Only one version?

quote:

---

Originally posted by JJboy:
So, no need to argue with me about it.

---

Then why are you posting?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by JJboy:
Are you seriously a Mormon, er... LDS? Or are you mocking me? If you are a Mormon, what about the first chapter in your er, bible? Somehow, i think my leg is being pulled....

​

---

Yeah, gene90 is LDS. Are you, er, mocking him?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:

A docuementary on A&E, one on the Discovery Channel.

​

But what can I expect, you're only a teenager and don't know a great many things, only what you've been told by your clergy. You're no different than the majority of Christians when it comes to the actual history of Christianity.

​

[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-04-2002]

---

I do not think the Shakespeare hypothesis is accurate. I looked it up. It seems to be myth.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nos482:
Originally posted by John:

​

I do not think the Shakespeare hypothesis is accurate. I looked it up. It seems to be myth.

​

From where did you look it up?[/B][/QUOTE]GoogleI entered the first thing that came to mind (you should try it) -- King James Bible Shakespeare.The fourth link down hits gold.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
I find that attitude quite puzzling, a common flaw in so many atheists who refuse to believe extra-biblical historical accounts that are very real and verifiable.

---

But there are no extra-biblical accounts that are real, verifiable, and meaningful. [quote]What do you do with extra-biblical historians evidencing the same Jesus the Bible describes?/quoteThere are a very few references to a man named Jesus. Most of those references are questionable and none of them are detailed enough to justify the claim that they are "evidencing the same Jesus the Bible describes" Scott Oser Hojfaq » Internet Infidels

quote:

---

Josephus wasn't the only one: Runtime Error

---

Thanks for the link.

quote:

---

No fact, just opinion based on.....what?

---

I'd guess it is based on a damned megalomaniacal statement you made in a previous post.

quote:

---

MY statement, however, is BASED on biblical statements meant for BELIEVERS.

---

Dumps an awful lot of power right in your lap doesn't it?

quote:

---

There is also far more secular ancient history on the side of the Bible than most people, including Christians, realize: Page not found - Biblical Archaeology Society

---

Did you actually read this article?

quote:

---

Ashurbanipal was the last great king of Assyria. He ruled from 668 to 627 B.C.

---

Note: Ashurbanipal's library does not contain a record of current events but of a historical/legendary king.

quote:

---

The cuneiform text tells of a baby born to a priestess

---

Priestess? In Judaism?

quote:

---

who belonged to a class prohibited from bearing children.

---

In Judaism? What happened to be fruitful and multiply?

quote:

---

She hid him in a basket coated with pitch and placed the basket in the Euphrates River.

---

Ok. Here we have a match.

quote:

---

Carried downstream, the basket was opened by a gardener

---

Gardener? What about the princess and the jewish nurse-maid?

quote:

---

who took the child and raised him as his own. Favored by the goddess Ishtar

---

Ishtar?

quote:

---

the boy advanced and eventually became the first known emperor

---

Emporer? I don't recall moses ever being an emperor? of Babylon?

quote:

---

called Sargon

---

Not Moses...

quote:

---

In what was does the scientific method enter into religion?

---

It doesn't. If it did, religion would disappear.

quote:

---

The point to be wisely gained is that there is no way to disprove the Bible.

---

No way at all? Even hypothetically?

quote:

---

I use it as A source in deduction of what is reality.

---

The question I'd like answered, sincerely, is why should I care?

quote:

---

Few religions have their gods acting among men in any real way. They are more accurately concepts rather than beings able to interact.

---

Have you read much mythology? There are mountains of blatantly obvious contradiction of this claim.

quote:

---

Sure it does. That so many authors independently wrote of the same God and His message so harmoniously is evidence of divine inspiration.

---

A harmony in your head perhaps.... freaking chaotic in mine.

quote:

---

Christianity has MANY witnesses to answered prayer, miracles verified by physicians, financial miracles attested to by unexplained wealth, and a long list of other evidences of a dynamic relationship beteeen Gos and men.

---

Pick a religion and I will show you many witnesses to the very same things. Now, how do we choose between them?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 10-09-2002][This message has been edited by John, 10-09-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:

quote:

---

Your simple denials of fact are pitiful and worth nothing.

