Slashdot Mirror

This IS regular police work.

Yes, the police regularly seek overbroad and general warrants, in order to conduct fishing expeditions and draw a large net.

This is not news.

This is NOT a politically motivated investigation at all, but a criminal inquiry into actual crimes.

Yet we don't believe that. I wonder why.

We already have people charged in these cases and the DOJ is doing it's job like it should.

Are they now? We've already documented that the DOJ doesn't always do its job like it should. Has there been an investigation to certify that the DOJ is not misbehaving? Have the numerous complaints made about the handling of the protests been examined?

Your implication that this is a politically motivated investigation is not really valid given the evidence we have. This is not an issue of free speech, but an investigation into obvious crimes.

The crimes aren't obvious, but instead exaggerated hysteria meant to incite panic and outrage while ignoring reality. I've seen worse damage after a sports team loses.

Of course you might think that destruction of property, inciting riots, assault and conspiracy to commit these things should be allowed under the 1st Amendment, but you'd be totally wrong.

Perhaps not. The 1st amendment is rather limited in scope. They are, however, allowed, even required, under the principles of this country. Said rights, of course, being expressed in a variety of forms, and explicitly so in several state constitutions. And given that the US Constitution contains the 10th Amendment, it can hardly be said to be exhaustive in listing the rights of the people.

Given that this sentiment is long-standing, one can hardly expect it to be excluded. But I suspect that you, would instead mindlessly prefer to declare an allegiance to the law, over the rightful. That is sad.

I understand your confusion though, given the last administration's failure to deal with these kinds of crimes for obvious political reasons.

Yes, they were impeded from stopping the Bundy Ranch rioters, and the Malfeur occupiers, because it would have looked bad politically. On the other hand, they were also smart enough to recognize that.

Trump's a dumbass though, and will likely pull a Chicago Seven prosecution.

Apparently he's never cracked a history book to learn the value of conciliation.

He had a chance, he's had numerous chances. He keeps blowing them. Trumpcare. Muslim Ban. The recent events in Virginia.

Are his advisers incompetent, or does he just not listen? Perhaps both.

The Bible alludes to copyright (1 Timothy 5:17-18) but also to fair use (Leviticus 23:22) Any Bible translation publisher who doesn't consider a quotation like DoofusOfDeath's to be a fair use isn't putting the ministry first.

The Christian god thinks it's OK to kill children for calling a prophet "baldy".

Verse? https://bible.org/seriespage/elisha-and-two-bears-2-kings-223-25

Like any religion, the holy book says exactly what the believer wishes it said. And if it says something different, it's an allegory meaning what the believer wishes it said.

Interesting, .... let's test that.

One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?” 29Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; 30AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.’ 31“The second is this, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:28-31 . . . more

You might be right. Despite the clear commandment to love God and my neighbor, I interpret it as meaning that Hatta's writings have exceeded Hatta's wisdom. What do you suppose the following means?

Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise;
                  When he closes his lips, he is considered prudent. -- Proverbs 17:28

Might take some study and enlightenment.

I don't know why this wa modded as 'troll' except for perhaps a lack of knowledge about recent history wherein US Born Anwar al-Awlaki was murdered by drone attack, without the application of any due process whatsoever, because of things he said. In other words, Obama murdered an American over exercising free speech rights. And yeah, Alwaki didn't say nice things, but think about the implications.

I'm afraid the lack of knowledge is pretty much entirely yours. al-Awlaki received all of the due process he was due under the Law of War which was the basis for the attack that killed him, not criminal law. Mark that - killed him, not murdered him. He was no more murdered than these men shot down en mass by the US Federal government without warrant, arrest, trial, conviction, or warning - and appropriately so. Al-Awlaki put himself in the same category as the men in that video. Al-Awlaki left the United States, entered Al Qaida controlled territory, and joined up with them in body to complete what he had already been accomplishing in word and deed. He made his intent known. He was connected to multiple terrorist attacks. He certainly appears to have earned his Hellfire, in this life and the next. And yes, the United States is at war with Al Qaida as authorized under the terms of the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by Congress which is legally equivalent to a declaration of war - a point of well settled law.

LOL, is this an argument "you need God not to rape or murder or pillage"?
Compassion is innate in social animals.
Please stop running in circles.
You take a good man and judge him bad only because he does not share your fantasies.
You diminish the overwhelming majority of humans that do not share your particular belief, because you think they deserve less.

I think you are stupid and evil.
But never, never for the love of my life I would think that you deserve to suffer for eternity.
That's only what a psychopath would consider "just" or "compassionate".
The fact that you don't see it is my beef with religion: it blinds people.

Most Christians believe that there is Hell and eternal torment.
Allow me to refresh your memory: http://bible.org/article/what-bible-says-about-hell
Do you read the same book and get to a different conclusion?
I'm not surprised.

