# The Bible does not condemn self defense



## PhotonGuy

The Bible does not condemn self defense. Those passages about turning the other cheek, that's if somebody slaps you. Specifically if somebody smites your right cheek, give them your left. However, if somebody tries something else such as if they try to punch you or mug, rape, murder you there is nothing in the Bible that says you can't use any and every means to put them down.

Now, there is no folder directly dedicated to religious or Bible studies but I thought this particular folder on spirituality comes closest. Also, not everybody believes the Bible so if you don't believe the Bible than this thread wouldn't apply to you. Read and answer it if you would but don't say I didn't warn you that you will be wasting your time.


----------



## Tez3

Well, my 'Bible' (as you call it) doesn't say anything at all about turning the other cheek.

You can't decide who can and who can't post on this, that is censorship. People can answer if they want, without wasting their time, whether they believe in what you call the Bible or not.


----------



## drop bear

Are we supporting this with any sort of scripture?


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Are we supporting this with any sort of scripture?




I shouldn't think so, we are only supposed to post up if we agree with him so don't need any citations at all.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> I shouldn't think so, we are only supposed to post up if we agree with him so don't need any citations at all.



Fair enough. 

See I would challenge that the Bible that says you can't use any and every means to put them down.

I assumed it was against that kind of thing.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> See I would challenge that the Bible that says you can't use any and every means to put them down.
> 
> I assumed it was against that kind of thing.



It would depend on which translation you read, I can guarantee though they will all be different from the original.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> It would depend on which translation you read, I can guarantee though they will all be different from the original.



Fair enough. 

Photon guy. Which bible are we using?


----------



## Tez3

In the Jewish tradition, self defense is a moral obligation. The Torah allows people to defend their property from a thief even if this will cause the conflict to escalate into a physical battle. If there is reason to assume that the thief will use lethal force to seize the property, the owner may use physical force, and even kill the thief if necessary to protect himself (Exodus 22:1, Sanhedrin 72a). There are two rationales for allowing self defense. The first is practical; without the ability to use lethal force to stop the actions of aggressors, anarchy would reign (Chinnuch 600). The second  rationale challenges the moral assumptions of nonviolence. It asserts that it is impossible to equate the lives of the aggressor and the victim; we have as a rule "that God's quest is the interests of  the hunted" (Ecclesiastes 3:15). The life of the aggressor and the victim are not of equal value; if only one will survive, it is our obligation to make certain that it is the innocent person, the victim, who will survive (Cf. Rashi to Exodus 22:1).

 This is essentially the Jewish point of view; if you don't help the victim, you are an ally of the aggressor. If a person refuses to defend himself, he allows evil to triumph.


----------



## Dirty Dog

PhotonGuy said:


> The Bible does not condemn self defense.



Which bible are you referring to? There are lots...



PhotonGuy said:


> Those passages about turning the other cheek, that's if somebody slaps you.



Oh, so you're a literalist. So, you also thing that bats are birds, right? And that masturbation and tattoos are sins? And you don't seek medical care when you're sick, right?

Is there anything more hypocritical than a Cafeteria Christian?



PhotonGuy said:


> Specifically if somebody smites your right cheek, give them your left.



How about if I smite your left cheek instead? Because after all, by your literalist view, those passages only apply to an open hand slap to the right cheek.



PhotonGuy said:


> Now, there is no folder directly dedicated to religious or Bible studies but I thought this particular folder on spirituality comes closest. Also, not everybody believes the Bible so if you don't believe the Bible than this thread wouldn't apply to you. Read and answer it if you would but don't say I didn't warn you that you will be wasting your time.



Hey, you're entitled to your views, no matter how silly they are. And I'm entitled to laugh at your views. Especially when they're silly.


----------



## Tez3

Dirty Dog said:


> Is there anything more hypocritical than a Cafeteria Christian?



I've not heard that phrase before, nice one.

PH, I think all the threads are going to very boring and hoards of people are going to head to the hills if all that is posted is 'yes I agree', we find out about things by questioning, listening to different views and debating. By stating what you did in the OP you are actually lecturing to us, telling us you are right and that if we think you are wrong you have to not answer.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Dirty Dog said:


> Hey, you're entitled to your views, no matter how silly they are. And I'm entitled to laugh at your views. Especially when they're silly.


So you think that the Bible is silly? You think Christianity is silly?


----------



## Dirty Dog

PhotonGuy said:


> So you think that the Bible is silly?



Which bible?
You're not so totally lost to reality that you think there's only one, are you?



PhotonGuy said:


> You think Christianity is silly?



No more or less silly than the thousands of other religions humanity has invented over the years.

I notice you didn't answer the questions that actually pertained to your OP. So good job derailing your own thread.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Dirty Dog said:


> Which bible?
> You're not so totally lost to reality that you think there's only one, are you?


Well the original Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew but as far as an English Bible, I personally prefer the King James Bible.



Dirty Dog said:


> No more or less silly than the thousands of other religions humanity has invented over the years.


That's your opinion.



Dirty Dog said:


> I notice you didn't answer the questions that actually pertained to your OP. So good job derailing your own thread.


I will get to that. I've got other stuff to deal with right now.


----------



## Dirty Dog

PhotonGuy said:


> Well the original Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew



No, it wasn't. There are any number of religions that predate both the Hebrew and Greek languages. So for the third time... WHICH bible?



PhotonGuy said:


> but as far as an English Bible, I personally prefer the King James Bible.









Yeah, that makes sense.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> You can't decide who can and who can't post on this, that is censorship. People can answer if they want, without wasting their time, whether they believe in what you call the Bible or not.



Quite right. If other people want to waste their time that's their choice not mine.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Dirty Dog said:


> No, it wasn't. There are any number of religions that predate both the Hebrew and Greek languages. So for the third time... WHICH bible?


The Christian Bible. Specifically the King James Bible.



Dirty Dog said:


> Yeah, that makes sense.



And if you want to believe that, so be it.


----------



## Blindside

PhotonGuy said:


> The Bible does not condemn self defense. Those passages about turning the other cheek, that's if somebody slaps you. Specifically if somebody smites your right cheek, give them your left. However, if somebody tries something else such as if they try to punch you or mug, rape, murder you there is nothing in the Bible that says you can't use any and every means to put them down.



Are you actually interpreting this literally?  Like "slaps are OK, but if you tries to give us a noogie, game on man?"

There is probably a little context here, why do you thing he said "right cheek?"


----------



## PhotonGuy

Blindside said:


> Are you actually interpreting this literally?  Like "slaps are OK, but if you tries to give us a noogie, game on man?"


The Bible should be taken literally unless it says so otherwise, if you believe the Christian Bible.



Blindside said:


> There is probably a little context here, why do you thing he said "right cheek?"


That has to do with being slapped with the back of the hand since everything back in those days was done with the right hand and therefore to slap the right cheek would be a backhand which was one of the lowest forms of insults.


----------



## Blindside

PhotonGuy said:


> The Bible should be taken literally unless it says so otherwise, if you believe the Christian Bible.
> 
> 
> That has to do with being slapped with the back of the hand since everything back in those days was done with the right hand and therefore to slap the right cheek would be a backhand which was one of the lowest forms of insults.


. So the lesson is not literal, about slaps, it is about insults....


----------



## PhotonGuy

Blindside said:


> . So the lesson is not literal, about slaps, it is about insults....


Well in those days a slap was an insult, particularly if it was a backhand.


----------



## K-man

Oh, good grief! Where's that rabbit when you need him?


----------



## Blindside

PhotonGuy said:


> Well in those days a slap was an insult, particularly if it was a backhand.



Ok, so where does the bible draw the line, slaps are OK according to your original interpretation, when is OK to throw down?  Does the Bible give us a literal use of force continuum?  When is it OK to use "any and every means?"


----------



## hoshin1600

This thread is going to be like a car wreck and I just can't help but watch.


----------



## drop bear

This is the same Jesus who didn't game on when he got crucified?

Which is supposed to be quite nasty.


----------



## drop bear

Ok. This is the passage. 

"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"

Which taken literally suggests there is no reason to engage in violent self defence.


----------



## Gnarlie

PhotonGuy said:


> Quite right. If other people want to waste their time that's their choice not mine.


Thing is PG, you're not the sole audience for threads that you post. There are people from all kinds of backgrounds all over the world reading this. Think about their perspectives rather than your own. 

What's a waste of time to you is perfectly valid discussion to others.

On topic, I'm not religious, partly because I believe religion causes violence. What any of the Bibles or religious texts have to say about self defence or violence is only of interest to me in the sense that it gives me an appreciation of what I might be dealing with in an opponent. I don't view discussion of that as wasted time.


----------



## Dirty Dog

PhotonGuy said:


> The Bible should be taken literally unless it says so otherwise, if you believe the Christian Bible.



So, you personally believe that bats are birds, that masturbation and tattoos are sins, and you do not seek medical care when you're sick, right? 
You dodged this earlier. If the statement above is not correct, then you, sir, are a hypocrite. Because each and every one of those things is straight out of the Christian bible. A biblical literalist MUST believe all of those things.



PhotonGuy said:


> That has to do with being slapped with the back of the hand since everything back in those days was done with the right hand and therefore to slap the right cheek would be a backhand which was one of the lowest forms of insults.



I would really LOVE to see you provide some evidence to support any of the claims in this idiotic statement. Lefties are not exactly new, and there is absolutely zero reason to think that there were no lefties 2000 years ago. After that, you can take a stab at explaining how you determined how one type of slap is "lower" than another.


----------



## Tez3

I do like a weird thread in the morning, so ...well, silly.
I've never heard such nonsense as with slapped with the back of the right hand being a big insult and these presumably are my people you are talking about? I have a really good grasp of history of the Jewish people, well I would wouldn't I. Really you need to get your head out of television programmes and comic books and come into the real world.


----------



## Cirdan

Tez3 said:


> I do like a weird thread in the morning, so ...well, silly.
> I've never heard such nonsense as with slapped with the back of the right hand being a big insult and these presumably are my people you are talking about? I have a really good grasp of history of the Jewish people, well I would wouldn't I. Really you need to get your head out of television programmes and comic books and come into the real world.



I don`t think he is ready Tez, I really don`t.


----------



## Jenna

@PhotonGuy

I have read your complaints of tangential posting by others previously.. Since there seem to be a pattern of confusion and disarray in your thread-creation and skills in guiding of discussions you initiate, might the cause of your troubles be that you have NOT CLEARLY DEFINED the point and purpose of your thread??  Here that seems true.  I would not know quite exactly what I would be replying to.  It is a statement you have made kind of like Siri on my iphone would have made before I killed it.. sort of clever and but sort of dumb too..

SELF-REFLECT! That is what you can do!  It is not too late by far.  You are young.  You have said so.  So you have ample time.  Self-reflect and see the confusion is not the cause of others and but the cause of you not defining and thinking out these statements before posting.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> Well the original Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew but as far as an English Bible, I personally prefer the King James Bible.
> 
> 
> That's your opinion.
> 
> 
> I will get to that. I've got other stuff to deal with right now.




. Not sure you will understand this but here you go anyway. How and When Was the Torah Written - Questions Answers


About the King James Bible, it's not a case of 'believing' anything, it's an historical fact that it was translated as it was, there are documents in the British national Archives proving it. This is from a Christian site where they have reason to use the King James version and even they record the political and religious thoughts behind the translation. Story Behind King James Bible


Xtians have problems with translations and which is the most 'accurate' and which is the 'best'.

5 Tips for Picking the Best Bible Translation


PG you have unwittingly opened a can of worms here!


----------



## elder999

PhotonGuy said:


> The Bible does not condemn self defense. Those passages about turning the other cheek, that's if somebody slaps you. Specifically if somebody smites your right cheek, give them your left. However, if somebody tries something else such as if they try to punch you or mug, rape, murder you there is nothing in the Bible that says you can't use any and every means to put them down.
> 
> Now, there is no folder directly dedicated to religious or Bible studies but I thought this particular folder on spirituality comes closest. Also, not everybody believes the Bible so if you don't believe the Bible than this thread wouldn't apply to you. Read and answer it if you would but don't say I didn't warn you that you will be wasting your time.



Oooh, boy. 

Here's the scripture:

_38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
*Matthew 5:38-42,KJV*_

Where it's part of the Sermon on the Mount-in Luke, it's part of the injunction to "love your enemies." This is important: at that time, "your enemies," for Jesus's principally Hebrew audience, were the *Romans*.
It's said by some that at that time, striking those perceived to be of a lower class was done with the back of the hand to assert authority-thus, the Romans would strike Hebrews with the back of the hand- and used their left hand for "unclean purposes," that is to say, to wipe their asses....if they were confronted by a Hebrew who turned their cheek, they were confounded: presented with a dilemma whereby they could strike with their open hand or fist:treating the Hebrew as an equal-in fact, the entire Sermon on the Mount is somewhat politically  subversive in nature.


It also-since it's coupled with the verse from Deuteronomy about "an eye for an eye"-could be an injunction against vengeance, rather than self-defense. People used the verse from Deuteronomy to justify vengeance-thus the "_you have *heard it said*_, rather than the more conventional, "_it is *written*_" when referencing scripture.

It's also worth noting (for those who seem to think it's some sort of pacifist statement) that Jesus doesn't say to stand there and keep turning your cheek-he's pretty specific about the act.

Lastly, we have to note that Jesus told his followers this:

_He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”_*Luke 22:36*

Amazing to me  how some people "read" the Bible, _without actually *READING* the Bible.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_


----------



## PhotonGuy

Dirty Dog said:


> So, you personally believe that bats are birds, that masturbation and tattoos are sins, and you do not seek medical care when you're sick, right?


I would have to see scripture that makes those claims. Can you reference such scripture?



Dirty Dog said:


> You dodged this earlier. If the statement above is not correct, then you, sir, are a hypocrite. Because each and every one of those things is straight out of the Christian bible. A biblical literalist MUST believe all of those things


Dodging questions is an option. Something you should realize if you get tired of answering my same questions over and over again as you put it. If you get tired of that you do have the option of not answering and ignoring what I say altogether, you do realize that don't you?

Come to think of it you made it clear that you don't believe the Bible so I don't see why Im wasting my time answering this.



Dirty Dog said:


> I would really LOVE to see you provide some evidence to support any of the claims in this idiotic statement. Lefties are not exactly new, and there is absolutely zero reason to think that there were no lefties 2000 years ago. After that, you can take a stab at explaining how you determined how one type of slap is "lower" than another.


Im never said left handed people didn't exist back then. I said in that culture everything was done with the right hand and if you happened to be left handed you would try to convert. Up to recent times there've still been cultures that function like that. Even in the modern American society, although its more left handed friendly than some of the ancient cultures, there are some things done exclusively with the right hand such as handshakes and salutes no matter what your handedness.


----------



## Blindside

PhotonGuy said:


> I would have to see scripture that makes those claims. Can you reference such scripture?



I don't think the Bible says anything about masturbation, but the tattoo is directly mentioned in Leviticus.  Leviticus 19:28

But if you follow everything said in Leviticus, you probably live a pretty odd lifestyle in the modern age.  No mixed textiles in your cloth, the death penalty for taking the Lord's name in vain, no bacon, slavery is OK as long as the slaves come from other nations, shellfish is right out, and you can't cut your hair,


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> .Xtians have problems with translations and which is the most 'accurate' and which is the 'best'.


 What the heck is an Xtian?


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> What the heck is an Xtian?



X is the Greek letter “chi,” the initial letter in the word _Χριστός_.  _Χριστός_ means “Christ.” X has been an acceptable representation of the word “Christ” for hundreds of years. This device is known as a Christogram.  The dignified terms _Xpian_ and _Xtian_ have long been used in place of the word “Christian.”


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> X is the Greek letter “chi,” the initial letter in the word _Χριστός_.  _Χριστός_ means “Christ.” X has been an acceptable representation of the word “Christ” for hundreds of years. This device is known as a Christogram.  The dignified terms _Xpian_ and _Xtian_ have long been used in place of the word “Christian.”


I see. I have never heard that before.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> I see. I have never heard that before.




It is centuries old and if a Jew knows it why don't you?


----------



## PhotonGuy

Gnarlie said:


> Thing is PG, you're not the sole audience for threads that you post. There are people from all kinds of backgrounds all over the world reading this. Think about their perspectives rather than your own.
> 
> What's a waste of time to you is perfectly valid discussion to others.


Quite right. And for that reason I am going to ignore posts that I don't consider valid discussion and those that do consider them valid discussion, they can discuss to their heart's content.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> Quite right. And for that reason I am going to ignore posts that I don't consider valid discussion and those that do consider them valid discussion, they can discuss to their heart's content.




So you are basically closing your mind to the possibility that you could learn something from anyone else's posts.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> So you are basically closing your mind to the possibility that you could learn something from anyone else's posts.


When somebody has made it clear they've chosen not to believe in something, in this case the Bible, or they've decided to take a certain position on something and they keep giving me the same answer over and over again I don't see what I can learn from that.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> It is centuries old and if a Jew knows it why don't you?


Because Im not Jewish, and I've never studied much Greek.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> Because Im not Jewish, and I've never studied much Greek.



Whoops you got that the wrong way round. You should know it because you presumably are a Xtian. Learn your history.




PhotonGuy said:


> When somebody has made it clear they've chosen not to believe in something, in this case the Bible, or they've decided to take a certain position on something and they keep giving me the same answer over and over again I don't see what I can learn from that.



Aha, now you know how we feel with your posts!


----------



## Blindside

PhotonGuy said:


> When somebody has made it clear they've chosen not to believe in something, in this case the Bible, or they've decided to take a certain position on something and they keep giving me the same answer over and over again I don't see what I can learn from that.



You don't think you can learn about the what the Bible is supposed to be teaching from someone who doesn't believe in the Bible as the word of God?


----------



## Instructor

Phil Bradley:
_

"Basic human instinct causes us to protect ourselves when threatened. This 
self-preservation is built-in. You can control it to a point, but you cannot 
remove it (nor should you even want to). Self-preservation is why we do not 
stand in front of a bullet train or oncoming traffic. It is why we know that 
when a rattlesnake is angry, we better watch where we step. It is why we do not 
jump off of buildings and pretend that we can fly.


Self-preservation keeps you from wandering around aimlessly, blinded to the 
dangers around you. And self-defense goes hand-in-hand with self-preservation. 
Protection of ourselves, our families and our communities is simply a part of 
us, but by no means is self-defense the same as violence. They are different 
emotions, having nothing to do with each other.


In the Old Testament, “an eye for an eye” (__Matthew 5:38__) is one of the most misunderstood 
and misquoted verses of the Bible. A lot of people think that it means a license 
to take matters into their own hands. However, it actually refers to 
restitution.


If someone steals something from you, they are to pay it back with like kind. 
If they injure you, they are to make amends. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a 
tooth.


The New Testament, however, changes this.


Instead of everything coming down to the wrongdoer and his/her 
responsibilities, Jesus tells us that it all comes down to us. We are to forgive 
those that wrong us and we are to “turn the other cheek.” The new law does not 
release the wrongdoer from blame; rather, Jesus is teaching us that forgiveness 
and love starts with us.


Jesus is certainly not condoning retribution or violence, nor is He saying 
that it is ok for someone to do something wrong to us because they will get off 
Scott free. Self-defense is completely different from that.


If someone were to break into your home, what would you do? Would you stand 
idly by and watch these attackers accost your family, doing nothing to stop 
them? Of course not. You would do something to intervene because it is your 
family. You love them and you do not want harm to come to them.


As theologians __Dr J.P.Moreland__ and __Dr Norman Geisler__ stated 
it:




To permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow 
a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to 
children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not 
resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as 
evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and 
children against a violent intruder fails them morally.




Should a situation like this occur, which would you prefer: having a reliable 
skill for defending yourself and your family, or flailing about, not knowing 
what to do? Without trained, reliable skills, you take a chance, but that chance 
can become a grave situation. By knowing what to do and how to do it, you 
increase your odds of protecting your family and keeping them safe.


The Bible teaches us about loving God and accepting Jesus as our personal 
Savior, and it also teaches us about loving our neighbors as ourselves. Does 
this sound like violence and self-defense are the same? It does not to me. Did 
Jesus teach us that we should stand idly by and allow evil to run rampant? Of 
course not. He said to trust Him with all things, and we most certainly do. But 
many have taken that to mean that we are just mindless robots incapable of any 
action."

Phil Bradley
Arizona Wing Chun Association
used with permission
htttp://www.awcaonline.com_


----------



## Buka

If anyone is offended by witty, satirical comments on scpiture,* please do not open this link. *

For others, I think it's humorous and well written, in a modern sort of way.

The 9 Most Badass Bible Verses Cracked.com


----------



## Tez3

Jewish thought on 'an eye for an eye.'

The Jewish Legal System



*Question: *_My non-Jewish friends tell me that they think Judaism is wrong because it teaches one that an eye for an eye is the right way instead of turning the other cheek. Are they correct in their assessment of the Jewish religion? Is eye for an eye a part of Judaism and beliefs?_

*Answer: *The quote, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” comes from our Torah, our bible. It may be found in Leviticus 24:20. This, however, does not mean that if someone cut off your hand then we should cut off his hand, G-d forbid. This verse has been misinterpreted by Christians and Muslims for centuries. All of our commentaries tell us that what it means is if someone causes you to lose the use of your hand in an accident or a similar case, then that person owes you financial damages up to the value of your lost limb. So if you were a professional arm wrestler and someone caused you to lose your arm wrestling hand then they might owe you the value of that hand including your lost wages, etc. None of the Jewish commentaries teach us to cut off the hand of the one who caused the loss. It simply is a lie if someone tells you that this is the Jewish opinion.


----------



## drop bear

elder999 said:


> Oooh, boy.
> 
> Here's the scripture:
> 
> _38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
> 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
> *Matthew 5:38-42,KJV*_
> 
> Where it's part of the Sermon on the Mount-in Luke, it's part of the injunction to "love your enemies." This is important: at that time, "your enemies," for Jesus's principally Hebrew audience, were the *Romans*.
> It's said by some that at that time, striking those perceived to be of a lower class was done with the back of the hand to assert authority-thus, the Romans would strike Hebrews with the back of the hand- and used their left hand for "unclean purposes," that is to say, to wipe their asses....if they were confronted by a Hebrew who turned their cheek, they were confounded: presented with a dilemma whereby they could strike with their open hand or fist:treating the Hebrew as an equal-in fact, the entire Sermon on the Mount is somewhat politically  subversive in nature.
> 
> 
> It also-since it's coupled with the verse from Deuteronomy about "an eye for an eye"-could be an injunction against vengeance, rather than self-defense. People used the verse from Deuteronomy to justify vengeance-thus the "_you have *heard it said*_, rather than the more conventional, "_it is *written*_" when referencing scripture.
> 
> It's also worth noting (for those who seem to think it's some sort of pacifist statement) that Jesus doesn't say to stand there and keep turning your cheek-he's pretty specific about the act.
> 
> Lastly, we have to note that Jesus told his followers this:
> 
> _He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”_*Luke 22:36*
> 
> Amazing to me  how some people "read" the Bible, _without actually *READING* the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _



Yeah but the sword thing kind of fell apart. Dude got his ear cut off and Jesus put it back. So it is not really the take arms quote people use it as.

Also the live by the sword die by the sword context.


----------



## elder999

drop bear said:


> Yeah but the sword thing kind of fell apart. Dude got his ear cut off and Jesus put it back. So it is not really the take arms quote people use it as.
> 
> Also the live by the sword die by the sword context.




The restored ear was a political addition, meant to appease Roman oppression.....whenever people ask, "_ What would Jesus do? _ I always default to: _ turn over a bunch of tables, and hit everyone im sighth with a whip._


----------



## K-man

Buka said:


> If anyone is offended by witty, satirical comments on scpiture,* please do not open this link. *
> 
> For others, I think it's humorous and well written, in a modern sort of way.
> 
> The 9 Most Badass Bible Verses Cracked.com


And that makes IS look positively benevolent.


----------



## Dirty Dog

PhotonGuy said:


> I would have to see scripture that makes those claims. Can you reference such scripture?



Bats are birds: Leviticus 11:13-19
Masturbation: Leviticus 15:16
Tattoos: Leviticus 19:28

So explain how your literalism doesn't include THESE literal statements...


----------



## Steve

PhotonGuy said:


> I see. I have never heard that before.


Have you seen the term Xmas as a shorthand for Christmas?   Same thing.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Dirty Dog said:


> Bats are birds: Leviticus 11:13-19
> Masturbation: Leviticus 15:16
> Tattoos: Leviticus 19:28
> 
> So explain how your literalism doesn't include THESE literal statements...


Well you've made it clear that you don't believe in the Bible. While you certainly have every right to believe or not believe whatever you want, since you've chosen to not believe in the Bible I am going to ignore any further posts of yours in this thread.


----------



## K-man

PhotonGuy said:


> Well you've made it clear that you don't believe in the Bible. While you certainly have every right to believe or not believe whatever you want, since you've chosen to not believe in the Bible I am going to ignore any further posts of yours in this thread.


