Bible-Thumpers!!! Prepare to be upset

[Oh, Gee!!]

Science Tells How Jesus Walked on Water

The Bible says that Jesus walked on water, but a professor of oceanography at Florida State University in Tallahassee says Christ was actually walking on a floating piece of ice.

The sixth chapter of the Gospel of John tells the story familiar to Christians: When evening came, his disciples went down to the sea, got into a boat and started across the sea to Capernaum. It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them. The sea became rough because a strong wind was blowing. When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat, and they were terrified. But he said to them: "It is I, do not be afraid." (John 6:16-20)

Reuters reports that FSU professor Doron Nof credits this miraculous act to an unusual combination of water and atmospheric conditions in what is now northern Israel that could have led to ice formation on the Sea of Galilee. Using statistical models to examine the dynamics of the Sea of Galilee (now known as Lake Kinneret) and records of surface temperatures of the Mediterranean Sea, Nof determined there was a period of cooler temperatures in the area between 1,500 and 2,600 years ago. This could have included the time in which Jesus lived.

Had the temperature dropped below freezing, it could have created ice to form in the freshwater lake then called the Sea of Galilee. And that ice would have been thick enough to support the weight of a man. What's more, it might have been impossible for distant observers--especially in the dark as the Gospel of John reports--to see that it was actually ice surrounded by water and not just water.

Nof calls this a "possible explanation" of how Jesus walked on water. "If you ask me if I believe someone walked on water, no, I don't," Nof told Reuters. "Maybe somebody walked on the ice, I don't know. I believe that something natural was there that explains it. We leave to others the question of whether or not our research explains the biblical account." Nof acknowledges he has received hate mail for espousing this theory. The study findings were published in the Journal of Paleolimnology

http://channels.netscape.com/whatsnew/default.jsp?story=20060405-0842

Don't hate on me, I'm just the messenger. :flag:

[smeagol]

It's useless to try to explain miracles away. You either believe them or you don't.

It's sort of like those people who say "Yeah, Christ was a great moral teacher, but a mere man". Bullshit. He was either who he claims he was, the Son of God, or he was a lunatic. There is no middle ground.

[Old School Chic]

professor of oceanography at Florida State University in Tallahassee says Christ was actually walking on a floating piece of ice.





What is this world coming to :lol :lol :lol

[Sec24Row7]

He said he could have been not that he was...

He said that perhaps once or twice in a 1500 year window in which Jesus lived salinity changes may have caused Ice in the sea of Galilea.

Pretty off the wall theory. I'm sure the possibility for ice is there... but to extend that as an explanation for him walking on water is a stretch.

[JoeChalupa]

Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe.

[boutons_]

Lots of stuff in the Bible, like religious paintings in Europe, are aimed at people who had, 1500 - 2000 years ago, the mental sophistication of today's 1st graders, none could read or write, no schooling, writing was considered magic, were mostly hypnotized into family/tribal strictures.

The moral lessons often had a wow factor, like miracles, to amaze the "children".

But the current Bible thumpers simplistically, backwardly, childishly take the Biblical apocrypha as literally and scientifically true.

[JoeChalupa]

I'm not a Bible Thumper but I do believe in my faith....and yes, I'm considered by many to be a liberal. Go figure.

[Spurminator]

Nof calls this a "possible explanation" of how Jesus walked on water.

Sure. I have no problem with this characterization. The article's title is misleading though.

Doesn't explain why Peter sank when he attempted it though... Unless he was in on the joke.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Sure. I have no problem with this characterization. The article's title is misleading though.

Doesn't explain why Peter sank when he attempted it though... Unless he was in on the joke.


Jesus wore thin the ice enough so that when Peter stepped on he crashed through. pwnt.

[Spurminator]

:lol

"Let's just park the boat here... No, a little further... There you go. Now, watch this!"

[JoeChalupa]

I think this dude's explanation is running on thin ice.

[smeagol]

Lots of stuff in the Bible, like religious paintings in Europe, are aimed at people who had, 1500 - 2000 years ago, the mental sophistication of today's 1st graders, none could read or write, no schooling, writing was considered magic, were mostly hypnotized into family/tribal strictures.

The moral lessons often had a wow factor, like miracles, to amaze the "children".

But the current Bible thumpers simplistically, backwardly, childishly take the Biblical apocrypha as literally and scientifically true.
As I said before, you either believe the miracles performed by Jesus and outlined in the Bible or you don't.

You probably don't.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Lots of stuff in the Bible, like religious paintings in Europe, are aimed at people who had, 1500 - 2000 years ago, the mental sophistication of today's 1st graders, none could read or write, no schooling, writing was considered magic, were mostly hypnotized into family/tribal strictures.

The moral lessons often had a wow factor, like miracles, to amaze the "children".

But the current Bible thumpers simplistically, backwardly, childishly take the Biblical apocrypha as literally and scientifically true.


I think the spirit of this thread was lost on you.

[boutons_]

what was the spirit of the first post? my post was exactly in line with it

[Oh, Gee!!]

what was the spirit of the first post? my post was exactly in line with it


humor, of which you display none.

[Phenomanul]

Lots of stuff in the Bible, like religious paintings in Europe, are aimed at people who had, 1500 - 2000 years ago, the mental sophistication of today's 1st graders, none could read or write, no schooling, writing was considered magic, were mostly hypnotized into family/tribal strictures.

The moral lessons often had a wow factor, like miracles, to amaze the "children".

But the current Bible thumpers simplistically, backwardly, childishly take the Biblical apocrypha as literally and scientifically true.

The smilie for this is finally here....

:smchode:

Intellectual capacity is independent of era.... Isaac Newton back in the 1800's would still be considered a genius today. Sure... he wouldn't know much about today's modern concepts but his aptitude would allow him to absorb them like a sponge.

So yes, boutons, no one in that era had the capability of writing narrative or descriptive prose.... it was all about fiction. :rolleyes

[boutons_]

the article was debunking a Biblical miracle with a possible scientific explanation.
you find that funny?

[Phenomanul]

the article was debunking a Biblical miracle with a possible scientific explanation.
you find that funny?

it attempted to do so by hinging it on phenomena not described or supported by the context of the story.

Such as the fact that he walked across the lake in the middle of a ferocious storm... conditions that would eliminate the possibility of anyone being able to walk over floating chunks of ice in the first place...

Ever tried walking on ice?? ever tried walking on a floating log? Imagine attempting the combination during a storm.... yeah. Doesn't fit the context.

[Oh, Gee!!]

the article was debunking a Biblical miracle with a possible scientific explanation.
you find that funny?


an article peppered with "could haves" and "possiblies" does not debunk anything, tool.

[Spurminator]

This article is all wrong... He had a pair of these.

http://homepages.tesco.net/~ben.craven/walking_on_water_images/going_for_it.jpg

[Phenomanul]

This article is all wrong... He had a pair of these.

http://homepages.tesco.net/~ben.craven/walking_on_water_images/going_for_it.jpg

:lol :lol

[Oh, Gee!!]

http://www.llerrah.com/images/jesus_walking_on_water_lg.gif

[smeagol]

the article was debunking a Biblical miracle with a possible scientific explanation.
you find that funny?
Am I wrong or did you, in another thread, claim to be a Christian?

It cannot possibly be true, can it boutons?

[jochhejaam]

I was able to pull up a copy of the original digital photo of "the walk" and it's obvious to anyone with eyes that ice had nothing to do with it.
Even if there were ice with waves the size of those it would have been more surfing than walking.

http://www.divinemercy333.net/Jesus_walking_on_water3.jpg

Perhaps someone would be so kind as to fax a copy of this photo to the good Professor Nof.

[DarkReign]

classic

[Phenomanul]

I was able to pull up a copy of the original digital photo of "the walk" and it's obvious to anyone with eyes that ice had nothing to do with it.
Even if there were ice with waves the size of those it would have been more surfing than walking.

http://www.divinemercy333.net/Jesus_walking_on_water3.jpg

Perhaps someone would be so kind as to fax a copy of this photo to the good Professor Nof.


You do realize that this picture does nothing to disuade his arguments.... unless it was painted while Jesus was in the act of walking to the boat...

[E20]

:lol

"Let's just park the boat here... No, a little further... There you go. Now, watch this!"
This is exactly what I'm thinking. :lol It'd be hilarious to see a skit of Jesus timing it just correctly to walk on water/ice.

[exstatic]

I think it's funny that "believers" think it unlikely that the ice could line up correctly. Yes, that MUCH less likely than him actually treading upon H2O...:lol

[boutons_]

And now that painting portrays, even proves without a doubt, EXACTLY how Christ did it?

Can these simplistic Bible-thumpers be any dumber? :lol :lol :lol :lol

[Spurminator]

boutons continues his struggle with humor.

[Spurminator]

I think it's funny that "believers" think it unlikely that the ice could line up correctly. Yes, that MUCH less likely than him actually treading upon H2O...:lol

No, you know what's more likely? That the entire story was completely made up.

I'd say that's probably the route athiests should pursue instead of the "How might Jesus have faked the whole thing for the Apostles" argument.... Just a tip, take it or leave it.

[gameFACE]

Prove to me that you're no fool
Walk across my swimmin' pool

[turambar85]

This has got to be the most pathetic attempt at disproving a belief that I have ever seen. Does anybody seriously think that this is more logical than walking on water? Walking on water, if it happened, means that it was a miracle, which means God exists(or Jesus was a master magician...and actually created Narnia.). If God exists, then walking on water is a minor achievement. If God does not exist, there is no walking on water, and walking on ice, in this instance, is well-near impossible. Lets see.
-The people who "witnessed" the miracle would have to not have heard of ice formations in the area, or they would have been suspicious.
-The ice would have been thick enough to support an adult male, and long enough for him to walk on...but yet small enough to not affect small wooden ships.
-As said, Paul would have had to have been punked to hell.
-Jesus would have had to have taken the time to land perfectly on the ice, and know where it ends, which not only takes a great measure of planning, but some visibility of the ice to on-lookers.

Now, there are 5 possibilities.
A. There is a God, it really happened.
B. There is a God, Jesus was just whacko, never happened.
C. There is no God, Jesus walked on ice.
D. There is no God, people made the story up.
E. Or, there is a God, but it was a story made up to give an idea of the powers of Christ.

Well, we can safely say that, because of the unbelievably low-probability in every single one of the previously mentioned Ice-walking points being true, as well as the rare occurance of ice in the 1st place, that the least likely answer is C. That Jesus walked on ice. Purely based on Ockham's Razor, we should always attempt to accept the simplest belief, and while that may not be believing in a God that created the Universe, it sure as HELL is not believing that every one of those rare chances all fell into place for an elaborate joke. Either say it never happened, or that it did. Don't make an ass out of yourself with such a ridiculous theory.
Jeez.

[smeagol]

I think it's funny that "believers" think it unlikely that the ice could line up correctly. Yes, that MUCH less likely than him actually treading upon H2O...:lol
:rolleyes

Let me clue you on something.

We "believers" believe The Christ to be God.

We not only believe he did not need the aid of ice perfectly aligned to walk on water, but we also believe he could (and did) raise the dead, heal the sick, make the blind see, the deaf hear and the dumb speak. We believe he could stop the wind from blowing and feed five thousand with a couple loaves of bread and a few fishes.

And most important of all, we believe he died and resurrected after three days. And given that he did this for us,you and me have a shot at eternal life.

Those are the "funny" things we believe Jesus did 2000 years ago.

[smeagol]

Prove to me that you're no fool
Walk across my swimmin' pool
Prove to me that you're devine
Turn my water into wine

[smeagol]

This has got to be the most pathetic attempt at disproving a belief that I have ever seen. Does anybody seriously think that this is more logical than walking on water? Walking on water, if it happened, means that it was a miracle, which means God exists(or Jesus was a master magician...and actually created Narnia.). If God exists, then walking on water is a minor achievement. If God does not exist, there is no walking on water, and walking on ice, in this instance, is well-near impossible. Lets see.
-The people who "witnessed" the miracle would have to not have heard of ice formations in the area, or they would have been suspicious.
-The ice would have been thick enough to support an adult male, and long enough for him to walk on...but yet small enough to not affect small wooden ships.
-As said, Paul would have had to have been punked to hell.
-Jesus would have had to have taken the time to land perfectly on the ice, and know where it ends, which not only takes a great measure of planning, but some visibility of the ice to on-lookers.

Now, there are 5 possibilities.
A. There is a God, it really happened.
B. There is a God, Jesus was just whacko, never happened.
C. There is no God, Jesus walked on ice.
D. There is no God, people made the story up.
E. Or, there is a God, but it was a story made up to give an idea of the powers of Christ.

