[Zimphire]

And Spheric misses the point all together.

I am saying the message behind the word. That will never change. I don't think you get it when people say that.

It's the same message it was 2k years ago.

It's the same as it was yesterday, and today.

Again, smokescreen.

BTW The bible even went into detail about people doing exactly what you are doing.

Read up about it.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
img]horribly racist image.[/img]

Thanks for proving me right!

[wdlove]

No, I think that translations are good thing. It brings the word of God closer to the individual when they can read it in their own language. Bible translators follow very closely the the greek and Hebrew meaning.

[mitchell_pgh]

It really doesn't matter. People will continue to use it for whatever purpose they choose.

[rjenkinson]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Wow.

"riiiight" what?

thurr.

-r.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by wdlove:
No, I think that translations are good thing. It brings the word of God closer to the individual when they can read it in their own language. Bible translators follow very closely the the greek and Hebrew meaning.

Very well said wdlove!

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Thanks for proving me right!

dude, you are just so fu<king retarded. do you even know what "racism" means? do you think an african american would find that picture in any way offensive, if they understood it's implication?

it's humor! hello! but how i could i expect that you'd get it? you seem pretty much humor impaired. i'm sure some other people got a good laugh out of it!

ca$h is right. you are a total fu<kwit. damn.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by wdlove:
No, I think that translations are good thing. It brings the word of God closer to the individual when they can read it in their own language. Bible translators follow very closely the the greek and Hebrew meaning.

yeah, because "young lady" and "virgin" are pretty much interchangeable terms. not much difference in meaning there...

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Why are the non-religious so obsessed with religious things?

Why are you so threatened by it? You pissed on the atheist/agnostic discussion despite the fact that it was clearly labeled as such, and now you're pissing on this discussion, which is also perfectly legitimate whether it's critical of religion or not. I've already things learned from it, both pro and con. In any case, there's no rule that says one can't be critical of religion in an open forum, or even poke fun at religion.

As zen jihad explained, religion is a pervasive force in our culture, and informed people are interested in discussing it. That might include criticism. Life is unfair. Grow up.

Predictably, Zimphire and ghost_flash have joined you in childishly disrupting another perfectly legitimate discussion. Here's an idea: go start your own thread titled "I don't like it when non-religious people criticize religion. This thread is strictly for complaining about them." I promise you that I won't intrude.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
dude, you are just so fu<king retarded. do you even know what "racism" means? do you think an african american would find that picture in any way offensive, if they understood it's implication?

it's humor! hello! but how i could i expect that you'd get it? you seem pretty much humor impaired. i'm sure some other people got a good laugh out of it!

ca$h is right. you are a total fu<kwit. damn.

Wow so hostile.

BTW reeeeeeeeeeeeported.

You act just like Cash.

[vmpaul]

How many 'versions' of the Bible are there? All those Children's Bibles, the New International Version, the Contemporary English Version, King James Version, or the New King James Version, etc.,etc..

I remember hearing that there were 25,000 different variations at some point. Not sure how to verify that, if it's true.

Even if there's half that number how could there NOT be different emphasis and meanings? Considering the diversity of the english language, each version must be different. Something HAS to be changed otherwise why have different versions?

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
dude, you are just so fu<king retarded. do you even know what "racism" means? do you think an african american would find that picture in any way offensive, if they understood it's implication?

it's humor! hello! but how i could i expect that you'd get it? you seem pretty much humor impaired. i'm sure some other people got a good laugh out of it!

ca$h is right. you are a total fu<kwit. damn.

Can you keep the personal attacks to a minimum of zero? Whenever you run out of things to write, you pursue the personal attack modus operandi. It is a common story with you, and quite telling indeed.

What you call "humor" someone else calls racist. I don't think it is funny at all, and it is degrading for all black people. Maybe you can attack me for being sensitive to the issue, or tell my I'm being a crybaby like others have done. It's so mature.

