Ah, but Zeb, then you’ll have to go back to the scriptures I originally quoted, and tell me why Jesus did not mean what he said at that time! Good luck with that.
This is what I mean when I say there are inconsistencies, at least with an attempt at literal interpretation. Either he meant what he said when I quoted him, or he was “mistaken” and later “changed his mind”. I don’t think so!
No, at each point he meant what he said, and we can start from the simplest statements and then try to figure out why the more complex ones seem to be different. What are the circumstances of the discussion or the possible interpretations of some of the translated words involved.
I mean, let’s be real here.
Did people at the time of Jesus all have degrees? Were they all educated people? Was he preaching to only the educated people of his time? Were only educated people allowed to speak to Jesus. Was he only saving the educated man?
Hardly.
He said to obey the commandments and to love everyone. This is hardly a difficult message to understand.
In his time there were a lot of poor, needy and suffering people. He saw them ignored by those nearby, who had the resources to help. He admonished to the people that this was not right. This is the simple basic message that we start from.
If religion is complex today, given the fact most people are given a reasonable level of education, it is only because man has tried to pry hidden meaning out of simple statements. It is because other authors have added to his words and tried to impart their voice, as if they had anything important to say.
Wow. Maybe you’re right: maybe it’s just me projecting.
You and your band of fundie cohorts have stated, again and again, that the only way to heaven is through accepting Jesus.[/quote]
That is correct.
Well, there is something called “grace.” I have no idea who is going to hell to be quite honest with you. That is up to the Lord.
However, I do know one way to stay out of hell for certain! And that is by accepting Jesus Christ as your savior.
I stated much more than that regarding the topic of homosexuality. I gave volumes of evidence which clearly points out that they do in fact live a very dangerous lifestyle, suffer more and die at a younger age.
I also cited over 50 studies which demonstrated that they could change if they wanted to undergo the proper therapy.
Get it right.
Here is where you take a twisted turn, as usual!
First of all you made sweeping generalizations. You assume that it is logical to assume that I did not like homosexuals therefore I gathered data that made them look bad. You also made the generalization that everyone who is logical agrees with you.
Both are incorrect!
One can first do research and then draw the conclusion that homosexuality is dangerous. And also that homosexuals can change if they have proper therapy.
And certainly no logical individual can draw a conclusion from the above set of facts that I hate homosexuals. The “you hate gay people” drum beat is there to dissuade any and all who speak out against an act (and lifestyle) that is killing homosexuals faster than just about any other group, including drug addicts and alcoholics.
You can take the politically correct road and be an “enabler” if you want. I’m going to stand for the truth and try to actually help. And I do it in my “off line” life as well.
It could just be that I have been touched personally by the struggles of loved ones who have been down that road.
Hate is the last thing that I have for my fellow man, especially those who are homosexual!
How about you?
It seems that many of your posts are dripping with hate towards any and all who hold an opposing view.
[quote]Gosh, I wish everyone were as smart as you!
[/quote]
I never claimed to be smarter than anyone on this board including you. I have to try very hard to keep up with those whom I consider to have a very high intellect.
I have no problem admitting that.
But I can tell you this: There is no one who is more persistent! And there is nothing that you or anyone else can say that will prevent me from getting the truth out to all who care to read it!
And that is probably the walk away message I want you to hold onto in this particular post.
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Don’t think I won’t give you credit where credit is due. I do think you provide a very poor example of the Christian faith. That was evident in your very first post. It’s almost humorous that you would mock God yet cling so tightly to the Christian name.
[/quote]
30 second bunny theatre was mocking God? You need a sense of humor…
I too think you’re a very poor example of what a Christian should act like…with almost every post you type your pride, arrogance, and feelings of self superiority shine through…
no you don’t know my struggles…
yet you feel the need to look down upon me from your high tower of near perfection…
and I challenge you to not be so arrogant, prideful, and condeming of others…
think you can handle that you superior Christian you?
I use all translations I can get my hands on. I still would like to see you handle the john 7:53-8:11 problem before you start picking on other translations.
[/quote]
I have seen no problem with John 7:53-8:11. It is in the most appropriate manuscripts. The manuscripts that do not have it are to my knowledge, all from the critical text, and I haven’t seen too many scolars who disagree that the critical text was subject to manipulation and perversions from agnostics in Egypt.
