Psalm 2010
- Thread starter Poorboy
- Start date
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
Ok, The Verdict is In! I took this Thread (Entire thing) to My Minister and asked him to Read it and To Find Fault in the Psalm 2010 Post! He and His Parishioners all read it and Not One Found that It was Making Fun of Gods Word!! Not bad 1-Minister, 9 Parishioners (10) In All! All thought that It was Funny and Laughed Out Loud!I again asked them to Re-Read it and Double Check if ANY of the Content was making Fun of Gods Word, And Guess What? 10 out of 10 Said It Was NOT! I also Pointed Out the Posts from the Infamous Two Some (You know who you are) I was Told By All 10 that It Appeared to them that the (2) Two Didn't Have a Clue as to what making fun of Gods word Was, They Laughed at the Two (Sorry to Pop Your Bubble)
Yeah, so? Just 10 more blasphemers....
I did not think you cared about religion or honorable work. After all, in that post about Stern you said that "business was business" and he makes a lot of money. So, which is it? It is OK for Stern? It's only ok if it makes a lot of money? Or, are you just ragging cause you have not got that burr out yet?
How ya been? Taint see ya in a while, been busy? Hope so. New furnance working out for you? I know what a pain in the patute that was.
How ya been? Taint see ya in a while, been busy? Hope so. New furnance working out for you? I know what a pain in the patute that was.
TeamDriven
Not a Member
Good call Rocket! The very 1st definition.
Blasphemy is irreverence[1] toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs. The Abrahamic religions condemn blasphemy vehemently. Some countries have laws to punish blasphemy.[2] Some countries have laws to give recourse to those who are offended by blasphemy. Those laws may discourage blasphemy as a matter of blasphemous libel,[3] vilification of religion,[4][5] religious insult,[6] or hate speech.[7] The idea of blasphemy makes the word amenable to colloquial usage.
Sometimes the word "blasphemy" is used loosely to mean any profane language, for example in "With much hammering and blasphemy, the locomotive's replacement spring was finally fitted
witness23
Veteran Expediter
If I'm not mistaken someone was accused of blasphemy and happened to be crucified for it.
Fun is not allowed.
TeamDriven
Not a Member
Blasphemy is irreverence[1] toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs. The Abrahamic religions condemn blasphemy vehemently. Some countries have laws to punish blasphemy.[2] Some countries have laws to give recourse to those who are offended by blasphemy. Those laws may discourage blasphemy as a matter of blasphemous libel,[3] vilification of religion,[4][5] religious insult,[6] or hate speech.[7] The idea of blasphemy makes the word amenable to colloquial usage.
Sometimes the word "blasphemy" is used loosely to mean any profane language, for example in "With much hammering and blasphemy, the locomotive's replacement spring was finally fitted
Sometimes the word "blasphemy" is used loosely to mean any profane language, for example in "With much hammering and blasphemy, the locomotive's replacement spring was finally fitted
witness23
Veteran Expediter
par·o·dy (pr-d)
n. pl. par·o·dies
1.
a. A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule. See Synonyms at caricature.
b. The genre of literature comprising such works.
2. Something so bad as to be equivalent to intentional mockery; a travesty: The trial was a parody of justice.
3. Music The practice of reworking an already established composition, especially the incorporation into the Mass of material borrowed from other works, such as motets or madrigals.
tr.v. par·o·died, par·o·dy·ing, par·o·dies
To make a parody of. See Synonyms at imitate.
parody - definition of parody by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
n. pl. par·o·dies
1.
a. A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule. See Synonyms at caricature.
b. The genre of literature comprising such works.
2. Something so bad as to be equivalent to intentional mockery; a travesty: The trial was a parody of justice.
3. Music The practice of reworking an already established composition, especially the incorporation into the Mass of material borrowed from other works, such as motets or madrigals.
tr.v. par·o·died, par·o·dy·ing, par·o·dies
To make a parody of. See Synonyms at imitate.
parody - definition of parody by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Matthew 12:33 "Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. 35The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. 36But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. 37For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."
Parody is, at least a lot of the time, a fun thing. Fun is no longer allowed. The nation wide smiling ban goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2011 at 0001 EST.
