Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, I can't claim to be a koine expert, but I can claim that I have compared the KVJ to a second language to see what differences may occur (there are some). I've studied university level comparative religions, and I've studied concordances that ran into 11 volumes, with each volume approaching 1000 pages.
So, that being said, I rely on the translation that is the basis for what most fundamentalists and literalists base their versions on, the KJV. After all, that is the one that all these representations are based on.
In other words, you rely upon English translations that may well be wrong, and you follow the same methodology as the fundamentalists whom you try to discredit. Furthermore you have no real basis to refute my preferred koine expert, but instead stick to your incorrect understanding.
NOTED: you are unable to refute my contention that the greek word commonly translated as hate really means indifference, and the the true context is that one should put God first, and everything else subordinate to that.
It is the argument of many of us that KJV contains misleading if not downright incorrect translations, based upon centuries of false theologies as determined by the medieval Roman church. Yet you, like the fundamentalists, accept KJV as definitive, and then cherry pick you words and phrases to prove anything you want to prove.
Well, I challenge your belief that the English translations that you rely upon are accurate as to their context and original language. Therefore I challenge your assertion that your interpretation is reliable.
Believe or dont believe. I dont care. But stop trying to make arguments based upon false translations, false theologies, and worse yet, completely out of context arguments. It does your cause no good whatsoever.
Jesus is the best and most influential man who has ever walked on earth, who spread the universal message of love, peace and forgiveness.
You are misunderstanding the quote totally; in that particular quote Jesus was quoting from Mosaic
Law to show the Pharisees how hypocritical they were. Jesus died for our sins and he never ever said to kill anyone, do any harm or anything bad. Indeed he saved a women (Mary Magdalena) from being stoned to death for adultery. So don't bring a nonsense quote and make people believe Jesus now ask people to kill whether that is an adult or children.
Old Testament/Jewish law does not apply to Christians.
Jesus came to liberate us from the Mosaic Law and to introduce a new covenant with God's people.
I agree this particular quote can be difficult to interpret, but Jesus did say not one speck of the Law shall ever pass away on earth. So that's an endorsement of the command.
Go figure. Too deep for me.
If I'd had kids I'd be on death row.
Last edited by thrillobyte; 09-01-2014 at 11:09 PM..
So far, I'm having as much luck as those nice young Mormon boys who come to my door.
I'm glad you can smile and are not getting frustrated at not getting anywhere. I thought that all I had to do was explain it all and they would deconvert in droves.
In fact I have never deconverted a single theist, not to know. I have had to contend with the feeling that i was wasting my time, because there was a theisis I wanted to write and there was some good news that needed to be said, and nobody else was going to do it.
I took refuge in the (true) dictum that you can't deconvert anyone - they can only deconvert themselves. I have made it more of an ongoing education and indeed learning project that I happen to do here rather than elsewhere.
That fairly well replaces the lack of any crosses to paint on me tailplane And I suppose the figures coming out and the occasion former fundy who rolls up at least irreligious if not agnostic shows that our efforts are not entirely wasted.
Cupper, would you be so kind as to quote the Mosaic Law Jesus was referring to? If we are going to have any discussion or debate on the issue, full disclosure is indeed warranted, yes?
Good point. Jesus was not advocating killing kids - let's get that clear right away.
Mark 7. 10 (after the feeding of 5,000 and before the feeding of 4,000) And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’[d] and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother.
That is the context. Jesus is talking of what the Jewish law says - not what he says - and then finds an example (which is outside this topic) of them not following that law.
Matthew 15. 3 after the feeding of 5,00 (before the feeding of 4,000) Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[b] 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
I know of nothing in Luke that parallels this, though he has parallel passages to other denunciations of ritual purity - though in other time and place contexts. The conclusion is clear - this is not synoptic original text but is Additional material (which I call 'M' or 'P' or Mark/Matthew because it
was in the amended synoptic gospel that Mark (making it surprisingly late) and Mmatthew based their gospels on, but Luke didn't.
John of course has nothing of this as he uses a different source and never even saw a synpptic gospel.
Exodus 20. 12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Deuteronomy5. 16 “Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the Lord your God is giving you. Exodus 21. 17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 20 9 “‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head.
