Forums | MacLife

What does it say on the spine? "King James' Bible"
Not, "Jesus' Bible" or "Moses' Bible"

I wonder what would happen if one of James' scholars had come to him and said, "Your Majesty, we have discovered a passage that translates to: "Jesus said, Let all Kings named James be put to death."
"What should we do?"
The point I want to make is that, there could have been some editing, to make the book more politically correct (for 800 AD).
That and; The Tridentine Council was a committee. The Bible was put together by a committee!

The Canon of the New Testament was the result of debate, disputes and research, not reaching its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council .[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmen … ment_canon

Have you ever been on a committee? Every body at the table has their own agenda. Everybody disagrees, and in order to get results, every body has to compromise.

That is how the Divinely Inspired and Infallible Word Of God is created. Not carved in stone, but compromised by committee.

It's not God I don't trust. It's the political agendas of a thousand years ago that give me pause.

Tallgeese wrote:

Okay, I know that a lot of Conservapedia is probably Colbert-style trolling, but the Conservative Bible Project is from Andrew Schlafly himself and he is nuts.
[snip]

As far as I know the Conservapedia itself is Andrew Schlafly's own project. Since it is a Wiki-document it has been subject to hostile editing, but it is mostly Schlafly's.

And I agree: he is nuts.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Okay, I know that a lot of Conservapedia is probably Colbert-style trolling, but the Conservative Bible Project is from Andrew Schlafly himself and he is nuts.
[snip]

As far as I know the Conservapedia itself is Andrew Schlafly's own project. Since it is a Wiki-document it has been subject to hostile editing, but it is mostly Schlafly's.

And I agree: he is nuts.

There are some trolls that have made it through:

A liberal professor is one known for promoting his liberal ideology rather than academic excellence. Many liberal professors share one or more of the following characteristics:
...
* they use their position to claim expertise in areas beyond their training[1]

1. ↑ For example, someone who lectured in law and tried to claim expertise on evolution over a biologist or over a MD on breast cancer.

And some things that I just cannot bring myself to believe are serious:

The widely taught theory that American Indians are descendants of migrants from Asia, who crossed the Bering Straitland bridge during an Ice Age, is almost certainly false. Liberal archaeologists long insisted that this took place as early as 10,000 years ago.[1] But the facts are that American Indians have very different characteristics from Asians, ranging from blood types to DNA, making claims of such ancestry virtually absurd.

Tallgeese wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Okay, I know that a lot of Conservapedia is probably Colbert-style trolling, but the Conservative Bible Project is from Andrew Schlafly himself and he is nuts.
[snip]

As far as I know the Conservapedia itself is Andrew Schlafly's own project. Since it is a Wiki-document it has been subject to hostile editing, but it is mostly Schlafly's.

And I agree: he is nuts.

There are some trolls that have made it through:

A liberal professor is one known for promoting his liberal ideology rather than academic excellence. Many liberal professors share one or more of the following characteristics:
...
* they use their position to claim expertise in areas beyond their training[1]

1. ↑ For example, someone who lectured in law and tried to claim expertise on evolution over a biologist or over a MD on breast cancer.

And some things that I just cannot bring myself to believe are serious:

The widely taught theory that American Indians are descendants of migrants from Asia, who crossed the Bering Straitland bridge during an Ice Age, is almost certainly false. Liberal archaeologists long insisted that this took place as early as 10,000 years ago.[1] But the facts are that American Indians have very different characteristics from Asians, ranging from blood types to DNA, making claims of such ancestry virtually absurd.

There are thought to be several different migration waves from asia. The earliest being around that date you mentioned. The last being that of the Eskimos. The earliest wave is thought to have possibly made it down through most of South America. Remember that the population of Asia is a result of a myriad of migration waves from various directions. The Siberians are of mixed decent and possibly include that from an earlier wave of migration than the orientals that currently inhabit it. There is a good possiblity that a different group than what currently resides in Asia inhabited Siberia and migrated from the Caucauses or South Asia.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Again I ask for those who point to this as a proof of God: do you feel comfortable knowing that there may be a physical difference between your ability to believe and my lack of the same?

I seriously think that people do not understand the consequences.

It is still up in the air whether the brain states were consequent of people's experiences or predetermined what experiences the people were attracted to, I think it offers about as much comfort as someone claiming their new painting is deep. It depends on what you are looking for.

