1 edit
Originally posted by Dasa16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
No.........they have only recently changed it and have left the original translation stay for all this time even though the Bible is the most scrutinized book on the planet.
This excuse is not accepted.
The true translation is kill.............not murder.
Never was murder and never will be.
Look at Matthew 19:17-19 KJV
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Jesus is clearly giving the last of the ten commandments dealing with man's
relationship with his fellow man. Are you also an authority in the Greek
language as you claim to be in the Hebrew? For if this translation from the
Greek is correct then it should be clear that same meaning should be applied
to the Hebrew. If they are different then who do you believe Moses or Jesus?
Originally posted by twhiteheadOnly you seem to have understood the matter.
So you are essentially arguing against the OP?
I think we can all agree that the personal opinion of people, however well educated, on a subject that they have not specialised in, does not reflect very strongly on the validity of the subject.
However, if the subject under discussion is something that is at least well understood by the people in que ...[text shortened]... ublished articles with a given opinion in scientific journals and survived the review processes.
The numbers may not indicate the validity of the theory but definitely the larger group will impact the smaller group, if not by over-crowding then by force.
Originally posted by shahenshahI agree, and in this case, I am glad that they do. In other cases, such as the larger religions of the world, I am not so glad. Too many people take a religions claims as a given simply because they grew up in a society where that religion was in the majority.
The numbers may not indicate the validity of the theory but definitely the larger group will impact the smaller group, if not by over-crowding then by force.
But it is still not clear which group you agree with.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy the double standard?
I agree, and in this case, I am glad that they do. In other cases, such as the larger religions of the world, I am not so glad. Too many people take a religions claims as a given simply because they grew up in a society where that religion was in the majority.
But it is still not clear which group you agree with.
By now "I thought that would be clear from most of my postings."
Originally posted by RJHindsObviously, it's perfectly clear to anyone who is not already occupied with an agenda.
16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Look at Matthew 19:17-19 KJV
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murd ...[text shortened]... hould be applied
to the Hebrew. If they are different then who do you believe Moses or Jesus?
Originally posted by DasaYou know that there is truth on one hand, and how you would like things to be on the other.
No.........they have only recently changed it and have left the original translation stay for all this time even though the Bible is the most scrutinized book on the planet.
This excuse is not accepted.
The true translation is kill.............not murder.
Never was murder and never will be.
You deny the truth since it negates your agenda.
Originally posted by shahenshahThere is no double standard. I am glad when people follow the majority, when I think the majority are correct. I do however think that everyone should have some skepticism for the majority whatever it is the majority believes or is preaching.
Why the double standard?
By now "I thought that would be clear from most of my postings."
Not entirely clear, no. I am not at all sure what your real point is regarding 'apes'.
Originally posted by twhiteheadApes are not humans and humans are not apes.
There is no double standard. I am glad when people follow the majority, when I think the majority are correct. I do however think that everyone should have some skepticism for the majority whatever it is the majority believes or is preaching.
[b]By now "I thought that would be clear from most of my postings."
Not entirely clear, no. I am not at all sure what your real point is regarding 'apes'.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsIts just a definition. You can define it anyway you like, but asserting that a definition has a truth value just makes you look stupid. And failing to understand that a definition is just a definition, and refusing to accept definitions used by others only serves to cause problems when communicating.
Apes are not humans and humans are not apes.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is your problem, not mine.
Its just a definition. You can define it anyway you like, but asserting that a definition has a truth value just makes you look stupid. And failing to understand that a definition is just a definition, and refusing to accept definitions used by others only serves to cause problems when communicating.
Originally posted by RJHindsThe two instances are not comparable. As I have tried to explain, it is an issue of definition. The hot thing in the sky is defined as 'the sun', whether the earth revolves around it or vice versa doesn't change that. So it is with human beings. They are currently defined as 'apes'. I suppose it is conceivable that this definition may one day be amended, but to take that possibility as an objection to the current definition makes no sense.
It was once believed by the scientist that the sun revolved around the
earth. So it is with the definition of great apes.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatAt one time it made no sense to challenge the definiton that the sun
The two instances are not comparable. As I have tried to explain, it is an issue of definition. The hot thing in the sky is defined as 'the sun', whether the earth revolves around it or vice versa doesn't change that. So it is with human beings. They are currently defined as 'apes'. I suppose it is conceivable that this definition may one day be amended, but to take that possibility as an objection to the current definition makes no sense.
revolves around the earth. Get it.