Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Chile, Haiti, and Ecclesiastes.....??

I've noticed that the coverage of Chile's horrible quake is scant compared to the nonstop 24/7 the Haiti quake got....I'm wondering about why CNN and FOX and MSNBC are spending so little time in comparison. Do you think it's because the amount of dead was so much higher (though Chile's, sadly, is rising and has hit over 700 as of tonight's reports) in Haiti? Is there another reason you care to share? Maybe it's because they can't really get cameras in there yet what with the difficulties in infrastructure collapses? What do you think? It seems odd to me.

Now for ECCLESIASTES, which fellow blogger buddy Beamish and revered commenter tiob discussed on another post recently.....(Not that this has anything to do with quake coverage!)

Ecclesiastes 10:2-3 has the following lines I think might be part of why good solid conservatives like Beamish and tiob like Ecclesiastes so much!:

"The heart of the WISE inclines TO THE RIGHT, but the heart of the FOOL to the left, Even as he walks along the road, the fool lacks sense and shows everyone how stupid he is."

Beamish, there's a phrase you use frequently to Ducky and I thought this kind of fit! Ah, the wisdom of the RIGHT...right there in the Bible!

z

226 comments:

1 – 200 of 226   Newer›   Newest»
beamish said...

Ecclesiastes 10:2-3 has the following lines I think might be part of why good solid conservatives like Beamish and tiob like Ecclesiastes so much!:

"The heart of the WISE inclines TO THE RIGHT, but the heart of the FOOL to the left, Even as he walks along the road, the fool lacks sense and shows everyone how stupid he is."

Beamish, there's a phrase you use frequently to Ducky and I thought this kind of fit! Ah, the wisdom of the RIGHT...right there in the Bible!



Yipes!

I have never made a connection between that verse in Ecclesiastes and my personal observations on leftists. Certainly Ecclesiastes precedes the seating arrangements in the French Estates General by nearly 2000 years.

I'm not sure one can truly use that as an out of context "gotcha" anymore than the Constitution guaranteeing each state a "Republican form of government" is a useful "gotcha."

Still, pretty funny. ;)

beamish said...

I prefer to make the joke that "left" can mean "abandoned" and "right" can mean "correct." ;)

Always On Watch said...

"The heart of the WISE inclines TO THE RIGHT, but the heart of the FOOL to the left, Even as he walks along the road, the fool lacks sense and shows everyone how stupid he is."

LOL!

Always On Watch said...

I'm wondering about why CNN and FOX and MSNBC are spending so little time in comparison.

Maybe because there is not opportunity for nation building in Chile as there is in Haiti. Just a thought before I finish even my first cup of coffee this morning.

Elmers Brother said...

the media isn't covering Chile because there are fewer images that make it worth their while.

You know the old adage.

Chuck said...

I think EB is right. I also think it turns into a feeding frenzy. One covers it heavily and no one else wants to be left behind so they jump in which in turn causes a rush to cover it more...

Z said...

beamish, yup....not an 'out of context gotcha' but I thought it was very funny!

Elbro...I think that's part of it...as I said in the post; few pictures, not much story....

and Chuck...that's a good point, too.

Anyway, here in America, it often seems like who's dancing on 'Dancing with the Stars' outweighs so much more important stories.......

Ducky's here said...

There is less devastation. Earthquakes have been pretty common in Chile and they have the building codes in place.

Newshour has given them at least 15 minutes since the day of the quake. Hard to say it isn't being covered.

I.H.S. said...

After reading your question as to why the lack of coverage in Chile as opposed to Haiti...I would have to agree with Always On Watch; "Maybe because there is not opportunity for nation building in Chile as there is in Haiti." I mean they are a bunch of VooDoo Worshippers and we being the Godly Nation we are have to go in there and show them the Love of God and the error of their ways, and since Chile is mostly Catholic they're close enough to Christian so we don't have to go all out for them; they know God a little more than Haiti...
Of course you know I'm being very sarcastic, but the reality is I think we pick and choose whats going to make us look better in the eyes of people, rather than doing the same for everyone regardless.

Blessings!

Z said...

IHS...good to see you again! It could definitely be what'll make us look better..good point.

Ducky, 15 minutes compared to 24/7 is a big difference, as my post stated. Nobody says it's not being covered.

From the devastating shots this morning from tsunami damage in Chile, I'd say it's at least as horrid as Haiti, folks.......cars upside down, buses of people swept away as they tried to escape to higher ground. This is monstrous and I think we're just getting to see how bad it was.

Joe said...

As usual, Ducky thinks he is wise but just doesn't know what he's talking about.

The devastation as a percentage of the total population may not be as great in Chile as it was in Haiti, but devastation is devastation.

Buildings are down or unlivable, people are trapped, property is destroyed, infrastructure is demolished...I'd call that catastrophic.

If it happened in my town, I'd be pretty unhapy about it.

We certainly are hearing of earthquakes in divers places, wars and rumors of wars and other Biblical predictions.

If we are not in end times, we are closer than we've ever been.

Joe said...

I just heard that Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has arrived in Conception with satelite phones.

Mmmm. I hear they are good when roasted with onions and carrots.

Anonymous said...

I think it's as simple as Chile not being as devastatingly poor as Haiti. They're not seen by the media, as the victims Haitians are.

Actually, Chile ought to be held up as an example of how to avoid utter destruction. They were as prepared for this size earthquake as was possible.

However it must be said, Chileans are mourning their dead, and for them this is a nightmare. Devastation is devastation. There is human suffering.

God help them.

Pris

Faith said...

I don't have TV so I get the news off the internet and there does seem to be less coverage of Chile but everyday there's something to read. If there's that much less news, though, I just have to figure that Haiti's devastation was so enormous by comparison -- hundreds of thousands dead in comparison with hundreds -- and more than that homeless. If Chile had come first I'm sure there would have been more coverage, but Haiti simply outdid it in destruction. I don't think there's anything to the idea that Americans like to lord it over the voodoo practitioners. What a cheap shot.

Faith said...

Pris is right. Chile was prepared and suffered much less because of that. That should be the focus of the news.

Faith said...

Also, Chile refused our aid. The aid workers were a big part of the news in Haiti and no doubt brought news people following them.

Ducky's here said...

and since Chile is mostly Catholic they're close enough to Christian

--------------

Ah, the whitened sepulchers speak again.

You people don't seem to understand how truly vulgar you are.

Z said...

Ducky, stop it. Did you READ IHS'S full comment? he says "Of course you know I'm being very sarcastic,"

beamish said...

How vulgar are we, Ducky?

And how many repetitions of the prayer to Astarte will turn us heathen Christians into fine Catholics?

Do we need incense and those little phallic water shakers too?

I.H.S. said...

'I don't think there's anything to the idea that Americans like to lord it over the voodoo practitioners. What a cheap shot.'
___________________________________

'Ah, the whitened sepulchers speak again.

You people don't seem to understand how truly vulgar you are.'
___________________________________

For all who was offended by my Sarcasm, I humbly apologize. However, I stand by what I said about trying to look good in the eyes of people, instead of just doing what's right period! Again, I apologize to those offended, just do me a favor and read the whole comment next time before you get to riled-up, ok. Peace and Love!

Blessings!

Ducky's here said...

z, you know that you folks have been through a round of ACCEPTING the idea that Haiti was cursed.

And you yourself mentioned the large number of Catholics in Haiti in a manner which had negative implications.

Now, just what brought the "close enough to Christian" idea to IHS so that he could "satirize" it. I don't know but I do know that fundamentalists act from a false sense of moral authority consistently and it does not convey a sense of universal love.

Ducky's here said...

We certainly are hearing of earthquakes in divers places, wars and rumors of wars and other Biblical predictions.

If we are not in end times, we are closer than we've ever been.

-------------------

Yeah, that stuff is all new to the last ten years, right Joe?

Brooke said...

Haiti bled more, so it led. Besides, we've been propping that country for decades, and will continue to do so. The MSM has to engender pity and such so there is no outcry about the outrageous amount of money that is going there.

As for the Verse, WOW. It is dead on.

But that's no surprise, is it? ;)

I.H.S. said...

Ducky, I have to say this and it's nothing but the truth...I have no idea what you are talking about, because this is the 2nd day I have been back checking out Z's blog, so I have to say the sarcasm was from my own imagination!

Blessings!

beamish said...

Well Ducky, I don't speak for everyone, just myself, but I do not confuse Chrsitianity with Catholicism whatsoever. They're two very distinct and different religions. The former emerged as a egalitarian sect of Hillel school Judaism, the latter a continuance of Roman imperial syncretism when it encountered Christianity.

Don't talk to me about "universal love." There's no love, universal or otherwise, in pretending not to notice no one in the book of Acts realized Peter was the friggin' Pope and pretending he was.

Catholicism is at least three centuries younger than Christianity, and pantheonizes such "saints" as Ste. Brigid the canonized Celtic goddess of fire and poetry and St. Bacchus the canonized Roman god of wine alongside Michael the archangel and John the Baptist in a polytheistic mishmash of cultures conquered by Rome. Even the stone idols of Eastern African animists are up for sainthood.

Have your Catholicism, be a Catholic. Or convert to Christianity. I don't care.

Just don't whine when Christians want to talk about their faith contra yours.

Ducky's here said...

Yeah, I know the riff, Beamish.

Most all of my family was/is Protestant.

I remember talking to the minister at my brother's funeral. He died at 45 and I mentioned my Catholicism. Now, I'm burying my brother who died suddenly and I got a look from that guy that I just didn't believe.
I just walked away. Couldn't believe the self righteous smugness. I have to say it has played a role in my feeling that evangelicals specialize in hypocrisy above all and I doubt I'll ever lose the attitude. Folks like yourself don't make it any easier.

Ducky's here said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I must say, I will never understand this competition or tension between Catholics and Protestants of which I am one.

There may be historical events which precede these feelings, but, today, why not live and let live? Or better yet why not accede to another's choice of faith and let it be?

As far as I'm concerned both are Christians. Also, the idea that Haiti suffered a terrible earthquake was not, IMO, because they practice voodoo there.

If that was the case, why did Chile?

It seems to me, that if one's religion does not require the killing of those who do not subscribe to it, there is no threat to fear.

So I say, let's be content with our faith and practice Christian tenets, which I believe calls on us to be good to others, and to leave them to their own beliefs.

Pris

Faith said...

Good grief.
I don't agree with IHS about the Christian/American attitude to Haiti.

I don't agree with Ducky about the Christian attitude to anything. he missed IHS's sarcasm for starters.

I don't agree with Pris about what a Christian is or about Haiti.

I don't agree with Beamish about what a Protestant or a Christian is. He's on to Catholicism though.

There, that should cover it.

Ducky's here said...

Simple answer would be Pris that the Protestant movement in America is intent on theocracy.

And they bundle an uncritical acceptance of extreme capitalism with their faith.

As a result, even though in many cases they are not mean spirited, they do a considerable amount of damage and really need to be circumspect about the limits of their faith. They aren't alone in that but myself, I find them to be very aggressive in not accepting reasonable compromise in the political sphere. It's their way or the highway.

Myself, when they talk about taking "their" nation back I believe they mean it literally and will do whatever they can to marginalize outsiders.

beamish said...

Ducky,

I don't suppose you cover all the sharp corners of the furniture in your home with Nerf foam to keep it from persecuting you with banged knees and stubbed toes.

Maybe you do.

If you want to eat a turd and call it a candy bar, be my guest. Your breath is still gonna stink.

Catholicism is not and never has been Christianity.

beamish said...

