Why Trust the Bible?

[JamesHackerMP]

In this case, hotenough, she's actually spot-on.

[JamesHackerMP]

So besides the venerable KJV, which translations would meet your approval, then?

[Rue]

3 hours ago, hot enough said:

And yet you actively support those who have been denying that same freedom to hundreds of millions around the world. And you'll probably suggest that you aren't being hypocritical. 

Do you even know what you are babbling about? How am I supporting those who deny the same "freedoms of millions around the world"? Lol  That's it. You come on this thread to try hijack it to make another one of your absurd accusations with no references? You clearly have issues with "those", "they". You keep referring to this mystical plural group that you try attach me to. You can't describe it. It has nothing to do with this thread or the thread's topic and there you are spewing off again about some conspiracy.

Deny freedom to millions around the world? Who do you refer to, Chinese? Russians? Muslim extremist states like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iran, no not you-just the US and Canada and it has nothing even to do with the thread. Lol. you are one lonely leftist trying to follow me around thread to thread trying to engage me in your imagined battle against the evil US and Canada. Lol. The thread was/is an attempt by Besty to generate discussion about the Bible and what it means and how it can be applied. That is all.

Now run along and start your own conspiracy thread or anti American thread.

.

[Rue]

15 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

So besides the venerable KJV, which translations would meet your approval, then?

I would love to see the original manuscripts  the Bible's Testaments were allegedly based on.

I don't trust most editors. I had a good one for years. He was a genius. He cut down the length but never the context and meaning. He passed away. An Editor who can condense without changing the meaning-those are hard to find.

Whether a bearded man with sandals is a homeless schizophrenic/alcoholic, communist, Messiah, or hippie all depends on the Editor.

Edited June 19, 2017 by Rue

[hot enough]

18 minutes ago, Rue said:

Rue said, Sorry when someone tells me what I should believe, I believe that exercise however well intended is an act of spiritual molestation. I believe each spirit must make its own decisions as to the direction it will move in. I believe the essence of life is the gift of free choice and that acting out of the free choice through independent thought recreates the life force that continues to spread life

.

This is why you are a hypocrite. Because you support nations that have stolen this freedom from hundreds of millions. You know who these nations are so we don't have to go any further than pointing out your stunning hypocrisy. 

[hot enough]

36 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

In this case, hotenough, she's actually spot-on.

What case, James? What she? 

[Goddess]

17 minutes ago, hot enough said:

This is why you are a hypocrite. Because you support nations that have stolen this freedom from hundreds of millions. You know who these nations are so we don't have to go any further than pointing out your stunning hypocrisy. 

I wonder if you would be able to answer this question:

I assume you're living in Canada or the US?  Enjoying the freedoms, the fast food, the grocery stores, the slaughterhouse meat, the infrastructure of the country - buildings, roads, garbage pickup and mail delivery systems, maybe you go the movies once in a while or watch TV, etc.....the same things all the rest of us do.

All this would be "supporting a nation that has stolen this freedom from hundreds of millions".

So what are you DOING differently than the rest of us about not supporting Canada or the US?  How do you show that you are not supporting a nation that steals freedom from everyone else in the world, but enjoys freedom?  Does it just consist of coming here and repeating "nanothermite" on every post?  

Try, if you can, to focus on the question:  You have judged all of North America as hypocrites and liars.  How are you not a part of supporting the nation of Canada, who is your eyes should be wiped off the face of the earth and replaced with.....what?

 

Edited June 19, 2017 by Goddess

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Try, if you can, to focus on the question:  You have judged all of North America as hypocrites and liars.  How are you not a part of supporting the nation of Canada,

Only the hypocrites and the liars, Goddess. This should be something a university educated women can think thru for herself. 

When anyone's country commits war crimes, crimes against humanity and terrorist acts, don't you think moral people should condemn those actions? 

Are you denying that the US has committed war crimes, terrorism and crimes against humanity? Hells bells, Bush_C delights in these things. 

Quote

who is your eyes shoudl be wiped off the face of the earth and replaced with.....what?

From the ridiculous to the ridiculouser. 

Do you believe police that murder should be retained on the force?

