|
Post by Rodney Farber on Jul 14, 2020 2:31:09 GMT
Why are there so many versions of the Bible? Logic says that a maximum of one book is the word of God and all the rest are intentionally modified to add a special point of view, emphasis, or interpretation for the purpose of influencing opinion.
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Jul 14, 2020 16:13:51 GMT
listen bitch
about the same time that facebook became botbook and your once neighborhood crook worked his way into a presidential palace that's looking more like alice stuck sideways in the looking glass.
i started wondering if class was nothing more than the ability to outlast while one's being cast a drift on a cruise ship where status is once twice three times platinum dipped and the cocktails you sip are being taste tested by the very same pimps who brought us hail to the chief while hammering to death the belief that working hard is all that matters.
when all the treasury notes they scatter wind up on their own self serving platters. seeing's how hamilton was this personified adulterer and integrity was somehow a pressing matter?
sjw 07/14/2020 inspired at this very moment in time by the little elf in self serving.
from the 'beguiled series' of poems
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jul 14, 2020 17:37:44 GMT
Why are there so many versions of the Bible? Logic says that a maximum of one book is the word of God and all the rest are intentionally modified to add a special point of view, emphasis, or interpretation for the purpose of influencing opinion.
They all could be. Would God be obligated to only speak one set of words and never contradict himself? Who would he 'owe' such consistency to? Certainly not us measly humans.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 14, 2020 18:59:11 GMT
There's only one version of the Qu'ran (not even a critical edition exists), while Muslims go as far to say that the one true book is the one read in the original. The differences occur when the accompanying hadith (explanatory verses) offer alternative readings or inflexions.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 14, 2020 20:19:03 GMT
Why are there so many versions of the Bible? Logic says that a maximum of one book is the word of God and all the rest are intentionally modified to add a special point of view, emphasis, or interpretation for the purpose of influencing opinion.
They all could be. Would God be obligated to only speak one set of words and never contradict himself? Who would he 'owe' such consistency to? Certainly not us measly humans. The God of the bible cannot contradict Himself. He cannot lie. “God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?”Numbers 23:19 “so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.”Hebrews 6:18
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 14, 2020 20:24:13 GMT
There's only one version of the Qu'ran (not even a critical edition exists), while Muslims go as far to say that the one true book is the one read in the original. The differences occur when the accompanying hadith (explanatory verses) offer alternative readings or inflexions. Which version is that then...the Hafs? The Warsh? or the Duri? There are 37 different versions of the Quran. Muslims have been spreading fake news with their “Quran has been perfectly persevered for 1400 years ” claim.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jul 14, 2020 20:30:39 GMT
They all could be. Would God be obligated to only speak one set of words and never contradict himself? Who would he 'owe' such consistency to? Certainly not us measly humans. The God of the bible cannot contradict Himself. He cannot lie. “God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?”Numbers 23:19 “so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.”Hebrews 6:18 That's nice. But what is the independent verification that the scriptures which say God can't lie are true? Try to step outside you're indoctrination for a moment and think of this objectively. It MAY be true that a god...if such exists...does not lie. But how could we know?
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 14, 2020 20:39:48 GMT
The God of the bible cannot contradict Himself. He cannot lie. “God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?”Numbers 23:19 “so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.”Hebrews 6:18 That's nice. But what is the independent verification that the scriptures which say God can't lie are true? Try to step outside you're indoctrination for a moment and think of this objectively. It MAY be true that a god...if such exists...does not lie. But how could we know? Observation of fulfilled prophecies and the evidence for the resurrection of Christ both testify to the truth of scripture.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jul 14, 2020 20:44:04 GMT
That's nice. But what is the independent verification that the scriptures which say God can't lie are true? Try to step outside you're indoctrination for a moment and think of this objectively. It MAY be true that a god...if such exists...does not lie. But how could we know? Observation of fulfilled prophecies and the evidence for the resurrection of Christ both testify to the truth of scripture. Fulfilled prophecies and the resurrection of Christ may be evidence that God can foresee the future and raise the dead...but they are not evidence that God does not lie.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 14, 2020 20:55:45 GMT
Observation of fulfilled prophecies and the evidence for the resurrection of Christ both testify to the truth of scripture. Fulfilled prophecies and the resurrection of Christ may be evidence that God can foresee the future and raise the dead...but they are not evidence that God does not lie. Well scripture makes prophetic predictions which history can verify to have occurred. It affirms that Jesus rose from the dead, which can be supported by strong evidence. So when it tells me God, who is perfect by definition, cannot lie, I trust it.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jul 14, 2020 21:07:13 GMT
Fulfilled prophecies and the resurrection of Christ may be evidence that God can foresee the future and raise the dead...but they are not evidence that God does not lie. Well scripture makes prophetic predictions which history can verify to have occurred. It affirms that Jesus rose from the dead, which can be supported by strong evidence. So when it tells me God, who is perfect by definition, cannot lie, I trust it. That's an admirable thing to do. I trust things too.
