|
Post by blondie on Feb 27, 2007 12:54:13 GMT -5
With this new documentary about Jesus' tomb it's always good to be reminded that things like facts and evidence have no effect on religion. A fragment from the oldest copy of the New Testament reveals the number of the beast to be 616 not 666. Both can be applied to the Roman Emperor Nero. But despite this people still like to pretend it's a reference to some microchip that the Director of the UN is going to make us all put in our foreheads. www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/05-10-05.asp
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 27, 2007 14:18:58 GMT -5
The assumption is that the "counting" of the number is done via Gematria.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 27, 2007 14:37:23 GMT -5
Phinhas,
Just curious, how do you understand the book of Revelation?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 27, 2007 14:59:32 GMT -5
Your question is rather broad.
I will attempt to answer your question this way.
I read it literal were it is literal and figurative where it is figurative. Most of the figurative illustrations are explained as to what it means within the book.
Example: Rev 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches. KJV
Most of the events John is shown have not happened yet in my determination...some events he saw were current and some events he saw were in the distant past.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 27, 2007 16:35:57 GMT -5
Its always stricken me to be pretty egocentric to believe one is living in the "end times'.
I wonder if the people of Europe thought they were living in the end times during the plague? the Holocaust???
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 27, 2007 17:41:06 GMT -5
Why is it egocentric? Is there some sort of special prize to be the generation of people on the earth when these events occur? Actually, I would say yes. The people that don't believe by faith will be the people to have a chance to enter heaven by their works. So in a sense, by implication, they are blessed over the people that died in their unbelief. When we personally die, the debate and questioning is over...when Jesus returns, the debate and questioning of the world will be over.
|
|
|
Post by rugermk1 on Feb 27, 2007 18:03:28 GMT -5
If there was ever a time when it felt like the end; then surely it was during the Holocaust/WW2.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 27, 2007 19:24:12 GMT -5
Its egocentric to presume that it is going to take place during your lifetime, when there have been 2007 years and it has not happened. It could be 10 million more years.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 27, 2007 19:55:07 GMT -5
2Peter2:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 27, 2007 21:01:36 GMT -5
Your question is rather broad. I will attempt to answer your question this way. I read it literal were it is literal and figurative where it is figurative. Most of the figurative illustrations are explained as to what it means within the book. Example: Rev 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches. KJV Most of the events John is shown have not happened yet in my determination...some events he saw were current and some events he saw were in the distant past. Do you believe the 7 churches mentioned in this verse are the 7 churches that were around when John wrote Revelation?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 27, 2007 21:09:17 GMT -5
There are plenty of examples that God describes in the Bible which are used as "types", in that they are current examples of a future paradigm, event or person. They occur then for the teaching of later. God provided a "sacrifice" for Abraham on the mountain....it's a "type" to also represent something in the future, in the case, Jesus being the sacrifice that God provided. These Churches being representitive of churches that were current or in past at the time of the vision and will be a "type" for the future. Generally speaking, these churches are representative of all the different types of Christian churches...the importance being what they represent, not that they are specific churches located at specific locations.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 27, 2007 22:20:17 GMT -5
There are plenty of examples that God describes in the Bible which are used as "types", in that they are current examples of a future paradigm, event or person. They occur then for the teaching of later. God provided a "sacrifice" for Abraham on the mountain....it's a "type" to also represent something in the future, in the case, Jesus being the sacrifice that God provided. These Churches being representitive of churches that were current or in past at the time of the vision and will be a "type" for the future. Generally speaking, these churches are representative of all the different types of Christian churches...the importance being what they represent, not that they are specific churches located at specific locations. Interesting. What do you think about other non-canonical apocalyptic writings like the Apocalypse of Paul? I understand some Christians believe Paul went to heaven and returned. www.gnosis.org/naghamm/ascp.html
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 28, 2007 23:14:10 GMT -5
blondie,
Why do I have a feeling that you are preparing me for some gotcha? LOL. I am not used to you commenting on Biblical matters in this manner. I haven't read all the non-canonical books. What I have read doesn't give me the "feeling" that it is from the same author, ie. God. I can read the canonical books and they sound right...they fit together, it's obvious when you read the non-canonicals, that they don't fit. This is based on my spiritual and intellectual opinion, which may not be sufficient to you. I view some non-canonical as being of value due to their historical scope only...in that there was a view at that time period of XYZ, not that it is necessarily correct. I don't have any knowledge of this Apoc of Paul, so I don't have an opinion yet.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 1, 2007 9:20:49 GMT -5
