Jump to content

What is a god?


Recommended Posts

And unfortunately, there's no Masoretic Text for the New Testament. The earliest surviving documents date from decades or centuries after the originals were written, and many differ in details. There's no one agreed-upon version of the New Testament in Greek and Aramaic.

 

If you pick one text and try to read it in the original language, you will miss out on centuries of Biblical analysis and translation, whereby Biblical scholars try to figure out what the original text said and what parts were added in later. My NRSV has frequent footnotes saying "other ancient authorities add ...." in the New Testament.

 

If you want to read the New Testament in its original language, you have to be willing to spend a lot of time learning about it and replicating the work of many others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 196
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No. Not at all. At the beginning of Christianity(Jesus, His disciples, and their disciples), the Law was very much important. They were, after all, Jews. In fact, keeping the Law was a big part of Jes

This is quite a famous debate in the early church. I think the best answer, as you and ydoaPs have demonstrated, is that the Bible contradicts itself on this point.

I tried to cover as broad a spectrum as possible using the smallest amount of space.   Now, in retrospect, I see that I could have just stated: anyone that doesn't believe precisely what I believe a

I have been told, by seriously religious people, that the bible is absolute truth, every word, and that to question is in any way is blasphemy, the same as calling god a lier. The idea that Gods word could be translated wrong, as in God would not allow this, is also blasphemy. If the texts differ it is because God wanted them to differ and wants the translation to be the way it is.

 

To me this is crazy but to these people who truly believe it's the word of god exactly as God wants it to be. These seriously religious people take this concept very seriously. God cannot be wrong so if old documents are changed or destroyed it's because god wanted it that way.

 

it's why only the Gospels we have now survived to be included as parts of the new testament and why we should not even try to look back and see what was because what is in the bible now is what god wants.

 

Scary stuff for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been told, by seriously religious people, that the bible is absolute truth, every word, and that to question is in any way is blasphemy, the same as calling god a lier. The idea that Gods word could be translated wrong, as in God would not allow this, is also blasphemy. If the texts differ it is because God wanted them to differ and wants the translation to be the way it is.

 

To me this is crazy but to these people who truly believe it's the word of god exactly as God wants it to be. These seriously religious people take this concept very seriously. God cannot be wrong so if old documents are changed or destroyed it's because god wanted it that way.

 

it's why only the Gospels we have now survived to be included as parts of the new testament and why we should not even try to look back and see what was because what is in the bible now is what god wants.

 

Scary stuff for sure.

 

You probably would agree that there is a forest if all of the trees are exactly alike.

 

Would you still agree that it is a forest if a few of the trees have some moss growing on them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
You probably would agree that there is a forest if all of the trees are exactly alike.

 

No I would not agree, a forest is wild and the trees are all unique, if all the trees are alike it's a tree farm. Lots of them around here.

 

Would you still agree that it is a forest if a few of the trees have some moss growing on them?

 

No moss, it's not a forest to start with, as i said a forest is a wild ecosystem with out all it's parts it's just a group of trees.

 

Your questions make no sense to me in the context we are discussing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why you don't know where I got this from because you just repeated what I said.

Some parts of the old testament are in Aramaic.

Parts of Daniel, Jeremiah and I forget the others.

My point was that even though you can translate hebrew in google translate (amusing), you can't really do that to aramaic. When I studied the old testament - for 12 years, mind you - I studied it in its original language of hebrew *AND* aramaic.

 

I know how to read biblical aramaic, DrDNA, even though you can't translate it in google translate.

 

~moo

Link to post
Share on other sites
My point was that even though you can translate hebrew in google translate (amusing), you can't really do that to aramaic. When I studied the old testament - for 12 years, mind you - I studied it in its original language of hebrew *AND* aramaic.

 

I know how to read biblical aramaic, DrDNA, even though you can't translate it in google translate.

 

~moo

 

You are able to read Hebrew AND Aramaic?

 

If so, that is VERY impressive.

And I am envious of your abilities. Very VERY impressive.

Seriously.

I apologize for even debating the issue with you.

My ability on this matter no where near approaches anything like that.

 

But I am left somewhat perplexed that you did seem to fully comprehend my statements re foundational basis for Christian beliefs (eg, we are all filthy rags before the Lord, all sinners/equal in his eye, forgiveness, absoluteness in the context of our God/Jehovah/I Am Who I Am....etc).


