Fawzo
-
Posts
8,535 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Fawzo
-
-
When referring to Dr Ehrman's work, it is crucial to not misunderstand what he is saying and what he is not saying. I find that most fundamentalists' types view him and an enemy, and most liberal theologians view him as an ally. My thoughts are that when he is talking about the texts he is neither to either, rather, he is an authority that knows what he is talking about. However I will say I do not always agree with his conclusions; which after the research is done, the interpretation could vary.
So after reading Ehrman's book and all the examples given within do you fell he is correct in any of the instances where he cites changes that scribes have made to conform to their own world views.
You surely can't feel that he is dead wrong in every example that he brings up, do you?
After reading his book any doubt I had that scribes purposely made alterations to the text for theological reasons vanished for good.
-
Your presuming that the older existing text were spot-on correct, but its my contention (belief) that the Alexandrian codex's which you trust to be accurate, were in fact altered by Origen and Eusebius, and later by the revisions of Westcott and Hort. Look-up what these guys believed in and you'll better understand what motivated them to tamper with the manuscripts. And keep in mind that the NIV bible is representative of the work by Westcott and Hort. I agree with the examples of verses you provided to show corruption, but vice-versa, where the divinity of Christ is restore to what the original manuscripts surely taught. Samples;
King James. Matt. 18:11
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
N.I.V. Removed
King James Luke 2:33
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
N.I.V. The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.
Note: Joseph was not the Father of Jesus. Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit.
King James Mark 11:26
But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
N.I.V. It is missing
King James Bible- Mark 11:26 "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."
Now go look that important memory verse up in your N.I.V. It will be easy to remember because it is missing!
Regarding 1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus omitted this reading from his first 2 editions of his Greek NT (1516, 1519) and was challenged for this omission. He replied that he would include it in his next edition if anyone could produce even one Greek manuscript that included that reading. One 16th century Greek minuscule was found, a 1520 manuscript, so he inserted it into his 1522 edition.
The Johannie comma (1 John 5: 7-8) is contained in practically all of the extant Latin Vulgate MSS. Although not included in Jerome's original edition, around the year 800 it was taken into the text of the Vulgate from the Old Latin MSS. We know of at least ten Greek MSS that contain the Johannie comma, it is cited by several sources prior to 500AD.
I agree, the church fathers manufactured their own rendition which strayed from the truth, but I also believe the truth was preserved by the true church, of which the original letters were sent.
Dan your trust in 12th and 15th century texts as compared to 4th century text which were 1000 years closer to the actual events seems misplaced to me.
Throughout written history people, organizations and Governments have had agendas and the victors have rewrote their accounts of what actually occured to fit their desired world model. This discussion shows that the same thing has happened to the detailed accounts in the Bible as well.
God was not capable of or apathetic to preserving the earliest autographs of his written word so that we could avoid the confusion that has led to so many wars, deaths and confusion over HIS WORD.
The voices of the earliest church fathers resonate with the same distress and problems. You'll believe this early church father here because he agrees with your model of reality when he says that the Gospel of Matthew and Mark were written by Individulas named Matthew and Mark, yet when he states contrary to scripture that Judas lived well after the events in the Bible he is an idiot that can't be trusted, as Eusebius says of Gaius who gave us the written clues of who wrote those two Anonymous Gospels.
The early church fathers also thought Matthew's Gospel was written first and preceded Marks and this is only one bit of information these Holy Spirit Filled men were most assuredly wrong about!!! The reason giving by Irenaeus for there being 4 gospels in the first place is ridiculous. One would think the Holy Spirit could produce one work of publication that could successfully convey His Message of Hope and Redemption to the masses, without the resultant blood shed.
The Bible is a work written and editted by man and for man whether it is inspired by belief in a supernatural deity or to further the agendas of those who controlled its formulation as are all the Holy Scriptures on our planet.
There are no Gold and Silver tablets that fell from the sky written by angels.....oh wait a sec there is.....
-
Hey Fawzo,
You just said (and which happens to be true):
"Some scribe changed ΘΣ to ΟΣ which look very much alike
and it changed the whole meaning of the text "
How did you do that?
do you have access to a Greek alphabetic type-face???