Well, we can safely say that, because of the unbelievably low-probability in every single one of the previously mentioned Ice-walking points being true, as well as the rare occurance of ice in the 1st place, that the least likely answer is C. That Jesus walked on ice. Purely based on Ockham's Razor, we should always attempt to accept the simplest belief, and while that may not be believing in a God that created the Universe, it sure as HELL is not believing that every one of those rare chances all fell into place for an elaborate joke. Either say it never happened, or that it did. Don't make an ass out of yourself with such a ridiculous theory.
Jeez.
:clap :clap :clap

You have put more logic and substance to one of my earliest posts where I state that you either believe in the mericales performed by Jesus because he was who he claims he was, or you don't (like extatic and boutons, who don't).

The "ice" theory is pretty dumb.

[smeagol]

And now that painting portrays, even proves without a doubt, EXACTLY how Christ did it?

Can these simplistic Bible-thumpers be any dumber? :lol :lol :lol :lol
He did it because he is God. He can do anything. I know that is dificult to fathom in your small, constrained, narrow, materialistic mind, but that is what we believers/simplistic/Bible-thumping Christians believe in.

[smeagol]

No, you know what's more likely? That the entire story was completely made up.

I'd say that's probably the route athiests should pursue instead of the "How might Jesus have faked the whole thing for the Apostles" argument.... Just a tip, take it or leave it.
Excellent tip.

Atheist should take it because the "explanations" such as the ice theory makes you look not so bright.

[SA210]

He did it because he is God. He can do anything. I know that is dificult to fathom in your small, constrained, narrow, materialistic mind, but that is what we believers/simplistic/Bible-thumping Christians believe in.
I'm a believer, but Jesus is not God.

[NASpurs]

If Jesus is not God, then who is he?

God didn't create Jesus... God went down to this physical world in which we live and lived as Jesus. God's other form is called the Holy Spirit and the other one is our Father. This is called the Trinity. :)

[SA210]

Jesus is His son as the Bible says.

[NASpurs]

No Jesus is the Son not a son. Big difference if you think about it.

[SA210]

The Bible says Jesus is The son of God.

And Jesus prays to God in the Bible.
God doesn't need to pray to Himself.

[NASpurs]

Check this out:

the Bible in numerous places calls Jesus the Son of God. But, it does not mean that Jesus is the literal offspring of God.

The Term "Son of God" occurs 47 times in the King James New Testament. In reference to Jesus, it is a title as the heavenly, eternal Son who is equal to God the Father (John 5:18-24). It is Jesus who fully reveals the Father (Matt. 11:27). He is the exact representation of the Father (Heb. 1:1-3), He possesses all authority in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18), and Jesus had glory with the Father before the world was made (John 17:5)

[SA210]

^^^ and it says that Jesus sits at the right hand of God.
God wouldn't need to sit at His Own right hand.

[NASpurs]

That means that God has three forms, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All are equal and the same. There's no difference except the forms they represent.

[NASpurs]

Some online stuff for you:

Question: "What does it mean that Jesus is the Son of God?"



Answer: Jesus is not God’s Son in the sense of how we think of a father and a son. God did not get married and have a son. Jesus is God’s Son in the sense that He is God made manifest in human form (John 1:1,14). Jesus is God's Son in that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Luke 1:35 declares, "The angel answered, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.'" In Bible times, the phrase “son of man” was used to describe a human being. The son of a man is a man.



Another example can be found in John 17:12 where Judas as described as the "son of perdition." John 6:71 tells us that Judas was the son of Simon. What does John 17:12 mean by describing Judas as the "son of perdition"? The word "perdition" means "destruction, ruin, waste." Judas was not the literal son of "ruin, destruction, and waste" - but those things were the identity of Judas' life. Judas was a manifestation of perdition. In this same aspect, Jesus is the Son of God. The Son of God is God. Jesus is God made manifest (John 1:1,14).

[SA210]

IF PEOPLE were to read the Bible from cover to cover without any preconceived idea of a Trinity, they wouldn't arrive at such a concept on their own at all.

What comes through very clearly to an impartial reader is that God alone is the Almighty, the Creator, separate and distinct from anyone else, and that Jesus, even in his prehuman existence, is also separate and distinct, a created being, subordinate to God.

[NASpurs]

IF PEOPLE were to read the Bible from cover to cover without any preconceived idea of a Trinity, they wouldn't arrive at such a concept on their own at all.

What comes through very clearly to an impartial reader is that God alone is the Almighty, the Creator, separate and distinct from anyone else, and that Jesus, even in his prehuman existence, is also separate and distinct, a created being, subordinate to God.

Yeah I'm not going to argue with you there and I used to think the same actually. It just makes sense though when you sit down to think about it that God is Jesus. You can't pray to Jesus and worship him because that would be blasphemy to God since you can't pray to anyone other than God. He wants you to accept Jesus as your savior and worship Him in which God is Jesus otherwise you would be praying to God and Jesus seperately and not together which like I said would be blasphemy.

I'm not going to say if it's wrong or not but it's my belief but I don't understand this with the Catholics and the whole saints things. God said not to worship anyone but Him...

[SA210]

John 8:42
Jesus said to them: “If God were YOUR Father, YOU would love me, for from God I came forth and am here. Neither have I come of my own initiative at all, but that One sent me forth.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That pretty much seperates them as not being the same person.

[SA210]

Yeah I'm not going to argue with you there and I used to think the same actually. It just makes sense though when you sit down to think about it that God is Jesus. You can't pray to Jesus and worship him because that would be blasphemy to God since you can't pray to anyone other than God. He wants you to accept Jesus as your savior and worship Him in which God is Jesus otherwise you would be praying to God and Jesus seperately and not together which like I said would be blasphemy.

I'm not going to say if it's wrong or not but it's my belief but I don't understand this with the Catholics and the whole saints things. God said not to worship anyone but Him...
I hear you. I pray to God in Jesus' name.

[gtownspur]

SA210,

sorry jesus is the word of GOd. In hebrew the word is "memre" or image and messenger. Jesus preexisted with the father. He is not a demigod, for he partook in the creation.

REad john 1:1.

[NASpurs]

The One who sent him to earth was God the Father which doesn't mean that God the Father disappears when God the Son is in earth.

[SA210]

cont...

YOU heard that I said to YOU, I am going away and I am coming to YOU. If YOU loved me, YOU would rejoice that [b]I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am

[SA210]

“Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.’”

God has a God?

[gtownspur]

Jesus was all man and all GOd.

As a man he needed to worship the Father and be subject to him.

ALso God is plural. Elohim is a plurality in hebrew.

Good topic, but i need to show you more.

[SA210]

So why would Jesus need to sit at the right hand of God if He Is God?

[SA210]

As a man he needed to worship the Father and be subject to him.


This doesn't make sense. God Is the Greatest, Almighty, All Knowing and Creator of All.

He wouldn't need to pray to Himself.

[gtownspur]

Col v16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

[NASpurs]

When Jesus was on this earth, he was always God; God manifest in the flesh. From conception, birth, and throughout his childhood, adulthood, all the way to his crucifixion, Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. When he was here on this earth, he did not come out and say I am God Almighty. He came close. The works that he did testified to the fact that he was God. He did those works without prayer, many times. He would simply say "I will, be thou clean. Go wash in the pool of Siloam, come seeing" (John 9:7). At Lazarous' grave he prayed, but he said "I don't need to pray, I pray for their sakes." Then he said, "Lazarous come forth" (John 11:43). To the wind and waves he said, "Peace be still" (Mark 4:39). The works that he accomplished attested to his identity as God, but the words concerning his Deity never came from his mouth. Jesus probably came the closest to admitting who he really was when he said, "Philip, have I been so long time with you and yet thou hast not known me. He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). But he did not say I am God almighty. This did not mean he was not God.

[NASpurs]

The term right hand is a priesthood term. As a priest Jesus acted in a go-between role. A role in which he could take us to the throne. Because of his sinlessness, his mercy, and his grace, he could make intercession for us. It is not as though Jesus were in heaven praying and actually interceeding with another divine being who was God. Jesus was in the role of being a mediator, an intercessor, a priest. He assumed those roles when he became a man. Praise the Lord. Our Lord became a man.

[gtownspur]

John 8:58 - "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.'"

"I am" in hebrew is attributted to Yawheh.

[gtownspur]

Exodus 3:14 - "And God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM'; and He said, Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’"

[gtownspur]

case closed. JEsus is Yahweh.

[gtownspur]

This doesn't make sense. God Is the Greatest, Almighty, All Knowing and Creator of All.

He wouldn't need to pray to Himself.

Unless God is a plural form.

[NASpurs]

Unless God is a plural form.

Yeah that's what it is. God is more than one but still one if that makes sense. :)

[SA210]

"I Am"

AT JOHN 8:58 a number of translations, for instance The Jerusalem Bible, have Jesus saying: "Before Abraham ever was, I Am."

Was Jesus there teaching, as Trinitarians assert, that he was known by the title "I Am"? And, as they claim, does this mean that he was Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures, since the King James Version at Exodus 3:14 states: "God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM"?

At Exodus 3:14 (KJ) the phrase "I AM" is used as a title for God to indicate that he really existed and would do what he promised. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, says of the phrase: "To the Israelites in bondage, the meaning would be, 'Although He has not yet displayed His power towards you, He will do so; He is eternal and will certainly redeem you.' Most moderns follow Rashi [a French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering [Exodus 3:14] 'I will be what I will be.'"

The expression at John 8:58 is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. Hence, note how some other Bible versions render John 8:58


1869: "From before Abraham was, I have been." The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.

1935: "I existed before Abraham was born!" The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1965: "Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am." Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink.

1981: "I was alive before Abraham was born!" The Simple English Bible.

1984: "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

Thus, the real thought of the Greek used here is that God's created "firstborn," Jesus, had existed long before Abraham was born.—Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30; Revelation 3:14.

Again, the context shows this to be the correct understanding. This time the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to "have seen Abraham" although, as they said, he was not yet 50 years old. (Verse 57) Jesus' natural response was to tell the truth about his age. So he naturally told them that he "was alive before Abraham was born!"—The Simple English Bible.

[SA210]

SA210,

sorry jesus is the word of GOd. In hebrew the word is "memre" or image and messenger. Jesus preexisted with the father. He is not a demigod, for he partook in the creation.

REad john 1:1.

"The Word Was God"

AT JOHN 1:1 the King James Version reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Trinitarians claim that this means that "the Word" (Greek, ho lo'gos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself.
Someone who is "with" another person cannot also be that other person

Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. Even the King James Version says, "The Word was with God." Someone who is "with" another person cannot be the same as that other person. In agreement with this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean "the" God, this "would then contradict the preceding clause," which says that the Word was with God.
Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:

1808: "and the word was a god." The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

1864: "and a god was the word." The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

1928: "and the Word was a divine being." La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1946: "and of a divine kind was the Word." Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

1950: "and the Word was a god." New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

1958: "and the Word was a God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

1978: "and godlike kind was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.

At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun the·os' (god). The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was ("and the Word [lo'gos] was with God [a form of the·os']"). This first the·os' is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God ("and the Word was with [the] God").

On the other hand, there is no article before the second the·os' at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, "and god was the Word." Yet we have seen that many translations render this second the·os' (a predicate noun) as "divine," "godlike," or "a god." On what authority do they do this?

The Koine Greek language had a definite article ("the"), but it did not have an indefinite article ("a" or "an"). So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context.
The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions "with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning." As the Journal notes, this indicates that the lo'gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: "The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os'] cannot be regarded as definite."

So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was "divine," "godlike," "a god," but not Almighty God. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called "the Word" in his role as God's Spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his Superior, Almighty God.

There are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the article "a" when translating Greek sentences with the same structure. For example, at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, the King James Version says: "They supposed it had been a spirit." In the Koine Greek, there is no "a" before "spirit." But almost all translations in other languages add an "a" in order to make the rendering fit the context. In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was "a god," or "divine."

Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: "The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself." And Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus is Not God.

[jochhejaam]

I'm a believer, but Jesus is not God.
I'm not sure if this conflicts with your thoughts or not. (haven't read the entire thread yet)

Jesus was neither God nor man while here on earth. He was both, Part God, part man. Conceived of the Holy Spirit and born to a woman.

Not God but part of the Godhead and subordinate to God.

And all humor aside (I believe God had/has a sense of humor) I believe that He literally walked on water. :)

[Extra Stout]

http://www.contenderministries.org/jehovahswitnesses/nwt.php

Dr. Walter Martin once said that the average Jehovah’s Witness can make a “doctrinal pretzel” out of the average Christian in about 30 seconds. This does not mean Jehovah’s Witnesses are doctrinally correct. There are a couple of reasons this is so. First, the average JW gets exponentially more training in their doctrine than the average Christian gets in orthodox biblical doctrine. This disparity must be corrected by pastors, teachers, and even the individual parishioners, who must take responsibility to educate themselves on sound, biblical doctrine (as well as attacks on that doctrine). One other smaller (but still vitally important) reason is the reliance of Jehovah’s Witnesses on a biased and erroneous translation of the Bible – the New World Translation. If you allow a JW to recite from the NWT without checking the verse in a more accurate translation – such as the NIV, NASB, or KJV – you may be relying on an erroneous translation of a verse. While there are scores of examples of errors in the NWT, this article will focus on some of the primary mistranslations that affect doctrine. We will discuss some issues of Greek and Hebrew grammar, but in a simplified manner.



