RE: The year of whose lord?
July 23, 2012 at 9:13 am
(This post was last modified: July 23, 2012 at 9:22 am by Drich.)
[quote='RaphielDrake' pid='314287' dateline='1343021929']
[quote='Drich' pid='314278' dateline='1343020648']
Then please tell me what proper consideration implies.
How is it you still do not know what I am doing? I am not switching between translations. I am taking the orginal greek or Hebrew text and then translating the words indivisually, by using a lexicon and concordance.
here this is an on line version I use.http://www.blueletterbible.org/ This isn't a bible persay. it is the KJV tied to a lexicon and concordance with a full greek and hebrew libary tied to every single word in the bible (that is what the numbers are next to each word.)
Ralphie seriously i talked about this for like the first month and a half I was here. Do you not remember any of this?
[/quote]
I've seen multiple arguments where you were *perfectly* willing to use fundamentalist passages so don't you *dare* try that bullshit with me.
If thats what you're committing to then thats what you're committing to and fair enough. We have a ball game but you have not been committing to it in the past and you should not quote from any other version from now on if thats what you choose to do.
Is this understood or do I have to voice it in even more simplistic terms so I don't get another snarky remark in response?
[/quote]
I quote from what ever version I think is more easily understood initially, or which ever one provides the best vantage point for whatever it is i am talking about. And if the context comes into question I reference the the lexicon. That is how excegesis works. Establish the base line passage or principle and the research and support or correct.
Am I supposed to give up established protocal simply because you do not know how to argue it? Ahh, no.
How about you ask questions about what you do not fully understand, and I'll do my best to answer you. rather than assert what it is you think you know, get angery and insist that I dumb down my efforts to meet your own.
In the words of the all awesome yoda,
"That is why you fail."
You like Luke (Skywalker not dirtwalker and bible writer) instead of meeting the challenge and allowing the bar to be raised, want to lower the bar to what you feel comfortable with.
[quote='KnockEmOuttt' pid='314292' dateline='1343023253']
[quote]I don't know, have you? I don't know what places it is you were talking about to begin with.[/quote]Readwhat you wrote that was your assertion and not mine
[quote]If you mean anywhere in Europe, chances are they're either extremely traditional or secular. If you mean Latin American, chances are they're devoutly Catholic. Anywhere else, chances are they're something other than Christian. I'm not off base here.[/quote] So steriotypes? I guess it's good we are not talking about race, because it seems it is only not good to steriotype people culture/color and not what they believe.
[quote]Do you read the bible in ancient Greek and Hebrew often?[/quote]Only when I need to correct what most believe to be an indefencable error in the english.
[quote]The translation argument might account for slights, but not the bigger inaccuracies. There are a lot of massive contradictions and inconsistencies in the bible which can't just be explained away by "oh, it's a translation error."[/quote]
Then maybe you could start a new thread provide a few. NBote if you cut and paste a link to the 'skeptics bible' i will cut an paste a link to the 'skeptics bible answered.' Show me a place where 'translation' or a better understanding of a translation will not break a supposed contradiction. (put some effort into it)
[quote='Drich' pid='314278' dateline='1343020648']
Then please tell me what proper consideration implies.
How is it you still do not know what I am doing? I am not switching between translations. I am taking the orginal greek or Hebrew text and then translating the words indivisually, by using a lexicon and concordance.
here this is an on line version I use.http://www.blueletterbible.org/ This isn't a bible persay. it is the KJV tied to a lexicon and concordance with a full greek and hebrew libary tied to every single word in the bible (that is what the numbers are next to each word.)
Ralphie seriously i talked about this for like the first month and a half I was here. Do you not remember any of this?
[/quote]
I've seen multiple arguments where you were *perfectly* willing to use fundamentalist passages so don't you *dare* try that bullshit with me.
If thats what you're committing to then thats what you're committing to and fair enough. We have a ball game but you have not been committing to it in the past and you should not quote from any other version from now on if thats what you choose to do.
Is this understood or do I have to voice it in even more simplistic terms so I don't get another snarky remark in response?
[/quote]
I quote from what ever version I think is more easily understood initially, or which ever one provides the best vantage point for whatever it is i am talking about. And if the context comes into question I reference the the lexicon. That is how excegesis works. Establish the base line passage or principle and the research and support or correct.
Am I supposed to give up established protocal simply because you do not know how to argue it? Ahh, no.
How about you ask questions about what you do not fully understand, and I'll do my best to answer you. rather than assert what it is you think you know, get angery and insist that I dumb down my efforts to meet your own.
In the words of the all awesome yoda,
"That is why you fail."
You like Luke (Skywalker not dirtwalker and bible writer) instead of meeting the challenge and allowing the bar to be raised, want to lower the bar to what you feel comfortable with.
[quote='KnockEmOuttt' pid='314292' dateline='1343023253']
[quote]I don't know, have you? I don't know what places it is you were talking about to begin with.[/quote]Readwhat you wrote that was your assertion and not mine
[quote]If you mean anywhere in Europe, chances are they're either extremely traditional or secular. If you mean Latin American, chances are they're devoutly Catholic. Anywhere else, chances are they're something other than Christian. I'm not off base here.[/quote] So steriotypes? I guess it's good we are not talking about race, because it seems it is only not good to steriotype people culture/color and not what they believe.
[quote]Do you read the bible in ancient Greek and Hebrew often?[/quote]Only when I need to correct what most believe to be an indefencable error in the english.
[quote]The translation argument might account for slights, but not the bigger inaccuracies. There are a lot of massive contradictions and inconsistencies in the bible which can't just be explained away by "oh, it's a translation error."[/quote]
Then maybe you could start a new thread provide a few. NBote if you cut and paste a link to the 'skeptics bible' i will cut an paste a link to the 'skeptics bible answered.' Show me a place where 'translation' or a better understanding of a translation will not break a supposed contradiction. (put some effort into it)
