Why Do Christians Worship Greed?

[DarkAngel_]

humans are innately greedy... but how much more does a disposition due to belief make one?

[WIP]

And you would be wrong again. I am not trying, or am I going to have a scripture verse shootout, especially with someone who ascribes completely wrong meanings to the verses. But I will correct you one more time because once again you are way off base.

Matthew 23:39 is in part a quote from the old testament, and the line you think is a code for end times is from psalms 118:26 and written by David the king.

And, once again that's according to the interpretation that you have been taught! There are many "liberal" biblical textual scholars who believe that: Matthew: 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

23:39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

was a redacted prophecy, written after the Romans destroyed the Temple, which would have been interpreted by the first century readers of this book that Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple and promised to return soon after.

Matthew 24:14 does not refer to the Romans sacking the temple. The temple was sacked more than once, and this is a quote (Jesus knew his scriptures) from Daniel 9:27 and is referring to the Anti-Christ ruling from a rebuilt temple.

Again, you're looking at it with the eyes of someone who already knows that the 2nd Coming couldn't have literally occurred in the !st Century! Paul said in Romans, that the Gospel had already been preached throughout the World (or the world he was aware of)

I didn't bother to respond to the rest because if you were so inaccurate on the first two, you are obviously not worthy of trust on the rest, but I've got some more time this morning, so then Mark 9:1. He was referring to either Pentecost (Acts) or his death and resurrection. The thing is, since he didn't directly say which, you can't simply infer meaning every single time to your pet theories. If it's not there, it's not there.

Luke 21:32 5 - 32 is where Jesus tells about the future, end times and his return. When you read the whole thing you easily see he was talking about a future generation, and when it sees the things he describes, they will not pass away until all is fulfilled. If you just grab one verse at the end, however, you won't have an accurate idea of what he is saying.

Even though those verses are asking for patience and not jumping to conclusions, he is addressing the people who are gathered, to watch for the SIGNS of his coming. He doesn't say 'don't worry about it now, but your descendents should know the signs of my return" -- no, he's telling them this message!

But, if you want to explain it away and say that he was referring to some future generation, why didn't you tackle Mark 9:1? Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

That one sounds pretty clear that he would be back before the disciples of that era had all died! When I read that verse years ago, when I was about 14 or 15, it started me on my exit strategy from the Jehovah's Witnesses religion my family belonged to. I couldn't get a plausible answer for that, and other verses that sounded like the end times had already occurred, so I came to the conclusion that either they were false prophecies, or they had already occurred, including those that are re-interpreted along the lines of personal resurrection by the Catholic Church and mainline Protestant churches. But every generation has had prophecy fanatics looking for signs to climb up on their rooftops to await the 2nd Coming.

Just a thought, but it's time you dragged yourself into the 20th century, stop using the old King James version, try something more modern. But your Evilbible friend don't know what they are talking about.

And why not learn Ancient Greek and Aramaic, like the Biblical testual scholars do? As far as English language Bibles go, the King James is more honest than most modern translations that have been reinterpreted to suit the goals of the organization that made them. A good example was a while back in an abortion thread where I quoted Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

as evidence that injury causing a pregnant woman to have a miscarriage, was proof that the fetus was not granted a right to life, since that would have carried a death penalty for the offender during that time, rather than a fine for causing injury -- while you pulled out some bullshit modern translation of the verse that retranslated the original meaning to "injurying her unborn child." Aside from playing games with meaning and interpretation, the other reason for sticking with the K.J. is that it is not under copyright like modern translations, so it can be freely used for quotes.

By the way, what possessed you to introduce endtimes bible prophecy in a thread on christians and greed, can you not start a thread on the appropriate topic rather than keep hi-jacking threads?

I believe it started when I was trying to draw the distinctions between how wealth and those who have acquired wealth were historically viewed by the Church (pretty much only good if they donated substantial portions to the church) and the way they are viewed by modern, evangelical churches that follow Dispensational interpretation of Biblical history, emphasize free will over predestination, and therefore view wealth as blessings from God for their individual efforts. These churches are also big on end time prophecy and created the modern interpretation of the Rapture -- and I think it was somewhere around this point where you got offended and decided to jump in.

[sharkman]

Okay. I'm not going to continue. I see several errors, but you have a right to believe anything you want, although I still take issue with spreading all these incorrect theories.

