funinspace

Personally, I think the Oxford Study Bible is an excellent basic source. It also has the Apocrypha plus a few other texts like Psalms 151 and Clement that can be interesting to look thru. It also has an intro to each book, that is pretty honest to what we historically know and don't know. If you don’t have such a Bible, I would highly recommend getting one for your adventure.

The notes in such a non-KJ Bible will make much clearer the controversy around verses such as Psalms 151, Mark 16:9-20, John 7.53-8.11, Luke 24:12, John 5:4.


One of the things that impacted the NT writers was that many of them were probably relying upon the LXX for their text sources. And this copy of the Hebrew into Greek had some deficiencies. I'm not up to covering the details of this issue, but it's a pretty well covered topic here. Or even Google it. You will find that Jewish web sources offer an interesting counter point to Christian re-interpretation of their texts. And yes, obviously they have an ax to grind as well. However, much Christians try to usurp the Hebrew texts, the Jews obviously had them first.

Stephen T-B

"Seek and you shall find. I think that is the ticket for yourself." (sky4it)

Isn't this how it always ends up - we humans having to do all the work; we poor, flawed, fallen humans while the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving gods which Christians (and Jews and Muslims) worship sit on their clouds of glory twiddling their thumbs watching us make a mess of it all.

Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, they kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Really?

How far has this god advanced the cause of its will being done on earth as it is in heaven - or has all the work been done by its weak and sinful devotees, which is why so little progress has been made in the 2,000 years that that confident prediction has been made on a daily basis by millions of Christians?

God, say the Christians, answers our prayers; but hey, don't expect it to because testing god is a sin, and it might answer our prayers or it might not.
In the same way that my Coffee Mug might answer the prayers I offer up to it, or it might not.
"Oh Coffee Mug, let me get home tonight without having an accident."
I got home without having an accident.
My prayer was answered!
"God helps those who help themselves" goes the saying. Exactly. God can't help those who can't help themselves, because gods only exist as figments of the human imagination.

So. .. what about those Biblical prophesies?
Why are they so obscure that not everyone can understand them?
Because we have to know how to understand them, that's why. We have to join up the dots which are spread randomly across the page and then declare "Yes! God's drawn us a camel" when actually there's something that might be an eye, something that might be a leg and something that might be a little tail along with a lot of other things which might be bits of tea pots, deck chairs and sticks of rhubarb.
A real god would have drawn a stunningly life-like camel - so life-like it could have walked off the page and given you a ride.
And thinking up reasons why it didn't is another little task for the Christians. But don't hurry them; these things take time to work out because their god doesn't provide solutions any faster than their own brains can.

blastula

sky4it, being new here you may not know it yet, but on this board whenever anyone makes an assertion, that assertion is open to a challenge. If you want to make any assertions, especially about the Bible, you have to be prepared to back them up, otherwise you're only preaching, and this being an atheism site, preaching for preaching's sake is not welcome.

I look forward to your critique of Richard Dawkins and hopefully a defense of that critique.

sky4it

You know this Friday I am going to have to have a ½ pint of Jack Daniels, turn up the decibels to 110 on my Led Zepplin, just to get this crap off me. Obviously, they called Jesus a wine bibber so having a few sips of the bubbly there is nothing wrong with that.

Amaleq commentary to you is below:

Funinspace: usaid: Very few non-fundies consider KJ to be one of the higher quality translations. Why do you think the KJ version is so good compared ....

I consider calling me a fundie or a non-fundie to be a disparaging remark.
As far as your question goes here is the answer. There are two reasons I admire the work. 1) The KJ Version has words in italics that were not in the text that it was translated from. Therefore you are able to do a little more work with the substance of the text. 2) In some KJ Versions there is a 19 page explanation written by the translators who worked for King James in the process. Having read that I have a great understanding in the amount of time care and detail that the translators went in, to translate the text. I am not saying other version are not good, I just find that for myself these reasons help me understand the dynamics of the translation.

Ameleq:

First, I never said, that I was preaching. All I did was comment with scripture to a request from Oatmeal on the topic. Thus do not concern yourself as I have no intention of preaching. I simply indicated to you the only ones I do preach to, are those who request it and believe in God. Thus, your remark is noted, and I will not be preaching to anyone at this website. I guess it would have been a little more considerate if you had asked me Hey sky4it, why did you decide to come here? Nice to meet you.

