Say Anything Blog

I personally believe that we come closer to God through science, just the same as we come closer through prayer.  We seek greater understanding in all things and as our knowledge grows, so do the challenges of our times.

I find that the Bible provides a basis for making decisions, but that most often, we are not faced with decisions like “shall I steal or not” or “shall I kill or not”.  Sure, some folks are and some even choose poorly.  I find questions like “is it ok to destroy a human embryo to perhaps save another human” to be far more challenging than the 10 Commandments prepares us for.

I also find it completely ignorant that through 2000 years of translation and the changes in the very languages that we speak, that the Bible remains as perfect today as it was 2000 years ago.  “Good” is so close to “God” in spelling and usage that one cannot state with absolute certainty that there are no typos ever to exist throughout the time that the Bible has existed.  Or that the Catholic Church did not include, change, or omit anything over the 1500 years that they had a monopoly on the Bible.

Funny that Christians love the science of archeology when used to “prove” the Bible is true, but hate it when it shows that their beliefs might be false.  They hate it when in-vitro fertilization thwarts the will of God to leave couples barren, but over time they embrace the ability for couples to see their OBGYNs to help them conceive.  Then they hate the OBGYNs again when they help others destroy embryos.

This morality is far beyond simply reading the Bible and knowing what it says.  In-vitro fertilization and the change of religious opinion on the practice over the last 30 years is clearly proof of that.  Morality exists because of eternal laws, some as indisputable as gravity.  It is simply that we do not know all of the laws.  We have so little understanding that we cannot comprehend all of the laws of nature, just as we cannot comprehend God’s true nature.  We simply place our faith in God or science.  I happen to place my faith in both.  Science that can cure and bring about greater knowledge and understanding.  God to help inspire me to know what is right and wrong.  And I recognize that neither me nor science nor religion is perfect.  And neither is the Bible.  It is a work of God, but to literally state that it is perfect and the only work of God does not strike me as particullarly enlightened.  But it is easy.  It is a simplistic way of viewing the world and it provides easy right and wrong answers.  But easy answers are not what we need in a world with ncreasingly complex questions.

Well to respond Sparkie,

1. The Bible never claims the Earth is the center of the universe. Not once. The closest it comes is mentioning the sun rising and falling (which we still do today). Your claim is bogus.

2. Science is NOT associated with Commies. The manipulation of science is associated with commies.

3. Outside of the Judeo-Christian teaching, there is no idea ANYWHERE in the history of man that all men are equal. Nowhere. From the Spartan belief that unfit babies be left on the hill to die to the Buddhist practice of wife emolation, the idea of basic human equality and decency simply doesn’t exist outside of areas touched by Judeo Christian values. (Side note: All Secular Humanist values that claim to represent human rights borrow directly from the Judeo Christian traditions.)

4. Christians do not act “simply of fear”, but out of love for their common man. The promise of immortality and the love of God far outweighs fear of the hellfire.

You have proven yourself to be completely illiterate in the beliefs of Christians, and devoid of basic reading comprehension in the Ben Stein thread. You simple (as always) have no clue what you’re talking about.

The equivalence of Che Guevara and Adolph Hitler is a valid one. And in many ways Che was a worse monster. While Hitler sat back and let underlings do his dirty work, Che did much of the killing himself and personally trained the execution squads who did the rest. He personally murdered political opponents, whereas Hitler outsourced that duty.

When we look at the “socialist paradise” that is Cuba, we must remember that a sizable share of the misery those people suffer is directly attributable to Che Guevara bringing Castro into power, and giving him many of the policies that have caused so much pain. The real symbol of Che should be the raft, to remind us of all those who have died on rafts in the ocean trying to escape the Cuban nightmare and get to freedom. And had he not been killed, begging for his life like a coward, he would’ve done the same thing again and again in countries all throughout Latin and South America. His actions have inspired terrorists across a continent and caused countless deaths.

Every leftist who celebrates Che is celebrating a murderer, a monster, and a Marxist who is directly and indirectly responsible for wide spread murder, starvation and fascist states. They may as well worship Hitler, because the two men shared not only an ideology, but results. And Che never got the trains to run on time.

the idea of basic human equality and decency simply doesn’t exist outside of areas touched by Judeo Christian values. (Side note: All Secular Humanist values that claim to represent human rights borrow directly from the Judeo Christian traditions.)

This is untrue.  Most cultures have some sort of the golden rule.  Siddhartha recognized inequality within his society and wrote the eight fold path to elightenment; all people could follow this path if they had the will to do it no matter their caste position and the Buddha lived some 600 years before Christ.

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
- John Adams

Um, Troy, wanna comment on how that Buddhist equality worked out in Tibet?  Sorry, fella, but the Buddhist “golden rule” meant that the Dalai Lama was effectively slavemaster to all Tibetans, and unauthorized visitors ot his country were liable to execution.

Sorry, but no, the Golden Rule is NOT universal.

And Sparkie, you might do well to cite chapter and verse, and explain how the genre justifies your interpretation.  Moreover, if we applied your rule that every apparent contradiction in evidence nullifies that evidence, no one could ever be convicted in court. 

In short, you’ve got a nice grade school attack on the Scriptures (just like those of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens), but call me back when you’ve learned some basic rules of evidence.

What’s wrong with being moral just for the sake of doing the right thing?

Sparkie religion is the foundation of objective morality.  That does not mean morality doesn’t exist in atheism but that the foundation is not objective but relative and therefore no foundation at all. 