I have many references for similar alterations
that have been made to the scriptures over the centuries,
but all of my references are "in books" (like that excellent
example that you referenced, "Misquoting Jesus").
And being "in books", I have no way to cite them here on our forum,
as I don't have a clue as to how to replicate the Greek characters
"on the web".
I went to the Wikipedia Greek Alphabet page and cut and paste them the hard way.
-
Dan if you read Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman you will find a host of changes and the specific reasons said changes were made.
1 Timothy 3:16 in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinu and two other of the earliest known manuscripts have the verse reading:
16 And confessedly great is the mystery of godliness: He who was manifested in flesh, was justified in spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.
Some scribe changed ΘΣ to ΟΣ which look very much alike and it changed the whole meaning of the text and enhanced the divinity of Jesus. The change then was made in all four of our early manuscripts which basically now calls Jesus God and then became the accepted text of most of the Byzantine manuscripts and then was adopted by most English translations. The change was adopted by medieval manuscripts to emphasize Jesus's divinity in a text that originally was ambiguous about it at best.
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory. 1 Tim 3:16 (NKJV)
There are instances where Joseph has been purposely editted from being mentioned as Jesus's father such as Luke 2:33 as can be seen by the differences in two modern versions
And the child's father and mother were amazed at what was being said about him
Luke 2:33 (NRSV)
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him
Luke 2:33 (KJV)
And here is another instance a few verses later in the same book
but his parents did not know it.
Luke 2:43 (NRSV)
and Joseph and his mother knew not of it
Luke 2:43 (KJV)
There are many other verses that have been tweaked to add to the Divinity of Jesus and take away from his humanity. The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8) is another perfect example. http://www.bible-res....com/comma.html
Many many many more are written about in "Misquoting Jesus" No matter what you still believe Dan It is a fact that theologically motivated alterationsof the text were made.
-
Lots of people wonder about my reasoning faculties
There's a big difference between scribal errors and deliberate altercations. I've never claimed that no translation errors occurred, but I believe scripture has been preserved and the KJV most accurately reflects a word-for-word translation of the manuscripts. The Alexandrian manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) were corrupted imo. The Vaticanus & Sinaiticus both leave out the last 12 verses of Mark, but no other manuscripts leave that passage out. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone, so its no surprise that both codex's also omit the story of the adulterous woman in John 8.
The Sinaiticus is a manuscript found in 1844 in a trash pile at St. Catherine's Monastery near Mt. Sinai. There's a good reason it was in a pile of trash.. Examination of the manuscript itself shows the Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable and was corrected by 10 different scribes in the 6th-7th century.
I read the KJV, so I obviously subscribe to the Textus Receptus which was derived from the Byzantine manuscripts. Ninety percent of the 5400 Greek manuscripts come from Byzantine text, so I recognized that not all are 100% identical, but show me how that equates to "altered"? Show me where any textual variant affects any doctrine?
Dan the Textus Receptus was a creation of Erasmus who used a combination of 6 manuscripts and then filled in missing parts from the Latin Vulgate which in itself was created because of all the confusion of multiple variants of Latin Bibles.
The first note below from Wikipedia quite clearly shows your revered Textus Receptus was altered because of peer pressure!!! Also please note the various number of editions of the Textus Receptus and how many times God's Inspired word had to changed because Holy Spirit filled men didn't get it right the first time
I did some research and will add that the information for the Wikipedia Text on the Comma Johanneum comes from 4th edition of New Testament of Robert Estienne which was published one year after Erasmus died.
Selected Wikipedia notes on Textus Receptus:
With the third edition of Erasmus' Greek text (1522) the Comma Johanneum was included, because "Erasmus chose to avoid any occasion for slander rather than persisting in philological accuracy", even though he remained "convinced that it did not belong to the original text of l John."
Erasmus had been studying Greek New Testament manuscripts for many years, in the Netherlands, France, England and Switzerland, noting their many variants, but had only six Greek manuscripts immediately accessible to him in Basel.[5] They all dated from the 12th Century or later, and only one came from outside the mainstream Byzantine tradition. Consequently, most modern scholars consider his text to be of dubious quality.
