully aware that there are those, even the occasional ones in influential places in the hirarchy, whobelieve other things, but then one has to consider whether one needs to test their claims against Jesus' teaching. I'm also aware that there are groups who invoke the name of Jesus including, of course, Hindus and Muslims. Unless you are suggesting that the latter two examples are simply Christians by (a) different name, one has to accept that invoking the name of Jesus isn't all that is required to qualify as a Christian.
-
I'm afraid that I didn't even associate the comment about Sass with the previous paragraph. I just thoght that you were doing a bit of Sass-bashing.
Sass commented on a post of Floo's. I responded to Sass with my tuppence worth. Sass refused to answer my points instead wailing at how the conversation was between her and Floo.
So my response to you was my mockery of that.
Who God is for Christians is pretty widely accepted by Christians. I am fully aware that there are those, even the occasional ones in influential places in the hirarchy, whobelieve other things, but then one has to consider whether one needs to test their claims against Jesus' teaching. I'm also aware that there are groups who invoke the name of Jesus including, of course, Hindus and Muslims. Unless you are suggesting that the latter two examples are simply Christians by (a) different name, one has to accept that invoking the name of Jesus isn't all that is required to qualify as a Christian.
Is Jesus God or is he the son of God?
A fundamental question which Christians still can't agree on after nearly 2000 years.
-
Is Jesus God or is he the son of God?
A fundamental question which Christians still can't agree on after nearly 2000 years.
First place to start is with Jesus' claims; then how God the Father refers to him at his baptism, and then how the early church understood the situation. Church tradition, alone, isn't valid; realistically, one of these 3 elements alone isn't sufficient evidence, but when all 3 come together as they do in the NewTestament, it is pretty decisive.
As for your second point, it is one of the 2 or 3 fundamental points that the vast majority of Christians (and probably all mainstream Christians) agree on.
Furthermore, there have been attempts over that same 2000 year period to knock the idea over, all of which have proved fruitless.
-
Furthermore, there have been attempts over that same 2000 year period to knock the idea over, all of which have proved fruitless.
Such as, and why fruitless?
-
First place to start is with Jesus' claims; then how God the Father refers to him at his baptism, and then how the early church understood the situation. Church tradition, alone, isn't valid; realistically, one of these 3 elements alone isn't sufficient evidence, but when all 3 come together as they do in the NewTestament, it is pretty decisive.
As for your second point, it is one of the 2 or 3 fundamental points that the vast majority of Christians (and probably all mainstream Christians) agree on.
Furthermore, there have been attempts over that same 2000 year period to knock the idea over, all of which have proved fruitless.
This is a veritable cascade of logical fallacies.
-
So that's why I'm not qualified to pass comment on the Bible's flaws?
You missed out some other reasons that Christians often give:
I don't understand because I need to know how to translate Hebrew and Greek
I don't understand because I need to view it from a child's perspective
I don't understand because, unlike you, I'm not a "true Christian"
I don't understand because I'm not a biblical scholar
I don't understand because I took the scripture out of context.
I don't understand because it means something other than what it actually says
I don't understand because it's an allegory
I don't understand because my mind is far too feeble to comprehend your god's truth
I don't understand because I've not been filled with the holy spirit
Then of course, we have the "we're not supposed to understand it because God works in mysterious ways"
All of the above are used by believers in their efforts to defend the contradiction and error found throughout the Bible. I have no doubt you've used some of them yourself.
Will I be able to quote scriptures the way you do when your truth finally hits me?
In the meantime and while we're waiting, please consider these divine utterances:
al-Qu'ran
Surat Al-Ghashiyah
88:1 Has there reached you the report of the Overwhelming [event]?
88:2 [Some] faces, that Day, will be humbled,
88:3 Working [hard] and exhausted.
88:4 They will [enter to] burn in an intensely hot Fire.
88:5 They will be given drink from a boiling spring.
88:6 For them there will be no food except from a poisonous, thorny plant
88:7 Which neither nourishes nor avails against hunger.
88:8 [Other] faces, that Day, will show pleasure.
88:9 With their effort [they are] satisfied
88:10 In an elevated garden,
88:11 Wherein they will hear no unsuitable speech.
88:12 Within it is a flowing spring.
88:13 Within it are couches raised high
88:14 And cups put in place
88:15 And cushions lined up
88:16 And carpets spread around.
88:17 Then do they not look at the camels - how they are created?
There......Wasn't that great?
Did you feel your spirit soar when reading those words? Do you agree that the above quoted wisdom warrants consideration alongside yours?
Or perhaps like me, you find it worthless and devoid of meaning because you don't acknowledge the source authority as being the one true god whose messenger is Mohammed.
I'll be pleased if you don't accept it because it may give you an idea of how I feel when I see your colonic squirts of scripture.
Blooming heck! He moved the goal post so far you would need to take a space ship to go and see it...
You are really stupid and stupid is as stupid does.
If life was like a box of chocolates you wouldn't know which one you had got without the pictures of the chocolates naming the flavours...
-
Blooming heck! He moved the goal post so far you would need to take a space ship to go and see it...
You are really stupid and stupid is as stupid does.
Whilst I don't think you are entirely stupid, Sass, you give a very good impression of being so when you start spouting your bullshit.
-
Such as, and why fruitless?
Because Christians are impervious to reason when it comes to their illogical ideas about God.
-
Blooming heck! He moved the goal post so far you would need to take a space ship to go and see it...
You are really stupid and stupid is as stupid does.
If life was like a box of chocolates you wouldn't know which one you had got without the pictures of the chocolates naming the flavours...
You just gave me another one for my list of Christian responses:
Don't even try to refute what's been said... just hurl abuse instead.
Why get so mad?
Must be because those scriptures from the Quran made perfect sense to you.
Hardly a surprise given that Christians and Muslims are brothers in delusion.
-
Found a contradiction in the Bible?
I've already touched on one with the two different lists of the Ten Commandments.
Please feel free to share any others here and perhaps a true believer or two may wish to correct the biblical errors.
In the meantime, here are a modest few:
"Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective."
James 5:16
vs
"As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one"
Romans 3:10
A clear contradiction. James talks about the prayers of righteous men while Paul tells us that no one is righteous.
The Epistle of James was written by James the Righteous, the brother of Jesus, and is part of the Jewish school of Christianity. The letter to the Romans was written by St Paul, and is part of the Gentile school of Christianity. Ultimately the former lost out to the latter. This cherry pick is misleading since the two excerpts are discussing quite different matters, the former is intended to give guidance to those facing persecution, the latter condemns the hypocrisy of those who think they are righteous but are not.
-
The Epistle of James was written by James the Righteous, the brother of Jesus, and is part of the Jewish school of Christianity. The letter to the Romans was written by St Paul, and is part of the Gentile school of Christianity. Ultimately the former lost out to the latter. This cherry pick is misleading since the two excerpts are discussing quite different matters, the former is intended to give guidance to those facing persecution, the latter condemns the hypocrisy of those who think they are righteous but are not.
Does Paul couch his statement about no one being righteous with some sort of caveat that takes into account what James says?
Also, Paul says "as it is written"
Where is it written?
-
Does Paul couch his statement about no one being righteous with some sort of caveat that takes into account what James says?
Also, Paul says "as it is written"
Where is it written?
1). No. Why should he?
2). Ecclesiastes.
-
You just gave me another one for my list of Christian responses:
Don't even try to refute what's been said... just hurl abuse instead.
Why get so mad?
Must be because those scriptures from the Quran made perfect sense to you.
Hardly a surprise given that Christians and Muslims are brothers in delusion.
Again epic fail... the original post shows that you have moved from the original discussion. Poor thing looking so stupid.
-
Again epic fail... the original post shows that you have moved from the original discussion. Poor thing looking so stupid.
There you go again with your insulting remarks ... you really are a spiteful old bitch at times, Sass.
-
1). No. Why should he?
To reduce the chances of people misinterpreting the holy messages. Looking at it, there is, ostensibly, a contradiction, if you say it can be explained away by looking deeper into what Paul said. Perhaps a statement drawing people's attention to this - just for the avoidance of doubt.
2). Ecclesiastes.
Ecclesiastes says that "no-one is righteous?
-
Again epic fail... the original post shows that you have moved from the original discussion. Poor thing looking so stupid.
I think you'll find that many threads stray away from the OP.
Still throwing insults, though - how rude.
Looks like I've got you rattled.
What does your Quran say?
-
The Epistle of James was written by James the Righteous, the brother of Jesus, and is part of the Jewish school of Christianity.
It's almost certainly false that James was the author of that letter.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/james.html
-
There you go again with your insulting remarks ... you really are a spiteful old bitch at times, Sass.