You picked up on that picture as soon as it was shown by another less sensitive person. It wasn't funny when they showed it, nor is it funny now, when you do so. It's stereotypical nonsense.

Ca$h is another person whom you should agree with. You two are quite similar in your attacks on people. They have little significance in reality except your own dimented views on others. How many times has he been banned, yet comes back with another name? He stated he doesn't know why either. Now that *is* funny.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
dude, you are just so fu<king retarded. do you even know what "racism" means? do you think an african american would find that picture in any way offensive, if they understood it's implication?

it's humor! hello! but how i could i expect that you'd get it? you seem pretty much humor impaired. i'm sure some other people got a good laugh out of it!

ca$h is right. you are a total fu<kwit. damn.

Looks like you are on the short road to a banning.

Why do you have to use such foul language? Are you that mad? Or at a loss for words?

It was racist. Admit it.

People have to learn that words have meaning and can do great harm if used poorly.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
You CANNOT claim to have the pure, unadulterated word of God in your hands. There is simply no way this can be the case - all due to the tiny little petty translation error I mentioned above.
-s*

If you know how to read Hebrew and Greek, you can.

...pater imon, ou en tis ouranis, agiastheto to onoma su... And so on and so forth.

Maury

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
BTW reeeeeeeeeeeeported.

coward, tattle-tale, liar, nationalist, fascist, homophobe and all around manipulative little fu<kwad in one person.

bravo. you are a shining posterchild for your faith.

YOU SUCK!

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
It was racist. Admit it.

People have to learn that words have meaning and can do great harm if used poorly.

as usual you don't have a fu<king clue what you are talking about.

how was that picture racist. c'mon tell us. you seem to be so sure of your stance.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
coward, tattle-tale, liar, nationalist, fascist, homophobe and all around manipulative little fu<kwad in one person.

bravo. you are a shining posterchild for your faith.

YOU SUCK!

I'm not sure what to say to this, except:

You told him. Such anger for those that do not conform to your views of the world. It's quite saddening.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
If you know how to read Hebrew and Greek, you can.

...pater imon, ou en tis ouranis, agiastheto to onoma su... And so on and so forth.

Maury

Did you read the NET page?

Did you read my post?

Because I believe what I wrote was:

Even the best, most comprehensive translations CANNOT overcome the limitations of the source, whose copiers/writers/translators were of course subject to the exact same problems (such as the desire to harmonize obviously conflicting passages) as the later translators whose work the good people writing the NET Bible are re-doing.

I do not read Greek and Hebrew, but I know people (Bible scholars, in fact) that do and have read the "original" sources.

We have, as far as I know, NO "original" sources AT ALL. As in, we have copies (I think the closest we have to an original script of a small part of the Bible is a copy made something like a few decades after the initial writing), and we have notation of centuries-prior oral tradition.

If we had definitive "original" manuscripts of everything, there would be no discussion among scholars.

And there is.

Plenty.

-s*

[zigzag]

Originally posted by sixz:
I think it is always better to hear a benevolent gods words
as he originally spouted them rather than second hand. The muslims
knowing the possible problems of contextual misdemeanors -
made it's societies highest achievement to remember the whole
of their prophets revelations in his original tongue by heart. And it
must be learnt to be a 'good' believer and in gods 'true' language
ancient arabic even if it's not your mother tongue - only the arabic
can be correct.

There is a lot to be said for being the last group to make up
a major religion. - you learn so much from the others mistakes.
Less stories more commandments and maybe only 14 interpretations,
make it a much more koranic read.

And the 'hard copy' is still hanging around in paradise so when you
are dead you can check it to see if you've been doing it right for so
long or not.

I don't want to create any unnecessary detours from the discussion, but here's an interesting article regarding the origins of the Koran (someone linked to it last year - might've been Black Griffin but I could be mistaken):

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99jan/koran.htm

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Can you keep the personal attacks to a minimum of zero?

and you are such a FU<KING HYPOCRITE!!!!

you, zimphire, kilbey...

don't you little cowards EVER accuse anyone of personal attacks EVER again. you CONSTANTLY do it in other threads.