While the passages have to be knitted together, the sense of honouring father and mother and of putting to death and children cursing their parents is clear in Jewish law. Jesus is not agreeing with it - indeed his own attitude towards his parents falls short of 'honouring' them. Jesus is accusing the jews of breaking their own laws through 'Corban'. Though I suspect the later Christian passage in Matthew/Mark is overdrawing or misrepresenting 'Corban' to make the accusation work, and (as i pointed out with Ananias/Sapphira) the Christian message is not above dishing out death to any wo dare to keep any cash to live on rather than giving it all to the Church.
P.s I find the question of koine greek or translation -shopping irrelevant. Whether one used an interlinear modern translation or the KJV, the point, meaning and argument is the same.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-02-2014 at 06:39 AM..
I'm glad you can smile and are not getting frustrated at not getting anywhere. I thought that all I had to do was explain it all and they would deconvert in droves.
In fact I have never deconverted a single theist, not to know. I have had to contend with the feeling that i was wasting my time, because there was a theisis I wanted to write and there was some good news that needed to be said, and nobody else was going to do it.
I took refuge in the (true) dictum that you can't deconvert anyone - they can only deconvert themselves. I have made it more of an ongoing education and indeed learning project that I happen to do here rather than elsewhere.
That fairly well replaces the lack of any crosses to paint on me tailplane And I suppose the figures coming out and the occasion former fundy who rolls up at least irreligious if not agnostic shows that our efforts are not entirely wasted.
Not addressed to you in particular, but there seems to be a subset of those of the atheist persuasion who delight in taking the approach that slandering Jesus will make the thumpers convert to atheism immediately. You are right in one way, and the crazyass athiests are wrong in another.
I posted in the atheist forum this PROOF that there is no god. I would think science alone is enough. Hawking's logic is irrefutable, and yet it does not convince me. Why? Because of what it omits. Can you say "string theory" ??
Look, there is only one way to find out, and I am hanging on with all my strength NOT to find out!
I would strongly advocate atheists and skeptics and Bible critics to be fair about what the Bible says and not miss the context. There is plenty there to cause doubt and lack of enthusiasm for the message.
As to proof and disproof of God, that is a topic outside the suggestion that Jesus was endorsing killing kids that did not honour their parents enough.
Old Testament/Jewish law does not apply to Christians.
Jesus came to liberate us from the Mosaic Law and to introduce a new covenant with God's people.
You, sir or madam, have not fully read the Gospel of Matthew's portrayal of Jesus' attitude towards the Mosaic Law, or Torah. Have these helpful and informed posters point you in the right direction:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Read Matthew 5:17
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
I agree this particular quote can be difficult to interpret, but Jesus did say not one speck of the Law shall ever pass away on earth. So that's an endorsement of the command.
Go figure. Too deep for me.
If I'd had kids I'd be on death row.
Despite what some wish to believe concerning Paul's teachings, they run directly counter to what Jesus himself is said to have preached.
"Do not suppose that I came to destroy the Law or the prophets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill. I solemnly tell you that until heaven and earth pass away not a single letter of the Law shall pass away until all has been fulfilled. Whoever therefore sets aside any prescription of the Law and teaches men accordingly shall be called least in the Kingdom of heaven. But whoever keeps and teaches it shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless you are more righteous than the scribes of the Pharisees you will certainly not enter the Kingdom of heaven.
(Matthew 5:17-20, AB Albright & Mann)
Well, Olivierad.... it appears that you will be "least in the Kingdom of heaven". Sorry. At least the Pharisees - even if they were perceived as hypocrites (an unfortunate New Testament view) - kept Torah. Jesus felt the Pharisees kept Torah, but did not keep it well enough.
But this horse has been beat to death, at least on this forum. Jesus clearly and explicitly taught the keeping of Torah, and since "heaven and earth" shall likely never "pass away", well.... Jesus spends much time in the Gospel of Matthew reinterpreting the Mosaic Law - not abolishing it, but giving his own interpretation of it. Divorce, for example. He claimed that it was never intended, but that it was included for stubborn Israelites. Jesus made the law much harsher by forbidding divorce outright. That was his interpretation of the Law, a practice that all Jewish teachers did at the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I would strongly advocate atheists and skeptics and Bible critics to be fair about what the Bible says and not miss the context. There is plenty there to cause doubt and lack of enthusiasm for the .
The ANE context Very good advice!