So you aren't going to respond to *Dirty Dog* so I will post the relevant passages for your comment.  I've gone out of my way to find the King James version so I look forward to your insight as to how these passages sit in today's world.

*Leviticus 11:13-19 King James Version (KJV)
*
13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;

15 Every raven after his kind;

16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,

18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,

19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, *and the bat*.

*Leviticus 15:16-19 King James Version (KJV)
*
*16 And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even.
*
17 And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even.

18 The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even.

19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.


*Leviticus 19:28 King James Version (KJV)*

Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, *nor print any marks upon you*: I _am_ the LORD.

_- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition

_


----------



## Gnarlie

PhotonGuy said:


> Quite right. And for that reason I am going to ignore posts that I don't consider valid discussion and those that do consider them valid discussion, they can discuss to their heart's content.



That's not a very open minded approach.


Tez3 said:


> So you are basically closing your mind to the possibility that you could learn something from anyone else's posts.


Bingo.



PhotonGuy said:


> When somebody has made it clear they've chosen not to believe in something, in this case the Bible, or they've decided to take a certain position on something and they keep giving me the same answer over and over again I don't see what I can learn from that.



Of course you can learn from those who believe different things than you. I am not religious, but I knew what a Xtian was. I'm also aware of the scripture DD is referring to. I visited 3 mosques yesterday, which was really an enlightening experience. I am still not religious, but my mind is open to learning. I guess that's the difference between us. 


PhotonGuy said:


> Because Im not Jewish, and I've never studied much Greek.


That's no excuse for poor general knowledge. Maybe get out more? 


Blindside said:


> You don't think you can learn about the what the Bible is supposed to be teaching from someone who doesn't believe in the Bible as the word of God?


^This. PG, you believe there is nothing to learn from someone who does not believe the same as you do. Not just concerning the Bible, but in general. That's not a sensible philosophy, and your train wreck posting style and lack of general world awareness demonstrate its results perfectly. 

Ignore this if you like [emoji6]


----------



## Orange Lightning

Buka said:


> If anyone is offended by witty, satirical comments on scpiture,* please do not open this link. *
> 
> For others, I think it's humorous and well written, in a modern sort of way.
> 
> The 9 Most Badass Bible Verses Cracked.com



Gotta say. Made my day Buka. Good one.


----------



## Cirdan

I always thought "turning the other cheek" was an early version of Monty Python`s "I fart in your general direction"


----------



## oftheherd1

Dirty Dog said:


> No, it wasn't. There are any number of religions that predate both the Hebrew and Greek languages. So for the third time... WHICH bible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that makes sense.



No, it doesn't make sense, as you may or may not know.  There were more than 8 translators of the King James Version.  There were six companies, each of whom submitted their completed translations to the other companies for comment and discussion if needed.  The final translations were submitted to the clergy at large for comments/discussions.  Indeed there are no originals known.  But "hundreds of years" needs some clarification.  It seems commonly believed that from AD 1 to AD 90, there were some apostles still alive, and perhaps writing what we now accept as scripture.  Even the Catholic church was showing Alexandrian translations in the 4th century, at the request of Constantine.  In the Antiocan tradition, there are indeed some 8000 or more sources.  Many are fragmentary.  A few are sermon notes quoting verses not otherwise known.  All were used to produce what were believed to be the actual words God intended to be in His Bible.  Most do agree.  Where they don't the translators looked at the verses themselves, and the number that stated things one way versus those fewer that stated things another way, to make their decision.  Those that were deemed authentic were used by Desiderius Erasmus to make a Greek/Latin New Testament.  That was used by both Luther and Tyndale, as well as others, including the KJV translating committee.  And they did also use previous English versions.  The last paragraph is simply untruthful nonsense written to confuse people by attempting to blend some facts in such a way as to produce what are hoped to be acceptable contradictions.

You don't have to believe what I say, but if you want to dispute it, you should probably use something besides the above.   Also, to say there are religions that predate Christianity has nothing to do with versions of the Bible.  In English, the word Bible in a religious sense, is most commonly used only for those writings that call themselves the words of God.

And for what it is worth, whether or not you believe is up to you.  I am one who believes the King James Version is the only word of God in English.  If you or anyone else does not, so be it.  We all must have our beliefs tested at our deaths.  But in my belief of what the Bible says, when we die, there is no way to change the outcome.  Again, if you don't believe that, so be it.  The point being, I believe what I believe.  Some things about the KJV are historical fact, and some things I take on faith.  I will not be swayed otherwise.  Perhaps you and other will not be swayed in your believes either.  Again, so be it.


----------



## Tez3

I am curious though how someone can believe the KJV is exactly the word of G-d when in what you call the Old Testament there are certainly differences which change the meaning of certain things from the original Hebrew/Aramaic versions. Surely you would take what is written in the original? I wouldn't say anything about the 'New Testament' because obviously there is no 'original' dating from the times of the ancient Israelites. I'm also curious about how certain things are taken to mean something other than how it was meant, ie the Xtians taking the 'eye for an eye' as meaning something other than it was originally meant by the people who actually wrote that. People forget I think that the people for whom the original was written and who used it in 'Biblical' times still do.
If I as a non American started lecturing American on their Constitution telling them it meant something else, that it didn't mean what they thought it did and generally translating it as I wanted as well as adding to it there would be a huge uproar so why do Xtians insist on doing that with what they call the Old Testament?


----------



## oftheherd1

Dirty Dog said:


> Bats are birds: Leviticus 11:13-19
> Masturbation: Leviticus 15:16
> Tattoos: Leviticus 19:28
> 
> So explain how your literalism doesn't include THESE literal statements...



If bats are fowls, what are the fowls in verse 11:20 which you seem to have declined to mention?

Lev 15:16 I don't  think it necessarily has to be masturbation.  Could it also refer to a nocturnal emission?

Lev 19:28 first refers to the custom by some cultures of cutting oneself with knife to exhibit grief or respect for a deceased.  The next clause may be referring to the same thing, making marks on the body for the same reason.  I can't positively say that is so.  

I would be interested if Tez3 can better comment on the meanings of those three verses or passages.

But as a Christian, it is of no consequence to me.  Murder is a sin, theft is a sin, assault is a sin, and there are many more.  But as a Christian, I can and do seek forgiveness for my sins from God.  My belief in what the Bible says, tells me that as a saved person, I am forgiven when I ask for forgiveness.


----------



## Cirdan

There is still time to give up on your silly desert religions and drink mead at the table of Allfader Odin


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> Whoops you got that the wrong way round. You should know it because you presumably are a Xtian. Learn your history.
> ...



Interesting Tez3.  But actually, for a long time I didn't know either.  I can remember when I was young, and it became popular to use Xmas, some people said it was taking Christ out of Christmas.  It sounded OK to me, and I knew of nothing to dispute that, so was mildly offended.  But indeed, even these days it is not common knowledge, at least in the USA.  Perhaps in the UK, or other English speaking countries or in religions where it is common to want to abbreviate Christ in usage with other words.  Even then, I think the more common abbreviation might have been Xp, equating to the Cr in Christ.  I know I personally prefer to leave Christ in Christian or Christmas, over the slang use of Xmas.  And frankly, I never saw Xtian other than here at MT, maybe I need to get out more.


----------



## Cirdan

Meh, keep the dress wearing hippie out of our Yuletide I say! And let Hela keep Hel, do you need to steal everything?


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> I am forgiven when I ask for forgiveness.



Yep because it says that in the 'Old Testament', always did.

Xtian is Christian, you aren't leaving it out, it's just the proper spelling from the Greek.

On birds and bats. Leviticus - Chapter 11 Parshah Shemini - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible 
There's very good reasons for these laws when you are wandering tribe in the desert, the laws of kashrut are basic sanitary and hygiene rules which hopefully keep people safe from food poisoning not that it helped in old Russia, they killed the Jews when they didn't go down with things like food poisoning etc believing they didn't get things like that through witchcraft rather than good hygiene. The Laws here are the basis of how to get a people who lived in slavery to a point where they could live in and continue to run their own country, the Laws however these days are administered in the spirit of modernity, they aren't kept as they were but are constantly debated, reasoned and questioned to make them valid for modern life as they have always been. Bear in mind though that there are many Jewish thoughts, all expressed as we are encouraged to do!
Leviticus - My Jewish Learning

This is something for the Jewish people and something I find hard to believe that Xtians can either relate to or even use because it isn't about or for them.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> Yep because it says that in the 'Old Testament', always did.
> 
> Xtian is Christian, you aren't leaving it out, it's just the proper spelling from the Greek.
> 
> On birds and bats. Leviticus - Chapter 11 Parshah Shemini - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible
> There's very good reasons for these laws when you are wandering tribe in the desert, the laws of kashrut are basic sanitary and hygiene rules which hopefully keep people safe from food poisoning not that it helped in old Russia, they killed the Jews when they didn't go down with things like food poisoning etc believing they didn't get things like that through witchcraft rather than good hygiene. The Laws here are the basis of how to get a people who lived in slavery to a point where they could live in and continue to run their own country, the Laws however these days are administered in the spirit of modernity, they aren't kept as they were but are constantly debated, reasoned and questioned to make them valid for modern life as they have always been. Bear in mind though that there are many Jewish thoughts, all expressed as we are encouraged to do!
> Leviticus - My Jewish Learning
> 
> This is something for the Jewish people and something I find hard to believe that Xtians can either relate to or even use because it isn't about or for them.



Perhaps you would be kind enough to post the verse(s) on forgiveness of sin in the Old Testament.  Thanks.

X in Greek is as you mentioned before, the letter Chi.  You would need X, then p for an 'r' sound, then 'i(without the dot)' for the 'i' sound.  That would make Christian.  So actually, two more letters beside the X are needed.  But I think by now most readers here on MT know what that means, so no worry from my side of the fence.  (EDIT)  Oops, I forgot to mention the greek letter for the 's' sound.

I didn't see your last paragraph as sufficient as I had hoped.  I do understand how many of the dietary laws were for hygiene.  I am surprised, I thought you, or someone, would point out the fact that Christians are excused from dietary restraints by Acts where Peter was offered a container of common and unclean things and told to eat, and refused them three times, but being told that the food was cleansed by God.  Many of we Christians take to to mean we are released from those old dietary laws.  I din't want to mention that, and risk offending you, until I gave you a chance to answer.  I still hope it doesn't offend you as it comes from a source you don't consider inspired.

I was hoping you might know something of the old meaning of fowl.  Apparently it could include bats and certain insects.


----------



## elder999

oftheherd1 said:


> Perhaps you would be kind enough to post the verse(s) on forgiveness of sin in the Old Testament.  Thanks.
> 
> .


 
If_ My people who are called by My name humble themselves, pray, seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land_.—II Chronicles 7:14


----------



## Tony Dismukes

PhotonGuy said:


> The Bible should be taken literally unless it says so otherwise, if you believe the Christian Bible.



I'm curious. Is there any bit in the Bible that says "the following passage is intended as a metaphor, do not take it literally?" I don't recall ever seeing such a passage, but I'm sure I've missed stuff.

Biblical literalism is actually a fairly recent development in Christianity. Throughout most of the history of the religion there has been acceptance of the idea that the Bible contains content couched in metaphor which needs to be properly interpreted. Even today, that is the majority view among Christians, although a substantial minority (particularly in American evangelical circles) claim to subscribe to strict Biblical literalism and inerrancy.

Personally, I've never met anyone who actually subscribes to the literal truth of every passage in the bible, although I've met a number who claim to. In general, they seem to be rather selective about which lines they take literally. It would be ... interesting to encounter someone who actually took every bit of it completely literally.



oftheherd1 said:


> I am one who believes the King James Version is the only word of God in English.



I've run into a few people making that statement. It makes me very curious. How exactly did you decide that particular English translation out of the hundreds out there is the one and only correct translation? There's nothing in the Bible itself that states the KJV is the one true translation. I'm not aware of any major denomination that has officially claimed the KJV to be the only correct version. How did you determine the KJV to be the only word of God in English?

Did you examine all the other English translations and compare?
Did you study ancient Greek and Hebrew and examine the earliest manuscripts in those languages?
Are you following some particular religious leader who has endorsed the KJV as the only true word?
Did you receive a personal divine revelation telling you which translation is correct?
Do you have an opinion on which is the one true translation in any other language, such as French or German?

Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## oftheherd1

elder999 said:


> If_ My people who are called by My name humble themselves, pray, seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land_.—II Chronicles 7:14



Thanks for that.  I think there may be more.  But I looked it up, and 2nd Chronicles 7:12-14 says:



> 12 And the Lord appeared to Solomon by night, and said unto him, I have heard thy prayer, and have chosen this place to myself for an house of sacrifice.
> 
> 13 If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people;
> 
> 14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.



That seems somewhat tied to the idea of sacrifice that all Jews were required to perform periodically or specifically when they sinned.  I haven't looked that up in a long time, but I think that was the only way the Jewish people could get their sins forgiven, was through sacrifice.  As you know, as a Christian, I believe I no longer need to perform sacrifices, since I believe what the Bible says, that Christ by His sacrifice, shedding His blood, paid the price for the sins of all past, present, and future sins for those that are saved.


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> Thanks for that.  I think there may be more.  But I looked it up, and 2nd Chronicles 7:12-14 says:
> 
> 
> 
> That seems somewhat tied to the idea of sacrifice that all Jews were required to perform periodically or specifically when they sinned.  I haven't looked that up in a long time, but I think that was the only way the Jewish people could get their sins forgiven, was through sacrifice.  As you know, as a Christian, I believe I no longer need to perform sacrifices, since I believe what the Bible says, that Christ by His sacrifice, shedding His blood, paid the price for the sins of all past, present, and future sins for those that are saved.



You are mistaken in the belief that Jews would only get their sins forgiven if they sacrificed, the way to have your sins forgiven is to be repentant then your sins are forgiven. However that is only sins against G-d, if they are against a person then only that person can forgive. The purpose of sacrifice is atonement ( and in early thought on 'cleansing') not forgiveness which would already be given. When atoning one has to also try to put things right, hence the eye for an eye law. If your sins are forgiven before you do them do you also have to put things right or to atone for your deed or is 'forgiveness' the end of it? One has to be responsible for one's actions,

Jewish thought on Chronicles ( which isn't the literal word of G-d, it's a history) The Book of Chronicles - My Jewish Learning

As for fowl and bats, I can't see why it matters, don't eat the birds named and don't eat bats. The eating of bats has been blamed for the Ebola virus epidemic, they carry disease a good reason not to eat them. The ancients would have seen things in the sky with wings, without scientific knowledge I imagine they'd just call them birds regardless of whether we now know they aren't. I don't think it's considered of much importance really.

I wouldn't point out something to you from something I haven't read! I have never studied Xtian theology or read your books.


----------



## Tez3

Is Forgiveness Necessary - My Jewish Learning

Jewish thoughts on forgiveness


----------



## oftheherd1

Tony Dismukes said:


> ...
> 
> I've run into a few people making that statement. It makes me very curious. How exactly did you decide that particular English translation out of the hundreds out there is the one and only correct translation? There's nothing in the Bible itself that states the KJV is the one true translation. I'm not aware of any major denomination that has officially claimed the KJV to be the only correct version. How did you determine the KJV to be the only word of God in English?
> 
> Did you examine all the other English translations and compare?
> Did you study ancient Greek and Hebrew and examine the earliest manuscripts in those languages?
> Are you following some particular religious leader who has endorsed the KJV as the only true word?
> Did you receive a personal divine revelation telling you which translation is correct?
> Do you have an opinion on which is the one true translation in any other language, such as French or German?
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know.



Only a few?  More's the pity from my point of view.  Fundamental Baptists believe the KJV is the only correct and perfect translation in English.  You can find many preachers and lay people who believe  that as well.

I have looked at other translations, and read books that talk about other translations versus the King James Version.  I don't know if you are really interested or just trying to shoot me and other KJV believers down.  If you are really interested, and wish to spend time learning for yourself, as opposed to looking for short bits and pieces of things to justify what you already believe, I would suggest you get the book Answers to Your Bible Version Questions by David Daniels.  Among other places, it can be found at Answers To Your Bible Version Questions - by David W. Daniels  Another very good book would be An Understandable History Of The Bible, by Dr.Samuel C. Gipp.  It is a much longer read but of course, has a great deal more information.  If you go to An Understandable History of the Bible - by Samuel C. Gipp you will find where you can order a later version, but you can also read the online 1987 version as well.  There are many other shorter books you can read as well, such as Things That Are Different Are Not The Same at Things that are different are not the same The truth about the battle for the preserved King James Bible Mickey P Carter Amazon.com Books or at Jesus ... is He God s Son or God s servant  you can find Look What's Missing, also by Daniels.  If or as you read all those, feel free to ask me any questions you might have in the forum or by PM.

I'm guessing the rest of your questions are really just rhetorical, If not let me know.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

oftheherd1 said:


> Only a few?  More's the pity from my point of view.  Fundamental Baptists believe the KJV is the only correct and perfect translation in English.  You can find many preachers and lay people who believe  that as well.
> 
> I have looked at other translations, and read books that talk about other translations versus the King James Version.  I don't know if you are really interested or just trying to shoot me and other KJV believers down.  If you are really interested, and wish to spend time learning for yourself, as opposed to looking for short bits and pieces of things to justify what you already believe, I would suggest you get the book Answers to Your Bible Version Questions by David Daniels.  Among other places, it can be found at Answers To Your Bible Version Questions - by David W. Daniels  Another very good book would be An Understandable History Of The Bible, by Dr.Samuel C. Gipp.  It is a much longer read but of course, has a great deal more information.  If you go to An Understandable History of the Bible - by Samuel C. Gipp you will find where you can order a later version, but you can also read the online 1987 version as well.  There are many other shorter books you can read as well, such as Things That Are Different Are Not The Same at Things that are different are not the same The truth about the battle for the preserved King James Bible Mickey P Carter Amazon.com Books or at Jesus ... is He God s Son or God s servant  you can find Look What's Missing, also by Daniels.  If or as you read all those, feel free to ask me any questions you might have in the forum or by PM.
> 
> I'm guessing the rest of your questions are really just rhetorical, If not let me know.


It was a sincere question. I'm always interested in how people decide on their beliefs, whether or not I agree with them.

Some follow-up questions:

When you say Fundamental Baptists, are you referring to a specific organization, such as the FBFI or are you saying that KJVOnly-ism is universal among IFB congregations in general?

Am I correct in interpreting your answer to mean that you based your decision to believe in the KJV as the one true English-language Bible based on reading books such as the ones you cite? If so, have you also read books arguing for other translations and/or books arguing that there is no one true perfect translation?


----------



## Tez3

I'm curious as to why Xtians believe in the Old Testament and believe it pertains to them. It doesn't bother me a lot that Xtians have taken it to be a Xtian thing but am bemused as to why they would. Put it this way, if I did something here in the UK and used the American Constitution to justify that act saying I had rights under it, I would be told in no uncertain terms that I wasn't an American and I wasn't in the USA so it had nothing to do with me, it belongs to another people, that's the same way I look at the Xtians quoting and using the 'Old Testament', I mean why? More often than not it is mistranslated and misunderstood because there is no commentary. How can it be used without commentary? 

I imagine by now PG has long abandoned us to our very interesting and civilised discussion! It has digressed a bit but not far from the premise of SD being allowed because that encompasses people's beliefs which are always interesting. The problem of self defence has taxed the Jewish mind for a long time, due to our status often as 'guests' in a country, do you stand up for yourself and risk making things worse for your people or do you stay quiet and hope it will pass? There's many answers to that conundrum and none of them are wrong or right.


----------



## Dr.Smith

This is all really about personal choices and decesions, trying to validate your own beliefs about spiritual matters through arguing and conflict is a bad thing lols.  We all have to come to terms with ourselves and who we really are, what we believe about religion is a really really big part of that, no matter what path you choose its best to walk it quietly and make well informed decesions.  Its personal, Leave it at that.


----------



## Tez3

Dr.Smith said:


> This is all really about personal choices and decesions, trying to validate your own beliefs about spiritual matters through arguing and conflict is a bad thing lols.  We all have to come to terms with ourselves and who we really are, what we believe about religion is a really really big part of that, no matter what path you choose its best to walk it quietly and make well informed decesions.  Its personal, Leave it at that.




Well, it's a good job we aren't arguing here then isn't it. We aren't trying to validate our beliefs, I don't think any of us need to. We aren't trying to make anyone change their minds we are just  discussing something as this is a place for discussion. No one is insulting anyone nor is anyone insulted.


----------



## Dr.Smith

Well you kinda hyjacked the whole thing though lols, I mean really dude have you ever been to is real I have, and you kinda sound like a cafeteria Jew to me lols.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Dr.Smith said:


> Well you kinda hyjacked the whole thing though lols, I mean really dude have you ever been to is real I have, and you kinda sound like a cafeteria Jew to me lols.



Couple mistakes there..... First..... not a dude.... as for the rest.... I'm simply going to get out of range


----------



## Dr.Smith

Hey one good turn deserves another, if op has to be a cafeteria christianand tthat's alright then the other person can be a cafeteria Jew lols, I mean its ironic how this thread is about turning the other cheek lols.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Tez3 said:


> I'm curious as to why Xtians believe in the Old Testament and believe it pertains to them. It doesn't bother me a lot that Xtians have taken it to be a Xtian thing but am bemused as to why they would. Put it this way, if I did something here in the UK and used the American Constitution to justify that act saying I had rights under it, I would be told in no uncertain terms that I wasn't an American and I wasn't in the USA so it had nothing to do with me, it belongs to another people, that's the same way I look at the Xtians quoting and using the 'Old Testament', I mean why? More often than not it is mistranslated and misunderstood because there is no commentary. How can it be used without commentary?



Well, the Old Testament has been part of the Christian faith ever since the dawn of Christianity. Christianity was originally a Jewish splinter sect, after all.

Matthew 5:19 can be used to justify adherence to Mosaic law, although opinions diverge hugely in various  Christian circles as to what aspects of that law should apply to Christians.

Regarding the need (or lack thereof) for commentary in order to understand the scripture - that's another schismatic point among Christians. Some believe in the need for exegesis, understanding historical context, and so on. Others believe that the correct meaning is apparent to the layperson without scholarly interpretation.

In conclusion, Christianity is a land of contrasts.


----------



## Buka

Would it be inappropriate, rude or disrespectful to post part of an index of a humorous, tongue in cheek look at a new, modernized translation of the Good Book that a friend of mine has been writing for the last three years? (He attends Mass every week and considers himself a good Christian)

He always reminds me that God gave him his sense of humor.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Buka said:


> Would it be inappropriate, rude or disrespectful to post part of an index of a humorous, tongue in cheek look at a new, modernized translation of the Good Book that a friend of mine has been writing for the last three years? (He attends Mass every week and considers himself a good Christian)
> 
> He always reminds me that God gave him his sense of humor.



I don't think so , but then what do I know, I am more aligned with philosophical Taoism than a Christianity.....


----------



## Tez3

Dr.Smith said:


> Hey one good turn deserves another, if op has to be a cafeteria christianand tthat's alright then the other person can be a cafeteria Jew lols, I mean its ironic how this thread is about turning the other cheek lols.




Guess you missed the bits about religion and self defence then? The thread is actually about NOT turning the other cheek... quite the opposite.
I'm not a cafeteria Jew, I'm more a 3 Michelin Star restaurant with a kosher menu cooked by Michel Roux Jnr. Jew.


----------



## Tez3

Tony Dismukes said:


> Christianity was originally a Jewish splinter sect, after all.



We have millions of them  in fact as many sects as there are Jews.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Tez3 said:


> We have millions of them  in fact as many sects as there are Jews.


Yeah, but Christianity let the gentiles in, possibly in a devious plan to end up with even _more_ sects than there are Jews.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> I'm curious as to why Xtians believe in the Old Testament and believe it pertains to them. It doesn't bother me a lot that Xtians have taken it to be a Xtian thing but am bemused as to why they would. Put it this way, if I did something here in the UK and used the American Constitution to justify that act saying I had rights under it, I would be told in no uncertain terms that I wasn't an American and I wasn't in the USA so it had nothing to do with me, it belongs to another people, that's the same way I look at the Xtians quoting and using the 'Old Testament', I mean why? More often than not it is mistranslated and misunderstood because there is no commentary. How can it be used without commentary?
> 
> I imagine by now PG has long abandoned us to our very interesting and civilised discussion! It has digressed a bit but not far from the premise of SD being allowed because that encompasses people's beliefs which are always interesting. The problem of self defence has taxed the Jewish mind for a long time, due to our status often as 'guests' in a country, do you stand up for yourself and risk making things worse for your people or do you stay quiet and hope it will pass? There's many answers to that conundrum and none of them are wrong or right.


I think the analogy breaks down a little.  While also not a perfect analogy, the relationship that Canada has with England, by way of the royal family, is closer to the relationship that Xtians have with the old testament.  Liberated from the letter of the law, but still related to it in many ways.

