King-Kai's forum posts

Avatar image for King-Kai
King-Kai

934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

10

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 King-Kai
Member since 2012 • 934 Posts

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Okay using google I found.....

The word almah (עלמה, plural: alamot עלמות is a Hebrew feminine noun, for a girl who has reached puberty but is still under the shielding protection of her family; she is a young, marriageable (i.e. unmarried) girl. In Bibles, almah is typically translated as virgin, maiden, young woman, damsel or girl.

Which pretty much erases your entire argument if the word can be translated as both....

LJS9502_basic

No.

Are you kidding a youtube video?

My dude, it doesn't matter if it's a YouTube video. What matters is what's being said. He uses the the Bible itself, along with reason/ logic to explain things. Just be objective and watch the portion of the video concerning the so-called Virgin Birth. If you're really objective, you'd watch the entire video series and verify what he says for yourself, which you should be able to do if you have a Bible. If not, then you're simply willfully ignorant.

Avatar image for King-Kai
King-Kai

934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

10

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 King-Kai
Member since 2012 • 934 Posts

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] There is no vast changes to the Scripture but that is a common accusations tossed off for those who are looking to discredit.LJS9502_basic

My dude, let me explain something to you.

  • Original Hebrew scriptures say that Messiah will be born of a young maiden, not a virgin (the Hebrew word for "virgin" is not used).
  • Septuagint - the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, erroneously translates the passage in question to read "virgin".
  • The author of the Gospel According to Luke just so happens to claim that Jesus was born of a virgin and uses the Septuagint's erroneous translation in order to support his claim.
  • Why would you believe in a claim based on an erroneous translation of the Hebrew Scriptures?
  • It's obvious that the author of Luke was not familiar with the original Hebrew scriptures (probably couldn't read Hebrew) and so used the Septuagint. If he was truly inspired by God to report the Gospel, this error would not exist; God would have assured that the author of Luke used the appropriate/ original (meaing of the) text to support his claims.
  • Conclusion: Bollocks.

Okay using google I found.....

The word almah (עלמה, plural: alamot עלמות is a Hebrew feminine noun, for a girl who has reached puberty but is still under the shielding protection of her family; she is a young, marriageable (i.e. unmarried) girl. In Bibles, almah is typically translated as virgin, maiden, young woman, damsel or girl.

Which pretty much erases your entire argument if the word can be translated as both....

No.

Avatar image for King-Kai
King-Kai

934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

10

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 King-Kai
Member since 2012 • 934 Posts

No laws against prostitution? That sounds like a bad idea, a lot of people are forced into the sex industry.

Here in the UK prostitution is legal but we still have a problem about illegal sex trade. It should be legal, but regulated (which it currently isn't)

toast_burner

I'm going to hook up with a prostitute one day. I'm gettin' mine, one way or another.

Avatar image for King-Kai
King-Kai

934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

10

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 King-Kai
Member since 2012 • 934 Posts

A librarian.

IcyToasters

I lol'ed.

Avatar image for King-Kai
King-Kai

934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

10

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 King-Kai
Member since 2012 • 934 Posts

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

[QUOTE="mindstorm"] With such things as the virgin birth mentioned in Isaiah, with the typical modern day understanding of hermeneutics/interpretation we would never arrive at certain conclusions that they would have then. That stated, in order to understand such prophecies as the virgin birth we must determine their interpretive principles rather than simply throw away their understanding altogether. Which is most intellectually objective method: understand their presuppositions when they first come to the text or throw it all away because our own presuppositions do not allow for such an understanding?

Certainly the former option requires more effort but this is the effort I am willing to make.

LJS9502_basic

Sounds like a load of bollocks written formally to appear substantive.

There is no vast changes to the Scripture but that is a common accusations tossed off for those who are looking to discredit.

My dude, let me explain something to you.