Do you believe police that rape women should be retained on the force?

 

[Goddess]

Just now, hot enough said:

Only the hypocrites and the liars, Goddess. This should be something a university educated women can think thru for herself. 

When anyone's country commits war crimes, crimes against humanity and terrorist acts, don't you think moral people should condemn those actions? 

Are you denying that the US has committed war crimes, terrorism and crimes against humanity? Hells bells, Bush_C delights in these things. 

From the ridiculous to the ridiculouser. 

Do you believe police that murder should be retained on the force?

Do you believe police that rape women should be retained on the force?

 

So........not going to answer the question, then.

Okay.

[hot enough]

14 minutes ago, Goddess said:

So........not going to answer the question, then.

Okay.

That is hilarious coming from you and your fellow travelers. 

You asked a number of questions. This thing [?] means a question.

Isn't it hypocritical of you not prancing out your "You're off topic" dog and pony routine?

 

Edited June 19, 2017 by hot enough

[JamesHackerMP]

Jesus, guys...weren't we talking about the bible or something? I seem to have suddenly contracted temporary amnesia, and it seems to be catching.

That's a good point about a translation.  I'd like to see some of those manuscripts, too.  I think whether one is "corrupt" or "more accurate" depends on who is translating it (e.g., a Catholic, Baptist, Anglican).  Probably it's not the manuscripts themselves, in other words.  Sometimes people get out of something what they wanted to get out of it, or believe what they want to believe.  All are copies of copies of copies.  Christ was illiterate and didn't write anything down in his own hand.  Most of the apostles were illiterate. 

It used to be believed that the Gospel of Matthew was written by the Matthew mentioned as being the tax collector; we now know this to be erroneous, as it was written decades after the twelve apostles were long dead.  Also, it used to be believed among Christians that the Torah (which Christians call the Pentateuch) was written by Moses.  Many bibles still say "The first Book of Moses, called GENESIS" for example.  We now know this to be erroneous as well.  The Jewish Canon was written over the years, well after the days of the Patriarchs, Moses, and even the first Israeli kingdom.  And with that in mind I am willing to bet that some (if not many, if not most) of the traditions believed by Christians and Jews didn't actually happen, but are not unlike Christ's parables.  They illustrate a bigger truth.  Today, Christians who believe that there was literally an Arc, that there was literally a garden of Eden, Adam and Eve literally the first man and woman; these Christians are in the minority.

That is why I said, as above, that you cannot take it literally and it's open to interpretation.  From a Christian perspective I doubt that God meant us to have a perfectly clear guide to interpreting his wishes.  If He did, God would have backed it up with some rather admirably clear paperwork.

[JamesHackerMP]

If I may ask, what about the Revised Standard Version? Its intro claims it was a revision of the American Standard Bible of 1901, which was itself a revision of the KJV. Just curious.  I would think that with that lineage, it would be more acceptable to your tastes, Betsy.

[Rue]

15 hours ago, hot enough said:

This is why you are a hypocrite. Because you support nations that have stolen this freedom from hundreds of millions. You know who these nations are so we don't have to go any further than pointing out your stunning hypocrisy. 

You don't know who I support or don't support, you assume. You come on this forum and you assume what I and others think because you are a bigot. You stereotype anyone you think you should with preconceived misconceptions. You are engaging in classic bigotry while posing as some leftist militant. Its hilarious. You are also something else you start exchanges with people on supposed topics and then you have no idea how to respond and complete the position you claim to present.

You clearly don't want to discuss the topic of the thread just bait people. At this point you've lowered your responses to a petulant child calling people names.

King James refers to a version of the Bible. Yah  I know you have ever come come across that on your cell phone. Go look.

[Rue]

12 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

 Jesus, guys...weren't we talking about the bible or something? I seem to have suddenly contracted temporary amnesia, and it seems to be catching.

That's a good point about a translation.  I'd like to see some of those manuscripts, too.  I think whether one is "corrupt" or "more accurate" depends on who is translating it (e.g., a Catholic, Baptist, Anglican).  Probably it's not the manuscripts themselves, in other words.  Sometimes people get out of something what they wanted to get out of it, or believe what they want to believe.  All are copies of copies of copies.  Christ was illiterate and didn't write anything down in his own hand.  Most of the apostles were illiterate. 