You may be confused because many manuscipts surfaced after the compilation of Bible, and these manuscripts have been dated as being older than the manuscripts that were used. Interesting to note though, that the books or scrolls that are frequently used must be copied frequently because the constant wear and tear causes them to deteriorate.
Case in point - take your favorite book, and read it a hundred times. And, let all your friends read it a hundred times. And, let all your friends’ friends read it a hundred times. Eventually it wears out. You are forced to copy it, and the newer copy contains the same information as the older copy, but it is newer by date.
Then, take a book you hate. You wont read it. Your friends wont read it. Nobody wants it because it is worthless. So, as the years pass, it physically looks pretty good. But, the information in it is just as poor as it was all those years ago.
The manuscripts you are relying on are the junk manuscripts that the original Christians would not use.
To further clarify the point, the individuals that included these manuscripts in the new translations of the Bible were into witchcraft, necromancy, and spirit divination.
Wescott and Hort were the most notable. Heavy drinkers, partiers, and spiritualists - not Christians. Yet, you read translations based primarily on their work. Do you see where the problem is at now?
You must have not looked that hard. Lucifer is missing from the NIV, NASB, AB, NLT, ESV, ASV, WNT, and many more.
Did you actually look, or are you tellin us a fib?
This is a huge point, and the fact that you didn’t even look for it tells me that you ARE EITHER BIAS, IGNORANT, FRAUDULENT, OR ATTEMPTING TO SWAY THE MASSES THROUGH SIMPLE SPEECH AND FANCY WORDS.
Did you pull these from the flawed manuscripts I mentioned above? If you used the newer translations, I am sure you have.
The Bible was written to be very easy to understand. That is why Jesus preached the Gospel to the poor and the sinners first. That is why so many “uneducated” men took part in writing it (through the hand of God, of course).
You are attempting to portray the Bible as being TOO DIFFICULT FOR ANY NORMAL MIND TO UNDERSTAND. Now, why would you do that? Hmmm…It sounds like what the Catholic chruch did to surpress the peasants in the dark ages.
You credibilty was lost when you failed to look up Isaiah 14:12.
[quote]DPH wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
Don’t think I won’t give you credit where credit is due. I do think you provide a very poor example of the Christian faith. That was evident in your very first post. It’s almost humorous that you would mock God yet cling so tightly to the Christian name.
30 second bunny theatre was mocking God? You need a sense of humor…
I too think you’re a very poor example of what a Christian should act like…with almost every post you type your pride, arrogance, and feelings of self superiority shine through…
But, then again, I do not know your struggles. Perhaps you have come from a rough background. Maybe you were a serial rapist and murder. If that were the case, then maybe you have grown by leaps and bounds. Only you (and God) know that.
no you don’t know my struggles…
yet you feel the need to look down upon me from your high tower of near perfection…
On that note, I’ll challange you to live the Christian life as a saved Christian should. You tell me you’ve read the NIV from cover to cover - now live it. The challange has been laid out. Do you accept?
and I challenge you to not be so arrogant, prideful, and condeming of others…
think you can handle that you superior Christian you?[/quote]
Does that mean you have accepted my challenge? It was kind of hard to tell from your very last comment.
I think that it is not our place to chastise. I am sickened also brother, but I have sin in my own temple I need to throw out, before I try to go and clean out someone elses. We don’t know the scars and woes and secrets of those we judge. God gives his grace to whom he will. It is a gift. You are quite right to shout from the rooftops about this great gift. I think differently about chastigation. Look at its effects here in just this thread. I don’t see it being effective. Instead of intelligent discourse it seems to promote nothing but a back and forth jab fest. Who is that helping? Fight for what is right, you bet, I think different “weapons” are better called for.[/quote]
I too think you’re a very poor example of what a Christian should act like…with almost every post you type your pride, arrogance, and feelings of self superiority shine through…
[/quote]
At least he isn’t fooling anyone but himself and anyone else foolish enough to jump behind him.
I have seen no problem with John 7:53-8:11. It is in the most appropriate manuscripts. The manuscripts that do not have it are to my knowledge, all from the critical text, and I haven’t seen too many scolars who disagree that the critical text was subject to manipulation and perversions from agnostics in Egypt.
