|
Author
|
Topic: The new teachings of Jesus
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
Message 3 of 106 (325758)
06-24-2006 5:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
06-23-2006 10:21 AM
|
|
no. as evidence, i submit the gospel of thomas, and the book of mormon. fundamentalists accept neither.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 06-23-2006 10:21 AM | | Nuggin has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 8 by Nuggin, posted 06-25-2006 5:48 PM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 35 of 106 (328685)
07-03-2006 8:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by Nuggin
06-25-2006 5:48 PM
|
|
Re: Fundies believe in No Christ but My Christ
I agree that Fundies don't hold the Book of Mormon as scripture, but at what point do we play the numbers game. Mormon's will soon (if they don't already) out number the Fundimentalists. Do we say, "This is the Bible, and it means X" simply because a single minority of religeous opinions says so? I don't think so. the point was, though, that just because something has the name "jesus" in it does not mean the fundamentalists will believe it. i'm not sure HOW they make that decision.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by Nuggin, posted 06-25-2006 5:48 PM | | Nuggin has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Fundies believe in No Christ but My Christ
2) Nothing has ever been lost from the Bible. We have over 24 manuscripts and pieces of manuscripts and whenever there was a question any info like notes in the margin were included in the text when being copied. It ends up that there are only addit'l variations on words included in sentences. The Bible is 99.5% word perfect and the variations are simply extra word variations that were in the margin that copiests were afraid to leave out and included. And none of the variations were in significant passages. And experts (Nestle/Aland text) believe they know in each and every case how the word variation occured making the Bible word perfect. so no reason to doubt the wording of the Bible. patently and totally untrue. one needs only look at a catholic bible to determine this for themselves. they have about a dozen extra books, and several books are longer. the septuagint, the greek translation of the bible in 200 bc, included these books. the protestant bible does not. and since 200bc is before protestantism, books were evidently excluded from the bible. as for word variation, look up the book of jeremiah. you will find that there are two major variations on the order of the book itself. one version is like you took the other, cut it into chapters, and then shuffled it. the dead sea scrolls contain BOTH versions, and not all modern bibles have the same version. so if modern bibles are not 99.5% the same, which version do you think is 99.5% the same as the old version?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 36 by ReformedRob, posted 08-28-2006 1:23 AM | | ReformedRob has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 77 by truthlover, posted 09-05-2006 12:35 PM | | arachnophilia has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Could be is not an argument
Every supposed lost book of the bible like the gnostic gospels has serious problems that preclude a serious claim that it is a lost book of the bible. The most recent being the 'Lost Gospel of Judas'. The evidence against the gnostic gospels, the Judas gospel and the scrolls found at the dead sea that are not part of the canon is clear. the "serious problem" is that it's not in the bible. your argument is actually quite circular -- it was excluded from the bible, therefor it shouldn't be in the bible. the argument of contradiction is just silly: "book X is the bible, book Y says the opposite thing as book X, therefore, book Y should not be in the bible." there's two problems with that, of course. how do we know book X should be in the bible? maybe it should be excluded because Y contradicts it. the other problem is, what about book Z which already contradicts book X, yet is still in the bible? at the end of the day, the argument always boils down to "tradition." "so and so accepted these books and only these book, and i agree." there's no reason, it's just belief. so, what would actually qualify as a real serious problem, limiting inclusion? how about books that don't so much as mention god? should we let those in the bible?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 46 by ReformedRob, posted 08-30-2006 9:29 PM | | ReformedRob has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Could be is not an argument
Not mine...the one whose authenticity and attribution has been responsibly verified. maybe you're reading different books than i. the apocrypha is every bit as verified and authenticated as any other section of the bible. which, btw, is "not very well at all." what's more, it's also just as traditionally accepted, too. you know that holiday jews celebrate around christmas time, when they get eight nights of presents, instead of one morning? wanna tell me what book of the bible that comes from?
Nice ad hoc/ad hominem attempt though it's not and ad hominem. you are defending your bible as the correct one. jar is just making sure that you keep that in mind. you're saying your bible is the correct. not the ones with more books, extra chapters, etc. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 57 by ReformedRob, posted 08-30-2006 10:37 PM | | ReformedRob has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Let he who without edit, make the first add
quote:
Genesis 2:19 - KJV: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; NIV: Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. There is a big difference between "formed" and "had formed". The first is inconsistent with Genesis 1 emphasizing the reality that they are 2 different creation stories. The second gives you some wiggle room to say that Genesis 2 is "the details".
Or, maybe the KJV just poorly translated the Hebrew. imho, the kjv is generally quite literal and accurate. the niv is more idiomatic, and tends to translate with regard to tradition and dogma. the tense in question:
quote:
— - v'yetser yahueh elohim min-ha-adamah... and-(he)-formed [the lord] god from-the-soil...
past perfect, in verse 8:
quote:
...ha-adam asher yatsar ...the man that (he)-had-formed
past imperfect, in verse 7:
quote:
— - v'yyetser yahueh elohim et-ha-adam... and-(he)-formed [the lord] god (d.o.)-the-man...
so, it might be a typo (missing yud), or they might have ascribed the wrong vowels to it. either way, there seems to be a scribal error. but i can't say for certain, i'm honestly not all that clear on tenses in biblical hebrew.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 65 by truthlover, posted 09-01-2006 6:26 AM | | truthlover has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Could be is not an argument
And convenience, to be sure. If the 66 books of the Protestant Bible didn't represent God's complete revelation, why would God let the Zondervan company publish them in one volume and label the whole thing Holy Bible? the problem of course, is then why would god let some other company publish some other version of the bible with a different selection of books? more than one version and more than one translation exist -- further, whole other books that claim to be holy exist: the qu'ran, the book of mormon, etc. why would god let those exist if they were not also true? it's quite a naive viewpoint to assume that "god didn't stop me, therefor it must be approved by god." even assuming that god exists, AND the bible is true, people do lots of things in the bible that are not sanctioned by god, and even punished by god. we have this thing called "free will." our will is not neccessarily god's will.
so, what would actually qualify as a real serious problem, limiting inclusion? how about books that don't so much as mention god? should we let those in the bible? I'm looking forward to seeing an answer to this. i am too. i have a feeling you know where this is going... Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.
|
™ Version 4.2