First, it’s important to look at the issue of translation in the greater context, and the background of the translation of the NWT. The Bible manuscripts exist in three main languages. Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, though portions of Daniel are in Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek – the Greek language widely spoken 2000 years ago. This differs from Classical Greek and Modern Greek. Even before the birth of Christ (by two or three hundred years), the Old Testament was translated into Koine Greek. This translation became known as the Septuagint, and is represented by the Roman numerals LXX (seventy). These Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic manuscripts were copied and distributed widely, with the copying and distribution accelerating in later centuries as new forms of script developed which made copying a faster process. At various times, the manuscripts were compiled into full biblical texts. It is from these manuscripts and compilations that the Bibles we read today were translated (for more information on this process, please see “A Primer on Bible Transmission”). Because of this, it stands to reason that advanced training and knowledge in one or more of these languages would be a prerequisite for those who wished to perform translation work on a Bible translation committee. However, this logic and reason was seemingly unimportant to the Watchtower Society and their translation committee for the NWT.



The Watchtower Society first published the New World Translation of the New Testament in 1950. Their complete Bible was published first in 1961, with subsequent revisions published in 1970 and 1984. The Watchtower was always quite secretive about the composition of their translation committee, claiming that credit should be given to God and the truth, rather than the translators. In the October 22, 1989 issue of Awake!, the Watchtower Society’s magazine publication, the society recited the words of their founder Charles T. Russell, “It is the truth rather than its servant that should be honored…” However, former members of the Society revealed the identities of the translation committee members as Frederick W. Franz, Nathan H. Knorr, George D. Gangas, Albert D. Schroeder, Milton G. Henschel, and Karl Klein. A review of their qualifications is disturbing:



Translator
Qualifications

Franz, Frederick
Probably the only person to actually translate. Franz was a liberal arts student at the University of Cincinnati:

21 semester hours of classical Greek, some Latin.

Partially completed a two-hour survey course in Biblical Greek in junior year.

Self-taught in Spanish, biblical Hebrew and Aramaic

Gangas, George
No training in biblical languages. Gangas was a Turkish national who knew Modern Greek. Translated Watchtower publications into Modern Greek.

Henschel, Milton
No training in biblical languages.

Klein, Karl
No training in biblical languages.

Knorr, Nathan
No training in biblical languages

Schroeder, Albert
No training in biblical languages. Schroeder majored in mechanical engineering for three years before dropping out.




I don’t want to seem derogatory to Mr. Franz, but his primary training was in Classical Greek, not biblical Greek. He dropped out of a survey course on that topic. He was self-taught in biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, which is commendable, but does it qualify him as a Bible translator? I have a very limited knowledge of New Testament Greek attained through private study (no formal training). Any person can take classes on New Testament Greek or do self-study in this area with the help of books and language dictionaries. However, I would not presume to be qualified to serve on a Bible translation committee. Mr. Franz seemed to lack the fluidity he claimed. In a court of law in Edinburgh, Scotland in 1954, Mr. Franz failed a simple test on his Hebrew language skills. On cross-examination, Franz was asked to translate a particular verse from Genesis into Hebrew. He was unable to do so. The person most capable among his peers to translate the Bible failed a simple test. This calls into question the use of the word “translation” in the New World Translation. As we will see, this “translation” is more likely a paraphrase that was heavily edited to introduce Watchtower bias.



Before we continue, let me make one important note. Some legitimate translations (such as the King James Version) make use of brackets or italics to indicate words inserted for proper flow, but which are not found in the original language manuscripts. In legitimate translations, this tool is only used for proper flow in English, or to indicate words that are found in some ancient manuscripts but not in others. However, you will find the NWT goes further. Not only do the NWT brackets show words included for flow, but also words not found in the manuscripts which, when included, result in a material change of meaning in the verse. You’ll see examples of this below. I will sometimes underline the disputed words or phrases, and a discussion will follow.



Genesis 1:1-2
NWT: In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.

NIV: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

NASB: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

KJV: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

DISCUSSION: The Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the doctrine of the Trinity. They believe in a non-triune God named Jehovah, they believe Jesus is “a god” subordinate to Jehovah, and they reject the notion that the Holy Spirit is a person of the Trinity. They believe that the Holy Spirit is an extension of Jehovah – an “active force” He sends out. The Hebrew words here are ruwach elohim, which are accurately translated as “Spirit of God.” Ruwach can be translated as “wind” also, but when joined in context with God, it is a reference to the Spirit of God (as Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon states, “Spirit of God, the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son”). This is the first example of the NWT forcing its doctrinal bias into the text of Scripture.



Zechariah 12:10
NWT: And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of favor and entreaties, and they will certainly look to the One whom they pierced through, and they will certainly wail over Him as in the wailing over an only [son]; and there will be a bitter lamentation over him as when there is bitter lamentation over the firstborn [son].

NIV: And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

NASB: I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

KJV: And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

DISCUSSION: This passage is one of the most phenomenal Messianic prophecies, because God (Yahweh/Jehovah) is speaking in the first person about Him being the one who will be pierced through. Obviously, Jesus fulfilled this prophecy, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses recognize this as well. The implications are clear. Since this was God’s prophecy about what would happen to Him, and Jesus fulfilled this prophecy, then Jesus MUST be God. In fact, in the NWT Zechariah 12:1 indicates these are the “words of Jehovah.”[1] The NWT translators apparently missed the inclusion in this verse of the Hebrew ayth, which Strong’s indicates it is a contraction of a word that gives the meaning of “self.”



Mathew 14:33 (among others)
NWT: Then those in the boat did obeisance to him, saying: “You are really God’s Son.”

NIV: Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

NASB: And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, "You are certainly God's Son!"

KJV: Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

DISCUSSION: Throughout the New Testament we find people who worshiped Jesus. Since worship is an action that should be reserved for God, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the NWT had to rectify these verses. The Greek word here is proskuneo. While this word can be translated as doing obeisance (which is defined as giving reverence or homage), the giveaway is the Watchtower’s inconsistency in translating this word. In every instance in the New Testament were proskuneo is given to Jesus Christ, it is translated as doing “obeisance.” Where proskuneo is directed to the Father (“Jehovah” in the NWT), they rightly translate it as “worship” (as in John 4:20).



John 1:1
NWT: In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

NIV: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NASB: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
KJV: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Here, every legitimate translation of the Bible reads the same – the Word (logos) was God (theos). The NWT stands alone in its contention that the Word was a god. This is to reinforce the JW doctrine that Jesus is not Jehovah, but is simply a subordinate god. The last Greek phrase in its entirety is theos en ho logos, where ho is a definite article (the). The Watchtower says that when theos is preceded by the definite article ho, it implies identity or personality. Since the first use of theos in this verse is preceded by ho, it refers to God. The second use of theos is not preceded by ho, making it an indefinite description or quality. This is simply wrong thinking. It’s an important point to make that theos without the definite article ho is used elsewhere in the New Testament in reference to Jehovah God, and is translated appropriately in the NWT (such as in Luke 20:38). They are inconsistent with this argument, positing the “indefinite quality” assertion only in reference to Jesus.



John 8:58
NWT: Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”

NIV: “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

NASB: Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

KJV: Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

DISCUSSION: There are deep doctrinal implications in the words of Jesus here. “I am” speaks to his eternality. It is also a name of God that He divulged to Moses. Exodus 3:14 says, God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' " The Greek in John 8:58 is ego eimi, where ego means “I” and eimi is a first person singular present indicative, to “exist”. The Septuagint provides ego eimi as the Greek words in Exodus 3:14. The Hebrew word is hayah, which is derived from the same root as Yahweh. The NWT seeks to distance Jesus’ claims to eternality or deity. Thus, it stands alone in its gross mistranslation of this verse.



Acts 20:28
NWT: Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed YOU overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own [Son].

NIV: Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

NASB: Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

KJV: Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

DISCUSSION: Some more grammatical games and bracket inclusions combine to once again pervert Holy Scripture in order to deny the deity of Jesus Christ. Going through my collection of legitimate Bible translations (and some not-so good translations), I find the NWT stands alone in their mistranslation of this verse. The verse speaks of God purchasing the church “with His own blood”. This is obviously a reference to God the Son, Jesus Christ. What a powerful biblical testimony to the deity of Christ, and what an anathema to the neo-Arian doctrines of the Jehovah’s Witnesses! In order to overcome this, a little mistranslation is made to completely change the meaning and deceive their followers. Not a single extant Greek manuscript contains the word “son”.



Colossians 1:16,17
NWT: because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist,

NIV: For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

NASB: For by Him all things were created, {both} in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

KJV: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

DISCUSSION: This is one of those passages that speak clearly toward the deity of Jesus Christ and His role as the Creator of all things. It’s also one of those passages where the Watchtower Society is powerless to form an argument from the Greek, so they play the brackets game. In order to deny the deity of Jesus Christ and to buttress their argument that Jesus was simply the first of God’s creations, they insert the word “other”. The NWT reads that Jesus, as the first created being, created all “other” things. Since the Greek word for “other” is not found in the Greek manuscripts, they bracket the word to indicate that they’re inserting a word that does not belong. This additional word does not help the flow or clarity of the text, but is instead designed to attack the explicit biblical teaching of Christ’s deity and role as Creator. Greek scholar and theologian Robert Reymond referred to the addition of “other” as “sheer theological perversity…”[2] As an example of the deceptive practices of the Watchtower Society, the 1950 version of the NWT did not bracket the word “other,” making it appear that it was part of the Greek Text. Only since 1961, when pressured to do so by Bible scholars, did they add the brackets.



Titus 2:13
NWT: while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus

NIV: while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ

NASB: looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus

KJV: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

DISCUSSION: This verse identifies our great God and our Savior Jesus Christ as being one and the same. While an argument can be made that the KJV separates the two much like the NWT (by placing the Greek pronoun hemon, meaning “our,” in an improper location), the wording of the NWT and the additional bracketed definite article go beyond a disputed positioning of the Greek, and presents an inferior and erroneous translation that once again separates Jesus Christ from His deity.


Legitimate scholars in the Biblical languages and manuscripts don’t think much of the NWT. Dr. Bruce Metzger is a well-known scholar whose works are seminary standards. He used the following adjectives when describing the NWT: “a frightful mistranslation,” “erroneous,” “pernicious,” and “reprehensible.”[3] British Bible scholar H.H. Rowley stated that the NWT is “a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated.”[4] He also referred to the NWT as “an insult to the Word of God.”[5] While this list could go on, let me conclude with the words of Dr. William Barclay who stated, “It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”[6]



It is clear that many are unaware of the dangerous differences found in the New World Translation. We’ve received several emails from people who were confused by a verse shown to them by a Jehovah’s Witness. Often the confusion results from the fact that the verse was like one of those in this article, and when we directed the person to a legitimate translation of that verse, their confusion lifted. When conversing with a Jehovah’s Witness, never let them read a verse from the NWT without verifying the wording in a legitimate translation. As Christians, our faith is supported by the God-breathed Scriptures. We must be on guard against translations that attack our faith through corruption of God’s Word.





NOTES:



1. The Hebrew name for God is YHWH – four consonants only. Because of a nearly superstitious fear of taking the Lord’s name in vain, the Jews avoided using this name, and often used the name Adonai. Eventually, the vowels from Adonai were included in YHWH to form Yahowah. Today, this name is often spelled in English, Yahweh. As a human contrivance, Yahowah mutated to Jehovah in some manuscripts. Yahweh and Jehovah are considered synonymous, and mean “The LORD.” Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain that Jehovah is the correct name for God, and He must be referred to as such.

2. Robert L. Reymond, Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New Testament Witness (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1990), p. 248.

3. Bruce Metzger; cited in Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1993), p. 97.

4. H.H. Rowley, “How Not to Translate the Bible,” The Expository Times, No. 1953, pp.41-42.

5. Ibid.

6. William Barclay; cited in Rhodes, p. 97.

[JoeChalupa]

Jesus Rocks!!!!

[Phenomanul]

http://www.contenderministries.org/jehovahswitnesses/nwt.php

Dr. Walter Martin once said that the average Jehovah’s Witness can make a “doctrinal pretzel” out of the average Christian in about 30 seconds. This does not mean Jehovah’s Witnesses are doctrinally correct. There are a couple of reasons this is so. First, the average JW gets exponentially more training in their doctrine than the average Christian gets in orthodox biblical doctrine. This disparity must be corrected by pastors, teachers, and even the individual parishioners, who must take responsibility to educate themselves on sound, biblical doctrine (as well as attacks on that doctrine). One other smaller (but still vitally important) reason is the reliance of Jehovah’s Witnesses on a biased and erroneous translation of the Bible – the New World Translation. If you allow a JW to recite from the NWT without checking the verse in a more accurate translation – such as the NIV, NASB, or KJV – you may be relying on an erroneous translation of a verse. While there are scores of examples of errors in the NWT, this article will focus on some of the primary mistranslations that affect doctrine. We will discuss some issues of Greek and Hebrew grammar, but in a simplified manner.



