Why don't we believe?

[Exrev]

Scripture also tells us to trust in our ability to reason--"examine all things and hold on to what is good". How is that principle discredited by one or more people failing to apply it?

Actually that isn't what the bible says now is it WW...literally you ripped it out of a part of a sentence. You do realize that we atheist can read the bible just as much as you do? So here is the verse in context.

1 Thessalonians 5
19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject every kind of evil.

20 Do not despise prophetic utterances 21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22 abstain from every [m]form of evil.

My point about this verse is very simple. I don't believe the verse can be taken as the way you say it. My point is that the Bible is NOT talking about the proper use of reason and evidence. Actually look the Greek word up, for test or examine in this verse. You'll be surprised what you find. But I don't want to get into that because I don't need too. So if we look at the NIV version it is clear as to what should be tested; that is prophecies, NOT EVERYTHING which appears the NASB is saying, but really it doesn't say that either if you read it in context. Its talking about testing prophetic utterances, which is a charismatic gift or gifts of the spirit. So really your pulling this "principle" of testing everything out of your ass. It doesn't exist in the Bible. Nice try!

So just to make it clear: The Bible never tells anyone to use reason to test what it says as true. Paul will say to test what he says according to the scriptures and he gives commands that prophecies are checked according to the word of god. But the Bible never says to examine its own claims.

[Exrev]

1.Is there a God?
2.Do we cease to exist when our bodies die?
3.How ought we behave towards one another?

1. How is question 1 anymore important than does Zeus exist? Or does Flying Spaghetti monster exist? I think a more important question is: What is God? Then after we answer that question we could ask; Is there a god? So could naturalism answer the 1st question would be dependent on how god is defined. So answer to question 1. is maybe!

2. Naturalism would say yes. I think that dualism (ie body and soul) is not compatible with naturalism. The view is that consciousness is one with the brain and mind. How can I be myself separated from my body?

3. That is a great question. I think that IF we can define what is best for our well being then yes we can answer that question from a naturalistic question. Would this be objective or subjective would depend on how one defines those two terms. I have much interest in this issue. There is much research that I want to do on this subject. But I'll ask this: How does one want to be treated? Maybe that is a more important question. Also, secular humanism is completely compatible with naturalism so that would answer this question. But I fail to see why naturalism has to answer ethical questions. In fact, naturalism would ask...how should we treat our environment? How should we treat other animals?

[ChristianHeretic]

Scripture also tells us to trust in our ability to reason--"examine all things and hold on to what is good". How is that principle discredited by one or more people failing to apply it?

Actually that isn't what the bible says now is it WW...literally you ripped it out of a part of a sentence. You do realize that we atheist can read the bible just as much as you do? So here is the verse in context.

1 Thessalonians 5
19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject every kind of evil.

20 Do not despise prophetic utterances 21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22 abstain from every [m]form of evil.

My point about this verse is very simple. I don't believe the verse can be taken as the way you say it. My point is that the Bible is NOT talking about the proper use of reason and evidence. Actually look the Greek word up, for test or examine in this verse. You'll be surprised what you find. But I don't want to get into that because I don't need too. So if we look at the NIV version it is clear as to what should be tested; that is prophecies, NOT EVERYTHING which appears the NASB is saying, but really it doesn't say that either if you read it in context. Its talking about testing prophetic utterances, which is a charismatic gift or gifts of the spirit. So really your pulling this "principle" of testing everything out of your ass. It doesn't exist in the Bible. Nice try!

So just to make it clear: The Bible never tells anyone to use reason to test what it says as true. Paul will say to test what he says according to the scriptures and he gives commands that prophecies are checked according to the word of god. But the Bible never says to examine its own claims.

Rev, is there a reason you took the period out of the NASB translation? Let's actually do look at the whole thing in context:

15 See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people. 16 Rejoice always; 17 pray without ceasing; 18 in everything give thanks; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus. 19 Do not quench the Spirit; 20 do not despise prophetic utterances. 21 [But] examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22 abstain from every form of evil.

And obviously, since you're the resident Greek expert, you certainly recognize that there is no "But" or "but" in the original Greek so I have bracketed it off in the above NASB translation. As we can see from the previous items on this "list," Paul is simply listing instructions to close out his letter to the church in Thessalonica, like the original 84 NIV has it:

15 Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other and to everyone else.
16 Be joyful always; 17 pray continually; 18 give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.
19 Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; 20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to the good. 22 Avoid every kind of evil.

