- This topic has 899 replies, 46 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (kejonn @ April 25 2008,16:22) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 24 2008,23:16) Quote (kejonn @ April 25 2008,16:04) Quote (Cato @ April 24 2008,18:49) I don't have any problem with poetry, just I wonder why this poem ranks as holy scripture? Why was this included in God's word? Gee I hope they are married, we wouldn't want to promote fornication of any kind now would we.
Well, Solomon had many wives, so its all good, eh?
No, what Soloman did was unequiviocally 'not good'. And you should be able to discern that there is a colossal difference between what the Bible reports and what YHWH condones. Or maybe your understanding of these biblical matters never really developed past a first grader's Kejonn? I'm beginning to wonder. The basic errors in understanding ypu have demonstrated are really starting to pile up!
BTW, what Cato quoted from was the Song of Songs, or Song of Solomon. That is why I made the comment. It seems you are the one who is in error. Or do you only know the parts of the bible that support the trinity?
I know where it's from Kejonn. Was your comment intended to highlight some discrepency between the morality Christian's expouse and that which the Bible does? Looks that way to me. My post was written to explain to you that not everything the Bible reports is condoned by YHWH. The patriachs, for instance, are presented 'warts and all'. So your inference is invalid…Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 24 2008,23:30) Quote (kejonn @ April 25 2008,16:02) That He loves diversity. That He allows us all to follow our own path and those who choose to look to Him can, but others are free not to. He does not need us because He existed without us before He made us. He made us for us.
How would a study of a study of the guy in the office you don't get along with or a cactus or a rock lead you to conclude “He allows us all to follow our own path and those who choose to look to Him can, but others are free not to. He does not need us because He existed without us before He made us. He made us for us.”? What is your “evidence” here??
The evidence that we don't get along. I thought that would be obvious to you but I guess not. We are all different and we all ultimately choose our own path.As far as a cactus or rock, neither of those are really addressed in the bible, so you have no more clue than me. To me it is something to be curious about and wonder its true purpose.
Quote Quote I'd rather have ambiguity with personal inspiration than blind faith in a brutal deity.
Then whose faith is truly “blind”?
A blind man has to be lead. A seeing man can follow his senses. You are led by a text, it is your “seeing eye dog”.Quote Apparently your knowledge of God is ambiguous conclusions drawn from “personal inspiration”. Or are you ready to admit that you have no real source for your understanding of God, but are just fashioning a God that you're comfortable with, maybe one that doesn't invoke uncomfortable supernatural implications for you.
What supernatural implications? Of Allah, Brahman, or Yahweh? Which one is the right one? Should I do as Gandhi and try to get a little piece of all of the major religions so I be assured I am part of all of them in case one of them is right?Quote Quote How can we know any revealed religion is the truth? We cannot. We all have to decide for ourself what we are willing to accept. A Muslim accepts the Koran. A Hindu accepts the Vedas. A Jew accepts the Tanach. A Samaritan Jew accepts the Samaritan Pentateuch. A Christian accepts both Testaments but is shy about the Old.
Right. So, since truth is truely indesciperable to you on what basis do you challenge the truthfulness of Christian scripture? You don't know if any of it is true of not, right?
Do you? If the bible is indeed truth, you can show me concrete evidence outside of the actual written words, no? Please do, I wait with baited breath.Quote Quote Now, can you prove which one of these texts is the truth? I want evidence, not belief. If you only have belief, than mine is every bit as valid as yours.
You say you want evidence….what is the “evidence” that supports your understanding of God Kejonn?? We're still waiting for that….
No, I am waiting on yours because I asked first. Please do show me why the Judeo-Christian concept of God is the true one.Quote (kejonn @ April 25 2008,16:19) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 24 2008,19:09) Quote (kejonn @ April 23 2008,23:19) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 23 2008,02:32) A little more than meets the eye in 2 Kings 2:23-24 Kejonn. Try these links. You need to do a little research before you jump to conclusions. http://www.gotquestions.org/Elisha-baldhead.html
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=827
From the first link:- In summary, 2 Kings 2:23-24 is not an account of God mauling young children for making fun of a bald man. Rather, 2 Kings 2:23-24 is a record of an insulting demonstration against God’s prophet by a large group of young men.
So insulting a prophet is worthy of death now Isaiah? And you see why I say this doesn't work in the 21st century?
Unless of course you secret wish death upon people who insult you. At least Jesus had better morals than that.