First, it’s important to look at the issue of translation in the greater context, and the background of the translation of the NWT. The Bible manuscripts exist in three main languages. Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, though portions of Daniel are in Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek – the Greek language widely spoken 2000 years ago. This differs from Classical Greek and Modern Greek. Even before the birth of Christ (by two or three hundred years), the Old Testament was translated into Koine Greek. This translation became known as the Septuagint, and is represented by the Roman numerals LXX (seventy). These Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic manuscripts were copied and distributed widely, with the copying and distribution accelerating in later centuries as new forms of script developed which made copying a faster process. At various times, the manuscripts were compiled into full biblical texts. It is from these manuscripts and compilations that the Bibles we read today were translated (for more information on this process, please see “A Primer on Bible Transmission”). Because of this, it stands to reason that advanced training and knowledge in one or more of these languages would be a prerequisite for those who wished to perform translation work on a Bible translation committee. However, this logic and reason was seemingly unimportant to the Watchtower Society and their translation committee for the NWT.



The Watchtower Society first published the New World Translation of the New Testament in 1950. Their complete Bible was published first in 1961, with subsequent revisions published in 1970 and 1984. The Watchtower was always quite secretive about the composition of their translation committee, claiming that credit should be given to God and the truth, rather than the translators. In the October 22, 1989 issue of Awake!, the Watchtower Society’s magazine publication, the society recited the words of their founder Charles T. Russell, “It is the truth rather than its servant that should be honored…” However, former members of the Society revealed the identities of the translation committee members as Frederick W. Franz, Nathan H. Knorr, George D. Gangas, Albert D. Schroeder, Milton G. Henschel, and Karl Klein. A review of their qualifications is disturbing:



Translator
Qualifications

Franz, Frederick
Probably the only person to actually translate. Franz was a liberal arts student at the University of Cincinnati:

21 semester hours of classical Greek, some Latin.

Partially completed a two-hour survey course in Biblical Greek in junior year.

Self-taught in Spanish, biblical Hebrew and Aramaic

Gangas, George
No training in biblical languages. Gangas was a Turkish national who knew Modern Greek. Translated Watchtower publications into Modern Greek.

Henschel, Milton
No training in biblical languages.

Klein, Karl
No training in biblical languages.

Knorr, Nathan
No training in biblical languages

Schroeder, Albert
No training in biblical languages. Schroeder majored in mechanical engineering for three years before dropping out.




I don’t want to seem derogatory to Mr. Franz, but his primary training was in Classical Greek, not biblical Greek. He dropped out of a survey course on that topic. He was self-taught in biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, which is commendable, but does it qualify him as a Bible translator? I have a very limited knowledge of New Testament Greek attained through private study (no formal training). Any person can take classes on New Testament Greek or do self-study in this area with the help of books and language dictionaries. However, I would not presume to be qualified to serve on a Bible translation committee. Mr. Franz seemed to lack the fluidity he claimed. In a court of law in Edinburgh, Scotland in 1954, Mr. Franz failed a simple test on his Hebrew language skills. On cross-examination, Franz was asked to translate a particular verse from Genesis into Hebrew. He was unable to do so. The person most capable among his peers to translate the Bible failed a simple test. This calls into question the use of the word “translation” in the New World Translation. As we will see, this “translation” is more likely a paraphrase that was heavily edited to introduce Watchtower bias.



Before we continue, let me make one important note. Some legitimate translations (such as the King James Version) make use of brackets or italics to indicate words inserted for proper flow, but which are not found in the original language manuscripts. In legitimate translations, this tool is only used for proper flow in English, or to indicate words that are found in some ancient manuscripts but not in others. However, you will find the NWT goes further. Not only do the NWT brackets show words included for flow, but also words not found in the manuscripts which, when included, result in a material change of meaning in the verse. You’ll see examples of this below. I will sometimes underline the disputed words or phrases, and a discussion will follow.



Genesis 1:1-2
NWT: In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.

NIV: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

NASB: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

KJV: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

DISCUSSION: The Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the doctrine of the Trinity. They believe in a non-triune God named Jehovah, they believe Jesus is “a god” subordinate to Jehovah, and they reject the notion that the Holy Spirit is a person of the Trinity. They believe that the Holy Spirit is an extension of Jehovah – an “active force” He sends out. The Hebrew words here are ruwach elohim, which are accurately translated as “Spirit of God.” Ruwach can be translated as “wind” also, but when joined in context with God, it is a reference to the Spirit of God (as Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon states, “Spirit of God, the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son”). This is the first example of the NWT forcing its doctrinal bias into the text of Scripture.



Zechariah 12:10
NWT: And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of favor and entreaties, and they will certainly look to the One whom they pierced through, and they will certainly wail over Him as in the wailing over an only [son]; and there will be a bitter lamentation over him as when there is bitter lamentation over the firstborn [son].

NIV: And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

NASB: I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

KJV: And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

DISCUSSION: This passage is one of the most phenomenal Messianic prophecies, because God (Yahweh/Jehovah) is speaking in the first person about Him being the one who will be pierced through. Obviously, Jesus fulfilled this prophecy, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses recognize this as well. The implications are clear. Since this was God’s prophecy about what would happen to Him, and Jesus fulfilled this prophecy, then Jesus MUST be God. In fact, in the NWT Zechariah 12:1 indicates these are the “words of Jehovah.”[1] The NWT translators apparently missed the inclusion in this verse of the Hebrew ayth, which Strong’s indicates it is a contraction of a word that gives the meaning of “self.”



Mathew 14:33 (among others)
NWT: Then those in the boat did obeisance to him, saying: “You are really God’s Son.”

NIV: Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

NASB: And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, "You are certainly God's Son!"

KJV: Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

DISCUSSION: Throughout the New Testament we find people who worshiped Jesus. Since worship is an action that should be reserved for God, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the NWT had to rectify these verses. The Greek word here is proskuneo. While this word can be translated as doing obeisance (which is defined as giving reverence or homage), the giveaway is the Watchtower’s inconsistency in translating this word. In every instance in the New Testament were proskuneo is given to Jesus Christ, it is translated as doing “obeisance.” Where proskuneo is directed to the Father (“Jehovah” in the NWT), they rightly translate it as “worship” (as in John 4:20).



John 1:1
NWT: In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

NIV: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NASB: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
KJV: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Here, every legitimate translation of the Bible reads the same – the Word (logos) was God (theos). The NWT stands alone in its contention that the Word was a god. This is to reinforce the JW doctrine that Jesus is not Jehovah, but is simply a subordinate god. The last Greek phrase in its entirety is theos en ho logos, where ho is a definite article (the). The Watchtower says that when theos is preceded by the definite article ho, it implies identity or personality. Since the first use of theos in this verse is preceded by ho, it refers to God. The second use of theos is not preceded by ho, making it an indefinite description or quality. This is simply wrong thinking. It’s an important point to make that theos without the definite article ho is used elsewhere in the New Testament in reference to Jehovah God, and is translated appropriately in the NWT (such as in Luke 20:38). They are inconsistent with this argument, positing the “indefinite quality” assertion only in reference to Jesus.



John 8:58
NWT: Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”

NIV: “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

NASB: Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

KJV: Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

DISCUSSION: There are deep doctrinal implications in the words of Jesus here. “I am” speaks to his eternality. It is also a name of God that He divulged to Moses. Exodus 3:14 says, God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' " The Greek in John 8:58 is ego eimi, where ego means “I” and eimi is a first person singular present indicative, to “exist”. The Septuagint provides ego eimi as the Greek words in Exodus 3:14. The Hebrew word is hayah, which is derived from the same root as Yahweh. The NWT seeks to distance Jesus’ claims to eternality or deity. Thus, it stands alone in its gross mistranslation of this verse.



Acts 20:28
NWT: Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed YOU overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own [Son].

NIV: Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

NASB: Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

KJV: Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

DISCUSSION: Some more grammatical games and bracket inclusions combine to once again pervert Holy Scripture in order to deny the deity of Jesus Christ. Going through my collection of legitimate Bible translations (and some not-so good translations), I find the NWT stands alone in their mistranslation of this verse. The verse speaks of God purchasing the church “with His own blood”. This is obviously a reference to God the Son, Jesus Christ. What a powerful biblical testimony to the deity of Christ, and what an anathema to the neo-Arian doctrines of the Jehovah’s Witnesses! In order to overcome this, a little mistranslation is made to completely change the meaning and deceive their followers. Not a single extant Greek manuscript contains the word “son”.



Colossians 1:16,17
NWT: because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist,

NIV: For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

NASB: For by Him all things were created, {both} in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

KJV: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

DISCUSSION: This is one of those passages that speak clearly toward the deity of Jesus Christ and His role as the Creator of all things. It’s also one of those passages where the Watchtower Society is powerless to form an argument from the Greek, so they play the brackets game. In order to deny the deity of Jesus Christ and to buttress their argument that Jesus was simply the first of God’s creations, they insert the word “other”. The NWT reads that Jesus, as the first created being, created all “other” things. Since the Greek word for “other” is not found in the Greek manuscripts, they bracket the word to indicate that they’re inserting a word that does not belong. This additional word does not help the flow or clarity of the text, but is instead designed to attack the explicit biblical teaching of Christ’s deity and role as Creator. Greek scholar and theologian Robert Reymond referred to the addition of “other” as “sheer theological perversity…”[2] As an example of the deceptive practices of the Watchtower Society, the 1950 version of the NWT did not bracket the word “other,” making it appear that it was part of the Greek Text. Only since 1961, when pressured to do so by Bible scholars, did they add the brackets.



Titus 2:13
NWT: while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus

NIV: while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ

NASB: looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus

KJV: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

DISCUSSION: This verse identifies our great God and our Savior Jesus Christ as being one and the same. While an argument can be made that the KJV separates the two much like the NWT (by placing the Greek pronoun hemon, meaning “our,” in an improper location), the wording of the NWT and the additional bracketed definite article go beyond a disputed positioning of the Greek, and presents an inferior and erroneous translation that once again separates Jesus Christ from His deity.


Legitimate scholars in the Biblical languages and manuscripts don’t think much of the NWT. Dr. Bruce Metzger is a well-known scholar whose works are seminary standards. He used the following adjectives when describing the NWT: “a frightful mistranslation,” “erroneous,” “pernicious,” and “reprehensible.”[3] British Bible scholar H.H. Rowley stated that the NWT is “a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated.”[4] He also referred to the NWT as “an insult to the Word of God.”[5] While this list could go on, let me conclude with the words of Dr. William Barclay who stated, “It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”[6]



It is clear that many are unaware of the dangerous differences found in the New World Translation. We’ve received several emails from people who were confused by a verse shown to them by a Jehovah’s Witness. Often the confusion results from the fact that the verse was like one of those in this article, and when we directed the person to a legitimate translation of that verse, their confusion lifted. When conversing with a Jehovah’s Witness, never let them read a verse from the NWT without verifying the wording in a legitimate translation. As Christians, our faith is supported by the God-breathed Scriptures. We must be on guard against translations that attack our faith through corruption of God’s Word.





NOTES:



1. The Hebrew name for God is YHWH – four consonants only. Because of a nearly superstitious fear of taking the Lord’s name in vain, the Jews avoided using this name, and often used the name Adonai. Eventually, the vowels from Adonai were included in YHWH to form Yahowah. Today, this name is often spelled in English, Yahweh. As a human contrivance, Yahowah mutated to Jehovah in some manuscripts. Yahweh and Jehovah are considered synonymous, and mean “The LORD.” Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain that Jehovah is the correct name for God, and He must be referred to as such.

2. Robert L. Reymond, Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New Testament Witness (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1990), p. 248.

3. Bruce Metzger; cited in Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1993), p. 97.

4. H.H. Rowley, “How Not to Translate the Bible,” The Expository Times, No. 1953, pp.41-42.

5. Ibid.

6. William Barclay; cited in Rhodes, p. 97.


I've literally gone through most of these verses with 'Jehova's Witnesses' but they refuse to let anyone question the NWT.

And don't tell them the truth about the 144,000 by telling them it refers to true descendants from each of the 12 tribes of Israel (meaning they've already been chosen), they go ballistic.

Oh well, win'em over by example I say.

[smeagol]

Denying the diety of Christ is a belief that has been around for years. Arians in the 3rd and 4th Century were a heresy that proclaimed Jesus was not God. JTs are simply following in Arius footsteps.

The Trinitarian explanation of the ralationship between God,Christ and the Holy Ghost is one that does not stand out from the Bible as clear cut as other doctrines. But by the 4th Century it was viewed as the orthodox doctrine, with many saints defendign it against the Arian heretics.

[smeagol]

I've literally gone through most of these verses with 'Jehova's Witnesses' but they refuse to let anyone question the NWT.

And don't tell them the truth about the 144,000 by telling them it refers to true descendants from each of the 12 tribes of Israel (meaning they've already been chosen), they go ballistic.