I think that the American/British relationship would be more like us as the Mormons... basically saying, thanks for everything, but we're doing our own thing.


----------



## Tez3

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, but Christianity let the gentiles in, possibly in a devious plan to end up with even _more_ sects than there are Jews.




It's said if you ask ten Jews for an opinion you will get twelve replies  I'd say fourteen myself. We do agree on the basics though that Judaism's tenet is treat people as you would want to be treated and all else is commentary.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> I'm curious as to why Xtians believe in the Old Testament and believe it pertains to them. It doesn't bother me a lot that Xtians have taken it to be a Xtian thing but am bemused as to why they would. Put it this way, if I did something here in the UK and used the American Constitution to justify that act saying I had rights under it, I would be told in no uncertain terms that I wasn't an American and I wasn't in the USA so it had nothing to do with me, it belongs to another people, that's the same way I look at the Xtians quoting and using the 'Old Testament', I mean why? More often than not it is mistranslated and misunderstood because there is no commentary. How can it be used without commentary?
> 
> I imagine by now PG has long abandoned us to our very interesting and civilised discussion! It has digressed a bit but not far from the premise of SD being allowed because that encompasses people's beliefs which are always interesting. The problem of self defence has taxed the Jewish mind for a long time, due to our status often as 'guests' in a country, do you stand up for yourself and risk making things worse for your people or do you stay quiet and hope it will pass? There's many answers to that conundrum and none of them are wrong or right.




Tez3 - Since you say you have not read the New Testament, I can understand how you might have trouble understanding.  I have the advantage in having read the Old Testament as well as the New Testament.  When New Testament writers talked about scripture, they were normally speaking of what we now call the Old Testament.  Jesus was a Jew, and He and others often quoted from the Old Testament, validating Noah and Jonah, among others.  The Old Testament tells us how God created the world, how he chose a people to be His own, and many moral rules to live by.  We believe the Old Testament has many prophecies about Jesus, that are fulfilled in the New Testament, including the virgin birth of Jesus, His crucificxion, His clothing being divided, and His resurrection, and that he was the Christ.  How could we not believe it?  So you see, you have to share it with us.  If it's any consolation, I would be happy to share the New Testament with you.  *;-)*


----------



## oftheherd1

Tony Dismukes said:


> It was a sincere question. I'm always interested in how people decide on their beliefs, whether or not I agree with them.
> 
> Some follow-up questions:
> 
> When you say Fundamental Baptists, are you referring to a specific organization, such as the FBFI or are you saying that KJVOnly-ism is universal among IFB congregations in general?
> 
> Am I correct in interpreting your answer to mean that you based your decision to believe in the KJV as the one true English-language Bible based on reading books such as the ones you cite? If so, have you also read books arguing for other translations and/or books arguing that there is no one true perfect translation?



In that case;


> Did you examine all the other English translations and compare?
> Did you study ancient Greek and Hebrew and examine the earliest manuscripts in those languages?
> Are you following some particular religious leader who has endorsed the KJV as the only true word?
> Did you receive a personal divine revelation telling you which translation is correct?



I absolutely have not examined all other English translations.  I have read books that point out discrepancies between the KJV and other translations, as well as how different translations disagree among themselves.  I have compared a few translations with the KJV to see where they differ.  I have not tried to obtain copies of all the many translations, but some are viewable online.

I have not examined the earliest manuscripts, although I have seen photos of them.  I have not studied ancient or modern Hebrew.  I have obtained some books on Koine Greek, and taught myself a little.  I am by no means an expert.  However, I can look at and compare Alexandrian and Antiochian Greek based translations and their underlying Greek.  Again, I am not even close to educated in Greek, but I can gather insights.

Most all fundamental preachers will endorse the KJV as the only true word of God in the English language.  If you are alluding to cults, no, I am not nor would be a cult member.

No, God hasn't given me a personal divine revelation.  I get no more than is available to everyone.


----------



## Dr.Smith

Buka said:


> Would it be inappropriate, rude or disrespectful to post part of an index of a humorous, tongue in cheek look at a new, modernized translation of the Good Book that a friend of mine has been writing for the last three years? (He attends Mass every week and considers himself a good Christian)
> 
> He always reminds me that God gave him his sense of humor.



  Why should anyone take offense about it lols, I wouldn't.  Its funny to me how people get so bent out ta shape about what other people believe.  I mean why don't we persecute children for their false belief in the tooth fairy,  and as for you ogres that preach the doctrine of Santa and the easter bunny well were after you to, lols. Rubbish.


----------



## Cirdan

Don`t get me started on "Santa"..


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> We believe the Old Testament has many prophecies about Jesus, that are fulfilled in the New Testament, including the virgin birth of Jesus, His crucificxion, His clothing being divided, and His resurrection, and that he was the Christ. How could we not believe it? So you see, you have to share it with us. If it's any consolation, I would be happy to share the New Testament with you. *;-)*



You'll understand if I say no thank you politely  
The trouble is that while there are prophecies, the main one wasn't fulfilled..that of when the messiah came it would be the end of the world, as it wasn't ( we are still here...I think) it's only logical to believe that he hasn't come yet, there is nothing about two comings! sharing the 'Old Testament' though isn't really sharing when things are taken wildly out of context and there are no commentaries to go with what is being read which is maybe why people think prophecies have been fulfilled when they haven't. It's good talking though, understanding others is important despite what some think!



Dr. Smith, you obviously fail to understand that a discussion is going on here between people who are interested in other beliefs, it doesn't matter whether you believe in what we do or not, as you can se what I believe is not the same as others and what they believe is not the same as I believe but that's what makes it interesting and if we can discuss without being disrespectful or scoffing at each other surely you can keep your remarks to yourself unless you have something constructive to add. This is following a pattern of other posts you have made on other threads and aren't at all helpful to anyone's understanding nor are they in the spirit of any friendly discussion.

Cirdan, we didn't have 'Father Christmas' here until relatively recent times, that came with Queen Victoria's marriage to a German in the 19th CE. In fact Christmas wasn't celebrated as such here until he arrived, it was a religious day but not as it is now ( when anyone of any religion or none can happily celebrate it as all religious significance seems to have fled) Easter was the big religious festival. Many historians and experts have pointed out the similarity of Easter and previous pagan festivals. Most populations in the Northern Hemisphere where it's dark and cold during the winter have a festival of some type usually involving lights at midwinter, something those who live in warm 'light' countries won't understand the need for as we do! As Jews don't deny Odin, we wouldn't worship him but we understand that while our beliefs and religion are right for us, others have their's too we don't look to convert but rather just respect and live with others.


----------



## Dr.Smith

No to most of what you said with only a few exceptions.  I'm interested in your religious views and I have fought and would fight and die to protect them, but I feel and think that way about all religious beliefs and groups that are willing to live either in harmony or quiet objection with others.
  Since we are speaking about the bible I think its important to point out that its highly advised against to cause harm or injury in any way to people just starting a spiritual journey.  Let's try to observe and facilitate the spiritual growth of others instead of manipulate and frown upon it, not saying anyone specifically is doing that...just a friendly suggestion.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Cirdan said:


> Don`t get me started on "Santa"..



Actually I picture this


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Tez3 said:


> We have millions of them  in fact as many sects as there are Jews.



It goes back a bit, I hear ...

_REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the lovely Judean People's Front. 
P.F.J.: Yeah... 
JUDITH: Splitters. 
P.F.J.: Splitters... 
FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front. 
P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters... 
LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea. 
P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters... 
REG: What? 
LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters. 
REG: We're the People's Front of Judea! 
LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front. 
REG: People's Front! C-huh. 
FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg? 
REG: He's over there. 
P.F.J.: Splitter!_



Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, but Christianity let the gentiles in, possibly in a devious plan to end up with even _more_ sects than there are Jews.



Emo Phillips agrees ...

_I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. 
So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. 
I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" 
I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! 
Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! 
Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! 
Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! 
Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too!
Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too!
 Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!"
I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off._


----------



## Tez3

Dr.Smith said:


> No to most of what you said with only a few exceptions.  I'm interested in your religious views and I have fought and would fight and die to protect them, but I feel and think that way about all religious beliefs and groups that are willing to live either in harmony or quiet objection with others.
> Since we are speaking about the bible I think its important to point out that its highly advised against to cause harm or injury in any way to people just starting a spiritual journey.  Let's try to observe and facilitate the spiritual growth of others instead of manipulate and frown upon it, not saying anyone specifically is doing that...just a friendly suggestion.




I'm not sure what you think you are reading but no one here has tried to manipulate anyone nor has anyone frowned on anyone else so why you would bring that up I have no idea. Oftheherd, Cirdan and I as well as others have been on MT for a very long time,years in fact, we get on well so I'm not sure what you, as a newbie  are trying to insinuate.


----------



## Tez3




----------



## Dr.Smith

First off, I have a mental health condition, second off I'm not all interested in validating your points for you, I think if they were valid that it would speak for its self.  Never ever will I answer snarky questions, I suggest you do the same, its liberating actually. Take it as free advice and you'll see its better this way. It might even keep you out of a mental hospital.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Dr.Smith said:


> Never ever will I answer snarky questions,



But yet you make snarky comments and apparently think that is ok....


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Dr.Smith said:


> First off, I have a mental health condition, second off I'm not all interested in validating your points for you, I think if they were valid that it would speak for its self.  Never ever will I answer snarky questions, I suggest you do the same, its liberating actually. Take it as free advice and you'll see its better this way. It might even keep you out of a mental hospital.


Well then, it's a good thing that no one was asking you any questions (snarky or otherwise) or asking you to validate their points.


----------



## Tez3

Dr.Smith said:


> First off, I have a mental health condition, second off I'm not all interested in validating your points for you, I think if they were valid that it would speak for its self.  Never ever will I answer snarky questions, I suggest you do the same, its liberating actually. Take it as free advice and you'll see its better this way. It might even keep you out of a mental hospital.




Bollocks.


----------



## Dr.Smith

How funny. OK tell ya what my next round is on your tab.


----------



## Tez3

Dr.Smith said:


> First off, I have a mental health condition, second off I'm not all interested in validating your points for you, I think if they were valid that it would speak for its self.  Never ever will I answer snarky questions, I suggest you do the same, its liberating actually. Take it as free advice and you'll see its better this way. It might even keep you out of a mental hospital.



I wouldn't shout about having a mental health condition, everyone will want one now.
What exactly does 'validating your points for you' actually mean? We are having a nice chat here, discussing various things and you think it needs 'validating'? that's psychobabble for what?
Nobody has asked anyone snarky questions, let alone asked YOU any. When people ask 'snarky' questions they don't expect a reply anyway.
I've been liberated for a very long time lol  I have absolutely no idea what you think is 'better this way' and why you think we'd end up in a mental hospital after chatting about religious beliefs.


----------



## Dr.Smith

Well for whatever its worth my feelings are hurt now, and so I don't wind up in a mental health facility I think I will say good bye.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> You'll understand if I say no thank you politely
> The trouble is that while there are prophecies, the main one wasn't fulfilled..*that of when the messiah came it would be the end of the world*, as it wasn't ( we are still here...I think) it's only logical to believe that he hasn't come yet, there is nothing about two comings! sharing the 'Old Testament' though isn't really sharing when things are taken wildly out of context and there are no commentaries to go with what is being read which is maybe why people think prophecies have been fulfilled when they haven't. It's good talking though, understanding others is important despite what some think!
> ...



I don't recall reading that in the Old Testament.  Could you please tell me the verses where that is.  Thanks in advance.


----------



## elder999

Dr.Smith said:


> Well for whatever its worth my feelings are hurt now, and so I don't wind up in a mental health facility I think I will say good bye.


 Mm'kay, bye-bye! Don't forget to take your little red wagon with ya!


----------



## oftheherd1

Dr.Smith said:


> First off,I have a mental health condition, second off I'm not all interested in validating your points for you, I think if they were valid that it would speak for its self.  Never ever will I answer snarky questions, I suggest you do the same, its liberating actually. Take it as free advice and you'll see its better this way. It might even keep you out of a mental hospital.



I was actually beginning to believe that.  After your post #103, I'm not so sure.  But since you have decided your feelings are hurt and you are leaving, I  guess we'll never know.  Still, I wish you well.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Dr.Smith said:


> Well for whatever its worth my feelings are hurt now, and so I don't wind up in a mental health facility I think I will say good bye.



bye bye


----------



## jks9199

oftheherd1 said:


> I don't recall reading that in the Old Testament.  Could you please tell me the verses where that is.  Thanks in advance.


One thought, for what it's worth...

It's important to understand how the Jews read scripture.  Tez mentioned something along the lines of "taking things out of context, without commentaries."  When a Jew reads scripture, they look not only at the words of the scripture, but what various rabbis and teachers have had to say about it and what their discussions have to say about it.  Rabbi Jacob Neusner and Fr. Andrew Greeley wrote at least one book, *The Bible and Us: A Priest and A Rabbi Read Scripture Together* where they alternate chapters reading from various parts of scripture (like The Song of Solomon).  They start by talking about how they read scripture -- what process they go through to understand what scripture is saying.  I hope I'm not doing too much of a disservice in my explanation here -- but Jews read through a process called _midrash_, where the meaning of the scripture is elucidated and illuminated by the discussion of it among those wise and learned leaders.  I personally found it interesting to recognize the relationship in this process to Catholic reading of scripture, where we don't read the Bible as the literal Word of God, but as the inspired Word of God, containing within it the Truth -- kind of like the parables carried messages that made sense to the people of the day, but still carry meaning for us today.  It's also interesting to contemplate how the advent of the printing press, and widespread literacy moving the reading of scripture from the hands of a small, specialized audience (the educated, and mostly religious) to the general populace, and how the understanding and interpretation of scripture shifted.  In probably unfair and horrible summary, I see in the Jewish a tradition of learned individuals helping everyone understand the meaning of the scripture, crossing into Catholicism, where for many years, reading and explaining scripture was pretty much limited to the priest and other religious, and eventually into modern Protestantism -- where everyone reads scripture, largely for themselves.


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> I don't recall reading that in the Old Testament.  Could you please tell me the verses where that is.  Thanks in advance.




I hope you don't mind some reading because a long explanation is needed and I'm not sufficiently up to that explanations I'm afraid. firstly the idea of a messiah has to be explained because it's different from what Xtians think it is, therefore what happens when he gets here has different expectations. There are also, as if you wouldn't guess, different Jewish thoughts, though they don't differ by too much actually. I suppose the thing that will surprise most people is how Jewish it is, that it's probably not what people are expecting to happen.
Why Jews Don t Believe In Jesus why Jews reject Jesus

What Is the Jewish Belief About Moshiach - Kabbalah Chassidism and Jewish Mysticism
The Messiah Jewish Virtual Library
The Messianic Age in Judaism - My Jewish Learning

Hopefully there is enough in these for you to be able to look up and read. Enjoy1

I think the main thing is to remember that whether Jesus was the messiah and is coming back or whether the messiah hasn't arrived yet we should all be working to ensure that we treat people as we would wish to be treated so that whatever happens, even nothing, we can at least have played out part in being kind and doing our best to make the world a better place.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> I hope you don't mind some reading because a long explanation is needed and I'm not sufficiently up to that explanations I'm afraid. firstly the idea of a messiah has to be explained because it's different from what Xtians think it is, therefore what happens when he gets here has different expectations. There are also, as if you wouldn't guess, different Jewish thoughts, though they don't differ by too much actually. I suppose the thing that will surprise most people is how Jewish it is, that it's probably not what people are expecting to happen.
> Why Jews Don t Believe In Jesus why Jews reject Jesus
> 
> What Is the Jewish Belief About Moshiach - Kabbalah Chassidism and Jewish Mysticism
> The Messiah Jewish Virtual Library
> The Messianic Age in Judaism - My Jewish Learning
> 
> Hopefully there is enough in these for you to be able to look up and read. Enjoy1
> 
> I think the main thing is to remember that whether Jesus was the messiah and is coming back or whether the messiah hasn't arrived yet we should all be working to ensure that we treat people as we would wish to be treated so that whatever happens, even nothing, we can at least have played out part in being kind and doing our best to make the world a better place.



Thanks Tez3.  I will have to take a bit of time to read and digest the information in the links.  Then if it seems appropriate, I will get back to you and comment.  I am looking forward to reading them.


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> Thanks Tez3.  I will have to take a bit of time to read and digest the information in the links.  Then if it seems appropriate, I will get back to you and comment.  I am looking forward to reading them.




No worries, it all gets quite complicated at times which is why I felt I couldn't answer you myself, despite my age I still have a lot to understand, I feel sometimes that Judaism is the simplest and at the same time the most complicated thing.
I enjoy our discussions I hope nothing that 'Dr. Smith' has said has upset you, you have your faith and you don't need anyone ranting at you, we can disagree (as well as agree ) on lots of things but the important thing is that it's done amicably.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> No worries, it all gets quite complicated at times which is why I felt I couldn't answer you myself, despite my age I still have a lot to understand, I feel sometimes that Judaism is the simplest and at the same time the most complicated thing.
> I enjoy our discussions I hope nothing that 'Dr. Smith' has said has upset you, you have your faith and you don't need anyone ranting at you, we can disagree (as well as agree ) on lots of things but the important thing is that it's done amicably.



 I will get back to you as soon as I can.  Unfortunately work is actually making me work.  What's up with that.  ;-)

As to Dr. Smith, he has not and probably could not, upset me.  My skin is a little thicker that that.  Actually, I have some sympathy for him.


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> Unfortunately work is actually making me work



I hate to tell you how much I'm enjoying retirement!


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> I hope you don't mind some reading because a long explanation is needed and I'm not sufficiently up to that explanations I'm afraid. firstly the idea of a messiah has to be explained because it's different from what Xtians think it is, therefore what happens when he gets here has different expectations. There are also, as if you wouldn't guess, different Jewish thoughts, though they don't differ by too much actually. I suppose the thing that will surprise most people is how Jewish it is, that it's probably not what people are expecting to happen.
> Why Jews Don t Believe In Jesus why Jews reject Jesus
> 
> What Is the Jewish Belief About Moshiach - Kabbalah Chassidism and Jewish Mysticism
> The Messiah Jewish Virtual Library
> The Messianic Age in Judaism - My Jewish Learning
> 
> Hopefully there is enough in these for you to be able to look up and read. Enjoy1
> 
> I think the main thing is to remember that whether Jesus was the messiah and is coming back or whether the messiah hasn't arrived yet we should all be working to ensure that we treat people as we would wish to be treated so that whatever happens, even nothing, we can at least have played out part in being kind and doing our best to make the world a better place.



Just wanted you to know I haven't forgotten.  That is a lot of information, some 15 pages of small type.  I am enjoying reading it all though.  Then of course I want to be able to comment with things I have learned or believe so you might know my beliefs on religion.  So, please bear with me.  I understand you won't agree with all my beliefs, but since you are so gracious to share your beliefs, I feel compelled to do the same.


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> Just wanted you to know I haven't forgotten.  That is a lot of information, some 15 pages of small type.  I am enjoying reading it all though.  Then of course I want to be able to comment with things I have learned or believe so you might know my beliefs on religion.  So, please bear with me.  I understand you won't agree with all my beliefs, but since you are so gracious to share your beliefs, I feel compelled to do the same.




No problem, there's times when I find it hard to understand a lot of it especially the Kabbalistic things, they aren't something I know very much about. I think many people think Jews are the same as Xtians but without the Jesus bit but that's far from the truth, we have many different thoughts and ideas among us let along from those who aren't Jewish. I tend now to just stay within what I believe because to explore too far into the world of Jewish mysticism can leave you very mind fogged. Mysticism and over piety aren't encouraged as a rule, we like to be as practical as possible but history of persecution has left some Jewish groups very inward and isolated from the mainstream, often they are called extremist but really they have retreated into their religion and way of life not wanting to join the world now.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tony Dismukes said:


> It was a sincere question. I'm always interested in how people decide on their beliefs, whether or not I agree with them.
> 
> Some follow-up questions:
> 
> When you say Fundamental Baptists, are you referring to a specific organization, such as the FBFI or are you saying that KJVOnly-ism is universal among IFB congregations in general?
> 
> Am I correct in interpreting your answer to mean that you based your decision to believe in the KJV as the one true English-language Bible based on reading books such as the ones you cite? If so, have you also read books arguing for other translations and/or books arguing that there is no one true perfect translation?



Sorry, I almost missed this.  If I understand your meaning, no I am not referring to the FBFI.  Frankly I didn't even know about them.  I have just been reading their site.  I noticed some things I can agree with.   The fundamental Baptist churches I am referring to are indeed independent as they talk about.  Surprisingly however, I found no mention of the KJV.  They refer to the Bible, but never define a correct Bible (since there are indeed many versions which don't agree with each other).  Fundamental Baptists I m familiar with don't spend all their time telling everybody the KJV is the only true Bible, but when people talk about the Bible, and made statements not consistent with the KJV, we point it out to them.  We also, from time to time amongst ourselves, reinforce our belief in the KJV. 

I have heard of some fundamental Baptist clergy that wish to question the KJV as the correct Bible.  From my point of view, if they adopt another Bible in English, they can no longer all themselves fundamentalists.

I have read things that advocate for other translations.  I don't agree with them.  Have you read any of the books I mentioned?  You don't have to wait for them to arrive, or wonder if you think it is worth spending money on, since in the case of Gipp's book.  You can read it online.  It is a long read, but sets things up well.  But you might want to skip to the section where he compares different versions.  See what you think.  I am interested in what you would think of that.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> No problem, there's times when I find it hard to understand a lot of it especially the Kabbalistic things, they aren't something I know very much about. I think many people think Jews are the same as Xtians but without the Jesus bit but that's far from the truth, we have many different thoughts and ideas among us let along from those who aren't Jewish. I tend now to just stay within what I believe because to explore too far into the world of Jewish mysticism can leave you very mind fogged. Mysticism and over piety aren't encouraged as a rule, we like to be as practical as possible but history of persecution has left some Jewish groups very inward and isolated from the mainstream, often they are called extremist but really they have retreated into their religion and way of life not wanting to join the world now.



I am beginning to understand some of that from the reading you provided.  Again, thanks for those insights.


----------



## Gnarlie

PhotonGuy said:


> When somebody has made it clear they've chosen not to believe in something, in this case the Bible, or they've decided to take a certain position on something and they keep giving me the same answer over and over again I don't see what I can learn from that.



I never chose not to believe. I never decided to take a position. I was born in a position. I, like everybody, was born without religion or belief. I have never been presented with evidence that would make me choose to believe. Belief is the choice, non-religion and non-belief is the default state into which we are born.

You can only choose to believe stories once you have heard them. You are not born knowing them. You make a choice to believe.


----------



## Tez3

Gnarlie said:


> I never chose not to believe. I never decided to take a position. I was born in a position. I, like everybody, was born without religion or belief. I have never been presented with evidence that would make me choose to believe. Belief is the choice, non-religion and non-belief is the default state into which we are born.
> 
> You can only choose to believe stories once you have heard them. You are not born knowing them. You make a choice to believe.




I like your answer to PG's post but I can't really understand what he means because there's always something to be learned and I don't see how ignoring someone because they believe differently from you helps anyone. I haven't seen anyone repeating themselves either. I've seen a few different points of views, some different beliefs and some with no religious beliefs, all interesting and in some places very funny.


----------



## Blindside

PhotonGuy said:


> The Bible does not condemn self defense. Those passages about turning the other cheek, that's if somebody slaps you. Specifically if somebody smites your right cheek, give them your left. However, if somebody tries something else such as if they try to punch you or mug, rape, murder you there is nothing in the Bible that says you can't use any and every means to put them down.



Hey PG, still waiting to see what you think the Bible says about self defense and the scriptural quotes about it.  Thanks.


----------



## oftheherd1

Family and work obligations keep piling up, so I will try to answer a little at a time.  

In your URL Why Jews Don t Believe In Jesus why Jews reject Jesus the commentator(s) seem first of all to quote extra Bible writings “The Messiah will become the greatest prophet in history, second only to Moses. (Targum - Isaiah 11:2; Maimonides - Yad Teshuva 9:2).”  I have no doubt at all that Maimonides was a very learned man.  But the impression I get from this and some of the other URLs is that some writings are given the same weight to determine  facts about God as the Bible.  The same with the Targums.  As a Christian, I can read commentaries on the bible, and maybe learn something I have not understood.  But no commentary can take the place of, or be allowed to prove anything on its own.  Only the Bible can prove something.  Please correct me if I am reading something into it that is not true.

First is the comment that the Messiah must fulfill all the biblical requirements or he cannot be the Messiah.  I agree.  But as the commentator points out, we Christians who believe the Bible, including the New Testament, believe anything that wasn’t accomplished during Jesus’ short stay on earth, will indeed as He said, be accomplished at a later date known only to God.  Interestingly, that timing is also prophesied by Zacharias. 

We believe Jesus was also a prophet.  If what he has prophesied in New Testament comes true, I guess he would be the greatest prophet.  I don’t know of any reason Jesus could not be a prophet, that is, there must be a majority of world jewry in the land?  Can you provide a reference for that?

