God enthusiasm

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Then we're talking about irrelevancies. Knock yourself out.

lol, Well yes in a way it is all irrelevant. I don't practice any religion but I choose to live a positive life and be good to my family etc. It all boils down to personal choice. I sure as hell would not want to be part of any religion that condemned me or required me to give up part of my income....oh no way. Chris B.

 

[barehl]

Actually the King James version is a terrible Bible to study. It is the most commonly quoted though at weddings. The better edition to read from would be a revised standard edition as it is translated from older texts in the Hebrew directly to modern English.

I'm not seeing any greater accuracy in the Revised Standard version; they translate the Hebrew pretty much the same. And the way you can tell that the Mormon bible is fake is because it tries to copy the Middle English from the KJV. The New Testament wasn't actually written in Hebrew; it was written in Greek.

I said previously the status on divorce was changed. Mosaic law (Old Testament) allows for a man to divorce his wife by writing her a bill of divorce , placing it in her hand and sending her out from his home.

You are quoting Deuteronomy 24. You are leaving out Deuteronomy 22 and Malachi 2:16.

 

[barehl]

Leviticus in the Bible (I'm not certain of the exact verse). "He that lays down with a man as he would a woman shall surely burn in Hell"

I assume you are trying to quote Leviticus 20:13
If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.

There's nothing about hell in this passage or Leviticus 18: 22.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I'm not seeing any greater accuracy in the Revised Standard version; they translate the Hebrew pretty much the same. And the way you can tell that the Mormon bible is fake is because it tries to copy the Middle English from the KJV. The New Testament wasn't actually written in Hebrew; it was written in Greek.


You are quoting Deuteronomy 24. You are leaving out Deuteronomy 22 and Malachi 2:16.

The King James version was translated into old English from some Hebrew and some Greek manuscripts.

The revised standard edition was translated more recently from the Hebrew directly into modern English. Using some of the Dead Seas Scrolls which were found much later than the King James translation manuscripts.

So, the better translation would be the one from the oldest known manuscripts (Dead Seas Scrolls) and translated from Hebrew directly into modern English the contemporary language of the day. Everytime you go from one language to another, you will always lose part of the translation. That's why the revised standard edition Bible is the most accurate for study. All the thee and thou and old English terms no longer in use can lead to confusion in modern times.

About the Malachi and Deuteronomy. Yes there were certain conditions in the law where a man was not allowed to divorce, namely if that man had violated a virgin through no fault of the girl. But divorce although not looked upon as a favorable resolution was still legal (except for the virgin violator of course but he was being punished accordingly to his improper action/rape).

Later Jesus pops in when questioned about what Moses had said about divorce, and says the man that divorces his wife and remarries commits adultery....Yikes, that was a very big deal. So divorce goes into the NOT OK file. As in to do so one is taking the risk of losing their soul by committing adultery.

Can a Christian divorce and still be ok with the church? Tricky question and one I've spent much time on with local preachers. Yep, some say you can once, but he or she has to wait until the divorced spouse remarries and commits adultery thereby relieving him or her of being labelled an adulterer. It has to be on the grounds of sexual immorality.

Others conclude absolutely not in any case is it OK to divorce. LOL You're supposed to forgive the transgression if forgiveness is asked of you...
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I assume you are trying to quote Leviticus 20:13
If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.

There's nothing about hell in this passage or Leviticus 18: 22.

Well modern Christians don't take to killing people, so the belief is the person who commits this act will burn in Hell.

Sorry for the unintentional misquote, yes you are correct the original verse word for word says they will be put to death. The Christian belief is that the person will burn in Hell though. If there is such a place.
Chris B.

 

[barehl]

Different sources will have alternate spellings. Knod is closer to the original Hebrew though and why I use that one. To be really accurate it'd need to be spelled "Kn d" but that would throw off the pronunciation for most. It's pronounced exactly the same though.

I typically see it written נוֹד Dalet Vav Nun (DON) with vowel markings. And, I see it written נוד which is Dalet Vav Nun (DVN) without the vowel markings. So, are you claiming that it's actually supposed to be spelled כנד Dalet Nun Kaf (DNK)?

It's a sticky subject for preachers as the book that explains the land of Knod and how it came to be was not included in the books of the Bible.

What book are you talking about?

It also leads to alternate theories about other folks that were not discussed in Genesis and how they came to be. After all, we start with Adam and Eve then poof somehow there's this other land where guys are fleeing and taking wives from that we've heard nothing about previously.

