 |
|
08-20-2018, 04:01 PM
|
#7921
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
Before Gutenberg printed his Bible there was a lay person, a Catholic, who came up with a list of books he thought should be excluded from the canon. The Catholic church never adopted this guy's idea since he was not a cleric. However, this guy's list of "books that should not be in the canon" became widely known. Gutenberg excluded these books from his Bible, probably to save time and money rather than any religious conviction. The King James Version also excludes the same books, so in a sense, the Gutenberg Bible could be considered a Protestant Bible.
|
Not being a Catholic or Protestant, I am relying on this.....
The Gutenberg Bible . ... Written in Latin, the Gutenberg Bible is an edition of the Vulgate, printed by Johannes Gutenberg, in Mainz, in present-day Germany, in the 1450s.
Vulgate:..the principal Latin version of the Bible, prepared mainly by St. Jerome in the late 4th century, and (as revised in 1592) adopted as the official text for the Roman Catholic Church.
Are you saying Gutenberg used a abridged version of the Vulgate, and if so, how close, were those exclusions to the subsequent Protestant exclusions? Will any bible excluding some books not included in the Catholic be considered a "Protestant" bible?
Of course on This Catholic Forum
https://forums.catholic.com/t/quick-...catholic/25399
"Yup, it was the Catholic Bible in Latin, or the Vulgate Bible. It contained all of the original bboks, even the ones the Protestants call apocrypha."
|
|
|
|
08-20-2018, 04:03 PM
|
#7922
|
|
Buckle Up
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,614
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap
Not being a Catholic or Protestant, I am relying on this.....
The Gutenberg Bible . ... Written in Latin, the Gutenberg Bible is an edition of the Vulgate, printed by Johannes Gutenberg, in Mainz, in present-day Germany, in the 1450s.
Vulgate:..the principal Latin version of the Bible, prepared mainly by St. Jerome in the late 4th century, and (as revised in 1592) adopted as the official text for the Roman Catholic Church.
Are you saying Gutenberg used a abridged version of the Vulgate, and if so, how close, were those exclusions to the subsequent Protestant exclusions? Will any bible excluding some books not included in the Catholic be considered a "Protestant" bible?
Of course on This Catholic Forum
https://forums.catholic.com/t/quick-...catholic/25399
"Yup, it was the Catholic Bible in Latin, or the Vulgate Bible. It contained all of the original bboks, even the ones the Protestants call apocrypha." |
The 42 line bibles are complete, the 40 and 32 line have omissions....
|
|
|
|
|
08-20-2018, 04:10 PM
|
#7923
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReplayRandall
When viewed on the ground or on Hubble?
|
Telescopes gather more light and magnify images. Unfiltered lenses and mirrors do not affect the "red shift.
Velocity as a percentage of C does.
|
|
|
|
|
08-20-2018, 04:16 PM
|
#7924
|
|
Buckle Up
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,614
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap
Telescopes gather more light and magnify images. Unfiltered lenses and mirrors do not affect the "red shift.
Velocity as a percentage of C does.
|
The earths atmosphere refraction plays a major role from on the ground telescopes.....Hubble makes them almost obsolete, bypassing said problem......Now, gravity fields from different galaxies, stars and black holes present other problems of true light direction and collection, but that's a whole different subject.
|
|
|
|
|
08-20-2018, 04:22 PM
|
#7925
|
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 4,553
|
Remember, man was created to be a slave/servant of the gods, one of his responsibilities was the _feeding_ of the gods. Adapa who lost out on a chance to obtain immortality for himself and mankind was Ea's "servant." Among his "servant-duties" was the _feeding_ of Ea. He was a baker of bread for Ea and provided Ea daily not only bread but fresh water and fish (Adapa was also a fisherman besides being a baker). Ea _feared_ the loss of his servant who provided him his food. In the Mesopotamian belief system gods do _not_ "feed themselves" or toil in their gardens of edin to raise their food, it is man their slave/servant who does this. If man becomes a god by attaining immortality, "Who then will feed the gods and raise their food for them in the gardens of edin?"
http://www.bibleorigins.net/YahwehYawUgarit.html
|
|
|
|
|
08-20-2018, 04:39 PM
|
#7926
|
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReplayRandall
The earths atmosphere refraction plays a major role from on the ground telescopes.....Hubble makes them almost obsolete, bypassing said problem......Now, gravity fields from different galaxies, stars and black holes present other problems of true light direction and collection, but that's a whole different subject.
|
Atmospheric refraction, gravity, black holes, etc. do not affect light's frequency, which is what is being red shifted. The only thing that affects light's frequency is the doppler effect which is a function of the source's motion relative to the observer.
