No Longer A Christian
- Thread starter Granite
- Start date
- Status
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Do you know how often I've read similar pronouncements here and on other Web forums?
"All those orthodox people merely misunderstood what God has been saying for the last four thousand years. I, on the other hand, have a much fuller revelation of his will than they do..."
:darwinsm:
wickwoman
New member
Dear Brother Wili:
We are left with at least two alternatives, in my opinion, as to how we should view God:
1. God is only good and everything that happens is a result of his/her tolerance. However, bad things happen because there is an evil outside force which God does nothing to prevent, though he/she is fully capable of doing so. Unless we are Christians, however, our prayers are not always heard and so bad things still happen. As for non-Christians, they are at the mercy of Satan. That includes Hindu orphans living on the streets of India.
2. God is only good. Everything that happens is ultimately good. Though we do not understand the purpose of the events in our lives, they will all work together for our good eventually. There is no evil outside force, God would not allow it.
We are left with at least two alternatives, in my opinion, as to how we should view God:
1. God is only good and everything that happens is a result of his/her tolerance. However, bad things happen because there is an evil outside force which God does nothing to prevent, though he/she is fully capable of doing so. Unless we are Christians, however, our prayers are not always heard and so bad things still happen. As for non-Christians, they are at the mercy of Satan. That includes Hindu orphans living on the streets of India.
2. God is only good. Everything that happens is ultimately good. Though we do not understand the purpose of the events in our lives, they will all work together for our good eventually. There is no evil outside force, God would not allow it.
Mr. Coffee
New member
The issue of numbers in the Old Testament is a complicated one, and the example you've cited involves the Hebrew term eleph. 'Eleph' is the ordinary word for 'thousand', but it can also be used in a variety of other senses: e.g. 'family' (Judges 6:15) or 'clan' (Zechariah 9:7; 12:5,6,) or perhaps a military unit. 'Alluph' (which looks identical to eleph in the original manuscripts which had no vowels) is used for the 'chieftains' of Edom (Genesis 36:15-43); probably for a commander of a military 'thousand'; and almost certainly for the professional, fully-armed soldier.
The total fighting force of the Exodus Israelites may have been about 18,000 which would probably mean a figure of about 72,000 for the whole migration. Full article here.
When someone leaves Christianity, they have the sense of a new, emergent identity and a new sense of how the world is. There is a temptation to yield to this and to refuse to read apologetics. I know this from personal experience. Granite, there are answers to everything you're saying, so please give it a chance.
Zakath
Resident Atheist
It needn't be.
You have aptly demonstrated that what makes it complicated is the mental gymnastics biblical literalists have to accomplish to maintain their ill-founded views...
The fact that people who cannot read or translate the native language of the Jewish scriptures will hold forth at length on something of which they have no first-hand knowledge merely compounds the problem.
Face facts - either the OT contradicts itself in a number of places or the vast majority of translators for the past three thousand years have screwed up...
Of course a third possibility exists - that a bunch of people who cannot read Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek have figured out the truth by conveniently making up defintions of words as they go along...
Which explanation sounds more reasonable?
:think:
Mr. Coffee
New member
Show me your sources on how these Hebrew terms should be translated, instead of just blowing a raspberry.
"The issue of numbers in the Old Testament is a complicated one..."
Right. In other words, the Bible means what it says until it doesn't.
"The total fighting force of the Exodus Israelites may have been about 18,000 which would probably mean a figure of about 72,000 for the whole migration."
I was not referring to the Exodus (though the massive population explosion of the Hebrews in Egypt is a problem unto itself). I was referring to the Davidic fighting machine of stupendous size.
"When someone leaves Christianity, they have the sense of a new, emergent identity and a new sense of how the world is."
Yep. And it's a vast improvement.
"There is a temptation to yield to this and to refuse to read apologetics."
Apologetics was all I knew for over two decades. It's not new ground for me.
"I know this from personal experience. Granite, there are answers to everything you're saying, so please give it a chance."
And it so happens the answers I have outside of the church are more satisfactory from every conceivable angle.
Interesting that the same attacks used against, say, the Book of Mormon are nearly identical to those used against the Bible. Why I haven't made this connection sooner just baffles me.
Right. In other words, the Bible means what it says until it doesn't.
"The total fighting force of the Exodus Israelites may have been about 18,000 which would probably mean a figure of about 72,000 for the whole migration."
I was not referring to the Exodus (though the massive population explosion of the Hebrews in Egypt is a problem unto itself). I was referring to the Davidic fighting machine of stupendous size.
"When someone leaves Christianity, they have the sense of a new, emergent identity and a new sense of how the world is."
Yep. And it's a vast improvement.
"There is a temptation to yield to this and to refuse to read apologetics."
Apologetics was all I knew for over two decades. It's not new ground for me.
"I know this from personal experience. Granite, there are answers to everything you're saying, so please give it a chance."
And it so happens the answers I have outside of the church are more satisfactory from every conceivable angle.
Interesting that the same attacks used against, say, the Book of Mormon are nearly identical to those used against the Bible. Why I haven't made this connection sooner just baffles me.
