jackrabbit

That would only work with someone in touch with the world, even slightly. A hardcore fundamentalist biblebanger like my mother, who deliberately avoids dealing with anything not directly related to jeebus, and assocates only with fellow churchmembers equally rabid, would have no idea what that meant.

jakejonesiv

Mary, since Luke 1:34 is obviously a lie. Of course, if Mary and Jesus never existed she is off the hook.

Jake Jones

aChristian

If you insist on putting the redundant words in here, you would have to put them into Luke 4:40 as well to be consistent. "When the sun [appeared to be] setting ...". Do you think there is an error in Luke 4:40 as well, and, in fact, in every verse that mentions the sun rising or setting? Do you realize the ridiculous position that you are taking?

jackrabbit

Do you mean superflouous rather than redundant? I did not see him repeating anything. But the mods are not even that, they change the meaning.

We believe that the sun rises and sets. We have seen it a couple of times. No need to modify text concerning normal sun operation.

We do not believe that the sun ever stood still for a period of time (or more precisely the rotation of the earth stopped temporarily). Hence the subtitution of "appeared to stand still" for "stood still", i.e. it was all in their heads. Assuming the event even took place at all.

John A. Broussard

An interesting comment, but it doesn't answer the question.

Does my revised verse correctly report what happened that day?

I would appreciate an answer to that question if you happen to have an answer.

Thank you.

Doug Shaver

It could imply that, but it doesn't necessarily. It could imply only that they think you are mistaken and hope that God will do something to make you aware of your error.

aChristian

If you understand your added words to mean that what appeared to happen is not what happened then your added words are incorrect. If you understand it to mean that it describes what happened from the point of view of the earth and that it accurately describes exactly what did happen, then your words are correct. It is completely analogous to my sunset example.

John A. Broussard

Good.

So the bible verse, as it stood, wasn't as clear as my revision. Don't you think that a divinely inspired writer could have done as well as I did? It would have spared many Christians erroneously believing that the sun was actually made to stand still.

I'm looking forward to your answer.

RalphyS

Yesterday afternoon I read this entire thread or at least most of it and while it was interesting it is getting nowhere.

I mean the original idea was left behind very soon and it became a debate with aChristian, it has never been a discussion, because both parties will never ever be persuaded to give in even the slightest little bit to the other's view and therefore this debate, although somewhat entertaining, is totally useless.

aChristian is totally convinced that the reports of the early church fathers of so-called eyewitness accounts are much more reliable than all the historic research that has been done by independent (or as aChristian would call them, liberal) scientists.

Ofcourse, (liberal) history has proven that the (early) church was a totally integer and morally upstanding institution, that would never lie (or even do worse things). So who are we, to doubt these church fathers, and even if there maybe a shadow of a doubt about any of this, God himself has made sure that the truth has been put down correctly. And ofcourse noone can doubt God and the bible is God's word and must therefore also be true, even if there are some things that might be contrued a bit differently for people who have been influenced to do so by Satan. Everyone should be able to see the logic behind this reasoning, I cannot understand why you would not accept this totally clear worldview of aChristian, sorry God. You as well as 75% (give or take a few) of the rest of the world are just under the influence of satan, and what you think is reason is satan's influence over you, be honest and you will find the truth of God's mysterious ways.

Your scientific research can never lead to the truth if you don't accept the basic given that it must lead to the truth of creation, if you try to look at it without that basis, you are already misled by satan and this would never happen to aChristian or the Creationist scientists (I use this term losely) who back him up.

One thing I would like to have explained, I'm not an authority at this, but a while back you decided that all the books, which are in the Catholic bible but not in the protestant version are not divinily inspired. I mean this, I'm not sure, but I believe are revisions, made more than 1000 years later, if I'm not mistaken. So in this case the vision of the early church fathers suddenly is not ruling anymore, but that of revisionists like Luther or whoever, what's this about.

I mean if we're talking early church, we're talking Catholic church or am I wrong in that assumption, because the pope-led church was the church that in the end declared which books should be in the bible or not?

aChristian

No. Your revision overcomplicates what is clear without it. It is wordy as well. However, God did not write one book that contains all knowledge ever attainable. He put in enough for his purpose and expects us to honestly use the brain he gave us to discover more.