The Armenian Issuehttp://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930
GTA 6 Thread
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?819300-GTA-6-Reveal-Trailer
"We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."
There are different areas of competence on the issue of scripture. An historical analysis of the Bible is very different from a theological one - even though I acknowledge that the latter is often influenced by the former. The direct answer to your question is that Christians have already assumed (in most cases) scriptural inerrancy whereas historians have not. Christians are seeking to find the truth within the text, not whether or not the text is itself true. When I accused the poster above of having no religious education, my point was that he clearly has no idea why the Abrahamic texts are persuasive to so many; his childlike analysis simply supposes that believers are gullible fools who worship fairy tales.
Last edited by Cope; July 01, 2019 at 04:29 PM.
Jesus does not answer Pilate, we agree, yes? the rest is your intepretation and not scripture.
You're preaching now old chap. As for the number of Bibles published, if I buy a press and print a trillion trillion copies of my own Bible that says Jesus was a man and not the Son of God will you believe that story? I wouldn't so please, the number of Bibles printed is irrelevant.
2% is not 0%, its different and I'm glad we agree. If i repay the bank 2% less than my mortgage is worth its not accurate. The dead Sea Scrolls change the text of the bible. They predate the current version. The word of God changes across various manuscripts.
Old chap I have done so many times. Here we go again. John 7:38 "He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water". There is no scripture that says this, although there are similar statements. Jesus quotes a scripture not in the Bible. Either Jesus was mistaken or our Bibles are incomplete.
Not to my satisfaction.
The word of God is not the same as the word of men inspired by God. "Inspired writing" is the catholic and Orthodox position, be careful old chap, don't fall into Papism.
Here's a simple test. Change one word in your Bible, say a single one like "the" to "a". Read to a friend, see if they notice. The curses of the Book of revelations actually don't happen to someone who does it, there have been typos (eg the infamous "Adulterer's Bible") in the past and no snakes or dragons or scorpions appeared and tortured the publishers. They were embarrassed because they made accidental mockery of a very beautiful and important religious book. But no scorpions.
The words of the Bible are important because of the strong belief of the writers and readers (readers like you, your belief makes it beautiful don't you agree? You could write something as beautiful too I believe, you faith is strong enough). It is in my view idolatry to adore it as some sacred immutable thing when it is demonstrably not.
Jatte lambastes Calico Rat
Cyclops,
Referal is quite different from exact repetition yet there is no doubt Jesus uses living water as a reference to Himself just as the Scriptures say. He is the living water of both Old and New Covenants.
Bible verses related to Living Water from the King James Version (KJV) by Relevance
- Sort By Book Order
John 4:14 - But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
John 7:38 - He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
John 4:13-15 - Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: (Read More...)
Revelation 21:6 - And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
Isaiah 44:3 - For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:
John 7:37 - In the last day, that great [day] of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
Jeremiah 2:13 - For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, [and] hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.
Revelation 22:17 - And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
Revelation 22:1 - And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Isaiah 12:3 - Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation.
Isaiah 58:11 - And the LORD shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not.
John 7:37-39 - In the last day, that great [day] of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. (Read More...)
Revelation 7:16-17 - They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. (Read More...)
Isaiah 41:17-18 - [When] the poor and needy seek water, and [there is] none, [and] their tongue faileth for thirst, I the LORD will hear them, I the God of Israel will not forsake them. (Read More...)
Jesus if one reads the chapter infers that He is truth within the question of Him being a king. Pilate's remark was a picture of his frustration at now being the centre of the Jews' demands to have an innocent man killed. The Jews claimed the truth and Jesus said He was the truth and so to wash his hands of the proceedings he said " What is truth?" almost in desperation at the situation he found himself in. So, no, I don't agree with your assessment.
The difference between you publishing millions of books and calling them bibles is quite different from the Bible I refer to, why? Because it delivers what it says regarding new life in Christ to them that seek Jesus' forgiveness for it doesn't just stop at the reading in the case of many. I mean your books will not stop one from going into hell when your time is up yet Jesus Christ guarantees the opposite for all them that are called by Him.
