Why doesn't anyone ever acknowledge the most interesting verse in the most well-established translation of the Bible?

Lot2
Theist
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-03-05
User is offlineOffline
Why doesn't anyone ever acknowledge the most interesting verse in the most well-established translation of the Bible?

"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." (Revelation 20:14, KJV)


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2406
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Lot2

Lot2 wrote:
"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." (Revelation 20:14, KJV)

   I give up;   Why is this the most interesting verse in a book of bad poetry; further to that what the hell does it mean.  Humans can die only once,   believe it or not -  like it or not.  And why art thou  promoting this on a website full of rational people ?

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
 And death and hell were

 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire! This is the second death! This is the third hell! This is my second bowl of ice cream!

High as a kite.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
So hell is a person and not

So hell is a person and not a place? And apparently not the place where the lake of fire is?

Whatever you're smokin' Revelations Guy, pass some over here.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote:So hell is a

Tilberian wrote:

So hell is a person and not a place? And apparently not the place where the lake of fire is?

Whatever you're smokin' Revelations Guy, pass some over here.

 

Well, in theory, Hell could have been a place (say... an island) that what thrown onto this fire lake...

And Death is just old Grimmy... but... shit... i had an idea >.<

What Would Kharn Do?


Lot2
Theist
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-03-05
User is offlineOffline
That'd be funny if the Bible

That'd be funny if the Bible had "Grim Reaper" in it. Chalk it right up with wizards, dragons, unicorns, and ghosts.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
There's 66 books of crazy

There's 66 books of crazy and you want me to look at one verse?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


net_traveller
Posts: 7
Joined: 2008-04-04
User is offlineOffline
I think the bible does grim reaper in it.

Lot2 wrote:
That'd be funny if the Bible had "Grim Reaper" in it. Chalk it right up with wizards, dragons, unicorns, and ghosts.

that part where it talks about the 4 horsemen I thought one of them was death i.e. grim reaper


Boon Docks
Posts: 415
Joined: 2007-03-04
User is offlineOffline
Early bird

Yeah, it must be early, I'm not reading a whole lot of sense into this one.  Why would anyone (even a theist) think this is the most interesting verse.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I was taught that this verse

I was taught that this verse is a poetic way of saying that after such and such End-Time event, death as a mortal event will no longer exist, so the second death is the death of death... poetically.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Lot2 wrote:"And death and

Lot2 wrote:
"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." (Revelation 20:14, KJV)

Because it was written by someone on the 1st century's equivalent of LSD.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
What makes you think the KJV

What makes you think the KJV is the most well established translation? 


Jiggles Vibe
Posts: 40
Joined: 2008-05-24
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Lot2 wrote:
"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." (Revelation 20:14, KJV)

Because it was written by someone on the 1st century's equivalent of LSD.

 

let us take a trip over the balls on that for a while.

"The longer you live the higher you fly,
the smiles you'll give and the tears you'll cry,
all you touch and all you see,
is all your life will ever be."
-Pink Floyd, The Dark Side of the Moon.


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
 I wouldn't say the KJV is

 I wouldn't say the KJV is the most well-established, unless you refer to popularity instead of accuracy. In terms of popularity, yes. In terms of accuracy, most assuredly not. The KJV translation of Revelations 20.14 is inaccurate, which shatters the well-established accuracy myth.

The KJV translates the verse as "Death and Hell." A more appropriate translation would be "Death and Hades." If you search the NT, the fire and brimstone verses generally use Gehenna. Hades and Gehenna are not one and the same. Hades is the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew word Sheol. In Hebrew mythology, all the dead (good and bad) went to Sheol (and thus Hades). Hades is a temporary residence for spirits of all kinds. It's not the fire and brimstone Hell that the KJV would have you believe.

Remember when it said Jesus descended into "Hell"? He went into Hades, not the fire and brimstone Hell. Jesus went into Hades to preach to those who had not been saved and of those who had been saved, such as the Saints, followed him out of Hades. This is why, following Jesus' resurrection, you hear about the Saints rising from the dead. The Saints were not burning in fire and brimstone, contrary to much of the retarded theology often parroted by the thoughtless.

Anyhow, Jesus took the repentant out of Hades, leaving only the unrepentant. Later, those people are resurrected. They are thrown into the Lake of Fire. The good are now immortal in Heaven and there are no longer bad people that can experience death; therefore, Death itself has been abolished, which is stated in a poetic form by saying Death was cast into the Lake of Fire.

If the repenant have left Hades to Heaven, and the unrepentant have left Hades to the Lake of Fire, who is left in Hades? Nobody. Thus, Hades no longer serves a purpose and it is subsequently abolished. Again, the abolishment is spoken of poetically by saying Hades was cast into the Lake of Fire.

Thus, "Death and Hades were cast into the Lake of Fire."
 

 

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
I always find it amazing

I always find it amazing that 99.9% of christians have not only never read the bible but are actually incapable of reading it. There entire lives are based around a piece of literature that they do not actually have the skills to read.

