And before you even start.... where did the "major modern translations" come from?
One the printing press was invented, whatever-the-hell of the thousands of versions of the bible were out there suddenly went into mass production.
Seems that what constitutes the "original" bible shouldn't be a matter of which one reached 500 copies first.
echi wrote:neologist wrote:To find out why my faith is not credulity, you would have to walk in my shoes. Well, not really as I am a poor example. All I can do is suggest that the shoes I am pointing to might provide you the answer. It's kind of like telling you that ice cream tastes good . . .
neo,
Earlier you stated that your belief in God was not the result of "some moment of emotion". However, you now seem to be claiming just that-- that your conviction is based on how you felt about some experience. Do you consider your subjective interpretation to be more reliable than logic, or are you simply unable to articulate in logical form why you believe as you do?
EEK!
If I were to tell you that flora or fauna specifica existed and could only be found by walking between Lake Ballinger and the 220th St Starbucks along the Burke-Gilman trail, would you say I was speaking of an emotional experience? And if you did not believe in flora or fauna specifica, would you not postpone judgement until you had time to take a hike?
Well, take a hike, echi.
stlstrike3 wrote:And before you even start.... where did the "major modern translations" come from?
One the printing press was invented, whatever-the-hell of the thousands of versions of the bible were out there suddenly went into mass production.
Seems that what constitutes the "original" bible shouldn't be a matter of which one reached 500 copies first.
I have already shown the similarity of Ecclesiastes 9:5 in a few translations. Why don't you take a few citations and show us how they differ?
"take a hike"
we dont use that expression
is it a polite version of "F*** off"?
well of course not, Neo is not a vulgarian.
neologist wrote:echi wrote:
neo,
Earlier you stated that your belief in God was not the result of "some moment of emotion". However, you now seem to be claiming just that-- that your conviction is based on how you felt about some experience. Do you consider your subjective interpretation to be more reliable than logic, or are you simply unable to articulate in logical form why you believe as you do?
EEK!
If I were to tell you that flora or fauna specifica existed and could only be found by walking between Lake Ballinger and the 220th St Starbucks along the Burke-Gilman trail, would you say I was speaking of an emotional experience? And if you did not believe in flora or fauna specifica, would you not postpone judgement until you had time to take a hike?
Well, take a hike, echi.
"Flora or fauna specifica"? Uh... I guess I'm not as educated as I seem. Do you mean, like, plants and stuff?
Steve 41oo wrote:"take a hike"
we dont use that expression
is it a polite version of "F*** off"?
well of course not, Neo is not a vulgarian.
Crude attempt at humor with no disrespect intended.
echi wrote:neologist wrote:echi wrote:
neo,
Earlier you stated that your belief in God was not the result of "some moment of emotion". However, you now seem to be claiming just that-- that your conviction is based on how you felt about some experience. Do you consider your subjective interpretation to be more reliable than logic, or are you simply unable to articulate in logical form why you believe as you do?
EEK!
If I were to tell you that flora or fauna specifica existed and could only be found by walking between Lake Ballinger and the 220th St Starbucks along the Burke-Gilman trail, would you say I was speaking of an emotional experience? And if you did not believe in flora or fauna specifica, would you not postpone judgement until you had time to take a hike?
Well, take a hike, echi.
"Flora or fauna specifica"? Uh... I guess I'm not as educated as I seem. Do you mean, like, plants and stuff?
Yeah, I claim to be a neologist, so I was simply neologizing. And I'll gladly go with you to Starbucks and even spring for the frappuccino.
neologist wrote:stlstrike3 wrote:And before you even start.... where did the "major modern translations" come from?
One the printing press was invented, whatever-the-hell of the thousands of versions of the bible were out there suddenly went into mass production.
Seems that what constitutes the "original" bible shouldn't be a matter of which one reached 500 copies first.
I have already shown the similarity of Ecclesiastes 9:5 in a few translations. Why don't you take a few citations and show us how they differ?