Don't be such a drama queen. Nothing bitchy about it. Seems you are showing your true colours.
-
I think you'll find that many threads stray away from the OP.
Still throwing insults, though - how rude.
Looks like I've got you rattled.
What does your Quran say?
You couldn't rattle anyone even with a rattle or rattle snake...
The Quran is not Christian and it contradicts the bible...
I guess you would not know having never read either book.
-
Don't be such a drama queen. Nothing bitchy about it. Seems you are showing your true colours.
Don't add lying to your talents, Sass! Anybody can see that your post was condescending and insulting, and you should be ashamed of yourself for not apologising.
Referring to Khatru as "a poor thing" and "stupid" is the height of bitchiness, when it is clear that his intelligence and knowledge are vastly superior to yours.
-
Don't add lying to your talents,
That boat has left the dock. That train has left the station. The horse has bolted and now you are shutting the stable door.
-
That boat has left the dock. That train has left the station. The horse has bolted and now you are shutting the stable door.
I'm getting used to being at the back of the queue! :)
-
All of these people with a direct line to Mr magic in the sky and none of them will tell how. (Or can tell).
ippy
-
You couldn't rattle anyone even with a rattle or rattle snake...
The Quran is not Christian and it contradicts the bible...
I guess you would not know having never read either book.
The Bible is self-contradictory; it doesn't need other books to contradict it.
As for Islam - you're much closer to being a Muslim than you think......
You believe in a sky pixie having his revenge on his own creation. You believe in grovelling and muttering to your sky pixie and you believe in paradise and hell. You also happen to believe in djinns (you call them angels and demons) and you're obsessed with homosexuality and nudity.
You're just a prayer mat and camel away from Islam.
-
No he hasn't actually read the Bible. What he does is use atheist sites and brings up all the same old crap that we've gone over. Late to the rodeo is what he is. He does seem obsessed with God. That's good.
-
No he hasn't actually read the Bible. What he does is use atheist sites and brings up all the same old crap that we've gone over.
...and still haven't refuted ;)
-
No he hasn't actually read the Bible. What he does is use atheist sites and brings up all the same old crap that we've gone over. Late to the rodeo is what he is. He does seem obsessed with God. That's good.
And the credulous who believe in "God" just keep parroting the same old crap that we've refuted over and over as nothing more than wishful thinking. :)
-
Don't add lying to your talents, Sass! Anybody can see that your post was condescending and insulting, and you should be ashamed of yourself for not apologising.
Referring to Khatru as "a poor thing" and "stupid" is the height of bitchiness, when it is clear that his intelligence and knowledge are vastly superior to yours.
Can't add anything as my original reply wasn't to you and was in line with the person I was answering.
Sh*t stirring is definitely one of your talents and deliberately twisting the reply to another... Guess sometimes the truth is greater and you really are in line of fire.
Quote from: Khatru on February 28, 2016, 10:28:07 AM
You just gave me another one for my list of Christian responses:
Don't even try to refute what's been said... just hurl abuse instead.
Why get so mad?
Must be because those scriptures from the Quran made perfect sense to you.
Hardly a surprise given that Christians and Muslims are brothers in delusion.
Again epic fail... the original post shows that you have moved from the original discussion. Poor thing looking so stupid.
As you can see my post to K explains why he looks so stupid...
You must try not to spread your evil venom and retaliation of false accusations when I have clearly shown the reason for the person I believe to look stupid. EPIC fail on your part. Now stop it. It can be boring when a person believes a personality contest will somehow win over the truth. You are changing and I believe from now on they will attribute it to old age.
From now on may God show you and others the truth behind your posts and your real intent and purpose behind them.
Please do not reply to my posts. I personally don't want to reply to you at all...
-
The Bible is self-contradictory; it doesn't need other books to contradict it.
As for Islam - you're much closer to being a Muslim than you think......
You believe in a sky pixie having his revenge on his own creation. You believe in grovelling and muttering to your sky pixie and you believe in paradise and hell. You also happen to believe in djinns (you call them angels and demons) and you're obsessed with homosexuality and nudity.
You're just a prayer mat and camel away from Islam.
Your ignorance speaks volumes... You have to make good of your time now to insult and hurl abuse... Seems Leonard has double standards where is he now apologising and telling you off for doing what he falsely accused me of doing.
Seems you can dream and imagine what you say carries any weight. But in the great scheme of things... greater is he who is in me than he who is in the world. The truth is that my God is real and your bull crap which is really not worth writing is as futile as weeing in the wind. It comes back to it's source, you.
Your original source is SATAN and it dwells in the lowest part of humanity. But the truth about Christ and God cannot be attacked or prevailed against by such writing and behaviour. When we know the truth the attacks from the enemy like yours are to be expected. It cannot harm and changes nothing about the truth. What you need to ask yourself, is why you did not know that.
-
The problem is in approaching reading it.
For some reason a lot of people think something can only have one meaning, or only one interpretation to be right.
You need to stop having that sort of mindset.
Let me explain what I mean.
The Jews follow the Torah, but unlike Christianity they don't always have only one interpretation of something, they have multiple ones.
This is because the Torah is supposed to contain wisdom on many levels and they set out to explore them.
In Judaism it doesn't mean there is a contradiction, it means there is another lesson to be learnt from that passage.
Life is not black and white but shades of grey, so a Rabbi will consult the Torah and other books to see which apply. ( because more often that not someone wants to apply it to their life situation)
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/819698/jewish/How-Is-the-Torah-Interpreted.htm
Christianity at its beginnings was a lot more Jewish but somewhere along the line the idea came about that there was only one correct answer and interpretation and if something else came along that appeared to contradict it, then the bible was wrong. ( well according to atheists). On the whole Christians ignored it.
The Christians in st Pauls day weren't so hung up about the one and only way of interpreting something because I would suggest they were closer to Judaism.
It's an idea that has grown later, that you can only interpret something one way and everything else is a contradiction and proves the bible is in error.
It doesn't.
You have to leave that mindset behind and look at the Jewish roots, where they have many different lessons to be learnt in every passage of their books.
Jews don't even agree on some interpretations and they have books full of conflicting ideas.
If you are looking for the one true interpretation, then IMO you are looking in the wrong direction.
-
And the credulous who believe in "God" just keep parroting the same old crap that we've refuted over and over as nothing more than wishful thinking. :)
Tell me why, if you are so honest, did you proclaim to be a believer and then turn your back.
Were you lying when you originally said you knew God and Jesus Christ?
Instead of making accusations against others... I suggest you tend to your own broken windows before hurling stones at others.
-
The problem is in approaching reading it.
For some reason a lot of people think something can only have one meaning, or only one interpretation to be right.
You need to stop having that sort of mindset.
Let me explain what I mean.
The Jews follow the Torah, but unlike Christianity they don't always have only one interpretation of something, they have multiple ones.
This is because the Torah is supposed to contain wisdom on many levels and they set out to explore them.
In Judaism it doesn't mean there is a contradiction, it means there is another lesson to be learnt from that passage.
Life is not black and white but shades of grey, so a Rabbi will consult the Torah and other books to see which apply. ( because more often that not someone wants to apply it to their life situation)
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/819698/jewish/How-Is-the-Torah-Interpreted.htm
Christianity at its beginnings was a lot more Jewish but somewhere along the line the idea came about that there was only one correct answer and interpretation and if something else came along that appeared to contradict it, then the bible was wrong.
The Christians in st Pauls day weren't so hung up about the one and only way of interpreting something because I would suggest they were closer to Judaism.
It's an idea that has grown later, that you can only interpret something one way and everything else is a contradiction and proves the bible is in error.
It doesn't.
You have to leave that mindset behind and look at the Jewish roots, where they have many different lessons to be learnt in every passage of their books.
Jews don't even agree on some interpretations and they have books full of conflicting ideas.
If you are looking for the one true interpretation, then IMO you are looking in the wrong direction.
Hi Rose,
I guess you are confusing the fact that different sects of Judaism like Pharisee and Sadducee held different beliefs outside that of the Torah. But the Torah itself, was not different in the belief of the law and the Prophets.
It was allowed because they upheld the integral parts of the Torah such as feasts and the laws together.
But the other beliefs were to be answered by Christ as to whom was right.
The Sadducees did not believe in resurrection of the dead or angels. As Christ and the Pharisees did.
So Christ showing that the Pharisees were right about angels etc and Sadducees wrong.
However they all upheld the law of the Torah but the Pharisees held the belief of angels and resurrection.
So there is no different beliefs to the Torah but the acceptance of outside beliefs.
