|
Post by jonbain on Aug 23, 2018 22:27:03 GMT
And for those who still naively believe that the Bible is infallible, and must always be taken at face value, and not questioned; note that there is an error by one of them in the times. So do you reckon that God just sort of turned off the Sun one morning or afternoon? (whichever it is) I do believe there is a rational explanation, but it pains me to see that many people still cannot accept that there requires an analytical approach to reading the Bible. That some of it has been lost in translation, or metaphors have been taken literally. I will withhold what I believe to be the correct reading until I have seen how others interpret this.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Aug 24, 2018 18:29:48 GMT
And for those who still naively believe that the Bible is infallible, and must always be taken at face value, and not questioned; note that there is an error by one of them in the times. So do you reckon that God just sort of turned off the Sun one morning or afternoon? (whichever it is) I do believe there is a rational explanation, but it pains me to see that many people still cannot accept that there requires an analytical approach to reading the Bible. That some of it has been lost in translation, or metaphors have been taken literally. I will withhold what I believe to be the correct reading until I have seen how others interpret this. It's not an error. The rational explanation is that God is omnipotent. If you're unwilling to believe God can do this, then why believe any of the miracles that Jesus and the apostles performed? Why even believe the creation account in Genesis? Do believe the account of the sun and moon standing still in the sky for a whole day in Joshua 10?
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Aug 24, 2018 19:01:32 GMT
And for those who still naively believe that the Bible is infallible, and must always be taken at face value, and not questioned; note that there is an error by one of them in the times. So do you reckon that God just sort of turned off the Sun one morning or afternoon? (whichever it is) I do believe there is a rational explanation, but it pains me to see that many people still cannot accept that there requires an analytical approach to reading the Bible. That some of it has been lost in translation, or metaphors have been taken literally. I will withhold what I believe to be the correct reading until I have seen how others interpret this. Looking into the original Greek it seems the King James Bible is surprisingly correct. The words for the time in the original Greek are Hektes which means "sixth" and Enates which means "ninth". When this was, there seems to be a debate because we don't know what time they are using. The KJV isn't a bad translation. It is actually very very accurate if not spot on. I took some time with my girlfriend to see other translations, specifically in Russian, to see what word was used instead of satyr. Not to my surprise, in Isaiah 13:21 for example, it was translated simply to "horned animal/creature". I think I've said something along these lines before; we know that there is no such thing as a satyr or unicorns, so we have to look more at what these creatures symbolize and not what they actually are. I also had trouble finding basilisk and auroch in the KJV. The use of the word dragon can be explained; the word dinosaur didn't exist when the KJV was written, dinosaur is a rather new word in the English language. There are tons of historical accounts of dinosaurs existing at same time as man but have now turned into legend. There are just as many archeological findings of depictions of dinosaurs, which one would have to think if dinosaurs were only just more recently discovered as fossils, then how did these people know what they looked like? historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/visual.html
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,696
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Aug 25, 2018 5:29:10 GMT
Looking into the original Greek it seems the King James Bible is surprisingly correct. The words for the time in the original Greek are Hektes which means "sixth" and Enates which means "ninth". When this was, there seems to be a debate because we don't know what time they are using. The KJV isn't a bad translation. It is actually very very accurate if not spot on. I took some time with my girlfriend to see other translations, specifically in Russian, to see what word was used instead of satyr. Not to my surprise, in Isaiah 13:21 for example, it was translated simply to "horned animal/creature". I think I've said something along these lines before; we know that there is no such thing as a satyr or unicorns, so we have to look more at what these creatures symbolize and not what they actually are. I also had trouble finding basilisk and auroch in the KJV. The use of the word dragon can be explained; the word dinosaur didn't exist when the KJV was written, dinosaur is a rather new word in the English language. There are tons of historical accounts of dinosaurs existing at same time as man but have now turned into legend. There are just as many archeological findings of depictions of dinosaurs, which one would have to think if dinosaurs were only just more recently discovered as fossils, then how did these people know what they looked like? historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/visual.htmlThe actual word used in the KJV is Cockatrice but a a Cockatrice in European folklore is the exact same thing as a Basilisk; there is no distinction between the two. The word Auroch does not appear because by the time these Bibles were translated the Auroch was long extinct and nobody knew what the Hebrew term Re'em was referring to and it was translated as Unicorn. Re'em we now know most likely refers to an Auroch. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re%27em You'll notice a pattern in these translations, Dragon, Cockatrice, Unicorn, Satyr. These are a creatures from the folklore of Europe at the time. When the translators didn't know what a word meant they just said screw it and put a folkloric creature in there for effect. The word used that is translated into dragon is Tannin. Tannin originally was a near eastern mythological sea monster. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannin_(monster) It most likely referred to big sea creatures like whales and lord knows what else. It has also been used in the Bible to refer to snakes. Read the answer to the question asked here in the Biblical Hermeneutics site to see why it translates into snake sometimes. hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/13562/why-was-crocodile-%D7%AA%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9F-from-exodus-710-translated-as-snake-or-serpent
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Aug 25, 2018 11:33:36 GMT
Its not that The God could not turn off the Sun. Its that The God has chosen to give us the laws of physics, which perpetuate in such a way that he does not just turn off the Sun. There would have been recordings of this event in all cultures all over the world if it had occurred like this. There was no such event recorded, except in the Bible. So it follows that the Sun simply did not turn off. And yet, what is the reason for the Bible saying it did? Now the reason I am giving does not originate with me; but I have lost the original source. I do recall it was in a book written by an Australian woman. When measuring the length of a year, we typically use a leap-year to compensate for the extra quarter of a day per year. But the Jews used a different method. Instead of adding one day every four years, they subtracted 3 hours every equinox. So the correct translation should read something like: Jesus was crucified at the time when 3 hours was removed from the sun-dial. There was a very precise reason for doing this at the equinox, because an hour on a sun-dial is only precisely 1/12th of the day-time at the equinox. For the rest of the year, 1/12th of the day-time would be longer or shorter than this. As for it occurring at 6am or midday, I am . But this does show that we have to use logic, and we must not simply assume that what is written is not prone to misunderstanding or mis-translation. I do believe that miracles occur. I adhere to the Resurrection. But if reason shows that sometimes people look for miracles where there are none, then this serves to clinically distinguish between what is truly miraculous and what is only the illusion thereof. Its hard enough convinving materialists of the existence of the Soul. So when a false miracle is de-mystified we should embrace this as an opportunity to show that faith is half of reason, and reason is half of faith. We should have faith in reason, for that is the true means to show 'faith through works'. Here's the thing. The Greek word used for "the earth" in KJV and "the whole country" in the Good News Bible can either mean the earth or just the land as in the country of Israel in this case. The word is gen. biblehub.com/greek/ge_n_1093.htm It is possible that this miracle was limited only to the country of Israel and if you scroll down in the link to Luke 23:44 it seems to be translated as the land more times than the earth. I'll have to do more studying to see which usage is correct. But regarding the sun, the Greek says tou heliou eklipontos which means "the suns light failed" or "the sun was in eclipse". biblehub.com/text/luke/23-45.htm This miracle is an eclipse and it is a miracle because it is impossible for an eclipse to happen at Passover. Later scribes altered the text because they didn't have enough faith to believe that God could cause an eclipse during passover despite God being able to do anything he wants. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_darkness In short, God didn't just turn off the sun, he caused an eclipse. Whether it was an actual eclipse where the moon obscured the sun or if God obscured the sun himself to create his own eclipse I don't know but the darkening was an eclipse and may have just been in the land of Israel. He didn't just turn off the sun, but if he wanted to turn off the sun and keep everything alive and kicking just as it is he can and will do it if he wants. God is infinitely powerful and does not have to follow the laws of physics which he has created. In fact the whole point of a miracle is to break those laws. Its like that passage in the Old Testament where King David is waging a war and God keeps the sun in the sky for over 24 hours for as long as the battle rages. How did he do that? Maybe he stopped the earth, maybe he freeze framed the light of the sun in the sky, or maybe he actually broke the laws of reality as we know it to do that miracle. Who knows? Who cares? Hes God, he has the power to do whatever he likes and will do it if it suits his fancy. Why do we seek to find reason in the Bible and the world if it is all a matter of God's whimsy? If there is no fundamental laws to the Universe then it would be pointless trying to understand it. God certainly created the laws of physics. He also made humans fallible and prone to misunderstanding them. How do you decide which is physics being violated, and which is human wishful-thinking and error? Nobody is debating God's power here. So it is false to suggest that is what this is about. To say the God does not have to follow the laws of physics he created is a contradiction. Because he created those laws, his will has already acted. To now violate them would be to contradict that. It could not have been a normal eclipse as that does not last 3 hours. Just a matter of minutes. The conflation is an error of words. There was no sun-dial for 3 hours. Became: There was no sun for three hours. Because the word for sun, sundial, and time were the same. It was just an adjustment to the time process whereby 3 hours was subtracted every equinox in order to compensate for the extra quarter day in a year. Nowdays we use the leap-year.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Aug 25, 2018 11:37:53 GMT
