Offending is the word. I do not believe I have read such an apalling piece of work by a journalist in my life. This is just a vitrolic attack. I do not understand how this can be justified on any terms.
The first sentence is: "A few weeks ago I went looking for the elusive harridan who supposedly writes the Groklaw blog about the SCO v IBM suit"
Harridan? Even from the first sentence we are seeing attacks on her personally. How this can even be called news is quite beyond me. This is a hatchet job.
No. Unless rational conversation is somehow a trap.
That explains why you call me stupid, then complain I was the one to do it to you.
I called your comment stupid, if you want to infer that I think you are stupid that is your call. I think that intelligent people can make stupid comments.
Work with your buddy on this.He knows enough and you trust him.
This has gone back to him, I'll be interested to hear his response.
Your buddy is a Christian BTW.
Yes. He is in fact an ordained minister. There really aren't all that many other places where you are going to find people who understand Greek. I think that someone in the greek group my mother goes to is not a Christian. Beyond that I don't actually know anyone what has an serious qualifications on Greek who is not a Christian. My fiance has a friend who is doing some Greek at uni, but that is in ancient greek, and she just doesn't have the same level of experience.
This is not an admission of bias. The fact that something actually true, might cause someone to change their mind. The fact that I believe in Newton's theory of gravity does not exclude me from being able to comment on it.
If you want I can cast the net wider on this one. Within a couple of weeks I could have comments on this from some of the best (if not the best) Greek scholars in the country (Australia). As I have said almost all the ones I know directly or indirectly are Christians. One is a former Archbishop of the Sydney diocese. If I knew someone who was not a Christian I would ask them just to have a control.
I am not trying to boast. I do have relatively good access to well trained greek scholars, either through my mother who studies greek, or through the network of ministers, bishops (past and present) with whom I am aquainted. With their permission, I will also provide their names along with their opinion on the passage.
Finally, I don't really care what you believe. My point here is not to score some cheap debate points. If your goal is to find any shred of evidence and then quickly dismiss the whole case we should probably stop. People for thousands of years who are quite knowledgeable have been able to convince themselves the evidence doesn't point where it clearly does. Stop "defending the faith" and just examine the point raised.
I do care what you believe. Given that I am a Christian, I guess you can understand why. My aim here is not to score points either.
I am not trying to defend the faith, I am letting the bible speak for itself. In the words of CS Lewis: "Defend the Bible? I would just as soon defend a lion. Just turn the Bible loose. It will defend itself."
Frankly, what I am seeing is passages being twisted to conform to a viewpoint. What I am seeing requireds a greater leap of faith than to be a Christian. I am seeing violence being done to the passages.
Discuss don't debate.
This must be a higher level of discourse. I normally hear people say, debate don't argue. OK I'm not trying to push this to a heated debate.
The way you would about an opinion about a technical issue which is probably wrong but might be worth looking at more closely.
What like VI vs Emacs?:-/
I am listening and I am aware that I might be wrong, but you need to be aware that a fair bit of work needs to be done to convince me. What you are saying contradicts things I test with every know tool I have every day of my life. Something that has been proven to my satisfaction. I'm not saying that to put you off or to somehow justify a blind faith, I'm just pointing out realities.
It is somewhat like someone who has come in an said that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong and need to be re-written.
I am afraid that I am going away for the weekend, so I might not be able to get back to this until Sunday night (it is now 4pm here in Australia). Can I suggest that we try to move this into just one thread (it may make life simpler), or move it to email?
In case you want to move it to email, my address is my first name "david" the at character and my domain name "uberconcept.com". I understand if you would prefer to keep your email address to yourself. I will use your email address solely for the purposes of this discussion, and if you want to stop receiveing emails from me at any point I will respect that
Lets stick this more limited issue, I hinted rather than went after the big issue on purpose. Certainly you would agree that showing that if my hypothesis is right then Hebrews at least is disagreeing with "became incarnate", "truly human", "under Pontius Pilate", "he will come again" etc... Right? So at least that gives us one book.
Actually if you have read the response from my friend, you are still on zero books. And you have kind of skipped past what I said.
Could it be that the author of Hebrews had never heard of these expressions perhaps?
IIRC Hebrews was written before the gospels. The gospels were written last of all the books of the New Testament. This is no secret. But this is rather beside the point. The author is writing to Jews, so he quotes from the Old Testament.
After making this point he continues in 14 and 15 and talks about how Jesus death not his resurrection bring about liberation from death 16 is that he helps descendants of Abraham, and the rest how he is the new high priest. I don't see how this says he walked the earth.
Look again. "Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things" (ESV v14). He became human.
Depending on your bible though this may be another area where the english authors are being "helpful to avoid misunderstanding". The "in like manner" (paraplesios) means likeness not identical. A statue bears the likeness of a man.
I am afraid I am no longer taking your comments on the greek for granted. I am not trying to offend, but you have been proven wrong on one point to my satisfaction. I trust more in the bible translators, who are after all experts in Koine Greek. Anyway, the ESV gives me the word partook rather than likeness. The NASB gives "shared in their humanity". If you would like me to phone a friend again on this one, I can do just that.
Your passage however brings up an interesting theological problem regarding whether Hebrews agrees with Paul buts that another debate at not important for the main thrust here. It is odd however that the author of Hebrews could write an entire work with sacrifice as a central theme and not once mention the Resurrection or the Eucharist. One would almost suspect he had never heard of them.:)
Hardly. If you read the rest of Hebrews, while it is clear that the issues surrounding the resurrection are not expored, it is certainly assumed. Try these (I am using the ESV): - Heb 6:20 - Heb 4:14-16
I could hunt for more. Heb 4 is particularly clear: We *have* a great hight priest. One who can sympathise with us. Now who is able to sympathise with us, except one who has been tempted like us in every way, one who has walked this earth.
Now the story in your passage is that Jesus offers prayers to God (the one able to save him from death) his wish was granted and this made him into a high priest. But other places in the book we know that Jesus died. So obviously this passage needs to be read more carefully in the english / western culture it simply doesn't make any sense.
