Mr. Deity and the Promised Land

General discussions
Regens Küchl
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:19 pm

Re: Mr. Deity and the Promised Land

Post by Regens Küchl » Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:05 pm

eccles wrote:"
KJV - for ever? released 1611 CE (AD). How old is the English langauge and how old is Hebrew. Is today April 1st?
"The only thing I don't like about them is they sell foreign language versions of the KJB. I don't think that's right. We know the only true translation is the 1600's version in English.

It's too risky for anybody to translate that into other languages. Mistakes can creep in... and that can lead to heresy. True Christians should only read English."
http://digg.com/comedy/100_Greatest_Quo ... chat_rooms
No, God's Penis is not a biological organ. I never said God's Penis was the same as man's penis. Obviously it wouldn't be. That is why I pointed out God has a Holy, Righteous Penis. That is to say, it's not the same as man's corrupted, fleshy one.

As I said when this subject first came up, once again: Penises are not just for sex & peeing. It is only because man is evil that he thinks of penises exclusively in those terms.

Man is made in the image of God the Father. That is the primary reason why man has a penis.

You cannot insert your evil prejudicial ideas of man's penis onto God - which is exactly what you are doing. God's Penis is not equal to man's penis. It's really not hard to understand.
On October 18, 2004, Arthur Shelton, a self described Christian and Eagle Scout, murdered his friend and roommate, Larry Hooper, because Hooper didn't believe in God.
...
The trial began with the taped phone call Arthur Shelton placed to the Taylor police department in Taylor, Michigan, October 18, 2004, at precisely 12:44 AM. Shelton sounded calm and pridefull when he told the dispatcher he had just shot "the devil himself" with a revolver and a shotgun because "he (Hooper) didn't believe in God." Shelton told the dispatcher he was "still armed and ready to shoot again in case he moves. I want to make sure he's gone." When the dispatcher asked how many times he shot the victim Shelton replied, "hopefully enough."

Throughout the 15 minute phone call Shelton often repeated, "I'm a Christian and an Eagle Scout and I wouldn't lie," and "don't worry about me, I'm fine, but he's the devil." The dispatcher struggled to persuade Shelton to lay down his weapon and go outdoors with his arms raised. Shelton resisted, as he feared Hooper might not be "dead enough", but eventually complied.

Dead enough was an understatement. When the police arrived they were confronted with the grizzly scene of Hooper sitting upright on the couch with his head blown away and his brain laying on his hand. The autopsy report presented by the prosecutor was gruesome to be sure, but, for the record, Larry Hooper tested negative for all narcotics and alcohol.

Testimony by the arresting officer and the officers transporting Shelton to the police station revealed that while the officers were interested in gathering details about the incident, Shelton was obsessed with talking about God, the Eagle Scouts and stating he "would not talk to anyone who didn't believe in God but that he would talk to the police because he felt they believed in God."
...
He stated he "was not sorry for a second that he killed Hooper." He stated, "In the eyes of the law I was wrong and will probably spend the rest of my life in prison, but in the eyes of God I have killed an evil person -- the devil himself."
...
Judge Bill invited Shelton to make a statement and after fumbling for words Shelton stated he was sorry that Larry was dead but he did a job that had to be done. He stated that he actually, "saw fire and smoke coming from Larry's eyes and knew he was the devil himself."
...
Even with all that behind us, December 19th, the day of sentencing, was still a horrific experience for myself, George Shiffer, Joe Milon, Lee Helms and Marty Maier. When leaving the courtroom the 'Christian' Shelton family lay in wait for us in the hallway. Their tears dried, they surrounded us shouting these comments: "The one good thing of all of this is that another Atheist is dead and the world is better off for it" and "The only good Atheist is a dead Atheist."
All men are born equal but atheists are only half men. Man consists of mind, soul and spirit. Atheists do not have a spirit (this makes them worth 2/3 of a normal hum man) and they hardly have a soul either as they can feel little more then hatred, geek and pathetic depressions. (no Christian can ever be depressed since we are Holy Children of God, depressed people are laughable) No atheist can never be in love, or ever feel true love. (their love is only lust and/or sadism) This makes them about 1/3 man. Also we all know that it's gay to be atheist and gays are not men, their are assheads who should terminated as well as other threats to the society. (like commies, feminists, masons and immigrants)

To sum it up, my dear amerikkkan fat asstheist neard with cola: You are a failure!
http://www.fstdt.com/Top100.aspx?archive=1
eccles
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 4:17 am
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Mr. Deity and the Promised Land

Post by eccles » Sat Jan 30, 2010 12:51 am

Let us examine more closely the KJV and the texts from which it was translated. Bart D. Ehrman covers this very well in "Misquoting Jesus".