And for those who still naively believe that the Bible is infallible, and must always be taken at face value, and not questioned; note that there is an error by one of them in the times. So do you reckon that God just sort of turned off the Sun one morning or afternoon? (whichever it is) I do believe there is a rational explanation, but it pains me to see that many people still cannot accept that there requires an analytical approach to reading the Bible. That some of it has been lost in translation, or metaphors have been taken literally. I will withhold what I believe to be the correct reading until I have seen how others interpret this. my interpretation is 12'0 clock, it is not mentioned DAY LIGHT, could be an early morning, when there's no light. This is exactly the time 12:00 AM - 3:00 AM, which is the most darkest of the nights. It could be possible that he was not crucified in the broad day light, but this could be a secret cruficifation of his, which was ordered. Well that makes some sense. But it seems a bit superfluous to include such information. There is still plenty of discord in the translation. In both the darkness ends at either 3 or at 9. Not possible for the sun to start again at either of those times.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Aug 25, 2018 11:43:48 GMT
just10spAn interesting post you wrote. We are at least in agreement that the governments of the world lack ethics. The "awful horror" in upon us! As you have a keen interest in astronomy, I'd be curious to know what you think about the notion that the 'star' that the wise men followed could have been Halley's comet?
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Aug 25, 2018 11:59:13 GMT
And for those who still naively believe that the Bible is infallible, and must always be taken at face value, and not questioned; note that there is an error by one of them in the times. So do you reckon that God just sort of turned off the Sun one morning or afternoon? (whichever it is) I do believe there is a rational explanation, but it pains me to see that many people still cannot accept that there requires an analytical approach to reading the Bible. That some of it has been lost in translation, or metaphors have been taken literally. I will withhold what I believe to be the correct reading until I have seen how others interpret this. It's not an error. The rational explanation is that God is omnipotent. If you're unwilling to believe God can do this, then why believe any of the miracles that Jesus and the apostles performed? Why even believe the creation account in Genesis? Do believe the account of the sun and moon standing still in the sky for a whole day in Joshua 10? I never questioned God's omnipotence. That is a false accusation. Read the OP again. Just because some miracles occur, does not mean that every claim to a miracle is true. Human's make errors all the time. The two time differences demonstrate that there is certainly an error in the translation. The Genesis question is a long and complex one with far too much detail to be relevant here. Suffice to say, that Creation accounts make more sense than any aTheist accounts. (Most of contemporary astrophysics is appallingly illogical and contradictory). The sad reality is that when Creationists reject attempts at reason and science, then they discredit valid Biblical ethics to the naive youth. The result is the waning of the Christian mission. This is the world we live in. I appreciate that you feel this may be a threat to the concept of miracles. Its not. The error you make is to try and make a quick decision about everything at once. Each detail needs to be examined on its own terms. I'll get back to the question on Joshua, AFTER I have made a thorough analysis. Its not just a case of believe everything or believe nothing. That would be dogma. The Bible warns against dogmatic thinking in numerous places. Have patience with the slow process, in me, and in yourself. There is no hurry. The ethical questions are most important, and these are happily not in contention.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Aug 25, 2018 12:21:33 GMT
why believe any of the miracles that Jesus and the apostles performed? Because Christ and John both appeared to me directly themselves, and set me upon this path. I was anointed in the spirit, and relived both their deaths with them. That I know as fact. Nothing can change it. It is more real than the Sun and the Moon. There is absolutely no chance that this process will result in anything less than the fulfillment of Christianity. I took a long time thinking about it all before I began reconciling religion and science. I do have the complete Cosmology within me. The first fundamental truth is God. My next point of reference is Isaac Newton: a Christian then there is the prime deceiver: Albert Einstein. Between those two is where the central message gets lost. Aah! There is so much detail. Its difficult to explain because everyone I talk to has a different perspective, and its hard to evaluate what they already know, and where to begin explaining. Have faith good fellow! Its certainly easier to explain REAL science to Christians, than trying to teach ethics and spirituality to those pseudo-scientists in the universities. Boy! have they decided to believe some AWFUL HORRORS all dressed up in lab-coats and pseudo-maths; which mesmerizes them into a stupor of inferiority and then they are ripe for brainwashing into outright evil.
