Which makes me wonder. How do you type with hooves?I'm pretty sure my account was hacked or something...You were wrong once in 2006. Do you need to see the evidence again?Pfft. Humans.
We are all wrong sometimes.
He went to the Strong Bad school of typing.
He went to the Strong Bad school of typing.
That explains the snark.
Which makes me wonder. How do you type with hooves?
Prehensile lips. Or another appendage.
I apologize for digging up a three day old post, but I have been mulling this over.
All that being said, there are some things that aren't too difficult for the average layperson to figure out with the Bible.
Why would god allow such a 'barrier' to entry? It is a rhetorical question. I do not expect you to have an answer and I bet, to you, it is irrelevant. For me, it is like the things you find unbelievable in other faiths.
Also, your point about context…if Jesus is speaking to very specific groups, then does it really apply to me? I am not Jewish nor do I feel compelled to obey Jewish law except where it aligns with my own moral compass.
If I need someone to translate meaning, that makes me very suspicious.
Correct me if I am wrong, your point seems to be that I should 'dig deeper'. I realize you are not trying to convert me. Only that, if I wish to understand, I should do my own research. However, I can not help but feel I already understand it perfectly well. The Bible was not divinely inspired, but written by men and therefore demonstrates the author's flaws. The more I dig, the more I am convinced of this. Why would I want to dig any deeper, except out of curiosity.
Again, I know you are not trying to convince me, Moff. I fully realize it makes little different to you whether I believe or not or even if I accept that you believe. I guess what I am saying is that 'dig deeper' is not much of an argument. It is like asking me to accept a theory which fails for every test I perform over a theory which passes every test I perform.
Again, I thank you for your patience in engaging me. I know I am trying.
[yoda] Do or do not, there is no Try[/yoda]
I pride myself on not making promises to my daughter I can not keep.
|
Hyraxes... from my understanding the Greek and western translators didn't know what hyraxes were. They look an awful lot like rabbits and chew their cud.Then you've failed the infallibility test again, by allowing God to allow the authors to make that mistake. Either the non-allegorical parts of the Bible are correct in a straightforward reading (as Orthos seems to prefer), or they're not.
Hyrax mistranslation is apparently in most english translations of the bible, not in the original text. Scroll down to historical accounts to see.
I have a sneaking suspicious that we talked about this pages and pages ago too, but can't find it yet.
|
|
Hyraxes... from my understanding the Greek and western translators didn't know what hyraxes were. They look an awful lot like rabbits and chew their cud.Then you've failed the infallibility test again, by allowing God to allow the authors to make that mistake. Either the non-allegorical parts of the Bible are correct in a straightforward reading (as Orthos seems to prefer), or they're not.Hyrax mistranslation is apparently in most english translations of the bible, not in the original text. Scroll down to historical accounts to see.
I have a sneaking suspicious that we talked about this pages and pages ago too, but can't find it yet.
Studpuffin,
But God still allowed the translators to make the mistake, which is what I think Kirth's point was. Either way, the KJV version is not infallible.|
|
Hyraxes... from my understanding the Greek and western translators didn't know what hyraxes were. They look an awful lot like rabbits and chew their cud.Then you've failed the infallibility test again, by allowing God to allow the authors to make that mistake. Either the non-allegorical parts of the Bible are correct in a straightforward reading (as Orthos seems to prefer), or they're not.Hyrax mistranslation is apparently in most english translations of the bible, not in the original text. Scroll down to historical accounts to see.
I have a sneaking suspicious that we talked about this pages and pages ago too, but can't find it yet.
Studpuffin,
But God still allowed the translators to make the mistake, which is what I think Kirth's point was. Either way, the KJV version is not infallible.
Is a translation the work of God? This why the Quran is only official when it's in the Arabic.
Is a translation the work of God?
All the more reason to get the message from the big guy himself.
|
Hyraxes... from my understanding the Greek and western translators didn't know what hyraxes were. They look an awful lot like rabbits and chew their cud.Then you've failed the infallibility test again, by allowing God to allow the authors to make that mistake. Either the non-allegorical parts of the Bible are correct in a straightforward reading (as Orthos seems to prefer), or they're not.Hyrax mistranslation is apparently in most english translations of the bible, not in the original text. Scroll down to historical accounts to see.