In essence the “young men” (not boys as you wrongly described them as)
I wrongly described them? Or did the translators?- (Apostles) And he went up there to Bethel. And as he was going up by the road, there came up also little children from the city, and mocked him, and said to him, Go up, baldhead, go up.
(DRB) And he went up from thence to Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, little boys came out of the city and mocked him, saying: Go up, thou bald head, go up, thou bald head.
(ESV) He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!”
(Geneva) And he went vp from thence vnto Beth-el; as he was going vp the way, litle children came out of the citie, and mocked him, and saide vnto him, Come vp, thou balde head, come vp, thou balde head.
(JPS) And he went up from thence unto Beth-el; and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him: 'Go up, thou baldhead; go up, thou baldhead.'
(KJV) And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
(LXX-E) And he went up thence to Baethel: and as he was going up by the way there came up also little children from the city, and mocked him, and said to him, Go up, bald-head, go up.
(RV) And he went up from thence unto Beth–el: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
(Judaica Press) And he went up from there to Bethel, and he was going up on the road and some little boys came out of the city and jeered him, and said to him, “Go away, baldy; go away, baldy!”
Seems your apologetics is failing miserably. You need to contact the hundreds of scholars who disagree with your translation.
Quote were attacking/mocking YHWH's message and therefore YHWH. And yes they had an adverse consequence, and maybe were made an example of (for the benefit of others). YHWH does play hardball. I think we've established this.
He he…Is that the majority of translators Kejonn? Most of translations on your list are so obscure that they are virtually unknown to even the most exegetical of christians…
Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 24 2008,23:36) Quote (kejonn @ April 25 2008,16:22) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 24 2008,23:16) Quote (kejonn @ April 25 2008,16:04) Quote (Cato @ April 24 2008,18:49) I don't have any problem with poetry, just I wonder why this poem ranks as holy scripture? Why was this included in God's word? Gee I hope they are married, we wouldn't want to promote fornication of any kind now would we.
Well, Solomon had many wives, so its all good, eh?
No, what Soloman did was unequiviocally 'not good'. And you should be able to discern that there is a colossal difference between what the Bible reports and what YHWH condones. Or maybe your understanding of these biblical matters never really developed past a first grader's Kejonn? I'm beginning to wonder. The basic errors in understanding ypu have demonstrated are really starting to pile up!
BTW, what Cato quoted from was the Song of Songs, or Song of Solomon. That is why I made the comment. It seems you are the one who is in error. Or do you only know the parts of the bible that support the trinity?
I know where it's from Kejonn. Was your comment intended to highlight some discrepency between the morality Christian's expouse and that which the Bible does? Looks that way to me. My post was written to explain to you that not everything the Bible reports is condoned by YHWH. The patriachs, for instance, are presented 'warts and all'. So your inference is invalid…
All I said was that Solomon had many wives. Did Yahweh punish him for this?Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 24 2008,23:40) Quote (kejonn @ April 25 2008,16:19) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 24 2008,19:09) Quote (kejonn @ April 23 2008,23:19) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 23 2008,02:32) A little more than meets the eye in 2 Kings 2:23-24 Kejonn. Try these links. You need to do a little research before you jump to conclusions. http://www.gotquestions.org/Elisha-baldhead.html
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=827
From the first link:- In summary, 2 Kings 2:23-24 is not an account of God mauling young children for making fun of a bald man. Rather, 2 Kings 2:23-24 is a record of an insulting demonstration against God’s prophet by a large group of young men.
So insulting a prophet is worthy of death now Isaiah? And you see why I say this doesn't work in the 21st century?
Unless of course you secret wish death upon people who insult you. At least Jesus had better morals than that.
In essence the “young men” (not boys as you wrongly described them as)
I wrongly described them? Or did the translators?- (Apostles) And he went up there to Bethel. And as he was going up by the road, there came up also little children from the city, and mocked him, and said to him, Go up, baldhead, go up.
(DRB) And he went up from thence to Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, little boys came out of the city and mocked him, saying: Go up, thou bald head, go up, thou bald head.
(ESV) He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!”
(Geneva) And he went vp from thence vnto Beth-el; as he was going vp the way, litle children came out of the citie, and mocked him, and saide vnto him, Come vp, thou balde head, come vp, thou balde head.
(JPS) And he went up from thence unto Beth-el; and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him: 'Go up, thou baldhead; go up, thou baldhead.'
