A Question for S.T.Ranger
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-06-2012, 08:20 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(13-06-2012 12:06 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(12-06-2012 09:53 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Fuck scripture.
Beware of paper cuts.
Speaking from your own experience with your self-drawn Gwynnie pictures?

[Image: b6EQV.jpg?6720]
Okay, that was mean, I'm sorry.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2012, 08:38 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(11-06-2012 08:22 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Let me try to ease your confusion: we are not both saying "No, I'm right," as there is actually no perfect translation as far as I am concerned. The translations that we have, at least those that have been accepted as actual translations, are in my opinion works which I am quite confident that sincere believers were involved with.

What is unfortunate is that thanks in large part to KJV Onlyism, ALL scripture is called into question, especially by those that have never actually studied the issue.

There is a big difference between saying "I am right and you are wrong" about doctrine, and another to have a preferred translation. Mine happens to be the KJV. Right after that I am fond of the NIV (1984), right after that it would be the NKJV and the NASB.

So your confusion as to whether there is actually me on one side and someone else on the other saying I am right can be dispelled, as I have never said either I or the (or even a) translation I use is right, all others wrong.

What is in focus is the doctrine itself, rather. As I mentioned I believe three times, my advice to the student is...we don't stop at a translation. That is evident in the conversation which this statement comes from. Deny that.

You're right about there being no perfect translation; however, there are more accurate ones.

The NIV is an abomination. I'm sorry to see you prefer it. Dynamic translations are good for people just trying to understand what the Bible says, but they are awful for actual study.

And the KJV... well, I'm tired of repeating myself.

I just find it strange that you want to be taken seriously in the realm of theology and use the NIV and KJV as your sources.

It would be like a scientist presenting his studies and finds to his peers using children's books on science with pictures and connect the dots.

You're just not taken seriously.

You actively deny fact (obvious fact) and continue to do it your way because that's how you like it.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2012, 09:02 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(13-06-2012 08:20 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(13-06-2012 12:06 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Beware of paper cuts.
Speaking from your own experience with your self-drawn Gwynnie pictures?

[Image: big-eyes.jpg]

If I couldn't take some razzmatazz about my Gwynnie thing, why, I'd be a theist. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
13-06-2012, 03:14 PM (This post was last modified: 13-06-2012 03:17 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(12-06-2012 04:01 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  However, that scripture teaches that man is, depending upon your view, no less than two parts, being body and spirit, or for those that take the view that man is three part, body, soul, and spirit, that leads to the almost universal belief of most men that walk the earth now and in the days before us that the inner man...goes somewhere after the "dead body starts to rot."
Name ONE mainline Christian sect that teaches that the "soul" is different from the "spirit". 3 parts... hahahahaha.
Doesn't make a bit of difference what the humans wrote in the texts which were assembled, disassembled, and reassembled, which were non-unanimously voted by humans into the texts known as "scripture". They are all human works, by human hands. 99.99 % of the humans on the Earth also once thought the Earth was flat. They were all wrong. (It's known in Logic as the Argumentum ad Populum fallacy.)
The bible contains virtually no historical "truth".
http://www.worldagesarchive.com/Referenc...rpers).htm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
13-06-2012, 03:55 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(12-06-2012 05:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "HAIDES (Aides, Aidoneus, or Hades) was the King of the Underworld, the god of death and the dead. He presided over funeral rites and defended the right of the dead to due burial. Haides was also the god of the hidden wealth of the earth, from the fertile soil with nourished the seed-grain, to the mined wealth of gold, silver and other metals.
Hades was devoured by Kronos as soon as he was born, along with four of his siblings. Zeus later caused the Titan to disgorge them, and together they drove the Titan gods from heaven and locked them away in the pit of Tartaros. When the three victorious brothers then drew lots for the division of the cosmos, Hades received the third portion, the dark dismal realm of the underworld, as his domain."

Relevance?

(12-06-2012 05:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  In fact you have proven nothing.

From your perspective, I have proven nothing, but from where I sit...you have yourself actually made my points for me.

Of course, I would have to explain that it is your religion itself that I seek to enlighten you to, and once you have figured that out, you may change your mind.

(12-06-2012 05:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And again you have provided no external reference to support even 1 assertion.

Could you name a few assertions that I could provide an external link for, that perhaps may cause you to cede even a simple point?



