The Bible

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
The bible which was written by second hand prophets… I find Jesus Christ to be a great example of a humanitarian, however alot seems to not sit right… The teaching is meant to dissolve oneself and see past conditioning, not to follow blindly to random scripture and text and call it truth through a pattern of the mind, theology and belief is just a mental mind construct. [/quote]

This is all wrong. I suspect you have not read the whole thing or know a great deal about biblical history. Jesus was not a humanitarian, he was the Christ. God incarnate in the flesh. Much more than a humanitarian and the depth and breath of his presence on Earth is still yet to be fully realized and understood.[/quote]

Precisely. And people who see Jesus as simply a good guy, a humanitarian perhaps, are absolutely clueless to the fact that when he returns he will kill millions of people when he returns. He has every right, for he is God. That will be the side of Jesus we will be frightened to see. [/quote]

How Jesus will judge, we do not know, we do know his judgement is right and fair. We do know that evil will be dealt with in finality. We also know, death of the body is not end of life.
When that day comes we cannot know, I for one would be glad to have evil dealt with and put away for good. I don’t really care when it happens or if the time is near or not. I can’t control it, I just have to trust it all comes out right, and it will…

102

Questions for the christian believers in this thread: How many of you believe the bible to be an accurate historical document? How many believe the bible and it’s stories in a literal sense? Do you believe it to be interpreted for it’s root meanings and not to be interpreted literally?

Thanks.

103

Questions for the Atheists in this thread: How many of you believe the bible to be inaccurate historical document? How many believe the bible and it’s stories in a unliteral sense? Do you not believe it to be interpretted for it’s root meanings and to be interpreted literally? How many of you when you die will be all dressed up and no where to go?

104

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Questions for the Atheists in this thread: How many of you believe the bible to be inaccurate historical document? How many believe the bible and it’s stories in a unliteral sense? Do you not believe it to be interpretted for it’s root meanings and to be interpreted literally? How many of you when you die will be all dressed up and no where to go?[/quote]

dmaddox, I asked my questions with sincerity, and was looking for sincere responses. If you’re not interested in replying, then don’t reply. Simple, really.

Or, you could make an effort to post up an intelligent reply. The choice is yours.

105

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Questions for the christian believers in this thread: How many of you believe the bible to be an accurate historical document? How many believe the bible and it’s stories in a literal sense? Do you believe it to be interpreted for it’s root meanings and not to be interpreted literally?

Thanks.[/quote]The bible is literally historical and accurate everywhere it so intends, which is not everywhere. Not even the most strident dispensational fundamentalist believes that every statement of the bible is to be taken literally. How one determines what is what is far too large a topic for an internet thread. What view of God and scripture one starts with makes a huge difference, but no Christian believes when the bible says the sun “rises”, that it is making a statement about astronomy for instance. I am VERY conservative and I don’t believe that. Pretty much, what it meant to the original hearers is the foundation for everything. However even then, revelation IS progressive throughout the bible. The book of Hebrews and Pauline theology report far more content to pretty much the entire old testament than the old testament saints themselves understood. Like I say. HYOOOJ discussion. Always good to see my ol pal Sparky pop in for a spell.

106

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If your church is what she says she is then I AM a heretic. You see now don’t ya? I can be a heretic and yet you still love me.[/quote]

If a, thus b. A is true, thus b is true.

Though that brings up the conundrum of Titus 3:10. But, that is the difference between a material and formal heretic. :wink:

Yes, separated brethren.

107

960×583 134 KB

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
EDIT: Oops. Oh yeah, I follow/imitate the apostles as they follow Christ like Paul said. (1 Corinthians 11:1) You have to know what they said before this can be done. I do hereby once again assert, calmly and even respectfully, that the church headquartered in Rome is not the place to look if one would accurately learn what they said. Yes, I am fully persuaded that I know what they said with far more exegetical integrity than all the magisterial scholars in the history of Roman Catholicism combined. We can still talk about that Chris. [/quote]

I’m sure the fact that St. Paul being catechized by St. Peter for 15 days is not significant at all.

108

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
King of out of left field, but I love reading psalms from a King James bible. The language in beautiful. [/quote]

Ditto.

But for a more…“muscular”…version, try:

Modern translation is a thing of…interesting mixed with a lot of head scratching. Why I prefer the Latin.

109

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
The premise of what I am saying is most everything you all are saying was either taught or attained through memory and knowledge, but how about self inquiry? really going to the root of things, finding out whats really true rather then things learned second hand what do you know for absolute certain without qouting or running anywhere else?