What is the right thing in your opinion may not be in another’s.  No appeal to objectivity exists.  We are stuck with opinion and that of the most influential members of society.  This then becomes the hard and fast norms society must live by. This is the exact opposite of the unalienble rights endowed by our Creator that affords us our freedom from the exact kind of relative morality and subsequent supreme authority of human government.

Anyone who reads it with attention knows this.

Sparkie, how utterly arrogant of you to lecture those of us who read it with attention.  Your past attempts to demonstrate these supposed contradictions have been pathetically weak and without any support.

Justin, your rambling anti-Christian rant left me wondering just what point you were trying to make.  Like everybody else, Christians are not perfect and are subject to the worlds temptations but we do have a codified conduct given in the ten commandments which at least gives us the foundation necessary to identify good from evil. 

You wrote ‘Morality exists because of eternal laws, some as indisputable as gravity.  It is simply that we do not know all of the laws.’ Can you even identify one law that is not associated with the Christian belief system?

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

Justin, your rambling anti-Christian rant left me wondering just what point you were trying to make

Come on bro.  Not me.  Sparkie did the ranting.

I also find it completely ignorant that through 2000 years of translation and the changes in the very languages that we speak, that the Bible remains as perfect today as it was 2000 years ago.

May I suggest “English Bible Translations, What Standard?”.  Your questions are common but not without answers.

Morality exists because of eternal laws, some as indisputable as gravity.  It is simply that we do not know all of the laws

I do not find that it is anti-Christian at all to claim that God has dominion over all things, but that we lack a complete understanding of all of God’s laws.  We have only been revealed some of the eternal laws.  Just as gravity does not change, neither do God’s laws.  We label ourselves as Christians, but the reality is that if God is perfect and knows all things and has all powers (the typical definition used by the best thinkers going back as far as the 1500’s, but especially in the 1600’s and 1700’s), we can only assume that all knowledge comes from God and is revealed at his pleasure and according to his will.  Whether that is through science or through prophecy, they are really one in the same.  Any revelation of truth is a revelation by God.

I find nothing anti-Christian in saying that the Bible is not God’s only creation or his only knowledge.  While claiming that it is perfect, if it were perfect, it would contain all of God’s laws instead of just the subset that was revealed 2000+ years ago.  God is yet revealing more and more of his dominion, his powers, his creation, and his love to us.  It is only the ignorant that claim that they have all knowledge and do not strive to get more.

May I suggest “English Bible Translations, What Standard?”.  Your questions are common but not without answers.

If the Bible were perfect, why do people re-translate it into different versions of English?  A benefit of the Koran is that it is not a Koran unless it is in Arabic.  And the Arabic used is the same Arabic as spoken by Mohamed.

I consider the King James Bible the most perfect one.  What about all of the other ones that substantially change the meaning of passages by changing the terminology used to dumb the Bible down to the Laymen?  Which is the perfect version or are all versions perfect?  What about when people actively seek to distort the Bible using their own language so that it can say what they want it to say?  If this is not the case, then why are there like 500 versions of the Bible?

That is all I am saying.  If it is perfect, why are there so many English translations?  And which one is the most perfect?  Or are they all equally perfect?

http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/scriptures/kjv.htm

King James Version

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Living Bible

http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/scriptures/lb.htm

Before anything else existed, there was Christ, with God. He has always been alive and is himself God. He created everything there is—nothing exists that he didn’t make.

These are most certainly not the same.  Period.  So which one is perfect?

bike bubba, kenny, and HG
you both assume that i have not read or do not read the bible. you are both wrong. also, apparently I am more versed than a few of you, who have overlooked these passages:

“He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” (1 Chronicles 16:30)

“Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …” (Psalm 93:1)

“Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.” (Psalm 104:5)

“…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…” (Isaiah 45:1 8)

“The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.” (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

also, this

Sparkie religion is the foundation of objective morality.

is garbage. which religion? you are begging the question. if it is the foundation, offer an argument as to how or why. foundation is justification is it not? so, justifications have reasons/arguments arguments. make with it.

the Buddhist practice of wife emolation

perhaps you refer to the Hindus, please provide some support for your bogus claims. also, its ‘immolation’. not ‘emo’ dude.

none of you have arguments. faith is just piety. it is not reasonable or rational. as long as we all agree on that, i see no problems here. if you wish to maintain something stronger than that, make with an argument as reason and rationality have to do with that sort of stuff, not just bald assertions.

also, if one is not familiar with the conflicting accounts of christ’s death in the gospels, they simply have not read them attentively, as i said above.

which one, then, should we take as literal truth?

which one, then, should we take as literal truth?

Out with it Sparkie.  Make to it.  State your contradiction.

if it is the foundation, offer an argument as to how or why.

Sparkie,

Are you blind boy?  Read the second paragraph.  By objective I mean not relative but universal absolutes.

also, apparently I am more versed than a few of you, who have overlooked these passages:

Hilarious.  In selectively quoting these passages you yourself have overlooked the many others which not only give context to these but which testify to the rotation of the earth.

A quick example.  Ecclesiastes is written from a human perspective.  Hence the often repeated phrase “under the sun”.  Now if we take your literal interpretation divorced from context we would also have to assume that the earth exists directly under the sun only, how then can the sun rise and hasten to it’s place and the earth remain “under” it? 

Nice try Sparkie.

HG
do you even know what a ‘universal’ is?
if so, explain. also, you apparently have a solution to Hume’s is-ought problem. Make with it.

as to the contradictory accounts in the gospels, which you demanded I provide:

- How many generations were there between Abraham to David?  Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations.  Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.

- (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house.  (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peter’s house.