There are very good references in Wikipedia, which I shall now c & p. They agree closely with "Misquoting Jesus"

The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Holy Bible begun in 1604 and completed in 1611 by the Church of England.[3] Printed by the King's Printer, Robert Barker,[4] the first edition included schedules unique to the Church of England; for example, a lectionary for morning and evening prayer.[5] This was the third such official translation into English; the first having been the Great Bible commissioned by the Church of England in the reign of King Henry VIII, and the second having been the Bishop's Bible of 1568.[6] In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans, a faction within the Church of England.[7]

James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. The translation was by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized ... es_Version

Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name subsequently given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible, for the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, and for most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe. The series originated with the first printed Greek New Testament to be published; a work undertaken in Basel by the Dutch Catholic scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus in 1516, on the basis of some six manuscripts, containing between them not quite the whole of the New Testament. Although based mainly on late manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type, Erasmus's edition differed markedly from the classic form of that text.

The Dutch humanist Erasmus had been working for years on two projects: a collation of Greek texts and a fresh Latin New Testament. In 1512, he began his work on a fresh Latin New Testament. He collected all the Vulgate manuscripts he could find to create a critical edition. Then he polished the Latin. He declared, "It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin."[1] In the earlier phases of the project, he never mentioned a Greek text: "My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god. I have already almost finished emending him by collating a large number of ancient manuscripts, and this I am doing at enormous personal expense."

While his intentions for publishing a fresh Latin translation are clear, it is less clear why he included the Greek text. Though some speculate that he intended on producing a critical Greek text or that he wanted to beat the Complutensian Polyglot into print, there is no evidence to support this. Rather his motivations seems to be simpler: he included the Greek text to prove the superiority of his Latin version. He wrote, "There remains the New Testament translated by me, with the Greek facing, and notes on it by me."[3] He further demonstrated the reason for the inclusion of the Greek text when defending his work: "But one thing the facts cry out, and it can be clear, as they say, even to a blind man, that often through the translator’s clumsiness or inattention the Greek has been wrongly rendered; often the true and genuine reading has been corrupted by ignorant scribes, which we see happen every day, or altered by scribes who are half-taught and half-asleep."[4] Erasmus's new work was published by Froben of Basel in 1516 and thence became the first published Greek New Testament, the Novum Instrumentum omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Rot. Recognitum et Emendatum. He used manuscripts: 1, 1rK, 2e, 2ap, 4ap, 7, 817.[5] The second edition used the more familiar term Testamentum instead of Instrumentum, and eventually became a major source for Luther's German translation. In second edition (1519) Erasmus used also Minuscule 3.

Typographical errors (attributed to the rush to complete the work) abounded in the published text. Erasmus also lacked a complete copy of the book of Revelation and was forced to translate the last six verses back into Greek from the Latin Vulgate in order to finish his edition. Erasmus adjusted the text in many places to correspond with readings found in the Vulgate, or as quoted in the Church Fathers; and consequently, although the Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a late Byzantine text, it differs in nearly two thousand readings from standard form of that text-type; as represented by the "Majority Text" of Hodges and Farstad (Wallace 1989). The edition was a sell-out commercial success; and was reprinted in 1519, with most—though not all—the typographical errors corrected.[6]

Erasmus had been studying Greek New Testament manuscripts for many years, in the Netherlands, France, England and Switzerland, noting their many variants; but he only had six Greek manuscripts immediately accessible to him in Basel.[7] They all dated from the 12th Century or later, and only one came from outside the mainstream Byzantine tradition. Consequently, most modern scholars consider his text to be of dubious quality.[8]