There hasn't ever been a person saved by God who had perfect satisfaction before they believed as that power comes from the Spirit in breaking down the hardness that stops a person from believing.
Jesus is the word of God just as the Holy Ghost is also God so what has been written comes from the hearts of them who are indwelt by God, who belong to Him, and who are adopted into His family by His redeeming blood. Of course the world doesn't believe or accept that yet all believers from the beginning of time were all part of an unbelieving and disobedient world.
Peter writes that Scripture can only be interpreted by the leading of the Holy Spirit through His indwelling work or by revelation to a reader so salvation is seen to be the total working of all three Persons in the Trinity as being the source and outworking of their salvation. Being then the word and work of God delivered to fallen man how can it be an idol?
*I'm not crying you are, he said while choking back the tears*
If you really think that constitutes a tantrum, then you need help mate.
But to paraphrase you once again, this isn't the first time I've had to witness a conservative tantrum over Christianity once their beliefs in superstitious hocus pocus have been analysed.
Brainwashing? Lack of critical analysis? You have to admit that the religious indoctrination of impressionable kids into a specific faith is little more than brainwashing. However, it is lucky that all religious people just so happen to be indoctrinated into the correct, one true faith. How convenient.
You're right. All believers are obviously theology students who have patiently analysed all tenets of every single major religion before carefully choosing their specific faith. Isn't that how it works?
Don't worry, I once had an invisible friend too. His name was Gerald, but I stopped believing in him at the age of seven. Maybe one day, you'll get there too.
I would say that from a historical perspective, Gill's exegesis is partially correct. Although, the issue is not about marriage or who may become a Jew.
Deuteronomy 23:3 states that neither a Moabite nor his decedents to the tenth generation may enter into the assembly of Yahweh. Moabite here is specifically male, for the following reason:
mōwᵓāḇî (singular masculine)
mōwᵓāḇîṯ (singular feminine)
mōwᵓāḇîm (plural masculine or mixed gender)
If the prohibition had used the plural form, it would be ambiguous, but it uses the singular form. I can't think of any example of a law code that uses the plural, probably for this reason. That is why you see translations like “your male and female servants” etc. If it had meant male and female, it would have been mōwᵓāḇî ūmōwᵓāḇîṯ, “Moabite nor Moabitess”.
In any case, a female Israelite would not enter the assembly of Yahweh either. It's not really “enter into” anyway, it's “be in”. I'm assuming the former tends to be used because it's more elegant in translation and/or reflects a particular non-literal religious interpretation. This word translated as “assembly” is used elsewhere - the assembly of Israel, the assembly of Judah, the assembly of the people of God, as in the following:
“The chiefs of all the people, of all the tribes of Israel, presented themselves in the assembly of the people of God, four hundred thousand foot-soldiers bearing arms.” ~Judges 20:2
An exaggerated number no doubt, but in any case, the assembly are the arms-bearing men who had some say in political decisions in exchange for military service.
The Targum Yonatan is essentially an exegesis dated to about the Second Century CE. It seems to misunderstand the meaning of the term in its original context. Texts dating from the period when the assembly continued to function are obviously more reliable. If you look at who else is prohibited from being in the assembly, it's also clear that it's not referring to conversion or marriage. Composition of the Book of Ruth most likely dates to the Persian Period.
The story about Pythagoras is probably baseless, as well. Pythagoras himself is notorious for allegedly being inspired by a multitude of foreign cultures, from Zoroastrian Persians to pagan Thracians, so the addition of the Jews is hardly surprising. The legend presumably generated from a passage of Hermippus, who mentioned the connection to the Jews (together with that of the Thracians), in order to highlight the eccentricity of a philosopher he personally disliked. More precisely, he believed that a couple of Pythagoras' bizarre prohibitions (especially, his obsession with blasphemy) originated from the Jews. Then, his account was exploited by Hellenised Jews (like Josephus and perhaps Aristobulus) and Church Fathers, in order to reinforce their special narrative:
The former desired to increase the prestige of the Biblical teachings, by associating them with the highly esteemed Greek culture (or even by claiming it as the original source), while the latter's goal was to protect the intellectual integrity of Christianity, by again tying it with the admired philosophical thinking of the ancient Greeks. Overall, I am sure that Greek philosophy was influenced by a variety of Near Eastern civilisations, which could explain certain similarities with the Jewish religion, as they may even share the same original source (e.g. Egyptian priestly wisdoms). That being said, I doubt the Jewish role was prominent, at least in comparison to Egypt, Mesopotamia and Anatolia. If you are interested in the subject, you should read Bar-Kochva's work over the subject, which is almost entirely available for free.
