If Christianity were proven true

[Key]

On 9/22/2019 at 1:52 AM, Dan56 said:

 

God inspired the bible, He did not translate it into hundreds of different languages. There are not matching words for every Hebrew word, so the translators sought to find the best corresponding words. "Jealous" just means that God is passionate about faithfulness and exclusive worship.  The Hebrew word in Exodus 34:14 is קַנָּא, "jealous" "qanna" Strong's Concordance. The Word "jealous" would mean passionately providing, passionately protecting. passionately polishing and promoting on to God's perfect desire and design. Its not a negative word, but corresponds more with the zeal or enthusiasm of a zealous God. Today, we define jealous as a negative emotion, but zealous to me reflects a God who is engaged in the ardent pursuit towards the salvation of souls.... So while we have the inerrant Word, its just takes a little effort to understand the meaning by double checking what the English is defining. There are simply some Hebrew words that don’t have any direct translation in English. God cared enough to give us the intellect to study His word instead of just skimming over it and jumping to inaccurate conclusions.. jmo

Sorry, Dan, but as much as I'd like to believe, I can not accept  to call it the "inerrant Word" when clearly if the word was left to translator interpretations rather than God ensuring it's correctness. If the meaning can not be as it was intended, then it would not be followed as it was intended.

Regardless if God gave us intellect to understand, men are flawed and corruptible. So, what we have, though God inspired, is written by flawed, corruptible men, and thus could be deduced by men to be so, as well.

And just as you had pointed out, much could not be translated as it was meant, to try to judge what would best describe to come closest to it would be possibly "jumping to inaccurate conclusions". Another possible reason for so many "Christian" factions.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

13 hours ago, Key said:

Sorry, Dan, but as much as I'd like to believe, I can not accept  to call it the "inerrant Word" when clearly if the word was left to translator interpretations rather than God ensuring it's correctness. If the meaning can not be as it was intended, then it would not be followed as it was intended.

Regardless if God gave us intellect to understand, men are flawed and corruptible. So, what we have, though God inspired, is written by flawed, corruptible men, and thus could be deduced by men to be so, as well.

And just as you had pointed out, much could not be translated as it was meant, to try to judge what would best describe to come closest to it would be possibly "jumping to inaccurate conclusions". Another possible reason for so many "Christian" factions.

 

Pretend that God really was the source, of the Books of the Bible.

 

An English translation, before the English language existed.

 

Well?  That would be credible proof.

 

Or we could all be born, able to recite the Scriptures from "memory".

 

That would be impressive.  Only God could do that.

 

 

 

 

Now, the apologetics and excuses.  Let the good times roll.  You know.  Our sinful, fallen state.  That's why.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

On 9/23/2019 at 11:46 AM, Key said:

Sorry, Dan, but as much as I'd like to believe, I can not accept  to call it the "inerrant Word" when clearly if the word was left to translator interpretations rather than God ensuring it's correctness. If the meaning can not be as it was intended, then it would not be followed as it was intended.

Regardless if God gave us intellect to understand, men are flawed and corruptible. So, what we have, though God inspired, is written by flawed, corruptible men, and thus could be deduced by men to be so, as well.

And just as you had pointed out, much could not be translated as it was meant, to try to judge what would best describe to come closest to it would be possibly "jumping to inaccurate conclusions". Another possible reason for so many "Christian" factions.

 

The whole point of a Hebrew to English concordance is to learn the definition of the Greek or Hebrew. You don't need to jump to inaccurate conclusions if you look-up a word.. I don't look at it the same way you do, if God inspired the writers, then what they wrote could not have been flawed. There are simply English words that don't always capture the meaning of what the Hebrew expresses. For instance, in many places where it says to "fear the Lord" it would be more accurately expressed as "revere the Lord". 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

The whole point of a Hebrew to English concordance is to learn the definition of the Greek or Hebrew. You don't need to jump to inaccurate conclusions if you look-up a word.. I don't look at it the same way you do, if God inspired the writers, then what they wrote could not have been flawed. There are simply English words that don't always capture the meaning of what the Hebrew expresses. For instance, in many places where it says to "fear the Lord" it would be more accurately expressed as "revere the Lord". 

 

 

Such a sad word.  If.       