Ducky hates evangelicals because of a "look" he got from a minister at his brother's funeral. Not words, not a theological debate, not a recounting of Catholicism's 1700 year bloody history of inquisitions, wars, and hierarchical demolishings of egalitarianism and liberty... just a "look" he "walked away from."

I feel sorry for you, Ducky. Not because you got rebuffed with a look wanting to talk theological shop at your brother's funeral with his (and presumably his family's) minister, but that you keep running into situations where you could be enlightened to the fact that you're a blithering idiot, and keep running from them.

Did I give you the same "look?"

beamish said...

Faith,

I don't agree with Beamish about what a Protestant or a Christian is. He's on to Catholicism though.

Protestant churches are Christian denominations primarily founded by former Catholics that studied the Bible and discovered the difference between Christianity and Catholicism and severed ties with them.

There were Christian churches for around 300 years before the Roman Catholic Church came along, and not all of them got caught up in the "join or die" zeal of Roman hegemony. The Baptist denomination, for example, traces its roots to pre-Catholic times and never was a part of them (except as entertainment, when Anabaptists were fed to lions). Baptists are NOT Protestants, as by definition Protestants are denominations that left Catholicism. Baptist denominations and their forerunners were never Catholic to begin with.

Just a little trivia. :)

Ducky's here said...

Beamish, when you leave work, who do you follow home?

Not possible that you can find your own way.

Z said...

Ducky, you can't say this and get away with it "Simple answer would be Pris that the Protestant movement in America is intent on theocracy."

We are intent on keeping God in the public place...as this country was founded on. Things went BETTER IN THIS COUNTRY when He was in the public place, when people were involved in their faith, when the ELITES hadn't suddenly (after 2000 years) become FAR too hip for it... If the leftist atheist secularists weren't so intent on suddenly after 250 years kicking everything Christian OUT, who'd be talking about this AT ALL?

Everything was fine even twenty years ago...people went to church or they didn't go to church. Who cared?
Suddenly, your side's right wanting to kill unborn babies and we're supposed to step aside and say "COOL, DUDE!"? etc etc etc....Why must WE?

As for Catholicism, nobody here has ever heard me, nor will they ever hear me, say Catholics aren't CHristian. It's the BUSINESS OF THE CATHOLIC church which is actually anathema to The Scripture...I know you don't seem to put much store in the Bible, which always makes me wonder what informs you of your Catholicism, but that's your situation, not mine...

I won't have this post or this blog used as a place to argue that Catholics aren't Christians...sorry.
I know too many VERY Christian people who go to Catholic churches where redeemed crosses are appearing in lieu of the crucifix (which never bothered me, anyway, by the way, I wear one sometimes), and where people are praying TO CHRIST, NOT SAINTS.

It's the BUSINESS..the indulgences, the saints, the Pope, which aren't Biblical.

Please, don't lecture me, anybody, about how I'm wrong and Catholics will burn in hell. I don't buy it...I'll NEVER BUY IT. PLEASE, I won't have more here.

Thanks.

Z said...

OK...you can argue Catholicism and Christianity and Baptists v Protestants, but no more "Catholics aren't Christian", okay?

Not here. Thanks.

Ducky's here said...

Thanks,z, the first paragraph pretty much confirms that you want a theocracy and hold to the idea that America was founded by God.

As for scripture. Luther's dogma that scripture is literal truth has led you into all kinds of problems with science, history, archeology ... so that's your problem, not ours.

Anonymous said...

"Simple answer would be Pris that the Protestant movement in America is intent on theocracy."

Ducky, I don't believe that at all. I'll speak for myself. What has happened is, an assault on Christians. Attempts to wipe off the country's map, any semblance of Christianity.

Any symbol of Christianity, down to a tiny cross on a mission, which has been removed from the seal of Los Angeles, is fair game. The mission is a an historical symbol of California yet, even that was attacked by the ACLU.

If there is any movement regarding Christianity, it is not pro Christian it's anti-Christian. It comes from the left. The ACLU, for years has been on this mission to destroy the influence of Christianity in America.

You confuse faith with freedom. If we are to be free, the market must also be free, and that is not limited to Protestants. It benefits everyone.

If it's a fact that Christians are more inclined toward freedom, which I doubt, it would be interesting to study why that is. Possibly it's so because in America, we have the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion.

Christianity has come under assault, and disdain. Do you expect we should not fight to keep our faith in it's historical place in America?

The fact that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, can't be denied, and deserves it's place for representation in the public square.

That does not mean that Christians want a theocracy. In fact while the founders recognized these principles, they also founded a government free of any government religion.

For heaven's sake Ducky, they did not want anything remotely resembling, for example, a "Church of England".

This is why the First Amendment says, clearly, "freedom of religion"

Please tell me exactly what the considerable damage is, that Protestants have done.

How do you asrcibe non compromise to only Christians, or as you would have it, Protestants?

The pro life movement? Is the pro choice movement less strident or more compromising? Is the Pope not Catholic? Why is it only Protestants you speak of?

When I talk about "taking our country back", I mean get the government out of our daily lives and leave us alone to live them.

A free people don't need laws to govern every decision or activity we engage in. We don't need to be micro-managed like children. We have the right to succeed, or fail. It depends on us as individuals.

As for Christianity, we don't need schools telling children they can't wear red and green at Christmas time. We don't need to stop a child from saying grace at a school lunch table. Get the point?

We are losing more freedom everyday Ducky. When we say we want our country back, we mean we want our freedom back.

Our government was never a theocracy, and no one today, wants or expects it to be. We just want it to be as free and unencumbered as it once was.

Pris

Z said...

How's that show I want a THEOCRACY? Maybe you don't understand the word?

No problem for me with history, archeology (especially that) or science...sorry. Maybe it's yours?

Do you really think nobody with faith or a script biblical viewpoint thinks about those things?! You honestly think they're all dolts who don't know history or archeology or science? WOW. That's as close minded as an atheist..I thought you were a believer, Ducky?

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/docs/scientists.html

There's just one example of Christians and science..pascal..blase....Bacon.....
enjoy

Z said...

Ducky, by the way, I'm very sorry your brother died, especially so young, and I'm sorry ONE PASTOR treated you that way.
It's odd, because when I've spoken about one muslim terrorists, you've warned not to broad stroke all muslims.

The same applies to Christians, Ducky.

Leticia said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Leticia said...

I have noticed that there has been little coverage on Chile, except for the Christian stations.

Did you also know that the earthquake caused the earth's axis to shift?

Elmers Brother said...

duhkkky still has to get past his liberation theology, it's ties to Marxism and it's advocation of violence against the "oppressor".

Keep shopping that moral equivocation...it might get you a cup of coffee someday.

duhkkky still doesn't understand that doctrine without love is oppression and love without doctrine is sentimentality.

Faith said...

Beamish, there is no connection between Christianity and the school of Hillel. There may be some interesting similarities in some of their teachings but unless they teach that Jesus Christ is God Himself who became man in order to die for our sins against Him, there's no connection.

Also, ALL Protestants trace their beliefs back to the first few centuries before the Roman Church got off the rails. During all those years, however, there were pockets of true Bible-based believers --such as the Waldensians who lived apart from the institutional church as far as they could get themselves up into the mountains. Later, the Protestant Reformers made use of their experience and teaching although there is some reason to think the earlier versions were purer. I think most of the dissenting churches practiced baptism of believers so were "Baptists" in that sense, but the Baptists of today started with the "Anabaptists" who protested the infant baptism the Protestant Reformers held onto. I think they can rightly be called "Protestants" simply because they reject the Catholic Church as all the separated believers down the centuries had done.

I.H.S. said...

Wow! My Sarcastic remark got all this going? Maybe I need to be a little more Sarcastic...What you think Z? LOL! :)

Blessings!

Z said...

HI, IHS...see how much you're missed from the blogging group? You drop a few posts and get a great conversation going :-)

Faith said...

I think the first pilgrims probably had something like a theocracy in mind for themselves, since they were all Christians. But as the nation grew there's no way anyone with a Biblical understanding could hold onto such an idea. The Bible is clear that Christians are "called out" of this world, that the world is going to go on being the world. We are to live IN the world but separated from it. Our citizenship is in heaven, not here. BUT we are also to spread the good news that God Himself came to die for all us human traitors so that individuals may choose to leave the world and join us,AND we are to be "salt and light" to the world, hoping to keep it from self-destructing from its anti-God attitudes, such as, for one small but obvious instance, by killing so many unborn babies God has to bring judgment against the perpetrators.

Z said...

This is interesting : "God had preserved His church throughout the dark and dreary Middle Ages when apostate Rome controlled the life and consciences of men. He had preserved His church through the Waldensians hiding in the valleys and caves of the Alps to escape the brutality of the Inquisition. He had preserved His church through faithful followers of the two Johns: John Wycliffe and John Hus."

Jerry said...

wow, the Ecclesiates quote brought out some anger when I posted it as my FB status!! Why are Libs so thin skinned? Hasn't their mantra (for decades) been "You can't be both a Conservative and a Christian". I don't remember ever taking that as a personal attack.

And Ducky, If your only problem with a religious group is an odd look that someone gave you during a funeral, you might have deeper issues. Maybe the poor guy was having a tough day, or was mild stroke, or just didn't hear you properly.

beamish said...

Okay Z, I will respect your wishes and not speak of my belief that Catholicism is not Christianity.

Instead, may I speak of the differences between the two? As you know, one led to monarchies and absolutism, the other to egalitarian democracies, which I think is rather important in shutting down the resident idiot's slanders that Protestants seek a theocracy.

Thanks.

beamish said...

Beamish, there is no connection between Christianity and the school of Hillel.

Except for that pesky connection where Jesus' theological teachings in the temple and His answers to questions on Scripture all match Hillel school interpretations, and that rather glaring fact of Hillel's successor Gamaliel the Elder's mentoring of Paul (and both of them becoming Christians later).

There may be some interesting similarities in some of their teachings but unless they teach that Jesus Christ is God Himself who became man in order to die for our sins against Him, there's no connection.

That's a rather odd logic train(wreck).

Hillel school Judaism teaches grace and forgiveness over rigid religious legalism, and the coming of a Messiah.

Christianity was founded by Jews, most of whom subscribed to Hillel school Judaism, and of course one of them actually being the Messiah.

The connection is there. Hillel taught that a Messiah was coming. Hillel died when Jesus was around 15 years old. He just didn't live long enough to see how right he was.

Faith said...

I'd like to think that Hillel would have recognized Jesus as the Messiah but we can't know that, and otherwise, as you yourself have made clear, the ONLY similarity is in some of the teachings. That simply means that they held on to enough of the truth of God's revelation to be in accord with Jesus on those points.

And Of COURSE they taught the coming of the Messiah. MANY Jews in Jesus' time were expecting His appearance. Anyone who knew the Old Testament scriptures was expecting Him. Yes, it's all over those scriptures if you have the ears to hear.

Nevertheless very few of them recognized Him when He had come. Hillel is a school of Pharisees, and Jesus was constantly upbraiding them for their false teachings and most of them rejected Him, remember?

What is your source for the notion that it was Hillel followers who Turned to Christ?

There is also no evidence that Gamaliel ever recognized Him. He had enough spiritual sense to warn his brethren not to act against this new sect IN CASE it was from God but there is absolutely NOTHING to indicate he became a believer. And his influence on Paul can hardly count toward his becoming a Chritian since Paul was famous for his zeal as a Pharisee going out to persecute and kill the Christians. It was ONLY the Lord's own personal intervention from heaven that changed Paul or COULD have changed Paul.

Some Pharisees of course did become believers, and perhaps most of the believers had been Pharisees, but there's no way I know of to know that for sure. We can't even be sure in the case of Nicodemus, who certainly seemed to believe but didn't clearly follow through.

