“I think it is a fair assumption to say that a scribe changed a word to try and cover up the polytheistic implications. ”
Then you said:
“I’m not following you. Why should a scholar have any reason to make an interpretation if he is just copying Hebrew to Hebrew. Somewhere along the line somebody changed the Hebrew wording. ”
Now I’m not following you.. scribes don’t make changes?
.. scribes do make changes? And again.. “changes” from what? something that may also have been changed?
This is why context is key.. and again, the overall context of the Bible is clearly One God. And again, again.. if there was a “cover up” then the scribes were horrible at it.. they missed quite a few.. it’s just not a reasonable assertion.. if the scribes supposedly missed it, then the teachers or the readers would have caught it.
“Can you post the passages again that you are using to make this assumption?” – It’s interesting to note how you attempt to manipulate others to do your work for you – instead of going back to look up what Dave said, it’s easier for you to get him to bring it to you on a platter.
“That they are the oldest we have doesn’t automatically make them right..” – it automatically makes them more likely to be correct, as they are nearer the source. Which is most likely to be the more accurate, a painting of a painting, or a painting of a painting, of a painting, of a painting, of a painting? The former, of course, as the artist was nearer the original source. You’re middle-aged, Kathy (if you live to be a hundred!), isn’t it time you learned to think?
Can you post the passages again that you are using to make this assumption?
Deut. 32: 8-9
When Elyon divided the nations,
when he separated the sons of Adam,
he established the borders of the nations
according to the number of the sons of the gods.
Yahweh’s portion was his people,
Jacob his allotted inheritance.
This is from the dead sea scrolls. You are trying to make the case that both this version, and the Septuagint (LXX) which are two separate sources (and quite a bit older by several centuries) both have the incorrect version and that the MT is the correct version (“sons of Israel”).
What rules support that the older texts are the correct texts or that they are the source for the newer texts?
It’s the rule of age. “the earlier the manuscript, the more valuable they are. If there are fewer copies between themselves and the originals, the potential for error is reduced.” (Matthew Allen, Bible.ca) “The more direct pipeline a manuscript has to the original, the better are its chances of getting the wording right” (Komoszewski, Sawyer, & Wallace, 2006)
There are no rules that can determine anything with absolute certainty. Everything in history is about probability and determining what is most probable. If this was any other book we were examining you would most likely agree that the oldest sources are probably more accurate than later sources. Things have a way of changing more over longer periods of time. I can give examples if necessary.
That they are the oldest we have doesn’t automatically make them right.. if a scribe can make a change from the DSS then a scribe could have made a change TO the DSS as well.
The LXX version is comparable to the DSS version which means you are arguing against two older sources.
Now I’m not following you.. scribes don’t make changes? .. scribes do make changes? And again.. “changes” from what? something that may also have been changed?
They do make changes. You are trying to justify the changes by calling them interpretations. I’m saying that an interpretation only applies to translating, not copying.
And again, again.. if there was a “cover up” then the scribes were horrible at it.. they missed quite a few.. it’s just not a reasonable assertion.
Fortunately we have several sources so that there is no question that a change was made. I am taking the most probable case: older sources are closer to the original. Scholars do this all the time, especially with the new testament since there are so many different fragments.
This is why context is key.. and again, the overall context of the Bible is clearly One God.
Yes, it is clearly monotheistic teaching. I would add that there are small clues to polytheistic origins. There is also one very clear clue in the passage we’ve been discussing. And if you want to look at the context – the Israelites time and again were engaging in polytheism. If they went to worship other gods, they probably thought these gods were real.
lol, arch, win friends, influence people,
you’re too much!
In my opinion, it’s just best that I please myself because I cannot please everyone else,
I do what I want,
people either like me or hate me,
either way, that’s their problem.
a far as acceptance,
I can’t speak for every gay, but it doesn’t matter whether I’m accepted or not,
I’m going to live my life and everyone else can just get over it.
they have no choice.
and:
“Can you post the passages again that you are using to make this assumption?” – It’s interesting to note how you attempt to manipulate others to do your work for you – instead of going back to look up what Dave said, it’s easier for you to get him to bring it to you on a platter.