Who determined which books were God's words? Why is it that some translations are much different than others? Why is it that some versions have more or fewer books than others? Is it possible for any one man to say that anyone translation or version is the only "right one"? Can you, or anyone say, that God would not find that funny? How is it that a MAN claims to know what God would find offensive? Is there only one "true" religion and if one is not a member of that "one" does he go to hell automatically?
I was taught different than you. I have my beliefs, you have yours. That's life.
I was taught different than you. I have my beliefs, you have yours. That's life.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Wow.....those are some heavy duty questions and comments that you've made. I am a maturing Christian and by no means an expert but here are some of my thoughts to your questions for what its worth.
First an illustration: Take a pen and write your name on a piece of paper. Ask yourself the question, who wrote your name, you or the pen?
Answer:
The pen does not have power to write on its own.
I am the force or spirit behind the pen.
In the same way God is the force behind the prophets who wrote the Bible.
That being said, the Bible was written under “Inspiration” from the Holy Spirit. The word inspire is dervived from the latin word “inspirare” meaning “To breathe upon or into something”. God revealed Himself through individuals to speak to a much larger audience. In the same way some one would pick up a pen. The pen would becomes the tool in the hand of the writer, the prophet is God’s pen in revelation.
How were books in the Bible affirmed to be God’s word?
From the time of the exodus out of Egypt, God told Israel that he was going to communicate with them through prophets. People who would speak for God and represent Him to the people.
This was in response to the request from Israel who was afraid when God spoke to them directly from Mt. Sinai, the people pleaded for Moses to speak for God to them rather then God speak to them direct so they don’t die. God was pleased with their request. (Exodus 20:18-21)
Although the exact choice of words or sentence structure is different in each translation, the meaning is identical. The view that each translation of the Bible conveys a different message is also incorrect. There is only one Bible message that has been translated into hundreds of different languages. The message is always the same.
These extra books appear in the Old Testament of the Catholic Bible and are called the “Apocrypha.” They were not generally accepted as part of the Bible’s “canon” (list of included books) until the Council of Trent (a Catholic council held between December 13, 1545, and December 4, 1563). At that time, the council pronounced the Vulgate translated by St. Jerome to be the “official” Catholic Bible. (Jerome’s Vulgate was a Latin version of the Bible that included these extra books.) Since the Council of Trent, all Catholic editions of the Bible have included the Apocrypha.
However, we know from the writings of Josephus (A.D. 37-c.100) that no book was added to the Hebrew scriptures after the time of Artaxerxes who reigned after Xerxes.[1] Therefore, we know the Old Testament was completed by 424 B.C.[2] and has not changed since that time. The Apocrypha were written centuries later. For that reason and others, most Protestants did not accept adding the Apocrypha to the Bible canon during the Council of Trent. They did not necessarily believe that these extra books were “bad,” they just knew that they did not belong in the Bible. The Old Testament of most Bibles printed today follow the original Hebrew canon, matching the Jewish Tanakh (the scriptures used by the Jewish religion).
God's pure, inerrant, infallible word IS ON THIS EARTH and He wants YOU to have it (Psalm 119:130)! You should question those things and listen when God speaks to your heart.
Yes and Yes.
John 14:6 (NIV)6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Matthew 11:27 (NIV) 27"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
If you say you are a Christian I am surprised with the questions you have asked.
Last edited:
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Once again the above are my thoughts on the questions that you have posed. I would suggest from the questions that you have asked that you would find (if you haven't already) a solid Bible based Church and ask those questions to a Pastor or a mature Christian. I'm sure they would be more informed than me and be able to sit down with you instead of doing it online with me.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Not really. Apparently you need to take a class or two in the psychology of language. The meaning can be twisted by a single word moved or by even punctuation.
The translations are not perfect and when one does take place, it is not really an individual who makes the call but a panel who reviews the work. We have seen a modernization of the bible, where colloquial terms and meanings have come into play to simplify it for people.
To put this in perspective, the Koran as used in religious services is in only one language, Arabic. There are other translations which are used for learning or study to a point but the only acceptable version is the original Arabic version. There is a very specific reason for this, the religious leaders knew that the translation from the base language may yield a translation that is something other than what the author intended it to be, skewing the meaning and even the continuity of the context. This is coming from Arabs of the seventh century - pretty smart.
The same applies to the bible, it comes from two languages, one is a lot like Arabic and all of it has been translated and translated and translated, sometimes for political reasons. Much of the meaning can be construed in one way or another just be having two people translate the same passage.