---

​

As are your hard-headed and baseless assertions.

​

quote:

---

Respected archeologists, historians alike have and are verifying not only Jesus but much of the Bible, a fact denied by few scholars.

---

​

No dice. You are making this up.

​

quote:

---

The large majority differ only in the details, such as what exactly Jesus did say, and what was meely attribute to Him.

---

​

Gee.... and that isn't important information .... ????????

​

quote:

---

I gave you a start with sources, yet you just up and deny.

---

​

As do you, with the source I've named. I am cognizant of facts. I do read what you post and what you cite. And it is not convincing.

​

quote:

---

Well, that can work with your beliefs about evolution and the alleged historical figures that supposedly began that myth. Can you prove Charles Darwin lived? PROOF. Not some website cut and paste. Do you have a witness that knew him, saw him, that can prove his claim?

---

​

Doesn't realy matter does it? If Charlie were a character from Alice in Wonderland it would make no difference to the ToE. The ToE stands and falls on evidence gathered not on the existence of its founder.

​

You contradict yourself from above already.

---

Compare the two statements:

quote:

---

John:But there are no extra-biblical accounts that are real, verifiable, and meaningful.

---

quote:

---

John:There are a very few references to a man named Jesus. Most of those references are questionable and none of them are detailed enough to justify the claim that they are "evidencing the same Jesus the Bible describes"

---

quote:

---

You said there are NO accounts real, verifiable, meaningful.

---

Correct. This is the gist of the first statement. Note that the point of the second statement is that none of the references are meaningful. That is, there are references, but no meaningful ones, the second statement modifying the first.Again, we are back to your inability to or unwillingness to pay attention. Or maybe you just can't read.

quote:

---

Then you compound your errors saying there are few references. There are many.

---

Ok. I stand corrected.... if four or five references are to be considered many.

quote:

---

On what basis would you decide them questionable?

---

I researched them. [quote]Are you a Bible scholar? An archeologist? An historian?[/b][/quote]Anthropologist by training actually.

quote:

---

There are professionals in those fields who are in fact qualified to make that judgment.

---

Yes and you quite conveniently ignore them.

quote:

---

Few of them are so ignorant as to deny the evidences.

---

This has already been shown to be false.

quote:

---

They differ in the interpretations, the motives of Christ, his origins, other details that probably can't be settled empirically.

---

Are you not understating the importance of these discrepancies?

quote:

---

Interesting that the Jews didn't publish contradictions to the claims of the writings of the apostles in that generation.

---

Interesting that Jesus isn't mentioned at all.

quote:

---

I doubt any Jew of the day was willing to contradict what the masses saw, touched, believed.

---

What? This is non-sense?

quote:

---

Skeptics had to wait until all the original witnesses were dead.

---

As did the authors of the Bible. I wonder why?

quote:

---

You miss the point that those known accounts with little detail do agree in summary of what the Bible says about Jesus.

---

You miss the point that agreement in summary is meaningless. If I said "JFK was president" it says nothing about JFK or what he did as president.

quote:

---

The matter was of little emphasis to a man like Josephus, more interested in chronicling Jewish history.

---

Christianity was a Jewish cult. Why would this be of little interest? It seems like it should have been of a great deal of interest.Josephus, by the way, mentions about twenty or so individuals named 'Jesus'.

quote:

---

Disappointed?

---

No. I was curious as to your objectivity and you haven't any. This is what I expected.

quote:

---

Even the best hypothesis is not proof of a certainty. It is less potent than a theory.

---

A theory is a hypothesis that has been around awhile and is still kicking. What is the point?

quote:

---

A hypothesis needs to be self-testable in its own assumption

---

You mean it needs to be self-consistent.

quote:

---

so what value is there in any assumption that disagrees with the spiritual?

---

What?

quote:

---

I'll remember that when it comes time for you to cite a precious source.

---

You've missed the point. My sources are based on reproducible experiment and/or observation and reason. The Bible has none of that.

quote:

---

Very likely I'll simply deny its validity, deciding that now, regardless its strength.

---

Very likely you will. See how you are?

quote:

---

Sources are out, right?

