Jump to content

pkwwjd

Community Member
  • Posts

    1,018
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by pkwwjd

  1. You are right in that there is no such thing as taking the Bible literally in the pure sense.  Latin is not an original language of the Bible.  The New Testament was originally written in "Koine" or "common" Greek.  Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, though some parts, including the Book of Daniel were written in Aramaic, a dialect of Hebrew.

     

    Your depiction of the Bible as having been changed via "Russian telephone is not very accurate.  Scholars working at translating the Dead Sea scrolls, many dating from several hundred years before Christ reveal remarkably few changes in comparison with manuscripts dating from hundreds of years later.  Great care was obviously exercised in the work of copying in those days before the printing press.

     

    Different translations have more to do with different ways of interpreting words that occur in the original language than variations in manuscripts from which they were translated.  The same challenge exists in translating modern works from one language to another.  One word in German might be rendered a half dozen different ways in English.  Sometimes I do word studies in the original language when there seems to be a word or phrase like that.  If doing serious study, it's often good to have several translations available to catch those cases where there are multiple meanings in the original language.  One of the problems with the King James Version, as opposed to modern versions is that the English language has changed.  King James English can mislead those who arent' familiar with it.  "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. . ."  Why shouldn't we want the Lord?  What it means is that trusting in the Lord we will not have unmet needs.  That is, we shall not be in want.

    325674[/snapback]

     

     

    I was going to respond again, Tiger, but you did well. Thank you.

     

    On the topic of transcribing (copying) Scriptures through time. You definitely have a much better chance of reading the book of Isaiah and getting the original wording and intent than you have of reading a copy of Hamlet and being sure of its origin and intent. People have more meticulously copied the Scriptures and we have more streams of copies (like roots spreading out from under a tree) that we can check against than any other literary work in history. Also the earliest editions of those scripts are closer to the original work than any other ancient work (Iliad, Odysee ...) by huge amounts. The Dead Sea Scrolls date just after Isaiah wrote them (a couple hundred years) while the earliest dates for Homer are (IIRC) at least 1200-1500 years after he wrote -- and there are not many streams of copies, just a few. The Bible currently has several thousand streams, most ancient works are pleased to have a couple or a dozen. That may be an oversimplification, but you get the idea.

     

    As far as updating language, we read the Bible to understand it. If language changes, we need to change how we communicate it. I know ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek. I do studies in the original languages and it enhances my understanding. Part of my calling as a Pastor is to be able to communicate the Word of God -- not in any particular version -- as to the original intent of the author of Scripture (the human and Divine). And yes, all translation includes interpretation. We must rely on the translation work of many, many people who have come before us. That is how we relate all things, spiritual or otherwise. We need to trust those who have come before us, or where in a different location than us. If we were not part of the episode in question, we must rely on those who were there.

     

    Yes, Paul wrote in Greek because it was the commercial language of the world in the first century AD. Latin didn't take over until (IIRC) the third or fourth century.

  2. I'm one of those evil and violent evangelical Christians.  Furthermore, I'm a pastor which must make me Satan himself.

     

    I have lost a father and a grandmother within the space of three and a half months.  I would agree wholeheartedly that my faith helps me cope.  I think the most difficult thing I can remember about their deaths 14 years ago is the fact that I couldn't be there to say goodbye, but I wholeheartedly believe that they are in heaven.

     

    I can also say as a general observation that there are far fewer tears at funerals I perform then the deceased and his/her family are active church members than when they are not.  There are a few exceptions, but that's been my experience.

    325353[/snapback]

     

    Wow, I'm an Associate Pastor (or Youth Pastor) -- does that make me Satan's first minion?

     

    I got to be with my grandfather on New Year's Eve 03 when he went to be with God. I loved my grandfather very much, and I was still excited for him to be with Jesus. Did I cry? Oh yeah. It hurt like crazy, but he loved Jesus, and I know that Jesus took him home. I WILL see him again someday. Sorry, but I don't go for the politically correct, every religion gets you there stuff. Jesus is the only way, He is the only life, He is the only Truth.

     

    I say those things not to be inflammatory, but to respond to the subject of belief and how it helps people in times of difficulty.

     

    I also agree Tiger, that I have done so many funerals, and there is far less despair during a service for a Christian. Oftentimes, the extreme grief is shown by a non-Christian relative who doesn't understand the hope (hope in a biblical sense is an expression of sure-ness of belief) of life with Christ.

  3. Locke might be one of the few (IIRC) that we haven't had a back story that connects him with anyone. Should be interesting ...

     

    could be connected with Jack (by his wife, car accident?)

    could be connected with Hurley (was it Hurley's box company that burned or his shoe company?)

  4. I've been posting here for over a year and a half. Just trying to have a debate here my man... lets interject some facts. Now... back to the facts... you are infering that Josh Reed's performance on the field will stink like someone such as myself?

    322574[/snapback]

     

    Instead of building up your post count by continuing to go back to your joke, read again my post and my response.

     

    I have no interest in debating your finer sense of olfactory performance.

