Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jesse Leigh · 04-23-2006, 08:07 AM

Hey there, Gawen!

C'mon! Put'emup! I thought you wanted a challenge? And you *did* bring it up....

Aren't you supposed to now be criticizing the historicity of Christ accosting Saul (whose name He later changed to Paul), and subsequently appointing him as His Ambassador to the Gentiles? (Otherwise known as, "A funny thing happened on the road to Damascus."

)

I gave you the Scripture(s) you asked for. I'm waiting. - Jesse.

P.S. While you're at it, you might want to refute the existence of, "The Body of Christ," and explain why Christ said to Saul "Why are you persecuting Me?" Note: not, "Why are you persecuting my people," but rather, "Why are you persecuting Me?"

Jus another lil' tidbit. - Jesse.

Gawen · 04-23-2006, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesse Leigh

You said that Scripture and personal experience wouldn't "prove" a thing, and would be likely to be dismissed by most of the members here.

I'm finding you were right. Most insist that you can't prove anything from a Book they consider mythical. Nor can you tell truthfully of a personal experience such as an interaction with God, when the God of the Bible is as mythical to them as the Bible itself is.

It is no less open-minded in finding the Illiad or Odyssey, or The Epic of Gilgamesh just as fictional as the Bible.

Gawen · 04-23-2006, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesse Leigh

C'mon! Put'emup! I thought you wanted a challenge? And you *did* bring it up....

My presence here was to simply try to fascilitate discussion within the topic. I will let those with much better knowledge of Biblical History discuss and maybe even criticise it with you.

punk77 · 04-23-2006, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

This IS a VERY strange thread with respect to the commonly held and expressed views of the atheists in these forums;
Who have thousands of times and in thousands of ways stated that the Old Testament laws were "barbaric", "cruel" "unjust" and "unethical".
But in this thread all of the usual, and well known posters on this board have been remaining strangely silent.
This is peculiar because I, the believer here, am the one contending for that common atheist position that The Old Testament Laws ARE barbaric, cruel, unjust, and unethical, and ought not to be obeyed by anyone who has a brain, and a heart, and a sense of justice.
Whereas my worthy opponent, a confessed unbeliever attempts to force his view that all believers Jewish and "xian" (and other) should obey all of those "barbaric" laws.
What an "interesting" world this would make, what with the public stonings of children, adulterers, blasphemers and witches being carried out daily by every synagogue and church in the world.
So lets say noah's position did succeed and prevail, and that all "xians' did accept the validity of his argument, Do you think the result would be a better world, one more hospitable to your atheist viewpoints?
Come then all ye atheists! rally yourselves to the defense of noah's cause! Help him in his efforts to make "The Law of YHWH" the law of the land.

As far as I can make out Noah is not advocating that "The Law of YHWH" should become the law of the land :huh: .

Noah is making the point (and making it very well:notworthy

that according to the Bible Jews/Christians should be following the Old Testament laws but in reality they do not. Whilst even some Jews/Christians admit that the laws are barbaric and have no place in modern times they cannot point out anyplace that has God/Jesus/Holy Ghost/Disciples saying that they were wrong and should be replaced by a new set of laws.

I also do not understand how the laws could be ok and then when

Jesus comes along,
potters around Israel for 30+ years,
dies (even though he is meant to be eternal),
and is resurrected (though the disciples/Bible writers cannot agree the details of something that was seeminly so important, even though God was dictating the story to them himself - maybe he was having a 'senior moment')

the laws are suddenly obselete.

As an aside is there not a Christian sect in America that actually advocates going back to the Old Testament laws? Could anybody give me the name of that sect?

Gawen · 04-23-2006, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punk77

As an aside is there not a Christian sect in America that actually advocates going back to the Old Testament laws? Could anybody give me the name of that sect?

http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/cr.htm

http://www.chalcedon.edu/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christi...onstructionism

rlogan · 04-23-2006, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I, the believer here, am the one contending for that common atheist position that The Old Testament Laws ARE barbaric, cruel, unjust, and unethical, and ought not to be obeyed by anyone who has a brain, and a heart, and a sense of justice.

Good man. You now have crossed the Rubicon of dispensing with the archaic in the interest of justice, mercy, and reason.

So let's now address the decidedly barbaric, cruel, unjust, and unethical notion of "original sin" - holding it against the innocent today for something a third party allegedly did thousands of years ago.

Ready to toss that one out yet, champ?

punk77 · 04-23-2006, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Yes, admittedly I do "talk funny". For anyone who is concerned about the matter of my sentence structure, I provide this explanation.
I have been reading and studying using the Hebrew texts of The Torah, The Nabi'im, and The Kethub'im (The Tanaka), and Hebrew language versions of The B'rith ha' Kadsha. (literally "The Covenant, The New") for around 30 years now.
These books being otherwise known to you who are not learned in reading Hebrew, respectively as "The Old Testament" and "The New Testament"
Having employed chiefly these, and the corresponding KJV English, it does affect my compositional structures, just as the underlying Hebrew text affected the sentence structure employed when translating The KJV.

What you refer to as being "KJV English", came into being through the translating of The Holy Scriptures, the underlying Hebrew sentence structures became virtually the backbone of our written English language.
It is possible that without the existence and influence of The Holy Scriptures you would still be completely illiterate and still signing your name with an X.

So, No, that others are ignorant of these things, is not sufficient cause for me to disrespect, to change, or to be ashamed of speaking and writing in a manner consistent with sentence structure, the idioms, and the phraseology employed by those men of faith whom have gone before.
Truth be told, I despise most "modern English"-"Versions" of The Scriptures, everyone of which under the guise of 'translating' impose upon, and add to and diminish from, the older forms of The Holy Bible.
These "modern English"-"Versions" may be more easily read, but are also usually less accurate in remaining faithful to the underlying texts.
O yes, But I am a believer, and it therefore would not be a strange thing if my speech should reveal me. (least the allusion should fly completely over your head, Matt.26:73, Judges 12:6)

Sheshbazzar

I am not having a go at you for speaking/writing in the way that you choose to do but I find the passage that I have highlighted in your post does not make sense to me.

English already existed before the KJV translation. That version of English in the KJV was just what was used as the vernacular at the time of the translation. If the Bible were to be translated today (for the first time) then it would be totally different to what the KJV version is. But the point that I am trying to make is that even if the Bible hadn't been translated into English we would still have English. So to write

It is possible that without the existence and influence of The Holy Scriptures you would still be completely illiterate and still signing your name with an X.

seems pretty ridiculous to me

.

punk77 · 04-23-2006, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawen

http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/cr.htm

http://www.chalcedon.edu/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christi...onstructionism

Thanks for the links

.

Sheshbazzar · 04-23-2006, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punk77

I am not having a go at you for speaking/writing in the way that you choose to do but I find the passage that I have highlighted in your post does not make sense to me.

English already existed before the KJV translation. That version of English in the KJV was just what was used as the vernacular at the time of the translation. If the Bible were to be translated today (for the first time) then it would be totally different to what the KJV version is. But the point that I am trying to make is that even if the Bible hadn't been translated into English we would still have English.

It is possible that without the existence and influence of The Holy Scriptures you would still be completely illiterate and still signing your name with an X.

Quote:

seems pretty ridiculous to me

.

