End of the World Predictions & Dates of Different Religions

[megashawn]

Hell basicly means "to be in the ground" or underground. ie burried. dead. you are burried in the ground, and that is hell. as simple as that. i will go through yor quotes now with a little explanation, maybe that will make what i am trying to say clearer...

So, if I go dig a hole and burry myself, I can be a mortal in hell? I'm sorry, either a large majority of the bible has been mistranslated, or you are wrong. Which is it?

do not fear those who would kill the body, fear the one that can take both your body and your chance for ressuraction, ie life. (this may need more explanation) so soul=life, God can take the chance of you having eternal life. fear him more than your persecutors.

But in a sense, could I to also kill your soul? Assuming god exists, suppose I convince you that god doesn't exist. Would this not mean that your soul would be killed as a direct effect of my actions?

So in a way, Man does have the power of god.
__________________________________________________________

Ok, back to reality.

yes, they will die. they will not become immortal. they will no longer have life. we are currently the walking dead anyway, we will doe, and turn to dust, its just a matter of time. these are the nations that do not believe. the people that do have the chance at eternal life. they will not be in hell for ever. the others will stay in the ground.

Ouch. Awfully pesimistic are we? See, that's my problem with religion. You just give up. Let god handle it. I'm just a walking dead man. Hell no. I'm alive, to my knowledge, the most an individual can be alive. I've got numbered days, but medicine and science is adding to that number daily.

I think it makes sense though, that god would not keep an army (because all of us in hell will definately out number those in heaven) of enemies around for eternity. We're sneaky enough, and with satans help we'd probably take this whole universe over given enough time.


But basically what your saying is as others have suggested, hell is not a real place, but more so being without god. Losing consciousness and being burried in the ground would probably be pretty crappy, but hey, that's life, er, death, well, you get it.



Interesting in seeing the hebrew meaning for Hell.

 

[Another God]

That is a point: Many many Christians themselves (well, 2 or 3 anyway) have told me that Hell is quite simply being without God. They point out that there is nothing worse than being without God. And while I don't think being without God is so bad, the point stands that what DW is saying, and what many christians actually believe isn't too far separated at all.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Another God
That is a point: Many many Christians themselves (well, 2 or 3 anyway) have told me that Hell is quite simply being without God. They point out that there is nothing worse than being without God. And while I don't think being without God is so bad, the point stands that what DW is saying, and what many christians actually believe isn't too far separated at all.

I wouldn't disagree with the above, for the most part. However, I was responding to her statement that there was no hell people were sent to after death (assuming some degree of sinning), AND that she took the bible exactly and literally.

Most christians do accept an actual hell (vs separation from god) and heaven.

 

[Dark Wing]

Originally posted by radagast
DW,

You said that you took it literally, yet the very first thing you do is start interpreting what it means, in terms of you're take on the meaning of the ancient hebrew. Since many, many other hebraic and biblical scholars have had a completely different take, I hope you don't take offense that your views are taken with a grain of salt.

what other way is there to be a litralist that to find the meaning of the words? words, especily the ones used in these passages, have very specific meansings that oftern get translated into just one english word. they have specific meanings in hebrew, that's why there are so many words describing the same thing. i do not understand how i can not be litral in taking it back to the meaning of the words. others 'have a diffrent take' when they start going into inturpratation of what the words mean as an over all symbology. that's not what i do. i simply look uo the word, and find out what it means. how else can one be a litralist? maybe i have not understood your argument properly.

as far as hell being a separation from god - this is not entiry what i meant. Hell is simply the state of you being dead in the ground. you turn to dust. you stay there if you are not ressurected for judgment, and the only way to get this chance is to believe the gospel (things concerning jesus christ, the kingdom and the promises made to the people of israel). i guess then you can all separation from god hell, but only after death, and only in virtue of the fact that you will not raised again, not even for judgment.

i haven't 'inturprated' anything. its just what the meaning of that hebrew word is.

the best example that i can give you to describe what i mean is the case of noah's flood. it is a common misperception that what is writtern is that the whole world goes under. here we have to look at the word used in hebrew to figure out what's going on.

there are 3 words that are translated into 'earth' in the english - 'eretz' meaning a very specific strip of land in the middle east, and there are 2 others that i forget the hebrew for, but basicly the 2nd word is for an area a size larger than that, then another word for the whole globe. but all are translated into Earth in english. why? i don't know.

the word in noah's flood is eretz. that's what flooded. not the globe. and he didnt take 2 of every animal, just 2 of every clean animal (there again there are diffrent words for diffent grioups of animal, clean and unclean and another for the whole lot that all get translated into 'animals' in english)

this is what i am saying about translation. that's what i say about hell. there is no place your soul goes after death. not even for those who believe. you die, you go to hell. but those who believe don't stay there for ever. that's the only diffrence.

 

[Dark Wing]

Originally posted by megashawn
So, if I go dig a hole and burry myself, I can be a mortal in hell? I'm sorry, either a large majority of the bible has been mistranslated, or you are wrong. Which is it?

yes, a large majority of the bible has been mistranslated. that is precisly my point. as for you burring yourself in a hole to be a mortal in hell, come on, we are talking about death and turning to dust here, not caving.

Ouch. Awfully pesimistic are we? See, that's my problem with religion. You just give up. Let god handle it. I'm just a walking dead man. Hell no. I'm alive, to my knowledge, the most an individual can be alive. I've got numbered days, but medicine and science is adding to that number daily.

why is that pessimistic? its not pessimistic or optimistic, it just is. there is death. death is nothingness. that's not negitive (well, not in my opinion). yes you are alive now, and no matter how much you elongate that, when you die you no longer exist. i don't care how long or how furfilled you can live your life. that's not the issue. you could proberly live for thousands of years if you wanted to, and do everything you wanted to, and chage the world twice over, but when you are dead, you are still dead. you no longer exist. even if you decided to live forever, and realized how boring that could be (not saying you would, just if it got to a few millenia down the track) and you killed yourself to get out of it, you would again not exist. non existence is not a negitive thing. people who want to live forever to do the work of god have that option through religion. that's all i am saying.

But basically what your saying is as others have suggested, hell is not a real place, but more so being without god. Losing consciousness and being burried in the ground would probably be pretty crappy, but hey, that's life, er, death, well, you get it.

well... that's kind of what i am saying (see above post) but i don't see eteral non exsistance as a bad thing. i really dont. anyway, you wouldn't know that it was a bad thing once you were there. you wouldent know anything, as there would no longer be a you. )

 

[Another God]

Earth from Erets translation

'erets

Definition
1. land, Earth
a.earth
1. whole Earth (as opposed to a part)
2. Earth (as opposed to heaven)
3. Earth (inhabitants)

b. land
1. country, territory
2. district, region
3. tribal territory
4. piece of ground
5. land of Canaan, Israel
6. inhabitants of land
7. Sheol, land without return, (under) world
8. city (-state)
c. ground, surface of the Earth
ground
soil
d. (in phrases)
people of the land
space or distance of country (in measurements of distance)
level or plain country
land of the living
end(s) of the Earth
(almost wholly late in usage)
e. lands, countries 1e
f. often in contrast to Canaan



Now, in Genesis we see
And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
Ge 7:12 And the rain was upon the Earth forty days and forty nights.
Ge 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the Earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
Ge 7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
Ge 7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
Ge 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
Ge 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

Using the definitions above, Earth (in every case here can taken from erets) can mean just about anything. From the whol earth, to that which isn;t heaven, to the people inhabiting the earth, to a city, a state, or a piece of ground.

Lets face it: Even translating from the original text doesn't take ambiguity out of it. The best we can do with this, is take it in context. What is the context? Well: "all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered"
The WHOLE heaven part makes this appear to be the context of the whole earth. Another way to check this, would be to find out how high the mountains around this part of the Earth is (pretty high I think) and then compare that height to the rest of the world. Now if the water covers these mountains, and stays at that height for 40 days...then it is imposible that the water hadn't reached that general height world wide. Now that is a global flood.

Secondly. In the NIV Bible I have here, it says in GE 7:15 "Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to noah and entered the ark."

It says nothing of them being clean, but it says several times that it is every animal, all types etc.

 

[radagast]

DW,

To say you haven't interpreted the bible is absurd - literal, symbolic, or metaphorical, they are all interpretations.

You glossed right past the basic point I made - that thousands of biblical scholars seem to disagree with you.

I have little doubt you can find 'a' meaning in ancient Hebrew, which contradicts the current interpretations of the bible. Not being a biblical scholar, nor a scholar of ancient Hebrew or Aramaic, I cannot address your translations. I have had enough experience with language to know that many, many words have multiple shades of meaning, many with completely different definitions housed in the same word. The interpretation of the word aikido (a compound word) from Japanese could mean the spiritual path of harmony, or doorway to balanced strength. The word hara could mean belly, the seat of the soul, or strength of will. In English, to say a person 'has Heart' isn't trying to convey he has a blood pumping organ. Obviously, the interpretations of these are quite different, with potentially dramatic differences in meaning and intent. That Hell (ancient hebrew) could mean both in the ground or in a really bad place, I would see as not only possble, but likely, given the consistency of biblical translations over the past 700 years. Translations require both an understanding of the meanings of the words and a good understanding of the cultures from which the writings arose.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by radagast
DW,

To say you haven't interpreted the bible is absurd - literal, symbolic, or metaphorical, they are all interpretations.

You glossed right past the basic point I made - that thousands of biblical scholars seem to disagree with you.

I have little doubt you can find 'a' meaning in ancient Hebrew, which contradicts the current interpretations of the bible. Not being a biblical scholar, nor a scholar of ancient Hebrew or Aramaic, I cannot address your translations. I have had enough experience with language to know that many, many words have multiple shades of meaning, many with completely different definitions housed in the same word. The interpretation of the word aikido (a compound word) from Japanese could mean the spiritual path of harmony, or doorway to balanced strength. The word hara could mean belly, the seat of the soul, or strength of will. In English, to say a person 'has Heart' isn't trying to convey he has a blood pumping organ. Obviously, the interpretations of these are quite different, with potentially dramatic differences in meaning and intent. This doesn't even touch on the idea of idiomatic usage. That Hell (ancient hebrew) could mean both in the ground or in a really bad place, I would see as not only possble, but likely, given the consistency of biblical translations over the past 700 years. Translations require both an understanding of the meanings of the words and a good understanding of the cultures from which the writings arose.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by radagast
You glossed right past the basic point I made - that thousands of biblical scholars seem to disagree with you.

I thought about commenting on this point, but decided not to bother, but since you think its a point which needs to be addressed, I will address it for you.

Argument from Authority is not a good way to convince people of anything.

And that's all I have to say on that topic.

I have little doubt you can find 'a' meaning in ancient Hebrew, which contradicts the current interpretations of the bible. I have had enough experience with language to know that many, many words have multiple shades of meaning, many with completely different definitions housed in the same word. Translations require both an understanding of the meanings of the words and a good understanding of the cultures from which the writings arose.

I do agree with all of this completely.

As for the hell thing though, I understand better now what DW means, and so I'll try to explain it, and see if you disagree with this:

Hell, translated by the lexicon means: sheol, underworld, grave, hell, pit. So it could be any of those. I point out that it could mean 'The Underworld', but what exactly is that 'Underworld'? Does it have a description of 'The place' Hell anywhere within the Bible? What is 'The place' Hell like?

Darkwings point basically comes down to "Going to Hell" doesn't mean you are going to some place where you will suffer for eternity (since it doesn't say any such thing in the bible), but instead it means that you die, in a very real world deathly sort of way. Hell = the end of your life forever.

If you can find anywhere which describes hell as anything other than this, then I think DW wants to know.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Another God
I thought about commenting on this point, but decided not to bother, but since you think its a point which needs to be addressed, I will address it for you.

Argument from Authority is not a good way to convince people of anything.

Strange comment.

First, it was DW that was trying to convince 'us' of certain things, that deviated from popularly accepted meaning.