So these are 4 separate instructions:
1) Do not put out the Spirit’s fire;
2) do not treat prophecies with contempt.
3) Test everything. Hold on to the good.
4) Avoid every kind of evil.

And the Greek term "pas" translated "everything" here, literally means "each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything" not just the aforementioned prophecies. And those interested in understanding what the Greek word dokimazō translated "test or examine" means here, oddly enough, it means "1) to test, examine, prove, scrutinise (to see whether a thing is genuine or not), as metals; 2) to recognise as genuine after examination, to approve, deem worthy". So "test everything." Hmm...that's odd...

Nice try ExRev! It's starting to seem to me that your rejection of many things within Christianity has come from poor exegesis or simply factual inaccuracies. It's sad really that you have rejected much of what I've seen you discuss here based on inaccuracies propagated by the uneducated anti-Christian establishment? And apparently, "we atheist can read the bible just as much as you do" is also an inaccurate statement. A little more research is needed before you can question the beliefs of educated believers, and should have been employed before you rejected your own. IMO.

[WorldlingWatcher]

It's starting to seem to me that your rejection of many things within Christianity has come from poor exegesis or simply factual inaccuracies.

You know, I was starting to wonder about this myself. Not only was the selected text narrow, but it was an extraordinarily literalist interpretation.

Exrev, have you ever considered the possibility that the people who discipled you didn't know what they were talking about and the religion you rejected wasn't Christianity, but something else?

[Keep The Reason]

the people who discipled you didn't know what they were talking about

Well, frankly, this caveat covers all Christians. None of you knows what it is you're really talking about, which is why there are so many conflicting interpretations that are "all the right ones" providing it's the one you agree with, and not the other ones you don't agree with.

[WorldlingWatcher]

Well, frankly, this caveat covers all Christians. None of you knows what it is you're really talking about, which is why there are so many conflicting interpretations that are "all the right ones" providing it's the one you agree with, and not the other ones you don't agree with.

Once again, it all comes down to what information you'll subjectively countenance and how you frame the problem.

You view the world through a lens which assumes anything worth believing must be universally observable, supported by repeatable experimentation and agreed upon univocally by everyone and you conclude that because Christians don't answer every question the same way all the time they must be wrong. How you get from some of them are wrong to all of them must be wrong is anyone's guess. The most ironic aspect of this is you consider yourself a disciplined thinker.

When I survey the range of Christianity I see billions of people trying to grasp texts that are thousands of years old, and commentary and criticism from everyone with a mouth, and I am amazed at how little divergence there is in core beliefs across denominations after 2,000 years. If you ever took the time to really examine and compare denominations, you would find there's really not much difference in what they believe about Jesus; the vast majority of disagreement is about the implications of who Jesus was and what he said, and how we should organize and govern his church.

[ChristianHeretic]

the people who discipled you didn't know what they were talking about

Well, frankly, this caveat covers all Christians. None of you knows what it is you're really talking about, which is why there are so many conflicting interpretations that are "all the right ones" providing it's the one you agree with, and not the other ones you don't agree with.

This coming from someone who disagrees that we have any "evidence" that Nero's fire is an historical event. Why? Because that would force him to acknowledge that Tacitus was a legitimate historian when he documented the existence of Jesus. Nice KTR! I'll take my chances with an ignorant Christian rather than a blind atheist.

[Exrev]

Scripture also tells us to trust in our ability to reason--"examine all things and hold on to what is good". How is that principle discredited by one or more people failing to apply it?

Actually that isn't what the bible says now is it WW...literally you ripped it out of a part of a sentence. You do realize that we atheist can read the bible just as much as you do? So here is the verse in context.

1 Thessalonians 5
19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject every kind of evil.

20 Do not despise prophetic utterances 21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22 abstain from every [m]form of evil.

My point about this verse is very simple. I don't believe the verse can be taken as the way you say it. My point is that the Bible is NOT talking about the proper use of reason and evidence. Actually look the Greek word up, for test or examine in this verse. You'll be surprised what you find. But I don't want to get into that because I don't need too. So if we look at the NIV version it is clear as to what should be tested; that is prophecies, NOT EVERYTHING which appears the NASB is saying, but really it doesn't say that either if you read it in context. Its talking about testing prophetic utterances, which is a charismatic gift or gifts of the spirit. So really your pulling this "principle" of testing everything out of your ass. It doesn't exist in the Bible. Nice try!

