Chapter and verse

[Geo Patric]

Order has no bearing on message.

sorry. that is about as wrong as you could put it.

Even inclusion of books in some Bibles and not in others does not support your claim here.

and, aside from the claim that the 'book' you have is not the same as the 'book' it was derived from, lacking certain texts....what claim have i made?

You are essentially saying a text found in one submission is different from a text in an earlier addition.

no, i did not say that. it is TRUE, but i didn't say so until just now.

Word analysis doesn't account for living languages.

sorry, do not mean to be impolite, but that sentence doesn't seem to mean anything.

Similarly, another reason you can't make the claim know is because you don't know if the version of the older text was the main version of text that was during the period.

and.... emm... nor do you. it is the doubt that makes the veracity quesionable

I further disagree with your analysis of oral history. There is no evidence of these historical comparison which supports that the oral histories are false.

disagree all you like. again, i never said they were false BECAUSE they were oral history. some were true, some were heavily modified and some were simply made up. we can say that because we have confirmable histories by contemporaries of the time that the stories were ostensibly written where the incidents are not recorded. I assure you, had the Nile river turned to blood.... someone wudda mentioned it.

There is no evidence to believe that the stories were changed except if you accept socially constructed history which basically just says because we can't, they couldn't.

nonsense.... archaeology, study of ancient texts, literary analysis... a slew of scientific methodologies inform us as to what did and did not actually occur. yep, there was a David. we know because the Egyptians tell us so. they conquered Davidian Palestine and wrote about it. but... the massive temple, the tens of thousands of jerusalemites? nope.... a dusty little outpost in the desert populated by perhaps a thousand souls.

The colloquialism I was referring to was to be to afraid of God. This is a misinterpretation of due to language change. It doesn't mean this and never did.
Taking the passage like you did is apart of the reason that this misinterpretation has remained. . . .We see that this passage is not about being afraid of God but being empowered by God so that you can do God's work.

nonsense. the passage i cited means precisely what it says. YHWH was a fearsome deity. he wiped out entire nations, according to the texts. he ordered the slaughter of thousands of his own chosen people. he was terrifying. you were SUPPOSED to fear him.

As i say, it does not jibe very well with contemporary preferences.... but the facts are the facts.

geo.

 

[hallam]

sorry. that is about as wrong as you could put it.

Accept you just stated that the book is changed without every proving it has changed.

and, aside from the claim that the 'book' you have is not the same as the 'book' it was derived from, lacking certain texts....what claim have i made?

You made the claim that you know that the Bible has changed since Jesus. The knowing is what is complete speculation. I don't disagree with this speculation but you should at-least acknowledge it as speculation.

no, i did not say that. it is TRUE, but i didn't say so until just now.

You said it in your first post to me: your words "any book that was written 2000 yrs ago and has been rewritten ever since will have some wrong phrases" This is a direct statement that statements have been changed. There is no other way to interpret rewritten.

and.... emm... nor do you. it is the doubt that makes the veracity quesionable

Are you reading what I write? I am not saying you are wrong or that your point isn't one to explore. I am saying there is no way for you to be 100% correct that the Bible was rewritten. I am saying that the evidence I have seen outside of this conversation on this topic,which is vast, and the evidence presented by you, which is one phrase from the Bible misquoted, doesn't support your conclusion.

disagree all you like. again, i never said they were false BECAUSE they were oral history. some were true, some were heavily modified and some were simply made up. we can say that because we have confirmable histories by contemporaries of the time that the stories were ostensibly written where the incidents are not recorded. I assure you, had the Nile river turned to blood.... someone wudda mentioned it.

This contradicts your point. You are saying the oral histories 1000 years before written history are verified or denied by written history. Again, I disagree as this is impossible.

nonsense.... archaeology, study of ancient texts, literary analysis... a slew of scientific methodologies inform us as to what did and did not actually occur. yep, there was a David. we know because the Egyptians tell us so. they conquered Davidian Palestine and wrote about it. but... the massive temple, the tens of thousands of jerusalemites? nope.... a dusty little outpost in the desert populated by perhaps a thousand souls.

