GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-04-2013, 14:23   #26
JBnTX
None
 
JBnTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by poikilotrm View Post

Earth's gravity has an average acceleration of 981cm/s/s. 30 different rational researchers spread out over 1500 years would all come to the same conclusion, regardless of viewpoint.

And so did the writers of the Bible.
They just took different paths getting there.
JBnTX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 14:27   #27
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBnTX View Post
And so did the writers of the Bible.
They just took different paths getting there.
How can they arrive at the same conclusions when they contradict one another?
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 19:29   #28
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
This is what aggravates me about theists. They claim there are no contradictions in the bible with such confidence and surety. They tell you you just don't understand it or youre misrepresenting it. Yet when blatant errors are pointed out... Crickets. Which would be ok if the very next week they didn't claim there are not contradictions or errors in the bible. But they will.
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 20:14   #29
Animal Mother
Not Enough Gun
 
Animal Mother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by FCoulter View Post
Sorry but thats not true according to God. ALL scripture is inspired or God breathed.

Are you saying God would let His inspired Word to be written down wrong?
How long did this divine protection endure? Does it also prevent the mistranslation of scripture?
__________________
"Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair. Or beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back."
Animal Mother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 22:59   #30
juggy4711
Nimrod Son
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Galveston County, TX
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by FCoulter View Post
Well John 17 clearly shows how the God Family is one. One in thought and action, the 1st commandment does NOT say only one God in personage.

Next please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Hays View Post
The Jews disagree and yet they are still waiting for the Messiah to appear that was promised to appear in the temple destroyed in 60 A D. Maybe they missed something?

Why must God appear as we expect Him rather than as He chooses?

John 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
John 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
As I suspected. You know better than the Jews do. And not to let me down you both reference the NT as proof that the they had their own religion all wrong.
juggy4711 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 05:49   #31
scottz0369
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Tomah, WI
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by juggy4711 View Post
As I suspected. You know better than the Jews do. And not to let me down you both reference the NT as proof that the they had their own religion all wrong.
It may be helpful to consider the context of when the NT occured. Palestine/Israel/Jerusalem were occupied by the Romans. The Jews were in a sort of power with the governing Romans, but like any other occupied people, they wanted the occupier out.
They had prophecy of a coming messiah that would save them, etc. So along comes Jesus preaching peace, obeying the gov't, paying taxes. He came in quietly at the beginning of his ministry, he was not wealthy, no crown. He picked the dregs of society to be his diciples. His message challenged the power of the religious leaders.
He was not what the Jews were expecting. Much like us, it seems that they got out of the scripture what they wanted to get, not what it says. So he was rejected by the leaders, and followers did what followers do; believe what they say without investigating.
I'm not smarter than the Jews, I've got the benefit of hindsight, and I've done my own investigating.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
scottz0369 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 06:48   #32
scottz0369
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Tomah, WI
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Luke starts with Jesus and goes up.

"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat"

Luke 3 starts at Abraham and goes down to Jesus (skipping a bunch here) ->
".. and Eli'ud begat Ele-a'zar; and Ele-a'zar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

Both have Joseph right above Jesus in the genealogy. What's the justification for saying that one is Mary's genealogy and the other is Joseph's?
We all have multlple lines of geneology. In that vernacular it can be accurately said that through my mothers line, I'm the son of Lester, a Cherokee from North Carolina. He's my maternal grandfather. Through my father, I'm the son of Arthur (my paternal grandfather), who was born in Germany. Its not a contradiction if you use a common sense interpretation and look at the context. Also, Matthew was writing to the Jews, and his geneology was likely intended to establish Jesus' credibility to that audience. Luke was writing to the Gentiles, and is considered a better historian, so it makes sense that the geneology he wrote is more detailed than the one found in Matthew. This is just conjecture on my part, but Luke was written at a later date as Matthew, so perhaps he felt that he needed to add information that Matthew didn't include, that information being the maternal geneology.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
scottz0369 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 07:32   #33
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottz0369 View Post
Its not a contradiction if you use a common sense interpretation and look at the context.
Are you alleging that a "common sense" interpretation, in our culture, is that if you list your father and then his father, and so on, you are listing your mother's genealogy?

