Queen James Bible

[Gob]

One that can write a book which doesn't lead to centuries of fighting over what it means?

[Lord Jim]

Superior in what way Dales?

Well, superior to smug, smarmy, sanctimoniousness, euro types for a start...

[rubato]

How s it that the word of a deity, one capable of producing universes, is so easily muddled and argued over? Any deity worth his salt would have created a perfect one.

When you come up with a superior deity than GOD of the Holy Bible, drop me a line.

Well there is the Greek God Janus; "the only god who can see his anus":*



yrs,
rubato
*per JBS Haldane

[MajGenl.Meade]

One that can write a book which doesn't lead to centuries of fighting over what it means?

God didn't write it - why do you persist in that particular canard?

As to the second part, what makes you think all men would agree with whatever your hypothetical book written by the Supreme Being might say - even if it was clearly understood by all?

And perhaps you'd elaborate a bit on these centuries of fighting over "what it means"? I would not agree that Catholics vs Protestant battles were at all about what the Bible meant BTW.

And the actual message of the Bible is clear and has caused no fighting amongst those who suscribe to it - men are sinners bound for hell (= whatever the bad thing is) and Jesus is the only way to eternal life in heaven (= whatever the good place is). So are you fighting about what that means or just denying that it is true?

If the first, what is your alternative interpretation? If the second, that's got nothing to do with meaning, does it?



Meade

[MajGenl.Meade]

I was thinking today that this is probably not the first time the creators of the QJV have erred in a correct understanding of passages.

[Gob]

One that can write a book which doesn't lead to centuries of fighting over what it means?

God didn't write it - why do you persist in that particular canard?

As to the second part, what makes you think all men would agree with whatever your hypothetical book written by the Supreme Being might say - even if it was clearly understood by all?

And perhaps you'd elaborate a bit on these centuries of fighting over "what it means"? I would not agree that Catholics vs Protestant battles were at all about what the Bible meant BTW.

And the actual message of the Bible is clear and has caused no fighting amongst those who suscribe to it - men are sinners bound for hell (= whatever the bad thing is) and Jesus is the only way to eternal life in heaven (= whatever the good place is). So are you fighting about what that means or just denying that it is true?

If the first, what is your alternative interpretation? If the second, that's got nothing to do with meaning, does it?



Meade

Thanks Meade.

Is the bible the word of god or not?

What supreme being would allow themselves to be represented by a book written by humans?

What supreme being woudl be so petty as to allow hell to exist?

What supreme being wouLd make such a fuck up as to have to do the; "here am I born of a virgin, I';l tell you some nice stories, perform a few conjuring tricks, then you can kill me so I can forgive you" routine a few hundred thousand years after creating things?

Isn't it about time he sorted all the squabbling out?

[dgs49]

The problem isn't on the God side, it's on the human side. Humans are both imperfect and devious.

As we see infinitely manifest on this very BBS, there are those who take great pains to "interpret" the Bible to mean what it manifestly does not mean.

[Gob]

The problem isn't on the God side, it's on the human side. Humans are both imperfect and devious.

It's due to our creator, he did a botch job.

As we see infinitely manifest on this very BBS, there are those who take great pains to "interpret" the Bible to mean what it manifestly does not mean.

A bible created by an omnipotent being would not be able to be "interpreted", it would be clear, concise and unambiguous.

[Lord Jim]

What supreme being would allow themselves to be represented by a book written by humans?

What supreme being woudl be so petty as to allow hell to exist?

What supreme being wouLd make such a fuck up as to have to do the; "here am I born of a virgin, I';l tell you some nice stories, perform a few conjuring tricks, then you can kill me so I can forgive you" routine a few hundred thousand years after creating things?

Isn't it about time he sorted all the squabbling out?

What supreme being would let some loud mouth Atheist prattle on and on about what He should or should not do?

Where are those lightening bolts?

[Sean]

And the actual message of the Bible is clear and has caused no fighting amongst those who suscribe to it - men are sinners bound for hell (= whatever the bad thing is) and Jesus is the only way to eternal life in heaven (= whatever the good place is). So are you fighting about what that means or just denying that it is true?

That's the New Testament Meade. It's only half of the bible and not even the half that we have been discussing here...

Any thoughts on the clarity of the OT

[Gob]

1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.

2) "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

3) "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

3b) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

3c) "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole. The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell. (Matthew 5:27)

7) Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.” This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18

8) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).

9) “...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35

[MajGenl.Meade]

And the actual message of the Bible is clear and has caused no fighting amongst those who suscribe to it - men are sinners bound for hell (= whatever the bad thing is) and Jesus is the only way to eternal life in heaven (= whatever the good place is). So are you fighting about what that means or just denying that it is true?

That's the New Testament Meade. It's only half of the bible and not even the half that we have been discussing here...

Any thoughts on the clarity of the OT

Correction Sean: the first part is Old Testament and New Testament. The Old Testament is also the story of Jesus, the Christ - background and prophecies concerning him. My thoughts on the clarify of the OT is er . . . it's clear to me but do you have a specific?