So just to make it clear: The Bible never tells anyone to use reason to test what it says as true. Paul will say to test what he says according to the scriptures and he gives commands that prophecies are checked according to the word of god. But the Bible never says to examine its own claims.

Rev, is there a reason you took the period out of the NASB translation? Let's actually do look at the whole thing in context:

15 See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people. 16 Rejoice always; 17 pray without ceasing; 18 in everything give thanks; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus. 19 Do not quench the Spirit; 20 do not despise prophetic utterances. 21 [But] examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22 abstain from every form of evil.

And obviously, since you're the resident Greek expert, you certainly recognize that there is no "But" or "but" in the original Greek so I have bracketed it off in the above NASB translation. As we can see from the previous items on this "list," Paul is simply listing instructions to close out his letter to the church in Thessalonica, like the original 84 NIV has it:

15 Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other and to everyone else.
16 Be joyful always; 17 pray continually; 18 give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.
19 Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; 20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to the good. 22 Avoid every kind of evil.

So these are 4 separate instructions:
1) Do not put out the Spirit’s fire;
2) do not treat prophecies with contempt.
3) Test everything. Hold on to the good.
4) Avoid every kind of evil.

And the Greek term "pas" translated "everything" here, literally means "each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything" not just the aforementioned prophecies. And those interested in understanding what the Greek word dokimazō translated "test or examine" means here, oddly enough, it means "1) to test, examine, prove, scrutinise (to see whether a thing is genuine or not), as metals; 2) to recognise as genuine after examination, to approve, deem worthy". So "test everything." Hmm...that's odd...

Nice try ExRev! It's starting to seem to me that your rejection of many things within Christianity has come from poor exegesis or simply factual inaccuracies. It's sad really that you have rejected much of what I've seen you discuss here based on inaccuracies propagated by the uneducated anti-Christian establishment? And apparently, "we atheist can read the bible just as much as you do" is also an inaccurate statement. A little more research is needed before you can question the beliefs of educated believers, and should have been employed before you rejected your own. IMO.

1. Do scholars all agree on what GOOD exegesis is? I bet taking a verse and ripping it out of context isn't good exegesis. And in your case you actually ripped it right out of its sentence. They call that proof texting. I'm the one who called you out on this and now your pissed off because you were caught. Your trying to defend yourself instead of just admitting you were wrong you're just digging your hole deeper. Seems to me that scholars are divided as to what it means; Which proves my point that you really can't "properly" interpret the bible.
2. Its clear that the word "test" has nothing to do with reasoning as you claimed it did.
3.

A little more research is needed before you can question the beliefs of educated believers, and should have been employed before you rejected your own."

All right CH...so here is your chance EDUCATE me...what do you think that I missed that will bring me back! Tell me what do you think I need to know after 30 years of being in the church that I missed. Go for it!
You're the one who tried to sneak this verse in and didn't include chapter and verse so we could properly read the verse to begin with. So I'm the one who started the research. You're just pissed at me because I called you on the carpet. So anyways the fact is that seems like different versions of the Bible says different things. So I'll list a few translations as to what some highly qualified bible scholars think it means.

19-22 Quench not the Spirit; despise not prophesyings; prove all things; hold fast that which is good; abstain from every form of evil. (ASV)

20 Do not scoff at prophecies, but test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good. (NLT)

20 Don't despise prophecies, but test all things. HCSB

At this point we can see vastly different meanings from different scholars all who are experts. So I'm not going to argue with experts, pretty clear that the NLT agrees with what I was saying. But when read it context its pretty clear Paul was talking about prophecy . But to say that I have poor exegesis or that an atheist can't read the bible is silly CH. You know it.

[Keep The Reason]

This coming from someone who disagrees that we have any "evidence" that Nero's fire is an historical event. Why? Because that would force him to acknowledge that Tacitus was a legitimate historian when he documented the existence of Jesus. Nice KTR!

What I said about the Fire information was this:

I do not believe there is any bona fide evidence that it did given the core principles stated earlier. There are second hand accounts but no direct records, and no direct physical evidence. I'm sure there were fires, as this would not be extraordinary in any time, but as to your 70-30 detail, I don't think we can know this without direct evidence and corroboration.

I haven't researched all the information about the Roman fire, nor do I particularly care to, but I offered a perfectly reasonable approach to how to evaluate historical information and I offered the Core Principles on what establishes historical evidence. You don't want to accept that, and instead assert that my reasoned approach is somehow a strike against me, go ahead.