This is one of many different interpretations of David. There is no one way to look at this. There is no one definitive book about the people of this time. These scientific methodologies are open to interpretations because the techniques they use are open to interpretations. Nothing from this time period that we know is definitive.

nonsense. the passage i cited means precisely what it says. YHWH was a fearsome deity. he wiped out entire nations, according to the texts. he ordered the slaughter of thousands of his own chosen people. he was terrifying. you were SUPPOSED to fear him.

As i say, it does not jibe very well with contemporary preferences.... but the facts are the facts.

geo.[/QUOTE]

Then you clearly didn't read the rest of the passage. Before, 26, and after, 31, Jesus makes clear statements not to fear at all. And the last is a not relative statements. It is all encompassing. Do not fear. But this is okay, very few actually choose to read a Biblical passage in completely and in context so I understand your mistake here.

 

[Geo Patric]

Accept you just stated that the book is changed without every proving it has changed.

no, i did NOT say the "bible has changed". what i said is that your statement that there is "no possible way" to know was worng. there certainly are ways to know. I enumerated several of them.

You made the claim that you know that the Bible has changed since Jesus.

no, i did not. if that is true then you can SHOW where i said it. please do.

You said it in your first post to me: your words "any book that was written 2000 yrs ago and has been rewritten ever since will have some wrong phrases" .

again, no, i did not. if that is true then you can SHOW where i said it. please do

I am saying that the evidence I have seen outside of this conversation on this topic,which is vast,

there, see? here apparently is one of those words that do not seem to mean the same to different people. MY understanding of vast is "very great in size, amount, degree, intensity, or especially in extent or range", which you could not possibly mean.

This contradicts your point. You are saying the oral histories 1000 years before written history are verified or denied by written history. Again, I disagree as this is impossible.

well, in as you seem to be rather vague as to what my point actually IS, i suppose you can be forgiven, but, no, my point remains consistent. Written history DOES refute oral tradition when the written history is written by reliable sources at the time that the incidents recorded occurred and certainly when there are multiple sources and those sources correspond to external , objective data such as that supplied by archaeology.

Nothing from this time period that we know is definitive.

untrue. we know lots. we know the Bible (King 1 and 2, Samuel 1 & 2), says that the David defeated the Phillistines, Syrians, Edomites, Moabites and Jebusites (in Jebu which became Jerusalem) putting him in control of an extensive empire. In this empire were scribes to whom we are indebted for the story itself.

we also know that THAT story was written somewhere in the vicinity of half a millenia after David's rule.

we know from other sources, contemporary to the time, that the region was controlled by a slew of other far more powerfiul peoples (including phillistines, assyrians) who corroborate each others histories but mention the Israelites not at all. archaeology tells us that THESE peoples stories can be substantiated.

can we substantiate the biblical version? well, recently, a large structure WAS found in what is thought MAY have been jerusalem and found in the same place are pottery shards that can be carbon dated to the time of David. YAY! we can say that The City Of David was no mere tribal village? Well.... no, the shard were found UNDER the massive structure. the building is likely hundreds of years younger than the shards. well... they found a ostrocon dated to the period with writing on it with content very similar to that of the bible... so, those folks could write! yes, but the inscription was in proto-cannaanite, not hebrew, not aramaic.

and so on an so on.

very few actually choose to read a Biblical passage in completely and in context so I understand your mistake here.

i made no mistaske. I would think by now that you would begin to get the idea that I am not arguing in ignorance. YOU are choosing to read it the way someone TOLD you to read it, the way that makes you feel better about your god. fine. you get to do that. but that does not change what i said nor what the passage says.