---

No. Wrong. In you righteous fury, you've missed the point. I did not say "ditch all sources" I asked "why your source?" This question you have not answered.

quote:

---

Yours, mine, every source is pointless, meaningless, fabrication, not even real, just a quirk in an energy stream, which itself is probably not really there?

---

Feel better now?

quote:

---

Relatively few people on earth believe any of that stuff. Why? Nobody I know claims to have seen any of the creatures, nor have I read of any claiming to have witnessed such characters as in Greek or any other mythology.

---

Interesting... nobody I know claims to have seen God.

quote:

---

They were not presented as visions or dreams, but supposedly actual experiences

---

I do not believe there was a strong line of demarcation between the two. Cultural anthropology would do you a world of good.

quote:

---

The Bible, however, enjoys the support of many scholarly Jewish, Christian, other religious, and entirely secular archeologists and other scientists digging up and studying actual verifying relics in Bible lands that testify to the veracity of the Bible.

---

Spiffy assertion. But no citations.Some archeologists have found Troy. Does this mean that the Greek gods have been proven? By your logic it does.

quote:

---

But of course you wouldn't browse such knowledge sources lest you realize the truth?

---

ooooh.... ouch..... painful.......

quote:

---

There were no claims of impossible creatures seen by men, except for the obvious witness of dinosaurs and other extinct animals recorded in its pages. Their lithified remains remain as evidence they were real creatures.

---

The Biblical Isrealites saw dinosaurs first hand? WOWIE!!!!!! This is the most absurd thing you've posted so far. Congrats.

quote:

---

MOST scholars, even the most secular of them, agree on the harmony of the books of the Bible, though not necessarily the meaning of the contents.

---

Assertion without evidence.

quote:

---

What are you so afraid of? You put forth an agorophobic air about it.

---

I am abnormally afraid of wide open spaces?

quote:

---

So let me see some examples of that. We know how easy it is to back that up concerning Christianity. How about some Buddhist prayers answered? Who would answer them? Yeah, let's begin with Buddhism.

---

Ok. We start with Buddhism. Very curious that you choose to start with a religion that has no God in any western sense of the term. However, many forms of Buddhism abandon this atheism and incorporate various local dieties-- Shinto for example. Nonetheless, the presence or absense of god does not seem to effect the ability of people to believe in answered prayer. EtherBods.com is for sale | HugeDomainsNo webpage found at provided URL: http://www.tonidunlap.com/prayer.htmNo webpage found at provided URL: http://www.buddhajones.com/Features/Buddha-ing101/PrayersAnswered.html

quote:

---

Then lets take on Hinduism.

---

There is a reference to answered prayer toward the bottom. Hinduism Today - Authentic resources for a billion-strong religion in renaissanceI am tired of doing you homework for you, so I shall stop now.

quote:

---

Meanwhile, lets consider how much more or less palatable Buddhism is than Christianity.

---

I never said that Buddhism was either more or less palatable than Christianity. I said only that I could find people who believe it.

quote:

---

Are you up to backing your statements?

---

Always.

quote:

---

Of interest to me will be the authenticity of their religious claims versus the veracity of the Bible.

---

Start another topic.[/B][/QUOTE]------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
WS:
It's a riot that he claims to be an anthropologist, or a person with some training in that field. I don't believe that claim, believing rather you are an armchair wannabe. I would suspect a person with training in that discipline would be fairly intelligent. Such a claim casts a dark curtain over the field should he be representative.

​

M: It's a riot that you are obtuse enough to indicate that I ever claimed to be an anthropologist. As for a wannabe, I am a successful molecular biologist with an appointment at a very famous museum which is more than you will ever be able to claim in your life. Your questioning my intelligence after making unsubstantiated claims about your speaking for god casts a dark curtain over the little sect of christianity you so desperately cling to.

---

Wordswordsman appears to have us inextricably confused. Much of this fillibuster of an ad hominem is about me, but is aimed at you. WS has trouble with reading comprehension.I am the satan-worshipping atheist with the anthropology training.

quote:

---

WS:
One way of proving the ignorance demonstrated in your past few posts is the rejection out of obvious ignorance concerning statistics as applied to polls, sample size terminology, etc.

​

M: Interesting paragraph considering this is NOT what you stated previously and is not what I was responding to.