That Messiah had to be a descendant of David?  We Christians agree with that.  The daughters of Zelophehad gained the right to pass on their inheritance, if they married within their tribe.  Jesus’ mother, Mary, did so.  Doesn’t that negate the necessity of being a direct descendent of Joseph?  Why is that not brought up by the commentators?  To we Christians, that is explained by the two different inheritances shown in the New Testament.  One is the lineage of Mary, the other of Joseph (The commentators in the footnotes, jump back and forth between them).   Yes, we Christians believe Jesus was born of Mary, a virgin.  But her line goes back to David according to the New Testament, and according to God, as explained by Moses, she can pass on her inheritance.  I understand that may be a belief we cannot share, but that is the Christian belief.

The commentators say Jesus did not observe the Sabbath, and quote John 9:14.  They do not quote Mark 2:23-28.  There, Jesus’ disciples are accused of breaking the Sabbath.  Jesus reminds the Pharisees that David obtained shewbread from the temple, ate it, and also gave it to his men to eat.  Jesus then makes the comment: “And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:   Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.”


The commentator goes on to talk about alma meaning young woman.  I don’t know that alma doesn’t mean virgin since I don’t know Hebrew or Aramaic, whichever that word may be.  But I know the quoted verse says, in the KJV, “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”  If you say a young woman, what is unusual about that?  Young women have been conceiving since long before Isaiah, and ever since, married or not.  That doesn’t sound like much of a sign.  But a virgin birth?  I cannot see that happening without divine involvement.  Again, this may be something you disagree with.

Sorry for the long post, and not covering all the URLs, but I will attempt to do so as I have time and can get to any verses I think need to be referenced.  As you can see, except for Zelophehad’s daughters, I quote mostly the New Testament, and I understand you may not want to believe that.  But as a Christian, I do, and it seems right to use that since I am a Christian, and the jewish commentators referenced it as well.  Also, I hope it will give you more understanding of why we believe what we do.  I understand full well you may not, and certainly don't have to, believe as I do.  But I have been learning much from your URLs about how Jews believe, and why, and I hope you get that from my posts as well.


----------



## elder999

oftheherd1 said:


> The commentator goes on to talk about alma meaning young woman.  I don’t know that alma doesn’t mean virgin since I don’t know Hebrew or Aramaic, whichever that word may be.  But I know the quoted verse says, in the KJV, “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”  If you say a young woman, what is unusual about that?  Young women have been conceiving since long before Isaiah, and ever since, married or not.  That doesn’t sound like much of a sign.  But a virgin birth?  I cannot see that happening without divine involvement.  Again, this may be something you disagree with.


Two things, really-_alma_ means "young woman," or "maid," not "Virgin. "_Nubile", pubescent _or "*of marriageable age*."

 The Hebrew word for "virgin" is _betulah_

.We've had the whole KJV discussion before-it's not at all a good translation-its developers didn't even follow any sort of proper translation protocol.....they did the best they could, though, and came up with some damn fine prose in the idiom of the time-they just got a few key things wrong, though-admittedly, things that Christianity had gotten wrong since its inception: _almah_ to "virgin" is a mistranslation that dates back to third century translations of Hebrew to Greek.

Of course, you are entirely free to _ believe_ whatever you like, @oftheherd1 , but these are the *facts*.

"Virgin birth" is called  _parthenogenesis_-it occurs frequently with reptiles and amphibians-there's an entire species of lizard in New Mexico that reproduces this way. It occurs in turkeys and chickens. It occurs with fish. It occurs under the right circumstances in most vertebrates, though, until recently, wasn't known to occur in mammals at all.

It's an extreme rarity, but it apparently does occur in mammals-at least, it's been _induced_ in mammals, which_ implies _that it could occur naturally.

The only thing miraculous about Jesus's "virgin birth" was that he was male-across nature,given that their genetic makeup comes from an entirely female source,  the offspring of parthenogenesis are always _female_.


----------



## Tez3

Thank you for your reply. I think the problem we have in understanding how each of us perceives the 'Bible' is that we have very different approaches to it. You take it at face value and read it as it is written literally without looking for any other meaning other than the sentences in it, we look for other meanings, other interpretations which are considered as valid, as long as they do not go against our main beliefs, as the original. We believe the writing in the Tanakh ( Bible )is divinely inspired but not actually written by G-d, Jews know what it says and that G-d may have said it but we're allowed to argue over what it means. These commentaries are as valid as anything written in the 'Bible' as long as they don't go against Jewish principles so yes Maimonides' commentaries are given equal worth. The thing too, is we that don't have anything to 'prove' G-d or the 'Bible', we don't believe as you do, we know, so we don't look to have things proved to us, we look to improve our understanding, the way we behave, how we act and to keep the Covenant we have with G-d.
For us the 'Bible' is ambivalent with multiple meanings. You have to understand too when you say 'why haven't the commentators' brought such and such up that every Jew can write commentaries, that these things are discussed every day by hundreds of thousands of people ( and have been for hundreds and hundreds of years) I say discussed, often it can turn into full blown arguments. You have to remember too, that your Jesus was taught to do this, it's how he would have been taught and how he understood the 'Bible'
We have four different approaches to reading the Tanakh, that is _P'shat_..the simple basic story who said and did what with whom, how and what became of it. _Remez_... hints in the language of the texts such as metaphors that open up opportunities for deeper meanings. _D'rash..._ the missing dialogue and difficulties in the text that your imagination can fill in so expanding the inspiration and meaning. _Sod_... secret, what hidden meanings are embedded in the text that will help you relate to it today.
One of the problems of reading translations is that you miss the meaning of the words in the original and therefore miss much of the meanings, names especially are very important because they tell you a lot. One I can think of that you would know is 'Barabbas'..., that isn't a name of a person, it means 'son of the father' an ironic term used to denote bastards.

Here is an example with commentary by Rashi. Genesis - Chapter 1 Parshah Bereishit - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

Rashi is Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki Rashi Jewish Virtual Library

There are a great many other commentaries on this portion and the discussion would be about them all, what is meant, what is hidden and what is obvious, the people in the discussion or just reading on their own can also put forwards thoughts and ideas.


----------



## Tez3

The Daughters of Tzelophchad - Jewish History


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> Thank you for your reply. I think the problem we have in understanding how each of us perceives the 'Bible' is that we have very different approaches to it. You take it at face value and read it as it is written literally without looking for any other meaning other than the sentences in it, we look for other meanings, other interpretations which are considered as valid, as long as they do not go against our main beliefs, as the original. We believe the writing in the Tanakh ( Bible )is divinely inspired but not actually written by G-d, Jews know what it says and that G-d may have said it but we're allowed to argue over what it means. These commentaries are as valid as anything written in the 'Bible' as long as they don't go against Jewish principles so yes Maimonides' commentaries are given equal worth. The thing too, is we that don't have anything to 'prove' G-d or the 'Bible', we don't believe as you do, we know, so we don't look to have things proved to us, we look to improve our understanding, the way we behave, how we act and to keep the Covenant we have with G-d.
> For us the 'Bible' is ambivalent with multiple meanings. You have to understand too when you say 'why haven't the commentators' brought such and such up that every Jew can write commentaries, that these things are discussed every day by hundreds of thousands of people ( and have been for hundreds and hundreds of years) I say discussed, often it can turn into full blown arguments. You have to remember too, that your Jesus was taught to do this, it's how he would have been taught and how he understood the 'Bible'
> We have four different approaches to reading the Tanakh, that is _P'shat_..the simple basic story who said and did what with whom, how and what became of it. _Remez_... hints in the language of the texts such as metaphors that open up opportunities for deeper meanings. _D'rash..._ the missing dialogue and difficulties in the text that your imagination can fill in so expanding the inspiration and meaning. _Sod_... secret, what hidden meanings are embedded in the text that will help you relate to it today.
> One of the problems of reading translations is that you miss the meaning of the words in the original and therefore miss much of the meanings, names especially are very important because they tell you a lot. One I can think of that you would know is 'Barabbas'..., that isn't a name of a person, it means 'son of the father' an ironic term used to denote bastards.
> 
> Here is an example with commentary by Rashi. Genesis - Chapter 1 Parshah Bereishit - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible
> 
> Rashi is Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki Rashi Jewish Virtual Library
> 
> There are a great many other commentaries on this portion and the discussion would be about them all, what is meant, what is hidden and what is obvious, the people in the discussion or just reading on their own can also put forwards thoughts and ideas.



That answers a lot of questions.  Thanks.  It certainly is not how I thought.  But it is interesting.  Again, I am enjoying reading the information at your URLs.


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> That answers a lot of questions.  Thanks.  It certainly is not how I thought.  But it is interesting.  Again, I am enjoying reading the information at your URLs.




We may not agree on what or even who we believe in but at least you can see how Jesus would have been taught!  I rather think too this has moved beyond what the OP had in mind but he surely would find what we are exchanging interesting if he's not ignoring it.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Blindside said:


> Hey PG, still waiting to see what you think the Bible says about self defense and the scriptural quotes about it.  Thanks.


As I pointed out, the Bible does not condemn the use of force in self defense. As for advocating self defense, there is the case where Jesus had His disciples carry swords.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> As I pointed out, the Bible does not condemn the use of force in self defense. As for advocating self defense, there is the case where Jesus had His disciples carry swords.




For self defence or to attack people? I haven't read the New Testament but can't imagine that the Romans would be happy about young males carrying swords around the place?


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> For self defence or to attack people? I haven't read the New Testament but can't imagine that the Romans would be happy about young males carrying swords around the place?


In the New Testament, shortly before Jesus's arrest and crucifixion He had His apostles carry swords. They would've been for self defense purposes as when Peter attacked the high priest's servant Jesus rebuked him. Supposedly civilians could buy, own, and carry swords in that culture.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> In the New Testament, shortly before Jesus's arrest and crucifixion He had His apostles carry swords. They would've been for self defense purposes as when Peter attacked the high priest's servant Jesus rebuked him. Supposedly civilians could buy, own, and carry swords in that culture.



'That culture'?


----------



## elder999

Tez3 said:


> For self defence or to attack people? I haven't read the New Testament but can't imagine that the Romans would be happy about young males carrying swords around the place?


 

The "New Testament" is a mashup of various different stories, and they bleed through in funny ways. Fer instance, the entire Zealot movement -basically, Hebrew revolutionaries that wanted to cast off the Roman yoke. There was a sect called, in Latin  _isicarri_, "the ones who hold the knife," or dagger-men. One theory is that Judas's (the "betrayer of Jesus") name comes from his membership in this sect of assassins: Judas _Iscariot_-though the real meaning of "Iscariot" isn't clear, and there are about a dozen different theories-this one being around the second-most popular....

...in any case, there were lots of Hebrews with swords in the years leading up to and following the fall of Jerusalem.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> 'That culture'?


Yes


----------



## Blindside

PhotonGuy said:


> As I pointed out, the Bible does not condemn the use of force in self defense. As for advocating self defense, there is the case where Jesus had His disciples carry swords.


 
Why do you think in one verse he told each of his disciples who does not have one to get one, but then in another verse says that the group of eleven only needs two?

Why doesn't Jesus carry a sword?


----------



## Tez3

elder999 said:


> The "New Testament" is a mashup of various different stories, and they bleed through in funny ways. Fer instance, the entire Zealot movement -basically, Hebrew revolutionaries that wanted to cast off the Roman yoke. There was a sect called, in Latin  _isicarri_, "the ones who hold the knife," or dagger-men. One theory is that Judas's (the "betrayer of Jesus") name comes from his membership in this sect of assassins: Judas _Iscariot_-though the real meaning of "Iscariot" isn't clear, and there are about a dozen different theories-this one being around the second-most popular....
> 
> ...in any case, there were lots of Hebrews with swords in the years leading up to and following the fall of Jerusalem.



Still can't see the Romans being happy about it though lol! Invading forces tend not to like the conquered having weapons. Talking of Romans we have a new archaeological dig a couple of miles up from our house, there used to be a Roman Garrison here as well as a big battle. Roman stuff has been found before as well as later Viking treasures. Just look how old how local road is lol.    Archaeologists discover Britain s longest road to be 10 000 year old UK News Daily Express
Funnily enough I know who the Zealots were, it's part of my history after all.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> Yes




You don't like to name my culture then? You don't like to say Jewish culture?


----------



## elder999

Tez3 said:


> You don't like to name my culture then? You don't like to say Jewish culture?


 

To be completely fair, Irene, while your culture has elements of that culture, and it's part of your culture's history, Hellenized Hebraism of the Roman occupation is not "your" culture at all....it's what your culture evolved from.....just sayin'


----------



## oftheherd1

elder999 said:


> Two things, really-_alma_ means "young woman," or "maid," not "Virgin. "_Nubile", pubescent _or "*of marriageable age*."
> 
> The Hebrew word for "virgin" is _betulah_
> 
> .We've had the whole KJV discussion before-it's not at all a good translation-its developers didn't even follow any sort of proper translation protocol.....they did the best they could, though, and came up with some damn fine prose in the idiom of the time-they just got a few key things wrong, though-admittedly, things that Christianity had gotten wrong since its inception: _almah_ to "virgin" is a mistranslation that dates back to third century translations of Hebrew to Greek.
> 
> Of course, you are entirely free to _ believe_ whatever you like, @oftheherd1 , but these are the *facts*.
> 
> "Virgin birth" is called  _parthenogenesis_-it occurs frequently with reptiles and amphibians-there's an entire species of lizard in New Mexico that reproduces this way. It occurs in turkeys and chickens. It occurs with fish. It occurs under the right circumstances in most vertebrates, though, until recently, wasn't known to occur in mammals at all.
> 
> It's an extreme rarity, but it apparently does occur in mammals-at least, it's been _induced_ in mammals, which_ implies _that it could occur naturally.
> 
> The only thing miraculous about Jesus's "virgin birth" was that he was male-across nature,given that their genetic makeup comes from an entirely female source,  the offspring of parthenogenesis are always _female_.



As I said, I don't know Hebrew, but I find it interesting to note that 64+ translators of the KJV and various clergy throughout England did not disagree.  Also, as I explained above, a young woman or maid becoming pregnant would not be a sign.  But that is just my belief.  You don't have to believe it, and obviously don't.

As to your facts, I think the only real fact is that you and I have different beliefs.  Mine are Christian.  I don't know your beliefs since I don't remember you ever stating any religious belief other than an obvious great dislike of Christianity.  But that is your choice as is mine to believe in Christianity as is written in the KJV Bible.

We are all entitled to our own belief.  I have made mine clear, and Tez3 has also done so on many occasions here on MT.  In fact most recently she has been very kind to share things I had never known before.  I thank you Tez3.  Of course Tez3, I don't agree with many of your beliefs, but that takes nothing from the great respect I have for you.  I hope nothing I say will ever be taken as an insult to you.  Or anyone else for that matter.  I won't apologize for my beliefs, but if I phrase something in a way that you (or anyone else) thinks improper, I hope you will immediately let me know so I can clarify.


----------



## elder999

oftheherd1 said:


> .  I don't know your beliefs since I don't remember you ever stating any religious belief other than an obvious great dislike of Christianity.  y.


 
I was raised a Christian. My dad was an Episcopal priest. *His* dad was an Episcopal priest. *I*almost went to seminary. I've nothing but love and respect for teachings of the rabbi Yeshua. I have no "dislike" towards _any_ faith: they are all full of beauty and truth, as is the King James Bible-no where have I ever said or implied otherwise.

It is, however, a poor translation, and some of the stuff in it is pure b.s. This is, of course my opinion, no "great dislike of 'Christianity'" involved-as I've said (repeatedly) you can believe what you want. I simply cannot believe that the KJV is the inspired word of God: I'm the victim of a classical education- I studied Latin, Greek and Hebrew in high school......I studied Koine Greek and Aramaic in college-I have, as I've said (repeatedly) a degree in religious studies, and I can see the hand of man writ large throughout the KJV in its various *mistakes*. Sorry.


----------



## Tez3

elder999 said:


> To be completely fair, Irene, while your culture has elements of that culture, and it's part of your culture's history, Hellenized Hebraism of the Roman occupation is not "your" culture at all....it's what your culture evolved from.....just sayin'




A Jew is a Jew is a Jew. There were then as now different sects and different thoughts, not all Jews then were in the Greek style. There has never been a unified Jewish school of thought so you can't actually say that I as a Sephardic Jew don't have the same culture.


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> I hope nothing I say will ever be taken as an insult to you.



Absolutely not!   I enjoy your posts. what you believe is between you and G-d, it's not for me to say you shouldn't believe it, I will just tell you why I don't. Now I'm going to blow your mind lol, you asked before why there wasn't commentary on something and I said there will be but there is hundreds of thousands of commentaries, well in Israel they have and are building an online record of commentaries. Dip in if you fancy! Judaic Responsa - Bar-Ilan University Responsa Global Jewish Database
Elder you may have read Latin, Greek and Hebrew etc but have you studied in the Jewish way or the Xtian way? isn't your religious studies degree a Xtian based one or can you sit in a yeshiva and argue with rabbinic students?


----------



## elder999

Tez3 said:


> A Jew is a Jew is a Jew. There were then as now different sects and different thoughts, not all Jews then were in the Greek style. There has never been a unified Jewish school of thought so you can't actually say that I as a Sephardic Jew don't have the same culture.


 
As a Sephardic Jew, do you have priests make _karbanot_ in the Temple?


----------



## elder999

Tez3 said:


> Elder you may have read Latin, Greek and Hebrew etc but have you studied in the Jewish way or the Xtian way? isn't your religious studies degree a Xtian based one or can you sit in a yeshiva and argue with rabbinic students?


 
I grew up in New York. I actually *have* argued with rabinnic students-one of my oldest friends is a Talmudic scholar, and one of my subjects of study was Judaism in the New World-from Christophoro Colon to the Conquistadors and crypto-Jewry in the New World to the American Revolution. In New Mexico there's quite a few descendants of Marrano emigres-the Roman Catholic priest who used to butcher my game for me is a crypto-Jew, and I had a lengthy conversation with Antonio Pereira, founder of Miyama ryu, about how his name, "Pereira" (pear-tree) was a _converso_ name-a name given to Jewish families forced to convert by the Inquisition.

I may not be  Jewish, but I know more than most Christians about Judaism....kinda reminds me of this:


----------



## Tez3

elder999 said:


> As a Sephardic Jew, do you have priests make _karbanot_ in the Temple?



Only Americans would call it 'Temple'


----------



## elder999

Tez3 said:


> Only Americans would call it 'Temple'


_ Ikh visn yener "Temple" iz "shul" arayn mame-loshn  ikh zogn ikh zayn hanoe Nyu York  ton`du nisht meynen ikh volt visn etlekh yiddishkeit hanoe Nyu York_ ?



I mean, Tez-I took German in middle school all the way through college, and took Russian in college-living in New York, in the midst of one of the largest and most divergent Jewish populations in the world.....



By "Temple worship," Biblical scholars and scholars of the period are referring to Hebrew ritual as it existed in the First and Second Temples in Jerusalem, with _der  akeyde hanoe_ animals _oyf_ burnt offerings........something that doesn't exist anymore, and hasn't since the destruction of the 2nd Temple in 70 A.D.......


----------



## Tez3

elder999 said:


> _ Ikh visn yener "Temple" iz "shul" arayn mame-loshn  ikh zogn ikh zayn hanoe Nyu York  ton`du nisht meynen ikh volt visn etlekh yiddishkeit hanoe Nyu York_ ?
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, Tez-I took German in middle school all the way through college, and took Russian in college-living in New York, in the midst of one of the largest and most divergent Jewish populations in the world.....
> 
> 
> 
> By "Temple worship," Biblical scholars and scholars of the period are referring to Hebrew ritual as it existed in the First and Second Temples in Jerusalem, with _der  akeyde hanoe_ animals _oyf_ burnt offerings........something that doesn't exist anymore, and hasn't since the destruction of the 2nd Temple in 70 A.D.......




It's Ladino for Sephardi not Yiddish. You know of course that 'Hebrew ritual' was as divergent as Judaism? There was the Temple and there were synagogues even then where they each did as they believed things should be. There are basic beliefs in Judaism but divergence aplenty among rituals and thoughts, then as now.


----------



## elder999

Tez3 said:


> It's Ladino for Sephardi not Yiddish.


 
Ya know, I knew that, but I keep forgetting things, these days  ...

plus, I can't show off in Ladino, since I don't know any...

.
(and have pretty much spent my foreign language skills for the day, please..

...)



Tez3 said:


> You know of course that 'Hebrew ritual' was as divergent as Judaism? There was the Temple and there were synagogues even then where they each did as they believed things should be. There are basic beliefs in Judaism but divergence aplenty among rituals and thoughts, then as now.


 
Yeah, but present-day Judaism is even more divergent from ancient Hebrew rituals than the various sects were then from each other-kind of like the Christians of today being somewhat divergent from "Christian table-fellowship" of the second to fourth century.....just sayin'


----------



## Tez3

elder999 said:


> Ya know, I knew that, but I keep forgetting things, these days  ...
> 
> plus, I can't show off in Ladino, since I don't know any...
> 
> .
> (and have pretty much spent my foreign language skills for the day, please..
> 
> ...)
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but present-day Judaism is even more divergent from ancient Hebrew rituals than the various sects were then from each other-kind of like the Christians of today being somewhat divergent from "Christian table-fellowship" of the second to fourth century.....just sayin'




The thing is we move forward, one reason why the Law is always up to date for us. We've always done that so even one year would be different from the next. No one is as they were exactly two thousand years ago ( well maybe the Welsh bless em) but we are actually quite close.  The early Xtians were nothing like the way they are today, they had female bishops for one thing and married priests...


----------



## elder999

Tez3 said:


> The thing is we move forward, one reason why the Law is always up to date for us. We've always done that so even one year would be different from the next. No one is as they were exactly two thousand years ago ( well maybe the Welsh bless em) but we are actually quite close.  The early Xtians were nothing like the way they are today, they had female bishops for one thing and married priests...


 *QFT*, and because I can't click "like, agree and informative."

Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Coptic and Episcopal priests all get married, and are, to one degree or another, "catholic." Protestant ministers get married, and the Episcopal and Anglican churches now have female bishops....


----------



## Tez3

_Guay! cuando el amares favla leshon hakodesh.
_
A phrase someone might be as well to heed.... no names, no pack drill.

( Beware when the ignoramus starts quoting scripture)


----------



## elder999

Tez3 said:


> _Guay! cuando el amares favla leshon hakodesh.
> _
> A phrase someone might be as well to heed.... no names, no pack drill.
> 
> ( Beware when the ignoramus starts quoting scripture)


 But I do have some Spanish....this is Sephardic, I think:

_Cuando avre la boca se conoce lo que es. _
(When one opens his mouth, he reveals who he is)


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> Absolutely not!   I enjoy your posts. what you believe is between you and G-d, it's not for me to say you shouldn't believe it, I will just tell you why I don't. Now I'm going to blow your mind lol, you asked before why there wasn't commentary on something and I said there will be but there is hundreds of thousands of commentaries, well in Israel they have and are building an online record of commentaries. Dip in if you fancy! Judaic Responsa - Bar-Ilan University Responsa Global Jewish Database
> Elder you may have read Latin, Greek and Hebrew etc but have you studied in the Jewish way or the Xtian way? isn't your religious studies degree a Xtian based one or can you sit in a yeshiva and argue with rabbinic students?



Thanks.  I think.   

Goodness knows how long it will me to get through all the information you have provided.  I really do appreciate it.


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> Thanks.  I think.
> 
> Goodness knows how long it will me to get through all the information you have provided.  I really do appreciate it.




Tip of the iceberg I'm afraid  Torah study is actually considered by many to be more important than prayer, often Jewish scholars would only study while their wives worked, ran the house, raised the children etc .Judaism is a bit like a bottomless well, there is so much, and so many different thoughts that you can easily feel you are drowning. It's always 'well on this hand...but on the other hand'!

However I think I would recommend that if you read nothing else you should read the Says/Ethics of the Fathers and perhaps read it before anything else. There's a surprising amount of wisdom about all sorts of things in there as well as food for thought.

Ethics of the Fathers Chapter One - Texts Writings


----------



## PhotonGuy

Blindside said:


> Why do you think in one verse he told each of his disciples who does not have one to get one, but then in another verse says that the group of eleven only needs two?


Good question. Not sure about that?



Blindside said:


> Why doesn't Jesus carry a sword?


He didn't need one. As He states, He could have twelve legions of angels so He certainly wouldn't need a sword, but He had to allow Himself to be arrested to fulfill prophecy.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> You don't like to name my culture then? You don't like to say Jewish culture?



It was the Roman culture that was in control then, that's what I was referring to when I said that culture.


----------



## elder999

PhotonGuy said:


> Good question. Not sure about that?
> 
> 
> He didn't need one. As He states, He could have twelve legions of angels so He certainly wouldn't need a sword, but He had to allow Himself to be arrested to fulfill prophecy.


