(July 19, 2012 at 9:44 am)spockrates Wrote: Is the question for me, Mystic?

Yes there is two contradictory promises to such people.

One is that they will not have everlasting life (heaven).
The other is they will have everlasting life (heaven).

You don't have to answer if you don't want to. But it is a contradiction.

(July 19, 2012 at 1:10 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(July 19, 2012 at 9:44 am)spockrates Wrote: Is the question for me, Mystic?

Yes there is two contradictory promises to such people.

One is that they will not have everlasting life (heaven).
The other is they will have everlasting life (heaven).

You don't have to answer if you don't want to. But it is a contradiction.

Yes, thanks. There are different responses from those of different denominations. For example, a Catholic would respond differently from an Evangelical. Which of these two responses would you like to hear first?

(July 19, 2012 at 1:22 pm)spockrates Wrote:

(July 19, 2012 at 1:10 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Yes there is two contradictory promises to such people.

One is that they will not have everlasting life (heaven).
The other is they will have everlasting life (heaven).

You don't have to answer if you don't want to. But it is a contradiction.

Yes, thanks. There are different responses from those of different denominations. For example, a Catholic would respond differently from an Evangelical. Which of these two responses would you like to hear first?

You can choose. But if it's going to be all believers will be guided to total obedience to God and without desire of this world, I don't buy it, because it's unrealistic. Reality most believers not only desire the life of this world but are intoxicated with it's love.

(July 19, 2012 at 9:02 am)pgrimes15 Wrote: Are there old copies of the OT in Hebrew ? (I don't mean "versions that were copied from Hebrew sources" or any such cop-out)
I assumed there must be since Undecieved talked about "going back to the Hebrew" to alter the meaning of a passage.

The oldest sizable extant copy of the Hebrew OT is dated to 2nd century BC, a complete copy 1000 AD. There are two 7th century BC silver scrolls of the Torah. Translations are made from any of these, as they all match. Since some meaning is lost in any translation, it makes sense to examine the original in cases of importance.

(July 18, 2012 at 4:36 pm)spockrates Wrote:

(July 18, 2012 at 1:51 pm)Undeceived Wrote: It is commonly thought that Judas impaled himself on his sword, since "hang" and "impale" are the same word. It was a common form of suicide. The word for "hang by the neck" did not come about until 1400 AD.

Interesting response, Undeceived. Are you saying that the Matthew 27:5 is a mistranslation? The explanation I've heard it that Matthew's account that Judas hanged himself was accurate, and Luke explains what happened to Judas' decaying corpse after he hung himself--it decayed to the point where it fell from the rope and burst when it hit the ground.

Thanks for pointing that out. Your explanation may be more likely. And I made a typo. The verses on Judas were originally written in Greek. The possibility remains, since “hang” and “impale” were just as synonymous in Greek as in any other ancient language. Hangings were not common in the ancient world unless they were part of another form of execution—in which they were the display after the killing. One example of such ambiguous language is in Esther 5:14- http://www.ligonier.org/blog/was-haman-h...r-impaled/ . To “hang” could mean to hang on anything—a post, a spike, a cross. But the rise of the Roman Empire put an end to old methods. The 1st century is a dividing line between ancient civilization and the modern world, so one cannot be sure which execution a suicide would have chosen. The translation remains "hang" because we do not have enough evidence to change it. In cases of doubt, the closest translation is kept.

(July 19, 2012 at 10:43 am)Cinjin Wrote:

(July 18, 2012 at 4:36 pm)spockrates Wrote: Or does it show no God was involved in the writing of the Bible's books at all?"

This is exactly what it shows, and only a brainwashed person, desperate for meaning, love and an afterlife, could read the entire book, do the tiniest bit of research and still think that this book was written by an omnipotent god.

Ever notice how every god known to mankind has NEVER physically revealed himself to the entire planet?? Ever notice how every god known to mankind has personality traits exactly like humans?? Ever notice that nearly every god known to mankind is ready and willing to kill you and others based on the nationality you were born into?? Most importantly, have you ever noticed that every god that has ever given the human race a message has only ever done so in an old book???