-
Hi Rose,
I guess you are confusing the fact that different sects of Judaism like Pharisee and Sadducee held different beliefs outside that of the Torah. But the Torah itself, was not different in the belief of the law and the Prophets.
It was allowed because they upheld the integral parts of the Torah such as feasts and the laws together.
But the other beliefs were to be answered by Christ as to whom was right.
The Sadducees did not believe in resurrection of the dead or angels. As Christ and the Pharisees did.
So Christ showing that the Pharisees were right about angels etc and Sadducees wrong.
However they all upheld the law of the Torah but the Pharisees held the belief of angels and resurrection.
So there is no different beliefs to the Torah but the acceptance of outside beliefs.
No it's nothing to do with that, I did enclose a link to show what I meant about their attitude to different meanings and interpretations.
This next one is from Reform Judaism and also shows the many meanings approach.
Studying Torah
For the Jewish people, the study of Torah never ends. Each year, as we read the sacred text again, it can be as if we are reading it for the first time. Each encounter with sacred text offers the possibility of new meanings. The Reform Movement has published a number of editions of the Torah, with contemporary commentary. Many Reform synagogues have ongoing Torah study groups. Some meet during the week over lunch, while others convene on Shabbat morning. Some rabbis lead Torah study in business offices and others in coffee shops. A Reform synagogue near you may have a Torah study group. No experience is necessary and newcomers are always welcome.
A first-century CE teacher, Ben Bag Bag, taught his students, “Turn the Torah, and turn it again, for everything you want to know is found within it.” (Avot 5:25) The study of Torah can be both an intellectual adventure and a spiritual journey. The many meanings of Torah offer the potential to add greatly to one’s life.
- See more at: http://www.reformjudaism.org/torah-tree-life#sthash.4Xg35Mp7.dpuf
Its more about the different approachs Jews have to extract meaning. The atheists here are stuck in that they can only read something one way.
They have not taken into account that there are many ways to interpret something.
-
No it's nothing to do with that, I did enclose a link to show what I meant about their attitude to different meanings and interpretations.
This next one is from Reform Judaism and also shows the many meanings approach.
Its more about the different approachs Jews have to extract meaning. The atheists here are stuck in that they can only read something one way.
They have not taken into account that there are many ways to interpret something.
Rose,
Don't give the atheist any more ideas... you trying to give them a steady pattern of thought... ;D
-
In my original link it explains four ways of understanding.
Within these four methods of understanding Torah, there exist countless possible avenues of understanding. For example: There are many different ways to understand the Torah according to Peshat. That's why there are many Torah commentators who concentrate on Peshat -- Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam and many more – and they will very often (it seems, more often than not...) disagree on the literal meaning of a verse. In fact, according to Kabbalastic teachings there are 600,000 ways to understand Peshat, 600,000 ways to understand Remez, 600,000 ways to understand Drush, and 600,000 ways to understand Sod!
Any insight in Torah is acceptable as long as it (makes sense and) does not contradict any of our fundamental beliefs.
Our sages tell us that "any chiddush (novel idea) which a reputable disciple will ever come up with was already given to Moses by Sinai." Moses might not have heard this specific idea which the rabbi living thousands of years later has just thought of, but the basis of this idea was already given by Sinai.
G‑d gave us the tools to delve into the words of Torah and reveal the divine wisdom hidden therein.
When it comes to the halachah, however, there is only one truth. For whereas Torah is G‑d's wisdom which, as abovementioned, allows for different opinions, halachah is (not intellect, but rather) G‑d's will. And will is absolute, and does not allow for two ways to look at things.
They are two different Jewish groups ( opposite ends -one being reform the other Chabad) who see things differently, but both have elements of flexibility of interpretation.
-
Rose,
Don't give the atheist any more ideas... you trying to give them a steady pattern of thought... ;D
:)
-
In my original link it explains four ways of understanding.
They are two different Jewish groups ( opposite ends -one being reform the other Chabad) who see things differently, but both have elements of flexibility of interpretation.
I think the problem with people writing about the Jewish groups is that they forget Judaism does not leave anything to chance or even interpretation. God clearly commanded that the scriptures/laws has to be learned by heart.
That they were to adhere to these at all times.
The NEW Covenant after the one God told them to learn his words off by heart and not depart from it, is one where God writes the laws on their hearts.
King James Bible
But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
There are Jews today who believe Jesus is the Messiah. They have no confusion or doubt about true interpretation because as the Prophets of old they are given the words by the Spirit.
I know that you have taken that from a site. But who is to say the site is correct if you believe there are really beliefs poles apart in Judaism. There may be different beliefs held outside the law of Moses but there are no different beliefs held within the laws of Moses. :D
-
No it's nothing to do with that, I did enclose a link to show what I meant about their attitude to different meanings and interpretations.
This next one is from Reform Judaism and also shows the many meanings approach.
Its more about the different approachs Jews have to extract meaning. The atheists here are stuck in that they can only read something one way.
They have not taken into account that there are many ways to interpret something.
As one of the many atheists on here who have posted to some theists that you cannot argue that there is one true way of interpretation, I find your post bizarre.
-
Sassy
In the OP it says. ( just as an example)
Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective."
James 5:16
vs
"As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one"
Romans 3:10
A clear contradiction. James talks about the prayers of righteous men while Paul tells us that no one is righteous.
What I mean is, this isn't really a contradiction.
It's possible for people to do the right thing and be rightious, but at the same time for none of us to be perfect.
So both can be true, depending on the context it's put into.
If you read it as the OP does, it doesn't make much sense because he only understands one literal meaning.
I was just trying to show how I see Judaism as doing it, and apply the subtly of meaning :)
I'm not going to comment on your beliefs, as they are yours.
This is more about passages in the bible, and possible subtle meanings ;)
-
With regards to Sass's witterings on this subject I can think of nothing more appropriate than this:
PROVERBS 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
PROVERBS 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
The choice (as they say) is yours.
-
Your original source is SATAN.
Ho-hum...here we go again........
Ah, OK...so you believe that we non-believers are under Satan's control?
Here's a heads-up for you - that just happens to be your religion - it's certainly not mine.
Why is it that believers like you, people who accept faith, dogma and religion think it's an argument to use those words like "Satan is your father" against somebody else?
What if I called you a "stupid forum poster" simply because I considered that you didn't consider yourself a stupid forum poster? Isn't that your approach here?
I'll tell you what - let's be sensible about this. What do you say I call you the religite who clings to faith and dogma. Ok? Then you can insult me right back with the opposite; you know, something that you actually disrespect.
You see what I'm getting at?
Call me a damned rational sceptic. Call me a filthy logician or reasonista. Hey! You can even call me a godless evidencist.
Come on, Sass - hit me where I really live!
-
Random biblical contradiction:
Did Jesus curse the fig tree before casting the money changers out of the temple (Mark 11) or after (Matthew 21)?
-
With regards to Sass's witterings on this subject I can think of nothing more appropriate than this:
PROVERBS 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
PROVERBS 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
The choice (as they say) is yours.
Answer not a fool according to the way of his foolishness so looking foolish like him.
Answer the fool by showing him his folly and he will realise what he asked was foolish.
So answer not what was making him look foolish.
But answer by showing him what his folly is so he will not think himself wise.
-
Random biblical contradiction:
Did Jesus curse the fig tree before casting the money changers out of the temple (Mark 11) or after (Matthew 21)?
King James Bible
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Do you think the disciples wrote all the same things in the same order as they were remembered?
Matthew, Mark and Luke are sypnoptic gospels because they basically say the same things Christ did. None were written in any particular order because as we see Christ did many things so many they do not believe the world could hold the books.
It isn't important about order it is simply telling us what Christ did.
-
King James Bible
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Do you think the disciples wrote all the same things in the same order as they were remembered?
Matthew, Mark and Luke are sypnoptic gospels because they basically say the same things Christ did. None were written in any particular order because as we see Christ did many things so many they do not believe the world could hold the books.
It isn't important about order it is simply telling us what Christ did.
There is absolutely no evidence the guy did any of the things claimed for him!
-
Floo,
No need for the exclamations against God. They work for you at home, and they don't work here. You convince nobody.
Leo,
Wishing had nothing to do with my decision to believe. I get that you had a fake Christianity and relationship with God, so no wonder it all shattered for you.
-
Leo,
Wishing had nothing to do with my decision to believe. I get that you had a fake Christianity and relationship with God, so no wonder it all shattered for you.
No True Scotsman fallacy - 250 points.
Not that you're in any position to pass judgement on the sincerity of Len's former belief anyway, of course, but I suppose it's psychologically easier to erect the aforementioned fallacy and to dismiss somebody's quondam faith as shallow or deficient in some way rather than admit that it was as strong as your own but simply evaporated, since that opens the door to the possibility that it could happen to you too. Alan Burns operates in the very same manner.