blondie, Why do I have a feeling that you are preparing me for some gotcha? LOL. I am not used to you commenting on Biblical matters in this manner. I haven't read all the non-canonical books. What I have read doesn't give me the "feeling" that it is from the same author, ie. God. I can read the canonical books and they sound right...they fit together, it's obvious when you read the non-canonicals, that they don't fit. This is based on my spiritual and intellectual opinion, which may not be sufficient to you. I view some non-canonical as being of value due to their historical scope only...in that there was a view at that time period of XYZ, not that it is necessarily correct. I don't have any knowledge of this Apoc of Paul, so I don't have an opinion yet. This isn't a "gotcha." I'm genuinely curious. What I understand of the Book of Revelation is that nobody really knows what it's about. Only that is is a typical example of something called Apocalyptic Literature. Most scholarly works I've read about it just sum up what people have understood it to mean over the centuries. I'm also amazed as to how Christians are so la-dee-da about the Nag Hammadi texts. They've had a tremendous effect on secular understanding of early Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by solinvictus on Mar 1, 2007 18:09:20 GMT -5
blondie, Why do I have a feeling that you are preparing me for some gotcha? LOL. I am not used to you commenting on Biblical matters in this manner. I haven't read all the non-canonical books. What I have read doesn't give me the "feeling" that it is from the same author, ie. God. I can read the canonical books and they sound right...they fit together, it's obvious when you read the non-canonicals, that they don't fit. This is based on my spiritual and intellectual opinion, which may not be sufficient to you. I view some non-canonical as being of value due to their historical scope only...in that there was a view at that time period of XYZ, not that it is necessarily correct. I don't have any knowledge of this Apoc of Paul, so I don't have an opinion yet. I'm also amazed as to how Christians are so la-dee-da about the Nag Hammadi texts. They've had a tremendous effect on secular understanding of early Christianity. Well, it's because most Christians don't bother to evaluate their beliefs. If you ask an average Baptist, for instance, why they follow the Baptist interpretation of their religion, they're at a loss to offer a cogent answer. Why? Well, because most people stick with the religion of their upbringing. I know this is a generalization, but I've found it to be generally true. That's something I admire about the Orthodox and Roman churches; you have to learn to join; membership's not contingent upon a public display of emotion and being dunked in water.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 1, 2007 18:47:40 GMT -5
solinvictus,
I agree. If you are going to be religious you might as well be orthodox.
At least they have all their "i"s dotted and "t"s crossed.
|
|
|
Post by solinvictus on Mar 1, 2007 19:26:44 GMT -5
When the Romans persecuted the Christians for atheism, it became something of an underground fashion for them to consciously choose martyrdom. A contemporary Roman historian asked why they didn't just jump from a cliff if they wanted death so badly.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 1, 2007 20:39:14 GMT -5
This from wikipedia:
"[Martin Luther] also had harsh words for the book of Revelation, saying that he could "in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it." He had reason to question the apostolicity of these books since the early church categorized these books as antilegomena, meaning that they weren't accepted without reservation as canonical. Luther did not, however, remove them from his edition of the scriptures."
What is the canon? Books have come in and out of it. Different churches have different canons, The Ethiopian Orthodox's Bible has 81 books.
Many Christians I talk to start their theology with the unquestioning acceptance the Bible on their bookshelves. Why, oh why, don't they ask "where did this book come from"?
|
|
|
Post by solinvictus on Mar 2, 2007 8:09:57 GMT -5
...the only version of the Bible that's considered authentic is the King James version. Of course, when you present these same people with the highly probable fact that King James was gay, they start to have a fit.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 3, 2007 11:53:33 GMT -5
This is a very good book about the King James Bible: www.amazon.com/Beginning-Changed-Nation-Language-Culture/dp/0385722168The King James Bible is basically the Geneva Bible with the footnotes removed. Also It's one of the masterpieces of the English language. Its a great example, like Shakespeare, of Elizabethan culture coming to its own. The KJB's biggest influence has been on America and the development of Christian fundamentalism..
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Mar 3, 2007 13:20:57 GMT -5
Even if King James was gay and I don't think he was..he only commisioned the translation, he didn't write it or have any input in what was written. Him being gay makes no difference. Besides, God used sinful men to write down what he wanted to reveal to humankind. Using this sort of argument you're presenting would invalidate everything ever written down by men. You don't want to hold to that viewpoint do you?
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Mar 3, 2007 15:39:16 GMT -5
REMEMBER BACKWARD MASKING?
