Is the Bible a magic book?

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You said money is the root of evil.

The love of money.

And that some translations have..."the root of all kinds of evil".
And "a root" instead of "the root".
And that the covetous, selfish, hedonistic love of money might be a 'gateway drug' leading to unbridled surrender to other temptations such as lust, intolerance, hatred, jealousy etc.

But you wrote "the root of all evil," not "a" or "some."

Now your apologetics is claiming that all translations don't have the same meaning.

 

[Elixir]

I dont think God is supernatural either.

We can agree on that. Human superstition is a quite natural product of evolution.

 

[Elixir]

I said "if" the nett outcomes are altruistic.

So did I.
My statement isn’t even being challenged.

 

[Lion IRC]

...translations don't have the same meaning.

Well spotted Captain Obvious.

They can be interpreted differently by different people at different times.
They can also be harmonized.

 

[Politesse]

Some use "a root" instead of "the root".

An unsupportable translation, if so.

 

[Lion IRC]

Some use "a root" instead of "the root".

An unsupportable translation, if so.

It's an unnecessary distinction in any case because you can just as easily modify the meaning of "all evil" and render it as "all sorts of evil".

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Some use "a root" instead of "the root".

An unsupportable translation, if so.

It's an unnecessary distinction

Which translations use that?

in any case because you can just as easily modify the meaning of "all evil" and render it as "all sorts of evil".

Only if you are literal. If you are using a figure of speech they have different meaning.

1: I went to a party and they had all sorts of pizza (figurative).
2. Noah put all kinds of animals on the Ark (literal).

It is only if it is a figure of speech that it has less coverage than 100%. In that special case, it could be said to be "a" root of evil because that also could mean less than 100% coverage.

Now the KJV has "all evil" which is not a figure of speech. Ergo, 100% coverage.

No, it cannot be harmonized with an alleged translation that says "a root."

So where are these translations that say "a root?"

 

[Lion IRC]

1 Timothy 6 NIV

1 Timothy 6 ESV

1 Timothy 6 NKJV

1 Timothy 6 New American Standard Bible

 

[steve_bank]

Exactly the point Learner, which tradition out of several?

Today as with Christians Jews range form conservative to modeaate to liberal.

I read in the time of Jesus there was a dispute between Jerusalem Jews and Syrian Jews over who were the true dependents of the original tribes. Like the Sunni Shia Muslim dispute today.

An Israeli wrote a book on the modern Israeli myth that Jews in Israel are in a line stretching back to ancient Hebrews.

The idea that the OT represents any coherent 'literal words of god' or a consistent moral narrative is ridiculous.

Christianity was started by Jews that followed Jesus, who was a Jew himself. Why were they also not a Jewish sect?

The first Jews who may have followed a n HJ were not Christians, they were Jews. In the gospels Jesus reinforces the Jewish prophets and Mosaic law.

Form the NT it appears it was an apocalyptic sect who believed the end was at hand.

What became Christianity has been posted many times. It was the mixing of various cultural beliefs. What became the Christian basic theology and cannon was chosen more by a political composes to end at times violent conflicts among sects. Competing theologies and philosophies were suppressed.

The idea of a divine Jesus and a Trinity were in dispute.

As I said befor to you, your image of Jesus and what you take as Christianity likely has little relation to who a Jewish HJ may have been.

 

[Learner]

You said money is the root of evil.

The love of money.

And that some translations have..."the root of all kinds of evil".
And "a root" instead of "the root".
And that the covetous, selfish, hedonistic love of money might be a 'gateway drug' leading to unbridled surrender to other temptations such as lust, intolerance, hatred, jealousy etc.

But you wrote "the root of all evil," not "a" or "some."

Now your apologetics is claiming that all translations don't have the same meaning.

Narrowing down specifically on the "not a" or "some" as an argument relying on a 'technicality' (as Bailiffs or lawyers sometimes do in court) is trivially quite harmless to Lions argument and misleading.

All translations contextually mean the same thing! Regardless of which version you read. The 'love of money' or 'money leads to all evil' etc.i s not in confliction with each other and should quite easily be understood conceptually by most people, if not all. They all have the same exact warning message: 'Money plus 'greed' equals dangerous!

 

[DBT]

The God of the bible reportedly uses coercion - believe in the Lord your God or suffer the consequences. You must have faith, or face damnation.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You said money is the root of evil.

The love of money.

And that some translations have..."the root of all kinds of evil".
And "a root" instead of "the root".
And that the covetous, selfish, hedonistic love of money might be a 'gateway drug' leading to unbridled surrender to other temptations such as lust, intolerance, hatred, jealousy etc.

But you wrote "the root of all evil," not "a" or "some."

Now your apologetics is claiming that all translations don't have the same meaning.

Narrowing down specifically on the "not a" or "some" as an argument relying on a 'technicality' (as Bailiffs or lawyers sometimes do in court) is trivially quite harmless to Lions argument and misleading.

All translations contextually mean the same thing! Regardless of which version you read. The 'love of money' or 'money leads to all evil' etc.i s not in confliction with each other and should quite easily be understood conceptually by most people, if not all. They all have the same exact warning message: 'Money plus 'greed' equals dangerous!

Your apologetic argument is dumb. We are looking at various different things that are being claimed a text means. In such cases you can almost always summarize at a high level but that in no way absolves incorrect translations, misinterpretations, or non-existent versions claimed to exist.

Suppose we have Levutoronominus 9:101. If one translator says the verse is "thou shalt not marry your step brother on tuesday" and another translator says it's "thou shalt not marry your step sister on wednesdays" you can't come along, sweep it under the rug, and say, "yeah well, the point is don't marry step siblings."

In regard also to the point you glossed over...where's the translation that says "a root?"

Why am I getting silence on this?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Never mind. I see that it was posted but not as a direct reply.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

When called to account for pretending to channel God, creos keep referring to a book. They call it God's word, even though it is a compilation of a lot of words, few of which are actually attributed by that book itself to a God.
Then I am told that it is "infallible", which turns out to mean that if my plain reading of the infallible text conflicts with observable reality, either my observations of reality or my plain reading of the text must be flawed.
How can this be? I suppose it's possible if the god who wrote that book took every measure to deceive me ( @Learner knows god and assures me he doesn't pull that crap) for purposes beyond my meager comprehension.
But how is it possible to reconcile all the myriad differing interpretations of that book? There is either ONE correct interpretation (hear the chorus of "mine is the right one!") or the "true" meaning is highly variable, or ... the one 'possibility' that alleviates all this confusion, validates the infallibility of the book, and vindicates creos' version of reality. And that very distant IMO possibility is...
The Bible is a MAGIC book!
But... why can't creos just come out and say that?

In talking to some Jehovah's Witnesses decades ago, they had said that they could teach a person from any version of the bible. This was because they believed all the versions out there were inerrant.

But then in talking to them another time, they had said that John 1:1 has a different meaning than it says. Here is the NIV:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This is supposed to be about jesus and so trinitarians use it to say jesus is god. Jehovah's Witnesses are not believers in the trinity and it may be a bit confusing. So, they told me it actually should say "the Word was a god." Sounds like polytheism, doesn't it? Of course, so is the trinity.

Here is even more info directly from them:

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/wp20081101/was-the-word-god/

It's kind of interesting that they make an implication of conspiracy to corrupt the meaning by trinitarians or at least that is how it seems:

The Sahidic Coptic text is especially interesting for two reasons. First, as indicated above, it reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine.

BUT moreover, it gets back to the primary claim of inerrancy of all versions. And thus magic.

(Note that this is the same issue with "the love of money is a root of all evil" or "the love of money is THE root of all evil," but the significance is much less as it hasn't divided troo believers from false believers. The Greek of the day was missing articles (definite or indefinite). But the KJV rendered it as "the root of all evil."

As an interesting exercise, I went to a Coptic version of 1 Timothy 6:10 and it begins with "ⲧⲛⲟⲩⲛⲉ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲙ̅ⲡⲉⲑⲟⲟⲩ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲧⲉ ⲧⲙⲛ̅ⲧⲙⲁⲓ̈ϩⲟⲙⲛ̅ⲧ ⲧⲁⲓ̈ ⲉⲧⲉⲣⲉϩⲟⲓ̈ⲛⲉ ⲙⲉ ⲙ̅ⲙⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲡⲗⲁⲛⲁ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ̅ⲧⲡⲓⲥⲧⲓⲥ. ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲩⲧⲁⲁⲩ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲉϩⲉⲛϣⲥ̅ⲛ̅ϩⲏⲧ ⲉⲛⲁϣⲱⲟⲩ."