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
No I would not agree, a forest is wild and the trees are all unique, if all the trees are alike it's a tree farm. Lots of them around here.

 

 

 

No moss, it's not a forest to start with, as i said a forest is a wild ecosystem with out all it's parts it's just a group of trees.

 

Your questions make no sense to me in the context we are discussing.

 

Now you are arguing semantics for the sake of argument.

 

How about substituting forest for 'grove' of trees?

 

A grove of trees like an apple orchard and a couple of the trees, amongst thousands or millions of Golden Delicious apple trees, are Gala and not Golden Delicious. :doh:

 

Now do you get it?

 

The Bible is still true, from my and most Christian's standpoints, even though there might be a couple of trees that are slightly different than the others.

 

And the fault is not with the ground (the foundation of the apple grove), nor the seeds themselves (Gods word) , nor the apple seed vendor nor with the owner of the orchard (God).

 

The fault lies with the dude who planted the trees (man)...he had a couple of beers and accidentally mixed in just a couple of Gala seeds amongst the thousands of Golden Delicious seeds when he planted them.

 

So, the error is NOT found within the soil, nor with the seeds themselves, nor with the owner of the orchard, nor with the seed vendor.

 

The fault lies with the imperfect dude who took the perfect apple seeds and stuck them in the perfect soil.

 

And the worker did not got fired.

The owner knew he was a drunkard and made a lot of mistakes.

The owner forgave him for his mistakes.

He kept him under his employ so that he could buy bread, take care of his family and have a nice retirement (in heaven none the less).

 

And they are all still millions yummy and nutritious apples in that thar orchard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are able to read Hebrew AND Aramaic?

 

If so, that is VERY impressive.

And I am envious of your abilities. Very VERY impressive.

Seriously.

I apologize for even debating the issue with you.

My ability on this matter no where near approaches anything like that.

I studied the original "Old Testament" - in its original language of hebrew/aramaic - in school, since 2nd grade. So, yes. I can read it, and I have the tools to analyze it well enough to make some sort of an educated interpretation - and the tools to compare it to leading interpretations.

 

You shouldn't appologize for debating the issue with me - the bible is highly interpretive. The text is vague and unclear; usually, the best way to make any sense of the actual meaning is to check the context. I can tell you for a fact that *many* of the english translations (but absolutely not all) are

pre-interpreted, which means that the original language is usually preferable in terms of context and therefore in terms of meaning.

 

But again, in such a book there's always a way to interpret things differently. Even within the jewish scholarship community -- all of which are reading the "OT" in its original language(s) proficiently -- there are some arguments and debates about some meanings. The 'big things' are usually repeated in many instances in the bible, and so their meaning is usually clearer. The 'small things' are usually up for a bit of interpretation.

 

My point is that if you consider the original to be god's word, then the original should be counted as superior to the translation.

 

In that case, I would be more than happy to compare any given text in the OT to its hebrew/aramaic original and give you the options for translation, or at laest try to show you if the word might have other meanings.

 

I can promise you I don't use google translate ;)

 

 

But I am left somewhat perplexed that you did seem to fully comprehend my statements re foundational basis for Christian beliefs (eg, we are all filthy rags before the Lord, all sinners/equal in his eye, forgiveness, absoluteness in the context of our God/Jehovah/I Am Who I Am....etc).

I think I was a bit confused as to what you meant. I understand the Christian bases, but I asked a very specific question about morality and I was a bit surprised about your response. I don't presume to say your morality is less than mine, because I think morality has some subjective aspects (as well as objective ones).

 

Maybe I misunderstood you.. we can clarify again, I'm just a bit confused now as to what we're talking about since we seemed to have switched the subject.

 

To be perfectly honest with you, I'm not sure I understand the point you were trying to make with the trees example, either....... I don't think your examples did a good job, honestly. Can you just tell us what your point is instead of making an analogy? I don't mean to offend, I just don't think I understand the point.

 

~moo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you are arguing semantics for the sake of argument.

 

No, hollow wise sounding bite type analogies only serve to impress those who are not experienced enough to know it's nothing but physco babble.

 

 

 

How about substituting forest for 'grove' of trees?

 

A grove of trees like an apple orchard and a couple of the trees, amongst thousands or millions of Golden Delicious apple trees, are Gala and not Golden Delicious. :doh:

 

Now do you get it?

 

The Bible is still true, from my and most Christian's standpoints, even though there might be a couple of trees that are slightly different than the others.