Not really. The mistake is in connecting the characters in Genesis 4 with those in Genesis 1-3. These aren't the same people. If you look at the narrative style then you see that they have nothing in common. The only similarity is the name, Eve which is only mentioned in two places in the Bible: Genesis 3:20 and the very first verse of Genesis 4. And, by this ridiculous line of reasoning, you have a man named "human" and a woman named "life giving".

 

[barehl]

So, the better translation would be the one from the oldest known manuscripts (Dead Seas Scrolls) and translated from Hebrew directly into modern English the contemporary language of the day.

Can you point out where the Dead Sea Scrolls differ on Genesis?

All the thee and thou and old English terms no longer in use can lead to confusion in modern times.

It's less confusing to me because German still uses these forms.

About the Malachi and Deuteronomy. Yes there were certain conditions in the law where a man was not allowed to divorce, namely if that man had violated a virgin through no fault of the girl. But divorce although not looked upon as a favorable resolution was still legal (except for the virgin violator of course but he was being punished accordingly to his improper action/rape).

Aren't you leaving out the part where it says that God hates divorce?

 

[arthwollipot]

I don't know about that. The Bible is a good source of study for military battle strategies. Some of the battles portrayed in the Old Testament are verified in the other culture's side of the time as well.

One example that I can think of is the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrians. It's discussed in 2 Kings 19 in detail. Verse 35 is the clincher. The Assyrians lost 185,000 troops in one night. Effectively ending the siege.

Well that's the first time I've heard the Bible claimed as a text on military strategy. I checked into it. There isn't much strategy there. In fact, in verse 35 it specifically says that an Angel of the Lord killed the hundred and eighty-five thousand, not an army. No strategy at all. Just let the angel do the killing.

No source on the Assyrian tablets, by the way, so the cross-verification is in your claim only.

 

[jond]

We're not talking about law, we're talking about religion. You know a choice. If someone's lifestyle conflicts with their religion . Find another! Problem solved.

I know a guy that went to a church once for "Revival" on the invitation of a friend. He told me about halfway thru the services they brought out snakes. He left and never went back, you know because he didn't have to.
Chris B.

I AM talking about laws. Specifically, laws being written right now (Indiana, Michigan) which enable bigotry based on their interpretation of the bible. This is a real problem.

Christians do tend to frown on Gays, because it's outlined specifically in Leviticus in the Bible (I'm not certain of the exact verse). "He that lays down with a man as he would a woman shall surely burn in Hell" So , I'd kinda expect them to have a dim view of the subject. Should they reject Gays from attending their Church? Obviously not but why on Earth would someone want to attend with them in the first place? It's like boys fighting a court battle to be allowed to be in Girl Scouts. It is truly a strange World. Chris B.

So, when we began this discussion you said that Christianity made the old testament obsolete. Now you're saying Christians DO refer to the old testament. Which is it?

 

[carlitos]

Here you go. Be aware, there's some pretty hair-raising stuff in there. Maybe there really was a Noah to back up Bethke's worldview.

Yikes. Thanks?

 

[jond]

Yikes. Thanks?

Sorry...

 

[barehl]

This thread actually isn't about debating scripture though; it's about the similarity between irrational beliefs. Why would an irrational belief in a god be any different than an irrational belief in ghosts or bigfoot?

 

[tsig]

This thread actually isn't about debating scripture though; it's about the similarity between irrational beliefs. Why would an irrational belief in a god be any different than an irrational belief in ghosts or bigfoot?

They're not.

 

[Resume]

lol, Well yes in a way it is all irrelevant.

Biblical apologetics and textual criticism are irrelevant to this thread. They belong down yonder in the paw-paw patch titled Religion & Philosophy.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Well that's the first time I've heard the Bible claimed as a text on military strategy. I checked into it. There isn't much strategy there. In fact, in verse 35 it specifically says that an Angel of the Lord killed the hundred and eighty-five thousand, not an army. No strategy at all. Just let the angel do the killing.

No source on the Assyrian tablets, by the way, so the cross-verification is in your claim only.

First time you've heard the Bible being referenced as a source of study for military battle strategies? Well now you know.

No source of what exactly on the Assyrian clay tablets? No source of the battle? Or no source of the defeat? I think what you meant to say was there is no source of the defeat on the Assyrian tablets, but the battle is definitely referenced on them. So the battle happened, it's not my "claim" it's fact literally written in stone(clay). I did not claim the miraculous defeat was due to the "Angel of the Lord" but merely that the battle was referenced in both cultures, as it is.