I am sorry but I do not have time become very deeply embroiled in yet another off-topic subject, (this thread is unwieldy enough as is)
So will make few further comments, If the Hebrew Scriptures were being translated into English for the very first time today, (and there were not the influences of all of the many latter evolved theological ideas, and other languages translations to influence the reading, yes, our reading would be considerably different than that Old English of The KJV.
Our ideas of what constitutes "proper" English composition have evolved,with myriad grammatical and spelling "rules" that were not even thought at the time that The KJV was being worked on.
I would submit that an accurate modern translation from the underlying Hebrew, free of doctrinal biases, and theological leanings, to represent that text most accurately, would read similar to the text as is presented in word on word format within our modern Interlinear Bibles. (of course in this scenario, the "religion" of the majority of English speaking peoples also would not be practiced in the manner and fashion that we are presently familiar with) because without the exercise of religion, there would be no reason to "smooth" out the text to make for easy public reading and exposition, and it is this very "smoothing over" and adapting to our "modern" English, that requires modern scholars to have to go back and carefully examine those ancient underlying texts, because our "modern English" text does not always accurately reflect the ancient idioms.
Yes, "If the Bible had not been translated into English we would still have (some form of) English". literacy rates might however be another matter.
The point I was attempting to make has to do with the low literacy rates that prevailed prior to the ready availability of The KJV Bible, and that the Bible as it was worded and structured had a profound impact upon how the English language was commonly spoken.
And that for the majority of medeval English society the KJV Bible became their most familiar literature, from which daily readings brought literacy to generations, serving from childhood as their "grammar" and "speller", and also their "History" "Science" and "Sociology" textbook.
In most homes for hundreds of years, it was the only book, if they owned any books at all.
Hope this helps to clarify my statements, If it does not, or is unsatisfactory or insufficient, then I am sorry, but do not care to devote further time to the matter.

punk77 · 04-23-2006, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

It is possible that without the existence and influence of The Holy Scriptures you would still be completely illiterate and still signing your name with an X.

I am sorry but I do not have time become very deeply embroiled in yet another off-topic subject, (this thread is unwieldy enough as is)
So will make few further comments, If the Hebrew Scriptures were being translated into English for the very first time today, (and there were not the influences of all of the many latter evolved theological ideas, and other languages translations to influence the reading, yes, our reading would be considerably different than that Old English of The KJV.
Our ideas of what constitutes "proper" English composition have evolved,with myriad grammatical and spelling "rules" that were not even thought at the time that The KJV was being worked on.
I would submit that an accurate modern translation from the underlying Hebrew, free of doctrinal biases, and theological leanings, to represent that text most accurately, would read similar to the text as is presented in word on word format within our modern Interlinear Bibles. (of course in this scenario, the "religion" of the majority of English speaking peoples also would not be practiced in the manner and fashion that we are presently familiar with) because without the exercise of religion, there would be no reason to "smooth" out the text to make for easy public reading and exposition, and it is this very "smoothing over" and adapting to our "modern" English, that requires modern scholars to have to go back and carefully examine those ancient underlying texts, because our "modern English" text does not always accurately reflect the ancient idioms.
Yes, "If the Bible had not been translated into English we would still have (some form of) English". literacy rates might however be another matter.
The point I was attempting to make has to do with the low literacy rates that prevailed prior to the ready availability of The KJV Bible, and that the Bible as it was worded and structured had a profound impact upon how the English language was commonly spoken.
And that for the majority of medeval English society the KJV Bible became their most familiar literature, from which daily readings brought literacy to generations, serving from childhood as their "grammar" and "speller", and also their "History" "Science" and "Sociology" textbook.
In most homes for hundreds of years, it was the only book, if they owned any books at all.
Hope this helps to clarify my statements, If it does not, or is unsatisfactory or insufficient, then I am sorry, but do not care to devote further time to the matter.

Thanks for the reply

. It does help to clarify what you meant.

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

04-23-2006, 08:07 AM	#111
Jesse Leigh Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the Coastal Mountains in BC Canada Posts: 125	Hey there, Gawen! C'mon! Put'emup! I thought you wanted a challenge? And you did bring it up.... Aren't you supposed to now be criticizing the historicity of Christ accosting Saul (whose name He later changed to Paul), and subsequently appointing him as His Ambassador to the Gentiles? (Otherwise known as, "A funny thing happened on the road to Damascus." ) I gave you the Scripture(s) you asked for. I'm waiting. - Jesse. P.S. While you're at it, you might want to refute the existence of, "The Body of Christ," and explain why Christ said to Saul "Why are you persecuting Me?" Note: not, "Why are you persecuting my people," but rather, "Why are you persecuting Me?" Jus another lil' tidbit. - Jesse.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.