Can I ask why this needs to re-examined in this way? Is it somehow invalidated if he chooses to write about a different aspect of the death of Jesus? This is a rather strange approach to this. I'll give you some rope for the moment.
en tais hemerais tes sarkos autou ~- in the days of his flesh... ther places in Greek literature... Plato's land of the ideals
I am left to just take your word for this.
The Logos descends all the way to the spirit realm where it comes in direct contact with matter and thus forms a bridge from the material world to God
OK enough rope. Because a phrase is similar, you are saying that he is referring to greek literature of the day? That in fact he means what the Greek Literature says, and is just using a rather obscure reference to do it?
OK then, my friend has written back with a detailed explanation of the use of the word in question in Heb 8:4. He has answered the question on two levels, simple and complex. Please note that I sent him the exact text of your closing comment. I am posting here exactly what he wrote (including typos, there is one in the last sentence):
[quote] Simple level. ------------ This is the way he told you to look at the situation.
Different usage of tense/mood/voice often means a change to the word, which can often make it look completely different. Simply put: 'nv' is the same word as 'eimi' (or 'I am'). It has changed form because it has arrived in the following form: verb, third person, singular, imperfect, active, indicative. So, where 'eimi' translates 'I am' (verb, first person, singular, present, active, indicative), 'nv' translates 'I was'.
So, how do we translate our phrase into English? 'If indeed then he was on earth'
There's no argument to enter into unless you want to go deeper. (And that won't help him either). To say it his way ('had been') is to make it an Aorist Perfect, which is also called a historical aorist. Put even more simply, his translation is just plain wrong!
Complex level. ------------- Greek is not a simple language. One reason it is not simple is that word placement doesn't matter at a simple level, if you just want to ask for someone to pass the milk, but it can matter a great deal at an 'I want to prove something' level. Its called grammar, and it creates the fantastic depth that Greek is renown.
So, going back to our example - things to think about:
1. Predicative use of 'nv': [from BDAG v3] 'be, exist, be on hand a pred. use (for other pred. use s. 3a, 4, 5, 6, 7): of God' He doesn't even note the predicative use of 'nv'.
2. 'mev de' construction. This passage is one big 'mev de' construction. This is one of the ways you have an argument in Greek. You set out an alternative/opposing view (mev - pronounced men) and then you provide the correction to the view (de - 'but'), that is, your view. The 'de' appears in verse 6. Verse 4 must be dealt with in the context with which it is written - it is written as an opponent's view, soon to be discredited with the author's view. Critics don't generally create a case for anything from half of an author's argument, but would instead look at the argument as a whole. Maybe i's just that Western politeness & grammar has a lot to answer for. [/quote]
This is from someone who has had formal training in Koine Greek (the language of the New Testament). If you want a second opinion I can rustle one up without any real trouble, if need be, one with higher qualifications. A friend of a friend is a very well respected Greek scholar.
So, back to the original question: What areas of the New Testament might destroy my faith? How is the Nicene creed inconsistent with the New Testament?
2) I think you are dead wrong on your analysis. I think any reasonable reading of the New Testament would show that virtually any faith holding to the Nicene creed is inconsistent with the book. It is only by the authors never mean what they say since they held the doctrines which developed centuries later and deliberate mistranslation that pretense can be made that this book supports a religion in doctrine similar to Christianity.
Where does the nicean creed deviate from scripture?
As a closing comment on point 2. Check a greek dictionary (and I mean this, don't believe me check it for yourself) which lists verb tenses then look at Hebrews 8.4 "Now if he were on earth" i.e. he's not presently there is the usual translation. The greek doesn't use that tense at all "Now if had been to earth" is the proper tense. Notice the huge change in meaning...
I have emailed your comment on Heb 8:4 to a friend of mine with training in Koine Greek. My mother also has training in this area, if I get a chance I'll ask her also. Expect to hear back from me on this.
That said, even if you are correct in your comments on the greek, you have to ask the question, why would he say, "if he had been on earth"? Scanning Hebrews quickly this would appear a big contradiction to: - 2:14-18 - 5:7-10 There are certainly plenty more that strongly imply that Jesus walked this earth. For example the continued comparisons between Jesus and high priests, references to flesh and sacrifices etc. Certainly the author would be aware of such an internal contradiction.
You are also saying that the author of Hebrews is questioning whether Christ had been on this earth? Not just accidentally, but deliberately questioning the existance of Christ on this earth. This is a book that was written to Jewish Christians who were being persecuted. Is this what you write to people being persecuted for their faith: "That thing you are dying for, well I'm having a few doubts about one of the core elements"? Is that a rational conclusion to draw?
To me it appears that it is a leap of faith to believe that author of Hebrews was actually questioning that Christ walked this earth.
This is hardly the first shot. Remember the race to 1Ghz? Rembember the release of the original P4 with the longer pipeline? Remember the race to 64 bit processors? And now dual cores.
I've been watching this for a little while now, and AMD has been consistently making better, cheaper desktop processors than Intel. In *all* of those examples above, intel has dropped the ball.
This war has been going on for a long time, effectively since the release of the Athlon processor (K7).
Thanks. I realise that he is bascially wasting my time now...
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, at least the first time. After that is a different story.
I'm not taking him as necessarily representative of all athiests (I assume that is what he is), but I did think it was interesting that the charges that are so often aimed at Christians, could be better applied to him in this case.
Well that is one of my issues with what you have been saying. You keep changing the topic. So for some unknown reason you switched the topic to a discussion on the accuracy of the bible and the translations we have on hand now. So I point out some errors with what you are saying, and you then choose to insult me.
I was assuming that it was possible for someone who is not a Christian could hold a rational conversation. The irony being that no doubt you would accuse me of precisely that.
this conversation has stopped serving a clear purpose long ago.
I'd agree with that, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You turn a blind eye to God's robbing Pharaoh of his soul, instead pointing to the mindless automoton that God turned Pharaoh into.
Hardly. It is a pity that you didn't read the verse and associated comment I posted relating to this.
God repeatedly says that he lies, and you shut your eyes and pretend that he never said any such thing.
Once again, you aren't reading my comments.
God tortures and murders the innocent, and you see it as love and beauty.