As for the Mosaic law on whether "children" should be put to death, I think in the sense of an ancient near eastern culture this was pretty par for the course when a family's future depended on offspring following in the family tradition. That it applied to small children - pre-teens - I highly doubt! In the ANE, children were important and had certain duties to their parents. They even helped care for their graves after their death to ensure a proper burial and the continuance of their "name". It's a bit much to go into here, but these two verses show a common theme that a good son must do his proper duties or he is worthless:
And he that strikes his father or his mother,
is to be put-to-death, yes, death. (15)
And he that insults his father or his mother,
is to be put-to-death, yes, death. (17)
(Exodus 21:15, 17 SB Fox)
The ANE family was an important unit that required cooperation. It was not like today, when the actions of a son have little bearing on the actual survival of the family - whether that be survival on this earth or in the netherworld. It is not only found in Biblical laws, by the way.
There's my quick take on it. As an aside, I believe a Jewish Midrash claims that this law was never enforced, really. How accurate that is, I don't know. But it shows how attitudes changed towards Torah and how it could be interpreted. The Pharisees, especially, were known for interpreting the Torah to make it less of a burden on the people, unlike the Sadducees.
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,365 posts, read 2,146,559 times
Reputation: 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann
In other words, you rely upon English translations that may well be wrong, and you follow the same methodology as the fundamentalists whom you try to discredit. Furthermore you have no real basis to refute my preferred koine expert, but instead stick to your incorrect understanding.
NOTED: you are unable to refute my contention that the greek word commonly translated as hate really means indifference, and the the true context is that one should put God first, and everything else subordinate to that.
It is the argument of many of us that KJV contains misleading if not downright incorrect translations, based upon centuries of false theologies as determined by the medieval Roman church. Yet you, like the fundamentalists, accept KJV as definitive, and then cherry pick you words and phrases to prove anything you want to prove.
Well, I challenge your belief that the English translations that you rely upon are accurate as to their context and original language. Therefore I challenge your assertion that your interpretation is reliable.
Believe or dont believe. I dont care. But stop trying to make arguments based upon false translations, false theologies, and worse yet, completely out of context arguments. It does your cause no good whatsoever.
I agree with the translation problem, especially as the text leaves Greece and travels North throughout the then Roman Empire.
I heard a theologian do a whole sermon on the problems encountered when translating the Greek "spirit" within context of the text it is written. The problem seems to be with that word whther the scripture refers to a lowercase 'spirit', or an uppercase 'Spirit' in reference to the Holy Spirit. In his sermon, he showed how switching up one letter's size can change the whole concept and meaning of a scripture, and its interpretation.
I guess if someone thinks of it in terms of the common man, think of any bit of gossip that is spread by all men at one time of another. How many times in the telling and retelling does the gossip grow and change?
Its not exactly the same thing, but as someone who has always had an appreciation for words, their origins, and meanings I find my most interesting word discoveries to come from religious sources.
'sangreal' has two meanings depending on how the scribe doing the interpreting wants to divide those letters up:
1. San Greal, Holy Grail, which in a proper dictionary, has a road map of 'language' from Egypt to England in its origin notes.
Now this would be the Jesus that loves children, right? Yeah, right.
No, this is the Jesus that has no problem with what is written in the Old Testament, and as an observant Jew, in fact, endorses it.
So the discussion comes to disobedient children. As we know in the Old Testament, the right and proper thing to do is to kill them, including stoning them to death. You know, like some fundy Muslims decree today. Oh, hold it, even the fundy Muslims won't stone disobedient children. No, only Jesus subscribes to that. But I digress.
Mark 7:10 says: (and yes, it IS in context, the apologists favorite deflection)
7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
So, seeing Jesus is god or something like that, it seems that Jesus the god did not contradict god the god in the OT. Kill disobedient kids!!! Me, Jesus, says it must be done and it is moral to do so!! Kill your son! Kill your daughter! Kill them if they don't listen. Me, Jesus, the one who tells you how to beat your slaves, now tells you to when to kill your children.
are you saying there could be no reason to stone a child 6000 years ago? That a kid may be more important than the entire tribe? Because although I aint no Christian I see people trying to help the idiots to Quarantine (sacrifice) a child for the good of the tribe. I see Some short sighted people needing "myths" to get motivated to save others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I suppose the figures coming out and the occasion former fundy who rolls up at least irreligious if not agnostic shows that our efforts are not entirely wasted.