When I read a genealogy that says 'this is this guy's father, this is his father', etc, I see no reason to treat it as a matter of "common sense" that it's the mother's genealogy. It reads how it reads on the face of it, and they *both* read as though they are talking about Jesus' lineage through Joseph.

It may be the case that in the culture that wrote it, merely mentioning the mother and the father means that it is somehow the mother's genealogy. Or perhaps the original text was mistranslated. If one of those is true, or if it is some other possibility, it is not a matter of "common sense", it is a matter of establishing whether or not one of those possibilities is actually true, because on a plain reading they *both* go through Joseph, and it is not universally true that merely mentioning a mother means that it is the mother's genealogy.

This is why I asked what the justification is. Getting back "it's common sense" is somewhat disappointing.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-05-2013 at 07:39..
void * is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 09:11   #34
scottz0369
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Tomah, WI
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Are you alleging that a "common sense" interpretation, in our culture, is that if you list your father and then his father, and so on, you are listing your mother's genealogy?

When I read a genealogy that says 'this is this guy's father, this is his father', etc, I see no reason to treat it as a matter of "common sense" that it's the mother's genealogy. It reads how it reads on the face of it, and they *both* read as though they are talking about Jesus' lineage through Joseph.

It may be the case that in the culture that wrote it, merely mentioning the mother and the father means that it is somehow the mother's genealogy. Or perhaps the original text was mistranslated. If one of those is true, or if it is some other possibility, it is not a matter of "common sense", it is a matter of establishing whether or not one of those possibilities is actually true, because on a plain reading they *both* go through Joseph, and it is not universally true that merely mentioning a mother means that it is the mother's genealogy.

This is why I asked what the justification is. Getting back "it's common sense" is somewhat disappointing.
To elaborate, there's no record in the NT of Mary having a brother, only a sister. If that is the case, then Marys husband would be the "son" of her father as inheritance at the time flowed through the male heirs. I know you dislike using the NT as a source, but its the only info available in this matter. Also, Joseph isn't identified as Jesus' biological father, so he would probably be considered his adopted son. Therefore, it would make sense that geneology would be traced through Joseph's line through adoption as well as Mary's through biology.
Sorry my common sense comment rubbed you the wrong way. I was attempting to illustrate that when reading scripture, its necessary to consider context (in this case, cultural norms) to expand knowledge of why things are phrased in certain ways.

I'm not saying that my interpretation is the final answer or absolute truth, only that when viewed in that context, it makes sense of what appears to be a contradiction. There is always the possibility that I'm wrong, but when considering cultural norms, my interpretation (one shared with parts of the evangelical community) is an interpretation that addresses the contradiction and fits in the puzzle in a way that would make sense to a reader at the time, but not necessarily in our time.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
scottz0369 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 09:13   #35
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottz0369 View Post
So he was rejected by the leaders, and followers did what followers do; believe what they say without investigating.
You're just proving Juggy's statement here. "They didn't know no better, but we do now." I would submit that the Ancient Israelites understood the OT better than modern religious folk and I'll give a few reasons why.

1. They were reading scriptures in a format that were far closer to the original and in some cases were the same as the original scripture. They weren't trying to find the meaning in translations of translations where words are changed and meanings or intents lost and twisted.

2. They weren't Jews through the focus of Christianity. There was no Christianity, this was simply the religion of the Israelites. Then it gets twisted with the addition of new characters and a dogma that was pretty alien to the OT. Not only that but scriptures like John reach back and change the original meanings of these people's religion. It's kinda like that episode of Family Guy where Brian writes a thoughtful and touching script for TV about a young single father trying to finish higher education while still being there for his new child, then the TV execs get ahold of it and turn it into a sit-com with a 50 year old guy going back to college with a monkey for a roommate.