The sad thing is that we will never know what the true words are. Since the council of Nicaea, the political motivations of the church have been clear and with the revisionist of the past and the many reforms, it has taken us less than 2000 years to be right back where we were in the fourth century, arguing about translations and who was inspired. I think if God was serious about all of it, he would have inspired people to define the church within 20 or 30 years of the death of Jesus and not make the religion something that became a political tool.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
I am assuming that you have. My belief is what I stated earlier that the meaning has not changed from the original text.
Actually the Bible is written in 3 languages. The Old Tesament is written in two languages; Hebrew and Aramaic[1]. The parts written in Aramaic are: Daneil 2:4-7:28, Ezra 4:48-6:18, 7:11-26, Jeremiah 10:11, Genesis 31:47 (2 words)
The New Testament is written in Koine[2] Greek. The Bible was written over a period of 1500 hundred years. By more then 40 differnet authors, from every walk of life. On three differnent continents.
The Old Testament was written by 29 differnet authors over a 1000 year period, including kings, prime ministers, priests and shepards.
The New Testament was written by 10 to 11 different authors over 45 year period of time, including a rabbi, tax collector, fisherman, physician and others.
The Church was being established when Jesus started his ministry and the Bible was written between 1450 BC and 90 AD. There are two parts to the Bible. The Old Testament, (Hebrew:Tanach) and New Testament. The Old Testament was written between 1450 BC and 425 BC. The New Testament was written between 45 AD and 90 AD. 45 to 90 years after the death of Christ is not bad considering they didn't have the printing press, typewriter, internet. Man makes the Bible a political tool not God.
Last edited:
jaminjim
Veteran Expediter
Would all Christians answer in a similar way? if not why not?Witness said:
And am I correct in saying that man wrote the bible? so how do we know whether or not they took a few literary liberties? Just the same as a Preacher might put something in a way that he feels that we will better be able to relate to or with.witness said:
Do you feel that one has to believe exactly what the bible says in order to be a true Christian? if a person doesn't believe that the water was truly turned into wine is he then ****ed?
These questions are not meant to be argumentative, but you seem to be well versed in the good book, I thought I would ask.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
What Church?
He didn't establish a Church, he established a different sect of Judaism as did Martin Luther established a different sect of Christianity.
Didn't the Council of Nicaea establish the dogma of the church - hence reformed the bible into close to what we have today. A lot of things that were left out were not all wrong as was some of the ideas of the Trinity that defined it better may have been right. Who knows because it was a political council, not a religious one.
His early followers were Jewish, not 'Christian' and even when the Council of Jerusalem was seated, the question was not how to convert Jews to Christianity but how non-Jews would be accepted into this sect of Judaism - or did "Christian" history rewrite that too?
The funny thing is, most of the time between the Council of Jerusalem and Council of Nicaea, the religion got a strong political backing because it was a cult among the Romans. It was like Scientology or "kabalah" is today among our "elite". Many of roman society recognized the shedding of the old ways opened doors and allowed the to be different at the same time be with the HIP crowd - isn't some of that human nature?
As for the languages, I stand corrected, there were more than two but regardless, both Aramaic and Hebrew are both closely related to Arabic than is English. translation doesn't mean the meaning is the same, there are meanings behind the words that are written, or interpret in each language that is different - the important thing that was recognized by the Muslims. The other thing that comes to mind is why is the bible translated when the other two major religions of the world doesn't translate their religions works? Is it a need that simplifying the meanings have something to do with the problems people have with Christianity?
I don't think God has done as much as man has claimed to inspire written word because the reasoning is kind of skewed to think that God only inspires certain people to write things down but doesn't inspires man in general to do good deeds or practice what Jesus has said should be practiced.
The poltical nature of the church as it was and still is, is one of power and control. It doesn't matter what the common Christian may think, history has proven man has used religion to shape people of his world as he sees fit regardless who the religion has been inspired by. After the Council of Nicaea, the church gained a lot of political control and from that time, through the fall of Rome and up until the Renaissance, man in his gain of power has used this religion to oppress people and suppress ideas and thoughts - the reason why we call it the Dark Ages.
But I guess if I am wrong, I will rot in h*ll like the rest of the people like me.