Thou Shalt Not Kill

I know I am opening a can of worms here... but what the heck, its a free world with free speech so I am exercising that right ;)


I was reading a book by Orson Scott Card recently (Called "Seventh Son"). The man is a devout mormon which I find incredibly interesting considering a lot of his written work appears to be anti-religion (or is that just anti-ESTABLISHED-religion?).

The interesting point he brings up in this book is that there is a commandment....

THOU SHALT NOT KILL

Now my poor and feable understanding of this commandment is that there are no conditions, no wavers, no corrollories, no clauses and no "accept when"'s.

Yet didn't Moses kill an Egyptian guard? Or was he forgiven for breaking the commandment?

And didn't warriors kill those who lived in the city of Jerico? They were doing it at the request of God himself if my understanding is true.

What about David and Goliath? Didn't he KILL Goliath in the name of the lord?



I remember asking this question years ago in a bible study group and the rest of the group proceeded to try and justify themselves and twist words they found in completely unrelated passages that basically came to the following conclusion :

"Sometimes its ok to kill, like self-defense, or during war and stuff like that... what they REALLY meant by the commandment is that you shouldn't kill for no reason or to commit evil deeds or for your own purposes".


The funny thing is that it never actually SAID that anywhere and so the only conclusion I could draw was that these people were incabable of admitting a flaw and instead had to TWIST things so that they could remain comfortable in their beliefs.


Cna someone "enlighten" me?

You know, I've had the EXACT same thing floating around in my head for some time now. I too would like to know the answer to this.

Ok the commandment Thou shalt not kill is old testament and is meant as a guideline for the Jewish communities hemmed in by hostile forces. Now it should be pointed out that this was principle applying between Jewish community members, and not between Jewish and other tribal groups, which was quite exceptable.

Now when the later day christian faith gained sway in Rome and Europe, they needed a set of codified rules in which to enforce their rule over diverse religons and ethnic groups. Therefore the old testament, which is a mismash of earlier religous thought and teachings, was thrown into the christian bible to boister the notion that the Christain faith wasn't a relatively recent phenemon, and could trace itself back over the centuries.

A very good example of the paradox nature of christian faith, which completely breaks with the concept of leave unto Ceaser what is Ceasars

Again, i am going to have to side with Gen-X, and Zaphod64831.


The commandment "Thou shalt no kill", has always been a real kicker in my opinion.

The commandment in itself is possibly the simplest one to grasp. There is no misreading it, it simply states that you will not kill. There are no get out clauses, no excuses, no small print saying, "except if they are non-believers."

Yet religion is the greatest cause of war. Where is your Christian justification for the crusades? Or an excuse for burning witches at the stake? Or was there a third stone tablet that had the sub-clauses? ;)

This is one of my major problems with most, if not all religions. The fact that the are very often hypocritical. Seriously, how can you expect to be taken seriously when you don't practice what you preach?

I'm probably gonna have to side with Jethro on this one, If we Take the Commandment as a Completly Iron Clad Law, then Clearly We Can't Eat Meat, we Can't Defend Ourselves against Wild Animls, we Can't even Swat A mosquito that lands on us and tries to give us malaria, come to think of it if you take it to its extreme we can't eat plants either and we Can't even fight off desease.

Clearly we have to draw a line somewhere.

Current Phillosophy on ethics States that if a community has a set of laws then the reward you get for obeying those laws is the protection those laws give you (something like that anyway)

So If someone from the Outside comes in who does not obey those laws he does not have a right to be protected by those laws and hence can be excluded from the laws themselves.

So the best place to draw that line is around members of the Comunity that obeys the 10 commandments.

so Egyptians, Witches and Romans who worship many gods are fair game, as is anyone who starts a war, or tries to stael something, or kill you.

So Sam, by your logic how are plants exculded and animals excluded so that we can eat them?

They don't worship God.

Is worshipping god one of the 10 commandments? (I don't know them all of the top of my head)
And it goes back to what Gen-X said that the commandment simply states though shalt not kill, it doesn't place any restrictions.

I'm very rusty on my commandments, I think there's one that says thou shalt worshib god and only one god or something

the argument breaks down a bit if there isn't one commandment that animals break, They don't get married so they commit adultary anyway.

As I say, you have to draw the Line somewhere and the "fair" way of doing it is not to kill those who obey the commandments.

That fair way doesnt really work in a pluristic society becasue we'd be giving Christians a license to kill members of other faits, or atheists.

I am only going to make one post on this. I really should know better than to get involved in this type of subject again but I just wanted to clarify it a bit.

The actual commandment is you should not commit murder. The king james versions translation is off slightly.

this definition is off of dictionary.com

mur·der (mûrdr)
n.

The unlawful killing of one human being by another, especially with premeditated malice.

also here is Exodus 20 1-26 from the new living translation which is supposed the be one of the most acurate tranlations:

1 Then God instructed the people as follows: 2 "I am the LORD your God, who rescued you from slavery in Egypt. 3 "Do not worship any other gods besides me. 4 "Do not make idols of any kind, whether in the shape of birds or animals or fish. 5 You must never worship or bow down to them, for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God who will not share your affection with any other god! I do not leave unpunished the sins of those who hate me, but I punish the children for the sins of their parents to the third and fourth generations. 6 But I lavish my love on those who love me and obey my commands, even for a thousand generations. 7 "Do not misuse the name of the LORD your God. The LORD will not let you go unpunished if you misuse his name. 8 "Remember to observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days a week are set apart for your daily duties and regular work, 10 but the seventh day is a day of rest dedicated to the LORD your God. On that day no one in your household may do any kind of work. This includes you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, your livestock, and any foreigners living among you. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them; then he rested on the seventh day. That is why the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.

12 "Honor your father and mother. Then you will live a long, full life in the land the LORD your God will give you. 13 "Do not murder. 14 "Do not commit adultery. 15 "Do not steal. 16 "Do not testify falsely against your neighbor. 17 "Do not covet your neighbor's house. Do not covet your neighbor's wife, male or female servant, ox or donkey, or anything else your neighbor owns."

18 When the people heard the thunder and the loud blast of the horn, and when they saw the lightning and the smoke billowing from the mountain, they stood at a distance, trembling with fear. 19 And they said to Moses, "You tell us what God says, and we will listen. But don't let God speak directly to us. If he does, we will die!" 20 "Don't be afraid," Moses said, "for God has come in this way to show you his awesome power. From now on, let your fear of him keep you from sinning!" 21 As the people stood in the distance, Moses entered into the deep darkness where God was.

22 And the LORD said to Moses, "Say this to the people of Israel: You are witnesses that I have spoken to you from heaven. 23 Remember, you must not make or worship idols of silver or gold. 24 "The altars you make for me must be simple altars of earth. Offer on such altars your sacrifices to me – your burnt offerings and peace offerings, your sheep and goats and your cattle. Build altars in the places where I remind you who I am, and I will come and bless you there. 25 If you build altars from stone, use only uncut stones. Do not chip or shape the stones with a tool, for that would make them unfit for holy use. 26 And you may not approach my altar by steps. If you do, someone might look up under the skirts of your clothing and see your nakedness.




maybe this will help a bit.

also eating animals is biblically support as noah was commanded by God to eat them.

Genesis 9:1-7 NLT

1 God blessed Noah and his sons and told them, "Multiply and fill the earth. 2 All the wild animals, large and small, and all the birds and fish will be afraid of you. I have placed them in your power. 3 I have given them to you for food, just as I have given you grain and vegetables. 4 But you must never eat animals that still have their lifeblood in them. 5 And murder is forbidden. Animals that kill people must die, and any person who murders must be killed. 6 Yes, you must execute anyone who murders another person, for to kill a person is to kill a living being made in God's image. 7 Now you must have many children and repopulate the earth. Yes, multiply and fill the earth!"



Thats all I am saying on the subject. I hope it helps.
and as always if anybody want to seriously discuss this or any biblical subject, my email is [email protected]

[Edited by jdavison on 07-17-2000 at 03:26 PM]

Having a commandment 'Thou shalt worship God' is a bit like a sign that says 'You can read this sign'.