[/quote]
You have got to be joking. The earlist ones don’t have it in there
“The account of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) has a textual history that makes heads spin. Michaels in her commentary on John [146] offers the details: It is not in the earliest manuscripts (with one exception); in those manuscripts where we do find it, it is not found in one place. Some have it at the end of John. Some put it after our John 7:36; one puts it after 7:44. Some have it in Luke, after Luke 21:38. So what’s happening here? Do we maybe have a bit of an otherwise rejected gospel, or an inauthentic story of Jesus, in our canon?”
I don’t need a lesson on the churches preservation of the Bible. You might be interested in metzger’s book
Offer a source
With you and your lack of evidence just merely speculation on alot of topics which you apparently don’t know much about. By the way I am not including texts from the gnositics.
I made a mistake. I thought my electronic versions were switching when I performed the greek search it didn’t
However I did a hebrew search for that word and this is Strong’s defnintion.
H1966
הילל
hêylêl
hay-lale’
From H1984 (in the sense of brightness); the morning star: - lucifer.
Morning star seems to work according to strong’s.
No I used Thayer’s dictionary for those words.
No I am portraying it as something that isn’t always literal, and requires a certain amount of understanding which a literalist lacks.
I didn’t fail to look it up I made a mistake. although you have yet to admit you made a mistake with Revelation 22:18-19
not a surprise though.
I am sure you think God actually rides on Gabriel too? 2sam 22:11
I use all translations I can get my hands on. I still would like to see you handle the john 7:53-8:11 problem before you start picking on other translations.
I have seen no problem with John 7:53-8:11. It is in the most appropriate manuscripts. The manuscripts that do not have it are to my knowledge, all from the critical text, and I haven’t seen too many scolars who disagree that the critical text was subject to manipulation and perversions from agnostics in Egypt.
You may be confused because many manuscipts surfaced after the compilation of Bible, and these manuscripts have been dated as being older than the manuscripts that were used. Interesting to note though, that the books or scrolls that are frequently used must be copied frequently because the constant wear and tear causes them to deteriorate.
Case in point - take your favorite book, and read it a hundred times. And, let all your friends read it a hundred times. And, let all your friends’ friends read it a hundred times. Eventually it wears out. You are forced to copy it, and the newer copy contains the same information as the older copy, but it is newer by date.
Then, take a book you hate. You wont read it. Your friends wont read it. Nobody wants it because it is worthless. So, as the years pass, it physically looks pretty good. But, the information in it is just as poor as it was all those years ago.
The manuscripts you are relying on are the junk manuscripts that the original Christians would not use.
To further clarify the point, the individuals that included these manuscripts in the new translations of the Bible were into witchcraft, necromancy, and spirit divination.
Wescott and Hort were the most notable. Heavy drinkers, partiers, and spiritualists - not Christians. Yet, you read translations based primarily on their work. Do you see where the problem is at now?
As for looking for lucifer every version I looked up had that one reference to him (Isa 4:12)
You must have not looked that hard. Lucifer is missing from the NIV, NASB, AB, NLT, ESV, ASV, WNT, and many more.
Did you actually look, or are you tellin us a fib?
This is a huge point, and the fact that you didn’t even look for it tells me that you ARE EITHER BIAS, IGNORANT, FRAUDULENT, OR ATTEMPTING TO SWAY THE MASSES THROUGH SIMPLE SPEECH AND FANCY WORDS.
Vers 18 uses this word for the greek
G975
βιβλίον
biblion
Thayer Definition:
a small book, a scroll, a written document
a sheet on which something has been written
2a) a bill of divorcement
Part of Speech: noun neuter
A Related Word by Thayer?s/Strong?s Number: a diminutive of G976
Citing in TDNT: 1:617, 106
verse 19 uses
G976
βίβλος
biblos
bib’-los
Properly the inner bark of the papyrus plant, that is, (by implication) a sheet or scroll of writing: - book.
Did you pull these from the flawed manuscripts I mentioned above? If you used the newer translations, I am sure you have.
