(January 4, 2013 at 10:08 pm)Stimbo Wrote: That's what the 'Ignore' function is for. However, if you really want to play the martyr and decide to be kicked, either break the rules (not a serious endorsement; merely making a point) or request to be banned (again, not intended seriously). Contrary to popular misconception, nobody gets banned purely for having a different point of view.

That's only because you unsaved trash don't know how to use the power you have. Were this a Christian forum, the lot of you would be kicked simply for being openly atheists. Now, I know some would say that censorship is the last resort of people who know they're wrong. And I usually ban them for saying it.

Quote:But.... we "are also responsible" to spread the Word of God. And YOU listen.

Hearing you make an ass of yourself is hardly the same thing as listening to you.

I suspect no one has ever listened to you.

(January 5, 2013 at 12:48 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:But.... we "are also responsible" to spread the Word of God. And YOU listen.

Hearing you make an ass of yourself is hardly the same thing as listening to you.

I suspect no one has ever listened to you.

LOL! You would wish that wouldn't you?

But... I suspect you are WRONG again camel breath.

(January 1, 2013 at 2:52 pm)Lion IRC Wrote:

(January 1, 2013 at 4:13 am)Aractus Wrote: Like most protestants, I don't believe any translation, no matter what language, no matter how old, to be scripture. The Bible was written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, not in Latin, etc.

What the?

I know right. It's almost like he doesn't even realize most Protestants consider Anglicans to be some kind of weird Catholic cult.


Aractus, would you care to provide evidence backing up your assertion that most Protestants don't consider translations of the Bible from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic to be scripture?

(January 4, 2013 at 3:45 pm)ronedee Wrote: Read my statement(s) above.... You either don't read very good or your comprehension is low.

But I'll give you a clue! The Holy Spirit is the real Teacher. You can actually find that in your version of The Holy Bible!

And, my question to you was rhetorical...but I didn't really expect you to recognize that either.

First off, I clearly mean "future questions". And yes, I don't understand very well how you think you've addressed my question. Saying "Catholics don't concern themselves about translations of the 'old testament'?" is total bullshit and you know it, and you know the LV isn't exclusively OT, it's OT + Apocrypha + NT. Or did you somehow manage to forget that?

(January 4, 2013 at 3:45 pm)ronedee Wrote: For someone challenging us, you are not very knowledegable about the Catholic Religion.

Also, ronedee, this is an atheist forum - yet you suggest that I should attack their beliefs and their problems. This doesn't sit well with me. For one thing, they're fucking atheists - you can't expect them to know any better! I expect better from Xians. For another, there are already well enough Xians on Xian forums who do a good enough job of bitching at each other all the time and practising elitism without me. If you want to go to CARM and act like an elitist, and lick Matt Slick's bum hole go for it, I left the original (now defunct and replaced) CARM forum in 2003. That's 10 years ago, I have no intention of going back.

By the way if you do go there, mention my name (Daniel) and tell Matt and Diane they can get fucked, I'm sure they know who I am.

---

(January 4, 2013 at 8:28 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Recently I joined Worthy christian forums. My first post was basically " Hi, I'm an atheist and I'm looking forward to some intelligent rational debate"
It was also my last....

Yes well sadly there's not enough intelligent debate here! I'd like to change that.

---

(January 4, 2013 at 10:41 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: I find it funny that the one thing our Christian visitors rarely do is try to live up to the standards of their founder that they all seem to agree on as top-notch. We know you've thrown out the 'give all your belongings to the poor bit' (clearly a metaphor not meant to be taken literally), but turning the other cheek, loving your enemy, not casting the first stone...it's rare to see an internet Christian who even pretends to try.

Frankly, one who merely shows integrity and forthrightness in their posts is a refreshing change, and the best way to earn our respect.

Yep, I tend to agree. That's why I don't give a shit about CARM and any forums that may be similar to them. Filled with Elitist bullshit (the "Elitism" also represents extreme and BS POV's).

I have given the Catholics here a perfectly open invitation to defend one of their core doctrinal matters - what authoritative textual basis scripture has - and they have failed to even answer my very basic question, which is simply "How can you justify using 'the' LXX and the Latin Vulgate as 'inspired scripture'?"

OK the Catholics didn't really want to answer my question, though they did PM me. Here's one:

Quote:Maybe try the CARM site Aractus. Or christianforums.com
They have a gazzillion catholic vs protestant threads just like that.

I've already covered CARM above. As for christianforums.com ... does it look like I'm in a hurry to post there??

Quote:why is there such little importance placed on Biblical translations that have the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament agree? For example, in almost every Bible, verses in the NT that quote verses in the OT do not match up when referenced to the corresponding OT verses in that translation of the Bible. I understand the reason - because the NT writers used the Septuagint, which modern Biblical translators do not use in favor of much later, largely non-Christian Hebrew texts in the belief that those late Hebrew texts would necessarily resemble the "original" Hebrew texts of the OT, apparently more than the Septuagint does.