If someone is going to take the commandments as a code of conduct, simply because they are God's commandments, then they almost certainly already believe in God.

I dont know exactly where in the bible I've read this, but it was definitly Genisis, Plants, animals, excetra are given to man for food, comfort(fur and what not, dont go there), etc. Also the Thou shall not kill, I'm sure that meant in the means of in defence, but then again, isnt it an old proverb to turn the other cheek and what not, maybe in the defence that your own life may be taken, also at the same time, events like the crusades, they killed "in the name of God" as their own justification of what they were doing, of course if you look at history many acts of violence was justified by saying in the name of God, under the certain conditions, unlike animals, Man(for you women, "Human beings") are the only creature that kills in revenge, remorse, pleasure, and for sport. But we still keep the basic intint found in most animals, that will kill for food and for protection. I think the line is drawn at, is it required for the killing, or can the event be resolved peacfully. I Belive later in the new testament, that it becomes a sin to even think about the events, for example, its a sin to think about sex with another woman, even if you havent actually commited it, the jewish(old testment based) belive that it's only a sin if you have actually commited it, I think this would apply to the killing part as well. The bible I dont belive is just a strict book of rules, but it helps set guidelines for most things we may run into in our lives, It contains it's versions of answers for almost every common event in our lives we have to face(well of course you're not going to find something specific like "what if a nuke is going to blow up my city, does that Mean I can kill people, since they are going to die anyways?"). But it also sets an example, I'm positive that humans are not perfect, but the bible for most sets an example for the ideal man, the further off that example, the further off the path of good you go.

Am I just rambeling? hehe :)

Also I notice some of you above are trying to say that if someone else worships another god it's ok to kill them, well in the Christian religion, you are also supposed to respect everyone, regardless of their religion and belife, its also said thou shall not judge, or you shall be judged. We cant justify other's according to our own belife.

I think if we look it as follows it makes sense:

The bible is a book written by a number of sages over a long period of time. Motivated by creating a solid set of guidelines, morals and values the authors wrote these rules in such a way that it would ensure a peaceful and well behaved society. Of course they had to include a commandment that would say "thou shall not kill". Imagine if they had given the permission to kill freely. It would have created chaos.

As in a previous discussion, if you take away the requirement of a God, questions are answered more easily and more sensibly.

dvst8

jdavison

It is always so kind of you to have your say and then insult every other person in here by not allowing them to rebuke what you said. Are you always so inconsiderate and selfish?

I have 2 problems with what you said :

1. If the translation of the bible is incorrect then I would say about 70% of christianity is living a lie as they use that version to live their lives.

2. If the TRUE meaning is "Thou Shalt not Murder" then David STILL murdered goliath, he never tried to talk him out of it, he didn't try to find another solution, he premeditated to kill him in cold blood. I am sure it was "unlawful" to kill someone even back then so David's act was both unlawful and certainly premeditated. Same with the soldiers who marched against Jerico, God told them to do it... thats premeditation, and I am sure there was a law in Jerico saying they shouldn't be killed.

Moses broke the Egyptian law in killing the guard and he set out to do it as well... he also had Malice in his heart... yet he was reveared by God... strange that.

Now, if you have the common decency to actually allow people to respond to what you say then I would be happy to talk about it... if however you are going to come in, say your piece and then commit sinful acts of selfishness and ignorance please don't bother coming back in here... This is a place for those who are happy to hear from EVERYONE, not just have their say and bail before they might have to stick around to see some TRUTH.

Sam

Quote:

---

So If someone from the Outside comes in who does not obey those laws he does not have a right to be protected by those laws and hence can be excluded from the laws themselves

---

This is what I struggle with here in Australia. We have all these people who sit on their ass and don't do any work at all and yet bleed our country dry on the dole (unemployment benefit). The Politically Correct people keep saying we have to pay these people and yet I keep trying to tell them that if these people are unwilling to make a contribution to our society then they shouldn't be granted our societies benefits.

Yet they continue to ignore our laws (Thou Shalt Pay Tax) and yet happily live by their rewards.

I Myself am catholic, I do find however that most critsitians I run into are bias of their own religion, you ever run into a person whose common response to justify their intentions were either "I'm a christian" or "I goto church" its said as if they have to hide something, and to justify that they are always right, I myself being a christian is often sicken by those insecure that give most of us a bad name, It will seem that man will do what he pleases, then use a higer source to justify their actions, this is simply to make themselves feel better. The guidelines were set to help give us some idea on how to keep ourselves from doing just whatever we pleased, thousands of years of written , oral history, can be distorted from one person to the next, but the basic foundation pretty much stands, one thing I have found is that most wrongful christians do two of the main things, which they usally justify themselves, 1) they flaunt their faith, its true to try to spread the faith, but to do it in the honor that you wish to say that you're always right, or to state that your opinion has a higher meaning would be to flaunt your faith true faith is best praticed within yourself 2) most will not respect people of other religions. I have sometimes seen a bitterness that any religion besides one's own will cause them to disrepect them for that reason. Disrepecting one for that, is like disrepecting one's choice. I think The commandments were broad so that you cant use loopholes in it, its the questions like Gen-X that will get us thinking about, why? Most would say that our morals are based on society's acceptance to them, if that is true then the moral status of most countries have droped a lot in the past years.

I am going to say this once. I did not argue on what naybody said. I simply printed the passage you were discussing and gave you a definition on what you were discussing that is all, I never said that you were wrong I simply showed a difference in sources since you seem completely detirmined to make an argument instead of a discussion about this. I'm sick of argueing the subject with you since you are determined not to listen to what I have said. Argueing get nowhere. The bible says that a fool and a wise man are argueing. THe passer by cant tell the difference. and before you get offended thinking that I am calling you a fool, which is not my intent or inferal, I am simply trying to say that argueing about this for either side is counter productive and anbody watching this wont know how to tell the difference. That is whay I would get involved in this and If your ego is someway build up by putting me down or whatever your reason for having a hatred for christian, I will not play into it. I simply posted specific information on the discussion to help it. I gave no opinion or feelings just the writings from the bible which was part of the discussion and a definition from it. That was it. Good bye and goodluck.

The way I understand it, it is as jdavison said, "Thou shalt not murder". In order to come to this conclusion, you have to go to the best original/earlier text you can understand. Try "interlinear" bibles.

Then you have to check the context things are being said/written in the bible. You should expect to find times when the "righteous" did sin (but I'm not saying this was a sin--I didn't research it), but I think these cases were not sins.

While jdavison and I referred to dictionary.com (at some point), unfortunately these resources are suspect as well. Any lawyer or scientist would tell you that evidence is not proof, but dictionaries can imply or explicitly say that evidence is proof.

I think it comes down to, "Learn about it for yourself, because your teachers could be in error".

Although I find bible.com a good resource, you still have to watch out for man's interpretation and doctrine. Get your own interpretation because there may come a time when only you will answer for you.

Read that I said, "MAY COME A TIME" and "YOUR TEACHERS COULD BE IN ERROR", so you don't waste your time saying I'm forcing something down your throat.

God Bless The Seeker.

Neither of you answered a very important question that I raised ... but then again I guess I wouldn't have expected you to, you might not have had an answer ;)

Both of you have basically said that the actual words "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is incorrect.

As I said before. This means that probably about 70% of printed Christian material is actually in error.

Don't you find that upsetting?


70% of people who share your faith are believing something that you are saying was not correctly translated...

With that being the case I wonder how many other things are incorrectly translated?

Just out of curiosity, how many absolute programming rules do you follow? I know people who call themselves programmers and they swear one commandments is: Thou shalt not use weak type-casting. But, gee, here we sinners are in VB-World and I don't wonder how many other things are incorrectly translated in basic. Odd, how, when you speak a different language or come from a different culture, you can condemn the violations of those who use another language or have other tradition -- almost like there was some sort of arbitrary, artificial construct at play...

My favorite commandment is: there is an exception to every rule. The correct, divine choice or typical {read egotistic/ethnocentric} interpretation as an attempt to understand it, depends entirely upon the historical instant and context in which it happens. Take anything far enough out of context and you can make it a lie or smugly, easily prove that it is incorrect.