3. Modern Christians do not take their religion as seriously as the Ancient Israelites. Today for many it's kinda like a social club. They come to church to see the Jones family, everyone parades their kids around in their Sunday best. They lean on the parts of the bible they like and sort of discard the rest. They love to talk about how homosexuality is a sin but no one really worries that much about wearing garments made of more than one material or eating shellfish. They love talking about God's forgiveness, grace, and love... But they don't like to talk too much about how God allowed Job to be tortured to see what would happen (which flies in the face of God being all knowing since the Devil was right in that case), or how Lot is treated as a righteous figure for tossing his little girls to an angry mob to be raped to death. See these ancient people took it all hook line and sinker. And they'd be willing allow their kids to die to honor the name of God. They'd be willing to kill and die themselves in the name of their God. Not so much with your average luke warm Christian of today. It was a matter of life and death to them to understand scripture. Not just an enriching way to pass the time.

Quote:
I'm not smarter than the Jews, I've got the benefit of hindsight, and I've done my own investigating.
But do you understand it as well as the people that were living it? You're still implying that because of the benefit of hindsight you somehow understand these things better.

Last edited by Glock36shooter; 02-05-2013 at 09:14..
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 09:58   #36
Vic Hays
Senior Member
 
Vic Hays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: My home is in heaven
Posts: 10,648
God wrote very little Himself. I suppose that was so there would be no question. Even this has been distorted by man.

It is not the letter that is inspired, it is the true meaning. The wicked do not understand because they are fighting the Spirit of God.

Daniel 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
__________________
Vic Hays

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Vic Hays is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 10:18   #37
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Hays View Post
God wrote very little Himself. I suppose that was so there would be no question. Even this has been distorted by man.

It is not the letter that is inspired, it is the true meaning. The wicked do not understand because they are fighting the Spirit of God.

Daniel 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
So you at least agree that the parts of the bible written by men are flawed?
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 11:03   #38
Vic Hays
Senior Member
 
Vic Hays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: My home is in heaven
Posts: 10,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
So you at least agree that the parts of the bible written by men are flawed?
Parts of the Bible are misunderstood. There have been additions and editing that have occurred. This just proves that men are flawed. The basic messages and teachings of the Bible are intact.

What God wrote with His own finger is intact.

Psalms 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
__________________
Vic Hays

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Last edited by Vic Hays; 02-05-2013 at 11:04..
Vic Hays is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 11:03   #39
scottz0369
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Tomah, WI
Posts: 164
G36S,
In response by the number,
1) Partially true. The majority of the OT was written in Hebrew, so there wasn't a need for translations. They were copied by scribes, but the process of copying was detailed and controlled. Letters, syllables, etc were counted in copies, and if there was a discrepancy, they were noted, or the entire copy was thrown out. For a far better explanation than I can give, see http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/the-old-testament-has-been-faithfully-transmitted/

2) I can't make sense of this paragraph, especially the first two sentances. I've also never watched Family Guy, so I'm ignorant of the reference. If you're making the point that the original message was corrupted, I would disagree.

3) I agree with the first four sentences to a degree. However, you've made a blanket statement that can't possibly account for the motivations of everyone that attends church. You mention how we (since I'm apparently included in that statement) focus solely on homosexuality, while ignoring other sins. That's simply not true. The NT contains only periphrial references to homosexuality, and in the context of other sins - they're all treated with equal weight. This seems to be a hot topic for you. At the church I attend, we talk about sin in all forms, and homosexuality, if it is brought up, is in the context of other sins. It seems like you're cherry-picking scriptures much in the same way you appear to detest Christians for doing. Sounds hypocritical to me.
You're incorrect regarding Job. In a nutshell, Satan said that the only reason Job was faithful was because he was blessed materially (money, property, a family, etc), and without those material blessings, he would curse God. He questioned God, he agonized over his situation, but did not curse him. Brother, I question God but still have faith, and I'm not alone in that.

I never said I understand things better than others, only in hindsight, the picture is clearer. You don't have to look far for examples of what was considered correct in the past to be incorrect in any area of human's quest for knowledge.

