Questions, Misconceptions, Objections,..etc,

[Smallc]

Which was not allowed. Stoning to death was a man-made law.

No, of course not....it's all over his book, but, hey, he didn't endorse it.

A misconception that anti-religion people love to use! Homosexuals are not hated by God.

No, he just hated what they were doing...for some reason. He told us we should do the same....for some reason.

Yep. Because of all the restrictions, yes? It's a party pooper.

I place far more restrictions on myself.

[Smallc]

I got one!

God says 'Thou shalt not kill' while God would wipe out a village because some are non-believers.

Oooh....oooh....how about when he wiped out the entire population of the planet? What a loving father....

[betsy]

So far it has been. Once it has been moved to its rightful place in churches and homes rather than in government, then we will see if its influence can be tempered.

And you complain that we brainwash our children at home! Militant atheists would love to have a law that prohibits any parents from introducing any children to religion until he's of a certain age.

Schools usurp parental authority by playing "parent" in imposing its own secularist values on our children!

But as long as God is telling people like GW Bush to make war, or the Taliban to blow people up, the world is going to have problems with religious people/groups going on killing sprees.

How do you know God is telling these people to make war? Or blow people up? You seem to have some kind of privileged "insider's information"....

[Black Dog]

Oh as to the "stretching" thing: seeing as how they were a bunch of primitive dirt-scrabblers, the people who wrote the early Bible didn't have a sophisticated view of the universe. They thought the sky was a giant piece of cloth-like material called the "firmament" which covered the earth like a dome and from which stars were affixed. So, when these translated passages talk about god "stretching" the heavens, they mean he's spreading it out like a blanket over the earth: they sure as hell aren't talking about the movement of matter and atoms across space.

[betsy]

The Bible was written in, like, Aramaic. So yeah, they wouldn't have used the word "stretching."

Translation is the same. Anyway, that's just your opinion, it's not worth anything Cite.

Edited September 5, 2012 by betsy

[The_Squid]

The Bible was written in, like, Aramaic. So yeah, they wouldn't have used the word "stretching."

You mean god didn't speak English??? LOL

This brings up an interesting point. The most widely used bible in North America is certainly the King James version. And good ol' King James had his own bible translated because he did not like all the anti-monarchist writings in the version that was in use in the early 1600's. It was translated to be more "King friendly"! Which is hardly the word of God, is it?

The result was that England had two competing versions of the Holy Scriptures. The Geneva Bible, published in 1560 by a small team of Scots and English Calvinists in Geneva, drew on the pioneering translation by William Tyndale, martyred for his heresy in 1536. It was loved by Puritans but was anti-royal in its many marginal notes, repeatedly suggesting that whenever a king dared to rule, he was behaving like a tyrant. King James loved the Geneva for its scholarship but hated its anti-royal tone.

----------------

This was the divided inheritance King James wanted to mend, and a new Bible would do it. Ground rules were established by 1604: no contentious notes in the margins; no language inaccessible to common people; a true and accurate text, driven by an unforgivingly exacting level of scholarship. To bring this about, the King gathered an enormous translation committee: some 54 scholars, divided into all shades of opinion, from Puritan to the highest of High Churchmen. Six subcommittees were then each asked to translate a different section of the Bible.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/12/king-james-bible/nicolson-text

So this was the context in which the "new" bible would be translated.... there is inherent bias built in to it....

Calling the bible the word of god after so many centuries of so many translations is ummmm.... a stretch!

Edited September 5, 2012 by The_Squid

[Black Dog]

Translation is the same.

You don't know what "translation" means do you?

Anyway, that's just your opinion, it's not worth anything Cite.

So the Bible wasn't written in a language other than English?

[The_Squid]

And you complain that we brainwash our children at home! Militant atheists would love to have a law that prohibits any parents from introducing any children to religion until he's of a certain age.

Schools usurp parental authority by playing "parent" in imposing its own secularist values on our children!

You have no clue what atheists would like. Keep your faith in your own hmes and churches and everyone will be the better for it.

How do you know God is telling these people to make war? Or blow people up? You seem to have some kind of privileged "insider's information"....

They say so of course....

You don't believe them? Prove to me that He isn't telling them what to do....

[betsy]

They say so of course....

Well anyone can claim just about anything.....but does that mean they're true? You believe them?

Do you believe everything someone tells you?

[blueblood]

Oooh....oooh....how about when he wiped out the entire population of the planet? What a loving father....

My point stands...

[cybercoma]

They were still atheist, now your making excuses.

They also had moustaches. Why not blame it on that?

[Smallc]

My point stands...

How does your point stand? The Bible, the story of God...doesn't make logical sense when you examine what God is supposed to be, and what he is supposed to have done anyway.

[blueblood]

They also had moustaches. Why not blame it on that?

Because we have atheists in this thread acting " holier an thou" nothing wrong with a reality check.

[cybercoma]

My point is that atheists have their hands just as dirty as religious people.

Of course they do, but the point you're missing is that they have their hands dirty despite their atheism not because of it.

[blueblood]

How does your point stand? The Bible, the story of God...doesn't make logical sense when you examine what God is supposed to be, and what he is supposed to have done anyway.

