|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A listing of the contradictions and errors in the bible. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I'll side with him, too, on this. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Funny thing is, it isn't modern English. It also didn't start out as English. It has translated. If you read the Greek, the word used for 'nor' in the above sentence, is also the word used for 'neither'
quote: Funny thing.... you type 'Jesus' into the search box at Blueletterbible.org and all of the verses returned are in the NT. How's that for naming names? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: How bout the one from which the KJV was translated? The Textus Receptus.
quote: Host of scholars eh? The NKJV has "nor" in the offending spot. The NLT has both 'nor' and 'neither' as 'or' The NASB has 'nor' in the offending spot. The RSV also has 'nor' Webster's agrees with the KJV and keeps the 'neither' Young's has 'nor' Darby's has 'nor' The ASV has 'neithe' The HNV has 'nor' The Vulgate has 'neque' -- as it is in Latin-- in place of both neither and nor. Looks like the host of scholars are stacked against you. Its easier to launch an attack on my linguistic abilities than to look it up eh?
quote: Surely your joking? If I wrote an essay in KJV English and turned it in to an english teacher the paper would dissolve in the red ink. We do not speak the English of the 1600s and haven't for centuries.
quote: Actually, neither should come before nor, not nor before neither according to my grammar book.
quote: And most translators of modern bibles disagree with you.
quote: And it doesn't appear in the KJV before the NT.
quote: You are missing the point. I know of whom you speak; I do not know if the OT prophets spoke of Jesus because they never named him as such. These are you standards. See your previous post.
quote: And this matters why?
quote: Jesus. You said 'named by name' ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Wrong again. It seems to be a pattern. w_fortenbury has shown this claim to be false.
quote: Yes, and these 70 scholars trump all the other scholars who disagree? That is hardly sporting. No comment upon having your arrogance called on the issue of the word 'nor'? No comment upon being shown to be full of blustering hot-air? You will continue to trumpet the KJV?
quote: Gee, in fact I do. The problem, as I see it, is that you've made the KJV sacrosanct. Any deviation is simply wrong, the sources be damned.
quote: Right.... isn't that a clever ploy. Insist that Muhammed be named by name, yet Jesus can be named by a general term. You are missing the point.
quote: You mean like not beginning a sentence with 'and'? Or putting 'neither' before 'nor'? This is crap. The language has changed since Kng James. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: It is assumption on the part of Christians- and John-- that the prophet spoken of in the OT was Christ. He isn't named in the OT.
quote: God forbid an accurate translation conflict with the KJV.
quote: Wishful thinking. Cut out the NT and you cannot discover the identity of Jesus.
quote: As the OT doesn't name names, any name will work just fine.
quote: LOL........... Living languages change. A grammar book does not create a language. The people using it create the language. Grammar books codify it, and lag perpetually behind.
quote: This supports my point that the English we use is not that of the KJV. You see, the KJV says 'nor' nor' 'neither' whereas proper english is 'neither... nor...'
quote: Or it happens to be written in a dialect with which you are not accustomed and it happen to be written somewhat poetically at that. Not to mention that most translations do not render the passage with the 'neither' You are resting a huge weight upon this particular translation. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: And here we agree my friend...
quote: Would you mind naming those oldest known copies?
quote: As I understand it, there isn't a lot of overlap either so your conclusion that the copiers were faithful is questionable. At best, you can conclude that where the texts overlap the copiers can be shown to have been faithful.
quote: But it is necessary to read the original if you are going to quibble over turns of phrase and vocabulary, as you often do. Any translation is subject to the biases of the translator, as no two languages exist in a one to one relationship. Translation is not science.
quote: I don't follow. You are using a definition of Gnosticism I have not encountered.
quote: I've noticed a few passages suggesting that the Earth is flat. There are numerous references to the Earth resting on pillars and/or being stable and unmoving. Heaven as well is described as resting on pillars.
quote: Retrospectively this makes a lot of sense. That is, to modern ears it rings true. But considering that other cultures of the same region at that same time represented a flat Earth in much the same terms suggest that the Israelites as well believed in a flat Earth. You cannot cut them out of the context in which they lived and expect to analyze the religion properly.
quote: The rules of interpretation? Would those be the same rules used to evaluate other texts of ancient mythology? I thought not.
quote: ... a fine job of teaching how to interpret passages according to the biases of the textbook's author. wow..... ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 'k. Thanks.
quote: Exactly matching? Did you say exactly matching?