Talking about the bible in its original languages of course , Hebrew, Greek  Aramaic?. Also tempted to keep a copy of one around and the next time some brainwashed death cultist comes around agree to convert if they read me their favourite part of it (from my version of course).

Of course its the same for Muslims too the vast majority of Muslims speak no Arabic (I'm also pretty sure the Koran was written in a very different version to modern Arabic and is effectively impossible to read without a university degree in the language)

 

 

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Cool posting friends. For

Cool posting friends. For the most part, I read the ancient bible and similar writings, as early "Twilight Zone" scripts, revealing basic simple wisdom of our human tendencies. Those that were, or now religious, I reject. Religion is obviously dogma poison. Get rid of all religious preachers, and keep the sci fi messengers of AWE ..... dream weavers.

    An atheistic interpretation of everything is to know all is ONE, all is connected.

                       Atheist Moses and Jesus were turned into religion

                             Moses - I am what I am, no god before me

                                          Jesus - I am god, as you

                                        Paul/Saul?, ahhh,  fuck you

              [ Summary: Moses - Jesus atheistic pantheists / Paul-Saul Xain ]


Blind_Chance
Blind_Chance's picture
Posts: 124
Joined: 2008-01-09
User is offlineOffline
LotR (2:1-8)Three Rings for

LotR (2:1-8)

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

See Lot2 I can quote fantasy books as well ! Yay ! However I prefer LotR it is more factual then Bible.

 

 

Ecrasez l'infame!


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2406
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
lot2

Jeffrick wrote:

Lot2 wrote:
"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." (Revelation 20:14, KJV)

   I give up;   Why is this the most interesting verse in a book of bad poetry; further to that what the hell does it mean.  Humans can die only once,   believe it or not -  like it or not.  And why art thou  promoting this on a website full of rational people ?

   Lot2  I'm still waiting for the answer to my first question, and waiting, and waiting..........

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Lot2 wrote:"And death and

Lot2 wrote:
"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." (Revelation 20:14, KJV)

Makes me want to run to church and 'love' God with all my heart, soul and mind. I better 'love' him or else face this torture.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
I forgot to ask, what do you

I forgot to ask, what do you want us to acknowledge? I don't see your point. If it is an implicit threat of Hell, you should find a better conversion tactic because the Christian Hell scares us just as much as the Hindu's Nark—not at all.

 

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I love Atheists to bits. RRS

I love Atheists to bits. RRS team work !


angelwire
Posts: 4
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
Visual_Paradox

 In case anyone is wondering, Visual_Paradox accurately answered the question as to the meaning of Revelation 20:14. The KJV is incorrect in it's use of the word "Hell" here.

The idea of "Sheol" or "the Grave" was a kind of holding tank where souls went when they died. It is my understanding that the faithful went to "Abraham's Bosom" and the rest went to sheol, but they could be the same thing. The truth is, that ancient Judaism actually dealt very little with the afterlife, to the degree that 2 sects arose, the Pharisees and Saduccess over the disagreement about whether their was an afterlife at all.

In my opinion, the Christian idea of afterlife and hell was taken directly from Egyptian religion, specifically the Papyrus of Ani and like burial texts. It certainly didn't come from Judaism as the O.T. is largely silent on the issue. In egyptian religion, the individual stands before the judgement seat of the resurrected Osiris and is judged whereupon he/she is sent to a paradise, or to a pit of fire where he is tortured by a large serpent. This can be verified by visiting your local library and picking up a copy of "the book of the dead", which is the same as the Papyrus of Ani.

If you get a chance check out my blog site: www.Angelwire.net


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Actually, I think this part

Actually, I think this part is better:

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him
.

How metal is THAT?


 


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
inspectormustard

inspectormustard wrote:

Actually, I think this part is better:

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him
.

How metal is THAT?

 

 

Ask and ye shall receive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMOeBTHbTUs

 

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
dassercha

dassercha wrote:

inspectormustard wrote:

Actually, I think this part is better:

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him
.

How metal is THAT? 

Ask and ye shall receive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMOeBTHbTUs

Haha, yeah!


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
The writer of that verse

The writer of that verse (Rev 20:14) could only be a guy knocked out with a strong intake of hashish. It is absurdity in high doses! You believe such nonsense at your own peril!

No gods with indirect messages to me.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
julio wrote:The writer of

julio wrote:

The writer of that verse (Rev 20:14) could only be a guy knocked out with a strong intake of hashish. It is absurdity in high doses! You believe such nonsense at your own peril!

Yea but the theist has a trump card, it's called cherry picking. When called on an absurdity it is passed off as metaphor.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


C. R. Lord (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Rejection of truth

I have seen it claimed on here that this place is full of rational people.  I am wondering to myself; "rational by whose standards?"  I am wondering which of you can declare with absolute certainty what you consider to be rational!  Are we talking about intellectual rationality?  Opinionated rationality?  Human rationality?  Humanistic rationality?  Where is your beginning and end to all this rationality?  Who made you the expert on what is rational and what is not?