---

This is a reaction to another discussion WS and I had. Yet again, he is confused. I made the comment that I do not much trust poll results. I dropped the issue to keep on topic. Apparently WS didn't get it off his chest. I see that Percy has posted a pretty good synopsis of the trouble with surveys.

quote:

---

WS:
In that vast expanse lies what people need to know to be persuaded evolution is a farce, a cult religion. That is why I've diagnosed you as spacially agorophobic.

---

You diagnosed me agorophobic.

quote:

---

WS:
A search of several archeology sites brings up thousands of articles that make you look foolish. Most scientists believe archeologists are legitimate scientists, even those who specialize in Bible archeology. It is apparent, though, that most atheists disagree, believing they are too biased. What they don't realizew is that many of those people choose that specialty to attempt to prove the biblical record is inaccurate. They have not been very convincing, usually directly neutralized by other digs and conclusions from data. The problems in that field come not from the scientists uncovering the past, but other related scholars who misuse the results. Even some Isreali Jewish scholars have gone on record as denying the biblical record, suggesting the data allows Israel no rights to their land. They have been adequately neutralized by high profile archeologists, but damage was done. The field is highly politicized, but the facts remain the facts, the data is there, can't be ignored. Interpretations of the facts are biased.

​

M: List names, institutes, citations for at least 50 cases...you have dodged this repeatedly.

---

This, I suspect, is also aimed at me. Interesting that out of thousands of references he's posted none-- Oh, except for those irrelevant ones about the classical Greeks meant to prove that the Isrealites 3500 years previously believed in a spherical earth.

quote:

---

M: LOL! It is an honor to raise the ire of a fundie...it surly means I am doing something right

---

Oh yes it is....------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
Elohim refers to human judges who had power of life and death in their hands, with no recourse but to accept their judgments. They were "as" gods, subject only to the God of judges.

---

This makes no sense in context, WS.

quote:

---

There was no mention of any other god, or any hint there was a god or gods the Lord competes with.

---

It is funny that you respond to the mention of other Gods in the Bible by denying that other Gods are mentioned in the Bible.

quote:

---

That verse means the Eternal your Creator is the Creator of creators, the Sovereign of sovereigns, the Strong One, the Mighty One, the Fearful One, who champions the cause of the fatherless and widows without respect of persons.

---

Sure it does. But you left out the part about "God of Gods". It is a throwback to a pantheistic past.Out of curiosity I have been searching the OT and haven't found any passage in the JPS version where 'elohim' is translated 'judges'.

quote:

---

This verse has been translated thus:
"God stands in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges He gives judgment" (Berkeley);

​

"God stands in the Court of the Judge, in the midst of the Judges and asks" (Fenton);

​

"God stands in the congregation of angels; he judges among the angels" (Peshitta).

​

The contextual idea is that God is the Judge of judges in courts of justice established when He instituted human governments.

---

hmm....The JPS has

quote:

---

A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges He judgeth:

---

The Douey Rheims has

quote:

---

<> God hath stood in the congregation of gods: and being in the midst of them he judgeth gods.

---

The Darby has

quote:

---

<> God standeth in the assembly of *God, he judgeth among the gods

---

The Bible in Basic English has

quote:

---

God is in the meeting-place of God; he is judging among the gods

---

The American Standard has

quote:

---

God standeth in the congregation of God; He judgeth among the gods.

---

​

... but kudos on the gymnastics.

​

quote:

---

It is clear there is no other god to be worshipped, that the issue of "other" gods was clearly known, that most religions around David sported dumb idols.

---

​

It is clear that there are no other Gods like the Hebrew God. This is not an uncommon claim for a God to make. Basically, it is an assertion of authority.

​

quote:

---

Obviously David's use of the word 'elohiym is referring to greatest of earthly kings regarded as gods by their subjects, potentates, magistrates, judges, angels on earth and in heaven, and of course greater than any dumb idols regarded as gods which are no gods at all.

---

​

Obvious only when one has to force a reading that is consistent with a very narrow world view.