Forbidden Notice how various books change size, Jeremiah for example. How is this possible with an EXACT match? Added by edit: Take a look at Genesis according to the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Amazon.com Notice how some verses are missing, particularly in Chapter 2? What I do not know is the method used to number the verses. As you can see, some verse numbers are completely missing. Verses could be numbered to reflect corresponding verses in modern Bibles, or they could reflect the actual numbering used in the scrolls, with the missing verses being lost. The latter seems odd, as it would reflect a non-standard method of translation. Usually, missing portions are more clearly delineated.
quote: Guess somebody should tell these guys: TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism quote: I thought some of those translations had "damnable verses" yet now you claim the unity of the translations as proof that the issue is settled?
quote: It is? Tell me, do the interpretations of the Rig Vedas bother you? Or the implications of the Egyptian Book of the Dead? I thought not. Why? Because you don't believe the underlying mythology.
quote: I never said re-translate. I said read. God choose to speak to humankind in HEBREW. Yet no one seems to think it worth the bother to learn the language. Why is it that no one sees the irony of this?
quote: Oh come now, WS. You are just chock full of general statements.
quote: It isn't hard to figure out. Look up the civilizations mentioned in the Good Book-- the Babylonians, the Philistines, the Egyptians, the Chaldeans, the Sumerians. I'll get you started:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.aldokkan.com/religion/religion.htm Or you could just try reading some of the mythology...
quote: You didn't answer the question. Do the same rules apply to the Bible which apply to other religious texts? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 10-03-2002] [This message has been edited by John, 10-03-2002] [This message has been edited by John, 10-03-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: You do realize that Hebrew and Arabic are closely related and that "Allah" comes from the same root as "El" and "Elohim"? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
WS: I beg you, please learn to use the quote feature.
[quote][b]Nos doesn't understand the definition of a circle[/quote] [/b] Right.....
quote: quote: Both definitions are from Dictionary.com-- editted for brevity, but look them up yourself. Notice that a circle refers to a plane -- ie. two dimensional space -- while a sphere refers to three dimensional space.
[quote]Let's get the coin fallacy out of the way first. A coin is a section of a cylinder. It is composed of two circles bounding an interior space (volume), with two outer surfaces, and one edge. A coin is NOT a circle, and is NOT flat, but is three dimensional (length, height, and width=volume), with a truly round coin having equal length and width.[/b][/quote] This is ridiculous, WS. It is patently absurd to apply modern mathematical definitions to 4000 year old mythology. That you even consider such sophistry is almost beyond belief. Secondly, colloquially, a circle DOES mean coin or coin-like object. Grab a thesaurus. You'll see synonyms like "disk" and "ring" and "circlet". Here is the clicher for me: why do the many scholars who have translated the Bible with utmost perfection not render this as 'sphere', which is undeniably the better English word if it in fact means what you claim it means? In other words, you are equivocating on the accuracy of the translations.
quote: Like hell....
[quote][b]Going on to the Scripture in question, let's quote it again, but this time in context:[/quote] [/b] And the context adds what to the discussion?
quote: Actually, it isn't very high up at all. I'd say, maybe thirty or forty floors will do it. Heaven is pretty close. No wonder God was afraid of the building of the Tower of Babel.
quote: Is defined as (Davar Hebrew Lexicon):1) to encircle, encompass, describe a circle, draw round, make a circle 1a) (Qal) to encircle, encompass Not terribly sphere-like. It sounds more like a king delineating his kingdom that a God surveying a planet. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 10-03-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I gave you a reference.
quote: Pure sophistry. This is amazing. You are arguing mathematics when the real issue is language. How many times have you said 'circle' when you meant 'sphere'? Really? You might say 'round' but 'circle'? No.
quote: I think maybe you over-estimate the ancient mariners. The 'sea-faring' civilizations stayed within site of land. Now if you stay within sight of land and all of your buddies hug the coast as well, you aren't going to see many boats come over the horizon. The boats were low to the water, thereby obscuring the effect you mention. You might be talking about a damned obvious effect if you are watching a 250 foot four mast schooner come over the horizon, but if that boat is a 30 foot row boat? Not so obvious. And lets not forget about waves tossing all of the little boats about, further obscuring the observations.
quote: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/flat_earth_myth_ch5.html quote: ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: And was I talking about medieval mariners? Concerning the sea-faring Hebrews:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v20/n16/disk01_.html quote: .... by the time of Aristotle, which is about 2500 to 3000 years-- at least-- after the origin of the myths we are discussing.
quote: The point is the size of the ships used. And I hate to break it to you, but ships of the time had large banks of oars, as the technology to capture wind power was rudimentary.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.artsales.com/lSolomon'sNavy.htm Of special note from the above article: It is speculated that navigation was accomplished not in the open ocean but primarily by short hops along and within view of coastlines. There is also a picture of a common ship design of the time.
quote: Back this up. Until you do, I will consider it just more of your bombast.
quote: You seem to have a real problem with chronology.
quote: Your speculation, of course, isn't wild.
quote: Glad you agree. So will you now drop YOUR speculative opinions as to the beliefs of the authors of the Bible?
quote: And that is the difference between you and I. I actually care about the truth, and I mean that sincerely. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 10-04-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I am aware of some of these theories, but I am not convinced. If you know of some theory that is particularly convincing to you, I'll certainly take a look.
quote: I haven't noticed this effect but it is a thought. Three potential problems come to mind. 1) Objects appear smaller with distance and resolution becomes increasingly poor. These two effects would conspire, I propose, to obscure the effects you point out. In other words, mountian rising ove the horizon would look pretty much like a mountain increasing in size as one approaches it. 2) An uneven landscape would also obscure this effect. As one walks up and down small inclines the mountian would appear to move up and down relative to the highest visible bit of land. 3) Heat rising off of a hot desert floor obscures anything at a great distance.
quote: Another thought: Even if the Isrealites noticed that the land around them seemed to curve, it does not follow that they concluded that the world was spherical. They could have concluded that they lived on a huge shallow mountain surrounded by an ocean. This doesn't require a conscience belief in a spherical planet. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Again you show the difficulty you have with TIME. You notice that Russell starts at 'antiquity' around AD 300 or so. This, I repeat, is about 3000 years later in history than the time frame under discussion. This confusion of chronology only makes you look bad.
quote: And again... 1500 BC is a much too recent date. The myths of Egypt, Babylon, Sumer, etc. were well established by 3500 BC.
quote: And this helps your case how? The ships illustrated are essentially the same as the one I cited. Many of them are much more primative vessels.
quote: And a few miles out an oil tanker looks like a matchbox car. A few more miles and it is a dot on the horizon. I have watched ships at the coast. It isn't as damned obvious as you'd like me to believe. The effect depends, as well, upon how far out to sea one goes. That is, if you hug the coast you don't see a lot come over the horizon. Things like land get in the way.
quote: Define very discernable. Do you mean that you can see something on the horizon?
quote: Perspective will wash out the effect in the case of a ten foot tall ship. Add to this the motion of the waves.
quote: It does take a person capable of thinking in those terms though. I cannot find any good sources on the web, but march down to a used book store and grab a few cultural anthropological case studies. Many cultures view the cosmos in radically different terms than we do in the west today.
quote: Again you display a confusion of chronology.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node31.html quote: You may be right, but that there was not dispute does not mean that people thought the Earth was spherical. Here's a good one: Ancient Cosmology of the Earth And another: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.hope.edu/bandstra/RTOT/CH1/CH1_1A1C.HTM And another:
Three views of cosmology And another:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/RushEngr/private/aspects.htm And another:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.worldhistory1a.homestead.com/HEBREWS.html ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 10-05-2002] [This message has been edited by Admin, 10-06-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Please tell me you are not going to play the "prove-it" game by trying to play on the idea that not much can be technically proven. All of the evidence points to the belief in a flat earth. Actually, that is wrong. All of the evidence points towards belief in a flat landscape -- the idea of 'planet' which is implied in our word 'Earth' simply didn't exist. This, of course, you will deny.
quote: Well, you certainly could throw that out, but can you show that such chains of logic were actually followed by the Isrealites? No. The same chains of logic, if they are as blatantly obvious as you claim, should have been made by pretty every culture on the planet and that simply isn't the case. You'd know this if you read a few cultural anthropoplgical studies. By the way, we have discussed everything brought up by the copy/paste from howstuffworks.com. Repeating those arguments do not make them any better. How about addressing my objections directly? You aren't doing that, and we'd get a lot further if you would.
[quote]Next, recall that Moses, writer of the first five books of the Bible[/b][/quote] Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible, despite their having been attributed to him. I know this is pointless:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa079.htm quote: Gee, that's interesting. And it applies to the debate how?
quote: Yeah, no kidding!!! And this applies to the debate how?
quote: How many times do I have to point out that this is some 3000 years later than the time when these myths were born? Are you truly that dense or are you just ignoring me?
quote: BS.
quote: LOL..... Keep talking. The more you post the better my case looks.
quote: This claim would carry more weight if you had actually refuted something. You haven't even addressed my concerns head-on, but merely repeated your assertions over and over. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Isn't this precisely why it can be used as a platform for narrow-mindedness? Calling it a 'guide' opens the door to picking and choosing what one likes and tossing the rest-- not much of a guide, really.
quote: True... just as it is portrayed in the OT. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024