There are so many things wrong with this comment I find it hard to know where to start. How about with the words torture and murder. God never tortures, humans do, equally murder is a human action. Next comes the question of innocence. Everyone on the face of this earth is guilty. We all deserve what Jesus suffered.
You are evil.
This is an interesting conclusion to come to. You really throw around the extreme labels. Well I guess I can only disagree.
I guess that concludes the discussion. I am sorry that it has ended on a sour note.
You prefer the NIV? Fine. We'll get to that later, but I'll quote from it for now.
To the KJV, but the I think that the ESV and NASB are better for this kind of discussion.
See, this just makes it clear that you haven't actually read the Bible. Or, if you have, you had on such blinders that anything that doesn't fit with your ``God is justice and love'' mantra gets ignored.
You make it clear that you haven't read it either. I suggest that you read the reaction of Pharaoah to each of the plagues. Picking just one Exodus 8:15 (NASB): "15But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not listen to them, as the LORD had said."
Note the keyword "he", clearly referring to Pharoah. This demonstrates my point. God chose to harden Pharoahs heart, but Pharaoh chose to harden his heart. God remained sovereign, Pharoah remained responsible.... snip.... God did, deliberately and with malice aforethought, murder thousands of innocent children.
Where do you get this idea of innocence from? Every single person who has ever walked the face of the earth is guilty of rejecting God.
See, that's a problem with (many of) you Christians. You play word games that make Orwell blush. You're trying to re-define Christianity to the point that it no longer has any meaning.
Not at all. James 2:17 (NASB) says: "Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself."
In that way can we can judge whether someone is a Christian (although our judegement in this is obviously flawed, as only God knows). This is how I struggle to reconcile GWBs actions with is claims to be a Christian.
Oh, sure, God had to take the pain of sin upon himself, blah blah. But you're ignoring the method God chose to do so. God could just as easily let Jesus be nailed to that cross, but spared him from all the pain the Romans tried to inflict upon him. Let them get more and more cruel, yet all the time none of it even touches Jesus. All the while, have Jesus preach his message of love and forgiveness. When the Romans finally come to their senses, Jesus proclaims the end of suffering and death and rises to Heaven on a beam of light.
Don't you think it is a rather hollow punishement for the sin of the world if he doesn't actually experience pain? You are also assuming the physical world does not matter. Jesus' death is what we deserved, and more. If you want to read up on the death of Jesus, John Stott has written an excellent book called "The Cross of Christ" which explores all apects of the death of Jesus.
The Crusades were intended by their Christian perpetrators to force the inhabitants of the Middle East to convert to Christianity.
I'll give you that one. However the bible certainly does not sanction that kind of thing.
The sole purpose of the Inquisition was to convert non-Christians to Christianity.
I rather thought they were about expanding the spanish empire as much as anything else, but there we go.
In the witch hunts, non-Christians were tortured and murdered solely in an effort to convert them to Christianity.
I don't know enough about these to comment.
The American slave owners quoted extensively from the Bible to justify their slavery. This is not hard to do, considering how many times God instructed his followers to conquer people and take the survivors as slaves. Even Jesus healed a slave and sent him back to his owner with no more than a ``Y'all be good, now.''
Isn't in strange than that the reformers who abolished slavery were Christians. Two other comments on slavery: 1. I think it might also do you some good to have a look at how slavery should happen as laid out in the OT. If someone was unable to pay their debts, they could sell themselves as effectively an indentured labourer. Every 7 years (jubilee) all slaves would be freed. 2. The NT was written in a wo
Darwinists believe in Darwin's theory. (hee-hee, evangelicals don't)
What makes you say that? I go to an evangelical church. I know maybe one person there who doesn't believe in Darwin's theory. I am certainly an evangelical and I believe Darwin's theory.
This is a matter of some division within the church and I don't generally make my views publically known. Largely because theologically speaking it isn't important but is an issue that people get really aggro over.
Anyway, back to the original point: Christians believe in the teachings of Jesus.
Mormons don't. Read John 1 for example (there are more example, but I am deliberately picking a gospel). Therefore they aren't Christians. I'm not trying to beat them up, just pointing out how things are.
Definitely not true. I'm neither a Mormon nor a Christian, and I definitely consider Mormons to be Christians. I also consider Rastafarians to be Christians. I also consider Satanists to be Christians. (And yes, that means that most Heavy Metal is actually Christian Rock.):)
Possibly his comment might be better stated as: "The only rational people who consider mormons Christians are mormons."
We don't have first edition copies of Caeser's Gallic wars, yet that is a recognised historical document. I've read a translation.
We don't have native speakers for Latin, or ancient Egyptian for that matter. That doesn't stop us from understanding the language. While we not understand it perfectly, it is understood. What is more both of the original languages for the bible (Hebrew and Koine Greek) have modern derivates.
You clearly have little experience with studying history.
I think I may have overstated the case a little there.
I am also talking about very particular circumstances, ie pre-fall. This does change the dynamics rather a lot. So comparisons to JWs/Watchtower are not accurate since as a result of original sin, we all have a knowledge of evil.
I think on reflection I would retract that comment that knowledge of evil is evil, pending further thought. The nature of evil (and for that matter the nature of good) is an complex question. For example, is it possible to know evil without expereincing it?
I am afraid that I am a little short of time at the moment, so I cannot type out as full a reply as I would like to.
Re Egyptians and Pharaoh: This was an illustration of a point you were making. The point was the God is unjust. I was addressing the point not the illustration. So to address this. God was punishing Pharaoh and the Egyptian people for enslaving the Israelites. In this comment I say something about this. People are still responsible for their actions, as they chose to do them, even while God is in charge. There are other example of this throughout the bible if you are really interested. God uses the Babylonians to destroy Judah as a judgment on Judah and then judges the Babylonians for destroying Judah. This is not something I will deny because it is clear in the bible that this is the case.
From all I know of them, they honestly believed themselves to be followers of Christ and his teachings. They claimed that their actions were in his name, and in accord with his teachings and his will. That, in my book, makes them Christians.
I can claim to be superman but that doesn't make me superman.
When we then consider all the great crimes of the past two millennia, we discover that many of them have been done by Christians for Christ.