RIGHT!
that’s all it is, she is never going to answer,
just more questions,
more, “go back and find where I refused to answer earlier because I was too busy calling you a liar”, too busy telling you how much time of mine you are wasting,”
and of course dave does,
jeeezzzuuuussss,
oh well, I know eventually everyone of you is going to realize I’m right and just stop engaging her silly games.
I may have been vague, but that’s not the same as being dishonest. I didn’t go into specifics because because I had mentioned several of these things in the time you’ve been around, so I thought you already had an idea about them – my mistake for making an assumption.
You said,
“What contradictions of Isaiah’s prophecy?? be specific! What “differences in the gospels? be specific! What issues with Matthew 24???”
1) Isaiah 7 is the virgin birth prophecy. But the Hebrew word used there does mean “virgin” it means “young woman.” Plus, it was a sign for king of that time. It was a sign given to him to let him know that before the child born to this young woman can do this or that, that the king’s enemies will be defeated. In chapter 8, a child is born to a young woman and before long, the king’s enemies are defeated.
So for one thing, the prophecy was “fulfilled” in the next chapter. If the prophecy was fulfilled, then why would it need to be fulfilled again, and then if it could have two fulfillments, why not 3 or 4 or more?
Secondly, it was a sign given to a king at that time. How would an event that happened hundreds of years after that king’s death be a sign for him in anyway?
Third, if Isaiah really meant “virgin” why didn’t he use that specific word? In fact, since virgins giving birth is impossible, he would have not only used the specific word for “virgin” but he would have emphasized that point to make it perfectly clear – he did neither. He said that a young woman would conceive and bear a son – nothing miraculous there – the sign he was going for was to demonstrate that he could “predict” a pregnancy or a birth, and the demise of the king’s enemies.
2) There are inconstancies in the gospel accounts on the genealogy of Christ (which one is it), on his birth (where did they go after leaving Bethlehem?), on the day and time of his death (Passover or day after?), and on the events surrounding his resurrection (did the women tell others or didn’t they? Where were the angels? Who got there first, etc?)
3) Matthew 24? The biggest issue there is verse 34 where jesus is recorded as saying that there are those of that present generation who will not die until they see the end. That was obviously incorrect.
“William, if you or Nan or anyone here espouses non liberal views, I’ll gladly stop calling you
all liberals.. and I’ll apologize for calling you the name that clearly no one wants to be.”
What liberal views have I espoused; or do you call everyone a liberal until you are satisfied they are not?
Can you show me where I have espoused liberal views?
And can you clarify what you mean by liberal again?
Kathy says that homo marriage is bad for children.
well, I saw a lot of lesbians couples, raising and loving lots of children,
children not wanted by their hetero biological parents.
having better lives being loved, wanted and cared for by homos.
meanwhile Kathy sits around, complaining about her valuable time,
while she does NOTHING to make the life of any child better.
– jeremiah 50 & 51 say that the medes would destroy babylon – this didnt happen. the persians took it, but without fighting – they walked right in and began using the city.
– Acts and Revelation make mention of having to abstain from meat sacrified to idols, but paul says it;s okay to eat meat sacrified to idols.
– in matthew 12, jesus picks corn to eat on sabbath. In exodus, where the israelites were getting instructions on manna, were told not gather the manna on the sabbath, because they werent supposed to do any work on the sabbath. In matthew 5 jesus said that the old law would stay in affect, and even if you take the :till heaven and earth pass away” to somehow mean “till the NT is in affect” then while jesus was alive the OT would still govern. Why did he break the old law by gathering food?
“oh well, I know eventually everyone of you is going to realize I’m right and just stop engaging her silly games.”
It’s not that we’re doubting you, Paul, it’s just that if we did, what would we do for kicks? I mean, you can just pull the wings off of so many flies, that it’s just not fun anymore! It’s more fun to watch Kathy – WAY over her head here – bob and duck and weave.
