Senate Christianity Discussion Thread

I'll have you know I'm an avid science fanatic, and a math whiz. I just don't understand where you're getting that 4 from?

My stand on the King James comes from Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." The King James was not only the seventh authorized English translation, it took 7 years to diligently compare, revise, and translate out of the original tongues. The Bible, in SEVERAL places, refers to "times" as "years". Daniel 7:25: "...and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time." This passage specifically refers to the 3.5 years of the tribulation.

 

KJV first edition was the third authorized English translation. If you're counting all unauthorized early modern English translations, it's eighth, if you accommodate old and middle English it's not even in the first ten. It was subsequently revised no less than four times, which means the text you're most likely considering is the 1769 revision, since that's the one actually printed most of the time. Which begs the question of why a divinely inspired translation would require so many revisions, why divinely inspired translators would claim their efforts were a mere imperfect refinement in the preface of the original 1611 text, and why Jews would be celebrating Easter in the original?

 

Reading a book called "Still: Notes from a Mid-Faith Crisis" by Lauren Winner and found a fantastic bit that really gets to the heart of the Jesus that I believe in. I risk getting this ripped apart, but I want to post it anyway, I find it so beautiful. I'm not trying to start an argument, just share something that I find thought provoking and beautiful.

The author is writing about the celebration of Epiphany and the "Epiphany stories," stories intended to "show forth something of who Jesus is." I'm just going to quote a couple of paragraphs at length, because it all leads up to the line that really speaks to me.

"The Epiphany story that most tempts my memory is the story of Jesus' baptism. There is John at the river Jordan, and there are all those unwashed people who have come for his baptism, and in the queue is Jesus, who is without sin, who shouldn't be in that line with all those sinning people: with Sam, the notorious adulterer; Jack, who's known for swindling old ladies out of their last bits of income; Lila, who's rumored to have committed infanticide; and also Mina, who's just not very nice; ad Michael, the prideful prig; and Gary, who's made a fortune using shady business tactics. One by one, each of these sinners appears at the head of John's line. And then Jesus appears. And John says, 'I need to be baptized by you, and you come to me?' and Jesus insists.

The official reason this is an Epiphany story is that after Jesus is baptized, a dove alights, and a voice comes from Heaven declaring, 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' The voice is taken to be the answer to Epiphany's question: this is who Jesus is - he is God's well-beloved and pleasing son. But this year, hearing in church again about Jesus' baptism, I wonder if, before the voice from heaven and the celestial dove, it is also Jesus standing in line by the river that tells us who he is."

Really, that gives me chills. Think about that for a minute. God Himself, Jesus Christ, the Word of God who, from the beginning of the universe, was with God and was God . . . and it is not enough of a condescension that He has put away His glory and power and taken "the form of a servant" and been incarnated in flesh. That is not enough of a humbling for Him. And so now we find him, standing in line, standing in a line for people who have publicly identified themselves as sinners. Can you see Him there? I can. The holy, all-powerful God of the universe standing in a line of sinners. People ask me what the defining characteristic of Jesus Christ was. I can't boil it down to that. But humility is maybe the one that challenges me the most. I have so much pride and I'm just a man. Jesus Christ had more reason for pride than anyone who has ever lived on this earth; and yet there He is, time and time again, identifying himself with the lowest and the least, those most looked down on: the tax collectors, the prostitutes, the lepers, the poor, the sick, the women, the children, the sinners. And people ask me why I love Him.

 

The answer to that, in 1611 English still was not a standardized language, and yes, it is a 1769 edition of a 1611 book.

And the answer to the Easter question is simple. It's a pagan holiday that doesn't pertain to Christ at all, and was celebrated well before Christ was born.

 

Which is why the Greek is πασχα? Y'know, Passover? Further, no, Easter is not pagan.

Edit: You're probably referring to that kooky Ishtar theory, right? That's one of my favorite equivocations because it totally ignores the original Greek and the fact that the West Germanic equivalent of Ishtar is freaking Freyja. Not to mention that in most other languages the word for Easter is derived from πασχα. Because that's Passover.

 

First: Passover is always the day before the feast of unleavened bread begins; i.e. Passover is the fourteenth day of the first month, and the feast of unleavened bread lasts from the fifteenth to the twenty-first day of the first month. The passage you refer to, Acts 12, states this: "And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people." The feast of unleavened bread had already passed, but Easter was still yet to come. This is correctly translated as Easter. Tyndale invented the English word "passover", I think I'm going to defer to his definition of the word.

And Easter is an ancient celebration of the fertility goddess, which is why we still celebrate it with eggs and rabbits, both symbols of fertility.

 

Oh, it is the kooky Ishtar theory. Yeah, I think I'm done.

P.S. πασχα is a Greek literalization of the Hebrew word for Passover.

 

Hey, you can't tell me that Easter isn't derived from the name Ishtar, Ashtaroth, etc... which God commanded to put away.

 

Sure I can, because it comes from Eostre, and if your proposed etymological origin was correct, you would see the word Easter crop up in non-Germanic languages, but it does not. I will concede that the origins of the word are pagan, however. I'm going to chalk that earlier declaration up to a lack of coffee.