Really? I discover than many of them have been done by people, regardless of their beliefs. Christianity has had little to do with the conflicts for centuries. Even conflicts between say Catholics and Protestants have had more to do with conflicts between people groups that happen to have different beliefs. The beliefs are not generally the reason for the conflict.
Finally, we see even today, with the Christian president of a once-atheist-but-now-Christian nation, how a Christian will lie and deceive for the sole purpose of launching an unprovoked and illegal war that has--surprise!--resulted in thousands of unnecessary civilian deaths and numerous acts of torture and various other atrocities.
Do you think I supported that war? I went to the first protest of my life to protest against that war. The protest I attended drew some 300,000 people. My opposition to the war comes from my Christian beliefs. I find it difficult (to say the least) to understand how GWB can reconcile being a Christian with his actions.
... snip lots of passages...
On a general not, can I suggest that you use something other than the KJV? The KJV is not a great translation for 2 reasons: 1. IIRC it is largely a translation from the translation to the Latin. In other words it is a 2 stage translation. If you want a translation that is aimed at being as close to the Greek & Hebrew as possible, look at the NASB or ESV. For something that is easier to read aloud, use the NIV. All 3 are better translations than the KJV. 2. It is not written in the English of today. This just makes it less accessible.
Anyway, you are highlighting passages of judgment. Fair enough. But let me ask you this, is there justice without judgment? Is it right for someone to commit a crime and not to be punished? Answer that and we can then get down to discussing the particular passages.
If somebody came to you and said that he worshipped Emperor Palatine and believed him to be the source and inspiration of all moral authority, questions of sanity aside, what would your reaction be? Wouldn't you be at least a little bit concerned that he might try to turn himself into a real-life Darth Vader?
Palpatine did not send his son to die in this world. There is no documentation of Palpatine. The historicity of the bible is not questioned by any competant scholars. Its claims must be addressed.
God is a myth. The (fictional) God you worship is as evil, cruel, and hateful as it gets. Get over it.
I am now slightly frustrated. Largely because you fail to address key points and merely assert things.
In short: I don't take at face value the badly translated and oft copied and re-copied and re-translated interpretations of events of ingnorant, long-dead farmers. Those are myths, not beautifull truths. Embelished hearsay, history buried in storytelling.
Clearly you haven't actually spent any time verify whether the bible is in fact badly translated, embellished and hearsay. But don't let your lack of knowledge in the area from spouting off.
If there is really One True God, I'll deal with Him and the fact that he gave me a sharp mind with a penchant for sarcasm, instead of giving me blind faith, when Judgement comes.
You will "deal" with him. You won't like it though.
I'll continue to use the sharp mind and tendancy towards cynicism he game to continue to serve him.
You do understand that I don't consider that communism is a particularly effective system. I have read Orwell (suggested by the AC) and Solzhenitsyn (rather more depressing that Orwell).
I'm no fan of dictators, either, it's the same crime from a different approach. It's worth remembering though that economic freedom and political freedom are usually linked.
You do realise that as part of the fight against communism, the US supported some of the most apalling dictatorships of this century. Generally the process was a left leaning (not communist, merely left leaning) person is elected. The US supports (militarily/financially/training/propoganda) the military in an overthrow of the elected government. A dictatorship is then installed. At some point the dictatorship either becomes more moderate, or the US grows tired of it, and the troops roll in. Repeat as many times an necessary.
I think that any moral person would have to question some of the decisions the US made in the fight against communism.
Look, I do understand the point that you are trying to make. You are implying that the communist system has such flaws within itself that it which inevitably lead to all those under it becoming slaves.
However as someone who is not an American (and also not a European either), I fail to understand the virulant hatred most Americans have towards communism. Communism has flaws, that is not in question. But the flaws are hyped far out of proportion. To listen to some, communism is the greatest ill this world has ever seen, and is evil personnified.
Comparing some of the regimes that have been supported by the US to some communist regimes is not always favourable to the US. Most of the things that the US accuses communism of can equally be directed back at the US.
So to get back to the original point, you said that the problem was compelling people to do something. How would you react to an anti-communist dictatorship that compels people to do things that they don't want to do?
I think examining the use of the word know might be in order. Knowledge can be used as a way of describing experiencing something, not just knowing about it. From Gen 1 it is clear that after eating the fruit they had not just known what sin was, but also experienced it. On the other hand, they also clearly knew what sin was before they ate the fruit: it was disobeying God.
As for 'spiritual death' - I've heard the argument. However, it's just tricks with words - what we really need is someone who read the original version (in Hebrew, that is) to come forth and say if the Hebrew word for 'death' which is used there can be interpreted as 'spiritual death', or not. That it can in English doesn't mean it could in Hebrew. Anyone?
My mother reads Hebrew and koine Greek, I can ask her the precise definition of the relevant word. I also have some friends who can read Hebrew. If you wait til I get a chance to talk to one of them I'll post what I find. Alternatively I also have access to some good commentries on Genesis at home, I might have a look at them.
Anyway, your point assumes that the bible translaters are incompetant. And what is more, they are incompetant in what is a pretty key passage in the bible.
All that is rather beside the point for 2 reasons: 1. They still die a physical death. It is not an immediate death, but they die. Until that point death has not made an appearance. Adam and Eve would never have died. 2. The bible uses death to refer to both physical and spiritual death, occasionally at the same time. See Romans 6:1-14 for an example of multiple uses of death and life. What is more, spiritual state is given more weight than physical state.
Expanding on point 2, the key point of the bible is relationship with God. This is not a physical relationship, but a spiritual one. The severing of that relationship is spiritual death. The spiritual element of Life and death is more important than the physical life and death. In another sense, the effects original sin on this world (Physical death for people, harder work, pain in childbirth etc), and physical signs of a deeper spiritual malaise.
Slashdot Mirror
I read the the offending article.
Offending is the word. I do not believe I have read such an apalling piece of work by a journalist in my life. This is just a vitrolic attack. I do not understand how this can be justified on any terms.
The first sentence is:
"A few weeks ago I went looking for the elusive harridan who supposedly writes the Groklaw blog about the SCO v IBM suit"
Harridan? Even from the first sentence we are seeing attacks on her personally. How this can even be called news is quite beyond me. This is a hatchet job.
