Westboro Baptist Church

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, it actually doesn't CH.

Or is this the only place in the Bible that tells you not to kill or have sex with animals?

Exodus 22:19
"Whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death.

Maybe you could use something beside the Bible when to determine the right course of action.
 
NO!

That is NOT the Golden Rule. What you have just described is the Wiccan 'Golden Rule'.

Christianity's Golden Rule is 1000.44x better than that. It's a positive instruction. DO UNTO OTHERS. Not "refrain from doing"!

Sorry for the aside

I was just looking at the golden rule from a negative standpoint as in don't do this to others if you do not want it done to you. If you don't want it happen to you, then you don't do it to others. The positive view point is that what you want to have done to you, then you do to others. It is just a look at the coin from another side. So then would you not be able to say then don't do this if you don't want it done to you? Basically that is a double negative meaning that is still a positive command. It is still about how we treat others. If we treat others they way we want to be treated then the world will be a better place. So that means don't do things that you know will harm others. Before this verse Jesus used two negative things to show that you should be doing the positive. Matthew 7:9,10 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

So if Jesus is allowed to come from a Negative view first to show the positive, then so can I.
 
Which bits are flawed? The bits about Jesus? The bits you don't like?

Picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to believe is very dangerous.

Believing an English translation is dangerous. I'm not picking and choosing anything.
 
I'll be honest and say I do not know much Hebrew or any Greek, but I do know that the English translations are purposively changed. At least, the ones classical would cherish would be. It is well documented that the English dropped the ball (and far), and that is what I have to go by. Others say this is simply mistranslation from Latin to a Germanic language.
 
wasnt it written in greek and latin?

edit: from wikipedia:

Probably, the books of the New Testament were written in Koine Greek, the language of the earliest extant manuscripts, even though some authors often included translations from Hebrew and Aramaic texts. Certainly the Pauline Epistles were written in Greek for Greek-speaking audiences. See Greek primacy. Some scholars believe that some books of the Greek New Testament (in particular, the Gospel of Matthew) are actually translations of a Hebrew or Aramaic original. Of these, a small number accept the Syriac Peshitta as representative of the original. See Aramaic primacy.

Koine Greek (kini) (Κοινὴ Ἑλληνική, "common Greek", or ἡ κοινὴ διάλεκτος, "the common dialect") is the popular form of Greek which emerged in post-classical antiquity (c.300 BC – AD 300), and marks the third period in the history of the Greek language

Aramaic primacy is the view that the Christian New Testament and/or its sources were originally written in the Aramaic language. Aramaic Primacy is asserted over and against Greek Primacy, as is generally accepted, and Hebrew primacy.

Mainstream and modern scholars have generally had a strong agreement that the New Testament was written in Greek. They acknowledge that many individual sayings of Jesus as found in the Gospels are translations from oral Aramaic, but hold that the Gospels' text in its current form was composed in Greek, and so were the other New Testament writings. Scholars of all stripes have had to acknowledge the presence in the Gospel of Mark of scattered, but only occasional, Aramaic expressions, transliterated and then translated.

Since non-literary, simple Greek knowledge or competency in multiple languages was relatively widespread in Jewish Palestine including Galilee, and a Greek-speaking community had already developed in Jerusalem shortly after Easter, one can assume that this linguistic transformation [from "the Aramaic native language of Jesus" to "the Greek Gospels"] began very early. ... [M]issionaries, above all 'Hellenists' driven out of Jerusalem, soon preached their message in the Greek language. We find them in Damascus as early as AD 32 or 33. A certain percentage of Jesus' earliest followers were presumably bilingual and could therefore report, at least in simple Greek, what had been heard and seen. This probably applies to Cephas/Peter, Andrew, Philip or John. Mark, too, who was better educated in Jerusalem than the Galilean fishermen, belonged to this milieu. The great number of phonetically correct Aramaisms and his knowledge of the conditions in Jewish Palestine compel us to assume a Palestinian Jewish-Christian author. Also, the author's Aramaic native language is still discernible in the Marcan style

Currently, 1,600 Jewish epitaphs (funerary inscriptions) are extant from ancient Palestine dating from 300 B.C. to 500 A.D. Approximately 70 percent are in Greek, about 12 percent are in Latin, and only 18 percent are in Hebrew or Aramaic.

"In Jerusalem itself about 40 percent of the Jewish inscriptions from the first century period (before 70 C.E.) are in Greek. We may assume that most Jewish Jerusalemites who saw the inscriptions in situ were able to read them"

so i guess we cant be sure, but its most likely big parts were written in greek, except for maybe the book of mark
 
I'll be honest and say I do not know much Hebrew or any Greek, but I do know that the English translations are purposively changed.

True if you think the purpose was to make the gospel understandable to english speakers.....false if you think it was part of some conspriracy.

At least, the ones classical would cherish would be. It is well documented that the English dropped the ball (and far), and that is what I have to go by. Others say this is simply mistranslation from Latin to a Germanic language.

I would believe in mistranslation before I would embrace the conspiracy angle. And even then, such mistranslations would be on the order of confusing 'kill' with 'murder' for example........in other words, mistranslations, even when they occur, are not typically of the magnitude to significantly alter the message.

