The Bible/Headscratchers: Difference between revisions
Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.2
No edit summary |
(Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.2) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 6:
Note: this isn't meant as destructive criticism. If anything, it encourages creativity in defending [[The Bible]].
'''Free Will Guilt Trip''': Does not hold water because the idea that God provided free will and that we choose our own Hell is so [[Newer Than They Think|Newer Than You Think]], that predestination not only was acceptable until the 18th Century, but is actually supported by the Bible, depending on how you interpret some passages (see Acts 13:48, Romans 8:29 and 30, 2 Timothy 1:9, Ephesians 1:4 and 5, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, Jude 4)
* Free will in Judaism and Christianity [[Older Than You Think|actually predates predestination]]. Also, foreknowledge is not predestination and does not preclude or prevent free will. The interpretation you mentioned is not universally accepted.
{{quote|''Previous to Augustine there was no serious development in Christianity of a theory of predestination.''
|'''The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. IX''', [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc09.html?term{{=}}Predestination page 192]}}
{{quote|''The Greek Apologists and Fathers...They know nothing of unconditional predestination; they teach free will.''
|'''Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. X''', [http://www.archive.org/stream/encyclopaediaofr10hast2#page/230/mode/2up/search/know+nothing+of+unconditional+predestination%3B+they+teach+free+will page 231]}}
'''Pandora's Box Predicament''': God pretty much was the one to lay the punishment; at no point was it indicated in Genesis that Adam and Eve "opened a Pandora's Box", hence Yahweh is responsible for the world's evils. This is supported by the fact Yahweh is honest enough to describe himself as "creator of good AND evil". (see 2 Kings 6:33)
Line 58 ⟶ 60:
* Why no concrete explanation for when, how and why Satan had a [[Face Heel Turn]]? Satan was simply an agent to sort out the guilty back in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament he's suddenly become a [[Complete Monster]] responsible for sin in the first place, and the [[Big Bad]] of everything. No build-up whatsoever. Not to mention, saying he's the snake (who's more of a [[Trickster Archetype]] than pure evil) opens up more questions and plot holes. Did the writers [[Nothing Is Scarier|purposefully left it blank for you to imagine it?]] [[Viewers are Morons]]? Were they just unable to find a good enough villain, and go "let's make Satan evil." I really want to know.
** Bigger question might be why you're treating [[The Bible]] like it's a piece of fiction literature that was plotted out by a single source with one running plotline and foreshadowing.
** As to how, Satan likely turned someting during or after the earth's completion.<ref>Job 38:4-7 infers that "''all'' the sons of God" were still good when God "founded the earth"</ref>
*** Alright, but why would someone who already had a [[Face Heel Turn]] as the serpent in Genesis be an agent of God in Job? Why choose pride as a reason for his fall? It doesn't seem compelling. Not to mention, booting Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden didn't really seem that evil-they lost their immortality, but would be capable of growing.
*** [[Sarcasm Mode|Uh, maybe because he]] ''[[Captain Obvious|wasn't]]'' an agent of God in Job? Like I said above, that is "only ''one interpretation'' that is ''not'' universally believed"; in other words, he was still acting as the [[Big Bad]] against God at that time. Read what I wrote above; I had already answered that question before you asked it. Anyway, what do you mean "why choose pride"? People don't consciously choose a reason to make a [[Face Heel Turn]]. He fell because he was envious of the worship of God and wanted some for himself, essentially becoming the [[Ur Example]] of [[A God Am I]]. And apparently you failed to grasp the implications and consequences of what happened to Adam and Eve. For one thing, robbing someone of their immortality is basically the same as, or ''worse'' than, committing murder. Additionally, the serpent's trickery ended up leading to sin and the [[Humans Are
**** If God opposed Satan (which was a title applied to many entities, divine and human) then he wouldn't gloat to Satan or give express permission to the extent that was given. And, even more, if Satan wasn't an agent of God then there was no obligation for Satan to follow the rules that God set.
**** Opposing Satan has nothing to do with gloating or giving permission. God gave permission to Satan to prove a point, namely that Job would serve God under any circumstance. And Satan followed God's rules not because he was an agent of God, but because ''God is more powerful than him''.
Line 73 ⟶ 75:
**** To make a point. Reading between the lines in Genesis chapter 3, Satan was challenging God's right to rule mankind in the Garden of Eden, inferring that humans would be better off if they were left on their own or in Satan's control. If God had killed off Satan, Adam, and Eve immediately, it would have looked like Satan was right or at least that he could pose some threat to God's sovereignty. Instead, God gave Satan and humans free reign on Earth for millennia in order to prove that Satan is a bad ruler and that humans would screw themselves over without God's guidance.