I guess you think the implication is that some people are judging others on what they cant help, or believe in a deity who judges people based on what they cant help. Maybe. But, if thats right, and if you understand the consequences, you might as well follow them all the way down the rabbit hole. If neurology is really making headway on deterministic conditions of the brain on beliefs, its possible that eventually just about everything could be shown to have a biological necessity behind it, from belief in God, to believing in the free market, to believing in humanitarianism, to finding comfort in neuroscience, etc.; every opinion or belief is just as biologically necessary as the next.

(Including the fact that some people would be biologically impelled to judge others on what they cant help, even people who accept the fact that they cant help their own non-beliefs)

Last edited by StaticAge (2009-10-06 4:21 pm)

sturner wrote:

There are thought to be several different migration waves from asia. The earliest being around that date you mentioned. The last being that of the Eskimos. The earliest wave is thought to have possibly made it down through most of South America. Remember that the population of Asia is a result of a myriad of migration waves from various directions. The Siberians are of mixed decent and possibly include that from an earlier wave of migration than the orientals that currently inhabit it. There is a good possiblity that a different group than what currently resides in Asia inhabited Siberia and migrated from the Caucauses or South Asia.

My point is that they list the Bering land bridge migration hypothesis as a "liberal" idea.

mo' ron wrote:

If neurology is really making headway on deterministic conditions of the brain on beliefs, its possible that eventually just about everything could be shown to have a biological necessity behind it, from belief in God, to believing in the free market, to believing in humanitarianism, to finding comfort in neuroscience, etc.; every opinion or belief is just as biologically necessary as the next.

I see your point, but to an extent, it's an almost certainty that those qualities you noted are related to biological systems.

The study that is the topic of this thread merely determined which parts of the brain correlated to religious thought, but those parts of the brain are used for other functions as well. So someone's capacity for those things would also be related, in a general sense, to the development of their brain regions.

If an alien were trying to figure out how humans worked, they might observe a correlation between the size of a persons muscles and the act of lifting weights. To a certain extent, the two are almost certainly related, and you could construct a chain of causation which might even make sense in a strictly logical pov, and yet still tell the wrong story, because having large muscles does not necessarily cause the behavior of weight lifting.

Luther had doubts about Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.

Metacell wrote:

Those who believe the Bible to be the authoritative word of God are considered heretics by the people who compiled the Bible.  Only the Catholic Church is the authoritative word of God.  But you shouldn't always believe the first God who speaks to you.

I hope this is just sarcasm.

Jokotai wrote:

CG5Addict wrote:

If you going to believe in any religion, you must take it and do what is in the whole word, not just pick out what you want.

Not all religions have an endorsed document upon which to base their ethics.  Also remember that the Bible has been subject to many revisions, and is not representative of the complete texts which were written for the Jewish and Christian faiths during the period.  By context, somebody already has picked and chosen what was to be included.  That was influenced by Constantine, Theodosius, and ultimately by the Council of Carthage.

I'm also a firm believer that religion isn't to be learned from a book.  A book can help you get there, yes, but unless a religion speaks to you from more than a logical level, it's just not spiritual.  Perhaps that's the brain activity those researchers are seeing.

DukeofNuke wrote:

robco wrote:

Your reading. Feh. Soon, there will be no question what Yahweh really meant.

The Bible is the true and literal Word of God. But, it needs a little editing.

:Jesus facepalm:

I read these posts (as well as others) and they all have a similar point. But.... The Bible speaks  on this subject as well.

2 Peter 1 (King James Version)

14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath
               shewed me.

15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always
               in remembrance.

16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power
                and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him
               from  the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto
                a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they
               were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Peter 2

1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers
              among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bough them,
              and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil
              spoken of.

3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose
              judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them
             into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of
             righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an
              overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul
              from day to day with their  unlawful deeds;)

9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the
             day of judgment to be punished:

10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise
               government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against
                them before the Lord.

    And for those who may need a clear (not altered) easy to understand version of this, here's the
    Amplified Version.

2 Peter 1
    14 Since I know that the laying aside of this body of mine will come speedily, as our Lord
                   Jesus Christ made clear to me.

    15 Moreover, I will diligently endeavor [to see to it] that [even] after my departure (decease)
        you may be able at all times to call these things to mind.

    16 For we were not following cleverly devised stories when we made known to you the power
                  and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (the Messiah), but we were eyewitnesses of His
                  majesty (grandeur, authority of sovereign power).

    17 For when He was invested with honor and glory from God the Father and a voice was borne to Him
                 by the [splendid]  Majestic Glory [in the bright cloud that overshadowed Him, saying], This is My
                 beloved Son in Whom I am well pleased and delight,

    18 We[actually] heard this voice borne out of heaven, for we were together with Him on the
                  holy mountain.