Usaid: You have far fewer posts and none appear relevant to whether or not you are familiar with the identified type of biblical scholarship.

I was NOT aware that I should cite ‘biblical scholarship” in context with discussion on the topic of Bible passages as a method of making ones point relevant. Certainly you have to be aware that with the 1,000's of books about the Bible one would not be familiar with them all. With respect to others ‘Biblical Scholarship’ the simple point is that, others may in fact have views which do not roughly correspond with mine. Certainly no one is asking for my Biblical Scholarship credentials when I have made a post, thus I think it’s a mute point.


Let me try and explain to you, why I was being polite in saying I did not want to discuss the topic.

Here is what I have been called as far as name-calling goes:
Spin has called me the following names: unconvincing,dogmatic, unscholoarly, illogical ,re-heated, re-interpreter who gets blood rushes and has added the following: “projecting. martyrdom”, “not particularly well-thought-out”, having “little content” and finally a “pleader”

Ninjay has added the following diatribe calling me these names: “I am “CUTE”, I possess “familiar aplologetic dogma-grenades”, I am not “ coherent”, A suggestion that the Spin was “trying to get me to use my brain”, telling me, “ I don't have the background.” Saying my post when I did not want to discuss it any further was “ dogmatic nonsense” Saying I lacked “cogently” Calling me: “intellectually dishonest.”

Now as the moderator, this has all happened. The reason that I decided to disengage from the topic was that I do not see where discussing things WOULD HAVE ANY BENEFIT, when the treatment of myself has been like this. Is this so hard to understand?

FURTHERMORE, AMELEQ, I CONSIDER THE ABOVE DIATRIBES TO BE HARRASEMENT, DEFAMATORY AND LACKING ANY COHESIVENESS AS TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND. When I indicated to them this is why I did not want to respond the insults continued. Think about it yourself. Would you respond to someone who engages in personal insult and attack? Of course you would not. Thus my decision is based on logic. Thus, the entire reason for talking has been disengaged by personal attack, and it is NOT about the Bible passages anymore but about the personal attacks.

Here are more reasons why what I did was the right thing:
1) My Christianity is about values, treatment of others and such not about engaging others whose treatment of me is horrendous.
2) Cast not your pearls before swine.
3) I made this abundantly CLEAR. Still they apparently thought that I had some other reason for disengaging them, and burst out with more diatribes.
4) Is it possible you and they could understand that there is no capacity to communicate with someone who is harassing you? Thank you.
5) Interestingly this is precisely what Ann Coulter says in her book Slander one receives when trying to have a good discussion with some people. I think now I personally get her point.

Usaid: Ameleq: usaid: You've also made it clear that your mind will never change.

Here is what I meant. Regardless of the concept “pierce” there are a 1,000 other reason I believe a man was mercilessly slaughtered on a tree for me. Thus, the discussion on a few concepts was irrelevant to my faith. Since Oatmeal was not here at that time, there was no reason to proceed as my recitation in the first reading was directed to Oatmeal’s question. Is this helpful to have you understand?

Ameleq one final question. What was your need to correct me using a g instead of a q in an obvious transposition error? I didn’t see as a matter of significance, why you would bring this up. Does this mean that you are being a tad overboard in your estimation of what I have to say? Just wondering?

Vinjay: usaid: It seems like if it's worth one's time to be religious, it's worth one's time to actually understand the history and development of that religious tradition, even if what one learns tends to disconfirm one's beliefs.

Since this is your first time commenting to me I will respond to one of your remarks. Who the hell ever said I was “ religious” in your paper definition of what the word means? How do you know what my understanding of history and church tradition are? Why are you so presumptive to think you know this? How is it that you think anyone “who learns something” would disconfirm ones belief? Isn’t this just a jilted view of what your stereotyping of “fundies” is?

Lastly, if this is the type of harassing behavior that is employed at this community, allow me to disengage the diatribe at a more familiar non-harassing dynamic. If one can call me a “fundie” and see nothing wrong with it, surely my view is a little more clear. I think what we have here is a few people who are rather Liberace like; in reference to the piano player who never made a mistake playing that piano. Apparently when these Liberace’s hit a chord on the piano, it is always correct. So if they are going to persist in calling me names, I will just call them Liberace.

