Religion II

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

If only Actor were.... And for your info, haven't been on a merry-go-round since I was 6 or so.

He likes to revisit the same issues over and over again.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

How are you making out on finding all those nasty "misinterpretations" in the OT dealing with the Trinity? Are you having fun, yet, in finding them all?

By the way, one of my neighbors is a cop. The next time I see him, I'm going to have to share with him your moonbat, crazy logic on how multiple sources or multiple counselors mean there is a built-in bias to their testimony, witness or opinion. I'm going to have urge him (in YOUR NAME of course) to quit looking for multiple witnesses when investigating crimes. I'll make sure he understands that the more witnesses he finds, the more biased their reports will be.

How are you equating witnesses to a crime to people sitting around translating the Bible?

I'm talking about the TRANSLATORS...who, when they come across an ambiguous or confusing portion, will use their own biases to translate said portion. You are relying on THEM instead of relying on yourself.

You shouldn't be wasting your time here. You should be taking courses on Hebrew and Greek.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

"The concept of inalienable rights was criticized by Jeremy Bentham and Edmund Burke as groundless. Bentham and Burke, writing in 18th century Britain, claimed that rights arise from the actions of government, or evolve from tradition, and that neither of these can provide anything inalienable. (See Bentham's "Critique of the Doctrine of Inalienable, Natural Rights", and Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France). Presaging the shift in thinking in the 19th century, Bentham famously dismissed the idea of natural rights as "nonsense on stilts". By way of contrast to the views of British nationals Burke and Bentham, the leading American revolutionary scholar James Wilson condemned Burke's view as "tyranny."[25] The signers of the Declaration of Independence deemed it a "self-evident truth" that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". In The Social Contract, Jean-Jacques Rousseau claims that the existence of inalienable rights is unnecessary for the existence of a constitution or a set of laws and rights. This idea of a social contract – that rights and responsibilities are derived from a consensual contract between the government and the people – is the most widely recognized alternative."

Exactly, why America is unique, based on the foundation, that rights of men, do not come from governments, monarchs, tyrants or social contracts or human customs, but from a superior source, the intelligent Creator being, who created man and endowed man with rights, that are not subject to the whims of governments.

Additionally, even though America 's governing ideals are based on the existence of a intelligent being creating man, it is not a theocracy, as you will find in some countries.

Every one who lives under this republic should be proud of the rounding Fathers for understanding the irrevocable rights of men, while avoiding the pitfalls of theocracy.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

Are you saying that the court is addressing an issue over which it has no jurisdiction?

Put it another way? Is the issue whether these individuals can get on the plane (outside the U.S.) or whether they can get off the plane (inside the U.S.)?

Let's explore this question of jurisdiction. A man in a theocracy, who is a citizen of said theocracy is arrested for same sex acts. The punishment is beheading. Do you believe Actor, that this foreign national in his country has the right to invoke the protection of American law against cruel and unusual punishment, to avoid beheading?

How about an American citizen is caught in a same sex act in the same theocracy and is sentenced to beheading. Do you believe he can appeal to a U.S. court to have the sentence ruled unconstitutional due to the punishment of beheading is cruel and unusual punishment?

FYI, I agree beheading, stoning, caning, jail, etc. is cruel and unusual punishment.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

How are you equating witnesses to a crime to people sitting around translating the Bible?

I'm talking about the TRANSLATORS...who, when they come across an ambiguous or confusing portion, will use their own biases to translate said portion. You are relying on THEM instead of relying on yourself.

You shouldn't be wasting your time here. You should be taking courses on Hebrew and Greek.