 

And the fault is not with the ground (the foundation of the apple grove), nor the seeds themselves (Gods word) , nor the apple seed vendor nor with the owner of the orchard (God).

 

The fault lies with the dude who planted the trees (man)...he had a couple of beers and accidentally mixed in just a couple of Gala seeds amongst the thousands of Golden Delicious seeds when he planted them.

 

So, the error is NOT found within the soil, nor with the seeds themselves, nor with the owner of the orchard, nor with the seed vendor.

 

The fault lies with the imperfect dude who took the perfect apple seeds and stuck them in the perfect soil.

 

From my point of view your analogy is nothing more than a lie to cover up yet another lie, the lie being the existence of god to begin with.

 

Don't try to baffle me with BS, I've heard it all in dozens of small fundamentalist Christian churches to large more secular churches, your analogy falls flat. Tell it like it is, don't try to cover up a lack of real knowledge by babbling sound bites that sound wise simply because they are unclear and confusing.

 

 

And the worker did not got fired.

The owner knew he was a drunkard and made a lot of mistakes.

The owner forgave him for his mistakes.

He kept him under his employ so that he could buy bread, take care of his family and have a nice retirement (in heaven none the less).

 

And they are all still millions yummy and nutritious apples in that thar orchard.

 

Of course he didn't get fired, how could he fire himself?

 

DrDNA I've heard those confusing analogies all my life, i stopped being impressed by them way before puberty. if you truly have something to say that is indeed wise don't try to cover it up by being obscure and trying to confuse the issue with false superiority. if you think you have wisdom i think we are all capable to judging that sans the obfuscation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No I would not agree, a forest is wild and the trees are all unique, if all the trees are alike it's a tree farm. Lots of them around here.

 

No moss, it's not a forest to start with, as i said a forest is a wild ecosystem with out all it's parts it's just a group of trees.

 

Your questions make no sense to me in the context we are discussing.

 

Moss is not a tree? Are you sure?

But, all trees are green therefore all things that are green are trees. And moss is green so.........oh never mind.

 

Anyhow,

I never said moss is a forest. I said that some trees have moss on them and the fact that they have moss or another imperfection does not exclude them from being part of the forest.

 

It might make more sense if you learned the meaning of a forest.

 

Websters = Main Entry: 1for·est

Function: noun

Usage: often attributive

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin forestis (silva) unenclosed (woodland), from Latin foris outside — more at forum

Date: 13th century

1 : a dense growth of trees and underbrush covering a large tract

2 : a tract of wooded land in England formerly owned by the sovereign and used for game

3 : something resembling a forest especially in profusion or lushness <a forest of microphones> <a kelp forest>

 

Eg, a forest of microphones are all microphones....and a kelp forest is all kelp.

 

Ie, In a forest the trees do not necessarily need to be wild and the trees do not necessarily have to be different

 

My point was, the error is in man. Not in the tree or the seed (the divine inspiration).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Moss is not a tree? Are you sure?

But, all trees are green therefore all things that are green are trees. And moss is green so.........oh never mind.

 

Anyhow,

I never said moss is a forest. I said that some trees have moss on them and the fact that they have moss or another imperfection does not exclude them from being part of the forest.

 

It might make more sense if you learned the meaning of a forest.

 

Websters = Main Entry: 1for·est

Function: noun

Usage: often attributive

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin forestis (silva) unenclosed (woodland), from Latin foris outside — more at forum

Date: 13th century

1 : a dense growth of trees and underbrush covering a large tract

2 : a tract of wooded land in England formerly owned by the sovereign and used for game

3 : something resembling a forest especially in profusion or lushness <a forest of microphones> <a kelp forest>

 

Eg, a forest of microphones are all microphones....and a kelp forest is all kelp.

 

Ie, In a forest the trees do not necessarily need to be wild and the trees do not necessarily have to be different

 

My point was, the error is in man. Not in the tree or the seed (the divine inspiration).

 

This has nothing to do with imperfections, a forest is full of imperfections, those very imperfections is what makes it a real forest and not a artificial grove of trees. Yes, a real forest does indeed need to be wild, you have missed the point of forest completely in your need to construct a mysterious analogy to hide what you are really trying to say.

 

It might make sense if you weren't so arrogant you believe you have the absolute truth and are trying to share it with idiots. I said your analogy makes no sense in the context of our conversation, making such meaningless analogies to hide the fact you don't really know what you are saying is wrong. I've heard that arrogant crap all my life from the pulpit.

 

 

This has nothing to do with inperfections, a forest is full of imperfections, those very imperfections is what makes it a real forest and not a artificial grove of trees.

 

Say what you mean clearly, don't wrap it in an analogy so others have to figure it out. If what you say has real meaning it doesn't need to be obfuscated with analogies.

 

My point would be that any error is in the concept of a perfect god.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, hollow wise sounding bite type analogies only serve to impress those who are not experienced enough to know it's nothing but physco babble.

 

Pyscho-babble is related to an expression of 'feelings' as used in the context of psychological therapy or psychological jargon.

 

As such, what I wrote was not pyscho babble.

 

For example, we often use the term 'pyscho-babble' in the context of an antonym for the word of God.

 

 

From my point of view your analogy is nothing more than a lie to cover up yet another lie, the lie being the existence of god to begin with.

 

You are saying that I am lying to cover up other lies, ultimately leading to covering up the existence of God?

 

Precisely what would I gain by lying to you about that or anything else? If I were doing that, what would be in it for me?

 

 

Don't try to baffle me with BS, I've heard it all in dozens of small fundamentalist Christian churches to large more secular churches, your analogy falls flat. Tell it like it is, don't try to cover up a lack of real knowledge by babbling sound bites that sound wise simply because they are unclear and confusing.

 

Being unclear was not my intent.

I certainly was not trying to sound wise by intentionally being unclear.

 

However, I hope to become skilled at this so that I can apply it to various projects of more significant magnitude in the future.

I've heard that this is how a lot of people get promoted.

Thanks for your input.

 

 

Of course he didn't get fired, how could he fire himself?

huh?

 

DrDNA I've heard those confusing analogies all my life, i stopped being impressed by them way before puberty. if you truly have something to say that is indeed wise don't try to cover it up by being obscure and trying to confuse the issue with false superiority. if you think you have wisdom i think we are all capable to judging that sans the obfuscation.[/quote

 

I am truly sorry if I have offended or angered you by talking about trees and moss.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

It might make sense if you weren't so arrogant you believe you have the absolute truth and are trying to share it with idiots. I said your analogy makes no sense in the context of our conversation, making such meaningless analogies to hide the fact you don't really know what you are saying is wrong. I've heard that arrogant crap all my life from the pulpit.

 

.

Arrogant?

LOL

 

Please explain how believing in God/the Bible is arrogant.

 

PS: for the record, I'm trying to figure out what point(s) YOU are trying to make underneath that vitreous shell.

 

This has nothing to do with imperfections, a forest is full of imperfections, those very imperfections is what makes it a real forest and not a artificial grove of trees.

 

Say what you mean clearly, don't wrap it in an analogy so others have to figure it out. If what you say has real meaning it doesn't need to be obfuscated with analogies..

 

OK. One last time.

The bible is like a forest.

The words are like trees.

The trees grew from seeds in similar manner that the text grew from the living word of God (the owner of the grove/forest).

Some of the trees are not perfect.

The lack of imperfection has nothing to do with the guy from whom the seeds originally came (God).

 

Any imperfection in the bible or in the forest of trees (aka grove) is due entirely to the drunken landscaper (man).

 

That is what I believe and how in the heck that sounds arrogant is beyond my wildest comprehension.

 

I understand that you don't feel or believe the same way that I do about this and I respect your opinion on this matter.

 

In other words, believe what you want. I'm a libertarian anyway.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

To be perfectly honest with you, I'm not sure I understand the point you were trying to make with the trees example, either....... I don't think your examples did a good job, honestly. Can you just tell us what your point is instead of making an analogy? I don't mean to offend, I just don't think I understand the point.

 

~moo

 

this is how nice people communicate:-)

Edited by DrDNA
Consecutive posts merged.
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. One last time.

The bible is like a forest.

The words are like trees.

The trees grew from seeds in similar manner that the text grew from the living word of God (the owner of the grove/forest).

Some of the trees are not perfect.

The lack of imperfection has nothing to do with the guy from whom the seeds originally came (God).

 

What I gather is:

 

Man wrote the Bible, inspired by God.

Mistakes were made by the men

The Bible has mistakes.

 

So, we cannot know the truth by reading the Bible, we must rely on our own inspiration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DRDNA, it's not what you said that was arrogant it's how you say it. Why didn't you just say "God's word is perfect, man's interpretation of it is where any imperfections come from" Why did you find it necessary to add insipid analogies that leave it up to the reader to figure out what you meant?