The majority of textual critical scholars since the late 19th Century, have adopted an eclectic approach to the Greek New Testament; with the most weight given to the earliest extant manuscripts which tend mainly to be Alexandrian in character; the resulting eclectic Greek text departing from the Textus Receptus in around 6,000 readings. A significant minority of textual scholars, however, maintain the priority of the Byzantine text-type; and consequently prefer the "Majority Text". No school of textual scholarship now continues to defend the priority of the Textus Receptus; although this position does still find adherents amongst the King-James-Only Movement, and other Protestant groups hostile to the whole discipline of text criticism—as applied to scripture; and suspicious of any departure from Reformation traditions
-
I agree. Just because I challenge one way of using the bible (i.e. the perception it is totally inerrant and factual) does not mean that I believe it is completely worthless. I most definitely do not (IMO) and when I said there was Gold and truths in the bible, I was in no way not meaning just that.
I can completely agree with those sentiments!
-
Why do you ask?
I knew these lofty Hermeneutical discussions would be beyond my level of understanding! -
Without any tangible proof one way or the other, I suspect that those who have concluded that the bible was altered, have based their conclusion solely on their dislike of what the bible says. By convincing themselves that scriptures were tampered with, it allows the reader to cherry-pick what "feels right" while disregarding what feels wrong.
Dan if you don't consider having 100,000 early Biblical manuscripts and the fact that no two are exactly the same evidence that the Bible has been altered then I wonder about your reasoning faculties.
The last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark which appear in none of the earliest manuscripts should be proof enough as well. The Johannine Comma is another, the addition of the story of the adulterous woman taken to Jesus is another.
Look at the earliest known extant copy of the Bible that exists, Codex Sinaiticus, and just the listing of books as compared to the version you cherish.
Dan it is basically proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt that the BIble has been altered. Please tell me which of the earliest extant manuscripts you treasure is the perfect unaltered word of God and then I can help prove the case.
-
Does that bother you?
The intention behind such behavior, if is to avoid or deflect from giving an honest answer might bother us all!
-
people are confused in the separation of the ideas of a triune representation of God, and the Doctrine of The Trinity...
The reason I was so persistent earlier in the conversation was to bring this misconception out.... and make others think of exactly what the difference IS.... It is fair to say that the Doctrine of The Trinity is not supported in the Historical beginnings of Christianity...
But I think the important question is - why IS there a triune representation forwarded? What are the purposes of the concept? And exactly how does it differ in its implementation towards our faith than do the trinity teachings?..... I think these questions are important to hold in your mind, while you search for satisfaction... whoever feels the need to search, that is.... the strange thing is - I never intended that the conversation center so focused ON the trinity.... I knew how touchy a subject it is... But Cool nailed me down on that one.... he knew that any discussion of changes to the text MUST focus on THAT concept..... It was the foundation for the rest of the Crime....
It's a long winding trail to personal satisfaction... and some never find it at all....
Changes in the early manuscripts were in abundance as is noted by the follwing text from http://www.suite101.com/content/the-early-bible-manuscripts-a117994
The original Biblical autographs no longer exist. What have survived are copies which are several generations removed from the originals. Of all the surviving manuscript copies, no two are exactly the same.
What Bible is This?
If the original Biblical autographs do not exist and not one surviving Biblical manuscript is exactly the same, which version of the Bible are modern worshipers reading? The simple answer is that today's worshipers are reading a Bible with readings chosen from various manuscripts by a handful of scholars who have voted, not always unanimously, on the reading that's most apt to be accurate.
The Bible we read is not, and can never be, the original Bible in its entirety. To assume that all the words read in the Bible are the original writings of the authors is a misleading notion. It gives caution to the old famous Protestant axiom Sola Scriptura ("scripture alone"), and it's important to note that the readings contained within the Bible do not all have apostolic authority.
The original Biblical autographs no longer exist. What have survived are copies which are several generations removed from the originals. Of all the surviving manuscript copies, no two are exactly the same.
-
Coolhand what do you think of this article on the proof that the Scriptures were altered regarding the Trinty.
-
I guess we will see. By the way, you answered this question:
"In your tolerance driven model, how would you deal with murder, lying, theft, and rape?"
....by not answering. And I seriously doubt that you would be as tolerant as you claim is proper if these four things were happening to you and your family. In fact, I would assume you would become surprisingly intolerant if your family was the target of these things.