Oh well, win'em over by example I say.
Not to go back to our old thelogical discussion :spin , but this is what happens when you allow people to translate, interpret, add and substract to the Bible as they please.

The result is a theological mess.

[Phenomanul]

Not to go back to our old thelogical discussion :spin , but this is what happens when you allow people to translate, interpret, add and substract to the Bible as they please.

The result is a theological mess.

Sola Scriptura.... you forgot adding a manual to supplement the Bible like the Book of Mormon or the Roman Catechism...

But I won't quarrel with you... we have agreed to disagree. :tu I have utmost respect for you.

[smeagol]

Sola Scriptura.... you forgot adding a manual to supplement the Bible like the Book of Mormon or the Roman Catechism...

True in the first case :lol


But I won't quarrel with you... we have agreed to disagree. :tu

I would not call it quarreling . . . exchanging POVs. In any case, if our goal is to reunite all Christian denominations, we should continue talking about our differences.


I have utmost respect for you.

Likewise.

[DarkReign]

Sooooooo, youre all debating a fictional book, written mostly by people who were told the original story in an era where literacy certainly wasnt at its highest, then translated from a dead language of over 1000 years, interpreteted thousands of different ways by "scholars of their time" to fine-tune the scripture to their converts with only the most popular being followed "religiously" to this day.

Boy, thats rich. How about this one...everyone knows the difference between the intuitive nature of "right" and "wrong". Follow one more than the other, no matter what happens, you should be good.

Unless youre pompous enough to think people that dont follow what YOU believe are sinners. If thats the case, go fuck yourself with a chainsaw. Literally.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I love it when the usual suspects hijack threads by arguing whose interpretation of scripture is correct. It works wonders for my insomnia.

[smeagol]

Sooooooo, youre all debating a fictional book, written mostly by people who were told the original story in an era where literacy certainly wasnt at its highest, then translated from a dead language of over 1000 years, interpreteted thousands of different ways by "scholars of their time" to fine-tune the scripture to their converts with only the most popular being followed "religiously" to this day.

1) You say it's a fictional book and immediately after you claim the authors weretold the story. So what is it? A work of fiction or is there a story (truth) behind it?

2) Literacy rates in the first century are irrelevant as to the accuracy and veracity of the contents in the Bible.

3) The Bible is the only book written in ancient times were we are fortunate enough to have fragments of it dating from 125 AD. That's only 50 to 75 years after they were actually written. We have in our possesion quasi-complete manuscripts of the new testament dating from the end of the third century, 200 years after the Evangelists, Pauland the thers penned their works. And we have dozens of other authors quoting the Bible starting in the year 90 AD.

The oldest manuscripts of Plato and Aristotles' works, which you probably would not dare to question, are from the 900s AD, about 1,400 years after those dudes wrote them.

[Phenomanul]

Sooooooo, youre all debating a fictional book, written mostly by people who were told the original story in an era where literacy certainly wasnt at its highest, then translated from a dead language of over 1000 years, interpreteted thousands of different ways by "scholars of their time" to fine-tune the scripture to their converts with only the most popular being followed "religiously" to this day.

Boy, thats rich. How about this one...everyone knows the difference between the intuitive nature of "right" and "wrong". Follow one more than the other, no matter what happens, you should be good.

Unless youre pompous enough to think people that dont follow what YOU believe are sinners. If thats the case, go fuck yourself with a chainsaw. Literally.


Way out in left field... where's the pomposity you refer to????

I can only speak of what I know, what I experience. But no matter what I say I can't force people to believe what they don't experience... to each their own. :tu

[smeagol]

I love it when the usual suspects hijack threads by arguing whose interpretation of scripture is correct. It works wonders for my insomnia.
Funny you categorize people's comments on this thread as "hijacking" because they are discussing their interpretations of the Bible when this entire thread is about how a passage of the Bible is interpreted.

Think about this for a second and then try to go to sleep.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Funny you categorize people's comments on this thread as "hijacking" because they are discussing their interpretations of the Bible when this entire thread is about how a passage of the Bible is interpreted.

Think about this for a second and then try to go to sleep.


Funny think is you guys do the same routine with every thread even peripherally related to God or religion. You have pissing contests over who knows more about the Bible. Boooooring!

[DarkReign]

Plato and Aristotle werent claiming to be or even know God.

Big difference. Also, their arguments can be/were either proved or disproved.

I mean, big problem here for all you folks. I have never heard it stated or even mentioned.

Dinosaurs, dude. Youre telling me those reptiles never existed? Egypt's culture pre-dates anything Christian by eons. Explain that.

You cant. Nor can the Bible. Thats a problem. On one side of your mouth, you claim the Gospel in The Word. On the other, you will say most stories are just analogies because they cant explain proven scientific, physical evidence.

Which is it? Because it cant be both.

Just for clarity's sake, I am going to share a post I made on a similar subject on another forum.

[DarkReign]

Funny think is you guys do the same routine with every thread even peripherally related to God or religion. You have pissing contests over who knows more about the Bible. Boooooring!

LOL...it is a "mine is bigger than yours", e-peen stroking contest, is it not?

[smeagol]

Funny think is you guys do the same routine with every thread even peripherally related to God or religion. You have pissing contests over who knows more about the Bible. Boooooring!
You find it boring. I find it refreshing and interesting.

Let me give you a piece of advice. If you know a religious-related topic will spark a religious discussion, and you find this booooring, don't be so stupid to start threads about religious topics.

[DarkReign]

Posted many moons ago on another forum

I just happened upon this thread, so bear with me...

First off, I am agnostic (if this is an acceptable label for those who enjoy them).

All forms of mass religion are existential beliefs looking to someone/something else for answers/questions/guidance/etc.

It is my opinion that God is not outward, but very much inward.

I dont have the answers for everything (not even a damn shade close), and I would bet nor does any other human.

But, you know that feeling you get when you open that door for a complete stranger just as a simple gesture of good will? Or some form of the cliché "walking an old lady across the street"? Or for giving a little money to the “down on his luck” family member who just lost their job? Or the admiration you see in your child’s eyes and the aspiration to be an example worthy of his praise?

That is the power that binds. That is as close to a God as I will ever need. I dont believe in Christianity, Islam, Muslim, etc. Those are all human machinations created in a veiled attempt to capitulate the masses into subservience and conformity. Really, take a look at the timeline when organized religion came around. Look at the political landscape and the incessant war being waged by fellow countrymen.

It was chaos. The power-brokers (usually warlords and land owners) were in a unique position to see opportunity. Patriotism comes in a distant second to faith. Based upon the rites of the pagans religion before them (ever wonder why Christmas is in December? It is a well known fact that Jesus was never born anywhere near that date, but the pagans already had a major holiday in that moon phase. In a highly effective recruiting tactic, Jesus was suddenly born in that same timeframe. Hmmm...), religion sprung from the deep down longing of the human spirit to believe in something greater than itself.

Obviously, there are exceptions to every rule. People claim they have no belief and I whole-heartedly believe them.

But, what I wont buy is that they feel no innate connection to their fellow man, and even some cases, a much stronger feeling to the Earth and animals.

Let the religious decide amongst themselves whose God is right or wrong.

I walk confidently thru my days knowing as a life-form, I share a bond with all forms of life that is stronger than any faith based, Bible-thumping nitwit could ever claim.

We are all born with a "feeling". A closeness that was/is separate from the rest of the animals because we seen ourselves as superior in some light. In ways, we are. But I will not lose my respect for the life that was, the life that is, and the life that will be.

We all control our own destinies, but in some small way we share our destiny. We arent some single-source creation of some higher being. We are the product of a system that extends well beyond some man-made heaven and hell.

I have always felt myself separate from the ideologies of those around me my whole life. I was never a classic-religious, "member of the flock", sheep looking for my sheppard skyward. Nor was I a nihilist objecting to any sort of common fabric that binds.

Then, after 15 years of close contemplation, I read a book called Hyperspace. A scientific study explaining the possibilities and impact of string theory. In that book, the authors' attempt to create and analogy that explains what a 4th dimensional being would look like to us ("us" being 3 dimensional beings). It provoked a stunning revelation for me.

The authors' basically said, and I completely paraphrase and will speak in the authors' voice for clarity:


"To understand what it is to even try and wrap the human brain around the appearance or even existence of a 4th dimensional being is impossible. To give humans a vague idea, picture a race of beings existing in 2 dimensions for a moment. Thats right, youre a stick figure on a sheet of paper, with stick buildings and other stick people who inhabit this sheet of paper. You have a society, religion, and economy. Now, imagine a human entering your world. How does a 3-D being enter a 2-D world, you ask? Easy, stick his finger thru the sheet of paper. The effect could be 2 fold. One, you destroy their world creating a rift in the fabric of their existence. Or two (and this is the accepted idea), you pass thru only revealing to those 2-D stick-people the portion of your physical body that sits on their plane of existence (ie the sheet of paper). You would only be perceived as a floating, shape-changing blob of very odd coloration and texture (the cross section of a human finger).


Now, with that analogy in mind and with the empathy you hold for those poor 2-D stick-people, try and imagine what a 4-D being would look like to us. The scientific response to any such hypothesis would of utter disregard. The cold, hard truth is no matter your imagination, no matter your dreams or how smart you are, it is impossible to have any concept of what said being would “look” like.

I could go on and on about what all of this meant to me and how profound the universe became with one chapter, but it would be pointless.

I have come to conclusion that there are 4 kinds of people (I hate labels, but they seem to give better perspective for those that need them):

a) Those that think they have it all figured out and seek no more introspection on the subject. They accept only the “faithful” and vilify the “unfaithful” as heathens. Their existential lives dedicated to the furthering of their agenda.(religious zealots)

b) Those that admit their shortcomings in the eyes of a societal God and seek endless introspection as to why. Their existential lives are spent in a small or large capacity to the furthering of their religious beliefs/affiliation. (religious people in general)

c) Those that adhere to no consensus standard but admit to the same feeling the religious people experience but do not hold it to any specific idols, and seek introspection on the basis of personal well-being and understanding of oneself. Their existential lives are spent in solitary refinement and only share their ideals when provoked. (agnostic or whatever label is placed upon them by those who don’t understand)

d) Those that have no care for the mysteries of life that science cannot explain and spend very little time concerned with introspection on the dynamic human/nature/life relationship. Their existential lives will either never develop or be hastened when confronted with death. (atheists)

x) by no means does one or the other make this person “bad” or criminally lenient. It just is. Those factors are completely dependant upon individual decisions.

Maybe you don’t fall into a category. I say good for you! Be different. Be harmonious and thoughtful. Experience this gift to its fullest and enjoy the time spent with the world and its beauty.

I am as close to “God” now than I have ever been. I find fulfillment not from a book or a building, I find it in life. I hope you do too.

[Spurminator]

The problem with all belief systems is that most of their followers are stupid. Which makes sense because most people are stupid.

Something Science and Religion can agree on.

[DarkReign]

The problem with all belief systems is that most of their followers are stupid. Which makes sense because most people are stupid.

Something Science and Religion can agree on.

Agree completely.

[DarkReign]

Way out in left field... where's the pomposity you refer to????

I can only speak of what I know, what I experience. But no matter what I say I can force people to believe what they don't experience... to each their own. :tu

I never said either you or Smeagol were pompous. I said 'if you are pompous enough', using the word 'you' as the reader.

If I were referring to either of you, I would have quoted you.

[smeagol]

Plato and Aristotle werent claiming to be or even know God.

I never said they did. I was simply pointing out that their works have gone through the same process as the Bible (books being hand-copied for generations) and that the oldest manuscripts we posses from their works are roughly from 1,400 years after they originally wrote those books.

Nevertheless, you accept The Republic or Politics as true at face value.

With the Bible, the same hand-copying process ocurred, with a number of witnesses to Christ's life writting his story, but in this case, we posses manuscripts that are only 200 years appart from the date when the originals where written, but you dub their works as fiction.

12 dudes (plus Paul) that have decided to decieve others in their time with fictional stories about a guy who claimed to be God, and this big deciept has converted billions to Christianity.

I guess my point is you will believe the works of antiquity when they fit your beliefs.


Also, their arguments can be/were either proved or disproved.

Plato and Aristotle wrote about philosophy. Nothing to prove or disprove.


Dinosaurs, dude. Youre telling me those reptiles never existed? Egypt's culture pre-dates anything Christian by eons. Explain that.

I believe the Bible cannot be taken literally all the time. There are plenty of allegories in it. So no need to explain anything.

[smeagol]

Needles to say, DR, I don't agree with whoever wrote the article you posted. But as he states at the beginning, it's just his opinion:


It is my opinion that God is not outward, but very much inward.

I disagree, but it's simply my opinion, that God is outward and independant from us. He is also a personal God.


I dont believe in Christianity, Islam, Muslim, etc.

Islam = Muslim.


Those are all human machinations created in a veiled attempt to capitulate the masses into subservience and conformity.

Do you know how Christianity started?