 


PhotonGuy said:


> It was the Roman culture that was in control then, that's what I was referring to when I said that culture.


----------



## PhotonGuy

What, you don't know Biblical history? The Romans were in charge at the time. Learn your facts.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> What, you don't know Biblical history? The Romans were in charge at the time. Learn your facts.




I know nothing, please enlighten me then el haragan es consejero.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> I know nothing, please enlighten me then el haragan es consejero.



At the time, that part of the world was being run by the Romans. They had established their empire and during the time of the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus the area was being managed by Pontius Pilate a Roman governor who served under Emperor Tiberius.


----------



## Xue Sheng

PhotonGuy said:


> What, you don't know Biblical history? The Romans were in charge at the time. Learn your facts.



I don't think you even realize what you just did


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> At the time, that part of the world was being run by the Romans. They had established their empire and during the time of the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus the area was being managed by Pontius Pilate a Roman governor who served under Emperor Tiberius.




What do you think about the Herodian dynasty?


----------



## Tez3

[


elder999 said:


> But I do have some Spanish....this is Sephardic, I think:
> 
> _*Cuando avre la boca se conoce lo que es. *_
> *(When one opens his mouth, he reveals who he is*)




Apt don't you think?


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> At the time, that part of the world was being run by the Romans. They had established their empire and during the time of the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus the area was being managed by Pontius Pilate a Roman governor who served under Emperor Tiberius.




What's your impression of the Idumaean Antipater? Could Herod have avoided the confrontation with the Sanhedrin? Do you consider that Herod and Phasael were clever in their dealings with Antony? Of course Herod must have been clever or at least very wily to survive the Parthian invasion don't you think?


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> At the time, that part of the world was being run by the Romans. They had established their empire and during the time of the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus the area was being managed by Pontius Pilate a Roman governor who served under Emperor Tiberius.



Of course as you know  Pontius Pilatus was properly known as the Procurator or Prefect of Judea, he would have had responsibility for military matters and for raising taxes, there were some other duties but on the whole  governance was left in the hands of the civilians, in this case the Sanhedrin and the High Priests.
I'm interested to know what you think the Hellenic influence was on the local population of Jews or whether you think such groups as the Essenes also carried influence?


----------



## elder999

Tez3 said:


> I'm interested to know what you think the Hellenic influence was on the local population of Jews or whether you think such groups as the Essenes also carried influence?


 
Oh gods...stop! You're killing me!


[URL='http://www.sherv.net/']
	

[URL='http://www.sherv.net/']
	

[URL='http://www.sherv.net/']
	
[/URL][/URL][/URL]


----------



## pgsmith

Give him some time to google all of that before he answers.


----------



## Tez3

To be honest my interest is pre and post Joshua Bar Joseph's time, for Jews it's not a particularly interesting time, that comes shortly afterwards with the revolts,(nothing like a good revolt). My interest in the Romans is, as I indicated earlier because of British history and the history of where I live because it was a Roman garrison and town, one does pick up some knowledge at school of course


----------



## Xue Sheng

Soooo....ever hear of Hadrian


----------



## Tez3

Xue Sheng said:


> Soooo....ever hear of Hadrian




Yep he has a wall just up the road from me, they used part of it in the Kevin Costner Robin Hood film.
Hadrian s Wall is a truly special place... - Hadrians Wall


----------



## Blindside

Xue Sheng said:


> Soooo....ever hear of Hadrian



I heard he built a little wall, well clearly he advocated for self-defense, still not sure about this Bible thing.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tez3 said:


> Yep he has a wall just up the road from me, they used part of it in the Kevin Costner Robin Hood film.
> Hadrian s Wall is a truly special place... - Hadrians Wall



I would like to see it someday, seen a couple of documentaries about it, but I would like to see it in person someday. Next year the Mrs. is talking about going to Europe, but I believe she is talking Germany and has no plans for England at this point, hopefully another time.


----------



## Tez3

Xue Sheng said:


> I would like to see it someday, seen a couple of documentaries about it, but I would like to see it in person someday. Next year the Mrs. is talking about going to Europe, but I believe she is talking Germany and has no plans for England at this point, hopefully another time.



We lived in Germany for three years, there's a Roman site in Xanten near Dusseldorf we went to.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Well the fact of the matter is that during the NT it was the Roman Empire that was in control of the area and they set the laws. That being said, it can be concluded that they did allow civilians to buy and own swords as shown when Jesus instructs His apostles to buy swords.

Now as for when Jesus said "It is enough," in Luke 22:38 I've done some research on that. It has been said that Jesus was not saying that two swords were enough but rather was putting an end to the conversation. The apostles did not get it about Jesus dying on the cross to fulfill prophecy and be risen three days later and they thought they might be using the swords to protect Jesus and stop the Romans from arresting Him as Peter tried when he attacked the high priest's servant. So Jesus was not contradicting Himself by first saying all the apostles should have swords and then saying two is enough but rather He was saying that's enough talk on the subject when the apostles mentioned that there was two swords.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> it can be concluded that they did allow civilians to buy and own swords as shown when Jesus instructs His apostles to buy swords.



Well, actually no, you are not understanding I think how the Romans worked when they invaded countries. You are making false assumptions and definitely not answering any of my questions which leads me to conclude that you don't actually know much about the history of the area.

I won't comment on your second paragraph other than to say you need to cite your sources when you say you have done some research and  then 'it's been said', well who said? Are they a credible source?


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> Well, actually no, you are not understanding I think how the Romans worked when they invaded countries. You are making false assumptions and definitely not answering any of my questions which leads me to conclude that you don't actually know much about the history of the area.
> 
> I won't comment on your second paragraph other than to say you need to cite your sources when you say you have done some research and  then 'it's been said', well who said? Are they a credible source?



My credible source is the King James Bible and that's what I use for researching history of the area and the discussion about the apostles carrying swords.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> My credible source is the King James Bible and that's what I use for researching history of the area and the discussion about the apostles carrying swords.



You aren't just saying that because that translation was mentioned earlier? As far as I know the New Testament is concerned with specific things and the history of the Roman Empire, it's customs and procedures *aren't* part of those specific things so you will learn very little Roman history from it. Even Xtian Bible scholars look to other sources for historical facts about the Roman Empire.


----------



## elder999

PhotonGuy said:


> My credible source is the King James Bible and that's what I use for researching history of the area and the discussion about the apostles carrying swords.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> My credible source is the King James Bible and that's what I use for researching history of the area and the discussion about the apostles carrying swords.




Tacitus.


----------



## PhotonGuy

elder999 do you even have much knowledge of the Bible? What is your background on that?


----------



## elder999

PhotonGuy said:


> elder999 do you even have much knowledge of the Bible? What is your background on that?



@PhotonGuy : Yer kidding, right?
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I mean, *do you?*










@PhotonGuy : Do you even have much reading comprehension? What's your background on that?


----------



## Xue Sheng

PhotonGuy said:


> My credible source is the King James Bible and that's what I use for researching history of the area and the discussion about the apostles carrying swords.



You might want to read about the King James Version and its origin before you run with this


----------



## Xue Sheng

PhotonGuy said:


> elder999 do you even have much knowledge of the Bible? What is your background on that?



OK, I'm going to go out on a limb here....ok....it really not much of a limb......he knows considerably more that you and it is with much less bias too


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> elder999 do you even have much knowledge of the Bible? What is your background on that?



Have you read *any* of the posts on here? I mean c'mon,  you should read the posts before commenting.


----------



## elder999

Tez3 said:


> Have you read *any* of the posts on here? I mean c'mon,  you should read the posts before commenting.



Seriously, from page 2:


elder999 said:


> Oooh, boy.
> 
> Here's the scripture:
> 
> _38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
> 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
> *Matthew 5:38-42,KJV*_
> 
> Where it's part of the Sermon on the Mount-in Luke, it's part of the injunction to "love your enemies." This is important: at that time, "your enemies," for Jesus's principally Hebrew audience, were the *Romans*.
> It's said by some that at that time, striking those perceived to be of a lower class was done with the back of the hand to assert authority-thus, the Romans would strike Hebrews with the back of the hand- and used their left hand for "unclean purposes," that is to say, to wipe their asses....if they were confronted by a Hebrew who turned their cheek, they were confounded: presented with a dilemma whereby they could strike with their open hand or fist:treating the Hebrew as an equal-in fact, the entire Sermon on the Mount is somewhat politically  subversive in nature.
> 
> 
> It also-since it's coupled with the verse from Deuteronomy about "an eye for an eye"-could be an injunction against vengeance, rather than self-defense. People used the verse from Deuteronomy to justify vengeance-thus the "_you have *heard it said*_, rather than the more conventional, "_it is *written*_" when referencing scripture.
> 
> It's also worth noting (for those who seem to think it's some sort of pacifist statement) that Jesus doesn't say to stand there and keep turning your cheek-he's pretty specific about the act.
> 
> Lastly, we have to note that Jesus told his followers this:
> 
> _He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”_*Luke 22:36*
> 
> Amazing to me  how some people "read" the Bible, _without actually *READING* the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _



Note the last sentence in that one, in re: "reading comprhension." 

From page 3:



elder999 said:


> If_ My people who are called by My name humble themselves, pray, seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land_.—II Chronicles 7:14



From page 7:



elder999 said:


> Two things, really-_alma_ means "young woman," or "maid," not "Virgin. "_Nubile", pubescent _or "*of marriageable age*."
> 
> The Hebrew word for "virgin" is _betulah_
> 
> .We've had the whole KJV discussion before-it's not at all a good translation-its developers didn't even follow any sort of proper translation protocol.....they did the best they could, though, and came up with some damn fine prose in the idiom of the time-they just got a few key things wrong, though-admittedly, things that Christianity had gotten wrong since its inception: _almah_ to "virgin" is a mistranslation that dates back to third century translations of Hebrew to Greek.
> 
> Of course, you are entirely free to _ believe_ whatever you like, @oftheherd1 , but these are the *facts*.
> 
> "Virgin birth" is called  _parthenogenesis_-it occurs frequently with reptiles and amphibians-there's an entire species of lizard in New Mexico that reproduces this way. It occurs in turkeys and chickens. It occurs with fish. It occurs under the right circumstances in most vertebrates, though, until recently, wasn't known to occur in mammals at all.
> 
> It's an extreme rarity, but it apparently does occur in mammals-at least, it's been _induced_ in mammals, which_ implies _that it could occur naturally.
> 
> The only thing miraculous about Jesus's "virgin birth" was that he was male-across nature,given that their genetic makeup comes from an entirely female source,  the offspring of parthenogenesis are always _female_.



I dunno, from like the day before yesterday? 



elder999 said:


> I was raised a Christian. My dad was an Episcopal priest. *His* dad was an Episcopal priest. *I*almost went to seminary. I've nothing but love and respect for teachings of the rabbi Yeshua. I have no "dislike" towards _any_ faith: they are all full of beauty and truth, as is the King James Bible-no where have I ever said or implied otherwise.
> 
> It is, however, a poor translation, and some of the stuff in it is pure b.s. This is, of course my opinion, no "great dislike of 'Christianity'" involved-as I've said (repeatedly) you can believe what you want. I simply cannot believe that the KJV is the inspired word of God: I'm the victim of a classical education- I studied Latin, Greek and Hebrew in high school......I studied Koine Greek and Aramaic in college-I have, as I've said (repeatedly) a degree in religious studies, and I can see the hand of man writ large throughout the KJV in its various *mistakes*. Sorry.



And this post from ten years ago:



> Early on I earned a degree in religious studies; my father, grand father and great-grand father were all ministers, though they also practiced other trades. I managed to dodge that bullet, and wound up working in commercial nuclear power, earning degrees in mechanical and nuclear engineering, and advanced degrees in nuclear engineering and, more recently, my doctorate in applied physics.



By "early on," btw, I mean at age 16. You know-about _your _age.....


----------



## PhotonGuy

So you don't agree with the King James Bible. That's your choice. And no the KJB is not the inspired Word of God. The inspired Word of God is the original Bible as it was written by God through Paul and Peter and all the different men that God used as scribes. I simply like to use the KJB as the best English translation. You have a right to disagree and use whatever Bible you want but there is no point in us trying to change each other's minds on this.


----------



## elder999

PhotonGuy said:


> The inspired Word of God is the original Bible as it was written by God through Paul and Peter and all the different me that God used as scribes.



In that respect, *all* translations are pretty much terrible.



PhotonGuy said:


> I simply like to use the KJB as the best English translation. .



Actually, it's one of the worst of a bad lot, but it sure sounds pretty.......


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> So you don't agree with the King James Bible. That's your choice. And no the KJB is not the inspired Word of God. The inspired Word of God is* the original Bible as it was written by God through Paul and Peter* and all the different men that God used as scribes. I simply like to use the KJB as the best English translation. You have a right to disagree and use whatever Bible you want but there is no point in us trying to change each other's minds on this.




So Peter and Paul wrote *ALL* the Bible, gosh and we thought Methuselah was old... 

Do you actually know what the 'original Bible' is?

No one is trying to persuade anyone of anything actually, we are each putting our opinions and points of view ( with citations) of what we study, what we think and in some cases what we believe. You are the one making statements which I have to say are coming across as arrogant.


----------



## Tez3

elder999 said:


> In that respect, *all* translations are pretty much terrible.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's one of the worst of a bad lot, *but it sure sounds pretty*.......




It has given the English language some very good phrases. It's a notable milestone in the language along with Chaucer, Shakespeare et al. The story of previous English translations is also interesting from an historical point of view as well as (or rather than) a theological one.


----------



## Xue Sheng

PhotonGuy said:


> So you don't agree with the King James Bible. That's your choice. And no the KJB is not the inspired Word of God. The inspired Word of God is the original Bible as it was written by God through Paul and Peter and all the different men that God used as scribes. I simply like to use the KJB as the best English translation. You have a right to disagree and use whatever Bible you want but there is no point in us trying to change each other's minds on this.



Define best? If by best you mean most correct then well...no. But, if by best you mean following the guidelines set by King James to conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy....then sure...whatever....

But you are not talking the inspired word of God in your reference to it or the best translation of the "inspired word of God". You are talking history and using it as your proof of Roman authority in the time of Jesus... and it is not. Now there is a rather fascinating field of study that compares the bible to history but this is not what you are doing either.... you are using it to back up your statements


----------



## elder999

Xue Sheng said:


> Define best? If by best you mean most correct then well...no. But, if by best you mean following the guidelines set by King James to conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy....then sure...whatever....
> ts



*QFT*


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tez3 said:


> Do you actually know what the 'original Bible' is?.



Well it could be....if it were not for..... Emperor Constantine, the Council of Nicaea, Martin Luther, and King James to name a few


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> So Peter and Paul wrote *ALL* the Bible, gosh and we thought Methuselah was old...
> 
> Do you actually know what the 'original Bible' is?
> 
> No one is trying to persuade anyone of anything actually, we are each putting our opinions and points of view ( with citations) of what we study, what we think and in some cases what we believe. You are the one making statements which I have to say are coming across as arrogant.



Apparently you didn't read the second part of my sentence. As I stated, "The inspired Word of God is the original Bible as it was written by God through Paul and Peter AND ALL THE DIFFERENT MEN THAT GOD USED AS SCRIBES." Now whose got bad reading comprehension? Paul and Peter were just two of the scribes that God used. I would have to check up on this but I believe God used 40 different men to write the Bible including Paul and Peter.

Now with these statements Im making, Im just stating my beliefs. I never said you have to believe them too. You take what I say the wrong way.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Xue Sheng said:


> Define best? If by best you mean most correct then well...no. But, if by best you mean following the guidelines set by King James to conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy....then sure...whatever....


Well I just like to use the King James Bible, but that's just me. When I say its the best English translation that is only my opinion. You don't have to take what I say as if its scribed in stone.


----------



## Xue Sheng

PhotonGuy said:


> Apparently you didn't read the second part of my sentence. As I stated, "The inspired Word of God is the original Bible as it was written by God through Paul and Peter AND ALL THE DIFFERENT MEN THAT GOD USED AS SCRIBES." Now whose got bad reading comprehension? Paul and Peter were just two of the scribes that God used. I would have to check up on this but I believe God used 40 different men to write the Bible including Paul and Peter.
> 
> Now with these statements Im making, Im just stating my beliefs. I never said you have to believe them too. You take what I say the wrong way.



So...where in this 40 different "men" do Emperor Constantine, Martin Luther, King James and the Council of Nicaea fit in?


----------



## Tez3

Are you making bits up as you go along? There's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension by the way but an awful lot wrong with your written English.
You are indeed making statements. Still waiting for you to tell us what the 'original Bible' is...


----------



## Xue Sheng

PhotonGuy said:


> Well I just like to use the King James Bible, but that's just me. When I say its the best English translation that is only my opinion. You don't have to take what I say as if its scribed in stone.



What is interesting here is I really don't care what bible you use. You made this statement



PhotonGuy said:


> My credible source is the King James Bible and that's what I use for researching history of the area and the discussion about the apostles carrying swords.



Fact is, as a solid historical source...it ain't one since King James pretty much set down the guidelines in stone as to what it was suppose to be about. So your statements on Judea in the time of Jesus and the Romans has no real historical backing


----------



## Tez3

I'm sure someone will correct me ( by that I mean someone who knows) but my understanding of the New Testament is that it's about a specific person, their teachings and their lives so the writers even divinely inspired ones wouldn't have been interested in detailing the minutiae of life under Roman occupancy. I think I'm right to in thinking the New Testament isn't a book for people to study history with rather one for people to use in their faith.
If King James translated had it translated exactly word for word, ( which contemporary records say he didn't, he had a purpose in mind) it still wouldn't be an account of Roman life, practices and customs. Xtian scholars looking for background  use contemporary historians writings and academic writings. A great deal of archaeology goes on in Israel leading to a wealth of knowledge of life under the Romans as well as earlier and later times.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> Are you making bits up as you go along? There's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension by the way but an awful lot wrong with your written English.
> You are indeed making statements. Still waiting for you to tell us what the 'original Bible' is...


What part of "And all the different men that God used as scribes," don't you understand? That's what I said back in post 184 so I am not making things up as I go along. 
As for what I consider the original Bible, I said that before as well. I consider the Bible as it was written by all those different men piece by piece in Greek and Hebrew including Paul and Peter but not limited to just them.


----------



## Tez3

Good sense is both the first principal and the parent source of good writing.  Horace.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> What part of "And all the different men that God used as scribes," don't you understand? That's what I said back in post 184 so I am not making things up as I go along.
> As for what I consider the original Bible, I said that before as well. I consider the Bible as it was written by all those different men piece by piece in Greek and Hebrew including Paul and Peter but not limited to just them.




Ok, did you miss Aramaic out on purpose then? And only written by men eh, no wise women around?


----------



## Tez3

Different Perspectives on the Authorship of the Torah - My Jewish Learning


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> Ok, did you miss Aramaic out on purpose then? And only written by men eh, no wise women around?



I am not aware of any women writing down the Bible when it first came into existence. Of the men that wrote down the Bible, Paul and Peter would be two of them. Aside from that there was Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John who each wrote down the books that were named after them in the NT. John also wrote down the book of Revelations in the NT. In the OT there was King Solomon who wrote down Proverbs, Daniel who wrote down the book of Daniel, and others. I personally believe that it was God who wrote the entire Bible and was using the men I just mentioned to write down what He was saying, whether or not other people want to accept that belief is their choice. Of all the people that wrote down the Bible when it was first written, Im not aware of any women doing so.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> I am not aware of any women writing down the Bible when it first came into existence. Of the men that wrote down the Bible, Paul and Peter would be two of them. Aside from that there was Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John who each wrote down the books that were named after them in the NT. John also wrote down the book of Revelations in the NT. In the OT there was King Solomon who wrote down Proverbs, Daniel who wrote down the book of Daniel, and others. I personally believe that it was God who wrote the entire Bible and was using the men I just mentioned to write down what He was saying, whether or not other people want to accept that belief is their choice. Of all the people that wrote down the Bible when it was first written, Im not aware of any women doing so.




The Book of Proverbs - My Jewish Learning
Mishlei - Chapter 1 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

The Book of Daniel - My Jewish Learning
Daniel - Chapter 1 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

You do know that what you call the Old Testament is in fact Jewish writings?


----------



## elder999

PhotonGuy said:


> I am not aware of any women writing down the Bible when it first came into existence.



Well, of course you aren't...no one is really _aware_ of any of the authors of the Bible.

Least of all someone who holds up the KJV as a "historical" source.  

Popular theory, however, holds that the Book of Ruth was written by (surprise!) a woman, though,

Additionally, several scholars theorize that the author of one of the Bible's source documents, the so-called "Book of J"-the basis for Genesis, Exodus and Numbers, "J" was a woman.
The Book of J Harold Bloom David Rosenberg 9780802141910 Amazon.com Books


----------



## elder999

PhotonGuy said:


> I am not aware of any women writing down the Bible when it first came into existence.



Well, of course you aren't...no one is really _aware_ of any of the authors of the Bible.

Least of all someone who holds up the KJV as a "historical" source.  

Popular theory, however, holds that the Book of Ruth was written by (surprise!) a woman, though,

Additionally, several scholars theorize that the author of one of the Bible's source documents, the so-called "Book of J"-the basis for Genesis, Exodus and Numbers, "J" was a woman.
The Book of J Harold Bloom David Rosenberg 9780802141910 Amazon.com Books


----------



## jks9199

PhotonGuy said:


> Well the fact of the matter is that during the NT it was the Roman Empire that was in control of the area and they set the laws. That being said, it can be concluded that they did allow civilians to buy and own swords as shown when Jesus instructs His apostles to buy swords.
> 
> Now as for when Jesus said "It is enough," in Luke 22:38 I've done some research on that. It has been said that Jesus was not saying that two swords were enough but rather was putting an end to the conversation. The apostles did not get it about Jesus dying on the cross to fulfill prophecy and be risen three days later and they thought they might be using the swords to protect Jesus and stop the Romans from arresting Him as Peter tried when he attacked the high priest's servant. So Jesus was not contradicting Himself by first saying all the apostles should have swords and then saying two is enough but rather He was saying that's enough talk on the subject when the apostles mentioned that there was two swords.


Gee... What about Mathew 10:34-39?

(By the way, that link... Has LOTS of translations available.)


----------



## jks9199

PhotonGuy said:


> I am not aware of any women writing down the Bible when it first came into existence. Of the men that wrote down the Bible, Paul and Peter would be two of them. Aside from that there was Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John who each wrote down the books that were named after them in the NT. John also wrote down the book of Revelations in the NT. In the OT there was King Solomon who wrote down Proverbs, Daniel who wrote down the book of Daniel, and others. I personally believe that it was God who wrote the entire Bible and was using the men I just mentioned to write down what He was saying, whether or not other people want to accept that belief is their choice. Of all the people that wrote down the Bible when it was first written, Im not aware of any women doing so.


Actually, it's pretty widely accepted that none of the Gospels were directly written, or even narrated, by the named authors.  Remember that the first generations after the Resurrection believed that the Second Coming was imminent.  They only began to write down what the various disciples taught as they realized that those who saw Him directly were going to die.


----------



## elder999

PhotonGuy said:


> I am not aware of any women writing down the Bible when it first came into existence. Of the men that wrote down the Bible, Paul and Peter would be two of them. Aside from that there was Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John who each wrote down the books that were named after them in the NT. John also wrote down the book of Revelations in the NT. In the OT there was King Solomon who wrote down Proverbs, Daniel who wrote down the book of Daniel, and others. I personally believe that it was God who wrote the entire Bible and was using the men I just mentioned to write down what He was saying, whether or not other people want to accept that belief is their choice. Of all the people that wrote down the Bible when it was first written, Im not aware of any women doing so.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> You do know that what you call the Old Testament is in fact Jewish writings?


Well yes, Christianity did not come into existence until the NT. So the OT is all Jewish.


----------



## oftheherd1

jks9199 said:


> Gee... What about Mathew 10:34-39?
> 
> (By the way, that link... Has LOTS of translations available.)



jks9199, I noticed they don't all agree.  Do you have an opinion of which one I should believe?


----------



## elder999

oftheherd1 said:


> jks9199, I noticed they don't all agree.  Do you have an opinion of which one I should believe?


They all say, in this instance, almost the same thing-the _intention_ is certainly the same....??
(I mean, do you mean that all the translations don't agree, or that all the translations of that particular verse shown on that page don't agree? Because, if it's the latter, I've gotta say look again...if it's the former, well, how long do you have? 

)


----------



## oftheherd1

jks9199 said:


> Actually, it's pretty widely accepted that none of the Gospels were directly written, or even narrated, by the named authors.  Remember that the first generations after the Resurrection believed that the Second Coming was imminent.  They only began to write down what the various disciples taught as they realized that those who saw Him directly were going to die.



You and I travel in different circles I guess.  I am not aware of a widely accepted belief that none of the Gospels were directly written by other than the men they are named for.  There are some who believe Matthew and Luke may have borrowed from Mark, and from another unknown source called "Q."  That is not proven, nor widely accepted to my knowledge.  As I have mentioned before, I am a fundamental Baptist, and we are believers in the KJV as the inspired work of God in English.  I guess you don't believe that.  You are free to believe what you wish, as am I.


