What ever happened to RESPECT

[medic_diver45]

I guess I violated my own admonition to get this back on track....OOPS....won't happen again.

 

[The Chairman]

The poetry?

The real poetry is the change of a person's heart.

I also disagree that ANY version "an inspired version"... we shortcut God's power when we do that. Jesus spoke Aramaic and yet the New Testament was written in Greek (with a couple of noteable exceptions). So we are reading a translation of a translation. That's OK, for when I am weak, then I am strong.

I was on a board where someone pointed out that the scriptures were written by ignorant men who did not have a clue. He is absolutely right! Peter and James were no scholars, though one could make a case for Paul being one. But God is powerful and respectful. He allows those that do not want to be with him a choice. He does not force himself on us in a way that many do. He is gentle and patient, wanting everyone to discover him.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Hmm....if we're taking it literally, then technically (and please don't call me on this as though I believe these things (I DON'T): I'm just trying to make a point):

TWO EXAMPLES (I KNOW OF MORE, BUT THESE SHOW MY POINT QUITE WELL)
-Gays and lesbians should be killed (Leviticus 20:13)
-Adulterous spouses (and the people they cheat with) should be killed (Leviticus 20:10)
**OH AND BY THE WAY I LIKE THE WAY THE VERSES POINT OUT THAT IT'S THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING KILLED'S FAULT THEY ARE BEING KILLED ("Their blood shall be upon them"- apparently is only a sin when you kill someone who doesn't agree with you) I know these are both Old Testament quotes, and it goes on later in the New Testament to contradict these teachings, but the question becomes then: IF THEY ARE BOTH THE WORD OF GOD AND HE IS PERFECT, WHY DID HE CHANGE HIS MIND ON KILLING? You go from "you're wicked or perverse, you must die" to "He who's has not send shall cast the first stone". You see my point? The Bible flip-flops and waffles more than John Kerry (I'm a Democrat by the way, albeit a conservative one) during an election year.

For that matter, what about the Sixth Commandment? I don't see any qualifiers put on that one ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Scubaguy62]

Scubaguy62? Too many things in your post to reply to here. But you say that "there are cetain truths even Christians do not have an answer for". Respectfully, such as?

The truth that there are 18 years of Jesus' life that the bible does not account for; the truth that "Moses" wrote of his own death; the truth that if God created Adam and Eve, and Eve had Cain and Abel, and then Cain killed Abel, and there is no record that anyone else inhabited the earth, who did Cain married? The truth that the Bible did not condemn Lot's incest, and both Abraham and Jacob's adultery. Are we to believe that the God who said to Moses "thou shalt not commit adultery" changed its mind?...What is your answer to that? Or do you have a presumption, or a statement like the one I once heard from an extremist right line christian....."where the bible is silent, we must be silent[?]"

The concept of evolution is 100% incompatible with the Bible.

So why don't you tell us whether Adam was white or black, or whether we do things the same we did 100 years ago. Isn't that a sample of evolution? If it happens in our time, what's to say it didn't happen then?

As for a fundamentalist who believes evolution, that would be a liberal in fundamentalist's clothing.

"Judge not lest thee be judged."
I happen to believe a lot of the fundamentalist teachings. I also believe that not everything is as it seems and that the coin does have two sides. IOW, the Bible is open to interpretation, and not two christians, or for that matter, not two religious figures of the same beliefs will interpret it the same way.

 

[imadiver2]

I have been pleased by the amount of respect I have witnessed in following the thread that I started. It has given me new hope.

I have not participated that much as it sort of changed from the respect issue, to the issue of religion. Although I consider myself a very religious person, I have more of a private relationship with God. I try to live each day on this earth acting as he would want us to. My prayers, numerous throughout each day, are private. And if I pray for individuals,as I do often, I don't feel the need to announce it to them, or preach to them. I don't attend church every sunday, although I love to go to a really good heartfelt service. I love Charismatic Christian churches, the services are so lively and fun, but my husband is bothered by these kind of services. We attend a more mainstream Christian church. I was raised episcopalian, so my beliefs are not exactly like those of the church I attend, but I like the fact that the services are less formal, and I enjoy the singing. I will stop going on about my beliefs but I just wanted to say that as spiritual as I consider my self, I am unfortunately not that well versed on the entire Bible, thus my reason for being quit to this point. I have however learned a lot here.

