What qualifications are required?

I went through a number of posts on that thread jar and it was closed by the time I tried to post. The question is fairly specific and I really am curious as to why you say what you do.

Well, if a Christian does good because it will help him get to heaven, in other words doing good for future gain, the value is somewhat diminished. The good was done for the gain.On the other hand, if an Atheist lives the same life, does the same good, it will have even greater value. The Atheist has done the good because it's the right thing to do, not for some future reward.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

it was one of the few flaws i could find in this particular rendering. yes, they do. and this is the way it probably should be translated. i know, it certainly looks unambiguous to me too. it is the traditional way of reading it. although there are instances where "eloyhim" is applied to mortal beings -- moses for instance. god says that moses will be "eloyhim" over pharaoh, and aaron will be his "navi." symbolic, i know, but "ben-eloyhim" might be as well.i know you'll disagree on the reading of psalm 2, but it indicates that when a king is ordained in judah, god calls the king his son on that day. (but not before). the point is that there are multiple readings -- and that's ok.what i'm saying is that here the translation is forcing one particular reading of the text, and that's a problem with idiomatic translations. and this is by far the most common reading. even in the book of enoch, these characters are angelic in origin. it even names azazel "the scapegoat" as their leader at one point. but this book, of course, it apocryphal. i'm only citing it to demonstrate that it was a common reading. right. but the people who translated this version DO. the specific reason they rendered "ben-eloyhim" as "divine beings" is the usage of the term son. "ben" actually means "family of" in some situations. it definines a group. israelites are "ben-y'israel" the sons of israel. members of the group israel. so "ben-eloyhim" COULD be read in hebrew as "members of the group of gods." and they don't like that idea at all. there's only one god.i don't have a problem with it either way. whether polytheism came from this, or this came from polytheism i don't really care about, nor do i really care to debate. i'm just trying to show that in this case a particular ideology has worked its way into the translation. no, it really doesn't take much scholarship. but please recall that i was not the one demanded scholarship. all i'm asking for is motivation. i'm asking that people want to try to make sense of something. yes, i'm looking forward to some interesting debates too. well, that's part of the problem, i think. we don't "claim" to be christians -- we ARE. the mode of excluding people based on which particular understanding they subscribe to is not a good one, and certainly not what christ himself preached. remember, the samaritans were the enemies of the people in jerusalem. they had idealogical differences. but that would contrary to the purpose of this board. we can't insist on particular understand. we debate them. the science fora don't kick people out just because they don't subscribe to darwinism. but they do kick people out because they don't substantiate claims. we should be able to debate our different understandings -- as long as we an back them up with something. the only forum without a backup requirement is "faith and belief" and we rarely get heated debates there.

---

אָרַח

keep reading, it gets a lot worse. eddy pengelly starts "translating" using a concordance, which is NOT a translation tool. so in response i start "translating" verses back to him, but with my own intent, and they come very different. one suggests, for instance, that i should cut off his head.the discussion spanned several threads, and he never got what was wrong with his concordance-translation methods.

---

אָרַח

sure.Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible

---

אָרַח

sounds like a pretty sweet deal. roughly the same, actually. i live in southern florida, and it's bloody hot here during the day. we're getting close to triple digits, nevermind the overwhelming humidity. even during the day with the ac full blast it's just so awful that nobody wants to do anything at all. and since i've either slept or laid around doing nothing all day, i'm not tired at night. i'm a bit of a night owl anyways. it's kind of a pain to get up and go my summer class and my job.i was just mostly wondering because i didn't peg you as chinese, and you seem be holding about the same really weird schedule i do.

---

אָרַח

Thanks jarI understand why you say that now and it makes sense to me. It is the big reason why I have a problem with most of North American evangelism.I think that what I said in my post #54 in this thread applies to this as well though.

christ's teachings strike me as moralistic, not about future gain.