I'm not saying they DIDN'T believe, I'm saying there is no way to know one way or the other and I don't see where you get your certainty about this.

And Beamish, what you are calling my odd logic trainwreck IS the gospel of the salvation in Jesus Christ, it is THE Christian message, and no matter what Hillel taught that Jesus also taught, if THAT is not taught, there is no Christianity whatever.

Cheers.

Faith said...

Keep rereading this and wondering where on earth you got it:

>>>Hillel school Judaism teaches grace and forgiveness over rigid religious legalism, and the coming of a Messiah. <<<

Yeah, and so do today's Pharisees IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT they are in bondage to their 613 nitpicky laws and their Talmudic interpretation of them. They claim you'll be forgiven but they have no basis for that claim. The only basis for it is the sacrifice of the God-man Jesus Christ. They should know that from their long history of animal sacrifice which portended His sacrifice, and especially Abraham's near-sacrifice of his son Isaac, but they're blind to the real meaning of all that.

Sure they believe in a coming Messiah, they all do. It's in their scriptures. But if Jesus Christ is not recognized AS that Messiah who has already come, and that He is God Himself, born of a virgin, and that He wrought salvation for us by dying in our place and taking our just punishment upon Himself .....
it doesn't matter what else they believe that is similar to what Christians believe. Christianity is NOT a body of moral precepts, altough certainly there are plenty of them taught to us as well.

>>>>Christianity was founded by Jews, most of whom subscribed to Hillel school Judaism, and of course one of them actually being the Messiah.<<<

This is odd wording to say the least. "Founded by??" No. Jesus was revealed as the Messiah and whoever BELIEVED IN HIM became part of His church. There was no "founding" involved. Only man-made religions have a founder. But Christ is God Himself. And where do you get this weird notion that He belonged to any school of the Pharisees?

This is some weird teaching made up by someone who puts his own fallible brain above God's revelation.

Anonymous said...

I think sheer magnitude of destruction has something to do with it.

The number dead in Haiti is roughly the number of Americans that died in the Civil War or in WWII.

The number of dead in Chile is approximately the number of Americans killed in Afghanistan.

tio

Z said...

JERRY... Jerry said...
wow, the Ecclesiates quote brought out some anger when I posted it as my FB status!!"

Come again?? You posted what where? :-) Am I missing something?


Beamish, yes, and I'm sorry to have limited people (especially you and Faith, frankly) here on any subject but it's kind of near and dear to my heart and hurts, this calling Catholics NON Christians.. because I know some who are such good Christian people...I know some of the teachings aren't from the Bible, I KNOW THAT...there's nowhere in the Bible that talks about indulgences or praying to anybody but Christ, etc...and the business of the church has been murky at best several times throughout history....but....
I appreciate your asking..xx

Z said...

You guys talking about the Hilell of the quote "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And when I am for myself, what am 'I'?"
What a fascinating quote. I knew that name, Hilell, but not who he was..thanks for educating me(as usual)


Also, FAITH or BEAMISH, I'm doing some research on Isaiah 53 and had been told it wasn't even IN the Hebrew Bible but now I read more and more it IS but they don't read it in High Holiday services because of the pretty obvious Jesus prophecies there.

beamish said...

Faith,

The Pharisees themselves were a rabbinical order with several schools of thought within. To summarize Pharisees from Biblical accounts alone is rather akin to mistakenly talking about a political party as a monolithic entity with no internal deviations, when of course there are. No one believes Olympia Snowe and Fred Thompson have the same social policy positions, yet both are Republicans. Hillel was a Pharisee, but rather radically different in his approach to theological questions than other Pharisees. Gamaliel, like Hillel before him, was rather radical in that he believed in spreading the teachings of Judaism to the Gentile world outside the Jewish community. The Hillel school was notoriously "rabble-rousing" in that respect, a tradition carried forward by Gamaliel and Paul, particularly Paul as a Christian.

As far as Gamaliel's conversion to Christianity, it is not known, but infered by Jewish oral traditions. ("Contemporary Jewish records continue to list him first among the Sanhedrin but it is of note that he is not listed in the chain of transmission of the oral tradition which may indicate that he was suspected of adhering to another oral tradition, that of the Christians." - from Wikipedia)

As far as the "founding" of Christianity, you're playing a semantics game and thinking yourself spiritual. One could just as easily argue that because God founded the universe and everything in it he's ultimately responsible for founding Penthouse magazine and Velcro because God made the men that made those.

"Is it not written, 'Ye are gods?'"

Christianity was founded by Jews following a Jew who just happened to be the Messiah that was prophesied to come. I am not making the argument that Jesus was not God Himself. Jesus was a man also, hence Christianity was founded by a Jewish man and his followers. As far as geeting hyper about Jesus being God and trying to stress that Christianity is not "man made" denies the humanity of Christians. Jesus wasn't a Christian, he was Christ.

Z said...

beamish, Paul as a Christian believed in teaching Judaism to Gentiles?

Anonymous said...

"The aid workers were a big part of the news in Haiti and no doubt brought news people following them.


As they will for the next 100 years in Haiti...makes the libbies all warm and fuzzy inside...knowing that Haiti was and always will be a failed, chaotic, dysfunctional, unmanageable, ungovernable 4th world dung heap.

Even worse that Detroit....hmmmm...why aren't we 'nation building" that 5th world jiffy john too?

beamish said...

Z,

The most fascinating prophecy in the Old Testament to me comes in Daniel, the "seventy sevens" mentioned in Daniel 9:24-27 to denote the time that would pass between the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple and the coming of the Messiah. The sevens refer to seven years, of 360 days each (by the Jewish lunar calendar) thus seventy iterations of seven 360-day long years, or 490 lunar calendar years. The Messiah, according to Daniel, would come after the 69th iteration of these seven year cycles after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple.

We know from Nehemiah 2:1-8 the date of when a decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple was issued (month of Nisan, 20th year of King Artaxerxes) a date that corresponds to March 5, 444 BC.

Advance 483 years of 360 days each from that date and you land upon April 6, 33 AD, the day Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey.

Goosebumps.

beamish said...

beamish, Paul as a Christian believed in teaching Judaism to Gentiles?

No, Paul as a Hillel school follower believed in teaching to Gentiles. After becoming a Christian, he continued in that course, only teaching that the Messiah had already come.

Faith said...

Beamish: The only thing that MATTERS about the Pharisees if you're making claims about Christianity IS what scripture says. Thanks for accusing me of pretending to "spirituality" but what I'm doing is trying to stick to scripture. That's what we're supposed to do.

It's mildly interesting that Gamaliel MIGHT have become a follower of Christ, considering that he showed some good spiritual sense in the scriptures. I hope he did. But it makes no difference to the nature of Christianity.

As for taking Judaism out to the Gentiles, their own scriptures TOLD THEM TO DO THAT, and for the most part, like Jonah the prophet who resisted preaching repentance to Nineveh, they rebelled against the idea because to them God had made them alone His heirs and the Gentiles were hated enemies or unworthy dogs and they simply tried to keep themselves untouched by them.

Yet some DID make proselytes and the synagogues all over the Greek-speaking world were in fact full of Gentile proselytes when Paul was making his rounds and preaching the gospel in the synagogues. Remember (or do you read the scriptures at all?), Jesus said:

Matthew 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

The proselytes were, however, never accorded any status in the synagogues, and in some sense were barely tolerated. Again, the Jews tend to think of themselves as a NATION specially chosen by God and that doesn't fit with including Gentiles, though they reluctantly did/do from time to time, and some were more liberal toward the Gentiles than others. So what? Paul taught that there is "no more Jew nor Greek," that Christ has brought down the wall set up by the Old Testament between Jew and Gentile. Now we are all in Christ a "new creation" and the "old is done away."

Peter had the typical Jewish attitude that the Gentiles were unclean, and God Himself gave him a vision to teach him otherwise, before sending him to the Gentile household of Cornelius (Acts 10). Paul would have been raised in the same tradition and had to be shaken out of it, which he no doubt was by the extraordinary experiences God allowed him. he learned the lesson fully and upbraided Peter at one point when he succumbed to the pressures from the Jewish believers who were still insisting on their law.

There is NOTHING MAN MADE about the gospel of Christ and you are just playing with words when you bring in Christ's humanity as some sort of proof.

Beamish, you need to read the scriptures and stop depending on extrabiblical sources.

Faith said...

I'm glad to see you appreciate SOME aspects of scripture, Beamish. Daniel's prophecy of the timing of Messiah's arrival IS goosebump stuff.

Oso said...

Hi Z,
Hope you are doing well and enjoying nice weather.

I agree with what several of your readers wrote-the bigger the tragedy, the more media coverage. Horrible tragedies both.

re: the verse-that was pretty good. I had to do some reading to figure it out-so my bible reading for the day!
take care

Z said...

Hi, Oso! I'm so glad when you come by..thanks. I am doing okay...my husband's loss is huge and every day is a challenge but I'd say I'm doing pretty well, most of the time. Thanks for asking.
Glad I was able to give you some bible study time :-)
As far as the 'nice weather'..we've had more rain than any LA winter I remember and they're still saying we haven't met a quota yet where we don't have to worry about drought! How the heck have we survived the years when we've had 1/3 the rain?

Beamish...I misunderstood your statement...Paul was a 'rabble rouser', not a witness to Gentiles about Judaism; I see that now..sorry!

As for the day on the donkey..holy SMOKE is that incredible! Thanks for that, I'd never heard it but will CERTAINLY SHARE IT with friends.

FAITH..Beamish says Jesus "Was the Christ"..how wrong is that?
You're both arguing up the same tree (pardon some mixed metaphor even I don't quite understand?!)...
Christ WAS human, He WAS God...
He 'started' Christianity by BEING WHO HE WAS!
Doesn't that follow?
He was MAN and felt what WE feel "Father, hath thou forsaken me?" How human can it GET? We learn from that that HE knows how WE feel as HUMANS, another great gift to us in that we can imagine He knows our deepest sorrows and yearnings very intimately...not like some "god" from heaven who twangs his magic twanger without really understanding us....his earthly time is when Christianity started...He IS the Christ, His time on earth began Christianity............so.......

Faith said...

Maybe I'm being picky objecting to the term "founder," OK, but that's the way unbelievers write about Christianity in an attempt to reduce it to just another religion. Also, "liberal" Christians write that way, who do not believe in the deity of Christ. Beamish sounds like that in his first posts, and in fact in many of his posts. And his information is extrabiblical. So I dislike the term "founder." Sounds like a man-made movement, not the revelation of the coming of God Himslf into human flesh.

Z said...

Faith, I see your point now, thanks.......yes, it doesn't sound very 'holy', sanctified.."Founder"
But you can see from other of Beamish's comments that he does believe in the divinity of Jesus, can't you.

Faith said...

I honestly can't see Beamish as a Christian believer from many things he says. He'll say yes he believes that Jesus is God but he'll say it in a way that sounds like he's straining to mean something other than what the traditional church means by that. And he's outright said that my statements of the gospel message of Jesus coming to die for our sins are nonsense to him and my statement about that is a logical "train wreck." He's said a great deal that convinces me he's not a Christian. But a lot of people think they are Christians who aren't, simply because they believe some part of the story or are culturally Christians or like the ten commandments or have spiritual feelings or go to church or whatever. They treat it as more like a philosophy, even if they accept some of the supernatural elements. And he thinks Ecclesiastes is the most important book of the Bible? That's the most WORLDLY book of the Bible. Lovely, full of wisdom ABOUT the futility of life on the worldly level, but there's nothing in it to point a person to Christ.

beamish said...

