Literal, inerrant Bible?

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Literal, inerrant Bible?

Post by DotNotInOz on Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:59 pm

Oooooo...blue Maine goo
I want some, too! (But not the same way John's getting it!)

loves blueberries as much as bears and other critters do -------------------------------------------->
avatar
DotNotInOz

Posts : 2795
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : St Louis MO burb

Back to top Go down

Re: Literal, inerrant Bible?

Post by MaineCaptain on Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:31 pm



Yes the blue stuff is much tasty on a muffin in the morning Very Happy

_________________
Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behaviour does.
avatar
MaineCaptain
Admin
Admin

Posts : 2869
Join date : 2009-04-01
Location : New England

Back to top Go down

Re: Literal, inerrant Bible?

Post by john5180 on Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:47 am

MaineCaptain wrote:

Yes the blue stuff is much tasty on a muffin in the morning Very Happy

Maybe...... but nothing beats Mayhaw jelly on a hot buttermilk biscuit loaded with butter.





























And I can fling an eye full on someone at 50 paces.
avatar
john5180

Posts : 473
Join date : 2009-12-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Literal, inerrant Bible?

Post by DotNotInOz on Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:43 pm

Mayhaw jelly? Never heard of it. Wuzzat?

Gotta admit I've yummy memories of my grandma's sandhill plum jelly. Mmmmmhmmmm.

And while we're on the subject, the aunt for whom I'm named used to make a scrumptilicious tomato preserves. Mega-yummy!

Oh, and my grandmother's watermelon rind pickles. She put some cloves and who knows what all in them. They were much more flavorful than others I've had.

::::::: drools quietly onto her keyboard ::::::
avatar
DotNotInOz

Posts : 2795
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : St Louis MO burb

Back to top Go down

Re: Literal, inerrant Bible?

Post by john5180 on Sun Dec 27, 2009 2:00 pm

Mayhaws come from a tree. they resemble a baby crab apple.... that's the closest I can think of in describing them. They thrive in sorta swampy land.... boggy. They once grew wild, but have been domesticated for the last 30 years or so. The old folks used to say that Mayhaws like wet, but don't like water. It used to be one of the treats in spring to go out into boggy parts of the woods and pick them.

The jelly itself is an apple red color. The fruit is boiled skin and all. And it has a very distinctive taste..... really sweet! If left sitting out too long, sugar begins to form on the lip of the jar. If you're diabetic, this isn't a jelly for you.

Mayhaws come from a tree. they resemble a baby crab apple.... that's the closest I can think of in describing them. They thrive in sorta swampy land.... boggy. They once grew wild, but have been domesticated for the last 30 years or so. The old folks used to say that Mayhaws like wet, but don't like water. It used to be one of the treats inspring to go out into boggy parts of the woods and pick them.

The jelly itself is an apple red color. The fruit is boiled skin and all. And it has a very distinctive taste..... really sweet! If left sitting out too long, sugar begins to form on the lip of the jar. If you're
diabetic, this isn't a jelly for you.

I've never heard of watermelon pickles. Sounds like a great summer time treat. We have pickled okra here as well. Now stewed tomatoes is my fave! Cut some okra and fry it with sauteed onions and stewed tomatoes and I have a meal by itself.
avatar
john5180

Posts : 473
Join date : 2009-12-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Literal, inerrant Bible?

Post by DotNotInOz on Sun Dec 27, 2009 2:34 pm

Yeah, watermelon rind pickles are kind of a central U.S. sort of thing. What's weird about them is that they're usually only the white part of the rind, not the outside which is too tough and leathery. Hers were a lovely pale green to pale yellow, depending upon what all she put in them.

Thanks for the info on mayhaws, John. Hmmm...sounds yummy.

But you may have my lifetime's share of okra. I do NOT like that stuff any way it's cooked. ICK! Someone told me once that if you cook it right it's not slimy, assuming that's why I don't like it. Not that. I simply don't like the flavor.
avatar
DotNotInOz

Posts : 2795
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : St Louis MO burb

Back to top Go down

Re: Literal, inerrant Bible?