To be clear, I'm no smarter than the next guy. I read and research available information and make decisions based on my imperfect knowledge and understanding, just like everyone else. I would encourage you not to believe me, and research it for yourself -- follow the evidence where it leads. It's certainly possible that you'll reach a different conclusion. If you've done the work without presupposition, I'm OK with you having a different conclusion -- it's yours to have.

As an aside, I spent many years as a non-believer for many of the reasons illustrated in the graphic. Personally, I cherry-picked the most outrageous statements in the Bible, and only read critics of the Bible to verify and cement my position. Only when I decided to read the Bible as well scholars friendly to the scripture for myself did the overarching message become clear to me. That lead to investigating apologetics, historcal context, and archeology which led me to the conclusion over several years that the Bible is accurate as stated. I would encourage you to do the same. Are there things in the Bible that don't make sense or are offensive to our current culture? Of course. Are there things in the Bible I wish weren't there? Yep. I don't claim to understand everything in the Bible -- this debate has been going on for at least two centuries, and isn't likely to be settled here on GT in 2013.
scottz0369 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 11:46   #40
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,326


Quote:
Originally Posted by scottz0369 View Post
G36S,As an aside, I spent many years as a non-believer for many of the reasons illustrated in the graphic. Personally, I cherry-picked the most outrageous statements in the Bible, and only read critics of the Bible to verify and cement my position. Only when I decided to read the Bible as well scholars friendly to the scripture for myself did the overarching message become clear to me.
I went the exact opposite direction. I was actually a believer for all of my childhood and the majority of my adult life. I only read material that confirmed a biblical worldview and reinforced the idea that the bible was inerrant. Yet, I had never fully investigated it on my own.

When I went back to school to complete my undergraduate degree, I choose to attend a christian university. In addition to my business classes (all of which incorporated a christian worldview) there were several pure theology courses. Most important among these were old and new testament survery where we actually read the bible cover to cover looking for common themes woven throughout.

From a literary analysis point of view, the classes were fascinating. From the point of view of my own personal spirituality, they were quite troubling. I had always assumed that when I got around to it that I would find the important answers in the bible that I had been looking for, but I had now read it in its entirety and the answers were not forth coming.

Not only did I not find answers, I was struck dumb by the numerous contradictions, the childish behavior of the characters (sometimes even of god himself) and rather simplistic (i.e. naive) view of the world. I could no longer accept it as the one undeniable and infallible truth that I had always assumed it would prove to be.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 13:43   #41
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottz0369 View Post
I can't make sense of this paragraph, especially the first two sentances. I've also never watched Family Guy, so I'm ignorant of the reference. If you're making the point that the original message was corrupted, I would disagree.
You would be incorrect. We have people on this very forum that submit that it was Jesus that created Heaven and Earth because he was "The Word" and John says it was the word in the beginning and not the Father. These are passages that you claim now in hindsight give you a more clear perspective of the bible as a whole. When really it twists and alters a religion that existed prior to Christianity. In short it's basically saying "Here... we fixed your religion and made sense of it by injecting our own."

Quote:
I agree with the first four sentences to a degree. However, you've made a blanket statement that can't possibly account for the motivations of everyone that attends church.
The first four sentences set up my point as not being a blanket statement. I never said every single Christian does X Y or Z. I said many.


Quote:
You mention how we (since I'm apparently included in that statement) focus solely on homosexuality, while ignoring other sins. That's simply not true.
"They" refers to the "MANY" that were previously mentioned. If you would like to include yourself in that group fine. But if it doesn't apply to you personally then you aren't a part of the "Many" that it does. However... lots of Christians say that don't they... "I'm not like that... I'm the RIGHT kind of Christian." when in reality they're just like the poor examples... so I guess we'll have to just take your word that you go about the things the "Right" way.