So let's parse it out in terms you can (I think) understand:

1. I do not believe there is any bona fide evidence that it did given the core principles stated earlier
I do not think there is bona fide EVIDENCE. Hearsay is not EVIDENCE. It is HEARSAY. That is why we have two different words. One means EVIDENCE, the other means HEARSAY.

2. There are second hand accounts but no direct records, and no direct physical evidence.

I clearly admit there are SECOND HAD ACCOUNTS. We call these second hand accounts HEARSAY. There are no direct records (evidence) or physical evidence (also known as EVIDENCE).

3. as to your 70-30 detail, I don't think we can know this without direct evidence and corroboration.

Given the reality of #'s 1 and 2, I say the 70-30 destruction rate is not known under present circumstances through EVIDENCE (as opposed to HEARSAY) and without physical evidence, which is also known as EVIDENCE.

You ask for evidence. I do not believe there is bona fide EVIDENCE -- which you conflate to mean "Oh so you think it didn't happen."

Regarding Tacitus:

Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117), writing c. 116, included in his Annals a mention of Christianity and "Christus", the Latinized Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah". In describing Nero's persecution of this group following the Great Fire of Rome c. 64, he wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.[72]

There have been suggestions that this was a Christian interpolation but most scholars conclude that the passage was written by Tacitus.[73] For example, R. E. Van Voorst noted the improbability that later Christians would have interpolated "such disparaging remarks about Christianity".[74]

There is disagreement about what this passage proves, since Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information.[75] Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman wrote that: "Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign."[76]

Tacitus may have used official sources from a Roman archive. Tacitus drew on many earlier historical works now lost to us in the Annals. The description of the suppression of Christianity, calling it a superstition for instance, is not based on any statements Christians may have made to Tacitus. However, if Tacitus was copying from an official source some would expect him to not incorrectly label Pilate a procurator, as he was a prefect.[77]

Charles Guignebert argued "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".[78]

R. T. France concludes that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he has heard through Christians.[79][80]

Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz conclude that Tacitus gives us a description of widespread prejudices about Christianity and a few precise details about "Christus" and Christianity, the source of which remains unclear. Christus was a Jew and a criminal whom Pontius Pilate had executed. He authored a new religious movement that began in Judea and was called Christianity which was widespread around the city of Rome during Nero's reign.[81]

Among other concerns (like, he witnessed none of it and it was in 116 he wrote of it, which no one will deny that Christianity was not already in place) It is these unknowables that reduce Tacitus from being considered EVIDENCE, places his reports into the realm of HEARSAY.

[ChristianHeretic]

Rev, you were responding to WW when I wrote the above...just FYI...

All right CH...so here is your chance EDUCATE me...what do you think that I missed that will bring me back! Tell me what do you think I need to know after 30 years of being in the church that I missed. Go for it!

I'd love to! Unfortunately, I don't know what sent you off the cliff to begin with. What I do know is various items you are arguing against "Christianity" are just plain wrong or unneccessary. You seem to be taking the sound bites from modern atheism without researching them yet you claim to despise Christians doing the same. All I'm saying is that you should do a bit more research on certain items before you take the atheist's perspective hook, line in sinker! You can start by throwing out your belief that the NLT is actually a decent translation of Scripture. Read about it here. It's fine if you want a general understanding of Scripture, but not a tool for good exegesis.

As with the verse above, various translations have it wrong. There is no "but" in the original Greek. Now, if you want to rely on a translation because you're "not going to argue with experts," well, then you would still be a Christian. You obviously have no problem whatsoever arguing with experts, all I'm saying is to apply that desire a bit more liberally.

[Keep The Reason]

Once again, it all comes down to what information you'll subjectively countenance and how you frame the problem.

First of all, that's utterly no different from you or anyone else. Do you recognize that?

Second, I don't frame the problem. I'm neither the motivator nor the arbiter of these differences of opinion that have resulted in these various sects. So how is it my obligation here to "frame the problem"?

Imagine if the Supreme Being did something miraculous, like, delivered a clear unequivocal message?

You view the world through a lens which assumes anything worth believing must be universally observable, supported by repeatable experimentation and agreed upon univocally by everyone

Not true. I recognize, for instance, there are emotions which is feeling-based and not "universally observed" (and how they are felt is highly subjective). Beauty ugliness, these are subjective perspectives which are to be believed in yet do not fall within your above categories of epistemology. What I do, however, is make a clear distinction between that which is believed, as opposed to that which is known. I have no quarrel with the Christian who says he or she believes in god or messiahs, or resurrection, etc. however, if they insist they know these things-- that then trips the ""Demonstrate / prove it" lever.

and you conclude that because Christians don't answer every question the same way all the time they must be wrong. How you get from some of them are wrong to all of them must be wrong is anyone's guess.

I don't get from "some" to "all". None of you can answer basic questions about your doctrine. That's not my problem, nor is it my burden to carry. This entire forums exists because Christians are incapable of promoting a model that doesn't collapse upon even light investigation -- and again, this is not my fault, burden or responsibility. I'm just one of the growing number who is willing to point out the self-collapsing nature of your model. Blame not us, look to your model.

The most ironic aspect of this is you consider yourself a disciplined thinker.

Well, when someone makes it their goal to misunderstand, misrepresent, twist, and mangle someone's perspective, it shouldn't be a surprise you'd think it ironic that I consider myself a disciplined thinker. However, I'm not the one who invokes:

An eternal non-created Supreme Entity that cannot be accessed.
An existence that can be defined as a solipsism.
A being who creates everything but lacks some things
A pre-ordained future that magically allows choice, volition and free will
A place of eternal reward (boring) or eternal punishment (torment) from an eternally good god
A dogma that has, amongst its own proponents fractured over and over and over again, shatteirng under its own weight of incomprehnsibility.
A demi-god who "died" knowing he's not going to die, and somehow this is a sacrifice of "dying" -- when it isn't

I could continue but-- I think the point is made.

When I survey the range of Christianity I see billions of people trying to grasp texts that are thousands of years old, and commentary and criticism from everyone with a mouth, and I am amazed at how little divergence there is in core beliefs across denominations after 2,000 years. If you ever took the time to really examine and compare denominations, you would find there's really not much difference in what they believe about Jesus; the vast majority of disagreement is about the implications of who Jesus was and what he said, and how we should organize and govern his church.

And I am amazed at the rivers of blood these beliefs have fostered and continue to foster today.

I guess we're just amazed by different things.

[Exrev]

It's starting to seem to me that your rejection of many things within Christianity has come from poor exegesis or simply factual inaccuracies.

You know, I was starting to wonder about this myself. Not only was the selected text narrow, but it was an extraordinarily literalist interpretation.

I didn't chose the verse..CH mentioned it. I only expanded it more, from CH's 1/2 verse to 4. Sure I guess I could have included the whole chapter, but for what reason. What do you mean by extraordinarily "literalist" interpretation? A literal approach to parts of the Bible are fine, especially when dealing with didactic teaching. As for as I know most "literalist" hate the NLT and NIV...and those two version actually interpret the verse the way I did. So I don't get how you say I'm being overly literalistic.

Exrev, have you ever considered the possibility that the people who discipled you didn't know what they were talking about and the religion you rejected wasn't Christianity, but something else?

Well, at the end I rejected what they told me. So what's your point again? I'm sure they knew what they were talking about in accordance with their own tradition. But I really fail to understand what your trying to imply here. Other than the stale old true Scotsman fallacy!

What do you mean by discipled?
1. Define Christianity (shouldn't it be Christianities)
2. Define what this something else would be?
3. Tell me what you think I believed wrongly or what I missed that you think will bring me back.
4. As far as how I was trained. I studied at Indiana Wesleyan and Central Bible College an Assemblies of God school. Even though CBC was pentecostal they used Wayne Grudem, Mildred Erikson, and J.I. Packer for systematic theology. I would say that I had an evangelical education. I did not grow up in just one type of church, my parents really didn't care about the name on the church. So we've been apart of Presbyterian, Nazarene, Reformed, Pentecostal, Wesleyan, Baptist. All sorts of different churches. My father grow up Presbyterian and my mother was Methodist and American Baptist. My mother got involved in the Charismatic movement in the 70's.
5. When I was in ministry, we were non-denominational. 2 former Pentecostals and 2 Lutherans were apart of our leadership team.
6. My Hermeneutics professor was a grad of Westminster theological Seminary and Regent College (Not Regent University). I was taught historical-grammatical and redemptive-historical approach for interpreting scripture. So as far as having an ultra-literalism approach to the bible you are incorrect.
7. Most of the churches I attended were grace-oriented.

