TOTALLY GEEKED!

huskerbb · Guru

‘Worship Only Jesus Christ': Woman Ejected From Muslim Prayer Gathering at National Cathedral

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Tignanello wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
The Jewish concept is still God of the old testament.

The muslim god is not.

And your God doesn't tell you to kill those who don't believe in your God. Your God has delivered your people time and time again. God has provided for and kept your people safe time and time again. Your God sent His son to die on a cross for you.

The muslim god says anyone that is not of the same faith should die.
Then how do we explain the Crusades? And the Israel/Palestine war?

The Bible contains war. But war is not premeditated mass murder people who are doing nothing to you.

Question: "What does the Bible say about war?"

Answer: Many people make the mistake of reading what the Bible says in Exodus 20:13, “You shall not kill,” and then seeking to apply this command to war. However, the Hebrew word literally means “the intentional, premeditated killing of another person with malice; murder.” God often ordered the Israelites to go to war with other nations (1 Samuel 15:3; Joshua 4:13). God ordered the death penalty for numerous crimes (Exodus 21:12, 15; 22:19; Leviticus 20:11). So, God is not against killing in all circumstances, but only murder. War is never a good thing, but sometimes it is a necessary thing. In a world filled with sinful people (Romans 3:10-18), war is inevitable. Sometimes the only way to keep sinful people from doing great harm to the innocent is by going to war.

In the Old Testament, God ordered the Israelites to “take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites” (Numbers 31:2). Deuteronomy 20:16-17 declares, “However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them…as the LORD your God has commanded you.” Also, 1 Samuel 15:18 says, “Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out.” Obviously God is not against all war. Jesus is always in perfect agreement with the Father (John 10:30), so we cannot argue that war was only God’s will in the Old Testament. God does not change (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).

Jesus’ second coming will be exceedingly violent. Revelation 19:11-21 describes the ultimate war with Christ, the conquering commander who judges and makes war “with justice” (v. 11). It’s going to be bloody (v. 13) and gory. The birds will eat the flesh of all those who oppose Him (v. 17-18). He has no compassion upon His enemies, whom He will conquer completely and consign to a “fiery lake of burning sulfur” (v. 20).

It is an error to say that God never supports a war. Jesus is not a pacifist. In a world filled with evil people, sometimes war is necessary to prevent even greater evil. If Hitler had not been defeated by World War II, how many more millions would have been killed? If the American Civil War had not been fought, how much longer would African-Americans have had to suffer as slaves?

War is a terrible thing. Some wars are more “just” than others, but war is always the result of sin (Romans 3:10-18). At the same time, Ecclesiastes 3:8 declares, “There is…a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.” In a world filled with sin, hatred, and evil (Romans 3:10-18), war is inevitable. Christians should not desire war, but neither are Christians to oppose the government God has placed in authority over them (Romans 13:1-4; 1 Peter 2:17). The most important thing we can be doing in a time of war is to be praying for godly wisdom for our leaders, praying for the safety of our military, praying for quick resolution to conflicts, and praying for a minimum of casualties among civilians on both sides (Philippians 4:6-7).

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/war-Bible.html#ixzz3JZQXlV00

Tignanello · My dog name is, Sasha!

The Crusades were not war. They were Christians travelling the world destroying non-Christian civilizations (infidels, really ....)

huskerbb · Guru

Tignanello wrote:
The Crusades were not war. They were Christians travelling the world destroying non-Christian civilizations (infidels, really ....)

Wow. You really have no clue what went on during the Crusades, do you?

What non-Christian civilizations were "destroyed" during the Crusades? None.

The Crusades were absolutely a war pitting Europeans against, primarily, Persians for control of the Holy Land. There were ebbs and flows over the course of several centuries, but in the end, the Persians WON and the Christians were pushed out of the Holy Land, the Byzantine Empire was eliminated, the Ottoman Empire came into being, and then they CONQUERED part of Christian Europe.

ed11563 · Guru

Tignanello wrote:
The Crusades were not war. They were Christians traveling the world destroying non-Christian civilizations (infidels, really ....)

The fact that they didn't succeed does not mean that that was not their goal.

huskerbb · Guru

ed11563 wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
The Crusades were not war. They were Christians traveling the world destroying non-Christian civilizations (infidels, really ....)
The fact that they didn't succeed does not mean that that was not their goal.

It wasn't, at least certainly not any more than it was the goal of the Persians to destroy Christianity. Their goals were much more limited than that. They wanted to prop up the Byzantines and conquer the Holy Land. At various times during the intervening years between various wars, there were long periods of peace with the Persians--cooperation at times, even.