I didn’t jump on the band wagon. What got me going is your interpretation of that verse. I have said it in plenty of other threads. Christians don’t know how to read their Bible and that is why we are having the issues that you are bringing up.
The Bible was written to be very easy to understand. That is why Jesus preached the Gospel to the poor and the sinners first. That is why so many “uneducated” men took part in writing it (through the hand of God, of course).
You are attempting to portray the Bible as being TOO DIFFICULT FOR ANY NORMAL MIND TO UNDERSTAND. Now, why would you do that? Hmmm…It sounds like what the Catholic chruch did to surpress the peasants in the dark ages.
You credibilty was lost when you failed to look up Isaiah 14:12.
[/quote]
uh-oh haney…looks like you’re not a ‘true’ Christian from terribleivan’s mighty tower of superiority…
apparently it’s not enough to receive Jesus’ blessing to be saved, we now need terribleivan’s too…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I would assume that anyone could come into your dad’s church. Aren’t all people welcome in the house of God? If they began to insult the other members of the congregation, wouldn’t your dad respond as I wrote? If someone came in and said “You are not true Christians!”, what would your dad do?
This is not a church. This is a public internet forum on a bodybuilding discussion forum with the subtitle of “Politics and World Issues”. Anyone can come here without believing in God which makes this a strange place to expect people who don’t believe in God to avoid responding. [/quote]
I will try to inject some sanity into our rants – on both sides.
As a Christian, I don’t expect the non-belivers to do anything or behave in any certain way. I understand how this all seems to those who are not born-again – I was there 11 years ago myself. I would have probably been writing like many of you guys against the “fundies.”
However, I think if you read my posts, I don’t get into calling people names, 4-letter words, or hurling personal insults like “small mind,” “twerp,” and all of the other wonderful things that I have been called.
I have only quoted Scripture and relayed the words of Christ in my answers. Those things may seem harsh and are often mis(interpreted) as being “self-righteous” or “superior.” I can say I think of myslef in neither terms – I am just a sinner saved by the grace of God.
What I do think is that we can have a good discussion about the things of God in a way that perserves our integrity. We don’t need to insult each other personally, use foul language, and the like. Why do this?
We are only hurting our own integrity and causing others to think badly of this site. I call upon all who participate to respect others even when maintaining strong opinions.
are you saying that accepting Jesus as your lord and savior is not enough to be a Christian?
a ‘true’ Christian doesn’t ever ‘mess up’ after accepting Jesus?
a ‘true’ Christian must also be as ‘Christ’ like as possible?
It’s not that it’s ambiguous, it’s that the statement is: A) a tautology; B) an example of the ‘True Scotsman’ fallacy; and, C) a faulty comparison. To wit–
A) “True Christians follow Christ” is a self-referential statement, otherwise known as a tautology. Other examples are “Boys will be boys”, and “I am what I am.” As these statements mean nothing without previous knowledge of the subject, they are essentially meaningless.
B) The true Scotsman fallacy goes as follows:
“All true Scotsman play golf.”
“But, what about Shamus? He’s from Scotland and he doesn’t golf.”
“Ah, then he must not be a true Scotsman.”
So, you see, this is a way to limit the range of the subject by applying a bullshit modifier that can be defined at will by the party making the argument.
C) Faulty comparison
This is one I scream at my students for. In the sentence written by Little Steve, true Christian, follow Christ the person. To the movies, the mall, etc. What Little Steve intended was "True Christians follow Christ’s [i] teachings[i].
So, students, we see that Steve has shown himself to be a self-righteous schmuck three times in four words.
Harris,
The tenor of your posts, the language you choose to use, and your ignorance of facts, concern me given the fact that you are supposedly teaching children.
That being said, the word “Christian” if you break it down, does, in fact, mean “follower of Messiah,” which in turn then means that one who calls himself “Christian” will follow the Messiah – i.e. Christ. See?
Now perhaps you will come back with something useful and intelligent – but I am not holding my breath!
Here are the words of Christ that you should really consider:
[b][i]
“?A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. ?But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. ?For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” Matthew 12:35-37
[/b][/i]
So, you really wrote “True followers of Christ follow Christ?”
That’s just moronic.
You should worry about me teaching children. Every kid that comes through my classroom leaves having been taught one thing above all others: Don’t accept other people’s horseshit.
