 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / November 2007Reading the Bible (DaveILV and ShadOS please do not reply)
It seems to me that people who are so intent on demanding that people read the Bible should themselves be able to read ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. That way, they could get at least closer to "original sources," even though the translation from those sources to today's idiomatic language is difficult in the extreme, even for the best of scholars. Further, they should be familiar with the history of "scripture" and the processes by which some books were accepted into "their" bible and others were not. An impartial reading of history will often at least infer that these decision were made as much for political reasons as for theological. This whole discussion is tiresome. I suggest that those that insist on perpetuating it have a face-to-face debate with some Jehovah's Witnesses, on their own time and in their own space. Perhaps on their own front porches, out of earshot of the rest of us? KH > It seems to me that people who are so intent on demanding that people > read the Bible should themselves be able to read ancient Greek, Hebrew > and Aramaic. < massive snip> Your article is stamped 2:37 in the morning. You obviously can't sleep. I don't wonder why. Yours is the first, ORIGINAL article I've seen posted by you. As usual, your words are OT. You are, however, expanding your horizons: Instead of the usual reply to any and every troll that comes done the pike, burdening the unfortunate reader with your leftist/socialist/agnostic/atheistic drivel, your new article is a blatant troll. I have spent the last, couple of weeks diligently filtering-out ("kill-filing") countless individuals here in a possibly vain attempt to expose myself to only words about RVing. The numbers, were I to have been keeping track, would be impressive. Now, when I call-up new articles here, their number is more than HALVED by my newsreader. I do not, and will not here, engage in the sophomoric practice of proudly announcing to the group when I PLONK someone. However, suffice it to say I will not see your predictable reply to this - a happy accomplishment for sure. I sincerely hope I never meet you in a campground. Should such an unfortunate encounter occur, it will be obvious: The lights will dim, the campfire will extinguish and any singing birds will fall silent. With nothing to believe in and virtually no faith in anybody or anything, with the possible exception of your thankfully unattainable utopian socialist/nanny State, yours must be a vacuous life, indeed.  SignatureJR >> It seems to me that people who are so intent on demanding that people >> read the Bible should themselves be able to read ancient Greek, Hebrew [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > socialist/nanny > State, yours must be a vacuous life, indeed. Amen! >I have spent the last, couple of weeks diligently filtering-out >("kill-filing") countless individuals here in a possibly vain attempt to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >announcing to the group when I PLONK someone. However, suffice it to say I >will not see your predictable reply to this - a happy accomplishment for sure. \ Hi Jim, I posted a few days ago that I had killfiled a number of our less illustrious trolls. Today, of the 55 new posts shown, my reader (Agent) only shows 7. How refreshing the change. And NO, Will is not on the list. Dean > I posted a few days ago that I had killfiled a number of our less > illustrious trolls. Today, of the 55 new posts shown, my reader > (Agent) only shows 7. The filtering work appears to be paying off, thank God. This session revealed THREE new articles of which one was mine. My newsreader reveals that 28 were killed. > How refreshing the change. You said it. <g> > And NO, Will is not on the list. You are indeed brave to reveal your apparent acceptance of our resident "lightning rod". I don't dare refer to the self-described curmudgeon in any less favorable terms lest someone invoke the [pot calling the kettle "black"] adage. I enjoy reading the old man's words, "warts" and all. Then again, my "complexion" isn't perfect by any stretch. Tomorrow I winterize our travel trailer. Our daughter, who just this morning flew back to Houston after interviewing for a "hospitalist" position with Nebraska Children's Hospital in Omaha, used the camper as her private suite during her stay with us. It was HER idea, no less. I was quite pleased, as was she. I have a winter project: Finding the loose connection (or failing relay) that causes the 12VDC section (lights, etc) to run off the battery, ignoring the shore power. Signature:) JR 2000 Skamper Ultra 249 TT 2002 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD Vortec 8100 - Allison 1000 > It seems to me that people who are so intent on demanding that people read > the Bible should themselves be able to read ancient Greek, Hebrew and > Aramaic. That way, they could get at least closer to "original sources," > even though the translation from those sources to today's idiomatic > language is difficult in the extreme, even for the best of scholars. Dumb suggestion. Let the translators who are very learned in the above languages render it into English. Theirs is the superior understanding so they allow English speaking people to understand the true meaning of the original texts. > Further, they should be familiar with the history of "scripture" and the > processes by which some books were accepted into "their" bible and others > were not. An impartial reading of history will often at least infer that > these decision were made as much for political reasons as for theological. Many of us are familiar with it. Many Christian historians have researched and written books on the topic. A lot of what non-Christians have heard is incorrect. Non-Christians tend to believe in a conspiracy theory of sorts where trickery and politics abounded. Not so. > This whole discussion is tiresome. I suggest that those that insist on > perpetuating it have a face-to-face debate with some Jehovah's Witnesses, > on their own time and in their own space. Perhaps on their own front > porches, out of earshot of the rest of us? It's more fun discussing it with a Pagan. It's more revealing, too. It's pretty clear that at least one Pagan doesn't give a hoot about logic when it comes to religion. She believes the most illogical things and defends them when there is obviously no logical basis for any of it. Typical woman - logic takes a back seat to feelings and intuition. Shad O'Shay >> It seems to me that people who are so intent on demanding that >> people read the Bible should themselves be able to read ancient [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > intuition. > Sad