Uh, Jethro, would you pass the pillar of VB salt, please? It was a big deal when the Star Trek episode came out with the line, "Everything I say is a lie." Take my favorite commandment (part of why it's my favorite) and it's the same thing. It's a lie; tag, you're it. No, it's a lie that it's a lie; tag, you're it. Let's run around in meaningless circles. Or better yet, dress the same argument in New Testement garb: "Everything I say is love." See? It's an artificial construct and it falls apart! But, do you see that the artificial construct is the logic?

As a kid, I thought I understood something. Atheist Nihilists on Mo-peds. What a gas! How RAD! When I got a little wrinklier and finally got lucky (Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge), I began to see how little I really knew or understood. Of course this happened only an instant before I went completely blind, being a direct result of too much Monty Python; but then, that's something completely different; and, I got better...

When you get right down to it, any significance or meaning comes when you actively participate in as full an awareness and understanding of an event as you are capable. This activity is defined in some languages as belief. I don't know what kind of experiences you've had in life. I've have the priviledge of successfully doing CPR on several people. And there's reason why it's called "Code Blue" and swear you hear the number of angels dancing on a pin when you bring a person back to life.

Now, to answer your question. I was a combat aviator. Not one of the pretty-boy fly high, fast, jet-jockeys, but a down in the dirt air cavalry helicopter pilot. Yes, I've done the dirty deed. The two Iraqi soldiers I killed were actively trying to kill me and the men with me. When I shot them, we were close enough that I got to look them in the eye. It wasn't some rocket at 1000 meters or bomb from 12,000 feet. And it haunts me; but at the moment each incident was happening, it wasn't a question of thou shalt or thou shalt not. It gets clearly rarefied into: do you or do they.

Finally, you needn't be so quick or pious to say 70% of printed Christian material is in error; though I do applaud your ability to comprehend nearly 30% of it. For now, your time might be more productively spent reading Dostoevsky, Nietzsche or Sartre.




[Edited by Mongo on 07-19-2000 at 04:00 AM]

This is getting really old. I would answer your questions and have in the past. Now with multiple topincs now, you want me to answer what wasn't a question with no factual evidence formed by your own biased opinion. I have yet to get an answer to the one question I have asked since the beginning and have asked over and over. What can you prove to be wrong in the bible? My idea of an openminded discussion is where two people ratioanly discuss a subject without getting offensive and seriously listen to what the other has to say. While some say I am not being openminded they are being hippocrits as they do not listen to what I say or change the meaning of what I have said by taking things out of context. There are those who have kept an open mind on this and still disagree and I respect that and those people have rationally tried to prove their point. Some have just flipped out and in some many words said they hate christian and hate cannot produce anything but more hate. With that you cannot have a rational open minded discussion cause you are completely biased. That is why I will not post on this subject again. And remember you reap what you sow.

Mongo

Ah, but us VB programmers don't claim that VB is the one TRUE programming language and that everyone else is living a lie :D


jdavision
Yes it is getting old... that you still show ignorance after all this time is starting to wear thin

Quote:

---

I have yet to get an answer to the one question I have asked since the beginning and have asked over and over. What can you prove to be wrong in the bible?

---

*SIGH* I did answer you TIME AND TIME AGAIN!! That you did not accept the answers does NOT mean I didn't actually answer.

If you cannot understand this simple concept then it only proves your ignorance because I gave you an answer and you didn't HEAR it. You don't have to AGREE with it but at least acknowledging the fact that I answered it would be considered "openminded"

Quote:

---

My idea of an openminded discussion is where two people ratioanly discuss a subject without getting offensive and seriously listen to what the other has to say

---

Your right. I'm the one being offensive and you are the one who doesn't listen to what others have to say.

I am happy to stop being offensive if you are actually willing to start listening

Quote:

---

While some say I am not being openminded they are being hippocrits as they do not listen to what I say or change the meaning of what I have said by taking things out of context

---

Thats quite a closed-minded view. Sometimes what you say while making perfect sense to yourself comes across as something completely different to other people. So they repeat to you what you said using their own frame of reference and you think you are being taken out of context.

You forget that you have had years of religious belief behind you. This means that you take for granted some things you consider "common" (as we who don't do as well). You simply say the word "faith" and immediately assume everyone has the same definition as you do.

How do you determine if someone listens to what you say or not? That they agree with you? Or that their reply implicitly includes a rhetoric to the question you asked?

Unfortunately I would have to say the Former only because I have answered on more than one occasion with what I personally believe is proof the Bible is flawed. The fact you now say I have NEVER answered you tells me you only consider those who listen to you as those who agree with you

I wish it were not so but that is why I get so offensive, because it is so clear that you are NOT looking for open-minded discussion, and you DON'T want people to "share" with you... unless they are either 1) Agreeing with you or 2) Not going to strongly disagree with you and there is a chance they can be "converted".

Now I might be wrong, but that is the impression that yourself and several others who have religious dispositions have put forward... and the rhetoric is the same... "I'm only going to say this once, I wont answer you, and if you REALLY want to talk honestly (read that agree) please email me". It is said time and time again by so many religious people it makes me sick to my stomach and my reaction is to be offensive... sorry.

Quote:

---

There are those who have kept an open mind on this and still disagree and I respect that and those people have rationally tried to prove their point

---

Do you respect it? Name one person to whom you respect who disagrees that you SERIOUSLY listened to what they had to say?

Quote:

---

Some have just flipped out and in some many words said they hate christian and hate cannot produce anything but more hate

---

"Hate"? I am sure a few people including myself have said "I hate it when", but that most certainly isn't hating christians and I am sure not one single person has ever uttered the phrase "I hate christians".

Again this is proof that you are not listening.. You are hearing that which you want to hear and judge it as you have done above.

I hate injustice, I hate hipocracy, I hate piousness, I hate ignorance.... But I NEVER hate a person who has made their own choice in life.

But on a lighter note, Hate CAN produce something other than hate... I HATE getting up and turning the TV channel over and so the Remote Control was invented ;)

Quote:

---

With that you cannot have a rational open minded discussion cause you are completely biased

---

So you are admitting you cannot have a rational open minded discussion... Because you are "bias" in your Love for Christ and God. Love and Hate are opposites... if it is bias to come from one point then it is bias form the other point as well.

This statement CONFIRMED that anyone who even attempts to have an "open minded discussion" while being a believer in God is already BIAS.

Do you actually REALISE you are saying this? Or are you going to say I am twisting your words? If I am twisting them tell me how they are twisted and how it is that someone is bias if they talk with hate but they are not if they talk with love???

Quote:

---

That is why I will not post on this subject again.

---

Because you cannot have an open minded discussion

Quote:

---

And remember you reap what you sow

---

And here you are refusing to sow anything... So what will you reap?

If you sow your own field too often the land becomes barren through overuse. You must vary what you sow and rotate it, bringing in new things and NOT sticking to the same thing.

I think the analogy you picked is quite apt.

It shows that you are reaping the same thing from the same field until one day it will dry up because you did not have the foresight to vary your field.

BTW, jdavison....

I respect you.


I respect you when you show the conviction of your beliefs to discuss them in open forum, I respect you when you show courteousy in replying to people to whom you have had your "say" to, I respect you when you rebut something I have said that is wrong and I respect you when you take the time to reply to a question someone has asked.

I do NOT repsect you when you are being ignorant (I dont even respect myself when I am doing that), and I do NOT respect you when you make statements like "I am going to have my say and then I wont reply", and I do NOT respect you when you make accusations that I have NEVER answered a question you posted when be BOTH know I have answered it several times.


You are both a fellow human being and a companion who shares LIFE on this planet.

How much do you respect me though? I think that is the question....