----------



## elder999

oftheherd1 said:


> You and I travel in different circles I guess.  I am not aware of a widely accepted belief that none of the Gospels were directly written by other than the men they are named for.  There are some who believe Matthew and Luke may have borrowed from Mark, and from another unknown source called "Q."  That is not proven, nor widely accepted to my knowledge.  As I have mentioned before, I am a fundamental Baptist, and we are believers in the KJV as the inspired work of God in English.  I guess you don't believe that.  You are free to believe what you wish, as am I.


 
With the exception of some of the Pauline books, it's generally held _by *most* reputable *academic* Biblical scholars_ that authorship of the New Testament, _especially the Gospels_, were completed at later dates from earlier fragments, and that authorship cannot be attributed to eyewitnesses, or the individuals for whom the Gospels are named..._tradition_, on the other hand, holds otherwise. The same is true for the hypothetical "Q" document-this theory is accepted by most academics. Believe it or not, most of this-as well as Christianity's relationship to Greek "mystery schools," and Mithraism, would actually be taught at a Baptist seminary or Bible college: Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote (mostly _plagiarized_ ) a paper on the relationship between early Christianity and the mystery schools himself.


----------



## oftheherd1

elder999 said:


> They all say, in this instance, almost the same thing-the _intention_ is certainly the same....??
> (I mean, do you mean that all the translations don't agree, or that all the translations of that particular verse shown on that page don't agree? Because, if it's the latter, I've gotta say look again...if it's the former, well, how long do you have?
> 
> )



Perhaps it would help if you could tell us what it is they all say.  You are an educated man as evidenced by your posts.  It shouldn't be difficult for you to summarize how they all use the same words to say the same thing, and how that is so in all the translations of all the Bible.  I think we could all learn from that.  I know I would.


----------



## oftheherd1

elder999 said:


> With the exception of some of the Pauline books, it's generally held _by *most* reputable *academic* Biblical scholars_ that authorship of the New Testament, _especially the Gospels_, were completed at later dates from earlier fragments, and that authorship cannot be attributed to eyewitnesses, or the individuals for whom the Gospels are named..._tradition_, on the other hand, holds otherwise. The same is true for the hypothetical "Q" document-this theory is accepted by most academics. Believe it or not, most of this-as well as Christianity's relationship to Greek "mystery schools," and Mithraism, would actually be taught at a Baptist seminary or Bible college: Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote (mostly _plagiarized_ ) a paper on the relationship between early Christianity and the mystery schools himself.



"Most reputable academic Biblical scholars."  What about those "reputable scholars" that are not part of the most?  Is their research, and is their opinion not worthy?  Do you have a guess as to what percentage of those most reputable say what you believe as opposed to those most reputable don't say what you believe?

You do bring up an interesting point about most current reputable academic Biblical scholars versus tradition.  What makes current scholars better qualified than traditions of those who were closer the events?  It would seem what they passed on might have validity.

As to Baptist seminary or Bible colleges teaching such things.  They could also be using other than KJV Bibles.  As you can imagine, I would not put a lot of credence in them.  You or anyone else is free to do so.


----------



## elder999

oftheherd1 said:


> "Most reputable academic Biblical scholars."  What about those "reputable scholars" that are not part of the most?  Is their research, and is their opinion not worthy?  Do you have a guess as to what percentage of those most reputable say what you believe as opposed to those most reputable don't say what you believe?


----------



## Cirdan

PhotonGuy said:


> I personally believe that it was God who wrote the entire Bible and was using the men I just mentioned to write down what He was saying, whether or not other people want to accept that belief is their choice.



Given that G-man vrote evertyhing himself he has an awful lot of trouble getting his stuff straight...
Biblical Contradictions


----------



## Tez3

Cirdan said:


> Given that G-man vrote evertyhing himself he has an awful lot of trouble getting his stuff straight...
> Biblical Contradictions




Language is a funny thing, often I've been reading something in French and not understood a particular word, I look it up and there's no direct translation for that word in English, the dictionary can give me an idea, an impression of the meaning but not the exact meaning the French writer has and native French readers will understand.
Where I live in North Yorkshire the dialect is heavily influenced by Norse words, it's in the name places as well as the spoken word. We have _becks_ ( streams) _brigs_ ( bridges) _clegs_ ( horseflies) _dales_ (valleys) _foss_ ( waterfall) _gate_ ( street)_ gyll_ ( narrow valleys) _keld _(well) _thwaite_ (village) as well as phrases like _'we mun go now'_, and _'happen he did'_. Now whether the modern descendants of the Norsemen recognise those words or not I don't know but the parallel is there with ancient Hebrew and Aramaic and centuries later English. We have a Norse word '_gimmer_' used by sheep farmers, there's no one word translation for it, it means a female sheep that hasn't had a lamb yet but can you see the potential for mistranslation there? who is going to write the whole phrase out in English when perhaps one word would do? So you find words close to it, perhaps young ewe but it changes the meaning slightly because we think of ewes as having had lambs. A poor translator could just put 'ewe' and the correct meaning has gone altogether now.

I do think the KJV has translations that were politically motivated but with the best will in the world even without that meanings will have changed.


----------



## jks9199

oftheherd1 said:


> jks9199, I noticed they don't all agree.  Do you have an opinion of which one I should believe?


My belief is that the Truth in Scripture lies in the message rather than specific words. On the grand scale, that is that God sent His Son top redeem mankind. This verse is, in my opinion,  pretty clear: The message that Christb was bringing was not simply going to be more of the same -- it would be a radical and divisive new message.   Families would come to be divided over questions of the new teachings  

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## oftheherd1

jks9199 said:


> My belief is that the Truth in Scripture lies in the message rather than specific words. On the grand scale, that is that God sent His Son top redeem mankind. This verse is, in my opinion,  pretty clear: The message that Christb was bringing was not simply going to be more of the same -- it would be a radical and divisive new message.   Families would come to be divided over questions of the new teachings
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk



I also believe that when taken in its context, it shows that people will be divided over Christ's message.

But would you believe and/or agree that when different words are used, or words are left out, you may no longer be able to ascertain the "Truth in Scripture?" in the message?

How about (From:  Quick Comparison of Bible Versions - Chick Publications)
King James Version:                                                                                                            New International Version:

Luke 9:56: *For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, *                            Luke 9:56:  and they went to another village
*but to save them.*  And they went to another village.             

Matt. 18:11:  *For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.                        *Matt 18:11:  (missing)

John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth *on me* hath everlasting life.       John 6:47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

In just these three verses, in comparison, which do you think most accurately depicts the Truth in Scripture?


----------



## oftheherd1

elder999 said:


>



Sorry, to me that seems like a non-answer.  I don't agree there is any hairsplitting.


----------



## Tez3

To be honest I can't imagine any Jewish person saying 'verily, verily'.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Frankly, I can't imagine anyone "actually" saying 'verily, verily'


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> To be honest I can't imagine any Jewish person saying 'verily, verily'.



That is interesting.  Would a jew of today, or a jew in the time of Christ be likely to say 'amen, amen?'  I am guessing that the Greek amen is a transliteration of the Hebrew.  Does that sound right?


----------



## Tez3

Na then, this is part of the Yorkshire version of the Bible, yes a real 'translation' and it can be bought. If you have seen the television series All Creatures Great and Small, this is how the farmers and locals talk so it was done for people like them, James Herriot was a local vet here and the series filmed here too. Enjoy.

EXODUS 3

One day Moses were art and abart tending to sheep at edge of desert near Horeb when dead sudden like this bush sets on fire."By eck!" says Moses. "A burning bush what int burning."

"Aye up Moses," says this Angel of God who were int bush. "How's tha bin?"
"Aye up Angel," says Moses. "What's tha want?"
"Don't come any closer," says Angel. "Else tha'll get thi sen scorched bi power of God. And tha can tek thi shoes off an'all while tha's at it cos tha's on Holy ground."
Well Moses were fair taken aback I can tell thi. Int every day what a Angel appears in a bush is it? And he were so scared as he daren't look.
"Nar then," Angel says. He were talking for God see so he says, "I am God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, tha knows."
And then he says, dead serious like, he says,
"I've seen what's bin goin on in Egypt like, and I've come to put record straight. Am goin to tek people of Israel out on Egypt and tek 'em to a place what's got land flowing wi' milk and honey and all that stuff. This is place where Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites live. I've heard them Israel lot weepin' and that," says Angel. "And I know what them Egyptians have bin up to. So am goin to send thi to Pharaoh and tha's goin to demand as he lets 'em all go."
Well Moses blinks a bit nar dunt he.
"Tha must be joking!" says Moses. "Am not man for a job like that!"
And God says,
"Stop whittlin Moses. Am goin to be with thi so don't fret. And when tha gets free tha can come and worship me on this mountain here."
Well Moses has a think abart this, like tha would, and he says,
"If I go to people of Israel and tell 'em that God's sent me they'll say, 'Gi'ooer! What God are tha talking abart?' And then where will I be eh?"
"Tell 'em that I Am has sent thi."
"I am what?" says Moses.
"I am The I Am," says God.
"Shall we start at beginning," says Moses. "Only tha's lost me somewhere."
"Just...just tell 'em Moses! Tell 'em that t'old God of their ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has sent thi. Get all t'old folk, them elders of Israel and tell 'em abart Jehovah appearing to thi in a bush and that I telt thi to tell 'em as I've seen what's bin goin on. And I'm goin to rescue 'em and tek 'em to a land wi' milk and honey and stuff."
"Oh ah," Moses says. "I can imagine how that'll go darn."
"Ah well," says God. "Let me finish. Them elders have got to go wi' thi to King of Egypt and tell him Jehovah, God of Hebrews has met thi and told thi to go three days out into desert and mek a sacrifice and tha wants permission to go. "
Well Moses weren't dead chuffed abart this I can tell thi and God tells him a bit more.
"King of Egypt's dead stubborn and he'll not let thi go less he's under a bit of pressure like. So I'll put pressure on him summat rotten. I'll duff up Egypt a bit and by time am through they'll be giving thi gold and food and all manner of stuff just to see back of thi."

EXODUS 4
Well Moses has a think abart all this and he still int happy.
"They won't believe me will they? They'll think am reet rarnd bend if I tell 'em I saw God in a bush."
"Ah well, we'll soon sort that," says God. "See that shepherd's staff tha's holding?"
"Well ah."
"Throw it darn ont ground."
And as soon as it hit ground it turned into a snake!
"Chuffin' hell a snake!" says Moses and he legged it.
"Nar pick it up by it's tail," says God.
"Thee pick it up," says Moses.
"Nar stop messin abart Moses," says God. "Pick it up."
So Moses, dead careful like, he grabs this snake by its tail and quick as owt it were a wooden staff again.
"By eck," says Moses. "That were a good'un."
"That's nowt," says God. "Tha wants to see what I can do wi' bread and fish. But...anyhow. If tha does that wi' stick then they'll believe thi. And if that dunt convince 'em then put thi hand inside thi shirt."
Well Moses does this and waits a bit.
"Nar pull it art again," says God. And when Moses pulled it art again it were all white wi' leprosy and that put wind up Moses I can tell thi. Then God told him to do it again and when he pulled it art again it were good as new.
"And if they don't believe them two miracles then cop a load of this one. This is one of me favourites," says God. "Tek some water from river Nile and pour it onto dry land and it'll turn to blood."
Well Moses were impressed but he still weren't happy.
"Am just not right man for job luv," says Moses. "I ant got a way wi' words and I can't speak to loads of folk. I get nervous and me gob goes all wobbly."
"Gi'ooer!" says God. "Int it me what meks gobs? Int it me what meks a man speak reet well or not? Nar get thi sen off and do as I telt thi and I'll help thi to speak well."
"Am not reet happy abart this," says Moses. "Can't tha send someone else."
"By eck Moses!" says God. He were getting angry nar. "Tha dunt arf go on! I'll tell thi what. Thi brother Aaron has a good gob on him. I'll tell thi what to do and tha can tell Aaron and then he can tell folk. How's that suit thi?"
"Ah, fair enough," says Moses. "But there's folk in Egypt who want me dead."
"Don't fret abart that," says God. "They all snuffed it a long time back."
And so off he goes wi' his staff and he tells his father inlaw Reuel abart goin back to Egypt to see a few relatives. (Abart fotty thousand by all accounts.) And t'old man gives him permission to tek his lass and a donkey or two. And so Aaron and Zipporah and Moses wi' his 'Staff of God' all set off back to Egypt.
When they got there they got all them elders of Israel to have a reet big council meeting. Aaron told 'em what Jehovah had said to Moses and Moses went and showed 'em that business wi' stick and t'old leprosy.
And they were impressed I can tell thi. They went darn ont knees straight off and they were all praying like good'uns.


EXODUS 5
Then comes exciting bit see. They all marched off and went to see Pharaoh. And they told him straight.
"We come wi' a message from Jehovah, God of Israel! And He says, Let my people go cos they've got to go art and mek a sacrifice int desert like."
"Is that so!" Pharaoh says. He weren't much bothered by all this lot. "And who's this Jehovah bloke that I should listen to him eh? I don't know nobody called Jehovah and I'll not let people of Israel go anywhere neither."
But Aaron and Moses kept on at him.
"God of Israel met us," they said.
"Oh ah," says Pharaoh. "Where?"
"In a bush."
"In a bush!" Pharaoh says, and he has a job on not to laugh. "Tha's telling me tha's got a God what hangs abart in a bush?"
"Aye, well, but that's not important. We've got to tek a three day trip into wilderness and mek a sacrifice to God. If we don't obey we're in big bother."
Well Pharaoh weren't having none of this.
"Get thi sen off back to work! Who does tha think tha's kiddin wi' all this Jehovah stuff."
And as soon as they'd gone Pharaoh tells his task masters to mek Israelis really sweat and mek 'em work twice as hard as normal.
"They must have nowt to do or they wouldn't be goin on abart daft things like goin art to wilderness to mek sacrifices. Don't give 'em any more straw for bricks but mek sure they come up wi' right quota. That'll keep 'em occupied. That'll teach 'em to listen to them trouble makers Aaron and Moses."
Well over next few days them Egyptians gave Hebrews a right pasting. They were whipping 'em and hitting 'em and shouting abart quotas all time.
"Tha's got to mek same number of bricks as before!" they shouted. "But tha's getting no more straw so it's just tough intit luv."
And it got so bad as foremen went to see Pharaoh.
"Tha can't keep treating us like this," they said. "We ant got no straw so we can't mek same number of bricks and then them taskmaster blokes lay into us wi' whips and stuff. It int right."
And Pharaoh says,
"Well that's just tough luck me old luv," he says dead smarmy. "Tha can't have enough to do or tha wouldn't be on abart daft things like goin to desert to mek a sacrifice. Nar get this sen off afore I lose me temper."
Then when foremen saw Moses and Aaron they had narks on and they set abart 'em.
"Tha's a right daft chuff thee," they said. "Tha's dropped us right in it wi' Pharaoh goin an abart goin to mek a sacrifice. Tha's give him excuse to kill all job lot on us."
Nar Moses were a bit upset abart this, as tha would be, and he has a chat wi' God again.
"Nar then," says Moses. "What's tha go and send me here for if tha's goin to do nowt? How can tha treat thi own folk like this? It int right. There weren't no point sending me here int first place. Since I've gone and told Pharaoh what tha said he's bin like a bear wi' a sore bum. There's folk getting beat up every day and tha's done nowt."
But God weren't bothered by all this cos He had a plan and He knew what He were doing. And when God's got a plan tha'd best watch thi sen.

EXODUS 6
"Now tha'll see what am goin to do to Pharaoh," He says. "Am goin to force him to let thi go. He'll want thi to go so bad he'll kick thi art of Egypt. I am Jehovah, God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and I promised 'em I'd make land of Canaan theirs and I will an'all. So get thi sen off and tell descendants of Israel that am goin to use me power to mek miracles and get 'em out of slavery. And then they'll know as I'm Jehovah who rescued 'em from Egyptians."
So Moses goes off again and he tells all folk what he'd bin told only no?one would listen to him cos they thought he were daft. It were cos of him that Egyptians were laying into 'em every day so they weren't inclined to listen to owt else he might have to say like.
And then God has a chat wi' Moses again and tells him to go to Pharaoh and tell him to let people of Israel go. But Moses, quite rightly in my book, he says,
"Why's Pharaoh goin to listen to me? He teks no notice of owt I say."


EXODUS 13
Then Moses starts goin on abart Passover an'all. He tells folk all abart stuff what God had told him to tell 'em.
"This is day tha'll remember forever! It's day we left Egypt and slavery cos God did them miracles. And remember that when tha's celebrating Passover tha's not to use none of that yeast stuff. So mek a note in thi diaries that it's at end of March each year. That's when God set us off for land of Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Hivites, and Jebusites. It's land what was promised to us fathers and has milk and honey and all that stuff.
"For seven days," says Moses, "tha's not to eat owt wi' yeast and ont seventh day that can stuff thi faces. Oh ah, and summat else. When God brings us to land He's promised us tha's to dedicate all first born sons to God and all first born male animals. And int future when children ask, 'Nar then Dad. What's all this reet boring Passover clap trap?' Tha can tell 'em straight. Tha can give 'em a clip rarnd ear'oil for a start and tell 'em, 'It's to mark when God brought us art on Egypt son. He med miracles what'd mek thi hair curl and if it weren't for Him we'd still be in Egypt mekkin bricks wi' straw so shut thi gob and help thi Gran cut her lamb up.'"
"And tha can tell 'em that it were cos Jehovah killed all first born Egyptian sons as we now dedicate all our first born sons to God."
Well, t'old people of Israel travelled along a bit and they dint go rarnd by way of Philistines which were quicker cos they'd have had to fight all way through see, so God sends 'em through t'old Red Sea wilderness area instead.
And while they were abart it Moses took bones of Joseph with 'em cos Joseph had med 'em promise to tek his bones art on Egypt when they got free. So they did.
After they left Succoth they camped art at Etham on edge of wilderness and God give 'em a thing to follow. It were this pillar of cloud during day and at night it become a pillar of fire so's everyone could see reet well even when it were dark.


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> That is interesting.  Would a jew of today, or a jew in the time of Christ be likely to say 'amen, amen?'  I am guessing that the Greek amen is a transliteration of the Hebrew.  Does that sound right?




Certainly. 
According to the Talmud, the Hebrew word "_amen_" (pronounced "ah-men" or, in Ashkenazi pronunciation, "uh-main") is related to the word "_amanah_," meaning truthfulness, credence or belief. When we hear another reciting a blessing we respond with "amen"; thus affirming that we believe that which has just been said.

In addition, amen (אמן) is an acronym for the Hebrew words א-ל מלך נאמן, (_El Melech Ne'eman_), meaning "G‑d, the trustworthy King."


----------



## oftheherd1

I enjoyed reading the Yorkshire Bible.  Any translation must try to be as faithful as is possible to the meaning on the original, and translate that as accurately as possible into the new language.  That is why a word for word translation is not normally possible.



Tez3 said:


> Certainly.
> According to the Talmud, the Hebrew word "_amen_" (pronounced "ah-men" or, in Ashkenazi pronunciation, "uh-main") is related to the word "_amanah_," meaning truthfulness, credence or belief. When we hear another reciting a blessing we respond with "amen"; thus affirming that we believe that which has just been said.
> 
> In addition, amen (אמן) is an acronym for the Hebrew words א-ל מלך נאמן, (_El Melech Ne'eman_), meaning "G‑d, the trustworthy King."



That makes sense.  The underlying Greek is in fact, 'amen' which is obviously a transliteration.  But apparently you still wouldn't expect to hear a double 'amen?'  I know it is used in the King James Version of the Old Testament, at Numbers 5:22 and Nehemiah 8:6.


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> I enjoyed reading the Yorkshire Bible.  Any translation must try to be as faithful as is possible to the meaning on the original, and translate that as accurately as possible into the new language.  That is why a word for word translation is not normally possible.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes sense.  The underlying Greek is in fact, 'amen' which is obviously a transliteration.  But apparently you still wouldn't expect to hear a double 'amen?'  I know it is used in the King James Version of the Old Testament, at Numbers 5:22 and Nehemiah 8:6.


I wouldn't expect a double 'amen', there'd be no need for it.


----------



## jks9199

oftheherd1 said:


> In just these three verses, in comparison, which do you think most accurately depicts the Truth in Scripture?



I think that the King James is beautiful poetry -- but as elder999 has pointed out -- there were strong secular hands involved in its creation.  The current "official" Bible for the readings at Mass in the Catholic Church in the US is The New American Bible, Revised Edition.  An almost frightening amount of scholarship went into it -- yet there's another revision in the works.  Haggling over which translation is "best" misses the point and has a worrisome potential to fall towards the trap of legalism...


----------



## Tez3

There is no translation that is correct.


----------



## jks9199

Tez3 said:


> There is no translation that is correct.


Depends on how you define "correct."

There is no translation that is perfect.  But I do believe that, done properly and in the proper spirit, the essential Truth of the scripture can be presented.


----------



## RowdyAz

Dirty Dog said:


> Which bible are you referring to? There are lots...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so you're a literalist. So, you also thing that bats are birds, right? And that masturbation and tattoos are sins? And you don't seek medical care when you're sick, right?
> 
> Is there anything more hypocritical than a Cafeteria Christian?
> 
> 
> 
> How about if I smite your left cheek instead? Because after all, by your literalist view, those passages only apply to an open hand slap to the right cheek.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, you're entitled to your views, no matter how silly they are. And I'm entitled to laugh at your views. Especially when they're silly.


Probably the Bible where God fed hundreds if if not thousands of people with a piece of bread


----------



## Cirdan

Tez3 said:


> Language is a funny thing, often I've been reading something in French and not understood a particular word, I look it up and there's no direct translation for that word in English, the dictionary can give me an idea, an impression of the meaning but not the exact meaning the French writer has and native French readers will understand.
> Where I live in North Yorkshire the dialect is heavily influenced by Norse words, it's in the name places as well as the spoken word. We have _becks_ ( streams) _brigs_ ( bridges) _clegs_ ( horseflies) _dales_ (valleys) _foss_ ( waterfall) _gate_ ( street)_ gyll_ ( narrow valleys) _keld _(well) _thwaite_ (village) as well as phrases like _'we mun go now'_, and _'happen he did'_. Now whether the modern descendants of the Norsemen recognise those words or not I don't know but the parallel is there with ancient Hebrew and Aramaic and centuries later English. We have a Norse word '_gimmer_' used by sheep farmers, there's no one word translation for it, it means a female sheep that hasn't had a lamb yet but can you see the potential for mistranslation there? who is going to write the whole phrase out in English when perhaps one word would do? So you find words close to it, perhaps young ewe but it changes the meaning slightly because we think of ewes as having had lambs. A poor translator could just put 'ewe' and the correct meaning has gone altogether now.
> 
> I do think the KJV has translations that were politically motivated but with the best will in the world even without that meanings will have changed.



Maybe G-man regrets the whole Babel thing by now.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




He could just do the translation himself just like he wrote the book in the first place, but maybe he needs to brush up on his modern language skills or something


----------



## Tez3

Cirdan said:


> Maybe G-man regrets the whole Babel thing by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He could just do the translation himself just like he wrote the book in the first place, but maybe he needs to brush up on his modern language skills or something




Perhaps he doesn't care because the people it was written for and by use it exactly as it was meant to be used and everyone else can do their own thing which is basically what they are doing. Judaism was never meant to be a religion for everyone, other religions are always available, if people decide to mangle and interpret writings meant for specific people and take it as there own with entirely different meanings then I'm not surprised we've had all these 'religious' wars, crusades, inquisitions etc. Only last week a bomb was found under a car of a Protestant in Northern Ireland planted by the Catholic  IRA. It doesn't stop, far from bringing peace this 'new' religion has brought death and suffering to millions and millions of people. Just looking at British history there's hundreds of years of persecution from all sides. Perhaps if people had all kept their original religions, if they had them, if we hadn't had all these missionaries, we'd all be a lot happier and more peaceful!


----------



## Cirdan

Actually that makes some sense. Why reveal your teachings only in some little far away place if it is meant for everyone? It is like JK Rowling if she had published Harry Potter only in Mongolia. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Besides we don`t need no dress wearing hippie Jesus when we got Odin, Tor and Frøya. Jesus was just one of dozens of prophets before and after who caught on eventually.

Still time to convert to a real badass religion..


----------



## geezer

Cirdan said:


> .... a real badass:



Boy, I gotta agree, that's some_ ba-ad_ bootie!

Well to your point, in English we still acknowledge Tiw's day, Woden's day, Thor's Day, and Freya's day (Now I understand why I've always loved Fridays!). I understand Germans, of all people, wimped out in the face of Christian pressure and dumped Woden's day for "Mittwoch"!

As for Bible translations, I prefer the King James Version, rather like Elder and Tez, ...for it's _poetic _qualities. But each to their own. There really isn't any point in arguing about religion (or martial arts systems) with a "true believer" .