And no, raping and murdering someone all of the sudden is not a "lapse of judgement".
Unlike mine, this is a really extreme scenario.
Yes, that man harmed others and should be punished.
Are you saying that raping and murdering are a crime just like "not believing in the right book in the right way"!?
Again, your religion is badly fucking up your morals.
This is insanely bad and you can't see it.

You are way wrong on this.

Transmission

B. The Masoretes

The Masoretic scribes (A.D. 500-1000) in charge of the Old Testament manuscript copying used a very meticulous system of transcription and had a deep reverence for the text. God used their almost obsessive respect for the text to preserve the text’s accuracy. They had specific rules on the type of ink and the quality and size of parchment sheets. No individual letter could be written down without having looked back at the copy in front of them. The scribe could not write God’s name with a newly dipped pen (lest it blotch) and even if the king should address him, while writing God’s name, he should take no notice of him. They were so meticulous that they counted all the paragraphs, words and even letters, so they could know by counting, if they had done it perfectly. They knew the middle letter of each book so they could count back and see if they had missed anything. . .

D. The Dead Sea Scrolls

Since the oldest complete copy of a Hebrew Old Testament in existence is dated about A.D. 1000, that’s a long time after the originals were written (1450-400 B.C.). But there are portions that date back farther. Most significant are the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were discovered in caves in 1947 by an Arabian shepherd boy. These well-preserved Hebrew text fragments date back to 100 B.C. They include many Bible portions, including some complete books. Their value to the credibility of our Bible is that amazingly, there is virtual agreement between these Hebrew texts and the ones dated 1,100 years later! This proves how accurately the scribes copies for all those years.

The evidence shows that our Old Testaments today are extremely accurate reflections of the original manuscripts.

So how reliable are the manuscripts that all these Bibles are translated from? The evidence is overwhelming and seldom disputed. Manuscripts prepared from different individuals spread over various parts of the Middle East and Mediterranean region agree remarkably with each other. Also, the manuscripts agree with the Septuagint, which was translated to Greek from Hebrew possibly as far back as the 3rd century BC. The Dead Sea scrolls discovered in 1947 also provided a profound testimony to the reliability of the centuries of transmission of the Bible text, as every Old Testament book found was virtually word for word with today's Bible! (the few differences were "obvious slips of the pen or variations in spelling"1).

I see your possibly biased sources and raise you a wikipedia!

According to The Oxford Companion to Archaeology:

The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100.

Sure, wikipedia may not be the best academic source on the planet, but at least the source article above is well cited. Oh, and that doesn't sound like "slips of the pen" to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_sea_scrolls

The bible has been in human hands for centuries and copied by hand before printing presses came in. A spelling mistake here, bad handwriting there, the next guy comes along and misreads a word and then 'fixes' the sentence so that it makes sense. I'd be shocked if there was a single page in there that hadn't changed. And that's only accidental changes.

Looking at the things politicians do today, when it's easier to fact-check and catch them out than ever before, I find it completely believable that people just... mis-copied parts of the bible to justify whatever they felt like doing. It's not like people in the year 900 were going to get on Facebook and compare notes with people in other countries. They'd probably never touched a copy of the Bible. Probably couldn't read. A man with a bible could tell people it said anything. Make some changes in his copy, noone would ever know.

You are way wrong on this.

Transmission

B. The Masoretes

The Masoretic scribes (A.D. 500-1000) in charge of the Old Testament manuscript copying used a very meticulous system of transcription and had a deep reverence for the text. God used their almost obsessive respect for the text to preserve the text’s accuracy. They had specific rules on the type of ink and the quality and size of parchment sheets. No individual letter could be written down without having looked back at the copy in front of them. The scribe could not write God’s name with a newly dipped pen (lest it blotch) and even if the king should address him, while writing God’s name, he should take no notice of him. They were so meticulous that they counted all the paragraphs, words and even letters, so they could know by counting, if they had done it perfectly. They knew the middle letter of each book so they could count back and see if they had missed anything. . .

D. The Dead Sea Scrolls

Since the oldest complete copy of a Hebrew Old Testament in existence is dated about A.D. 1000, that’s a long time after the originals were written (1450-400 B.C.). But there are portions that date back farther. Most significant are the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were discovered in caves in 1947 by an Arabian shepherd boy. These well-preserved Hebrew text fragments date back to 100 B.C. They include many Bible portions, including some complete books. Their value to the credibility of our Bible is that amazingly, there is virtual agreement between these Hebrew texts and the ones dated 1,100 years later! This proves how accurately the scribes copies for all those years.

The evidence shows that our Old Testaments today are extremely accurate reflections of the original manuscripts.

Meticulous Care in the Transmission of the Bible

So how reliable are the manuscripts that all these Bibles are translated from? The evidence is overwhelming and seldom disputed. Manuscripts prepared from different individuals spread over various parts of the Middle East and Mediterranean region agree remarkably with each other. Also, the manuscripts agree with the Septuagint, which was translated to Greek from Hebrew possibly as far back as the 3rd century BC. The Dead Sea scrolls discovered in 1947 also provided a profound testimony to the reliability of the centuries of transmission of the Bible text, as every Old Testament book found was virtually word for word with today's Bible! (the few differences were "obvious slips of the pen or variations in spelling"1).