* So, God tells Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit from The Tree of Knowledge. Satan becomes a snake and tells Eve to eat the Fruit. Adam and Eve do so, and God punishes not Satan, the one who caused the problem, but snakes themselves, removing their legs. [[What the Hell, Hero?|What The Hell, God]]? Are you forgetting that it wasn't the snake itself who made A&E disobey, but Satan? That'd be like if a bunch of guys in gorilla suits robbed a bank and shot lots of people, and then all gorillas had to be shipped to Antarctica because of the aforementioned robbery, it just doesn't seem right.
** It never actually says the snake was Satan, and many don't think he is. People inferred that from a reference to Satan as "the great serpent" or something like that, which sounds similar, but could just as likely refer to [[Reptiles Are
Line 120 ⟶ 122:
** (1) No, a "test" does not always refer to a simulacrum/model, [[You Keep Using That Word|or what you say it does]]. (2) God did ''not'' know that they would violate his prohibition. (3) God really, ''really'', '''''really''''' doesn't like being disobeyed, which is why they died. (4) As to the answer to your question, its purpose was a symbol of God's right as Creator to tell humans what was right and wrong and expect them to comply.
*** (3) [[Critical Research Failure|They died?]] Oh yeah, at least eight hundred years after they were supposed to die according to God. If God doesn't like being disobeyed as much as you claim, why not kill them and start over as he did with the Flood later on? (2) How can God have an [[Omniscient Morality License]] (as you claim in 4) if he isn't omniscient? [[Reverse Psychology]] would kick in eventually even if the Serpent hadn't, and God would know that.
*** (3) Considering that they otherwise would have had a form of [[Immortality]], it makes no difference whether they died immediately or hundreds of years later. The point is that their death was a consequence of eating from the tree, and had they not done so, they would still be living today. Also, killing them immediately would make it seem like God was afraid of humans making their own decisions about deciding what was right or wrong, and that Satan was at least partially right. Most people don't read between the lines to realize that what Satan was ''really'' trying to do was question God's right to rule over humans and angels, and God let humans live and [[Humans Are
* Something confuses me. As far as I understand Genesis, one of the reasons God banished Adam and Eve from the garden was that now that they ate from the tree of knowledge, they would become like god if they ate from the tree of immortality. But he never forbade them to do that in the first place. So, what would he have done if they had eaten from the tree of immortality before the tree of knowledge?
** Who knows? Perhaps the idea is that the tree of life would only work so long as they kept eating it, and thus so long as they listened to God, they would live forever.
Line 230 ⟶ 232:
*** This happens for the first half of the plagues, not the last half, and is in the original.
** [[Two Words|Three words:]] God hates slavery.
*** The Bible actually condones the practice, with certain limits on cruelty towards the slave, such as releasing slaves every 50 years.
**** Although the fact that it's only permission to enslave ''pagan'' nations indicates some pretty severe [[Moral Myopia]].
**** Slavery back then tended to be a bit different and slaves weren't necessarily slaves for life. In some cases, it was more of an indentured servant sort of deal. You also couldn't take them against their will for the purpose of making them a slave (apart from prisoners of war, but that's different).
**** Ancient Egypt didn't practice slavery at all. It would have served no purpose in their economy, where the farming majority were displaced with nothing better to do for a chunk of every year anyway.
**** In dealing with any forms of slavery one has to understand that different cultures have different forms of slavery which can aren't always analogous to American/Colonial slavery.
Line 253 ⟶ 254:
**** A column of smoke and fire is hardly divine. Additionally other gods had ALREADY used both smoke AND fire as symbols and disguises. And that's nothing of that when Moses went for the "talk" they had NOT been forbidden from creating 'idols'.
** A traditional Jewish answer to this kind of question is that the trauma and theatrics of leaving Egypt, as well as the completely unnecessary length of the time spent wandering in the desert, were really intended to purge the Israelites of any traces of "slave mentality." If they'd just been magically transported out of Egypt, as you suggest, their external condition would have changed but their mindsets wouldn't have. All the unnecessary stuff was really intended to constitute them as a free people.
*** Still superfluous, then. The golden calf is a symbol that they had still had
** Here is a bit better
*** Punish the bully, yes. Punish the bully's family, his employees' families, his neighbor's families, rather than the bully himself? That'd just make ''me'' a lot worse than the bully.