you, in fact, make the point yourself (in your initial discussion of the use of 'fear'), that words change meaning over time even within the same language to say nothing of between languages - there is no one-to-one literal mapping of words across languages OR across cultures. You would likely have very considerable difficulty in reading the first English versions of the bible. Here, for instance is a little snippet from the earliest known English translation, known as the Wycliffe:

and se engel him to cwæð; Nelle ge eow adrædan. soþlice nu ic eow bodie mycelne gefean. se bið eallum folce.

i did not misquote anything, the passage was copied and pasted directly from the KJV. and i did not misrepresent anything. i said that the word 'yirah' may be understood to mean many things, one of which is FEAR. and in the citation from matthew, that is precisely what it means.... the text is crystal clear... emotion you feel in being accosted by robbers is the SAME emotion that you should feel for your god... only a LOT MORE in the case of your god because your god can do a helluva a lot more harm to you than any highwayman. THAT is what the scripture says and THAT is what the writer meant.

geo.

 

[hallam]

no, i did NOT say the "bible has changed". what i said is that your statement that there is "no possible way" to know was worng. there certainly are ways to know. I enumerated several of them.

All of your enumerations didn't support your point. Moving Genesis to the end of the OT doesn't change the message of Genesis. Leaving out Maccabbi's doesn't change the message of the OT. Even language changes can be accounted for.

no, i did not. if that is true then you can SHOW where i said it. please do.

again, no, i did not. if that is true then you can SHOW where i said it. please do

Your backtracking now. The statement I quoted directly says the Bible has changed to be in error of that it was originally intended.

there, see? here apparently is one of those words that do not seem to mean the same to different people. MY understanding of vast is "very great in size, amount, degree, intensity, or especially in extent or range", which you could not possibly mean.

This isn't the first time I have seen this conversation. Vast here would be relative the topic. but yes of the evidence pertaining to this topic, I would say I have seen vast amounts.

well, in as you seem to be rather vague as to what my point actually IS, i suppose you can be forgiven, but, no, my point remains consistent. Written history DOES refute oral tradition when the written history is written by reliable sources at the time that the incidents recorded occurred and certainly when there are multiple sources and those sources correspond to external , objective data such as that supplied by archaeology.

Again, this is simply socially constructed history saying because we can't they can't. There is no evidence to suggest that these oral histories were false.

untrue. we know lots. we know the Bible (King 1 and 2, Samuel 1 & 2), says that the David defeated the Phillistines, Syrians, Edomites, Moabites and Jebusites (in Jebu which became Jerusalem) putting him in control of an extensive empire. In this empire were scribes to whom we are indebted for the story itself.

we also know that THAT story was written somewhere in the vicinity of half a millenia after David's rule.

we know from other sources, contemporary to the time, that the region was controlled by a slew of other far more powerfiul peoples (including phillistines, assyrians) who corroborate each others histories but mention the Israelites not at all. archaeology tells us that THESE peoples stories can be substantiated.

can we substantiate the biblical version? well, recently, a large structure WAS found in what is thought MAY have been jerusalem and found in the same place are pottery shards that can be carbon dated to the time of David. YAY! we can say that The City Of David was no mere tribal village? Well.... no, the shard were found UNDER the massive structure. the building is likely hundreds of years younger than the shards. well... they found a ostrocon dated to the period with writing on it with content very similar to that of the bible... so, those folks could write! yes, but the inscription was in proto-cannaanite, not hebrew, not aramaic.

and so on an so on.

