02-06-2009, 10:10 AM | #541 | ||||||||
Gizmologist
Posts: 11,615
Karma: 929550
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Republic of Texas Embassy at Jackson, TN
Device: Pocketbook Touch HD3
|
Quote:
According to Exodus 34:1, the second set of tablets were stone and God Himself wrote on them, He didn't mention whether he used plain ink or what. Quote:
Quote:
I don't know who considers them to be the same, but I don't based on the simple fact that the words don't come near to being the same. I'm also unsure why anyone would refer to the Exodus 34 passage as renewing a covenant, it's pretty clear that it's a new covenant altogether. In verse 10, God said He was "making a covenant," not renewing one, and then goes on to talk about things previously unmentioned. Quote:
Quote:
This is a fine example of what I was saying about taking a statement out of context so that it appears to mean the opposite of what it actually says. A suggestion here, the old King James Version is pretty bad about being easy to follow, if you'll try the New International Version or the New American Standard Version, or the New King James Version (the site I've been getting links from has all three and many more besides), you'll find the language itself much easier to follow. Those three are all considered excellent translations, and they're direct from very early texts, whereas the old KJV has been serially translated (versions updated from versions, and so on), and has quite a few points that have been spindled along the way. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The stories are generally held to be illustrative of what Jesus refers to as "The Kingdom of Heaven," and this one maps pretty well to what was actually going on with the Jewish leaders at the time. If we carry that out logically, Jesus was predicting that the Jewish leaders who rejected him as the Christ (and crucifixion is a pretty firm rejection) would be punished when he returned on what's know commonly referred to as "Judgment Day." Since this is directed at the Jewish Leaders, and Jesus was Jewish, how can it be perceived as intolerance for other religious beliefs? I'm beginning to wonder if you're deliberately taking pieces out of context. |
||||||||
02-06-2009, 11:13 AM | #542 | |
Gizmologist
Posts: 11,615
Karma: 929550
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Republic of Texas Embassy at Jackson, TN
Device: Pocketbook Touch HD3
|
Quote:
The other, lesser known interpretation of the passage holds that one of the gates of Jerusalem was called "the eye of the needle" -- it was evidently a very small and windy one. Taking a camel through it would require the beast to more or less crawl through, so it was very, very hard, but doable. Whichever is the root, it's clear that it's talking about something that is either very, very hard or flat impossible, so any of the three roots work well enough for the purposes of the statement. |
|
Advert | |
|
02-06-2009, 01:08 PM | #543 | |
The Grand Mouse 高貴的老鼠
Posts: 71,637
Karma: 306652114
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norfolk, England
Device: Kindle Voyage
|
It's talking about something that's flat impossible. There is no such gate. Camel and camel hair are not the same word.
The "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle" is matched by similar expessions in other ancient texts. The words mean what they seem to mean. There are no hidden or clever interpretations needed. http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/camelneedle.htm seems to be a good summary. Quote:
|
|
02-06-2009, 01:12 PM | #544 | |
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Karma: 10
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: California, USA
Device: Kindle
|
Quote:
This is what happens to the arrogant apostles of Dawkins. They are exactly what they accuse religious people to be. Hypocrites who refuse to debate with reason, pulling things out of context and twisting facts to support their "faith" in atheism. They have ZERO answers themselves, yet are more than happy to attack people for their faith. Blind arrogance and making points by pulling things out of context does not make you right. It makes you ignorant. I really didn't get it at first, but I can finally see the point of the original poster regarding this book being included on the reader because it is so offensive in attacking people for their faith. Dawkin's little disciples in this forum didn't like that, so they decided to attack the poster just as Dawkins himself would have. This pretty much sums up the atheist argument as far as I am concerned: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3UXl0oMYPL...eism-nogod.jpg |
|
02-06-2009, 01:21 PM | #545 | |
Gizmologist
Posts: 11,615
Karma: 929550
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Republic of Texas Embassy at Jackson, TN
Device: Pocketbook Touch HD3
|
Quote:
Certainly the practice of de-contextualizing and twisting is not limited to atheists -- I've probably known more "Christians" who've done such than I have "atheists" -- partly because I've probably known more Christians than atheists. I agree that parts of this discussion are going round in circles at the moment, but as you've read the discussion, you've doubtless noticed that the tone of it is unusually civil for such a discussion. Please help us keep it that way. We're glad to have you join our community, but we're also very protective of that sense of community around here. Please help us keep it civil. |
|
Advert | |
|
02-06-2009, 01:48 PM | #546 | |||
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 5,185
Karma: 25133758
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: SF Bay Area, California, USA
Device: Pocketbook Touch HD3 (Past: Kobo Mini, PEZ, PRS-505, Clié)
|
Quote:
Or it's not murder when a deity orders it? (And it's not theft, to take their property?) I can grok "not kill" doesn't mean "don't kill cattle so you can eat them." Doesn't mean "don't cut down grain; don't fish; don't swat mosquitos." But saying it just means "don't kill people that your own laws make it illegal to kill" makes it utterly useless as a moral guideline. Quote:
These kinds of contradictory messages are all over the bible. The claims by "true believers" that the "real message" is obvious seems like verbal sophistry to prove whatever point they've already decided on; no reading of the bare text makes one passage more important or more currently relevant than another. Quote:
I consider myself one of the not-called. |
|||
02-06-2009, 02:19 PM | #547 | ||||
Gizmologist
Posts: 11,615
Karma: 929550
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Republic of Texas Embassy at Jackson, TN
Device: Pocketbook Touch HD3
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Jesus was only sent to the Jews, and every indication is that if the Jews had accepted him he would have remained only for the Jews -- but Judaism has always allowed for conversion, which would necessarily allow Gentiles into the same promise. As it worked out, the Jews rejected Jesus, and his message was opened up to Gentiles directly. Personally, I suspect that if the former case had applied, Judaism itself would have converted to Christianity, but that's really getting esoteric, so I won't go there. Quote:
I don't pretend to understand everything in the Bible. I've reached the conclusion that just like everything else in the world, there are some parts of it we'll probably never understand ... at least not in this life. That being said, I think -- and this is my interpretation -- that all who answer are definitely called. |
||||
02-06-2009, 03:34 PM | #548 | |
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Karma: 10
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: California, USA
Device: Kindle
|
Quote:
|
|
02-06-2009, 03:38 PM | #549 |
Gizmologist
Posts: 11,615
Karma: 929550
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Republic of Texas Embassy at Jackson, TN
Device: Pocketbook Touch HD3
|
Hey, I never insist that others agree with me! If we all agreed, the conversations here would be pretty short and boring.
