Why are you so obsessed with “definitive”? This would only be an issue if I were arguing over the truth of the Bible or something. I am not. I am discussing what a particular translation that people have come to know as “The Bible” over the course of the last 400 years has to say. The sooner you understand that, the sooner we can stop going in circles.
[/quote]
“Established” as in when someone reads “The Bible” today, odds are that it is the KJV. For all of your red herrings and straw mans you still haven’t shown how it makes a difference in this particular debate which translation is used. You want to disqualify the name Lucifer? Go for it. It doesn’t affect my argument one way or another.
“Canon” proves that the books of Isaiah and Ezekiel are relevant to the discussion of the Genesis “Creation” account because they are as canonical as Genesis. If you don’t allow for Ezekiel and Isaiah to be discussed than you can hardly discuss Genesis in the first place. They are all canonical and relevant. The only reason that “canon” was brough up is because of that other guy claiming that an event in Ezekiel had no bearing on an event in Genesis.
Here goes, for the third time…you going to remain silent on this again?
Quit claiming that the whole passage is detailing King Neb (with a little name calling out of jest) when it clearly is making references that could not apply to him. And you still like to avoid the cherub that hung out in the Garden of Eden from the Ezekiel passage.
I am discussing what the KJV says as a whole and you seem to be on a deeper truth seeking crusade lol. It doesn’t matter anyway, sky of heaven. The fact remains that King Neb. did not recognize the Hebrew God as “the most High”. He was Babylonian, not an Israelite. Why would he aspire to be like or superior to a God who he doesn’t recognize as his God?
I am going to tell you something that is no secret at all: your claim is nonsense. Any translation of a work involves interpretations and changes. Just because some publisher wants to slap the label “KJV” on a book to make some anglo-based missionary feel comfortable in another land does not make the book an actual King James Version. And just as importantly, the ability of some publisher to team up with someone using a Gideon’s-like distribution system to get a lot of books spread around the world does not make any given version actually the most used version in any given language.
The KJV was the most widely read English version a few years ago, but in the last 20 years it has fallen to a position of having the largest plurality of readers–not a majority–and it has been steadily losing ground in recent years.
Regardless of that issue, you seem to have a really odd view of what should actually be discussed.
You reject original intent of the authors.
You reject the comparisons of what has actually happened in history (or is known through science) as being irrelevant to what “the bible says.”
You reject the majority of accepted translations, preferring an older translation that is rejected by every scholar who actually studies Scripture.
You seem to want to say that what Scripture “means” is what you have excerpted from a single 400 old work that is not used by the overwhelming majority of Christians.
You have an understanding of “canon” that differs from any meaning I have encountered in 30 years of discussing this topic with all sorts of Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and Jews.
So, are you a follower of Jack Chick? Or of Charles Russell? Or of some other smaller group?
Your statements are in direct contradiction to the majority of mainstream Christian groups, so I am curious as to the source of your views.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CigaretteRepairman *
**“Accuracy” is not the issue here.
[Then what the hell is the issue? We’re talking about what the Bible says. The KJV translation of the Isaiah passage is wrong so it has to be discarded in any converstaion about what the Bible says. The KJV is not the Bible. it is only one archaic and flawed translation of the Bible.
Once again; what the hell is the issue then?
How about the original Hebrew then? Look up heylel ben shachar in any Hebrew lexicon. It doesn’t mean “Lucifer.” “Lucifer” is WRONG. The KJV is WRONG. Why would you insist on a WRONG translation over a correct one?
When you say it should be read as “canonical” you’re saying that this “unbiased” reader should accept a bias that this collection of books is somehow contiguous and internally consistent. I think a truly unbiased and intelligent person could easily see that this is a widely disparate collection of books which often contradict each other. This person with “excellent reading comprehension” would also spot immediately that there are two different and contradictory creation stories right at the beginning of the first book. If this person had any knowledge of natural history he would also know that these stories are mythological in their intent, not literal.
It only looks that way if you’re trying really hard and squinting a little. maybe it would help you to know that the Jewish Messiah was not perceived as a redeemer of sins so that “wounded for our transgressions” stuff could not apply to a Messiah. as I said before, this passage is about Israel as a nation. You’re also using that crappy KJV translation again. There are better translations and commentaries on this but I don’t have the energy to track them down right now. Maybe tomorrow.