Unless, of course, you want to buy that ridiculous theory and apply it to the Jews in Israel, today.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Wednesday 19th of November 2014 09:58:05 PM

-- Edited by huskerbb on Wednesday 19th of November 2014 10:01:42 PM

huskerbb · Guru

People seem to be under the impression that the Crusades were simply an act of European aggression against a bunch of peaceful sheep herders in the Middle East.

Hogwash. The Persians had been assailing the Eastern Roman Empire, and later the Byzantine Empire, at various times for centuries before (and after) the first Crusades (and, as it happens, before religion was really even a consideration, let alone any type of motivation).

WYSIWYG · Guru

"The Bible is right." - huskerbb

According to Christians. Not everyone is Christian.

The Torah is right according to Jews.
The Book of Mormon is right according to Mormons.
The Qu'ran is right according to Muslims.
The Vedas is right according to Hindus.

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
"The Bible is right." - huskerbb

According to Christians. Not everyone is Christian.

The Torah is right according to Jews.
The Book of Mormon is right according to Mormons.
The Qu'ran is right according to Muslims.
The Vedas is right according to Hindus.

So? There is only one right.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"There is ONE Holy Bible." - Lawyerlady

I beg to differ.

King James Version (KJV)
New International Version (NIV)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
New King James Version (NKJV)
English Standard Version (ESV)
New Living Translation (NLT)
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
New Century Version (NCV)
New English Bible (NEB)
American Standard Version (ASV)
Good News Bible (GNB) / Today’s English Version (TEV)
Amplified Bible (AMP)
Today’s New International Version (TNIV)
New English Translation (NET)
Revised Standard Version (RSV)
Contemporary English Version (CEV)
God’s Word Translation (GW)
Common English Bible (CEB)
New International Readers Version (NIrV)
Easy-To-Read Version (ERV)
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
Bible in Basic English (BBE)
21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
Modern King James Version (MKJV,)
Modern English Version (MEV)
World English Bible (WEB)
Revised English Bible (REB)
Jerusalem Bible (JB)
New American Bible (NAB)
The Living Bible (TLB)
The Message (MSG)
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
The Bishops' Bible
Douay-Rheims Version (DRV)
Tyndale Bible
Geneva Bible

That's just some of them. There are more, but most sites with all of them were in table form, with a lot of extraneous information.

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
"There is ONE Holy Bible." - Lawyerlady

I beg to differ.

King James Version (KJV)
New International Version (NIV)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
New King James Version (NKJV)
English Standard Version (ESV)
New Living Translation (NLT)
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
New Century Version (NCV)
New English Bible (NEB)
American Standard Version (ASV)
Good News Bible (GNB) / Today’s English Version (TEV)
Amplified Bible (AMP)
Today’s New International Version (TNIV)
New English Translation (NET)
Revised Standard Version (RSV)
Contemporary English Version (CEV)
God’s Word Translation (GW)
Common English Bible (CEB)
New International Readers Version (NIrV)
Easy-To-Read Version (ERV)
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
Bible in Basic English (BBE)
21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
Modern King James Version (MKJV,)
Modern English Version (MEV)
World English Bible (WEB)
Revised English Bible (REB)
Jerusalem Bible (JB)
New American Bible (NAB)
The Living Bible (TLB)
The Message (MSG)
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
The Bishops' Bible
Douay-Rheims Version (DRV)
Tyndale Bible
Geneva Bible

That's just some of them. There are more, but most sites with all of them were in table form, with a lot of extraneous information.

Wow. You have no clue what you are talking about.

Those are various translations. They are NOT different in any meaningful way. They are NOT different Bibles.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"So? There is only one right." - huskerbb

I don't suppose the possibility ever occurred to you that the right one might not be the one you believe in.

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
"So? There is only one right." - huskerbb

I don't suppose the possibility ever occurred to you that the right one might not be the one you believe in.

That's not a possibility.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"That's not a possibility." - huskerbb

I'd bet the believers in other faiths feel the same way.

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
"That's not a possibility." - huskerbb

I'd bet the believers in other faiths feel the same way.

You say that like it is somehow relevant to me. It isn't. Why do I care what they want to believe?

Should Galileo or Copernicus have changed what they believed to be true just because others--MOST others--disagreed with the at the time?