Meade

PS Gob: answer later

[MajGenl.Meade]

Gob – I don’t know that I should answer your questions when you have rather obviously neglected to answer my own. However, I can have a go.

A. Is the bible the word of god or not?

Yes. It is written by humans under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and contains what God wants us to know about Him and His dealings with us. But you didn’t say that. You repeatedly and incorrectly state that the supreme being “wrote” it – which may be your claim but is not the Christian claim

B. What supreme being would allow (himself) to be represented by a book written by humans?

The one and only. Remarkable isn’t it?

C. What supreme being would be so petty as to allow hell to exist?

And what is “hell”? Christians are united perhaps in declaring that whatever it is, it is at least total separation from God. I note that there exist people who think that “hell” refers to total annihilation (which of course is total separation) and others who believe in universal salvation – both appear to contradict scripture.

D. What supreme being would make such (an error) as to have to do the; "here am I born of a virgin, I'll tell you some nice stories, perform a few conjuring tricks, then you can kill me so I can forgive you" routine a few hundred thousand years after creating things?

First, prove there is an error. Second, what you wrote is neither the fact nor the Christian claim.

E. Isn't it about time he sorted all the squabbling out?

Many think so; the Bible says that He will. You will not like it when He does.

F. (Sin in mankind is) due to our creator, he did a botch job

No – He chose to create man with free will, knowing what the result would be; you and me. I’m not a botch job but you may speak for yourself.

G. A bible created by an omnipotent being would not be able to be "interpreted" - it would be clear, concise and unambiguous.

Which it is, but you cannot provide any evidence (and I doubt even valid argument) that such a thing “would not be able to be ‘interpreted’”. The clearest and most unambiguous things are interpreted differently by different people all the time – it’s what men do. And I might add that the books were written in three different languages (none of them English) and that “interpretation” is of course required in order for non-speakers of Hebrew, Aramaic and koine Greek to understand what was written.

I do not understand your quoted (?) lengthy numbered passage of apparently unrelated Biblical passages. Was there a question there?

Thanks
Meade

[GrossDad]

"Are Biblical Laws Against Homosexuality Eternal?" presents a nuanced discussion by an author who is an expert in Biblical Hebrew.

The text identifies male homosexual acts by the technical term to'ebah, translated in English here as "an offensive thing" or in older translations as "an abomination." This is important because most things that are forbidden in biblical law are not identified with this word. . . .

The question is: Is this term to'ebah an absolute, meaning that an act that is a to'ebah is wrong in itself and can never be otherwise? Or is the term relative -- meaning that something that is a to'ebah to one person may not be offensive to another, or something that is a to'ebah in one culture may not be offensive in another, or something that is a to'ebah in one generation or time period may not be offensive in another -- in which case the law may change as people's perceptions change?

When one examines all the occurrences of this technical term in the Hebrew Bible, one finds that elsewhere the term is in fact relative. For example, in the story of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis, Joseph tells his brothers that, if the Pharaoh asks them what their occupation is, they should say that they're cowherds. They must not say that they are shepherds. Why? Because, Joseph explains, all shepherds are an offensive thing (to'ebah) to the Egyptians. But shepherds are not an offensive thing to the Israelites or Moabites or many other cultures. In another passage in that story, we read that Egyptians don't eat with Israelites because that would be an offensive thing (to'ebah) to them. But Arameans and Canaanites eat with Israelites and don't find it offensive. See also the story of the Exodus from Egypt, where Moses tells Pharaoh that the things that Israelites sacrifice would be an offensive thing (to'ebah) to the Egyptians. But these things are certainly not an offensive thing to the Israelites.

. . .

An act or an object that is not a to'ebah can become one, depending on time and circumstances. The word to'ebah does not automatically mean that something is immoral. Depending on the context, the period and the persons involved, it means that it offends some group.

Now, one might respond that the law here is different because it concerns an offensive thing to God -- and is therefore not subject to the relativity of human values. But that is actually not the case here. The Bible specifically identifies such laws about things that are divine offenses with the phrase "an offensive thing to the LORD" (to'ebat yhwh). That phrase is not used here in the law about male homosexual acts. It is not one of the laws that are identified as a to'ebah to God!

If this is right, then it is an amazing irony. Calling male homosexual acts a to'ebah was precisely what made the biblical text seem so absolutely anti-homosexual and without the possibility of change. But it is precisely the fact of to'ebah that opens the possibility of the law's change. So, (1) whatever position one takes on this matter, left or right, conservative or liberal, one should acknowledge that the law really does forbid homosexual sex between males but not between females. And (2) one should recognize that the biblical prohibition is not one that is eternal and unchanging. . . .