With the third edition of Erasmus' Greek text (1522) the Comma Johanneum was included, because a single 16th-century Greek manuscript (Codex Montfortianus) had subsequently been found to contain it, though Erasmus had expressed doubt as to the authenticity of the passage in his Annotations. Popular demand for Greek New Testaments led to a flurry of further authorized and unauthorized editions in the early sixteenth century; almost all of which were based on Erasmus's work and incorporated his particular readings, although typically also making a number of minor changes of their own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

So what did we get? A bible poorly translated from badly corrupted 12 century Greek Manuscripts. So much for the very popular and most read "Word of God".
em hotep

Image

Robert Tobin Minister, First Church of Atheism (Philidelphia)
"May Your God Go WIth You"
Regens Küchl
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:19 pm

Re: Mr. Deity and the Promised Land

Post by Regens Küchl » Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:12 pm

eccles wrote: So what did we get? A bible poorly translated from badly corrupted 12 century Greek Manuscripts. So much for the very popular and most read "Word of God".
QUESTION: If there is a perfect Bible in English, doesn't there also have to be a perfect Bible in French, and German, and Japanese, etc?

ANSWER: No. God has always given His word to one people in one language to do one job; convert the world. The supposition that there must be a perfect translation in every language is erroneous and inconsistent with God's proven practice.
. . .
Thus in choosing English in which to combine His two Testaments, God chose the only language which the world would know. Just as He has shown in His choosing only one language for the Old Testament and only one language for the New Testament, He continued that practice by combining those two testaments in only one language.
But let us not forget the fact that, by choosing the English language, God has given us a mandate to carry out the great commission. He did not give us a perfect Bible to set placidly on the coffee table in our living room to let our guests know that we are "religious". He did not give it to us to press a flower from our first date, or to have a record of our family tree. He gave it to us to read! And to tuck under our arm and share with the lost world the good news of Jesus' payment for sin that is found inside.
Let's get busy!
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_07.asp
List of ALL the Errors in the King James Bible
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/errors.htm
King James Bible Screensaver
http://www.holybible.com/screensaver.htm
I have seen quite a few Chick tracts in my day, but I’m not sure I had stumbled across this one. Or if I had, I wasn’t yet free of my fundamentalist KJV onlyism. “The Attack” is a tract about Satan’s attack on the Bible. And yes, some of the biggest conspiracy theories of all time play second fiddle to the tale you’ll read here.
http://kjvodebate.wordpress.com/2009/10 ... ct-attack/
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp
eccles
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 4:17 am
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Mr. Deity and the Promised Land

Post by eccles » Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:34 am

Regens Küchl

Are you defending the KJV? You have c & p a lot of junk from apologist sites without any comment from you. I admit I c & p from the opposing side, but at least I comment stating my position clearly.

This nonsense about "god" choosing English for a bible that was compiled in 1611.

A Brief History of the King James Bible

By Dr. Laurence M. Vance
As the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603) was coming to a close, we find a draft for an act of Parliament for a new version of the Bible: "An act for the reducing of diversities of bibles now extant in the English tongue to one settled vulgar translated from the original." The Bishop's Bible of 1568, although it may have eclipsed the Great Bible, was still rivaled by the Geneva Bible. Nothing ever became of this draft during the reign of Elizabeth, who died in 1603, and was succeeded by James 1, as the throne passed from the Tudors to the Stuarts. James was at that time James VI of Scotland, and had been for thirty-seven years. He was born during the period between the Geneva and the Bishop's Bible.


One of the first things done by the new king was the calling of the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 "for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church." Here were assembled bishops, clergymen, and professors, along with four Puritan divines, to consider the complaints of the Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, "moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original."


The king rejoined that he:


"Could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by he best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other."
Accordingly, a resolution came forth:


"That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service."
The next step was the actual selection of the men who were to perform the work. In July of 1604, James wrote to Bishop Bancroft that he had "appointed certain learned men, to the number of four and fifty, for the translating of the Bible." These men were the best biblical scholars and linguists of their day. In the preface to their completed work it is further stated that "there were many chosen, that were greater in other men's eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise. Again, they came or were thought to come to the work, learned, not to learn." Other men were sought out, according to James, "so that our said intended translation may have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men within this our kingdom."