[ChristianHeretic]

I do not think there is bona fide EVIDENCE. Hearsay is not EVIDENCE. It is HEARSAY. That is why we have two different words. One means EVIDENCE, the other means HEARSAY.

KTR, these are the types of things you just need to drop. Your ideology drives you further and further into a hole, which gets harder and harder to dig your way out of without just looking ignorant.

Actually, HEARSAY is a form of EVIDENCE, as I've pointed out to you numerous times, they are not opposing concepts. Hearsay evidence is simply limited in some circumstances in a court of law, yet allowable in many others you don't see on CSI. And capitalizing the terms doesn't bring this soundbite from modern atheism any closer to being true. And regardless, Tacitus' account is not even "hearsay"? Tacitus is not commenting on something he heard someone else say? He's commenting on an historical event. If you'd like, you can attempt to prove that he was basing this documentation of his on "hearsay", but unfortunately, you'd have to use an historical document to do so, which obviously would not be valid "evidence" in your view.

Regarding Tacitus' account, you plagiarize Wiki to argue:

However, if Tacitus was copying from an official source some would expect him to not incorrectly label Pilate a procurator, as he was a prefect.

A "procurator" was nothing more than a generic title used for various representatives of the Roman empire, including governors. But don't bother looking any of this up, it's all just hearsay documented for us by historians rather than actual "evidence" of anything.

(Just FYI, you're starting to sound like one of those ignorant ideological Christians you despise so much.)

[ChristianHeretic]

I didn't chose the verse..CH mentioned it. I only expanded it more, from CH's 1/2 verse to 4.

UNCLE! I didn't originally write the verse! I was just responding to your mischaracterization of it.

[Exrev]

Rev, you were responding to WW when I wrote the above...just FYI...

All right CH...so here is your chance EDUCATE me...what do you think that I missed that will bring me back! Tell me what do you think I need to know after 30 years of being in the church that I missed. Go for it!

I'd love to! Unfortunately, I don't know what sent you off the cliff to begin with.

Guess you didn't read the first post on this topic. That might give you a clue.

What I do know is various items you are arguing against "Christianity" are just plain wrong or unnecessary.
You seem to be taking the sound bites from modern atheism without researching them yet you claim to despise Christians doing the same. All I'm saying is that you should do a bit more research on certain items before you take the atheist's perspective hook, line in sinker! You can start by throwing out your belief that the NLT is actually a decent translation of Scripture. Read about it here. It's fine if you want a general understanding of Scripture, but not a tool for good exegesis.

What atheist sound-bites would those be? Didn't know I had an atheist radio station to listen too, glad you know what radio stations i have in my local area! When I told Tony he was using sound-bites, I was specific. So if you could tell what it is that your talking about then we can have a discussion.

So what various items is it that I'm arguing against "Christianity" that I'm just wrong or unnecessary.Here is your second chance to set me straight to bring me back. Tell me what it is that I have wrong about "Christianity".

NLT is like any other bible translation, flawed. NLT is a very well respected translation though. NASB tries to hard to follow the Greek instead of English grammar rules. This makes the NASB hard to read for most people. That is why I consulted many different translations. But to say that the NLT is not a good translation would be way above your qualifications.

As with the verse above, various translations have it wrong. There is no "but" in the original Greek.

Actually there is no "but" at all in Greek. But is an English word. But is a conjunction, so it adds an exception to the original thought. So translation is not a science its an art. Translators job is not a word for word from greek to english, that is called a transliteration. A translation a good translation seeks to communicate the thought that the author meant. To me your saying that "but" isn't in the original Greek tells me you know very little about translating languages. In some manuscripts there are no spaces between words or any punctuation either. Neither is "the" that isn't in the Greek either. So what is your point? This is why I didn't really want to go down this road with the Greek because really it's derailing the conversation. The fact is you said that the bible said something it doesn't. The bible never said that we should use reason to determine if it is true. As you pointed out the meaning of "test" in the greek, it turned out that test had nothing to do with reason. Test was a term used in metal working..as they proofed the metal. Where the melt down the melt down the metal to purify it.

Now, if you want to rely on a translation because you're "not going to argue with experts," well, then you would still be a Christian.

This is laughable. I simply mean I'm not going to conclude which is the correct version. I really could care less; my point is that the Bible never commands anyone to use reason to question the bible.

You obviously have no problem whatsoever arguing with experts, all I'm saying is to apply that desire a bit more liberally.

[/quote]

I'm not saying that I don't ever argue with experts that isn't want I meant.