Beamish, you need to read the scriptures and stop depending on extrabiblical sources.

Faith, you need to stop trying to program your VCR with the book of Hosea.

Anonymous said...

This is amusing, but well rooted in tradition and superstition.

The Italians refer to the right hand as mano dextra (dexterity, skill, usefulness, etc.). The call the left hand mano sinestra (sinister, evil, shady, untrustworthy, etc.)

The French refer to le main droit (right as in correct, right thinking, and of course right-sided). Le main gauche is how they refer to the left hand. Gauche meaning awkward, foolish, clumsy, as well as "in the left side."

I'm not 100% sure of my spelling in the two languages, but the meanings are correct.

At any rate, whether it be strictly true or not "left" historically bears a negative connotation.

I was born left-handed. It's never been a problem for me, but in my parents generation and before strenuous efforts were made to force naturally left-handed people to write with the right hands. What a foolish waste of time and energy THAT was, although schools did a much better job of imparting skill and knowledge in those days than they have ever since the "liberated" Sick-sties allowed a tidal wave of corruption and degeneracy to engulf the nation.

Makes one wonder, doesn't it?

Good one, Beamish! Left = abandoned. Right = correct. I'll remember that. Thanks.

~ FreeThinke

Faith said...

Beamish, let's just get a clear statement here:

Do you regard yourself as a Christian? Based on what? Based on something other than the claim that Jesus is God who came to die to pay for human sin? Do you believe that at all?

Z said...

Beamish, I just emailed your information from Daniel to a ton of email friends...thanks.

beamish said...

And he thinks Ecclesiastes is the most important book of the Bible? That's the most WORLDLY book of the Bible. Lovely, full of wisdom ABOUT the futility of life on the worldly level, but there's nothing in it to point a person to Christ.

Ah, the divinely inspired Word of God hits a "worldly" foul ball in Ecclesiastes?

I find it amazing that a book written 3,000 years ago could have been written precisely with the same words and tone today and have no anachronistic concepts or sentiments. Solomon NAILED the human condition, in 10 short chapters. Other philosophers in centuries since haven't even come close, in whole libraries of books.

Before you go tearing that book out of the Bible for "not pointing to Christ," take a look at your whole Bible, cover to cover, and tell me where else "The Son of David, King in Jerusalem" means Solomon and not the Messiah.

The Book of Ecclesiastes IS Jesus, talking to you.

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Faith said...

OK, Beamish, I never said Ecclesiastes doesn't belong in the Bible, but most people reading it will never find Jesus through it. Yes, in its revelation of the human condition it DOES point to Jesus, but not in a way that would open the eyes of the blind.

But I still don't know if you even know Jesus yourself and strongly suspect that you don't.

beamish said...

Beamish, let's just get a clear statement here:

Do you regard yourself as a Christian? Based on what? Based on something other than the claim that Jesus is God who came to die to pay for human sin? Do you believe that at all?


I am a Christian. There's no "regard myself" to it.

"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. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." - John 3:16-17

I believe in God's Son, Jesus, accept His grace, have faith in His Word.

Now in addition to that if you think my salvation is in peril if I don't additionally believe the Earth is a Scorpio born on October 23rd, 4004 BC and wind from a window will turn my Bible pages to a message tailored just for me, then I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree vehemently.

Faith said...

>>>>I believe in God's Son, Jesus, accept His grace, have faith in his Word.<<<

I'm sorry to be such a stickler, here, but that doesn't do it. What do you believe ABOUT Jesus, and what does it mean to say your faith in His Word? Do you have faith in HIM personally? Do you believe you are born again? How do you know?

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE GOSPEL IS THAT HE DIED TO PAY OUR SIN DEBT? Do you believe you are a sinner in need of that kind of Savior?

Faith said...

I really AM sorry to be such a stickler, but it seems important that people really know whether they really are or aren't saved and so many talk as if they are Christians when it turns out they are not, and this is a very dangerous state to be in. The literature of Christianity, especially of true God-initiated revivals, is full of testimonies of how people had thought they were Christians all their lives, had gone to church faithfully all their lives, even HAD PREACHED THE GOSPEL AS PASTORS, only to find out when a real move of God came that they HAD NEVER KNOWN HIM! And only now were they born again of the Spirit and KNEW they were His instead of merely giving intellectual assent to it.

Christ came to SAVE. He didn't just come to teach, or shepherd our lives in some way that isn't all about ETERNAL LIFE.

Z said...

THIS kind of conversation is why I wanted a blog...well, actually, that's not true; I didn't think conversation in comments could EVER get this good, this informative, this affirming, this interesting.

Thanks.......I wish we were all sitting around my dining room table talking like you all have.
I really appreciate this very, very much.

Please continue...I'm not vacuuming under the table YET... Or singing "the party's ooooover...." !!!

Faith said...

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

(Funny, my code word this time is caticiz. Maybe this is what I'm doing? Catechizing in a way? Being a boorish preacher anyway I suppose. Sorry, it seems so necessary at the moment.)

beamish said...

OK, Beamish, I never said Ecclesiastes doesn't belong in the Bible, but most people reading it will never find Jesus through it. Yes, in its revelation of the human condition it DOES point to Jesus, but not in a way that would open the eyes of the blind.

I don't see how not. Solomon is refered to by him name everywhere else in the Bible. "Son of David" is ALWAYS a reference to the Messiah, and "King in Jerusalem" is a odd denotation in the dual kingdoms of Judah and Israel UNLESS it is a Messianic reference. If Solomon is the "Teacher, Son of David, King in Jerusalem" in Ecclesiastes, he's writing about himself in the third person, an even more awkward convention, especially in Hebrew.

The "Teacher, Son of David, King in Jerusalem" is Jesus. It's a Messianic reference. God's Word made flesh, down to earth, "worldly," talking to you.

But I still don't know if you even know Jesus yourself and strongly suspect that you don't.

I'm only concerned about His recognition of me, not yours. But, I'm sure if that vicarious seat suits you, the Catholic Church is hiring future Popes, and they promote from within. Not sure they like women CEOs though.

Z said...

Beamish, you said "I'm only concerned about His recognition of me, not yours"

Odd you'd say that today...just the other day I had hoped my friend Bryan had finally felt the need for Christ and prayed for Him to come into his heart/life. He said he felt nothing when he prayed that night and so he thinks he's 'too old' to change to a person of faith now (but I know he's questioning for the first time EVER, so....)
Anyway, I told my sis about this and how Bryan had prayed ...she said "it's about his honoring Christ, not Christ honoring HIM" (she said it more elegantly and lovingly than I do here, but, you get the drift)

Faith said...

I'm SO glad you enjoy this kind of discussion, Z. I always feel like I'm going out on a limb when I get pulled into these things, but they feel so absolutely imperative I couldn't NOT get into it. It would be great to be having this at your dining room table -- especially if you're going to feed us some of your gourmet delights.

Faith said...

Beamish, Christians must recognize each other in order to have a Christian life. Being a loner doesn't cut it. Christianity is a corporate enterprise.

However, I do understand if you just don't like being interrogated on such a personal level. Of course this is none of my business if you don't want it to be.

Faith said...

About Ecclesiastes, you are appealing to knowledge of the Biblical context that is far too esoteric for most people. I'm talking about the effect of the book itself to convert someone who doesn't have all that esoteric theological background.

By the way, as I recall, Ecclesiastes was the ONLY book whose place in the Old Testament canon was disputed when the Jews were making that determination. It hit THEM as too worldly. Of course it does have a spiritual message and that's why it was included, but such subtlety is WHY it won't convert the blind.

beamish said...

By the way, as I recall, Ecclesiastes was the ONLY book whose place in the Old Testament canon was disputed when the Jews were making that determination. It hit THEM as too worldly.

Yep. Thanks to the school of Hillel, those unruly "worldly" egalitarian rabble-rousing radicals, Ecclesiastes made the final cut.

I suspect it's because they recognized, correctly, that it was Solomon's writing but their awaited Messiah's words.

Of course it does have a spiritual message and that's why it was included, but such subtlety is WHY it won't convert the blind.

I don't know about that. It had a hand in converting me, and makes the rest of the Bible make sense to me. Admittedly, I'm a theology / philosophy / history nut and so finding the context of when and why things were written in the Bible, what was going on in the world at the time, looking into Jewish histories and rabbinical commentaries and how Jews understand THEIR scripture and so on, the book of Ecclesiastes just jumps out at me and says "Hi. I'm Jesus. Let's chat."

It's my favorite book.

beamish said...

Faith,

I don't mind being gaslighted on scripture and my beliefs, but you seem to be taking a Grand Inquisitor tone that I find expressly off-putting.

Faith said...

Well, sorry but I guess I just don't know how to do it any other way. I know I tend to be abrupt and flat-footed where others are more tactful and sensitive, but all my efforts to change in that direction feel phony to me. So I suppose I just won't get any answers from you. Way it goes.

Z said...

Faith! What the heck answers do you think Beamish hasn't answered yet?

beamish said...

Embarassment...

I described Ecclesiastes as "10 short chapters." There's 12 chapters.... d'oh!

Faith said...

Well he never answered my main question:

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE GOSPEL IS THAT HE DIED TO PAY OUR SIN DEBT?

By the way, Z, I got your email but Yahoo is so slow I haven't been able to answer you. I'm also having trouble typing this message. My computer is in trouble and I'm not sure what I'm going to do about it.

beamish said...

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE GOSPEL IS THAT HE DIED TO PAY OUR SIN DEBT?

Yes. This the grace through which we are saved by faith, not works.

I thought it was pretty clear I believe this from the way I razz Ducky all the time on his religion's need for a litany of additional intercessors to bow and scrape to.

I wear a cross, not a crucifix. My Jesus, the Christian Jesus, isn't dead on a cross anymore.

Faith said...

OK, Beamish, thank you, I accept that. I guess you just have some unconventional opinions along with your faith.

Z said...

Well, AMEN, everybody! SUPER discussion..

Beamish, I wear a cross but I sometimes wear a crucifix, ....seems to me it's a remembrance of what He went through..not a denial of what He gave us.
But, I know you're not alone in thinking the way you do and it's not wrong, that's for sure, don't get me wrong.

I just read Ecclesiastes from start to finish probably for the first time..as I emailed you, MEANINGLESS takes on a freeing connotation for the first time..it IS all meaningless without Him. It does feel like He's speaking through Solomon. He even admonishes at the end, in my words..this is THE BOOK..period.

Z said...

Faith, I'm sorry your computer's giving you trouble; is it the same problem from last time?

Faith said...

That problem might be the cause of this problem but it's not THE problem now. I've been getting the occasional blue screen and lots of freeze-ups, which is a very bad sign. I may see if Norton tech in India (boy are THEY fun) can do something about it.

But nobody believes me about that other problem so I just sit here astonished that it keeps going on and on. Someone would have to come sit in my chair to see it I guess.

Z said...

Faith, I so hope you can clear things up, that's so frustrating.....especially the talking to India part.
Good luck with that...

beamish said...

Yep, Z!

And the next time you read in the Bible the Messiah giving direct instruction to the people of the world comes in the Book of Revelation to John, which also ends with the "do not add or take away from this book" warning.

It's as if Solomon's Teacher and the Messiah and Jesus are all the same person!

Z said...

"And further, my son, be admonished by these. Of MAKING MANY BOOKS, and much study is wearisome to the flesh." Ecc.