  • Original Hebrew scriptures say that Messiah will be born of a young maiden, not a virgin (the Hebrew word for "virgin" is not used).
  • Septuagint - the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, erroneously translates the passage in question to read "virgin".
  • The author of the Gospel According to Luke just so happens to claim that Jesus was born of a virgin and uses the Septuagint's erroneous translation in order to support his claim.
  • Why would you believe in a claim based on an erroneous translation of the Hebrew Scriptures?
  • It's obvious that the author of Luke was not familiar with the original Hebrew scriptures (probably couldn't read Hebrew) and so used the Septuagint. If he was truly inspired by God to report the Gospel, this error would not exist; God would have assured that the author of Luke used the appropriate/ original (meaing of the) text to support his claims.
  • Conclusion: Bollocks.
Avatar image for King-Kai
King-Kai

934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

10

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 King-Kai
Member since 2012 • 934 Posts

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]There are still other serious issues, such as using erroneously translated passages in the Septuagint as bases for claims regarding the fulfillment of supposed prophecies. For example, in the original Hebrew scriptures, there is no passage that predicts that the Messiah will be born of a virgin. The original Hebrew passage in question says that the Messiah would be born of a young maiden (huge difference); the Hebrew word for "virgin" is not used. However, because the Gospel According to Luke used the Septuagint's translation of this passage, which erroneously translates it as "virgin", Luke assumed that's what it meant and reported that Jesus was born of an actual virgin. Ridiculous. This is a huge issue which can't be swept underneath the rug. There are other erroneous interpretations of the Old Testament prophecies that are used as bases for Jesus's supposed fullfillment of them. Some claims are entirely made up.

Here's a video series on it. If you're an objective individual, you'd watch the entire thing.

mindstorm

With such things as the virgin birth mentioned in Isaiah, with the typical modern day understanding of hermeneutics/interpretation we would never arrive at certain conclusions that they would have then. That stated, in order to understand such prophecies as the virgin birth we must determine their interpretive principles rather than simply throw away their understanding altogether. Which is most intellectually objective method: understand their presuppositions when they first come to the text or throw it all away because our own presuppositions do not allow for such an understanding?

Certainly the former option requires more effort but this is the effort I am willing to make.

Sounds like a load of bollocks written formally to appear substantive.

Avatar image for King-Kai
King-Kai

934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

10

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 King-Kai
Member since 2012 • 934 Posts

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

I am very much aware. I am also aware that there are no theological differences between any of these manuscripts and that they preach the exact same Gospel. The vast majority of this differences would be something as insignificant as saying Christ Jesus in one and saying Jesus Christ in another.

But to answer your question, I tend to believe that Byzantine text tradition is the most faithful. However, due to the insignificance of most differences I actually use the Alexandrian texts in most situations simply because most modern English translations derive from this tradition.

Keep in mind that this is one of my favorite topics to study. I read about Textual Criticism for fun.

mindstorm

An entire missing passage is not insignificant; it's huge. It proves that the Biblical text as a whole is dubious. If someone added an entire passage to portray Jesus in a certain light, what makes you think that all of the Gospels weren't created with the same motivations? Perhaps the real Jesus wasn't as he is depicted in the Gospels. Furthermore, did you know that there are other Gospels not in the Bible? Did you know that the ones that are in the Bible are only there because a council of ordinary men decided which books would be included based on their own discretion in regard to how Jesus is portrayed in each of them? The Bible is utterly untrustworthy.

There's also the issue of linguistic accuracy. Jesus spoke Aramaic, yet the Gospels are written in Greek. Also, unless the Apostles followed Jesus around and wrote everything he said on pieces of papyrus as he said it, everything he is purported to have said was written long after he said them, which leaves room for errors in accuracy. These two facts are further proof of the Bible's dubious nature.