I spent a couple of years posting and commenting on the Think Atheist website (thinkatheist.com), and there I met a young theist by the name of Barry Adamson. Barry was not a militant theist, like Kathy, out to prove everyone wrong, he came on the board and discussed things rationally and intelligently, consequently, although we often did not agree with what he said, we treated him with the dignity and respect that he had earned by his own civility. I left TA about a year ago and lost touch with Barry. I recently got an email from him, indicating that he had been on an emotional pilgrimage, so to speak – today, he posted this on TA:
It’s been awhile since I have posted anything on here. Many of you have known me as sort of the resident theist during the time that I was very active in discussions, but now I think it’s time to say that I can no longer call myself a Christian in any sort of traditional sense.
During my absence on here, I have spent a lot of time thinking and rethinking my position on things. Questioning, answering, and then questioning again over and over where my heart and head stood, and many a time things that were once a part of me gave way to something new and different – something far more liberating, and far more free than where I had ever been – and the birthing process was not an easy one. There were days, weeks, and months that every new thought and every new action spurred some sort of turmoil within myself, within my family, and within the family I grew up in. But somewhere along the way, I managed to keep things together, and my family (wife and children and the relationships involved) became a whole lot stronger for it. Thus, I think it is time to say that I have shed the husk of religion for something better, for something greater, and that something is simply me.
Religion, I think, is something we use as human beings to cover ourselves up in as a blanket of protection, but this blanket is unnecessary. It is a result of being told from a very young age that there is something wrong with us, when the reality is that there is nothing wrong with us. In fact, the only thing that is wrong is that we become sufferers of the mind – a mind prone to misinterpretation, egotistical hysteria, and misplaced emotions that are held onto for ungodly reasons. We are trained that acceptance comes from understanding, but I think the truth is that understanding comes from acceptance, and acceptance has to start by recognizing we are not always going to understand everything that comes our way in whatever form that this everything takes shape. Things are as they are and there is no reasoning behind it other than to learn in our present moment the how and the why. Or, maybe I am just full of shit right now.
Either way, religion, I believe is an evil in this world. For far too long, I have heard “Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a personal relationship,” and I have also been a user of this saying. Let me tell you though, anyone who says this is indeed full of shit, because if it was a personal relationship, there would be no need of emphasis within Christianity on “public confessions of faith” or baptisms. You would only need to accept the teachings of Jesus Christ as a way to live your life and strive to live out those teachings without ever having the need for a worship service to give your ego a pat on the back in front of the mindless mass of men and women who blindly follow a God who isn’t there: a god defined by a religion and not a relationship. If Jesus Christ is about a relationship and not a religion, there would be no need for a right way or a wrong way to follow him. There would only be your way, and your way would be defined purely in the subjective of which you alone live. Surely, you would have common threads of understanding between you and your neighbor who sees life differently, but the fact is, the life you lead would be your own and unrestrained from the archaic and corrosive control of those in self-asserted authority in all things considered the right way to live. You would simply be you, and it would be far easier to live out this chaotic existence that we, as human beings, insanely try over and over again to impose order.
But like I said, maybe I am just being full of shit right now. The fact remains, however, that I can no longer call myself a Christian. I don’t want to, don’t need to, and don’t have to. My name is simply Barry Adamson: a man of the slightly insane type, with tattoos, an opinion, and an occasional short temper. I am a human being, nothing more, and the ashes I came from will one day be ashes again. I will live until my name is forgotten, and then, like all others who came before me, fade away from the existence we call time and space. I will always hold the teachings of Jesus as something to strive for, and I will always use the law of love of my guide – at least, I will try to do so – but as for the mumbo jumbo that generally comes with the religion of Jesus, that, I reject. Call me a heretic, but if I am to live this life, which is indeed mine, I don’t need a book to tell me what to do. I will live in the authentic reality of me. After all, there is nothing more than this. The me in this world is all that I will ever be, it is all that we will ever be, and the us that comes from it will only come when we will be willing to cast off our differences as divisions that create the “me versus you” and “us versus them” mindset in order to embrace the fact that our differences are what makes us human and what makes us one tribe instead of many. And there it is.
So yes, if you’re going to describe my walk of life as anything, call me a humanist, call me a heretic, call me anything you like, but always remember: I own this life: no book, no god in the sky, and no other man. And, to be honest, if there is a divine power, I think this is what it would want us to discover about ourselves instead of squabbling over the table scraps of a world on fire.
