The Bible rumors

[Elijah John]

Do you believe the Bible rumors about God? The negative ones, like Him condoning slavery, or Him drowning babies in the Flood?

Do you believe rumors against the people in your life that you love?

Do you believe the worst that's said about them? Or the best about them.

For debate,

How can anyone who claims to love God believe the worst things said about him, i.e. the negative Bible rumors?

(apologies to DI for the term "rumors" I borrowed for this post )

[JehovahsWitness]

It involves interpreting; it involves accepting a translation; it involves trust in the accuracy of a translation ...

I use a variety of translations, not one. I have dozens in my home and thanks to the internet I have access to hundreds. I also have access to expert original language analysis of any given text in the bible canon. As for interpreting I follow exactly the same process as you - correct me if Im wrong - do (see my earlier post on textual anaysis).

JW

[marco]

I use a variety of translations, not one. I have dozens in my home and thanks to the internet I have access to hundreds.

100 scientists opposed Einstein; 100 clever, opposing views and yet Einstein was correct. Multiply an error by 100 and you do not get truth, nor do you find truth by searching through 100 similar statements and taking the one that appears most sensible to one's own brain. Let us be clear: the justification for accepting a biblical text is FAITH. Reason does not trouble herself to get involved.

But the question is: do we accept the stories about God wanting infants slain as truthful or do they traduce the Almighty? At the dread day of Judgment do we stand before Jehovah and say: "I too believed those stories that said you wanted the murder of innocents"?

[JehovahsWitness]

But the question is: do we accept the stories about God wanting infants slain as truthful or do they traduce the Almighty?

That might be the question but it is not the question of the OP. I do believe there are rules against deraillng threads, so let us return to the OP question about rumours about God (not Herod, I take it you are referring to the report of Herod slaughtering of the innocents).


JW

[marco]

But the question is: do we accept the stories about God wanting infants slain as truthful or do they traduce the Almighty?

That might be the question but it is not the question of the OP. I do believe there are rules against deraillng threads, so let us return to the OP question about rumours about God (not Herod, I take it you are referring to the report of Herod slaughtering of the innocents).

Can we stop talking about derailing since I have done no such thing? My question is almost a paraphrase of the OP question.

On the other hand your post, to which I politely replied without questioning its irrelevance to the OP, was:

"I use a variety of translations, not one. I have dozens in my home and thanks to the internet I have access to hundreds. I also have access to expert original language analysis of any given text in the bible canon. "

So you gave me information about the books you have and your employment of the internet and your access to expert analysis. Fortunately I brought in the question of whether rumours wrongly describe God's actions, and that brings us squarely into OP territory. There is no question of derailing. Why would I want to?

Nor was I talking about Herod. I wrote " God wanting infants slain". Herod is not God. Try:

1 Samuel 15:3 3Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

And again this is central to the OP.

[Wootah]

How can anyone who claims to love God believe the worst things said about him, i.e. the negative Bible rumors?

Spouses who are abused by their mates ask the same kind of questions. Denial is a strong force.

When viewed from the outside, the excuses for the habitual violence fade into meaninglessness. Those who depend on the violent offender for some sort of emotional support, no matter how demented, ignore the reality of the violence committed.


Tcg

Moderator Clarification
Hi TCG,

Personally I think you have stated plainly an opinion that is an appeal to an emotional basis for belief. I don't think it was said uncivilly.

I however don't regard this as valid argumentation. Imagine if I posted a reply that atheists only remain atheist because they fear the atheist violence of the 20th century (something I do believe).

In the end I would suggest that your post is an ad hominem. Remember: denial is a strong force. You can PM me if you wish.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[Wootah]

But the question is: do we accept the stories about God wanting infants slain as truthful or do they traduce the Almighty?

That might be the question but it is not the question of the OP. I do believe there are rules against deraillng threads, so let us return to the OP question about rumours about God (not Herod, I take it you are referring to the report of Herod slaughtering of the innocents).


JW

Moderator Comment

Hi JW - I've noticed you policing threads. Please don't.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 11 by Checkpoint]

I think what you say about removing punctuation is a fair idea. It would be better than having a comma in the wrong place. What a great idea to leave it out of Luke 23:43! I think that then the people that insist that Christ and the thief would go somewhere that day would stop using that verse to prove their erroneous point.

Thanks.

"in the wrong place"?