The scribes who were in charge of the Old Testament text dedicated their lives to preserving the text's accuracy when they made copies. The great lengths the scribes went to guarantee the reliability of the copies is illustrated by the fact that they would count every letter and every word, and record in the margins such things as the middle letter and word of the Torah. If

People tend to have only their self-interest or those they care about enough to spend money on or even die for. Otherwise, ultimately, you are seen as just a resource to be exploited and discarded once you are no longer useful to them.

I don't want to be that way so I try to be helpful and non-confrontational to others. This is mostly viewed as being an idiotic doormat or a clueless sheep. It is either that or I play this 'dog eat dog' game to the best of my abilities which I consciously struggle to refuse to due so becase, in the end, such conduct is eventually pointless and CAN lead to a violent death at the hands of others.

In the end, you can live your life like you have to answer to nobody...or Somebody like I do....

The rest is up to you....

CAPTCHA: safely [How apt!]

Current scholarship puts the book of Job as one of the oldest books, dating back from inferential evidence to pre 2000 BC. http://bible.org/article/introduction-book-job

"you should believe the bits in this book that I say because those parts are true!" is even weaker.

given that 'the' bible is already an edited anthology of a greater collection of works .. this is what you already have .. between branches, and over time

Most nutritious food source known with modest water and soil nutrient requirements. Gotta love this drug war thing......
Everyone please read Genesis 1:29 and think about it a while........ http://net.bible.org/#!bible/Genesis+1:29
(might want to read the whole book actually, considering all that's happening in the world these days........)

Can you cite some specific examples where God's name was redacted to emphasize Jesus' deity? There are no "original texts"; there are only oldest possible copies. Whenever I'm puzzled by popular interpretation of a difficult passage, I pull up a side-by-side comparison of the oldest source material and English translation. I don't read more than three words of Greek or Hebrew, but those two sites helpfully provide word-for-word literal translations (e.g., "Thus for loves the God the system as besides the son of-him the only-generated he gives that every the one-believing into him no should-be-being-destroyed but may-be-having life eternal"). While there are numerous places that a word with multiple possible meanings can (and does) lead to conflict over interpretation, I have never seen any translation issues that change the basic theology.

Actually Jewish law allowed divorce and remarriage without the waiting for the ex-partner to die - see Deut 24:1-4. The 'only one wife/ex-wife until they're dead' is a flawed interpretation of Christs words, placed on top of the Greek tradition of monogamy which then supplanted the Jewish laws within Christianity under Paul and John's (Greek philosophical) influence.

I'd like to joke and say 'Maybe you should have been listening to your teachers rather than school yard jokes for the lesson material' ;) but unfortunately you probably did hear what they said correctly...

If one is going to stick to the King James Version, I guess I can see how it would seem spot on. But that translation is surprisingly poor when it comes to this passage. Examine the New English Translation with the notes here:
http://net.bible.org/?ref=nbt#!bible/Jeremiah+10:1

The KJV suffers from a few flaws that coincidentally make the passage appear to reference Christmas trees. First as foremost, the use of "axe". The literal translation would be "chisel" and the point was that they carved the tree, not simply cut it down and used it whole. Another important mistake was with the word "customs" when the literal word was "statues". The _usage_ is such that it is referring to the idolatry based beliefs that were common at the time so it's usually translated as "religion" or even "customs", but especially with the latter those lose the context of idolatry.

When put in the context of verse 5 (where discussing how a tree couldn't speak of more would otherwise be quite unnecessary), this passage is clearly talking about idolatry. The vaguest bit of description "tree .. decked in gold and silver" could apply to a Christmas tree, but the meaning is quite different: it's referring to carved figures worshiped as gods.

(P.S. I suppose you could I suppose you could call this squirming or rationalizing, but really it's just actually bothering to understand the material.)

Hell, read the whole of Ezekiel 23 sometime.

Seriously: the prodigal son? Spent his money on booze and whores. Jesus' death on a cross? About the most brutal, sanctioned way to die in that time period. Noah's daughters got him drunk so they could get themselves pregnant by him; Jacob lied and backstabbed his way through life and stole his brother's inheritance; and Abraham whored out Sarah so he wouldn't have trouble in Egypt. Not for kids. Lego Bible? Definitely not for kids.

I don't think advertising is completely to blame here. Sure they are responsible for a narrowing of the definition of a desirable appearance which means excluding ever more people but it's not like people didn't make judgements based on appearance before. Particularly baldness has always been seen as a negative trait. One infamous example is the bible story of Elisha and the two bears :

"23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number."