- (Matthew 8:5-7) The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant.  (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7) The Centurion did not approach Jesus.  He sent friends and elders of the Jews.

- (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead.  (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.

- (Matthew 10:10) Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals.  (Mark 6:8-9) Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.

- (Matthew 11:2-3) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the messiah.  (Luke 7:18-22) While imprisoned.  John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the Messiah. (John 1 :29-34,36) John already knew Jesus was the Messiah.

- (Matthew 20:20-21) Their mother requested that James and John, Zebedee’s children, should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom.  (Mark 10:35-37) James and John, Zebedee’s children, requested that they should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom.

- (Matthew 21:2-7) two of the disciples brought Jesus an ass and a colt from the village of Bethphage.  (Mark 11:2-7) They brought him only a colt.

- (Matthew 21:17-19) Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple. (Mark 11:14-15 & 20) He cursed it before the purging.

- (Matthew 21:9) The fig tree withered immediately.  and the disciples registered surprise then and there.  (Mark 11:12-14 & 20) The morning after Jesus cursed the fig tree, the disciples noticed it had withered and expressed astonishment.

- “This is Elias which was to come.” Matthew 11:14 “And they asked him, what then?  Art thou Elias?  And he said I am not.” John l:21

- Matthew 1:16 The father of Joseph was Jacob.  Luke 3 :23 The father of Joseph was Heli.

- How many generations were there from the Babylon captivity to Christ?  Matthew 1:17 Fourteen generations, Matthew 1:12-16 Thirteen generations.

- Matthew 2:15, 19 & 21-23 The infant Christ was taken into Egypt.  Luke 2:22 & 39 The infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt.

- Matthew 5:1-2 Christ preached his first sermon on the mount.  Luke 6:17 & 20 Christ preached his first sermon in the plain.

- John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee.  Mark 1:14 John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee.  John 1:43 & 3:22-24

- Matthew 15:22 “And behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, Have mercy on me, 0 Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.” Mark 7:26 “The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation, and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.”

- How many blind men besought Jesus?  Matthew 20:30 Two blind men.  Luke 18:35-38 Only one blind man.

- Where did the devil take Jesus first?  (Matthew 4:5-8) The Devil took Jesus first to the parapet of the temple, then to a high place to view all the Kingdoms of the world.  (Luke 4:5-9) The Devil took Jesus first to a high place to view the kingdoms, then to the parapet of the temple.

- (Matthew 6:5-6) Jesus condemned public prayer.  (1 Timothy 2:8) Paul encouraged public prayer.

- Who did Jesus tell the Lord’s Prayer to? (Matthew 5:1, 6:9-13 & 7:28) Jesus delivered the Lord’s Prayer during the Sermon on the Mount before the multitudes. (Luke 11:1-4) He delivered it before the disciples alone, and not as part of the Sermon on the Mount.

- The two thieves reviled Christ.  (Matthew 27:44 & Mark 15:32) Only one of the thieves reviled Christ. Luke 23:39-40.

- In 1 Corinthians 1:17 ("For Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to preach the gospel") Paul said Jesus was wrong when he said in Matthew 28:19 “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them…”

- Satan entered into Judas while at the supper.  John 13:27 Satan entered Judas before the supper.  Luke 23:3-4 & 7

- John 20:1 Only one woman went, Mary Magdalene.  Matthew 28:1 Mary Magdalene and the “other Mary” (Jesus’ mother) went.

- Mark 16:2 It was sunrise when the two women went to the sepulcher.  John 20:1 It was still dark (before sunrise) when Mary Magdalene went alone to the sepulcher.

- There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulcher and they were standing up.  Luke 24:4 There was only one angel seen and he was sitting down.  Mark 28:2-5

- How many angels were within the sepulcher?  John 20:11-12 two, Mark 16:5 one.

- The Holy Ghost bestowed at Pentecost. Acts 1:5-8 & 2:1-4 The holy Ghost bestowed before Pentecost. John 20:22

- Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples?  In a room in Jerusalem.  Luke 24:32-37 On a mountain in Galilee.  Matthew 28:15-17

- Where did Christ ascend from?  From Mount Olivet.  Acts 1:9-12 From Bethany. Luke 24:50-51

- (Acts 13:39) All sins can be forgiven.  Great, I’m happy to know God is so merciful, but wait (Mark 3:29) Cursing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.

- (Malachi 4:5) Elijah must return before the final days of the world.  (Matthew 11:12-14) Jesus said that John the Baptist was Elijah.  (Matthew 17:12- 13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come, and everyone understood him to mean John the Baptist.  (Mark 9:13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come.  (John 1:21) John the Baptist maintained that he was not Elijah.

- Acts 1:18 The field was purchased by Judas.  John 20:1 The potter’s field was purchased by the chief priests.

- Paul’s attendants heard the miraculous voice and stood speechless.  Acts 9:7 Paul’s attendants did not hear the voice and were prostrate. Acts 22:9 & 26:14

- Who bought the Sepulcher?  Jacob, Josh 24:32 Abraham, Acts 7:16

- Was it lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death?  “The Jews answered him, we have a law, and by our law he ought to die.” John 19:7 “The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.” John 18:31

- Has anyone ascended up to heaven?  Elijah went up to heaven: “And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.” 2 Kings 2:11 “No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man.” John 3:13

- Is scripture inspired by God?  “all scripture is given by inspiration of God.” 2 Timothy 3:16 compared to: “But I speak this by permission and not by commandment.” 1 Corinthians 7:6 “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 7:12 “That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord” 2 Corinthians.