^ This is one of the many old, tried and tired arguments that simply refuses to die. No matter how many times, I or anyone else proves the argument wrong.

Consider the synoptic problem, still to this day scholars debate whether Mark or Matthew truly came first. The majority view, which I somewhat share, is that Mark came first. LXX/NT quotations are the same question - which came first, the NT or the LXX? Just because you can assume the LXX comes first, doesn't mean that the NT quotes the LXX. What if the LXX quotes the NT??

There are over 250 direct OT quotes in the NT, and the vast majority of them do not correspond "better" to either the LXX or the MT (Masoretic Text). The quotations themselves range from quoting the MT exactly, to quoting the LXX exactly, and everything "in between". There are over a dozen OT quotes that scholars pretty much unanimously agree represent "paraphrases" and are not intended to be direct quotations. Yet, if we found that the LXX contained these "paraphrases" they would instead see them as representing the LXX instead! If we didn't know about the LXX, the so-claimed LXX quotations would be seen as either "paraphrases" or as "loose translations", or even literally quoting the MT. So everything is by definition relative. Relative to the MT and relative to the LXX.

Now that we've established this, let's consider the fact that some of the "LXX" quotations only favour the LXX over the MT very slightly. Only 9 of the 260+ OT quotations in the NT clearly favour the LXX. Surely if the early Xians were really using the LXX then all the quotations should be from it and not the MT. How do I know that Origen didn't modify those 9 verses in the OT? Simple: I don't, and he probably did since we know he made extensive systematic modifications to the LXX with the intention of making it agree better with the "source text" which of course includes NT.

(January 5, 2013 at 6:53 am)Aractus Wrote: OK the Catholics didn't really want to answer my question, though they did PM me. Here's one:

Quote:Maybe try the CARM site Aractus. Or christianforums.com
They have a gazzillion catholic vs protestant threads just like that.

I've already covered CARM above. As for christianforums.com ... does it look like I'm in a hurry to post there??

Quote:why is there such little importance placed on Biblical translations that have the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament agree? For example, in almost every Bible, verses in the NT that quote verses in the OT do not match up when referenced to the corresponding OT verses in that translation of the Bible. I understand the reason - because the NT writers used the Septuagint, which modern Biblical translators do not use in favor of much later, largely non-Christian Hebrew texts in the belief that those late Hebrew texts would necessarily resemble the "original" Hebrew texts of the OT, apparently more than the Septuagint does.

^ This is one of the many old, tried and tired arguments that simply refuses to die. No matter how many times, I or anyone else proves the argument wrong.

Consider the synoptic problem, still to this day scholars debate whether Mark or Matthew truly came first. The majority view, which I somewhat share, is that Mark came first. LXX/NT quotations are the same question - which came first, the NT or the LXX? Just because you can assume the LXX comes first, doesn't mean that the NT quotes the LXX. What if the LXX quotes the NT??

There are over 250 direct OT quotes in the NT, and the vast majority of them do not correspond "better" to either the LXX or the MT (Masoretic Text). The quotations themselves range from quoting the MT exactly, to quoting the LXX exactly, and everything "in between". There are over a dozen OT quotes that scholars pretty much unanimously agree represent "paraphrases" and are not intended to be direct quotations. Yet, if we found that the LXX contained these "paraphrases" they would instead see them as representing the LXX instead! If we didn't know about the LXX, the so-claimed LXX quotations would be seen as either "paraphrases" or as "loose translations", or even literally quoting the MT. So everything is by definition relative. Relative to the MT and relative to the LXX.

Now that we've established this, let's consider the fact that some of the "LXX" quotations only favour the LXX over the MT very slightly. Only 9 of the 260+ OT quotations in the NT clearly favour the LXX. Surely if the early Xians were really using the LXX then all the quotations should be from it and not the MT. How do I know that Origen didn't modify those 9 verses in the OT? Simple: I don't, and he probably did since we know he made extensive systematic modifications to the LXX with the intention of making it agree better with the "source text" which of course includes NT.

It's like watching 10 year olds arguing over who has the best pokemon.

Pretty much sums it up for the abrahamic religions in toto!

What's this? No Kudos for telling Matt and Diane to fuck themselves? You guys are just too hard to please, useless fucking ignorant brain-dead atheists!

(January 5, 2013 at 7:39 am)Aractus Wrote: What's this? No Kudos for telling Matt and Diane to fuck themselves? You guys are just too hard to please, useless fucking ignorant brain-dead atheists!

Get a grip Daniel.

No, no kudos