Post by john5180 on Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:59 pm

Pickled okra isn't slimy at all. It's raw when pickled. Now again referring to the slime.... Cajuns put okra in their gumbo to take the place of felet` (pronounced felay) That is a leaf used in gumbo to make it "slick" The okra does that and adds to the flavor of the gumbo. In fact, the Creoles call okra "gumbo". When fried, and subsequently stewed, it looses the slimy juice, and is really quite good. Now boiled okra.... well, it reminds me of eating a raw oyster. If you happen to like raw oysters (I do) then it isn't so bad. It looses a lot of the flavor IMO though when cooked like that. In fact, it has a rather bland taste to it.
avatar
john5180

Posts : 473
Join date : 2009-12-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Literal, inerrant Bible?

Post by TPaine on Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:26 pm

ZenYen wrote:Someone close to me sees the New Revised Edition of the Bible as, in his words, "very close to the original." He also contends that the "original" — which no one has, by the way — is literally true and inerrant.

He and I have debated this a bit — I contend it is silly to claim any current translation is "very close to the orginal" when we don't have the original and when we know the haphazard history of Biblical distribution, translation, etc. I kept asking him how he knew the NRV was close to the original. Eventually, he got frustrated with me, said I knew nothing of Bible scholarship and told me he would write a lengthy blog post explaining the "advanced textual criticism" techniques, etc., that demonstrate convincingly that the NRV is close to the original, and that the original is the literal, inerrant, God-breathed truth. I said I would hold off on arguing about it with him until I read what he wrote.

Months later, I'm still waiting for him to write his convincing argument. (He's started a different big blog project in the meantime, so I have my doubts as to whether he will ever produce his opus). In the meantime, I thought I'd throw the topic open here. If there are any Christians on this board who agree in whole or in part with my friend's statement, I'd like to see your arguments presented here.

Thanks in advance.
What I find interesting is that Bart Ehrman uses the NRSV to prove that the Bible is not inerrant. You may want to ask the person who claims it is when Jesus was born. In Matthew it had to be before 4 BCE because that is when Herod the Great died. Matthew also said when told it was safe to return from Egypt where they went to escape the Massacre of the Innocents (that was never mentioned by any contemporaneous historian, such as Josephus) the family went to Nazareth rather than Bethlehem because Archelaus (Herod's son) was the ruler of Judea.

Luke, on the other hand states that Jesus was born in Bethlehem because Joseph had to return there from Nazareth to register for the Census of Quirinius which took place in 6 CE after Augustus had Archelaus deposed and Judea was made a Roman Province under Quirinius who was Governor of Syria. Rome did not directly tax their client states, but when Judea became a Roman province they had to do so. Therefore the need for the census.

Ask him to explain the 10 year difference between the two authors dating of his birth, the two genealogies that don't agree, and the differences in the birth stories in Matthew and Luke. Jesus was born in a house in Bethlehem according to Matthew, and in a manger according to Luke. He was visited by the Magi in Matthew, and by shepherds in Luke. The family had to escape to Egypt in Matthew, but went to the temple in Jerusalem on the eighth day to be presented to the Lord (and have two doves sacrificed in his name) in Luke.

PS. Dot, we used to have pickled watermelon rind when I was growing up in New Jersey, so it's not just a central US thing. I loved the stuff. It was sweet, but not too sweet.
avatar
TPaine

Posts : 650
Join date : 2009-04-13
Location : Southeastern Tennessee

Back to top Go down

Re: Literal, inerrant Bible?

Post by DotNotInOz on Sun Dec 27, 2009 7:21 pm

TPaine wrote:Luke, on the other hand states that Jesus was born in Bethlehem because Joseph had to return there from Nazareth to register for the Census of Quirinius which took place in 6 CE after Augustus had Archelaus deposed and Judea was made a Roman Province under Quirinius who was Governor of Syria. Rome did not directly tax their client states, but when Judea became a Roman province they had to do so. Therefore the need for the census.

Not only the above, but consider what kind of sense it makes to demand that people go to the place where a distant ancestor lived to be counted. That's supposedly why Joseph must go to Bethlehem. I ought to put this one on the "Where the Bible makes no sense at all" thread. Anybody ever heard of a census that didn't count people where they live but rather where a remote ancestor was from? Of course not. It's preposterous.

TPaine, if you've not read Robert Price's The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, do get it. It deals exhaustively with this sort of thing.
avatar
DotNotInOz

Posts : 2795
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : St Louis MO burb

Back to top Go down

Re: Literal, inerrant Bible?