[/quote]
Well, I do know one thing, they probably learn many 4-letter and vulgar words that they either didn’t know before or thought that it was wrong to use. So I guess your “gift” to them will be that they have learned that when they get upset and someone or something, it is OK to let the vulgarity fly. I am sure the parents appreciate you so much Harris!
Well, when you stand before God Harris, why don’t you thank Him for “inventing” this wonderful word that you love to use so much. I am certain that God will appreciate that.
Oh, I feel sooooo bad that you are laughing at me. Oh, you really runied my day now!
Whereas you think science is faith and Reagan was a good president and the bible can be proven true.
[/quote]
Science when it delves into things unprovable is religion, Reagan was a great President, and the Bible while it cannot be proven mathematically, has survived because it is true. Remember, in science if a theory has not been proven false, it is then accepted if it reasonably fits the facts. Well, the Bible has never been “proven” wrong.
Anyway, I am done “talking” to you Harris. Please read the posts, read your Bible, and beg God to forgive you of your sins. Perhaps he will show mercy upon your poor pathetic soul.
Before giving some analysis to the passage, let us first briefly comment upon the matter of the genuineness of the context. Virtually every translation of the English Bible, this side of the 1611 King James Version, at least footnotes the passage, calling attention to the weak manuscript evidence behind the section embraced by John 7:53-8:11. All of the best Greek manuscripts, including the two oldest papyri (P66 and P75 ? dating from about A.D. 200) omit it. Most scholars ? including many conservative ones ? doubt that this section was a part of John?s original Gospel.
I have seen no problem with John 7:53-8:11. It is in the most appropriate manuscripts. The manuscripts that do not have it are to my knowledge, all from the critical text, and I haven’t seen too many scolars who disagree that the critical text was subject to manipulation and perversions from agnostics in Egypt.
You have got to be joking. The earlist ones don’t have it in there
“The account of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) has a textual history that makes heads spin. Michaels in her commentary on John [146] offers the details: It is not in the earliest manuscripts (with one exception); in those manuscripts where we do find it, it is not found in one place. Some have it at the end of John. Some put it after our John 7:36; one puts it after 7:44. Some have it in Luke, after Luke 21:38. So what’s happening here? Do we maybe have a bit of an otherwise rejected gospel, or an inauthentic story of Jesus, in our canon?”
You may be confused because many manuscipts surfaced after the compilation of Bible, and these manuscripts have been dated as being older than the manuscripts that were used. Interesting to note though, that the books or scrolls that are frequently used must be copied frequently because the constant wear and tear causes them to deteriorate.
Case in point - take your favorite book, and read it a hundred times. And, let all your friends read it a hundred times. And, let all your friends’ friends read it a hundred times. Eventually it wears out. You are forced to copy it, and the newer copy contains the same information as the older copy, but it is newer by date.
Then, take a book you hate. You wont read it. Your friends wont read it. Nobody wants it because it is worthless. So, as the years pass, it physically looks pretty good. But, the information in it is just as poor as it was all those years ago.
I don’t need a lesson on the churches preservation of the Bible. You might be interested in metzger’s book
The manuscripts you are relying on are the junk manuscripts that the original Christians would not use.
Offer a source
To further clarify the point, the individuals that included these manuscripts in the new translations of the Bible were into witchcraft, necromancy, and spirit divination.
Wescott and Hort were the most notable. Heavy drinkers, partiers, and spiritualists - not Christians. Yet, you read translations based primarily on their work. Do you see where the problem is at now?
With you and your lack of evidence just merely speculation on alot of topics which you apparently don’t know much about. By the way I am not including texts from the gnositics.
You must have not looked that hard. Lucifer is missing from the NIV, NASB, AB, NLT, ESV, ASV, WNT, and many more.
Did you actually look, or are you tellin us a fib?
This is a huge point, and the fact that you didn’t even look for it tells me that you ARE EITHER BIAS, IGNORANT, FRAUDULENT, OR ATTEMPTING TO SWAY THE MASSES THROUGH SIMPLE SPEECH AND FANCY WORDS.
I made a mistake. I thought my electronic versions were switching when I performed the greek search it didn’t
However I did a hebrew search for that word and this is Strong’s defnintion.