The idea of civilization falling apart without religion and doing good through fear of punishment showcases this problem up and center… If one recognized life and everything as themself and them as everything they would not do anything in a way that doesn’t operate out of the deepest respect and love, But plenty of good religious valued people have killed others just because they don’t agree with their beliefs, the same goes for governing ideas like communism, or others… Any mind made structure or idea is imaginary and not real until actually proven through personal experience for that person themself. If one has inner peace and realizes they do not do harm to others without harming themselves and knows that good to others is good for them, why would they commit atrocities?

It was Jesus that once stated those that “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear” And never have I seen more violence commited on this planet then that caused by the separation of man from his fellow human through some belief or idea.

Ego is the problem, and the collective pain that comes with identifying with the thinking mind… The New Testament has very beautiful and inspiring words to see but it must be seen through the absolute, so does the Tao Te Ching, Bhagavad Gita, Buddhist Scriptures, but without eyes to see what the message is then all will be lost in thought.

the only way to experience life and god surrounding you and within you is in the present moment of no mind, past and future are a virtual reality and the thinking mind separates us from God, so throw it out. [/quote]

Of all the causes in the world for a man to justify killing another man, if it is never religion than he has no other cause he can claim as justification. Not life, not food, not love, nothing. This is assuming that religion is what is justly owed to God.

110

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
EDIT: Oops. Oh yeah, I follow/imitate the apostles as they follow Christ like Paul said. (1 Corinthians 11:1) You have to know what they said before this can be done. I do hereby once again assert, calmly and even respectfully, that the church headquartered in Rome is not the place to look if one would accurately learn what they said. Yes, I am fully persuaded that I know what they said with far more exegetical integrity than all the magisterial scholars in the history of Roman Catholicism combined. We can still talk about that Chris. [/quote]

I’m sure the fact that St. Paul being catechized by St. Peter for 15 days is not significant at all.[/quote]So was Paul. Christopher ya jist gotta quit with these goofy images. Nobody says what that says.
You missed verse 11 in the Titus passage too. What is it with Catholics and clumsy eisegesis? I gotta go right now though. Man you have great timing lately. Whatever you do Colonel Adams, you’ll never push me away.

111

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Questions for the christian believers in this thread: How many of you believe the bible to be an accurate historical document? How many believe the bible and it’s stories in a literal sense? Do you believe it to be interpreted for it’s root meanings and not to be interpreted literally?

Thanks.[/quote]

As finding myself to be orthodox in most things the Bible has four senses: literal and spiritual (which breaks into three senses: Allegorical, Tropological, and Anagogical).

Is it an accurate historical document? In places, not always (such as Genesis). I always believe the stories in the literal sense, but as I said there are four senses to read scripture and it is immensely deep for being written in rough Greek. The four senses explain how to interpret scripture, if you only interpret it literally you’ll come away with a shallow understanding of scripture. However, if by literal you are referring to the literalistic interpretation, that is usually going to find you in heresy like our friend Tirib and the 40,000 denominations.

You’re welcome. And, this is all brought to you, not by my efforts, by the Early Church Fathers.

112

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
EDIT: Oops. Oh yeah, I follow/imitate the apostles as they follow Christ like Paul said. (1 Corinthians 11:1) You have to know what they said before this can be done. I do hereby once again assert, calmly and even respectfully, that the church headquartered in Rome is not the place to look if one would accurately learn what they said. Yes, I am fully persuaded that I know what they said with far more exegetical integrity than all the magisterial scholars in the history of Roman Catholicism combined. We can still talk about that Chris. [/quote]

I’m sure the fact that St. Paul being catechized by St. Peter for 15 days is not significant at all.[/quote]So was Paul. Christopher ya jist gotta quit with these goofy images. Nobody says what that says.
You missed verse 11 in the Titus passage too. What is it with Catholics and clumsy eisegesis? I gotta go right now though. Man you have great timing lately. Whatever you do Colonel Adams, you’ll never push me away.[/quote]

So was Paul, what?

114

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
King of out of left field, but I love reading psalms from a King James bible. The language in beautiful. [/quote]

Ditto.

But for a more…“muscular”…version, try:

Modern translation is a thing of…interesting mixed with a lot of head scratching. Why I prefer the Latin.[/quote]

Well, that’s ok, too. As long as you know that Jerome’s Latin head-scratching is twice removed from the originals, is overlaid with misplaced theology and doesn’t try to capture the poetry. NTTAWWT.

115

[quote]pat wrote:

I lived Job for a few years… It sucked.[/quote]

You don’t get to “live Job for a few years” unless you had a Bentley, a Ferrari, a Lamborghini and a Porsche 911 and had been left to go by only with a 2002 Kia Spectra.

Sorry.

116

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

…Is it an accurate historical document? In places, not always (such as Genesis)…

[/quote]

Where is Genesis historically inaccurate? The whole thing? Parts of it? Which parts?