I have a sneaking suspicious that we talked about this pages and pages ago too, but can't find it yet.
Studpuffin,
But God still allowed the translators to make the mistake, which is what I think Kirth's point was. Either way, the KJV version is not infallible.
We had this discussion way way way back. In fact William Shakespeare managed to get his name in the KJV.
|
|
Is a translation the work of God?All the more reason to get the message from the big guy himself.
Funny joke about that.
There was an old man sitting on his porch watching the rain fall. Pretty soon the water was coming over the porch and into the house.
The old man was still sitting there when a rescue boat came and the people on board said, "You can't stay here you have to come with us."
The old man replied, "No, God will save me." So the boat left. A little while later the water was up to the second floor, and another rescue boat came, and again told the old man he had to come with them.
The old man again replied, "God will save me." So the boat left him again.
An hour later the water was up to the roof and a third rescue boat approached the old man, and tried to get him to come with them.
Again the old man refused to leave stating that, "God will save him." So the boat left him again.
Soon after, the man drowns and goes to heaven, and when he sees God he asks him, "Why didn't you save me?"
God replied, "You dummy! I tried. I sent three boats after you!"
Did god over-ride the rescuers' free will to send them? :)
Funny joke about that.
I always liked that one, but of course I took it to mean that God expects you to think a bit and help yourself, not just blindly pray.
Hyraxes... from my understanding the Greek and western translators didn't know what hyraxes were. They look an awful lot like rabbits and chew their cud.Then you've failed the infallibility test again, by allowing God to allow the authors to make that mistake. Either the non-allegorical parts of the Bible are correct in a straightforward reading (as Orthos seems to prefer), or they're not.Hyrax mistranslation is apparently in most english translations of the bible, not in the original text. Scroll down to historical accounts to see.
I have a sneaking suspicious that we talked about this pages and pages ago too, but can't find it yet.
Studpuffin,
But God still allowed the translators to make the mistake, which is what I think Kirth's point was. Either way, the KJV version is not infallible.
And anyone who claims it is needs to be knocked (not too roughly) over the head with a 2x4. Or just Gibbs Slapped. :)
This is why I use three different translations (KJV, NKJV, and NASV) on a regular basis and occasionally drift over to some others (Young's Literal, NIV and some others on a rare basis). Owning Vine's Concordance -really- helps too: sadly I do not, yet.
There are not a lot of fumbles in the English translation of the KJV, but there are still some.
|
|
My take on translations and fallibility:
It's not so much that the translators got it wrong, but the god of the bible is purported to be omniscient. If that were the case he would have forseen the translation errors and used another medium.
Another point (although I might have my mythology mixed up here), the tower of babel. If god mixed up all the languages after destroying the tower, isn't it his fault all of the translation errors are out and about? Shouldn't god have forseen the repercussions of his actions and made corrections then?
|
|
My take on translations and fallibility:
It's not so much that the translators got it wrong, but the god of the bible is purported to be omniscient. If that were the case he would have forseen the translation errors and used another medium.
Another point (although I might have my mythology mixed up here), the tower of babel. If god mixed up all the languages after destroying the tower, isn't it his fault all of the translation errors are out and about? Shouldn't god have forseen the repercussions of his actions and made corrections then?
I almost brought up Babel too. Perhaps the mistakes are there for a reason, then.
Did god over-ride the rescuers' free will to send them? :)
You ever go out of your way to help a person, and they thank god for sending you, and not you for helping them? I hate that.
|
|
I almost brought up Babel too. Perhaps the mistakes are there for a reason, then.My take on translations and fallibility:
It's not so much that the translators got it wrong, but the god of the bible is purported to be omniscient. If that were the case he would have forseen the translation errors and used another medium.
Another point (although I might have my mythology mixed up here), the tower of babel. If god mixed up all the languages after destroying the tower, isn't it his fault all of the translation errors are out and about? Shouldn't god have forseen the repercussions of his actions and made corrections then?
For what purpose? All it does is cause confusion and animosity.
|
|
For what purpose? All it does is cause confusion and animosity.I almost brought up Babel too. Perhaps the mistakes are there for a reason, then.My take on translations and fallibility:
It's not so much that the translators got it wrong, but the god of the bible is purported to be omniscient. If that were the case he would have forseen the translation errors and used another medium.
Another point (although I might have my mythology mixed up here), the tower of babel. If god mixed up all the languages after destroying the tower, isn't it his fault all of the translation errors are out and about? Shouldn't god have forseen the repercussions of his actions and made corrections then?
Maybe God does work in mysterious ways. :P
1) Maybe to seperate the "chosen people" from the others easily. Their language helps set them apart as well as cultural and religious identity.
2) Maybe the animosity is there to "temper" the chosen people. They'll become foreign if they choose a different God or culture along with another's language.
I bet there are more reasons. Seems like a story to me.
|
|
My take on translations and fallibility:
It's not so much that the translators got it wrong, but the god of the bible is purported to be omniscient. If that were the case he would have forseen the translation errors and used another medium.
Another point (although I might have my mythology mixed up here), the tower of babel. If god mixed up all the languages after destroying the tower, isn't it his fault all of the translation errors are out and about? Shouldn't god have foreseen the repercussions of his actions and made corrections then?
Or God chooses to play dice with the universe and therefor allow freewill.
|
|
Or God chooses to play dice with the universe and therefor allow freewill.My take on translations and fallibility:
It's not so much that the translators got it wrong, but the god of the bible is purported to be omniscient. If that were the case he would have forseen the translation errors and used another medium.
Another point (although I might have my mythology mixed up here), the tower of babel. If god mixed up all the languages after destroying the tower, isn't it his fault all of the translation errors are out and about? Shouldn't god have foreseen the repercussions of his actions and made corrections then?
I still maintain that, if genesis is true, god was not the one who granted free will. I believe that, without knowledge there is no free will...and who facilitated humans gaining knowledge?
I believe that, without knowledge there is no free will...and who facilitated humans gaining knowledge?
It's hard to make an informed decision if you have no idea what you might be getting into, because that information has been intentionally witheld (in what always reminds me of a "Lady or the Tiger" situation). And free will ain't worth much if the game is rigged to prevent you from ever knowing what it is you're choosing between.
I still maintain that, if genesis is true, god was not the one who granted free will.
How do you figure? He told them what he wanted, but he didn't force them to obey. They still had the choice. They just didn't choose to disobey until the snake sweet-talked Eve into trying.
|
|
I still maintain that, if genesis is true, god was not the one who granted free will.How do you figure? He told them what he wanted, but he didn't force them to obey. They still had the choice. They just didn't choose to disobey until the snake sweet-talked Eve into trying.
What I'm saying (and I feel like I've said this upthread), is that without the knowledge of right vs. wrong, they wouldn't know it was right to follow god and wrong to follow the serpeant.
How do you figure? He told them what he wanted, but he didn't force them to obey. They still had the choice.
Well, he says, "Obey this rule! I'm not going to tell you why I want you to, or why you should... nor what will happen if you don't. In fact, I'm going to endow you with no capacity to tell right from wrong, so you can't even use that facility in deciding. And I'm going to pretend like I don't really care one way or the other." That's a pretty lousy choice, in my estimation. So they take a bite -- because, remember, they have no knowledge of good and evil at all, and they've got this snake telling them it's OK all the time, and God never contradicts the snake or reminds them or anything. As soon as they take a bite, they realize that it's wrong to take a bite (classic Catch-22), but it's too late then -- God curses them and their descendants for all eternity.
This might be my hubris talking; that's been suggested to me before. Still, I tend to feel that I'm using the gift of reason -- the one He supposedly gave me -- to analyze the situation as He supposedly had it written. And the only way it makes sense is that He is cruel, spiteful, petty, and vindictive. If that's wrong, then maybe the real message here is that any moral sense we have, whether inborn or learned from experience and observation, is automatically wrong -- the apple didn't take, if you will -- and that blindly obeying a text is the only solution. Which again doesn't say a whole lot for this supposed "free will."