These are most certainly not the same.  Period.  So which one is perfect?

Each are taken from different greek manuscripts.  There are two distinct bodies of manuscripts referred to as the “textus receptus” from which only the KJV is exclusively translated, and the “Alexandrian” which gave us the “Wescot/Hort” from which all the other english translations draw.

Each are taken from different greek manuscripts.

Actually, I believe that only one (John) or a few of the gospels were originally in Greek. Most were in Aramaic or Hebrew.

Wrong again, Sparkie.  The oldest manuscripts we have are all in koine (related to classical) Greek.  Now some of the N.T. books do have Greek language with a hint of Hebrew/Aramaic syntax, as would be expected if your apostles (who grew up speaking Aramaic most likely) were telling the story to someone or writing it down in Greek.  That said, the best guess is that the autographs were all in Greek, else someone would have preserved the textual evidence.  Jews (like the Apostles) were very careful to preserve every “yodh and tittle” of their texts.

And nice try on the quotes, but no dice.  Look at context.

Each are taken from different greek manuscripts.  There are two distinct bodies of manuscripts referred to as the “textus receptus” from which only the KJV is exclusively translated, and the “Alexandrian” which gave us the “Wescot/Hort” from which all the other english translations draw.

So which of the manuscripts is correct?

Again, why do the versions differ?  Which is more perfect because clearly they cannot be different and yet both be perfect, especially when passages have such a radically different meaning as those that I posted.

Sparkie, to answer your first in a long list of misunderstandings, there are fourteen names hence fourteen generations.  It appears the genarations are listed as Abraham’s, Isaac’s, Jacob’s, etc,.  Not Abraham to Isaac, Isaac to Jacob, etc.  The other “fourteens” listed are counted similarly.

- (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house.  (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peter’s house.

Sparkie, the centurions servant was not Simon’s mother.

Again, why do the versions differ?

Your question requires a lengthy review of history and the use and abuse of early manuscripts.  The book I mentioned earlier will address it to some degree.

Justin, the long and short answer to why manuscripts differ is that Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press in the 1400s, not before Christ came.  Copy errors have been made, but they do not differ on any real doctrine; any doctrine of orthodox Christianity can be understood from any text family. 

Interestingly, the Textus Receptus is NOT an ancient text; it is a compilation of European texts done by Erasmus of Rotterdam, in the same way that Westcott & Hort compiled their text from a collection of ancient manuscripts.

Also, the differences between modern translations do NOT necessarily reflect the ancient texts at all; the picture to keep in mind is that you, Rob, 2H9, and I might all produce slightly different translations of, say, my comment here if we were called upon to translate it into, say, koine Greek or German.  That’s why most pastors learn enough Hebrew and Greek to avoid building a sermon around a play on words that works in English, but not the original.

Your third example is interesting.  Taking the two accounts together would give you the impression that Jesus was communicating through the centurion servants.  The fact that the servants are not mentioned in Matthew does not mean they weren’t there, rather that the emphasis is placed on the conversation between the centurion and Jesus.  Which conversation took place in both Matthew and Luke.

Bike,

Your take is common, but there is another perspective which not only agrees with the historical record, but agrees with the bible’s testimony of itself.  Again, the book I mentioned above explains it well.

- (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead.  (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.

So Jairus thought she was dead but Jesus knew she was not yet?  That’s it? v.49 says that a servant came and told Jarius his daughter died. 

Sparkie this is weak.

bike bubba

The oldest manuscripts we have are all in koine (related to classical) Greek.

The gospels were written separately, by different people, in different areas. TO my knowledge, the only one written in the language you refer to is the book of John which was written later and reflects a heavy influence of Plato and Hermes Tresmigidus. The gospels were added to the cannon, so to speak, around 150AD. what about the gospel of Q? Its in egyptian or something like that. Those are direct quotes from Jesus. Why didn’t that make it into the group of ‘literal truth’ penned by ‘God’?
hg

Sparkie, the centurions servant was not Simon’s mother.

that’s one or two of what, thirty or forty? and why 14? why not 13?

i’m done though. i do not wish to debate these issues. if you think that the bible is the literal word of God, then you are a very confused, and impious, Christian. Know him yourself, not through others, words, fancy buildings on sunday, or whathaveyou. There is no ‘authenticity’ in taking others words as bond. Its one thing to believe something out of fear or because you wish to spend eternity in heaven, but yet another to believe for ‘authentic’ reasons. Perhaps absolute morality, whatever that is, is consistent with belief in God, but that has nothing to do with the gross error of taking words penned a long time ago as a means to inspire piety among the uneducated… as being eternal truths… or anything more than mere metaphor. There is morality in there, but no one prescribes to it anymore out of selfishness, and its not included in a ‘literal’ manner. Jesus displays it with his actions, no? Not the rantings of those who may or may not have spoken on authority of God. Jesus doesn’t even need to ascend. His example is clear. If anyone followed it, I would have less problems. But, Christians are among the most intolerant, hateful people i know.

I also find it completely ignorant that through 2000 years of translation and the changes in the very languages that we speak, that the Bible remains as perfect today as it was 2000 years ago.  “Good” is so close to “God” in spelling and usage that one cannot state with absolute certainty that there are no typos ever to exist throughout the time that the Bible has existed.  Or that the Catholic Church did not include, change, or omit anything over the 1500 years that they had a monopoly on the Bible…

And I recognize that neither me nor science nor religion is perfect.  And neither is the Bible.  It is a work of God, but to literally state that it is perfect and the only work of God does not strike me as particullarly enlightened.

Docdave considers that an anti-Christian Rant.