I remember one from ELO's El Derado album that backwards in a very etheral voice sadi, "THE MUSIC IS REVERSIBLE, BUT TIME IS NOT,GO BACK GO BACK" Some pastor up in North Carolina-Albert Long had a tape that was working its way through the high schools in the 80's.
|
|
|
Post by family1st on Mar 4, 2007 0:03:22 GMT -5
...the only version of the Bible that's considered authentic is the King James version. Of course, when you present these same people with the highly probable fact that King James was gay, they start to have a fit. The translation of the word "kill" in the 10 commandments is wrong. The correct translation is "murder". Also, highly probable and fact aren't synonymous. It's either a fact or it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Mar 4, 2007 0:48:02 GMT -5
Here is a rather good explanation of why "kill" is NOT a wrong translation. The link also discusses other words as well for those interested. www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/kjvproblems01.htmlIt starts off with the premise of a person saying the Hebrew word has been mistranslated. 1. In the commandment: Thou shalt not kill. (Exodus 20:13), the Hebrew word ratsach is not kill but murder. If it were kill, then it would mean that God often commanded His people to disobey commandments. This incorrect translation has caused many problems among those that want to live by the Word, but see the contradiction. It accounts for people being against the death penalty, which of course was initiated by Almighty God Himself.
Some problems with the analysis here. First, it is somewhat inaccurate to say that ratsach means "murder". For instance, the word ratsach is used in Numbers 35:27 for the avenger of blood "killing" one guilty of manslaughter (hence, acting in a lawful fashion, as that was the right of vengeance of the nearest relative to the deceased). In Numbers 35:30, we again see ratsach used and translated as "put to death" in reference to a murderer being put to death (hence, upholding the law) for killing someone. Thus, while ratsach much of the time does refer to unlawful killing, it can also refer to killing done when justice is being served.
Further, we should note that there are a couple of other words which can refer to murder/murderers in the sense in which we mean in this discussion. Harag (Ps. 10:8, Jer. 4:31, Hos. 9:13), and nakah (II Kings 14:6).
Indeed, ratsach appears to be interchangeable with these others, as far as meaning goes (they all mean, essentially, to smite or strike someone to death). Thus, the argument for how to interpret Exodus 20:13 cannot be really answered from what the Hebrew word means or does not mean alone. Thus, it falls to being answered theologically, by taking the context of God's Word as a whole into account to determine the meaning of the passage (hence, systematic theology).
To say that the KJV is incorrect for saying "kill" in Exodus 20:13 is somewhat untenable. The KJV is no more ambiguous on this matter than WE are today when we talk about someone "being killed". Do we mean that they were murdered by someone, or that they fell off a cliff? Hence, common sense and context are the guides here, and the only reason that the new versions would translate this as "murder" is simply because the context is being used to explicitly clarify the theological meaning. That is fine, but does not make the KJV incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 4, 2007 11:00:03 GMT -5
Here how a thinking person faces the murder/kill controversy.
First these are both English words. So any answer is suspect if not nonsensical.
The ancient Hebrews wouldn't consider executing disobedient children or witches in violation of this commandment
Phinehas, above, starts with the presupposition that the King James Bible is correct and sets out to find evidence to support it.
Blondie, here, starts out with a question and looks for an objective source for answers. Here's what Wikipedia says:
Older protestant translations of the bible, those based on the Vulgate and Roman Catholic translations usually have "Thou shalt not kill", whereas Jewish and newer protestant versions tend to "You shall not murder". There is controversy as to which translation is more faithful, and both forms are quoted in support of ethical standpoints, often without realizing they are controversial.
The reality is these people lived in a dramatically different culture and we have no idea what the commandments meant to them.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Mar 4, 2007 14:47:46 GMT -5
blondie, your insult withstanding...Contrary to your statement, I started WITH the premise that the KJV was wrong in it's translation and went to sources that study the Bible and found evidence that rationally and factually shows that the translation is correct and presented it.
Since when has Wikipedia become the gold standard of academic research and thruth?
Can you DISPROVE the evidence I gave? Didn't think so.
Again...if you want to know what the Bible means, simply read it from start to finish with the desire to understand it.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 4, 2007 18:16:49 GMT -5
No insult intended. Sorry, I tend to be flippant.
|
|
|
Post by lawman on Mar 4, 2007 18:21:32 GMT -5
No insult intended. Sorry, I tend to be flippant. The pattern IS CLEAR! You must be MISERABLE! You belabor your FOOL garbage.........rant after rant!
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 4, 2007 18:28:00 GMT -5
Here's a rebuttal just for sport. Jewish people, who speak Hebrew, use the word "murder." www.jewfaq.org/10.htmI'm a Postmodernist. I believe that the cultural and language differences between the ancient Hebrews and 21st century English speaking Americans is so vast the point is moot.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 4, 2007 18:44:31 GMT -5
Again...if you want to know what the Bible means, simply read it from start to finish with the desire to understand it. Shirley you jest. I've read that bad boy time and time again and understand it just fine.
|
|