**** You guys don't seem to know how racism works. It's a ''system'' everyone is complicit, especially the Upper class merchants and farm lords (think sharecropping
***** You fail to understand that history has repeatedly shown the "slavery" present in Exodus to be so drastically different from what was present in America that it's not even able to be defined accurately as "slavery". In fact the closest that Ancient Egypt at ANY of the possible times of the account practiced was hiring labor and soldiers from neighboring areas. And then we have that the Pharoah didn't have any problem meeting several times with a representative of the people. And then we have the effect the plagues would have had. Total economic collapse. A fate worse than death and a complete humiliation of the WORLD SUPERPOWER OF THE TIME. To give no comment on that the Pharoah was COMPLETELY WILLING half the time to AGREE TO LETTING THEM GO, and so wasn't [[Complete Monster|purely evil]].
***** And not to mention killing all of the first-born sons, including young infants. [[Sarcasm Mode|Because people are born 'racist'...]]
***** Ahem... are all of you forgetting that the Egyptians were terrorizing and killing the Israelites' children for ''years'' before Moses showed up to lead them out, as well as the whole slavery bit? Even after one of God's people had basically saved Egypt from starvation a few years back? In my opinion, A) God hardened pharaohs heart so he could punish the Egyptians properly; if he had simply said "Oh, well, sure, you can leave", justice wouldn't have been met (the "Old Testament [[God Is Evil]]" thing is baseless if you realize that, if God punished someone, they ''really'' deserved it; you're mistaking evil for strictness). B) He wanted to show the Egyptians that their gods were absolutely ''nothing'' compared to him; he even left their "strongest" gods for last, creating a heavy darkness (Ra) and showing his power over death (which was also a [[Take That]] for them doing the same thing to the Israelites)
* One of the plague was the slaughter of all the animals in Egypt. Then what did the Pharaoh army harnessed to their chariots to pursue the
** The plague was not God killing all of Egypt's animals. Apart from God distinguishing between the Egyptians' animals and the Israelites' animals, the plague was only to kill livestock. Livestock are defined as "farm animals regarded as an asset." The horses at farms were livestock, but the horses pulling chariots weren't. Those latter horses were war horses, or military animals to use a modern term; they're bred and trained to be used in war which involves combat and carrying supplies. As they weren't livestock, they weren't targeted by the plague as God stipulated it only targeted livestock. Even if their war horses died, the Egyptians could've gotten more war horses from other nations with coin or trade or as tribute.
== Maccabees ==
Line 292 ⟶ 293:
** Joseph died before his ministry years. Mary was, according to Catholic doctrine, born without any original sin as a prerequisite to conceiving the lord and savior of humanity. His siblings/cousins/whatever were involved in the church from the beginning (particularly James the Just, who was with Peter and Paul one of the paramount leaders of the early church).
*** So were all his cousins including but not limited to third-sixth cousins and siblings were involved in the church and what do other christian doctrines have to say about Mary sin state and what would happen to his family members if they didn't accept him as lord and savior or stayed orthodox jews?
** Other doctrines do not believe in the immaculate conception (that Mary was conceived without sin). Nowhere in [[The Bible]] is it said that Mary was sinless or needed to be sinless to conceive Jesus. After all, if [[God]] was capable of causing two sinful parents to have a sinless child, then Jesus' death would be pointless. And while Jesus' half-brother James was an early Christian leader, he was only a Christian ''after'' Jesus had already died.<ref>Paul mentions at 1 Corinthians 15:7 that [[Back
*** How would God using two sinful parents to give birth to a sinless kid affect the story in anyway and isn't Jesus God so Jesus would send his family to hell and what do you mean by the term unbelievers?
*** The whole point of having a Messiah was so that the people who were already sinners could be redeemed. Jesus Himself would be able to save everyone since he was also divine, as well as sinless, making his sacrifice more powerful. If God created a sinless normal person, and allowed him to die as a Messiah, it would only be good enough to spare one sinner.
**** Not exactly. The thing is, Jesus being Divine means that he is able to rise from the dead, thus triumphs over death. Had Jesus been a normal person, his sacrifice is meaningless and we're all screwed regardless our belief.
*** The Angelic Salutation (when the angel Gabriel reveres Mary as being "full of grace") might actually give Bibical support to the Immaculate Conception. First, the angel is referring to Mary as "filled with grace" before she conceived Jesus (as the whole point of the salutation was to get her permission for her to become pregnant), indicating that God preserved her in some form of holiness earlier in her life. Second, the fact that an angel is actually revering Mary, indicates that she must be greater than an angel in the eyes of God, which would seem less likely if she was a sinner.
*** By 'unbelievers' I meant someone who didn't ''believe'' in Jesus' [[Back
* Why wait so long to be sacrificed why didn't he just sacrificed himself during the Garden of Eden?
*** one of the major reoccurring theme of the bible it that god does thing at his own pace. keep in mind that it took 300 years! for god to send someone to get childeren of isreal out of egypt. 40 years too take them to their promise land and it took god a whole week to destroy the walls of jericho for them too.
Line 312 ⟶ 313:
** The basic context of Jesus' content was after a group of Pharisees claimed that he was doing his miracles by means of demonic powers. The main point was that Jesus was performing miracles in the name of God, and the Jewish tradition of the day stated that if someone was performing all these miracles in the name of God, than it's accepted that God sent them, because otherwise God wouldn't allow them to perform the miracles. Jesus fit the criteria (and followed all the Law), but they accused him of being a demon. In that case, the unpardonable sin was attributing to the devil something that was clearly performed by the power of the Holy Spirit solely because he was undermining their authority. The blasphemy is that they refused to accept an act that, according to their standards, was clearly from God, and calling it demonic. It's not so much that the sin is unpardonable. It's saying that anyone who rejects a clear sign from God in this manner has essentially reached a point where they are irredeemable. That said, that's only one interpretation, and there are many others. It's just the only one I could think of off the top of my head.
*** Pretty much that. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit essentially means denying God to the point of being irredeemable.
*** However, this ''only'' applies '''if you are a believer.''' Unfortunately, [
*** Open to interpretation, of course, but what this troper has learned is that the Holy Spirit is the holiness within/connected to you. So committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is committing blasphemy against a soul (presumably yours, but it works with anothers).
*** When it comes to the "unforgivable sin" it is twofold; the nature of this sin is where you come to know that the Gospel is true but say no to it anyway. It is one thing for an atheist to go "screw you" because the atheist is ultimately, ignorant. Yet if someone came to know that Jesus is God, believed it and then said no to it - you are denying truth openly of your own volition. As the Holy Spirit is the 'Spirit of Truth' then to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is to deny openly the very truth you profess. The second part of this twofold statement is that in order for God to forgive, you have to be truly sorry (repentant or in a state of contrition), but of course if you openly say no to the truth ''after knowing it to be true'' then you're not going to be sorry, are you? Therefore, it is unforgivable not because it is so horrible, but because God quite simply cannot forgive you because you are not sorry!
Line 345 ⟶ 346:
== Sin & Death ==
* Something that doesn't sit well with me is the passage "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16), which has been called Christianity in a nutshell. My problem is that since God is all powerful, if it is possible for him to forgive sins through his son's death it should be possible for him to do it without it. Thus, the message that is intended to portray God as infinitely loving of the world comes off making him look like a jerk for requiring Jesus's sacrifice to do it.
** And yet if god is jesus it makes him look like a dude who would make a human aspect of himslef, prech to us dirlecty rather than the "lord over and shoot lasers" thing and then let us kill him, it makes him look a lot nicer and us [[Humans Are
** Your premise overlooks a few things. It is written that the wages of sin is death, which God pretty much said from the get-go. Man sinned anyway, and continues to do so to this very day. It's terminal in every sense of the word. Jesus' death was necessary because for sinners, [[Redemption Equals Death]] (sort of). Jesus didn't have any of that on his record to redeem, so his was the only one that could do anything to save everyone else. Besides, God choosing mankind over His own Son should send a pretty powerful message as far as the lengths to which He's willing in order to go to help us.
*** The problem is that he didn't ''have'' to choose to punish ''anyone''. He's God, and therefore the final authority. If he decides that people should be forgiven, he can do it, with no "wages of sin" necessary.
Line 372 ⟶ 373:
********** But that ''infinitely good'' God freely commits the SAME actions. Yet it's not sin. Double standards are more immoral than breaking a promise that's causing suffering.
******** One way I've heard it explained is that Hell, being separation from God, isn't so much an extension of God's wrath as it is the void left when you completely reject God (see the "unforgivable sin" IJBM on here). It's not really God saying "screw you, here's eternal pain," it's more like "Wish you were here, but I can't help you if you won't accept My help." (I should mention my personal theology is fairly lenient when it comes to Heaven; the way I see it, you pretty much have to try to get into Hell, because otherwise, you'd be right about the disproportionate thing.)