Actually I did not avoid, just overlooked this portion of your response. With higher self esteem and the increased teachings and awareness of the effect of one's actions and thoughts I would predict a big decrease in these events. To be completely honest though there will be instances when they do occur. I don't think there can be set penalties for each case and it should be judged by a court of enlightened people who can rule according to the facts in each instance.
In the future will we be able to control such negative behavior through science. I would prefer this type of action for rehabilitation in in lieu of our current penal system.
Read RabbiO's post on this.
But also read my response to Blachthorn.
Yes I've read them and while RabbiO's posted material seems plausible,it doesn't stand up to real life scenarios of war in those times and other quotes of infanticide in the Bible. To keep their purity in the sight of God it seems complete and utter genocide would have been the way to go.
1Sa 15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
"The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords." Hosea 13:16
So you are not sure?
I'm not 100% sure that vampires don't exist either, but the plausibility that actual vampires and not psychopaths acting the part actually exist is very low IMHO
-
In his essay, "War in the Hebrew Bible - An Overview" which was printed in War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century; Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements 2, Eisenbrauns, 2008, Professor Richard Hess, who has more degrees I think than I have fingers, including a Ph.D. from Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion wrote -
"To what extent are the conquests described in Joshua genocidal wars of extermination that have no place in any reasonable ethic of warfare? In my view, a description of this sort would be inaccurate and distorted. References to the destruction of non-combatants in these wars, that is to "men and women," are scare, referring to Jericho and Ai (Josh 6:21 and 8:25). However, there is reason to suspect that these references in Joshua are stereotypical phrases that emphasize the complete destruction of everyone. On the other hand, Jericho and Ai, the initial two sites of conquest, instead of being town or cities, may have been military forts guarding the routes from the Jordan Valley up to the population centers in the hill country such as Bethel and Jerusalem. Evidence for this conclusion includes (1) the complete absense of references to specific noncombatants such as women and children with the exception of Rehab and her family, who were not killed (2) the lack of settlement at Jericho and Ai during the time of Israel's emergence in Canaan (3) the use of the term melek 'king' to mean a military leader at Canaan at this time (4) the lack of indication in the biblical text that these were large cities (unlike Gibeon and Hazor, which are thus described); and (5) the meaning of the word Ai 'ruin', which suggests the reuse of early fortifications to serve as a temporary fort instead of a more permanent site of habitation."
He further notes, "The other two major battles, which were against the northern and southern coalitions, are represented as defensive wars (Joshua 10-11). In both cases, they begin as the coalitions assemble against Israel or its ally and therefore force the people of God into battle (Josh 10:3-5, 11:1-5). Note, furthermore, that the eight or more references to complete destruction of cities represented by these coalitions (in which nothing was left alive) could plausibly be stereotypical descriptions for the purpose of obedience to the command to drive out the Canaanites (Josh 10:28, 30 32 35, 37, 39, 11:1, 14). It is possible that, after the defeat of the army, the populations fled rather than remaining in a relatively defenseless city. Furthermore, we know that many of these "cities" were used primarily for Government buildings, and the common people lived in the surrounding countryside. Therefore, it is not certain that there was a population remaining in these cities to be destroyed. There is no indication in the text of any specific noncombatants who were put to death. In any case, there is clear evidence that there were Canaanites remaining in the areas where Israel settled (Judg 2:10-13)."
The full essay is floating out there online by the way.
My point in posting the above is not necessarily to endorse Dr. Hess's position in whole or in part. Rather it is to remind us all that simply reading a text in a vacuum, without sense of time and/or place or literary conventions may do a disservice to the text or may result in incorrect assumptions on the part of the reader.
Thanks for that information RabbiO. I also know that there is much debate about the archaeological evidence in the region and whether it confirms or raises questions about the validity of the story. As with most things regarding the scripture there are experts on both sides of the argument.
At the time of the the Exodus events wasn't Egypt in control of the region? So many questions and I wonder if we will ever know all the facts.
As a believer in the Bible and then as a non-believer I know my impression was clearly that non-combatants payed the priced as well for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
This belief was fully reinforced by Hosea:
Hosea 13:16
"The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords."