---

אָרַח

I agree. But I think most Christians miss that point. They were also about example rather than profession. Had Jesus only preached, I doubt many would have listened, but instead he taught by example; he healed, he forgave, he demonstrated. And if you look at his teachings, the vast majority deal with now, today, with how you deal with those you come in contact with on a daily basis. Christianity as Christ taught it is about living, not dying, about now not the afterlife.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That sums it up beautifully. If we are Christians because of hoped for personal gain then it is all about self, which is the precise opposite of what Christ preached.I found the linked talk by Brian McClaren interesting as he addresses this point.http://www.fuller.edu/news/pubs/tnn/2004_fall/a1.htm

Hi Arach, Funny since "divine beings" makes most people even more nervous, the idea that they impregnated human women being the hardest thing most people have to consider. OK. That's true of a lot of translations. But it is what Jesus preached. Jesus didn't treat the Samaritans as part of the community of the chosen people. He said "You worship what you know not of, but salvation is of the Jews." Like anyone else they can BECOME members of the community of the saved by following Him, but Jesus doesn't describe them just as Samaritans as in any way part of the community. There ARE standards that make some people part of the community and exclude others. The Samaritans thought they had the right views but according to Jesus they didn't. The Mormons think they have the right Christian views but according to mainstream evangelicalism they don't. There are contradictions between the various groups. All don't belong to the same group. You can be a Mormon but that means you're not a Christian according to evangelicals and Mormons also consider evangelicals to believe false doctrine -- I know, I have a Mormon friend who argues with me about this a lot. It's one or the other, it can't be both under one roof. But I'm not going to argue this further here as on this site there are at least a dozen completely different doctrines that call themselves Christian -- and half a dozen of them are on this thread. Percy suggested that maybe it's the same thing as having the criterion in science forums that people can't claim things that are absurd by the standards of the scientific community, which they CAN be kicked out for. I guess it doesn't really work for the religion section at this site though.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-27-2005 05:18 AM

Thanks. I don't know why I couldn't find it myself. You even told me they spelled it without the "ch" at the end. It makes an interesting double meaning for your name by the way. Is there even a third pun involved in that maybe your real name is Eric? And since we're discussing your signature, may I ask you what your avatar is? I've never been able to see anything recognizable in it.

Hi EJ,I've been skimming through this thread and a couple of statements of yours caught my eye: Assuming that the passages referring to 'Creation' are included in this, maybe it's time that you stepped into the science threads and tested this against the cold hard steel of the scientific method. This would be especially interesting to see, because of what you say in your first post in this thread: This would be a good way to establish whether you have properly considered the evidence and whether you are qualified to make that first bold statement. *(emphasis mine)

I like working at home and making my own hours and also being able to keep some interesting websites open for breaks, but I could do without the sleep problems. I'm getting too old to do well getting my system out of whack like this.I'm glad I'm in the dry West though, rather than Florida with all the humidity where you are. We've been having temps up to 99 here too.

yeah, really. being that it could possibly be read as kings or the line of seth, or a few other things (not to debate the validity of any argument here) the instance that it be divine beings is actually a bad one. "sons of god" is at least ambiguous. well, that's my point. they all have something wrong with them, somewhere. it's kind of a tradeoff, as to which one a person prefers. so i'd like to at least get to the point where i can read the masoretic. then all i have to worry about if the differences between the masoretic and the septuagint, and which one is more accurate to the original. (greek comes later) and that's one of the reasons i don't like the book of john. compare that to the OTHER samaritan story. when jesus said "go and do likewise" at the end of that story, he meant that they should have mercy on the samaritans. and jesus ate with everyone. tax collectors, sinners, everyone. caused a lot of controversy with the pharisees. or at one table? jesus wasn't an exclusionist. he said that it's not the well that need a doctor. it's the sick. he taught that we are to open our door to everyone, not hide ourselves away lest we be tainted. i proposed a standard myself, actually. the standard was that the position had to demonstrated clearly with evidence -- in this case text. ie: of the bible, the koran, the book of mormon, the rig vedas, anything, really. just that it had to have some backing. same as the science forums.

---

אָרַח