********* Although, since God created the entire
********** Do some research befored conplaining ok. According to the bible god created hell AFTER satan rebellion(NOT during during the creation period!) to be satan prison, then satan supposedly trick humanity into eating the forbidden fruit which allow humans to understand the difference between good and evil which then allowed humans to go to hell too.
* Another way of seeing it would be this: Righteousness is having a connection, or an understanding, with God. Sinning means that that connection is broken. The link is re-established through redemption. Heaven is being permanently connected to God. Hell is being permanently severed from God. If you accept these statements, Heaven and Hell take on the nature of natural continuations of already existing states, rather than reward and punishment. If you choose to do things that distance you from God, you stay distanced from God.
Line 382 ⟶ 383:
** The Bible says laying with another man. This means anal sex, or so I understand. Anal Sex makes it alot easier to contract diseases than vaginal sex (it causes tears in the flesh you wouldn't know where there, and they would get infected). In a society without modern medicine and treatment, such a thing would be really, really bad and would likley be contagious. So for at least in the camp of Israel, it was banned for sanitary reasons, much like many theorize not eating pig/shellfish was.
** Here's what I think: A) His rules say no sex outside of marriage, B) The rules say marriage is a "man and woman becoming one flesh". Since homosexuals can't get married in the Biblical sense, than having sex would be a sin.
*** But if "no sex outside of marriage" is indeed one of God's rules, then King Solomon was guilty of breaking that rule 400 times. There was no indication in the Old Testament that Solomon's 400
**** Not per se, but many of these were foreign and they led Solomon away from God and into idolatry. God punished Solomon by breaking up his kingdom, leaving only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin to Rehoboam (Solomon's son and successor).
** being homosexual is not a sin, but homosexual sex is a sin
Line 487 ⟶ 488:
** Its a metaphor for unbelievers saying that they believe, when in reality, they bare no fruit. Also note that the fig tree had bared leaves, but not fruit, which is odd because figs grow both at the same time.
** His disciples point out to him that it's not the right season for figs, so Jesus' decision is still oddly petty. And even so, why the curse? Should we kill unbelievers?
** ** There is the undeniable fact nothing is known of where Jesus went and what he did betwen ages
* Where did God get his own persona or ego (in the Freudian sense also known as individuality, not the ego in the sense of pride) anyway? Don't give immortality arguments: if he lacked his own genesis he has no one or nothing to learn from, which means he should lack a personal ego and remain a part of a chaotic id (You should know that learning requires stimuli, have you ever read in deep silence a massive book while blindfolded?). And the Bible accurately portrays God not as a Brahman -esque collective unconscious, but something which has its own ego (I Am The Lord Thy God, Thou Shall Not Worship Other Gods Besides Me). Having an ego means having an individuality, ergo, the entire universe should not contain anything which he doesn't want in the first place. Also, if he has his own ego, won't his own ego be obliterated by the multiversal management?
** Magic? Although its possible that there is another force that drives him which is why he (or she) is unable to break some rules. The bible doesn't meantion this, but the bible doesn't meantion a lot of things. Also, since there are "other gods" he could have modeled himself after them, if they came before him.
Line 506 ⟶ 507:
****** And we cannot do all those things ''in'' haven because...?
*** On euthanasia, the question is open. Some Christians find it reprehensible others do not. It's up to you to decide what the Bible says and whose explanation makes the most sense. Opposition to euthanasia is not an article of the faith.
** This is one of the ''many'' [[Dub
** Except killing people in war is murder also if you look at it that way.
*** The Hebrew word translated as "kill" in the King James Version, and which (as mentioned above) would be better translated as "murder", had a specific legal meaning. State-sanctioned killing, such as the killing of enemy soldiers in war or the execution of a condemned prisoner, was expressly excluded from that definition.
Line 521 ⟶ 522:
** The time bwteen Delilah's betrayal is never mentioned. It's likely that they happened many years apart, during which time Samson would have fallen back to being madly in love with her and forgotten past greivances. Still, he's definitely holding th [[Idiot Ball]].
** Samson makes a lot more sense when I imagine him as Lenny from ''[[Memento]]''...
* What bugs me a bit is that for all the claims about God's omnipotence and omniscience floating about (including on this page)...the Bible itself seems to do a poor job to back them up. Sure, He's ''immensely'' powerful and, presumably,
** Well, the infinite clause is assumed since he created, well, everything (assuming of course he exists). He/They/It's the essence that brought forth all existence with Heaven, Hell, Physical Reality, etc., so he had to be infinite otherwise philisophically we'd be right back at the same problem of the "first domino" (you can't go back an infinite amount of dominoes, otherwise the chain would never start). Perhaps in literary tradition the bible isn't the best way to show God's Infinite ways. It all depends on how you look at it.