12 scared guys and the Virgin Mary on the second floor of house in Jerusalem deciding what to do after the Resurrection. So you contend that these 12 uneducated fishermen decided to decieve the entire world by inventing Jesus' deeds, or better still, making up this Jesus character entirely out of thin air?

These 12 Jews created a religion so powerfull that they themselves, and hundredths of others, were willing to die for, as early as a couple of years after the so called "Ascention" (Stephen was martyred shortly after Jesus was crucified). Furthermore, people who never saw Jesus alive were willing to die for this Faith as early as the year 110 (St Ignatius, for example).


I share a bond with all forms of life that is stronger than any faith based, Bible-thumping nitwit could ever claim.

How does he know?

[jochhejaam]

Unless youre pompous enough to think people that dont follow what YOU believe are sinners. If thats the case, go fuck yourself with a chainsaw. Literally.

God's Son Jesus Christ says "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through me".

^^^That's what I believe DR. Does that qualify me as a target of your profane missile?

[DarkReign]

"Unless youre pompous enough to think people that dont follow what YOU believe are sinners."

I think you highlighted the wrong sentence. I couldnt care less about what you, or anyone else believes, honestly.

[smeagol]

Funny you say this:


I couldnt care less about what you, or anyone else believes, honestly.

after posting:


I share a bond with all forms of life that is stronger than any faith based, Bible-thumping nitwit could ever claim

So you share a bond with all forms of life (I pressume humans are included), which is stronger than whatever religious people feel, but on the other hand you "honesty care less about what joch or anyone else believes" (this said in a "fuck you" kind of way).

I say that's some bond you share there. Keep it up!

[Guru of Nothing]

I can only speak of what I know, what I experience. But no matter what I say I can't force people to believe what they don't experience... to each their own. :tu

Does not sound like the over-confident hegamboa I have come to know.

[scott]

I think this is well blown out of proportion (the scientists merely presented an possible, albeit unlikely, explaination - to my knowledge they are not out to try to "prove" there is no God), but still rather wreckless.

It isn't so much the scientists behind this study, but people who wrongly hold it up as some shining example of the idiocy of believers, who give non-believers a bad name. Personally, I'm beyond the stage of having to try to "convert" people to not believing. They have faith, something I don't share with them, and I have my own logical processes, something (my rendition, not logic) they don't share. I'm perfectly happy with just ending the conversation there (although I'm always willing to engage in a good discussion/debate as long as it can remain civil and both parties are in it for the sake of intellectual stimulation).

I'm rather intrigued by all matters of religiosity (is that even a word?) - especially the sociological and economic aspects (you have to remember I'm an economist... my brain can't help it). But when I do a study that shows theists more likely than atheists to be incarcerated - it is not try to "disprove" anything. Just as I've gotten misplaced negativity from my work, I think these scientists are receiving the same all because of some over zealous readers willing to grab on to anything they can find to say "HA! I told you there was no God!"

[Phenomanul]

I think this is well blown out of proportion (the scientists merely presented an possible, albeit unlikely, explaination - to my knowledge they are not out to try to "prove" there is no God), but still rather wreckless.

It isn't so much the scientists behind this study, but people who wrongly hold it up as some shining example of the idiocy of believers, who give non-believers a bad name. Personally, I'm beyond the stage of having to try to "convert" people to not believing. They have faith, something I don't share with them, and I have my own logical processes, something (my rendition, not logic) they don't share. I'm perfectly happy with just ending the conversation there (although I'm always willing to engage in a good discussion/debate as long as it can remain civil and both parties are in it for the sake of intellectual stimulation).

I'm rather intrigued by all matters of religiosity (is that even a word?) - especially the sociological and economic aspects (you have to remember I'm an economist... my brain can't help it). But when I do a study that shows theists more likely than atheists to be incarcerated - it is not try to "disprove" anything. Just as I've gotten misplaced negativity from my work, I think these scientists are receiving the same all because of some over zealous readers willing to grab on to anything they can find to say "HA! I told you there was no God!"


That assumes that those who claimed to have theistic beliefs were genuine in that conviction... more than 75% of them don't practice their beliefs...

[scott]

That assumes that those who claimed to have theistic beliefs were genuine in that conviction... more than 75% of them don't practice their beliefs...

The merits of my research are a topic for another discussion. The point I'd like to make is that people want to read more into some research than they should - and it gets both sides riled up and researchers who put a lot of effort into their work end up with the short end of the stick. First, the point of the research gets overlooked, and then they are attacked by people responding to other people who missed the point.

And somehow you picked out the most irrelevant part of my post to respond to, ironically providing evidence to what I was trying to get across.

[jochhejaam]

I think you highlighted the wrong sentence. I couldnt care less about what you, or anyone else believes, honestly.
Yep, just curious.

[smeagol]

And somehow you picked out the most irrelevant part of my post to respond to, ironically providing evidence to what I was trying to get across.

Most irrelevant according to you. I also thought your study did not consider that people claiming to be Christians, were "name only" Christians.

In any case, I don't think the point of this research (Jesus walking on ice)was overlooked. Efforts to explain away miracles done by Jesus with natural events (he did not walk on water, there was ice; he did not raise people from the dead, they were not really dead, the were napping) make little sense.

[scott]

Most irrelevant according to you. I also thought your study did not consider that people claiming to be Christians, were "name only" Christians.

If you can explain to me the relevence of the methods my research in that study to this thread, then I will retract my statement. If you mean the methods are relevent to the topic of my research, then well... of course. I'd be happy to discuss them (again), if you can find that thread. This will be the last time I address the topic in this thread.


In any case, I don't think the point of this research (Jesus walking on ice)was overlooked. Efforts to explain away miracles done by Jesus with natural events (he did not walk on water, there was ice; he did not raise people from the dead, they were not really dead, the were napping) make little sense.

If you think the point of his research was to say "Jesus walked on ice," then you are most certainly overlooking the real point. Nowhere in his study did Dr. Nof say Jesus definitively walked on ice. He merely states it was a possibility. It has been the overzealous Christian bashers and irresponsible media looking to make some noise that have overblown his statements and made it seem like he is trying to disprove God. And most people in this thread are falling for it hook, line and sinker.

[Phenomanul]

The merits of my research are a topic for another discussion. The point I'd like to make is that people want to read more into some research than they should - and it gets both sides riled up and researchers who put a lot of effort into their work end up with the short end of the stick. First, the point of the research gets overlooked, and then they are attacked by people responding to other people who missed the point.

And somehow you picked out the most irrelevant part of my post to respond to, ironically providing evidence to what I was trying to get across.


I didn't pick it for the sake of being facetious.... it just struck me as odd....

Besides seemingly minute phrases from my posts always get quoted and spun into irrelevant side topics all the time.... c'est la vie in internet forums I guess...

In response to your point... from the headline given it seemed as though the intent of the researcher was influenced by his wish to explain the veracity of the miracle in question... the article's overtone, 'Science has once again debunked a religious creed,' therefore is what provoked many to call out the researcher in the first place... of course as you pointed out it might have just been the media.

Top it off with the sarcastic overtone given by the starter of this thread... with his own derisive headline.... and this is what results....

[scott]

I didn't pick it for the sake of being facetious.... it just struck me as odd....

Besides seemingly minute phrases from my posts always get quoted and spun into irrelevant side topics all the time.... c'est la vie in internet forums I guess...

In response to your point... from the headline given it seemed as though the intent of the researcher was influenced by his wish to explain the veracity of the miracle in question... the article's overtone, 'Science has once again debunked a religious creed,' therefore is what provoked many to call out the researcher in the first place...

Top it off with the sarcastic overtone given by the starter of this thread... with his own derisive headline.... and this is what results....

I most certainly understand why people are calling out researchers. Sometimes its because people just don't want to believe something could be true that goes against their belief system... but most of the time its because some third party (in this case the writer of the article and the original poster) his taken the liberty to misrepresent the research in question.

Sadly, a phenomenon not exclusive to the internet. And yes, these people vote.

[Yonivore]

Going back to the original post...

I challenge that idiot to stand on a piece of ice in a storm-tossed body of water. That's pretty damn miraculous itself.

[Phenomanul]

Going back to the original post...

I challenge that idiot to stand on a piece of ice in a storm-tossed body of water. That's pretty damn miraculous itself.


That's what I was saying earlier....

[Yonivore]

That's what I was saying earlier....
I didn't read all the crap between post one and this one...who's got the time?

[smeagol]

Going back to the original post...

I challenge that idiot to stand on a piece of ice in a storm-tossed body of water. That's pretty damn miraculous itself.
Yeah.

Same thing I said earlier too. It's easier to say Jesus never existed in the first place, or that his miracles are total fabrications, than to try to explain them away.

Sorry if you feel offended as a researcher, Scott, but this professor's research makes little sense (and yes, research can make little sense, just like some theology makes little sense).

[Oh, Gee!!]

Top.

[gtownspur]

Dumbest thread EVEr!!!

[DarkReign]

fucked up

[smeagol]

fucked up

I see my feuds with you started a long time ago :lmao

[I Love Me Some Me]

What a fun thread. Almost as fun as the Prop 8 thread.

[DarrinS]

Maybe Jesus was just walking on a non-Newtonian fluid.

f2XQ97XHjVw

[fyatuk]

It's sort of like those people who say "Yeah, Christ was a great moral teacher, but a mere man". Bullshit. He was either who he claims he was, the Son of God, or he was a lunatic. There is no middle ground.

Personally, I always thought he was misunderstood. I think he probably called himself a son of God, not The Son of God. My opinion, no basis other than my own thoughts. But it allows for him to be a great man and not divine or lunatic.

[The Reckoning]

from what i remember. Jesus called himself the Son of man

[Heath Ledger]

I think if you were fasting without food for many days at a time you would be seeing Jesus doing a lot of unexplainable things as well.

[fyatuk]

I think if you were fasting without food for many days at a time you would be seeing Jesus doing a lot of unexplainable things as well.

Well, it's also not like the stories about Jesus were the only places where those kind of events happened. There are stories from all over the place that involve people doing similar miracles, many older than Jesus.

Even now people are still seeing things like it. My wiccan friend says he's met several people who could walk on water, etc.

[Buddy Holly]

LOL at people trying to debunk a fairy tale.

What's next? Years long research concluding that a large gust of wind simultaneously blew when the wolf was knocking down the little pigs homes?

[romad_20]

Jesus Rocks!!!!


I thought he was more a James Taylor-type, singer songwriter.

[TheMadHatter]

LMAO at all the idiots wasting their time trying to rationalize the Giant Book of Fairytales....err the Bible.

The more you know about the history of the Bible the more you can see quite clearly that God had absolutely no hand in its construction. It was put together by men who had no knowledge of who Jesus was other than 2nd hand stories. Furthermore, nearly everything they wrote about the historicity of Jesus is in all likelihood a complete fabrication.

Christians just like to think they have a monopoly on God. I say let them rot in their ignorance. Just leave me the fuck alone, I'm not dumb enough to fall for your BS propaganda.

[DarkReign]

I see my feuds with you started a long time ago :lmao

:lmao...yeah, now I also understand where JJ and I got started as well. I was searching for an old post to quote in the new thread and I found it in here.

I accidently posted in this thread.

Holy-thread-necro.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

It always amazes me how some people are more willing to accept the notion that a person walked on water than to accept that the people responsible for writing the story... lied. You do know that lies existed back then, right? Its not like bullshit is a modern concept :lol

[Blake]

Science Tells How Jesus Walked on Water

The Bible says that Jesus walked on water, but a professor of oceanography at Florida State University in Tallahassee says Christ was actually walking on a floating piece of ice.

The sixth chapter of the Gospel of John tells the story familiar to Christians: When evening came, his disciples went down to the sea, got into a boat and started across the sea to Capernaum. It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them. The sea became rough because a strong wind was blowing. When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat, and they were terrified. But he said to them: "It is I, do not be afraid." (John 6:16-20)

Reuters reports that FSU professor Doron Nof credits this miraculous act to an unusual combination of water and atmospheric conditions in what is now northern Israel that could have led to ice formation on the Sea of Galilee. Using statistical models to examine the dynamics of the Sea of Galilee (now known as Lake Kinneret) and records of surface temperatures of the Mediterranean Sea, Nof determined there was a period of cooler temperatures in the area between 1,500 and 2,600 years ago. This could have included the time in which Jesus lived.

Had the temperature dropped below freezing, it could have created ice to form in the freshwater lake then called the Sea of Galilee. And that ice would have been thick enough to support the weight of a man. What's more, it might have been impossible for distant observers--especially in the dark as the Gospel of John reports--to see that it was actually ice surrounded by water and not just water.

Nof calls this a "possible explanation" of how Jesus walked on water. "If you ask me if I believe someone walked on water, no, I don't," Nof told Reuters. "Maybe somebody walked on the ice, I don't know. I believe that something natural was there that explains it. We leave to others the question of whether or not our research explains the biblical account." Nof acknowledges he has received hate mail for espousing this theory. The study findings were published in the Journal of Paleolimnology

http://channels.netscape.com/whatsnew/default.jsp?story=20060405-0842

Don't hate on me, I'm just the messenger. :flag:


several points here....