I’ve asked Barry to join us, it’s his option if he chooses to do so.
It’s hard for me to relate to the concept of being a christian and struggling with becoming a non’believer.
I was raised in a southern Baptist home and went to sunday school and church and to a private Christian school..
i never believed, it always seemed like such a far fetched fairy tale, every word of it.
never got saved or baptized, I even refused to pray and I would get in so much trouble for refusing to bow my head an close my eyes.
and the people surrounding me, the Christians, it just wasn’t appealing to me at all.
So yes, if you’re going to describe my walk of life as anything, call me a humanist, call me a heretic, call me anything you like, but always remember: I own this life: no book, no god in the sky, and no other man. And, to be honest, if there is a divine power, I think this is what it would want us to discover about ourselves instead of squabbling over the table scraps of a world on fire.
“whether any of you agree or not, the fact is, each one of us is the center of our own universe.”
Oh, but I DO, though I may word it slightly differently – each of us is the hero/heroine of our own life story, all others, are supporting cast – I don’t see that as selfish, just honest.
That’s a bit hedonistic for me, Paul, I tend to live by the same rule I set for my children, “You can do anything you want to do, as long as you don’t hurt yourself or anyone else.”
Or as the catechism states in the church I recently joined – the Church of Jerry Springer – “Be good to yourself, and each other.“
Finding Truth 
Dave, cont..
You said:
“I think it is a fair assumption to say that a scribe changed a word to try and cover up the polytheistic implications. ”
Then you said:
“I’m not following you. Why should a scholar have any reason to make an interpretation if he is just copying Hebrew to Hebrew. Somewhere along the line somebody changed the Hebrew wording. ”
Now I’m not following you.. scribes don’t make changes?
.. scribes do make changes? And again.. “changes” from what? something that may also have been changed?
This is why context is key.. and again, the overall context of the Bible is clearly One God. And again, again.. if there was a “cover up” then the scribes were horrible at it.. they missed quite a few.. it’s just not a reasonable assertion.. if the scribes supposedly missed it, then the teachers or the readers would have caught it.
LikeLike
lol, oh, Kathy, you’re such a turd!
nobody is wasting your time but you.
LikeLike
“Can you post the passages again that you are using to make this assumption?” – It’s interesting to note how you attempt to manipulate others to do your work for you – instead of going back to look up what Dave said, it’s easier for you to get him to bring it to you on a platter.
“That they are the oldest we have doesn’t automatically make them right..” – it automatically makes them more likely to be correct, as they are nearer the source. Which is most likely to be the more accurate, a painting of a painting, or a painting of a painting, of a painting, of a painting, of a painting? The former, of course, as the artist was nearer the original source. You’re middle-aged, Kathy (if you live to be a hundred!), isn’t it time you learned to think?
LikeLike
Deut. 32: 8-9
When Elyon divided the nations,
when he separated the sons of Adam,
he established the borders of the nations
according to the number of the sons of the gods.
Yahweh’s portion was his people,
Jacob his allotted inheritance.
This is from the dead sea scrolls. You are trying to make the case that both this version, and the Septuagint (LXX) which are two separate sources (and quite a bit older by several centuries) both have the incorrect version and that the MT is the correct version (“sons of Israel”).
It’s the rule of age. “the earlier the manuscript, the more valuable they are. If there are fewer copies between themselves and the originals, the potential for error is reduced.” (Matthew Allen, Bible.ca) “The more direct pipeline a manuscript has to the original, the better are its chances of getting the wording right” (Komoszewski, Sawyer, & Wallace, 2006)
There are no rules that can determine anything with absolute certainty. Everything in history is about probability and determining what is most probable. If this was any other book we were examining you would most likely agree that the oldest sources are probably more accurate than later sources. Things have a way of changing more over longer periods of time. I can give examples if necessary.
The LXX version is comparable to the DSS version which means you are arguing against two older sources.
They do make changes. You are trying to justify the changes by calling them interpretations. I’m saying that an interpretation only applies to translating, not copying.
Fortunately we have several sources so that there is no question that a change was made. I am taking the most probable case: older sources are closer to the original. Scholars do this all the time, especially with the new testament since there are so many different fragments.
