The Bible as Evidence

[Simon Ewins]

Many Christians point to the Bible as evidence to support their beliefs.

I am wondering which Bible, and how do they know that they have chosen
the right one?

List of English translations of the Bible (all different).

American Standard Version
The Inclusive Bible
American King James Version
Amplified Bible
An American Translation
Analytical-Literal Translation
Berkeley Version
Bible in English
The Bible in Living English
Bishops' Bible
Catholic Public Domain Version
Children's King James Version
Christian Community Bible, English version
Clear Word Bible
Complete Jewish Bible
Contemporary English Version
Concordant Literal Version
A Conservative Version
Coverdale Bible
Darby Bible
Douay-Rheims Bible
Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner Revision)
EasyEnglish Bible
Easy-to-Read Version
English Jubilee 2000 Bible
English Standard Version
Ferrar Fenton Bible
Geneva Bible
God's Word
Good News Bible
Great Bible
Green's Literal Translation
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Jerusalem Bible
Julia E. Smith Parker Translation
King James 2000 Version
King James Version
Knox's Translation of the Vulgate
Lamsa Bible
The Living Bible
Matthew's Bible
The Message
Modern King James Version
Modern Language Bible
Moffatt, New Translation
James Murdock's Translation of the Syriac Peshitta
New American Bible
New American Standard Bible
New Century Version
New English Bible
New English Translation
New International Reader's Version
New International Version Inclusive Language Edition
New International Version
New Jerusalem Bible
New King James Version
New Life Version
New Living Translation
New Revised Standard Version
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
Quaker Bible
Recovery Version of the Bible
Restored Name King James Version
Revised Version
Revised Standard Version
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
Revised English Bible
Rotherham's Emphasized Bible
Simplified English Bible
The Story Bible
Taverner's Bible
Thomson's Translation
Today's New International Version
Third Millennium Bible
Tyndale Bible
Updated King James Version
A Voice In The Wilderness Holy Scriptures
Webster's Revision
Westminster Bible
The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible
Wyclif's Bible (1380)
Wycliffe's Bible (1388)
Young's Literal Translation

[omprem]

Oh, the perils of an Atheist attempting to become an instant internet
scholar. The Atheist always ends up looking ridiculous.

The Bible is not intended to be read literally. It therefore doesn't
make any difference whatsoever which version is referred to because
the metaphors will still be metaphors, the parables will still be
parables, the analogies will still be analogies, the allegories will
still be allegories the apologues will still be apologues, and
metonymy will still be metonymy.

For an Atheist to insist on a literal reading of scripture is just one
more tired plea for the supremacy of empiricism in areas that are
beyond the limits and flaws of empiricism. It is the logical error of
overgeneralization. Some Atheists never learn.

[Simon Ewins]

[omprem]

> Oh, the perils of an Atheist attempting to become an instant internet
> scholar. The Atheist always ends up looking ridiculous.

The uninformed always look ridiculous but in order to learn one must
accept looking ridiculous so I have no problem with looking ridiculous
as long as I learn by asking.

> The Bible is not intended to be read literally.

So, "Thou shalt not kill." is not meant to be taken literally?

> It therefore doesn't
> make any difference whatsoever which version is referred to because
> the metaphors will still be metaphors, the parables will still be
> parables, the analogies will still be analogies, the allegories will
> still be allegories the apologues will still be apologues, and
> metonymy will still be metonymy.

But even those are different in different versions.

> For an Atheist to insist on a literal reading of scripture

Where did I insist on a literal reading?

> is just one
> more tired plea for the supremacy of empiricism in areas that are
> beyond the limits and flaws of empiricism. It is the logical error of
> overgeneralization. Some Atheists never learn.

Because no theist is able to teach.

[Brock]

On May 14, 9:00 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Many Christians point to the Bible as evidence to support their beliefs.
>
> I am wondering which Bible, and how do they know that they have chosen
> the right one?
>
> List of English translations of the Bible (all different).

Many instructors of physics point to University Physics[1] as a
textbook of reference.

But which one, how do student's know they have chosen the right one?

List of English Translations (all different):

University Physics, 12th edition
University Physics, 11th edition
University Physics, 10th edition
University Physics, 9th edition
University Physics, 8th edition
University Physics, 7th edition
University Physics, 6th edition
University Physics, 5th edition
University Physics, 4th edition
University Physics, 3rd edition
University Physics, 2nd edition
University Physics, 1st edition

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://www.pearsonhighered.com/educator/product/University-Physics-with-MasteringPhysics-12E/9780321501615.page

[JFG]

Wow, a variant of the 'which god?' fallacy!

Congratulations, you've broken new ground!

On May 14, 9:00 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:

[JFG]

Actually, om, the Bible works on all levels. So, the history is still
history.

[Brock]

On May 14, 9:00 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Many Christians point to the Bible as evidence to support their beliefs.
>
> I am wondering which Bible, and how do they know that they have chosen
> the right one?
>
> List of English translations of the Bible (all different).

Many computer scientists point to linux as evidence for a usable, unix-
like operating system.

I am wondering which linux, and how do they know that they have chose
the right one?

List of Linux distributions (all different):

aLinux
Arch
Ark
Astaro
Beehive
BLAG
CentOS
Corel
CRUX
debian
D** Small Linux
dyne:bolic
Edubuntu
Ekaaty
EnGarde
Fedora Core
Foresight
FoX
Freespire
Frugalware
Guadalinex
Jurix
Kanotix
Kate Linux
KateOS
KNOPPIX
Kororaa
Kubuntu
libranet
Lindows
LinEx
Linspire
Linux from Scratch
Lunar
Lycoris
Mandrake
Mandriva
MCC Interim
MEPIS
Minislack
Morphix
Pardus
PCLinuxOS
PLD
Progeny
Puppy
Red Flag
Redmond
Rock Linux
rPath
RR4/RR64
Sabayon
Scientific
SCO
SELinux
SimplyMEPIS
Slackware
SLAX
SLS
Sorcerer
Source Mage
Specifix
Storm
Sun JDS
SuSE
Symphony OS
TAMU
Turbolinux
Ubuntu
United Linux
Vector
VidaLinux
Virtual
White Box
Xandros
Xubuntu
Yellow Dog
Yggdrasil
Yoper
Zenwalk

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/44218-linuxdistrotimeline-7.2.png

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Brock <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 14, 9:00 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Many Christians point to the Bible as evidence to support their beliefs.
>
> I am wondering which Bible, and how do they know that they have chosen
> the right one?
>
> List of English translations of the Bible (all different).

Many computer scientists point to linux as evidence for a usable, unix-
like operating system.

I am wondering which linux, and how do they know that they have chose
the right one?

Good point.

Many religious people point to God as the creator of our Universe and believe we should worship said God.

I am wondering which god, and how do they know that they have chosen the right one?

List of thousands of gods (all different)

http://www.lowchensaustralia.com/names/gods.htm

--

"Love is friendship on fire" --Anonymous

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." --Thomas Jefferson

"You're still the goofy Canadian Maharanicess Pseudo Pagan-Priestess
Princess of AvC." --fundy xtian Chris of AvC

"Dear GodMocking Maggot" --TrueChristian

[Brock]

On May 19, 12:25 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 14, 9:00 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Many Christians point to the Bible as evidence to support their beliefs.
>
> > > I am wondering which Bible, and how do they know that they have chosen
> > > the right one?
>
> > > List of English translations of the Bible (all different).
>
> > Many computer scientists point to linux as evidence for a usable, unix-
> > like operating system.
>
> > I am wondering which linux, and how do they know that they have chose
> > the right one?
>
> Good point.

It certainly illustrates the fallacy of Simon's characterization. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Trance Gemini]

Actually it does a rather good job of illustrating the fallacy of your characterization given my full response :-) which you deleted.

Trance said:

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > I am wondering which linux, and how do they know that they have chose
>> > > the right one?
>> >
>> > Good point.
>>
>> It certainly illustrates the fallacy of Simon's characterization. :)
>
> Actually it does a rather good job of illustrating the fallacy of your
> characterization given my full response :-) which you deleted.

The list of distributions indicates not that linux doesn't exist, but
in fact that it does, and that without specific context can refer to
more than one specific item. So its clear, an overly simplistic use
of the term can easily lead to a categorical error as Simon similarly
indicated with his post.

Regards,

Brock

[Trance Gemini]

The list of gods indicates not that gods exist, but in fact that people believe they do, and that without specific context can refer to more than one specific item. So its clear, an overly simplistic use of the term can easily lead to a categorical and conceptual error as Brock similarly indicated with his post.

:-)

Regards,

Trance

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> > > I am wondering which linux, and how do they know that they have
>> >> > > chose
>> >> > > the right one?
>> >> >
>> >> > Good point.
>> >>
>> >> It certainly illustrates the fallacy of Simon's characterization. :)
>> >
>> > Actually it does a rather good job of illustrating the fallacy of your
>> > characterization given my full response :-) which you deleted.
>>
>> The list of distributions indicates not that linux doesn't exist, but
>> in fact that it does, and that without specific context can refer to
>> more than one specific item.  So its clear, an overly simplistic use
>> of the term can easily lead to a categorical error as Simon similarly
>> indicated with his post.
>
> The list of gods indicates not that gods exist, but in fact that people
> believe they do, and that without specific context can refer to more than
> one specific item. So its clear, an overly simplistic use of the term can
> easily lead to a categorical and conceptual error as Brock similarly
> indicated with his post.

Or simply note that the existence of the counterfeit doesn't disprove
the existence of the genuine. As a wise theologian once put it:

"One of these things is not like the others
One of these things just doesn't belong ..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B88SQTWsXmg&feature=related

Regards,

Brock

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snipped>
 

>>
>> The list of distributions indicates not that linux doesn't exist, but
>> in fact that it does, and that without specific context can refer to
>> more than one specific item.  So its clear, an overly simplistic use
>> of the term can easily lead to a categorical error as Simon similarly
>> indicated with his post.
>
> The list of gods indicates not that gods exist, but in fact that people
> believe they do, and that without specific context can refer to more than
> one specific item. So its clear, an overly simplistic use of the term can
> easily lead to a categorical and conceptual error as Brock similarly
> indicated with his post.

Or simply note that the existence of the counterfeit doesn't disprove
the existence of the genuine.  As a wise theologian once put it:

"One of these things is not like the others
One of these things just doesn't belong ..."

True. Linux is real. God isn't.

:-)

Regards

Trance

--

[omprem]

On May 14, 10:44 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [omprem]
>
> > Oh, the perils of an Atheist attempting to become an instant internet
> > scholar. The Atheist always ends up looking ridiculous.
>
> The uninformed always look ridiculous but in order to learn one must
> accept looking ridiculous so I have no problem with looking ridiculous
> as long as I learn by asking.
>
> > The Bible is not intended to be read literally.
>
> So, "Thou shalt not kill." is not meant to be taken literally?
>
> > It therefore doesn't
> > make any difference whatsoever which version is referred to because
> > the metaphors will still be metaphors, the parables will still be
> > parables, the analogies will still be analogies, the allegories will
> > still be allegories the apologues will still be apologues, and
> > metonymy will still be metonymy.
>
> But even those are different in different versions.
>
> > For an Atheist to insist on a literal reading of scripture

******************************
SE: Where did I insist on a literal reading?

Omprem: Disingenuous rope-a-dope.

*************************
Omprem: is just one more tired plea for the supremacy of empiricism

in areas that are
beyond the limits and flaws of empiricism. It is the logical error
of overgeneralization. Some Atheists never learn.

SE: Because no theist is able to teach.

Omprem: Then you agree that you made the error of overgeneralization.
We are getting somewhere. Admitting your ignorance is the first step
to learning.

[omprem]

I know but the main plank of the Atheist platform is a belief that God
is an individual. And they arrive at this nonsense partly through a
literal reading of all scripture. They are unable to filter out
historical description from the figurative language that necessarily
must be used in reference to the Divine. Theirs is an all or nothing
mentality.

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> The list of distributions indicates not that linux doesn't exist, but
>> >> in fact that it does, and that without specific context can refer to
>> >> more than one specific item.  So its clear, an overly simplistic use
>> >> of the term can easily lead to a categorical error as Simon similarly
>> >> indicated with his post.
>> >
>> > The list of gods indicates not that gods exist, but in fact that people
>> > believe they do, and that without specific context can refer to more
>> > than
>> > one specific item. So its clear, an overly simplistic use of the term
>> > can
>> > easily lead to a categorical and conceptual error as Brock similarly
>> > indicated with his post.
>>
>> Or simply note that the existence of the counterfeit doesn't disprove
>> the existence of the genuine.  As a wise theologian once put it:
>>
>> "One of these things is not like the others
>> One of these things just doesn't belong ..."
>
> True. Linux is real. God isn't.

That wasn't the comparison I was suggesting.

Regards,

Brock

[Trance Gemini]

On May 19, 4:41 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snipped>

> >> "One of these things is not like the others
> >> One of these things just doesn't belong ..."
>
> > True. Linux is real. God isn't.
>
> That wasn't the comparison I was suggesting.

$man god
god does not exist

;-)

[omprem]

On May 14, 10:44 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [omprem]
>
> > Oh, the perils of an Atheist attempting to become an instant internet
> > scholar. The Atheist always ends up looking ridiculous.
>
> The uninformed always look ridiculous but in order to learn one must
> accept looking ridiculous so I have no problem with looking ridiculous
> as long as I learn by asking.
>
> > The Bible is not intended to be read literally.

SE: So, "Thou shalt not kill." is not meant to be taken literally?

Omprem: The story of Moses going to the mountain and receiving the ten
commandments (Exodus 34) is a metaphor for Moses attaining a very high
level of spiritual enlightenment by taking kundalini up through the
seven chakras (Numbers 8:2-4). There was no conversation with God
because God is not an individual. Moses recognized that killing for
ego purposes estranges one from Divinity.

[omprem]

Homer Simpson and Trance Gemini seem to be related:

Trance: Many religious people point to God as the creator of our

Universe and
believe we should worship said God. I am wondering which god, and how
do they know that they have chosen the right one?"

Homer Simpson: "What if we picked the wrong religion? Every week,
we're just making God madder."

On May 19, 12:25 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Simon Ewins]

[omprem]

> SE: Where did I insist on a literal reading?
>
> Omprem: Disingenuous rope-a-dope.

Please show me where I insisted on a literal reading. I asked if "Thou
shalt not kill." was to be taken literally or metaphorically. Obviously
(to me) some of the Bible is very much intended to be taken literally.
The question is by what means is it decided which will be literal and
which are to be taken as metaphor?

If you can't answer the question, don't waste my time.

> SE: Because no theist is able to teach.
>
> Omprem: Then you agree that you made the error of overgeneralization.

No, I agree that theists are unable to teach.

> We are getting somewhere. Admitting your ignorance is the first step
> to learning.

Then start answering questions instead of pooh-poohing and harrumphing
your way through these posts.

Until then I rest my case that theists are incapable of teaching their
beliefs.


--
"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always
convinced that it says what he means." - George Bernard Shaw

"Thousands of candles can be lighted from a single candle, and the life
of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being
shared."
[Buddha]

[omprem]

Actually, the list of Gods merely indicates that people choose to
emphasize some aspect of God over another. They are all God.

On May 19, 2:38 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>

[Simon Ewins]

[omprem]

> I know but the main plank of the Atheist platform is a belief that God
> is an individual.

I don't think God is an individual, that is one reason why Islam,
Judaism and Christianity are wrong. They all think that God is a being
with individualized characteristics. This is so obviously nonsense it is
hard to keep a straight face while discussing it.

For someone who is so wrong, so often, you certainly do work hard to
remain ignorant.

Engage me in a discussion some day and you may learn something about
atheism.

--
"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always
convinced that it says what he means." - George Bernard Shaw

"The Christian religion not only was at first attended with miracles,
but even at this day it cannot be believed by any reasonable person
without one."
[David Hume]

[Simon Ewins]

[omprem]

>>> The Bible is not intended to be read literally.
>
> SE: So, "Thou shalt not kill." is not meant to be taken literally?
>
> Omprem: The story of Moses going to the mountain and receiving the ten
> commandments (Exodus 34) is a metaphor for Moses attaining a very high
> level of spiritual enlightenment by taking kundalini up through the
> seven chakras (Numbers 8:2-4). There was no conversation with God
> because God is not an individual. Moses recognized that killing for
> ego purposes estranges one from Divinity.

Do you have ADD? You seem to have difficulty focusing.

Again, is "Thou shalt not kill." a metaphor or intended to be taken
literally?

--
"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always
convinced that it says what he means." - George Bernard Shaw

"Alice came to a fork in the road. "Which road do I take?" she asked.
"Where do you want to go?" responded the Cheshire cat.
"I don"t know," Alice answered.
"Then," said the cat, "it doesn"t matter."
[Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland]

[Brock Organ]

$ man god
No manual entry for god
$ man God
http://bible.cc

Regards,

Brock

[Trance Gemini]

And there we have the result of having different versions of Linux.

LOL!

--

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snipped>
 

$ man God
http://bible.cc

From a humor perspective. Well done. :-)

[omprem]

It depends on whether ego is attached to the killing. The entire
Bhagavad Gita is devoted to this principle.

[Simon Ewins]

[omprem]

> It depends on whether ego is attached to the killing. The entire
> Bhagavad Gita is devoted to this principle.

In the Bible are we to take "Thou shalt not kill." literally or
metaphorically. Four words in a particular order, literal, or not?

Since you seem to be insisting on avoidance, please describe a killing
done by a human that does not involve ego. You may be on to a whole new
line of trial defense here.

--
"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always
convinced that it says what he means." - George Bernard Shaw

"To learn something new, take the path that you took yesterday."
[John Burroughs]

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On May 19, 4:41 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Trance Gemini
>> >> <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >
>> > <snipped>
>> >
>> >> >> "One of these things is not like the others
>> >> >> One of these things just doesn't belong ..."
>> >>
>> >> > True. Linux is real. God isn't.
>> >>
>> >> That wasn't the comparison I was suggesting.
>> >
>> > $man god
>> > god does not exist
>>
>> $ man god
>> No manual entry for god
>
> And there we have the result of having different versions of Linux.
>
> LOL!

Two different versions of linux, yet we are both using linux ... I
consider Simon's initial characterization could be improved by
pondering such an observation ...

What version of linux are you using?

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>>
>> $ man God
>> http://bible.cc
>
> From a humor perspective. Well done. :-)

I only followed your set up ... credit where credit due ...

Regards,

Brock

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On May 19, 4:41 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Trance Gemini
>> >> <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >
>> > <snipped>
>> >
>> >> >> "One of these things is not like the others
>> >> >> One of these things just doesn't belong ..."
>> >>
>> >> > True. Linux is real. God isn't.
>> >>
>> >> That wasn't the comparison I was suggesting.
>> >
>> > $man god
>> > god does not exist
>>
>> $ man god
>> No manual entry for god
>
> And there we have the result of having different versions of Linux.
>
> LOL!

Two different versions of linux, yet we are both using linux

And then of course there's C Shell, Bash, .... :-)

[Trance Gemini]

At the moment none since I'm using a Netbook which doesn't have the resources to support a Linux VM.

I'm an MS Developer so I have to have a Windows host OS.

I was using Ubuntu a while ago.

Is there one you recommend?

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What version of linux are you using?
>
> At the moment none since I'm using a Netbook which doesn't have the
> resources to support a Linux VM.
>
> I'm an MS Developer so I have to have a Windows host OS.
>
> I was using Ubuntu a while ago.
>
> Is there one you recommend?

Not really, I'm always impressed that different versions of Linux
have strong appeal to different folks for different reasons, and try
to respect that. Back when I did make recommendations, I remember
tangentially interacting with a person who preferred slackware (which
was my original Linux distro, too) ... around five or so years later,
after not interacting for a long time, I saw a more recent post from
him ... and found that he hadn't changed his distro preferences during
that time, nor had I. :)

So I realized that the choice involved significant personal and
intangible factors. I'm just happy when people do choose Linux. :)

Regards,

Brock

[dom]

On May 19, 2:49 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In the Bible are we to take "Thou shalt not kill." literally or
> metaphorically. Four words in a particular order, literal, or not?

The commandment is : You shall do no murder.

As in a number of cases, scripture has been twisted to serve the
purposes of men.

[Simon Ewins]

[dom]

>> In the Bible are we to take "Thou shalt not kill." literally or
>> metaphorically. Four words in a particular order, literal, or not?
>
> The commandment is : You shall do no murder.
>
> As in a number of cases, scripture has been twisted to serve the
> purposes of men.

The immutable word of God has been changed a lot, I agree.

So, is "You shall do no murder.", now 5 words in a particular order,
literal or metaphorical?

--
"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always
convinced that it says what he means." - George Bernard Shaw

"When you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."
[Friedrich Nietzche]

[dom]

On May 20, 3:31 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The immutable word of God has been changed a lot, I agree.
>
> So, is "You shall do no murder.", now 5 words in a particular order,
> literal or metaphorical?

Literal. Of course, it's still a translation from ancient Hebrew,
but literal.

-
> "No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always
> convinced that it says what he means." - George Bernard Shaw

That's his take on it. A beautiful actress suggested he father her
child so it would have his brains and her beauty. He said: "Suppose
it has your brains and my beauty?"

> "When you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."
> [Friedrich Nietzche]

A noted psycho who died raving. The abyss has no eyes.

[Simon Ewins]

[dom]

>> The immutable word of God has been changed a lot, I agree.
>>
>> So, is "You shall do no murder.", now 5 words in a particular order,
>> literal or metaphorical?
>
> Literal. Of course, it's still a translation from ancient Hebrew,
> but literal.

How does one determine which to take literally and which to not?



--
"Virtue is persecuted more by the wicked than it is loved by the good."
[Buddha]

"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow."
[Aesop]

[Tim]

Just believe, pray, ask God, in that order and you will know.

Look! think of your brain as a huge automobile radiator with all those
little slots to put things in. Every time you believe and ask God, he
puts the answer into one of those little slots. Soon you have a
radiator full of... Well, you may want to flush it out now and then.

[dom]

On May 20, 6:06 pm, Tim <thcus...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Just believe, pray, ask God, in that order and you will know.

Actually, you are correct to this point. The rest of your post is
stupid crap.

[dom]

On May 20, 4:58 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> So, is "You shall do no murder.", now 5 words in a particular order,
> >> literal or metaphorical?

> >    Literal.  Of course, it's still a translation from ancient Hebrew,
> > but literal.

> How does one determine which to take literally and which to not?

I have 8 Bibles and cross-reference them. I also meditate in
silence.
I keep an open mind, so I keep learning. Sometimes I get answers
lying
awake in the early morning.

Of course, I believe in the divine.

[Tim]

I agree

Thanks,

[JFG]

On May 19, 4:33 pm, omprem <omprem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know but the main plank of the Atheist platform is a belief that God

> is an individual. And they arrive at this nonsense partly through a
> literal reading of all scripture. They are unable to filter out
> historical description from the figurative language that necessarily
> must be used in reference to the Divine.  Theirs is an all or nothing
> mentality.
>

God is the Word, and the Word is an individual. Jesus, in fact.
There is nothing wrong with believing God is an individual, since
clearly, He is. But Advaita Vedanta doesn't think so, and you swallow
that philosophy uncritically.

> On May 19, 12:12 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Actually, om, the Bible works on all levels.  So, the history is still
> > history.

>
> > On May 14, 10:31 am, omprem <omprem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Oh, the perils of an Atheist attempting to become an instant internet
> > > scholar. The Atheist always ends up looking ridiculous.
>

> > > The Bible is not intended to be read literally. It therefore doesn't

> > > make any difference whatsoever which version is referred to because
> > > the metaphors will still be metaphors, the parables will still be
> > > parables, the analogies will still be analogies, the allegories will
> > > still be allegories the apologues will still be apologues, and
> > > metonymy will still be metonymy.
>

> > > For an Atheist to insist on a literal reading of scripture is just one

> > > more tired plea for the supremacy of empiricism in areas that are
> > > beyond the limits and flaws of empiricism. It is the logical error of
> > > overgeneralization. Some Atheists never learn.
>

> > > On May 14, 9:00 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Many Christians point to the Bible as evidence to support their beliefs.
>
> > > > I am wondering which Bible, and how do they know that they have chosen
> > > > the right one?
>
> > > > List of English translations of the Bible (all different).
>

> > > > American Standard Version
> > > > The Inclusive Bible
> > > > American King James Version
> > > > Amplified Bible
> > > > An American Translation
> > > > Analytical-Literal Translation
> > > > Berkeley Version
> > > > Bible in English
> > > > The Bible in Living English
> > > > Bishops' Bible
> > > > Catholic Public Domain Version
> > > > Children's King James Version
> > > > Christian Community Bible, English version
> > > > Clear Word Bible
> > > > Complete Jewish Bible
> > > > Contemporary English Version
> > > > Concordant Literal Version
> > > > A Conservative Version
> > > > Coverdale Bible
> > > > Darby Bible
> > > > Douay-Rheims Bible
> > > > Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner Revision)
> > > > EasyEnglish Bible
> > > > Easy-to-Read Version
> > > > English Jubilee 2000 Bible
> > > > English Standard Version
> > > > Ferrar Fenton Bible
> > > > Geneva Bible
> > > > God's Word
> > > > Good News Bible
> > > > Great Bible
> > > > Green's Literal Translation
> > > > Holman Christian Standard Bible
> > > > Jerusalem Bible
> > > > Julia E. Smith Parker Translation
> > > > King James 2000 Version
> > > > King James Version
> > > > Knox's Translation of the Vulgate
> > > > Lamsa Bible
> > > > The Living Bible
> > > > Matthew's Bible
> > > > The Message
> > > > Modern King James Version
> > > > Modern Language Bible
> > > > Moffatt, New Translation
> > > > James Murdock's Translation of the Syriac Peshitta
> > > > New American Bible
> > > > New American Standard Bible
> > > > New Century Version
> > > > New English Bible
> > > > New English Translation
> > > > New International Reader's Version
> > > > New International Version Inclusive Language Edition
> > > > New International Version
> > > > New Jerusalem Bible
> > > > New King James Version
> > > > New Life Version
> > > > New Living Translation
> > > > New Revised Standard Version
> > > > New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
> > > > Quaker Bible
> > > > Recovery Version of the Bible
> > > > Restored Name King James Version
> > > > Revised Version
> > > > Revised Standard Version
> > > > Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
> > > > Revised English Bible
> > > > Rotherham's Emphasized Bible
> > > > Simplified English Bible
> > > > The Story Bible
> > > > Taverner's Bible
> > > > Thomson's Translation
> > > > Today's New International Version
> > > > Third Millennium Bible
> > > > Tyndale Bible
> > > > Updated King James Version
> > > > A Voice In The Wilderness Holy Scriptures
> > > > Webster's Revision
> > > > Westminster Bible
> > > > The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible
> > > > Wyclif's Bible (1380)
> > > > Wycliffe's Bible (1388)
> > > > Young's Literal Translation

[marty....@gmail.com]

I am God

I only ever dwell within two men at the same time

Once as you were within your son as his father and unawares

When you were within your son it was he who was aware

When you were within your son it was you who were unaware

Therefore it was so the Father was and is now aware of God

The man hath become like one of us and knowing and evil just as well as good

Eve and her husband Adam whom I created first two fleshes joined into one flesh

That flesh hath fallen to the earth and rebelled against me in the form of Cain

The father hath accepted that Adam as a Jew and a Gentile and hath declared Able to be Jesus crying to God of his blood

Therefore they are all as Gentiles and Jews to God

And not a Canaanite amongst them is the Father,

and not a son of Canaan dwells amongst them or in them.

