YHWHtruth

By all of god's own rules he should go to hell and burn himself for eternity??

Who said anyone will burn in hell?

Any doctrine of eternal torment or suffering in the afterlife depends on the doctrine of soul immortality. According this doctrine did not develop until "the apocryphal period," and was "a radically new idea that did not exist in biblical times."

Maybe Fel should actually read the bible

Further, it is only "with the First Book of Enoch [that] another new conception enters Jewish postmortem philosophy -- the notion of Hell as a place of eternal damnation," thus sometime between the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE.It is with the apocryphal book of Enoch that "tours of hell," describing with vivid detail the torments and punishments of the underworld, begin. Interestingly, for some time into the Christian century and beyond, Jewish scholars argued over whether the torments of Gehenna were temporary and purgative, or eternal.

Azathoth

Not a non sequitur at all.The point that Felstorm raises is still valid.I'm afraid writing it in capital letters doesn't make it any less so.

If the bible cannot be taken as a whole,uncontradictory book,there is no way of knowing what parts are accurate.The only completely accurate way to understand it would be for God to beam the information right into your head.

Unless,of course,you rely on another human to decide what the bible says for you,and in that case,you are not getting the Truth.You are just getting that other person,or people's,view of it,complete with all of their human biases.


Let me ask you a question.Point out some of these copyist's errors for me.Show me where the Bible was mistranslated.Feel free to go back to the earliest manuscripts,if you have to.

You still haven't answered this one.I'm glad the bible clearly says later on that God's a decent being.But,considering the alleged source of that book which is God himself,would it not be wise to question the sincerity of those statements?Of course it would!

As Felstorm said,God is ultimately at fault for everything that transpired.

YHWHtruth

If a hypothesis is so general that it accords with any observation, it is
completely useless. If all kinds of beliefs and any understanding of
biblical texts are viewed as equally true, nothing is true, but we have a
situation of spiritual anarchy, comparable to the situation described by
the last verse of Judges: "In those days was no king in Israel; every man
did what was right in his own eyes." Regardless of how we view the written
NT text, it can hardly be disputed that for Jesus, Peter, John and Paul
there was just one way and one truth. Is it not possible to find this in
the text? I am not arguing for a particular faith; what follows is rather
descriptive, but I will comment upon your question. Could the NT text be understood as a normal prose text by the first Christians?


The key to answering the question is whether or not we have the right PLUG-INS, to use Internet terminology. It is a good exercise to take a look at these plug-ins, and I see at least 4 areas where such are highly needed.


(Plug-in 1) Our own faith including our motives and inclinations.
Examples of areas where this plug-in work: The view of homosexual acts, the position of women in the congregation and head covering for them when praying. Our viewpoints here, which often are strong, inevitably will influence our understanding (both linguistically and contextually) of the particular verses. Stated differently: Our subjective views greatly influence our work with the "objective" text.


(Plug-in 2) Our view of Scripture as inspired or not.
There can be no doubt that head covering was required in Corinth in particular situations. If we disagree and at the same time view the Bible as God«s word, we will approach the particular verses differently than if we disagree and do not view the NT as an absolute norm.


(Plug-in 3) Our theory of meaning. Is the "word" the fundamental
translation unit, or is it the "kernel" of Nida, or another unit? Our
application of lexicon, grammar and syntax is very much influenced by our view of meaning. That we appraise our position here can not be stressed too much.


(Plug-in 4) The original "presupposition pool": Do we understand it, and can we clearly differentiate between this and our modern presupposition pool?
Example: Our view of the words HADES and GEENNA. What did they mean to Jesus and the first Christians? What do they mean to the ordinary church-goer today?


These plug-ins work differently with ancient and modern readers. The advantage of those in the first century was their familiarity with Greek and their similar or quite similar presupposition pools (4). This would help them to understand much of the words and clauses of the NT text quite easily. Other parts of the NT would however be more difficult. It has been pointed out by several posters that Greek grammar can be ambiguous. In addition, the very prose of parts of some writings is difficult (2 Pet 3:16). We should also keep in mind that in many instances, ALL we need to
learn about a particular subject is found in the Bible; we just need to collect this material and work out a conclusion. In other instances only the HALF is found in the Bible and the other half must be supplied by the reader; this is for instance true regarding prophecies. What is for instance "the desolating scariledge" spoken of in Matt 24:15, which both Daniel and Jesus associates with the time of the end? (I use this and other
NT subjects as examples, not to initiate a discussion.)


