aplf

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

I believe you are mistaken, or just misusing the terms.

I confess to misuing the terms... I was just pokin' at ya, Mike!

[Dakota]

Originally posted by alphaump
...accidentally offended ...Not withdrawing the apology,

Again, I acknowledge you removing the image, and I appreciate it. Even in light of your right to display that image, you chose not to. Thank you.

Originally posted by alphaump
...but "getting a rise" out of someone shouldnt have anything to do with morals/ethics.(which offending does) I would have thought that here, of all places, a back-bone/thick skin would have been normal. Im sure much worse happens on the field. Maybe some dont want to tolerate it here, which I respect, but I dont think it will influence the colorful nature of my humor. Yeah, a pictures worth a thousand words and to some that might have said too much. In context, the picture is of Jesus, the thinker.

Flaming / trolling is not necessarily a moral issue. It is a civil behavior issue, which is quite another thing.

I also have no problem with an irreverant sense of humor... in this very thread I "accused" Mike of being a "heathen" and a "reprobate", when I knew both to be untrue, just having a little irreverant fun. Nothing wrong with that. Well, on reflection, I'm not so sure I know he's not a reprobate!

To clarify, I only objected to the image itself. Not your words, or even your humor.

[mcrowder]

Originally posted by alphaump

Since you went there, just curious how you beleive in someone, but not there words. Thats like believing in your kids, but not their words. [/B]

Wow, that was insensitive and ignorant.

I guess some people live in a la-la land where there is only one religion. Do you REALLY think that it's impossible to believe in God and not believe in a man-made collection of fables constructed to bring power to those who collected it? Do you know ANYone who is Jewish, Muslim, etc? They all believe in God, but not the bible. Are you really trying to say that it's impossible to believe that the bible is NOT the word of God?

Or that anyone who doesn't believe in your version of God is a poor parent (via the analogy you used).

[Edited by mcrowder on Mar 3rd, 2006 at 11:18 AM]

[alphaump]

I was talking to Irish and he started the conversation.
I will address this with you, but not here like this, because of your reaction.

[mcrowder]

This is a public forum. Your comments are public. If you choose to make insensitive, ignorant, or inflamatory comments - you are going to be called on it.

Whoever you said it to, you asked how it was possible to believe in God, yet not the bible, and then equated such to believing in your kids but not in what they say.

Perhaps overly inflammatorially (uh... is that a word?), I was referring to the fact that Christianity (and it's offshoots) is not the only religion that believes in a God, but it (and its offshoots) is the only ones that believe the bible is "the word of God."

Perhaps I was too harsh, and if so I apologize. But I found your assertion or assumption that only one religion could possibly be right, and that any other belief must mean something negative about your relationship with your children, rather callous and unthinking.

Surely you must know religion can be a touchy topic. A callous or unthinking comment about religion can be very offensive.

If you'd rather take this offline, feel free to email me (mbcrowder at jcpenney dot com). I do apologize if my initial response was too harsh - but stand by the intent of my comments.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by alphaump

Since you went there, just curious how you beleive in someone, but not there words. Thats like believing in your kids, but not their words. [/B]

Relax guys, it's a valid question based upon the poster's belief.

I was raised RC and firmly believe in God. However, the bible is a publication which was comprised partially based upon individual beliefs and word of mouth. Well, like any other group, when things are put in writing, it is often slanted toward the agenda being promoted. I believe this to be true of all sects, not just those involved in the bible.

If the bible is to be believed as the word of God, how can their possibly be more than one version?

Remember, the church and the tenets of a religious belief are man-made products reliant upon the belief of those involved. Hell, every time the RC convenes and ecumenical council, a saint is defrocked, a simple women becomes a whore or any number of other beliefs which those of the council deem necessary to adjust to become aligned with the teachings of their church come to being.

I have no problem with those who believe in whatever it is in which they believe. However, by they same virtue I expect not to be judged by those I do not judge.

You asked, I answered and see no reason to carry this any further.

[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Mar 3rd, 2006 at 05:09 PM]

[mcrowder]

I would add that even if you believe the bible to be the full truth, much of the bible has nothing to do with "the word of God". In fact, I think there is only one specific quote attributed to God in either testament, and that has to do with the Commandments (interestingly, there are two completely different versions of this supposed quotation - odd since this was supposed to be a Direct Quote From God)

[CecilOne]

http://www.joyofsects.com/board/ultimatebb.cgi

[SC Ump]

Why, thank you CecilOne. I've never been to that board, but when (or if) I get in the mood to discuss religion, I think I will.

For now, I think I'm going to check out some softball discussions. All, y'all come join me if you want. There really are a couple of good posts going on.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Well, like any other group, when things are put in writing, it is often slanted toward the agenda being promoted. I believe this to be true of all sects, not just those involved in the bible.

If the bible is to be believed as the word of God, how can their possibly be more than one version?

Well, since we are now deeply into this, let me explain what "word of God" means, and how that relates to the different translations / versions of the Bible. This is entirely from an evangelical Protestant perspective. Your views may (will) differ.

"Word of God" means the original (human) author was inspired by God in the writing of scripture. Some is nearly literally spoken by God (in the prophets), some is inspired by God in content. This "word of God" aspect applies ONLY to the original autograph of the scripture, none of which still exist.

