Oh dear. You've been banned from posting here by the frisky antispam bot Martinez19
PS like a phoenix bird that rises from the ashes of fire is Martinez39

MuttleyLaff:
Oh dear. You've been banned from posting here by the frisky antispam bot Martinez19
PS like a phoenix bird that rises from the ashes of fire is Martinez39

Lol. Logic can't prevail for some. The so called bot did not ban me until now.

budaatum:

The Bible was written in Greek actually, Greek that is not written anymore for that matter, and translated from languages no one speaks anymore, so it probably is as difficult as calculus considering all the various contradictions therein and the numerous ways in which it can be taken.

Your bias is really getting the better of you, just look at what you wrote. Haha! Let's assume that no one speaks Greek anymore. It doesn't change the fact that the first English bible, precisely the King James Version, was released in the 17th century(1611AD) when people spoke Greek and you can't tell me that there was not a polyglot or linguist skilled, at least, in both English and Greek. In fact the people(scholars), commissioned by King James, that translated the bible from Greek to English were such people and they clearly communicated the meaning of the Greek scriptures in English so that even if people don't speak Greek today or speak a different Greek today, the meaning of the old Greek scriptures are clearly communicated. So I don't see how the crooked move of reinterpretation, metaphorical and allegorical explanations are due to the bible's original language and I don't see the complexity you are talking about.

Besides, Greek is the official language of Greece with 99% of people speaking it as at today. So Greek is still spoken, written and languages are being translated into Greek. Besides, don't try to create complexity where there is none. If a book contradicts itself, it means it's flawed --- shikena. Complexity arises from a book of contradiction when you insists that it has some hidden truths in it and you try, by all means, to see that truth and unification despite obvious contradictions. Let's assume that Sherlock Holmes novels were originally written in Greek, if it were translated to English and people read it, they wouldn't be divided on what the novels say but when it comes to the bible, dishonest christians are fighting for their feelings and convenience rather than admit that the bible is flawed. I insist that if people read the bible honestly and thoroughly, they would all agree and be accurate on the true meaning of the bible. Haba!

Finally, don't ever place the bible in the same level of difficulty as my dear advanced calculus. Greeks would struggle with advanced calculus in Greek than with a story book in Greek. How would it now be for non-Greeks? Stop it!

Are you suggesting that taking parts of the Bible as metaphor is because it is "convenient and makes one feel better" and such a view is "faulty", "ignorant and dishonest"?

Exactly! That's the origin of the reinterpretation, metaphorical and allegorical explanations of the bible. For example before the evidences came out for the theory of evolution or any theory on the origin of man, the Catholic Church, Catholics and other christians conveniently and confidently believed the story of creation in the book of genesis. It was easy to do because it was unchallenged by science at that time and therefore convenient to believe. When the evidences came out, many Christians, especially Catholics and their church, all of a sudden, changed their view because it was not convenient to deny the fact of evolution that they knew and rather than admit that the bible is wrong and led them astray, they reinterpretated the book of Genesis to be a metaphor that indeed supports evolution --- how dishonest and convenient seeking. They were after their feelings and convenience and it made them feel better that the bible is true and agrees with facts.

Take a look at the reinterpretation of the rastafari doctrines after their supposed immortal leader, Emperor Haile Selassie, died and you will know where the motivation of such crooked moves of reinterpretation, metaphorical and allegorical explanations come from. Similar unbiblical explanations that have the same purpose are "heaven helps those who help themselves," "God will not heal anyone since he has provided modern medicine," "God won't come down from heaven to help anyone," "God is not a magician," etc.

Well, I beg to differ, but observe two "atheists who have read the bible", disagreeing on what the bible says, in contradiction to your earlier statement that atheists agree! I wonder if you think I am the "ignorant and dishonest" one here, Martinez19.

No! Big No. Disagreement due to ignorance of scripture is different from disagreement due to reinterpretation and perspectives of scripture. Atheists, who has read the bible thoroughly and honestly(obviously), all agree on what the bible says.

Cc. Martinez19

Martinez39:
Your bias is really getting the better of you, just look at what you wrote. Haha! Let's assume that no one speaks Greek anymore. It doesn't change the fact that the first English bible, precisely the King James Version, was released in the 17th century(1611AD) when people spoke Greek and you can't tell me that there was not a polyglot or linguist skilled, at least, in both English and Greek.

Sorry Martinez19, but it does seem that your knowledge of the history of the translation of the Bible is incomplete at the least. Is it because you focus on my bias whilst completely ignoring yours?

The Bishop's Bible, from which the KJV was a revision, was translated in opposition to translations of the Bible before its time. Ships were searched to ensure the Geneva translation did not land on British soil because it offended the bias of the high-church party of the Church of England since it sought to replace government of the church by bishops with government by lay elders. The KJV removed the Geneva bias and replaced it with the King's bias. That alone points to disagreement in translating the text itself, not to talk of the diverse understandings one gets depending on the preferred version one reads

Then there is documented evidence of the difficulty translating from so called originals in ancient Greek, Latin, Hebrew etc, all of which had huge differences to the modern day forms of those languages, and even of those in existence at the time of translating. Bias could not but have gotten the better of them considering the intentions and views and understandings of the translators.

What's amusing here is that even our discussion proves my point. We both have our biases, so how could we all possibly agree? Call my bias ignorant if you may, and I'll accept, but we can't agree because we can not all see things in the same way, unless you are asking that our brains be removed and we be programmed to not think like some religious people do, and which I do think we both abhor.

I freewilly insist that my reading says its right and proper for me to understand and take from it as pleases me. And you are free to abandon your brain and your freewill and become a slave to my interpretation if you so wish. Otherwise, you will just have to accept paxonel's position on devils and juju and witchcraft, and mine with my spaghetti and who is lord, or continue to consider us as "faulty", "ignorant and dishonest" and biased just because we do not abandon our free will and accept you highly intelligent unbiased understanding.

Martinez39:
. Disagreement due to ignorance of scripture is different from disagreement due to reinterpretation and perspectives of scripture. Atheists, who has read the bible thoroughly and honestly(obviously), all agree on what the bible says.

It does sound to me as if you are saying that I have not read the Bible thoroughly and honestly and that's the reason we disagree. Rather amusingly, Tatime too, a JW I think, gives the same reason for my disagreeing with him also. I guess both of you are devoid of biases which buda seems to have in abundance. All I can do is apologise for not being as unignorant and thorough and honest as you two.

Merry Christmas!

Martinez39:


Cc. Martinez19

Consider Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO. Note the various sources (biases) for the current texts.

budaatum:

Consider Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO. Note the various sources (biases) for the current texts.

Don't think I disrespectfully backed out of our conversation. I am extremely busy and would reply today or tomorrow. Merry Christmas.