Also with the misogynistic outlook of the writers of the Old testament, the lives of women and children which would have been thought of as nothing more than property would have been of little note.
Do you personaly feel those camps during those times were free of women and children, whether they be military outposts or full townships.
-
Suppose I was to take the position that these are examples of a hateful and vengeful god that is both dastardly and abominable; and hates children.
How would I go about arguing that from what little we know about these alleged accounts?
Would you think that is a plausible scenario, or is it more plausible that these accounts are purely the myths of Bronze Age man who lived in a Barbaric world and projected that back onto Deity.
I think with your high level of education, if you answered the question honestly from both your heart and head the more plausible explanation would be that these accounts are those of man and the facts, if any, are rather sketchy at best.
This Barbaric God is one reason why so many Early Christian groups such as the Marcionites, Manicheans and a host of others detested the Old Testament and it had no place in their Holy Scriptures.
-
I would argue that your comments are utopian and have little or no grounding in reality. In your picture there we would not need police, the court system, governments, or borders.
I theory I agree with you, but I live in a world that I have to stand up for what is right, and assert what my boundaries are.
Also, every time I have heard someone argue against "intolerance" they actually are in fact being intolerant to someone in the process of perusing this alleged tolerance.
In my opinion have a self-defeating premise.
In your tolerance driven model, how would you deal with murder, lying, theft, and rape?
Well if the trillions of dollars spent on the Defense of countries, entertainers, sports athletes and cosmetics were divided equally among the peoples of the world and used to educate them. It would help raise their self esteem and shed some light on the superstitious religious nonsense which bolsters low self esteem in many cases.
While not totally eliminating the above mentioned vices the decline would be tremendous I do believe.
Once people learn to be tolerant of others and have empathy for their life situations instead of sermonizing and condemning them the level of fear that fills most lives would subside exponentially.
This is my dream and something I think might be possible in the future. In the future those who are contrary to the system would be genetically modified as there will always be those humans who try to use and abuse the system for their own egoic needs of power and control.
What kind of system would Jesus approve of?
So what specifically is your objection?
That a God who is proclaimed to love humans so much that he would sacrifice his only begotten son for them, would be so cruel as to wipe the most innocent of them out as nothing more than the remnants of feces we wipe from our bottoms.
-
You are correct sir, we know the Lord was certainly with Joshua.
Lol yes Dan I figured you would respond thusly.
Yes I imagine Jesus sitting right above Joshua's right shoulder rooting him on and giving him strength while Joshua rams his sword right through the heart of a terrified two year old and Jesus is thinking while the blood and guts squirts everywhere that He loves these kids and poor people we are killing so much that in 1500 years I'm going to give my life for them.
You see anything obviously very not right about that picture!?!?!?!?!
I guess for the same reason God hasn't sent any preachers to preach to Osama bin Laden, it would have been a suicide mission.
How dare you insult God! You mean to tell me he could not protect his chosen ones if he so desired?
Forgiveness is there for the asking... If your idea of compassion is a God who stands idly by while people burn children alive in sacrifice to false gods, then I think your asking a bit much?
I'll repost my response for Coolhand for you here. Millions of these children would have loved if he would have only sat idly by!
Yea he sure advocated for the children in those 30 cities where Joshua and the boys were running them through with the sword. You seem to think there is some distinction between throwing a child in a fire or running a child through with a sword or smashing his head in. I wonder if Joshua and the boys burned any of the houses when they were plundering and if any moms with their small children were in hiding and wound up getting burned to death.
What of all the children in Great Flood, or the ones in Sodom and Gomorrah and the first born of Egypt. Yes thank God he appears to be on their side!!!!
Apparently Jehova sides with old bald men over children.
They even have video!!!
-
Yeah, good point Dan, who was the advocate for those children? It appears that YHWH was on their side.
Yea he sure advocated for the children in those 30 cities where Joshua and the boys were running them through with the sword. You seem to think there is some distinction between throwing a child in a fire or running a child through with a sword or smashing his head in. I wonder if Joshua and the boys burned any of the houses when they were plundering and if any moms with their small children were in hiding and wound up getting burned to death.
What of all the children in Great Flood, or the ones in Sodom and Gomorrah and the first born of Egypt. Yes thank God he appears to be on their side!!!!