(12-06-2012 05:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So what, if they were 10 destinations.

Go back and examine the exchange. I know it must be difficult to admit that you do exactly what most people do, which is to blur concepts which have their basis in scripture. Before I say any more concerning the subject, you must first desire to discuss it.

(12-06-2012 05:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They were all equally mythological. Hades IS Greek. The fact that Sheol correlates with Hades proves nothing.

That was not the point. The point is...hades is not Hell.

(12-06-2012 05:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Where is the archaeological dating evidence for either ?

For hades or sheol? lol

Last I heard science is still unable to identify, much less date...spiritual things.

(12-06-2012 05:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  If your god revealed truth, why did she reveal Sheol, and THEN something different ?

He did not. Which is why it would be a good idea to at least familiarize yourself with a subject before either embracing or rejecting it.

The offer still stands: we can discuss it, or, we can move on. If you wish to pick a topic, go for it, I will do the best I can.

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2012, 04:18 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(12-06-2012 06:04 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(12-06-2012 04:01 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  If it were a matter that scripture taught that men were golems, there would be no interesting issues. However, that scripture teaches that man is, depending upon your view, no less than two parts, being body and spirit, or for those that take the view that man is three part, body, soul, and spirit, that leads to the almost universal belief of most men that walk the earth now and in the days before us that the inner man...goes somewhere after the "dead body starts to rot."

That belief ain't nearly as universal as you make it out to be. All arguments for dualism, to date, are untenable. But I am always interested in hearing new ones.

First I would ask where these "arguments for dualism" come from, and if you might present them for consideration?

But here is a simple google search for your consideration: life after death

Understand, GM, that I am not proposing that all or even anything in this link is valid, but I did find it interesting that a million dollar challenge has been presented to Stephen Hawking to discredit the evidence this man believes he has.




(12-06-2012 06:04 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(12-06-2012 04:01 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  As I said, the view that you take is of little consequence, nor does it change what scripture teaches. However, as I said, it is a fascinating study.

Watching you guys bicker over scripture is like watching literature geeks bicker over the origins and historical accuracy of the Canterbury Tales or the Brothers Grimm. It's academically interesting but don't mean dick to me practically. All I give a shit about is your bottom line. I couldn't give less of a shit about your "sacred" texts. If I believed in a postmortem preservation of identity then I would feel a responsibility to myself to at least plausibly rationalize it without just appealing to blind faith and a wish and a prayer. I tried, I failed. Don't mean I ain't receptive to new arguments.


Not sure who is bickering over scripture. I would love to bicker over scripture with someone...lol.

But look at it this way: there are numerous reports of people becoming brain dead, and then coming back to life. If, as some would have us believe, the brain is simply a computer, does this mean that dead batteries should also recharge on their own? If we are merely the result of organic mechanical operation, would that mean that we are really of no more personal merit than the computer I type on right now? My personality is similar to the programs I have stored on my computer?

So I would have to stick with the belief that most people now and historically have believed in life after death.

See here and here.

Just so that I am clear, understand that I put about as much stock in polls and statistics as I do flying spaghetti sauce, but, here are a couple of sources where those polled profess belief.

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2012, 04:24 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(13-06-2012 03:55 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  For hades or sheol? lol

Both lol.

Science knows when those 2 ideas arose in human history. lol.

You picked the subject. Prove to us with external historical/archaeological evidence that what you assert to be the First Covenant, actually was the First Covenant. (No Bible quotes). lol.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
13-06-2012, 04:39 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(12-06-2012 09:37 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  St doesn't argue over anything.

Hey thanks, I appreciate that Mark.

(12-06-2012 09:37 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  He's incapable of presenting an argument.

Now this I have to strongly disagree with. So, I will just point out a few arguments that have been presented, which, by the way, you are doing a superb job of exemplifying:

1-Most who hate Christians know very little about the basis of the Christian faith, which is of course the Bible. What little they do know does not correspond to the actual writings of scripture, and they are forced to discredit textual evidence which is actually studied and accepted by scholars that speciallize in the field.

False statements are made, which is to be expected, but a recent development on this very forum shows open discussion of this tact in their proselytization efforts. And what is very sad is that they are unaware how shallow this is to the reasonable person.