Bethlehem was the birthplace of David and David is who this passage refers to. The very fact that david was born in Bethelehem is why it was thought that the Messiah would have to born in Bethlehem. Matthew and Luke placed Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem to match that expectation, not because it was historically accurate.
Well, the book of Isaiah was written by an Israelite (or, probably, a few Israelites) So, if I wanted to say that the King of Babylon wanted to set himself up as a god, and be worshiped by the world, I’d have him say something like “I will be like the Most High”.
Actually, the phrase “most high” was a fairly common appelation for gods in that part of the world at that time. It was, for example, a title given to Baal. Since Isaiah was not actually delivering his message to Nebuchadnezzar, himself, but simply hurling his insults from Jerusalem for the benefit of the local people, his use of the title that his audience would be familiar with makes sense.
(Of course, if we choose to pretend that the original authors’ words are irrelevant to current meaning, we can make up any story we want regarding the words we read.)
The source of my views comes from reading the KJV Bible and I could not care less what Christians of any persuasion have to say about it. First, the fact that I quoted from the KJV in my initial argument; was that not enough to make people understand that the book I was discussing was in fact the KJV? So is the NIV relevant? No, discuss the NIV with someone else. Is the claimed “original” intent of the authors relevant? That is a separate debate in itself.
I don’t know how to make this any plainer. If I was talking about how a couple of sections of “The Shining” fit together, I wouldn’t be getting all of these off topic arguments I don’t believe. Just because there are multiple versions of “The Bible” does not negate a right to discuss a specific version. Also, discussing the Bible does not automatically mean that the truth or credibility of the Bible is an issue whatsoever. I make claim A based on text source B. If you can dispute claim A based on text source B then do it now. I am not interested in claims that I have not made or texts that I am not talking about. So if you are intending to dispute claim H based on text source W, then please, save your breath.
Cigarette, when did you get the Almighty Power To Proclaim The Terms of Debate?
If I were to interrupt a debate on whether Huckleberry Finn is racist or not with the contention that some passage on page 143 of the 1st British Edition made it clear that the book was racist, I’d rightly be told that I was being unduly nitpickety.
Guess who in this thread is also being unduly nitpickety. With suspect motives, I might add…
I think if you are reading the bible to gain a knowledge of paleontology, physics, or biology, you are likely to find yourself despised by both the bibliolotrists, and the scientists.
I think it is a story about some people who came to know God.
I believe that if you open your heart, and seek to find that in it, it can be the instrument of a miracle of faith.
Sadly, I know it can also become a reference for hatred, intolerance, and bigotry. Small men can use it to belittle others, and grasp power for themselves. And that is a great evil. The evil lies not in the book, but in the hearts of those who use it in this way.
Others read it and find love for all of God’s children. And when they do, the find also, God’s overwhelming love for themselves. And that love can lead those people to live lives of humble goodness, or even heroic sacrifice. That good lies not in the book, but in the hearts of those who use it in this way.
The Word is the Lord himself. The bible is just a book.
So, basically, all your nonsense displaying your ignorance of the meaning of the word “canon” should have tipped us off that you were simply blowing smoke on the whole issue. You don’t care what the words actually mean, you simply want to invent a meaning that you can impose on one poor translation, irrespective of the actual understanding of anyone in the Jewish or Christian traditions, from the original authors right down to the present. Scholarship is irrelevant, intent is irrelevant, theology is irrelevant: you are simply playing some deconstruction games with a text that you neither understand nor care to understand.
Well, there is an extraordinarily high correspondence between chain yankers and people who post “lol” at their own attempts at wit. (Boy, you should have been here for the Chevy55SS extravaganza back on the SDMB/AOL. That guys’s posts were full of his words "lol"ling around the screen–not that I think Cig is Chevy.)
I am the one that made the initial statement that started this debate. If you are disputing this that I haven’t said based on texts that I haven’t referenced then you are performing a flawless straw man “argument”. Does the text of one translation change the text of another translation? Not hardly. I use “according to…” type statements when I am discussing the Bible. Bringing up other texts does not change the truth of my statements. Therefore you end up arguing with claims that I haven’t made. Once again, this is known as straw man.
Exactly, and that is what I am getting at here. You folks come in trying to dispute claims that I have made about KJV text with non-KJV text. What is the deal with that?