JUST STFU!!!!!!!

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
as usual you don't have a fu<king clue what you are talking about.

how was that picture racist. c'mon tell us. you seem to be so sure of your stance.

Do you speak the way your write? Do you swear at people, and act all confrontational?

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Did you read the NET page?

Did you read my post?

Because I believe what I wrote was:



I do not read Greek and Hebrew, but I know people (Bible scholars, in fact) that do and have read the "original" sources.

We have, as far as I know, NO "original" sources AT ALL. As in, we have copies (I think the closest we have to an original script of a small part of the Bible is a copy made something like a few decades after the initial writing), and we have notation of centuries-prior oral tradition.

If we had definitive "original" manuscripts of everything, there would be no discussion among scholars.

And there is.

Plenty.

-s*

Opps...hit return too soon...bbib...

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I'm not sure what to say to this, except:

You told him. Such anger for those that do not conform to your views of the world. It's quite saddening.

hey, i call 'em as i see 'em.

*reeeported*

NIGGA PLEASE!

around here you'd get your a$$ kicked for that! that's just the lowest of the low.

a coward, a tattle-tale.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
and you are such a FU<KING HYPOCRITE!!!!

you, zimphire, kilbey...

don't you little cowards EVER accuse anyone of personal attacks EVER again. you CONSTANTLY do it in other threads.

JUST STFU!!!!!!!

You need to go outside; take a look around; enjoy the view; then come back when you have calmed down. You are behaving like a child having a tantrum.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And Spheric misses the point all together.

I am saying the message behind the word. That will never change. I don't think you get it when people say that.

It's the same message it was 2k years ago.

It's the same as it was yesterday, and today.

Again, smokescreen.

BTW The bible even went into detail about people doing exactly what you are doing.

Read up about it.

I think several hundred million Catholics worldwide will disagree VERY strongly with you.

If you honestly think that turning the Virgin Mary back into the ordinary woodworker's wife she was in the original manuscripts does not change some very basic messages picked up from the Bible and amplified into a cult almost surpassing the message of Christ himself, then I think YOU are missing the point altogether.

-s*

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Do you speak the way your write? Do you swear at people, and act all confrontational?

i speak whichever way I find appropriate for the situation. thank you.

just drop the fu<king condescending, dumba$$ attitude already.

[Spheric Harlot]

phoenixboy: As much as it pains me to say it, but the guy who made a point of celebrating his very last post here a few days ago is probably right:

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
You need to go outside; take a look around; enjoy the view; then come back when you have calmed down. You are behaving like a child having a tantrum.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Predictably, Zimphire and ghost_flash have joined you in childishly disrupting another perfectly legitimate discussion. Here's an idea: go start your own thread titled "I don't like it when non-religious people criticize religion. This thread is strictly for complaining about them." I promise you that I won't intrude.

This thread was legit? No it was flame bait.

Do a search zig. This topic has about 10 threads on the same thing. Notice the thread starter, notice he hasn't posted since his first post.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
hey, i call 'em as i see 'em.

*reeeported*

NIGGA PLEASE!

around here you'd get your a$$ kicked for that! that's just the lowest of the low.

a coward, a tattle-tale.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I think several hundred million Catholics worldwide will disagree VERY strongly with you.

If you honestly think that turning the Virgin Mary back into the ordinary woodworker's wife she was in the original manuscripts does not change some very basic messages picked up from the Bible and amplified into a cult almost surpassing the message of Christ himself, then I think YOU are missing the point altogether.

-s*

Your beef is with Catholicism.

The meaning, and message is still there. It has not changed. It will never change.

Sorry if that offends you.

[ThinkInsane]

Wow, 13 reported posts in my inbox in less than an hour. That must be some kind of record. This has been mentioned before, but some people don't seem to get the message: take your religious debate elsewhere. THIS IS A ****ING MAC FORUM. People are getting sick of it. I'm getting sick of. Let it go or leave.