-
Since that is such a hotly contested debate I would prefer to AVOID a discussion about homosexuality because it only brings out the worst in everybody; and is unnecessary anyway.
I would argue that if the redemptive-hermeneutic is to be recognized and practiced towards moving past the New Testament like you had originally suggested, I would suggest that actually getting past racism and reverse racism would be a sufficient start, since that is still a problem being dealt with that has been with mankind since mankind has had races.
I would suggest that if mankind can ever get past racism that along that path he will discover some valuable tools to understanding the homosexual issue.
Racism is the bigger issue, the problem has existed longer, it affects a larger number of people, and is more important in my opinion.
Racism, homophobia, religious and political bigotry are all the results of intolerance. Being fearful of people who are different than you and treating them in a negative manner, Whether they think, look or act differently. The reason they do think, look or act differently is due to genetics and the area in which they were enculturenated.
Fear and judgement is the basis for the problem and love and compssion is the answer. Perfect love and experiential knowledge of the Spirit of God casteth out fear from my viewpoint. That which does not cast out fear, but which engenders the judgemental mindset which fans the flames is not of God IMHO.
However I will state that it may be quite possible that a person with utter and complete experiential knowledge of God who is trying to convey understanding to a group of ignorant goat herders may resort to such tactics, much in the same manner we use stories of the Bogeyman and other myths for our children.
Imagine trying to teach redemptive-hermeneutics to a Pre-K class.
-
That and there is that wonderful verse in Matt 5:-
18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
So I guess Fawzo we should get some stones and build a large fire and start killing just so we can find a higher place in heaven.
I know you will not and neither will I, so I will see you in the lower ranks of heaven.
I think these verses are one of the reasons why the Judaic branches of Christianity such as the Ebonites and others held to the Gsopel of Matthew. What is odd though is that Jesus and his Apostles didn't exactly follow the cleanliness laws or the ones on Sabbath.
Then there are also the verses which seem to state otherwise:
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.
The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
-
Absolutely.
Having said that, my argument would be that the continuance of this equality and justice would proceed from the broad guidelines given by the moral and ethical principles of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. For example: if something was condemned in both the Old and the New Testaments it would still be condemned today. But take the Sermon on the Mount for another example and more radically implement the teachings it contains. Radical in the sense of loving our neighbor and loving God, and doing unto others as we would want done to us.
You, Pete, Hexalpa, Brother Michael, Rainbow, and others on this forum are excellent examples (at least from what you guys say here) and excellent ambassadors of what this should look like, in my opinion; as well as Spong.
I'm assuming one of those condemned behaviors of which you speak is homosexuality. With the growing genetic evidence that many people are born with such sexual orientations how can one justify such condemnation.
After all people are born chimeras, hermaphrodites and every other genetic combination possible.
Would a just God allow children to be born condemned from birth? What I do think these births speak highly of is that God plays no hand in the process of DNA recombining and spitting out a random pair of 23 chromosome that becomes humans. He may have created the process and engines which makes it possible, but it is quite clear to me he does not get involved in the random outcomes.
-
These are God's judgments and God's laws, not mine. However, regarding the Canaanites sacrificing kids, I do agree with God's decision to kill them. In fact, if I was around back then, I would have helped eradicate that kind of wickedness, and I'm pretty certain you would too.
I'm sure Jesus would have been right by your side with a sword in his hand helping to.
And our enemies claim that the U.S. Marines eat kids, see how that works!!!!
Remember that God did spare Rahab and her family from Jericho, and Lot's family from Sodom & Gomorrah. Not because they were good, but because Rahab & Lot had faith in God.
Where were the priests or prophets of God who preached to those towns about God. I don't remember hearing anything about anyone who done so.
The lament for the daughter is about 'not marrying' (religious celibacy). The context makes it clear that Jephthah kept her from ever marrying. Human sacrifice did not conform to the law. Jephthah "did with her according to his vow which he had vowed, and she knew no man" (Judges 11:39). It had nothing to do with a sacrificial death, but with a dedicated life to a perpetual virginity.