I respect your opinion in beliefs in that subject but you come acros as to say my beliefs are completely wrong. That may not be your intent but that how they are and others have shared the same opinion I have about it including the non believers. The fact that you have conisistently refered to us as those people completely stereo typing use from my perspective and you have said many time that you hate those people with an obvious reference to christians. I do feel that most of what you think is proof against the bible is if and simply based on what others have said. I do feel however that the meaning of the bible nomatter the translation is acurate although is you want to have a indepth study you need to translate the actual scriptures themselves. Unfortunately your come across as very anti christian and as a know it all on almost everything from what I have seem in most of your post on this forumm although I do commend your knowledge in the computer field. This is from my perspective and I'm sure other may feel differently depending on what their opinion is on the subject. But you have made many assumption that really can't be backed up. I don't believe you have really sat down and read what is said in the bible fully. now this is how things come across to me and I'm almost positive that you probable think the same about me. The fact is that science can't produce anything that is factual that can disprove the bible. Theories are not fact, they are an explanation that fits with what is known. I accept science and if you think that can produce an answer for everything, that is great, I am happy for your dedication and belieth in it. I have my proof for myself. I wished I could share it with you but that can't be done. You have to find your own if you are to be convinced. Also I have never given any opinion pertaining to this thread. I simply posted the relevent scripture and deffinitions on here to help support the discussion and even though I may not post again, I do pay attention to what goes on afterwards. also, dont assume I have been something when you don't know. I have not been a believer all my life, I have only been saved for 2 years. I have done many other things before then and they definately werent christain. as a matter of fact I despised christianinity and put them down as fools every chance I had. That was the old me. I had done a good bit of research and study here and there the last few year trying to disprove the bible and guess what, I couldn't. Yeah, I may have been able to give reasons not to believe and other answers but no solid proof. That still didn't work but it made a difference later on. Don't take this as saying your at a stage and you will change like you did before cause I'm not saying that. That was me, you are different. Maybe someday you will, maybe not, thats not my call. Also the reason I would like to coninue these discussions through email is its alot easier to answer everybody one on one. one more thing, i respect dvst8 and he completely disagrees with me but atleast he has come across respectful and openminded.

As with every other post I make, If you would like to seriously discuss this, you can email me at [email protected]

The bible can be more difficult to get the initial surface meaning and deeper meanings than these posts, but these posts had the answer "kill <> murder". How much more difficult will it be for you to grasp what the bible is saying?

Surely anyone can see that there are different bible translations out there which obviously introduces human error. Doesn't that tell you that you might want to try to get the best original text that you can understand? If the bible claims to be inerrant, then which version is so? Obviously the first languages it was penned in; Hebrew and Greek.

Here is another "paradox" for those struggling with the "jealous God".

Ephesians 4:26 Be angry but do not sin;

HarryW touched on the matter of will versus free-will: We are commanded to believe, but we are in a state of being spiritually dead.

Romans 9 will probably piss off non-believers and strengthen the faith of believers. (I encourage this type of strengthening in your/our present beliefs--gets us closer to "the end game").

[Edited by VirtuallyVB on 07-20-2000 at 12:22 AM]

As per your request my email is on its way

Ok VirtuallyVB,

Which one IS the original text?
Where is it located?
How long has it been there?
How do you verify its authenticity?
How do you PROVE it was written 2000 years ago?
How do you PROVE who wrote it?
How do you PROVE "where" it was written?

I think the oldest surviving text are the Dead Sea Scrolls. I can't swear on it, but i think that is right. I think they have been shown in museums etc, so they must have been dated, but i can't remember how old they are.

Another biblical artifact that is supposed to still exist is the Arc of the Covenant. It is apparently kept in some obscure temple, can't remember the country of the top of my head, under armed guard. So we have no proof they really have it, because they wont let any one near it. Which says to me that it isn't really there. For those of you who don't know, it is supposed to contain the original stone tablets the ten commandments are engraved in.

While we are on the topic, the arc is quite an interesting artifact. It was supposed to carry the power of god in it, and had the power to strike down the enemies of God. They have reports from that time that people received massive burns, and that others died while near the arc. Seeing as i do not believe in god, i have another explanation for it. The descriptions of these burns match the sort of burns you would get if you were placed near a great source of radiation. So were they just carrying around a load of plutonium, not knowing what they had, and claiming it was the power of god?


VirtuallyVB
I am certainly struggling with a Jealous god. Not the idea of one, i know he shows aspects of most human emotions, but i do have a problem with it. We were made in his image. Therefore we will gain all of these emotions that god has. Yet we are given all of these rules to live by, told to control our emotions, yet God himself cannot control his own. How are we expected to keep our emotions in check, when a Perfect being can't control his?

And if the commandment was actually "Thou shalt not commit Murder", what has Christianity been doing all these years. I am going to have to point out the burning of witches again. This was not only murder, but premeditated murder. Witch hunters actually went out with the set purpose of killing a women, they suspected, and dubiously proved, to be a witch.

Did god not murder the whole of humanity, bar Noah and his family. Again premeditated, as Noah was warned and was allowed to build a boat. God knew what he wanted to do, kill of all of humanity, and he worked out a way to do it, and then executed his plan. I think we have the psychology of a serial killer there.

in my opinion the bible was written as a guide to the cristian faith. there have been many translations and many things my have been changed to suit peoples needs over 2000 years. i do not for one beleive in the bible. i do not beleive god exists NOW. a higher being very well might have done. the star in the sky, UFO dropping off jesus maybe. who knows 2000 years is a long time. but if someone wants to beleive in God and have a religion then that is fine by me. i don't see a problem if it helps them through life.

actually this 'God' made a typo he meant 'THOU SHALL KILL'

I find it funny some of you are looking for the exact definition and exceptions to thou shall not kill, and yet at the same time refuse to take some of the current text into consideration which the 'thou shall not kill' sin came from? But if you're really interested, in a search engine try to find "Dead Sea Scrolls" they were said to be the first version of the bible to have ever been discovered, and that the bible after which was an alteration by the greek and romans. I dont have the details on it tho.

For the witch hunters.

Lets not confuse the acts of man with Gods. Those were act made by man, although supposedly in God's name, not by God. This was sprung forth by fear. Fear did not come from god, For he did not give us a spirit of fear. Although the laws of the old testiment commanded they put to death, the trial was not actually openminded and the fears of man caused this. I think we need to remember this when we are talking about God because we seem to tie our own behavior as what God wanted, which is usually wrong.

The Arc

I agree that the arc has not been proven to exist. That which they believe may be the arc cannot be backed up. One of the more interesting artifacts in my opinion is the Shroud of Toren. Ever sensible test has shown it to be authenic and even the carbon dating when redone considering they event that have happened to the shroud throughout its life dated it to the time of Jesus. Also the image was burned into the fabric by what appeared to be radiation creating a negative image. although there were traces of paint found, it was more of a residual dust and was in no way part of the image. It has blood stains on it and the image showed sign of wound that matched those of Christ's in the bible and other historical documents. I find this truely amazing.

About a jeaslous God

I'm not sure I can explain this so that it can be understood, but I'll try anyway. Lets start with sin though.

this is from dictionary.com
sin1 (sn)
n.

1.A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
2.Theology.
A.Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
2.A condition of estrangement from God resulting from
such disobedience.
3.Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong. See Synonyms at offense.

All our pretty close, but the definition most commonly used for biblical purposes is 2 A, atleast from my understanding. In this case, God can not sin. God has given us emotions and feelings to be like him and understand him better in some small way. If you are a parrent, when you are a child and he show some higher disire to be with some one else parent, wouldn't you be a bit jealous to some degree. Now imagine that you are willing to give this child everything he need or wants and he chooses another noexistent parent. I would be really hurt and jealous by this as a parent.

Noah and the flood

Yes God did wipe out almost all of man kind, But mankind was tainted at this point. Let look at genesis chapter 6 from NLT


1 When the human population began to grow rapidly on the earth, 2 the sons of God saw the beautiful women of the human race and took any they wanted as their wives.

3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not put up with humans for such a long time, for they are only mortal flesh. In the future, they will live no more than 120 years."

4 In those days, and even afterward, giants F24 lived on the earth, for whenever the sons of God had intercourse with human women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes mentioned in legends of old. 5 Now the LORD observed the extent of the people's wickedness, and he saw that all their thoughts were consistently and totally evil.