H1966
הילל
hêylêl
hay-lale’
From H1984 (in the sense of brightness); the morning star: - lucifer.
Morning star seems to work according to strong’s.
Did you pull these from the flawed manuscripts I mentioned above? If you used the newer translations, I am sure you have.
No I used Thayer’s dictionary for those words.
The Bible was written to be very easy to understand. That is why Jesus preached the Gospel to the poor and the sinners first. That is why so many “uneducated” men took part in writing it (through the hand of God, of course).
You are attempting to portray the Bible as being TOO DIFFICULT FOR ANY NORMAL MIND TO UNDERSTAND. Now, why would you do that? Hmmm…It sounds like what the Catholic chruch did to surpress the peasants in the dark ages.
No I am portraying it as something that isn’t always literal, and requires a certain amount of understanding which a literalist lacks.
You credibilty was lost when you failed to look up Isaiah 14:12.
I didn’t fail to look it up I made a mistake. although you have yet to admit you made a mistake with Revelation 22:18-19
not a surprise though.
I am sure you think God actually rides on Gabriel too? 2sam 22:11
[/quote]
How do you really expect me to take you seriously when I merely asked you to find Lucifer in the new translations and you failed. You are obviously an intelligent man, so the old “whoops, sorry, didn’t think about that” doesn’t fly with that critical point.
I get very angry when people insinuate that you have to be a brilliant scholar to understand the Bible. Are you familer with the Catholic church of the Dark Ages? Perhaps you would understand.
As far as Revelation goes, I do not believe I made a mistake, and your proof is seriously lacking. Perhaps you can give me the text, scrolls, time-period, translators, and any other relevant information for me to see if you have a valid point or are simply trying to cause disention. Without that evidence, I have to assume that the same corrupt manuscripts that you rely on have been relied on here as well.
BTW - Are you actually a Christian, or are you one of these guys that believes any religion and being a good person leads to life in heaven? Please elaborate.
This does not mean make continuous threads about religion to people who don’t seem to be interested until it upsets them and provokes them.
New rules?
Okay next time there is a thread that I don’t particularly like I’ll make sure to enter it and do whatever I can to mess it up, just as you have done here.
No wait…I won’t do that. To do that would take great arrogance. And while I am probably guilty of that sin too, I’m not quite up to that level.
REREAD THE ORIGINAL POST. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT!
[/quote]
Zeb,
No – you cannot mess up threads that you disagree with or you think are redundant or if you are sick and tired of them. No way!
That is not allowed – except when the threads are from Bible-beliving Christians. Then and only then can you do this.
Before giving some analysis to the passage, let us first briefly comment upon the matter of the genuineness of the context. Virtually every translation of the English Bible, this side of the 1611 King James Version, at least footnotes the passage, calling attention to the weak manuscript evidence behind the section embraced by John 7:53-8:11. All of the best Greek manuscripts, including the two oldest papyri (P66 and P75 ? dating from about A.D. 200) omit it. Most scholars ? including many conservative ones ? doubt that this section was a part of John?s original Gospel.
hmm… little evidence for in the mss… strange the body of evidence rests on my side.[/quote]
Did you miss the entire point of my previous post? I would expect the manuscripts that were never used to remain intact. Early Christians felt they were garbage. Never used = never damaged = never copied. Do you get the picture.
And, you still fail to see that the guys who put the new translations together were spritualists and necromancers? What a surprise.
It is very funny that the one time you show up on this thread is to cause desention by hammering on a realitively small point. Then, you tell us that we’re too dumb to understand the Bible and that we need you. How convienent.
I’ll ask again. Are you really a Christian, or are you one of these guys who believes any religion can take you to heaven?
uh-oh haney…looks like you’re not a ‘true’ Christian from terribleivan’s mighty tower of superiority…
apparently it’s not enough to receive Jesus’ blessing to be saved, we now need terribleivan’s too…[/quote]
Was that your answer to my last challenge?
DPH - I’m sorry that you feel I’m superior to you. I have said time and time again that I am not. But, your own inquity and conscience seems to be bothering you. Why?
BTW - We only need the grace that comes through accepting the gift of salvation through Jesus Christ - Praise the Lord for that!