And Revelations even says "..for I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone ADDS TO THESE THINGS, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;..."
!!
plus, Beamish, Rev 20:12 says "..And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life." I wonder if it's referring to Ecclesiastes?
I know I'm no scholar here, so don't laugh, please, but this kind of makes sense, no?

beamish said...

plus, Beamish, Rev 20:12 says "..And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life." I wonder if it's referring to Ecclesiastes?
I know I'm no scholar here, so don't laugh, please, but this kind of makes sense, no?


I don't think so.

I believe it's the same "book of life" as in Psalms 69:28 and Phillipians 4:3

A list of names of believers. Heaven's telephone book ;)

Z said...

Oh, ya...I DO remember that.. right.
Well, good guess!
Thanks, Beamish, you're right.

beamish said...

Well, I haven't discussed religion this much in probably years. I enjoyed it.

You tricked me into opening a Bible, Z! :P

:)

Z said...

"You tricked me into opening a Bible, Z! :P"

that's the nicest thing you've said to me in a long time! :-)

As for enjoying it? SO DID I! And you are GOOD at it! Thanks very, very much, Beamish.

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

Since tossing tomatoes at Ducky's perennial displays of imbecility is just a fun sport that never gets old, I decided to run back over the comment thread to see what I missed....

As for scripture. Luther's dogma that scripture is literal truth has led you into all kinds of problems with science, history, archeology ... so that's your problem, not ours.

Science? The Catholic Church didn't lift its verdict of "vehemently suspect of heresy" against Galileo Galilei for his ideas that the Earth orbits the Sun until 1992, 18 years ago this year. Even Joseph Ratzinger, who goes by the stage name "Pope Benedict Sixteen" these days, was still defending the church supression of Galileo's works as late as 1990. To this day, Catholic universities may teach the totally proven concept of heliocentrism as "theory only" - meaning that the official policy of the Catholic Church STILL adheres to geocentrism, the debunked belief that the Earth is the center of the solar system (and universe).

History? Such as the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of 1933 where the Roman Catholic Church endorsed the Nazi Party, anti-Semitism and all? Anti-Semitic references were not removed from Catholic catechism texts until the end of the "Vatican II" ecumenical council in 1965. Twenty years after the end of the Holocaust, the Catholic Church finally decided to stop smearing Jews in it doctrinal presentations. Progress, I guess.

Archaeology? Let's see what we can dig up. Ewwww.

Now, Ducky, if you can find a Christian sect or Protestant denomination outside the Catholic Church that still vehemently denies the veracity of geocentrism, signed a endorsement of the Nazi government, and / or dug up former leaders for posthumous "trial and execution" perhaps you will have earned your bizarre religion a right to speak on these matters.

But for now, aaaaaaaaah shut up, idiot.

Anonymous said...

the media isn't covering Chile because there are fewer
images that make it worth their while...Ebro

Maybe because there is not opportunity for nation
building in Chile...AOW

From my observations, if they can't vilify American citizens or our troops, there is NO STORY. What pigs the MSM is! I laughed when the Chileans wisely turned down Obama's offer of aid. Might have something to do with his buddy-buddy relationship with their neighbor Chavez! And, yes, I agree with AOW. There is no opportunity to influence their system to fit into Obozo's dream of a Socialist
New World Order is there?


You people don't seem to understand how truly vulgar you are...Plucky

First of all, I would like to express my heartfelt condolences over the loss of your brother at such a young age. I can at least see where your resentment of other religious beliefs comes from.

If I were to model my faith after the true idiots I have encountered in life who adhered to ALL different faiths, I would have no faith at all.

Luke 6:37

37"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.


I think you will find this verse in the Catholic bible.

I find whenI look to God and the Lord, rather than looking to common men, I tend to view things more clearly. It is not what "religious group" one belongs to that makes them a holder of salvation, it is what they allow God to put in their hearts and mind, after they truly commit to Jesus.

If one chooses to allow negative things to reside there, like anger,
resentment, judgement (which belongs to God and God alone),hate, etc, then in my thinking, they simply don't "get it".

I have friends from every faith. When someone states beliefs that I don't agree with, it becomes easier for me to exercise "tolerance" and allow them theirs and I keep mine, if I pray about it. I don't bad mouth their faith. We agree to disagree respectfully. They don't become my friends because of religious or political beliefs anyway. Given what God tells me in the scripture, it's not MY place to do so.

It's called tolerance and love. Something I thought a "liberal"
was supposed to represent. I think that may well be one of many
reasons why my politics has changed so radically over the last decade.


HAM

Anonymous said...

Interesting discussion and it's way beyond my level of biblical understanding, I'll admit.

How can anyone today be certain any biblical passage has not been altered from the original? Some people assert that the only version of the Bible that one can be sure contains the original writing is the King James Version. How true is that?

I think criticizing religion can quickly go off the rails. Kudos to those that can present a strong argument without resorting to outright insults. I do agree with Beamish that there is plenty to criticize about the Catholic Church and its history including issuing Vatican passports to known Nazis to escape to South America as Hitler's Reich collapsed.

Waylon

Elmers Brother said...

How can anyone today be certain any biblical passage has not been altered from the original? Some people assert that the only version of the Bible that one can be sure contains the original writing is the King James Version. How true is that?

Because we have something like 5500 manuscripts that can be traced to their originals.

Although one may hear of thousands of variants or errors, we must keep in mind that they count the same error in each of the 5,000 manuscripts. After careful examination, they have found that only 40 lines (400 words) of the 20,000 lines are in question. We can be sure that the New Testament is 99% pure. The Iliad by contrast has 5% corrupted text. There is no ancient text that is more reliable than the New Testament.

What is more helpful, is that we know exactly what the differences of the Greek text are. At the foot of each page of the Greek text, one can see the footnotes which document which variants that particular verse might have. They note which manuscripts support which variant. In this way Lower Criticism has dispelled fears of an unreliable text. One main advantage of studying Greek is to be able to read these footnotes! English translations mention only the most significant variants.

Z said...

I often consider how interesting it is that the four gospels aren't exactly the same. If someone were to order the writing of a New Testament, wouldn't you think they'd want to get every little fact straight so's to look more factual?
There are so many points like this one....

Sadly, man has perverted a lot of the Scripture, interpreting to suit his desires and personality...to raise funds, to keep people controlled...

It's all about THE BOOK. None of that in there.

Faith said...

Waylon: The idea that the Bible is so full of errors it's all but useless is invented by enemies of the Bible. Elbro gave the basic answer -- we have so many manuscripts that can be traced back to their originals, and so many people who are authorities on them that the errors are resolved in our Bibles. They are mostly minor errors in any case, a matter of a scribal misreading or slip of the pen or misspelling. When you have so many mss. to compare with each other, such errors are reliably tracked down.

As for the King James question, I've spent quite a bit of time studying that and the story is that in the late 19th century the Anglican church commissioned a revision of the King James, to be as minimal as possible, basically an updating of the archaic English -- not with any idea that it was seriously faulty although there may be a few minor errors (this is disputed), just needing an updating -- and two of the men on the revision committee (Westcott and Hort) took it upon themselves to introduce a new set of Greek manuscripts other than those the KJV was based on, AND to introduce 36,000 changes in the English besides, both of which actions were far from what they had agreed to do. They managed to persuade the rest of the committee despite the objections of some. They chose the old texts because they are the "oldest" but all that means is that they are the oldest that happen to have survived the ravages of time, although there are very few of them, suggesting that they were rejected by the churches down the centuries, which is an argument against them. The texts that underlie the King James, on the under hand, are represented by MANY in the number we have available.

The revision that was finally brought out in 1881 was soundly criticized by other scholars of the day who denounced the chosen Greek texts as known to have been corrupt already, tracing them back to heretical cults of the early centuries. These texts leave out some passages well known to the readers of the KJV, such as the last twelve verses of the gospel of Mark, and make other changes.

Dean John William Burgon was the main objector to the changes and wrote many articles and books detailing his objections. I got his main book, The Revision Revised, and am convinced of his arguments. But most seminaries and scholars today accept the revision, and the churches are overrun with versions that are variations on that revision. I think the KJV DID/DOES need some revision, but none of the current alternatives are the revision that it needs.

If you're interested in my opinion I have a whole blog dedicated to this subject, The Great Bible Hoax.

Z said...

"The revision that was finally brought out in 1881 was soundly criticized by other scholars of the day who denounced the chosen Greek texts as known to have been corrupt already"

1881? Where does Luther's Bible fit in there?

Faith said...

Luther's Bible was based on the same set of Greek texts as the King James I believe, Z. The revision of 1881 was an English revision based on a different set of Greek texts, and all our current OTHER Bibles are based on some version of that revision today.

Eventually that revision was also used to "correct" the German Bible too, as I understand it, so in Germany there is a similar situation to ours -- the original Luther Bible PLUS a whole slew of revisions based on a different set of texts and an inferior translation as well.

beamish said...

I used to get into the King James Version vs. New International Version bible translation debates, but haven't followed it in quite a while.

I do know for a fact that the NIV has quite a long list of omissions, where entire verses from older translations have been totally edited out of the text.

It probably should be a louder controversy than it is.

beamish said...

My grandfather was much more into this Bible translation debate before he passed away. He was a KJV-only purist. He had nicknames for the other versions.

RSV = "Reviled Serpent Version"
NIV = "Nearly Incomplete Version"

I could sit for hours and listen to him make the case for the KJV. Sadly, I don't retain much of that info in my head.

Faith said...

I love your grandfather, Beamish. He had the right instincts. I came to the KJV-only position quite late and never have been a real purist on it. I simply got into the controversy about the revision of 1881 a few years ago and came to realize they'd just about destroyed the Bible, yet hardly anybody seems to have noticed.

beamish said...

He used to point out a passage in Mark (IIRC) that is footnoted in the NIV as "the earliest manuscripts do not include this" (or something like that) as if to bolster the claim that the NIV is more reliable than "earlier manuscripts." But then he showed me the manuscript that the NIV is using to question the legitimacy of earlier manuscripts of Mark that are missing that section also exclude the entire book of Revelation - exposing that the NIV footnotes contain a rather obvious double standard. His argument was, "If the manuscript for Mark used by the NIV translators is more reliable, then why does the book of Revelation appear in the NIV?"

My reply was "Don't give them any ideas."

Lots of confusing issues, errors of omission and commision there in the "Nearly Incomplete Version."

It's good for modern language exposition on older translations, but not an adequate replacement for them.

beamish said...

take the NIV test hehehe

Faith said...

I'm realizing that since I object so strenuously to the modern Bibles I'm giving mixed messages to Waylon. I'm claiming on the one hand that the Bible is trustworthy and on the other that the modern Bibles aren't. A case of categorical confusion I think.

The question of whether the underlying texts are unreliable is easily answered as Elbro and I both answered it: they aren't. We can trace them back to their originals and see where errors entered in and correct them. This is true of BOTH sets of Greek texts, those that underlie the KJV and those that were used in the 1881 revision. That is, we DO KNOW WHAT THEY SAID.

The situation with the revision, however, is that the Greek texts are DIFFERENT from the KJV's even though we have a reliable set of both. The question is which set is the authentic set, and I'm with those who argue for the KJV set, or the Textus Receptus. There are minor variations in all textual traditions, and the translators have to make decisions among the variants, but in a general sense there are these two different sets.

The set that underlies the revision of 1881 has many gaps where the KJV has text, and the translation that is most full of those holes is the NIV as Beamish says, that being the most radical version based on the revisionist Greek texts. Other versions retain some of the KJV text just as a sop to tradition, although the Greek texts underlying them have gaps there. Nothing is simple in this dispute but there are some generalizations that can be reliably made.