6 So the LORD was sorry he had ever made them. It broke his heart. 7 And the LORD said, "I will completely wipe out this human race that I have created. Yes, and I will destroy all the animals and birds, too. I am sorry I ever made them."

8 But Noah found favor with the LORD. 9 This is the history of Noah and his family. Noah was a righteous man, the only blameless man living on earth at the time. He consistently followed God's will and enjoyed a close relationship with him. 10 Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

11 Now the earth had become corrupt in God's sight, and it was filled with violence. 12 God observed all this corruption in the world, and he saw violence and depravity everywhere.

13 So God said to Noah, "I have decided to destroy all living creatures, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. Yes, I will wipe them all from the face of the earth! 14 "Make a boat F25 from resinous wood and seal it with tar, inside and out. Then construct decks and stalls throughout its interior. 15 Make it 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. F26 16 Construct an opening all the way around the boat, 18 inches F27 below the roof. Then put three decks inside the boat – bottom, middle, and upper – and put a door in the side. 17 "Look! I am about to cover the earth with a flood that will destroy every living thing. Everything on earth will die! 18 But I solemnly swear to keep you safe in the boat, with your wife and your sons and their wives. 19 Bring a pair of every kind of animal – a male and a female – into the boat with you to keep them alive during the flood. 20 Pairs of each kind of bird and each kind of animal, large and small alike, will come to you to be kept alive. 21 And remember, take enough food for your family and for all the animals."

22 So Noah did everything exactly as God had commanded him.

In verse 7 he said mankind is totally wicked.
in chapter 8 it say Noah found favor with God, which would mean,atleast to me, noah must be doing something right in God's eyes. Also in verse 4 it talks about the Sons of God sleeping with human women and this greated the giants of the myths and legend. Now the angels of God are loyal and obey him so they can't be the sons of god, all that is left are sainten and the fallen angels who follow him. So mankind is tainted by genetic line of evil along with there immorality. I think noah was the only pure genetic line for humans. And to remove the wickedness and clean up the human race, God had to destoy them all.

Does that help at all or make any sense of it?

I have a book which has the deadsea scrolls and a follow along translation but there was alot of deterioration of the documents and it's really hard to get the actual meaning from them. There is alot of cool information in them but to use them as anything else really isn't a good idea because to much information is missing to be truely useful. Aleast in my opinion.

Also thanks Gen-X and all those who emailed me, I greatly appreciate it.

Gen-X
Are you clowning around? I said try to find the best original texts. (Implying "the ones you have access to and can understand"). I don't have a copy, sorry. But an English text surely is not the solution here. I thought you saw this with the French derived word (or some such) which was found in an English text. Someone suggested that you try to find the stone tablets. It looks like you're clowning around.
Which one IS the original text? Of the texts you consider, the newest one is NOT the original.
Where is it located? Not the one you just bought and read from.
How long has it been there? Use the same techniques you use to date anything (they are flawed as well, but it's better than nothing)
How do you verify its authenticity? I've seen data on how Homer's present texts (and others) are less authentic than the bibles present texts when compared with the earliests texts of each.
How do you PROVE it was written 2000 years ago? See "How long has it been there?"
How do you PROVE who wrote it? The human secretary wrote it (and scribes for the translations). Do you struggle with that one? I think the bible says that God penned the stone tablets (But Moses could have taken 40 days to carve them--not to mention the "reprint"--I think I'll look into the timing of the reprint). I think Monty Python was going to introduce 15 commandments, but a tablet broke and he introduced 10. ;)
How do you PROVE "where" it was written? Ask an archaeologist.

Iain17
"The wages of sin is death" I don't have an exact reference for you now. So is the judgement premeditated and therefore wrong? Now you can struggle with your definition of murder. The argument here might be, "When were they told that they would be punished if they sinned?". You're generating alot of required research. The quote I used is New Testament, you'd have to read everything before Noah to see if they were warned in the Old Testament and if the warning was documented (and noting that it was Moses that wrote the O.T. [I believe] who came after Noah). It can probably be argued that you don't need the documentation before Noah to say that they were warned, but I think the documentation is there. Either way, it was written after Noah's time, so now what? In the N.T. it speaks of the law being written on our hearts (Christian and non-Christian) so they most likely knew that they were sinning.

VirtuallyVB
No I am not clowning around and I am insulted you would think so.

Read my questions again... I am asking you HOW you prove that ANY version of ANY Bible that you have came from the source you believe it did.

Please stop fooling around, they were SERIOUS questions.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are NOT the bible regardless what is in them they do not prove the content of the Bible, how it got there, who wrote it and when it was written.

jdavison
Oh and as for the shroud, I saw a report a few years back that dated it in Greek times (ie 11th Century I think) and said it was NOT the shroud Jesus was wrapped in and that when using spectrography to generate a negative image of the shroud it showed that it had been faked.

But about the "Man vs God" issue. You say the witch hunts was MAN and not GOD. How then do we tell the difference between what really IS Done by God and that which is done by man?

I assume the destruction of Jerico was done by God, but you say the witches was done by Man. Surely that means you are simply making the determination based on the RESULT.

If Good Result then Done by God
If Bad Result then Done by Man

I find that not only convenient but completely typical of Christianity to look at RESULTS to decide what the original intention was, and thats lame!

[Edited by Gen-X on 07-20-2000 at 06:41 PM]

If I remember correctly, there are two images of Christ on the Shroud of Turin, head to head as the shroud was draped over him. I remember something that said one of those images is about a foot shorter than the other. Why is that?

Some believe that the shroud was created by Leonardo Da Vinci, as a first experiment into photography. Not that I'm saying that's necessarily true.

You say I don't answer you. I say you don't answer me. Apparently we both say that we answer the other. It's almost a given that we arrive at different conclusions in the face of the same evidence. The question here is, "Are we looking at the same evidence?" But even if we are, I think we'll come to opposing conclusions.

In attempting to decipher what you are trying to get at (since my answer didn't satisfy you); do you have an answer to your questions for any old book other than the bible? (Such as Homer's Iliad or Plato writing about Socrates).

It is recorded in the bible in many places that the human author was instructed (or claimed to be instructed) to "write it in a book". The human author (which I have called the secretary) is named, and there is evidence that these author's existed and that the historical rulers existed. Scribes would make copies and hand down the documents to generations. I mentioned that certain present books have been shown to be less accurate than their oldest known texts as compared with the present bible and known older texts.

Obviously a human wrote the bible. I would be more interested in the seemingly consistent style of various books in the bible (which are claimed to have different human authors/secretaries) in comparison to the earliest known texts when trying to understand who wrote it (or dictated it to the secretary--so to speak).

Let me know if you checked out the timeline for Moses to bring down the original tablet and "reprinted/carved" tablets. I didn't check it yet. Even if the reprint took much shorter than the first "printing", the non-believer could claim that Moses wrote two copies in the first place and intentionally broke the first one in public (after the 40 days I think) to give the illusion that the second copy took a shorter time. Oh well. There is a scripture about this generation wanting a sign and that the only sign that will be given is the sign of Jonah. (Which many Christians interpret to be Jesus dying and being resurrected--and even that is not accepted by non-believers).

VirtuallyVB

I'm sorry... When you started talking about secretaries and asked if I was clowning around I took the rest of your post to be a satirical reply to what you thought were not serious questions.

Quote:

---

do you have an answer to your questions for any old book other than the bible?

---

Not relevant. I don't read books and take them to indicate the absolute TRUTH in the world. If they are history books then I know they were written by the "victors" and read the "story" for the purpose it was written.

Quote:

---

It is recorded in the bible

---

[Q1] Which Bible? THE Bible? Which one?

This is what I am getting at. Which is THE Bible?

[Q2]Where is it located?

Quote:

---

Scribes would make copies and hand down the documents to generations

---

Reading was only for the rich up until the industrial revolution so this means only the rich and powerful HAD copies. It would have taken a Scribe the better part of several YEARS to transcribe a SINGLE copy of over a thousand pages of text.

[Q3]How do you explain that?