You really have absolutely no concept of what we're really talking about here... you quoted ONE line out of a few versions of the bible that all originated from a point in the biblical assembly line CENTURIES after they were originally dreamed up.
Seriously, if you can't understand the variables involved in jumbling the text of the bible over a couple of paltry centuries (as I'm assuming millions of Christians on this planet are equally incapable of doing) how can we possibly expect to believe you or anyone else when they claim to understand the evolution and the enormous timescale over which it occurs?
stlstrike3 wrote:neologist wrote:stlstrike3 wrote:And before you even start.... where did the "major modern translations" come from?
One the printing press was invented, whatever-the-hell of the thousands of versions of the bible were out there suddenly went into mass production.
Seems that what constitutes the "original" bible shouldn't be a matter of which one reached 500 copies first.
I have already shown the similarity of Ecclesiastes 9:5 in a few translations. Why don't you take a few citations and show us how they differ?
You really have absolutely no concept of what we're really talking about here... you quoted ONE line out of a few versions of the bible that all originated from a point in the biblical assembly line CENTURIES after they were originally dreamed up.
Seriously, if you can't understand the variables involved in jumbling the text of the bible over a couple of paltry centuries (as I'm assuming millions of Christians on this planet are equally incapable of doing) how can we possibly expect to believe you or anyone else when they claim to understand the evolution and the enormous timescale over which it occurs?
So you can't find any examples, eh? I suppose I could find a few. Be back.
neologist wrote:stlstrike3 wrote:neologist wrote:stlstrike3 wrote:And before you even start.... where did the "major modern translations" come from?
One the printing press was invented, whatever-the-hell of the thousands of versions of the bible were out there suddenly went into mass production.
Seems that what constitutes the "original" bible shouldn't be a matter of which one reached 500 copies first.
I have already shown the similarity of Ecclesiastes 9:5 in a few translations. Why don't you take a few citations and show us how they differ?
You really have absolutely no concept of what we're really talking about here... you quoted ONE line out of a few versions of the bible that all originated from a point in the biblical assembly line CENTURIES after they were originally dreamed up.
Seriously, if you can't understand the variables involved in jumbling the text of the bible over a couple of paltry centuries (as I'm assuming millions of Christians on this planet are equally incapable of doing) how can we possibly expect to believe you or anyone else when they claim to understand the evolution and the enormous timescale over which it occurs?
So you can't find any examples, eh? I suppose I could find a few. Be back.
I will bring more evidence to the table tomorrow.
But showing me that quotes from lines in MODERN BIBLE versions correlate is like telling me that you know what J.K. Rowling's thoughts were because page 2 in the hardcover is the same as the paperback.
Please spare me more meaningless biblequoting and wait for an example I shall bring tomorrow.
I have to go work out.
The modern translations came from the same source as the originals; men.
cicerone imposter wrote:The modern translations came from the same source as the originals; men.
Gotta go. Time to bench press the gym.
More interesting is the use of gender specific pronouns in the earliest versions of the old testament. Most contemporary Jews, Christians, and Muslims accept God to have Male qualities, however this is only because of the limitations to convey non-gender specific pronouns.
Another point showing the authors to be men and not god. They could never figure out that after 2,000 years, society will view their writing as "malefaction" and/or "male-centric."
I think the world would be a better place if God was female.
neologist wrote:EEK!
If I were to tell you that flora or fauna specifica existed and could only be found by walking between Lake Ballinger and the 220th St Starbucks along the Burke-Gilman trail, would you say I was speaking of an emotional experience? And if you did not believe in flora or fauna specifica, would you not postpone judgement until you had time to take a hike?
Well, take a hike, echi.
However, Echi could take that hike, and verify the existence of the flora and fauna to which you refer. He could not verify the existence of the deity in which you believe unless he agreed to interpret whatever "evidence" you present as you do. Unless you assert that God meets you down at Starbucks and that you'd be happy to introduce Echi.