So while I agree that we need to put less emphasis on appearance when there is a drug that can help people get rid of a trait that's historically seen as negative and can help their self esteem in that way it can only be a good thing. It might even make baldness more attractive as it would become more "a style" adopted by choice than an affliction.

3-5% in rural areas and 10-12% in urban areas are the going estimates for 1st century BCE literacy rates last time I looked.

If everyone was illiterate why are there discussions in the New Testament implying literacy being the norm? By 60 CE the establishment of organized schools had been decreed and started in Palestine.

Jesus’ parable of the unjust steward (Luke 16:6-7) implied literacy in the normal course of business in 1st century CE Jewish society.
http://net.bible.org/#!bible/Luke+16

You bring up some good points for historical variants to mainstream Christianity--early Christianity, particularly pre-2nd century seems to be fairly uniform (there are theories otherwise, but looking into the sources reveals little support).

While the first article you note suggests Gnostic roots for some of the Gospels as well as in the writings of Paul, these don't fit the historical pattern--the article on Gnosticism more generally at Wikipedia is better sourced and does not have as many flags from editors as to problematic issues with the entry. There is easily a reason that no branch of Christianity, as you note in your final link, supports a different NT canon than the others. There are a variety of reasons why this is possible. It could be that the various branches of Christianity actively tried to suppress variant views of Christ that would diminish their power / impact. This fits various patterns that we see in history. Given, however, the wide variance in acceptance of the OT canon between Jews, Orthodox, Ethiopian, Roman Catholic, and Protestant churches over the OT, it strikes me as odd that we should see no variation in the NT canon between established churches. Consider that even though the Coptic church has a different view of Christ's human-divine nature than do the western churches, they still hold to the same NT canon as the rest. This is significant.

Consider also that in times of persecution, which was significant at various times in the Roman Empire's history, only what was considered absolutely vital would be kept. If the Bible as it is now upheld were not the only reliable document for that time period, why were some texts saved universally while others were universally left behind? Put another way, if the text of the Gospel According to the Hebrews were seen as fan fiction (using modern parlance) rather than accepted canon, it would be easy to hand this over to the Roman official demanding texts to burn. If, however, it were seen as words coming from God's mouth through man's writing, everything possible would have been done to hide it. This is, in fact, the testimony we see in early Christian writings.

Further, the Gospel According to the Hebrews was written during the more accepted general period of Gnostic interaction with Christianity (acknowledging potential roots in other areas) - mid to late 2nd century rather than in the late first century for the books seen as part of the New Testament canon (even in those circles where the New Testament is thought to have been written beyond the first century, those books that established Christianity are seen to have been written in the first century itself).

This is a fairly long reply (I apologize) but there is an even more thorough (and probably better thought out) evaluation of Old Testament and New Testament canons at http://bible.org/seriespage/bible-holy-canon-scripture.

The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Latin came later (along with various other translations--Syriac, Coptic, etc.). If you look here, about an 8th of the way down, there is a heading "What is the NET Bible?" that looks at where the original texts came from (I figured an actual Bible translation's site might be better than wikipedia in this case).

http://bible.org/seriespage/first-sign-jesus-turns-water-wine-john-21-11

3 When the wine ran out, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no wine left.” 4 Jesus replied, “Woman, why are you saying this to me? My time has not yet come.” 5 His mother told the servants, “Whatever he tells you, do it.”

Hell Jesus even made wine. Beer came from monks as it was the only way to safe water. Yeah, Al is big in the bible.

Learn set theory

What is the difference between unlawful and illegal?

Matthew 19:4-6 is the definition of marriage. Definitions are by definition exclusionary. Marriage means Husband and Wife. In this passage Jesus said both 'male and female' and 'man...united to his wife.'

Strong's definition of Pornea or fornication is found here:Strong 4202 Note def 1a

Jesus used that word in many places, note Mt 19:9 and Mt 15:19

And finally what about what Jesus says at Revelation 22:15: (NIV) Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. Also Jesus' Father said this one chapter earlier:Revelation 21:8, (NIV) But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars–their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.

If you have arguments based on the Bible, I will be willing to hear them. Note again that I am not saying you and another woman can't marry. Just that NOWHERE in the Bible does Biblical marriage include same-sex unions.

Before he examined the Gospels he was an unbeliever.

I can't find any mention of that except by people who are advocating Christianity. None of his critics seem to recognize him as having been a nonbeliever, and no neutral sources mention anything other than his work as an apologist. Can you refer me to a source?

The fact that there is some variation makes the witness all the more believable.

It removes suspicion of collusion; it does not increase confidence in the individual accounts.

(...probably from Peter's memory...)
So what is wrong with that? Mark was just somebody that was taking Peter's deposition.

It means that it's less reliable than an account written by Peter himself, especially since the "deposition" * happened years later, and since the original reason I got into this conversation was because vcgodinich was insisting that the Gospels were made up of reliable, complete, first-hand accounts.