To be honest with you I find the greatest minds on this planet to be fallible in many ways.  Whether you hold to atheism or religion it is easy to find flaws in your arguments on various issues.  As a matter of fact, I find that when some of your are challenged to think subjectively about something that goes against what you want to believe you behave in ways that are anything but rational; at least according to what we think is rational behavior.

I believe strongly that there is a shortage of "lovers of truth" in this world, and that shortage has created an incredible vacuum of rational thinkers.  Rational thinkers examine things from every perspective without pre-conceived prejudices and opinions, and are always open to the possibility that they could be wrong about something.  A very wise man made the following statement:  "No man has ALL the knowledge on ANY subject at ANY time."  I added to that statement; "So then we could all stand to learn more about what we know or what we THINK WE KNOW." 

I find it patently offensive that so many so-called "seekers of truth" refuse to deal with truth when it runs against their long-held belief systems.  The most frequent occurence of this is in the realm of dealing with the realm of spiritual things.  People who have never had a spiritual experience blast those who say they have, and people who have had spiritual experiences blast those who say they have not.  Truth is, that we are all having a spiritual experience either by acknowledging one or by rejecting one or more of them.  The reason I know this is true is because I know that the real person you think you are is not the person you really are.  Your body is merely a shell that you live in.  The true being that you are is spiritual in nature and will long outlive your body.  You are free to accept or deny this very real truth, but if you are wise you will be careful to examine it fully from all points of view before your body dies.  It will be the greatest tragedy for anyone who reads this to just push it off, and then find out after it is too late that preparing for eternity is the greatest need for anyone who is given life on earth.  Imagine stepping out of this shell we call our body, and finding yourself face to face with other spiritual beings who you denied could possibly be there.  Imagine if one of them was the Christian God!  Imagine him to be all-powerful, absolutely pure and holy, and the judge of all who stop living on earth and begin eternity without his forgiveness.

Where will your rational thinking be then?  What will all your arguments that implied God didn't really exist take you?  I am sure you know!  Shouldn't you take a very real and rational assessment of spiritual life and find out if I am right in my knowledge that it is more real than the physical life you perceive now?  Consider my words carefully!  I pray they will not come to you in vain!  Too much depends on it!

 


C. R. Lord (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Food for thought

I would say that "unbelievers" are at a serious disadvantage in the debate about the reality of anything Biblical and the whole struggle to learn truth.  You see, believers have had the opportunity to live on both sides of the argument while those who reject Biblical truth live on the side believers have already crossed over from and joyously left behind.

I lived 31 years of my life as an infidel/unbeliever/doubter/pagan and etc.  I have now live nearly 35 years of my life walking with and communicating with a very real God and a very real Saviour - Jesus Christ.  I can attest to anyone who will hear objectively that the worst year I have had as a Christian is incredibly better than my absolute best year as an unbeliever!  There is no comparison that can be made! 

Walking in the presence of God every day transcends any experience this world has to offer by a margin that is beyond mere human comprehension!

Our finite human minds cannot convey even the simplest spiritual experience in any way that is sufficient to declare the wonder and amazement of it all!

Only God can bring it to you, and he is willing to do that for anyone who will repent of their sin, ask his forgiveness and receive salvation through Christ through faith in what he did on Calvary.  It takes a sincere heart.  The ability to exerise faith is already inherent in all of us. 


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
C. R. Lord wrote:The reason

C. R. Lord wrote:
The reason I know [everyone has spirtual experiences] is true is because I know that the real person you think you are is not the person you really are. Your body is merely a shell that you live in. The true being that you are is spiritual in nature and will long outlive your body. You are free to accept or deny this very real truth, but if you are wise you will be careful to examine it fully from all points of view before your body dies.


I have examined the issue from many points of view, and none of them have pointed to the conclusion that a ghost lives in the machine.

The content or information of near-death experiences and out-of-body experiences gives evidence not of an external phenomena but of an internal subjective one, and we can often trigger such brain states with drugs or by delivering electric current to particular brain regions. Other brain states make it very difficult to see how the notion of a spirit or soul could possibly apply to human beings, such as alien hand syndrome—a condition in which one hand uncontrollably tries to strangle you, stab you, or undress you, while the other hand tries to prevent the strangulation, stabbing, or undressing; the physicalist conception of consciousness can easily account for this, while I have yet to see a dualist conception that could even come close to explaining this.

Of the numerous ghost sighting reports I have read and considered, none of them offer any compelling evidence. I have yet to see anyone offer a positive ontology for immaterial beings, and you need that to realistically claim that the immaterial can have a causal influence on photons, as required by the reports that describe photons bouncing off of immaterial beings to then strike the retina and produce the sighting. Any positive ontology would also have an epistemological justification, without which it will exist as mere speculation, presumptuousness, wishful thinking, or a combination thereof. Without both a positive ontology and epistemological foundation, you lack the epistemic right to describe "ghosts", "spirits", "souls", and the like as existing entities, let alone possibly entities.