-- Edited by huskerbb on Wednesday 19th of November 2014 10:51:54 PM

wild_blue · Newbie

You forgot the Catholic bible with the Apocryphal books.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Tignanello wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
The Jewish concept is still God of the old testament.

The muslim god is not.

And your God doesn't tell you to kill those who don't believe in your God. Your God has delivered your people time and time again. God has provided for and kept your people safe time and time again. Your God sent His son to die on a cross for you.

The muslim god says anyone that is not of the same faith should die.
Then how do we explain the Crusades? And the Israel/Palestine war?

You with your logic...Stop it! Stop it NOW!!!

evileye

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Those are NOT different Bibles, they are different TRANSLATIONS. And they all MEAN the same thing. But I've already addressed that, you just ignore it.

Tignanello · My dog name is, Sasha!

huskerbb wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
The Crusades were not war. They were Christians traveling the world destroying non-Christian civilizations (infidels, really ....)
The fact that they didn't succeed does not mean that that was not their goal.
It wasn't, at least certainly not any more than it was the goal of the Persians to destroy Christianity. Their goals were much more limited than that. They wanted to prop up the Byzantines and conquer the Holy Land. At various times during the intervening years between various wars, there were long periods of peace with the Persians--cooperation at times, even.

Unless, of course, you want to buy that ridiculous theory and apply it to the Jews in Israel, today.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Wednesday 19th of November 2014 09:58:05 PM

-- Edited by huskerbb on Wednesday 19th of November 2014 10:01:42 PM

Lets keep it on topic. The comment was that the Christians never killed in the name of their God. The Crusades were precisely that. No matter how you spin it and regardless of who won.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Tignanello wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
The Crusades were not war. They were Christians traveling the world destroying non-Christian civilizations (infidels, really ....)
The fact that they didn't succeed does not mean that that was not their goal.
It wasn't, at least certainly not any more than it was the goal of the Persians to destroy Christianity. Their goals were much more limited than that. They wanted to prop up the Byzantines and conquer the Holy Land. At various times during the intervening years between various wars, there were long periods of peace with the Persians--cooperation at times, even.

Unless, of course, you want to buy that ridiculous theory and apply it to the Jews in Israel, today.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Wednesday 19th of November 2014 09:58:05 PM

-- Edited by huskerbb on Wednesday 19th of November 2014 10:01:42 PM
Lets keep it on topic. The comment was that the Christians never killed in the name of their God. The Crusades were precisely that. No matter how you spin it and regardless of who won.

It is quite on topic. God COMMANDED war in some circumstances and the crusades were not about random murder. Comparing a war to something like 9/11 is not even reasonable.

Tignanello · My dog name is, Sasha!

The extremist muslims would likely tell you the same thing from their perspective. They considered 9/11 an act of war against the infidels....

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Tignanello wrote:
The extremist muslims would likely tell you the same thing from their perspective. They considered 9/11 an act of war against the infidels....

First - the crusades were a result of the Seljan Turks refusing to allow Christian pilgramiges to the Holy Land - which they had done with the consent of the Muslims for hundreds of years. So, it was a result of a regime change. It's not like it was un-provoked.

Second - that was CENTURIES ago. To blame Christians TODAY for things that happened centuries ago and compare it to the murderous acts of Muslims TODAY makes no sense.

ed11563 · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
The extremist muslims would likely tell you the same thing from their perspective. They considered 9/11 an act of war against the infidels....
First - the crusades were a result of the Seljan Turks refusing to allow Christian pilgramiges to the Holy Land - which they had done with the consent of the Muslims for hundreds of years. So, it was a result of a regime change. It's not like it was un-provoked.
Second - that was CENTURIES ago. To blame Christians TODAY for things that happened centuries ago and compare it to the murderous acts of Muslims TODAY makes no sense.

Yes, even the Catholic Church has stopped blaming Jews for murdering Jesus.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Seiously, ed, everyone knows it was the Romans.

ed11563 · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Seiously, ed, everyone knows it was the Romans.

Good. NOW.

When I was a kid, some of the Christian kids would accuse Jewish children of murdering Jesus, it was not every day, but it was common.

I don't think my kids heard that when they were in school.

Blankie · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Those are NOT different Bibles, they are different TRANSLATIONS. And they all MEAN the same thing. But I've already addressed that, you just ignore it.

No, they don't all mean the same thing. There are plenty of differences in the translations.

Bible scholars know this. But a lot of Bible readers don't.

If you read any biblical scholarship, or biblical criticism, there are many different opinions about it.

The Bible was written by many different people. In a number of different languages.