Second, DW is presenting herself as an authority on ancient hebrew and biblical interpretation.

As a result, I bring up that other authorities disagree, and have for over 700 years.

Since I'm not an authority, I cannot rely on my own knowledge. That said, some disembodied web personality is going to hold less sway with me than those I know of as authorities.

Third, the impression I get is that you are equating what I said with the Argument from Authority argument flaw. If so, this is a complete misinterpretation of the flaw. The flaw states you cannot use an authority in one subject as an authority in another (which they are not qualified). In other words, I wouldn't take Newton as an authority on the bible (he may have been, but go with this for the moment) because he was a well respected mathematician and physicist.

As for the hell thing though, I understand better now what DW means, and so I'll try to explain it, and see if you disagree with this:

Hell, translated by the lexicon means: sheol, underworld, grave, hell, pit. So it could be any of those. I point out that it could mean 'The Underworld', but what exactly is that 'Underworld'? Does it have a description of 'The place' Hell anywhere within the Bible? What is 'The place' Hell like?

Darkwings point basically comes down to "Going to Hell" doesn't mean you are going to some place where you will suffer for eternity (since it doesn't say any such thing in the bible), but instead it means that you die, in a very real world deathly sort of way. Hell = the end of your life forever.

If you can find anywhere which describes hell as anything other than this, then I think DW wants to know.

It's been 30 years since I've read the bible, but from the times I did, it seemed that many considered the link between the terms 'lake of fire', 'lake of burning brimstone', etc. referred to in Revelations and hell, used elsewhere. While I cannot point to a direct link, both types of phrases refer to the unworthy and the sinful as being sent to either hell or the burning lake of fire (depending on where you reference the phrase). The synonymous use seems to form a basis for considering that they refer to the same place.

 

[Nade_Fodder]

I think you will find that the bible says the world will end when Bush mistakes the little red button for a skittle.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by radagast
Strange comment.

First, it was DW that was trying to convince 'us' of certain things, that deviated from popularly accepted meaning.

Second, DW is presenting herself as an authority on ancient hebrew and biblical interpretation.

As a result, I bring up that other authorities disagree, and have for over 700 years.

Since I'm not an authority, I cannot rely on my own knowledge. That said, some disembodied web personality is going to hold less sway with me than those I know of as authorities.

Third, the impression I get is that you are equating what I said with the Argument from Authority argument flaw. If so, this is a complete misinterpretation of the flaw. The flaw states you cannot use an authority in one subject as an authority in another (which they are not qualified). In other words, I wouldn't take Newton as an authority on the bible (he may have been, but go with this for the moment) because he was a well respected mathematician and physicist.

Well, my memory of the Argument from Authority flaw is different to that, But I am not willing to push the point, because I am not certain. But, I am certain of one thing: Telling someone "Such and such says this is true" is not an argument. And that's all that I am trying to say.

DW wasn't using authority in anyway, she was trying to frame an argument against the common belief, by using particular reasoning and particular references. This is normal in an argument. Whether you accept these resons yourself or not, is entirely up to you, but saying that other people, no matter how many million people, disagree with her, will do nothing to convince her that she is wrong, nor is it a good reason for you to disagree. If you truley care, then you would find a real reason to disagree, but let's be honest here, I don't really think you care that much? Which is fine... I normally don't either.

But what i think of as the argument from authroity, any argument which says "This is true because X says so" is not an argument at all, and only shows that the person expressing the view really doesn't want to think about it anymore.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Another God
Well, my memory of the Argument from Authority flaw is different to that, But I am not willing to push the point, because I am not certain. But, I am certain of one thing: Telling someone "Such and such says this is true" is not an argument. And that's all that I am trying to say.

You are quite correct, just making a statement isn't an argument.

An argument has, explicitly or implicitly, one or more premises, inference(s), and a conclusion. The above "such and such says" would be evidence to support an inference, assuming that "such and such" were an authority in the field covering the subject of said evidence.

DW had stated a premise - that the bible didn't say that hell was a bad place that sinners were sent after death. When presented with evidence to the contrary she states her opinion (as evidence), which we (as non-experts) cannot check directly. By presenting this evidence, we can accept she is an authority in the area then compile contrary expert opinions, or treat her opinion as non-evidence. I chose the former, giving her the benefit of the doubt.

The precise name of the Argument from authority flaw is "Argumentum ad verecundiam", and it is specific to appealing to a popular or authority figure(s), that is/are not authorities in the area of the evidence, therefore not valid sources for expert opinions on the subject.

There is a quite excellent handling of the topic of informal logic and logical arguments, it can be found at:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

DW wasn't using authority in anyway, she was trying to frame an argument against the common belief, by using particular reasoning and particular references. This is normal in an argument. Whether you accept these resons yourself or not, is entirely up to you, but saying that other people, no matter how many million people, disagree with her, will do nothing to convince her that she is wrong, nor is it a good reason for you to disagree. If you truley care, then you would find a real reason to disagree, but let's be honest here, I don't really think you care that much? Which is fine... I normally don't either.

For DW to make her argument, then she has to present evidence (premises) that is acceptable, if others are to accept her conclusion, then thru inference proceed to her conclusion. Since my initial evidence was dismissed on grounds that the ancient hebrew was mistranslated and I, and most here, are not subject matter experts on ancient hebrew and the hebrew culture of the time, we have to take her as an expert and compare her expert opinion to expert opinion presented by other experts in the field. To me, this seems fairly straightforward. My motivations for being in this argument are irrelevant to the argument [but if you must know, I have always been one that values accuracy, so when I see something I consider inaccurate, I will often challenge it].

You are correct that appeal to the popular isn't a valid argument, but appeal to an authority (in the field of the evidence) is not only valid, but almost required in any argument where we all are not completely in agreement that the evidence is obvious.

But what i think of as the argument from authroity, any argument which says "This is true because X says so" is not an argument at all, and only shows that the person expressing the view really doesn't want to think about it anymore.