2-Atheism is...a religious pursuit. It qualifies in definition as well as practice. The irony here is...a professed hatred for those that are religious by those that exhibit a religiosity that far exceeds the nominal Christian in zeal is unknown to them, making them byfar...their own worst enemy. Imagine, being that which one hates the most. But, to be fair, this is also identified in the lives of Christians, who, while trying to show the love of Christ to the world, fall on their faces and exhibit hatred also. While pointing to the atheist and despising them for their sin...they sin. Thus, for the believer who has the most basic grasp on biblical instruction, they also become that which they hate. On the plus side for the truly born-again, God reveals this to the sinner, whereby he is able to identify and correct this behavior.

3-For the religious atheist, there is exhibited a zeal born by hatred that leads them to, at times, the same mentality that we see in many leaders of cults. Development of a messiah complex is a real danger to the over-zealous, which may lead to production of literature meant to "save" individuals from whatever the focus of this individual's hatred is bent upon.

Okay, Mark, there are a couple of "arguments" presented, and the public record will display them for anyone willing to give this more than a contemptuous look.

(12-06-2012 09:37 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  All he can say is that no one (except him) is discussing scripture.

This is a misrepresentation of what I have said, but, I will let that go, as misrepresentation seems to be the only tact known to some of my antagonists.

It is public record that I have gladly offered to discuss scripture with anyone. No-one has accepted. All that has been offered is opinions about scripture, and primarily opinions that certainly show an unfamiliarity with scripture.

(12-06-2012 09:37 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Yet he fails to discuss scripture!

Try me...lol.

(12-06-2012 09:37 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Or anything else of relevance.

Of course.

(12-06-2012 09:37 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Bucky just blows him away with knowledge and eloquence.

If you say so.

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2012, 04:41 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(13-06-2012 04:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(13-06-2012 03:55 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  For hades or sheol? lol

Both lol.

Science knows when those 2 ideas arose in human history. lol.

You picked the subject. Prove to us with external historical/archaeological evidence that what you assert to be the First Covenant, actually was the First Covenant. (No Bible quotes). lol.
Gladly, once I know what it is you think I have "asserted to be the First Covenant." We have not discussed it at all as of yet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2012, 04:48 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(13-06-2012 08:38 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(11-06-2012 08:22 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Let me try to ease your confusion: we are not both saying "No, I'm right," as there is actually no perfect translation as far as I am concerned. The translations that we have, at least those that have been accepted as actual translations, are in my opinion works which I am quite confident that sincere believers were involved with.

What is unfortunate is that thanks in large part to KJV Onlyism, ALL scripture is called into question, especially by those that have never actually studied the issue.

There is a big difference between saying "I am right and you are wrong" about doctrine, and another to have a preferred translation. Mine happens to be the KJV. Right after that I am fond of the NIV (1984), right after that it would be the NKJV and the NASB.

So your confusion as to whether there is actually me on one side and someone else on the other saying I am right can be dispelled, as I have never said either I or the (or even a) translation I use is right, all others wrong.

What is in focus is the doctrine itself, rather. As I mentioned I believe three times, my advice to the student is...we don't stop at a translation. That is evident in the conversation which this statement comes from. Deny that.

You're right about there being no perfect translation; however, there are more accurate ones.

The NIV is an abomination. I'm sorry to see you prefer it. Dynamic translations are good for people just trying to understand what the Bible says, but they are awful for actual study.

And the KJV... well, I'm tired of repeating myself.

I just find it strange that you want to be taken seriously in the realm of theology and use the NIV and KJV as your sources.

It would be like a scientist presenting his studies and finds to his peers using children's books on science with pictures and connect the dots.

You're just not taken seriously.

You actively deny fact (obvious fact) and continue to do it your way because that's how you like it.

You really need to check your facts, my friend. I avoided your earlier comment concerning the KJV, just as you have avoided my comments about translations in general.

You say that you are tired of repeating yourself, well, I feel the same. Would you care to comment on the issue of translational importance that has surrounded the efforts of Godly men throughout the centuries?

Men that did not betray their brothers that they might tickle the ears of those that hold him in derision?

You say the NIV is an abomination? Sounds very much like the ignorance of KJV Onlyism.

NASB onlyism? Good choice.

Have to go now, hope you don't mind me saying, but you see, I am running a little late for my mid-week indoctrination.

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: