Riverwind (imported) wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:09 pm To burn a book or ban it to me is the same, what are they scared of? Themselves?

River

They are indeed afraid of themselves. What else is there for them to fear?

Yes these religious book burners are afraid. In the very Bible they tout as pure and true Jesus said quite plainly that He has established a church of a new covenant and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.

Their fear stems from their lack of faith, a lack of faith they perceive on a visceral level; yet they cannot break the spell of a self inflicted terror.

Rather than embrace the promises of their God these people run straight into the arms of uncertainty and disbelief. In their confusion they betray the crucified Christ. It's all rather sad really.

M

jemagirl (imported) wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:27 pm They are indeed afraid of themselves. What else is there for them to fear?

This is actually a good idea for holloween. You could get scrap blocks of 2x4s, 2x6s, & 2x8s and then decorate them to look just like books. Then on holloween night wearing your medieval, gothic, or preacher apparrel... -hoila! There's nothing like having a good old fashioned book burning. Maybe a recording of a brimstone and fire sermon would go well with the occasion too.

The King James Version is an outdated marginal translation designed to promote the political and religious agenda of the day. For example, the "hebrew" portion of its contents were "interpreted" and occasionally rearranged as an attempt at propaganda. Get a copy of a TANAKH, real Jewish bible and study closely the differences between the Masoretic text (translated) and the KJV.

ibnmichael (imported) wrote: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:14 pm The King James Version is an outdated marginal translation designed to promote the political and religious agenda of the day. For example, the "hebrew" portion of its contents were "interpreted" and occasionally rearranged as an attempt at propaganda. Get a copy of a TANAKH, real Jewish bible and study closely the differences between the Masoretic text (translated) and the KJV.

Yup!

Example: The commandment is

You will not murder.

Not,

Thou shall not kill.

As our Yoli knows, fer sher, ( old Califo-nian, "for sure" )

one kills the enemy and animals such as Osama bin Laden or sweet cooing doves,

one murders a neighbor.

Knowing that makes the desolation of the Amelekites, and other

Canaanites as well as a Philistines on occasion, comprehensible within the total text. Anyone who claims to be a conscientious objector over this commandment quoted as not to kill, should immediately be inducted into the armed forces.

Moi

I do like Bible study.

Moi will probably enjoy this, but those not into clinical dissection of biblical texts may fall asleep reading the following, which illustrates just how bad the KJV really is. This text is reproduced from the Jews for Judaism site. Jews for Judaism is an organization that actively refutes missionaries attempting to convert Jews to Christianity using logical, scholarly arguments.

QUESTION: I have noticed that there are many differences between Jewish Bible translations of Daniel 9:25-26 and several different Christian Bible translations. What should be the correct readings of the disputed words and phrases?

ANSWER:

In our study of the different translations we will compare the Hebrew text with |that of the King James Version of the Bible. It contains the grossest errors, which are, in |whole or in part, duplicated by other Christian versions of the Bible.

First, the King James Version puts a definite article before "Messiah the Prince" (9:25). |The original Hebrew text does not read "the Messiah the Prince," but, having no article, |it is to be rendered "a mashiach ["anointed one," "messiah"], a prince," i.e., Cyrus |(Isaiah 45:1, 13; Ezra 1:1-2).

The word mashiach is nowhere used in the Jewish Scriptures as a proper name, but as a |title of authority of a king or a high priest. Therefore, a correct rendering of the original |Hebrew should be: "an anointed one, a prince."

Second, the King James Version disregards the Hebrew punctuation. The punctuation |mark 'atnach functions as the main pause within a sentence. The 'atnach is the appropriate |equivalent of the semicolon in the modern system of punctuation. It thus has the effect of |separating the seven weeks from the sixty-two weeks: ". . . until an anointed one, a |prince, shall be seven weeks; then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again . . ." (9:25).

By creating a sixty-nine week period, which is not divided into two separate periods of |seven weeks and sixty-two weeks respectively, Christians reach an incorrect conclusion, |i.e., that the Messiah will come 483 years after the destruction of the First Temple.

Some Christians claim that there is something called a "prophetic year" of 360 days, thus |shortening the interval between the beginning of the 483 years which they claim began in |444 B.C.E., and the date of the crucifixion of Jesus. They do this in order to make the |dates coincide, but the claim of a "prophetic year" is without any scriptural foundation.

Third, the King James Version omits the definite article in Daniel 9:26, which should |read: "And after the threescore and two weeks. . . ." By treating the sixty-two weeks as a |distinct period, this verse, in the original Hebrew, shows that the sixty-two weeks |mentioned in verse 25 are correctly separated from the seven weeks by the 'atnach. |Hence, two anointed ones are spoken of in this chapter, one of whom comes after seven |weeks (Cyrus), and the other after a further period of sixty-two weeks (Alexander |Yannai).

Fourth, the words v'ayn lo (9:26) are incorrectly translated by the King James Version as |"but not for himself." They should be translated as "he has nothing" or "he shall have |nothing." There are Christian commentators who maintain this phrase has both meanings, |but that claim cannot be supported grammatically.

OK...me again. Sorry for the extended rant, I know they can be hard on the eyes. :-\

And those are just a few, examples.

Moi

<sigh> wouldn't it be nice to have a

Religion and Philosophy area.

One of my current pursuits is the concept of

"forgiveness" in the Old Testament.

David gets it over Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite

but, Saul does not.

His love for David knows no bounds.

Favorites?

Hhhmmmm

ibnmichael (imported) wrote: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:14 pm The King James Version is an outdated marginal translation designed to promote the political and religious agenda of the day.

There is probably a lot of truth in Ibnmichael's assertion. Further, I suspect that the original ancient texts were written

ibnmichael (imported) wrote: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:14 pm to promote the political and religious agenda

s of their own times too.

Remember that religions are also corporations with interests to protect. If they are threatened they have to react. Burning at the stake was the mediaeval equivalent of the modern corporate law suit.

For me the King James Bible is an excellent example of old Modern English with the 'thees' and 'thous' which, according to some scholars, were already beginning to sound old fashioned at time of publication. And, if you are anything of a ham actor, it is lovely to read out aloud, especially to a captive congregation.

So don't knock it. The KJV is part of the history of our ever evolving language.

Kortpeel

moi621 (imported) wrote: Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:48 pm And those are just a few, examples.

Moi

<sigh> wouldn't it be nice to have a

Religion and Philosophy area.

One of my current pursuits is the concept of

"forgiveness" in the Old Testament.

David gets it over Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite

but, Saul does not.

His love for David knows no bounds.

Favorites?

Hhhmmmm

However the Bible does make it very plain that Saul had become a very proud and arrogant person and who when David was selected as the new king became extremely envious and jealous of him. The books of kings (and chronicles) is actually kind of fascinating reading particularly the part where Saul hears the women singing about David and Saul and on into the great chase and finally into Saul's demise.

devi (imported) wrote: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:37 am However the Bible does make it very plain that Saul had become a very proud and arrogant person and who when David was selected as the new king became extremely envious and jealous of him. The books of kings (and chronicles) is actually kind of fascinating reading particularly the part where Saul hears the women singing about David and Saul and on into the great chase and finally into Saul's demise.

One part about King David I liked the most is when David sneaked back into the city, with a chance of death if found, and had a role in the hay with his boyfriend Jonathan (King Saul's son) and not with his newly married wife who he had not even consummated his marriage with.