  5. Again, could you please elaborate on the nature of the stink you are smelling? For example does it resemble one of the following smells:

     

    1. Poo

    2. Diesel fuel

    3. Buttocks area of an unbathed construction worker

    4. Buttocks are of a fine lady

    5. Animal farm

    322424[/snapback]

     

    6. Like a new poster on TSW who is overdoing a joke that might have been funny with his first post in this thread

  6. A few questions in regard to your comment about Josh stinking:

     

    1. You say "...then he stink up the world...."  Now simplified that would equate to saying "Josh stink," which is common in what would be dubbed as urban dialect, but certainly sounds silly. More appropriately would be "Josh stinks" or "Josh stunk" or even "Josh will stink." Now, as you reflect on this did you truly mean "Josh stink" or was it a typo and you meant to say "Josh stinks" or some other appropriate variation stated above?

     

    2. What kind of stink does Josh have? You see 2 very different smells can be categorized under the term "stink." You can have the stink of someone's poo. You can have the stink of someone's buttocks area, which can even vary from person to person, and be desirable or repulsing. So, would you be so kind as to elaborate on the nature of the stink that Josh will eminate in the 2k5?

     

    Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing any and all follow up on this debate.

    322411[/snapback]

     

    Thank you ... for calling the grammar/spelling/English police :angry:

     

    I was trying to be sarcastic because everyone is so high on whomever might be the 3rd WR ... unless it's Josh Reed, cuz (of course) he stink(s)

  7. Great for our #3, unless (if you believe everything you read on TSW) the #3 is Josh Reed.

     

    If it's Josh, then he stink up the world cuz he's really not that good, can't catch, can't stretch the field ...

     

    I do think that Josh Reed is PERFECT for that #3 spot, possession-type routes underneath, that can take advantage in the 3 WR sets. It's like Don Beebe was -- no way was he a good #2, but he exploited the nickel back like crazy. Reed will do it with routes, while Beebe did it with speed.

  8. Gary Gait is God.  John Grant is certainly an apostle.

    319489[/snapback]

     

    He and bro Paul were so fun to watch at SU back in the 80s. I wish they televised more back then.

     

    Air Gait is quite possibly one of the most amazing athletic moves in any sport. It's too bad they made it illegal. It really is ABOUT the equivelant of dunking from the 3 point line. Not quite, but almost.

  9. I think the draft where the Vikes could not get their pick in on time and teams were jumping in front of them takes the cake for drafts of all time.  I think it was a couple of years ago.  But the fans were going NUTS throwing crap at the table and the home party riot.  Funny stuff....

    314720[/snapback]

     

    They actually did it in back to back drafts the last two years, if my memory serves me right :w00t:

  10. As for the tone of these spots, ROTS will be like all the other Star Wars movies in that there will be serious parts, as well as fun, purely-for-entertainment parts.  The teaser, the trailer, and the first two TV spots focused on the former, these focus on the latter.  Gotta have balance.

    309734[/snapback]

     

    As you have noticed, there are certain phrases that are said in every movie like "I've got a bad feeling about this"

     

    Who do you think will say this first in the ROTS? You know it's coming, the questions are who and when ...

  11. Yay Meredith and Gretchen...

    for not being eliminated in the amazing race.  what a great race this has been!  I know alot of you are down on reality shows, but this one rocks!  2 people racing around the world against others.  It is great to see how the teams come together to accomplish thier goal.  I like rob and amber to win, but any of them would be ok in my book, except ron(?) and kelly, he seems to be a prick.  Final 4 baby!

    310140[/snapback]

     

    The former POW might be a jerk, but the previews for next week really cast the beauty queen in a nasty light -- something about her implying that he got himself captured for the notariety and to get out of his commitment to the military. Oh yeah, ... that'll win you supporters in this time of war.

  12. I've been shaving my head every day for 4 years now (except a very ocassional day that I just don't feel like it). I switch between the Mach3 and the newer Schick Quattro. The Mach is go for those times after I've gone a day between shaves -- it gets the stubble really well. I use the Quattro on a regular basis because it get the hair closer, which makes the next day not so tough to shave. I also use shaving cream on my head. I used to just use the cheapest stuff at WalMart, but have switched to using any of the $2.50/can gels because they are much better in terms of keeping down the razor burn.

  13. Hmmm, pat yourself on the back all you want, I am sure someone could come up with many examples to the contrary.

     

    While I can't really fathom what went in Mexico, the Pope being boo'd in Scotland is not all that surprising, and not all that hard to understand...I am not saying I agree with it, but there is a very recent bloody history between the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland and Scotland.  Our founding fathers implemented a seperation of church and state in our constiutution (I know, Republicans are doing their damndest to eliminate the seperation, but at least for now it still exists), it is not the same in those countries.

     

    Politics and religion go hand in hand in Scotalnd and Ireland.  The Pope, in Scotland or Ireland, is as much a politcal figure, as he is a religious figure.  Their disrespect of him would be no different than Americans lumping all Muslims in with the Taliban...

    301867[/snapback]

     

    Don't start throwing around the "seperation of church and state in our constiutution" -- just don't go there. Whether or not you understand the original intent of that statement, it's foolish to go that direction.

     

    BTW, what part of the constitution contains the phrase "separation of church and state"? or anything of the like?

×
×
  • Create New...