You are confusing evidence presented (expert opinion) with the inference needed to progress to a conclusion. Please visit the site mentioned. Whatever you're opinion of the lack of beliefs of the authors, they have done an excellent job of compiling a cogent description of a logical argument and common argument flaws.

For instance, if I'm making an argument concerning the subjective travel time to Alpha Centari, and state when traveling at 0.9810 c the subjective travel time will be significantly shorter than the simple product of distance and velocity (from an alpha centari frame of reference), then back this up by the expert opinion of Albert Einstein, then this is valid. I don't have to demonstrate the effects of relativity thru the use of tensor mechanics, since Albert's opinion is considered evidence in the field.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Dark Wing
Hell basicly means "to be in the ground" or underground. ie burried. dead. you are burried in the ground, and that is hell. as simple as that. i will go through yor quotes now with a little explanation, maybe that will make what i am trying to say clearer...

So which is the best translation?
If this error is so apparent, then why are so many translations so far off? (instead of being corrected)
If this is a translation error (on so important an issue), then how many other errors are there?
What is someone to do if they don't speak the ancient languages and don't have copies of the original manuscripts in hand?

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by radagast
You are confusing evidence presented (expert opinion) with the inference needed to progress to a conclusion.

An 'expert opinion' is not evidence at all. Thats my whole point. There is no evidence in the opinion of another, no matter how expert they are. Experts are just as fallible as anyone else, sometimes even moreso: They are stuck in their paradigm. How many experts in astronomy throughout the years have thought the Earth was the center of the universe, how many experts disagree with relativity? How many experts believe evolution is wrong?

How many experts make mistakes? At least 99% of them, because eveeryone only believes what they are told until one lone person says "Hang on...that's not quite right."

And besides, you don't need to kep referring to DW as 'claiming to be an authority' on the topic, because all she does is look up the literal translations in a lexicon. Something anyone can do, and something I did 4 or 5 posts back for a selection of words. Why the need to start claiming correctness or incorrectness based on who has the most support and best names supporting their view?

Argue the discussion on the grounds of solid evidence and reason.

PS: I haven't gone to the site yet, and I may go later if I have more time, but I don't feel any strong desire to. I know arguments, I understand them, I engage in them all the time, and I have read stuff on argument structure before. I'll only go if i have the time and feel inclined to refresh.

 

[Dark Wing]

Originally posted by radagast
DW,

To say you haven't interpreted the bible is absurd - literal, symbolic, or metaphorical, they are all interpretations.

everything we read or see we interprete, we are subjective creatures, it is not somthing you can get away from. but symbolic and meatphysical inturpratations are based on very loosly placed evidence. i propose that a more litral approach will rule out a lot of the mystical nonsence, and get down to some actual events, and evidence you can see, such as words and meanings. they wrote what they meant is the basic assumption of litrality, and for my evidence i use hebrew texts, and see what i can come up with that may match it in english. i know its going to have a lot of translation issues, such as the ones you mentioned, that's why you also study the culture, see where these words are used, and in what context, and see if there are any other meanings for the worlds on a social level that does not appear in the dictionarys. of course translation is going to be dodgy. i am not claiming to have THE TRUTH, just say that a lot of things that the major christian religions attribute to the bible are simply not there, no matter what language you want to translate it into.

You glossed right past the basic point I made - that thousands of biblical scholars seem to disagree with you.

democracy is not a concept truth understands. just becuase thousands of people have said it diffrently, does not make me any more right or wrong. infact, if they are wrong, it proberly gives me more of a chance to be right, as i can learn from their mistakes.

I have little doubt you can find 'a' meaning in ancient Hebrew, which contradicts the current interpretations of the bible. Not being a biblical scholar, nor a scholar of ancient Hebrew or Aramaic, I cannot address your translations. I have had enough experience with language to know that many, many words have multiple shades of meaning, many with completely different definitions housed in the same word. The interpretation of the word aikido (a compound word) from Japanese could mean the spiritual path of harmony, or doorway to balanced strength. The word hara could mean belly, the seat of the soul, or strength of will. In English, to say a person 'has Heart' isn't trying to convey he has a blood pumping organ. Obviously, the interpretations of these are quite different, with potentially dramatic differences in meaning and intent. That Hell (ancient hebrew) could mean both in the ground or in a really bad place, I would see as not only possble, but likely, given the consistency of biblical translations over the past 700 years. Translations require both an understanding of the meanings of the words and a good understanding of the cultures from which the writings arose.

i agree. that's why you have to be careful and know what you are doing with translation. no one said it wasent a tricky busness. my claim is that the religious institutions, knowing how tricky a thing it can be, have used it as an excuse to put their own doctrines within the 'translated' books, so people see it in the bible. it is from these interpratations that nearly all the misconceptions that i have raised come from. and the fact that people just take what a priest says as truth without questioning.

i will reply to all your posts as i can. i am sorry my reponse time is so jaggard.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Another God
An 'expert opinion' is not evidence at all. Thats my whole point.

AG,
Then in terms of debate and argumentation, you are wrong. However, if I couldn't use expert opinion, then I would guess DW's opinion is out the window too. We are left unable to debate the subject at all.

In this case, understanding current language, and most certainly ancient language, requires an understanding of the culture of it's use. Getting a dictionary and going at it is an excellent way to drive yourself down a false path. I've known problems in communications between two english speaking individuals of different cultures. For example, the term 'top-off' refers to filling up the gas tank that last little bit, in american english, the Brits use a term 'top-out' to mean run out of gas. A american flight of F-14's were met with an emergency crew when going into a British airbase to 'top-off' their tanks. A proper British lady friend sat down with some friends and I looking a little haggard one day. On inquiry she mentioned that her reason for being tired was because she had been 'knocked up' the night before. After the snickers died down, she was horrified to find out what that meant to americans - to the Brits that means to be awakened by a knock at the door.

You're views on rational argumentation are flawed. Perhaps a course in informal logic is in order. Certainly direct evidence is better than expert opinion, but it requires, in most cases, that the evidence be common, or the person viewing the evidence is an expert in the field of that evidence (and as such can interpret the evidence correctly). If we were arguing over the causes of the recent space shuttle disaster, I would expect all parties to either be able to discuss the physics of the foam strikes, mechanical stresses of re-entry, and material science OR have expert opinion to form the premises that are presenting.