But mistranslations can be corrected....for example, thats why I prefer using a New King James as opposed to the King James bible to do my studying.

Be that as it may, part of my point was that if you, yourself, cant read Greek or Hebrew......isnt rather hypocritical of you to take CH to task for possibly using 'mistranslated' bibles?

And I do think CH is correct on this point, having done some fairly in depth research on the matter.
 
Wasn't the Bible originally written in Aramaic?
It wasn't originally written in any one language. The original books were, IIRC, written in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.
 
I would believe in mistranslation before I would embrace the conspiracy angle. And even then, such mistranslations would be on the order of confusing 'kill' with 'murder' for example........in other words, mistranslations, even when they occur, are not typically of the magnitude to significantly alter the message.
You'd be surprised - though it was much earlier, there are plenty of the new testament in which the traditional author did not actually write it, or the scripture was added on to later on. Some of Paul's writings, for example. There's plenty of examples of non-genuine parts of scripture - Plotinus would obviously have more info on it.
 
Ohh, you're going to hell for that . . . ;)

I have more!

"It's not what goes into a man's mouth which defiles him, but what comes out"

and (the coup de grace)

Jesus, talking about the return of the Kingdom of God:

"I tell you, in that night there shall be two [men] in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left."
 
"I tell you, in that night there shall be two [men] in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left."

so only one gets taken from behind by the other? yeah, sounds like common morality for that time :-)
 
You'd be surprised - though it was much earlier, there are plenty of the new testament in which the traditional author did not actually write it, or the scripture was added on to later on. Some of Paul's writings, for example. There's plenty of examples of non-genuine parts of scripture - Plotinus would obviously have more info on it.

He knows about that, but that wouldn't prove anything in regards to his trench.

Speaking of which, I am thinking of learning Greek (Koine?) for this purpose. If I do, I won't until after I master French... and English. :p
 
I'll be honest and say I do not know much Hebrew or any Greek, but I do know that the English translations are purposively changed. At least, the ones classical would cherish would be. It is well documented that the English dropped the ball (and far), and that is what I have to go by. Others say this is simply mistranslation from Latin to a Germanic language.
Maybe you could provide a concrete example of how the English translators ALL dropped the ball in translating the New Testament as condemning homosexuality?
 
Maybe you could provide a concrete example of how the English translators ALL dropped the ball in translating the New Testament as condemning homosexuality?

Every time it is mentioned.

There is plenty of documentation on this, including books. You wouldn't want to read a book, though.

I find it funny conservatives think that it is okay to continue to hate, when something is in question.

As conservative as B-XVI is, even he thinks that hating homosexuals is ********. He certainly doesn't agree with the acts, however.
 
Every time it is mentioned.

There is plenty of documentation on this, including books. You wouldn't want to read a book, though.

I find it funny conservatives think that it is okay to continue to hate, when something is in question.

As conservative as B-XVI is, even he thinks that hating homosexuals is ********. He certainly doesn't agree with the acts, however.
I don't hate homosexuals. I've never met any Christian in person who said that they hated homosexuals, and I've run in some extremely conservative circles. (As in, families with 13 kids where the daughters don't go to college because that'd be too "worldly" and it's unnecessary because they're just going to get married in a couple years and raise a family, families) Not once. Westboro is not only the exception for American Christianity, not even the exception for conservative American Christianity, but is the exception out of extremely conservative American Christianity.

You say that books have been written on it. Fine. But you don't cite a single book, or a single online article, or even make an effort to defend your view besides a simple "There is plenty of documentation on this" and a subtle trolling comment implying that that I don't or can't read books. Come on Zarn, if this is so obvious and so clear cut, surely you can post some argument with actual evidence? If you can't, then be courteous and admit that you can't. That isn't so hard.
 
Every time it is mentioned.

There is plenty of documentation on this, including books. You wouldn't want to read a book, though.

I find it funny conservatives think that it is okay to continue to hate, when something is in question.

As conservative as B-XVI is, even he thinks that hating homosexuals is ********. He certainly doesn't agree with the acts, however.

Actually, Zarn, despite your not-so veiled insult on Elrohir, I have read more than a few books and I will simply say this. You are incorrect....on both the bible part and the hating part.

Religious conservatives dont hate them anymore than Jesus hated them. They will not condone sin however, thus you confuse this with hate.
 
What about when all the books were put together into one volume, for the first time? What language was used then?

(I guess that doesn't really matter though)...

It matters heavily when the books were first put into one collection. That would put an upper bound on (1) when the books were written and (2) when the books became commonly accepted.

The earliest fragment containing a list of books for Church use is the Muratorian Fragment, which scholars generally date at circa 170 CE. source and text

Ignatius (writing circa 100 CE) had copies of, and quoted, all of the books that are currently considered the New Testament, with the exception of II Peter, IIRC. I can source that; I'll get to it tomorrow.

The Latin Vulgate puts the upper limit on the compilation at the 5th century CE, but that's far too late to be the first time.

Does that help, or just make things more confused?

-Integral
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom