Bible question.
Offline Ok I posted a blog that was an essay on my lack of faith and got this as a comment:
"Our Father in heaven,
help us to honor your name."
(Matthew 6:9)(CEV)-BibleGateway"I will praise thy name for ever and ever..
Great is Jehovah, and greatly to be praised;
And his greatness is unsearchable."
(Psalm 145:2,3)(ASV)-BibleGateway
I responded with:
Hello voice[his/her name] I welcome challenge, it lets me know if my belief is flawed. However I don't take challenge laying down either. Now your biggest flaw to your challenge is that you assume I believe the bible is true or even holy. I guess you missed the part in my essay where I state I don't take things at face value, question almost everything, and I never take fear, tradition, or "god did it" as proof. Now I'll look at your quotes...Matthew
6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
6:10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. "Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven." Is God's will always done in heaven?
6:11 Give us this day our daily bread.
6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.You left out the part where it is a prayer and since I don't pray it doesn't mean a whole lot to me.
Psalm
145:2 Every day will I bless thee; and I will praise thy name for ever and ever.
145:3 Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; and his greatness is unsearchable.Alright you like your god a whole lot got it. However...
Psalm
145:8 The LORD is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy.
145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.BUT
Psalm
149:6 Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand;
149:7 To execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people;
149:8 To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron;
149:9 To execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the LORD.How is your Lord 'gracious and full of compassion' when he wants his children to have 'a two-edged sword in their hand; to execute vengeance' 'and punishments upon the people'? And that is just sticking to Psalms.
PS- how did you find my blog?[he/she randomlly commented so I'm wondering is they are stalking me...]
This is sort of asking if I responded effectively, but also why he might choose those verses. Plus if you could tell me what they really mean, as in what the words would mean at the time or the historical background. I know its a lot, but Rook I know you would probably be the best one to ask on this team. A simple link to a place where I can find the answer would be fine if you don't really want to go into detail.
- Login to post comments
As for the reliability of the bible, I made a post here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forums/rook_hawkins/the_jesus_mythicist_campaign/666_for_contemporary_evidence_of_jesus
which might help.
You speak of how God can be 'gracious and full of compassion' when he wants his children to have 'a two-edged sword in their hand; to execute vengeance' 'and punishments upon the people'. Where does it say that's what the Lord wants? That's the writing of a king, King David, asking for God to help him in battle, not God wanting battle.
Hope some of that helps.
Sharky
It is not what your Lord wants it is what he commands
and for further emphasis:
Does this guy 'sharky' get anything straight? Check out his post in the other thread...
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html is an excellent resource when asking questions about how God can kill people, when it would mean breaking his sixth commandment. Give it a read and see what you make of it.
That could be the single-most ridiculous article I have ever read.
If the children were wicked as this apologist suggest, and God was justified in killing them, surely the little girls were wicked as well. I guess God thinks they could be liberated from their evil ways if they spend some time as sex-slaves. "God is good, He knows best". He is a cock.
I am sorry that your God belief is that morally bankrupt that you can't see that picking up babies by their feet and smashing their brains out against the rocks (Psalm 137) is evil.
I don't know how to tell you this but Psalm 137 doesn't say anything about that.
Psalm 137:8-9
8 O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one,
How blessed will be the one who repays you
With the recompense with which you have repaid us.
9 How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock.
Twas common for the time to take the infants of your enemy and use them as Louisville Sluggers and bash their heads in. Did you notice the one who does this will be blessed?
I see you conviently left off verse seven
[7] Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof
saying that this is what the babaloynians were saying about jerusalem
think about it
7 Remember, O LORD, against the Edomites
the day of Jerusalem's fall,
how they said, "Tear it down! Tear it down!
Down to its foundations!"
8 O daughter Babylon, you devastator!b
Happy shall they be who pay you back
what you have done to us!
9 Happy shall they be who take your little ones
and dash them against the rock! - RSV
I will assume you can read.. . it is very clear. The Psalmist is talking about payback here.
I guess we're reading two different translations. Mine suits my needs and yours suits yours. There's no seeing eye to eye on this one.
If it's the case that everyone picks that translation that best suits their needs, how can any translation of the Bible claim that it's closest in meaning to the "divinely inspired word of God"?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
You can't. When having a Theological discussion with someone you have to use the same translation. One that both of you agree on. Just remember that when reading the "divinely inspired word of God" that God spoke through men and their the ones that wrote it down.
I like to look at more then one translation when I have to deal with bible quotes. I'd think that would be better then limiting yourself to what you think is "the" translation.
Me, I like to accept that men wrote the whole thing, combining myths from other civilizations and philosophies with stuff they made up out of whole cloth. Then other men got together and tried to figure out what the writers were saying. That dissolved into dissension and disagreement resulting in all the versions we have today.
Let's just leave all the "divinely inspired" crap out of the picture.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I agree with the multiple translation issue. Very nice. Thats why I'm saying agree to disagree on this.
As for the second guy, i'm not saying that I agree with you, but you are entitled to your own opiions, we all know that I disagree with most of the ones on this sight so. Have a good one
Different "translations" exist for the purpose of serving specific agendas. King James I didn't simply just re "translate" a more "accurate" version of Bible in English, he had a Divine Right to Rule agenda that didn't agree with the then-popular Geneva Version.
The agenda of the NIV people was to "translate" into certainty Jesus making a claim in court that he WAS the Son of God (the KJAV simply has him stating "Thou sayest it" ). The NIV takes a number of other outlandish liberties with the English language under the subterfuge of a claim of being "a more accurate translation", even to the point of claiming that the Mediterranean Sea has nor'easters in its account of Paul's ship to Rome running aground.
The least agenda-driven version of Bible is the Orthodox Septuagint; all others that followed were exceedingly more agenda-biased. This is not to say that the Septuagint didn't have its own; it's just that it has the least by comparison to the others.