My very round about point, is that it seems as though the tone is changing alittle, and I don't want this thread to be ended. I am enjoying reading and learning

 

[Green_Manelishi]

I'm just trying to make a point):

and the only point made is that of your ignorance of the subject.

...it goes on later in the New Testament to contradict these teachings, ... You go from "you're wicked or perverse, you must die" to "He who's has not send shall cast the first stone".

The Law stated the man and the woman were to be put to death. The Pharisees dragged only the woman to Jesus in an attempt to catch Him in a theological trap.

I could continue and explain the entire situation but you've already decided that the Bible is to not be believed. So, you select verses you have chosen as contradictory and use them as "evidence" of its alleged failings.

It's YOUR arguments that fail, from a logical standpoint.

Considering your quote, from FN, I am not surprised you are so hostile to the subject matter.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

For that matter, what about the Sixth Commandment? I don't see any qualifiers put on that one ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Thou shalt not murder?

What about it? Rather a simple statement is it not? What qualifiers should there be?

 

[Potapko]

Somebody else is going to have to call this off. This is my field and I cannot just allow these things to pass.

So far, there are several statements that i don't know what I am talking about on the issue of Bible translations. I will profess that I do. None of you have addressed the preservation issue and therefore are only floating fluff. Opinions are free but without backing are only that. The doctrine of preservation as well as inspiration are certainly Biblical, easily found and quoted in context.

There is no evidence that Jesus spoke Aramaic as was also posted. There is no reason to think that He didn't because He certainly spoke Hebrew, the language of His religious upbringing as well as Greek, the common language of the day. So, if He spoke Aramaic as well, fine. Doesn't affect the issue at hand.

God never changed His mind about dealing with evil. Certain laws were in place within the nation of Israel in order to keep "God's people" separated and pure. The New Testament also deals with the use of the death penalty and approves of it.

Once again, there is no separation clause in the US constitution. Somebody needs to study the actual writings of the founding fathers. Go to www.wallbuilders.com and read all you can handle. Nobody's interpretation, read it for yourself.

I am no expert, depending on how you define it although I do have a degree in the field. Theology that is. I have a lot to learn, I am often corrected. I am willing to learn. But please, if you make a statement, back it up!
Smiles

 

[cornfed]

Somebody else is going to have to call this off. This is my field and I cannot just allow these things to pass.

I let things pass everyday. If you need help try clicking here...

 

[H2Andy]

There is no evidence that Jesus spoke Aramaic as was also posted.

excuse me?

and, pray tell, what language are the words "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani" in?

by the way, Mark then explains, in Greek, what the words
mean "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? "


sound familiar?

now, if you can call the Gospel of Mark, written the soonest
after Jesus' death, "no evidence" then I don't know what the heck you're talking about.

There is very little doubt amongst reputable scholars that
Jesus spoke Aramaic, btw. The linguistic proof is almost
irrefutable:

When Jesus cried out on the cross 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' (Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani), He was speaking Aramaic. Many words in the New Testament are transliterations from the Aramaic. Peter's name Cephas is from 'kepha' (rock); Thomas is from 'toma' (twin). 'Bar' the Aramaic word for (son) occurs in such names as Bartholomew, Bar- Jonas, Barabbas and Bartimaeus. (The Hebrew word for son is 'ben' ). Golgotha is from 'golgolta' (skull); and Maranatha comes from 'maran' (our Lord) and 'eta' (come).

check this excellent website: http://www.bible-history.com/jesus/jesusHebrew_and_Aramaic.htm

for more