Dan I think it is beyond ludicrous to the nth degree to think that the women of Israel went out and lamented this man's daughter every year because she could not marry. Come on really!!!! How many other such days did they do so for other maidens who did not marry? In the Midrashi it is stated I do believe that he was even punished for his actions.
God's love for the world does not mean he will ignore sin. God is also a God of justice. The second half of John 3:16 list a condition "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish". The Canaanites believed in other gods and they perished.
Yes your God it seems from the way you portray him is one full of Justice and lacking any forgiveness or compassion for mankind. I'm surprised we don't hear stories of people who were killed on the spot for farting in the temple in his presence.
-
When you look from here (in time) backward you see something that is regressive. If you were to live in the time of the writing you would see that there is a redemptive value in the Torah, a progress forward. Modern students of the Bible, in order to understand the Bible in its context, need to realize that the point of the Bible has never been to establish a utopian society with perferct equality and justice for all. The point was to move the society in which it was given toward that goal. A study of the surrounding nations and cultures at that time would show that.
Can't the same now be said about the New Testament. It seems as if it has taken society as far as it can and now it is time for something fresh with a more sophisticated perspective which will assist man further along in his spiritual development.
Two thousand years of the Old Testament followed by two thousand years of the New Testament followed by.......
-
That was my point, it would have been difficult for bronze age men to understand a scientific explanation of what causes wind, rain, or snow. God created all things, including nature. I have a feeling that even if God described it in modern scientific terms, you would still claim that his explanation doesn't prove anything?
I think the explanation is rather simple. The earth rotates and the cold air at the pole mixes with the warm air from the equator. If God can't relate that information to us no wonder there is so much debate about the concept of the Trinity.
The people of Canaan were wicked; "You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods" (Deuteronomy 12:31). What ought to make you cringe is witnessing a child being burned alive as a sacrifice to false gods. Jihadist kill innocent people in the name of their god, just like the Canaanites did, so comparing that kind of wickedness to God's judgment is ridiculous. Sometimes a slap on the wrist just doesn't suffice, I trust that God made the correct decision by destroying those cities.
I don't buy it Dan. Can you show me any areas of the world this day where everyone is completely wicked and that there isn't any what we would consider good people. There were also unborn infants and toddlers running around that could not possibly have been deemed wicked.
Even Jews like Jephthah burned his children to God.
Before everyone of those acts Pete listed put the words "For God so loved the world that he......." Did God not love these people. Did not Jesus die for them as well. These gentile dogs who God loved so much"
No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of YAHWEH; even to the tenth generation none belonging to them shall enter the assembly of YAHWEH for ever ... You shall not seek their peace or their prosperity all your days for ever." (Deuteronomy Chapter 23 verse 3)
"You must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them. You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons." (Deuteronomy Chapter 7 verse 2)
"And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon." But he (Christ) did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, help me." And he answered, "It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."" (Matthew Chapter 15 verse 22)
When one takes into account that God knew beforehand that Jesus was the propitiation for all the sins of these people he ordered murdered, it makes completely no sense to me whatsoever. I know I'm going to forgive you in the future but I am going to have to kill you now because I love you so much. I'm sorry but your unborn children and toddlers have to die as well. I just have to do it because I'm so Righteous.
Pete you grab one side of this straightjacket and I'll hold the other and while Michael and Hex hold the Old Testament God well fasten it tight .
-
For me, the word of God isn't alleged, nor are there variants of his word, because its contained in the bible. So I didn't need to rummage around and cherry-pick what I think is true, God conveniently condensed it all into one book.
So Dan how did you decide or was told which version of that book was the corrrect one. There are a multitude of versions, it seems God was not able to keep it from wandering off course. How are you sure that the one you resonate with isn't one of the ones that have drifted off course?
In Psalms 135:7, the KJV uses "treasuries" instead of "storehouses". Its expected that God would speak in the language which people commonly used when speaking of his works, and would not go into a philosophical or scientific explanation of the phenomena of nature. He brings the wind out of his treasuries - Where he has, as it were, treasured it up, to be used when there should be occasion for it.
Where does the wind come from? In general terms, wind is created by the solar cycle through the uneven warming and cooling of the earth's surface. As the sun warms the land, air above the land is also warmed. This air rises and cooler air rushes in to replace it, producing a gentle breeze - or a howling tempest.