And on top of that there are those 36,000 changes in the English itself which the revised version made, PLUS more changes made by each subsequent version based on that revision (The NIV, the NKJV, the NASB and all the rest of them) mostly all "change for change's sake" which just adds to the confusion and chaos in the churches (which oddly few seem to notice), and those changes were made to allow the version to come under copyright, since a certain percentage of its text must vary from the other texts in order to qualify. Thus the Bible is corrupted by the love of money along with all the other sources of corruption.

Most of the new translations are more or less in accord with the message of the KJV, but there are some translational differences that are very bothersome. Mostly the quality of English is abominable, just stupid synonyms scattered about to qualify for copyright that make it impossible for people who use different translations to have the same text.

SO, for THESE reasons the modern Bibles ARE untrustworthy in my opinion.

Again, anyone interested in my attempt to lay out this argument can find it at my blog, The Great Bible Hoax

Faith said...

The NIV is the absolute worst, Beamish and that little test proves it. People who rely on that or any of the other modern translations need to take that test as a wake-up call.

Z said...

Sad that the excellent Community Bible Study and Bible Study Fellowship programs both rely solely on the NIV. The Leaders who lecture do not, they use copious information from various commentaries, other Bibles, etc., but the ladies are advised that NIV is the standard.

Faith, what is your opinion of the Amplified Bible?

Z said...

http://www.allaboutgod.com/is-the-bible-true.htm

a friend sent me the above link...I haven't looked closely yet but wanted to pass it on..

Elmers Brother said...

I often consider how interesting it is that the four gospels aren't exactly the same. If someone were to order the writing of a New Testament, wouldn't you think they'd want to get every little fact straight so's to look more factual?
There are so many points like this one....


Z, if they were all the same it would appear as collusion

the fact that they present Christ in a different light is evidence that they are reliable, like 4 different witnesses to an accident so to speak

for a different take on the KJVO

Z said...

Elbro, Maybe I didn't make myself clear, but what you said about 'more reliable' is exactly my point...
Now that I read my comment, it sounds like I meant they SHOULD all be the same... Ooops!

"wouldn't you think they'd want to get every little fact straight so's to look more factual?"
In other words, the fact that they did NOT 'sell' it that way is even more compelling...exactly right

Z said...

Elbro, I'm not seeing that...looks like the appropriate article won't open or something...?
I'll be gone most of the day..no hurry, I know you're busy. xx

beamish said...

Faith,

I never really considered the changes and omissions made by the NIV translations to be variations for copyright purposes. That seems a rather more benign reason for the errors than deliberate conspiracies of obfuscation and subversion.

But that brings up a another issue?

Who owns the legal copyrights to the Bible? Aren't the works in the "public domain?" Should they be?

MK said...

"The heart of the WISE inclines TO THE RIGHT, but the heart of the FOOL to the left, Even as he walks along the road, the fool lacks sense and shows everyone how stupid he is."

I didn't know about that one, thanks Z, no wonder lefties dislike God, the feeling is mutual and he knew what a bunch of morons they are from long, long ago.

Faith said...

Beamish: the omissions in the NIV are based on the underlying Alexandrian Greek texts preferred by the revisionists Westcott and Hort, but a great deal of the ENGLISH changes in the text -- where the underlying Greek is the same -- were done for copyright purposes, so the translation could be sold.

I don't think any of this is a conspiracy in the sense that the people who did the translations and teach in the seminaries, even maybe Westcott and Hort, wanted to foist a disaster on the churches. I think they are all sincere in their opinions. I just think they lack spiritual discernment or good teaching, aren't sensitive to the consequences for the church of what they are doing by producing so many different English versions, and their judgment about the Greek texts is simply wrong.

Willynilly changing the text to earn a copyright I consider to be irresponsible, not a conspiracy.

The King James copyright is still owned by the English monarchy, but I think in America it is now in the public domain, which is a reason that version is often cheaper than the others. I may be wrong about this but that's what I recall.

As for all the newer translations, the oldest are now in the public domain, whichever those are, but the more recent ones are still under copyright.

Bible publishers have to make money or we'd never have had a Bible. But concern for the church ought to be the uppermost consideration, instead of burdening us with yet another translation based only on someone's personal opinion or some publishing company as some have been.

Faith said...

About the Amplified Bible, it's based on the Westcott and Hort Greek texts just like all the other modern versions so I can't be for it, although I don't know specifics about it.

The idea was apparently to give enough synonyms to guide people through problems of understanding, but I think this may actually end up skewing the intent of the original writers instead of casting light on it, and the better thing to do would be to have a King James and a good dictionary or three to help with it.

Faith said...

Z, that page you linked about the different Bible versions is a standard apologetic argument for the modern versions that acts like there is no controversy between the KJV and the others. It's very misleading for that reason.

Faith said...

And Elbro's link is to a standard apologetic for the modern versions too, showcasing James White, the main spokesman for those versions. I found his study to be obnoxious in the extreme after I had learned a little about this situation. He spends most of his time criticizing the fringe element of the KJV-only people (Ruckman and Riplinger mainly) as if he'd never heard of the scholarly responsible arguments, which amounts to a straw man dismissal. I wrote some about this at my blog, The Great Bible Hoax.

Anonymous said...

I had no idea there were so many deeply held animosities about whose interpretation of the Bible is the correct one. This is among people who generally agree on the rightness of the religion, Christianity, sans Catholicism. Throw in other religions and their conviction that theirs is the absolute truth — what sane person can make sense out of this cacophony?

I do thank Faith, Elmer's Brother and Beamish for their attempt of furthering my enlightenment but right now I have to say I see no simple answer. And I thought the answer was simpler than this.

Waylon

Z said...

MK, isn't that a hoot?

Faith, not everyone is as well read or educated on the subject, and I think that even NIV fills the bill for new people hungry for study and eager to learn...later, the Holy Spirit leads us to higher aspirations of wanting more pure and more maybe challenging, or even more beautifully written (KJV) prose..

The Amplified is a very good study bible...I have been told it's very true to the original bible texts in its translation and it adds a fascinating addition as when, for example, a word like "Meaninglessness" is used in Ecclesiastes and is the following in the Amplified:

2Vapor of vapors and futility of futilities, says the Preacher. Vapor of vapors and futility of futilities! All is vanity (emptiness, falsity, and vainglory).(A)

Z said...

Waylon, I worry that these discussions throw people more into confusion than enlightenment, sorry about that.

I wish we could somehow show that we are in agreement on THE WORD, but the discussion is about mostly certain word usages, omissions, etc., very specialized stuff that you and I don't NEED to know to believe!!

I fear we've turned you off more than on to the Bible and that is SO not the intent of my blog.

Faith said...

There is one position on all this that I've particularly appreciated since reading it, and that is Douglas Wilson's take. Drat, I just looked for his magazine, Credenda/Agenda online, where they used to have the issue that was devoted to this topic, titled Textus Rejectus. Drat. I wish I could link it. His articles are great, and one of them is an interview with James White. Drat drat drat. I guess they can't afford to keep the old site up any more. Sad.

Anyway, his argument is basically that Bible translations should be done under the auspices of the church, not by publishing companies and lone wolves, or even the scholars that were supposedly doing it under the auspices of the Anglican Church.

(Those scholars were not even true believers, which is no doubt why they went the direction they went).

He argues for the Textus Receptus, the Greek text underlying the King James, but criticizes very amusingly the King-James-onlies who seem to think that God inspired the King James directly without bothering with Hebrew and Greek, and that Moses and Paul spoke Elizabethan English.

I think he's right. We need a revised King James, a Bible based on the Textus Receptus and not the corrupt Alexandrians, and done by a CHURCH-CHOSEN committee of the best Holy-Spirit-led scholars with the most thorough grounding in all the Biblical languages -- and a bunch of other languages too, which describes the King James translators. A LARGE committee.

Problem is the church is so scattered these days and scholarship so weak compared to the days of the King James, not to mention how weak the churches are spiritually, that this is an impossible requirement.

Faith said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Has anybody heard of what is known as "One World Religion"? To me this is the evil that is expanding in this world as we speak. It entails everything from the global warming/climate change cult to the political realm of what is referred to as "New World Order". Not only that it seems to be expanding and conquering the heart and soul of what were once the most imposing religious structures in North America, leaving behind a facade, an empty soulless hulk — the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in NYC. This has been the Rockefeller church. I had no idea what was happening so quickly there until I read this recently ...

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_globalization37.htm

I was researching something on a man that could politely be called the Godfather of Al Gore and the global warming movement, Maurice Strong. He is into the occult and power politics of establishing world government, with the idea of making worship of the Earth the new God. Seems like a more noble war to fight than bickering over which translation of the Bible is more correct.

Waylon

Faith said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Z said...

Sorry, Waylon..tI think it's less 'bickering' than it is a really in depth discussion which, frankly, I can't keep up with.....! I wish I could, as much of the Bible as I've studied.

My faith's emboldened and strengthened by these conversations....two people that smart, who really know their stuff, can't be ALL wrong :-)

And that Gore information's so not surprising..there's some reason Americans have been urged by our leftist secularists to leave God behind...
I never thought of it till today, but maybe it's that same philosophy we get by their running down anything Conservative and anything PROFIT-centered so they can force us to go to BIG GOV'T.
I guess if they slam Christianity enough, and churches are shrinking, we'll have to go to their god, too?

as IF

beamish said...

Waylon,

It does get a bit thick in minutiae debating which translation is best, and it's compounded by the fact that most laymen tackling the issue (like me) don't read ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and otherwise don't have direct access to the archaeological original texts anyway.

Then there's the individual approaches to the issues. My grandfather, for example, saw Satanic conspiracy behind the mutations and omissions made by the NIV translators (and he hated the Revised Standard Version even more!) and many websites and magazine articles on the subject do tend to take a theological bent to the argument, alleging corruption to outright heresy.

I don't go that far, but admittedly I haven't delved into the issue of "best translations" in quite a while. When I did study the Bible extensively, I always has a Strong's Concordance at hand to go back into the original language to find the words used in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic and direct translations to check the understanding of the words in context, to try to recover things "lost in translation."

Me personally, I don't think the NIV translation is "evil," but it can be shown to be haphazardly incomplete in places. This usually inflames the passions of the "Biblical inerrancy" arguments of the more fundamentalist defenders of the Bible to get outraged and rally around a particular version of the translations (King James Version, usually) but I take a neutral, less theological approach in the debate (which is mostly why I stay out of the debate) that says the individual books of the Bible are all inspired by God, but written by men, canonized by men, published by men, translated by men, distributed by men, and now it seems even copyrighted by men.

If you can't find God in the nature that inspired the men that wrote the Bible, you sure as heck aren't going to find God in the Bible itself, and rising to defend "God's Word" proves ultimately distracting.

::ducks torches and pitchforks::

Elmers Brother said...

Waylon, it's not that complicated, there are few KJV only believers out there. There are a few cults such as the LDS church that use the KJV only as well. I think the controversy started with a Seventh Day Adventist, Wilkinson, which some in orthodox Christianity also consider a cult. That in and of itself is not a reason to reject the argument but it may give you a reason to search yourself. This would be all I suggest.

more

and still more

more

this link provides the spectrum from formal to functional

you may find his book helpful

but hey if the KJV was good enough for Peter and Paul...it's good enough for us.

Faith said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Faith said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Faith said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Z said...

Elbro, are you somehow against the KJV?

Faith, you sure do know your stuff.

Elmers Brother said...

I'm not ignoring you Faith. I'm providing the other side of the coin so that others can make up their own mind. As to whether you answered all that White or Hanegraaf said I'll leave that to everyone else.

There was no slap intended, it was simply an attempt to introduce a little bit of humor. If you took offense I'm sorry.