That's what each school of thought claims they don't do, but that their opponents do do in order "to prove their erroneous point".

The translators have created conflict over a verse that says nothing about the state of the dead, and thus neither confirms nor denies either view.

It was neither spoken nor recorded for that purpose.

Grace and peace be to you.

Doesn't one way of looking at the placing of the comma (the way I see it) back up the rest of the scriptures throughout the Bible?

1) The dead know nothing at all. (Ecclesiastes 9:5)

2) The spirit that goes out is simply God's own life-force, His spirit that keeps a person alive. (Psalm 146:4)

3) Paradise is a real place, to be accomplished when Jesus rules over the earth for 1,000 years. (Psalm 37:9,11,29)


In addition to these biblical facts, we know from other passages that Jesus was dead in the grave for 3 days. We know that, after his resurrection, he then walked the land again for 40 days, appearing to his disciples and hundreds of others. So it's safe to say that he and the thief did not go into Paradise that very day that they died.

Do you see that looking at the whole picture is essential, and thus the placing of the comma is important? Also, it is possible to figure out which placing of it is correct. Would you agree?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 11 by Checkpoint]

I think what you say about removing punctuation is a fair idea. It would be better than having a comma in the wrong place. What a great idea to leave it out of Luke 23:43! I think that then the people that insist that Christ and the thief would go somewhere that day would stop using that verse to prove their erroneous point.

It is NOT an erroneous interpretation; it is a possible interpretation. I happen to think it is a PLAUSIBLE interpretation because the one you favour has the dying Jesus needlessly remind the thief that he's speaking to him TODAY. One would suppose that there would be no superfluous words in one of Christ's final statements.

It's interesting that the "today" doesn't sound right to you. I figured that you are better-read than you appear to be with this issue. That way of expression was not unique to this passage in Luke's gospel.

If we look at other instances, we might conclude that Jesus saying "I tell you today" is not senseless but a common expression:

1) "I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish..." (Deuteronomy 30:18, KJV)

2) "Turn you to the stronghold, ye prisoners of hope: even today do I declare that I will render double unto thee." (Zechariah 9:12, KJV)



Have a pleasant evening.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 11 by Checkpoint]

I think what you say about removing punctuation is a fair idea. It would be better than having a comma in the wrong place. What a great idea to leave it out of Luke 23:43! I think that then the people that insist that Christ and the thief would go somewhere that day would stop using that verse to prove their erroneous point.

Thanks.

"in the wrong place"?

That's what each school of thought claims they don't do, but that their opponents do do in order "to prove their erroneous point".

The translators have created conflict over a verse that says nothing about the state of the dead, and thus neither confirms nor denies either view.

It was neither spoken nor recorded for that purpose.

Grace and peace be to you.

Doesn't one way of looking at the placing of the comma (the way I see it) back up the rest of the scriptures throughout the Bible?

"Yes it does", say all who see this issue the way you see it.

"No it doesn't", say all who see this issue has a different answer.

1) The dead know nothing at all. (Ecclesiastes 9:5)

2) The spirit that goes out is simply God's own life-force, His spirit that keeps a person alive. (Psalm 146:4)

3) Paradise is a real place, to be accomplished when Jesus rules over the earth for 1,000 years. (Psalm 37:9,11,29)


In addition to these biblical facts, we know from other passages that Jesus was dead in
d again for 40 days, appearing to his disciples and hundreds of others. So it's safe to say that he and the thief did not go into Paradise that very day that they died.
Do you see that looking at the whole picture is essential, and thus the placing of the comma is important? Also, it is possible to figure out which placing of it is correct. Would you agree?

You have given a brief outline of how you relate your comma placement to this issue.

My posts have been about translator choices only.

i intend to keep them that way; sorry!

Grace and peace to you, onewithhim.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 34 by marco]

I have addresses at lenghth the OP even providing examples to illustrate my point. I see no need to explain the nature of faith anymore than I do the nature of a staunchly antigod worldview coupled with love of the holy mother church transmitted by ones sainted mother might have on a textual analysis.

My reaction when confronted with rumours about God
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 763#991763

My method when confronted with textual rumours
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 769#991769

The above applies to any and all biblical narratives regardless of their nature or content. If you want more I fear you will have to seek it elswhere.

Be well and please above all, have a most wonderful and joyfilled weekend,



JW