It used to be believed that the Gospel of Matthew was written by the Matthew mentioned as being the tax collector; we now know this to be erroneous, as it was written decades after the twelve apostles were long dead.  Also, it used to be believed among Christians that the Torah (which Christians call the Pentateuch) was written by Moses.  Many bibles still say "The first Book of Moses, called GENESIS" for example.  We now know this to be erroneous as well.  The Jewish Canon was written over the years, well after the days of the Patriarchs, Moses, and even the first Israeli kingdom.  And with that in mind I am willing to bet that some (if not many, if not most) of the traditions believed by Christians and Jews didn't actually happen, but are not unlike Christ's parables.  They illustrate a bigger truth.  Today, Christians who believe that there was literally an Arc, that there was literally a garden of Eden, Adam and Eve literally the first man and woman; these Christians are in the minority.

That is why I said, as above, that you cannot take it literally and it's open to interpretation.  From a Christian perspective I doubt that God meant us to have a perfectly clear guide to interpreting his wishes.  If He did, God would have backed it up with some rather admirably clear paperwork.

Well stated and continues your original point.. That of course is a huge debate with theologians . Now not speaking ancient Hebrew, Greek, Roman, Armaic, I can only imagine the challenge of trying to translate ancient languages into a modern context and not change the meaning. I only know when you translate back and forth in the above languages and add Arabic, there is a great deal of chance something gets mistranslated because of the lack of equivalency in words.

When you read the Old Testament the commenyary by Rabbiahs is as important to understand as the actual words and even they are of no help. In theory  one sentence in the Old Testament could have an infinite number of meanings and thus the Talmud was created as a code of argument to keep the arguments flowing as to what those possible meanings could be. No sentence is meant to be read literally. That surface level is only where you start.

It's a common misconception for Christians to read the Old Testament and stop at the first literal level because they do so when reading say the Gospels. Now I am no scholar, but I have witnessed some incredible debates between Christians on some of the Gospels and what they mean. All I can tell you is I enjoy when people debate the possible meanings and never stop at just one. I would be fascinated to be able to travel a hundred years or so and see the next translation of the Bible. I find reading the KJ version a lot of work. Its like reading Shakespeare but me personally I don't see the newer easy to understand versions of having changed the Old Testament. I defer to Christians on the New Testament.

Mr. Hacker I read the Bible like I do Aesop's fables. I see them as allegories created to provide examples in stories to help people otherwise understand difficult concepts.

" the mistake in listening to Jewish people debate is taking it too seriously.. remember we created Marxism, Groucho, Gummo, Harpo.."

Rue 555

.

Edited June 20, 2017 by Rue

[betsy]

On 6/18/2017 at 8:09 PM, TTM said:

I pointed out the contradiction of a supposedly Good and Just  supernatural being that hides his existance, apparently so that he can have eternally tortured those of his creations that use the rational mind he gave them to come to the conclusion he doesn't exist.

The response "they can be eternally tortured because they are not blindly following some random document of dubious origin" kind of misses the point.

I didn't miss any point.  You've just made your previous message wishy-washy.   There's nothing "supposedly" about God being just.  Connect the dots.

Below, is your post to which I responded to:

 

Quote

Because remember, God likes to have tortured for eternity those creations of His that would prefer to use their "God given" rational mind and free will

 

Your statement was made..........

...............on the premise that rational mind and free will, were God-given.  And were given to His creation!

 

 

That's why I responded like this:

 

I imagine, if there will be anyone who'll be tortured for all eternity, it will be His creation who show not only rejection, but such contempt for their Creator.

 

If God gave His creation a  rational mind, and He gave reasonable evidence for His creation to believe that He is indeed the Creator - and instead of obedience, His creation had used his free will to be arrogant and defiant (having been warned fully well what's in store for such a creation in the last judgement for such behaviour towards God - God even showed examples of His wrath towards the Jews - and that's nothing compared to what awaits the arrogant unrepentant).........what do you think?