Wilkinson and the LDS do have a part in this, it's not a guilty by association thing at all but simply some history (Wilkinson).

While I can appreciate your take, we've had this conversation before and since I'm sure others were not aware of the previous conversation I simply left the links rather than start another rehash of the other conversation.

As for 'pouring your heart out'...you should get over yourself a little bit. Don't take yourself so seriously.

Z, no I'm not against the KJV, I use several versions in my Bible study and like Beamish I use a Strong's concordance, several commentaries, sometimes I even use a Cruden's concordance.

I'm not going to get into this again with Faith, I simply wanted to provide the means for others to make up their own mind. I suggesting an open inquiry for others to make up their own mind. I certainly appreciate Faith's view/opinion, she is in the minority, and she has not authority over me or anyone else.

I mean no offense to her.

Elmers Brother said...

KJV onlyism's geneology can be traced back to Wilkinson

Benjamin Wilkinson, who wrote Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, the first book defending KJV onlyism. I believe this fact has been firmly documented and established.

Wilkinson was the first one to suggest Psalm 12:6,7 speaks to perfect preservation of manuscript copies and translations, as well as translational inerrancy. He also was the first person to suggest Psalm 12:6,7 teaches that the King James Bible is the 7th purified translation in a line of godly translations. Many of his errors concerning English translations can be viewed here.

Wilkinson's work went into obscurity after it was published in the 1930s, but two fundamentalists, J.J. Ray and David O. Fuller, gave his material new life by republishing his arguments, and in the case of Fuller, republishing the entire book except the portions supportive of Seventh-Day Adventist theology.

beamish said...

Faith,

You do seem to have a rather fanatical KJV-only stance, but maybe I'm misreading you. It's not an entirely disagreeable stance. The KJV is very measurably faithful to original source material. And yes, the translators were top notch in their field at the time. But, I would say that if you're going to use two or more translated editions of the Bible, let at least on of them be the KJV. There might be diamonds in the rough in the NIV or other versions that tease out a better translation than the KJV's Elizabethan English. (None come to mind, LOL, but I'm just sayin')

The theological implications you make of God being ultimately behind perceptually and actually corrupt translations of the Bible as a "judgment" do strike me as contentious. Doesn't that mean that there's a collusion between God and the "corrupted" translations that have remained with us even after the hypothetically "judged" translators are dead and buried? That their works live on to hypothetically deceive and corrupt future generations? I know the Good Lord works in mysterious ways, but that just seems a little too intriguing and subversive for a God I'd like to think keeps things honest, open, and above board.

Am I venturing too far down the mystical path with my objection?

Faith said...

Funny, I don't remember discussing any of this with Elbro before.

Faith said...

I'm not a KJV-only and that's what's wrong with Elbro's response here. I'm anti-Westcott and Hort and KJV'onlies came later and I've never been part of that and nothing I've said indicates that I am. I quote Burgon, 1883, against Westcott and Hort. Wilkinson and the KJV-onlies have nothing to do with anything I've said. And James White is irrelevant because all he does is attack the fringe KJV-onlies.

I recommend that Elbro read the posts for a change.

Faith said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Faith said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Faith said...

I'm sorry I deleted some of my posts as they were relevant after all (I didn't like the turn the conversation had taken and felt like deleting everything I'd written but only got through a few of them). Anyway, I'm going to rewrite my answer to Hank Hanegraaf that is at one of Elbro's links:

>>>This King James Version would likely have remained preeminent among English Bible translations if it were not for three principle factors: the evolution of language, <<<<<

The King James needed an updating in the 19th century and that's what the committee of which Westcott and Hort were a part was supposed to do, but instead they substituted corrupted Greek texts and 36,000 unnecessary and often stupid changes in the English in violation of their agreement. Their contemporary and superior textual scholar, Dean Burgon, is the best source of understanding of what they did to the Bible.

>>>progress in knowledge and understanding of original biblical languages,<<<<

There have been some improvements but nothing to the extent implied here, mostly in minor things like the names of some animals, and the KJV translators were arguably more expert in the original languages than anyone since them. Burgon referred to Westcott and Hort's Greek as "schoolboy" level at one point. The KJV DID need some improvements, but this is no argument in favor of the destruction produced by the Westcott and Hort committee.

>>>>>and the discovery of earlier and better manuscripts. <<<<

This is what I've been arguing against all along. Those "earlier and better" manuscripts are "earlier" only in the sense that they were found intact -- in dark corners, even a wastebasket -- after some 1500 to 1600 years, which is more likely evidence that they were rejected by the churches than that they represent the earliest form of the Bible. Burgon argues that they were known in his day to have been corrupted by heretical cults in the 2nd century, and he spends much of his writing proving it -- proving especially that the readings in the KJV are found in the earliest writings of the church and therefore are the authentic ones. Unfortunately nobody hears about Burgon's arguments any more so the seminaries and churches go on believing in the false "earliest and best" description of those corrupted manuscripts.

Faith said...

Elbro, you ARE ignoring me when you post crap that implies that I believe what the KJV-onlies believe instead of addressing anything I've actually written here.

Here's a quick answer to James White's claim at one of your links:

>>>>>King James Version Only advocates argue that all modern translations of the New Testament are based on Greek manuscripts that contain intentional doctrinal corruptions. However, an examination of the most important manuscripts underlying these translations demonstrates that such charges are based more upon prejudice than fact. The papyri finds of the last century, together with the great uncial texts from the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., do not deprecate the deity of Christ, the Trinity, or salvation by grace through faith. Modern translations, such as the NIV and NASB, are not "corrupt" but instead trustworthy and useful translations of the Word of God.<<<<<

This is typical crap. They examine the corrupted texts to see if there's still SOME testimony to the gospel left in them, and finding that there is enough according to their lights, they completely ignore the fact that a great deal of it WAS removed in the early centuries and THIS CAN BE PROVED AND WAS PROVED BY DEAN BURGON. I document these things at my blog from time to time.

It's OK by them if we no longer have lots of references to the deity of Christ or to such supernatural events as in the last twelve verses of Mark, or various other odd missing parts of the corrupted manuscripts? Shouldn't we want the CORRECT manuscripts with ALL the wording intact? The woman taken in adultery is not in the corrupted manuscripts for instance. Some modern versions stick it in anyway although their "better" manuscripts don't have it. There's something really rotten about all this manipulating that's going on.

And this doesn't even touch on the changes in the English that change the MEANING of what is still left of the Greek.

Elmers Brother said...

Wilkinson was an anti-Hort, Westcott guy. This is what makes him relevant. That you can't see that isn't my problem.

I'm not replying to specifics because we have hashed this out before. I don't think the conversation has turned any particular way. I tried to interject humor for the sake of all and you took it personally. I'm sorry I offended you.

Elmers Brother said...

I believe we discussed this sometime back, around the time we were also discussing Harry Potter.

Elmers Brother said...

If I've mischaracterized you as a KJV only, I'm sorry.

Then for the benefit of those who are I have posted an alternative view.

Faith said...

After a long argument like this you have an obligation to make distinctions you obviously couldn't care less to make, and again I don't remember this ever coming up with you and if it did it must not have gone on at any length.

Some of the KJV-only arguments are of course similar to mine but that crack about how KJV onlies believe the English Bible was read by Paul and Moses I already quoted Douglas Wilson as joking about and it does imply that I am arguing along such utterly idiotic lines and just obfuscates the whole subject.

Sorry, this really frosts me.

Pfffft.

Elmers Brother said...

Some of the KJV-only arguments are of course similar to mine but that crack about how KJV onlies believe the English Bible was read by Paul and Moses I already quoted Douglas Wilson as joking about and it does imply that I am arguing along such utterly idiotic lines and just obfuscates the whole subject.

I can't help it if you lack a sense of humor. I apologized twice get over it.

Faith said...

Pfffft.

Elmers Brother said...

first of all I can't make you feel anything, you chose to get angry about it.

second, if you felt the joke directed at you I've apologized.

but many who believe in KJV onlyism are cultists, not all but many. The fact that it has it was spawned by a Seventh Day Adventist should give one pause.

From Hip and Thigh blog:

A definition of King James Onlyism in three sentences or less.

The aberrant belief that the King James Bible, first published in 1611, is the only reliable language translation which adequately conveys God's written revelation.

Any language translation prior to and after the publication of the KJV 1611 is either insufficiently translated or is translated from original language manuscripts alleged to have been intentionally corrupted by heretical individuals.

Moreover, any revision of the KJV 1611 text by either updating the English language and re-translating verses and passages for the sake of accuracy and clarity is viewed as corrupting God's Word and in some cases, introducing error into the Bible.

Z said...

Elbro, Seventh Day Adventists aren't as un mainstream as some Christians think.

Elmers Brother said...

I know Z, Walter Martin, author of Kingdom of the Cults didn't have the intestinal fortitude to call them a cult BUT he came as close as one could.

Elmers Brother said...

cult also can mean something other than orthodox Christianity. Not necessarily the connotation many place on the word...for e.g.

brainwashing, etc.

Z said...

Elbro, they have church on a different day and are more into healthy eating than most Christians...there's not that much difference than any PRotestant denomination as far as I can tell from researching and having Seventh Day Adventist friends.

Faith said...

I just hate how this discussion so easily becomes about the crazy KJV-onlies instead of about what it SHOULD be about, the horrific mutilation of the Bible that Westcott and Hort did in 1881. KJV-onlies may agree with that but they ALSO think the KJV is some sort of God-inspired text which is CRAZY. You'd think if nobody argues from a KJV-only point of view we'd be spared this kind of stupidity, but I guess there's no way to be spared it. The devil sure knew what he was doing on this one, getting the church to think all these bogus Bibles are legit and getting those who know they aren't smeared with the fringe arguments.

The Seventh Day Adventists are considered by some to be cultists because they believe in the Saturday Sabbath, though everything else they believe is pretty orthodox.

Z said...

Faith, I think they're quite orthodox, too. And, Saturday IS the "seventh day", I guess....but some say that we celebrate Sunday as it's being the day Christ died, in remembrance..or something.
At least that's the line, I think, that the Sunday worshipers give 7th Day Adventists in response to their admonition.

Faith said...

The early church did worship on Sunday, and there's quite a bit said about it and against Sabbath observance by the Church Fathers of the first few centuries. There is no doubt that the Seventh Day Adventists are wrong, but whether their wrongness amounts to heresy or not I'm not entirely sure. Some of the early church writers I believe did treat Saturday observance as heretical.

Z said...

I sure don't see how they're wrong, Faith. The SABBATH, the day of rest, is Saturday.
But, this is one of the things that shouldn't drive Christians apart.

Faith said...

The argument given by the Church fathers is that the true church does not observe a Sabbath at all any more, because the Law was totally fulfilled in Christ and we are no longer to observe days as the Israelites were supposed to do. This has been very confused over the centuries as Sunday worship did get confused with the Sabbath, by some of the Reformers and by the Puritans, and my own church for that matter. But I did do a study of this and the early church fathers convinced me that we no longer are to observe a Sabbath or any days at all. That doesn't mean that those who do are heretics. The Jewish Christians of the early church continued to observe their Law and nobody objected to that. We are to make allowances for different attitudes about these things.

Faith said...

ELBRO:

http://greatbiblehoax.blogspot.com/2010/03/i-do-lose-it-in-this-argument-sometimes.html

Anonymous said...

Every person on earth, who thinks at all beyond the challenge of earning his daily bread, would love to see the entire world unified in perfect harmony -- under the yoke of HIS or HER personal convictions.

Most people make the mistake of believing that what THEY believe -- or WANT to believe -- is THE truth and that all else is false and probably evil.