Yes, it is clearly monotheistic teaching. I would add that there are small clues to polytheistic origins. There is also one very clear clue in the passage we’ve been discussing. And if you want to look at the context – the Israelites time and again were engaging in polytheism. If they went to worship other gods, they probably thought these gods were real.
LikeLike
lol, arch, win friends, influence people,
you’re too much!
In my opinion, it’s just best that I please myself because I cannot please everyone else,
I do what I want,
people either like me or hate me,
either way, that’s their problem.
a far as acceptance,
I can’t speak for every gay, but it doesn’t matter whether I’m accepted or not,
I’m going to live my life and everyone else can just get over it.
they have no choice.
and:
“Can you post the passages again that you are using to make this assumption?” – It’s interesting to note how you attempt to manipulate others to do your work for you – instead of going back to look up what Dave said, it’s easier for you to get him to bring it to you on a platter.
RIGHT!
that’s all it is, she is never going to answer,
just more questions,
more, “go back and find where I refused to answer earlier because I was too busy calling you a liar”, too busy telling you how much time of mine you are wasting,”
and of course dave does,
jeeezzzuuuussss,
oh well, I know eventually everyone of you is going to realize I’m right and just stop engaging her silly games.
LikeLike
Kathy,
I may have been vague, but that’s not the same as being dishonest. I didn’t go into specifics because because I had mentioned several of these things in the time you’ve been around, so I thought you already had an idea about them – my mistake for making an assumption.
You said,
“What contradictions of Isaiah’s prophecy?? be specific! What “differences in the gospels? be specific! What issues with Matthew 24???”
1) Isaiah 7 is the virgin birth prophecy. But the Hebrew word used there does mean “virgin” it means “young woman.” Plus, it was a sign for king of that time. It was a sign given to him to let him know that before the child born to this young woman can do this or that, that the king’s enemies will be defeated. In chapter 8, a child is born to a young woman and before long, the king’s enemies are defeated.
So for one thing, the prophecy was “fulfilled” in the next chapter. If the prophecy was fulfilled, then why would it need to be fulfilled again, and then if it could have two fulfillments, why not 3 or 4 or more?
Secondly, it was a sign given to a king at that time. How would an event that happened hundreds of years after that king’s death be a sign for him in anyway?
Third, if Isaiah really meant “virgin” why didn’t he use that specific word? In fact, since virgins giving birth is impossible, he would have not only used the specific word for “virgin” but he would have emphasized that point to make it perfectly clear – he did neither. He said that a young woman would conceive and bear a son – nothing miraculous there – the sign he was going for was to demonstrate that he could “predict” a pregnancy or a birth, and the demise of the king’s enemies.
2) There are inconstancies in the gospel accounts on the genealogy of Christ (which one is it), on his birth (where did they go after leaving Bethlehem?), on the day and time of his death (Passover or day after?), and on the events surrounding his resurrection (did the women tell others or didn’t they? Where were the angels? Who got there first, etc?)
3) Matthew 24? The biggest issue there is verse 34 where jesus is recorded as saying that there are those of that present generation who will not die until they see the end. That was obviously incorrect.
LikeLike
Kathy,
“William, if you or Nan or anyone here espouses non liberal views, I’ll gladly stop calling you
all liberals.. and I’ll apologize for calling you the name that clearly no one wants to be.”
What liberal views have I espoused; or do you call everyone a liberal until you are satisfied they are not?
Can you show me where I have espoused liberal views?
And can you clarify what you mean by liberal again?
LikeLike
Kathy says that homo marriage is bad for children.
well, I saw a lot of lesbians couples, raising and loving lots of children,
children not wanted by their hetero biological parents.
having better lives being loved, wanted and cared for by homos.
meanwhile Kathy sits around, complaining about her valuable time,
while she does NOTHING to make the life of any child better.
LikeLike
And kathy,
just a few more for you:
– jeremiah 50 & 51 say that the medes would destroy babylon – this didnt happen. the persians took it, but without fighting – they walked right in and began using the city.
– Acts and Revelation make mention of having to abstain from meat sacrified to idols, but paul says it;s okay to eat meat sacrified to idols.