O'Shay My silence indicates the contempt with which I treat your bait as it deserves. If you weren't so arrogant and self-obsessed you might even learn something. > Dumb suggestion. Let the translators who are very learned in the above > languages render it into English. Theirs is the superior understanding so > they allow English speaking people to understand the true meaning of the > original texts. Dumb suggestion. Even in English each individual that reads it interprets it in their own way. No matter what the language nobody knows the 'true' meaning. Differences in interpretation will be debated for eternity. Dumb suggestion. Let the translators who are very learned in the above languages render it into English. Theirs is the superior understanding so they allow English speaking people to understand the true meaning of the original texts. "Dumb suggestion. Even in English each individual that reads it interprets it in their own way. No matter what the language nobody knows the 'true' meaning. Differences in interpretation will be debated for eternity. " REPLY: First, if a person reads the Bible using a Modern version put into more common everyday language...it is as simple as reading a newspaper and very little is difficult to understand. Secondly, if you get one with a built in Commentary at the bottom of each page...you learn even more about what youre reading in context. Thirdly, if you apply the principles of Hermanuetics , you will seldom go wrong in interpretting what youre reading. Lastly, the Bible IS the book that the Creator inspired and intends it to be read by mankind , so, there isnt too much that is truly vague ; he even described in detail how he created the Universe , his love for you, youre sin condition that needs attention, and what you must do if you want to end up in Heaven with this Creator. The rest is up to you. No one will be without excuse though for not trying to get to know this loving personal Creator . The choice is ours. > Dumb suggestion. Let the translators who are very learned in the above > languages render it into English. Theirs is the superior understanding [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > you get one with a built in Commentary at the bottom of each > page...you learn even more about what youre reading in context. Modern translations have retwisted scripture to say what the current religious authorities want it to say. > Thirdly, if you apply the principles of Hermanuetics , you will > seldom go wrong in interpretting what youre reading. Lastly, the > Bible IS the book that the Creator inspired and intends it to be read > by mankind You have still not offered a single shred of proof for that. : If you were to do so - just a single sliver of undeniable reliable concrete evidence for your claims- just think how many converts you'd make! They'd start calling you St.Dave. So why don't you reveal a piece of concrete solid factual proof for your claims that you are supposedly so sure of? There are two possible answers to this. : 1. You're being selfish and/or playing some kind of game. : "I've got proven undeniable knowledge and I'm going to heaven but I won't share it with you and therefore you're not. -Ha you want to know eh? Well you'll have to start off being very nice to me and agreeing with everything I say first..." *OR* 2. You have no solid undeniable concrete proof and there is in fact none available; you're just trying to fool the gullible, and you're a fuckwit. Which one is it? >, so, there isnt too much that is truly vague ; Only bullshit. > he even > described in detail how he created the Universe Have I missed something? The account that I've read many times in Genesis has virtually no deatil whatsoever; it just says that he "caused it to be". > , his love for you: "Do what the church say that I say or I'll torture you." > youre sin condition that needs attention, I'm not > and what you must do if you > want to end up in Heaven with this Creator. Be uneducated, hypocritical, mentally ill, dishonest, fuckwitted, and develop a sexual fascination - according to you. > The rest is up to you. No one will be without excuse though for not > trying to get to know this loving personal Creator . The choice is > ours. I'd rather continue to be an educated human being thanks. > REPLY: First, if a person reads the Bible using a Modern version put > into more common everyday language...it is as simple as reading a > newspaper and very little is difficult to understand. There are millions around the world that all read the same book. Yet there are variations in their beliefs based on that very same book. Even inside a single church there are constant conflicts. So much that often their basic beliefs change to follow the culture changes over the years rather than everyone believing the exact same thing. Each group says they are reading and believing the only way there is and the other groups are the ones that are wrong. Now since this is an RV group I can only assume you are writing from some religious based RV resort. Can you tell us all where this is? Well, isn't this interesting! I specifically asked DaveILV and ShadOS NOT to respond to my post, and both of them just HAD to prove themselves "right." Isn't that a bitch? So the question becomes, just what is "faith" all about. Is it about being "right?" Or is it about understanding that there are many paths to the deity, and choosing one over the other is personal and cannot be driven by orthodox theology. What would god have wanted? While most Americans now believe differently, the fact is that most of our "founding fathers" were not "Christians," but rather "Deists." They did not believe that there was some sort of entity recording into a ledger the transgressions of each of us. Rather, they believed that the (various) universe(s) had been set into motion by a creator who otherwise had no interest in the outcome of its creation. It is so difficult for people to think that 1) there might not be a god, and 2) if there is a god, it really doesn't care what people think about it? Ken H I hope there is one, but I don't believe in it. > > Dumb suggestion. Let the translators who are very learned in the above > > languages render it into English. Theirs is the superior understanding so [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > knows the 'true' meaning. Differences in interpretation will be debated > for eternity. Good answer...but, of course, it will fall on the deaf ears of all religious nutsacks who hang on every multi-translated word as "the absolute truth" with no other possible other interpertation (as evidence of such, I present the two easly identified religious nutsacks here |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.