Why are you asking me? I find your tangent to have lost its relevance to the key point regarding your all or nothing approach, which you don't seem willing to give a credible response to anymore.
But to give a little swing to the pendulum, as I am not the sort who believes an individual is a homengenuous devil in every aspect of a discussion should I disagree with one take (an attitude all too frequent in here and a key contributor to why I don't put much effort even keeping track of these threads),
The writing itself may be persuasive to some, but the wider scale of influence can boil down to several factors that don't have anything to do with the writing of the Bible. The presence of an enigmatic preacher who takes the most appealing parts and turns it into a malleable sermon for those seeking purpose, or better yet, are in such straits of life they need to cling to something. The convenience on a political level to give people a unifying glue, as it was in history (serving as a moral codebook certainly helped its growth of appeal in less philosophical periods). The ever ironic lack of critical analysis that is necessary to be a fully fledged respected member of the religious society, boiling down to tidbits you've taken to heart while others remain in the depths by sermons, upbringing where you are told 'that's how it is', and a general conformity that has always been associated with people's need to fit in.
There seems to be the idea that Christians as a whole actively analyze the Bible and have derived solid inner meanings for themselves as compared to those who just take it too literally. Perhaps that is true in some cases, but looking at history and looking at the plentiful Christians I have met, that's just not universal at all, and it is far more likely to boil down to the above factors. Just as the most steadfast beliefs boil down to people's deeply rooted personal interpretation of what is written, so too do the masses as a general rule simply go along with what is convenient, what gives them a system in their darkest places, and what can unite them in a simple way that doesn't involve having ever opened a bible, let alone critically analyzing the contents. This is merely to establish its original appeal, never mind its self-sustaining growth that comes from people following along when meeting someone so convinced of their faith to repeat that cycle of beginning and the indoctrination from childhood as far as what is and isn't a simple fact of life.
'Course you have Sweetheart, keep telling yourself that.
Just keep praying to your magic wishing fairy! Maybe one day he'll grant you the courage to stop kowtowing to a non-existent deity in the vain hope that you won't die. I'm terribly sorry, but I've bad news for you... everything dies and there is no after life.
Deal with it and move on. Stop projecting, get up off your knees and just enjoy life...
It should be noted also that by the day Josephus and Clement they are more or less talking about variations of neo platonic thought. Sure name drop Pythagoras as you will. But I pretty sure you a can't a Jewish basis for say Democritus and his views on atomic theory or that nature of the universe. Same really goes for Epicurean school.
IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites
'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'
But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.
Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.
Thank you for the correction, it seems Infidel and basics were correct. Good to have my ignorance enlightened.
If I may change tack, there's a stream of thought in the OT about marriage to foreign women (starting with Canaanite in Deuteronomy) but latterly extended to all non-Jews) that Ruth seems designed to contradict. In any case the broader point stands that there' s a lot of contradictions in the Bible that only blind faith can ignore.
There is no scripture about water coming out of a believers belly. Either jesus is mistakemn about Scripture, or Scripture is incomplete.
I just Googled another one, Like 4:17, where Jesus reads the Septuagint Isaiah (use by Orthodox and Catholics) not the Masoretic one used by Protestants. Which one is true? The KJV does not have the verse about blindness at that point in Isaiah but it does in Luke where Isaiah is recited from a scroll. Why is Jesus reading the Catholic and not the KJV version, in the KJV? Was he secretly a Catholic all along? Or maybe the KJV compilers made a simple error. After all, they were only human.