Just common sense should tell you that anyone with rationally held views base their beliefs on one (or a combination) of three things. Evidence from 'Authority', 'reason', or 'our senses'. Though each is susceptible to error, these do form the basis for rationally held ideas and beliefs. In a complex world, such as today, evidence from an authority cannot be ignored, if you plan to get past the third grade.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Dark Wing
everything we read or see we interprete, we are subjective creatures, ...all your posts as i can. i am sorry my reponse time is so jaggard.

Hi DW,
I understand your position. As one that has little expertise in english and absolutely zero in any other, non-computer, language, I wouldn't be able to judge your translations directly.

While I understand your argument on ulterior motives with regard to control, that the early church(es) had for a specific translation, the fact that no major denomination (that I'm aware of) holds your translation, leads me to doubt you translation. Though the ulterior motive you mention would be strong, the variability in people and the need to be different has lead many groups to sieze miniscule passages and create iron clad rules that separate them from the others. Not meaning to pick on anyone group, but just look at the JW's and their interpretation that 'eating blood' was equivalent to getting a blood transfusion. This desire for difference, combined with the fact that there are many, many folk, thru the years, that do have the education and expertise along with a strong desire to find the truth, who would have brought your views to a commonly heard point, lead me to the view that the interpretations aren't as straighforward as you say it is.

p.s. I've not run up against the word 'Jaggard', assuming it isn't a typo, what does it mean?

 

[Dark Wing]

Originally posted by radagast


It's been 30 years since I've read the bible, but from the times I did, it seemed that many considered the link between the terms 'lake of fire', 'lake of burning brimstone', etc. referred to in Revelations and hell, used elsewhere. While I cannot point to a direct link, both types of phrases refer to the unworthy and the sinful as being sent to either hell or the burning lake of fire (depending on where you reference the phrase). The synonymous use seems to form a basis for considering that they refer to the same place.

my only suggestion here is that you get a decent bible and read it more carefully and then come to me with your contradictions. there is no point in challanging somthing you know little about, and if you haven't read it in 30 years, then you memory will be hazy on some of the finer connections. if you go back and read the contexts, and see what is actuly being said (ignoring metaphysical and symbolic inturpratations as i suggest you do) then you may get a better understanding on what i am saying and what i am not. then you can argue against me all you want. i am not claiming to be right, only to be shown wrong.

the whole lake of burning fire can be explained as i have previously without refrence to hell. i think you have an understanding of what i see as hell now. i am taking it litraly...

 

[Dark Wing]

Originally posted by radagast
Hi DW,
I understand your position. As one that has little expertise in english and absolutely zero in any other, non-computer, language, I wouldn't be able to judge your translations directly.

While I understand your argument on ulterior motives with regard to control, that the early church(es) had for a specific translation, the fact that no major denomination (that I'm aware of) holds your translation, leads me to doubt you translation. Though the ulterior motive you mention would be strong, the variability in people and the need to be different has lead many groups to sieze miniscule passages and create iron clad rules that separate them from the others. Not meaning to pick on anyone group, but just look at the JW's and their interpretation that 'eating blood' was equivalent to getting a blood transfusion. This desire for difference, combined with the fact that there are many, many folk, thru the years, that do have the education and expertise along with a strong desire to find the truth, who would have brought your views to a commonly heard point, lead me to the view that the interpretations aren't as straighforward as you say it is.

but again, all of this means nothing my argument. i suggest that you doubt every argument that comes your way, simply to question it, doubt should not (though it seems to) vary depending on how many people hold that view. i know we all feel comfortable in numbers, but still, it does not add or detract to my argument. i think you will find that there are a lot more people out there who subscribe to my view than you know. but unfortunately these people turn to symbolism that is not explained very quickly, and religion is turned into a power based control mechanism, and is not after the truth. if i can, i will find some of these well educated men with desire for truth and show them to you. maybe they can explain my point more thoroughly, and you shall have some real substance to argue against.

p.s. I've not run up against the word 'Jaggard', assuming it isn't a typo, what does it mean?

yes, i am sorry, my spelling tends to get away from me at times. the word i meant was Jagged, implying that my movements on pf were of a sporadic type. for this i apologise.

 

[Dark Wing]

Originally posted by radagast
Just common sense should tell you that anyone with rationally held views base their beliefs on one (or a combination) of three things. Evidence from 'Authority', 'reason', or 'our senses'. Though each is susceptible to error, these do form the basis for rationally held ideas and beliefs. In a complex world, such as today, evidence from an authority cannot be ignored, if you plan to get past the third grade.

this is why we now have a society that cannot think or argue for themselves, and love to be indoctrinated without thinking or questioning their beliefs. we should be questioning authority at every point, and the simply fact that we can't do so if we plan to get past 3rd grade simply reflects the dire situation we find ourselves in. we do not need this. we simply think we do because we enjoy living in an indoctrinated society.

it is not an arguemnt to say 'this is the way it is, so it must be like this always'. if the system has stopped people questioning authority, then i say change the system! forse those who can think to think, and make the rest learn (if they want to. otherwise they have the option of following the new doctrine set by those who are now thinking, and so the cycle continues...

radagast, i see you have a long post on the contradictions about a page ago. i will cover that next time i am here, so watch out for that post (i have again run out of time, sorry...)