​

------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
[B]I would suggest you try finding a bona fide Jewish Hebrew scholar who has gone on record as interpreting elohim as an acknowledgement of actual living beings qualified as gods like their god Jehovah, sitting equal to Him in some cosmic courtroom./b][/quote]You challenge us to find a bona fide scholar who believes in the exclusive divinity of the OT biblical God and who will go on record as saying that there are other gods like JHVH? Do you not see the absurdity in that request?There are bona fide scholars of ancient Hebrew mythology who will go on record as saying exactly that, but you must eliminate those a priori with the wording of you request. Truly the mark of idiocy.The issue, as I see it, is not whether those who actually wrote the Bible believed in one God. They probably did. The issue is that the language and mythology betrays a pantheistic past which does not conform to the story told in the OT.

quote:

---

This whole discussion is over whether the Bible, especially the KJV, teaches such a thing.

---

Really? Once again you are not paying attention.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
The Bible doesn't acknowledge any other real god than the one true God.

---

That's nice, but your rendering still does not make sense in context. How about hitting the argument head on? Come on! You can do it!

quote:

---

The one true God doesn't acknowledge any other god of men as real.

---

You have been shown passages in the Bible which suggest the contrary. What you are actually saying is : "WS does not believe that the Bible has any mention of other Gods as real, hence the Bible does not mention any other Gods as real." Doesn't this set YOU up above God's word? Rather than honestly search it for the truth you interpret it to meet your own ends. There has got to be a level of Hell reserved for that crime. Once again, I must thank you for amusing me by mutilating your faith in its defense.

quote:

---

Bible scholars are almost universally agreed on that.

---

Translation: Bible Scholars that WS accepts are al universally agreed o that. Hurrah for selective learning!!!! You have been shown that not all scholars agree. Continuing to make this assertion is is quite simply lying. [quote]The condusion is due to pantheists trying to justify many gods by misuse of the Hebrew elohim.[/b][/quote]Right..... still more unsupported assertion. Yet another conspiracy perhaps?

quote:

---

Here's an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia, a rather complete rendering of the word that is in agreement with all the Bible dictionaries and references I have:

---

Ever wonder whether the Catholic Church has any ulterior motive for erasing the patheism from the Bible? Really, you need to consider your sources and try looking at sources that do not have an a priori conclusion to defend.Someone has already pointed you to some dissenting opinions so I won't bother.

quote:

---

If you remain confused about the uses of the word, try http://www.bibleprophet.com/Doctrine/ABC030.html

---

I am not confused. I am aware of the typical rendering of the word by BIBLICAL apologists.Gee.... bible prophet ? Could that be an objective source?

quote:

---

There is the pantheistic view of many gods like the one true God, then there is the Judeo/Christian view of only: The one (plural:three-person) God is Elohim; the heavenly accompanyment of the One God- angels, other created beings; men with powers of gods permitted by the One God- judges.

---

Hmm..... if this were any other religion one would be tempted to call it pantheism.

quote:

---

Nowhere in the Bible does any other being emerge as credible as being a god other than Jehovah. Any attempt by men to promote any other god met with total failure, as when the prophets of Baal tried to conjure up Baal in the face of Elijah's challenge.

---

Superficially.... it is the undertones that didn't quite get whitewashed away that we are discussing.

quote:

---

No god ever once has sttod before the One true God. People attracted to Greek mythology can't seem to appreciate that fact, insisting somehow other gods are acknowledged in the Bible. They will have to settle for Homer's imaginations.

---

And this came from where?

quote:

---

It is merely one of the failures of the English language. It is impossible to substitute one English word (god) to suitably render the full meaning and use of elohim.

---

The same is true for many words in many languages when you try to translate them. This is why I am a believer in reading the originals as much as possible. But the KJV is near perfect and you have no need for the originals.

quote:

---

Among the learned the use is implied, taken for granted, understood.

---

Then how is it that you understand?

quote:

---

This is one reason for early objections to the Bible being offered in English, rather than in more scholarly languages such as Latin and French. One must go to the Hebrew scholars to determine its proper meaning, though the Christian concept of the triune godhead is lost there.

---

Aren't you now arguing for the idea that translations fall short of the original? And in another thread you put much effort into arguing that the KJV is near perfect? This is self-contradictory.And once again you dodge and ignore the issues raised .....------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com