|
|
Hnefahogg
Sophomore
@hnefahogg
Posts: 881
Likes: 369
|
Post by Hnefahogg on Jul 14, 2020 21:07:46 GMT
Some opponents of the RSV took their antagonism beyond condemnation. Luther Hux, a pastor in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, announced his intention to burn a copy of the RSV during a sermon on November 30, 1952. This was reported in the press and attracted shocked reactions, as well as a warning from the local fire chief. On the day in question, he delivered a two-hour sermon entitled "The National Council Bible, the Master Stroke of Satan—One of the Devil's Greatest Hoaxes". After the sermon was complete, he led the congregation out of the church, gave each worshipper a small American flag and proceeded to set light to the pages containing Isaiah 7:14. Hux informed the gathered press that he did not burn the Bible, but simply the "fraud" that the Isaiah pages represented. Hux would later go on to write a tract against the RSV entitled Modernism's Unholy Bible.[6] A pastor in the Southern United States burned a copy of the RSV with a blowlamp in his pulpit, saying that it was like the devil because it was hard to burn and sent the ashes as a protest to Weigle. (However, F.F. Bruce dismissed it as a publicity stunt and wrote[citation needed] that it had the opposite effect of causing nearly every family in that congregation to acquire a copy.)[citation needed] The RSV translators linked these events to the life of William Tyndale, an inspiration to them, explaining in their preface: "He met bitter opposition. He was accused of willfully perverting the meaning of the Scriptures, and his New Testaments were ordered to be burned as 'untrue translations.'" But where Tyndale was burned at the stake for his work, Bruce Metzger, referring to the pastor who burned the RSV and sent the ashes to Weigle, commented in his book The Bible In Translation: "...today it is happily only a copy of the translation that meets such a fate." instead of Bible translators.[7] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Standard_Version
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 14, 2020 21:36:55 GMT
There's only one version of the Qu'ran (not even a critical edition exists), while Muslims go as far to say that the one true book is the one read in the original. The differences occur when the accompanying hadith (explanatory verses) offer alternative readings or inflexions. Which version is that then...the Hafs? The Warsh? or the Duri? There are 37 different versions of the Quran. Muslims have been spreading fake news with their “Quran has been perfectly persevered for 1400 years ” claim. There is just one Qu'ran but seven canonical methods of Qur'an recitation including those you mention. Sorry about that. "Warsh 'an Naafi' is one of the main canonical methods of reciting the Qur'an. The recitations of the Quran, known in Arabic as Qira'at, are conducted under the rules of the Tajwid Science. It is attributed to Imam Warsh who in turn got it from his teacher Nafi‘ al-Madani who was one of the transmitters of the seven recitations. The recitation of Warsh 'an Naafi' is one of two major recitation traditions. The second is Hafs 'an 'Asim." And so on. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsh It is a subtle difference, I admit; and perhaps Muslims insist on canonical variables through recitation and the alternatives of hadith created in the making as opposed to actual 'versions' of their holy book too much. But there it is - and all done based on the same text, which is the point. That is what they quite strictly believe. It is best to take the faithful at their word, that they know best as to what they believe, just as when we accept that the canonical books of the Bible are the 'true' Bible, even though all those other excluded books and gospels could just as well be inspired by God. As for the Christian God not lying, there are occasions in scripture where he sends a lying spirit to confuse His enemies or otherwise deludes them (eg 1 Kings 22:23 2 Chronicles 18:22, Ezekiel 14:9, Jeremiah 20:7, Jeremiah 4:10 and 2 Thessalonians 2:11 etc ). Now, if I was to send an assassin to kill someone am I not just as much a murderer as the someone who carries out my orders? The special pleading at this point is merely to assert that because some of the recipients of the deceits of God were the unfaithful, and those who were already deceived, that the extra deceptions 'do not count' as lying. But it still does count, especially if you are (as is God, in scripture) the ultimate pinnacle of morality and truth.