I've read the verses you quoted me from Peter three times now, and I don't understand how you intend them to improve your argument. Furthermore, the authorship of 2 Peter is not certain, and so I think that in fact that quote counts against you.

* If it was really a legal deposition like you're trying to imply, it would have been taken by a neutral party, possibly with adversarial parties present. Mark was most definitely not a neutral party.

(..I saw blanket assertions that such inconsistencies don't impeach the overall accuracy and truthfulness of those writings...)
Even today, the account of several witnesses to an auto accident may differ in some minor details, but the account of the event itself remains consistent.

Nice try at selectively quoting me. Right after that, I said: "[these assertions are] more or less true. . .we don't immediately consider each person who relates a differing tale to be a mad, cretinous liar, but we assume that person is mistaken or embellishing in some points. The same should be true of the Gospel authors." I have not said that the Gospels are false, just that they are probably not completely true.

There are indeed minor differences in the testimony of the Gospels, but the main story is remarkably consistent. In accounts of the resurrection we read that Jesus first appeared to women who testified to this. If the story had been a fabrication, the fabricators would have never brought up the testimony of women, because in that society, the testimony of a woman was worthless.

The Gospel narratives of the Resurrection are a rich source of both inconsistencies and repeated phrasings. I do not say that it's a wholesale fabrication. But where is the "deposition" of the women themselves? If their testimony is worthless, why do the Gospel writers believe them?

Neither he or I believe that human memories are perfect.

Then you should be able to admit that, writing forty years after the events in question, and being fairly old at that point, John probably didn't write things down exactly as they happened.

Each of these other writings were written by one or two people within one human lifetime.

That is certainly true of the New Testament. But perhaps you'd care to look at the Hindu Upanishads, just one of their collections of holy texts, written from the first millennium B.C.E. through the Middle Ages? Taoists also have a large collection of writings, compos

Halos aren't biblical, as was explained earlier. You could've cited, though, Jesus' transfiguration and Moses' glowing face. Not halos per se, but still biblical glowing people.

Halos aren't biblical, as was explained earlier. You could've cited, though, Jesus' transfiguration and Moses' glowing face. Not halos per se, but still biblical glowing people.

A Christian friend of mine noted recently that there is a lot of hypocrisy about certain traditions--wanting to take his faith seriously but still comment on the absurdity of part of how some look at it, he wrote the following:

Coffee as a means of grace

In answer to the tradition of Christmas, I don't think many Christians would say that Christ was born on 25 December, rather that they wanted to celebrate his incarnation as a human and figured a midwinter date was as good as any (with about as much evidence for midwinter as any other time). It wasn't until marketing got a hold of it in the early 20th century that Christmas even became the important Christian holiday. Before that, a number of Christian holidays held roughly equal significance and some even more importance (e.g., Easter, whose rough date is known on the basis of lunar calendars).

In terms of "wanting to drink someone's blood," the celebration of the Lord' Supper / Eucharist is not the same from one Christian tradition to another with many taking it as a memorial / remembrance with others viewing it as an act of spiritual thanksgiving (hence the term "Eucharist" which means "thanksgiving"). The idea of blood sacrifice though is tied to it whether it is a memorial or a type of participation (real or otherwise)--part of Christianity is hard to swallow because today we don't want to think anything requires the ultimate price. All too often looking in the news, I think we try to avoid painful realities like death because they aren't comfortable.

Take it all for what it's worth, thanks for "reading" if you made it this far.

just a note in regard to actually reading the bible. its says quite clearly not to eat animals with a split hoof - i.e. pigs. how many Christians bother to pay attention to that part (even though Jews and Muslims both do). its just amazing how people just read and believe the parts that are convenient to their lifestyles (and hey who is to say that there is something wrong with that? - besides the priest/rabbi/sheikh who is of course being inconvenient to your lifestyle)

for reference: Deuteronomy 14 Verses #8 http://net.bible.org/passage.php?passage=deu%2014:7,8

Here is a good summary, though you have to read the whole thing to get the idea: http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1765 The future events described in Revelation are a culmination of events that began before mankind was created. It is not an understatement to say that every major event in the Bible is related to it. Pay attention to the footnotes about the names and designations of Satan and what they actually mean. There is also reference to the book of Job, though that is, like I said, only a starting point.

Also, it is Revelation. When you state the plural "Revelations" it is indicitive of having not read or understood the full title. Revelation is explicity "The Revelation of the person of Jesus Christ" and is therefore always singular.

The doctrine of grace encompasses so much more than specific psalms. It is the methodology of action on God's part toward mankind and a part of God's immutable character. It is a key underpinning of all interactions between mankind and any of the three persons of Christian deity. Therefore, like the angelic conflict, it is a subtext of many themes and occurences in the bible. Not including both in your frame of reference when reading the bible could lead to misunderstanding.

That's not actually how it's used in the Bible.

