|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: I read both Christ and the Antichrist in my KJ Bible. Do you? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3598 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
GIA: Not quite. Very much quite. You seem to think you're refuting something. You aren't. You're just illustrating my point.
Christ and His ideas are thought of generally as good. You use the word 'Christ' as a metaphor for 'good.' Exactly as I said.
The Antichrist as the name implies is supposed to be full of evil ideas. You use the word 'antichrist' as a metaphor for bad. Again, my point exactly. This shows why it's a good idea to understand a point before attempting to refute it. Mine is--follow closely this time, ok?--that you are simply using the word 'Christ' for ideas you like and 'Antichrist' for ideas you don't like. This is no great insight. All you've really said is that you have been able to find ideas you like and ideas you don't like in a work of literature. You have said nothing meaningful about the text itself. You have said nothing meaningful about the theological concepts normally denoted by these terms you use. You say only that you have your likes and dislikes when you read something. That is all. You can find the same 'dualism' in anything. And you can use any dualistic metaphor you like to describe it. Among die-hard Red Sox fans, the word 'Boston' can mean 'good stuff that we like' and 'New York' can mean 'bad stuff that we don't like.' Yankees fans might do the reverse. Either way, the word game is the same one you play in your OP. It makes little sense to complain about semantics when your OP is nothing but. ______ Edited by Archer Opterix, : html. Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev. Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Well then address those semantics as you expect us to address the semantics of your OP. What about it? Can you refute that the word "murder" perse is not in the Hebrew text and that in the Hebrew context makes up for the vocabulary of few words relative to the English?
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 274 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
My question was more as to why these things that none of us should like, are there in the first place. They are clearly inappropriate.
This should have been known when the scriptures were selected. I search for the reason of their inclusion. RegardsDL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 274 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
No I cannot and trust that those who put the word kill in the translation knew better than I what word belonged there. They were the experts of the time. For the purposes of this debate either word is useful.
If I kill or murder someone, they are still dead. The living may want to qualify the word a bit but the victim only knows that he is dead and does not care what word is used. RegardsDL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Words like justice, evil, protection and punishment become revelant to this discussion. The survival of cultures requires defensive action against the forces of evil within the cultures.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 274 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
Perhaps but defining evil is the hard part.
Are unruly children evil. Gambling, prostitution, gays, slavery and women that dare think they are equal to men. What of these. Which one are evil. RegardsDL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I Am writes: [I] trust that those who put the word kill in the translation knew better than I what word belonged there. They were the experts of the time. I think that's where you go wrong. The people who wrote the Bible weren't necessarily "the experts of the time". They were just some guys who decided to write something down. Their stupider ideas weren't put there for some lofty reason. As I said before, it would have been irresponsible of them to write such stupid instructions to "make us think". Somebody like you might get the point, but others just follow the stupidest of instructions without a thought in the world. “If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here) “The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3598 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
GIA: My question was more as to why these things that none of us should like, are there in the first place. They are clearly inappropriate. To you. But so what? To someone who is very concerned that unruly youths obey their parents--and who lives in a culture and time far removed from yours--a passage like the one you cited could seem highly appropriate. It establishes social order. To that person any defense of the right of minors to be insubordinate might seem the 'clearly inappropriate' way to talk. The evidence bears this out. Regardless of your future disapproval, the passage was penned and it did make the cut. Clearly, someone did think it belonged.
This should have been known when the scriptures were selected. Not at all. That remains an open question. Your own notions of what 'should have been known' are shaped by your culture and your time. One could ask for no more conclusive evidence of this than the anachronistic categories you use. Neither author nor editor had ever heard of a 'christ' or 'antichrist.' Your use of these terms shows that your ideas of propriety and 'shouldness' have been shaped by subsequent history.
I search for the reason of their inclusion. Very well. I have shown you the most plausible and likely reason. You're welcome. ______ Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 274 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
You may be right. It may be the simpler way.
I guess all we can do then is try to straighten them out. RegardsDL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 274 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
Rather presumptuous.
“The evidence bears this out.” I don’t see it that way because I know of no society that has ever had so low a standing or affection for their children. If you know of one then you might have evidence. RegardsDL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3598 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Rather presumptuous. “The evidence bears this out.” Not at all. A quote mine does not a refutation make. Please see my post to see what evidence I cite, and what the word this refers to.
I know of no society that has ever had so low a standing or affection for their children. With how many societies, among the thousands that have existed among humankind, are you familiar?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 274 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
I am sure I don’t know them all but any with this kind of policy I would not expect to find off the list of extinct species.
RegardsDL
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024