Then again, I could view the whole thing as an allegory, along the lines of "be careful what you wish for," or "don't look a gift horse in the mouth." That way I can glean helpful suggestions from it, without being forced into the conclusions I outlined above.
|
|
I still maintain that, if genesis is true, god was not the one who granted free will. I believe that, without knowledge there is no free will...and who facilitated humans gaining knowledge?Or God chooses to play dice with the universe and therefor allow freewill.My take on translations and fallibility:
It's not so much that the translators got it wrong, but the god of the bible is purported to be omniscient. If that were the case he would have forseen the translation errors and used another medium.
Another point (although I might have my mythology mixed up here), the tower of babel. If god mixed up all the languages after destroying the tower, isn't it his fault all of the translation errors are out and about? Shouldn't god have foreseen the repercussions of his actions and made corrections then?
Ah so you are Gnostic then?
For what purpose? All it does is cause confusion and animosity.
I almost brought up Babel too. Perhaps the mistakes are there for a reason, then.
The text implies that purpose.
Pelegian heresy for me.Ah so you are Gnostic then?I still fall firmly in the atheist camp. I suppose if I had a prediliction (sp?) for belief in the supernatural, I would probably be gnostic.
Personally, I'm considering joining the First Hedonistic Church of Courtfool.
Personally, I'm considering joining the First Hedonistic Church of Courtfool.Pelegian heresy for me.Ah so you are Gnostic then?I still fall firmly in the atheist camp. I suppose if I had a prediliction (sp?) for belief in the supernatural, I would probably be gnostic.
They just walk all over me... or worse!
Personally, I'm considering joining the First Hedonistic Church of Courtfool.
We will definitely have cookies.
We will definitely have cookies.
If you take a bite of a cookie, does the Great Poodle curse you for all eternity? Or poop on you? Or hump your leg? Or maybe just lick your hand? Or does the Great Poodle withold this knowledge until after you eat the cookie?
We will definitely have cookies.If you take a bite of a cookie, does the Great Poodle curse you for all eternity? Or poop on you? Or hump your leg? Or maybe just lick your hand? Or does the Great Poodle withold this knowledge until after you eat the cookie?
I didn't get a cookie and that all still happens to me!
I didn't get a cookie and that all still happens to me!
You must be one of those Church of Milton people: "Last time I did not receive a piece of cake and I was specifically told that this time I would receive one..."
I didn't get a cookie and that all still happens to me!You must be one of those Church of Milton people: "Last time I did not receive a piece of cake and I was specifically told that this time I would receive one..."
I didn't think that when I was told "The Meek shall inherit the Earth" it meant that I'd get my face rubbed in it first.
The Great Poodle does not claim omnipotence or omniscience. I think I had a list of commandments around here somewhere. It needs updating. The Great Poodle says 'Share your cookie with others so that we may all enjoy its cookiness.'
The Great Poodle says 'Share your cookie with others so that we may all enjoy its cookiness.'
Does the Great Poodle give me a million dollars when I leave town?
The Great Poodle says 'Share your cookie with others so that we may all enjoy its cookiness.'Does the Great Poodle give me a million dollars when I leave town?
Um, no. But he does not kick the (censored) out of you either.
Something to think upon
What? No outrage that he referred to Christianity as a cult? :)
|
Regarding dipctions of the Prophet Mohammed: if it is disallowed to draw a picture of the Prophet, how does anyone know what he looked like? If the intent is to discourage idolatry, to discourage the incidental worship of the Prophet, then how does a drawing of a writing desk labeled "the Prophet" cause such ire--no serious person of religion would idolize a writing desk...
|
|
Regarding depictions of the Prophet Mohammed: if it is disallowed to draw a picture of the Prophet, how does anyone know what he looked like? And how could my drawing give you anger?--it's my word against yours that I've even drawn a correct portrait.
If the intent is to discourage idolatry, to discourage the incidental worship of the Prophet, then how does a drawing of a writing desk labeled "the Prophet" cause such ire--no serious person of religion would idolize a writing desk...
|
|
Something to think uponWhat? No outrage that he referred to Christianity as a cult? :)
I think Crimson Jester is too used to this thread so such blasphemies don't provoke outrage anymore. ;-)