Ah, it was a trap, cute!
No. Unless rational conversation is somehow a trap.
That explains why you call me stupid, then complain I was the one to do it to you.
I called your comment stupid, if you want to infer that I think you are stupid that is your call. I think that intelligent people can make stupid comments.
Work with your buddy on this.He knows enough and you trust him.
:-/
This has gone back to him, I'll be interested to hear his response.
Your buddy is a Christian BTW.
Yes. He is in fact an ordained minister. There really aren't all that many other places where you are going to find people who understand Greek. I think that someone in the greek group my mother goes to is not a Christian. Beyond that I don't actually know anyone what has an serious qualifications on Greek who is not a Christian. My fiance has a friend who is doing some Greek at uni, but that is in ancient greek, and she just doesn't have the same level of experience.
This is not an admission of bias. The fact that something actually true, might cause someone to change their mind. The fact that I believe in Newton's theory of gravity does not exclude me from being able to comment on it.
If you want I can cast the net wider on this one. Within a couple of weeks I could have comments on this from some of the best (if not the best) Greek scholars in the country (Australia). As I have said almost all the ones I know directly or indirectly are Christians. One is a former Archbishop of the Sydney diocese. If I knew someone who was not a Christian I would ask them just to have a control.
I am not trying to boast. I do have relatively good access to well trained greek scholars, either through my mother who studies greek, or through the network of ministers, bishops (past and present) with whom I am aquainted. With their permission, I will also provide their names along with their opinion on the passage.
Finally, I don't really care what you believe. My point here is not to score some cheap debate points. If your goal is to find any shred of evidence and then quickly dismiss the whole case we should probably stop. People for thousands of years who are quite knowledgeable have been able to convince themselves the evidence doesn't point where it clearly does. Stop "defending the faith" and just examine the point raised.
I do care what you believe. Given that I am a Christian, I guess you can understand why. My aim here is not to score points either.
I am not trying to defend the faith, I am letting the bible speak for itself. In the words of CS Lewis:
"Defend the Bible? I would just as soon defend a lion. Just turn the Bible loose. It will defend itself."
Frankly, what I am seeing is passages being twisted to conform to a viewpoint. What I am seeing requireds a greater leap of faith than to be a Christian. I am seeing violence being done to the passages.
Discuss don't debate.
This must be a higher level of discourse. I normally hear people say, debate don't argue. OK I'm not trying to push this to a heated debate.
The way you would about an opinion about a technical issue which is probably wrong but might be worth looking at more closely.
What like VI vs Emacs?
I am listening and I am aware that I might be wrong, but you need to be aware that a fair bit of work needs to be done to convince me. What you are saying contradicts things I test with every know tool I have every day of my life. Something that has been proven to my satisfaction. I'm not saying that to put you off or to somehow justify a blind faith, I'm just pointing out realities.
It is somewhat like someone who has come in an said that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong and need to be re-written.
I am afraid that I am going away for the weekend, so I might not be able to get back to this until Sunday night (it is now 4pm here in Australia). Can I suggest that we try to move this into just one thread (it may make life simpler), or move it to email?
In case you want to move it to email, my address is my first name "david" the at character and my domain name "uberconcept.com". I understand if you would prefer to keep your email address to yourself. I will use your email address solely for the purposes of this discussion, and if you want to stop receiveing emails from me at any point I will respect that
Lets stick this more limited issue, I hinted rather than went after the big issue on purpose. Certainly you would agree that showing that if my hypothesis is right then Hebrews at least is disagreeing with "became incarnate", "truly human", "under Pontius Pilate", "he will come again" etc... Right? So at least that gives us one book.
:)
... ther places in Greek literature ... Plato's land of the ideals
Actually if you have read the response from my friend, you are still on zero books. And you have kind of skipped past what I said.
Could it be that the author of Hebrews had never heard of these expressions perhaps?
IIRC Hebrews was written before the gospels. The gospels were written last of all the books of the New Testament. This is no secret. But this is rather beside the point. The author is writing to Jews, so he quotes from the Old Testament.
After making this point he continues in 14 and 15 and talks about how Jesus death not his resurrection bring about liberation from death 16 is that he helps descendants of Abraham, and the rest how he is the new high priest. I don't see how this says he walked the earth.
Look again. "Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things" (ESV v14). He became human.
Depending on your bible though this may be another area where the english authors are being "helpful to avoid misunderstanding". The "in like manner" (paraplesios) means likeness not identical. A statue bears the likeness of a man.
I am afraid I am no longer taking your comments on the greek for granted. I am not trying to offend, but you have been proven wrong on one point to my satisfaction. I trust more in the bible translators, who are after all experts in Koine Greek. Anyway, the ESV gives me the word partook rather than likeness. The NASB gives "shared in their humanity". If you would like me to phone a friend again on this one, I can do just that.
Your passage however brings up an interesting theological problem regarding whether Hebrews agrees with Paul buts that another debate at not important for the main thrust here. It is odd however that the author of Hebrews could write an entire work with sacrifice as a central theme and not once mention the Resurrection or the Eucharist. One would almost suspect he had never heard of them.
Hardly. If you read the rest of Hebrews, while it is clear that the issues surrounding the resurrection are not expored, it is certainly assumed. Try these (I am using the ESV):
- Heb 6:20
- Heb 4:14-16
I could hunt for more. Heb 4 is particularly clear: We *have* a great hight priest. One who can sympathise with us. Now who is able to sympathise with us, except one who has been tempted like us in every way, one who has walked this earth.
Now the story in your passage is that Jesus offers prayers to God (the one able to save him from death) his wish was granted and this made him into a high priest. But other places in the book we know that Jesus died. So obviously this passage needs to be read more carefully in the english / western culture it simply doesn't make any sense.
Can I ask why this needs to re-examined in this way? Is it somehow invalidated if he chooses to write about a different aspect of the death of Jesus? This is a rather strange approach to this. I'll give you some rope for the moment.
en tais hemerais tes sarkos autou ~- in the days of his flesh
I am left to just take your word for this.