The Hebrew account has the Assyrians losing 185,000 in one night. Sure they claimed an Angel of the Lord did it, but it has been considered as an alternate possibility it was plague. The Assyrians wore lots of leather and the thought is rats like to chew leather. Other speculations have included possibly one of the earliest applications of biological warfare. I've always considered the Hebrews may have sent out night operatives (their version of special forces) that disposed of as many as they could while the enemy slept.
Chris B.

 

[carlitos]

No source of what exactly on the Assyrian clay tablets? No source of the battle? Or no source of the defeat? I think what you meant to say was there is no source of the defeat on the Assyrian tablets

What he meant to say, and indeed said, is you provided "no source." As in, you have provided no source for your claim. Now that you're moving your trolling game into other topics, you're going to have to start slowly with new participants.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I AM talking about laws. Specifically, laws being written right now (Indiana, Michigan) which enable bigotry based on their interpretation of the bible. This is a real problem.



So, when we began this discussion you said that Christianity made the old testament obsolete. Now you're saying Christians DO refer to the old testament. Which is it?

First of all, I'm with you. I don't want to see laws dictated by religion on the books. Religion is a completely separate thing from the law and it should remain that way. Religious choices should remain as such, as choices, not requirements.
Freedom of religion as a law is fine, but there the line is drawn IMO.

Sure, Christianity teaches from the New Testament. The Old Testament is viewed more as a history of the Hebrew people. But there are some aspects of the Old Testament that carry over to Christianity. The Old Testament is usually taught in "Sunday School" to the children, then later the "Sunday School" group will learn with the adults mostly on the topics from the New Testament.

In a real Christian church, everyone is welcome. It makes no difference if one is a sinner because everyone is a sinner. So what's the difference in sin? Is one sin worse than another? Not in the eyes of God. If you lie about your neighbor you stand just as much chance of Hell as if you had killed your neighbor. The wages of sin is death. No distinction. Christians are not allowed to judge. That's not their job and if they make it their job they're wrong and a hipocrite. Chris B.

 

[barehl]

Sure, Christianity teaches from the New Testament. The Old Testament is viewed more as a history of the Hebrew people. But there are some aspects of the Old Testament that carry over to Christianity.

So do you consider belief in the Old or New Testament to be more irrational? And would snake handlers be more or less irrational than footers?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I typically see it written נוֹד Dalet Vav Nun (DON) with vowel markings. And, I see it written נוד which is Dalet Vav Nun (DVN) without the vowel markings. So, are you claiming that it's actually supposed to be spelled כנד Dalet Nun Kaf (DNK)?


What book are you talking about?



Not really. The mistake is in connecting the characters in Genesis 4 with those in Genesis 1-3. These aren't the same people. If you look at the narrative style then you see that they have nothing in common. The only similarity is the name, Eve which is only mentioned in two places in the Bible: Genesis 3:20 and the very first verse of Genesis 4. And, by this ridiculous line of reasoning, you have a man named "human" and a woman named "life giving".

נֹדִי or נוֺד, נֹד would be the original Hebrew for "wandering". Taken into English Nod or alternatively Knod, without the vowel taken into English would be "N D" or "KN D".

I suggest more information about the Land of Knod would likely be found in one of the books of the Apocrypha. It doesn't make sense that it would pop into being "poof" all of a sudden. That suggests it was a previously populated land, but according to the Bible, Adam and Eve were the first and only two humans, so if there was a population in the Land of Knod they could have only descended from Adam. But why no mention of this? I believe it was likely mentioned in a missing book.

I realize there are other opinions that attempt to explain away the reference to this land and also attempt to explain away where Cain got his wife. According to these explanations there may have been nobody in the Land of Knod when Cain went there. And the Bible does not specifically state his wife came from there but only that he took a wife. (That's one hell of an implication she came from Knod though) The most common explanation is that the bible did not mention the names of all of Adam and Eve's children so Cain married his sister. Later this would be taboo. Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

So do you consider belief in the Old or New Testament to be more irrational? And would snake handlers be more or less irrational than footers?

No, I don't consider either Testament to be irrational for the subject of faith.

In my view, those that handle snakes are certainly irrational. I would not personally participate in that church, if I went to church. But that is "their" belief and they're welcome to it as far as I'm concerned. It's just not for me.

In making a comparison of church goers and footers I don't think it would apply in most cases. Of course there are those who have not witnessed Bigfoot and rely on a type of faith that they may exist, like Christians rely on God to exist. But the footers have the stronger case as there is physical evidence of passing left by Bigfoot, things like footprints. The Christians must operate solely by faith without the benefit of evidence of passing.
Chris B.