To quote James 2-19, Demons have this sort of faith but they're not welcomed by God: http://net.bible.org/passage.php?search=Jas%202:18-19&passage=Jas%202:18-19

It's actually not how it's used most often in real life. Simply put, faith means trust.

Let's assume you're married but it could equally be applied in other close relationships.
* Do you have faith in your wife?
* Are you faithful to her?
* If you close your eyes and fall backwards towards you wife, do you have faith that your wife will at least try to stop you from falling?
* If she says or does something that hurt you, do you still have faith in *her* or do you immediately assume the worst about her?
* If your wife were to try something new that she has no experience in, but you've seen that she's fantastic at improvising, so you have faith that she'll succeed?

On the flip side, if your parents tell you "I have faith that you will win the basket ball game" but you see them betting on the other team, do they really trust you?

> So, "faith in God" in the common senses could imply that one believes he exists, as described, without evidence (an arguably irrational position)

True, it is arguable, which in simple terms means, debatable. Ferocious former Atheist, Anthony Flew (credited for the "Invisible Gardener" parable outlining how stupid believers in God were), switched to Deism (the God of Einstein, Spinoza, Plato, Einstein, and Darwin) precisely because he determined that it was a more rational explanation of the universe and all that there is in it than Atheism.

None of these people are stupid. They looked at the evidence....all the evidence. Granted, there isn't a single piece of evidence that shows God's existence, but the bulk of it tells you that he's there.

It's no different in real life. Getting back to the wife analogy, *why* would you have faith in her? If you give any single situation to prove your point, I could just as easily argue that your interpretation is wrong. However, if you give the sum total of all your experiences, you can build a credible case.

Anyway, here's a question to ponder. Assume that the universe and everything in it is pure matter caught in a cause and effect chain. Essentially pure materialism. You are essentially a bag of marbles held together by natural forces caught in a causal chain that fully determines every move you make. A chair or a rock is no different....you're just composed of different atoms and are configured in different ways, but ultimately, everything is just a bag of causal marbles.

If you truly believe in pure materialism, you must accept the following:
a) There is no difference between you and a chair. What you perceive as life is just an illusion.
b) There is no fundamental difference between breaking your legs and breaking a chair's legs or smashing you to death or smashing a chair to pieces. All you're doing is breaking a few bonds and rearranging the configuration of atoms.
c) All atoms in your body get replaced every decade, so there is nothing that defines who you are other than your overall appearance and even that changes with time. Ultimately, *you* don't exist.
c) There is no such thing as free will....just atoms caught in a causal chain. Evangelical Atheists are thus wasting their time trying to convince anyone, but then again they can't help it, so there's no problem.
d) A consequence of all the above is Humanism or other morality has no foundation in pure materialism and it's actually pretty arrogant to be a Humanist because why are human's more valuable than chairs or rats? If you expand goal of humanism to reduce the total amount of suffering in the world (whatever "suffering" means in materialistic terms),wouldn't it make more sense to sterilize all humans so that animals might flourish in a hundred or so years?
e) Knowledge is irrelevant. What is kno

I should start by saying that I am a Christian and a scientist (not to be confused with Christian science).

from the viewpoint of a UK reader, the best way to promote science in the US seems to be to pass it off as a wonderful invention of God.>>

I suspect that you meant this statement sarcastically, but this is exactly the approach that I use when talking to fellow Christians about making sense of the relationship between science and their faith. I point out that most other academic studies (e.g. literature, music, sociology, etc.) consist largely of the study of human endeavors, but that science (or more broadly, the sciences) is the study of God's work and His creation.

I think the core reason why a lot of Christians shy away from science (or worse, are openly antagonistic toward it) is a subconscious fear that science can somehow disprove or invalidate their faith. But if you truly believe in the Christian message (e.g. what is written in the Bible, the existence of God and his Son, etc.), then what are you worried about? What do you think science is going to find?

I should start by saying that I am a Christian and a scientist (not to be confused with Christian science).

from the viewpoint of a UK reader, the best way to promote science in the US seems to be to pass it off as a wonderful invention of God.>>

I suspect that you meant this statement sarcastically, but this is exactly the approach that I use when talking to fellow Christians about making sense of the relationship between science and their faith. I point out that most other academic studies (e.g. literature, music, sociology, etc.) consist largely of the study of human endeavors, but that science (or more broadly, the sciences) is the study of God's work and His creation.

I think the core reason why a lot of Christians shy away from science (or worse, are openly antagonistic toward it) is a subconscious fear that science can somehow disprove or invalidate their faith. But if you truly believe in the Christian message (e.g. what is written in the Bible, the existence of God and his Son, etc.), then what are you worried about? What do you think science is going to find?

Get a free bible: http://www.freebibles.net/

Or Read or download one online with thousands of actually very useful footnotes and references: http://www.bible.org/

Get a free Koran: http://www.freekoran.com/

Get a free Book of Morman: http://www.mormon.org/bookofmormon

Estimated cost to get to read all the Scientology "holy" documents: $350,000.