Researching further, part of the first word "ⲧⲛⲟⲩⲛⲉ" means root. In particular, "ⲛⲟⲩⲛⲉ" means root. The initial "ⲧ" is how the definite article meaning "the" is added to a noun. You can learn more about articles in Coptic in this document, page 5.)

 

[Elixir]

The God of the bible reportedly uses coercion - believe in the Lord your God or suffer the consequences. You must have faith, or face damnation.

And it has to be SINCERE. God knows your heart so you can’t fake it. You have to be uttterly, totally, completely devoted to, and in love with, that partic’lar God, or fucking ELSE!!!
What can a loving God do if you refuse? Why, spend the next forever or so torturing you in his Lake-O-FAHR, custom made for the purpose.
And you don’t want that. So give generously and perhaps God will open your heart to His avaricious scam!

 

[Swammerdami]

Christianity was started by Jews that followed Jesus, who was a Jew himself. Why were they also not a Jewish sect?

Because of the Jewish context, any mention of "the Lord" would refer to the God of the Jews, but did Jesus really rely on the Old Testament for his exact spiritual ideas? He would not be likely to reject that God openly even if he wanted to. He could endorse some Jewish teachings without endorsing all of Judaism.

Read The Gospel of John beginning at 8:12 (just after the "he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone" recently mentioned as missing from the earliest Gospel). In these verses Jesus argues with the Pharisees and seems to reject their religion. In 8:17 he speaks of "your law", not "our law." 8:37-8:47 especially suggest that Jesus regards his 'Father' as different from the 'God' of the Pharisees.

I didn't come up with this idea myself, but saw it on-line in an article which also cited

Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent?

as distinguishing Jesus' generous Father from the vengeful Yahweh.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Jesus' pop will send you to eternal torment on such grounds as doctrinal disagreement. OT Jehovah, while a prick, just murders you. Unless I missed it, there's no judgment of endless agony on the unworthy dead in the OT.

 

[Politesse]

Christianity was started by Jews that followed Jesus, who was a Jew himself. Why were they also not a Jewish sect?

Because of the Jewish context, any mention of "the Lord" would refer to the God of the Jews, but did Jesus really rely on the Old Testament for his exact spiritual ideas? He would not be likely to reject that God openly even if he wanted to. He could endorse some Jewish teachings without endorsing all of Judaism.

Read The Gospel of John beginning at 8:12 (just after the "he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone" recently mentioned as missing from the earliest Gospel). In these verses Jesus argues with the Pharisees and seems to reject their religion. In 8:17 he speaks of "your law", not "our law." 8:37-8:47 especially suggest that Jesus regards his 'Father' as different from the 'God' of the Pharisees.

I didn't come up with this idea myself, but saw it on-line in an article which also cited

Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent?

as distinguishing Jesus' generous Father from the vengeful Yahweh.

John may well have believed that YHWH was distinct from the true high god, as did many Christians of his day. This was one of the major doctrinal differences that divided what became orthodox Christianity from those who we now call the "Gnostics". That would not make anyone more or less Jewish, though. The concept of being "spiritually Jewish" (rather than by bodily inheritance from one's mother) is itself a concept of Christian origin, and would not have meant anything to anyone outside of the movement.

 

[Politesse]

Jesus' pop will send you to eternal torment on such grounds as doctrinal disagreement. OT Jehovah, while a prick, just murders you. Unless I missed it, there's no judgment of endless agony on the unworthy dead in the OT.

It's neither/nor: the HS/OT mostly seems to assumes a singular land of the dead, Sheol, to which all souls are destined unless they are a special individual (like Elijah) who is offered a place in G-d's court. Neither a heaven nor a hell, Sheol was a dull and listless place. Souls now absent the spark of life, the "ruah" that animates our bodies and gives us purpose, have little to say or do. Since this concept is all but indistinguishable from the beliefs of the surrounding cultures of the Ancient Near East, it's likely the ancient Hebrews didn't consider the presence of a land of the dead beneath the soil somewhere to be theology so much as geography. The kind of thing "everyone knows".

 

[Elixir]

there's no judgment of endless agony on the unworthy dead in the OT.

And yet the OT god is so maligned, bless his heart.