The Christian faith would in many cases help the first century readers to decide between alterantives, both linguistical, grammatical and conceptual ones. But the length of time they had studied the Bible would influence them and also where they lived. A peasant in Greece would of course not be so familiar with the viewpoints and customs of Palestine, and to which degree did the Jews of Palestine understand Greek? In addition would the
motives and inclinations of plug-in 1 play a role, and also plug-in 3. Let us also keep in mind that copies of the Scriptures were rare and expensive, and much of one`s "study" would consist of listening to a portion of the Scriptures being read aloud by someone else. According to the law of entropy some information will be lost under such circumstances. So I follow you a long way along the road but not to the end: Greek-speaking Christians
of the first century could understand a great part of the NT text, but very far from the whole of it!


The situation of communication in the first century centered around the authors and their reading audience, and the medium was the written text which could be understood by help of a common language and a common presupposition pool. In our time the situation is much more complicated. The translators have the same modern presupposition pool as their readers,
and they know both the source languages and the target language, and also a part of the first century "presupposition pool" (Plug-in 4), but their plug-ins (1), (2) and (3) and the ditto plug-ins of the readers may be very different. This MUST cause problems! A principal difference between idiomatic and literal translations is that the idiomatic ones both translate the text and the original "presupposition pool", as it were, while the literal ones translate just the text and leave it to the readers to become familiar with the original "presupposition pool". For both kinds of translations, however, the translators« make use of their OWN plug ins, and this may cause problems for the readers; the greatest problems occur of course with idiomatic versions. The text cannot ,however, be translated without understanding its theology, and that is the reason why theology both do play and must play an important role in any translation.


Many years ago a German author wrote a book entitled something like "What is at stake is God". His point was that, given that "God" exists, he has just one opinion in each question. Students of the Bible should therefore try to find God`s view instead of stating their view of God`s view. It is extremely difficult to reach a common agreement as to what is God`s opinion
is in each case, but that should at least be our objective. It is much easier to state Our opinion about God, than to search for HIS opinion - and from one point of view is such an ideal approach even unscientific. Which scientist would write a thesis about the absolute truth about x? Are we discussing language rather than theology. We are searching linguistic plug-ins - rules which restrict the possible understandings of particular grammatical and syntactical constructions. But theology is
always lurking in the background because the Bible is a book about God, and because our personal theology inevitably influences our linguistic arguments. So it is good that we regularly appraise our own position, seeing which plug-ins we have chosen, in order to have parameters by which to evaluate both our own conclusions and those of others.

Max

Azathoth

You still have failed to address Felstorm's point.No matter how you interpret the scriptures.There is no way to misconstrue the facts.

Using the bible,ostensibly,God's own words,to prove the moral character of God is the equivilant of using Mien Kampf to absolve Adolph Hitler.

The conclusion is inescapable.God is culpable for everything that has transpired.Every minute that mankind isn't in Paradise,is a minute that,but for God,would not have to occur.Arguing textual or moral relativism does not change this fact.


I see you have also managed to sidestep the question
about biblical accuracy.My question was to provide examples of mistranslations in the Bible,both New and Old Testement.We need to go back farther than first century Christianity for that.I'llprovide one part for you:the global flood.Is that account an accurate translation of the text,or was it mistranslated?

Also,the question arises about translation of the text,scripturally.If the person,or people in some cases,are wrong about the passages that they translate,would it be a good idea to trust further interpretations of those texts? Some would say no. The problem remains,that only someone who actually speaks to God has the ability to be completely sure of their interpretations.

Anyone else,no matter how sincere,can be wrong,and often,pride leads them to not see it as such,even if they are shown that this is the case.

Since there is nobody who actually speaks to God,and if someone claims that,it would be wise to dispute it,the best that one person can hope for,is individual study,without others interpreting the text,using the basic tools available.The only conclusion would be that such an outcome is desired by God,for whatever reason he chooses.Otherwise you will always get a version of the Truth that is inaccurate.

How could you trust someone that claims to know the Truth,if that Truth doesn't come directly from God himself?

YHWHtruth

Simply making a statement such as this earns you no credit whatsoever. Try providing some proof "Contradictions", rather than just ungrammatical assertions

Let me start by saying that the reason I did not address this specific argument is because it is so bad that I was not about to waste any space talking about it. Fel thinks his arguments are so good, and that if you don't address every single argument his position is somehow still intact. Trust me, I have no problem responding to Fel's distorted view paragraph by paragraph, subject by subject. But I am not going to waste space talking about some bad argument he actually thought worthy of print, when I could be discussing more useful and informative matters. He infact doesnt care to defend his position, when I bring out the flaws.