|
02-06-2009, 04:16 PM | #550 |
curmudgeon
Posts: 1,487
Karma: 5748190
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Redwood City, CA USA
Device: Kobo Aura HD, (ex)nook, (ex)PRS-700, (ex)PRS-500
|
|
02-06-2009, 04:37 PM | #551 | ||
WWHALD
Posts: 7,879
Karma: 337114
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Mitcham, Surrey, UK
Device: iPad. Selling my silver 505 here
|
Quote:
Quote:
However, treating the atheists with the disrespect you have shown them in your first post may not be showing a good example... |
||
02-06-2009, 05:00 PM | #552 | |
Reader
Posts: 11,504
Karma: 8720163
Join Date: May 2007
Location: South Wales, UK
Device: Sony PRS-500, PRS-505, Asus EEEpc 4G
|
Quote:
As such it may preach to the already converted but is likely to meet with sheer derision elsewhere. I honestly wonder whether such people really believe in what they are doing, thinking that any duplicity is justifiable in their cause; or whether they are just out to make a reputation among naive believers. |
|
02-06-2009, 05:05 PM | #553 | |
Retired & reading more!
Posts: 2,764
Karma: 1884247
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: North Alabama, USA
Device: Kindle 1, iPad Air 2, iPhone 6S+, Kobo Aura One
|
Quote:
|
|
02-06-2009, 05:10 PM | #554 |
Gizmologist
Posts: 11,615
Karma: 929550
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Republic of Texas Embassy at Jackson, TN
Device: Pocketbook Touch HD3
|
He's not dead, Slayda.
And he's hardly typical of ... well, of anything, is he now? |
02-06-2009, 05:56 PM | #555 | |||
Apeist
Posts: 2,126
Karma: 381090
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The sunny part of California
Device: Generic virtual reality story-experiential device
|
Quote:
Explanations abound, focusing on the various sources for Exodus, but one of the common views is that the shortened, ritual version in 34 is the result of a reduction process. See for instance, this: http://books.google.com/books?id=Z7s...um=3&ct=result Quote:
To begin with, some find it ambiguous whether 27 relates to the noble from the parable, who in any event, is really Jesus, who is on his way to the throne of David as the King of Kings. For this reason, many commentators end the discussion of the parable with 26, and simply ignore 27. Others, point to 27 as the retribution which will be meted out to those who refuse to acknowledge Jesus as Christ, after he returns to Earth as its rightful king in the Second Coming. Yet others claim that 27 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Second, the Parables of Minas and Talents, while similar, are generally seen by many of the faithful not as versions of each other, but as differently structured stories, teaching distinctly different virtues. Quote:
Finally, HarryT's point about placing the "morality" of biblical characters in their historical context, to which you refer for support, is valid. But it only serves to drive the point, that the mythology compilation we call The Bible, is nothing more than the relatively primitive world view of some Bronze Age tribesmen, with some edits and interpolations by subsequent generations of faithful. So, while it may be of interest on many levels, The Bilble's place is next to the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Vedas, or any good compilation of Greek Myths. Where it resides on my bookshelf. Last edited by Sonist; 02-06-2009 at 06:27 PM. |
|||
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Two Canadian concerns about the nook | ereaderwanabe | Which one should I buy? | 9 | 08-12-2010 06:30 PM |
Google Books privacy concerns | khalleron | News | 1 | 02-17-2010 10:21 AM |
Can e-Publishing Overcome Copyright Concerns? | Gatton | News | 454 | 06-27-2008 08:27 PM |
Libraries express DRM concerns | Bob Russell | News | 5 | 02-05-2006 01:28 AM |