Setanta wrote:neologist wrote:EEK!
If I were to tell you that flora or fauna specifica existed and could only be found by walking between Lake Ballinger and the 220th St Starbucks along the Burke-Gilman trail, would you say I was speaking of an emotional experience? And if you did not believe in flora or fauna specifica, would you not postpone judgement until you had time to take a hike?
Well, take a hike, echi.
However, Echi could take that hike, and verify the existence of the flora and fauna to which you refer. He could not verify the existence of the deity in which you believe unless he agreed to interpret whatever "evidence" you present as you do. Unless you assert that God meets you down at Starbucks and that you'd be happy to introduce Echi.
Although I was joking when I said 'take a hike' I am quite serious about walking my walk. I'm sure I had the same feeling about those who came to my door as everyone else. I'd smile and take the literature - close the door and use it to line the trash can. Then one day I decided to give them the benefit of the doubt. I can assure you I did not go along easily.
Do I still have doubts and unanswered questions? Yes.
Would I consider eating at any other table? No. I've seen the menu.
No, you have not "seen the menu." In fact, having chosen to (more or less) adopt the Jehovah's Witness theology, you've tossed the menu out.
This "walk a mile in my shoes" **** is getting tedious. You consistently dodge the question of why you believe that there is a god in the first place. The rest of your imaginary friend superstition based on a single book of scripture is so much horseshit unless you can demonstrate that it is underpinned by a basic, plausibly verifiable principle, to wit, that there is a god.
You were raised a Catholic, but then abandoned that. Eventually, you took up with the Jehovah's Witnesses. All you have done is to take the belief in god (unquestioned) with which your religious education began, and transferred it to another equally unfounded theological basis. You may have questioned if there were a god, but you have never in this thread or any other provided any basis for your belief that a god does exist, other than a set of disingenuous and unrelated reference to the single scriptural canon which is commonly described as the bible.
Do me a favor and stop pissing on my leg while telling me its raining.
So much easier for one to observe there is no scientific proof of god, proclaim he therefore does not exist, and pronounce oneself enlightened.
Since that is not what i've done, or ever do, your remark is a non-sequitur--which describes about 19 out of 20 of your posts.
***********************************************
Neo, i'm not going to beat up on you, but i'm also not going to play your stupid game any longer. In the thread on faith, you stated that blind faith is credulity, but that your faith is not credulity. Since you do not ever provide a plausible explanation for why you believe there is a god, there is no way to distinguish your faith from credulity.
I don't intend to go around and around with your about how your personal experience constitutes evidence, because you never present it in a manner that anyone would give reasonable consideration to whether or not it is plausible.
Setanta wrote:No, you have not "seen the menu." In fact, having chosen to (more or less) adopt the Jehovah's Witness theology, you've tossed the menu out.
This "walk a mile in my shoes" **** is getting tedious. You consistently dodge the question of why you believe that there is a god in the first place. The rest of your imaginary friend superstition based on a single book of scripture is so much horseshit unless you can demonstrate that it is underpinned by a basic, plausibly verifiable principle, to wit, that there is a god.
You were raised a Catholic, but then abandoned that. Eventually, you took up with the Jehovah's Witnesses. All you have done is to take the belief in god (unquestioned) with which your religious education began, and transferred it to another equally unfounded theological basis. You may have questioned if there were a god, but you have never in this thread or any other provided any basis for your belief that a god does exist, other than a set of disingenuous and unrelated reference to the single scriptural canon which is commonly described as the bible.
Do me a favor and stop pissing on my leg while telling me its raining.
That's not bodily fluid, Set. But I am spilling the coffee on you as we speak. You ignore my repeated admissions that belief in God cannot be obtained by empirical methods, only by circumstance and experience. That does not rule out the operation of logic. You do me a disservice by your assertion that I have not experienced the lie. I see it in operation daily.
I subscribe to the P-I