So I take it you have no rebuttal?

Since the above contains only opinions, with no critical analysis of the source material, at least not that you have provided, it is as good as what you have already said, which is of no value at all. The fact that persons other than yourself read post-biblical thoughts and concepts into the Bible text does not prove anything.

Well, as we can see, and as I said, "When you get around to citing evidence, let me know. Until then, I have made my position available for all to read and the fact that you have ignored it shows that you are not interested in considering issues at length, but only with repeating those ideas you believe are accurate. You also deny the plain meaning of words and equivocate at almost every turn."

Max

Felstorm

Well there Max.

You've done a bang up job of dancing around my questions.

Nice strawman. Dress old Fel up as an unread ignorant atheist and knock him down. Classic. :notworthy

Of note I am a former Christian apologist. I have read the bible more times than I wish I had. The bible is a contradictory, flat-earth book. I don't care how much you say I take things out of context, it still remains full of contradictions and is unreliable even as a historical document. It cannot be read literally and taken seriously, and one must do alot of personal interpretation and speculation to have it make ANY sense. Biblical translators are often religous apologists, or clergy themselves, and all things considering that's hardly an objective source of interpretation. In fact I know of one 'authentic translated' bible that was translated by people that had no education and thusly absolutley no business near an ancient manuscript. You see people that translate bibles often ignore apocrypha...of other civilisations that date much earlier than biblical legend. The first part of Genesis is basically a shortened condensed version of the Enuma Elish. Which tells a radically different, and considreably more detailed account of so-called human "creation".

It still remains with a good degree of certainty that bible is nothing more than a collection of myth and ritual from earlier religions, there is ample archeological evidence to support this. In fact you can see it yourself within Judaism and Christanity. The symbolisms are all taken from previous pagan rituals. Jesus wasn't really killed on a cross, a torture stake was more than likely used, the crucifix dates back to ancient Egypt. Look up "Isis' Sandle Strap". Or if you want it from the horses mouth, go talk to some preists in seminary school, they'll fill you in on the fabrication of the bible. They learn all kinds of "faith" challenging things in seminary school.

And if, by Christian apologeticists mouths, the bible is true and everything else had before it was false, then if it can be proved that the bible is based upon those 'false' religions that makes Judeo-Christianity is false as well. In fact the origins of which Christianity is based, Judaism was originally a polytheistic pagan goat herder religion. So one can hardly claim to be a "true" Christian when that is where the religion came from. I mean you hear nothing of Baal and Adonai within the bible. Except when the goddess YHVH's "prophets" are burning or killing Baal's, or Adonai's followers. How loving.

You missed one vital sentence when I started.

"In case one were so inclined to hold a biblical literalist's standpoint... "

While your arguments are a very good defense of a non-literalist "liberal" christian viewpoint, what I was trying to address was the absurdity of a literal interpretation of this particilar passage that, in the end proves inimical to Christanity. The concept of "Original Sin.". You see if there is no original sin, then there is no need for redemption, therefore no need for Jesus, and thusly no need for a personal anthropomorphic God.

You see it's very complex and interesting this omnipotent, and omniscient, omnibenevolent god. For it can turn off it's omniscience at it's convenience, because after all it is omnipotent, so it can do that apparently. And it can seemingly turn off it's omnipotence when it choses...because after all it is omnipotent. And even more interestingly it can turn off it's omnibenevolence whenever it likes, and does so often to throw the occasional hissy fit, and kill a few hundred thousand people. Or drown the whole world, save one man's family. Which leads me to another item.

Why does it need to be worshiped? If Anselm's argument holds true, then there is nothing greater than god. So what has he got to be jealous about? Obviously only himself because after all he created us, and in his absense we created all kinds of arious gods that we obviously thought were him, right? And with that same notion he leaves some of us wondering if he actually exists or not. Despite the fact that it can effortlessly prove it's existence at any time it choses to anyone anywhere! But oddly, it simply refuses to do so from some, mysterious reason. Perhaps he just doesn't give a crap. I can respect that, because if I made a mess this big I'd give up eventually, too.

Clergy often cite that faith is more important than solid proof.

(And then we get this argument.

"'I refuse to prove that I exist!', says GOD."says the Clergy. "For proof denies faith and without faith I am Nothing!"

"But!" say the apologist. "The atheist doubts your all-powerful existence. But I know you exist because the bible proves you exist, so therefore you don't QED."

God can give no response to this because the apologist has just destroyed god by proving that it exists. )

So it really comes back to God doesn't it? He made us. He made morals. He made freewill. He made Satan, he made the snake, he made the trees ... who swallowed the spider who swallowed the fly, perhaps she'll diiiiieeee? Ooops, sorry nursery rhymes crept in there a minit. Whole circular arguments get me with songs stuck in my head like 99 bottles of beer on the wall. You know how that goes you go to about 50 and you forget what number you just counted so you have to start all over again? We've all been there.

Anyway. It really is upon god. Anything good or bad that happens within this universe is ultimately his responsibility because after all he created it all, and ultimately he could stop it in a heart beat. Good, bad and ugly alike, he has the power to make it right, and effortlessly too. You can't say that god created our universal space time continum, and then claim that he is not responsible for anything that happens in it! "Oh it's Satans fault for telling the humans the truth about the fruit!" There is not one thing that Satan said that proved false. The only crime they committed was using their god created and god given freewill, to make a decision for themselves. Only it conflicted with god's idea of what the humans should do and act and be like. He could no longer control them like puppets, so he kicked them out of the paradise. To me this is god that needs a divine asskicking and attitude adjustment.

This is not a god. This is a l33t teenager playing a game of Simcity. You know the one where you build all the little towns and then you send godzilla rampaging through to see how well your people cope with the disaster. Funny, yes, but sick and demented with the same notion. People think he is an old man with a beard. Nah, only an adolescent deity behave in such a fashion. Perhaps our universe is some kind of divine school project, that once he created it and got the grade, tossed in his closet to collect dust. Could explain why there is so much black when we look out in the universe, god simply turned off the lights in his closet. At anyrate. We should jsut assume that it doesn't give a crap anymore and move on with life. We are here and now and we should concern ourselves with dealing with the present, and stop worring about what may or may not lie beyond the grave. Things are already fucked up, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and fix our problems ourselves. If there is a God it certainly doesn't seem to want to finish what it started, or give any solid indication of it's existence that isn't over 1500 years old.

Dune

An interesting aside on the nature of God.

What if god created the universe for us? He created us imperfectly with our own free will, made a big giant playbox in which we can romp at will.
Perhaps the ultimate goal of god is to watch us grow and learn as a species to see what we turn out like.
After all, adversity often generates the best (and worst) in humanity- which would explain many of the hardships visitited upon humanity.

YHWHtruth

Oh my…Can everyone sense the desperation in the above argument? Think about it, really

I have often heard that people who feel trapped, or who are backed into a corner, react abnormally, out of desperation. While I would not say Fel's response is abnormal, it is certainly indicative of desperation. Let me explain. Dishonest, ignorance, deception, look up every one of these terms, for I think they all apply to Fel's above-stated argument

There is a significant problem with Fel's reasoning on this matter. If "true" is A and "false" is B, then Fel's argument runs like this: Whatever is non-A is B. But that is not accurate in terms of our discussion. He does not allow for C, D, E, etc. He wants you to think that the only viable option for non-A ("true") is B ("false"). This is known as a false dichotomy, and the rest of Fel's argument suffers from it

So, basically Fel's answer is: Your wrong Max and I (Fel ) am right. Fel simply denies the force of the scriptures I cite, and does not deal with their implications at all. His argument is circular

Max

Calzaer

It's really funny to watch the losing side of an argument try to be condescending.

Felstorm

More strawmen and ad homs. Now I'm "desperate", potentially "abnormal". And I'm "trapped in a corner". Max, you can't debate yourself out of a wet paper sack. How's that for an ad hominem? Whats next, attacks on my mental cognitive abilities? Please. Just to give you a giggle, my IQ is 192. But that really has nothing to do with anything being discussed here. It's just to give you something you stick on a pole and stuff some hay into. Perhaps we can both go follow a girl and a Scottie dog. I'll play the Scarecrow and you can be the Tinman... We're off to see the Wizard! The wonderful Wizard of God!

I am using simple logic. So simple one could call it Boolean.

First off lets agree on something. If you create something, are you not responsible for it's creation? If that is the case, if your creation does something you do not like, are you not ultimately responsible for creating your own displeasure?