Quote:

---

I mentioned that certain present books have been shown to be less accurate than their oldest known texts as compared with the present bible and known older texts

---

So this means that at least some forms of the Bible are flawed... which was my original statement. Now you are agreeing.

[Q4]And if "some" are less accurate, how do you know the rest aren't?

[Q5]Doesn't it bother you that there are a lot of Christians out there following an "Innacurate" bible?

Quote:

---

I would be more interested in the seemingly consistent style of various books in the bible

---

If I do a verse of 5 lines, with the first 2 rhyming and the second 2 rhyming with the last matching phonetically with the first... does that mean I am Shakespeare?

Anyone can copy a "style"... I myself have even said things SEVERAL times to which people have said "That came from the Bible didn't it!!" but they were wrong, I just used their "style" to say it.

Any "scribe" or "secretary" that was good at their job can copy a style.

As an additional note. What if the "dictator" was someone in the 6th or 7th century who created that which you commonly refer to as the "Bible", you WOULD get matching styles.

Quote:

---

Let me know if you checked out the timeline for Moses to bring down the original tablet and "reprinted/carved" tablets

---

[Q6]Speaking of that... How do we know Moses didn't carve the tablets himself????

His people were bickering and fighting, committing sinful acts and worshiping golden bulls... He might have gone up to the mountain to carve out HIS rules and then come down claiming God had given them to him.

Nobody SAW the burning bush but him, nobody SAW the tablets made but him. The fact that the commandments so closely FIT the problems he was facing at the time is curious


So. I have 6 questions in here that I think are pertinent. I shall await your answers.

Ok I don't get this, this is a vb forum you want to go argue about the bible go to Ireland and fight for it

and every one in there right mind knows that the commandment says thou shalt not murder!

absalom

Quote:

---

this is a vb forum you want to go argue about the bible go to Ireland and fight for it

---

Very democratic of you. I guess "freedom of speech" and all that stuff is lost on you?

Quote:

---

and every one in there right mind knows that the commandment says thou shalt not murder!

---

Really?

"Knows its murder" = "right mind"

"Hello Mr Chinaman... Is the commandment in the Bible 'Kill' or 'Murder'?"

"The what? The Bible? never heard of it"

I guess he isn't in his "right mind"

"Hello Mr Indian... Is the commandment in the Bible 'Kill' or 'Murder'?"

"I do not believe in the Bible"

Well... I guess he isn't in his right mind either.


Is there anyone else you want to insult?

So far you have insulted at least half of the worlds population and even about 25% of the Christian community as well.

Not bad for only your 13th post. :)

Gen-X, give him a break. That's not what he meant and you know it.

Fair point about Moses... I'd be more suspiscious of Mary with her story about immaculate conception ;)

I think the minimum you should come away with IS the fact that an English copy will most likely be flawed. Hebrew and Greek are the most likely accurate texts. My point has been that in order to truly study the meaning, you may have to go to such an early text.

I left a church that pretty much insisted on the NIV version and I disagreed with what they were telling us of the Greek meaning in a critical passage (from the Christian perspective).

***********************************************************
BTW; How do you do the cool "indented quote or code" thingy?
***********************************************************

You said, "Not relevant. I don't read books and take them to indicate the absolute TRUTH in the world. If they are history books then I know they were written by the "victors" and read the "story" for the purpose it was written."
If these questions are irrelevant for any book, why ask them of the bible and why post this thread?
Which one IS the original text?
Where is it located?
How long has it been there?
How do you verify its authenticity?
How do you PROVE it was written 2000 years ago?
How do you PROVE who wrote it?
How do you PROVE "where" it was written?"

Also, it would show the type of answers that would be acceptable to you.

First of all, many people saw the burning bush (from a distance). My point about Moses IS that maybe he could have carved two copies with the "evil" intention of breaking one in public and then going up again to retrieve the "reprint/recarving". So, even if I find that the "reprint/recarving" took a much shorter time than the "original", it is probably not good evidence for being "written by God's own hand". But I am interested and have not yet checked that out.

VirtuallyVB
Firstly I have a problem with "Greek" texts. Considering that the Greeks have their own panthenon I find it strange that you would use the texts from a people who believe in multiple deities for a thousand years while their "biblical" texts were running around.

Secondly... Do you know Hebrew? Why aren't there more Christians out there running around learning Hebrew so they don't get it wrong?

As for the codes, when you make a reply have a look at the top part of the message and click on a link called "vb codes", it will show you have to do them all.

Quote:

---

If these questions are irrelevant for any book, why ask them of the bible and why post this thread?

---

Because the bible is touted as being 100% accurate, 100% TRUTH and never wrong (hence the whole discussion about "proving the bible wrong").

When people make such grandiose claims it is easy to void them... Ask anyone about a history book, ask people from the other side and they will tell you the history books have it wrong... then again, we never CLAIMED that history books ever had it 100% accurate, 100% TRUTH and never wrong.

So it is irrelevant to ask that question of any book because the "claims" being made are not the same.

Quote:

---

Which one IS the original text?
Where is it located?
How long has it been there?
How do you verify its authenticity?
How do you PROVE it was written 2000 years ago?
How do you PROVE who wrote it?
How do you PROVE "where" it was written?"

---

Can you answer these questions of the "Hebrew and Greek" texts you keep mentioning? I am yet to actually get an asnwer that doesn't have you being jovial.

Quote:

---

First of all, many people saw the burning bush (from a distance).

---

Are you sure about this? It was my impression that Moses went up into the mountains for "40 days and 40 nights" and that God came to "him and him alone" in the form of the bush. Others may have seen "light" coming over the mountain top but I don't ever remember there being an account of anyone BUT Moses seeing the bush burn.


The bottom line is that there is no difference between someone "claiming" to write something under the influence of God and someone who might ACTUALLY do so.

I could tell you "I write God's words not mine"... but what would make you believe or accept it?

That I agreed with your philosophy?
That the end result was good?
That you had some corroborating evidence?

Just how exactly can you tell the difference between someone who is making false claims and someone who is claiming in truth?

When you can do that... THEN you can place some credibility in texts that were written by the hands of men and say it is IMPOSSIBLE that they are incorrect or even bias towards the writers own agenda.

If you know that the bible was not written in English and you know that translations can be in error, isn't it more likely that an older Greek text will be more accurate for the Old Testament? How would you suggest writing to a person who reads Greek and worships multiple gods that they should worship one God?

No, I don't know Hebrew. I suppose the Christians that take whatever is put before them need not go to the original texts. It is when a further search of truth is desired that people go to the best sources they can authenticate. Obviously texts not in the original languages are less authentic. This is the point I would expect a rational person seeking truth to come to. If you don't come to this conclusion, don't flame me, this is my opinion (notice the part that says, "I would expect")
However, I have had people that speak Hebrew and don't believe the bible to tell me (translate) what the words are saying. I also have had people that believe the bible do translations for me. My most recent one (thank God for the Internet) was finally to find out if my speculation that "God" is probably the 3rd word in the first sentence of the bible. This is based totally on my own personal belief of harmony and harmonics and God's exact interest in numbers (there's a whole chapter named "Numbers") and a possible Bible Code. Also, the first sentence of the bible is 7 words. But thats very deep stuff. Engineering has helped me get familiar with Greek and it is easier for me to read than Hebrew.

I don't see why you say it is irrelevant when you are not even asking about the claims at this point. I don't think this is being fair to the search for truth. Why trust any text of any dead author?

Actually, I meant they saw something burning but didn't know it was a bush that wasn't consumed. Regardless, even my revised statement needs to be verified. The only reference coming to mind is from a movie. Exodus 3 doesn't explicitly say that others saw the light from the burning bush (although someone-not me-might argue that tending the flock required more than one person). Exodus 4 talks about Moses's staff which turns into a serpent. You'd have to follow Exodus for the other signs with the staff. Did Egypt have Jewish slaves? If so, why were they set free (according to the Egyptians)? Did any if all of the Egyptian first born die right before the exodus? Is that proof for you that God said it would be so? Was Pharoah's army blocked by fire and then drowned in the once parted waters? Again, where the bible stops and the movies continue is critical here for truth. There is alot to verify here.