 

Your arrogance is displayed by your need to appear knowledgeable by obfuscating what you say so it sounds more profound than it really is. "God is perfect man is imperfect" is not a profound statement by any means and trying to make it sound like some special deep knowledge via analogies is insulting and shows you are really just trying to proselytize.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What I gather is:

 

Man wrote the Bible, inspired by God.

Mistakes were made by the men

The Bible has mistakes.

 

So, we cannot know the truth by reading the Bible, we must rely on our own inspiration.

Hobbes makes the same observation, as many other philosophers - but he continues to say that since we can't trust man and man-made texts, the only thing we can rely on is our "god given" rationality to guide us, which means science should be put at top priority for man's endeavor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'm not sure if there is a God or not I think that we can still know what he is.

 

We know that God is one and is omnipresent. This means that God gives off heat, he is the essence of all objects whether solid, gases or liquids, he is in the essence of all sounds and colors and basically all modes of reality are in him like pain, heat, sound, colors, solidity and softness, fluidity etc...

Link to post
Share on other sites
We know that God is one and is omnipresent.

We know? Or we believe?

 

This means that God gives off heat, he is the essence of all objects whether solid, gases or liquids, he is in the essence of all sounds and colors and basically all modes of reality are in him like pain, heat, sound, colors, solidity and softness, fluidity etc...

.... what?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The gods of mythology were projections of the unconscious firmware, which regulate what we call human nature. Particular firmware is projected into a particular god, indirectly telling us which firmware is projecting.

 

For example, Aphrodite was a goddess of love. This particular firmware regulates the human highs and lows, the love and hate, the ups and downs behind human passion and intimacy. To the ancient mind, when these symptoms became active the firmware became personified/projected as Aphrodite. Knowing the goddess Aphrodite allowed the ancient mind to consciously know that particular firmware. It also allowed some to mentally think command lines (prayer) that could trigger it; priestess.

 

Just as the gods of mythology were one big dis-functional family, interfering in each other's affairs and within the affairs of humans, it was typical at that time for many different firmware to become active, at the same time. The ancients were often creative, intelligent and criminally insane. The mythology of the gods created a manual or program of what was what, by means of who was who, so one was more conscious of composite effects and could learn self control and how to harness the potential.

 

Monotheism shifted the mind from the mythological jukebox of firmware, with many songs, to the central control core; One god entity did it all to shift the projection. Although he might delegate some tasks to firmware.

 

The central core projection split into father-son in Christian tradition. This was not regressive, but was analogous to a projection of the ancient core becoming a core-duo processor. The Holy Spirit and trinity reflected the future potential of a tri-core; called Saints. This has all the functionality normal to modern humans plus another core for humanity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What I gather is:

 

Man wrote the Bible, inspired by God.

Mistakes were made by the men

The Bible has mistakes.

 

So, we cannot know the truth by reading the Bible, we must rely on our own inspiration.

 

If there are a few bugs in Microsoft Windows (a lot if you are talking about Vista) does that mean that Microsoft Windows is not an operating system?

 

And, if there are a few bugs in it and other software, should everyone just format their hard drives and write their own OS, XTML and word processing code from scratch?

Edited by DrDNA
Link to post
Share on other sites
If there are a few bugs in Microsoft Windows (a lot if you are talking about Vista) does that mean that Microsoft Windows is not an operating system?

Bill Gates might be very smart and powerful, but he's not said to be God.

 

For that matter, the difference between Windows and The Bible is that the bible is said to be inspired by God, and hence, you would expect, would not be subjected to the same minial human expectation that Windows is under.

 

And, in any case, I think that next time you make this analogy, use "Mac OS" or some type of Linux, you might get people to actually agree with the comparison to perfection, much more so than with Windows :P

 

And, if there are a few bugs in it and other software, should everyone just format their hard drives and write their own OS, XTML and word processing code from scratch?

No but they SHOULD contact the programmer and ask for a refund or fixes. And the programmers *do* release security fixes (specially windows).

 

And when they don't (and there are a few examples of programs that were abandoned by their programmers) the programs are abandoned by the followers as well, and a better, more adapted, more supported program is replacing the old one.

 

So either this is a REALLY bad analogy, or the analogy leads towards switching religion ;)

 

~moo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.