|
|
|
Post by just10sp on Aug 25, 2018 17:59:40 GMT
just10sp An interesting post you wrote. We are at least in agreement that the governments of the world lack ethics. The "awful horror" in upon us! As you have a keen interest in astronomy, I'd be curious to know what you think about the notion that the 'star' that the wise men followed could have been Halley's comet? Well that would be amazing. I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth. Because Halley’s Comet is said to have come between 1-5 BC, it correlates perfectly with Jesus’s estimated birth at 3 BC.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Aug 25, 2018 19:08:07 GMT
Uhh...God has messed with the laws of physics and other laws. And He plans to do it again too. Hmm It's His way to show He's all powerful.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Aug 25, 2018 19:43:11 GMT
It's not an error. The rational explanation is that God is omnipotent. If you're unwilling to believe God can do this, then why believe any of the miracles that Jesus and the apostles performed? Why even believe the creation account in Genesis? Do believe the account of the sun and moon standing still in the sky for a whole day in Joshua 10? I never questioned God's omnipotence. That is a false accusation. Read the OP again. Just because some miracles occur, does not mean that every claim to a miracle is true. Human's make errors all the time. The two time differences demonstrate that there is certainly an error in the translation. The Genesis question is a long and complex one with far too much detail to be relevant here. Suffice to say, that Creation accounts make more sense than any aTheist accounts. (Most of contemporary astrophysics is appallingly illogical and contradictory). The reality is that when Creationists reject attempts at reason and science, then they discredit valid Biblical ethics to the naive youth. The result is the waning of the Christian mission. This is the world we live in. I appreciate that you feel this may be a threat to the concept of miracles. Its not. The error you make is to try and make a quick decision about everything at once. Each detail needs to be examined on its own terms. I'll get back to the question on Joshua, AFTER I have made a thorough analysis. Its not just a case of believe everything or believe nothing. That would be dogma. The Bible warns against dogmatic thinking in numerous places. Have patience with the slow process, in me, and in yourself. There is no hurry. The ethical questions are most important, and these are happily not in contention. Technically neither translation is wrong. One was written with our clock in mind, the other with the way they measured time during the time of Christ. If I remember correctly, back then they started their day at 6am or sunrise, rather than at midnight like we do today.
|
|
aragwen
New Member
Posts: 26
Likes: 2
|
Post by aragwen on Aug 25, 2018 19:57:15 GMT
I always thought it was a metaphor and related to John9:5 when Jesus said-
When I am in the world, I am the Light of the World.
As Jesus was dying so was his 'light' on earth i.e. the world fell into spiritual darkness.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Aug 25, 2018 20:02:39 GMT
I always thought it was a metaphor and related to John9:5 when Jesus said-
When I am in the world, I am the Light of the World.
As Jesus was dying so was his 'light' on earth i.e. the world fell into spiritual darkness. Good example. But the world was always in spiritual darkness which is why Jesus came to be the light to bring people to the light out of that darkeness Shrug And since you quoted another verse...you read scripture too?
|
|
aragwen
New Member
Posts: 26
Likes: 2
|
Post by aragwen on Aug 25, 2018 21:47:48 GMT
Hope I'm responding to the correct thread, different format to university forums so finding it a little confusing.
Maybe but in the Old Testament everything was leading up to the birth and death of Christ and God was still having direct contact with mankind. I believe that one needs to apply logic when reading the scriptures, I'm sure God could have veiled the sun if He wanted to but even He can't change the laws of physics because He put them in place when the universe was created.
“It is impossible for God to lie” (Heb. 6:18).
“God cannot be tempted by evil” (Js. 1:12).
“If we are faithless, God remains faithful — for he cannot deny himself” (2 Tim. 2:13).
God Himself exists within His own perfect laws, why change perfection.
Yes I read scripture.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Aug 25, 2018 22:09:48 GMT
aragwen So by this quote you are saying it's hard or impossible for God to do something? Doesn't that contradict the below verses? Luke 1:37 37 For with God nothing will be impossible. Jeremiah 32:27 27 “Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh. Is there anything too hard for Me? Matthew 19:26 26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
|
|