I only hold out the belief that when one stops believing that God has more to reveal to us, one stops listening to God.  Science concepts are a revelation. 

The Bible is clearly not without mistake or error.  Now some folks say that is blasphemy, but I am not stating that it is fundamentally flawed enough to call into question whether it is the work of God, but rather that minor changes over time when compounded and multiplied over thousands of years of hand copying makes it subject to error.  I firmly believe that there are or at very least may be other works out there that have been removed from the Bible that are just as much the word of God.  I believe the Vatican was behind a lot of it as was the Roman Empire.  We accept the works as being the most perfect that they can be and as being sufficient to provide the understanding that we need to return to God. 

That is just my belief.  Others may disagree with that.

Sparkie,

Your alleged contradictions are weak and without merit.  You are more than welcome to find relative truth in any way you see fit.  Christianity affords you that option—“whosoever will”—and so do I.  That means this Christian is tolerant of your relative truth even though I accept eternal, absolute truth.  You are the one attacking the latter.

Sparkie, there is no evidence of any language for the Gospels outside of koine Greek.  Sorry.  You may use ephemeral evidence if you so desire, and I will take that into account when I read anything with your name attached to it.

HG, I’m assuming you’re referring to a work by William Einwechter, KJV only theonomist/Reform Baptist?  I’m afraid that I’m more convinced by the position advanced by Beacham and Bauder in “One Bible Only?”; that the TR actually derives from a combination of extant manuscripts in Greek in combination with the Vulgate.

Now the Vulgate would suggest that Jerome DID in fact have a text before him that had contested passages; we simply don’t have that today.  Either way, apart from KJV only advocates’ arguments, it doesn’t make a serious difference in theology.

Docdave considers that an anti-Christian Rant.

Okay, Justin, I was wrong.  Can we drop it now.  What confused me was your statement ‘Morality exists because of eternal laws, some as indisputable as gravity.  It is simply that we do not know all of the laws’ which I thought was an appeal to natural law (whatever that is) versus Judeo-Christian law set by God.  Perhaps you have already elaborated on that.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

Troy,

The idea of human equality is unknown outside Judeo-Christian teaching. While some societies had things similar to the golden rule...they simply didn’t apply to outsiders.

Sparkie,

Pointing out typos (I was buzzing btw), is no refute to an argument. Furthermore, none of the quotes you mentioned talk about the Earth being in the center of the universe. They only speak of it’s foundation being fixed, which is simply whimsical language.

And rhetorical questions may make you feel smart, but they don’t make you sound smart.

The equivalence of Che Guevara and Adolph Hitler is a valid one. And in many ways Che was a worse monster. While Hitler sat back and let underlings do his dirty work, Che did much of the killing himself and personally trained the execution squads who did the rest. He personally murdered political opponents, whereas Hitler outsourced that duty.

When we look at the “socialist paradise” that is Cuba, we must remember that a sizable share of the misery those people suffer is directly attributable to Che Guevara bringing Castro into power, and giving him many of the policies that have caused so much pain. The real symbol of Che should be the raft, to remind us of all those who have died on rafts in the ocean trying to escape the Cuban nightmare and get to freedom. And had he not been killed, begging for his life like a coward, he would’ve done the same thing again and again in countries all throughout Latin and South America. His actions have inspired terrorists across a continent and caused countless deaths.

Every leftist who celebrates Che is celebrating a murderer, a monster, and a Marxist who is directly and indirectly responsible for wide spread murder, starvation and fascist states. They may as well worship Hitler, because the two men shared not only an ideology, but results. And Che never got the trains to run on time.

bike bubba:
They were written in Koine eventually, but not spoken in it. As far as dates and times....

Mark displays a pervasiveness of latin customs and vocab, indicating authorship in Syria, Italy, or elsewhere in the roman empire. Many believe this gospel emerged in the wake of Nero’s oppression of the Christians in 64A.d. This is supported by the convention and vocab as well as the emphasis on J’s suffering and death, not his exalted identity and power. Mark is believed to be the earliest of the new testament gospels, from which matthew and luke are derived (both of which were written closer to 100a.d.).

While Matthew was written in Greek, it betrays hebrew or aramaic linguistic influence. The content in Matthew derives from the Gospel of Mark and the ‘Q’ (or, to some ‘M’ gospel of jesus’s sayings, later found in egypt. It is believed to have been written in Antioch, Syria around 100Ad as local scholars began citing it as early as 10 years after that date. Also, notably, its five part structure mirrors the Torah and the author is thought to have looked at J as the new Moses.

Luke, less known about it, believed to have been derived from Mark, it apparently makes allusions to the destruction of jerusalem in 70AD.

John, the latest, most ‘spiritual’, and most Platonic of the gospels, depicts much more tension between the Jews and the Christians. In John, the focus is on Jesus being divine and alien to this world. References to Christians being expelled from synagogues and the development of the ‘spiritual’ side betray a date sometime around 80 or 90 AD. It shows influences older (before Jesus) greek and syrian philosophy.

Okay, Justin, I was wrong.  Can we drop it now.  What confused me was your statement ‘Morality exists because of eternal laws, some as indisputable as gravity.  It is simply that we do not know all of the laws’ which I thought was an appeal to natural law (whatever that is) versus Judeo-Christian law set by God.  Perhaps you have already elaborated on that.

Every time I open my mouth about religion, I get myself into trouble.  =) Neiman calls me an anti-Christian all the time. 

No worries docdave.  I still love you. =*

it doesn’t make a serious difference in theology.

