FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-13-2009, 06:37 AM   #61
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 8,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IBIH
Atheists have argued this verse with me over and over.. until I show them the truth. And then they conveniently switch topics.
So far the topic remains the same, I'm hopeful that you'll address the above posts.
DancesWithCoffeeCups is offline  
Old 09-13-2009, 11:08 AM   #62
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
The demand for autograph copies is likewise rather odd, and again indicative of a deep lack of education.
Rereading the exchange, I can't find any demands for an autographed copy. I must say, I can't recall seeing any such demand by any atheist here ever...though I'll allow for the possibility some fool did at one point in time.

Surely this is strawman.
spamandham is offline  
Old 09-13-2009, 11:25 AM   #63
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

autograph =/= autographed

There has been a request for an "original" version, but I think that a reasonably verifiable copy of an original would be satisfactory.

It was IBelieve who claimed that the original version of the gospels were in Hebrew. I think it is valid to ask about this original version if IBelieve is going to persist in this claim.
Toto is offline  
Old 09-13-2009, 11:38 AM   #64
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
autograph =/= autographed

There has been a request for an "original" version, but I think that a reasonably verifiable copy of an original would be satisfactory.
There is no way of knowing whether a copy is substantially similar to an original, unless it is attested as such by ancients who could reasonably know as much. Nor is there any way of determining whether an extant text *is* the original.

The entire discussion of original texts is just silly. We will never know what the originals said.
spamandham is offline  
Old 09-13-2009, 12:11 PM   #65
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sounding trumpets outside the walls of Louisville
Posts: 2,242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
autograph =/= autographed

There has been a request for an "original" version, but I think that a reasonably verifiable copy of an original would be satisfactory.
There is no way of knowing whether a copy is substantially similar to an original, unless it is attested as such by ancients who could reasonably know as much. Nor is there any way of determining whether an extant text *is* the original.

The entire discussion of original texts is just silly. We will never know what the originals said.
The reason it isn't a silly discussion is that, though we don't konw and may never know what the originals said, people behave as though the copies we have ARE the originals.
mrunicycler is offline  
Old 09-13-2009, 08:31 PM   #66
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,608
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by GenesisNemesis View Post
Christians don't understand the Koran.
Yes we do. I've already stated a major problem in "the perfect word of Allah". Allah said the Virgin Mary is a part of the Christian Holy Trinity. Allah isn't so perfect. He couldn't even distinguish a story that was around for nearly 700 years prior to Islam.
Are you sure that Islam wasn't around prior to Judaism and Christianity? Maybe it was known by another name?

Who were the Ishmaelites? How were they connected to Abraham before Isaac?
storytime is offline  
Old 09-13-2009, 08:59 PM   #67
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,608
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Kesler View Post
A poster on another list that I participate on summed up the issue well:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Todd
What does Jesus mean when he says that one must hate one's family (or love them less than Jesus) in order to be his disciple (i.e., student, from the Latin discipulus, from discere, to learn)? Well, judging from the demands Jesus makes on his followers and on the way he regards his own family, Jesus means that his followers must give up everything for him.

In MT4, 18ff, Jesus calls his first disciples, taking James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John away from their father and the family business. In other words, Jesus calls on James and John to abandon their family responsibilities on the spot to follow him. They actually walk away from their father as he is mending the nets. Jesus also takes Simon Peter and Andrew away from their fishing business, and they, too, abandon it on the spot. It seem reasonable to me for a person to conclude that such seemingly irresponsible actions would cause great economic if not emotional harm to their families.

When one would-be follower said, "Lord, let me go first and bury my father," Jesus said, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their dead." (MT8,18ff) In LK9, 57, Jesus also tells a would-be follower who wishes to first say good-bye to his family, "No one who sets a hand to the plow and looks to what was left behind is fit for the kingdom of God." Once again, Jesus demands that his followers abandon their familial responsibilities.He will not even allow them time to bury a dead father or say good-bye.

Jesus leads by example. When he was told that his mother and brothers had come to speak with him, he responded by saying, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?" Then he stretched his hand out toward his disciples and said, "Hereare my mother and my brothers." (MT13, 46ff). Mk 3,35 adds "whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother." In Lk8, 19ff, Jesus, when informed his mother and brothers wish to see him, says, "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and act on it." This reminds me of certain cults that I have read about, whose members are required to cut off their relations with their families and consider their fellow cultists to be their family instead.