The fact that 95% of the text of the New Testament agrees across all of its manuscripts does not prove that it is dubious. In fact, for me it points to the Bible's reliability. As far as "other Gospels," they were written too late and by people not associated with the original apostles and are thus not to be considered canon. Personally speaking, I do not accept any supposedly biblical book if it was written after around 100 AD. As such, such books as the Gospel of Thomas is about 150 years too late to be considered biblical. Also of note, this council you speak of did not decide which books would be included but they simply acknowledged what was already approved by their own local congregations. They were seeking to get rid of heresies such as Marcionism, not seeking to determine which is proper Scripture. And for Jesus speaking Aramaic, does this matter? Just because we have a translation of his actual words does nothing to diminish the integrity of the text. Besides, what makes the Word of God be the Word of God is not that it quotes Jesus but it testifies to his life, death, burial, and resurrection - it testifies to the gospel. As such, the Word of God can be spoken of in any language regardless of the original. And further note, why in the world are we discussing the integrity of Scripture in a topic about what language we would like to learn?

There are still other serious issues, such as using erroneously translated passages in the Septuagint as bases for claims regarding the fulfillment of supposed prophecies. For example, in the original Hebrew scriptures, there is no passage that predicts that the Messiah will be born of a virgin. The original Hebrew passage in question says that the Messiah would be born of a young maiden (huge difference); the Hebrew word for "virgin" is not used. However, because the Gospel According to Luke used the Septuagint's translation of this passage, which erroneously translates it as "virgin", Luke assumed that's what it meant and reported that Jesus was born of an actual virgin. Ridiculous. This is a huge issue which can't be swept underneath the rug. There are other erroneous interpretations of the Old Testament prophecies that are used as bases for Jesus's supposed fullfillment of them. Some claims are entirely made up.

Here's a video series on it. If you're an objective individual, you'd watch the entire thing.

Avatar image for King-Kai
King-Kai

934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

10

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 King-Kai
Member since 2012 • 934 Posts

Has anyone posted a picture of his avatar and signature yet? If not, can someone please do so?

Avatar image for King-Kai
King-Kai

934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

10

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 King-Kai
Member since 2012 • 934 Posts

I am very much aware. I am also aware that there are no theological differences between any of these manuscripts and that they preach the exact same Gospel. The vast majority of this differences would be something as insignificant as saying Christ Jesus in one and saying Jesus Christ in another.

But to answer your question, I tend to believe that Byzantine text tradition is the most faithful. However, due to the insignificance of most differences I actually use the Alexandrian texts in most situations simply because most modern English translations derive from this tradition.

Keep in mind that this is one of my favorite topics to study. I read about Textual Criticism for fun.

mindstorm

An entire missing passage is not insignificant; it's huge. It proves that the Biblical text as a whole is dubious. If someone added an entire passage to portray Jesus in a certain light, what makes you think that all of the Gospels weren't created with the same motivations? Perhaps the real Jesus wasn't as he is depicted in the Gospels. Furthermore, did you know that there are other Gospels not in the Bible? Did you know that the ones that are in the Bible are only there because a council of ordinary men decided which books would be included based on their own discretion in regard to how Jesus is portrayed in each of them? The Bible is utterly untrustworthy.

There's also the issue of linguistic accuracy. Jesus spoke Aramaic, yet the Gospels are written in Greek. Also, unless the Apostles followed Jesus around and wrote everything he said on pieces of papyrus as he said it, everything he is purported to have said was written long after he said them, which leaves room for errors in accuracy. These two facts are further proof of the Bible's dubious nature.

Avatar image for King-Kai
King-Kai

934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

10

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 King-Kai
Member since 2012 • 934 Posts

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Do our views make things exist? Would that still not be perception? And LOL reading PMs. That sounds like it would be boring job. Though MissL used to PM me......wonder if they read those PMs.:oLJS9502_basic
I view karma not as a cosmic force, but as a result of one's actions. very simple example: you go into a place to eat and act like an ass = worse service than if you acted nicely. not b/c the universe decided to punish you but b/c of the effects your actions had on their mood -now there are exceptions, but I think that is a simple way to explain it

Ah....I define karma more as a force not of your making that repays you for actions either negative or positive. More like an active force I guess....

So, I guess that children who are born with horrible, fatal illnesses did something to deserve their condition, even though they only recently came into the world? WTF?