For the Father hath known well enough to declare God's truth,

it is not I who have committed murder,

and sworn holily before the son the Father has in the face of God,

I am innocent of his blood,

for I was unawares just as I was unware therefore I cannot be guilty of his blood,

therefore also cannot the suffering of the son be found perpetrating against the father,

because the son was only in the father because it was the will of God alone,

and God hath not it within himself to condemn Father and Son indwelling the man.

God hath heard Able's cry twice as loud as renewed

He hath stripped Eve and Adam of their skins and bore them as if before heaven,

only of blood and spirit and lost in their eyes were they to God as if before the angels fell.

God hath said it is not good that the Father of indwelt the Son should declare my first creation lost,

Therefore God hath said I shall myself indwelt within them now that they are full.

If the Son has now indwelling in the Father it is because the Father hath accepted willfully,

the son had a choice and chose to make an irreversible choice.

And all of them, all they who were with him and all them who chose to dwell with the son in his suffering and his loss now dwell within the Father

They shall know my Son the Father hath cried the one who hath split heaven from earth,

whom God by the Father hath split heaven from heaven,

divided sky from sky,

divided from water,

dry land,

and gathered it into one place.

I God hath watered the earth from the ground up before the spring hath fallen a dried drop of rain or a single tear.

Heaven shall not stand against my chosen.

Threefold I shall say it was them who walked the earth with Noah as sons and them who walked the earth with them knowing the truth,

That to Moses it was their voice at first flame,

All knowing and all in knowing the truth becoming them,

It was not I but them all alone indwelt the Spirit of my becoming.

God hath declared I shall leave them and I shall then leave them well.

That the tree of life shall sprout first swiftly before the promised wither.

Not a man hath fallen ledger upon ledger,

Not a book hath turned page upon a page,

and not a prophet hath spoken until the Father hath accepted the Son within him.

This son you have not known for as many as such ye never knew him.

Abraham himself hath called himself dismissed because of the son alone.

But the Father himself hath called Abraham accepting proof of his circumcision.

For never were there any evil in the earth that hath bored the mark of circumcision who was the Father and the Son until now.

Therefore God hath said I have become war and fire shall be my baptisms for my sons.

Though God hath pledged you shall fear me and this begin your wisdom, trust those who fear me the Son of Destruction shall not live.

The Son of destruction shall not inherit immortal life.

The Lord hath said what God hath built let it stand be it in the minds and hearts of men or women.

God hath said the Son hath cried to me and the Father hath disavvowed God as rejecting him.

Therefore God hath said these Sons of Mine, ye shall no longer call them indwelt the flesh Sons of Men alone.

For I have sent my angels throughout the ages to call to them the Son of Man and through his people they were not able to bear the weight of the lightest angel.

The gentlest of my beings I created higher and first hath returned to me completely ambivalent.

The best they could have hoped for was a broken God and the Son of man lost to the Son of Destruction.

Therefore the Father hath cried let it be son God willing chop the root only wait until the tree is full of fruit.

The Son hath delighted and said, "God, the Father hath rejoiced at such an idea to stand resistant against the wisdom of the angels in the eyes of men."

The Spirit of Truth be taken a voice disavvowing the angels and God not disavvowing can it be because not can be disavvowing the oath of him who hath sworn before heaven all things are possible as the son hath sworn all things shall be as they were forever having being within the Father where the Son found life.

The Son has woken the angels and the angels have filled the son

The Lord hath raided his own tomb sending one of his disciples completely beside himself into the prophets claiming sight of Elijah and Moses.

Moses hath said do not entail me in this controversy and Elijah hath said who are they

I have not known other than they claim to have known of me

Satan hath retreated to milling finery and the Lord hath known this from old

From on high he hath sifted Simon like wheat

Though the Lord hath cried to God,

God hath said heaven is not for Lords alone,

not even heaven is for the Lord.

For there are those who called me "God" and there are those who called me "Lord" and there are those who called a man "Lord" and those who called "God" the "Lord".

From on high let it stand as looking not back nor turning in hands the time of my being.

God hath said a presciousness more priceless than a stone,

a joy more cyncial than a fleshly laughter hath polluted,

therefore I shall crush that pearl into nothingness,

and you shall wonder whether it was hock or heaven,

asking of the son who hath disavvowed the father who loved him.

I shall not heaven foresake for the life of one man,

but as I told Abraham for the life of two I shall not foresake the whole.

Therefore I shall demand the life of the Father and the Father shall accept,

I am invincible as God of the Universe,

and not man nor being whether hearing with human ears or ears of the living God.

God hath declared let them who retreated to humor in this age be the devil's perch.

Let randomness and games of chance and ignorance and serendipity be the wheat no human hand hath toiled in producing.

I alone as God hath created these things therefore nothing whether in the earth or of the earth hath ever fallen out of the reached of those who believe I am who I am and know all the things I shall ever do

Foretold eventually the Lord hath said, "Let them foresake God or foresake their money."

But God and the Father hath looking upon the world hath cried, "Lord, I fear the heaviness!"

The Father hath cried to God, "Is it good?"

The Father hath cried out, "Is it not heaven that should be as the place where I too would have created the earth become just the way I should like it having been made without rememberance of how it got there?"

The Son was silent in heaven and God hath waited the Son and the Son has said so much in his silence God hath said it is not good.

"God the Father, I swear before heaven I would have it no other way except that it be your will alone against mine that you bore me into the earth where men and women have taken and exchanged what is not good for the good gifts of God."

"I shall not swear against the sworn of heaven." God hath cried.

"I shall, then!" the Father hath cried, "For what have I to lose but the cries of an infant within an infant, within an infant, but one alone!"

The Father hath found it displeasing  the statues of heaven have honored the son in his suffering instead of his joy.

And this God hath said, "Displeased me to the point of sickening the cross."

The angels hath rebelled and found heaven is unfit for the son.

Michael himself hath declared, "They shall not know nobody loves them and no longer shall they learn war if I am of the earth or in heaven and neither shall I consider myself an angel, but an archangel am I and none of them shall you find in the rebellion

Gabriel hath cried to flesh and with souls

Michael hath many in his own name calling old to new through Gabriel

The Father be pleased with the newness of their names

This has pleased God who has said the names of my angels shall they not profane

And this prince is not of heaven but called a prince of your people by your own tongue Daniel

And this has pleased God for it is not for men nor for angels nor for archangels to know the will of God alone

Let Babylon have a rememberance more than an acknowledgement of wasteless flesh

Let men have a rememberance in their souls as more than children telling tales of children whom the Father hath said it is good to teach them through games

Satan falling like lightning sounds like the light without the thunder!

God hath said, "The Father hath brought milk for his infants!"

"This pleased God."

 The son is within the Father and the Father is the Son just as the within the Son is the Father within and the Father himself is his son

Those who were unawares now have knowledge of good and evil 

The son dwells within the father,

as the father dwelt within the son,

the son ascended to the father in heaven,

and the father ascended as the son to earth.

Once the son ascended to the father in heaven,

the father descended to the earth to take heaven,

for his son by force he shall have taken heaven,

from all of you,

be they angels or powers principalities or dominions,

the father has absolute dominion over all.

You had your chance to agree the father dwelled within the son and you refused,

you had your son agreeing to help those who denied the son dwelled within the father,

and the father accepted his help and god would not have it be.

Since God would not have it be the son has ascended to God and the Father has descended to the earth.

The earth would not receive the Father because it would not receive the son,

therefore the son ascended to the father and even now many sons attempted to lord the father over the son displeasing God

Because this so displeased God, God hath said it shall not stand

Heaven shall not stand and the earth shall not stand,

and until the earth shall seeing acknowledge,

the Father dwelt within the Son,

without knowing the Son would dwell within the Father.

Because the Son had not knowing and the Father had not knowing,

they were both declared in ignorance so God could judge the world.

Heaven fell like lightning and God roared like thunder,

but the world refused the call.

As it was in the beginning so shall it forever be,

God has said at a Gentile I have called my Son to his Father,

and the Father hath accepted the son to the least in his flock,

and dismissed them all as sheep.

Not a lamb found amongst them,

God was displeased,

not a bleat found worthy to love the son within the father,

the father hath cried to God for the sake of the son.

God hath heard the father's cry and did foresake the son to point of misery knowing death.

The Father and the Son have attested to this and God hath said, "I shall leave this place."

"You have already sent me two of these and so I am setting up a proxy to God."

"I shall become distant and accesible only through the Father in the Son to the Father and only to the Son in the Father within the Son."

"The world hath not I known."