-
Leo,
Wishing had nothing to do with my decision to believe.
Probably not in a way that you would recognise it as wishful, but nevertheless that's what it is.
BTW, you didn't decide to believe, you were simply convinced by the so-called evidence.
I get that you had a fake Christianity and relationship with God, so no wonder it all shattered for you.
My relationship with "God" was just as genuine as yours. :)
-
Its more about the different approachs Jews have to extract meaning. The atheists here are stuck in that they can only read something one way.
They have not taken into account that there are many ways to interpret something.
I typed a post to NS a while back on this very subject. I certainly don't think all texts have a singularity of meaning, though I think you'd agree that all the meanings Jews derive from the Tanakh (however multifarious) have all previously been imbedded there by God? This is somewhat different from deriving differing meanings from texts by great writers, whose words may evoke pertinent resonances beyond what the author originally had in mind (there is a thriving industry of lit. crit., after all, which thrives on this sort of thing).
However, I often find that Christians, having started with the premiss that "Jesus cannot have been mistaken, since he was divine" - are forced to twist certain biblical texts in a multiplicity of ways to deliberately avoid the NT appearing to be contradictory. Thus the impulse is not "no text has a singularity of meaning", but "there is an obvious contradiction here, so let us see if we can work out some convoluted exegesis to explain away the contradiction". Fundamentalists are extremely prone to this kind of disingenuousness - they will read the text straightforwardly, often literally, until the stumbling block of the contradiction comes along, and then the whole apparatus of contrived exegesis (or is it eisegesis in this case?) is brought into play.
-
The atheists here are stuck in that they can only read something one way.
They have not taken into account that there are many ways to interpret something.
Yes, I'm sure the believers will agree that there are indeed many ways to interpret the Bible and thus the word of their Jesus/God fellow.
No wonder there are thousands of different Christian denominations, sects and cults.
-
The atheists here are stuck in that they can only read something one way.
They have not taken into account that there are many ways to interpret something.
I've asked this of some theists here (such as Hope) but have never received an answer.
Do you not think that the necessity of interpretation - which is by definition a subjective matter - and the existence of an omnimax god of the traditional attributes contradict each other? If we take the existence of said god as read for the sake of the argument, there would be no need for interpretation - if it has a message to get across to its creation it would (a) want to, (b) know how to and (c) be able to put it over with absolutely sparkling and unambiguous clarity to every living person, without any need for interpretation or translation from one language to another (or within the same language over historical time) with all the problems that that can give rise to. We know that purely human documents can be ambiguous, and only a text which is ambiguous to start off with requires interpretation. I submit that this is inconsistent with a god of the traditional attributes.
-
Rose is right about Jewish interpretation, Jews always say, ''Where there are two Jews there will be three opinions'', hence the myriad of sects and sects within sects. No one way is the 'right' way, they have different approaches, most of which are considered to be valid. Very healthy, we can learn a lot from them.
-
Rose is right about Jewish interpretation, Jews always say, ''Where there are two Jews there will be three opinions'', hence the myriad of sects and sects within sects. No one way is the 'right' way, they have different approaches, most of which are considered to be valid. Very healthy, we can learn a lot from them.
You wouldn't hear any Orthodox Jew saying that for a start - they're very definitely of the "We're right; the rest of you are wrong" camp because they see themselves and only themselves as being true to Torah.
-
You wouldn't hear any Orthodox Jew saying that for a start - they're very definitely of the "We're right; the rest of you are wrong" camp because they see themselves and only themselves as being true to Torah.
They're the superstitious types who want nothing to with women.
Their particular ju-ju necessitates avoiding contact with women at all costs. Right down to refusing to sit next to a woman and even deleting pictures of female world leaders from their newspapers.
-
Do you think the disciples wrote all the same things in the same order as they were remembered?
So you are not denying there is a contradiction but you are explaining it on the grounds that one of the authors got it wrong.
-
You wouldn't hear any Orthodox Jew saying that for a start - they're very definitely of the "We're right; the rest of you are wrong" camp because they see themselves and only themselves as being true to Torah.
Yes you would, and they are often tolerant of different groups who are stricter.
http://www.torah.org/features/spirfocus/tolerance.html#
https://www.ou.org/torah/parsha/rabbi-weinreb-on-parsha/rabbi-weinrebs-parsha-column-korach-two-jews-three-opinions/
-
They're the superstitious types who want nothing to with women.
Their particular ju-ju necessitates avoiding contact with women at all costs. Right down to refusing to sit next to a woman and even deleting pictures of female world leaders from their newspapers.
No they are not.
Most Orthodox Jews have no issue with women in newspapers and I've sat next to one.
I think you are spreading misinformation.
-
Rose is right about Jewish interpretation, Jews always say, ''Where there are two Jews there will be three opinions'', hence the myriad of sects and sects within sects. No one way is the 'right' way, they have different approaches, most of which are considered to be valid. Very healthy, we can learn a lot from them.
Yes, and my experience is that they are mindful of the different approaches between the Sephardic and the Ashkanazi, so they often specify what rules the kitchens are set up for, so not to upset anyone who follows different criteria.
( the two groups are slightly different)
Sometimes a particular Jew might belong to a different group and may have personally taken on further adherence.
What happens in my experience is the other Orthodox Jews accommodate where possible.
:)
-
No they are not.
Most Orthodox Jews have no issue with women in newspapers and I've sat next to one.
I think you are spreading misinformation.
My mistake. I just checked and it turns out I was thinking about ultra-Orthodox Jews.
Ultra-orthodox Jewish newspaper edits Angela Merkel out of Paris solidarity march photograph
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ultra-orthodox-jewish-newspaper-edits-angela-merkel-out-of-paris-solidarity-march-photograph-9975364.html
Groups of ultra-Orthodox Jewish men keep delaying flights by refusing to sit next to women
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/groups-of-ultra-orthodox-jewish-men-keep-delaying-flights-by-refusing-to-sit-next-to-women-9949866.html
-
That's what I was thinking of too - such as the ... individual who presided over the funeral of a family friend a few years ago, shook hands with all the men present and refused to shake the hand of the grieving widow.
-
My mistake. I just checked and it turns out I was thinking about ultra-Orthodox Jews.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ultra-orthodox-jewish-newspaper-edits-angela-merkel-out-of-paris-solidarity-march-photograph-9975364.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/groups-of-ultra-orthodox-jewish-men-keep-delaying-flights-by-refusing-to-sit-next-to-women-9949866.html
:)
Yes, those are the ones you generally hear about.
On the whole they don't mix much.
:)
-
That's what I was thinking of too - such as the ... individual who presided over the funeral of a family friend a few years ago, shook hands with all the men present and refused to shake the hand of the grieving widow.
Hopefully he spoke respectfully to her instead?
I have met one ultra orthodox rabbi who I was warned wouldn't shake hands, but he did talk to me politely and got his young daughter to take me under her wing, while I was at the synagogue.
I've shaken hands with a conservative Rabbi.
I usually wait until a hand is offered and if not just acknowledge them politely.
You can find yourself treated differently because you are a women at biking events ( as in MC clubs).
Some bikers shake hands with women, others ignore women altogether.
I tend to nod politely at both events ;)
Some women do get upset about it, but life is too short IMO.
-
There is absolutely no evidence the guy did any of the things claimed for him!
Till you can prove it... you should remain quiet. Millions disagree with you. But that should not be a surprise... ::)
-
Hopefully he spoke respectfully to her instead?
I have met one ultra orthodox rabbi who I was warned wouldn't shake hands, but he did talk to me politely and got his young daughter to take me under her wing, while I was at the synagogue.
I've shaken hands with a conservative Rabbi.
I usually wait until a hand is offered and if not just acknowledge them politely.
You can find yourself treated differently because you are a women at biking events ( as in MC clubs).
Some bikers shake hands with women, others ignore women altogether.
I tend to nod politely at both events ;)
Some women do get upset about it, but life is too short IMO.
Just remember not to offer them your pump if they forget theirs and have a flat tyre. LOL!
It is rather silly isn't it. :D
-
Till you can prove it... you should remain quiet. Millions disagree with you. But that should not be a surprise... ::)
Negative proof fallacy and argumentum ad populum - a veritable twofer of fallacies.
-
Till you can prove it... you should remain quiet. Millions disagree with you. But that should not be a surprise... ::)
That's keeper....... ::)
-
You wouldn't hear any Orthodox Jew saying that for a start - they're very definitely of the "We're right; the rest of you are wrong" camp because they see themselves and only themselves as being true to Torah.