1. I'm glad that this scientist is not discussing whether or not Jesus even existed, but instead is discussing what he did.

"Jesus may have raised someone from the dead, but did he walk on water? NOT POSSIBLE."

Good job, professor Nof.


2. what does it matter what Jesus walked on. If Jesus turned the water to ice, then walked on it, does that really take away from the magic trick?

I think not.


3. This reminds me of the story of the parting of the "Red Sea". If you are to read the original transcript, "Red Sea" makes no sense and really is something of a lazy attempt by the translators of our current Bible translations.

"Reed Sea" makes much more sense on many different levels and if you look at where it is/was in relation to Egypt and the path that the Israelites traveled, it would make much more sense that all of these Israelites passed through the marshy areas of the "Reed Sea" during a dry spell, to which was marshy enough to stall the Pharoah's chariots upon chasing them.

Again, does that detract from any "miracle"?


All throughout the Bible, God appears to be a God of Law, so therefore would it not make sense that God would follow His own natural laws of the universe at all times?

My opinion is that the events in the Bible are true.......just embellished.

[angel_luv]

Science owes all its ability to research to Jesus, because it is God who created everything that science studies and attempts to explain.

If more scientiest consulted God, the Creator ( the Original Manufacturer if you will), when it comes to the way people and the world (all of it God's creation) works, I believe science would realize much more correct answers and at a quicker pace.

As for this story of ... I don't know if it is it true or not.
But, I don't need to know exactly how Jesus walked on water. The Bible states that Jesus did indeed walk on water and that is information enough for me.

[clambake]

Science owes all its ability to research to Jesus, because it is God who created everything that science studies and attempts to explain.

If more scientiest consulted God, the Creator ( the Original Manufacturer if you will), when it comes to the way people and the world (all of it God's creation) works, I believe science would realize much more correct answers and at a quicker pace.

As for this story of ... I don't know if it is it true or not.
But, I don't need to know exactly how Jesus walked on water. The Bible states that Jesus did indeed walk on water and that is information enough for me.

padded room forum.

[angel_luv]

Wrong. :)

I belong in the " Blessed Assurance' forum.
Also, "will be proven right in the end" and " loves you guys anyway" forums. :)

[clambake]

Wrong. :)

I belong in the " Blessed Assurance' forum.
Also, "will be proven right in the end" and " loves you guys anyway" forums. :)

i predict a mind altering event in your future.

[baseline bum]

Science owes all its ability to research to Jesus, because it is God who created everything that science studies and attempts to explain.

If more scientiest consulted God, the Creator ( the Original Manufacturer if you will), when it comes to the way people and the world (all of it God's creation) works, I believe science would realize much more correct answers and at a quicker pace.

As for this story of ... I don't know if it is it true or not.
But, I don't need to know exactly how Jesus walked on water. The Bible states that Jesus did indeed walk on water and that is information enough for me.

Fucking bullshit. Rationalism and the scientific method owe jack shit to your false messiah.

[Blake]

If more scientiest consulted God, the Creator ( the Original Manufacturer if you will), when it comes to the way people and the world (all of it God's creation) works, I believe science would realize much more correct answers and at a quicker pace.


ugh

that sounds like my 4th grade Sunday School teacher

[baseline bum]

ugh

that sounds like my 4th grade Sunday School teacher

Sounds more like the fourth grader than the teacher.

[angel_luv]

i predict a mind altering event in your future.

Potentially mind altering events happen to me on a weekly, if not daily basis.
I live in this world right along with the rest of you.

Thankfully, Jesus is true to His promise that I am safe in Him and that my faith will not be shaken, in spite of the circumstances around me.

John 10: 28-29- And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.


Luke 22:32- But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

[clambake]

Potentially mind altering events happen to me on a weekly, if not daily basis.
I live in this world right along with the rest of you.

Thankfully, Jesus is true to His promise that I am safe in Him and that my faith will not be shaken, in spite of the circumstances around me.

John 10: 28-29- And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.


Luke 22:32- But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

you won't be able to fathom the amount of betrayal you will feel.

[boutons_]

Son of God, er, um, doggone it, Son of Dog

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/photo-contest/img/wallpaper/1014wallpaper-9_1280.jpg

[fyatuk]

Fucking bullshit. Rationalism and the scientific method owe jack shit to your false messiah.

That's just a simple matter of perspective. If you believe that a creator made the universe, than of course science owes that creator for providing the material to study, etc. If not, then not.

[fyatuk]

you won't be able to fathom the amount of betrayal you will feel.

See, I never understood this kind of thing. Statements like these actively seek to destroy someone's faith. Why would you want to? There's no reason to try and destroy someone's faith in God. If someone is happy believing, they should be allowed to be happy instead of trying to detroy a cornerstone in their life and turning them into miserable wretches.

[clambake]

See, I never understood this kind of thing. Statements like these actively seek to destroy someone's faith. Why would you want to? There's no reason to try and destroy someone's faith in God. If someone is happy believing, they should be allowed to be happy instead of trying to detroy a cornerstone in their life and turning them into miserable wretches.


I'm afraid that Obama is the anti-christ.

you were saying?

[DarkReign]

Science owes all its ability to research to Jesus, because it is God who created everything that science studies and attempts to explain.

If more scientiest consulted God, the Creator ( the Original Manufacturer if you will), when it comes to the way people and the world (all of it God's creation) works, I believe science would realize much more correct answers and at a quicker pace.

You cant honestly believe that. You just cant. Thats so incredibly false on every level of pseudo-logic you just tried to apply.

Do you go out of your way when posting in these topics to look like a mindless drone? Worse than that, you seem to revel in your ignorance as if this is the way we should all be (or in this case, scientists should be your way).

Did you go to school? Have you read a book of science ever? A vast majority of scientific research has ZERO to do with how we got here and how it all started.

When I calcuate Force, I multiply Mass by Acceleration. That has NOTHING to do with God.

Chrimeny, I mean, do you walk around your life in this world just looking for God in every corner?

You must be routinely disappointed.

[I Love Me Some Me]

Chrimeny, I mean, do you walk around your life in this world just looking for God in every corner?

You must be routinely disappointed.

Not if she finds Him!

[smeagol]

Sounds more like the fourth grader than the teacher.

No need to get aggressive.

[fyatuk]

you were saying?

And that relates how?

A fear was stated, big deal. Even though I certainly disagree, does it harm me to allow the fear/belief to exist?

Does it harm religious people to allow athiests to exist? No. Does it harm athiests to allow religious people to exist? No. The harm comes not from the beliefs, but how they are acted upon. Trying to rip religion from people who embrace it or trying to force religion upon someone who doesn't want it are both intollerable bigotted actions.

That's all I'm saying.

[fyatuk]

When I calcuate Force, I multiply Mass by Acceleration. That has NOTHING to do with God.

Unless God created the universe, in which case he's the reason you calculate force by multiplying mass times acceleration.

If I build a house and someone else moves in, the house still exists because of me. That's the concept that was being discussed.

[baseline bum]

No need to get aggressive.

The hell there isn't. Angel Luv came and posted some garbage about science and rationalism owing itself to her religion when her religion is the one constantly trying to subvert and quiet it.

[LnGrrrR]

It's useless to try to explain miracles away. You either believe them or you don't.

It's sort of like those people who say "Yeah, Christ was a great moral teacher, but a mere man". Bullshit. He was either who he claims he was, the Son of God, or he was a lunatic. There is no middle ground.

I agree with the first part.. but it's impossible to be a good moral teacher and a mere man? lol

The lord, lunatic or liar argument is an old one, and not very effective.

[LnGrrrR]

The Bible says Jesus is The son of God.

And Jesus prays to God in the Bible.
God doesn't need to pray to Himself.

Does someone need to bust out a shamrock? lol

[baseline bum]

I agree with the first part.. but it's impossible to be a good moral teacher and a mere man? lol

The lord, lunatic or liar argument is an old one, and not very effective.

Also not considered is the possibility that Jesus is who he said he was, but not who the writers of the bible said he said he was.

[LnGrrrR]

Science owes all its ability to research to Jesus, because it is God who created everything that science studies and attempts to explain.

If more scientiest consulted God, the Creator ( the Original Manufacturer if you will), when it comes to the way people and the world (all of it God's creation) works, I believe science would realize much more correct answers and at a quicker pace.

As for this story of ... I don't know if it is it true or not.
But, I don't need to know exactly how Jesus walked on water. The Bible states that Jesus did indeed walk on water and that is information enough for me.

So if I wrote down, "Give me a hundred dollars" in the footnotes of your Bible with my address? :) Surely, God led you to that passage and allowed me to write in it, therefore you should obey?

[LnGrrrR]

Potentially mind altering events happen to me on a weekly, if not daily basis.
I live in this world right along with the rest of you.


Smoking the hashish huh? :D

[clambake]

And that relates how?
because they congregate in groups, with children, and the desperate, and attempt to plant the seeds of the anti-christ as being a certain, living, leading person.


A fear was stated, big deal.
and spread, like a virus.

Does it harm religious people to allow athiests to exist?
mentally, yes.

Does it harm athiests to allow religious people to exist?
you're goddamn right it could!

The harm comes not from the beliefs, but how they are acted upon.
yeah, thats what is usually said after someone acts.

Trying to rip religion from people who embrace it or trying to force religion upon someone who doesn't want it are both intollerable bigotted actions.
i'm not trying to rip anything. i'm just asking them to keep their lunacy to themselves.



That's all I'm saying.
you left alot of shit out.

[fyatuk]

because they congregate in groups, with children, and the desperate, and attempt to plant the seeds of the anti-christ as being a certain, living, leading person.

and spread, like a virus.


That's a fringe element, and if you really want to stop beliefs like that, research the theories surrounding the anti-christ and show them they're wrong. Assaulting someone's beliefs in a manner that doesn't accept any portion of it only makes a person defensive and cling tighter to their beliefs.

The statements you've made do not address anything constructively and accomplish nothing but ferment more strife and anger.


mentally, yes.

you're goddamn right it could!

BS. The existence of the other does not cause harm. The feelings of intolerance and irrational actions is what causes the harm. If everyone showed respect and acceptance of other beliefs, there is no harm.

If you believe what you just said, then you MUST accept that homosexuality, and allowing gay marraige would cause harm to those who object to it. Or any number of other situations in the current world. There are many things that follow the same pattern.


i'm not trying to rip anything. i'm just asking them to keep their lunacy to themselves.

No, you're not. You're attacking fundamental beliefs, not asking them to keep it to themselves. When religious people come to my door, I explain I'm not a Christian and ask them to leave. They do. I do not tell them they are wrong in their beliefs or that they should expect a rude wake-up call, or "you won't be able to fathom the amount of betrayal you will feel."

Also, since this is a public forum, you have no right to stop them from speaking. You have every right to calmly argue against them to show they are wrong to prevent what you believe is wrong from spreading, but that's not what was happening. You could also just plain ignore it.


you left alot of shit out.

Nothing intrinsic to the point.

[clambake]

That's a fringe element, and if you really want to stop beliefs like that, research the theories surrounding the anti-christ and show them they're wrong. Assaulting someone's beliefs in a manner that doesn't accept any portion of it only makes a person defensive and cling tighter to their beliefs.
yeah, right, why don't i spend all my time explaining to radicals where they are wrong. i'm sure that would be fruitful.

but the poor kids caught up in looney tunes is sad, don't you think?


The statements you've made do not address anything constructively and accomplish nothing but ferment more strife and anger.
yeah, trying to explain to idiots that obama is not the anti-christ is no easy business. maybe i should bring cookies.




BS. The existence of the other does not cause harm. The feelings of intolerance and irrational actions is what causes the harm. If everyone showed respect and acceptance of other beliefs, there is no harm.
you've convinced me! Obama is the anti-christ! this is me playing along with idiots. are you happier now?


If you believe what you just said, then you MUST accept that homosexuality, and allowing gay marraige would cause harm to those who object to it.
i'm so glad you asked! how does same sex marriage cause harm to them?


No, you're not. You're attacking fundamental beliefs,
if "Obama is the anti-christ" is a fundamental belief.

not asking them to keep it to themselves.
if thats what they believe, i ask them to go fuck themselves.

When religious people come to my door, I explain I'm not a Christian and ask them to leave. They do. I do not tell them they are wrong in their beliefs
did they say "obama is the anti-christ"?

or that they should expect a rude wake-up call, or "you won't be able to fathom the amount of betrayal you will feel."
finally, the needle that went in a little too deep?


Also, since this is a public forum, you have no right to stop them from speaking. You have every right to calmly argue against them to show they are wrong to prevent what you believe is wrong from spreading, but that's not what was happening. You could also just plain ignore it.
i never completely ignore anything that might have an adverse affect on mankind.




Nothing intrinsic to the point.
i didn't say it was essential. i said it's a radical inclusion.

that thought happens to exist.