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Jul 15, 2020 1:29:37 GMT
the lurch in the church sits catatonic on his perch
back in the days when the roman catholic church skewered homosexuals alive one could hear the moaning of the papacy being brought back to life every time the spike went in and came out the other side of a ritual sanctified by nothing more than a worthless tome used by which ever side happened to love sadism as much as their god of unbridled pride.
sjw 07/14/2020 inspired at this very moment in time by the monsters still slumbering in the catacombs.
from the 'blasphemy series' of poems
|
|
Hnefahogg
Sophomore
@hnefahogg
Posts: 881
Likes: 369
|
Post by Hnefahogg on Jul 15, 2020 9:55:25 GMT
Which version is that then...the Hafs? The Warsh? or the Duri? There are 37 different versions of the Quran. Muslims have been spreading fake news with their “Quran has been perfectly persevered for 1400 years ” claim. There is just one Qu'ran but seven canonical methods of Qur'an recitation including those you mention. Sorry about that. "Warsh 'an Naafi' is one of the main canonical methods of reciting the Qur'an. The recitations of the Quran, known in Arabic as Qira'at, are conducted under the rules of the Tajwid Science. It is attributed to Imam Warsh who in turn got it from his teacher Nafi‘ al-Madani who was one of the transmitters of the seven recitations. The recitation of Warsh 'an Naafi' is one of two major recitation traditions. The second is Hafs 'an 'Asim." And so on. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsh It is a subtle difference, I admit; and perhaps Muslims insist on canonical variables through recitation and the alternatives of hadith created in the making as opposed to actual 'versions' of their holy book too much. But there it is - and all done based on the same text, which is the point. That is what they quite strictly believe. It is best to take the faithful at their word, that they know best as to what they believe, just as when we accept that the canonical books of the Bible are the 'true' Bible, even though all those other excluded books and gospels could just as well be inspired by God. As for the Christian God not lying, there are occasions in scripture where he sends a lying spirit to confuse His enemies or otherwise deludes them (eg 1 Kings 22:23 2 Chronicles 18:22, Ezekiel 14:9, Jeremiah 20:7, Jeremiah 4:10 and 2 Thessalonians 2:11 etc ). Now, if I was to send an assassin to kill someone am I not just as much a murderer as the someone who carries out my orders? The special pleading at this point is merely to assert that because some of the recipients of the deceits of God were the unfaithful, and those who were already deceived, that the extra deceptions 'do not count' as lying. But it still does count, especially if you are (as is God, in scripture) the ultimate pinnacle of morality and truth. Fine, it is one thing to say that all the versions of the Koran say the same thing, but this is not what Muslims have claimed. Muslims have traditionally made the claim that not one dot of the Koran has been changed, while pointing to textual variants in the Bible to corruption of the text. Now when it has been coming to light that the Koran has textual variants, they almost seem to imply that they never made the claim to the very dot in the first place and they are saying what Christians have been saying in defense of the Bible, that variants do not affect their doctrine. Muslim scholar Shabir Ally here admits that the Koran has variants:
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 15, 2020 11:08:19 GMT
There is just one Qu'ran but seven canonical methods of Qur'an recitation including those you mention. Sorry about that. "Warsh 'an Naafi' is one of the main canonical methods of reciting the Qur'an. The recitations of the Quran, known in Arabic as Qira'at, are conducted under the rules of the Tajwid Science. It is attributed to Imam Warsh who in turn got it from his teacher Nafi‘ al-Madani who was one of the transmitters of the seven recitations. The recitation of Warsh 'an Naafi' is one of two major recitation traditions. The second is Hafs 'an 'Asim." And so on. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsh It is a subtle difference, I admit; and perhaps Muslims insist on canonical variables through recitation and the alternatives of hadith created in the making as opposed to actual 'versions' of their holy book too much. But there it is - and all done based on the same text, which is the point. That is what they quite strictly believe. It is best to take the faithful at their word, that they know best as to what they believe, just as when we accept that the canonical books of the Bible are the 'true' Bible, even though all those other excluded books and gospels could just as well be inspired by God. As for the Christian God not lying, there are occasions in scripture where he sends a lying spirit to confuse His enemies or otherwise deludes them (eg 1 Kings 22:23 2 Chronicles 18:22, Ezekiel 14:9, Jeremiah 20:7, Jeremiah 4:10 and 2 Thessalonians 2:11 etc ). Now, if I was to send an assassin to kill someone am I not just as much a murderer as the someone who carries out my orders? The special pleading at this point is merely to assert that because some of the recipients of the deceits of God were the unfaithful, and those who were already deceived, that the extra deceptions 'do not count' as lying. But it still does count, especially if you are (as is God, in scripture) the ultimate pinnacle of morality and truth. Fine, it is one thing to say that all the versions of the Koran say the same thing, but this is not what Muslims have claimed. Muslims have traditionally made the claim that not one dot of the Koran has been changed, while pointing to textual variants in the Bible to corruption of the text. Now when it has been coming to light that the Koran has textual variants, they almost seem to imply that they never made the claim to the very dot in the first place and they are saying what Christians have been saying in defense of the Bible, that variants do not affect their doctrine. Muslim scholar Shabir Ally here admits that the Koran has variants: The “not one dot of the Quran has been changed” claim is also completely contrary to the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Jul 15, 2020 12:09:21 GMT
Definitely not the Quran as Islam is of satan...