In Lk14, 33, Jesus say, "...everyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple." This, of course, has the effect of Jesus requiring his disciples to abandon their familial responsibilities. In MT19, 27ff, Peter says to Jesus, "We have given up everything and followed you. What will there be for us?" Jesus says that they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel, and that "everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life." In other words, those who have abandoned their families for Jesus's sake will be richly rewarded.

Whether Jesus meant that one should literally hate one's family or that one should hate them only in a figurative way is, to me, somewhat irrelevant because, either way, his followers are required to behave as if they don't care a whit about the well-being of their families. They must choose between following Jesus and their family responsibilities and obligations. Jesus doesn't leave a middle ground.

The nut doesn't fall far from the tree, so to speak. Jesus demanded total loyalty from his disciples, just as the Pharisees demanded loyalty from their disciples. Children of the devil belonged to the Pharisees, their recruits being more the children of hell than themselves, these the tares growing among the wheat in the field.

God hated. Jesus hated. The Jews hated each other in their sects of Judaism. Jews hating Jews. Nothing could be worse for their making than a Jew hating Jew. Let's face it, they were all crazy, born into a tradition of hate, violence, and vengence, designed by crazy men on steroids or something.
storytime is offline  
Old 09-13-2009, 09:02 PM   #68
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,936
Default

If proper understanding of the Bible is a guide to salvation, then I can't help but think that the blame should fall on the omnipotent, omniscient God at the heart of it all.

Well meaning, intelligent human beings have read the Bible and been immensely turned off by it, as well as understood things like "Hate your family" to mean exactly what it seems like it should.

If God chose to spread his message via a book that is riddled with craziness and is impossible to understand for everyone except "scholars", then I don't see how that is anyone but God's fault.
Ktotwf is offline  
Old 09-13-2009, 09:51 PM   #69
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn View Post
The word in the Greek translation is "Miseo". Since we have already stated that "Miseo" in Greek means "Hate". Jesus did not use the word Hate. He used the word "Sin'ah". In Hebrew, that means, "To love lesser than". It does not mean hatred.
According to Brown Driver and Briggs Hebrew lexicon it does. Even Strongs doesn't support you. Perhaps you should check out Deut 12:31 which uses $N), while the LXX uses misew and English "hate", as does 2 Sam 13:15. The Aramaic SN) also means "hate" as does the Arabic equivalent.

Your suggested translation is without apparently without any basis whatsoever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn View Post
Christians who study the bible and ancient Hebrew know what Jesus meant. But to the uneducated eye, "You must hate your parents" seems unreasonable and harsh, but that is not the message Jesus was sending.
I can appreciate your efforts to rationalize what you don't like and repackage it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn View Post
He was simply telling his disciples to love God even more than their parents.

But the English translation says "we must hate our parents".

Atheists have argued this verse with me over and over.. until I show them the truth. And then they conveniently switch topics.
Is that a case of the blind leading the blind?

Quote:
Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn View Post
We all know Jesus didn't send a message of hatred and violence. And especially against our own parents.
You don't know anything of the kind. You believe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn View Post
That's just nonsensical, and barely worth discussion.
You understand the notion of rose colored glasses. Apply it to your defense here.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 09-14-2009, 12:47 AM   #70
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DancesWithCoffeeCups View Post
You won't find many of them here. Perhaps that is why you stay away from BC&H, but of course that's just my speculation. When you're ready, start a thread in the BC&H forum and I'll join you there to discuss which portions of the bible you feel myself and others "don't understand". I'm looking forward to it.
I haven't seen any thus far. But I'm sure there are a few in here that believe Jesus ordered the killings of anyone who didn't worship him as a King. Or that Jesus said we must hate our parents. Atheists like to throw the red flag when they read the bible because they believe they found a problem. But they should know, if there is a problem, there is an answer. And when the answer is revealed, the first reply from an atheist will be "Don't believe Christian Apologetics because they lie".

Websites like [Skeptics Annotated Bible] will expose "supposed" errors, but they never attempt to correct or answer the problems. Why is that?


So, now what we have are Christians building websites. "The response to Skeptics Annotated Bible".

Christians have to go around cleaning up everyone else's mess. Why? Because people don't know what they are reading.

People attend college classes for five or six years to fully understand the bible. Because it was written and spoken in a language that is no longer in existence. I find it hard to believe any Joe Bloe (atheist) will pick up a bible and fully understand it without conflict.

I displayed words in ancient Hebrew, and the atheists couldn't tell me what the word(s) meant. "Sherets", "Sin'ah". they had no clue what I was talking about, but they are quick to say "the bible is a lie". Come on now..

How can you agree with people like that?

Since JC is a literary creation, you can make the sock puppet say whatever you like.
dog-on is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:58 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.