 

[Dark Wing]

Originally posted by Phobos
So which is the best translation?

the 1st king james, or the 1st NIV

If this error is so apparent, then why are so many translations so far off? (instead of being corrected)

becuase very few people in the church are interested in the truth. they are more interested in indoctrination and power. and no one can be bothered actually studying it to find out that their belifs are wrong, people hate being wrong. (especily if their entire lives revolve around such things)

If this is a translation error (on so important an issue), then how many other errors are there?

many many many translation errors, the more editions, the more errors. the latest versions are not even readable (especily if they are ones endorsed by a certians church)

What is someone to do if they don't speak the ancient languages and don't have copies of the original manuscripts in hand?

then they had better hope they had a good edition, and not take everything litrally. remeber, all this knit picking is only for people who want to know the whole book. you don't need the whole bible to "be saved" as it were. for that you only need to know the gospel and be baptised. (i don't want to get into a baptism debate here, itake this from "believe the gospel, be baptised and you will be saved" quote).
what is the gospel you say? things concering Jesus christ, things concerning the promises made to the isralites, and things concerning the kingdom. that's it.

but we have already covered most of this in previous posts on this thread if you want to read my arguments about all of that...

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Dark Wing
this is why we now have a society that cannot think or argue for themselves, and love to be indoctrinated without thinking or questioning their beliefs. we should be questioning authority at every point, and the simply fact that we can't do so if we plan to get past 3rd grade simply reflects the dire situation we find ourselves in. we do not need this. we simply think we do because we enjoy living in an indoctrinated society.

Oh, I have no problem questioning authority. The first thing I started questioning had to do with the absurdity (IMO) of accepting something (like the dogma of most religions, or the truth of the bible) where there was no method of determining the truth value, short of dying. This is why I've not read the bible in thirty years - it's short on entertainment value and no value other than that.

If we are to question all authority, then we can accept nothing. We must discover it all ourselves. This is impractical in this day and age, so it's best to pick and chose our battles. To you, this is an important battle, to me it ranks up there with how many buttons Santa Claus has on his suit or the exact wording of a specific Minnie Pearl song. Arranging my sock drawer is more appealing.

Now, in the argument in question, I have multiple authorities on a subject I will not be investigating myself. One is an unknown person from Sydney, of unknown credentials, and a nice writing style, and Two is the agreement of a large number of highly credentialed biblical scholars with virtually no dissent (on this topic).

Which would you choose?

This put's your claims into the light of highly extraordinary.

it is not an argument to say 'this is the way it is, so it must be like this always'. if the system has stopped people questioning authority, then i say change the system! force those who can think to think, and make the rest learn (if they want to. otherwise they have the option of following the new doctrine set by those who are now thinking, and so the cycle continues...

I quite agree, however, there was a wize man named Isaac Asimov who, once upon a time, stated that

If you tell me something mundane is true, then I will likely accept it without checking. If you tell me something extraordinary is true, then I may accept your word, but wish to see evidence. If you tell me something wildly extraordinary, then I want to see a lot of evidence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Now, given my stated interest levels in my sock drawer vs biblical truth, you may see why I would default to the more accepted versions without the years of study needed on ancient Hebrew culture and ancient Hebrew necessary to investigate this for myself.

radagast, i see you have a long post on the contradictions about a page ago. i will cover that next time i am here, so watch out for that post (i have again run out of time, sorry...)

Take your time.

A general aside, regarding discovering your own truth and attributes you attribute to others working in the field.

Dark Wing, you seem like a nice person, so please do not take the following as an insult or as anything but a caution to look into your own motivations, as well as those who disagree with your views:

I would like to point out that it is extremely egotistical and somewhat insulting to all those people out there, honestly researching the bible and christianity, to assume they are not thinking for themselves, just because they disagree with you. You are not the only person, at this moment in time, looking into the translations and meaning of the more original texts of the bible. Most of these are highly spiritual and very honest people. The people that just go to church as a function of habit are the ones that aren't thinking for themselves, to assume all the others seeking truth are also not thinking for themselves is highly arrogant, no insult intended.

 

[Dark Wing]

Originally posted by radagast
Oh, I have no problem questioning authority. The first thing I started questioning had to do with the absurdity (IMO) of accepting something (like the dogma of most religions, or the truth of the bible) where there was no method of determining the truth value, short of dying. This is why I've not read the bible in thirty years - it's short on entertainment value and no value other than that.

no way of questioning it shart of dying? why do you say that? and what makes you think that dying is a way to prove it true or false? again, i do not believe in heaven or hell as a place to go to, so loosing all knowledge that you even exsited and turning to dust is not exacly what i would see as proof of the bible or not. infact there are ways that you can prove the bible. through the method it tells you to test it, prophecy. if it says somthing is going to happen and it dosent, then hey, its wrong, yeah? and i know you can get into a debate about symbology concerning prophecy, but i am sorry, when it says the king of the north is going to be forced to come down, then it tells you that the king of the north is a joint venture of various named countries lead by whoever owns the top of Georgia then i say hey! maybe someone from the north lead by whoever own the top of georgia will come down to war! there is no sybology that's in the bible that is not explined within its self. there is no need for mystical 'meanings'. when it tells a story about a goat and a ram battling it out near a river, then tells you that the ram is persia and the goat is greese, i say the ram is persia and the goat is greese.

proving the bible has nothing to do with death. and that's no way to prove it either. if what it says is going to happen happens, then that's enough for me. if it says somthing will by a certian time, and it dosent, i will give it up. simple.

If we are to question all authority, then we can accept nothing. We must discover it all ourselves. This is impractical in this day and age, so it's best to pick and chose our battles. To you, this is an important battle, to me it ranks up there with how many buttons Santa Claus has on his suit or the exact wording of a specific Minnie Pearl song. Arranging my sock drawer is more appealing.

no, we just must question it logicaly. if we can activly criticaly analize things, then all we have to do is make the authority justify itself in what it is telling us. that's all i am asking. and if this topic has so little appeal to you, why are you choosing to discuss it? (i am not trying to be narky, it is a genuine question. nothing bores me more than participation in a debate i am not interested in, i understand if you never reply to this thread is all i am saying) (but i hope you do, for i at least have been enjoying this)

Now, in the argument in question, I have multiple authorities on a subject I will not be investigating myself. One is an unknown person from Sydney, of unknown credentials, and a nice writing style, and Two is the agreement of a large number of highly credentialed biblical scholars with virtually no dissent (on this topic).
Which would you choose?
This put's your claims into the light of highly extraordinary.

i do not ask that you believe me, and i do not claim to have the truth. i simply have a cliam that i am asking people to criticaly analize. i could very well be wrong. and i f i am, i will happily concede. it seems to me things are diffrent to the way they have been previously percieved, so i have questioned them, reserched, and discussed this matter with every authority that i have the chance to. this has resulted in many things, including being thrown out of every church i have entered. why? i quetion things that they are teaching, i bring my evidence, they then refuse to even talk to me, or even try to discuss it, and throw me out. those who do try and talk only do so for a little while, then just turn around and ask me if i thought that their little girl would go to heaven if she was hit by a truck that day. and this is my point. a lot of what you will hear is simply a way of using emotional logic for somthing where it shouldent be. it makes it easier for them if they believe that their loved ones go to a better place or are being looked after by god when they die. but its simply a claim that has no basis. people don't like to be questioned. i simply ask that you test my ideas. i do not claim to have all the answers.