I don’t subscibe to the KJV only as I understand the term.  I do however question the statement you made above.  I would argue the doctrines of inspiration, preservation, and sufficiency are seriously affected without a translation with integrity equal to that of the original manuscripts.

That’s a bunch of interesting claims, but first, what’s your source?  Second, how exactly does one demonstrate what language the Gospels were originally spoken in?  (never mind that the very introduction to Luke makes very clear that it was written as a letter to one “Theophilus"--see Luke 1)

Sorry, Sparkie, but you’re showing your traditional erudition by your use of ephemeral vapor sources, and that’s NOT a compliment.

quotes from Plato’s ‘Philebus’ (15d - D.Frede trans.):

it is through ‘logos’ (the same term translated as ‘word’ in the opening of the gospel of John) that the same thing flits around, becoming one and many in all sort of ways, in whatever it may be that is said at any time, both long ago and now. And this will never come to an end, nor has it just begun, but it seems to me that this is an ‘immortal and ageless’ (perhaps HG’s “universal absolute") condition that comes to us with discourse.

all the wise are agreed, in true self-exaltation, that ‘nous’ (’logos’ is out connection to ‘nous’ is our king, both over heaven and earth.

HG, take a look at Beacham and Bauder’s book for a full length answer to that.  Too involved for this forum!

A short answer; most of the discrepancies that you’ll find between the TR and WH, for example, involve questions over whether formulations of the Trinity in the TR that do not appear in WH (or the NIV). 

Now take a look at the first chapter of the Gospel of John, and follow the antecedents of the pronouns, and tell me if you can demonstrate the deity of Christ there.  Then take a look at Acts 5 for the H.S.

(among a lot of other passages)

You see, doctrines like the Trinity are easily available for those who are willing to look.  The short answer to your objection is that BOTH texts have the authority of which you speak.

btw
plato lived from about 430 BCE to 350 BCE.

So....you’re quoting someone who lived 400 years before the Savior as something of an authority on the Gospel of John?  Say what?

Get some of that stuff to Pilgrim in a year (j/k Pil) when he retires, ‘cause what you’re smoking is really good, and Pilgrim deserves the very best.

I am referring to source texts for John. The ‘light’ is derived from older Egyptian texts as well, but the Platonic undertones in the begining of John are undeniable. Its talking about Zeus!

which is pretty funny b/c in fiesole italy there was a christian church that they leveled to unearth a roman temple. then they xrayed the ground and found a pagan temple below that. literally one atop the next. a nice material analogue.

which is pretty funny b/c in fiesole italy there was a christian church that they leveled to unearth a roman temple. then they xrayed the ground and found a pagan temple below that. literally one atop the next. a nice material analogue.

BFD!!  The layering of civilizations occurs everywhere.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

Give up DD and BB.

The troll doesn’t actually adress points. He just reiterates how smart he is and how stupid you are and ignores your facts.

The equivalence of Che Guevara and Adolph Hitler is a valid one. And in many ways Che was a worse monster. While Hitler sat back and let underlings do his dirty work, Che did much of the killing himself and personally trained the execution squads who did the rest. He personally murdered political opponents, whereas Hitler outsourced that duty.

When we look at the “socialist paradise” that is Cuba, we must remember that a sizable share of the misery those people suffer is directly attributable to Che Guevara bringing Castro into power, and giving him many of the policies that have caused so much pain. The real symbol of Che should be the raft, to remind us of all those who have died on rafts in the ocean trying to escape the Cuban nightmare and get to freedom. And had he not been killed, begging for his life like a coward, he would’ve done the same thing again and again in countries all throughout Latin and South America. His actions have inspired terrorists across a continent and caused countless deaths.

Every leftist who celebrates Che is celebrating a murderer, a monster, and a Marxist who is directly and indirectly responsible for wide spread murder, starvation and fascist states. They may as well worship Hitler, because the two men shared not only an ideology, but results. And Che never got the trains to run on time.

no kenny, i just brought a blatantly clear source text that influenced the gospel of John and now it might not have been the WORK of GOD!

that’s what going on here. sure, run away with your fingers in your ears.

also, if you dont understand the redaction and transmission and whatnot, the gospels must seem very odd.

Sparkie, I have refuted all your other crap points here, and both DocDave and Bike Bubba have seriously injured your arguments too.

Regardless, let us look at this pathetic attempt at a coherent thought.

First, to take your account as valid, that “he who always was is and will be” is Zeus...one has to ignore the Greek mythology. Zeus neither was the creator of the world, nor was he “always”. He was born from greater beings than himself, who were also born. The greeks believed that even their Gods had a beginning, and, since many died, an end as well. So the creator that Plato often talked about couldn’t have been Zeus. Strike One.

Next, Logos in Greek has a wider implication than you are pretending:

Logos (Greek λόγος) is an important term in philosophy, analytical psychology, rhetoric and religion. It derives from the verb λέγω legō: to count, tell, say, or speak.[1] The primary meaning of logos is: something said; by implication a subject, topic of discourse, or reasoning. Secondary meanings such as logic, reasoning, etc. derive from the fact that if one is capable of λέγειν (infinitive) i.e. speech, then intelligence and reason are assumed.

Its semantic field extends beyond “word” to notions such as “thought, speech, account, meaning, reason, proportion, principle, standard”, or “logic”. In English, the word is the root of “logic,” and of the “-ology” suffix (e.g., geology).[2]

Plato was talking about knowledge, and how gaining wisdom transcended pleasure as the greatest pursuit a man could have. The word logos is about truth in his fashion.

