Originally posted by Agerg Yes, but again, over 2000 years ago when they believed the Sun revolved round the earth (which of course was flat and lay smack bang in the middle of the universe), and rain was the result of God watering plants and otherwise killing people that annoyed it (Noah's flood), people would have believed "witches" and "sorcerers" actually did harness the supernatura ...[text shortened]... w one can say God inspired it (the same God which is assumed incapable of lying of course)
they would believe that of course. but just as there could be unsuccessful carpenters who even if they are carpenters don't get to do much carpenting, so too could there have been unsuccessful sorcerors. this rule is not to protect the people against magic, after all there were god-sanctioned sorcerors (they were called priests) everywhere. this rule was to protect the religion against the notion that any other occult power could be existent. as such, it wasn't really important whether they thought the "sorceror" actually did something.
Example: a dude gets up in the middle of the jew temple and shouts "O great Gorilla Grodd, rain fire upon the heads of these infidels, now" and nothing happens. would you consider the israelites would forgive him because no harm done? or would he still be trialed as a witch as their law demands even if they clearly saw he is a dud?
Originally posted by Agerg No can do Zahlanzi, my argument here isn't aimed at a relaxed interpretation of the Bible - it is aimed at the zealots who believe that every damned word of the Bible is inspired solely by god; and that if humans had anything to do with it then they only wrote the words that God willed them to write. As I've said to Robbie, back in the dark ages when the Bible ...[text shortened]... of redundancy, or because real practitioners of magic and spirit chanelling etc... existed.
please note my translation does not say sorcerer, but those practising spiritism, which literally comes from the Greek term, pharmakia (from which we get pharmacy), or druggery, for what Shamans used to do was to enter a drug induced stupor and try to seek enlightenment (you may have heard of the practice among native Americans who take Peyote and enter into the desert to try to find a vision). You own error in this regard is a failure to understand the definition of terms and thus get an accurate indication of what scripture actually states, and on the basis of an inaccurate understanding you have launched into this futile tirade!
Originally posted by robbie carrobie please note my translation does not say sorcerer, but those practising spiritism, which literally comes from the Greek term, pharmakia (from which we get pharmacy), or druggery, for what Shamans used to do was to enter a drug induced stupor and try to seek enlightenment (you may have heard of the practice among native Americans who take Peyote and en ...[text shortened]... ates, and on the basis of an inaccurate understanding you have launched into this futile tirade!
RJHinds, to whom my question was directed, doesn't read *your* JW Bible written just over 100 years ago (whos writers had the freedom to cherry pick from the fonts of human enlightenment and human stupidity up to that age - perhaps the writers of your holy book felt a bit uneasy about that word and fudged it).
Originally posted by twhitehead So the Bible, does acknowledge the existence of 'occult forces'? Would that be the equivalent of 'magic'?
no it doesn't. it states that god's is the only REAL occult force. but to be invoking other occult forces is still a threat. it kinda goes hand in hand with no idol whorshipping. the bible doesn't say that baal is real, but it still tells you to not pay attention to that jerk.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi no it doesn't. it states that god's is the only REAL occult force. but to be invoking other occult forces is still a threat. it kinda goes hand in hand with no idol whorshipping. the bible doesn't say that baal is real, but it still tells you to not pay attention to that jerk.
But if we are assuming an inerrant God-breathed piece of scripture, how am I confused for seeing a conflict with such statements like *God cannot lie* if it introduces an entity such as Baal that doesn't actually exist, or "sorcerers" which inspite of common understanding of the word in those days meant something only people 2000+ years later would figure out??
Originally posted by Agerg RJHinds, to whom my question was directed, doesn't read *your* JW Bible written just over 100 years ago (whos writers had the freedom to cherry pick from the fonts of human enlightenment and human stupidity up to that age - perhaps the writers of your holy book felt a bit uneasy about that word and fudged it).
Agers you further show your ignorance, our text is based on westcott and hort , original Greek text, you can look up the word in any interlinear. Let it be a lesson to you! Presumptuousness Aggy, tis not good, look at the trouble it has got you into, squirming around for a defence, sigh.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Agers you further show your ignorance, our text is based on westcott and hort , original Greek text, you can look up the word in any interlinear. Let it be a lesson to you! Presumptuousness Aggy, tis not good, look at the trouble it has got you into, squirming around for a defence, sigh.
Well I'll see your JW text is based on westcott and hort and raise you: RJHinds' text is based on never mistaken, never deceptive God (apparently!)
Originally posted by Agerg Well I'll see your JW text is based on westcott and hort and raise you: RJHinds' text is based on never mistaken, never deceptive God (apparently!)
RJHinds God 1 - Robbie Carrobie God 0
yes it is, but the translators of RJHinds text have not rendered the text accurately, we on the other hand, well, what can you say. . . . . , modesty prevents us, but you know its true.
It should read: our translators 1 , other translators 1/2 , poor atheists -15x10^192
Originally posted by Zahlanzi they would believe that of course. but just as there could be unsuccessful carpenters who even if they are carpenters don't get to do much carpenting, so too could there have been unsuccessful sorcerors. this rule is not to protect the people against magic, after all there were god-sanctioned sorcerors (they were called priests) everywhere. this rule was to he still be trialed as a witch as their law demands even if they clearly saw he is a dud?
But as I tried to point out to RC, who is notorious for doing his cactuar routine,Reveal Hidden Content
(a tribute to the character in the Final Fantasy series of computer games who more than anything substantial just gives you a little nip, then scarpers from the fight when you hit back)
anyone you'd call a carpenter, you'd believe has some facility for handling wood and constructing chairs or tables etc... not that they study and try to engage in the fictitious practice of constructing chairs and tables. If it is believed god wrote that person X is a carpenter then with the supposition of inerrancy, that person did genuinely do carpentry related stuff as the word is understood by its readers in such times. Similarly if the inerrant Bible says that Sorcerers will be burned in fire and brimstone then we should assume that such people with the powers people believed them to have also existed. How people perceive those words today with a more mature analysis of these ancient texts is a different point really - what's important (for this thread) is the perception of these words for its audience back in the primitive age it was `breathed into being' by God.
I acknowledge I wouldn't be able to press this argument if we relax the assumption of Biblical inerrancy, but I think until that point there is far more than a shred of mileage in it.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie yes it is, but the translators of RJHinds text have not rendered the text accurately, we on the other hand, well, what can you say. . . . . , modesty prevents us, but you know its true.
It should read: our translators 1 , other translators 1/2 , poor atheists -15x10^192
The translators of RJHinds text were inspired directly by God (apparently!). You fail again!
Originally posted by twhitehead It pretty much does actually. It even says God is jealous of him.
yes, but a couple of lines before that it says that the people shouldn't make themselves images and whorship them. so it isn't a matter of admittance to baal's existance as it is a statement from god that he wants their full attention.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie nope, they were not inspired, the inspired Greek text was already in existence,
Robbie and the special ones 2: Aggy and the atheists minus fifty sqillion zillion.
RJHinds reckons his version of the Bible is ultra perfect +1, so as far as I'm concerned, for the purposes of this thread I'm prepared to roll with that (for the sake of argument) and challenge him on these terms.
Question for RJHinds
31 May '11 11:49
Reveal Hidden Content
Back to Top