Again, definitive is the key word here. Everything you stated is one interpretation. Another is that Moses was a warmonger instead of a prophet at all. One would say that Solomon built the first temple and that they used those remains to build the second. Most of this history is more about the assumption of the researcher than what actually happened. What is a city or a small village seems to be variable. And what would substantiate Abraham anyway? Or Noah, a wooden ark 5000 years old? how about the prophets? What would substantiate them? The stories here about a nation but they are not just about that.

i made no mistaske. I would think by now that you would begin to get the idea that I am not arguing in ignorance. YOU are choosing to read it the way someone TOLD you to read it, the way that makes you feel better about your god. fine. you get to do that. but that does not change what i said nor what the passage says.

you, in fact, make the point yourself (in your initial discussion of the use of 'fear'), that words change meaning over time even within the same language to say nothing of between languages - there is no one-to-one literal mapping of words across languages OR across cultures. You would likely have very considerable difficulty in reading the first English versions of the bible. Here, for instance is a little snippet from the earliest known English translation, known as the Wycliffe:

i did not misquote anything, the passage was copied and pasted directly from the KJV. and i did not misrepresent anything. i said that the word 'yirah' may be understood to mean many things, one of which is FEAR. and in the citation from matthew, that is precisely what it means.... the text is crystal clear... emotion you feel in being accosted by robbers is the SAME emotion that you should feel for your god... only a LOT MORE in the case of your god because your god can do a helluva a lot more harm to you than any highwayman. THAT is what the scripture says and THAT is what the writer meant.

geo.

Yes but you missed the meaning of the text. You assume that I am taking an interpretation by someone else. I am not. i am reading the text and the text is clear. The text is about empowerment not fear. Maybe you should read it again. It is on this thread. This text is about our hope not our fear. You need to stop taking a directly literal translation and actually look at meaning in context.

 

[Geo Patric]

All of your enumerations didn't support your point. Moving Genesis to the end of the OT doesn't change the message of Genesis. Leaving out Maccabbi's doesn't change the message of the OT. Even language changes can be accounted for.

moving parts of a story around changes the story. that is elemental.

Your backtracking now.

no, you misatributed statements by another poster to me. you used the term 'vast' elsewhere.

Again, this is simply socially constructed history

?? and how else would you suggest history gets constructed?

There is no evidence to suggest that these oral histories were false.

sure there is. lots of it, but less false than grossly exaggerated.

The stories here about a nation but they are not just about that.

agreed, and the greater truth is NOT in the facts but what the facts are constructed to say about the nation, about the beliefs and views they had, how they developed over time. That is one reason that order is important; the christian compilers changed the story to suit the needs of the christian apologists.

no, I am not missing anything in the passage from matthew, it means exactly what it says. any other interpretation MUST be an attempt to pervert the message. usually, that twisting of message is learned.

that any reasonably intelligent and unbiased reader could read that and come to any conclusion other than that matthew meant that his readers should, quite literally, FEAR GOD because god is very dangerous.... i would not assume.

geo.

 

[hallam]

moving parts of a story around changes the story. that is elemental.

In fiction maybe, but not in the Bible when complete books are just being move about.

?? and how else would you suggest history gets constructed?

By using facts instead of what everyone wants history to be. The flat Earth ridiculousness is kind of what I am talking about. All of our ancestors are considered stupid for not getting a round Earth, not because of what they actually believe, but because of what the people of the 1800s believed about them. Socially constructed history is not real history.

sure there is. lots of it, but less false than grossly exaggerated.

We are going to have to disagree here.

agreed, and the greater truth is NOT in the facts but what the facts are constructed to say about the nation, about the beliefs and views they had, how they developed over time. That is one reason that order is important; the christian compilers changed the story to suit the needs of the christian apologists.

no, I am not missing anything in the passage from matthew, it means exactly what it says. any other interpretation MUST be an attempt to pervert the message. usually, that twisting of message is learned.

that any reasonably intelligent and unbiased reader could read that and come to any conclusion other than that matthew meant that his readers should, quite literally, FEAR GOD because god is very dangerous.... i would not assume.

geo.

You can not come to your conclusion when one reads the entire passage. It is not possible unless you want it to mean fear. If you just read the passage, it tells you not to fear. It tells you that God is here for you. It tell you that you are claimed. I'm sorry but your interpretation is the perversion.