Predict the 1st Banning for uncivil behavior in the new Religious Threads...

[Dead Duck]

Also, since Jesus was supposed to be God incarnate, why didn't He write His message down Himself? Would that not have saved some trouble down the road? A book penned by the literal hand of the incarnate God? Even better if He did if after the "resurrection".

Apparently He did at some point.
Or at least had a Good Book signing.



I want Bible signed with lightning.....

 

[HoughMade]

Apparently He did at some point.
Or at least had a Good Book signing.



I want Bible signed with lightning.....

Oh......that's an ESV. That's gonna make some people angry.

I prefer the ESV now, but grew up memorizing the KJV, then transitioned to the NIV in high school and college. Despite what some may say, they say the same thing and the linguistic differences between the translations sometimes helps understanding.

 

[JettaKnight]

Oh......that's an ESV. That's gonna make some people angry.

I really fail to see the logic of "those" people. Their argument makes as much sense as the Red Leather Cover only crowd.

Personally, I really like the ESV.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Personally, in this case, I find the mental gymnastics to be easy.

With the amorphous numbers, I rest on my understanding of the history of Biblical translation, and conclude that it is a translation or clerical error. ...I would argue that the original is free of error, subsequent translation and copying foibles notwithstanding.

The link posted to refute earlier in the thread:

?Forty and two years old? or ?Twenty-two years old? in 2 Chronicles 22:2? - King James Version Today


Says:

The KJV follows the Masoretic reading of "Forty and two years" as the age of Ahaziah in 2 Chronicles 22:2. Most modern translators speculate that the Masoretic text is in error, seeing that 2 Kings 8:26 says that Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign.

..and then goes on a lengthy argument to make it plausible that there is no error. The original is not mistranslated into English. The source documents simply don't agree, or perhaps they do, depending on what explanation you take and who you believe on how to square it. In the end, its the same thing. If we're going to say there's some ideal perfect translation out there, that's useless as we don't have access to that ideal. We have access to the fallible version(s), which apparently include the original language source books.

So let me ask you...what does it matter? If this man was 42 or 22 or both or neither when he was crowned...what will be the influence on you and how you behave? How will it help you relate to your fellow man? Regardless of how many horses or stalls Soloman had, the point is he was wealthy and powerful...so what does it matter?

This is my primary reason for disliking orthodoxy and the high value placed on it by most centers of organized religions. It simply focuses on things that do not matter in the least in practical terms.

 

[JettaKnight]

So let me ask you...what does it matter? If this man was 42 or 22 or both or neither when he was crowned...what will be the influence on you and how you behave? How will it help you relate to your fellow man? Regardless of how many horses or stalls Soloman had, the point is he was wealthy and powerful...so what does it matter?

This is my primary reason for disliking orthodoxy and the high value placed on it by most centers of organized religions. It simply focuses on things that do not matter in the least in practical terms.

In the big scheme - it doesn't matter much. But too many errors and contradictions leads to a lack of ability to trust the source.


Again, too often we read the Bible as if it was written in English, in our time, in our culture and all together and proofread. It wasn't. It's a series of accounts, poetry, eyewitness testimony, instructional writing, letters to friends, etc. This was in three languages and over 4000+ years.

That's what makes good Bible study tricky is understanding the text in the correct context.

However, given all those factors, it's [STRIKE]remarkable[/STRIKE] miraculous that it is so cohesive, so accurate and so rich.



As to the 42 or 22 stuff... If you asked ten eyewitnesses to a an auto collision and they all gave you the same exact story, wouldn't you be suspicious?

 

[T.Lex]

If you asked ten eyewitnesses to a an auto collision and they all gave you the same exact story, wouldn't you be suspicious?

Like a bus full of nuns?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

As to the 42 or 22 stuff... If you asked ten eyewitnesses to a an auto collision and they all gave you the same exact story, wouldn't you be suspicious?

Of course. They are human. Sort of my point.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

I like the birthday paradox as an analogy. My question: where did the people come from? Or the room? Where did aaaaaallllll of that matter come from?

 

[ChristianPatriot]

I like the Ford vs Dodge one even better. Ford and Dodge both came from intelligent design

 

[JettaKnight]

Of course. They are human. Sort of my point.

Yeah, I wasn't refuting you, but reinforcing what you said.

I'm working on those 50 quality posts so I can buy me one of them fancy guns.

 

[T.Lex]

I like the Ford vs Dodge one even better. Ford and Dodge both came from intelligent design

I can accept Dodge as an article of faith, but I'll need proof on the Ford assertion.

On a perhaps related note:
News from The Associated Press

The Catholic Church "has got an uneven and not always congenial relationship with science," said science historian John Heilbron, who wrote a biography of Galileo. But after ticking off some of the advances in science that the church sponsored, the retired University of California Berkeley professor emeritus added, "probably on balance, the Catholic Church's exchange with what we call science is pretty good."

ETA:

For Consolmagno, astronomer and cleric, that's no big deal: "If you believe in truth, you are worshipping the same God as I am."

Boom.

 

[BugI02]

I like the birthday paradox as an analogy. My question: where did the people come from? Or the room? Where did aaaaaallllll of that matter come from?

Some of it condensed out of energy as it lost intensity. The rest was made in the hearts of stars.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Some of it condensed out of energy as it lost intensity. The rest was made in the hearts of stars.

Ok where did energy come from? Where did the stars come from for there to be stuff coming out of their hearts.

 

[BugI02]

Ok where did energy come from? Where did the stars come from for there to be stuff coming out of their hearts.

1) Big Bang/Birth of this universe 2) Gravitational collapse of the condensate of (1)

To play along, where did God come from? You perhaps answer 'It doesn't matter, he just is' and I say 'Exactly'. Saved us both some time. lol

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Yeah, I wasn't refuting you, but reinforcing what you said.

I'm working on those 50 quality posts so I can buy me one of them fancy guns.

I heard they are all overpriced and you can get them cheaper new.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

1) Big Bang/Birth of this universe 2) Gravitational collapse of the condensate of (1)

To play along, where did God come from? You perhaps answer 'It doesn't matter, he just is' and I say 'Exactly'. Saved us both some time. lol

That's exactly what I'm getting at. I say God is omni in every sense: omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. God is. That's why He told Moses to tell Pharoah "I am" sent me. He doesn't have a beginning or an end. If you say all of the stuff that made up the big bang just "always was". Then scientifically, your beliefs have literally the exact same amount of validity as mine. Science doesn't prove where everything came from, it can't. Its easy to sit back and say, "if it can't be proven scientifically than its religion". But logically we are on the exact same level.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Ok where did energy come from? Where did the stars come from for there to be stuff coming out of their hearts.

1) Big Bang/Birth of this universe 2) Gravitational collapse of the condensate of (1)

To play along, where did God come from? You perhaps answer 'It doesn't matter, he just is' and I say 'Exactly'. Saved us both some time. lol

If I agree with ChristianPatriot...so what? How does this make me a better person? How does it make my community better? How does it increase social equity or improve the quality of life of anyone?

If I agree with BugI02...so what? How does this make me a better person? How does it make my community better? How does it increase social equity or improve the quality of life of anyone?

If I'm a scientist working on an issue, what I really want to know is does a theory have predictive value, yes? I want to know if body "A" gets close to body "B" of a certain mass, how will they interact? I need to know these things to launch a spacecraft safely. If I want to use electricity to do work, I need science for the predictive value of how an electron is going to behave along a copper wire. If I want to design medicines, I need to know how a chemical interacts with a certain tissue in the body. Through experimentation I can see these things and become able to predict what will occur. It's largely irrelevant if an all powerful entity, some natural and inviolate rule, or a flying mass of pasta is the "original mover". The electron still takes the same path, the acid still works the same, gravity still does what gravity does.

So, again, what changes if I agree with either of you?

 

[ChristianPatriot]

So, again, what changes if I agree with either of you?

Your need for a Savior

Edit: OUR need for a Savior

 

[jamil]

Your need for a Savior

Edit: OUR need for a Savior

But that's just a matter of faith. You have to believe it. It is functionally no different than opinion.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

But that's just a matter of faith. You have to believe it. It is functionally no different than opinion.

So is science. Science cannot prove the beginning of everything. You have to have faith to believe all that matter was just sitting there waiting to go bang.