John, who would have been familiar with Plato, is undeniably using Plato here. He is claiming nothing less than that YHWH is truth. The logos of which Plato spoke.
To claim God was truth is a completely foreign idea to Greek mythos, in which the Gods were petty, spiteful and deceptive.

Nor does it remotely mean that a thought is uninspired because it borrows from Plato. That’s nonsense.

So, hmm. You don’t know much about Greek mythos, issue a nonsequitar as proof, and deliberately distort the text of Plato.

Yea, you’re wrong here too.

The equivalence of Che Guevara and Adolph Hitler is a valid one. And in many ways Che was a worse monster. While Hitler sat back and let underlings do his dirty work, Che did much of the killing himself and personally trained the execution squads who did the rest. He personally murdered political opponents, whereas Hitler outsourced that duty.

When we look at the “socialist paradise” that is Cuba, we must remember that a sizable share of the misery those people suffer is directly attributable to Che Guevara bringing Castro into power, and giving him many of the policies that have caused so much pain. The real symbol of Che should be the raft, to remind us of all those who have died on rafts in the ocean trying to escape the Cuban nightmare and get to freedom. And had he not been killed, begging for his life like a coward, he would’ve done the same thing again and again in countries all throughout Latin and South America. His actions have inspired terrorists across a continent and caused countless deaths.

Every leftist who celebrates Che is celebrating a murderer, a monster, and a Marxist who is directly and indirectly responsible for wide spread murder, starvation and fascist states. They may as well worship Hitler, because the two men shared not only an ideology, but results. And Che never got the trains to run on time.

Sparkie, the passage you quoted bears little resemblance if any to John 1--it mostly keys off the use of a single word and a hedged reference to eternity.  Sorry, but you’re stretching like Plastic-Man to arrive at that one.

For reference; (NKJV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was in the beginning with God.  All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.  And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Please, Sparkie; just because somebody published such an idea (again, where is your real source) and perhaps got an Ivy League College of Arts Ph.D. with such a hypothesis doesn’t mean it holds water.  It means that somebody published it.

Kenny

I have refuted all your other crap points here, and both DocDave and Bike Bubba have seriously injured your arguments too.

whAT? BWA HA HA HA. docdave? he never even gives an argument. he just insults people.

So the creator that Plato often talked about couldn’t have been Zeus.

Zues=Nous. Logos=ontological discursion, getting the categories right. the genus and species and so forth. the connection to Zues. Just because your info is gleaned from a 3 year olds primer book doesn’t mean shit. sure, Zues cam from Chronos’ brain or whatever. THat doesn’t mean he wasn’t the king of the gods. also, if you read plato’s metaphysical writing you will see that for everything predicated it must be predicated of some thing. “X is X” this goes all the way up the line to the one thing that is essence that can have things predicated of it, but can be predicated of nothing. that is zues - the essence, the logos. just because you have a pathetic grasp of mythology is besides the point.

just because somebody published such an idea (again, where is your real source) and perhaps got an Ivy League College of Arts Ph.D. with such a hypothesis doesn’t mean it holds water.  It means that somebody published it.

nobody has published this as far as i know. the connection is one that i have made. the content and the word usages are almost identical. also, you left out a lot of the beginning of ‘John’ that has more resemblance to these quotes. if you’ve gone to read it, i know that you know its there. nice try fucknut. it is my thesis, my connection, and what’s more, it blatant. you can squirm all you want, jesus boy.

you guys are both full of shit. you bring insults, insinuations, wishful thinking. the point is that the gospels were redacted from older texts with a few new themes, they were based off each other in detectable ways, and their dates and manners of transmission can be deduced from the information. they were not formally assembled until around 150AD. just because you lack knowledge of the history of the texts you read doesn’t make them THIS or THAT. it just makes you think THIS or THAT.

Sparkie, if the apostles had just compiled the Gospels from earlier sources, why on earth would they have died claiming that they were true?  11 of 12 disciples did, and the other one was literally boiled in oil but somehow miraculously survived.

I’m sorry, but you need to actually get a basic handle on the rules of evidence, and that starts with the actual lives of those whose stories are told in the Gospels.  They were descended from the Maccabees, and thus probably HATED Greek culture.  To argue that they boiled it down and then died for the story just contradicts everything we know about these people.

the other one was literally boiled in oil but somehow miraculously survived.

sources? thats what you want from me and there you go making bald assertions about miracles. ass.

the closest connection that may be established betw the gospels and the disciples is that, MAYBE, John was written by the son of a disciple. even that is a extenuated claim.

To argue that they boiled it down and then died for the story just contradicts everything we know about these people.

No it doesn’t. Go learn about the historical function of ‘gospels’. They are ‘good news’ - literally translated. Stories redacted and told to audiences who were in oppressive or shitty situations in order to help them persevere, hold on, know that their suffering is not meaningless. notice that the jesus narrative arose among oppressed slaves. it gave them power in a position of oppression, ‘good news’. as far as your claim that the contents of the gospels were not adapted from earlier texts, well… not entirely. nonetheless, the platonic ontology is present in John, the ‘spiritual’ text. In my mind, it adds a dimension of high falutin’ intellectualism that would inspire faith and reverence. given the target population was holding previous beliefs and needed to be convinced of this stuff, one can see that appeals to pre-existent mythos provide continuity and authority that was already present in the oral traditions. if you don’t understand oral tradition, redaction, and the employment of leitmotifs in this sort of textual transmission, you are underinformed about the situation on the ground. ever notice how all the people in the bible who meet girls do so at the well? b.c that is a leitmotif. it can be reused, with the exact details varied for different accounts, and it provides a core theme that one can remember and apply to different tales. the differences in the tales arise in the details, but the leitmotifs reflect the oral tradition and the fact that, if all the accounts varied in all the details, it would be nearly impossible for the oral transmission to occur. these leitmotifs, far from being truth, are something that the orators use for economy of memory and the listeners use for familiarity and aid in comprehension. i look at them as artistic norms. kinda like the various editing techniques employed in movies. if we cut from one scene to an entirely different one, we expect the next scene to be taking place in a separate place. likewise with the leitmotifs. they are conventions. when someone hears a story begin with an account of a meeting at a well, they know the meeting will result in love or offspring. these sorts of leitmotifs are employed throughout the bible. without understanding of the oral transmissions, what a gospel actually is, and how the leitmotifs function, you are bound to come up with bullshit. fact is, this is the work of people, not God, whether ‘Him’ or Zues.