The Logos descends all the way to the spirit realm where it comes in direct contact with matter and thus forms a bridge from the material world to God
OK enough rope. Because a phrase is similar, you are saying that he is referring to greek literature of the day? That in fact he means what the Greek Literature says, and is just using a rather obscure reference to do it?
On
OK then, my friend has written back with a detailed explanation of the use of the word in question in Heb 8:4. He has answered the question on two levels, simple and complex. Please note that I sent him the exact text of your closing comment. I am posting here exactly what he wrote (including typos, there is one in the last sentence):
[quote]
Simple level.
------------
This is the way he told you to look at the situation.
Different usage of tense/mood/voice often means a change to the word, which can often make it look completely different. Simply put:
'nv' is the same word as 'eimi' (or 'I am').
It has changed form because it has arrived in the following form:
verb, third person, singular, imperfect, active, indicative. So, where 'eimi' translates 'I am' (verb, first person, singular, present, active, indicative), 'nv' translates 'I was'.
So, how do we translate our phrase into English?
'If indeed then he was on earth'
There's no argument to enter into unless you want to go deeper. (And that won't help him either). To say it his way ('had been') is to make it an Aorist Perfect, which is also called a historical aorist. Put even more simply, his translation is just plain wrong!
Complex level.
-------------
Greek is not a simple language.
One reason it is not simple is that word placement doesn't matter at a simple level, if you just want to ask for someone to pass the milk, but it can matter a great deal at an 'I want to prove something' level. Its called grammar, and it creates the fantastic depth that Greek is renown.
So, going back to our example - things to think about:
1. Predicative use of 'nv':
[from BDAG v3] 'be, exist, be on hand a pred. use (for other pred. use s. 3a, 4, 5, 6, 7): of God'
He doesn't even note the predicative use of 'nv'.
2. 'mev de' construction.
This passage is one big 'mev de' construction. This is one of the ways you have an argument in Greek. You set out an alternative/opposing view (mev - pronounced men) and then you provide the correction to the view (de - 'but'), that is, your view. The 'de' appears in verse 6. Verse 4 must be dealt with in the context with which it is written - it is written as an opponent's view, soon to be discredited with the author's view. Critics don't generally create a case for anything from half of an author's argument, but would instead look at the argument as a whole. Maybe i's just that Western politeness & grammar has a lot to answer for.
[/quote]
This is from someone who has had formal training in Koine Greek (the language of the New Testament). If you want a second opinion I can rustle one up without any real trouble, if need be, one with higher qualifications. A friend of a friend is a very well respected Greek scholar.
So, back to the original question: What areas of the New Testament might destroy my faith? How is the Nicene creed inconsistent with the New Testament?
2) I think you are dead wrong on your analysis. I think any reasonable reading of the New Testament would show that virtually any faith holding to the Nicene creed is inconsistent with the book. It is only by the authors never mean what they say since they held the doctrines which developed centuries later and deliberate mistranslation that pretense can be made that this book supports a religion in doctrine similar to Christianity.
Where does the nicean creed deviate from scripture?
As a closing comment on point 2. Check a greek dictionary (and I mean this, don't believe me check it for yourself) which lists verb tenses then look at Hebrews 8.4 "Now if he were on earth" i.e. he's not presently there is the usual translation. The greek doesn't use that tense at all "Now if had been to earth" is the proper tense. Notice the huge change in meaning...
I have emailed your comment on Heb 8:4 to a friend of mine with training in Koine Greek. My mother also has training in this area, if I get a chance I'll ask her also. Expect to hear back from me on this.
That said, even if you are correct in your comments on the greek, you have to ask the question, why would he say, "if he had been on earth"? Scanning Hebrews quickly this would appear a big contradiction to:
- 2:14-18
- 5:7-10
There are certainly plenty more that strongly imply that Jesus walked this earth. For example the continued comparisons between Jesus and high priests, references to flesh and sacrifices etc. Certainly the author would be aware of such an internal contradiction.
You are also saying that the author of Hebrews is questioning whether Christ had been on this earth? Not just accidentally, but deliberately questioning the existance of Christ on this earth. This is a book that was written to Jewish Christians who were being persecuted. Is this what you write to people being persecuted for their faith: "That thing you are dying for, well I'm having a few doubts about one of the core elements"? Is that a rational conclusion to draw?
To me it appears that it is a leap of faith to believe that author of Hebrews was actually questioning that Christ walked this earth.
Thats a new development. With the earlier version you had to recompile the chrystal.
I actually own an 1899 pattern calvary sabre from the Boer War that was my personal sword... and.. well.. I got married in it.
Was this a vegas wedding? Do they have some big sword you can get married in? Wow, its been around since 1899.
This is hardly the first shot. Remember the race to 1Ghz? Rembember the release of the original P4 with the longer pipeline? Remember the race to 64 bit processors? And now dual cores.
I've been watching this for a little while now, and AMD has been consistently making better, cheaper desktop processors than Intel. In *all* of those examples above, intel has dropped the ball.
This war has been going on for a long time, effectively since the release of the Athlon processor (K7).
Thanks. I realise that he is bascially wasting my time now...
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, at least the first time. After that is a different story.
I'm not taking him as necessarily representative of all athiests (I assume that is what he is), but I did think it was interesting that the charges that are so often aimed at Christians, could be better applied to him in this case.
Thanks.
Argue WHAT point?
Well that is one of my issues with what you have been saying. You keep changing the topic. So for some unknown reason you switched the topic to a discussion on the accuracy of the bible and the translations we have on hand now. So I point out some errors with what you are saying, and you then choose to insult me.
I was assuming that it was possible for someone who is not a Christian could hold a rational conversation. The irony being that no doubt you would accuse me of precisely that.
this conversation has stopped serving a clear purpose long ago.
I'd agree with that, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You turn a blind eye to God's robbing Pharaoh of his soul, instead pointing to the mindless automoton that God turned Pharaoh into.
Hardly. It is a pity that you didn't read the verse and associated comment I posted relating to this.
God repeatedly says that he lies, and you shut your eyes and pretend that he never said any such thing.
Once again, you aren't reading my comments.
God tortures and murders the innocent, and you see it as love and beauty.