Shaker there are many Orthodox sects and their beliefs vary quite a bit. Some Orthodox believe in Heaven, others don't. Lubavichers believe their Moshiach to have come in the form of the Rebbe Menaḥem Mendel Schneersohn, no-one else does. The Haredi, who are similar, do not believe the same. There are subdivisons within each of those communities - and several other Orthodox communities. They all believe they are true to the Torah but they are united as Jews.
-
They're the superstitious types who want nothing to with women.
Their particular ju-ju necessitates avoiding contact with women at all costs. Right down to refusing to sit next to a woman and even deleting pictures of female world leaders from their newspapers.
Not at all and Jewish women are extremely powerful across the board.
-
Till you can prove it... you should remain quiet. Millions disagree with you. But that should not be a surprise... ::)
And millions don't see it your way either, maybe you should shut up! ;D
-
Addendum: Regarding the shaking of women's hands, or not, that would be a custom of an individual group or sect but does not mean women are considered to be in any way inferior. Viva la difference!
-
And millions don't see it your way either, maybe you should shut up! ;D
Hear, hear! :)
-
Not at all and Jewish women are extremely powerful across the board.
Yes they are.
:) 🌹
-
Negative proof fallacy and argumentum ad populum - a veritable twofer of fallacies.
Have any of the scholars found the historians who wrote about Christ to be proven wrong?
There is absolutely no evidence the guy did any of the things claimed for him!
Floo wrote this and my answer was correct
Till you can prove it... you should remain quiet. Millions disagree with you. But that should not be a surprise... ::)
You saying you few here and in general know more that the Millions? If you could prove anything about Christ false then we would not be here would we discussing him and Christianity?
There are different types of evidence and one might be forgiven for your ignorance that Millions of believers receiving miracles today are not evidence. But the fact remains those miracles happen in the name of Jesus to the Glory of God. There is no escaping that evidence. Truth is you don't go seek out because you cannot live with that truth. It turns what you say on it's head.
-
And millions don't see it your way either, maybe you should shut up! ;D
I know what I am talking about... you don't. So I can speak about Christ but you don't know enough to make the decision about actual proof. You never looked for any and don't understand the bible, Christ or God.
-
Hear, hear! :)
Are you asking for the ability to hear or just admitting you can't?
Your hearing is like your truth...selective.
-
Have any of the scholars found the historians who wrote about Christ to be proven wrong?
Simply repeating the negative proof fallacy doesn't make it not-a-fallacy; it does however indicate that you don't know what it is.
-
Are you asking for the ability to hear or just admitting you can't?
Your hearing is like your truth...selective.
It was just a request to you to hear what was being said, dearie. Unfortunately on this subject you are stone deaf.
-
Sass is the fount of all knowledge, in her mind only!
-
Sass is the fount of all knowledge, in her mind only!
Indeed she is in her own eyes. Unfortunately most of what she considers knowledge is bullshit.
-
Indeed she is in her own eyes. Unfortunately most of what she considers knowledge is bullshit.
Sassy knows much more about the Bible and Christianity than I do ... but then again, my old friend Danny knows a lot more than me about Star Trek and Mr Spock. What they don't seem to realise is that both are the product of fiction writers who have far fetched ideas and both are full of bullshit.
-
Sassy knows much more about the Bible and Christianity than I do ... but then again, my old friend Danny knows a lot more than me about Star Trek and Mr Spock. What they don't seem to realise is that both are the product of fiction writers who have far fetched ideas and both are full of bullshit.
A truth as big as a mountain! :)
-
There is absolutely no evidence the guy did any of the things claimed for him!
Much of what is recorded about Jesus' life fulfills prophecy, which is how we know it's true.
-
Much of what is recorded about Jesus' life fulfills prophecy, which is how we know it's true.
No it doesn't.
What you're describing is a process known as retrofitting, with a whole lot of confirmation bias thrown in.
-
No it doesn't.
What you're describing is a process known as retrofitting, with a whole lot of confirmation bias thrown in.
In your opinion, Zippy. :)
-
In your opinion, Zippy. :)
It's not exactly merely opinion that people retrofit obscure and ambiguous texts to make them mean what they have a prior desire for them to mean, aided and abetted by a highly selective technique of concentrating on the allegedly supportive hits and ignoring the misses.
-
Much of what is recorded about Jesus' life fulfills prophecy, which is how we know it's true.
Spud
Beyond logical or lucky guesses, 'prophecy' is yet more superstitious nonsense - unless of course you can describe how it works via a methodology which we can then use to test some predictions: then, of course, in relation to the Christian stuff, we have to take into account the problems of translation and 'interpretation'.
Therefore, these prophetic claims show nothing to be 'true', especially since the bits we've seen mentioned in threads as being confirmation of prophecies being fulfilled are indistinguishable from fiction: so I'd say that only the hopelessly gullible who are suckers for fallacies would be persuaded by 'prophecy'.
-
Spud
Beyond logical or lucky guesses, 'prophecy' is yet more superstitious nonsense - unless of course you can describe how it works via a methodology which we can then use to test some predictions: then, of course, in relation to the Christian stuff, we have to take into account the problems of translation and 'interpretation'.
Therefore, these prophetic claims show nothing to be 'true', especially since the bits we've seen mentioned in threads as being confirmation of prophecies being fulfilled are indistinguishable from fiction: so I'd say that only the hopelessly gullible who are suckers for fallacies would be persuaded by 'prophecy'.
Would you be suggesting anyone, Mr Gordon?
Spud, Spud & Bakedbeans. Solicitors at Law
-
Much of what is recorded about Jesus' life fulfills prophecy, which is how we know it's true.
More likely the gospel writers created the life of Jesus around those so called prophesies. Even his own family didn't see the guy as any sort of Messiah, as well as most of the Jews!
-
Mary and Joseph did, according the Scriptures, floo. They couldn't have known exactly how it would all pan out but they knew He was sacred. Of course if anyone doesn't believe the Scriptures are God-breathed, what I have said will mean nothing to them, but Christians certainly think that Jesus's immediate family, his aunt, Elizabeth and cousin John the Baptist were in the know.
-
Even his own family didn't see the guy as any sort of Messiah, ...
His mother did, and his brother, James, became an important leader in one paert of the early church - so must have regarded him as something 'out of the ordinary'.
-
Therefore, these prophetic claims show nothing to be 'true', especially since the bits we've seen mentioned in threads as being confirmation of prophecies being fulfilled are indistinguishable from fiction: so I'd say that only the hopelessly gullible who are suckers for fallacies would be persuaded by 'prophecy'.
Is this why you don't believe in 'prophetic' references to scientific discoveries made 50 or more years before the event?
-
Unfortunately most of what she considers knowledge is bullshit.
D.Y.H.A.E.F.T.A?
-
No it doesn't.
What you're describing is a process known as retrofitting, with a whole lot of confirmation bias thrown in.
Shakes, you're entitled to your own opinion, but then 'opinion' holds limited clout.
-
Shakes, you're entitled to your own opinion, but then 'opinion' holds limited clout.
Feel free to pick any of these alleged prophecies and demonstrate it/them to be such.
-
Is this why you don't believe in 'prophetic' references to scientific discoveries made 50 or more years before the event?
Why are you using two different meanings of a word to lie about Gordon's opinion?
-
Is this why you don't believe in 'prophetic' references to scientific discoveries made 50 or more years before the event?
Be careful with all that straw.
Scientists would tend to extrapolate from the current evidence or theory, which is how new theories and hypotheses are developed, tested using relevant methods and refined or rejected:of course they may be wrong, but then they acknowledge this possibility.
This seems very different from what Spud is alluding to.
-
Mary and Joseph did, according the Scriptures, floo. They couldn't have known exactly how it would all pan out but they knew He was sacred.
According to the scriptures, they seem have completely forgotten the astonishing events which attended Mary's conception and Jesus' birth. The amnesia seems to have set in before his presentation at the Temple, and then later in his ministry when his family truly considered him to be unhinged. That's quite a downward trend from believing him to be "the Son of the Highest", conceived of the Holy Spirit.
-
Be careful with all that straw.
Scientists would tend to extrapolate from the current evidence or theory, which is how new theories and hypotheses are developed, tested using relevant methods and refined or rejected:of course they may be wrong, but then they acknowledge this possibility.
This seems very different from what Spud is alluding to.
So different that Hope effectively headlined his lying here by putting prophetic in commas. There was a tiny sliver of him desperately trying to distance itself from yet another lie.
-
According to the scriptures, they seem have completely forgotten the astonishing events which attended Mary's conception and Jesus' birth. The amnesia seems to have set in before his presentation at the Temple, and then later in his ministry when his family truly considered him to be unhinged. That's quite a downward trend from believing him to be "the Son of the Highest", conceived of the Holy Spirit.