Although fifty-four men were nominated, only forty-seven were known to have taken part in the work of translation. The translators were organized into six groups, and met respectively at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford. Ten at Westminster were assigned Genesis through 2 Kings; seven had Romans through Jude. At Cambridge, eight worked on 1 Chronicles through Ecclesiastes, while seven others handled the Apocrypha. Oxford employed seven to translate Isaiah through Malachi; eight occupied themselves with the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course as there was no "god" the whole discussion on these line is useless.
em hotep

Image

Robert Tobin Minister, First Church of Atheism (Philidelphia)
"May Your God Go WIth You"
Regens Küchl
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:19 pm

Re: Mr. Deity and the Promised Land

Post by Regens Küchl » Mon Feb 01, 2010 3:06 pm

eccles wrote:Regens Küchl

Are you defending the KJV? You have c & p a lot of junk from apologist sites without any comment from you. I admit I c & p from the opposing side, but at least I comment stating my position clearly.

This nonsense about "god" choosing English for a bible that was compiled in 1611.
No, not really defending but I loved to do some research for the reasons about why some evangelical fundamentalists can prefer the KJV to even the original hebrew :oops:
eccles wrote: Of course as there was no "god" the whole discussion on these line is useless.
Of course by stating that Jahwehovah always wanted the one perfect bible to be in english only(and got it written 1611) they can "logically" prefer the KJV to original hebrew and greek.

Christian thinking :wink:

But it is true that the catholic church in europe before reformation did not want the common man to read or have a bible :!:
It is also true that the modern translations are deformed and transformed in many details to be politically correct :x

I have to get a original KJV bevore I can say something about its accuracy, but (since i do read in german) I recently managed to get a original Luther bible and think this is maybe the best, at last in german :idea:

Martin Luther Bibel: Die gantze Heilige Schrift: 2 Bde. von Martin Luther von Edition Lempertz
http://www.amazon.de/Martin-Luther-Bibe ... 091&sr=1-2
eccles
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 4:17 am
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Mr. Deity and the Promised Land

Post by eccles » Mon Feb 01, 2010 5:36 pm

Regens Küchl wrote:
eccles wrote:Regens Küchl

Are you defending the KJV? You have c & p a lot of junk from apologist sites without any comment from you. I admit I c & p from the opposing side, but at least I comment stating my position clearly.

This nonsense about "god" choosing English for a bible that was compiled in 1611.
No, not really defending but I loved to do some research for the reasons about why some evangelical fundamentalists can prefer the KJV to even the original hebrew :oops:
eccles wrote: Of course as there was no "god" the whole discussion on these line is useless.
Of course by stating that Jahwehovah always wanted the one perfect bible to be in english only(and got it written 1611) they can "logically" prefer the KJV to original hebrew and greek.

Christian thinking :wink:

But it is true that the catholic church in europe before reformation did not want the common man to read or have a bible :!:
It is also true that the modern translations are deformed and transformed in many details to be politically correct :x

I have to get a original KJV bevore I can say something about its accuracy, but (since i do read in german) I recently managed to get a original Luther bible and think this is maybe the best, at last in german :idea:

Martin Luther Bibel: Die gantze Heilige Schrift: 2 Bde. von Martin Luther von Edition Lempertz
http://www.amazon.de/Martin-Luther-Bibe ... 091&sr=1-2
I'm glad you cleared that up. Thank you. I apologize for seemimg to doubt you.
em hotep

Image

Robert Tobin Minister, First Church of Atheism (Philidelphia)
"May Your God Go WIth You"
Regens Küchl
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:19 pm

Re: Mr. Deity and the Promised Land

Post by Regens Küchl » Tue Feb 02, 2010 7:28 am

This Thread would not be complete if I didnt present a online KJV :shock:

I found that rapture ready has one that is very comfortable to read :P
http://www.raptureready.com/resource/kjv/aa-kjv.html

I checked in and read Samuel II 12:31 - that is the point where all german bibles since 1956 transformed the verse and so outright lied
(KJV has it original)

http://www.raptureready.com/resource/kjv/2Samuel.html

because the churches did not want the common reader to be disgusted by Jews and their genocide on women and children and all residents of conquered citys :?
http://www.cosmiq.de/qa/show/42158/2-sa ... ersetzung/

Thats an example for why I say that modern reversed bibles are not ideal, they are deformed, transformed, made up and for example the reversed KJV or the reversed Luther bible from 1975 have not much in common with the original fine works :twisted:
Post Reply