There's many many more, but why do you think these things are?? There's always the fucktard answer: My god (who just happens to be the one true god) requires faith and will reveal himself to those who are "worthy." But isn't it far more likely that they're all a concoction that was produced out of ancient man's need to explain the unexplainable and gain some kind of control over the horrible natural events and accidents that plague mankind's daily lives?

In the bronze age, if your son dies of an infection or an earthquake wipes out your homeland, or the rain refuses to fall on your crops - fear takes over. When most any person (let alone a bronze age simpleton) finds that they have no control over what's happening to them, they look to create ANYTHING that will offer them peace and explain away their woes. The reason why everyone on earth has an old book or an ancient manuscript or tablet is because we're all the same.

The thousands of gods that have been invented over the span of the human race are no more real than the monster that lives under your bed. Both are an interpretation of the stimuli that happen around us. What makes the Bible special? You do. Your acceptance and interpretation of it is all that makes it any different from any other ancient scribblings. Ask any Muslim; they'll tell you that it is a fact that the Quran was written by Allah himself. Well, why aren't we all reading it then? Because the majority of the world already has their own "special book" that their parents told them was the absolute truth. You want to believe your special book is the inspired word of your god? Go ahead ... you're a brainwashed relic of the bronze age.

Hey, Cinjin, thanks for the reply. Are these rhetorical questions, or are you asking for my opinion?

---

(July 19, 2012 at 1:30 pm)Undeceived Wrote:

(July 19, 2012 at 9:02 am)pgrimes15 Wrote: Are there old copies of the OT in Hebrew ? (I don't mean "versions that were copied from Hebrew sources" or any such cop-out)
I assumed there must be since Undecieved talked about "going back to the Hebrew" to alter the meaning of a passage.

The oldest sizable extant copy of the Hebrew OT is dated to 2nd century BC, a complete copy 1000 AD. There are two 7th century BC silver scrolls of the Torah. Translations are made from any of these, as they all match. Since some meaning is lost in any translation, it makes sense to examine the original in cases of importance.

(July 18, 2012 at 4:36 pm)spockrates Wrote: Interesting response, Undeceived. Are you saying that the Matthew 27:5 is a mistranslation? The explanation I've heard it that Matthew's account that Judas hanged himself was accurate, and Luke explains what happened to Judas' decaying corpse after he hung himself--it decayed to the point where it fell from the rope and burst when it hit the ground.

Thanks for pointing that out. Your explanation may be more likely. And I made a typo. The verses on Judas were originally written in Greek. The possibility remains, since “hang” and “impale” were just as synonymous in Greek as in any other ancient language. Hangings were not common in the ancient world unless they were part of another form of execution—in which they were the display after the killing. One example of such ambiguous language is in Esther 5:14- http://www.ligonier.org/blog/was-haman-h...r-impaled/ . To “hang” could mean to hang on anything—a post, a spike, a cross. But the rise of the Roman Empire put an end to old methods. The 1st century is a dividing line between ancient civilization and the modern world, so one cannot be sure which execution a suicide would have chosen. The translation remains "hang" because we do not have enough evidence to change it. In cases of doubt, the closest translation is kept.

Sounds reasonable to me.

---

(July 19, 2012 at 1:30 pm)Undeceived Wrote:

(July 19, 2012 at 9:02 am)pgrimes15 Wrote: Are there old copies of the OT in Hebrew ? (I don't mean "versions that were copied from Hebrew sources" or any such cop-out)
I assumed there must be since Undecieved talked about "going back to the Hebrew" to alter the meaning of a passage.

The oldest sizable extant copy of the Hebrew OT is dated to 2nd century BC, a complete copy 1000 AD. There are two 7th century BC silver scrolls of the Torah. Translations are made from any of these, as they all match. Since some meaning is lost in any translation, it makes sense to examine the original in cases of importance.

(July 18, 2012 at 4:36 pm)spockrates Wrote: Interesting response, Undeceived. Are you saying that the Matthew 27:5 is a mistranslation? The explanation I've heard it that Matthew's account that Judas hanged himself was accurate, and Luke explains what happened to Judas' decaying corpse after he hung himself--it decayed to the point where it fell from the rope and burst when it hit the ground.