 

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

And if it was inspired by the devil, it would be full of contradictions, confusion and inaccuracies... with a truth or two to make it believable...

 

Wait a minute...

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

And if it was inspired by the devil, it would be full of contradictions, confusion and inaccuracies... with a truth or two to make it believable...

 

Wait a minute...

 

 

 

Yes.  Just so.  If an evil entity had inspired the Bible:

• Women who had been raped, would be forced to marry their rapist. 
• The Bible would encourage violence against homosexuals. 
• Slavery would be permitted.  At minimum, owning people as property would not be forbidden.
• Blind Faith would be more important than evidence.  Think of the horrors that would result.
• The Bible would never portray God as being genocidal.  Or sadistic.  Or unjust.
• The Bible would never order the death of all witches, without explaining exactly what a witch is -- and under what conditions, such an execution should be carried out.
• Translations of the Books of the Bible, would be left to individual understanding and error.

 

Said evil entity, would then gloat and laugh, every time that this weird, evil nonsense, was attributed to God.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 25, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Key]

11 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

The whole point of a Hebrew to English concordance is to learn the definition of the Greek or Hebrew. You don't need to jump to inaccurate conclusions if you look-up a word.. I don't look at it the same way you do, if God inspired the writers, then what they wrote could not have been flawed. There are simply English words that don't always capture the meaning of what the Hebrew expresses. For instance, in many places where it says to "fear the Lord" it would be more accurately expressed as "revere the Lord". 

Pray tell then, if "English words don't always capture the meaning of what Hebrew expresses", what good would really come from one having to "look up a word", when one is deriving "English words" to define a Hebrew expression? Circular logic, at best, isn't it?

Your last sentence provides proof as to why there are so many factions. It states an opinion regarding how a phrase may more accurately be expressed, whereas others may view that distinction differently. So, it isn't so much about jumping to inaccurate conclusions, as it is interpreting them. What you view as inaccurate, someone else may not. Both may feel justified in their own mind and belief.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, Key said:

Pray tell then, if "English words don't always capture the meaning of what Hebrew expresses", what good would really come from one having to "look up a word", when one is deriving "English words" to define a Hebrew expression? Circular logic, at best, isn't it?

Your last sentence provides proof as to why there are so many factions. It states an opinion regarding how a phrase may more accurately be expressed, whereas others may view that distinction differently. So, it isn't so much about jumping to inaccurate conclusions, as it is interpreting them. What you view as inaccurate, someone else may not. Both may feel justified in their own mind and belief.

 

 

God works in delirious ways.

 

 

 

[Key]

On 9/20/2019 at 6:49 PM, Dan56 said:

 

And by the way, your correct in that God didn't appreciate those who didn't honor their parents either; "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him" (Leviticus 20:9).

 

I can't imagine killing any of my children for mocking me, regardless of what the Bible directs. Any parent that truly loves their offspring could forgive most anything, and would not wish death upon them. It would have to be extraordinary circumstances to be otherwise, or they never loved them to begin with.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Key said:

I can't imagine killing any of my children for mocking me, regardless of what the Bible directs. Any parent that truly loves their offspring could forgive most anything, and would not wish death upon them. It would have to be extraordinary circumstances to be otherwise, or they never loved them to begin with.

 

This is a great truth.  People are good despite their religion.  Not because of it.

 

 

 

 

[Dan56]

11 hours ago, Key said:

I can't imagine killing any of my children for mocking me, regardless of what the Bible directs. Any parent that truly loves their offspring could forgive most anything, and would not wish death upon them. It would have to be extraordinary circumstances to be otherwise, or they never loved them to begin with.

 

It didn't require you to kill your own kid; "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear" (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). And it requires more of an offense than just mocking your parents, it seems to refer to a rebellious drunken kid who is out of control and won't change even after being disciplined.

[Dan56]

On 9/25/2019 at 5:43 AM, cuchulain said:

And if it was inspired by the devil, it would be full of contradictions, confusion and inaccuracies... with a truth or two to make it believable...

 

No contradictions, not confusing, and no inaccuracies proves the devil had nothing to do with it. The devil would work in those who can't believe the truth, by convincing them there are inaccuracies and contradictions where none exist. Its been his m.o. ever since deceiving Eve. Biblical truths can't really be disputed. Worldly wisdom is whats flawed, remember the words of Pilate; "Take him, and crucify him, for I find no fault in him."