There are so many things wrong with this comment I find it hard to know where to start. How about with the words torture and murder. God never tortures, humans do, equally murder is a human action. Next comes the question of innocence. Everyone on the face of this earth is guilty. We all deserve what Jesus suffered.
You are evil.
This is an interesting conclusion to come to. You really throw around the extreme labels. Well I guess I can only disagree.
I guess that concludes the discussion. I am sorry that it has ended on a sour note.
You prefer the NIV? Fine. We'll get to that later, but I'll quote from it for now.
... snip ....
To the KJV, but the I think that the ESV and NASB are better for this kind of discussion.
See, this just makes it clear that you haven't actually read the Bible. Or, if you have, you had on such blinders that anything that doesn't fit with your ``God is justice and love'' mantra gets ignored.
You make it clear that you haven't read it either. I suggest that you read the reaction of Pharaoah to each of the plagues. Picking just one Exodus 8:15 (NASB):
"15But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not listen to them, as the LORD had said."
Note the keyword "he", clearly referring to Pharoah. This demonstrates my point. God chose to harden Pharoahs heart, but Pharaoh chose to harden his heart. God remained sovereign, Pharoah remained responsible.
God did, deliberately and with malice aforethought, murder thousands of innocent children.
Where do you get this idea of innocence from? Every single person who has ever walked the face of the earth is guilty of rejecting God.
See, that's a problem with (many of) you Christians. You play word games that make Orwell blush. You're trying to re-define Christianity to the point that it no longer has any meaning.
Not at all. James 2:17 (NASB) says:
"Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself."
In that way can we can judge whether someone is a Christian (although our judegement in this is obviously flawed, as only God knows). This is how I struggle to reconcile GWBs actions with is claims to be a Christian.
Oh, sure, God had to take the pain of sin upon himself, blah blah. But you're ignoring the method God chose to do so. God could just as easily let Jesus be nailed to that cross, but spared him from all the pain the Romans tried to inflict upon him. Let them get more and more cruel, yet all the time none of it even touches Jesus. All the while, have Jesus preach his message of love and forgiveness. When the Romans finally come to their senses, Jesus proclaims the end of suffering and death and rises to Heaven on a beam of light.
Don't you think it is a rather hollow punishement for the sin of the world if he doesn't actually experience pain? You are also assuming the physical world does not matter. Jesus' death is what we deserved, and more. If you want to read up on the death of Jesus, John Stott has written an excellent book called "The Cross of Christ" which explores all apects of the death of Jesus.
The Crusades were intended by their Christian perpetrators to force the inhabitants of the Middle East to convert to Christianity.
I'll give you that one. However the bible certainly does not sanction that kind of thing.
The sole purpose of the Inquisition was to convert non-Christians to Christianity.
I rather thought they were about expanding the spanish empire as much as anything else, but there we go.
In the witch hunts, non-Christians were tortured and murdered solely in an effort to convert them to Christianity.
I don't know enough about these to comment.
The American slave owners quoted extensively from the Bible to justify their slavery. This is not hard to do, considering how many times God instructed his followers to conquer people and take the survivors as slaves. Even Jesus healed a slave and sent him back to his owner with no more than a ``Y'all be good, now.''
Isn't in strange than that the reformers who abolished slavery were Christians. Two other comments on slavery:
1. I think it might also do you some good to have a look at how slavery should happen as laid out in the OT. If someone was unable to pay their debts, they could sell themselves as effectively an indentured labourer. Every 7 years (jubilee) all slaves would be freed.
2. The NT was written in a wo
Is this how you normally argue a point? Glib remarks and insults?
True, however some are more suited to evil use than good use.
Torture equipment would be a good example of this.
Darwinists believe in Darwin's theory. (hee-hee, evangelicals don't)
What makes you say that? I go to an evangelical church. I know maybe one person there who doesn't believe in Darwin's theory. I am certainly an evangelical and I believe Darwin's theory.
This is a matter of some division within the church and I don't generally make my views publically known. Largely because theologically speaking it isn't important but is an issue that people get really aggro over.
Anyway, back to the original point:
Christians believe in the teachings of Jesus.
Mormons don't. Read John 1 for example (there are more example, but I am deliberately picking a gospel). Therefore they aren't Christians. I'm not trying to beat them up, just pointing out how things are.
Definitely not true. I'm neither a Mormon nor a Christian, and I definitely consider Mormons to be Christians. I also consider Rastafarians to be Christians. I also consider Satanists to be Christians. (And yes, that means that most Heavy Metal is actually Christian Rock.) :)
Possibly his comment might be better stated as:
"The only rational people who consider mormons Christians are mormons."
This is a stupid comment and you know it.
We don't have first edition copies of Caeser's Gallic wars, yet that is a recognised historical document. I've read a translation.
We don't have native speakers for Latin, or ancient Egyptian for that matter. That doesn't stop us from understanding the language. While we not understand it perfectly, it is understood. What is more both of the original languages for the bible (Hebrew and Koine Greek) have modern derivates.
You clearly have little experience with studying history.
I think I may have overstated the case a little there.
I am also talking about very particular circumstances, ie pre-fall. This does change the dynamics rather a lot. So comparisons to JWs/Watchtower are not accurate since as a result of original sin, we all have a knowledge of evil.
I think on reflection I would retract that comment that knowledge of evil is evil, pending further thought. The nature of evil (and for that matter the nature of good) is an complex question. For example, is it possible to know evil without expereincing it?
I am afraid that I am a little short of time at the moment, so I cannot type out as full a reply as I would like to.
... snip lots of passages ...
Re Egyptians and Pharaoh: This was an illustration of a point you were making. The point was the God is unjust. I was addressing the point not the illustration. So to address this. God was punishing Pharaoh and the Egyptian people for enslaving the Israelites. In this comment I say something about this. People are still responsible for their actions, as they chose to do them, even while God is in charge. There are other example of this throughout the bible if you are really interested. God uses the Babylonians to destroy Judah as a judgment on Judah and then judges the Babylonians for destroying Judah. This is not something I will deny because it is clear in the bible that this is the case.
From all I know of them, they honestly believed themselves to be followers of Christ and his teachings. They claimed that their actions were in his name, and in accord with his teachings and his will. That, in my book, makes them Christians.