One final note and I know this certainly isn’t preaching. I like Susan Sarandon. She has moxie, metal, and grit. She had a movie called “Rocky Horror Picture Show” which only a person like me could understand the warning she was trying to teach culture. I suggest you people watch the movie and learn from the appealing Susan Sarandon what she was trying to teach us. Does this mean Susan is a preacher? You know, I kind of think she is. BTW, what is a preacher anyway? Good old Noah preached with a hammer and a nail. Now there is a couple of unusual pulpits eh? (Eh is what they say in Canada)

Cheers. :huh:

-Jay-

I'm glad you found my suggestions useful. As you've already discovered, the literature out there is very polarized, on both sides of the fence. Being objective is hard, especially with such a deeply personal matter.

That sounds like a good core, and you're fortunate to have them. The friend that I mentioned in my first reply in this thread is in a tougher situation - his parents are both deceased, and his entire living family as well as his wife's are very strongly fundamentalist. Likewise for his main social network. He really doesn't have very many people he can turn to for support, so I fear he's having to deal with his issues almost all alone. (He lives out of town and we don't talk as much as we used to.)

I've read it. My opinion is that it's unlikely to convince anyone that's not already a believer in his brand of Christianity. There are several articles discussing McDowell and his works in the Sec Web library.


At risk of offending sky4it (again), "just reading the Bible" is a very, very poor approach. I reiterate that one cannot gain an understanding of the world that produced the Bible without going outside of the Bible.

Excellent!

regards,

NinJay

Amaleq13

You stated you did not intend to engage in discussion and the "BECAUSE" was about your preaching. I am not to blame if you do not express yourself clearly.

People who choose to participate in this discussion forum should do so because they are interested in discussing biblical criticism and/or biblical history. There really is no other legitimate reason.

I offered a smilie wave. Sorry that didn't seem friendly enough. :huh:

That is an excellent reason for a newcomer to lurk a bit before posting or, at the least, to browse through threads to learn what is expected.

Nobody is offering such a ridiculous requirement.

mute = silent

moot = uncertainty precluding a final conclusion

I don't think you meant either one but, regardless of what you did mean, your credentials are less relevant than the scholarship you can offer in support of your claims.

For future reference, please report any posts you think violate the rules and avoid discussing moderator action within discussion threads. With regard to your examples, only "intellectually dishonest" appears to have any potential for action and I can't recall what the consensus has been on that phrase in the past. Report the post and the moderators will discuss it. As for the others, I'm afraid you'll need to develop a thicker skin if you want to stay here.

So that you aviod the error in the future. And it is Amaleq.

It is the French spelling of Amalek. I assume you are familiar with the biblical relevance.

-Jay-

OK, I'll take the bait here.

Leaving aside whether you're cute or not, you mischaracterized spin's comment to you. I corrected your characterization. I can be a snarky bastard sometimes. Deal with it.

I'll amend the statement about your background to "don't appear to have the background". Your own words ("WORD GREEK/HEBREW ARGUMENTS ARE A THING THAT I DONT ENJOY AND IT TAKES A LOT OF RESEARCH AND I DONT HAVE THE TIME") strongly suggest that you don't have the background. I've gotta work with what you give me here...

My statement about dogmatic nonsense reflects my opinion about the material you have previously presented in this thread. I am under no obligation to make my opinions about the material you present flattering to you. Further, I categorically did not call you intellectually dishonset. My comment was a general comment. Whether or not that comment happens to apply to you is irrelevant.

Oh, and by the way, those interested can decide for themselves whether you've been cogently arguing.


It's NinJay. If you're going to demand courtesy from everyone else, then you yourself should be courteous enough to ensure that you correctly spell the names of the people you're addressing.

Now, my comment, as mentioned above, was a general one, and not specifically directed at you. However, to address your complaints:
My definition of "religious", as applied to an individual, is simply "one who exhibits religion." You're posts unmistakably mark you as one who exhibits religion. Q.E.D., you are religious. If you have some other definition, please share it.