My original point that we have atheists brow beating religious people because they believe in something, yet get in a tizzy when a religious person has an opinion. Are atheists and religious people that insecure that they need to resort to brow beating nonsense?

My question is does it matter if it makes logical sense? Why do atheists feel the need to spread their version of the truth (according to christians) yet cry bloody murder because there are religious people in government.

As far as I'm concerned both atheists and religious people are hypocrites.

Edited September 5, 2012 by blueblood

[cybercoma]

You know the Bible originally didn't use the word "stretching" right?

Cite.

http://images.retecool.com/uploads/globalriot-jesus-facepalm.jpg

[The_Squid]

Well anyone can claim just about anything.....but does that mean they're true? You believe them?

Do you believe everything someone tells you?

LOL the irony!!

You keep claiming that we can't prove He doesn't exist....

Prove to me that God did not tell GW Bush to invade Iraq.

[betsy]

You mean god didn't speak English??? LOL

This brings up an interesting point. The most widely used bible in North America is certainly the King James version. And good ol' King James had his own bible translated because he did not like all the anti-monarchist writings in the version that was in use in the early 1600's. It was translated to be more "King friendly"! Which is hardly the word of God, is it?

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/12/king-james-bible/nicolson-text

So this was the context in which the "new" bible would be translated.... there is inherent bias built in to it....

Calling the bible the word of god after so many centuries of so many translations is ummmm.... a stretch!

Well, here's the whole segment on that part of your cite.

In the course of the 16th century, England had undergone something of a yo-yo Reformation, veering from one reign to the next between Protestant and anti-Protestant regimes, never quite settling into either camp. The result was that England had two competing versions of the Holy Scriptures. The Geneva Bible, published in 1560 by a small team of Scots and English Calvinists in Geneva, drew on the pioneering translation by William Tyndale, martyred for his heresy in 1536. It was loved by Puritans but was anti-royal in its many marginal notes, repeatedly suggesting that whenever a king dared to rule, he was behaving like a tyrant. King James loved the Geneva for its scholarship but hated its anti-royal tone. Set against it, the Elizabethan church had produced the Bishops' Bible, rather quickly translated by a dozen or so bishops in 1568, with a large image of the Queen herself on the title page. There was no doubt that this Bible was pro-royal. The problem was that no one used it. Geneva's grounded form of language ("Cast thy bread upon the waters") was abandoned by the bishops in favor of obscure pomposity: They translated that phrase as "Lay thy bread upon wette faces." Surviving copies of the Geneva Bible are often greasy with use. Pages of the Bishops' Bible are usually as pristine as on the day they were printed.

This was the divided inheritance King James wanted to mend, and a new Bible would do it. Ground rules were established by 1604: no contentious notes in the margins; no language inaccessible to common people; a true and accurate text, driven by an unforgivingly exacting level of scholarship. To bring this about, the King gathered an enormous translation committee: some 54 scholars, divided into all shades of opinion, from Puritan to the highest of High Churchmen. Six subcommittees were then each asked to translate a different section of the Bible.

This was a world in which there was no gap between politics and religion. A translation of the Bible that could be true to the original Scriptures, be accessible to the people, and embody the kingliness of God would be the most effective political tool anyone in 17th-century England could imagine. "We desire that the Scripture may speake like it selfe," the translators wrote in the preface to the 1611 Bible, "that it may bee understood even of the very vulgar." The qualities that allow a Brother Rome Wager to connect with his cowboy listeners—a sense of truth, a penetrating intimacy, and an overarching greatness—were exactly what King James's translators had in mind.

They went about their work in a precise and orderly way. Each member of the six subcommittees, on his own, translated an entire section of the Bible. He then brought that translation to a meeting of his subcommittee, where the different versions produced by each translator were compared and one was settled on. That version was then submitted to a general revising committee for the whole Bible, which met in Stationers' Hall in London. Here the revising scholars had the suggested versions read aloud—no text visible—while holding on their laps copies of previous translations in English and other languages. The ear and the mind were the only editorial tools. They wanted the Bible to sound right. If it didn't at first hearing, a spirited editorial discussion—extraordinarily, mostly in Latin and partly in Greek—followed. A revising committee presented a final version to two bishops, then to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and then, notionally at least, to the King.

The King James Bible was a book created by the world in which it was made. This sense of connection is no more strikingly felt than in a set of rooms right in the heart of London. Inside Westminster Abbey, England's great royal church, the gray-suited, bespectacled Very Reverend Dr. John Hall, dean of Westminster, can be found in the quiet paneled and carpeted offices of the deanery. Here his 17th-century predecessor as dean, Lancelot Andrewes, presided over the subcommittee that translated the first five books of the Old Testament. Here, in these very rooms, the opening sentence "In the beginning God created the heaven, and the earth" was heard for the first time.

[blueblood]

Of course they do, but the point you're missing is that they have their hands dirty despite their atheism not because of it.

Yet they seemed quite happy to murder religious people and drive religion underground. Had it been despite atheism, wouldn't they not have driven religion underground and just killed people at random?