The analogy is solid in principle. According to your moonbat logic, the more people involved in an activity (specifically you mentioned the work of translating) the more likely for ugly biases to rear its head. Such logic is totally off the wall. I rely on different and numerous teams of language scholars, making collusion and conspiracy (clearly implied by your inane thesis) among the teams highly unlikely. However, when only one person or one team is doing the translating, then it is far more likely for theological biases to manifest itself through the work. This is why law enforcement and even prosecutors are actually quite reluctant to charge and prosecute a case based on the testimony of one witness! They realize that one witness might have his own agenda for the victim or against the accused; whereas that is more improbable with multiple witnesses. In fact, sir, in many states a prosecutor will not prosecute on the testimony of one witness unless the circumstantial evidence is very strong.

Moreover, there are numerous hermeneutical rules or principles that any prudent and honest interpreter will adopt and apply because these serve as safeguards against improper interpretation. A great example of this can be seen in Lights perverted, totally out-of-context interpretation of LK 17:21. He sticks with this interpretation in spite of the fact that other portions of scripture conflict with that interpretation. But because Light has brought his own baggage of presuppositions with him, having his own biases and own agenda to support his own peculiar religious beliefs, he doesn't care a whit about the "testimony of multiple writers of other portions of scripture -- or for that matter other words that Jesus uttered in different places that would also demolish his interpretation. Conversely, my interpretation (and that of very many other born again Christians) of this passage present no theological problems whatsoever. No conflicts. No contradictions. No disconnects with other portions of God's truth.

Now imagine for a moment (as laughable as it may be) Light was schooled and is well versed in the Koine Greek and he decides to write and have published his own version of the NT scriptures. (Maybe he would call that version The Really True Light.) Do you honestly think that he would not bring any of his presuppositions to bear upon his translation? He certainly has no qualms at equivocating when it suits his purpose. He has proven this already more than once.

In closing...don't ever doubt one of my analogies. I have never given any that aren't logically rock-solid.

Btw, how are you making out in finding all those OT "misinterpretations"? Failure to produce will only prove to everyone here that you are The Naked Emperor. Tsk, tsk.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Let's explore this question of jurisdiction. A man in a theocracy, who is a citizen of said theocracy is arrested for same sex acts.

Same as what?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The analogy is solid in principle. According to your moonbat logic, the more people involved in an activity (specifically you mentioned the work of translating) the more likely for ugly biases to rear its head. Such logic is totally off the wall.

It certainly is not off the wall. Just look at all the different translations for the "kingdom of heaven is within you" portion. Some write "within you." Some write "in your midst." Some write something a little different. How are you to know what it is actually saying? You don't. So you choose to BELIEVE whichever one fits your thinking. Good luck with that.

In closing...don't ever doubt one of my analogies.

More insane ego gibberish emanating from your abused keyboard. Spare me.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

This demolishes your interpretation. Since Christ is the Ruler in his Kingdom, he could logically and honestly tell the Pharisees that "the kingdom, (i.e. the KING) is in your midst" -- that is to say, standing right in front of you.

Contradiction. In the above you say Christ is the Ruler of his Kingdom and IS the Kingdom. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. You demolished your own interpretation.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

Same as what?

As described by Colbert.

Oh look a boxcar clone Deflect by asking inane questions.

Thank you for proving you are incapable of having a reasonable discussion. Keep posting your mindless slogans. BTW I don't believe you are an atheist, maybe you are anti-Christian or just a troll.

After all you did admit you post to mock boxcar, which qualifies you as a troll.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

It certainly is not off the wall. Just look at all the different translations for the "kingdom of heaven is within you" portion. Some write "within you." Some write "in your midst." Some write something a little different. How are you to know what it is actually saying? You don't. So you choose to BELIEVE whichever one fits your thinking. Good luck with that.

More insane ego gibberish emanating from your abused keyboard. Spare me.

"H basilia tou theou ENTOS YMON estin"...Luke quotes Jesus as saying...and the meaning is unmistakable. It means that the kingdom of God is WITHIN us. If Luke meant to say "among us"...then he would have never used the word "entos"; he would have used "en meso"...a phrase that he had already used 27 times in his gospel.