Copied by hand over many thousands of years, the Bible is full of human errors. Its also full of beautiful faith like yours my friend, but I don't think the writers were perfect.
Jatte lambastes Calico Rat
It migth be interesting to explore a concrete example, slavery. What is truth does the Bible tell us about it?
In the ancient middle-east and mediterranean civilizations, the concept of slavery itself was rarely questioned.
When Roman writers address the morality of slavery, they do not question the rigth or wrong of slavery itself. Instead they address what it means to be 'a good master': how he should reward or punish the actions of his slaves.
The most 'enlightened' view is for masters not to treat slaves as completely disposable, but basically as people on trial towards future manumission (which was by no means an end to subservience to / independence from a former master).
I've had a bit of a search, admittedly no more, what the Bible might have to say about it. I have not found anything that points to a paradigm shift regarding slavery in the Bible.
In a time when slavery itself was unquestioned a profoundly clear and unambiguous denunciation would have been required to make people question something one would otherwise perhaps not even be capable of questioning (such is the nature of paradigms that alternatives only appear feasible in hindsight).
So, what truth are we to derive from the bible regarding the morality of slavery? Is it ok in the eyes of God? If not, would that not require us to believe that God hid messages in the bible that even those who recorded His words remained wholly oblivious (and continued to sin because of it) only for them to be discovered a few centuries ago? How does this work?
"Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -
Because as Iliad, Odyssey, or even the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Bible is a great book, and great books have their own life, they survive time and space, I like to consider them part of what the French Annales School of historical writings named "longue durée" (long term history), that is, historical phenomena"beyond, or beneath, the cycles and structural crises, .. old attitudes of thought and action, resistant frameworks dying hard, at times against all logic."
Commodus1V,
I didn't come to Christ because of any brain washing rather by the little I had read from a KJV I had mysteriously become the owner of. It was at that time I began to have visions and dreams which I couldn't understand until they played out much later. As a child I believed there was a God because my mother told me there was, her pronouncements being that He was watching me whenever I was caught doing wrong and thast was about my level of knowledge then. I remember how on a Sunday being sent to Sunday school with one old penny and two ship halfpennies, the penny for the church and the half pennies for foreign aid, I would put one halfpenny into the one collection and the other into the other plate leaving me with one whole penny to buy two toffee balls from the local shop. Boy did I have a lot of chewing to do before I got home because had mu mum known my backside would have been stinging. You know I can't even remember one lesson from these times although I can still remember my Sunday school teacher's name.
At nineteen I got my girlfriend pregnant and we secretly got married at Gretna Green by a registrar and over the anvil before I told my parents. We became church goers and I had to be sprinkled to get our boy Christened as they call it. During that time of my life never once did I hear the Gospel inside that church nor did I have a Bible to read of it. Well, after a few years and tons of hours building a Napoleonic army and opposition I got involved with another female who had three sons. My wife left me and so I set up home with that woman. This was in a brand new house so to keep my military stuff from their hands I put all my Nap books into the loft. This arrangement didn't work out so getting myself another house I went up to the loft without light to get my books and the strange thing happened for into my hands out came a KJV which to this day I haven't a clue as to how it got there but I took it anyway. It wasn't her's as she was an atheist so how did it get there? Once in my new place I started flicking through it and that was when the dreams and visions started.
Having two ex's in the same vicinity was not good and so I accepted the franchise for a toy shop up in Elgin and found a home in Hopeman nearby. The world's certainly a small place for the guy who owned the local garage came from the same area my mother came from and so we established a friendship which was going to have life changing events for me. He dared me to go to his church and I accepted. For the first time I heard the Gospel and everything that minister said seemed to point straight at me to such an extent that I pinned John to the wall later demanding to know what he had told that man about me. He hadn't spoken to him but I couldn't get it out of my head how he knew so much about me so I went back again and again till one evening I was on my knees appealing to God to sort me out. I'll never forget the warmth that crept up my body in those moments and being a victim of ankalosing spondilytus where I had to take pain killers every day, that night I slept like a baby without them. Next morning at work one of my girls noticed that not once did I utter a curse and I haven't since. There is much more to tell but that for later. That is how I met with God and His Saviour Jesus Christ.