 

8 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

This is a great truth.  People are good despite their religion.  Not because of it.

 

I'd agree that religion doesn't make people good, nor does it save anyone...People aren't good with or without religion.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

No contradictions, not confusing, and no inaccuracies proves the devil had nothing to do with it. The devil would work in those who can't believe the truth, by convincing them there are inaccuracies and contradictions where none exist. Its been his m.o. ever since deceiving Eve. Biblical truths can't really be disputed. Worldly wisdom is whats flawed, remember the words of Pilate; "Take him, and crucify him, for I find no fault in him."

 

 

I'd agree that religion doesn't make people good, nor does it save anyone...People aren't good with or without religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Key]

11 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

It didn't require you to kill your own kid; "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear" (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). And it requires more of an offense than just mocking your parents, it seems to refer to a rebellious drunken kid who is out of control and won't change even after being disciplined.

The first quote you presented, as you presented, did. This one fares little better to me. Death for disobedience? I'd rather have turned the son out into the world to learn how good he really had it at home, making him return begging for forgiveness, or remaining outside without being a thorn in my side any longer.

[Key]

11 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

No contradictions, not confusing, and no inaccuracies proves the devil had nothing to do with it. The devil would work in those who can't believe the truth, by convincing them there are inaccuracies and contradictions where none exist. Its been his m.o. ever since deceiving Eve. Biblical truths can't really be disputed. Worldly wisdom is whats flawed, remember the words of Pilate; "Take him, and crucify him, for I find no fault in him."

 

The words of Pilate do not highlight a flaw in worldly wisdom, as you claim. Rather it highlights his awareness that even as he found no fault and couldn't himself justify crucifixion, he knew they would do so anyway.

[cuchulain]

1 hour ago, Key said:

The first quote you presented, as you presented, did. This one fares little better to me. Death for disobedience? I'd rather have turned the son out into the world to learn how good he really had it at home, making him return begging for forgiveness, or remaining outside without being a thorn in my side any longer.

Again, key...you are debating morality with someone who thinks bear mauling is a good thing for 'little children'...you arent going to get there friend.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, Key said:

The words of Pilate do not highlight a flaw in worldly wisdom, as you claim. Rather it highlights his awareness that even as he found no fault and couldn't himself justify crucifixion, he knew they would do so anyway.

 

Key, please.  The Roman Empire ruled by terror.  Let us not confuse this propaganda piece with reality.

 

Even taking the story at face value -- imagine a representative of that power, having angst, over an execution.  A standard execution at that.  The crime was being "King of the Jews".  In plain English -- an insurrectionist.  As stated by the sign placed over Jesus' head.

 

Dan, if you must quote scripture -- at least get it right.

 

 

Matthew 27:11

And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Matthew 27:29

And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Matthew 27:37

And set up over his head his accusation written, This Is Jesus The King Of The Jews.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 

 

 

 

[Dan56]

8 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Dan, if you must quote scripture -- at least get it right.

 

Matthew 27:11

And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Matthew 27:29

And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Matthew 27:37

And set up over his head his accusation written, This Is Jesus The King Of The Jews.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 

 

I did not quote any of the verses you listed? What I did quote was correct; "Take ye him, and crucify him, for I find no fault in him." (John 19:6)

[Dan56]

13 hours ago, Key said:

The first quote you presented, as you presented, did. This one fares little better to me. Death for disobedience? I'd rather have turned the son out into the world to learn how good he really had it at home, making him return begging for forgiveness, or remaining outside without being a thorn in my side any longer.

 

Well, turning a crazed son out into the world is what we might do today, we read a lot about them shooting up schools, Walmart, etc.. But God didn't want an out-of-control young man disrupting His people. I suspect the problem would have been more than just disobedience. It describes an unbelieving kid who curses his parents, is stubborn, rebellious, and a drunk.. In the OT,  breaking commandments was punished severely. "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death" (Numbers 15:32-35). But in the New Testament we have Jesus recommending doing as you suggested, as told in The Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15 11-24) .

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

45 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

I did not quote any of the verses you listed? What I did quote was correct; "Take ye him, and crucify him, for I find no fault in him." (John 19:6)

 

 

You see no contradictions?  You find this probable?