This leaves the Bible scholar with a problem... namely to determine which of the various ancient manuscripts are the "closest" to the original. Obviously, when there are differences in the surviving ancient manuscripts, it is wise to not be dogmatic about those areas. That, however, does NOT mean the scripture as a whole can be dismissed as mere human writing, since the ancient texts agree in the overwhelming, vast, almost all, parts of the scripture. Plus, even where they disagree, it is generally NOT in areas of theological importance.

Now, as to modern "versions." No English language translation of the Bible is considered to be inspired. They are all scholarly attempts to translate the original languages, and some do suffer from theological agendas. So, people who are not fluent in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek need to approach the translated Bibles with some caution, and should compare the different translations in particular parts of the scripture that they may find troubling or confusing.

I'm done with this side bar in this forum.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota

Well, since we are now deeply into this, let me explain what "word of God" means, and how that relates to the different translations / versions of the Bible. This is entirely from an evangelical Protestant perspective. Your views may (will) differ.

"Word of God" means the original (human) author was inspired by God in the writing of scripture. Some is nearly literally spoken by God (in the prophets), some is inspired by God in content. This "word of God" aspect applies ONLY to the original autograph of the scripture, none of which still exist.

This leaves the Bible scholar with a problem... namely to determine which of the various ancient manuscripts are the "closest" to the original. Obviously, when there are differences in the surviving ancient manuscripts, it is wise to not be dogmatic about those areas. That, however, does NOT mean the scripture as a whole can be dismissed as mere human writing, since the ancient texts agree in the overwhelming, vast, almost all, parts of the scripture. Plus, even where they disagree, it is generally NOT in areas of theological importance.

Now, as to modern "versions." No English language translation of the Bible is considered to be inspired. They are all scholarly attempts to translate the original languages, and some do suffer from theological agendas. So, people who are not fluent in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek need to approach the translated Bibles with some caution, and should compare the different translations in particular parts of the scripture that they may find troubling or confusing.

I'm done with this side bar in this forum.

IOW, the "word of God" is whatever anyone is inclined to believe when a human claims to be inspired by God.

However, you then state that any English version is considered to be inspired. Are you insinuating that God has gone out of the "inspiration" business and that any writing, telling or translation of scripture is invalid if presented in the English language?

Hey, I didn't post it, you did. This could be another one-year thread.

[mcrowder]

Can you point me toward the scripture that tells us that the 4 gospels hand-selected from the numerous writings of the time were "inspired" while the others weren't? I can't find that.

I will admit that my "cynicism" (as it's been called by the best of friends with the best of intentions) stems more from the editors of 300 ad than it does from the numerous original writers of the scripture. I do believe that these folks were relating events as they recalled them. And I do believe that the people who finally put these words on paper many years later after numerous tellings and retellings thought that they were divinely inspired in their writings. My "cynicism" is directed more at those folks who seemed to have an agenda when putting together the very first bible. It's obvious to the unbiased reader (hard to find one of those, I suppose - self included if I am forced to admit it) that the writings were intentionally skewed to present a particular image. Whether they did this from the POV of trying to portray what they thought was the truth, or for less altruistic reasons, is lost to the ravages of time.

[alphaump]

is lost to the ravages of time. [/B]

Lost and word of God just dont go together. Kinda like a Ford Corvette. No, I dont live in la la land, nor am I delutional (sp), but as far as Im concerned, if you cannot believe that the bible is the unadulterated word of God, "you" are certainly lost to the ravages of time, not the word. Im done with this thread.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Are you insinuating that God has gone out of the "inspiration" business

No, only that the biblical translations from one language to another are not considered inspired... IOW, the choices of how to translate ancient Hebrew into modern English has all kinds of issues, including punctuation, capitalization, trasnaltion of idioms and other figures of speech, sentence structure, and even in the case of ancient Hebrew is that character a letter or a numeral? These choices were made by theologieans, scholars, and linguists, not by prophets of God operating under direct inspiration.

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
and that any writing, telling or translation of scripture is invalid if presented in the English language?

No, only that differences between the King James Version and the New American Version (for example) represent differences in scholarship, time, choice of what is the "best" manuscript, or, perhaps, theology, but do not result from the inspiration of God. Therefore, people who claim the inerrancy of scripture need to recognize that inerrancy does not apply to a translation. The translators have erred in many instances. If a particular scripture is being studied, the student is well advised to use several translations, compare them, understand what was behind the differences in translation.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Can you point me toward the scripture that tells us that the 4 gospels hand-selected from the numerous writings of the time were "inspired" while the others weren't? I can't find that.

If you compare the Catholic and Protestant Bibles you will discover there still is not total agreement on the canon.

If you put your cynacism on hold and actually looked into the topic of the establishment of the canon, you will discover there were sound standards that were used to distinguish inspired writings from other early Christian writings.

There is 100% agreement in the universal church on the canon of scripture contained in the Protestant bible - that is all demoninations of Christianity agree that all of the Protestant Bible is the inspired canon.

There is partial agreement in the canon of scripture contained in the Catholic bible. Most of the disagreement centers not around the content of the books, but rather such issues as were they in the Jewish canon (for Old Testament) or were they treated as scripture by the 1st century church.

There is near 100% agreement (allowing for the occasional critic and sensationalist) than none of the remainder of the 1st century writings belong in the bible.