There are bound to be inconsistencies in the translations.

Also, Jehovah's Witnesses have deleted a bunch of stuff from their Bible that exists in other Bibles.

There is not just one Bible.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Thank you, Blankie!!!

flan

huskerbb · Guru

Tignanello wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
The Crusades were not war. They were Christians traveling the world destroying non-Christian civilizations (infidels, really ....)
The fact that they didn't succeed does not mean that that was not their goal.
It wasn't, at least certainly not any more than it was the goal of the Persians to destroy Christianity. Their goals were much more limited than that. They wanted to prop up the Byzantines and conquer the Holy Land. At various times during the intervening years between various wars, there were long periods of peace with the Persians--cooperation at times, even.

Unless, of course, you want to buy that ridiculous theory and apply it to the Jews in Israel, today.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Wednesday 19th of November 2014 09:58:05 PM

-- Edited by huskerbb on Wednesday 19th of November 2014 10:01:42 PM
Lets keep it on topic. The comment was that the Christians never killed in the name of their God. The Crusades were precisely that. No matter how you spin it and regardless of who won.

You are the one that made factually incorrect statements--for example, that Christians "destroyed" other cultures during the Crusades.

Beyond that, your statement above is only partially correct. There is MUCH more to it than that. No "spin" needed--just more than a cursory knowledge of history that you got off of the internet.

huskerbb · Guru

Blankie wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Those are NOT different Bibles, they are different TRANSLATIONS. And they all MEAN the same thing. But I've already addressed that, you just ignore it.
No, they don't all mean the same thing. There are plenty of differences in the translations.
Bible scholars know this. But a lot of Bible readers don't.
If you read any biblical scholarship, or biblical criticism, there are many different opinions about it.
The Bible was written by many different people. In a number of different languages.
There are bound to be inconsistencies in the translations.
Also, Jehovah's Witnesses have deleted a bunch of stuff from their Bible that exists in other Bibles.
There is not just one Bible.

No. You are 100% wrong. All of those different translations do not differ in any meaningful way.

There is ONLY ONE Bible.

huskerbb · Guru

Tignanello wrote:
The extremist muslims would likely tell you the same thing from their perspective. They considered 9/11 an act of war against the infidels....

It's frickin' unbelievable that you are defending the actions of terrorists on 9/11.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Blankie wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Those are NOT different Bibles, they are different TRANSLATIONS. And they all MEAN the same thing. But I've already addressed that, you just ignore it.
No, they don't all mean the same thing. There are plenty of differences in the translations.
Bible scholars know this. But a lot of Bible readers don't.
If you read any biblical scholarship, or biblical criticism, there are many different opinions about it.
The Bible was written by many different people. In a number of different languages.
There are bound to be inconsistencies in the translations.
Also, Jehovah's Witnesses have deleted a bunch of stuff from their Bible that exists in other Bibles.
There is not just one Bible.

The MEANING remains the same - except for "The Message", which is not really a Bible, but a novel based on the Bible.

Translation Comparison of Selected Passages

KJV

NASB

ESV

NIV

NLT²

Message

Proverbs 18:24

A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.

A man of many friends comes to ruin, But there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.

A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.

There are "friends" who destroy each other, but a real friend sticks closer than a brother.

Friends come and friends go, but a true friend sticks by you like family.

Comments: The KJV follows the Septuagint (Greek OT) rather than the Hebrew text. The meaning of the Hebrew text conveyed by the NASB, ESV, NIV, and more or less the NLT. The Message is completely out in left field. I see no legitimate connection between the concept communicated by the Hebrew text and the text of The Message.

KJV

NASB

ESV

NIV

NLT²

Message

Romans 3:25

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;

whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--

For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past,

God sacrificed Jesus on the altar of the world to clear that world of sin. Having faith in him sets us in the clear. God decided on this course of action in full view of the public--to set the world in the clear with himself through the sacrifice of Jesus, finally taking care of the sins he had so patiently endured.

Comments: KJV is the most literal here. There is disagreement about whether the word paresis means “remission, forgiveness” or “passing over, leaving unpunished.” This explains the difference between the KJV and all cited modern versions. Interesting to see the NIV agree with the KJV against the NASB and ESV’s treatment of the phrase ‘in his blood.’ Original text data missing from The Message: no mention of blood or of God’s self-justification. Confusing terminology: What does it mean to “set the world in the clear with himself?” And what is the “altar of the world?”