[The_Squid]

My original point that we have atheists brow beating religious people because they believe in something, yet get in a tizzy when a religious person has an opinion. Are atheists and religious people that insecure that they need to resort to brow beating nonsense?

My question is does it matter if it makes logical sense? Why do atheists feel the need to spread their version of the truth (according to christians) yet cry bloody murder because there are religious people in government.

As far as I'm concerned both atheists and religious people are hypocrites.

As long as we have people making crazy claims of 6000 year old earths and dinosaurs that walked among people, then we are going to have some intellectual beat-downs!

I saw the tooth fairy yesterday. She gave me a quarter. This is true and you can't prove that it is not.

[Smallc]

My original point that we have atheists brow beating religious people because they believe in something, yet get in a tizzy when a religious person has an opinion. Are atheists and religious people that insecure that they need to resort to brow beating nonsense?

The nonsense is only coming from one side.

My question is does it matter if it makes logical sense? Why do atheists feel the need to spread their version of the truth (according to christians) yet cry bloody murder because there are religious people in government.

If they're going to be in government, and use it to shape policy, yes, it matters.

As far as I'm concerned both atheists and religious people are hypocrites.

Some probably are.

[The_Squid]

Well, here's the whole segment on that part of your cite.

I have read that great article several times. What is your point?

I provided the link so that people could go and read the entire article.

King James VI translated the bible to be more "King friendly".... what did God have to do with it?

Edited September 5, 2012 by The_Squid

[betsy]

Honestly, I use KJV because it's highly recommended and used by most scholars. Anyway, since KJV was brought up, here is an interesting defense of it.

Reasons for Accepting the KJV as God's Preserved Word

1. God promised to preserve His words (Psa. 12:6-7; Mat. 24:35). There has to be a preserved copy of God's pure words somewhere. If it isn't the KJV, then what is it?

2. It has no copyright. The text of the KJV may be reproduced by anyone for there is no copyright forbidding it's duplication. This is not true with the modern perversions.

3. The KJV produces good fruit (Mat. 7:17-20). No modern translation can compare to the KJV when it comes to producing good fruit. For nearly four hundred years, God has used the preaching and teaching of the KJV to bring hundreds of millions to Christ. Laodicean Christians might favor the new versions, but the Holy Spirit doesn't.

4. The KJV was translated during the Philadelphia church period (Rev. 3:7-13). The modern versions begin to appear rather late on the scene as the lukewarm Laodicean period gets underway (Rev. 3:14-22), but the KJV was produced way back in 1611, just in time for the many great revivals (1700-1900). The Philadelphia church was the only church that did not receive a rebuke from the Lord Jesus Christ, and it was the only church that "kept" God's word (Rev. 3:8).

5. The KJV translators were honest in their work. When the translators had to add certain words, largely due to idiom changes, they placed the added words in italics so we'd know the difference. This is not the case with many new translations.

6. All new translations compare themselves to the KJV. Isn't it strange that the new versions never compare themselves to one another? For some strange reason they all line up against one Book--the A.V. 1611. I wonder why? Try Matthew 12:26.

7. The KJV translators believed they were handling the very words of God (I Ths. 2:13). Just read the King James Dedicatory and compare it to the prefaces in the modern versions. Immediately, you will see a world of difference in the approach and attitude of the translators. Which group would YOU pick for translating a book?

8. The KJV is supported by far more evidence. Of over 5,300 pieces of manuscript evidence, ninety-five percent supports the King James Bible! The changes in the new versions are based on the remaining five percent of manuscripts, most of which are from Alexandria, Egypt. (There are only two lines of Bibles: the Devil's line from Alexandria, and the Lord's line from Antioch. We'll deal with this later.)

9. No one has ever proven that the KJV is not God's word. The 1611 should be considered innocent until proven guilty with a significant amount of genuine manuscript evidence.

10. The KJV exalts the Lord Jesus Christ. The true scriptures should testify of Jesus Christ (John 5:39). There is no book on this planet which exalts Christ higher than the King James Bible. In numerous places the new perversions attack the Deity of Christ, the Blood Atonement, the Resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, and the Second Coming. The true scriptures will TESTIFY of Jesus Christ, not ATTACK Him!

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html#fight2

[blueblood]

The nonsense is only coming from one side.

If they're going to be in government, and use it to shape policy, yes, it matters.

Some probably are.

No, the nonsense is brow beating Betsy because she believes in something and has an opinion. That is cowardly horse shit period end of sentence. She does not brow beat you for not believing, show some respect.

They have every right to be in government and represent their constituents. If atheists don't like it, they can get people elected to advance their agenda. Politics is a bloodsport.

[The_Squid]

Honestly, I use KJV because it's highly recommended and used by most scholars. Anyway, since KJV was brought up, here is an interesting defense of it.

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html#fight2

Why are you believing these people? Do you believe everything that you are told?

Why not the Geneva Bible?

If it isn't the KJV, then what is it?

This is their argument for this particular translation? THAT'S IT??? Didn't God tell someone??? Shouldn't He let someone know which bible to read???

No one has ever proven that the KJV is not God's word.

This is hilarious! Can you tell us how the other translations have been disproved as God's word then??? LOL

Edited September 5, 2012 by The_Squid