I can claim to be superman but that doesn't make me superman.
When we then consider all the great crimes of the past two millennia, we discover that many of them have been done by Christians for Christ.
Really? I discover than many of them have been done by people, regardless of their beliefs. Christianity has had little to do with the conflicts for centuries. Even conflicts between say Catholics and Protestants have had more to do with conflicts between people groups that happen to have different beliefs. The beliefs are not generally the reason for the conflict.
Finally, we see even today, with the Christian president of a once-atheist-but-now-Christian nation, how a Christian will lie and deceive for the sole purpose of launching an unprovoked and illegal war that has--surprise!--resulted in thousands of unnecessary civilian deaths and numerous acts of torture and various other atrocities.
Do you think I supported that war? I went to the first protest of my life to protest against that war. The protest I attended drew some 300,000 people. My opposition to the war comes from my Christian beliefs. I find it difficult (to say the least) to understand how GWB can reconcile being a Christian with his actions.
On a general not, can I suggest that you use something other than the KJV? The KJV is not a great translation for 2 reasons:
1. IIRC it is largely a translation from the translation to the Latin. In other words it is a 2 stage translation. If you want a translation that is aimed at being as close to the Greek & Hebrew as possible, look at the NASB or ESV. For something that is easier to read aloud, use the NIV. All 3 are better translations than the KJV.
2. It is not written in the English of today. This just makes it less accessible.
Anyway, you are highlighting passages of judgment. Fair enough. But let me ask you this, is there justice without judgment? Is it right for someone to commit a crime and not to be punished? Answer that and we can then get down to discussing the particular passages.
If somebody came to you and said that he worshipped Emperor Palatine and believed him to be the source and inspiration of all moral authority, questions of sanity aside, what would your reaction be? Wouldn't you be at least a little bit concerned that he might try to turn himself into a real-life Darth Vader?
Palpatine did not send his son to die in this world. There is no documentation of Palpatine. The historicity of the bible is not questioned by any competant scholars. Its claims must be addressed.
God is a myth. The (fictional) God you worship is as evil, cruel, and hateful as it gets. Get over it.
Clearly that is what you want to believe.
No, really. Please ge
I am now slightly frustrated. Largely because you fail to address key points and merely assert things.
In short: I don't take at face value the badly translated and oft copied and re-copied and re-translated interpretations of events of ingnorant, long-dead farmers. Those are myths, not beautifull truths. Embelished hearsay, history buried in storytelling.
Clearly you haven't actually spent any time verify whether the bible is in fact badly translated, embellished and hearsay. But don't let your lack of knowledge in the area from spouting off.
If there is really One True God, I'll deal with Him and the fact that he gave me a sharp mind with a penchant for sarcasm, instead of giving me blind faith, when Judgement comes.
You will "deal" with him. You won't like it though.
I'll continue to use the sharp mind and tendancy towards cynicism he game to continue to serve him.
You do understand that I don't consider that communism is a particularly effective system. I have read Orwell (suggested by the AC) and Solzhenitsyn (rather more depressing that Orwell).
I'm no fan of dictators, either, it's the same crime from a different approach. It's worth remembering though that economic freedom and political freedom are usually linked.
You do realise that as part of the fight against communism, the US supported some of the most apalling dictatorships of this century. Generally the process was a left leaning (not communist, merely left leaning) person is elected. The US supports (militarily/financially/training/propoganda) the military in an overthrow of the elected government. A dictatorship is then installed. At some point the dictatorship either becomes more moderate, or the US grows tired of it, and the troops roll in. Repeat as many times an necessary.
I think that any moral person would have to question some of the decisions the US made in the fight against communism.
Look, I do understand the point that you are trying to make. You are implying that the communist system has such flaws within itself that it which inevitably lead to all those under it becoming slaves.
However as someone who is not an American (and also not a European either), I fail to understand the virulant hatred most Americans have towards communism. Communism has flaws, that is not in question. But the flaws are hyped far out of proportion. To listen to some, communism is the greatest ill this world has ever seen, and is evil personnified.
Comparing some of the regimes that have been supported by the US to some communist regimes is not always favourable to the US. Most of the things that the US accuses communism of can equally be directed back at the US.
So to get back to the original point, you said that the problem was compelling people to do something. How would you react to an anti-communist dictatorship that compels people to do things that they don't want to do?
You can't know good without knowing evil.
I think examining the use of the word know might be in order. Knowledge can be used as a way of describing experiencing something, not just knowing about it. From Gen 1 it is clear that after eating the fruit they had not just known what sin was, but also experienced it. On the other hand, they also clearly knew what sin was before they ate the fruit: it was disobeying God.
As for 'spiritual death' - I've heard the argument. However, it's just tricks with words - what we really need is someone who read the original version (in Hebrew, that is) to come forth and say if the Hebrew word for 'death' which is used there can be interpreted as 'spiritual death', or not. That it can in English doesn't mean it could in Hebrew. Anyone?
My mother reads Hebrew and koine Greek, I can ask her the precise definition of the relevant word. I also have some friends who can read Hebrew. If you wait til I get a chance to talk to one of them I'll post what I find. Alternatively I also have access to some good commentries on Genesis at home, I might have a look at them.
Anyway, your point assumes that the bible translaters are incompetant. And what is more, they are incompetant in what is a pretty key passage in the bible.
All that is rather beside the point for 2 reasons:
1. They still die a physical death. It is not an immediate death, but they die. Until that point death has not made an appearance. Adam and Eve would never have died.
2. The bible uses death to refer to both physical and spiritual death, occasionally at the same time. See Romans 6:1-14 for an example of multiple uses of death and life. What is more, spiritual state is given more weight than physical state.
Expanding on point 2, the key point of the bible is relationship with God. This is not a physical relationship, but a spiritual one. The severing of that relationship is spiritual death. The spiritual element of Life and death is more important than the physical life and death. In another sense, the effects original sin on this world (Physical death for people, harder work, pain in childbirth etc), and physical signs of a deeper spiritual malaise.
when communism becomes evil is when it is compulsory. A point you seem to have missed widely.
So it isn't communism that is evil, it is compelling people do something.
So tell me again why Americans hate communism?