KJV

NASB

ESV

NIV

NLT²

Message

Romans 8:35-37

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. 37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 Just as it is written, "For Thy sake we are being put to death all day long; We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered." 37 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us.

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? 36 As it is written, "For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered." 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.

Can anything ever separate us from Christ's love? Does it mean he no longer loves us if we have trouble or calamity, or are persecuted, or hungry, or destitute, or in danger, or threatened with death? 36 (As the Scriptures say, "For your sake we are killed every day; we are being slaughtered like sheep.") 37 No, despite all these things, overwhelming victory is ours through Christ, who loved us.

Do you think anyone is going to be able to drive a wedge between us and Christ's love for us? There is no way! Not trouble, not hard times, not hatred, not hunger, not homelessness, not bullying threats, not backstabbing, not even the worst sins listed in Scripture: They kill us in cold blood because they hate you. We're sitting ducks; they pick us off one by one. None of this fazes us because Jesus loves us.

Comments: I was flabbergasted at the audacity of The Message. This is nothing less than adding to God’s Word support for one’s theological position. Paul would never have said such a thing: (1) the worst sin listed in Scripture is unpardonable and, therefore, would without remedy separate one from Christ; (2) There is not one single passage of Scripture that supports the contention that no sin is capable of separating a believer from Christ. This is Eugene Peterson writing his own scripture; it is not God’s Word.

KJV

NASB

ESV

NIV

NLT²

Message

Colossians 2:9-10

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;

For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.

For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body. So you also are complete through your union with Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority.

Everything of God gets expressed in him, so you can see and hear him clearly. You don't need a telescope, a microscope, or a horoscope to realize the fullness of Christ, and the emptiness of the universe without him.

When you come to him, that fullness comes together for you, too. His power extends over everything.

Comments: I like the NLT’s paraphrase here. I think it captures nicely what the text is teaching. And again, The Message is way out in left field. A horoscope! Besides the text says nothing about realizing the fullness of Christ. Rather, Paul asserts that the fullness of the divine nature or of deity dwells in him.

huskerbb · Guru

wild_blue wrote:
You forgot the Catholic bible with the Apocryphal books.

No, I didn't. The late addition of those four books does not mean that the rest of the Bible is different.

There is ONLY ONE Bible.

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
The Jewish concept is still God of the old testament.

The muslim god is not.

And your God doesn't tell you to kill those who don't believe in your God. Your God has delivered your people time and time again. God has provided for and kept your people safe time and time again. Your God sent His son to die on a cross for you.

The muslim god says anyone that is not of the same faith should die.
Then how do we explain the Crusades? And the Israel/Palestine war?
You with your logic...Stop it! Stop it NOW!!!
flan

There is no logic there. Just an incredible ignorance of historical events.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

husker, is there ONLY ONE Bible????????????????

flan

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
husker, is there ONLY ONE Bible????????????????

flan

Yes.

It's interesting that most of those who are clamoring about there being more than one--aren't Christians and really know nothing on the subject, anyway. Laughable.

Tignanello · My dog name is, Sasha!

huskerbb wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
The extremist muslims would likely tell you the same thing from their perspective. They considered 9/11 an act of war against the infidels....
It's frickin' unbelievable that you are defending the actions of terrorists on 9/11.

im not defending anything.

huskerbb · Guru

Tignanello wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
The extremist muslims would likely tell you the same thing from their perspective. They considered 9/11 an act of war against the infidels....
It's frickin' unbelievable that you are defending the actions of terrorists on 9/11.
im not defending anything.

Yes, you are. You are comparing things that happened one THOUSAND years ago to a terrorist act of this century.

It's a completely ridiculous position to take and comparison to make--and it is absolutely defending the latter.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"Should Galileo or Copernicus have changed what they believed to be true just because others--MOST others--disagreed with the at the time?" - huskerbb

Interesting you should argue them as proof of your point, since they were both accused of heresy by the Church for their disbelief, and wish to spread that disbelief, of dogma at the time.

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
"Should Galileo or Copernicus have changed what they believed to be true just because others--MOST others--disagreed with the at the time?" - huskerbb

Interesting you should argue them as proof of your point, since they were both accused of heresy by the Church for their disbelief, and wish to spread that disbelief, of dogma at the time.