Yet, the information we have is that Mary, his mother, seemed to hold those early events close to her heart. Furthermore, many parents of even the most gifted try to give their children as normal a childhood as they can (I know that this isn't a universal attitude, though). It doesn't mean that they have 'forgotten' what that child is capable of.
-
So different that Hope effectively headlined his lying here by putting prophetic in commas. There was a tiny sliver of him desperately trying to distance itself from yet another lie.
Yet there are discoveries that have occurred over the years which, when researched, are found to have been prophesied by long-dead peole - be that Leonardo de Vinci or Einstein. Even the scientific community will sometimes refer to the original references as prophetic
-
Yet there are discoveries that have occurred over the years which, when researched, are found to have been prophesied by long-dead peole - be that Leonardo de Vinci or Einstein. Even the scientific community will sometimes refer to the original references as prophetic
Which is a different use of the word, and that's known by you hence the use of quotation marks when you replied to Gordon. Stop this lying!
-
Yet, the information we have is that Mary, his mother, seemed to hold those early events close to her heart.
That's all part of the infancy narratives. There is little indication that she had any memory of such matters as Jesus grew up - the implication being that the infancy narratives are absolute fabrication. Much of the rest of the gospels may be pure fabrication too, but not to the extent of the infancy narratives.
-
Yet there are discoveries that have occurred over the years which, when researched, are found to have been prophesied by long-dead peole - be that Leonardo de Vinci or Einstein. Even the scientific community will sometimes refer to the original references as prophetic
Those are calculated guesses based on evidence, which is quite different from prophesying.
-
Those are calculated guesses based on evidence, which is quite different from prophesying.
And what evidence did Leonardo De V have regarding helicopters and human flight, Len? The story of Daedalus and Icarus?
-
That's all part of the infancy narratives. There is little indication that she had any memory of such matters as Jesus grew up - the implication being that the infancy narratives are absolute fabrication. Much of the rest of the gospels may be pure fabrication too, but not to the extent of the infancy narratives.
And your evidence for these claims is ... ?
-
And what evidence did Leonardo De V have regarding helicopters and human flight, Len?
And why are you lying about your use of prophesy again,? Hope?
-
Which is a different use of the word,
In what way is 'prophetic' a different use of the word? I accept that 'prophetic' is an adjective, whilst 'prophesy' is a verb; but they are very closely related.
-
And what evidence did Leonardo De V have regarding helicopters and human flight, Len? The story of Daedalus and Icarus?
What evidence did he not have?
-
Simply repeating the negative proof fallacy doesn't make it not-a-fallacy; it does however indicate that you don't know what it is.
You saying you few here and in general know more that the Millions? If you could prove anything about Christ false then we would not be here would we discussing him and Christianity?
There are different types of evidence and one might be forgiven for your ignorance that Millions of believers receiving miracles today are not evidence. But the fact remains those miracles happen in the name of Jesus to the Glory of God. There is no escaping that evidence. Truth is you don't go seek out because you cannot live with that truth. It turns what you say on it's head.
http://sidroth.org/television/tv-archives/clarice-fluitt
There are more episodes with proof of healings and Gods power. Of course you can always try and disprove it... as if...
-
There are more episodes with proof of healings and Gods power. Of course you can always try and disprove it... as if...
And YOU can always try to prove it! I'm afraid you will find that impossible.
-
You saying you few here and in general know more that the Millions? If you could prove anything about Christ false then we would not be here would we discussing him and Christianity?
There are different types of evidence and one might be forgiven for your ignorance that Millions of believers receiving miracles today are not evidence. But the fact remains those miracles happen in the name of Jesus to the Glory of God. There is no escaping that evidence. Truth is you don't go seek out because you cannot live with that truth. It turns what you say on it's head.
http://sidroth.org/television/tv-archives/clarice-fluitt
There are more episodes with proof of healings and Gods power. Of course you can always try and disprove it... as if...
A few examples of people who have lost limbs re-growing them after being prayed for, and without receiving any medical intervention, would be interesting. Got any examples?
You would still then need a methodology to understand if this was due to non naturalists causes. Hope claims to have one so maybe he can help you there. He does however seem very reluctant to share it so I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
-
And what evidence did Leonardo De V have regarding helicopters and human flight, Len? The story of Daedalus and Icarus?
Now you are being silly, again.
It seems to me that the best approach to LDV's ideas about flying machines would be to see his thinking and drawings as being a general extrapolation from the knowledge of his times: a form of logical guessing. He knew that some things could fly naturally, and for all we know he may well have observed the likes of kite-flying, and being a bit of a polymath he speculated about machines that would be able to support human flight - in that sense if the term 'prophetic' were used it it would mean no more than creative thinking about future innovations: some science fiction could be said to meet the same criteria, such as Jules Verne.
As used by Spud though 'prophecy' implies the very different claim of predictions of future events made in the OT being fulfilled in a specified way by, in this case, the specific person of Jesus. Leaving aside for now the problem that these prophecies and the claims of fulfillment are anecdotal and are indistinguishable from fiction, for LDV's case to be comparable then we would need to see, for instance, LDV prophecise that powered mechanical flight would occur in the first decade of the 20th century in America - but we don't, and one reason we don't is that 'prophecy', beyond logical or lucky guesses, is nonsense.
-
A few examples of people who have lost limbs re-growing them after being prayed for, and without receiving any medical intervention, would be interesting. Got any examples?
You would still then need a methodology to understand if this was due to non naturalists causes. Hope claims to have one so maybe he can help you there. He does however seem very reluctant to share it so I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
Apparently that charlatan healer, Benny Hinn, claimed to have been instrumental in getting amputated limbs to grow again, but of course there was no verifiable evidence to back up his claim.
-
And what evidence did Leonardo De V have regarding helicopters and human flight, Len? The story of Daedalus and Icarus?
He had the evidence of how kites flew, birds flying, and the force that the air and wind generated to propel ships with sails. He was an intelligent scientist who could conceive harnessing that force.
Very different from the pin-brained gents who invented "gods" to explain what they couldn't understand.
-
As used by Spud though 'prophecy' implies the very different claim of predictions of future events made in the OT being fulfilled in a specified way by, in this case, the specific person of Jesus. Leaving aside for now the problem that these prophecies and the claims of fulfillment are anecdotal and are indistinguishable from fiction, for LDV's case to be comparable then we would need to see, for instance, LDV prophecise that powered mechanical flight would occur in the first decade of the 20th century in America - but we don't, and one reason we don't is that 'prophecy', beyond logical or lucky guesses, is nonsense.
For LDV's case to be comparable, there would not need to be any of that detail. Not a single Old Testament prophecy is or was time-specific. The only thing that would be specific would have been the divine nature of the Messiah.
-
Not a single Old Testament prophecy is or was time-specific.
So by definition it can't be considered to be prophetic, then.
Think about it. Carefully.
-
And YOU can always try to prove it! I'm afraid you will find that impossible.
Not at all medical doctors uncluding medical records have been on tv and shown the fact to be a fact.
But you are not interested in truth, because then you would have to repent and be guilty of your sin.
After all,. if God exists so does sin, heaven, hell, death and Eternal life.
Taking responsibility is not something you want to do, is it?
-
For LDV's case to be comparable, there would not need to be any of that detail. Not a single Old Testament prophecy is or was time-specific. The only thing that would be specific would have been the divine nature of the Messiah.
Not the seventy weeks prophecy?
-
Not at all medical doctors uncluding medical records have been on tv and shown the fact to be a fact.
But you are not interested in truth, because then you would have to repent and be guilty of your sin.
After all,. if God exists so does sin, heaven, hell, death and Eternal life.
Taking responsibility is not something you want to do, is it?
Well don't be shy. Why don't you see if you can pray a few limbs back onto people that have lost them?
-
And what evidence did Leonardo De V have regarding helicopters and human flight, Len? The story of Daedalus and Icarus?
What evidence do you have that Leonardo understood the principles of flight? His man powered flying machine would never have worked and it was clear that he was merely copying what he observed in birds.
-
The only thing that would be specific would have been the divine nature of the Messiah.
Except that the Messiah was not prophesied to be divine.
-
Indeed, many Jews believe "mashiach" does not mean "savior".
-
Indeed, many Jews believe "mashiach" does not mean "saviour".
-
Indeed, many Jews believe "mashiach" does not mean "savior".
It means "anointed one". i.e. a king that is anointed with oil. In that respect, King David was a messiah.