I quite agree, however, there was a wize man named Isaac Asimov who, once upon a time, stated that

If you tell me something mundane is true, then I will likely accept it without checking. If you tell me something extraordinary is true, then I may accept your word, but wish to see evidence. If you tell me something wildly extraordinary, then I want to see a lot of evidence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Now, given my stated interest levels in my sock drawer vs biblical truth, you may see why I would default to the more accepted versions without the years of study needed on ancient Hebrew culture and ancient Hebrew necessary to investigate this for myself.

this is fair enough. what kind of evidence are you looking for, what can i do to show you what i say may have some basis? what evidence would you accept, and i shall do my best to live up to your standards. it seems this is a waste of time if i cannot gain your confidence at all, so i am asking for your terms of endulgence.

I would like to point out that it is extremely egotistical and somewhat insulting to all those people out there, honestly researching the bible and christianity, to assume they are not thinking for themselves, just because they disagree with you. You are not the only person, at this moment in time, looking into the translations and meaning of the more original texts of the bible. Most of these are highly spiritual and very honest people. The people that just go to church as a function of habit are the ones that aren't thinking for themselves, to assume all the others seeking truth are also not thinking for themselves is highly arrogant, no insult intended.

never once did i say that all in the christian church were sheep, nor did i ever say they were not genuine people who are looking for the truth.nor did i ever cliam that they were not thinking for themselves. all i claim is that there is a lot of info out tnere that remins untouched by the churches for the simple reason that it will shake their system if they do. and, unfortunatly, many people get caught up in this and get mislead. i am aware that i am not the only person who does this, and i can tell you that there are a lot more people out there who have come up with the same conclusion as i. i haven't found many with exacly the same, but many people have very very similar. all i ask, and all i will ever ask is that people question. i never presume to have the absolute truth, only propose a possibility and ask to be shown wrong.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Dark Wing
never once did i say that all in the christian church were sheep, nor did i ever say they were not genuine people who are looking for the truth.nor did i ever cliam that they were not thinking for themselves. all i claim is that there is a lot of info out tnere that remins untouched by the churches for the simple reason that it will shake their system if they do. and, unfortunatly, many people get caught up in this and get mislead. i am aware that i am not the only person who does this, and i can tell you that there are a lot more people out there who have come up with the same conclusion as i. i haven't found many with exacly the same, but many people have very very similar. all i ask, and all i will ever ask is that people question. i never presume to have the absolute truth, only propose a possibility and ask to be shown wrong.

You seem to assume I'm making this as an accusation.

What I was stating, in defense of a position you considered incorrect, was that 1) you make a statement, as an authority (I'm giving you that benefit of the doubt, since I am not about to undertake the education to check it), that 2) your interpretations deviate wildly from many, many whom are bright, honest, researchers in this field.

You say that many have come to the same conclusion, but I've never heard of them - so perhaps it isn't quite as many as you seem to think.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Dark Wing
no way of questioning it shart of dying? why do you say that? and what makes you think that dying is a way to prove it true or false? again, i do not believe in heaven or hell as a place to go to, so loosing all knowledge that you even exsited and turning to dust is not exacly what i would see as proof of the bible or not. infact there are ways that you can prove the bible. through the method it tells you to test it, prophecy. if it says somthing is going to happen and it dosent, then hey, its wrong, yeah? and i know you can get into a debate about symbology concerning prophecy, but i am sorry, when it says the king of the north is going to be forced to come down, then it tells you that the king of the north is a joint venture of various named countries lead by whoever owns the top of Georgia then i say hey! maybe someone from the north lead by whoever own the top of georgia will come down to war! there is no sybology that's in the bible that is not explined within its self. there is no need for mystical 'meanings'. when it tells a story about a goat and a ram battling it out near a river, then tells you that the ram is persia and the goat is greese, i say the ram is persia and the goat is greese.

I certainly don't want to appear condescending, Dark Wing, nor am I one to normally speak of anothers spelling, since mine is atrocious. But your spelling is to the point where it is difficult for me to understand what you are saying. I'm sure you are simply writing fast and not proof-reading, but it is affecting your communication efficiency.

Owns the top of georgia? Uh, where did this come from?

If you don't believe in heaven or hell, then I do have to admit, your religious views would be more acceptable to me than most of christianity. But, without the whip of heaven and hell, why should I care anyway?

You accept the bible as evidence. I don't. At least not in any form or fashion that you do. (maybe an example of human nature) Since I don't accept it as evidence of anything... I guess you can where I'm going with this...

I figure if there is a god, he's either someone that wouldn't care if we believed in him in the first place, since he's given no hard evidence, or 2) He's a real bastard that I would rather spend eternity in hell (yes, I know you don't believe in it any more than I) avoiding rather than associate with.

With this type of philosophy about god, you may see why I proceed under the acceptance that I have no reason to believe he/she exists.

 

[Another God]

I believe the 'owns top of georgia' was just an arbitrarily chosen example of what a symbolic term may represent. So when there is a prophecy:
"the king of the north is going to be forced to come down"
And it explains that:
"the king of the north is a joint venture of various named countries lead by whoever owns the top of Georgia"
Then the meaning is obvious:
"someone from the north lead by whoever own the top of georgia will come down to war"
(I think DW left the word 'War' out of her prophecy part though...meh, whatever, I am sure you get the drift, and that's all that matters.)