The historical evidence points toward the conclusion that the notion of a soul or spirit gradually developed from a very dubious foundation. In the Old Testament, for example, the word spirit only means breath or wind. The ancient Hebrews thought of breath or wind as a divine substance, as something that caused the lungs to expand and contract and therefore bring life to human beings. This explains Adam's original breath, the method of Yahweh's hovering in Genesis 1, and the creation of Pharisees and Saduccees. The platonists and likeminded individuals produced a new notion involving platonism. The New Testament writers and likeminded individuals took the platonic notions and enveloped them in mysticism and ascribed many more qualities to it, based purely on wishful thinking, as all appearances tell. The foundation of the modern notion of spirit is breath, and our language belies this fact. The etymological dictionary tells us, "c.1250, 'animating or vital principle in man and animals,' from O.Fr. espirit, from L. spiritus 'soul, courage, vigor, breath,' related to spirare 'to breathe,' from PIE *(s)peis- 'to blow' (cf. O.C.S. pisto 'to play on the flute'). Original usage in Eng. mainly from passages in Vulgate, where the L. word translates Gk. pneuma and Heb. ruah. Distinction between 'soul' and 'spirit' (as 'seat of emotions') became current in Christian terminology (e.g. Gk. psykhe vs. pneuma, L. anima vs. spiritus) but 'is without significance for earlier periods' [Buck]. L. spiritus, usually in classical L. 'breath,' replaces animus in the sense 'spirit' in the imperial period and appears in Christian writings as the usual equivalent of Gk. pneuma." Don't you find it suspicious that the words spirit and respirator share the same origin?

Historically, the evidence points to the notion of the spirit or soul being made up by superstitious individuals without even a decent understanding of the world around them. Physically, what appears made-up historically does not accord with modern physics. Philosophically, what appears made-up historically and doesn't accord with modern physics also lacks an epistemologically justified positive ontology. No rational reason exists to consider ghosts, spirits, souls, and the like as anything more than pipedreams and references without referents.

C. R. Lord wrote:
Imagine stepping out of this shell we call our body, and finding yourself face to face with other spiritual beings who you denied could possibly be there. Imagine if one of them was the Christian God! Imagine him to be all-powerful, absolutely pure and holy, and the judge of all who stop living on earth and begin eternity without his forgiveness.


If the Christian God were absolutely pure in moral character, he would not make me begin eternity without forgiveness, regardless of what position I take on this matter. If I am wrong on this matter, it is only because I have not been furnished with satisfactory evidence, and the lack of satisfactory evidence can only result from criminal—nay, spiritual—negligence on the part of he who does the judging, and an omnipotent and morally pure being would not be guilty of such negligence. An omnipotent and morally pure being would recognize the absence of satisfactory evidence and grant forgiveness to the people who did not reach the correct conclusion on this matter.

C. R. Lord wrote:
Where will your rational thinking be then? What will all your arguments that implied God didn't really exist take you? I am sure you know! Shouldn't you take a very real and rational assessment of spiritual life and find out if I am right in my knowledge that it is more real than the physical life you perceive now? Consider my words carefully! I pray they will not come to you in vain! Too much depends on it!


I expected that you—who started with a lengthy statement on the nature of rationality—to avoid such obviously nonsensical statements as describing something as "more real".

C. R. Lord wrote:
I find your comment on a book you know nothing about to be irresponsibly absurd and absolutely ludicrous.


I find it irresponsibly absurd and absolutely ludicrous that you would try to rebut someone's argument by attacking their character instead of their argument and that you would insult the person without mentioning their name or using a concise statement that appropriately covers your meaning ('shut up, ignoramus') but would instead beat around the bush like a spineless coward.

C. R. Lord wrote:
You can not establish definitive proof through opinions. Some well-versed scholars have determined that the KJV is not only the most accurate version, but the only accurate version, and that all the modern versions of the Bible distort or eliminate pertinent texts or water them down so much that all the original meaning is gone.

Do a little more research before you opine.


Some well-versed scholars say otherwise; do a little more research before you opine. You make successful rebuttals too easy.

C. R. Lord wrote:
Almost 35 years ago I challenged God to prove himself to me. He did. I highly recommend that you do the same.


Almost 10 years ago, I did the same. After an hour of crying, I realized I was talking to a wall.

C. R. Lord wrote:
I would say that "unbelievers" are at a serious disadvantage in the debate about the reality of anything Biblical and the whole struggle to learn truth. You see, believers have had the opportunity to live on both sides of the argument while those who reject Biblical truth live on the side believers have already crossed over from and joyously left behind.


Whether someone believes or disbelieves has no bearing on the efficacy of an argument. Also, you live on the side that most nonbelievers have joyously left behind.
 

 

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hey CR,Glad you chose faith

Hey CR,

Glad you chose faith in God. I'd rather deal with His creators, human beings.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Kay Cat
Superfan
Kay Cat's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2008-07-22
User is offlineOffline
julio wrote:The writer of

julio wrote:

The writer of that verse (Rev 20:14) could only be a guy knocked out with a strong intake of hashish. It is absurdity in high doses! You believe such nonsense at your own peril!

 

actually, evidence from Patmos, where that book was written, shows that the hallucinations John the Prophet had were probably due to ergot poisoning; the same thing that sparked the Salem, Massachusetts "witch" trials.

Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back


SmallChristian
SmallChristian's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2007-03-21
User is offlineOffline
 CR Lord wrote:The bible is

 

CR Lord wrote:

The bible is true, Christianity is true, my life is way better, y'all are missing out, blah blah, pascals wager, blah blah

Been there done that.  

KJV was written by anglicans, a specific denomination of Christianity, and it's 100% accurate?  It took what, 1600-1700 years for your perfect deity to get the Bible right after he sent himself to die for you as a sacrifice to himself so you could live forever?  Then he waits over 1600 years for his perfect word?  Damn, it only took 3 days to rise from the grave, yet 1600 years to cough up the KJV?So before the KJV his word wasn't perfect, but after that good ole King James his bible became "inerrant?" 

 

hogwash


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Thoughts for their own sake

C. R. Lord wrote:

I would say that "unbelievers" are at a serious disadvantage in the debate about the reality of anything Biblical and the whole struggle to learn truth.  You see, believers have had the opportunity to live on both sides of the argument while those who reject Biblical truth live on the side believers have already crossed over from and joyously left behind.

So you say. I see it the other way as I once lead a life deluded by Biblical lies to finally learn the truth and cross over to reality.

C. R. Lord wrote:

I lived 31 years of my life as an infidel/unbeliever/doubter/pagan and etc.  I have now live nearly 35 years of my life walking with and communicating with a very real God and a very real Saviour - Jesus Christ.  I can attest to anyone who will hear objectively that the worst year I have had as a Christian is incredibly better than my absolute best year as an unbeliever!  There is no comparison that can be made!

I lived 30 some years of my life in fantasy and delusion as a Christian and have now lived over 25 years in the real world. I can attest that the worst year I had as an atheist was far better than any I had as a deluded believer. 

C. R. Lord wrote:

Walking in the presence of God every day transcends any experience this world has to offer by a margin that is beyond mere human comprehension!

Delusion and schizophrenia will do that for you as well as hallucinogens.

C. R. Lord wrote:

Our finite human minds cannot convey even the simplest spiritual experience in any way that is sufficient to declare the wonder and amazement of it all!

Though human minds have not a problem at all in the creation of fantasy.

C. R. Lord wrote:

Only God can bring it to you, and he is willing to do that for anyone who will repent of their sin, ask his forgiveness and receive salvation through Christ through faith in what he did on Calvary.  It takes a sincere heart.  The ability to exerise faith is already inherent in all of us. 

It is not as difficult a task to actually look at the real world in the harsh light of reality as you might think. You apparently don't consider Thor or Zeus to be God, look at your delusion of the god of thunder Yahweh in the same way and you too can be on the road to rational thought.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


RespectfulButBe...
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
I acknowledge it

 

I don't think any verse of the Bible is any more or less interesting than any other.  John 1:1 instructs us, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It's all one Word.  But all Christians acknowledge Revelation 20:14.   Unfortunately for you, you atheists all seem to ignore Revelation 20:15:  And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.  You do so at your peril.

Now, where is the Biblical contradiction, fallacy, or bold-faced lie in this?  This is the Biblical Errancy forum, isn't it?

Once an athiest, now a believer, and always ready to debate issues respectfully.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
RespectfulButBelieving

RespectfulButBelieving wrote:
John 1:1 instructs us, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It's all one Word.

Seems a long-winded way to get to that point. I actually like your summary better. Could we just put that in instead? "Okay, people, it's all one word," is actually better.

RespectfulButBelieving wrote:
But all Christians acknowledge Revelation 20:14.   Unfortunately for you, you atheists all seem to ignore Revelation 20:15:  And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.  You do so at your peril.

Weren't you the one just talking about offense? It's pretty offensive to threaten people, isn't it? Maybe not where you come from, I don't know, but eternal torment is a pretty solid threat.

So ... as long as you're found written in the book of life, you are not cast into the lake of fire. Well it's a good thing I'm in the book of life. Are you?

RespectfulButBelieving wrote:
Now, where is the Biblical contradiction, fallacy, or bold-faced lie in this?  This is the Biblical Errancy forum, isn't it?

"Santa has a red suit."

Where's the lie in that statement? Santa may very well have a red suit. 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


RespectfulButBe...
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Seems a

HisWillness wrote:
Seems a long-winded way to get to that point. I actually like your summary better. Could we just put that in instead? "Okay, people, it's all one word," is actually better.
If God had asked me to edit the Bible, it would have been a lot shorter.  Still, I trust Him to know what He's doing.

Quote:
Weren't you the one just talking about offense? It's pretty offensive to threaten people, isn't it? Maybe not where you come from, I don't know, but eternal torment is a pretty solid threat.

So ... as long as you're found written in the book of life, you are not cast into the lake of fire. Well it's a good thing I'm in the book of life. Are you?

My apologies here.  I can see why you took this as a threat, but I didn't mean it that way, it was just a statement of my regret.  Personally, I'm a love your neighbor and turn the other cheek kind of guy, so I'm not thrilled with the idea of the majority of humanity doomed to torture in Hell.  But His will be done, not mine.