Quote:
The NT contains only periphrial references to homosexuality, and in the context of other sins - they're all treated with equal weight. This seems to be a hot topic for you. At the church I attend, we talk about sin in all forms, and homosexuality, if it is brought up, is in the context of other sins. It seems like you're cherry-picking scriptures much in the same way you appear to detest Christians for doing. Sounds hypocritical to me.
I don't hold the bible up as my guide to life... I can pick it apart however I like. I don't present it as the inerrant word of God Almighty. So I absolutely can dismantle it and illustrate what is junk and what is not. But let's continue to discuss your view of how homosexuality is presented in the church. The basis for it being a sin is Leviticus. This is where God handed the Israelites laws to keep. Homosexuality (at least among men) is declared as an abomination in Lev18. The very next chapter it says "19 You shall keep My statutes. You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you."

Yet no one really cares about that one. We have half a nation losing their minds over Gay Marriage MOSTLY because of it being a religious issue... but no one seems to be worrying about mixing materials with their clothing. And God said to keep his statutes.. not some of them, not the ones you like. you CANNOT tell me that many and quite possibly a majority of Christians don't cherry pick what they want to believe out of that book. We get it... you're not like that... good for you. Many of your brothers and sisters are however.

Quote:
You're incorrect regarding Job. In a nutshell, Satan said that the only reason Job was faithful was because he was blessed materially (money, property, a family, etc), and without those material blessings, he would curse God. He questioned God, he agonized over his situation, but did not curse him.
You are proving my point for me. The word in Hebrew that is translated to "Curse" is Barak {baw-rak'}. Which in a positive context means to bless and or kneel before, but in a negative context means to dismiss or send away in either the heart or mind. It is a sending away or farewell too...

Satan told God Job would dismiss him were his gifts taken away.

"12 Am I a sea, or a whale, that thou settest a watch over me?

13 When I say, My bed shall comfort me, my couch shall ease my complaints;

14 Then thou scarest me with dreams, and terrifiest me through visions:

15 So that my soul chooseth strangling, and death rather than my life.

16 I loathe it; I would not live alway: let me alone; for my days are vanity.

17 What is man, that thou shouldest magnify him? and that thou shouldest set thine heart upon him?

18 And that thou shouldest visit him every morning, and try him every moment?

19 How long wilt thou not depart from me, nor let me alone till I swallow down my spittle?

20 I have sinned; what shall I do unto thee, O thou preserver of men? why hast thou set me as a mark against thee, so that I am a burden to myself?

21 And why dost thou not pardon my transgression, and take away my iniquity? for now shall I sleep in the dust; and thou shalt seek me in the morning, but I shall not be."

And Satan was right.

Quote:
Brother, I question God but still have faith, and I'm not alone in that.
"Job 40:2 Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it."

"Romans 9: 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

It's not wise to question God. You are his creation and your lot is your lot. Don't mistake me for someone that doesn't understand the bible.

Quote:
I never said I understand things better than others, only in hindsight, the picture is clearer. You don't have to look far for examples of what was considered correct in the past to be incorrect in any area of human's quest for knowledge.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Please elaborate.

Quote:
To be clear, I'm no smarter than the next guy. I read and research available information and make decisions based on my imperfect knowledge and understanding, just like everyone else. I would encourage you not to believe me, and research it for yourself -- follow the evidence where it leads. It's certainly possible that you'll reach a different conclusion. If you've done the work without presupposition, I'm OK with you having a different conclusion -- it's yours to have.
I hold the book responsible for what it says. Not for what I'd like to believe it says.

Quote:
That lead to investigating apologetics, historcal context, and archeology which led me to the conclusion over several years that the Bible is accurate as stated.
But it isn't. There are many errors and contradictions throughout the bible.

Quote:
Are there things in the Bible I wish weren't there? Yep.
I'd be happy if the entire thing never existed.

Quote:
this debate has been going on for at least two centuries, and isn't likely to be settled here on GT in 2013.
Centuries? 1813? A lot longer than that.

Last edited by Glock36shooter; 02-05-2013 at 13:53..
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 15:15   #42
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottz0369 View Post
To elaborate, there's no record in the NT of Mary having a brother, only a sister. If that is the case, then Marys husband would be the "son" of her father as inheritance at the time flowed through the male heirs.
Ok, but why mention Joseph the way he was mentioned in *that* genealogy? That's the point that to me makes it not a "common sense" matter. It states "Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary", not "Jacob begat Mary the wife of Joseph", in the only genealogy that even mentions Mary.

The second wording, to me, would be common sense "this is Mary's genealogy". The way it is worded it reads as Joseph, not Mary - and it would, as you noted, require something external to interpret the way it is worded as 'That's Mary's genealogy'. I've seen religious sites that claim that *both* are actually through Joseph, despite the apparent contradiction, and I have also seen religious sites that claim one is through Mary, the other through Joseph.

I guess what I'm finally getting at here is, if it's the word of a deity that intends to have the message spread far and wide, and it is inspired work, why would it require detailed knowledge not evidently present in the document itself to resolve something like that? Which may be more or less applicable to any particular Christian theology depending on whether or not and to what extent that particular theology holds or requires that the Bible be considered inerrant, etc. Of course, I don't know your personal position on that.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson
void * is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 16:31   #43
scottz0369
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Tomah, WI
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
You would be incorrect. We have people on this very forum that submit that it was Jesus that created Heaven and Earth because he was "The Word" and John says it was the word in the beginning and not the Father. These are passages that you claim now in hindsight give you a more clear perspective of the bible as a whole. When really it twists and alters a religion that existed prior to Christianity. In short it's basically saying "Here... we fixed your religion and made sense of it by injecting our own."



The first four sentences set up my point as not being a blanket statement. I never said every single Christian does X Y or Z. I said many.

******* How many then? Some? Most? 50%? *******




"They" refers to the "MANY" that were previously mentioned. If you would like to include yourself in that group fine. But if it doesn't apply to you personally then you aren't a part of the "Many" that it does. However... lots of Christians say that don't they... "I'm not like that... I'm the RIGHT kind of Christian." when in reality they're just like the poor examples... so I guess we'll have to just take your word that you go about the things the "Right" way.

********Never said I was right. I shared my interpretation. Its within the realm of possibility that I'm incorrect in my interpretation.*******



I don't hold the bible up as my guide to life... I can pick it apart however I like. I don't present it as the inerrant word of God Almighty. So I absolutely can dismantle it and illustrate what is junk and what is not. But let's continue to discuss your view of how homosexuality is presented in the church. The basis for it being a sin is Leviticus. This is where God handed the Israelites laws to keep. Homosexuality (at least among men) is declared as an abomination in Lev18. The very next chapter it says "19 You shall keep My statutes. You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you."

Yet no one really cares about that one. We have half a nation losing their minds over Gay Marriage MOSTLY because of it being a religious issue... but no one seems to be worrying about mixing materials with their clothing. And God said to keep his statutes.. not some of them, not the ones you like. you CANNOT tell me that many and quite possibly a majority of Christians don't cherry pick what they want to believe out of that book. We get it... you're not like that... good for you. Many of your brothers and sisters are however.




You are proving my point for me. The word in Hebrew that is translated to "Curse" is Barak {baw-rak'}. Which in a positive context means to bless and or kneel before, but in a negative context means to dismiss or send away in either the heart or mind. It is a sending away or farewell too...

Satan told God Job would dismiss him were his gifts taken away.

"12 Am I a sea, or a whale, that thou settest a watch over me?

13 When I say, My bed shall comfort me, my couch shall ease my complaints;

14 Then thou scarest me with dreams, and terrifiest me through visions:

15 So that my soul chooseth strangling, and death rather than my life.

16 I loathe it; I would not live alway: let me alone; for my days are vanity.

17 What is man, that thou shouldest magnify him? and that thou shouldest set thine heart upon him?

18 And that thou shouldest visit him every morning, and try him every moment?

19 How long wilt thou not depart from me, nor let me alone till I swallow down my spittle?

20 I have sinned; what shall I do unto thee, O thou preserver of men? why hast thou set me as a mark against thee, so that I am a burden to myself?

21 And why dost thou not pardon my transgression, and take away my iniquity? for now shall I sleep in the dust; and thou shalt seek me in the morning, but I shall not be."

And Satan was right.



"Job 40:2 Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it."

"Romans 9: 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

It's not wise to question God. You are his creation and your lot is your lot. Don't mistake me for someone that doesn't understand the bible.

*******If it's time to send out warnings, don't mistake me for someone who is intimidated by a post on the internet. Glad we cleared that up.
Also, thanks for the tip re:questioning God. However, as a person who rejects the existence of God, you're unqualified to diciple me.********


I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Please elaborate.

*******In hindsight, Columbus was wrong. He didn't land in India. Prevailing wisdom at the time was wrong. The earth is round. We can go beck to prophecy in the OT to see how it was fulfilled in ways that are difficult to do in real time******



I hold the book responsible for what it says. Not for what I'd like to believe it says.

*******Thats reasonable, but I submit that when context isn't considered, the meaning is easily misinterpreted.*******



But it isn't. There are many errors and contradictions throughout the bible. '

*******Or errors in interpretation.*****


I'd be happy if the entire thing never existed.

******You've made that clear, but it isn't the case.*****



Centuries? 1813? A lot longer than that.
***Sorry, I misspoke. I should have said millennia. This should serve as verification that I'm fallible.******


posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

Last edited by scottz0369; 02-05-2013 at 16:38..
scottz0369 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 16:33   #44
scottz0369
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Tomah, WI
Posts: 164
Wow, sorry about the quoting, I used the multi function on the mobile app, and this is not what I expected. Ill delete if possible.

Break
Couldn't delete, I added ***** before and after my comments.
posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

Last edited by scottz0369; 02-05-2013 at 16:42..
scottz0369 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 17:20   #45
juggy4711
Nimrod Son
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Galveston County, TX
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottz0369 View Post
... Much like us, it seems that they got out of the scripture what they wanted to get, not what it says...
Unless you speak and read Hebrew you don't have any idea what the OT actually states. They did and some still do. Christianity has some very positive points as far as religions go but that doesn't make it any less a highjacking of Judaism.
juggy4711 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 09:30   #46
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottz0369 View Post
******* How many then? Some? Most? 50%? *******
Hard to nail that one down. It would appear that a majority of Christians cherry pick what they'd like to believe since most believe homosexuality to be a sin and don't seem to care about the mixing of their garment materials. However most christians would rather eat hot coals than admit that they cherry pick. Including you as I'm willing to bet you wear multiple materials in one outfit and you have admitted to questioning God. The main point I am getting at is that a large number of Christians listen to about half of what's in the bible and say "It's ok... I'll just ask for forgiveness and it's all good." Yet many love to harp on sins that others are committing.


Quote:
*******If it's time to send out warnings, don't mistake me for someone who is intimidated by a post on the internet. Glad we cleared that up.
THAT is your reply to what I wrote? That's all you got? I wasn't issuing you a warning. I could care less if you misread Job or if you blatantly disregard God's warnings not to question him. My point is that you feel like you have this better understanding of scripture than the ancient people that wrote it because of the gift of hindsight through the NT. When really the NT is a corruption of the Israelites religion.

Quote:
Also, thanks for the tip re:questioning God. However, as a person who rejects the existence of God, you're unqualified to diciple me.********
LOL, I would tend to think I know more about the bible than some that would claim to be qualified. I used to be a Christian. I was consumed with studying the bible and wanted to learn as much as I possibly could about it. About its origins, the origins of the people that wrote it, their culture, their history, the state of affairs in the world at that time and the cultures that surrounded or influenced them. It never made sense to me as a child that we came from cave men (What I called our early ancestors when I was little) Yet the first of us could speak complex language and write and use tools and make garments. Even as a child the stories didn't work. So I was obsessed with reconciling them. The more I came to KNOW... the less I BELIEVED. The more I learned the more I began to realize that Christianity and Judaism are just as false as Islam and other archaic ancient mythologies. Keep studying but look PAST the bible. Don't study just to confirm what you believe... when you find out the story of Eden was just the Babylonian creation myth but twisted to serve the Israelites purpose, or that the Flood tale originated in Sumeria, Or that Abraham was a Mesopotamian madman, or that Deuteronomy WASN'T a part of the original Torah, maybe you'll begin to question the truth of some of the tales.