You accept the bible as evidence. I don't. At least not in any form or fashion that you do.

This is the same main point of contention that I have with DW too radagast, and it still remains my main point.

She claims that her proof of the Bible being valuable evidence comes from it's prophetic power. I don't know what prophecies she is basing her current acceptance of it on though, as I mostly hear her talk about the 'Coming wars' or whatever in the middle east. Well, sure, more wars are coming the middle east (most likely), but they have been there forever, and chances are that they aremostly perpetuated by fundamentalists fulfilling their own beliefs in the prophecies.

But the fact is, these prophecies haven't been fulfilled, and yet DW believes the Bible now. So DW, give us an example of a prophecy which has been fullfilled already, which without doubt occurred after all of the Bible was put together (Anytime in the last 1900 years...one prophecy without ambiguity...shouldn't be too hard for a prophetic book should it?)

 

[radagast]

AG, there are certain prophecies that were fulfilled (the arrival of the savior of Isreal, jesus). The problem with that is, thru language and idiom analysis of some of the more original texts, much of the prophecy was written after the occurance of the event (specifically the king of isreal bit wasn't after the fact, but can be explained as a self-fulfilling prophecy).


Dark Wing, meaning no disrespect, but I am curious as to your background in ancient Hebrew and the ancient Hebrew culture. What kind of degrees do you have in this field?

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by radagast
AG, there are certain prophecies that were fulfilled (the arrival of the savior of Isreal, jesus). The problem with that is, thru language and idiom analysis of some of the more original texts, much of the prophecy was written after the occurance of the event (specifically the king of isreal bit wasn't after the fact, but can be explained as a self-fulfilling prophecy).

Not surprisingly, I have little faith in the jesus prophecy... If people look for something hard enough, they will find it wherever they look. (Thinks of Life Of Brian)

Dark Wing, meaning no disrespect, but I am curious as to your background in ancient Hebrew and the ancient Hebrew culture. What kind of degrees do you have in this field?

She has no degrees. I think you have mis-taken her in that respect. I thought this when we had that little stint about Authority. DW is claiming no attribute of authority, but rather offering : "Hey, if you look at the hebrew words, and translate them literally, the conclusions you have been spoonfed your whole lives may not be true."

I know that she has been raised to some extent with this approach to the bible, and so only has had a degree of experience through application. ie: Use lexicon, find literal translation of words, apply.

but don't take my word for it, I don't really know for sure. She'll be in here again sometime soon enough.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by radagast

While I understand your argument on ulterior motives with regard to control, that the early church(es) had for a specific translation, the fact that no major denomination (that I'm aware of) holds your translation, leads me to doubt you translation.

Her view is supported by the Universalist. For further clarification you should read "The Bible Hell" by J.W. Hanson (it is available in various places on the net) another excellent read that backs her view up is "The Origin and History of the Doctrine of Endless Punishment" by Thomas B. Thayer (also available on the net)

 

[Dark Wing]

You want specific prophecies given after the bible was completed, I shall give them to you. I can show you the prophesy of Ariel Sharon taking the city of Jerusalem back, I can show you the prediction of the dome of the rock being built on the temple site (this is a prediction telling you the year it will be done, for those of you who claim that you can never know dates for anything), I can show you the current dissection of the middle east into its current countries, and what is going to happen to them next. The next big chunk of "end of the world" prophecy (coming back momentarily to the thread topic) is in the middle of making now; I will post all of this up if you wish. Give me the weekend. I will sit down and write it out properly, and post it up. Then jump on me all you want, please show me I am wrong.

If you are not satisfied with this, I can find other ones as well; they are the more obvious ones off the top of my head. I will post them this weekend. Look out for them...

 

[Another God]

I can't wait.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Another God
She has no degrees. I think you have mis-taken her in that respect. I thought this when we had that little stint about Authority. DW is claiming no attribute of authority, but rather offering : "Hey, if you look at the hebrew words, and translate them literally, the conclusions you have been spoonfed your whole lives may not be true."

I know that she has been raised to some extent with this approach to the bible, and so only has had a degree of experience through application. ie: Use lexicon, find literal translation of words, apply.

but don't take my word for it, I don't really know for sure. She'll be in here again sometime soon enough.

But without a really good knowledge of both ancient hebrew culture and serious knowledge of idiomatic usage in ancient hebrew, there is no way to say the information she is arriving at bears any resemblence to the meaning when it was written.

Hell, if I directly translated "Throw a few shrimps on the barbie" using a standard english dictionary, but no knowledge of Aussie idioms, I would come to the conclusion that they were tossing either small people or small crustaceans onto a small doll. Knowledge of culture and idiomatic usage is as important as a translation of the words. Directly translating the phrase "He was bad, man!" would give you a completely opposite meaning depending on it's usage.

Dark Wing, if you haven't considered the things I've mentioned above, and do not plan on doing so, then I cannot help but conclude that there are subconscious motivations for getting the answers you're getting, which have nothing to do with getting the correct answers. Humans are notorious for indulging in self-delusion, when it supports an ego-driven goal. We are all subject to it. You can find courses in ancient hebrew and ancient hebrew culture, that don't go so far as to try and intrepret scripture for you. Please consider it, if you are striving for accuracy.

For an amusing look at interpretation via dictionary look at
http://www.engrish.com.

 

[FZ+]

And I'll be waiting with the list of biblical prophecies that didn't turn out right.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by FZ+
And I'll be waiting with the list of biblical prophecies that didn't turn out right.

Haha, LOL. Hmmmm
This will be interesting. I think this is worth a new thread: Battle of the prophecies.
True prophecy, followed by false prophecy. Each prophecy posted must be explained and justified as being true/false before moving onto the counter example.

FZ, do you think you can handle the role of the 'Negative Team' in this battle? Or do you have a better recomendation?

Dark Wing: Do you think you could make it into PF often enough to fight this battle?