I certainly don't think Salvation works if it's nothing more than fire insurance.  But I would like to point out that the verse in question is actually a sign of God's mercy, it shows that, contrary to what you hear from Christians who haven't bothered to read the Bible, the torment of Hell is not eternal.

OK, maybe I sometimes have some cheek-turning issues (I get a bit sarcastic at times), but I'm working on them.  Glad to hear you're in the Book of Life.  I have no doubt about my name being there at all.

Quote:
Santa may very well have a red suit.
The question posed was why does nobody recognize this verse, not is the verse true.  Since you are supposedly the RATIONAL Response Squad, it might be more profitable to discuss Bible verses as to which there is some evidenciary basis for argument (like Genesis 1:1) as opposed to prophecies that have not taken place yet, otherwise the discussion devolves to "I disagree with this verse, and there's no evidence it's true" versus "I agree with this verse, and there's no evidence that it's false."  That gets boring awfully quickly, don't you think?

But, since in another thread I promised not to carp about whether things are on topic in here, I withdraw my objection.

Once an athiest, now a believer, and always ready to debate issues respectfully.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
RespectfulButBelieving

RespectfulButBelieving wrote:

  But I would like to point out that the verse in question is actually a sign of God's mercy, it shows that, contrary to what you hear from Christians who haven't bothered to read the Bible, the torment of Hell is not eternal.

So if I'm right and there is no afterlife I stop existing. If I'm wrong and that verse is right then after my death god will destroy my soul. The end result of the two seems the same to me. This makes me cautiously optimistic that I will face annihilation upon death.

I'll bet it will be hard for my Christian mom to bear watching her faithless family members destroyed by god. Oh well, I'm sure that is just some form of divine justice I just don't understand.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
RespectfulButBelieving

RespectfulButBelieving wrote:
contrary to what you hear from Christians who haven't bothered to read the Bible, the torment of Hell is not eternal.

Wait, really? Do you mean to interpret the statement "second death" as implying that the torture is limited? I like that interpretation basically because it's novel.

Thank you, by the way, for so much actual education on biblical texts. I've largely dismissed them as uninteresting, frankly, because I find the literary style cumbersome and plodding. But I appreciate the help on a more subtle interpretation.

RespectfulButBelieving wrote:
OK, maybe I sometimes have some cheek-turning issues (I get a bit sarcastic at times), but I'm working on them.

Don't worry about it too much. I'm sure you know I'm giving you a hard time. You couldn't have expected anything less.

RespectfulButBelieving wrote:
Glad to hear you're in the Book of Life.  I have no doubt about my name being there at all.

Here's where I'm giving you a hard time. I don't even know what the book of life is, much less where to get a copy and see if I'm in it. How do you know your name is in the book of life?

RespectfulButBelieving wrote:
The question posed was why does nobody recognize this verse, not is the verse true.

Ah, I see. But one might assume that things written in the Bible are true, if one thought that everything in the Bible was ... wait, is this more trickery? Now I'm on guard for trickery.

RespectfulButBelieving wrote:
Since you are supposedly the RATIONAL Response Squad, it might be more profitable to discuss Bible verses as to which there is some evidenciary basis for argument (like Genesis 1:1) as opposed to prophecies that have not taken place yet, otherwise the discussion devolves to "I disagree with this verse, and there's no evidence it's true" versus "I agree with this verse, and there's no evidence that it's false."  That gets boring awfully quickly, don't you think?

Well yes, except that a prophesy in terms of true and false is a hypothesis. There's no need to sell me on the idea that prophesies aren't very helpful otherwise.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


RespectfulButBe...
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
RespectfulButBelieving

RespectfulButBelieving wrote:
So if I'm right and there is no afterlife I stop existing. If I'm wrong and that verse is right then after my death god will destroy my soul.
Yes, but you do get to suffer the torments of Hell in the meantime. See the parable of the rich man in Luke 16:19-26, where the rich man after his death tells Abraham I am tormented in this flame.

Quote:
I'll bet it will be hard for my Christian mom to bear watching her faithless family members destroyed by god. Oh well, I'm sure that is just some form of divine justice I just don't understand.
Jesus told us, He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.  Matthew 10:37  She's either with us or against us.

Quote:
Wait, really? Do you mean to interpret the statement "second death" as implying that the torture is limited? I like that interpretation basically because it's novel.
Yes, but that's what the Bible says, so I don't think it is novel at all.  Paul, in Romans 6:23, instructed, For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.  By death, he obviously didn't mean the end of Earthly existence, since that happens to all of us, except for those who are raptured and the few who survive the Tribulation.

Quote:
Thank you, by the way, for so much actual education on biblical texts. I've largely dismissed them as uninteresting, frankly, because I find the literary style cumbersome and plodding. But I appreciate the help on a more subtle interpretation.
You're welcome.  Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation about the Bible floating around because most people attended Sunday school in lieu of actually reading God's Word. 

Quote:
Don't worry about it too much. I'm sure you know I'm giving you a hard time. You couldn't have expected anything less.
No, and you haven't been difficult at all.