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
|
|
08-20-2018, 04:41 PM
|
#7927
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReplayRandall
I do believe so.....as earths atmosphere bends and distorts their light.
|
Large optical telescopes are built at high elevations, and are able to detect a "red shift" in celestial objects. Before Hubble,
|
|
|
|
|
08-20-2018, 05:50 PM
|
#7928
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
Incorrect. If there is no thought there is no subjectivity. There is pure experience.
|
Only to YOURSELF. By definition, for a thing to be "objective", it must exist as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence. It must be independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers. Your personal experiences cannot quality as being objective by these definitions. Therefore, they are purely subjective!
Quote:
|
]Did you "love Obama"? Obviously not. Then according to your own words you "don't know God".
|
Who said I have to love Obama or anyone else that is not my neighbor?
However, you are the one who insists that God loves each and every person on this earth unconditionally -- even everyone's most heinous sins -- for God CANNOT do anything other than love, love, love, love, love....no matter what. He cannot even hate sin. He certainly cannot hate the sinner. Therefore, according this perverse understanding of yours about the nature and extent of God's love, you are morally obligated to love just like he does.
I, on the other hand, am under no such biblical obligation.
Quote:
|
Wait a minute. You don't even believe the Kingdom of God is within in the first place! You believe "Its in our midst".This has been my main beef with you for all these years. Now suddenly you are telling me its within Trump! WOW! Is this the "Brown Nose" special?
|
Really? I don't believe your nonsense? What would I ever do without your "helpful" reminders?
Of course, I don't believe! I'm turning your own stupid interpretation of the "kingdom within" upon your own head to manifest to everyone here your duplicity and hypocrisy. For you don't believe that there is an external, visible kingdom for anyone to enter! So, now you're going to appeal to a passage that speaks to such an external, visible kingdom to condemn Trump -- even though you really don't believe in such a kingdom?
[quote[Well unfortunately for your boy Trump, Jesus was very specific about his type not entering Heaven because of his gargantuan EGO.
Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God[/quote]
But again, in your deceitfulness, you leave out the rest of the passage because you want to mislead everyone. Jesus did not teach that no rich people would enter the kingdom of God. This is how the rest of the passage reads:
Matt 19:25-26
25 [i]And when the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, "Then who can be saved?" 26 And looking upon them Jesus said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."p/i]
NASB
God's grace is more than sufficient to bring the rich and poor and all in between into kingdom of heaven.
Furthermore, there were several rich saints in the bible. In the OT there was Abraham, Lot, Issac, Jacob, Job and Solomon for starters. In the NT
there were Joseph, called Barnabas (Acts 4:36-37), Dorcas (Acts 9:36),
Cornelius (Acts 10:1), Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:6-12), Lydia (Acts16:14-15), Jason (Acts 17:5-9), Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:2-3),
Mnason of Cyprus (Acts 21:16) and Philemon (Philemon 1)
[quote[No. The orangutan is wiser than you because he does NOT see fear in God. He sees Love which is what God is according to your own Bible.
One sees God through Love or through Ego. Ego manifests fear and anger which is an illusion because Ego is an illusion in the first place.[/quote]
If you were half as smart as a monkey, you would fear God!
Luke 12:5
5 "But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who after He has killed has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!
NASB
And the bottom line to Paul's indictment of mankind is this:
Rom 3:18
8 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."
NASB
Your ego is so much bigger than God, therefore, you cannot fear him. And if you loved him, you would truly have reverential fear toward him.
Heb 12:28-29
28 Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe; 29 for our God is a consuming fire.