-
In fact, I thought that Jews have always been hostile to the idea that the messiah is divine. Some of them won't use the word 'messiah', as they see it as corrupted by Christian views. The messiah is human, possibly a military leader, but definitely not divine. In fact, for Jews this is an absurdity, and contradictory to monotheism.
-
You are absolute right wigginhall - except for those who believe the Mashiach is Menaḥem Mendel Schneersohn.
-
In fact, I thought that Jews have always been hostile to the idea that the messiah is divine. Some of them won't use the word 'messiah', as they see it as corrupted by Christian views. The messiah is human, possibly a military leader, but definitely not divine. In fact, for Jews this is an absurdity, and contradictory to monotheism.
It is a fact that the Jews and God never said the Messiah would be anything but a Holy thing...
Which applies to anything set aside for God only.
Jesus Christ/like the Messiah was fully human with the divine nature of God.
He was a man and he as Luke tells us was foretold/the word and the word made flesh coming to pass.
15 The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
Moses was like a God to Pharoah...
King James Bible
And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
Jesus and John the Baptist.
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Acts 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
We see that God anointed Jesus with the Holy Ghost and with Power and he did all those things through the Power and God was with him. Just as he was with Moses.
King James Bible
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Jesus as Moses, had Gods authority to speak unto mankind, as Moses spoke unto Pharoah. Jesus did all the things God would do and say. Moses had done the very same thing.
King James Bible
For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
Jesus tells us that eternal life is:-
King James Bible
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
It is knowing both the father and the Son.
Jesus has told everyone that the two commandments are to love the LORD God with all our hearts (not Jesus Christ) and to love our neighbour as ourselves. It is only in doing what Christ did..Loving God first and loving our neighbour as ourselves that we can love Jesus.
So in reality Christ is not a contradictory to the Jews. It is the Jews like many believers today who fail to take into account what the OT taught about the Messiah and the comparison to Moses. Even in the beginning they are told Jesus is a Holy thing. He is to be called the Son of God. Not God, not the Father but the Son of God. It is clear from Acts 10 that Peter believed Jesus was fully human and God was with him. That God gave Jesus the Holy Spirit and Power and he was through that power able to do th works God prepared for him. Just as Moses did the works God prepared for him by the power of God.
King James Bible
Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.
20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.
The confusion of Christians is to make Christ to be God in flesh when in truth everyone in Christ is made one by the presence of Gods Spirit within them. The power of God in the life of every believer. Jesus told everyone unless he went away the anointing the Holy Spirit could not come. The disciples were told to wait till the Spirit had come upon them before starting their ministry.
Jesus Christ was fully human. His nature was like that of God, fully divine in that as a human being he committed no sin. Neither was he born through sin of two humans. Like the first Adam he was created by the power of God and his word born of Mary a virgin.
It is Christ's teachings we are to obey. His words are very clear.
King James Bible
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
He who sends is greater than he who is sent.
Jesus said that John the Baptist was the greatest man alive in his time. Sometimes we have to think like Christ and the Prophets. The Roman Catholic changed teachings to force themselves above everything Jewish.
But the truth is that there is ONLY one way to God and Jesus Christ is that way. Peter knew Jesus was a human being.
He knew that God was with him and had given him the Holy Spirit and Power.
You need to study the bible and the words of Christ...Wiggy.
-
You need to study the bible and the words of Christ...Wiggy.
Wiggy doesn't need anything of the kind. Not that there is any danger of him becoming such a sad, indoctrinated figure as you are ... he is far too astute.
-
Wiggy doesn't need anything of the kind. Not that there is any danger of him becoming such a sad, indoctrinated figure as you are ... he is far too astute.
Wigs is a good lad! :)
-
It means "anointed one". i.e. a king that is anointed with oil. In that respect, King David was a messiah.
The anointed king was also called God's son, 1 Sam 7:14, Ps. 2:7, 12. Jesus was God's son in the literal, divine sense, which he demonstrated throught his miracles. The key thing is that he did all the types of miracle which Jehovah the old Testament God did, such as open blind eyes, tread the waves of the sea etc. This is how he is understood to have fulfilled prophecy that he would be divine.
-
The anointed king was also called God's son, 1 Sam 7:14, Ps. 2:7, 12. Jesus was God's son in the literal, divine sense, which he demonstrated throught his miracles. The key thing is that he did all the types of miracle which Jehovah the old Testament God did, such as open blind eyes, tread the waves of the sea etc. This is how he is understood to have fulfilled prophecy that he would be divine.
You have no proof of that whatsoever, or that any or what was attributed to Jesus is true. ::)
-
You have no proof of that whatsoever, or that any or what was attributed to Jesus is true. ::)
Yes, I do have proof, but it's not enough to convince you
-
Yes, I do have proof, but it's not enough to convince you
So it isn't proof, merely belief. ::)
-
So it isn't proof, merely belief. ::)
What would convince you, floo?
-
Yes, I do have proof...
Do tell.
-
What would convince you, floo?
God stopping playing the game of hide and seek and revealing itself to the world in a way that is totally irrefutable to anyone. But that isn't going to happen. ::)
-
Do tell.
It's all in the Bible so it must be true! ;)
-
Yes, I do have proof, but it's not enough to convince you
Proof is all or nothing. Either you have proof or you don't.
-
It's all in the Bible so it must be true! ;)
It is so very sad that some people really believe that. ::)
-
God stopping playing the game of hide and seek and revealing itself to the world in a way that is totally irrefutable to anyone. But that isn't going to happen. ::)
You mean something like, praying for something to happen and it does?
-
You mean something like, praying for something to happen and it does?
Like a fine day for the church fete? COINCIDENCE!
-
Yeah, but I prayed for a parking space, and 3 weeks later, I got one! Miracle.
-
Like a fine day for the church fete? COICIDENCE!
Not necessarily. He might want it to be fine so that more money could be raised for the church in Africa.
-
Ok then. The sky is currently clear(ish) here where I am. Can you pray for rain in the next quarter of an hour. if it does I promise I will attend the local church service on Sunday, and spend two hours reading any bible passage you name.
-
Hang on, we do a rain dance for that sort of thing. So when it rains we give thanks to the Aztec gods, who we believe are dancing with us.
Prove it ain't so!
-
Oh Dear, I must be persona non grata down at St. Luke's :(
At least I'll be able to cut the grass later though. :)
-
Not necessarily. He might want it to be fine so that more money could be raised for the church in Africa.
Seems to me that Africa has rather more urgent claims on the coffers than lining the pockets of the church.
-
You mean something like, praying for something to happen and it does?
What about when it doesn't?
Unless you're going to do now what every theist has failed to do so far and provide us with a methodology for evaluating these allegations, what you're actually talking about is the operation of sheer random chance but with a walloping dose of confirmation bias on your part.
-
Sassy wrote:
You need to study the bible and the words of Christ...Wiggy.
Well, we also need to study what Jews actually say about the messiah. For example, from the website, jewfaq:
"The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben David" (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being."
http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm
-
What about when it doesn't?
Unless you're going to do now what every theist has failed to do so far and provide us with a methodology for evaluating these allegations, what you're actually talking about is the operation of sheer random chance but with a walloping dose of confirmation bias on your part.
Well obviously God is asleep, when it doesn't happen.
Seriously though. When you pray for something, it has to be for God's glory otherwise it's like we are telling him what to do.
-
Not necessarily. He might want it to be fine so that more money could be raised for the church in Africa.
;D
-
Well obviously God is asleep, when it doesn't happen.
Seriously though. When you pray for something, it has to be for God's glory otherwise it's like we are telling him what to do.
Smashing, but where's the answer to my question?
An end to hunger, poverty and disease - a stable climate - an end to cancer in children (or indeed anyone of any age) - would they not be to God's glory?
-
Well obviously God is asleep, when it doesn't happen.
Seriously though. When you pray for something, it has to be for God's glory otherwise it's like we are telling him what to do.
A deity which expects worship and everything done for its 'glory' is completely up its own backside! :o
-
You mean something like, praying for something to happen and it does?
If someone prayed for something to happen which was impossible to happen other than by divine intervention, and it happened there and then, then that would be impressive. Otherwise, not proof of anything.
-
Smashing, but where's the answer to my question?
An end to hunger, poverty and disease - a stable climate - an end to cancer in children (or indeed anyone of any age) - would they not be to God's glory?
When face to face with the paralytic, it was just as important to Jesus that the young man's sins were forgiven as it was that he was physically healed. This is reaffirmed in the Lord's prayer. Give us our daily bread... Forgive us...as we forgive...thine is the glory...
-
If someone prayed for something to happen which was impossible to happen other than by divine intervention, and it happened there and then, then that would be impressive. Otherwise, not proof of anything.