Item A has the following properties of X, Y, and Z. Item A used properties X, Y, and Z to create Universe from Nothing. Item A is now responsible for everything that now happens in Universe created by Item A because Item A created Universe. Item A uses properties X, Y, and Z to create Freewill concept in Universe. Item A is now responsible for anything Freewill is used for. Item A creates Man. Item A tells Man to not eat cookie and provides abstract consequense. Man uses Freewill and makes a decision to eat cookie ignorant of the true meaning, oblivion, of the abstract consequense. Item A punishes man for using Freewill that Item A created in Universe.

Note that this is monthesitic cosmology. If it's circular and I explain it as circular and you claim my argument is circular for pointing out your argument is circular, what are you saying about your own argument?

Moving on.

So if I get this right, I'm desparate and grasping at straws if I do not agree with the "force" of your cited scriptures? I am supposed to be "swayed" by this? I see the holy spirit is supposed to come and make me agree with your stunning prose and personal interperetations of personal interperetations? I have spent the time to review your information carefully and still not be swayed by your arguments, because there is significant evidence to show that the bible and Christianity could very well be a sham. And you still haven't grasped the fact that I am rather picking apart a literalist viewpoint of Christian creation myth. You keep applying personal interpertations to scripture that we really had no idea what the original writer meant. You can either take it literally, or put a certain amount of allegory into it's interpretation which then makes your interpretation personal and subjective to you.

Take your "day" example. Ancient Hebrew is wonderfully vague, thankfully for you, in this regard because, the word used for "day" could mean either one rotational "day" or as you stated, or an unspecified length of time known as an "age". Well how long is an "age"? And how do we know "age" was implied instead of "day" because the two meanings are used in conjunction with the same word. How can you assume to know for a fact which definition is what the original anonymous writer meant to use?

http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/index_FLASH.html

I'm sorry but you are sounding more and more desparate. It seems to me that you have not tried to refute one instance that your bible is based upon earlier legends written by earlier people who borrowed and modified their religion from an previous one. You have made all kinds of syntactical, highly speculative interpretations of interpretations of languages and dialects no one speaks anymore. While common thoughout some sects of Christianity, your views are not entirely isolated to you, but are popular because they validate the bible myth based upon the bible myth. And the bible myth is based upon religions of many myths based upon myths.

I'm sorry but you can have alphabet soup behind your name and you will still not know for an absolute fact what particular defintion of an already loosely defined word meant or was implied by an anonymous writer a few thousand years ago. I see someone taking a word, "day" and then twisting it's definition to mean something else entirely, just so it fits with an argument. Wars are fought on differences found in these educated guesses. Perhaps it explains why so many of the 10,000 flavors of Christianity can't agree with one another. The religion is starting to look more like a supernatural Baskin Robins than anything else. They can all agree to like icecream, but they fight with each other about which flavor is best."

Menu literalist: "You can't have bananas cut up in your ice cream!"

Menu allegorist :"But it's good that way."

ML: "No. It clearly says here on the menu that you cannot have your bananas cut up into little bits. That must mean that you must swallow them whole!"

MA: "But I just ordered my icecream with bananas cut up in them, perhaps the staff just forgot to update the menu...Besides, you are gonna chew them anyway and it's gonna get mixed all together anyway."

ML: "I don't care if the menu is outdated or not, it says you cannot have bananas cut up in your icecream."

MA: "Look the letters are faded. And waht is this? It's a sticker someone placed on the menu claiming that cut bananas are wrong. Underneath it clearly says that cut bananas are fine. Seriously did you expect me to really swallow a whole banana? I would choke! And who would put such a dangerous sticker there, someone might get hurt trying to swallow a whole banana!"

ML: *sigh* "Is that BUTTERSCOTCH!! You despicable heathen! Everyone knows that you can't put butterscotch and bananas together! That's just plain nasty!"

MA: "I know, but I like it that way. I'm not hurting anyone by putting butterscotch on my bananas mixed with chocolate syrup and toffee swirl. "

ML: "You disgust me. I'm leaving. I hope you get your tongue stuck to a frozen flagpole, you cut banana butterscotch toffee swirl chocolate syrup eater!"

Ooops. I'm sorry Max. I forgot you dont' take humor too well...

I invite you to look throught that site I posted a link to. I say that the bible is questionable in authenticity but you keep quoting the bible, and text it's based upon, in defense of itself. Does not authentication require a third party to confirm your evidence? How come most translators that work on these old biblical texts are quite often believers themselves and are predisposed to wanting to believe anyway, and providing "interpretations" that fit with apologetic arguments. Perhaps this is why Christianity is so divided. Each one has a slightly different view based upon their individual translation of that same speculation, done by their own translators educated in religous schools.

"PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE SCREEN!"