Look at it this way:

We all know we have a penalty against murder - and yet someone still decides to commit murder - what do you think happens?  We say, " it's okay.........we're only kidding?"

Is that "just" to you?  What about the victim?  Where is justice for him? 

 

Edited June 20, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

On 6/18/2017 at 3:58 PM, JamesHackerMP said:

LOL

Sorry I left rather abruptly, I apologize.  I respect the fact that you have strong beliefs, Betsy, I just cannot agree on your absolutist interpretation of it.  We were discussing, a few pages ago, about Bible translations.  While I don't intend to read the entire book you showed me, I'm assuming you read it; so could you give me a precis of why exactly bibles other than the KJV are "corrupted"? I have heard that before and, while not a biblical scholar, I'm a little skeptical.  Every Christian sect wants to think that their translation is the superior one.  But how do you know that the manuscripts from which various bibles are translated are "corrupted" or "accurate"? All are copies of copies of copies.  Jesus didn't write anything in his own hand.

By the way, "True" God? Which one is that?

 

Can you please create another thread for Bible translations and corruptions of the Bible.   That is irrelevant to the argument I'm giving.

Corrupted or not..... all mainstream Bibles  have the same rendition of the evidences being given to support the argument that, the Creator has intimate knowledge of His creation:

 

 

All from the Book of Genesis 1 and 2:

*In the beginning (consistent with science's discovery that the universe had a beginning)

*All waters gather to one place, and land appear (consistent with science's claim that in the early times there was only one super ocean and only one super continent - Pangaea and Panthalassa)

*The waters bringing forth creatures that has life (compatible with evolutionist claim that life started in the water).

*"After their kind" in relation to reproduction - without any mention of genders, except to humans - male and female - (consistent with science discovery that some species don't require a mate in order to reproduce.  Some creatures are asexual)

*God formed man from dust (consistent with science finding that the human body is made up of elements that comes from dirt/dust).

*God's curse towards the snake that it would from henceforth crawl on its belly and eat dust (compatible with science's discovery that snakes used to have limbs or legs)

*Man's dominion of animals (consistent with reality - as can be observed, even today)

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

*Stretches the Heavens (consistent with science discovery that the universe is stretching).  Take note that most of the verses uses the present tense "stretches."   How appropriate!  The universe is still stretching.

*Psalm 102:25-26, Isaiah 51:6, Hebrews 1:10-11 indicate the universe is wearing out (consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics)

 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, betsy said:

If God gave His creation a  rational mind, and He gave reasonable evidence for His creation to believe that He is indeed the Creator - and instead of obedience, His creation had used his free will to be arrogant and defiant (having been warned fully well what's in store for such a creation in the last judgement for such behaviour towards God - God even showed examples of His wrath towards the Jews - and that's nothing compared to what awaits the arrogant unrepentant).........what do you think?

Look at it this way:

We all know we have a penalty against murder - and yet someone still decides to commit murder - what do you think happens?  We say, " it's okay.........we're only kidding?"

Is that "just" to you?  What about the victim?  Where is justice for him? 

 

It sounds like you're saying God is the victim here.

He sounds pretty pathetic really, like a North Korean leader who goes ballistic on anyone who disses him.

[betsy]

Please folks, let's stay on topic.

Edited June 20, 2017 by betsy

[hot enough]

3 hours ago, betsy said:

We all know we have a penalty against murder - and yet someone still decides to commit murder - what do you think happens?  We say, " it's okay.........we're only kidding?" 

Is that "just" to you?  What about the victim?  Where is justice for him?  

" it's okay.........we're only kidding?"  is said and done all the time, Betsy. US presidents, US soldiers, US CIA, US ... have murdered tens of millions. You know this and yet do you ever say, "What about the victim?  Where is justice for him?"

[Yes, others besides US ... .] 

[TTM]

11 hours ago, betsy said:

If God gave His creation a  rational mind, and He gave reasonable evidence for His creation to believe that He is indeed the Creator - and instead of obedience, His creation had used his free will to be arrogant and defiant (having been warned fully well what's in store for such a creation in the last judgement for such behaviour towards God - God even showed examples of His wrath towards the Jews - and that's nothing compared to what awaits the arrogant unrepentant).........what do you think?