Line 589 ⟶ 590:
***** Isn't that taking the verse a bit out of context and stretching it because how could anybody use that verse to justify the N.T canon? Also at the time it was written the scriptures were already completed as the Old Testament canon or the Jewish tanakh.
* Am I the only one who doesn't get why people say that the serpent is evil? Okay, so the serpent decides to trick humanity into eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. Humans learn what good and evil are, and get out. Alright, I understand that the serpent is crafty. But ''why'' is this regarded as a [[Moral Event Horizon]] on the serpent's behalf? Sure, the serpent got them booted out and supposedly created death, but he basically gave humanity free will, and the capability to truly think. And ''grow.'' At its very worst, the serpent comes off as a [[Well-Intentioned Extremist]]. Why do people associate that with [[Big Bad]] material? It seemed more like the serpent is a [[Designated Villain]], and not the same guy who'd become [[A God Am I|Sa]][[Complete Monster|tan.]]
** Um, for one thing, the serpent did ''not'' give humanity free will or teach them good and evil. If humanity didn't have free will beforehand, it would have been impossible for them to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. And how is tricking humanity into dying ''not'' a [[Moral Event Horizon]]? Also, don't forget that with death also came sin and the [[Humans Are Flawed]] and [[Humans Are the Real Monsters|Humans Are Bastards]] tropes.
* How does the law saying "don't boil a goat in its mother's milk" get interpreted to mean "don't have meat and dairy at the same meal"? It seems pretty obvious to me that the intended meaning is "boiling an animal in it's own mother's milk is cruel and unusual, don't do this cruel and unusual thing to your animals".
** The goat was almost surely intended to be killed before being dunked in the boiling milk, and then eaten when it was done cooking. The authors of the Talmud, where the "don't mix meat and dairy" rule comes from, might have reasoned along these lines: 1. "Boy, the Torah sure considers goat boiling to be bad! That same admonition against boiling a young goat in its mother's milk appears ''three'' separate times." 2. "That means it must have had some great cultural significance, like maybe it was a common practice for some of the neighboring tribes that the Israelites wanted to distance themselves from." 3. "Therefore, it can't ''just'' be about baby goats and their mother's milk, it must be hidden code for a far more general prohibition."
Line 632 ⟶ 633:
* Do you have proof that it's gone through "billions of mistranslations"? Cite sources. And no, "it's been around so long that it ''must'' have been significantly altered" doesn't count as a source.
** The main indication that it's been through mistranslations is that there are so many different
*** I was referring more to the extant Hebrew and Greek texts. We still have those, and so can compare current translations to see if they hold up. There's nothing to indicate that the Hebrew and Greek texts that we currently have deviate significantly from the originals (and being able to prove otherwise would necessitate having access to the originals anyway, so the whole argument has no real ground to stand on in the first place).
*** Obviously you have no knowledge of the subject matter, then. The english translations of the Bible are notoriously for being utter parodies of the original hebrew and greek verses.
*** You realize that you're making statements without backing them up? The burden of proof is on you here. Post a few links supporting this point of view.
*** [https://web.archive.org/web/20131031060232/http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm This offers a good start]. Really, it's such basic knowledge that it surprises me that you don't understand the concept.
*** See, you should have posted that in the first place, rather than assuming that "everyone knows this stuff", and I'll ignore that condescending remark that you felt the need to include with it.
* Many Chiristians consider Satan irredeemable, and thus not "worth" prayer. He has already been judged by God and cast from Heaven, and Revelation indicates that he isn't going to be suddenly saved (though that book is especially open to interpretation). Most Christians who believe Satan or some form of the Devil exists consider him/it/them the cause of evil, possibly delighting in making people hurt, suffer, and turn against each other and God.
Line 642 ⟶ 643:
** 1- Such view points are not supported by the Bible (which doesn't even have a true notion of Satan; again, it's just an epiphet for numerous entities, some of them now thought to be '''human''') and 2- It seems a rather horrendous view point, since it just propagates the [[Black and White Insanity]] that christian sects are infamous for.
And on a different note from one lecture on such questions,
"Heaven will be a place where a big sound heard will be, 'Oooooooooooooohhhhhhh'" as our questions are given a near perfect answer.
{{worksubpagefooter}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Bible, The}}
[[Category:Literature/Headscratchers]]
| |||