– in matthew 12, jesus picks corn to eat on sabbath. In exodus, where the israelites were getting instructions on manna, were told not gather the manna on the sabbath, because they werent supposed to do any work on the sabbath. In matthew 5 jesus said that the old law would stay in affect, and even if you take the :till heaven and earth pass away” to somehow mean “till the NT is in affect” then while jesus was alive the OT would still govern. Why did he break the old law by gathering food?
LikeLike
“oh well, I know eventually everyone of you is going to realize I’m right and just stop engaging her silly games.”
It’s not that we’re doubting you, Paul, it’s just that if we did, what would we do for kicks? I mean, you can just pull the wings off of so many flies, that it’s just not fun anymore! It’s more fun to watch Kathy – WAY over her head here – bob and duck and weave.
LikeLike
see arch, it’s all about the fun, isn’t it?
it’s fun for me to bash Kathy, otherwise I wouldn’t do it.
why do anything if it isn’t fun.
I looked hi and lo for Kathy at gay pride,
but there were so many morbidly obese, bitter looking bull dykes,
I couldn’t pick her out of the crowd.
LikeLike
I spent a couple of years posting and commenting on the Think Atheist website (thinkatheist.com), and there I met a young theist by the name of Barry Adamson. Barry was not a militant theist, like Kathy, out to prove everyone wrong, he came on the board and discussed things rationally and intelligently, consequently, although we often did not agree with what he said, we treated him with the dignity and respect that he had earned by his own civility. I left TA about a year ago and lost touch with Barry. I recently got an email from him, indicating that he had been on an emotional pilgrimage, so to speak – today, he posted this on TA:
I’ve asked Barry to join us, it’s his option if he chooses to do so.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Oh, I don’t know… Proverbs says that the “liberal soul shall be made fat” and who needs that?
LikeLike
What a wonderful letter! Full of passion, humanity, and decency. I already know I’d like him. Thanks for sharing, arch. 🙂
LikeLike
hurrah! you go Barry!
It’s hard for me to relate to the concept of being a christian and struggling with becoming a non’believer.
I was raised in a southern Baptist home and went to sunday school and church and to a private Christian school..
i never believed, it always seemed like such a far fetched fairy tale, every word of it.
never got saved or baptized, I even refused to pray and I would get in so much trouble for refusing to bow my head an close my eyes.
and the people surrounding me, the Christians, it just wasn’t appealing to me at all.
LikeLike
Black Ops Mikey,
agreed!
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
who needs that?
LikeLike
@barry “but always remember: I own this life:”
I think that was exactly the point I was making.
whether any of you agree or not, the fact is,
each one of us is the center of our own universe.
LikeLike
http://sarasotapride.org/sarasota-pride-gallery/
these pics prove gay people can throw as boring an event as any straight people.
LikeLike
Thanks for sharing that letter, arch.
So yes, if you’re going to describe my walk of life as anything, call me a humanist, call me a heretic, call me anything you like, but always remember: I own this life: no book, no god in the sky, and no other man. And, to be honest, if there is a divine power, I think this is what it would want us to discover about ourselves instead of squabbling over the table scraps of a world on fire.
Love this!
LikeLike
“but always remember: I own this life:”
or as I like to say:
“Whateva, I do what I want”
LikeLike
“whether any of you agree or not, the fact is, each one of us is the center of our own universe.”
Oh, but I DO, though I may word it slightly differently – each of us is the hero/heroine of our own life story, all others, are supporting cast – I don’t see that as selfish, just honest.
LikeLike
true, dat!
LikeLike
That’s a bit hedonistic for me, Paul, I tend to live by the same rule I set for my children, “You can do anything you want to do, as long as you don’t hurt yourself or anyone else.”
Or as the catechism states in the church I recently joined – the Church of Jerry Springer – “Be good to yourself, and each other.“
LikeLike
I always suspected you were a Jerry Springer Follower , Arch ! 🙂
LikeLike
Hey, KC – how the hell have you been?
Paul – clearly Kathy has found some easier prey – you’re the bloodhound, any idea where she is? I could pay her a visit —
LikeLike