However, I grew curious enough about your reference to the miscarriage verse, so I looked it up in King James, New King James, and NIV. To me, without reading the original tongue it was written in, the KJ doesn't specify whether the fruit that leaves her body survives or not. It also doesn't define what the mischief is that does or does not follow. You have to make an assumption that the fruit leaving her womb means either miscarriage OR premature birth. Same with the mischief that follows, you have to assume it refers to death of the baby or death of the mother.

Why did you assume it means a miscarriage with not harm to the mother?

Edit: Wait, that's right, you've been using the 'wisdom' of those folks at evilbible to do your thinking for you, never mind.

I wonder why you are quite content to not believe the bible, yet find one version more 'honest' than the other BS versions.

Edited June 2, 2009 by sharkman

[DarkAngel_]

Okay. I'm not going to continue. I see several errors, but you have a right to believe anything you want, although I still take issue with spreading all these incorrect theories.

I wonder why you are quite content to not believe the bible, yet find one version more 'honest' than the other BS versions.

bold, but not progressive.... still dogging the B-book is kinda insulting, our race is not ready yet. not everyone at least

as Nietzsche said, 'man is something to be overcome.'

Edited June 2, 2009 by DarkAngel_

[DarkAngel_]

It's not likely that they believed they were in the end times - it appeared to me that they were in the begining times - people do not realize that Christ was not some mystic - or high priest - that he was the righful heir to the Judean thrown and he needed money - his followers were royalist..who wanted to re-instate the David family line - Rome would not tolerate that - nor woule the johnny come lately interlopers that wanted to have power over the former royal lands that Christ had a legal right to prior Roman occupation - and prior to the over throw of Judean aristocracy...............................This biblical story has been twisted into some mythical smoke and mirrors tale..the one we accept today that has nothing to do with what really happened.

man was involved with god politics? is that why we are so bad at it??

i don't think we are involved in gods... but as the rhyme goes;

'when we die where do we go? not for me to know.'

i don't need to know.

[WIP]

To me, without reading the original tongue it was written in, the KJ doesn't specify whether the fruit that leaves her body survives or not.

Are you saying that you believe that a fetus could survive premature birth under such circumstances? Remember, this was written almost 3000 years ago! It's not like they could have rushed her off to the emergency room.

It also doesn't define what the mischief is that does or does not follow.

Since that "mischief" is followed by a call for the death penalty, I think we can safely assume that "mischief" means unintended death. But death of whom? The mother or the unborn child? Fundamentalists who believe human life starts at conception, try to interpret the verse as referring to the fetus: if the fetus survives, a fine is payed, but if it dies, the death penalty is in order.

Two problems here -- again, what is the likelihood that any fetus is going to survive premature birth due to injury; and that interpretation would make the mother completely irrelevant! Her injury, or possible death from internal bleeding, are more likely the point of reference, rather than the fetus.

21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

21:25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

You have to make an assumption that the fruit leaving her womb means either miscarriage OR premature birth.

Premature birth by itself, would have carried high odds of mortality during this era, and add to that the fact that it is caused by severe physical trauma, and it becomes far more likely that the author of the law would have been expecting miscarriage under these circumstances.

Same with the mischief that follows, you have to assume it refers to death of the baby or death of the mother.

I know women were given little value during this time, but shouldn't we assume that if there is only one reference to death, it would be the woman's, and not the fetus? Otherwise it would be a ludicrous situation if the fetus survived, while the mother died of internal hemorrhaging, and the penalty for the crime was paying a fine to the husband.

Why did you assume it means a miscarriage with not harm to the mother?

No such assumption is made! Verses 24 and 25 repeat the "eye for an eye" principle of biblical justice, which should indicate that the exact penalty would depend on the extent of injury to the pregnant woman.

I wonder why you are quite content to not believe the bible, yet find one version more 'honest' than the other BS versions.

The KJV is more honest than many modern translations, in the sense that it was not given the cosmetic treatment that many newer translations have had, where they have deliberately chosen words to alter meaning, and smooth over apparent contradictions -- which is one of the reasons why the NIV is so popular for apologetics.