Since the highlighted premise is false, your argument fails, my point stands.

Edited June 21, 2017 by TTM

[TTM]

11 hours ago, betsy said:

Look at it this way:

We all know we have a penalty against murder - and yet someone still decides to commit murder - what do you think happens?  We say, " it's okay.........we're only kidding?"

Is that "just" to you?  What about the victim?  Where is justice for him? 

Who is the victim in me not believing in God? 

[eyeball]

She clearly implied God is the only victim here..

[JamesHackerMP]

Betsy, Science and Religion are two different realms of thought.  There's no point in comparing what it says in the Bible as consistent with some sort of scientific belief.  Like matter and anti-matter, they are best kept separated.  The divinely inspired authors of the Bible (Christian and Jewish canons alike) lacked such scientific knowledge.

In fact, there's actually two different stories of creation, one right after the other, in Genesis; two differing accounts of creation.  Both are SYMBOLIC.  They are ancient Hebrew traditions about the creation of the world (no one had a clue there was a "universe" beyond the planet Earth or even that the "planets" were actually other worlds you could land stuff on) and are in no way indicative, or supportive of, scientific fact (or contradictive thereof I might add).  That's precisely what i meant that the bible cannot be taken literally.  It must be taken in context, including the context of the contemporary knowledge of the scribes who put pen to paper at that time (or at those times, would be more accurate).

The reason I kept on about Bible translations was because I didn't want to quote something, only to have it thrown back at me for being "corrupted".  It may seem off topic, but like I asked, is the Revised Standard Version (which comes in Protestant and Catholic editions, of minimal difference as far as I'm concerned) acceptable to you?  I didn't mean to get off topic.  (But if you want to know, I have two bibles at home, a Revised Standard Version, 2d. Catholic Edition (RSV-2CE), and the New American Bible Rev. Ed. (NABRE)...whichever of these two is less corrupted to you I can quote from, but the RSV2CE is more similar to the KJV and a lot of former Anglican Catholics prefer this one over the NABRE.  But yeah maybe that's a bit off topic.  Just tell me if either of these is reasonably acceptable to you and I'll use it.)

The other reason I brought that up was that the reason there are differnt translations is that things are open to interpretation.  As I asked above, how many people here actually speak the languages they were originally written in well enough to actually know for a fact that these supposedly "corrupted" texts are that? And that, as I tried to point out, is precisely why you cannot "trust the bible" as if it were word-for-word literal truth.  Instead, it contains an inner truth, a message behind the mere words.  People need to stop examining the woods, tree by tree, as if that would give you an accurate picture of what the whole forest looks like.  Take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

[betsy]

9 hours ago, TTM said:

Since the highlighted premise is false, your argument fails, my point stands.

 

What point?  You've never made any point at all, so far.  Furthermore, whatever you think it is you've made.....is an epic fail!

 

You were attempting to give a pathetic "point" on the assumption that God is real, remember?  That's why you brought up God being loving and just, and torture of eternal punishment!

 

  First of all, you've yet to prove that the premise is false - and my friend, it's an epic fail so far trying to prove that!   Simply saying, "nay, it's not true," isn't a rebuttal!  You've got to give something credible and COHERENT, to make a reasonable rebuttal!  Especially so when you're in Philosophy section!

Second, just because everyone is skirting around the argument (and the evidences) that the Creator has intimate knowledge of His creation, it doesn't mean that the argument (and the evidences) does not exist.   You can't just sweep this argument under the rug and pretend it's  not there, and continue on like as if nothing very revealing (and challenging), was given at all! 

Edited June 21, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

8 hours ago, TTM said:

Who is the victim in me not believing in God? 

See?  See what I mean?

That went sailing over your head,   If you can't grasp something as simple as that analogy with being "JUST,"  what more with philosophical discussion where-in we heavily rely on reason?

 

In that analogy, you would be the criminal, and God would be the Law and the Judge! 

You want a victim? That will be you!  You'd be what is called.........

..........  "the victim of your own stupidity."

Edited June 21, 2017 by betsy