While I would be interested in Egyptian history to verify these things, even if their history did verify it, would that be acceptable to you? I would think not.

Also, I don't think you used "jovial" accurately. The way I perceived you intended its meaning, I disagree with. How's that for internet text comunication?

VirtuallyVB

So you are telling me that you don't even know the language in which the most sacred book in your life was written in???

Obviously it is such a big part of your life that you are happy to have others translate it for you and believe at every step of the way you are being told the truth.

Some people may call that "gullability" :)

Quote:

---

I don't see why you say it is irrelevant when you are not even asking about the claims at this point. I don't think this is being fair to the search for truth. Why trust any text of any dead author?

---

Exactly. Why trust any books unless you can "repeat" whatever they are saying?

I get a science book that tells me adding sulfur to Water causes an explosion... I go out and I do it, guess what??? it explodes.

You are claiming that on the whole, the Bible is TRUE and in the majority has not been tampered with to any great extent for nearly 2000 years.

What I am claiming is that for the exact reasons I have stated it is folly to believe it has not been changed or tampered with and that its information is not reliable. The fact that a lot of what is written was done in the context of the time (It should be 10 cubits long, sacrificing sheep etc) shows that it wasn't "meant" to be something we swallow whole today.

Quote:

---

Actually, I meant they saw something burning but didn't know it was a bush that wasn't consumed

---

So Moses came down the mountain and said it was a Bush that wasn't consumed and the crowd believed him... There is that gullable word again :)

Quote:

---

Is that proof for you that God said it would be so?

---

If you could prove that the first born of every Egyptian at the time died on the same night then I would believe you... unfortunately it is not recorded anywhere in Egyptian history that there was such a great disaster as that. There might have been a plague that struck down a lot of children, and as the first borns are the eldest they would be more likely to be outside and thus easier to contract the plague... But taking that to an illogical step that says "God killed hte first born of every Egyptian" is just zealous speculation.

Quote:

---

While I would be interested in Egyptian history to verify these things, even if their history did verify it, would that be acceptable to you? I would think not.

---

If Egyptian history verified it, and I mean TRUE verification... not simply a recording of an event that you personally fashion into your own WANTS, then yes I would believe it. That both histories record a flood, or a parting of the Red Sea isn't proof of anything... it only shows that both parties witnessed the event and because they were ignorant of its causes they wrote it from their own cultural point of view...

"The waters just parted... it MUST be God because its a miracle"

Quote:

---

I could tell you "I write God's words not mine"... but what would make you believe or accept it?

That I agreed with your philosophy?
That the end result was good?
That you had some corroborating evidence?

---

So are you going to answer this? or are you going to ignore it again because you can't answer it.

*sigh*, once again I put an extremely valid point in here and all you focus on is "Jovial"... Most people call that "Evasion" and it leaves me wondering why you try so hard to avoid these questions.

If the waters did part, how would you explain it?

Sam said a while ago that if the wind conditions were exactly right, it could happen. Now that's pretty damn unlikely. In fact, I'd believe that bats developed their special ears, voice and brain at the same time before I'd believe the waters parted by accident ;)

The reason I post to this particular thread is because the actual topic exposes, in my opinion, reliance upon a flawed English translation of a Hebrew document. That is why I said that minimally, you should get so and so from this discussion.

Quote:

---

I think the minimum you should come away with IS the fact that an English copy will most likely be flawed. Hebrew and Greek are the most likely accurate texts. My point has been that in order to truly study the meaning, you may have to go to such an early text.

---

Thanks for showing me how to do the quote thing.

1)I at least know that for this text (the bible), there are things written in my language that are flawed translations of the text that was written before it.
2)I can go to a Greek text and cross-reference a Greek-English dictionary.
3)I also know that dictionaries are flawed.
4)Mostly whenever you use a dictionary you are comitting this, "You are happy to have others translate it for you and believe at every step of the way you are being told the truth." Even when a word is in your own language it may need "translation" or "looking up in a dictionary". Are you arguing that Gen-X is gullible because he uses a dictionary?

You on the other hand, take what a dictionary says as fact. You believe that evidence is proof because a dictionary implied it. If you found one that explicitly said it, you would also take it as fact. Scientists, Lawyers and Logicians would disagree with you, yet you claim to be using logic in your search for truth.

"Repeatability" is a limitation of the scientific method as well as its strength. You never get a second chance to make a first impression.

You dismiss my questions as being irrelevant and then continue asking more questions and accuse me of being evasive.

You might want to look up the word "focus" and compare that to the other content I posted where I mentioned "jovial".

It was refreshing while we seemed like we were covering ground, but now it seems like my first impression of Gen-X is back (I'm sure you'll say that your 1st impression of me is back). This addresses another of your questions:

Quote:

---

"That I agreed with your philosophy?"

---

My answer to you here is Consensus Is Not Truth.
That's why I've mentioned how I may disagree with what is placed before me in the form of texts, or Pastors, etc. You had turned that around to attack me once.

Quote:

---

That both histories record a flood, or a parting of the Red Sea isn't proof of anything... it only shows that both parties witnessed the event and because they were ignorant of its causes they wrote it from their own cultural point of view...

---

How do our great informed scientists explain it? A few feet shallow is a joke compared to the claim.

I think I answered your topic thread question and look forward to other threads. This one is getting old. If in my opinion, you are really struggling with something that I can assist with, I'll post. Thanks for pointing out the block quote tag.

Was it Shakespeare that said, "To thine own self be true."? Good luck in your search for truth.

[Edited by VirtuallyVB on 07-28-2000 at 12:49 PM]

VirtuallyVB

This is very trying.

You don't even know the REAL language of a book you believe... I find that not only hypocritical but also non-sensical.

Would I believe in a book on Maths or Science if I did not understand its language? Would I put so much trust in it if I had to go back to translations time and time again?

Quote:

---

You on the other hand, take what a dictionary says as fact

---

Only because I have validated it as fact. I use the word to other people and they understand me which means the meaning of the word was used in the correct context. Occasionally there can be misunderstandings at which time a Dictionary is consulted and you determine if one of you hasn't understood it properly.

That is completely different to reading a textbook that has been translated possibly 200 times over the passed 2000 years and cannot even be agreed upon by people who share the same view?!?!?!

At least the MAJORITY of society agrees with the dictionary, which after all is the purpose of it.

Quote:

---

You never get a second chance to make a first impression

---

Why not? if I were to meet someone and then not see them for the next 10 years, could it not be said that there is no knowledge between us and thus would replicate all of the conditions required by a "first impression"?

Quote:

---

You dismiss my questions as being irrelevant

---

At least I actually ACKNOWLEDGE your questions!!

Quote:

---

My answer to you here is Consensus Is Not Truth.

---

I love the way you answer one of my questions by taking it totally out of context.

I asked you (and I will quote myself)

Quote:

---

I could tell you "I write God's words not mine"... but what would make you believe or accept it?

That I agreed with your philosophy?
That the end result was good?
That you had some corroborating evidence?

---

Please explain to me how "Consensus is Not Truth" answers what would make you believe or accept me telling you that something I had written came from God?


(Yes I did bold this and underline it on purpose... perhaps then you will actually read it for a change)

Quote:

---

How do our great informed scientists explain it? A few feet shallow is a joke compared to the claim

---

So you are telling me you know how deep the sea was 2000 years ago? Is that what you are claiming??????

Quote:

---

I think I answered your topic thread question and look forward to other threads

---

Yes you did answer it and the answer was pretty much as I was expecting. That the Bible isn't as correct as people would believe. That means there are a portion of christians out there who are following incorrect Bibles and that leads to the natural curiosity of what else is NOT correct.

Quote:

---

You don't even know the REAL language of a book you believe... I find that not only hypocritical but also non-sensical.

---

Your statement is nonsense. Pick any text originally written in a foreign language, but you also have a copy in your own language. If you question a verse that you read in your own language and want to study it's real meaning, you are saying it is invalid to use a "Foreign Language to English" dictionary. I don't think you truly believe this is invalid.

