30 Jul 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI could be mistaken, if I am then I apologize, but I thought that you said or implied that all knowledge of God comes exclusively from the Bible. You certainly said that nobody could argue against anything you said about God unless they specifically quoted the Bible. Surely that implies no other source of knowledge?
You're saying things I haven't said and attributing the same to me. Bad form. What I have maintained is that right here and right now, in the Church Age, our understanding of the Lord Jesus Christ begins first and foremost (exclusively) through that Bible.
30 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitLol, yes my friend, but i did notice that you have paid tribute to our illustrious friend by including a piece of his work in your profile, a great compliment indeed and recognition at last!
In other words, you think your shyte doesn't stink. 😀
[Sorry, couldn't resist. 😞]
30 Jul 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm beginning to see your problem. You're projecting onto the Bible things it simply doesn't say. Here's the corrected version of Genesis 1:1 and 2:
Actually I don't have one on my shelf, so I will just write one quickly .....
Done!
Version: twhiteheads Bible 1.0A
Genesis 1.1 God does not exist.
1.2 God made the earth.
Surely there is a contradiction there?
In beginning,
God created the heavens and the earth.
Now (after some time) the earth was formless and empty,
darkness was over the deep,
and the Spirit of God was hovering
over the waters.
You see the distinction? In your version, there is no God, rendering pretty much everything else in the Bible nonsense. In the actual Bible (that which most closely agrees with the most ancient manuscripts), God is the impetus behind all existence. He doesn't create reality; He is reality. Removing Him leaves nothing.
30 Jul 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, what I said was there are two basic types of revelation. The general revelation is all around us, is within our own minds. We can tell from creation and from reason that there is (some type) of creator.
I could be mistaken, if I am then I apologize, but I thought that you said or implied that all knowledge of God comes exclusively from the Bible. You certainly said that nobody could argue against anything you said about God unless they specifically quoted the Bible. Surely that implies no other source of knowledge?
The divine revelation is how we come to find out the more immediate and personal details about that Creator.
Without divine revelation, we are left with any manner of false conclusions... and completely without knowing whether a relationship with that Creator is available, let alone how to establish the same with Him.
For this existence, the only source of knowledge (beyond general) is the Bible.
30 Jul 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut you stated that I could use my version. Are you now withdrawing that option?
In your version, there is no God, rendering pretty much everything else in the Bible nonsense.
In the actual Bible (that which most closely agrees with the most ancient manuscripts),
And where pray tell can I get a copy of this hypothetical Bible? Or was my original assertion that it doesn't exist correct?
30 Jul 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadI highly doubt that you have such a version in your possession (other than an imaginary one in your head). I was referring to any copy of the Bible you may have in your possession--- tradtionally-speaking.
But you stated that I could use my version. Are you now withdrawing that option?
[b]In the actual Bible (that which most closely agrees with the most ancient manuscripts),
And where pray tell can I get a copy of this hypothetical Bible? Or was my original assertion that it doesn't exist correct?[/b]
And where pray tell can I get a copy of this hypothetical Bible? Or was my original assertion that it doesn't exist correct?
For our purposes, just use the regular one you see.
30 Jul 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAbsolutely. Even a miserable atheist such as myself could not help but laugh at the comic brilliance of that quote.
Lol, yes my friend, but i did notice that you have paid tribute to our illustrious friend by including a piece of his work in your profile, a great compliment indeed and recognition at last!
31 Jul 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnd what is wrong with the imaginary one in my head (I actually stated that that was more or less what it was, though I could easily have written it down and labeled it and placed it on my shelf).
I highly doubt that you have such a version in your possession (other than an imaginary one in your head). I was referring to any copy of the Bible you may have in your possession--- tradtionally-speaking.
For our purposes, just use the regular one you see.
We started down that road and your first defense was to claim it was not the "actual Bible". Whats the point of continuing if we are not working with the "actual Bible" and you just pull that trump card every time a contradiction is shown?
Is it your claim that all copies and translations of the Bible are free from contradiciton? If so, I have already proved you wrong - unless you have some circular clause that if contradictions exist then it is not "the Bible".
31 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd what is wrong with the imaginary one in my head
And what is wrong with the imaginary one in my head (I actually stated that that was more or less what it was, though I could easily have written it down and labeled it and placed it on my shelf).
[b]For our purposes, just use the regular one you see.
We started down that road and your first defense was to claim it was not the "actual Bible". Wh ess you have some circular clause that if contradictions exist then it is not "the Bible".[/b]
Two things. For one, we won't know what it says until after you tell us (subjectivity); and for two, it is complete subjected to whatever direction your mind chooses to wander (double subjectivity).