Now reply with a bald assertion about miracles and tell me I’m wrong. Tarts.

bike bubba.
Honestly, I am really confused by your invoking a miracle this far down in the thread. Was that just a slip? C’mon. And you gripe a/o evidence and sources! What a hypocrite, no?

I believe that a triangle, if it could speak, would say that God is eminently triangular, and a circle that the divine nature is eminently circular; and thus would every one ascribe his own attributes to God.

The source on the deaths of the apostles is the chronicles of the church fathers, readily available in translation.  Moreover, the imprisonment of many of the apostles, and the death of James and others, is reported in the Scripture itself.

If you are not familiar with this, I would dare suggest that you are eminently unqualified to render an opinion in this.  What you’re doing is to shoehorn your ideas into a very limited scope of evidence--and insisting that others avoid the sin of introducing evidence that flatly contradicts your assertions.

And yes, the church fathers DID report John’s survival as a miracle, and a BUNCH of people went to their deaths because they held to the resurrected Christ.  Whatever we’re talking about, we are NOT talking about a group of people that overcame their natural abhorrence of Greek culture (again, read about the Maccabees) to write a story derived from Plato.

bike bubba
so do you deny the employment of leitmotifs in the bible? do you deny that the gospels are based of each other, mark being the earliest, in a detectable manner? do you deny that the Q or M gospel was not quotes from Jesus, since it was found in a cave in egypt, a thousand something years after the fact?
the idea that all and only truth is literal in the bible is silly. the church fathers you refer to also said, if you want to know God, read Hermes Tresmigidus. He was a Gnostic Christian philosopher/poet/king who lived in Alexandria. Read that. Clear Platonic influences there as well. And that text is where all the ‘light’ talk is connected to the older Egyptian metaphysics. See for yourself.

Or ignore it all and put your fingers back in your ears.

Sparkie, who cares?  Your rantings have again and again been shown to be without merit, and you’re trying to cover yourself by changing the subject.  Would it be too much to ask you to concede the obvious point that Plato’s dialogue bears no resemblance to John 1, whether in genre, subject, or anything else?

Yeesh.

Sparkie:  Richard Wagner used leitmotifs to bind together colossal works like Das Ring Der Neibelungen. 

The gospels are the reports of various witnesses at different times, each seeing the same event in different ways. Not unlike the varying and even contradictory reports given by eyewitnesses to the same car accident.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The stakes are high. Whether the issue is the economy, or energy, or the federal courts or national security, the right answers are coming not from the Democrats, but from the Republicans. The surge of operations that began a year ago is succeeding. The only way to lose this fight is to quit. Richard M. Cheney, Vice President, 30 May, 2008

bike bubba and pparets.
You are both patently wrong. Its okay though, all I can do is repeat that since neither of you offer anything new to undermine my claims.
Bike
the platonic influence in John is BLATANT. Anyone who had read both of them with attention knows this. Whether this is a function of the pre-existent uses of the words in Greek that the work was written in, or a direct effort to incorporate Platonic metaphysics into the bible; it don’t matter. The influence is there.
Pparets
You can choose to endorse fallacious ideas about how the gospels came about, but the simple fact is that they are at odds with the oral transmission that occurred then and the very meaning and use of ‘gospels’ back then. it is not a direct account, or perhaps the earliest one is, having been transmitted orally for at least 50+ years before being penned. different witnesses? hardly. they reflect the different cultural and vocab artifacts of the various localities where they emerged between 60AD and 110AD. they were not added to the canon, so to speak, until 150AD.
i think the employment of leitmotifs and oral transmission back then are quite interesting in terms of the anthropological and social development of cognitive skills. it is something i have researched in the past.
you can go on believing what ever you want, but without placing these things into the whole picture, you will remain deluded about not only what the bible is, but what you are. i encourage you to entertain texts other to and in addition to the bible. there are many moral texts that preceded it, for example, that ALL its moral strictures are derived from. you can deny it, but that does nothing. you merely become dogmatic propagandists. you guys offer no counterexamples, just sneers and reiterations without support or even plausibility....

its been fun absolutely stomping on your pathetic ancient metaphysics though. really, it has.

Christians are cold in public, withdrawn, only comfortable in dialog with themselves, welcoming of no others ‘to their table’, intolerant, chauvinist, taught to think of natural urges as manifestations of eternal evil. morality my ass. Christians look upon themselves and the world with such distortion that they are incapable of morality. period. Jesus set a fine example. Instead of his example being followed, it is looked at as an unattainable ideal. he was like you and me. i am capable of that sort of morality and so are you. christians need to be evil, so they will feel the guilt, the imperfection, the evilness. its part of the setup. there is no such thing as miracles. its just a word.