(KJV) And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
(LXX-E) And he went up thence to Baethel: and as he was going up by the way there came up also little children from the city, and mocked him, and said to him, Go up, bald-head, go up.
(RV) And he went up from thence unto Beth–el: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
(Judaica Press) And he went up from there to Bethel, and he was going up on the road and some little boys came out of the city and jeered him, and said to him, “Go away, baldy; go away, baldy!”
Seems your apologetics is failing miserably. You need to contact the hundreds of scholars who disagree with your translation.
Quote were attacking/mocking YHWH's message and therefore YHWH. And yes they had an adverse consequence, and maybe were made an example of (for the benefit of others). YHWH does play hardball. I think we've established this.
He he…Is that the majority of translators Kejonn? Most of translations on your list are so obscure that they are virtually unknown to even the most exegetical of christians…
Please do provide me with one single translation that was not undertaken by one person that renders the text “teens” or “young men”. It seems these versions above suit your purposes when they support the trinity, but now they don't. My but you are fickle.As to 2 Kings 22:23, “na'ar” can indeed be translate as “young man”. In fact, it is translated as such 76 times in the AV. However, it is placed in combination with “qatan”, which means “small” or “little”. Combined, the best rendering then is “small children” or “small boys”.
Quote (kejonn @ April 25 2008,16:41) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 24 2008,23:36) Quote (kejonn @ April 25 2008,16:22) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 24 2008,23:16) Quote (kejonn @ April 25 2008,16:04) Quote (Cato @ April 24 2008,18:49) I don't have any problem with poetry, just I wonder why this poem ranks as holy scripture? Why was this included in God's word? Gee I hope they are married, we wouldn't want to promote fornication of any kind now would we.
Well, Solomon had many wives, so its all good, eh?
No, what Soloman did was unequiviocally 'not good'. And you should be able to discern that there is a colossal difference between what the Bible reports and what YHWH condones. Or maybe your understanding of these biblical matters never really developed past a first grader's Kejonn? I'm beginning to wonder. The basic errors in understanding ypu have demonstrated are really starting to pile up!
BTW, what Cato quoted from was the Song of Songs, or Song of Solomon. That is why I made the comment. It seems you are the one who is in error. Or do you only know the parts of the bible that support the trinity?
I know where it's from Kejonn. Was your comment intended to highlight some discrepency between the morality Christian's expouse and that which the Bible does? Looks that way to me. My post was written to explain to you that not everything the Bible reports is condoned by YHWH. The patriachs, for instance, are presented 'warts and all'. So your inference is invalid…
All I said was that Solomon had many wives. Did Yahweh punish him for this?
Deuteronomy 17:14-17
14″When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, 'I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me,' 15you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman. 16″ Moreover, he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor shall he cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, since the LORD has said to you, 'You shall never again return that way.' 17″He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself.cf.
1 Kings 11:6-11
6Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, and did not follow the LORD fully, as David his father had done. 7Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable idol of Moab, on the mountain which is east of Jerusalem, and for Molech the detestable idol of the sons of Ammon. 8Thus also he did for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods. 9Now the LORD was angry with Solomon because his heart was turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, 10and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; but he did not observe what the LORD had commanded. 11So the LORD said to Solomon, “Because you have done this, and you have not kept My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you, and will give it to your servant.And that is not to say the Solomon won't also incur consequences for his polygamy after death (1 Cor 3:13-15).
Quote (kejonn @ April 25 2008,16:43) Please do provide me with one single translation that was not undertaken by one person that renders the text “teens” or “young men”. It seems these versions above suit your purposes when they support the trinity, but now they don't. My but you are fickle.
The NIV and NKJV render it “youths”, the AMP renders it “young [maturing and accountable] boys “Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 25 2008,17:07) Quote (kejonn @ April 25 2008,16:43) Please do provide me with one single translation that was not undertaken by one person that renders the text “teens” or “young men”. It seems these versions above suit your purposes when they support the trinity, but now they don't. My but you are fickle.
The NIV and NKJV render it “youths”, the AMP renders it “young [maturing and accountable] boys “
Does it really say “young [maturing and accountable] boys “?Stuart
Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 25 2008,12:24) Quote (Stu @ April 24 2008,12:10) These are two of the most pathetic apologies I have read.