For example, there is no real prohibition against abortion in the Christian Bible.

For another example, the selective interpretation of Leviticus as condemnation of homosexuality while ignoring the condemnation of poly-cotton blends and Red Lobster.

For example, there is no real prohibition against abortion in the Christian Bible.

For another example, the selective interpretation of Leviticus as condemnation of homosexuality while ignoring the condemnation of poly-cotton blends and Red Lobster.

http://www.contenderministries.org/biblestudy/trinity.php
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=215
http://www.answers.org/theology/trinity_biblical.html

I could go on. Google is your friend.

You miss the point. Faith isn't scientific. If having faith brings you joy and peace, congratulations. But don't try to bring it into science, for faith requires belief without proof, and science requires proof before belief. Taking the concept from Carl Sagan, faith is usually prejudice and science is postjudice.

You miss the point. Faith isn't scientific. If having faith brings you joy and peace, congratulations. But don't try to bring it into science, for faith requires belief without proof, and science requires proof before belief. Taking the concept from Carl Sagan, faith is usually prejudice and science is postjudice.

I think that which translation is superior comes down on what criteria you use. The NIV (or most other modern translations such as my favorite, the NET Bible) benefited from access to more and better texts as well as a better understanding of the times in which those texts were written and is doubtless a more accurate rendering of the Old and New Testaments into English.

However, I think it is also fair to say that the KJV had far greater literary and cultural impact because it was the dominant version in use for nearly 400 years. If you're interested in understanding the cultural background in the world of, say, 1700 or 1850 then familiarity with the KJV is very helpful.

See http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Exo&chapter=20#n35 (scroll to 20:13) for a consensus of several linguists and Bible scolars of the best modern english translation from the original language of the Bible including translatior's notes (so you can see context and decide if you agree).

Basically it says that murder (meaning unauthorised killing) is the closest word in modern english.

So, in modern english: You shall not murder.

Of course, we then get to argue forever on what authorize means who get's to do it.

I think it's important to remember that these are all TRANSLATIONS. So of course they're going to differ. They'll differ even more when you start reading translations into languages other than English. The fact as I understand it is that the meaning of the word is not known, and actually was not known even in earlier translations which might explain why it was left in there even by them. If you look at http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=07214, for example, you'll see a little information on this.

There's no secret or conspiracy here, as anyone is welcome to learn ancient Hebrew or Aramaic and read the original scriptures for themselves.

It's likely that it does refer to an animal that is now extinct, the most likely current thinking being that it was a type of wild ox or other animal with two horns.

If you're going to criticize the Bible, IMHO this is a pretty lame way to do it as even a tiny little bit of research will show that your point is unfounded.

You've got that ass-backwards.

The term "outer darkness" is believed by some to refer to hell, not the other way around.

Commonly I hear that if you're a reasonable person you can't believe. What evidence presents itself that there is a someone out there who is not "attached" to the world we see as we are.

However if we take the proposition and expand it we are presented by a natural "wall" to the universe. What got the 'Big Bang', as closely as we currently understand the phenomenon, started in the first place?

The story we can make of the universe's existance is that all elemental particles were very close to each other in the beginning then energy started to be expressed onto them. Living creatures ended up being a biproduct of this powerful event, which as far as we can understand is the true center of all existance. But who done it?

I profess personally believing in Christ's Holy Father, Y-HW-H, Elohim of Judaism and the Gentiles as the one creator of all being. I see the 'Big Bang' event as a symbol of an act from someone so powerful yet so gentle and caring. Before any will of any being that can be traced back to having existed in this universe/'the world', we have the most powerful event which can be conceived let alone witnessed and it _was_ an expression of someone's will.

A common block for many is why the negative things happen in this world. When I think of a being so powerful that the Big Bang is relatively trivial and more comparable to a giant clock springing into action than a demonstration of brute force I must draw the conclusion that events of this world, as horrible as they may seem could also be relatively trivial. If a priest would choose to be tortured and killed after having reported seeing visions of it happening to him one must ask if he was sane, what was it that he knew?

As far as biblical inerrancy is concerned, read http://www.bible.org/netbible/eze43.htm 43:17 then read http://www.bible.org/netbible/exo20.htm 20:26
This was a translation mistake in Ezekiel made many years ago. Surely any errancy of the bible is due to man and not God's doing.

The tough part is accepting that God was there trying to offer us all we needed (He wanted to give us) and we all at different times in our lives chose otherwise (what we wanted).

Commonly I hear that if you're a reasonable person you can't believe. What evidence presents itself that there is a someone out there who is not "attached" to the world we see as we are.

However if we take the proposition and expand it we are presented by a natural "wall" to the universe. What got the 'Big Bang', as closely as we currently understand the phenomenon, started in the first place?

The story we can make of the universe's existance is that all elemental particles were very close to each other in the beginning then energy started to be expressed onto them. Living creatures ended up being a biproduct of this powerful event, which as far as we can understand is the true center of all existance. But who done it?