Do tell.[/quote]

Two and three. According to the St. Augustine, at least.

117

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
King of out of left field, but I love reading psalms from a King James bible. The language in beautiful. [/quote]

Ditto.

But for a more…“muscular”…version, try:

Modern translation is a thing of…interesting mixed with a lot of head scratching. Why I prefer the Latin.[/quote]

Well, that’s ok, too. As long as you know that Jerome’s Latin head-scratching is twice removed from the originals, is overlaid with misplaced theology and doesn’t try to capture the poetry. NTTAWWT.[/quote]

I hope you don’t mind if I disagree with you on the theology, after all he is a Doctor of the Church. Nevertheless, it is far more masculine then modern translation and is far more poetic especially when chanted.

118

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

…Is it an accurate historical document? In places, not always (such as Genesis)…

[/quote]

Where is Genesis historically inaccurate? The whole thing? Parts of it? Which parts?

Do tell.[/quote]

Two and three. According to the St. Augustine, at least.[/quote]

Does Augustine’s accommodative interpretation not open a door that can’t be closed in your view? In other words, when it is understood that some unidentified claims are literally true and others are not, isn’t the whole thing cheapened? Even suspect?

119

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
King of out of left field, but I love reading psalms from a King James bible. The language in beautiful. [/quote]

Ditto.

But for a more…“muscular”…version, try:

Modern translation is a thing of…interesting mixed with a lot of head scratching. Why I prefer the Latin.[/quote]

Well, that’s ok, too. As long as you know that Jerome’s Latin head-scratching is twice removed from the originals, is overlaid with misplaced theology and doesn’t try to capture the poetry. NTTAWWT.[/quote]

I hope you don’t mind if I disagree with you on the theology, after all he is a Doctor of the Church. Nevertheless, it is far more masculine then modern translation and is far more poetic especially when chanted.

[/quote]

Well, that is very nice, but it is still attempt at a translation of a text, a text which is still accessible and open.
The Vulgate divides and numbers the Psalms differently, but it gives me an opportunity to show an example of the poetic power of the original, even when translated into English.

Let’s take the Psalm 116 I know as an example of literary translation.

In the KJV that Fletch1986 likes:

"5 Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; yea, our God is merciful.

“6 The LORD preserveth the simple: I was brought low, and he helped me.”

…and then verse 12:

"12 What shall I render unto the LORD for all his benefits toward me?

“13 I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the LORD.”

Now the translation by Robert Alter:

“5 Gracious the Lord and just, and our God shows mercy.”
“6 THe Lord protects the simple. I plunged down, but me He did rescue.”
and…

"12 What can I give back to the Lord for all He requited to me?
“13 The cup of rescue I lift and in the name of the Lord I call.”

(I cannot comment on the Vulgate; it barely gets the tenses correct, and it does not really translate the poetry at all.)

But however beautiful the KJV, what is lost in translation that is retrieved by Alter?

Well, in verse 6, note the verb root yshua, to draw up, to rescue, to save (particularly from a pit or from water, hence the name of Moses) is translated as “rescue.” (“Plunged…rescue” up; not the flabby “brought low…helped” of the KJV.)

And now the parallelism to lines 12 and 13 is clear: plunge, rescue (draw up)…cup of rescue, lift.

This is what I meant by more “muscular.” In a good translation, the language is sinewy, the parallel structure is revealed, as it is in the original Hebrew.

120

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< So was Paul, what?[/quote]Paul told us straight up that he gained nothing from Peter. Not to denigrate the great apostle Peter one bit, but that ain’t how Paul learned the gospel Chris. Do you really wanna try this again.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Where is Genesis historically inaccurate? The whole thing? Parts of it? Which parts?
Do tell.[/quote]Two and three. According to the St. Augustine, at least.[/quote]It is anything but clear what Augustine’s view evolved (no pun) into. Besides, though the bishop of Hippo was the greatest patriarch of the time, he was still a man and was plenty wrong on some stuff too. His later work was definitely his best though.

[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< Does Augustine’s accommodative interpretation not open a door that can’t be closed in your view? In other words, when it is understood that some unidentified claims are literally true and others are not, isn’t the whole thing cheapened? Even suspect?[/quote]Not necessarily. Old creationism is in my view not biblical, but it’s tolerable. (barely) It is not fatally heretical. Once you attempt to smuggle macro evolution into the mix, it’s time to find a religion who’s sacred texts are not in your way. They cannot possibly both be true. It is pure Satanic deception that attempts to marry biblical theology with men from apes. Knock iot off I say to those who try. You are a blasphemous traitor of the gospel and an enemy of the God of Christianity.