NOTE: Fr. Chad Ripperger is one of the top exorcists (maybe #1) here in the USA.
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Jul 15, 2020 16:21:49 GMT
jobs requiring a particular brand of storm trooper
if you can't generate multiple levels of race-baited hate then what is there left to negate after revolving the media into a state where everyone's an enemy of the prophecies you've conveniently baked.
into a proletariat pie where those ones are on the sly but you're somehow the apple of this god's eye all because you played with soldiers while bouncing on daddies thigh.
as now we all get to wave bye bye to yet another generation tied on the butcher block of a slavery riddled with the promises of just one more college try.
so we can send these storm troopers tap dancing as they sigh: your kids heads will look hot as ornaments on our christmas trees reflected in the gooeyness of grandmas deep dish apple pie.
for jobs requiring a particular brand of storm trooper send a myriad of hyped up over inflated bold faced excuses to the outskirts of the twilight zone you've been living in ever since truth was churned into a spin to justify the quagmires you keep getting in operating under a cloud of original sin even pope pious the four hundredth would say is a sent from above win/win.
sjw 07/15/2020
from the 'blitzkrieg series' of poems
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 15, 2020 18:50:09 GMT
There is just one Qu'ran but seven canonical methods of Qur'an recitation including those you mention. Sorry about that. "Warsh 'an Naafi' is one of the main canonical methods of reciting the Qur'an. The recitations of the Quran, known in Arabic as Qira'at, are conducted under the rules of the Tajwid Science. It is attributed to Imam Warsh who in turn got it from his teacher Nafi‘ al-Madani who was one of the transmitters of the seven recitations. The recitation of Warsh 'an Naafi' is one of two major recitation traditions. The second is Hafs 'an 'Asim." And so on. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsh It is a subtle difference, I admit; and perhaps Muslims insist on canonical variables through recitation and the alternatives of hadith created in the making as opposed to actual 'versions' of their holy book too much. But there it is - and all done based on the same text, which is the point. That is what they quite strictly believe. It is best to take the faithful at their word, that they know best as to what they believe, just as when we accept that the canonical books of the Bible are the 'true' Bible, even though all those other excluded books and gospels could just as well be inspired by God. As for the Christian God not lying, there are occasions in scripture where he sends a lying spirit to confuse His enemies or otherwise deludes them (eg 1 Kings 22:23 2 Chronicles 18:22, Ezekiel 14:9, Jeremiah 20:7, Jeremiah 4:10 and 2 Thessalonians 2:11 etc ). Now, if I was to send an assassin to kill someone am I not just as much a murderer as the someone who carries out my orders? The special pleading at this point is merely to assert that because some of the recipients of the deceits of God were the unfaithful, and those who were already deceived, that the extra deceptions 'do not count' as lying. But it still does count, especially if you are (as is God, in scripture) the ultimate pinnacle of morality and truth. Fine, it is one thing to say that all the versions of the Koran say the same thing, but this is not what Muslims have claimed. Muslims have traditionally made the claim that not one dot of the Koran has been changed, while pointing to textual variants in the Bible to corruption of the text. Now when it has been coming to light that the Koran has textual variants, they almost seem to imply that they never made the claim to the very dot in the first place and they are saying what Christians have been saying in defense of the Bible, that variants do not affect their doctrine. Muslim scholar Shabir Ally here admits that the Koran has variants: The notion that the Qu'ran has not changed is a vexed one and the history of its transmission (supposedly dictated to an illiterate, dispersed, then reassembled etc) would certainly mean that the book Muslims have today is unlikely to be exactly the same as it was when first written down. But Muslims still believe that the Qu'ran today exists in only one version with any canonical differences down to different recitations, reading and interpretations, or minor textual variants. As said before it is best practice to take what the faithful believe at face value, even if it is only true for them.
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Jul 15, 2020 19:19:32 GMT
... Would God be obligated to only speak one set of words and never contradict himself? Who would he 'owe' such consistency to? Certainly not us measly humans. Allegedly, Yahweh is all powerful and all knowing. If He knows everything, then He is not allowed to say, "Oops, I was wrong". Allowing Jehovah to change his mind is a lame rationalization excuse. If God got it wrong once, why should we follow his word now? Perhaps he is wrong now, but will not reveal it for another 33 years. Why should I be bound by today's Bible when it's gonna change in the future? By the way: Where in the New Testament does God allow me to eat hasenpfeffer or a bacon cheeseburger?
|
|