Large-scale winds are caused by the fact that the earth's surface is heated to a greater degree at the equator than at the poles. The rotation of the earth also affects these planetary winds. On a smaller scale, winds flow through mountain valleys and spill over high peaks across unobstructed prairies.http://www.prpa.org/...wwindismade.htm
Dan as you can see there are no treasuries or storhouses needed for wind. It is a quite natural event of which early bronze age man might have been quite ignorant when the Bible was written. So doesn't that prove God had nothing to do with that cosmological description of the origins of wind.
Genesis 2:5&6 state that it had not rained on earth, so you could surmise that rainbows could not have occurred until after the flood. But even if the rainbow existed before the flood, it became emblematic of the covenant (God's promise). This would be like bread and wine existing before the Passover, but after the Passover these preexisting emblems took on a new meaning.
You could surmise that if you are ignorant of the science behind how rainbows are formed as were the folks who wrote those portions of the Bible. I doubt if God was so ignorant and therefor played no part in authroship.
Rainbows are formed when the perceiver is standing between a source of water droplets and sunlight. The light refracts off the water droplets to the perceivers eyes at varoius angles from 42 to 45 degrees creating the different hues. Rain is not needed. Rainbows are created by waterfalls, the moon and would have been most assuredly created by that imaginary mist the Fundalmentalists claims covered the earth before it was suppose to have rained.
Once again it seems quite evident it is a stroy of sheer ignorarnce of science and the natural world and myth of bronze age man. No hand of God here unless God is as ignorant.
Yes, God did institute the death penalty for breaking some of his laws. And yes, I think God was justified in destroying 30 cities, they were warned and ignored God, which is never a wise thing to do. If a person believes God created everything on earth in 6 days, then its obviously not difficult to believe he's capable of turning a woman into a pillar of salt.
Dan I surely hope and pray that some portion of you cringed or doubted in your heart those words you typed that I bolded from your response. That portion that would be cringing or hesitating is the real written Word of God which is written within yours and everyones heart. If no portion of you cringed or gave pause when you wrote that, then I feel you have been endoctrinated to the point of a jihadist who is capable of starpping a bomb to them self and killing others with no remorse.
What do you think is more plausible Dan? That some Bronze Age desert dwellers saw a pillar of salt in a region where they were common that looked like a sexy female and told a story to their kids about how it was made as is human nature or that God actually turned a woman into a pillar of salt against her will.
Sodom and Gomorrah may have very well been destroyed by some cataclysmic event such as the same thing which happened in Tunguska which science still isn't 100% sure about its origins. If a similar event happened back during the Bronze Age what kind of myths would have been created to explain the source. Wouldn't the gods have been credited with its origin, so once this seems like the ignorance of man to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event
I know you like to claim that God protected the version of the written word that you cherish, but you must also realize that this written word were stories handed down by campfires for ages before they were even written down. Did God protect the embellishment of campfire stories as well?
These are referencing 2 different cups imo. One is mentioned when Jesus is answering a disciple and the other in prayer to the Father. Jesus willfully accepted the cup before him (crucifixion), but he obviously regretted the other cup, being the cup of wrath poured out after the days of tribulation.
Dan you as a modern Christian hold a complete Bible in your hand so that you can cross reference information to make apologetics for clear discrepancies.
The person who wrote the Gospel of John did not hold or have knowledge of the Book of Revelations and the person for whom the message was originally intended did not have knowledge or access either, as it was written later.
A lot of these crazy bizarre apolegetics that Christians make up need to take this into consideration.
If I am writing this post for your benefit, I hopefully am entering all the information you need and that I wish to convey to you. I'm not trying to write stuff with hidden meanings for future generations that my brothers Michael, Pete and Hex can finish up on later and complete.
Rescuing The Bible From Fundmentalism
in Creative Expression & Cultural Arts
Posted
All this talk about Spong and the Youtube Video Pete posted awhile back which I enjoyed had me going to the Library today to get some of his works. I picked up 'Jesus for the Non Religious" and I must say I am titillated and enthusiastic after just reading the introduction.
This portion of the intro really resonates with me:
All of my professional life I have kept before me the motto of my theological seminary: "Seek the truth; come whence it may, cost what it will."