Quote:
*******In hindsight, Columbus was wrong. He didn't land in India. Prevailing wisdom at the time was wrong. The earth is round. We can go beck to prophecy in the OT to see how it was fulfilled in ways that are difficult to do in real time******
You can twist prophecy to make it fit with many things. Doesn't make it true. And if you're saying that hindsight allows you to understand the Israelites religion better than they... that's fairly arrogant. Especially when you follow the portion of the bible that corrupts that original religion.


Quote:
*******Thats reasonable, but I submit that when context isn't considered, the meaning is easily misinterpreted.*******
That's an excuse. please point out where I have ignored context.


Quote:
*******Or errors in interpretation.*****
Please... point out these errors. We can't wait to hear how your understanding of scripture is more clear than what the book actually says.
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 21:00   #47
Andy123
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NC and GA
Posts: 2,824
A question on the gospels and dating -

I have read that most people think that Mark is the oldest gospel. Others claims that Matthew may have written and earlier source that is lost, but that both Matthew and Mark used. however, it seems widely believed that Mark wrote two endings to his gospel, and the first ending, possibly the earliest ending of all, ended quite differently that the other gospels.

What would be a explanation, or possible explanation for this?
__________________
I can only hope, that in the end, the good outweighs the bad.

"At the end of the game, the king and the pawn are put in the same box."

"The camel dances, and having danced, moves on."
Andy123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 21:24   #48
Gills63
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 184
Theologists and linguists aside. I would have to believe that most casual students of the bible easily notice many contradictions. Of course if understanding the bible requires a learned scholar or clergyman to sort through these "rough" areas then God should have just left it in Latin. It was probably less confusing when somebody just told you what the bible said and what it meant.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
Gills63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 06:05   #49
Vic Hays
Senior Member
 
Vic Hays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: My home is in heaven
Posts: 10,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gills63 View Post
Theologists and linguists aside. I would have to believe that most casual students of the bible easily notice many contradictions. Of course if understanding the bible requires a learned scholar or clergyman to sort through these "rough" areas then God should have just left it in Latin. It was probably less confusing when somebody just told you what the bible said and what it meant.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
All of us develop a world view. When my world view was secular I failed at life. When I became a believer and studied the Bible as a message from God, I excelled. I realized that the foundation of wisdom and faith from the Bible gave me an advantage.

Psalms 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
__________________
Vic Hays

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Vic Hays is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 06:12   #50
Vic Hays
Senior Member
 
Vic Hays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: My home is in heaven
Posts: 10,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy123 View Post
A question on the gospels and dating -

I have read that most people think that Mark is the oldest gospel. Others claims that Matthew may have written and earlier source that is lost, but that both Matthew and Mark used. however, it seems widely believed that Mark wrote two endings to his gospel, and the first ending, possibly the earliest ending of all, ended quite differently that the other gospels.

What would be a explanation, or possible explanation for this?
The ending in the book of Mark is not present in the oldest manuscripts. It is therefore logical to assume that some pious monk or otherwise edited the book and added the ending. This is a rare occurrence. There are few of these. If a person takes a cue from the Bible and compares the parallel texts there is no problem determining what the message of the Bible is. One caution written in the Bible is to withhold judgment unless there are at least two or three witnesses.

Reading the Bible without the assistance of the Holy Spirit is futile anyway because spiritual things are spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
1 Corinthians 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

So in other words those who have read the Bible with the intent to deride it and God are not going to understand the spiritual message it contains.
__________________
Vic Hays

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Last edited by Vic Hays; 02-07-2013 at 06:21..
Vic Hays is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 20:43.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,535
474 Members
1,061 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42