To summarize:

"Entos" means WITHIN...and "en meso" means AMONG. Luke was familiar with BOTH phrases...and he used them in the appropriate manner. The Boxcars of the world will have to live with that.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

No. I believe, the case, involves our southern border and our border patrol officers.

I find nothing in the link you posted about "our southern border and our border patrol officers."

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

As described by Colbert.

Who?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

How are you equating witnesses to a crime to people sitting around translating the Bible?

I'm talking about the TRANSLATORS...who, when they come across an ambiguous or confusing portion, will use their own biases to translate said portion. You are relying on THEM instead of relying on yourself.

You shouldn't be wasting your time here. You should be taking courses on Hebrew and Greek.

I'm going to generally agree with you.

I've done some minor amount of translating (not Greek or Hebrew) and I can tell you that given the differences in grammatical construction and the fact that many words do not translate directly into modern English, the translator has a very difficult job. You are trying to get into the mind of the writer while constructing an English sentence that sounds like good writing. And no two translators will come up with exactly the same sentences, even if they come up with a generally agreed thought. The point in translation is to write sentences that flow just as if the writer wrote them in English.

There's an old joke. Three government statisticians who had never been out of their basement offices decide to go deer hunting. The go to Cabella's, get fully outfitted and head out to the woods. Pretty soon they spot a deer. The first statistician takes aim and misses a foot to the left. Before the startled deer can the off the second statistician fires and misses a foot to the right. The third statistician jumps up and down and yells, "we got him, we got him."

Same sort of idea with translation. When you have a gaggle of people translating a book, you have slightly different translations, arguments, and hopefully consensus. In simple terms, casa grande may mean big house, large house, grand house, great house, even mansion. Put this sentence into some free translators and see what translations you get. La casa grande en la colina podría ser vista por todos en la puebla. I guarantee you you'll come up with two different tenses, three different meanings for casa granda, and at least two different translations for puebla. Then decide which one represents the thought of the writer. The translator decides how that phrase bets fits the thought and meaning of the writer, and anyone who tells you they can get the meaning of something by torturing the translation of one word is full of shit. And that is one simple Spanish phrase, a far more modern language than ancient Greek or Hebrew. And don't kid yourself. The translator is colored by the superiority of his knowledge of the current nature of things. Someone who used the phrase "singing wires" might get translated as "telegraph wires" because we all know that singing wires referred to the telegraph.

If you speak a second language, watch a movie in English with subtitles in that language and see how many times you go, that's not exactly what they said, and recall that professional translators are the ones writing the subtitles.

Translation is as much art as science, and that includes the Bible. The fact that there are multiple versions with slightly different "translations" and continuing arguments ought to tell the thinking person something.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Making it short and to the point:

In Luke 17:20-21, Jesus says, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you" (NKJV).

Originally Posted by thaskalos

"H basilia tou theou ENTOS YMON estin"...Luke quotes Jesus as saying...and the meaning is unmistakable. It means that the kingdom of God is WITHIN us. If Luke meant to say "among us"...then he would have never used the word "entos" He would have used "en meso"...a phrase that he had already used 27 times in his gospel.

To summarize:

"Entos" means WITHIN...and "en meso" means AMONG. Luke was familiar with BOTH phrases...and he used them in the appropriate manner. The Boxcars of the world will have to live with that.

And the final say on this------>The Holy Spirit ensures that the Kingdom of God is WITHIN us, as long as you've not DENIED the Holy Spirit, which is the ONLY unforgivable sin, according to Jesus.......Doesn't this all tie-in with the Trinity of God? Of course it does, end of discussion.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

And the final say on this------>The Holy Spirit ensures that the Kingdom of God is WITHIN us, as long as you've not DENIED the Holy Spirit, which is the ONLY unforgivable sin, according to Jesus.......Doesn't this all tie-in with the Trinity of God? Of course it does, end of discussion.

Fine. Let's close down the thread then.