You don’t have to invent a meaning for text written in the English language. The words have established definitions.
Absolutely incredible. And I know exactly what canon means. It is everyone else is having the problem with the word. Canon does not mean some sort of irrefutable truth, at least not in the context that I am using it. I means the same thing that it means if you walk in on a Star Wars discussion and someone is hollering about how the novels and the radio shows are canon or someone else is hollering that only the movies should be canon. Why is this so hard to understand? I used the term canon to describe the books of Ezekiel and Isaiah because someone claimed that they weren’t applicable in the discussion. They are applicable because Genesis, Ezekiel and Isaiah are all part of the same canon. Do you understand this? Just like if it is agreed that the Star Wars novels are canon by everyone in the discussion, then they will be allowed in the discussion and will be accepted as true in the context of the series being discussed. I really can’t believe that I have to explain “canon” to you.
No, there are no dinosaurs in any version of the Bible, not even the KJV. Way back on page one of this thread you can see the passages from Job about “behemoth” and “leviathan” which some fundamentalists like to interpret as dinosaurs. This is not an interpretation which is taken at all seriously by genuine scholars, however, and it takes a lot of wishing and squinting to really make the descriptions fit.
There may be legends and literary references from ancient times which were inspired by discoveries of fossils (such as stories or references to dragons, griffins, giants, etc.) but there is nothing in the Bible which can be persuasively argued as being descriptive of dinosaurs even in fossil form much less a living form.
No, there were 64 posts in this discussion before you hijacked it with your false claim that the Genesis, chapter 1, describes a “recreation.” At that time, you assertted that “If you read the entire Bible and fit the pieces together you will see that.” You are now claiming that what you shouls have said was “If you read the entire KJV with the odd ahistorical filters of CigaretteRepairman and jam the pieces together in inappropriate ways, you might be able to see that.”
That is rather dishonest debating.
You can’t, because you are using the word incorrectly. If one discusses the “canon” of a recent work of fiction, one can identify the stories that do and do not fit within the view of the original single author. However, the canon of religious works does not mean that all the works fit together in some sort of perfect mosaic or that the meanings of what was written magically change when the canon is defined. Canon means no more and no less than that each work, individually, fits within the theological scope of the greater compendium. Within that canon it is quite possible to have books that are paradoxical and even contradictory on individual points (the Letter of James and Paul’s letter to the Romans, for example) as long as the overall message is coherent within the system of belief. To claim that a stray comment in Ezekiel changes the clear meaning of the first chapter of Genesis is not an example of what canon means. To claim that an erroneous translation by Jerome into Latin, that is later carried over in a single English translation, imparts specific meaning to the whole body of writings (despite the fact that the same error of translation was not carried back into other translations), is simply to be silly.
The canon that is used by Protestants was set by Martin Luther–who left out the Lucifer translation, rendering your claims for Lucifer as part of the canon ridiculous. Including poetic references by Ezekiel as an attempt to change the meaning of Genesis is absurd.
By the way, the “nephilim” fragment in Genesis is one of the more obscure passages in the Bible. Nephilim is variously translated as either “giants,” (most common) or “fallen ones” which some folks like to interpret as fallen angels. Since the passage claims that these nephilim mated with human women it’s very unlikely to refer to dinosaurs. The meaning of that passage is widely debated and there’s no definitive answer as to what it means. Some say it’s about fallen angels, some say it’s a metaphorical reference to humans who were once poweful but fell because of pride. Some think it’s a fragment of an older polytheistic legend. Personally, I really don’t know. The “cynic” in me wants to think it’s the latter but I wouldn’t rule out the metaphorical reading either.
It takes a lot of “wishing and squinting” to make the descriptions of behemoth and leviathan fit any creatures that exist today. Behemoth is described as a large grass eating animal that “moveth his tail like a cedar”. Since the theme of Behemoth’s description is to descripe powerful attributes, the “tail like a cedar” doesn’t exactly fit the spindly tail of a hippo or an elephant. Leviathan sounds like the typical mythical dragon (the fire breathing part was a big clue).
It says the tail sways like a cedar. It doesn’t say the tail looks like a cedar.
You now seem to agree that “leviathan” wouldn’t be describing a dinosaur so it’s either a poetic description of a crocodile (quite probable) or of a completely mythical creature.