That there are many disparate factions bitterly hostile to one another each sternly and often aggressively holding this view is the TRUE root of all evil in my opinion.

What I believe may be sacred to me, and what you believe may be sacred to you, but we have no right to try to harass, intimidate, blackmail, threaten or otherwise coerce each other into capitulation to a particular doctrine.

Religion must be permitted to compete in a "free marketplace of ideas." If a set of beliefs is worthy, it will eventually sell itself.

If it doesn't, it wasn't.

~ FreeThinke

Z said...

Faith, I see the point about not celebrating any special day but feel it's so important to put aside at least one time a week for worship; surely nobody could argue that. We should be worshiping every day, of course, but not many do! Jesus did come to fulfill the Laws and that sabbath worship was probably legalistic but Sunday church has become solace and encouraging for millions and had taken on a new meaning...most people don't go to church because they feel coerced.

Free Thinker...The Bible's clear....we're not arguing Christianity here, just the fine points of Scripture.
I guess we could argue degrees of interpretation till the cows come home! You know I've never been one for tweaking the Words, which are so clear, too much, or so much that they now mean something quite different. I sure do agree with most of your comments that remind us that His Grace of Salvation and His love for us trump any bickering or squabbles!

Faith said...

I agree completely about Sunday worship, Z, that's not the same as Sabbath observance.

I have no idea who FT is complaining about, but I'm not sure I want to find out.

Man, I'm still steamed about Elbro arguing against KJV onlies as if anybody here had said anything like the stupidity they believe. Like being asked if you still beat your wife. Man, that gets me.

Faith said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Expressing a point of view is not a complaint, dear friend. It's merely an observation.

My whole point is to say that human nature seems to need conflict as plants do water air and sunshine, and will seize upon any and every possible reason for indulging in dispute.

Only ONE thing could possibly save us from this series of vicious cycles.

St. Paul said it best. Without Love all knowledge, effort, achievement, scholarship, research, thoughtfully phrased doctrine, earnest argument, prayer and even sacrifice don't amount to a hill of beans.

That is not intended to start or finish any argument.

~ FreeThinke

Faith said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Ecclisiaste? Z, what makes you think anyone is going to comment on a post about Ecclisiastes?

tio

Elmers Brother said...

Elbro, they have church on a different day and are more into healthy eating than most Christians...there's not that much difference than any PRotestant denomination as far as I can tell from researching and having Seventh Day Adventist friends.

I will only suggest that you read Walter Martin's book Kingdom of the Cults.

Faith,

last time we had this argument it was clear you were a KJV only. If somehow I misunderstood then perhaps you've changed your mind since the last time we hashed this out.

Elmers Brother said...

Elbro, they have church on a different day and are more into healthy eating than most Christians...there's not that much difference than any PRotestant denomination as far as I can tell from researching and having Seventh Day Adventist friends.

Perhaps you'd prefer the word sect. Either word can denote a group that is not part of orthodoxy. The rules about foods to eat etc put them outside of mainstream Christianity. I've met some SDA's who will tell you that the only true church is theirs because they worship on Saturday.

Again quite different from orthodox Christianity.

Now whether you want to lump them in with Hare Krishna's or LDS or whatever is the question that Martin could not seem to answer.

Faith said...

My argument has always been the same as the one I've presented here and I've never changed my mind. I do not share the KJV-onlies' belief in the inspiration of the English Bible and I still do not remember discussing this with you AT ALL.

I've always argued that the KJV has needed an updating.

The main point that needs making that all the KJV-only stuff only obscures is that the OTHER Bibles are corrupted, and I refer to J W Burgon's evidence for that. The evidence is very clear but you do have to READ it and not ASSUME you know already what it's all about.

Z said...

Elbro, the food thing is nothing spooky....I think their optimum is vegeterianism but ...what's the big woop about that?
But, you're right; Every 7th Day Adventist I know HAS insisted their faith is the only one worshiping on the RIGHT DAY, you have a point!

Faith said...

Hm, that reminds me that I THINK the church fathers said that we are to be tolerant of different beliefs of this sort AS LONG AS they don't insist that they are the only true church, and that they ARE heretics if they insist on that.

Faith said...

Here, Elbro, is my opening post on the blog I run about the Bible versions. I make it clear back then that I am not with the KJV-onlies, but am against the new versions. There is a BIG difference.

Faith said...

And I said it even farther back than that:

Faith said...
That continues to be my judgment, that these concerns are superstition, based on the erroneous superstitious belief that the English language text is directly inspired by God. This attitude in fact interferes with efforts to show the horrific catastrophe of the new versions. You defeat the very purpose you think you care about, and your attitude at this blog is unfortunately typical of that mistaken position.

August 27, 2008 12:49 PM
---on this page

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

7th Day Adventists tend to overlook 1 Corinthians 16:2, which seems to suggest the gathering of believers for the collection of offerings on "the first day of the week," Sunday. Also, "the first day of the week" in Acts 20:7, when the early Christians would come together in fellowship and break bread together in rememberance of Christ. It was an organizing principle. Paul visited synagogues on Saturdays to argue the Christian perspective to Jews, and gathered with Christians on Sundays. Jews Paul converted on Saturday didn't have to wait very long (the next day) to join a body of people convinced of the truth that Messiah had come.

Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy, Remember Jesus in fellowship with believers and the collection of offerings to spread the Gospel on Sundays.

Seems plain languaged enough to begin a theological rift ;)

Elmers Brother said...

I still do not remember discussing this with you AT ALL.

It was right here on Z's blog.

Here, Elbro, is my opening post on the blog I run about the Bible versions. I make it clear back then that I am not with the KJV-onlies, but am against the new versions. There is a BIG difference.

ok.

Elbro, the food thing is nothing spooky....I think their optimum is vegeterianism but ...what's the big woop about that?

Didn't say it was spooky but it does fall outside of orthodox Christianity.

Elmers Brother said...

The main point that needs making that all the KJV-only stuff only obscures is that the OTHER Bibles are corrupted, and I refer to J W Burgon's evidence for that. The evidence is very clear but you do have to READ it and not ASSUME you know already what it's all about.

So, it all the other Bibles are corrupted that means then that the ONLY Bible that should be used is the KJV. Seems liek a distinction without a distinction.

Speaking of distinctions:

cult:

A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

cult:

a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents

SDA's at least by Martin's standard fall into the second definition and not the first

Faith said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Faith said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Faith said...

Damn it, go look at your quotes about what a KJV-only is, plus that joke against KJV-onlies that you allowed to insinuate that it applies to me simply because I'm the only one here who is arguing against the modern Bibles.

Has your brain ossified or something? Just because the KJV happens to be BY DEFAULT the only trustworthy one left standing at the moment does not make me a KJV-only. A KJV-only believes that the KJV MUST NOT BE CHANGED BECAUSE IT'S PERFECT AS IS, AT LEAST AS GOOD AS IF NOT BETTER THAN THE ORIGINALS, whereas I've consistently said I believe it needs revision. Good grief.

At least you are making it clear just how how hard the devil is fighting this one.

Z said...

Beamish..."Seems plain languaged enough to begin a theological rift ;)...well, you KNOW that could never happen HERE! :-)
By the way...thanks for the info.'

Regarding church on Sunday, there are scriptures indicating fellowship worship is where He will be.."Where two gather in my name..." (I paraphrase)...etc. Although I know nobody here is arguing attending church!

Elbro, the food thing, though, is optional....but, I just looked at Wikipedia and the Adventists also believe some other things that are DEFINITELY "not orthodox"...related to Christ...so it IS a bit more different than I'd thought. Thanks.

Elmers Brother said...

well Faith honestly KJVO's (some who purport to believe this way for 'scholarly' reasons)do have quatlities that some would consider cultish or if you prefer unorthodox.

One of those qualities is exclusivity and isolation from other groups and/or the one true church syndrome.

I've run into this with KJVO's. They either attend a church that is marginal doctrinally, (for e.g. one version of the Church of Christ uses KJVO and also believes you must be baptized to be saved) OR dont' go to church at all. So there is no accountability to fellow Christians and no fellowship. They become isolated. Some of the ones I've run into get all of their information from the internet. We all know the veracity of the internet. I've met some who I would describe as borderline paranoid. Some are militant.

The best way I would describe this controversy is that it's like talking to a 9/11 conspiracy advocate.

does your church believe in the KJVO?

Faith said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Faith said...

THIS MUST BE THE TWILIGHT ZONE.

WHY DO YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE KJVO'S WHEN NONE OF THIS HAS EVER BEEN ABOUT THE KJVO'S?????

I THINK YOU MUST BE MISSING SOMETHING IN THE HEAD.

No, my church is not KJVO and they don't even agree with me on what I believe.

NOT KJVO.

NOT KJVO.

NOT KJVO.

I've learned from books about this subject. I actually READ Burgon. What have you read, the internet and James White? That's where most people get their modern Bible propaganda these days.

Funny, I just saw the movie Changeling, quite well done by the way, and what they did to that woman is what you are doing to me.

Never mind, I give up. You are too far gone for this discussion.

Faith said...

It would be nice to actually discuss the evidence pro and con the different positions, disagreeing about facts etc., but to be told I believe something I don't believe, have it rammed down my throat yet, is sheer insanity.

Elmers Brother said...

well I didn't address it to you specifically. I was stating my observations about KJVO.


do any one of these describe you:

"I Like the KJV Best" - Though White lists this group as a division of the King James Only group,this division does not believe that the KJV is the only acceptable version. This faction simply prefer the KJV over other translations because their church uses it, because they have always used it, or because they like its style.

"The Textual Argument" - This faction believe the KJV's Hebrew and Greek textual basis are the most accurate. These conclude that the KJV is based on better manuscripts. Many in this group may accept a modern version based on the same manuscripts as the KJV. White claims Zane C. Hodges is a good example of this group. However, Hodges would consider that the Majority Text "corrects" the Received Text as seen e.g., in the Majority Text textual apparatus of the New King James Version. The Trinitarian Bible Society would fit in this division; however, "the Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe the Authorised Version to be a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language", and "the Society believes this text is superior to the texts used by the United Bible Societies and other Bible publishers, which texts have as their basis a relatively few seriously defective manuscripts from the 4th century and which have been compiled using 20th century rationalistic principles of scholarship."

"Received Text Only" - Here, the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts are believed to be supernaturally preserved. The KJV is believed to be a translation exemplar, but it is also believed that other translations based on these texts have the potential to be equally good. Donald Waite would fall into this category.

"The Inspired KJV Group" - This faction believe that the KJV itself was divinely inspired. They see the translation to be preserved by God and as accurate as the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts found in its underlying texts. Sometimes this group will even exclude other language versions based on the same manuscripts claiming the KJV to be the only Bible.

"The KJV As New Revelation" - This faction would believe that the KJV is a "new revelation" or "advanced revelation" from God, and can and should be the standard from which all other translations originate. Adherents to this belief may also believe that the original-language Hebrew and Greek can be corrected by the KJV. This view is often called "Ruckmanism" after Peter Ruckman, a staunch advocate of this view.

Faith said...

If you'd read any of my posts you'd know the answers to those questions.

You've lost your marbles.

Elmers Brother said...

so your answer is none of the above?

Elmers Brother said...

I love your grandfather, Beamish. He had the right instincts. I came to the KJV-only position quite late and never have been a real purist on it. I simply got into the controversy about the revision of 1881 a few years ago and came to realize they'd just about destroyed the Bible, yet hardly anybody seems to have noticed.

....I came to the KJV-only position quite late and never have been a real purist on it

Now I realize you're not a purist but you have associated yourself with the movement and did guide this conversation to this topic.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 226   Newer› Newest»