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Pick up your favorite Bible translation... one that was done by a team of scholars, not some undereducated street preacher somewhere...
The greater majority of them will agree on the translations of the passages in question.
Until you can read Hebrew or Aramaic, the only reason you have for concluding they are incorrect in their divergent translation is because it offends your dogmatic preconceptions.
Until you are willing to release those dogmatic preconceptions, you'll never actually learn much about the world.
:think:
BChristianK
New member
Wickwoman, who apparently really wants me to answer her 
, said:
If you wanna say that the whole darn Bible is load of bunk that would still be more responsible than picking and choosing which verses are authentic and which aren’t based on your mood that day.
What scholars have done is determine, from numerous fragments, what material is most logically an authentic scribal translation of the autographa. Now when they sit down and look at the fragments, they have a number of criteria, one of them is not, “Hmmm, which one of these fragments best fits the way I feel today.�
:darwinsm:
Actually, “the church fathers� had considered Mathew Mark Luke and John as canonical before many of the other Gnostic gospels were written. In fact, most non-connonical gospel material we have are in Coptic not greek, which prettly clearly suggests that they were authored around the 2nd century (the gospel of Thomas being a possible excetion). Where did you get this crappy historical info, “The Davinci Code?�
Please tell me your not getting your historical information from a work of fiction. Most scholars don’t date the origins of the the finds of the Nag Hammadi to any early than the second century, all four gospels were written, circulated and relied upon in the early church before the second century (if you see a late date for the writing of John).
context?
The Gnostic texts are notorious for their lack of context.
:doh:
The gospel of Thomas has ALMOST NO NARRATIVE ELEMENTS WHATSOEVER!!!!
They are alleged collections of Jesus sayings, with no information as to where they were, what they were doing, where they were going, what was happening, or what would happen.
Now you tell me, how can an amalgamation of saying (totally ignoring the fact that they are probably not accurate) most of which are no more than 2 lines long be read for its context.?
Grace and Peace
, said:What do these questions have to do with responsible textual critical methods?
If you wanna say that the whole darn Bible is load of bunk that would still be more responsible than picking and choosing which verses are authentic and which aren’t based on your mood that day.
What scholars have done is determine, from numerous fragments, what material is most logically an authentic scribal translation of the autographa. Now when they sit down and look at the fragments, they have a number of criteria, one of them is not, “Hmmm, which one of these fragments best fits the way I feel today.�
You make it sound like they all got together in one big meeting and decided which were in and which were out in one afternoon.
:darwinsm:
Since when is 7 considered “scores�
Actually, “the church fathers� had considered Mathew Mark Luke and John as canonical before many of the other Gnostic gospels were written. In fact, most non-connonical gospel material we have are in Coptic not greek, which prettly clearly suggests that they were authored around the 2nd century (the gospel of Thomas being a possible excetion). Where did you get this crappy historical info, “The Davinci Code?�Please tell me your not getting your historical information from a work of fiction. Most scholars don’t date the origins of the the finds of the Nag Hammadi to any early than the second century, all four gospels were written, circulated and relied upon in the early church before the second century (if you see a late date for the writing of John).
Yea, a man who knew Jesus, heard him speak, and is infinitely more qualified to determine what Jesus actually did and did not say than you! So take it or leave it. If you don’t have some studious reason to assume that verse X isn’t reliable then don’t pretend that you are qualified to say that Jesus did or did not say it based solely on your mood.
:darwinsm:
context?
The Gnostic texts are notorious for their lack of context.
:doh:
The gospel of Thomas has ALMOST NO NARRATIVE ELEMENTS WHATSOEVER!!!!
They are alleged collections of Jesus sayings, with no information as to where they were, what they were doing, where they were going, what was happening, or what would happen.
Now you tell me, how can an amalgamation of saying (totally ignoring the fact that they are probably not accurate) most of which are no more than 2 lines long be read for its context.?
The perfect eisegesis. So if you are a part of God, what do you need to bastardize the bible for? What you really mean is, that you have no other way you would rather judge the biblical accounts than to see if you would feel good if it were or were not true. So the accuracy of the text may depend on whether that spicy burrito kept you up the night before…
I suppose you could say that if you had reached the highest and best that we can imagine and had looked beyond that, but since I don’t consider you part of God, nor do I consider your opinion in any way divinely inspired, I’ll continue to look the bible and to responsible read it and exegete it. No offense, your not the only nongod with an uninspired opinion on the planet, I also happen to be one of those folks. I just don’t trust anyone’s opinion who can’t find any reason to substantiate their interpretation of a passage beyond, “that what I feel like it means.�
Grace and Peace
Mr. Coffee
New member
No, it means that all natural languages have synonyms, and Hebrew is no exception.
Mr. Coffee
New member
I first read about this issue in the New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia and in NET Bible footnotes. These are real scholars. And this is not a case of picking one meaning to fit one's doctrinal bias, because all they are saying is that eleph has more than one meaning--it's used in different ways on the Old Testament itself.
There are semantic ambiguities in every text, including the Bible. The one that we are dealing with here is not a defeater for the doctrine of inerrancy, and neither interpretation of eleph alters the doctrinal and ethical import of the passages involved.
- Status