[I Love Me Some Me]

If your faith is shaken by anything you've read on this board, it was never strong enough to begin with.

[baseline bum]

If your faith is shaken by anything you've read on this board, it was never strong enough to begin with.

To me it's lunacy to think an opinion or belief should be forever unchangeable. If I saw a god, saw it do something that was clearly a miracle, and there was no reasonable rational explanation, I would immediately become a theist.

[fyatuk]

yeah, right, why don't i spend all my time explaining to radicals where they are wrong. i'm sure that would be fruitful.

but the poor kids caught up in looney tunes is sad, don't you think?

yeah, trying to explain to idiots that obama is not the anti-christ is no easy business. maybe i should bring cookies.

Like I said, arguing with anyone in a non-constructive manner does nothing but make them cling tighter to their beliefs. Using terms such as "idiots" just exacerbates the problem. Someone (obviously coming from a religious standpoint) may have indeed done research and found that Obama fits a lot of the theories surrounding the anti-Christ.

Unless of course you find the whole concept of religion or divine prophecy irrational and stupid, in which case we're going back into the area of respecting others' right to believe.


you've convinced me! Obama is the anti-christ! this is me playing along with idiots. are you happier now?

Considering Obama being the anti-christ is an insanely small part of this (it being your excuse for attacking someone's entire belief in God), what do I care?


i'm so glad you asked! how does same sex marriage cause harm to them?

You'd have to answer that. You earlier stated the very existence of athiests causes harm to religious people. If that's the case, then the existence of something that violates their religious tenets must also be harmful to them.


if "Obama is the anti-christ" is a fundamental belief.

Actually, you started attacking someone who in this thread stated only that they believed scientists owed a lot to God, and science would progress further if scientists were closer to God's teachings. You brought in "I fear Obama may be the anti-christ" as a way of justifying your attack on angel's belief in God. You did not merely attack angel's fear that Obama might be the anti-christ.


if thats what they believe, i ask them to go fuck themselves.

Perhaps you need to look up sentence structures and what exactly a question is, but that's beside the point. From what I've seen you have aggressively attacked religious beliefs for whatever reason you have.


did they say "obama is the anti-christ"?

Wow, you're really hung up on your reframing of the argument. And actually, I have gotten into that discussion. The first and only question I had to ask was "why do you think that". I have yet to find anyone who could make a rational argument for anyone being the anti-christ, and they know it. "Why" is more important than "is".


finally, the needle that went in a little too deep?

Just quoting you, since you seemed to think you "asked" angel to keep the lunacy to themselves. As I pointed out, that was an assault on angel's faith in general, not the specific statement you keep using to justify it.


i never completely ignore anything that might have an adverse affect on mankind.

Nor should you. Yet you also do nothing to remove your perceived threat and you potentially make it worse.

[I Love Me Some Me]

To me it's lunacy to think an opinion or belief should be forever unchangeable. If I saw a god, saw it do something that was clearly a miracle, and there was no reasonable rational explanation, I would immediately become a theist.

Eh...that's true.

But, I just haven't seen anything on this board that should make a believer become a non-believer.

[clambake]

Like I said, arguing with anyone in a non-constructive manner does nothing but make them cling tighter to their beliefs.
so we agree they're hopeless. where is the constuction in that?

Using terms such as "idiots" just exacerbates the problem.
yeah, i wouldn't want to compound the "word they're trying to spread".

Someone (obviously coming from a religious standpoint) may have indeed done research and found that Obama fits a lot of the theories surrounding the anti-Christ.
i'll take fact over fiction, but i heard one pig made a house the wolf couldn't blow down.

Unless of course you find the whole concept of religion or divine prophecy irrational and stupid, in which case we're going back into the area of respecting others' right to believe.
i grew up in N. Ireland. i've been involved with the absolute worst aspect of politics and religion on two battle fronts. i think i'm qualified to speak about the harm they can cause.

Considering Obama being the anti-christ is an insanely small part of this (it being your excuse for attacking someone's entire belief in God), what do I care?
yeah, timing had nothing to do with it.

You'd have to answer that. You earlier stated the very existence of athiests causes harm to religious people. If that's the case, then the existence of something that violates their religious tenets must also be harmful to them.
agree. there's very rarely anything that they're not willing to condemn "In Gods Name".

Actually, you started attacking someone who in this thread stated only that they believed scientists owed a lot to God, and science would progress further if scientists were closer to God's teachings. You brought in "I fear Obama may be the anti-christ" as a way of justifying your attack on angel's belief in God. You did not merely attack angel's fear that Obama might be the anti-christ.
do we agree she should avoid scientific conversations when they're coulpled with god?

Perhaps you need to look up sentence structures and what exactly a question is, but that's beside the point.
it makes me original. i think you're upset in some other way.

From what I've seen you have aggressively attacked religious beliefs for whatever reason you have.
i touched on that already.

Wow, you're really hung up on your reframing of the argument. And actually, I have gotten into that discussion. The first and only question I had to ask was "why do you think that". I have yet to find anyone who could make a rational argument for anyone being the anti-christ, and they know it. "Why" is more important than "is".
they don't care about "why". do you get it, yet?

Just quoting you, since you seemed to think you "asked" angel to keep the lunacy to themselves. As I pointed out, that was an assault on angel's faith in general, not the specific statement you keep using to justify it.
why should i ignore the crazy little wrench thrown into the teachings of religion? should i ignore that and embrace everything, and pretend they aren't inclined to label someone the anti-christ?

they did it to inflict damage. do you get it, yet?

Nor should you. Yet you also do nothing to remove your perceived threat and you potentially make it worse.
once again, i was born in Belfast. you have no idea what i've done to remove perceived threats. texas played a direct role in our successes regarding N. Ireland.

[fyatuk]

so we agree they're hopeless. where is the constuction in that?

The construction is in debate, not argument.


i'll take fact over fiction, but i heard one pig made a house the wolf couldn't blow down.

What is fact and what is fiction in this situation? God has not been proved or disproved. The idea of the anti-christ has not been proved or disproved. You said yourself you don't care to look up the ideas surrounding the anti-christ. You just declare something wrong and idiotic without knowing the debate.


i grew up in N. Ireland. i've been involved with the absolute worst aspect of politics and religion on two battle fronts. i think i'm qualified to speak about the harm they can cause.

Now we're back to people committing harm, not beliefs.


agree. there's very rarely anything that they're not willing to condemn "In Gods Name".

Depends on the people. Many religious people (most of the ones I know, though that is an insanely small sample of the worldwide population) refuse to condemn anything (based on rules such as love thy neighbor, do unto others, etc). Others do get obsessed with their own religious supremacy, which goes back to my statement about respecting other beliefs.


do we agree she should avoid scientific conversations when they're coulpled with god?

No. She made a valid statement from her belief system without sounding aggressive or derogatory. I don't see why she should be censored there.

Now if, like Bush, she tried to put restrictions on scientific research based solely on religious beliefs here in the US, then that would be a problem.


it makes me original. i think you're upset in some other way.

I just think the world would be infintely better if everyone was treated with respect. If we recognized and respected others rights to believe as they wanted, life would be a lot calmer. Tolerance is a blessing we can only give ourselves.


they don't care about "why". do you get it, yet?

Everyone cares about "why". A good portion of religion is dealing with "why" (the other portion with "how"). There are very few people in this world who are not affected by arguments related to "why".


why should i ignore the crazy little wrench thrown into the teachings of religion? should i ignore that and embrace everything, and pretend they aren't inclined to label someone the anti-christ?

they did it to inflict damage. do you get it, yet?

I said before that if you perceive a threat, you should not ignore it, but you should also work towards a solution instead of just trying to beat it down. Application of force solves little while application of knowledge solves much. Unless you are willing to exchanges ideas and discuss the issue rationally, you can do nothing to alleviate the percieved problem and much to exacerbate it.

I think you give the vast majority too much credit if you think Obama was labeled the anti-christ to inflict damage. Certainly some of the upper echelon heirarchy probably considered that, but I seriously doubt the vast majority considered that too thoroughly.

That why open discourse and persuasive arguments become invaluable. If one can prove the heirarchy wrong once, then they are less powerful.


once again, i was born in Belfast. you have no idea what i've done to remove perceived threats. texas played a direct role in our successes regarding N. Ireland.

You're right, I know pretty much nothing about your past. It's irrelevant since my comment was that you were accomplishing nothing towards alleviating THIS perceived threat.

[clambake]

why would they choose now to characterize obama as the anti-christ?

come on, you can say it. we already know. so just say it.

just say what the motive was. you can do it.

[fyatuk]

why would they choose now to characterize obama as the anti-christ?

come on, you can say it. we already know. so just say it.

just say what the motive was. you can do it.

It absolutely couldn't have had anything to do with the fact that he's new in the national spotlight and quite a bit of information about him came out in the last 4-6 months (since the end of the primaries). No, that couldn't have anything to do with the timing...

Like I said, some assuredly did so to try and take votes away from him, at least among the "leaders". I doubt that was the case with most of the "normal" people, though.

I have no idea what the motive was, since neither I, nor anyone I know, were pushing the idea, and in fact, we laughed when we first heard of it back in the summer.

[clambake]

Like I said, some assuredly did so to try and take votes away from him, at least among the "leaders".
what form of intimidation would you classify this as? hate or fear or both?

I doubt that was the case with most of the "normal" people, though.
:lmao:lmao:lmao @ calling them normal.

[Buddy Holly]

Science owes all its ability to research to Jesus, because it is God who created everything that science studies and attempts to explain.

So Jesus is God's pimp? How is it in your delusional Head, God the "creater" is void of any credit to science?


If more scientiest consulted God, the Creator ( the Original Manufacturer if you will), when it comes to the way people and the world (all of it God's creation) works, I believe science would realize much more correct answers and at a quicker pace.

Holy shit, seriously? Angel, I'm not trying to be mean to you but seriously? Just pray and the science will come quicker? Or do you know of some direct line to the big guy himself?


As for this story of ... I don't know if it is it true or not.
But, I don't need to know exactly how Jesus walked on water. The Bible states that Jesus did indeed walk on water and that is information enough for me.

It's full of wonderful tales. Just like any book you find in a child's room.

[fyatuk]

what form of intimidation would you classify this as? hate or fear or both?

Why bother classifying it. Making the claim with politcal ramifications in mind is wrong, and I'm not arguing that. If someone actually believes it and is stating what they believe, they may be incorrect, but aren't wrong in a moral sense (at least not for making the claim).


:lmao:lmao:lmao @ calling them normal.

I didn't call them normal, I called them "normal". I was using that as a quick way to say "religious people other than leaders". There's a world of difference when you remove the quotes.

[LnGrrrR]

Posted many moons ago on another forum

Obviously, there are exceptions to every rule. People claim they have no belief and I whole-heartedly believe them.

But, what I wont buy is that they feel no innate connection to their fellow man, and even some cases, a much stronger feeling to the Earth and animals.

It may sound strange, but I consider myself "spiritual" even though I also consider myself an atheist.

Also, I think you'll find that MANY atheists are philosophical as well. In fact, philosophy may have lead them from religion. (And some will be led to religion as well.) I find many atheists are existentials... the religious ones are way too depressed, like Kierkegaard.

[angel_luv]

You cant honestly believe that. You just cant. Thats so incredibly false on every level of pseudo-logic you just tried to apply.

Do you go out of your way when posting in these topics to look like a mindless drone? Worse than that, you seem to revel in your ignorance as if this is the way we should all be (or in this case, scientists should be your way).

Did you go to school? Have you read a book of science ever? A vast majority of scientific research has ZERO to do with how we got here and how it all started.

When I calcuate Force, I multiply Mass by Acceleration. That has NOTHING to do with God.

Chrimeny, I mean, do you walk around your life in this world just looking for God in every corner?

You must be routinely disappointed.

On the contrary... like the Apostle Paul I can testify: " Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."

( Romans 1:19-21)

[Buddy Holly]

http://www.snorgtees.com/images/ThatsQuacktastic_Fullpic_1.gif

[Oh, Gee!!]

On the contrary... like the Apostle Paul I can testify: " Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."

( Romans 1:19-21)

PWNt3d!!!

[The Franchise]

Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe.

This is more trouble than it's worth.

[johnsmith]

PWNt3d!!!

:lmao

[Heath Ledger]

I saw some shit last night on Tv where some preacher was saying if your not tithing you are robbing god. Funniest shit i've ever heard. What a fucking scam, where do i sign up for that dead money?

[Spur-Addict]

I saw some shit last night on Tv where some preacher was saying if your not tithing you are robbing god. Funniest shit i've ever heard. What a fucking scam, where do i sign up for that dead money?

Come on, you have higher standards than that. :lol

[Heath Ledger]

Come on, you have HIGHER standars than that. :lol

Only when I'm toking on that 420 that Jesus was a big fan of....

[8ft.tall.tejano]

taking the bible literal is like taking stephen king literal...soso writing, some people like it, others see it for what it is....fun fiction...
really, do you really think this planet is less than a few thousand years old?
please...john mccain is older than that...