As for source accuracy: in "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman, he points out (around p.209, 210) that recently discovered older Greek manuscripts, were unavailable when the King James was written -- so these new, modern translations have access to better source material. Their failings, besides making deliberate cosmetic changes, emanate from beginning with predetermined agendas to favour certain theological interpretations. For example the purpose behind producing the NIV was because many Evangelicals felt that the Revised Standard Edition downplayed the Virgin Birth. Both are likely guilty of beginning their projects with built-in agendas.

[sharkman]

This is interesting, I once knew a fellow who had a dim view of the NIV because he said there was a gay person on the council of the governing body that oversaw the new translation, and he also had several examples like this where some license seemed to have been taken. I thought it was a big deal over nothing, but now I'd like to take another look.

I still say that you are reading into the verse more meaning than exists. If the fetus was 8 months old, it could have survived even back then, and a man's seed, lineage, or offspring was valued quite highly back then, much more so than now. But since the scripture doesn't identify only one or the other, why can't it be both?

At any rate, I've got a New King James version that was my bible of choice when I became of age as a Christian. Bought a big ol' NIV in '97, but maybe I should go back to the tried and true. I'd like to dig up some more on this.

Edited June 3, 2009 by sharkman

[WIP]

This is interesting, I once knew a fellow who had a dim view of the NIV because he said there was a gay person on the council of the governing body that oversaw the new translation, and he also had several examples like this where some license seemed to have been taken. I thought it was a big deal over nothing, but now I'd like to take another look.

That sounds like a pretty frivolous reason for rejecting a Bible translation, especially considering how many closeted homosexuals toil away within every religious establishment. And it's a surprising conclusion, considering that the motivation for creating the NIV was a fear that the Revised Standard Edition had adopted modern liberal interpretations.

I still say that you are reading into the verse more meaning than exists. If the fetus was 8 months old, it could have survived even back then,

I would agree if the premature birth was due to sudden illness or other natural causes, but I'd like to find an unbiased opinion from a medical expert, for the odds of a baby surviving birth-by-physical-trauma at a time when no real medical assistance was available, before I can accept the writer would have also made that assumption.

and a man's seed, lineage, or offspring was valued quite highly back then, much more so than now. But since the scripture doesn't identify only one or the other, why can't it be both?

And there certainly is a long history of women having less value than the baby they were carrying. The best example is the caesarean sections that were performed -- which almost always resulted in the mother's death, until very modern times. I was shocked the last time there was an abortion thread going on - to discover that the Catholic Church-created laws in several European nations ordered the attending physician who had a choice of either performing a caesarean to save the baby, or removing the fetus with his forceps and saving the mother's life - was under strict orders to perform the caesarean, thereby choosing the life of the infant over the mother! Clear evidence that until the modern age, women were not of much higher regard than breeding stock under the legal codes of the day.

But, "why can't it be both!" Why wouldn't the verse mention both? Since it cannot be assumed that both mother and child would suffer the same fate as a result of the injury. There is no mention of more than one injured party, so the likely conclusion is that the writer didn't regard the fetus as having reached the stage where it should be awarded protection under the law.

But, enough of this passage in Exodus; the Book of Numbers (beginning in ch.5 v.11 describes a "trial by ordeal" proscribed for a woman who is suspected by her husband, or another male family member, of becoming impregnated by unlawful intercourse. The Temple Priest makes the woman drink a rancid blend, which more than likely led to a guilty verdict. Picking up the story at:5:27 And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.

What does the writer mean by: her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot?" Some modern translations interpret that last part as "her uterus shall drop," which sounds likely since this trial by ordeal is trying to determine whether she has been impregnated by her husband or another man. If the intent of the potion was to cause her belly to swell and make her sick, it's easy to see how this would act as an abortifacient, since many women over the ages have injested poisons to induce a miscarriage. It doesn't sound like this trial is considering that an "unborn child" may be killed by the procedure!

At any rate, I've got a New King James version that was my bible of choice when I became of age as a Christian. Bought a big ol' NIV in '97, but maybe I should go back to the tried and true. I'd like to dig up some more on this.

When it comes to the Hebrew Old Testament, the most authoritative version should be the Greek Septuagint, since it was written between the 3rd and 1st Centuries B.C. For an English online translation: http://ecmarsh.com/lxx/index.htm

Biblical scholars have determined that the Septuagint was in common use during the 1st Century, and was quoted from by New Testament authors. Biblical literalists may not appreciate the fact that the Septuagint included many books that were later declared to be unscriptural.