Thanks for pointing that out. Your explanation may be more likely. And I made a typo. The verses on Judas were originally written in Greek. The possibility remains, since “hang” and “impale” were just as synonymous in Greek as in any other ancient language. Hangings were not common in the ancient world unless they were part of another form of execution—in which they were the display after the killing. One example of such ambiguous language is in Esther 5:14- http://www.ligonier.org/blog/was-haman-h...r-impaled/ . To “hang” could mean to hang on anything—a post, a spike, a cross. But the rise of the Roman Empire put an end to old methods. The 1st century is a dividing line between ancient civilization and the modern world, so one cannot be sure which execution a suicide would have chosen. The translation remains "hang" because we do not have enough evidence to change it. In cases of doubt, the closest translation is kept.

Sounds reasonable to me.

---

The web developer really ought to add a script to prevent double posting when the reply button is tapped twice. It's annoying!

(July 19, 2012 at 12:56 pm)spockrates Wrote: OK, thanks for helping me out. The most common response given by Evangelicals and Fundamentalists is this: They cite this passage of scripture.

And why should I care what scripture says?

(July 19, 2012 at 1:28 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(July 19, 2012 at 1:22 pm)spockrates Wrote: Yes, thanks. There are different responses from those of different denominations. For example, a Catholic would respond differently from an Evangelical. Which of these two responses would you like to hear first?

You can choose. But if it's going to be all believers will be guided to total obedience to God and without desire of this world, I don't buy it, because it's unrealistic. Reality most believers not only desire the life of this world but are intoxicated with it's love.

OK, let's start with the Catholic view. A Carholic might point out that Jesus does not say in John, chapter 3 that believing is the only thing one must do to get to heaven. One must also repent and receive the sacraments, such as baptism, as Peter explains:

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

(Acts 2:38)

Doing the good deeds God empowers us to do is also necessary. For believing is just one of several requirements to gain entrance to heaven. The biblical passages, therefore do not contradict one another; they complement each other. Like tiles in a mosaic, together they give a more complete picture of what is necessary to make us worthy of seeing God face to face.

---

(July 19, 2012 at 2:07 pm)Napoleon Wrote:

(July 19, 2012 at 12:56 pm)spockrates Wrote: OK, thanks for helping me out. The most common response given by Evangelicals and Fundamentalists is this: They cite this passage of scripture.

And why should I care what scripture says?

Oh, I'm not asking you to care about that. I'm asking if you care to give me your thoughts on their premise that God reveals the truth to them, but not to people like you (or even me) who have our doubts. You see, you might be surprised to know that I've had several Christians tell me I'm not a Christian. For if I was, they explain, I'd have no doubts. I'm wondering what opinion you have on their observation they have about people like you and me. (By saying you and me, I'm not saying I share the certainty of you atheism, I'm saying share your doubts about the clarity of the Bible.)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


This is stating that whomever believes in Jesus, would have everlasting life.

A disobedient lover of the life of this world can believe in Jesus.

Yeah needing baptism and other stuff, all contradicts this notion. Over here, the verse is clear, all you need is to believe.

Therefore if there is other requirements for salvation, then there is a contradiction.

(July 19, 2012 at 1:30 pm)Undeceived Wrote: The oldest sizable extant copy of the Hebrew OT is dated to 2nd century BC, a complete copy 1000 AD. There are two 7th century BC silver scrolls of the Torah. Translations are made from any of these, as they all match. Since some meaning is lost in any translation, it makes sense to examine the original in cases of importance.

I still don't understand why, if there are in existence ancient scrolls of the Torah which all match, why is there not a definitive translation that everyone can agree on. If it is not possible to make a translation that everyone agrees on how is the bible the inerrant word of god ? If we were talking about a Sophocles play or some other ancient texts that are not making supernatural claims, then we could just agree to disagree about the meaning of any particular word and it would just be a matter of scholarly interest. This is the (origins of) the Bible however, and if I were a christian I would be terrified that a particular doctrine or position came about simply because a scribe thousands of years ago made a mistake.

On another tack, it occurs to me to wonder why the creator of the universe chose to write the instructions to his creations in Hebrew (or Arabic in the Koran if you're a Muslim). Why not in every language that was in existence at that time ?

Regards

Grimesy

Napoleon:

Perhaps these questions are better asked of an Agnostic than an AtheIst? I suppose that to answer them in a way that would help me, one would have to step out of one's own shoes and into mine. One would have to begin each answer by saying, "If God really did exist..."