During my graduate school years, I rented a room at a house owned by a woman who insisted that _the only correct name for the one true God was Jehova_. I pointed out that this name for divinity was a medieval construction created by ill-informed monks combining the Roman translation for the Hebrew letters yod, he, vav, he (j, h, v, h) with the vowel points for the word "adonai" or "lord" as used by Jewish scribes (the sounds ah, oh, and ai). This combination yielded the erroneous, made-up word "Jehovah" ...NOT the true name of G-D!

I remember her pausing to mull over what I said and seeing a momentary spark of understanding ....which was immediately replaced by an outburst of rage.
She actually covered her ears and called me _the mouthpiece of Satan_. In short, I very nearly lost my lodgings. Only a very strong apology and promise to never again bring up the subject kept this devout Christian woman from throwing me out onto the street.

So while I read this whole thread with interest, I'll keep my opinions to myself.


----------



## Tez3

geezer said:


> As for Bible translations, I prefer the King James Version, rather like Elder and Tez, ...for it's _poetic _qualities



You should know I haven't actually read it lol! I know the language is 'poetic' but wouldn't read it because there's nothing in it that I can 'work' with as it were or argue about if you want to be exact.


----------



## geezer

Tez3 said:


> You should know I haven't actually read it lol! I know the language is 'poetic' but wouldn't read it because there's nothing in it that I can 'work' with as it were or argue about if you want to be exact.



Hey, I haven't read the whole thing either. But if you've read Shakespeare or Milton, or ever heard the Anglican version of Lord's Prayer or the 23rd Psalm recited, you know the quality of the language.  

For what it's worth I belong to no organized religion so I have no stake here, but I was raised in a nominally Episcopalian home (the American branch of the Church of England) so I still feel an aesthetic and emotional connection to that language and tradition.


----------



## oftheherd1

jks9199 said:


> I think that the King James is beautiful poetry -- but as elder999 has pointed out -- there were strong secular hands involved in its creation.  The current "official" Bible for the readings at Mass in the Catholic Church in the US is The New American Bible, Revised Edition.  An almost frightening amount of scholarship went into it -- yet there's another revision in the works.  Haggling over which translation is "best" misses the point and has a worrisome potential to fall towards the trap of legalism...



I have read there was a desire to inject a certain type of prose, but only as long as it remained true to the original meaning.  That doesn’t exactly follow King James’ instructions to the committees:

From:  http://www.kjvonly.org/other/kj_instructs.htmhttp://www.kjvonly.org/other/kj_instructs.htm

The following set of “rules” had been prepared on behalf of church and state by Richard Bancroft, Bishop of London and high-church Anglican. “For the better ordering of the proceedings of the translators, his Majesty recommended the followingrulesto them, to be very carefully observed:--

“1. The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called theBishop’s Bible,to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.
“2. The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, according as they are vulgarly used.
“3. Theold ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word_church_, not to be translated_congregation_,&c.
“4. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which has been most commonlyused by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place, and the analogy of the faith.
“5. The division of the chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.
“6.No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.
“7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down, as shall serve for the fit references of one scripture to another.
“8. Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter of chapters; and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinks good, all to meet together, to confer what they have done, and agree for their part what shall stand.
“9. As any one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest to be considered of seriously and judiciously: for his Majesty is very careful in this point.
“10. If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, shall doubt or differ upon any places, and therewithal to send their reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work.
“11. When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to be directly by authority to send to any learned in the land for his judgment in such a place.
“12. Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of the clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge as many as being skillful in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to send their particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford, according as it was directed before the king’s letter to the archbishop.
“13. The directors in each company to be deans of Westminster and Chester, and the king’s professors in Hebrew and Greek in the two universities.
“14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishop’s Bible, viz. Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Wilchurch’s,* Geneva.”
*By “Wilchurch” is meant the Great Bible, which was printed by Edward Wilchurch, one of King Henry VIII’s printers.

Note that use of the word ‘company.’  We usually use the word committee these days.  If you look up the educational and religious background of the committee members, you should agree their qualifications were “almost frightening” as well.  They were church leaders, preachers, and college professors and leaders.  They spoke and taught the languages they translated.

Then as you look at the instructions to the translators of the committees, you will see not so much secularity as differing religious views.  Such as the use of the word ‘church’ over ‘congregation.’  That was a carryover by Anglicans from the Catholic Church, that they were ‘the church,’ not as Tyndale said, to call them congregations.  Also the source Bible was to be the Bishop’s Bible.  It never gained popularity by the common people, even though it was officially sanctioned.  Or, that there were to be no marginal notes as in the Geneva Bible, as King James didn’t like them.  But the Geneva Bible was still on the list as in the next paragraph below.

If by the way, you look at number 14, you will see a list of most of the significant English translations on the way to the KJV Bible.  But not the first translation of the entire Bible in English which was done by a Catholic priest named Wycliff.  It wouldn’t have been considered significant since it was translated pretty much word for word from Latin (the Latin Vulgate) to English.  That made it more difficult to understand, but at least it was in English, which the common man could indeed read if he could get ahold of a copy.  That to say there wasn’t such a great secular influence.

The Catholic Church vehemently opposed the idea of the common man being able to read the Bible himself.  They so disliked Wycliff’s Bible, and Wicliff’s stance on the Catholic Church, that he was excommunicated.  That wasn’t enough.  Later, a priest lead a mob of people that dug up his bones, burned them, and threw the ashes into a river.

Jks9199, have you by any chance read anything as to why the Catholic Church was so vehemently opposed any translation but Latin for use by the Church?  And having decided to produce an approved English translation after all, why was it necessary to replace the New American Bible (NAB) with the NABRE?  And why is still another translation necessary?

I noted you said no translation is perfect.  Do you suppose the God who created the entire universe, and everything in it, cannot safeguard His word as it is translated into other languages?  Must He hope for sincere and educated men to keep striving towards a translation of His words, which they cannot somehow ever achieve?  That, knowing some precious souls may be led to improper living or damnation, due to incorrect words in translations?

Anyway, not to make too long a post, but just to show another point of view reference the instructions by King James to the committees.  And from one of my other posts, that the committee members were well educated men who spoke the languages they translated.

As always, I understand neither you nor anybody else is required to share my beliefs.  I find it interesting and educational to learn other people’s beliefs and views.  I appreciate them very much (again thanks to Tez3 for her continued URLs to jewish sites explaining jewish thought.  I value them) and especially when people are tolerant enough to explain their beliefs and reasons for them, as opposed to stern statements of ‘facts.’  Especially when there are clearly many opposing views, most of equal value, depending on one’s own chosen beliefs


----------



## Tez3

One problem for me is that while there may have been scholars of Hebrew working on the KJV they weren't Jewish scholars who understood not just the text but how to prise the context out of the text. (There were no Jews in the UK from 1275 to 1655) Speaking the language is not the same as being a 'native speaker. Look at the difficulties and misunderstandings we have here between American and British English speakers.
I suppose the problem , as I've said before, is that the OT was never meant for dissemination among anyone other than the Jewish people, written by Jews for Jews it's hard to see how it really has relevance for non Jews who have only taken it upon themselves because the person they follow was Jewish though that is forgotten for much of the time I feel. I find it puzzling that people decide the OT is not relevant as far as the Law is concerned yet they follow someone to whom the Law as well as Jewish customs and traditions would have been very important as a Jew. The person they follow would have also been able to argue the points as we still do, would have known that the Law is able to be used so that it was humane and just rather than dictatorial. For example where it says a witch should be killed, the Law actually works so that no one is killed, there isn't actually a death penalty there just a warning. There's many examples like this yet this is missing when the Law goes out of Jewish hands and is used to justify much that shouldn't be. In Jewish Law the death penalty is to remind people of the seriousness of the crime not something that should actually carried out. It's this connection with the Law and the way it works that is very sadly lacking when people take the Bible to be literal and follow it to the letter. they leave out all human understanding and compassion which was given to us by G-d.



_"The Talmud ruled out the admissibility of circumstantial evidence in cases which involved a capital crime. Two witnesses were required to testify that they saw the action with their own eyes. A man could not be found guilty of a capital crime through his own confession or through the testimony of immediate members of his family. The rabbis demanded a condition of cool premeditation in the act of crime before they would sanction the death penalty; the specific test on which they insisted was that the criminal be warned prior to the crime, and that the criminal indicate by responding to the warning, that he is fully aware of his deed, but that he is determined to go through with it. In effect this did away with the application of the death penalty. The rabbis were aware of this, and they declared openly that they found capital punishment repugnant to them… There is another reason which argues for the abolition of capital punishment. It is the fact of human fallibility. Too often we learn of people who were convicted of crimes and only later are new facts uncovered by which their innocence is established. The doors of the jail can be opened, in such cases we can partially undo the injustice. But the dead cannot be brought back to life again. We regard all forms of capital punishment as barbaric and obsolete"._

—Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser, Statement on capital punishment, 1960. _Proceedings of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards 1927-1970_, Volume III, pp. 1537-1538


----------



## oftheherd1

Thanks Tez3.  As always, even when I may not agree, I am always interested in your explanations.  I feel they give me much insight.  I may make some comments later to explain my thoughts on some of what you have said.  Again, thanks.


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> Thanks Tez3.  As always, even when I may not agree, I am always interested in your explanations.  I feel they give me much insight.  I may make some comments later to explain my thoughts on some of what you have said.  Again, thanks.




No worries . I'm spending the day overdosing on sport on the television, it's the European Games ( including Israel), lots and lots of different sports. Boxing at the moment, there's been TKD, karate, Sambo, wrestling and with Judo to come not to mention all the normal sports you get in the Olympics.  Bliss, so good to be retired lol.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> One problem for me is that while there may have been scholars of Hebrew working on the KJV they weren't Jewish scholars who understood not just the text but how to prise the context out of the text. (There were no Jews in the UK from 1275 to 1655) Speaking the language is not the same as being a 'native speaker. Look at the difficulties and misunderstandings we have here between American and British English speakers.



Yes, I am aware of that.  As I am sure you know, we try to suffer through with you, but I wish you guys across the pond would give up those archaic ways and join us in correct English.   

As to Jewish scholars versus who aren't Jews, I understand your point, and can agree up to a point.  However, I believe they were equivalent in speaking ability, had the original Hebrew/Aramaic available, and anyway, were inspired by God.  I can also understand you will find that idea distasteful.



Tez3 said:


> I suppose the problem , as I've said before, is that the OT was never meant for dissemination among anyone other than the Jewish people, written by Jews for Jews it's hard to see how it really has relevance for non Jews who have only taken it upon themselves because the person they follow was Jewish though that is forgotten for much of the time I feel. I find it puzzling that people decide the OT is not relevant as far as the Law is concerned yet they follow someone to whom the Law as well as Jewish customs and traditions would have been very important as a Jew. The person they follow would have also been able to argue the points as we still do, would have known that the Law is able to be used so that it was humane and just rather than dictatorial. For example where it says a witch should be killed, the Law actually works so that no one is killed, there isn't actually a death penalty there just a warning. There's many examples like this yet this is missing when the Law goes out of Jewish hands and is used to justify much that shouldn't be. In Jewish Law the death penalty is to remind people of the seriousness of the crime not something that should actually carried out. It's this connection with the Law and the way it works that is very sadly lacking when people take the Bible to be literal and follow it to the letter. they leave out all human understanding and compassion which was given to us by G-d.



I believe the Old Testament has value to a Christian.  It has many examples of how the Jewish people did not follow God's laws, and the punishment they suffered because of that; to teach us that we should not disoby God.  It has laws, some of which were excused by God in the New Testament teachings.  There are stories of faith, obediance and lack of it with consequences, reasons things don't always go as we wish, and yet we should perservere, beautiful and inspiring songs, and many other lessons. So I personally do not think the Old Testament is not relevant, nor do I think any Bible believing Christian should think otherwise.

I don't doubt that Jesus knew the law, nor that he obeyed it.  But I think the disconnect between us is that we believe Jesus is completely man, and completely God.  So yes He knew the law, but did not always agree with the later interpretations of the law, which were given the same force as law.  He pointed out some of those that He was against.  Again, I am sure you will not agree, and look at that as completely against the core of your beliefs.

I do think you are right that many people don't always make the connection that Jesus was Jewish.  Partly perhaps, because of His diety that we believe in, and partly because of the actions of those who pushed for the crusades and the inquisition.  It is my belief that a Bible believing Christian should not have supported those things.

There are some good points above.  I certainly agree that the death penalty is very final.  It is my main reservation about it, although I agree it is sanctioned or required in the Law.  I wonder if the rabbis seem to have sought to change the God-given law, and finding no reason under the Law, began to debate to find reasons to do so.  I don't mean that as harshly as it might sound.  There are plenty of social reformers in our present times (and all times) who do the same to justify their beliefs agains something they don't like.  Sometimes they make sense, and sometimes at least in my opinion, they don't.  But those are the reasons we all are free to have our own opinions.  One of the problems though is that too often, people can't articulate any viable reaons other than they want to believe, and act a certain way.  That no matter how it might effect others, nor how much it may be controlled by law.

_


Tez3 said:



			"The Talmud ruled out the admissibility of circumstantial evidence in cases which involved a capital crime. Two witnesses were required to testify that they saw the action with their own eyes. A man could not be found guilty of a capital crime through his own confession or through the testimony of immediate members of his family. The rabbis demanded a condition of cool premeditation in the act of crime before they would sanction the death penalty; the specific test on which they insisted was that the criminal be warned prior to the crime, and that the criminal indicate by responding to the warning, that he is fully aware of his deed, but that he is determined to go through with it. In effect this did away with the application of the death penalty. The rabbis were aware of this, and they declared openly that they found capital punishment repugnant to them… There is another reason which argues for the abolition of capital punishment. It is the fact of human fallibility. Too often we learn of people who were convicted of crimes and only later are new facts uncovered by which their innocence is established. The doors of the jail can be opened, in such cases we can partially undo the injustice. But the dead cannot be brought back to life again. We regard all forms of capital punishment as barbaric and obsolete".
		
Click to expand...

_


Tez3 said:


> —Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser, Statement on capital punishment, 1960. _Proceedings of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards 1927-1970_, Volume III, pp. 1537-1538



As an example, from the paragraph above, I think clearly God intended that some people should be killed so as not to be able to taint the Jewish people, or uplift Satan.  But it seems, to get around that, an additional requirement is added that the person must be warned just before the commission of a capitol crime, that it is wrong, and the person must acknowledge that, but insist on doing the crime any way.  That clearly isn't possible at all times, in fact hardly ever.  But regardless, the killer, if convicted, cannot be sentenced to death (what was done to them?).

There may be an example of that in the New Testament.  The New Testament tells us the Jewish leaders wanted Jesus dead, but took that to Pilate.  They said Jesus deserved to die under their law, but they could not kill Jesus, but the Romans could, and accused Jesus of being against Ceasar (against paying taxes) so Pilate would agree.  They also accused Jesus of saying he was the King of the Jews  So would you think they were following some of what you have pointed out?  Also, I do wonder how Jews view the fact that God gave the Jews laws, and if I understand your several statements over time, all Jews know the law from an early age.  Why then would they have to be warned just before the commission of the crime (all crimes?) when that doesn't seem to be in the Old Testament?

As always thanks for your willingness to continue to provide insights into your beliefs, and to discuss them.  I don't know how many others find it interesting or enlightening, but I certainly do.

EDIT:  Oh, I meant to add I envy you your retirement.  I expect to do so in about two years or maybe less.  But do you ever get bored, or feel you aren't contributing?  I worry about that.


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> As to Jewish scholars versus who aren't Jews, I understand your point, and can agree up to a point. However, I believe they were equivalent in speaking ability, had the original Hebrew/Aramaic available



The problem as we see it is that while being able to speak Hebrew and Aramaic they didn't have the Jewish education to understand HOW to read more than the words.



oftheherd1 said:


> So yes He knew the law, but did not always agree with the later interpretations of the law, which were given the same force as law. He pointed out some of those that He was against.



But that's what we do, we disagree, argue and work it out among ourselves, everyone has bits they disagree with, in this he was no different from any other Rebbe.



oftheherd1 said:


> it is sanctioned or required in the Law. I wonder if the rabbis seem to have sought to change the God-given law, and finding no reason under the Law, began to debate to find reasons to do so



I think this is where the difference in our relationship with G-d shows, our relationship is one of having a Covenant with G-d and of having free will. We have no fixed, mandated, official belief outside that of there being one G-d and we are His Chosen (that means we are the vanguard of the human race, that we should show by our behaviour how people can live peacefully and with treating each other well, an extremely difficult thing to live up to as we know to our cost). We are concerned with relationships, that with each other, with Israel and with G-d. Each person's relationship with G-d if they choose to have one is personal and individual. We have to be as kind as we can to each other, the idea of loving your neighbour is a very old one predating the NT, it's actually a fundamental thing in Judaism.
"There is a story in the Talmud that is often told when someone is asked to summarize the essence of Judaism. During the first century B.C.E. a great rabbi named Hillel was asked to sum up Judaism while standing on one foot. He replied: "Certainly! What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. That is the Torah. The rest is commentary, now go and study." (Talmud Shabbat 31A.) Hence, at its core Judaism is concerned with the well-being of humanity."
 So all the Laws have been given to us but it is up to us to ensure they do as little harm as possible,  we are given brains and the ability to question everything, we are expected to do so. The Rebbes aren't trying to dodge anything, we have to interpret the spirit of the law not just follow it blindly. This is the thing that's difficult to do with the non Hebrew writings because you don't get the nuances that tell you what is meant. That's why you think the laws are written in black and white because they seem so in English, instead of how they are actually written where you have to work for the meaning and have to make the most humane choice you can. We are, if you like, expected to be adults rather than children. The idea is that we started as children but must learn to rule ourselves not to remain as obedient children because that way we learn nothing. The Rebbes are teachers not priests, they don't speak for us, they don't make laws ( there are Rabbinical laws too which usually become laws by custom) without the will of the people wishing it so.




oftheherd1 said:


> But regardless, the killer, if convicted, cannot be sentenced to death (what was done to them?).



Often if they had killed someone they'd have to pay compensation or look after the family if they had killed the father/husband. Executing them would not leave the bereaved any better off, making the person who caused the death work for the family or pay compensation works much better, that sentence could last for decades.  Exile was a possibility, being forced to leave your community would be a harsh punishment in many places.



Retirement is fun, I am busy with Guiding, I take Rainbows and Brownies, often Guides and Rangers too. We have trips, camps and expeditions so I seem to actually have less time than when I was working. I'm also working for two award schemes, one is for older people everywhere and the other a Girl Guide one for adults. There's also free university courses to do online from universities all around the world. I know it's a cliché to say you don't know how you found time to work but it's true!


----------



## oftheherd1

As always your posts are informative and thought provoking.  Thanks so much.


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> As always your posts are informative and thought provoking.  Thanks so much.




I try my best, it's always useful when you have to explain yourself, it makes you think about things and how to put them so that something you have always known but not often put into words comes out making sense!
Bear in mind thought that saying about asking ten Jews an opinion and getting twelve back! You will find many different answers though they won't actually differ in the basics. We each forge our own relationship with G-d or not if that's what you wish so everyone's experience will be different. That's why, too, other religions are considered as relevant to people as ours is to us and we feel no need, quite the opposite, to try to convert anyone.


----------



## Tez3

This came through just today, more food for thought. Why does Torah law allow polygamy - Marriage


----------



## geezer

Tez3 said:


> During the first century B.C.E. a great rabbi named Hillel was asked to sum up Judaism while standing on one foot. He replied: "Certainly! What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. That is the Torah. The rest is commentary, now go and study."



That is one of my favorite stories! And it goes to show that the "Golden Rule" was part and parcel of Jewish culture i.e. _Jesus_ didn't invent this stuff.

I also find the expression, "while standing on one foot" instructive. I remember a college professor of mine, Rabbi Nobel explaining that this was a common expression of the time meaning to give a quick summary (since one can't normally stand on one foot for a long time, TKD practitioners excepted). Can you imagine a fundamentalist interpreting such an expression, imagining an old rabbi trying to answer questions while teetering on one foot! This kind of idiomatic speech would be an example of why King James should have found some good rabbis for his "company" of scholars. 

Oh and regarding that whole "chosen people" thing. It's hard to find a tribe of people anywhere that don't feel that _they _are the chosen ones (like the American "tea-party" tribe and their belief in "American exceptionalism". Then again as the scriptural stories of Jonah, Job, Jesus, and Brian remind us, being chosen is not always such a great thing!


----------



## Tez3

geezer said:


> It's hard to find a tribe of people anywhere that don't feel that _they _are the chosen



Most people may feel they are chosen but in a superior way, we were chosen for strife and hardship so we could eventually be worthy of seeing the face of G-d.

It may upset many Xtians but nothing that Jesus said or did was new or contrary to Jewish thinking. we have always had forgiveness and we've always to be told to 'love our neighbour.' Even the words said on the cross are from Psalms.


----------



## oftheherd1

> TEZ3 SAID: ↑
> During the first century B.C.E. a great rabbi named Hillel was asked to sum up Judaism while standing on one foot. He replied: "Certainly! What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. That is the Torah. The rest is commentary, now go and study."





geezer said:


> That is one of my favorite stories! And it goes to show that the "Golden Rule" was part and parcel of Jewish culture i.e. _Jesus_ didn't invent this stuff.
> 
> I also find the expression, "while standing on one foot" instructive. I remember a college professor of mine, Rabbi Nobel explaining that this was a common expression of the time meaning to give a quick summary (since one can't normally stand on one foot for a long time, TKD practitioners excepted). Can you imagine a fundamentalist interpreting such an expression, imagining an old rabbi trying to answer questions while teetering on one foot! This kind of idiomatic speech would be an example of why King James should have found some good rabbis for his "company" of scholars.
> 
> Oh and regarding that whole "chosen people" thing. It's hard to find a tribe of people anywhere that don't feel that _they _are the chosen ones (like the American "tea-party" tribe and their belief in "American exceptionalism". Then again as the scriptural stories of Jonah, Job, Jesus, and Brian remind us, being chosen is not always such a great thing!



It might interest you to know that about 500 years before Christ, Confucius said something quite similar.But I have read from somewhere I now forget, but agree, that there is a subtle difference  between what Confucius and Hillel said, and what Christ said.  Jesus said in Luke 6:31  "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." and in Matthew 5:31 "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."  

I don't know if you see that Confucius and Hillel were speaking in the negative, while Jesus spoke in the positive.  "Don't do something" as opposed to "Do something."  As I said, a subtle difference, but I think there is significance there.  You may agree or disagree.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> Most people may feel they are chosen but in a superior way, we were chosen for strife and hardship so we could eventually be worthy of seeing the face of G-d.
> 
> It may upset many Xtians but nothing that Jesus said or did was new or contrary to Jewish thinking. we have always had forgiveness and we've always to be told to 'love our neighbour.' *Even the words said on the cross are from Psalms.*



As were the actions of the soldiers with Jesus' clothing, and the very fact that Jesus was not accepted by the Jews and was nailed to the cross.  You may not have been aware of that, and probably don't accept it regardless.

EDIT:  I should have pointed out they were messianic predictions that Christians believe were fulfilled at Christ's crucifixion, but not necessarily only from Psalms; Psalms yes, but other places in the Old Testament as well.


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> As were the actions of the soldiers with Jesus' clothing, and the very fact that Jesus was not accepted by the Jews and was nailed to the cross.  You may not have been aware of that, and probably don't accept it regardless.
> 
> EDIT:  I should have pointed out they were messianic predictions that Christians believe were fulfilled at Christ's crucifixion, but not necessarily only from Psalms; Psalms yes, but other places in the Old Testament as well.




You do know that at that time there were hundreds of people calling themselves the messiah, partly because it doesn't mean what it does to Xtians and partly because it was a common thing to do. When you say 'the Jews' didn't accept them you are lumping all Jews into the same basket when it's fairly obvious that a good many did think that this chap was the messiah otherwise you wouldn't have your religion today. There's also a great many then and even some now who believe that John the Baptist was the messiah.
I'm sorry to sound like Monty Python but messiahs were ten a penny then, most not accepted by people who wanted a quiet life under the conquering forces and also those who wanted to revolt and found the messiahs disappointing.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> Most people may feel they are chosen but in a superior way, we were chosen for strife and hardship so we could eventually be worthy of seeing the face of G-d.
> 
> *It may upset many Xtians but nothing that Jesus said or did was new or contrary to Jewish thinking.* we have always had forgiveness and we've always to be told to 'love our neighbour.' Even the words said on the cross are from Psalms.



Those things in the Old Testament that he said or did would not upset me in any way.

