Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Reason · 07-15-2008, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

DLH I've asked them to provide scripture where it has God saying "I do not change my mind"
instead they have provided scripture where it has God saying "I do not change my ordinances(i.e. laws)"

I am going to be charitable and assume that you have a short memory or do not actually read these posts, in lieu of writing what I really think you have done here.

"the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind."

And then there is that whole "I change not" thing again.

Get out your tap shoes, doctor, and show newcomer DLH your skills. I am sure it will be another stellar performance.

Reason · 07-15-2008, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

Quote:

Originally Posted by bedaybe

Not sure how contradictory it is, but I don't understand how Christians can think Jesus was God given the following:

Malachi 3:6 "I the LORD do not change"

Luke 2:52 "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man."

How can Jesus be God and not know everything that God knows? If Jesus knows everything God knows, what's this about increasing in wisdom?

There are other things Christians believe that I find contradictory as well, of course, but I'll leave it at the above for now.

I personally try very hard to never get bogged down in a debate regarding the nonsensical Platonic Trinity Doctrine and having said that I can say that the Bible indicates that Jesus was a god. Not God. At Isaiah 9:6 he is prophetically referred to as a mighty god (Hebrew El Gibbhor) But only Jehovah is called God Almighty (Hebrew El Shaddai) Genesis 17:1.

Some newer translators, in an apparent attempt to promote the trinity, mistranslate John 1:1 to read Jesus is God. Rather than the correct Jesus is a god or godlike or divine. The reasoning behind this correct translation involves the Greek term kai theos en ho logos. The Greek word theos is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. Meaning it is an anarthrous theos. The God with whom the Word or Logos was is designated by the Greek expression theos preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular theos. It points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. So the Word or Logos was "a god" doesn't mean that he was the God with whom he was. It only expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos.

This actually isn't as difficult as it sounds, for the same translators who mistranslate Jesus as god rather than a god have no trouble when it comes to other cases of the same usage. For example at Matthew 6:49 they translate a spirit or a ghost or an apparition rather than spirit, gost, or apparition. At Mark 11:32 they translate a prophet rather than prophet. At John 12:6 they translate a thief rather than thief.

Here are some examples of translators who did it right;

“and the word was a god” - The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London, 1808.

“and a god was the Word” - The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London, 1864.

“and the Word was divine” - The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago, 1935.

“and the Word was a god” - New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn, 1950.

“and a god (or, of a divine Das Evangelium nach kind) was the Word” - Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz,Göttingen, Germany, 1975.

“and godlike sort was Das Evangelium nach the Logos” - Johannes, by Johannes Schneider,Berlin, 1978.

“and a god was the Logos” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany, 1979.

Ah, I get it now! DLH is a Russellite! The good old pros ton theon argument.

thentian · 07-15-2008, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

How did Judas die?

Matt. 27:5
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Acts 1:18
Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

It appears that Matthew gives an account that Judas attempted to hang himself but Luke in his account at Acts gives the result, so if you mix the two Judas hung himself from a limb, which broke and fell over the cliff below gashing him open and spilling his guts out.

It is interesting that the purchase of the field is often questioned. Matthew 27:6-7 says that the priests couldn't put the money in the sacred treasury and so bought the field with Judas' money while Acts 1:18-19 says The man himself purchased the field as reward of iniquity. Meaning simply that the priests used his money for the field.

I really like your account here, truly I do! It is both graphic and entertaining! Much, much better than Matthew's and Luke's account! :notworthy:

Isn't it sad how none of them saw fit to relate how it really happened, though? Oh, well...

rizdek · 07-15-2008, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

I noticed you do not have the kjv in there, which predates the newer ones you have listed, the newer ones usually get their translations FROM the kjv.

Wow, I was pretty sure that many of the better recent translations go back to original manuscripts and are not just a rehash of the KJV. I'd have to do some research, but am fairly certain of that.

Reason · 07-15-2008, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

Can you give us a timeline of these events, please? Starting at the time Jesus is taken from the cross, perhaps?

Why does everone ask me that? You mean like a Dan Barker's Easter Challenge? I don't actually see the point in doing that. What would the point be?

First of all Jesus didn't die on a cross, it was a simple single upright post. A Hebrew torture stake.

So, you discount that the Romans allegedly crucified the alleged Jeebus?

Reason · 07-15-2008, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reason

Genesis 6:6 - And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth

1 Samuel 15:29 - Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.

Jeremiah 26:13 - Now therefore amend your ways and your deeds and obey the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will change His mind about the misfortune which He has pronounced against you.

Malachi 3:6 - For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

The Hebrew word nacham in each of the verses you gave don't really mean change in the way that you are seeming to imply. Nacham is more accurately translated as feel regret or repent. So at Genesis 6:6 it isn't that God had changed his mind it is that his creation changed. If there were two friends and one of them became something bad other than what he had been the other friend would not be changing him or herself for disliking that person. It would be a change of position within the relationship but not a personal change in the second person.

It is interesting that at Ezekiel 33:11 God says that he doesn't take delight in the death of the wicked so his mind didn't change his position did.

Okay, in order to address this, I need to know whether you believe gawd is omniscient. (I cannot remember what the official Russellite bullshit position is on this.

thentian · 07-15-2008, 04:53 PM

This one is just for fun, folks!

The passages aren't even from the bible, but I thought it would be fun to see how they can be reconciled. Dlb, if you can do this, then you're the Master Reconciler of the world!

Quote:

“I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest”

“And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth”

Cheers!

dr lazer blast · 07-15-2008, 05:57 PM

actually thenetian you never answered my question at all.

The victem was killed with a knife
The victem was killed with a gun
is this a contradiction?

07-15-2008, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Are we punished for the sins of others:

Exodus 20:5
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Deuteronomy 24:16
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Exodus 20:5 is about the things that would result in unfaithfulness. If the parents of a child don't use care when bringing up that child bad things may result. It isn't that the parent wants bad things to happen or directly makes those things happen themselves, those things are merely a result of the upbringing.

Your question was are we punished for the sins of our fathers. Not directly but we feel the painful results of it nevertheless.

The Bible often uses language that may seem at first glance to indicate someone is directly causing something when in fact it is just warning of the results. Adam's sin for example brought death to all mankind but as a result of the rejection of God, his guidance and protection. God had to separate himslef from sin, he couldn't be a part of it.

Jesus said he came to cause division between family members, but that doesn't actually mean that that is his reason for coming, just that it would be a result of his coming.

Ezekiel 18:20 is a good example as well. A son himself will bear nothing because of the error of the father, and a father himself will bear nothing because of the error of the son.

Deuteronomy 24:16, however, refers specifically to a punishment of death. I suppose that if you had any scripture which actually gives an account of that not being the case you would have brought it to our attention. That a son died for the sins of his father as punishment

thentian · 07-15-2008, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

actually thenetian you never answered my question at all.

The victem was killed with a knife
The victem was killed with a gun
is this a contradiction?

Oh, sorry!

No, no, of course not! First of all, "the victim" could easily be two different victims, and secondly; there could have been two killers, one with a gun and the other with a knife. Pfft! That one was easy!

-

Except, maybe if you make some assumptions...

1) "The victim" refers to the same person in both cases
2) There can only be one "killing blow" so that even if there were two deadly attacks, only the one that hit him first killed him from a legal point of view.
3) It is impossible to shoot and stab a person at exactly the same millionth of a second.

What do you think? More assumptions needed?

Cheers!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-15-2008, 05:57 PM	#118
dr lazer blast Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: charleston sc Posts: 1,622	actually thenetian you never answered my question at all. The victem was killed with a knife The victem was killed with a gun is this a contradiction?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.