In the late 1990s, the rabbi of the congregation we belonged to (part of the Union of Conservative Congregations) took several months to present a course on Jewish canonical law ("halacha"), as part of which he provided us with copies of four proposed statements of policy (including supporting rationale) that had been presented to the Rabbinical Assembly addressing the issue of same-sex relations. (There was, at the time, a moratorium on performing commitment ceremonies for same-sex couples.) Based on the principles of halacha, our rabbi determined that he would perform such ceremonies.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Gob I took a crack at it

1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV). Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other than Jesus said so.

Your “clearly” is misplaced. Firstly because he says that people who follow the Law 100% and those who following 90% or 62.5% are all in the Kingdom of Heaven. Secondly because . . . well it’s better for you to get in the habit of reading more than one opinion – this one for example: http://sermononthemountcommentary.blogs ... 18-20.html

2) "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

So? (See answer to 1 above)

3) "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

Well this is just cheap multiplying of the same passage and question.

3b) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

. . .(17) that the man of God may be properly equipped for every good work. Yes, so?

3c) "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

Yes – so what prophecy are you referring to (or prophecies)?

4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

A banal interpretation and incorrect to boot. Pharisees and teachers of the law criticised Jesus because his disciples did not perform ceremonial hand washing according to tradition (not scripture). He accused them of hypocrisy in that they claimed to follow God’s law but any time one of their traditions got in the way, God’s law was cast aside. The example he gave was of the law of Moses regarding honouring parents and the punishment for cursing one’s parents, laws which were set aside if the uncaring child said he couldn’t help them because he was giving his spare money to the Temple. He said nothing to the effect that they should kill disobedient children.

5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7).

That’s a repeat of your 4) and has been answered.

6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole. The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell. (Matthew 5:27)

Rubbish. The unrepentant sinner, upon death, cannot live eternally with God but in total separation from God – which apparently is a dire punishment to be eternally regretted. The unrighteous (OT) are in this case. Centuries later, Jesus says that mankind must be more righteous than the Pharisees who would not commit physical adultery but were not beyond looking with lust on women and fantasising etc. He says that’s just as much a sin as the physical act. In a fine figure of speech he declares that it is better to lose an eye or a hand by choice rather than commit sin so that one’s whole body goes to hell. You know that’s what he’s saying Gob – why put out second rate ‘interpretations’ that ignore all the words?

7) Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.” This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18
Indeed, it is an echo of Jesus’ sermon on the mount to pray for those who despitefully use you, to go two miles with someone who forces you to go one, to give your shirt also to a person who demands your coat. It is not “merely” anything but an exhortation to be more like Jesus:
19 “For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. 20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow in his steps. 22 “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.” 23 When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly”
8) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).

Don’t get your point here. Paul pointed out that in fact no one could perfectly keep the Law except of course for Jesus. Keeping the law of course does not mean stoning a cursing son or daughter – it means not BEING a cursing son (or daughter).

9) “...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35

Why not start at vs. 33 and continue to vs. 38?
We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
Now we can all see that Jesus was defending himself by referring his critics to their own body of Law which they claimed to esteem. They could not set scripture aside because they revered it. A bit of trap sprung on them there!

Meade

[Gob]

The thing is Meade, while the fish are biting why stop casting your line?

The facts are these.

The bible is not the word of god, no "god" would produce such a shoddy piece of work, it is the work of humans, for the controlling of other people.

God, even as you describe it, make excuses for, reinterpret, word juggle, omit, deny acts and intents of etc, is still just too human to even consider as deity.

If there was such a thing as god, and he had created a hell, even as you give several interpretations of hell, he would not be worth worship.

For any deity to create such useless creatures as humans, the give them a crap book of rules, let them fight and squabble over it for centuries, and then say to an individual, "nope you didn't do what I wanted, you 're going to hell," oh come on, it's too farcical to even consider.

The whole Jesus story? Give me a break here? What god would pull such a charade to forgive us?

[Lord Jim]

Has anyone else noticed that the biggest proselytizers on this forum are all members of the Atheist faith?

[GrossDad]

Worth a listen: "This American Life's" podcast "Heretics"--about a Pentecostal, evangelical pastor, a recognized Biblical scholar in his community, on the board of Oral Roberts University and a bishop of his ecclesiastical denomination--came to accept the revelation that, if Jesus Christ died for ALL mankind, then (1) there is no Hell, and (2) you need not be a Christian to go to heaven. He now preaches a gospel of inclusion.

[Rick]

Ain't everyone gonna be right...

[MajGenl.Meade]

Good luck to him. It's not a revelation - just an age old habit of denying what Jesus did and said. He's ceased being a Christian and is denying Christ just as an atheist does, only I think he has less excuse.

Jesus' death indeed does signify an available forgiveness and mercy for all mankind. Many will accept it. Far more will voluntarily choose to reject that forgiveness. They will never accept God's grace.

Of course there is a hell - I don't know what it is other than that it is absolute separation from God, symbolized by eternal fires and destruction and regret and a wish that a different choice had been made. We all live forever; but some will be pleased by that and many more will sorrow

Meade