Juxtaposed with such a proposition, we have the Bible. While we do not have the original autographs of each of the 66 books/letters, what we do have on hand in various parts of the world has weathered the intense scrutiny of a plethora of investigations... and remains intact with integrity.
Is it your claim that all copies and translations of the Bible are free from contradiciton?
Absolutely not. There are some absurdly deplorable examples of scholarship out there. But the question is, how would we know such a thing? We have the manuscripts upon which these versions are based! It's a relatively simple proposition to verify any part or particle of any given translation in the world.
However, that being said, it is highly unlikely that this is your issue, since we can confidently assume that your beef is not with the contrast you have found between some random version and the manuscripts upon which the same claim to be based. It goes without saying that the likelihood that you have ever actually studied any of the manuscripts in our possession--- let alone in the three original languages--- is much, much smaller than slim.
Your problem is with the contradictions (so-claimed) in the Joe Sixpack version available at any bookstore or in the nightstands of motels throughout North America.
Now that we have that out of the way, why don't you get to the supposed contradictions, instead of playing word and concept games of deconstruction and/or hide-the-meaning?
31 Jul 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHExcept apparently the copy in my head.
While we do not have the original autographs of each of the 66 books/letters, what we do have on hand in various parts of the world has weathered the intense scrutiny of a plethora of investigations... and remains intact with integrity.
But the question is, how would we know such a thing? We have the manuscripts upon which these versions are based! It's a relatively simple proposition to verify any part or particle of any given translation in the world.
So are these manuscripts "The Bible"? Are you then claiming that anything that is called 'manuscript' and was used as source material during the translation process of any current copy of the Bible is free from error?
Your problem is with the contradictions (so-claimed) in the Joe Sixpack version available at any bookstore or in the nightstands of motels throughout North America.
Sadly I have never been to North America.
Now that we have that out of the way, why don't you get to the supposed contradictions, instead of playing word and concept games of deconstruction and/or hide-the-meaning?
We have not got it "out of the way" because you have not answered the questions. If you already admit the possibility of error in 'the Joe Sixpack version', there is no point in continuing until you tell me which version you claim is free from error.
31 Jul 09
1 edit
The old testament is little more than Jewish tribal propaganda using God to justify the killing of the enemies of the victor tribes - yes all history is written by the victors. The new testament is little more than a collection of watered down homilies and the lie that Jesus is the son of God. The Old testament contains little if any spiritual insight of a practical nature and the new testament is severely dumbed down buddhism with a manipulative twist. The Bible has little merit and if not for the violence done to non christians by the early church it would have disapeared long ago. A load of drivel that has driven men mad ever since it was dreamed up by a bunch of power mad bishops. File it under Myths and Legends or better still flush it down the loo.
31 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by clearlightyawn, stretch, scratches his nose, sigh.....
The old testament is little more than Jewish tribal propaganda using God to justify the killing of the enemies of the victor tribes - yes all history is written by the victors. The new testament is little more than a collection of watered down homilies and the lie that Jesus is the son of God. The Old testament contains little if any spiritual insight of ...[text shortened]... nch of power mad bishops. File it under Myths and Legends or better still flush it down the loo.
why would they include their own misfortunes and inadequacy if they as the victors merely wished to justify their actions and propagate their interests? can you think of any reason? think deeply now!
simply because you personally cannot put the constituent parts together to form a homogeneous account does not mean that we should consider the absurdity that it contains nothing of value, nor should you band your opinion and wave it around like a huge banner, as if it were true.
31 Jul 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadI had forgotten you were in another part of the world. Here's an address you may want to check out:
Except apparently the copy in my head.
[b]But the question is, how would we know such a thing? We have the manuscripts upon which these versions are based! It's a relatively simple proposition to verify any part or particle of any given translation in the world.
So are these manuscripts "The Bible"? Are you then claiming that anything that is ca ...[text shortened]... s no point in continuing until you tell me which version you claim is free from error.[/b]
Jan van Riebeeck Primary School
52 Kloof Street
Gardens
Cape Town
Calvary Chapel meets there every Sunday at 9:30 am and Thursday at 7:00 pm. While I can't vouch for every theological stance they take, they'll get you going on the most basic of basics.
The underlying point of what you're driving at is inconsequential. It is a silly little concept game that is patently obvious as to intent. If you're really interested in the integrity of the canon of Scripture, there are a number of sources that can readily put the matter to rest for you. This isn't what you're looking for, of course, and we both know that.
This is nothing more than a security blanket of justification for your doubt... which is really nothing more than arrogance. You refuse to humble yourself to anything let alone truth.
If you truly were seeking for the truth, it would become as obvious as the nose on your face--- more so, really.