But I wonder if you are aware that Jesus went against the strict interpretation of the then Jewish leaders of what work on the Sabbath was?  He healed a man with a withered hand while in a synagogue, and a man who was blind also on the Sabbath.  He lectured the Pharisees for allowing a man to deny support to his mother and father if he declared his possession as Corban.  Mark 7:9-13 -- 

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

I don't point that out to lecture or be disagreeable, but only to point out how I think a Christian should think and react.  As always, you may think and believe as you wish, as may others who read what you and I say in this thread.  And again, thanks for your links.  I was fascinated by the link on polygamy.  My personal thought on that was that I don't think God sanctioned polygamy, nor slavery, but did give instruction on how to treat more than one wife, or a slave.  Among many things we can agree on, just one more thing on which we have differences.  BTW, while I might not agree with the morality of the rabbi who married 300 women, I applaud his compassion and ingenuity.  That put a smile on my face.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> You do know that at that time there were hundreds of people calling themselves the messiah, partly because it doesn't mean what it does to Xtians and partly because it was a common thing to do. When you say 'the Jews' didn't accept them you are lumping all Jews into the same basket when it's fairly obvious that a good many did think that this chap was the messiah otherwise you wouldn't have your religion today. There's also a great many then and even some now who believe that John the Baptist was the messiah.
> I'm sorry to sound like Monty Python but messiahs were ten a penny then, most not accepted by people who wanted a quiet life under the conquering forces and also those who wanted to revolt and found the messiahs disappointing.



Let me see, who was it who said Christians sometimes lose the connection between the fact that Christ was a jew?  So, yeah, I think you got me there.  Sorry to have made too broad a connection.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Tez3 said:


> You do know that at that time there were hundreds of people calling themselves the messiah, partly because it doesn't mean what it does to Xtians and partly because it was a common thing to do. When you say 'the Jews' didn't accept them you are lumping all Jews into the same basket when it's fairly obvious that a good many did think that this chap was the messiah otherwise you wouldn't have your religion today. There's also a great many then and even some now who believe that John the Baptist was the messiah.
> I'm sorry to sound like Monty Python but messiahs were ten a penny then, most not accepted by people who wanted a quiet life under the conquering forces and also those who wanted to revolt and found the messiahs disappointing.



There are still hundreds of people calling themselves the messiah. In the last few months, I've met Jesus twice and the King of Mars once.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

"He's not the Messiah! He's a very naughty boy!"


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> But I wonder if you are aware that Jesus went against the strict interpretation of the then Jewish leaders of what work on the Sabbath was? He healed a man with a withered hand while in a synagogue, and a man who was blind also on the Sabbath. He lectured the Pharisees for allowing a man to deny support to his mother and father if he declared his possession as Corban. Mark 7:9-13 --




I imagine he only went against some of their interpretations because as I said we are all free to interpret how we see fit, all the leaders wouldn't have agreed on everything, it's why we question and debate it's part of the process. Anyone can put their interpretation up against others, perhaps only non Jews find this of importance? Anyone could lecture anyone if they wanted, depending on how you felt about it yourself as to whether they were right or wrong. I do feel that too much is made of Jesus arguing with people, it's normal, well for us anyway 

When I was working one place on our beat was the military psychiatric hospital before it closed down, always good for a cuppa and a chat during the night. One psychiatrist said he was always very careful about people who claimed to be G-d or a messiah because you never know, they could be telling the truth lol.


----------



## Cirdan

Why anyone would want to the be the dress wearing hippie is beyond me.






The Son of Odin is way more useful anyway.


----------



## Oldbear343

It is not sensible to take any one message from any religious text in isolation.   Jesus himself acted in the spirit of the whole scriptures (probably for him, at that time, simply what we know as The Old Testament, but possibly also including the apocryphal writings, such as Macclesfield,  etc.).  A central theme in the life and teaching of Jesus was acting in accordance with principles rather than strict legalistic dogma.  For example, while he upheld the principle of non-violence when arrested, flogged and crucified, he did not condemn the Roman Centurion (a man of violence), but said he had not found such faith in the whole of Israel....

I do not, however, understand why you feel the need to defend self-defence from a theological perspective when you are a member of a martial arts forum!  But to each his own....☺


----------



## Tez3

Oldbear343 said:


> I do not, however, understand why you feel the need to defend self-defence from a theological perspective when you are a member of a martial arts forum! But to each his own....☺



The OPs threads are often very mysterious to us  as you can see though we've been having a good time without him, it's a nice non argumentative informative thread which isn't what was intended in the OP but that's the way we roll  

Off back to the European Games on television....blind Judo now, absolutely brilliant, same as ordinary Judo but the Judoka start with holding each others Gis. Amazing, hope no one ever sees these blind people in the street and thinks they can mug them easily!


----------



## oftheherd1

Dirty Dog said:


> There are still hundreds of people calling themselves the messiah. In the last few months, I've met Jesus twice and the King of Mars once.



Did the King of Mar seem like a nice guy?  Do you suppose he might gift any of us a round trip ticket to Mars?  I've always wanted to visit there before the commercial interests ruin it.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> I imagine he only went against some of their interpretations because as I said we are all free to interpret how we see fit, all the leaders wouldn't have agreed on everything, it's why we question and debate it's part of the process. Anyone can put their interpretation up against others, perhaps only non Jews find this of importance? Anyone could lecture anyone if they wanted, depending on how you felt about it yourself as to whether they were right or wrong. I do feel that too much is made of Jesus arguing with people, it's normal, well for us anyway
> 
> When I was working one place on our beat was the military psychiatric hospital before it closed down, always good for a cuppa and a chat during the night. One psychiatrist said he was always very careful about people who claimed to be G-d or a messiah because you never know, they could be telling the truth lol.



I don't know if I would call Jesus' actions arguing.  It may sometimes be a fine point, but in my understanding, He was pointing out the correctness of the Old Testament scriptures versus some of the religious practices of the day.  Mind you, that is from my belief that Jesus was not only man, but God man and very God.  The way I as a Christian see it, even in the temple incident, His was a righteous anger, that is, against sin.


----------



## oftheherd1

Oldbear343 said:


> It is not sensible to take any one message from any religious text in isolation.   Jesus himself acted in the spirit of the whole scriptures (probably for him, at that time, simply what we know as The Old Testament, but possibly also including the apocryphal writings, such as Macclesfield,  etc.).  A central theme in the life and teaching of Jesus was acting in accordance with principles rather than strict legalistic dogma.  For example, while he upheld the principle of non-violence when arrested, flogged and crucified, he did not condemn the Roman Centurion (a man of violence), but said he had not found such faith in the whole of Israel....
> 
> I do not, however, understand why you feel the need to defend self-defence from a theological perspective when you are a member of a martial arts forum!  But to each his own....☺



Did you mean Maccabees instead of Macclesfield?  I doubt Jesus considered the apocrypha as inspired or scripture.  Jews have never considered the apocrypha anything but historical to my knowledge.  Tez3 can correct me if I am wrong.  The only major christian religion I know of that accepts the apocrypha as inspired scripture is the Catholic Church.  Although you can now find some later  'protestant' English version bibles with the apocrypha (and if fact the KJV had it originally, I don't think any have yet declared it inspired scripture.  But latter additions is a whole different topic.  The KJV translators, as well as earlier translations in English, placed the entire apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments.  It was considered interesting history and commentary on the times after the writing ot the last inspired book of the Old Testament, but not inspired writing of God.  As to taking any one message, or at least any one verse out of its context for teaching doctrine is often problematic.  The saying is that any verse taken out of context is pretext.

As to a need to defend self-defense, I can only guess the OP, sincerely or not, was trying to start a discussion on the morality of fighting in defense of oneself.  The morality or legality of using MA is something we do sometimes debate here in MT.

BTW, if you haven't been to the meet and greet section yet, welcome to MT.

EDIT:  I did add a couple of things above is someone has read the original and wondered what happened.  Hope I haven't confused anyone.


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> I don't know if I would call Jesus' actions arguing.  It may sometimes be a fine point, but in my understanding, He was pointing out the correctness of the Old Testament scriptures versus some of the religious practices of the day.  Mind you, that is from my belief that Jesus was not only man, but God man and very God.  The way I as a Christian see it, even in the temple incident, His was a righteous anger, that is, against sin.




He may well have been pointing out what he thought was right but so would everyone else! It would have been considered that it was his opinion and many others would have had theirs. Even at that time although there was an 'orthodoxy' there were still many different groups of Jews who believed in doing things differently, Jesus would have been regarded as just being in another one of those groups. Easy to see I suppose the Sanhedrin view that so many people disagreeing with them and each other was a pain. Human nature to think that ones view is the right one.
Sorry I can't write much more at the moment, I'm off this afternoon for the weekend to a Girl Guide leaders weekend. I'll write more when I'm back on Sunday, ( I know I know, so opinionated lol) Have a good weekend everyone!  xx


----------



## Oldbear343

Macclesfield should have read Maccabees - sorry ☺


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> He may well have been pointing out what he thought was right but so would everyone else! It would have been considered that it was his opinion and many others would have had theirs. Even at that time although there was an 'orthodoxy' there were still many different groups of Jews who believed in doing things differently, Jesus would have been regarded as just being in another one of those groups. Easy to see I suppose the Sanhedrin view that so many people disagreeing with them and each other was a pain. Human nature to think that ones view is the right one.
> Sorry I can't write much more at the moment, I'm off this afternoon for the weekend to a Girl Guide leaders weekend. I'll write more when I'm back on Sunday, ( I know I know, so opinionated lol) Have a good weekend everyone!  xx



Jesus may have been so regarded, but He sure made the Sanhedrin angry most if not all the time.  They wanted him dead.

Anyway, hope you and your girls have a safe and fun outing.



Oldbear343 said:


> Macclesfield should have read Maccabees - sorry ☺



Not a problem.  We all get distracted at times.  Worse, I sometimes think just a little bit faster than my fingers type and find myself typing letters for what I am thinking instead of what I thought.  Oh the embarrassment sometimes.


----------



## donald1

I know that feeling! I usually try to read my posts carefully just before posting because I have times where I have made that mistake and sometimes almost made that mistake but corrected it


----------



## Oldbear343

oftheherd1 said:


> Did you mean Maccabees instead of Macclesfield?  I doubt Jesus considered the apocrypha as inspired or scripture.  Jews have never considered the apocrypha anything but historical to my knowledge.  Tez3 can correct me if I am wrong.  The only major christian religion I know of that accepts the apocrypha as inspired scripture is the Catholic Church.  Although you can now find some later  'protestant' English version bibles with the apocrypha (and if fact the KJV had it originally, I don't think any have yet declared it inspired scripture.  But latter additions is a whole different topic.  The KJV translators, as well as earlier translations in English, placed the entire apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments.  It was considered interesting history and commentary on the times after the writing ot the last inspired book of the Old Testament, but not inspired writing of God.  As to taking any one message, or at least any one verse out of its context for teaching doctrine is often problematic.  The saying is that any verse taken out of context is pretext.
> 
> As to a need to defend self-defense, I can only guess the OP, sincerely or not, was trying to start a discussion on the morality of fighting in defense of oneself.  The morality or legality of using MA is something we do sometimes debate here in MT.
> 
> BTW, if you haven't been to the meet and greet section yet, welcome to MT.
> 
> EDIT:  I did add a couple of things above is someone has read the original and wondered what happened.  Hope I haven't confused anyone.



Thanks for the welcome


----------



## Hyoho

Maybe when it come to arts that were founded in Asia its better to get a grip on the religions and philosophies used by that particular country. Not wishing to be offensive and just using a particular race as an example but a jew doing budo is well, "A jew doing Budo". You have your own values to deal with doing something that is probably not even from your country and that identified with another religion in the first place. Ethics are defines by codes of behavior whereas morals are defined by character. Neither one requires religion.


----------



## jks9199

Hyoho said:


> Maybe when it come to arts that were founded in Asia its better to get a grip on the religions and philosophies used by that particular country. Not wishing to be offensive and just using a particular race as an example but a jew doing budo is well, "A jew doing Budo". You have your own values to deal with doing something that is probably not even from your country and that identified with another religion in the first place. Ethics are defines by codes of behavior whereas morals are defined by character. Neither one requires religion.


With a very few exceptions -- I can't think of too many arts that are very strongly linked with a religions.  Yes, an understanding of Zen Buddhism and Shintoism and their interaction in Japan's philosophy may help you understand some things about why karate or a koryu art is taught a certain way, but I don't quite see how they're directly shaping an individual's practice of the art.  Knowing that the Pagan and Pyu monks revered life helps me understand why the stick systems that were recorded from them select certain targets and tactics -- but that doesn't mean I have to practice their religion to apply those same techniques and tactics.


----------



## Dirty Dog

oftheherd1 said:


> Did the King of Mar seem like a nice guy?  Do you suppose he might gift any of us a round trip ticket to Mars?  I've always wanted to visit there before the commercial interests ruin it.



He seemed pretty reasonable. His biggest concern was a possible invasion by the Duke of Jupiter.
One of the Jesus' tried to cast out demons from all of us.


----------



## Hyoho

Personally I received instruction relating to Confucianism and Buddhism after practice. Writing about arts from Asia its difficult to get away from it looking at the deeper meaning of what is taught and its values pertaining to life and death and the attitudes that we should foster.


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> Jesus may have been so regarded, but He sure made the Sanhedrin angry most if not all the time.  They wanted him dead.
> 
> Anyway, hope you and your girls have a safe and fun outing.
> 
> 
> 
> Not a problem.  We all get distracted at times.  Worse, I sometimes think just a little bit faster than my fingers type and find myself typing letters for what I am thinking instead of what I thought.  Oh the embarrassment sometimes.




You only have what it says in the New Testament I'm afraid rather than a general history of Palestine/Judea as it was then, there were numerous people the Jewish authorities didn't want rocking the boat with the Romans who might after all if they go annoyed  decide to take it out on the Jewish people, retribution could be nasty so of course they wanted rid of trouble makers. There could be thousands of lives at stake so why would they put up with a few troublemakers, the greater good has to be thought of. A couple of other troublers/messiahs have been named, Simon of Peraea and Athronges


It was a good training weekend, we covered a lot of things that could equally be relevant in martial arts, teamwork, respect, how to bring the best out of fellow leaders and the girls, lots of stuff to work on.


----------



## Tez3

Thought I'd just cheer your Monday up with a pic of where I spent the weekend lol. Waddow Hall in Lancashire.


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> I don't know if you see that Confucius and Hillel were speaking in the negative, while Jesus spoke in the positive. "Don't do something" as opposed to "Do something." As I said, a subtle difference, but I think there is significance there. You may agree or disagree.



Of course though all the words we are using are English. You are talking three different languages here so there will be nuances that don't translate into English so we can't say there is any difference.


----------



## Hyoho

Tez3 said:


> Of course though all the words we are using are English. You are talking three different languages here so there will be nuances that don't translate into English so we can't say there is any difference.


Well one thing for sure if anything is translated into English the meaning can and will be totally changed It's one of the most bastardized languages in the world with enumerable meanings and connotations:


Moshe (Moses) and the Prophets did _not_ write in English (Biblical Hebrew). 
“Homer” and Plato did _not_ write in English (Hellenistic Greek). 
Virgil, Ovid and Julius Caesar did _not_ write in English (Classical Latin). 
Paul and the Evangelists did _not_ write in English (Koine Greek). 
“Krishna” and Patanjali did _not_ write in English (Sanscrit). 
“Lao-Tsu,” Sun-Tsu, Chuang-Tsu and “Chang San-Feng” did _not_ write in English (Classical Chinese). 
Musashi, Takuan and Yamamoto did _not_ write in English (Medieval Japanese).


----------



## donald1

Tez3 said:


> Thought I'd just cheer your Monday up with a pic of where I spent the weekend lol. Waddow Hall in Lancashire.



Did you go inside? Did you sleep in one of the beds?!  I mean i know if I went inside that would be one of the questions id ask (definatly not one of the first few questions I would ask but certainly among them)


----------



## Tez3

donald1 said:


> Did you go inside? Did you sleep in one of the beds?!  I mean i know if I went inside that would be one of them (definatly not one of the first few questions I would ask but certainly among them)



Yes we were inside (my room was on the top floor), we ate there too, it's a Girl Guide house (we have other houses around the UK and World Girl Guiding has houses in Switzerland, Mexico, London and India we can go to World Centres has been since 1927. There's fields around for camping as well as activities like canoeing, assault courses, raft building and hiking. It was a training weekend for Guiders. Non Guiding people can stay there too.
Home


----------



## Tez3

View from my window.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Tez3 said:


> Thought I'd just cheer your Monday up with a pic of where I spent the weekend lol. Waddow Hall in Lancashire.



Nice place. I absolutely adore the architecture in Europe.

Here's one of the places Sue and I stayed when we were in England last.
 

We were married on the battlements, above the portcullis.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> *You only have what it says in the New Testament* I'm afraid rather than a general history of Palestine/Judea as it was then, there were numerous people the Jewish authorities didn't want rocking the boat with the Romans who might after all if they go annoyed  decide to take it out on the Jewish people, retribution could be nasty so of course they wanted rid of trouble makers. There could be thousands of lives at stake so why would they put up with a few troublemakers, the greater good has to be thought of. A couple of other troublers/messiahs have been named, Simon of Peraea and Athronges
> 
> 
> It was a good training weekend, we covered a lot of things that could equally be relevant in martial arts, teamwork, respect, how to bring the best out of fellow leaders and the girls, lots of stuff to work on.



But then as a Christian that is all I believe I need.  

In the New Testament, Jesus is not recorded as 'rocking the boat with the Romans,' but only with the Jewish people, who He was first sent to save.  I don't see how that would have been a problem for the Romans, nor therefore, a fear for the Jewish leaders.

You are correct that I hadn't heard of Simon of Peraea or Athronges.  All I can go on is a quick check of Wikipedia.  From that I see that they seem to have believed the messiah would be a king on earth right away, and messiah or not, and they intended to be rulers.  The New Testament tells us Jesus made it quite clear that wasn't what He came to do then, nor how He acted.  He was quite clear that His Kingdom was not of that place and time.

Glad all Girl Guides enjoyed themselves.  It certainly looks like a picturesque area.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> Of course though all the words we are using are English. You are talking three different languages here so there will be nuances that don't translate into English so we can't say there is any difference.



I think that is true and not true.  There is always a way to translate meanings from one language to another, but we remain at the mercy of the translator's knowledge of both languages, and their willingness to be as exact as possible.  Or not.


----------



## oftheherd1

Dirty Dog said:


> He seemed pretty reasonable. His biggest concern was a possible invasion by the Duke of Jupiter.
> One of the Jesus' tried to cast out demons from all of us.



Yes, I saw that on the news, and how the Duke and his evil forces were defeated by the lack of a strong gravity on Mars; it seems every time they took a step, they soared into the sky and were annihilated by Mar's weak, but under the circumstances, quite effective air defense artillery.  Quite the feat as it turned out.  





Dirty Dog said:


> Nice place. I absolutely adore the architecture in Europe.
> 
> Here's one of the places Sue and I stayed when we were in England last.
> View attachment 19353
> 
> We were married on the battlements, above the portcullis.



A marriage is always special, but that must really be a special memory.


----------



## Tez3

Why Is Conversion to Judaism So Hard - Questions Answers


----------



## Breaking Allen

PhotonGuy said:


> The Bible should be taken literally unless it says so otherwise, if you believe the Christian Bible.
> 
> 
> That has to do with being slapped with the back of the hand since everything back in those days was done with the right hand and therefore to slap the right cheek would be a backhand which was one of the lowest forms of insults.


I'm not sure if I'm impressed with your lack of understanding literature (religious or not) or disappointed that this thread still is kinda active. If the bible were meant to be taken completely literal you'd find large gaps of logic. Like, a lot of the bible has inconsistencies with science. Particularly "Noah's ark" which is debated to be either symbolic or outright ludicrous.  Most literature doesn't tell you not to take it literally; it's implied. Also, your argument has a fallacy. It's called the true scotsman fallacy", you can't say "unless you take it literally you don't TRULY believe in it." How are you to claim what people have to do to believe? The bible doesn't say "DON'T LOOK FOR SUBTLE SYMBOLISM OR ELSE YOU'RE NOT A CHRISTIAN/CATHOLIC."
I'm not even a christian or a catholic, but I think you should definitely learn some things... No, a lot about literature. Religious or not.


----------



## Spinoza

The Bible gives a wide breadth of opinion on the use of violence . . . which makes sense, given the wide breadth of authors. Jesus says to turn the other cheek and corrects his followers when they draw swords, but he also commanded his followers to buy swords in the first place (Luke 22:36), and he whipped people out of the Temple. The OT says not to murder, but it also says God commanded the Israelites to kill unarmed women and children during warfare upon occasion (1 Samuel 15:2-3). It would be difficult to use the Bible to derive a complete and coherent doctrine on the use of violence.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Breaking Allen said:


> I'm not sure if I'm impressed with your lack of understanding literature (religious or not) or disappointed that this thread still is kinda active.



This thread was inactive for almost half a year until you reactivated it with your post.


----------



## Rayrob

DIVINE INTERVENTION 







STOP POSTING NOW!!!!!!!!


----------



## Tez3

Thread resurrection isn't again the rules here, sometimes it works, other times it doesn't but I don't think you should come on here and on your second post tell people to stop posting.
PhotonGuy is the last poster who should take umbrage at posting on old threads lol.


----------



## Rayrob

Tez3 said:


> Thread resurrection isn't again the rules here, sometimes it works, other times it doesn't but I don't think you should come on here and on your second post tell people to stop posting.
> PhotonGuy is the last poster who should take umbrage at posting on old threads lol.


It was meant as an inoffensive  J O K E. 

Do you not think that people on here take everything  a little too seriously at times?


----------



## Tez3

Rayrob said:


> It was meant as an inoffensive  J O K E.
> 
> Do you not think that people on here take everything  a little too seriously at times?



No because if it's meant jokingly they put a little smiley face on. We have little emoticons to help with judging how to take what is being said.


----------



## Rayrob

My God, is humour so difficult for you that you have to sign post it. Is a picture or a well known transvestite with a caption not sufficient for you to judge?


----------



## Dirty Dog

Reviving a dead thread is one thing. It might be a silly thing to do, it might be a great thing to do.
But reviving a dead thread and turning it into an argument about something wholly off-topic? Not a good idea. You might find the moderation team intervening, if that were to happen.
I'm just saying...


----------



## Tez3

Rayrob said:


> My God, is humour so difficult for you that you have to sign post it. Is a picture or a well known transvestite with a caption not sufficient for you to judge?



When there's only the written word and there's no facial expressions, body language or tone of voice to judge how to take the comments, it's often easier to put a little emoticon to signpost how it's meant. It may come across as being obvious but better that than misunderstandings.

I'm afraid I have no idea who the person in the picture is.


----------



## Rayrob

After 30 pages of posts I would have thought the subject had been done to death and a little humour was more than overdue. But hey ho.

I wasn't the one who resurrected it by the way.


----------



## Rayrob

Tez3 said:


> When there's only the written word and there's no facial expressions, body language or tone of voice to judge how to take the comments, it's often easier to put a little emoticon to signpost how it's meant. It may come across as being obvious but better that than misunderstandings.
> 
> I'm afraid I have no idea who the person in the picture is.


Probably better left that way, but he/she was a well known entertainer named Devine. It was really just a throwaway comment and in no way intended to upset anybody, rather just to amuse.


----------



## Tez3

No worries.


----------



## RTKDCMB

PhotonGuy said:


> Also, not everybody believes the Bible so if you don't believe the Bible than this thread wouldn't apply to you. Read and answer it if you would but don't say I didn't warn you that you will be wasting your time.


It's our time to waste.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Rayrob said:


> Do you not think that people on here take everything a little too seriously at times?


This forum should be taken literally unless it says so otherwise, if you believe Martial Talk.


----------



## Tez3

Rayrob said:


> After 30 pages of posts I would have thought the subject had been done to death and a little humour was more than overdue. But hey ho.
> 
> I wasn't the one who resurrected it by the way.




There was actually plenty of humour in the thread, it wasn't as heavy as you may think. Humour also depends on context and whether people have the same sense of humour as well as understanding the cultural references because if you don't the humour just goes straight over your head. I'm not sure you can come on and say that the thread has been done to death, not really your judgement to make.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> Thread resurrection isn't again the rules here, sometimes it works, other times it doesn't but I don't think you should come on here and on your second post tell people to stop posting.
> PhotonGuy is the last poster who should take umbrage at posting on old threads lol.



Im not telling anybody they shouldn't post, or for that matter revive old threads. Breaking Allen was disappointed with a thread being still kinda active and I was simply pointing out that the thread had been inactive for close to half a year. Of course, if somebody posts on it the thread will become active again. Nowhere did I say that Breaking Allen or anyone else shouldn't post here.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> Im not telling anybody they shouldn't post, or for that matter revive old threads. Breaking Allen was disappointed with a thread being still kinda active and I was simply pointing out that the thread had been inactive for close to half a year. Of course, if somebody posts on it the thread will become active again. Nowhere did I say that Breaking Allen or anyone else shouldn't post here.




That post wasn't answering you nor was it directed at you, in fact it was saying you wouldn't tell someone not to post. Please re-read it.


----------