You've made references to a preference for the KJV, and you made a recommendation to the OP that she "stick to reading the Bible mainly". These nuggets suggest that you have a background in a Restoration Movement church. That further suggests a particular background vis-a-vis history and traditions of Christianity. Granted, the references you've made aren't enough to completely characterize you, but then again I really wasn't trying to. If you feel the need to clarify your background, feel free, though insofar as my general comment is concerned, it isn't necessary.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "How is it that you think anyone “who learns something” would disconfirm ones belief? Isn’t this just a jilted view of what your stereotyping of “fundies” is?" What my original statement actually means is this:

If you're (and this is a general "you", not a direct reference to sky4it) a member of a religion, you (still general, here) will be presented with that religion's version of the history and development of its traditions. That version very often contains biases. In much the same way you (still general) would look at independent reviews of a car you're (yeah, general again) going to buy, you (just guess...) have an obligation to yourself as a responsible consumer to look into independent, external sources to learn about your religion. Often, those external sources present a different story from the internal version, and sometimes those different stories are of sufficient credibility that you might need to discard something you previously believed to be true (in other words, your belief has been disconfirmed). Many, not all, people of all stripes - religious, non-religious, fundamentalist, liberal - have a very, very difficult time doing this. If one simply does not know about some information, one is merely ignorant. Ignorance can be corrected and is excusable. If one does know about some information, and chooses to ignore it because it doesn't match one's preconceptions or beliefs, one is guilty of willful ignorance, which is a form of intellectual dishonesty, and there is no excuse for that. But again, I was writing generally, and wasn't directing that at you specifically.

So, sky4it, you need to accept that things around here can get heated. You're going to get flamed sometimes. It happens to everyone. Life is like that.

regards,

NinJay

sky4it

oatmeal:
usaid: Additionally, the Calvinist tradition follows the most convincing systematic theology I've encountered so far.

It is my view that Calvinism is a Cult. It is my view that doctrinally speaking, Calvinism is more like atheism than any religion I have encountered. Thus, it may be part of the problem.

Since people here want reference points rather than plain opinion, I will offer you a thread which I started at the Greasespot café on Calvinism, called Is Cavinism a Cult. It is under the forms section and the doctrinal section. It is a 10 page dialogue of an atheist, at least one Calvinist, myself as well as others of differing faith. I would only ask that if anyone posts there please be informed they are former members of a cult named 'The Way International" and please try to be extremely considerate as they are profoundly kind people who deserve respect at all times.

Amaleq: usaid: I don't think you meant either one but, regardless of what you did mean, your credentials are less relevant than the scholarship you can offer in support of your claims.

I believe that scripture is in itself a authorities source. Since other do not, I think it better to not quote it. While scripture can have better significance if we understood all the historical backdrop, much of that history is rather lacking. Thus in the future, I believe I will not be reciting scripture for preview.

Scholarship offers a profoundly wide variety of opinion on many topics inside denominations themselves. Thus, to gain conclusions from one source one generally can find sides which view it differently than someone else. So sometimes all scholarship does is add to the confusion. So I do not think I will be providing any one with this support for my claims. If what you mean by Scholarship is a source beyond rebuttal, I do not believe that absurd claims about what occurred 1000's of years ago; are capable of being refuted simply because someone has hope to do so, by engaging in nitpicking semantics of texts which were written in different languages.

usaid: As for the others, I'm afraid you'll need to develop a thicker skin if you want to stay here.

Well, I think that the commentary from them went well beyond what you indicated. As a matter of personal preference I wish that I were allotted the same diatribes with impunity. Just be aware than that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. My skin is plenty thick but thank you. What concerns me more is that some people seem to get a larger leeway in terms of content of what they are allowed to say, and me who would be entitled to less. I am just informing you of my experience and that I should be allotted the same rug of rhubarb so to speak as some one else. As long as you understand that we shall do fine.

With respect to you saying that you didn't find much that YOU thought was offensive, I didn't expect that you would.

Respect is an important virtue in treatment of other human beings. Values, courage and respect are essential to any moral conduct which is of good quality.

Vinjay: usaid: At risk of offending sky4it (again),

Know what you just said to Oatmeal, its none of my business. Neither do I have reason to critique or engage it so do not concern yourself. Thus, if you are speaking to others you have no cause to be alarmed that it would offend me. Thank you also for the improved atmospherics.

-Jay-

Sky4it -
What you're doing here is effectively telling a moderator how to do his job. Discussions like this are inappropriate in open forum. There is a Private Message feature on the forums that is much more suited for conversations of this nature. I strongly and respectfully suggest that you use it.

NinJay. Please.

regards,

NinJay

gregor

Kind of off topic - the Onion described a town hall meeting as a forum to demonstrate incompetence to a wider group of people. I think the internet serves the same function

Just a general thought, especially when McDowell is cited as a reference.