    19 And we have the prophetic word [made] firmer still. You will do well to pay close attention to it
                 as to a lamp shining in a dismal (squalid and dark) place, until the day breaks through
               [the gloom] and the Morning Star rises (comes into being) in your hearts.

    20 [Yet] first [you must] understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is [a matter] of any
                  personal or private or special interpretation (loosening, solving).

    21 For no prophecy ever originated because some man willed it [to do so--it never came by
                 human impulse], but men spoke from God who were borne along (moved and impelled) by
                 the Holy Spirit.

    2 Peter 2
   
    1 BUT ALSO [in those days] there arose false prophets among the people, just as there will be
                false teachers among yourselves, who will subtly and stealthily introduce heretical
                doctrines  (destructive heresies), even denying and disowning the Master Who bought
                them,  bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

    2 And many will follow their immoral ways and lascivious doings; because of them the true Way
                will be maligned and defamed.

    3 And in their covetousness (lust, greed) they will exploit you with false (cunning) arguments.
                From of old the sentence [of condemnation] for them has not been idle; their destruction
                (eternal misery) has not been asleep.

    4 For God did not [even] spare angels that sinned, but cast them into hell, delivering them to be
                 kept there in pits of gloom till the judgment and their doom.

    5 And He spared not the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with
                 seven other persons, when He  brought a flood upon the world of ungodly [people].

    6 And He condemned to ruin and extinction the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, reducing them
                 to ashes [and thus] set them forth as an example to those who would be ungodly;

    7 And He rescued righteous Lot, greatly worn out and distressed by the wanton ways of the
                 ungodly and lawless--

    8 For that just man, living [there] among them, tortured his righteous soul every day with what
                he saw and heard of [their] unlawful and wicked deeds--

    9 Now if [all these things are true, then be sure] the Lord knows how to rescue the godly out
                of temptations and trials, and  how to keep the ungodly under chastisement until the day
                of judgment and doom,

    10 And particularly those who walk after the flesh and indulge in the lust of polluting passion
                  and scorn and despise authority. Presumptuous [and] daring
                 [self-willed and self-lovingcreatures]! They scoff at and revile dignitaries (glorious ones)
                 without trembling,

    11 Whereas [even] angels, though superior in might and power, do not bring a defaming
                   charge against them before the Lord.

Last edited by CG5Addict (2009-10-07 12:27 pm)

jerwin wrote:

resedit wrote:

jerwin wrote:

Luther had doubts about Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.

Sure.
Did you have a point?

Revelation of John is the one that had the most doubt because it was such a lake work and very apocalyptic in nature.
James is easily mis-read as being legalistic, though that is a mis-reading of it.

Are you sure that you aren't just misreading your personal biases into James?

Yes.
The mis-conception is that James requires certain things to be a Christian, but if you read the text, it clearly is the other way around.

If you are a Christian, good works will follow - not the other way around.

sturner wrote:

I am always in awe that the Pauline church prevailed. It is ironic. The man who was a dedicated anti-christian, professional, and politically against them, is the one who defined the church and made it acceptable to the Romans and others by one single stroke. He eliminated the circumcision requirement.

Christianity wouldn't have received as much favor from the the rest of the world without that one point. IT's a big deal to be circumcised in adulthood. And back then, it could be fatal.

He was the one God called to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles.

And it wasn't eliminated "by a single stroke" - the Jerusalem Council, detailed in Acts, met specifically to discuss whether Gentiles were required to become Jews before they could become Christian.

His influence away from Judaism created that environment. The single thing that made it acceptable to others was the elimination of the circumcision requirement. Admittedly, it glosses over a lot of other occurrences and history.

And as to your first sentence, forgive me for being a little bit cynical, I don't think Paul was driven by God so much as personal ambition. That he had a transformation is of no doubt. That he was called, I don't believe that as much. His previous history shows a man of ambition and drive, an alpha personality. That would transfer to his new religious beliefs, as a True Believer. One can interpret history in various ways, I prefer to interpret this on a much lower and mundane level.

I think my comment still holds that without the Pauline influence, Christianity wouldn't be a major religion today.

sturner wrote:

His influence away from Judaism created that environment.

No.
Before Paul was Paul, Peter was sent to the Gentiles and had the vision about eating gentile foods that were unclean to Jews.

Paul was the most successful missionary to the Gentiles, and being fairly well educated is the one that did most of the writing, but that Gentiles did not need to keep Jewish laws thing started when Paul was still Saul of Tarsus and was throwing rocks at the followers of Jesus.