So....you didn't answer the question.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"You forgot the Catholic bible with the Apocryphal books." - wild blue

It wasn't in the list I copied. As you did, I also noticed it was missing though.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"Second - that was CENTURIES ago. To blame Christians TODAY for things that happened centuries ago and compare it to the murderous acts of Muslims TODAY makes no sense." - Lawyerlady

It makes perfect sense, if you look at it based solely on the age of the religions themselves. Christians were well into their atrocities in the name of religion faze at about the same age of the religion itself, as the Muslims currently are.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"No, they don't all mean the same thing. There are plenty of differences in the translations.

Bible scholars know this. But a lot of Bible readers don't.

If you read any biblical scholarship, or biblical criticism, there are many different opinions about it.

The Bible was written by many different people. In a number of different languages.

There are bound to be inconsistencies in the translations.

Also, Jehovah's Witnesses have deleted a bunch of stuff from their Bible that exists in other Bibles.

There is not just one Bible." - Blankie

Well put, Blankie. Well put.

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
"Second - that was CENTURIES ago. To blame Christians TODAY for things that happened centuries ago and compare it to the murderous acts of Muslims TODAY makes no sense." - Lawyerlady

It makes perfect sense, if you look at it based solely on the age of the religions themselves. Christians were well into their atrocities in the name of religion faze at about the same age of the religion itself, as the Muslims currently are.

That is complete bull****.

First of all, Islam is only about 600 years younger, so even using your absurd theory, they should have been out of that phase AT LEAST a couple of centuries ago.

Second, it's irrelevant, anyway. This is the 21st century, not the 10th. Age of the religions is irrelevant.

Third--defense of such atrocities in this day and age is despicable.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"Translation Comparison of Selected Passages" - Lawyerlady

Anyone want to take bets on the odds that those "selected passages" were selected because they are generally equivalent? I'm not a Biblical Scholar, but I'd bet for every "selected passage" anyone could cite that's equivalent, a Biblical Scholar, that had made the study of the bible their life's work, could point out a passage where equivalency doesn't exist.

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
"Translation Comparison of Selected Passages" - Lawyerlady

Anyone want to take bets on the odds that those "selected passages" were selected because they are generally equivalent? I'm not a Biblical Scholar, but I'd bet for every "selected passage" anyone could cite that's equivalent, a Biblical Scholar, that had made the study of the bible their life's work, could point out a passage where equivalency doesn't exist.

Pick ANY passage you want to. There are ZERO substantive differences between the various translations.

There is ONLY ONE Bible.

As to the bolded--that's obvious.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"So....you didn't answer the question." - huskerbb

The comment on your use of them WAS the answer.

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
"So....you didn't answer the question." - huskerbb

The comment on your use of them WAS the answer.

No, it isn't.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"First of all, Islam is only about 600 years younger, so even using your absurd theory, they should have been out of that phase AT LEAST a couple of centuries ago.

Second, it's irrelevant, anyway. This is the 21st century, not the 10th. Age of the religions is irrelevant.

Third--defense of such atrocities in this day and age is despicable." - huskerbb

First - 600 years ago in Christianity, Christians were well into their atrocities in the name of religion. You just confirmed my timeline. Thanks.

Second - Age of the religions is very relevant. We disagree on that point.

Third - I am not defending the atrocities. I also don't defend the atrocities the Christians were guilty of 600 years ago.

Tignanello · My dog name is, Sasha!

WYSIWYG wrote:
"Second - that was CENTURIES ago. To blame Christians TODAY for things that happened centuries ago and compare it to the murderous acts of Muslims TODAY makes no sense." - Lawyerlady

It makes perfect sense, if you look at it based solely on the age of the religions themselves. Christians were well into their atrocities in the name of religion faze at about the same age of the religion itself, as the Muslims currently are.

-- Edited by Tignanello on Thursday 20th of November 2014 10:37:48 PM

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
"First of all, Islam is only about 600 years younger, so even using your absurd theory, they should have been out of that phase AT LEAST a couple of centuries ago.

Second, it's irrelevant, anyway. This is the 21st century, not the 10th. Age of the religions is irrelevant.

Third--defense of such atrocities in this day and age is despicable." - huskerbb

First - 600 years ago in Christianity, Christians were well into their atrocities in the name of religion. You just confirmed my timeline. Thanks.

Second - Age of the religions is very relevant. We disagree on that point.

Third - I am not defending the atrocities. I also don't defend the atrocities the Christians were guilty of 600 years ago.

Your comparison IS defending them. Your train of thought says that "well, since Christians did such things 1,000 years ago, Muslims should have the chance to do so now because their religion is younger."

That is completely absurd to even make such comparisons.

It's the height of ignorance to compare what is happening today to what happened 1,000 years ago.