Having visions and dreams as well as the asserted 'direct contact', true or not (in the sense of being a legitimate God-given result or a mindset based on perceived guilt and relief at having a moral purpose that sits right), is a decidedly unusual case (though I imagine not so much in the latter, but digressing) and does not represent the broad spectrum that is otherwise possible for most people who would be considered 'the masses' while still considering themselves Christians. Thus, I appreciate the effort, but what you have written is decidedly out of scope for what I posted.
People can meet God for a great many different ways and come to see the Bible as truth in very different ways, and if anything, you have contributed to my point - it is not any compelling argument or writing that won you over, but 'supernatural' elements that cannot be proven nor disproven, things that you must simply handle of your own accord as nobody else can either take that away from you or be faulted for being skeptical. So long as that is a loop where you do not force it upon others, you are completely free to do as you do. If the last sentence makes you weary, posting in a politically leaned debate section on a Total War site does not come close to my definition. If there's someone you want to convince, it would be TheLeft, as he is the one who would insinuate you as delusional from the first paragraph. And yet, I don't think that effort would go far.
I imagine there's a few possibilities to brainstorm.
- There's nothing inherently wrong about slavery in the fundamentalist Christian perspective, in some form or another; rather, such is a construct of modern social views
- The Bible 'forgot' about the matter
- It's not important enough to comment on
- The Bible was written by men and men's words of what was considered good form at the time
- The Bible is not as encompassing as people think
We know the Bible is true because God says so. We know God is always correct because the Bible says so. We know this claim from the Bible is accurate because God confirms it. We can rely on God's confirmation here because the Bible asserts that God cannot err. We can support this Biblical claim thanks to the very nature of its author, who is an all knowing God. God can be relied upon as an all knowing God because he is described as such in the Bible. The Bible's accuracy is confirmed by God's assertion that it is so. God's authority on this matter is established by the Bible. We know the Bible is true because God says so. We know God is always correct because the Bible says so. We know this claim from the Bible is accurate because God confirms it. We can rely on God's confirmation here because the Bible asserts that God cannot err. We can support this Biblical claim thanks to the very nature of its author, who is an all knowing God. God can be relied upon as an all knowing God because he described as such in the Bible. The Bible's accuracy is confirmed by God's assertion that it is so. God's authority on this matter is established by the Bible. We know the Bible is true because God says so. We know God is always correct because the Bible says so. We know this claim from the Bible is accurate because God confirms it. We can rely on God's confirmation here because the Bible asserts that God cannot err. We can support this Biblical claim thanks to the very nature of its author, who is an all knowing God. God can be relied upon as an all knowing God because he described as such in the Bible. The Bible's accuracy is confirmed by God's assertion that it is so. God's authority on this matter is established by the Bible.We know the Bible is true because God says so. We know God is always correct because the Bible says so. We know this claim from the Bible is accurate because God confirms it. We can rely on God's confirmation here because the Bible asserts that God cannot err. We can support this Biblical claim thanks to the very nature of its author, who is an all knowing God. God can be relied upon as an all knowing God because he described as such in the Bible. The Bible's accuracy is confirmed by God's assertion that it is so. God's authority on this matter is established by the Bible. We know the Bible is true because God says so. We know God is alwasy correct because the Bible says so. We know this claim from the Bible is accurate because God confirms it. We can rely on God's confirmation here because the Bible asserts that God cannot err. We can support this Biblical claim thanks to the very nature of its author, who is an all knowing God. God can be relied upon as an all knowing God because he described as such in the Bible. The Bible's accuracy is confirmed by God's assertion that it is so. God's authority on this matter is established by the Bible. The Bible's authority is established by God which is established by the Bible which is established by God which is established by the Bible which is established by God which is established by the Bible which is established by God which is established by the Bible which is established by God which is established by the Biblewhich is established by God which is established by the Bible which is established by God which is established by the Bible which is established by God which is established by the Bible which is established by God which is established by the Bible which is established by God which is established by the Bible...
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
-Betrand Russell