NASB
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
|
08-20-2018, 06:03 PM
|
#7929
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey
Remember, man was created to be a slave/servant of the gods, one of his responsibilities was the _feeding_ of the gods. Adapa who lost out on a chance to obtain immortality for himself and mankind was Ea's "servant." Among his "servant-duties" was the _feeding_ of Ea. He was a baker of bread for Ea and provided Ea daily not only bread but fresh water and fish (Adapa was also a fisherman besides being a baker). Ea _feared_ the loss of his servant who provided him his food. In the Mesopotamian belief system gods do _not_ "feed themselves" or toil in their gardens of edin to raise their food, it is man their slave/servant who does this. If man becomes a god by attaining immortality, "Who then will feed the gods and raise their food for them in the gardens of edin?"
http://www.bibleorigins.net/YahwehYawUgarit.html |
Where in the bible did Yahweh of the Hebrews required to be fed? Yahweh needs noting from men (Act 17:25; Ps 50:12)
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
|
08-20-2018, 07:35 PM
|
#7930
|
|
Buckle Up
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,614
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
Atmospheric refraction, gravity, black holes, etc. do not affect light's frequency, which is what is being red shifted. The only thing that affects light's frequency is the doppler effect which is a function of the source's motion relative to the observer.
|
Nothing escapes a black hole's pull, not even light....Guess I'm mistaken.
|
|
|
|
|
08-20-2018, 09:03 PM
|
#7931
|
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 4,553
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Where in the bible did Yahweh of the Hebrews required to be fed? Yahweh needs noting from men (Act 17:25; Ps 50:12)
|
If Yahweh needs nothing from man, then why did he create us...? If not for food, then to feed his ego with praise...?
|
|
|
|
|
08-20-2018, 09:11 PM
|
#7932
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,546
|
OF COURSE God needs something from man. He needs man's adoration. Or should I say "fear"?
__________________
Live to play another day.
|
|
|
|
|
08-20-2018, 09:55 PM
|
#7934
|
|
Buckle Up
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,614
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
OF COURSE God needs something from man. He needs man's adoration. Or should I say "fear"?
|
How did you come to this conclusion?.....Wait, don't tell me---->Boxcar
|
|
|
|
|
08-20-2018, 10:24 PM
|
#7935
|
|
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,139
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Only to YOURSELF. By definition, for a thing to be "objective", it must exist as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence. It must be independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers. Your personal experiences cannot quality as being objective by these definitions. Therefore, they are purely subjective!
|
Incorrect. Objectivity has nothing to do with others verifying that it is objectivity because that is being subjective.
You have no clue what it is to experience God consciousness which is what I am talking about. There are no definitions there. Try to educate yourself before you speak what you know not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Who said I have to love Obama or anyone else that is not my neighbor?
|
You do. Try to keep up with what you say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
However, you are the one who insists that God loves each and every person on this earth unconditionally -- even everyone's most heinous sins -- for God CANNOT do anything other than love, love, love, love, love....no matter what. He cannot even hate sin. He certainly cannot hate the sinner. Therefore, according this perverse understanding of yours about the nature and extent of God's love, you are morally obligated to love just like he does.
|
Actually what you say here facetiously is true although I am not "obligated" to love anyone. God does not "force" anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Of course, I don't believe! I'm turning your own stupid interpretation of the "kingdom within" upon your own head to manifest to everyone here your duplicity and hypocrisy. For you don't believe that there is an external, visible kingdom for anyone to enter! So, now you're going to appeal to a passage that speaks to such an external, visible kingdom to condemn Trump -- even though you really don't believe in such a kingdom?
|
Heaven is within and when Jesus says your boy won't enter it, he is talking about that same kingdom within, not an external Heaven so I am not contradicting myself. You're just too dense to understand what Heaven is.
I do not love Trump's EGO. You do. But as far as his soul is concerned, I have no problem. Trump and others who are ruled by their Ego keep their souls hidden until they are dead. Gains the world and loses his soul. Pity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
But again, in your deceitfulness, you leave out the rest of the passage because you want to mislead everyone. Jesus did not teach that no rich people would enter the kingdom of God. This is how the rest of the passage reads:
Matt 19:25-26
25 [i]And when the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, "Then who can be saved?" 26 And looking upon them Jesus said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."p/i]
NASB
God's grace is more than sufficient to bring the rich and poor and all in between into kingdom of heaven.
|
What Jesus is saying is that those who leave their Ego's out the door may enter the Kingdom (within). Rich A-holes usually have Huge ego's. This is why Jesus gave the example of a rich man not being able to enter Heaven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
If you were half as smart as a monkey, you would fear God!
|
Thank God I'm not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