Do you still believe that evidence is proof? Or do you now disagree with the dictionary and now agree with Lawyers, Scientists and Logicians that evidence can lead to a proof, but is not itself proof? This exposes the flaw in your "majority" statement as I have stated, "Consensus Is Not Truth".

Quote:

---

Why not? if I were to meet someone and then not see them for the next 10 years, could it not be said that there is no knowledge between us and thus would replicate all of the conditions required by a "first impression"?

---

You can't seriously be saying that a second time is a first time. I know you are sharper than this. Please at least be true to yourself here.

"Consensus Is Not Truth" I said that this addresses another of your questions, not that it addresses all of your questions. What makes me believe that no further things written (or so-called "prophesied") will be from God is Revelation22:18-19.

Telling me that you read all my questions and concluded they are irrelevant is a poor "acknowledgment" at best. What is obviouse here is arogant dismissal of my questions or your inability to provide an answer.

The claim in the bible is Exodus14:28 The waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen and all the host of Pharaoh that had followed them into the sea; not so much as one of them remained. 29 But the people of Israel walked on dry ground through the sea, the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left. Whether it was the "Red Sea", I didn't notice in this chapter.
This gives you an indication of depth. Deep enough to kill Pharoah's army and surely not shallow receeding waters since the claim is an easy walk through on the dry ground.

VirtuallyVB

I loved the way you got around that one.

You don't even know the language of your own God... what does that say? "Oh hi God, yeah I know all of your work was written in this langauge but heck, I grew up knowing english so I can't be bothered learning YOUR language... I'll just stick with my own and ask friends to translate it if I find the translation a bit iffy"

Lets say your son grew up in China and spoke Mandarin... How would you feel if he didn't bother to learn YOUR language?


On to Evidence and Proof.

Evidence is the Proof of "something". While I agree with you that evidence does not necessarily prove that which you intend it to prove it most certain DOES prove something.

Secondly, I would like you to show me a published piece of work either by a Lawer, Logician or Scientist that states evidence and proof are not linked.

As for it being a flaw in my majority statement, I was not asking for a conscencious of opinion... I was asking for others to reproduce what I had found such that its validity stands up through weight of information... which is what a scientist does.

Have you ever heard a scientist go around "asking" if people agree with his experiment and then by "majority" claims it is right? Of course not!!!

Quote:

---

You can't seriously be saying that a second time is a first time. I know you are sharper than this. Please at least be true to yourself here.

---

But what is the definition of "first time"?

It is the coming with no preconceptions, meeting without any information of the person to whom you are meeting. If that is the total extent of the definition then yes you can recreate (under special circumstances) a "first time".

Lets say one of the people had amnesia. You could claim this person isn't the same one they were before and so a meeting would be a "first time".

Don't get confused with an actuality of "numbers" with the definitions behind what they mean.

Quote:

---

What is obviouse here is arogant dismissal of my questions or your inability to provide an answer.

---

Actually, the arrogance stems from someone who glosses over ones questions and then asks there own as if they deserve to HAVE answers but not GIVE them.

It seems both of us feel the other does not answer questions and so we continue the cycle by not giving full "focus" to the others questions until we feel our own have been answered.

Quote:

---

This gives you an indication of depth

---

No, it means you can read from a book that you already have presupposed is telling you the truth. That doesn't mean you have knowledge of what the world climate was like 2000 years ago.

Now if I were a story teller and I thought this was a big event I would have made the water standing 200 feet high (ala Prince of Egypt from Walt Disney).

You come into this with a Bible in your hand as if the words in it are more factual than the world you actually exist in and the ONLY thing you offer in evidence for the occurance of these things are the words in it.


I have said it before and I will say it again.. the fact you already believe is what gives validity to what you see as being "truth".

Quote:

---

Would I believe in a book on Maths or Science if I did not understand its language? Would I put so much trust in it if I had to go back to translations time and time again?

---

not wishing to contradict you here but we've had many an argument about string theory etc. String Theory is written entirely in maths (go to a university libry or something and get a proper book on string theory) There's no way I'd claim to understand maths like that, and I doubt you claim to, so when you read books on string theory, quantum mechanics and general relitivity. They are translated into English, yet you put a lot of trust in it indeed.

Sam

The trust I put into it is based on how much logic and reason it seems to indicate. I don't just accept it on face value because the apparent "Author" happens to be an omniscient being that created everything ;)

Christians don't claim the Bible was writtan by God, they claim it was written by profits etc, the argument stands stronger for books translated from maths so complicated that few people in the world could hope to understand it, translated into english. The Bible is just stories which don't loose much in translation, it's just when the text is taken literally word for word (as it so often is in dispelling the attacks on large holes in the text) that we can claim the translation argument.

I know this was discussed quite a few posts back but I just wanted to add another comment about the shroud.

Gen-x
The original carbon dating dated for that time but it didn't take into account the history of the shroud(mostly the fire it was damaged by). When they recalculated the age of the shroud, it dated to the time of Jesus' death.

I will be trying to catch up on everything since I just moved into my house this past week and my wife had our second child.

Later

Sam

Quote:

---

Christians don't claim the Bible was writtan by God, they claim it was written by profits etc

---

actually they claim it is the Word of God. I think it is obvious that humans put pen to paper, but Christians claim it was God speaking through them.

dvst8

I dont think that the carbon dating process is inacurate but I do think one of it's fall backs is that you have to know what events have occured in the history of the object you are dating. How can you trace the events back to the earths origin. There have been floods, fire, etc... that affect the process. Then again I believe the earth is older than what most christians believe too. This relates back to a translational difference from the hebrew texts of genesis.

jda
the geological methods for dating rocks and such are pretty sophisticated. we learnt a bunch about this in a univ. class i had, but sadly i can recall none of it. (i found geology incredibly boring). So i am quite confident in their estimate of the age of the earth.

you believe the bible provides a timeline for the creation of earth?

dvst8

Sorry, I'm new 'round these parts and I just read through this thread for the first time, and wanted to pose a comment or two on the original topic. Feel free to ignore.

Disclaimer: These are random ponderings. I do not by any stretch truly know what I believe regarding religion vs. science or any similar topics - that's why I've so enjoyed reading the various opinions offered in this forum. Also, I do not want to offend ANYbody - these are just random thoughts that I've had that are meant as nothing more than fodder for conversation.

Anyway...

On THOU SHALT NOT KILL;
Someone mentioned a bit back how ludicrous it would be to think that THOU SHALT NOT KILL was to be taken completely literally... Even to the point of saying that one could not fight off a common cold.

...but it it really that crazy to think that perhaps the original intent of the message did mean it literally?

Stay with me for another moment...
Way back in old Europe, before we were even ABLE to fight off disease, the human mortality rate was much higher. People didn't live as long, and the survival rate among infants and birthing mothers was much lower. Then came modern medicine. Of course it wasn't all at once, but over time, people began to live longer as a result of enhanced medical practices.

Now the world faces a major threat. Overpopulation. We've got 6+ billion people, and that number is increasing exponentially. How many people would there be on earth if medicine, as a concept, never made it? If everyone who contracted the flu died?

Is it possible, with that commandment, God was trying to prevent the overpopulation of the Earth?

Is it possible that by the same measure God had introduced factors into the human environment to continue to try to prevent the overpopulation and eventual self-elimination of his most favored of science experiments?

Think of homosexuality. Don't slap me yet. What if God, in an effort to slow the human natality rate, introduced a genetic factor that would alter sexual preference, thus pairing people in such a way that they are unable to reproduce? If people don't reproduce as quickly, the whole system may last longer.

All this said, it would then be possible that God had originally intended for us to 'turn the other cheek' when faced with any organism, microbial or human or animal, and deal with death with an optimistic hope for Heaven.

But, of course, all of this is dependant upon God actually existing, which I personally have not yet accepted as truth OR untruth. I'm still in the pondering phase. ;)

-tainc

By the way, sorry for disrupting the direction of the thread. (even though I'm sure I haven't done THAT much damage...) :)

-tainc