I profess personally believing in Christ's Holy Father, Y-HW-H, Elohim of Judaism and the Gentiles as the one creator of all being. I see the 'Big Bang' event as a symbol of an act from someone so powerful yet so gentle and caring. Before any will of any being that can be traced back to having existed in this universe/'the world', we have the most powerful event which can be conceived let alone witnessed and it _was_ an expression of someone's will.

A common block for many is why the negative things happen in this world. When I think of a being so powerful that the Big Bang is relatively trivial and more comparable to a giant clock springing into action than a demonstration of brute force I must draw the conclusion that events of this world, as horrible as they may seem could also be relatively trivial. If a priest would choose to be tortured and killed after having reported seeing visions of it happening to him one must ask if he was sane, what was it that he knew?

As far as biblical inerrancy is concerned, read http://www.bible.org/netbible/eze43.htm 43:17 then read http://www.bible.org/netbible/exo20.htm 20:26
This was a translation mistake in Ezekiel made many years ago. Surely any errancy of the bible is due to man and not God's doing.

The tough part is accepting that God was there trying to offer us all we needed (He wanted to give us) and we all at different times in our lives chose otherwise (what we wanted).

The NET Bible project has reached first edition completion that is free to download/distribute (and you can purchase a dead tree edition for reasonable cost).
A very good tool with plenty of translaters notes, etc.

The rover Spirit is wounded, having only 5 of 6 wheels functioning, and so it's moving quite slowly.

The rover Spirit is wounded, having only 5 of 6 wheels functioning, and so it's moving quite slowly.

Or people from Crete, Cretins?

Genesis 1
Genesis 2

Please explain to me which you believe, or give me an explanation for how both can be true. Don't dodge- you're the self-proclaimed literalist. Surely you can handle the horde of self-contradictions in the Bible?

Genesis 1
Genesis 2

Please explain to me which you believe, or give me an explanation for how both can be true. Don't dodge- you're the self-proclaimed literalist. Surely you can handle the horde of self-contradictions in the Bible?

No Christian believes that baptism forgives sins. Only praying to God and asking forgiveness can do that. Also I noticed that it says that the Catholic Church is the only true church. I don't believe that since there are plenty of churches that meet the "salvation through the completed works of Christ" criteria for Christianity. Their wording the trinity seems odd, but if they are saying that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are all in the God Head then they have the Biblical interpretation of God revealing Himself to us correct. For the Bible that is accepted today you can read here http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=689 Out of curiosity what Bible are you reading that says man was made before Cattle? I just looked up both passages and cattle aren't even mentioned until 2:20 and that's when Adam was naming the animals. No I was just saying the Hebrew to English. Day in Hebrew can mean 12h, 24h or a time and morning and evening can refer to dawn or dusk or the beginning or end of a time. There's lots of literature on this and I suggest reading it, it's very interesting. I believe in Genesis 100%. I think a lot of people started to not believe it because science was reporting to have proved the Bible wrong. It actually proved it right as long as you interpret the Bible correctly and know what translation errors there are. Or at least give it a thought when reading the Bible that certain words can mean different things and that sometimes the translators took liberties. Here is an excerpt from Pope John Paul II "In the fourth century, given the new politico-social situation of the Church, the question of the relationship between liturgy and popular piety begins to be raised consciously in terms of adaptation and inculturation rather than solely in terms of spontaneous convergence. The local Churches, guided by clear pastoral and evangelizing principles, did not hesitate to absorb into the Liturgy certain purified solemn and festive cultic elements deriving from the pagan world. These were regarded as capable of moving the minds and imaginations of the people who felt drawn towards them. Such forms, now placed at the service of the mystery of worship, were seen as neither contrary to the Gospel nor to the purity of true Christian worship. Rather, there was a realization that only in the worship of Christ, true God and true Saviour, could many cultic expressions, previously attributed to false gods and false saviours, become true cultic expressions, even though these had derived from man's deepest religious sense. " The Pope even says it. I don't see too much wrong with how some of the holidays have turned out. But if nature is worshipped instead of Jesus than that's bad for Christmas and Easter. Christians seem to celebrate these holidays a bit differently than the secular population anyway. How many times does an atheist even have to deal with Jesus' crucifixion on Easter compared to the nativity scene during Christmas? But pretty soon with the aclu it won't be long until that isn't a concern for them. There are plenty of things that go directly against the Bible with Catholicism. Asking a priest for forgiveness is not from the Bible. Saying a Hail Mary to earn forgiveness is not from the Bible. Last Rites do not get you into Heaven. Purgatory is not a real place. Baptism is nothing more than a symbol that you have accepted Christ as your savior. The list goes on and on and the internet is filled with articles on the subject. I will say though I don't like some of them because they try to belittle Catholics and make fun of them. That isn't right but there are good to the point articles about this very subject.