This is more like what I was expecting someone to say in answer to my question about what would convince them. I notice you didn't say it would convince you. This implies that nothing would convince you, which illustrates what was behind my original question to floo. Even if someone goes to them from the dead, some will not be convinced. "Er, excuse me, would you mind just explaining your methodology for returning from the dead" :)
-
Because it is so very unlikely, most of us would believe we were hallucinating and freak out.
I do believe God answers prayer but in a quiet and subtle way. It means something to the person whose prayer has been answered, others might consider it to be a coincidence or something like.
-
When face to face with the paralytic, it was just as important to Jesus that the young man's sins were forgiven as it was that he was physically healed.
How did Jesus heal him? Did he say "sleep it off and in the morning take two aspirin for the hangover?"
It's a lot easier to say "your sins are forgiven" than to cause an amputated limb to regrow. As far as I know, not even Jesus did the latter.
-
This is more like what I was expecting someone to say in answer to my question about what would convince them. I notice you didn't say it would convince you. This implies that nothing would convince you,
No it doesn't, since I wasn't replying to you question.
... which illustrates what was behind my original question to floo. Even if someone goes to them from the dead, some will not be convinced. "Er, excuse me, would you mind just explaining your methodology for returning from the dead" :)
If something which is impossible to have happened there and then without divine intervention was shown to have definitely happened then I would have to take that very seriously of course. I could be convinced provided there was strong evidence that it had to be divine intervention.Clearly, since I have no belief, it would take a lot to convince me - but it is not impossible.
-
I notice you didn't say it would convince you. This implies that nothing would convince you
That is a non sequitur, Spud.
Even if someone goes to them from the dead, some will not be convinced. "Er, excuse me, would you mind just explaining your methodology for returning from the dead" :)
Problem here is we aren't in a position to investigate the actual event: there are only ancient anecdotal claims of a natural impossibility as recorded by potentially biased people. Not only is being sceptical a reasonable response here, it also includes giving consideration to the possibility of mistakes or lies being a factor in these anecdotes: I've repeatedly asked Hope how he has excluded these risks, but without response, so perhaps you could explain how you have.
-
Maeght, thanks for correcting me. I have never seen anyone completely healed of an illness, such that I would say it was the kind of proof you describe needing. But recently I have been involved with a patient with expressive aphasia, and most of the time she cannot say what she is thinking, having had a catastrophic stroke 2 years ago. Occasionally however, her speech improves dramatically, so much so that I conclude it is a result of divine intervention. Nobody has come up with a physiological explanation yet. On a more general note though, for myself it is things like that as well as the miracle of life which I see as evidence for God.
-
Maeght, thanks for correcting me. I have never seen anyone completely healed of an illness, such that I would say it was the kind of proof you describe needing. But recently I have been involved with a patient with expressive aphasia, and most of the time she cannot say what she is thinking, having had a catastrophic stroke 2 years ago. Occasionally however, her speech improves dramatically, so much so that I conclude it is a result of divine intervention. Nobody has come up with a physiological explanation yet. On a more general note though, for myself it is things like that as well as the miracle of life which I see as evidence for God.
I don't know anything specific about expressive aphasia so can't comment on any possible non divine causes of periods of improvement. I would ask why God would only occasionally cause improvement and not effect a cure or to have prevented the problem in the first place - but that's a different question. The problem is, I understand, due to damage to the brain and we know the brain is complex and not fully understood and shows amazing plasticity - but I'm sure that won't sound at all convincing to you. Such a situation isn't one which is clearly impossible without divine intervention I would say.
Miracle of life? We don't know how common life is within our universe - it may be unique to Earth or wide spread. Either way to view life on Earth as evidence for God is a consequence of a religious mind set I'm afraid.
-
Maeght, thanks for correcting me. I have never seen anyone completely healed of an illness, such that I would say it was the kind of proof you describe needing. But recently I have been involved with a patient with expressive aphasia, and most of the time she cannot say what she is thinking, having had a catastrophic stroke 2 years ago. Occasionally however, her speech improves dramatically, so much so that I conclude it is a result of divine intervention. Nobody has come up with a physiological explanation yet. On a more general note though, for myself it is things like that as well as the miracle of life which I see as evidence for God.
My husband has aphasia after his brain haemorrhage in 2006, sometimes his speech is much worse than others. So are you suggesting that when he speaks very clearly that is divine intervention? ::)
-
My husband has aphasia after his brain haemorrhage in 2006, sometimes his speech is much worse than others. So are you suggesting that when he speaks very clearly that is divine intervention? ::)
Sorry to hear that. I do know what you are dealing with. I would be surprised if your husband's phases of good speech don't seem like divine intervention, even if there is a physiological explanation. That's how it is with this person. I can only say that for her I personally am convinced that God had a reason for keeping her alive and that her brief unexplained periods of remission are his way of encouraging us to persevere during the relapses. I suppose you need to believe in God in order to see it this way though. Has your husband been affected in other ways, like muscular weakness for example?
-
I don't know anything specific about expressive aphasia so can't comment on any possible non divine causes of periods of improvement. I would ask why God would only occasionally cause improvement and not effect a cure or to have prevented the problem in the first place - but that's a different question. The problem is, I understand, due to damage to the brain and we know the brain is complex and not fully understood and shows amazing plasticity - but I'm sure that won't sound at all convincing to you. Such a situation isn't one which is clearly impossible without divine intervention I would say.
Miracle of life? We don't know how common life is within our universe - it may be unique to Earth or wide spread. Either way to view life on Earth as evidence for God is a consequence of a religious mind set I'm afraid.
The way I see it, everything we see could not have formed through natural processes; there isnt evidence that things create themselves. Where did energy come from for example? There has to be a creative power which is personal, since it created us humans.
-
The way I see it, everything we see could not have formed through natural processes; there isnt evidence that things create themselves. Where did energy come from for example? There has to be a creative power which is personal, since it created us humans.
God could not have formed through natural processes; there isnt evidence that things create themselves. Where did energy come from for example? There has to be a creative power which is personal, since it created god.
-
The way I see it, everything we see could not have formed through natural processes; there isnt evidence that things create themselves. Where did energy come from for example? There has to be a creative power which is personal, since it created us humans.
Specify the reasons as to why it has to be personal, please.
Yet again you seem to be amongst that legion of those who always reach immediately for a who and not a what. Theists, in other words.
-
Sorry to hear that. I do know what you are dealing with. I would be surprised if your husband's phases of good speech don't seem like divine intervention, even if there is a physiological explanation. That's how it is with this person. I can only say that for her I personally am convinced that God had a reason for keeping her alive and that her brief unexplained periods of remission are his way of encouraging us to persevere during the relapses. I suppose you need to believe in God in order to see it this way though. Has your husband been affected in other ways, like muscular weakness for example?
My husband has half a working brain, is epileptic, although the meds have kept the seizures at bay for about 7 years. He is blind to all intents and purposes in his right eye. His right side is fairly insensitive, he once walked few yards with a putty knife in his wellington before he realised it felt a bit strange. :o He can take himself off for his daily walks on his own, and walk quite a distance, much further and faster than arthritic me.
Brain damage is a very weird thing, my husband can do really complicated graphs on the computer, but couldn't compose, or send an e-mail. He can understand written instructions and put flat pack furniture together for instance, something at which I am hopeless, but if I ask him for say a knife, fork or spoon from the drawer, I can get anything but what I have asked him for. He can give me directions if I am driving, I am useless at giving directions, but he can't explain something simple like where he has put an item I am in need of.
Of course as a academic this is highly frustrating for him. He finds it very hard to accept that little me, who is not nearly as intelligent as him and our three girls, occasionally knows best, especially where his health is concerned. I do feel sorry for him, but on no account will I treat him any differently to the way I would have done before his illness, as he would hate that. I tell him like it is even though it doesn't always make me popular.
Added to his other problems he has a dodgy prostrate, the jury has been out since 2004 as to whether he has prostate cancer, his PSA is always very high. He has also developed what we are told is a benign tremor, but I am concerned it could be Parkinson's Disease, which killed his mother!
However, we have three wonderful girls who look out for us, so we are very grateful indeed as there are so many people much worse off than us.
Sorry to ramble on! :-[
-
The way I see it, everything we see could not have formed through natural processes; there isnt evidence that things create themselves. Where did energy come from for example? There has to be a creative power which is personal, since it created us humans.
I've never understood that phrase oft used by creationists 'things create themselves' - things would have to exist to initiate the creation process so how can they be created if already existing ... anyway .... the answer is we don't know and may never know, but that doesn't mean it has to have been an act instigated by a personal power known as God. To come to that conclusion requires a belief in God.