Quote:
I don't even know what the book of life is, much less where to get a copy and see if I'm in it. How do you know your name is in the book of life?
If God wanted you to have a copy, I'm sure He would have arranged it.  Anyway, there is an actual book:

And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.  Daniel 12:1

I'll leave it to you to decide whether it's literally made of paper or is some Heavenly equivalent of an e-book.  As for who is in it, since those who accept Jesus are given eternal life, and since those who are not in the Book earn death (Revelation 20:3), I'm confident that my name has been entered.

Quote:
But one might assume that things written in the Bible are true, if one thought that everything in the Bible was ... wait, is this more trickery? Now I'm on guard for trickery.
Good.  The Devil is the father of lies, so it is wise to keep your eyes open.

Quote:
Well yes, except that a prophesy in terms of true and false is a hypothesis. There's no need to sell me on the idea that prophesies aren't very helpful otherwise.
Prophecies are quite helpful if you believe in them (for independent reasons).  I'll give you an Earthly example:  the existence of a particle known as the Higgs boson is predicted by electroweak theory, one element of the standard model of physics.  Nobody has seen it yet, though most physicists think the LHC will demonstrate its existence.  This is like a prophecy.  People have done some first rate physics based on the assumption that the Higgs particle does exist (or so my theorist colleagues tell me, I'm not so familiar with particle physics that I can be a competent judge).  At some point, I'm confident that science will have proved the existence of the Higgs boson or disproved it, but the hypothesis still has value even now, when we do not yet know whether it is true.  The prediction is also useful as a test of electroweak theory, just as prophecies in the Bible are useful as tests of the truthfulness of the Bible.

Once an athiest, now a believer, and always ready to debate issues respectfully.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Oh good, you're back. You're

Oh good, you're back. You're literally my only source of decent biblical information from a Christian perspective. There are other theists who visit here, but I get nada from them.

RespectfulButBelieving wrote:
Quote:
Wait, really? Do you mean to interpret the statement "second death" as implying that the torture is limited? I like that interpretation basically because it's novel.
Yes, but that's what the Bible says, so I don't think it is novel at all.  Paul, in Romans 6:23, instructed, For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.  By death, he obviously didn't mean the end of Earthly existence, since that happens to all of us, except for those who are raptured and the few who survive the Tribulation.

Okay, back up: the rapture is when the bad are separated from the good on earth at the time of reckoning, right? What's the Tribulation?

RespectfulButBelieving wrote:
Quote:
But one might assume that things written in the Bible are true, if one thought that everything in the Bible was ... wait, is this more trickery? Now I'm on guard for trickery.
Good.  The Devil is the father of lies, so it is wise to keep your eyes open.

What I meant was, is there a reliable way to tell which parts of the bible are being tricky? I'm assuming that the Devil isn't involved in the authorship of the bible, but I think I've displayed enough biblical ignorance so that you know that's a question.

RespectfulButBelieving wrote:
Prophecies are quite helpful if you believe in them (for independent reasons).  I'll give you an Earthly example:  the existence of a particle known as the Higgs boson is predicted by electroweak theory, one element of the standard model of physics.

You might be stretching it with that one. I mean, if it's not the Higgs boson, it'll be something else, because that's the only hole in the math. That's not so much "prophesy" as it is "confirmation". You'd have to agree that the New Testament isn't the same as a journal of experimental physics. When the New Testament confirms what the Old Testament predicts, I'd have to pull out a healthy dose of skepticism when the people writing the New Testament have a lot to gain by fulfilling the prophesies.

It's not quite the same, because if physicists find evidence of the Higgs boson, great. If they don't, they might be upset about it, but they don't have an opportunity to fudge the numbers to the extent that the writers of the New Testament could. 

RespectfulButBelieving wrote:
At some point, I'm confident that science will have proved the existence of the Higgs boson or disproved it, but the hypothesis still has value even now, when we do not yet know whether it is true.

Except that there's definitely something there, be it the Higgs boson or something else. As I'm sure you know, the particle is a placeholder at this point in that model, so it's not like if the boson doesn't show up, we throw out the whole model. It would just be evidence that the part of the equations that the boson represents is more complicated than previously thought.

RespectfulButBelieving wrote:
The prediction is also useful as a test of electroweak theory, just as prophecies in the Bible are useful as tests of the truthfulness of the Bible.

If theoretical physics were able to test itself, then I'd see the parallel. But experimental physics is the bottom line, and the Bible doesn't have a chain of evidence that comes anywhere close to that required by legal proceedings, much less a physics paper. If you were to write a theoretical paper one year, and then write another one the next, then decide that the second one proved the first without the benefit of any experimentation, I don't know who would take you seriously.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


RespectfulButBe...
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
string theory in a nutshell

HisWillness wrote:
Oh good, you're back. You're literally my only source of decent biblical information from a Christian perspective. There are other theists who visit here, but I get nada from them.
I wish I could point you to sources on this stuff, but I spend my time reading the Bible, not Biblical commentaries.  Skepticsannotatedbible is good (I hope you're not too shocked that I said that), though you need to read them with a grain of salt.  For example, in their zeal to show Jesus to be cruel, they read Mark 7:10 as Jesus saying that disobedient children should be stoned, when Jesus was obviously saying that people should not be stoned for every offense that merited a stoning under Old Testament law.  Unfortunately, too, many of the Christian responses to their accusations of inconsistencies in the Bible leave much to be desired.  But, if read with active critical faculties, their annotations point you to the areas of the Bible that need the most explaining.  I'll be glad to do that explaining if you have specific questions.

RespectfulButBelieving wrote:
Okay, back up: the rapture is when the bad are separated from the good on earth at the time of reckoning, right? What's the Tribulation?
The Rapture is when the Saved fly up to Heaven with Jesus.  I don't think that Saved=good person and unsaved=bad person, so I wouldn't use those terms.  The Tribulation is the seven year period of plagues and wars that will follow the Rapture, as described in Revelation.

RespectfulButBelieving wrote:
What I meant was, is there a reliable way to tell which parts of the bible are being tricky? I'm assuming that the Devil isn't involved in the authorship of the bible, but I think I've displayed enough biblical ignorance so that you know that's a question.
The Devil was not involved, except as a historical (and future) figure. 

RespectfulButBelieving wrote:
You might be stretching it with that one. I mean, if it's not the Higgs boson, it'll be something else, because that's the only hole in the math.
Maybe not.  Maybe there is a particle missing.

Quote:
That's not so much "prophesy" as it is "confirmation".
My point is that we don't know for sure yet whether electroweak theory is correct, but people use it (and the supposition of the Higgs boson) to do theoretical work.  It's useful because we think it is true, but, right now, it is not useful as a test of electroweak theory.  Once we have the technology, it will become useful for confirming or falsifying electroweak theory.  I find Biblical prophecy that hasn't happened yet useful because I believe it gives me insight.  I know that you disagree, just as there are some theorists who don't think the postulated existence of the Higgs boson is true, so they don't find it useful.  That's the useful in its own right arm.

Similarly, I think you and I would both agree that if Biblical prophecies are sufficiently specific and their predictions are sufficiently unlikely, they can be used to judge the Bible.  Similarly, pretty much all physicists agree that the hypothesis that the Higgs boson is useful as a test of electroweak theory, once the technology is available.  That's the confirmation arm.

Quote:
You'd have to agree that the New Testament isn't the same as a journal of experimental physics.
Dear God, no.  There's way more politics regarding what goes into a physics journal than there ever was over what should go into the Bibile.

Quote:
When the New Testament confirms what the Old Testament predicts, I'd have to pull out a healthy dose of skepticism when the people writing the New Testament have a lot to gain by fulfilling the prophesies.
If Jesus did something just to fulfill the prophecies, that isn't very substantial evidence for the truth of those prophecies.  However, if Jesus failed to do something prophesied, that would certainly prove that He was not the Messiah.

Quote:
It's not quite the same, because if physicists find evidence of the Higgs boson, great. If they don't, they might be upset about it, but they don't have an opportunity to fudge the numbers to the extent that the writers of the New Testament could.
The thing is, Matthew told us straight up that Jesus was making sure he fulfilled those prophecies.  Physicists who fudge their numbers don't advertise that fact in their papers.

Quote:
Except that there's definitely something there, be it the Higgs boson or something else.  As I'm sure you know, the particle is a placeholder at this point in that model, so it's not like if the boson doesn't show up, we throw out the whole model. It would just be evidence that the part of the equations that the boson represents is more complicated than previously thought.
Nobody has ever demonstrated, to the best of my knowledge, that the Higgs boson is necessary for physics.  It's just necessary for electroweak theory, which has been confirmed spectacularly in many other particulars.  Personally, I put the probability of Higgs existing at around 98%, but I hope it doesn't exist, because that would lead to some really interesting new science. 

Quote:
If theoretical physics were able to test itself, then I'd see the parallel. But experimental physics is the bottom line, and the Bible doesn't have a chain of evidence that comes anywhere close to that required by legal proceedings, much less a physics paper.
My brother is a lawyer, he tells me that the law of evidence bears approximately the same relation to truth finding as whoring does to monogamous marriage--there are a few important overlaps, but the means and goals are very different.   I'm not sure this is the right forum to go into the proof that the Bible is correct, but there are some things that are very hard to explain if you deny it.  For example, consider   Matthew 27:50-54:

 50Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

 51And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

 52And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

 53And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

If that never occurred, then how was Christianity able to survive as a sect in Jerusalem?  Surely people would have told the early Christians that the march of the zombies through Jerusalem never happened, and that would have been the end of Christianity.

Still, since this is the Biblical Errancy forum, I suggest that it's your job to prove the Bible wrong, not mine to prove that it is right.  Can you?

Quote:
If you were to write a theoretical paper one year, and then write another one the next, then decide that the second one proved the first without the benefit of any experimentation, I don't know who would take you seriously.
That's string theory in a nutshell.

Once an athiest, now a believer, and always ready to debate issues respectfully.