I don't think they were right out of the top drawer, but made a few good points in addressing some of kejonn's errors. That's why I cited them.Quote It would seem that god shares in common with all the brutal dictators of the 20th century an inability to deal with mockery in a manner worthy of a true leader. If god is omnipotent, he should be able to intellectually outwit his mockers. Instead he sets bears on the mockers and leaves unanswered the issues being raised by a 'large group of young men'. What an incompetent.
No, an incompetent would have let the matter slide and open the door for others to make the same mistake. Making an example of someone(s) is mericiful in the grand scheme of things IMO.
But that is exactly what 'he' has done! Instead of putting the matter to rest by defeating the idea behind the mockery, he has made it clear that it was a good point being raised because his only answer was repression (by murder). I forget what point of the mockery was now, but you can see that because I am interested to find out why such mockery was deemed worthy by young [accountable] men, 'he' will now have to deal with me continuing the mocking as well. Job not done. Competence sorely lacking.Stuart
OK. Can't find a reason for the mocking. Still this is god's autobiography so you might expect it to be a little one-sided. Is god just showing off here? He smites because he can, and he does not stop at killing children (as they are described in the KJV) so we all better look out. Is god ruling out mockery altogether here, or is it just prophets or holy men who are specially protected from being the subject of derision?
In a democracy, mockery or satire is a serious business. It is immunity to dictatorship. That god has so little tolerance for it in this case lines up with his dictator-like brutal summary executions elsewhere in the OT.
Add thug to incompetent.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 25 2008,21:56) Does it really say “young [maturing and accountable] boys “? Stuart
Yes, Stuart, it does. Here, read for yourself…Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 26 2008,20:35) Quote (Stu @ April 25 2008,21:56) Does it really say “young [maturing and accountable] boys “? Stuart
Yes, Stuart, it does. Here, read for yourself…
The Amplified is one version I stayed away from even when I was a die-hard trinitarian. The fact that you use it to make your (erroneous) point is quite telling.Quote (Stu @ April 25 2008,22:01) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 25 2008,12:24) Quote (Stu @ April 24 2008,12:10) These are two of the most pathetic apologies I have read.
I don't think they were right out of the top drawer, but made a few good points in addressing some of kejonn's errors. That's why I cited them.Quote It would seem that god shares in common with all the brutal dictators of the 20th century an inability to deal with mockery in a manner worthy of a true leader. If god is omnipotent, he should be able to intellectually outwit his mockers. Instead he sets bears on the mockers and leaves unanswered the issues being raised by a 'large group of young men'. What an incompetent.
No, an incompetent would have let the matter slide and open the door for others to make the same mistake. Making an example of someone(s) is mericiful in the grand scheme of things IMO.
But that is exactly what 'he' has done! Instead of putting the matter to rest by defeating the idea behind the mockery, he has made it clear that it was a good point being raised because his only answer was repression (by murder). I forget what point of the mockery was now, but you can see that because I am interested to find out why such mockery was deemed worthy by young [accountable] men, 'he' will now have to deal with me continuing the mocking as well. Job not done. Competence sorely lacking.Stuart
No the job was done. I imagine mockery of the instrument of God's message, and therefore the message itself, and therefore God was something that was taken a little more seriously from that moment hence. Other's likely took the warning onboard and were saved from the consequence of committing the same mistake.Quote (kejonn @ April 27 2008,13:44) The Amplified is one version I stayed away from even when I was a die-hard trinitarian. The fact that you use it to make your (erroneous) point is quite telling.
Telling of what?Did you prefer to use the Apostles, DRB, Geneva, JPS or Judaica Press?!? Not exactly household names…..
Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 26 2008,20:50) Quote (kejonn @ April 27 2008,13:44) The Amplified is one version I stayed away from even when I was a die-hard trinitarian. The fact that you use it to make your (erroneous) point is quite telling.
Telling of what?Did you prefer to use the Apostles, DRB, Geneva, JPS or Judaica Press?!? Not exactly household names…..
Yes but the KJV and ESV (based on NRSV) are fairly common.Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 26 2008,20:53) I like the Amplified Version. What's wrong with it kejonn?
From http://www.greatcom.org/resources/reasons_skeptics/ch_10/default.htm- Furthermore, The Amplified Bible suffers from the same problems as paraphrases: It is highly interpretive. The theological bias of the amplifier cannot help but show through when the meaning of words and expressions are given. Although the preparers of The Amplified Bible have a high view of the Bible, many of their amplifications” are totally subjective and open to argumentation.
IOW, it is biased towards the mindset of the translator.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