Edit: Besides, the origins of Ishtar worship predate your proposed flood date. So your system is actually breeding contradictions.

Edit 2: And I'm still keenly anticipating an explanation for why a Greek cognate of a Hebrew term would inexplicably mean something completely different only in Germanic languages, only starting with Tyndale.

Edit 3: And you still have not explained the preface to the 1611 edition or your inexplicable classification of it as the seventh translation.

 

I risk being laughed at for this, since I do know quite a bit about Judaism these days... but for about the first twenty years of my life I couldn't figure out why they showed The Ten Commandments around Easter Sunday every year on TV...

 

Never saw it on TV. Probably for the best, anyway, since TV broadcasts cut things out. I'm happy with my DVD. Both it and The Prince of Egypt are my top favorite Biblical based films.

I will say that the depiction of Moses' life in Egypt before in exile, in both movies, is pretty good, since very little is known of his early life. The scene of him killing the Egyptian and subsequent exile from Egypt in both do contradict the Biblical account. I get that did it the filmmakers way for added drama, but it's still a contradiction.

 

Well, DeMille was also trying to pad out what was originally only one third of a two hour film.

 

The first hour and forty minutes are great, but after that it kind of started to drag a little, IMO. The pace doesn't really pick back up until the plagues start.

Edit: Whoops, one more top favorite I forgot to mention - Ben-Hur (well, sort of). Interestingly, in both Ben-Hur and TTC, Charlton Heston portrayed the main character and Martha Scott played his mother.

 

I haven't seen much of the broad DeMille oeuvre, but if The Greatest Show on Earth is any indication pacing is something of an issue for him.

 

ishtar is the only divinely inspired feature film. its so-called "flaws" are the product of a failure of the human imagination. before ishtar, we are like a dog trying to comprehend its master's discourse on platonic love

god i wish i was homeschooled. i mean as long as i could skip being molested by a meth-addled uncle i think that'd be a pretty fun background to have

 

You are incorrect. It began with Semiramis, the wife of Nimrod, who was Noah's great-grandson. Nimrod was the world's first tyrant, and he laid the foundations of the later Babylonian Empire. Nimrod was later worshipped in many cultures as the god of the underworld, namely Osiris or Baal. Semiramis is referred to in a number of religions as Ashtaroth, Isis, Diana, Venus, Aphrodite, Shekinah, et al, as well as the queen of heaven.

 

can we just go back to how you say you're an avid fan of science but then you think the earth is 6000 years old? and how you also think people can walk on water and how you also think that someday in the (near) future a giant dragon is going to come out of the sky with swords flying from his mouth or something because a book translated from a language translated from another language translated from another language in 1611 and then revised a bunch by bunch of people (some of whom probably weren't even all that christian) says so? because that doesn't make sense to me.

 

I can accept that there perhaps was a (relatively) small local flood in the Middle East circa 4400 years ago. But as the Earth is roughly 4.6 billion years old, the Creation story is merely a myth.

 

Point 1: God created science, there's no reason for them to be mutually exclusive. You'll find, in fact, that true science backs up the creation story far more accurately. Point 2: God's power transcends that of the natural world (obviously, since He created it!) and through Him, we have power to move mountains and walk on water. Point 3: You just mixed the dragon with Christ there, I suggest you read Revelation and try not to botch that so badly. But, since the 6000 years have already elapsed, it can only be concluded that we are nearing the point of the tribulation, Jesus' return and His Millennial Reign.

You claim to be a Christian, but by your own arguments, you don't place your faith in God or His Word, and are trying to spread doubt to other believers? I pray I'm severely interpreting this wrong.

 

What evidence do you have that the earth is older than 10,000 years?

 

Plate tectonics. We know that the continental plates shift at move and a very slow rate in human terms. An example of its effect is that there are plants and animals-- both living and extinct (found in fossils)-- in South America and Africa that cannot cross oceans yet share commonalities with each other. The explanation is obviously that God did it to test us. I suppose.

 

A book written by a bunch of dudes a while ago plus some letters they wrote (and maybe some other dudes as well) and then all that stuff got compiled edited and altered and they chucked some dudes because lol I dunno and some folks were like "let's throw in some stuff on this subject because damn dude people ain't doing it right" so they did and then it got translated etc etc etc etc

And then folks take it literally.

 

It's funny that even the newest books of the Bible tend to have dubious authorship. The men who wrote the Gospels are completely anonymous (though I think there are some clues, like the author of Mark not really knowing the geography) and about half the letters traditionally attributed to Paul probably weren't written by him.

 

A: You're forgetting there was a worldwide flood. Or else, how are there seashells at the top of Mt. Everest?
B: We really have no idea how the earth looked before the flood, but it definitely had a greater habitable area than 3%.

I'll definitely concede the epistle to the Hebrews wasn't written by Paul, but I don't see any doubt about the remainder of his letters. And which point of the Book of Mark are you referring to?

 

Radiometric dating. Look it up.