Post by TPaine on Sun Dec 27, 2009 7:50 pm

DotNotInOz wrote:
TPaine wrote:Luke, on the other hand states that Jesus was born in Bethlehem because Joseph had to return there from Nazareth to register for the Census of Quirinius which took place in 6 CE after Augustus had Archelaus deposed and Judea was made a Roman Province under Quirinius who was Governor of Syria. Rome did not directly tax their client states, but when Judea became a Roman province they had to do so. Therefore the need for the census.

Not only the above, but consider what kind of sense it makes to demand that people go to the place where a distant ancestor lived to be counted. That's supposedly why Joseph must go to Bethlehem. I ought to put this one on the "Where the Bible makes no sense at all" thread. Anybody ever heard of a census that didn't count people where they live but rather where a remote ancestor was from? Of course not. It's preposterous.

TPaine, if you've not read Robert Price's The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, do get it. It deals exhaustively with this sort of thing.
Thanks for the tip, Dot. I just ordered it along with The Jesus Puzzle. They will go with my Bart Ehrman books.
avatar
TPaine

Posts : 650
Join date : 2009-04-13
Location : Southeastern Tennessee

Back to top Go down

Re: Literal, inerrant Bible?

Post by DotNotInOz on Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:16 pm

Uhoh...The Jesus Puzzle, you say? Hmmmm...

:::::: dashing off to check Amazon for that one :::::::

I think you'll like Price. He documents so thoroughly that it pays to have a Bible alongside so that you can look up the verses he references. It's one of those books where the endnotes are just as intriguing as the text itself if not more so.

::::: popping back to add :::::: Ohhhhh, yes, of course. Earl Doherty! I've read a good deal of his stuff although don't recall this one. Fine thinker and writer as well.
avatar
DotNotInOz

Posts : 2795
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : St Louis MO burb

Back to top Go down

Re: Literal, inerrant Bible?

Post by DeavonReye on Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:15 am

I really need to pick up one of those "incredible shrinking son of man" books.

Dot, I've never considered that about the census. And it really DOESN'T make any sense to do that [what you stated]. Wow, . . .the things you find out to make you realize that how truly LOST you were as a christian.
avatar
DeavonReye

Posts : 769
Join date : 2009-06-15
Location : SW MO

Back to top Go down

Re: Literal, inerrant Bible?

Post by john5180 on Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:40 am

The idea of a census makes sense, even if not used in the manner a census is used today. So this isn't something one might want to scratch their heads over. As someone said earlier, something that makes you want to say HUH is the idea that one has to go back to the ancestral home to accomplish this.

The idea of a census, such as the one we have coming up in 2010 accomplishes several mileposts. Accurate numbers of people... a nose count if you prefer to determine the number of representatives each state will have on in the national scene. I seriously doubt Caesar Augustus was concerned with this, but infrastructure is another matter. Romans were builders. They built roads, water systems.... all of this for troop deployment, for sure, but citizens reaped benefits from them as well. With out an accurate count for each village or town, this could not be accurately determined, even for tax purposes. Considering too that population would determine the number of Centurions would be needed to keep order in the country, this story makes even less and less sense.

In the same sense that a parent would not know if their child was destined to become deity, this concocted story of the census makes no sense at all.
avatar
john5180

Posts : 473
Join date : 2009-12-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Literal, inerrant Bible?

Post by Davelaw on Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:59 pm

not ancestral so much as Joseph was newly from there- most of Nazareth were from the family of David; yet the whole town didn't show up at Bethlehem
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: Literal, inerrant Bible?

Post by DotNotInOz on Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:52 pm

Davelaw wrote:not ancestral so much as Joseph was newly from there- most of Nazareth were from the family of David; yet the whole town didn't show up at Bethlehem

Oh, really? What's your source for that please, Dave?
avatar
DotNotInOz

Posts : 2795
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : St Louis MO burb

Back to top Go down

Re: Literal, inerrant Bible?

Post by Davelaw on Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:19 pm

that N'tzret is people of the branch and was an entire village dedicated to Messianic Judaism? its a common theory that even casual scholars are aware of
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: Literal, inerrant Bible?

Post by DotNotInOz on Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:48 pm

Davelaw wrote:that N'tzret is people of the branch and was an entire village dedicated to Messianic Judaism? its a common theory that even casual scholars are aware of

You didn't answer my question. I asked for a source reference, an authoritative one, please.
avatar
DotNotInOz

Posts : 2795
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : St Louis MO burb

Back to top Go down

Re: Literal, inerrant Bible?

Post by DotNotInOz on Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:09 pm

Davelaw wrote:not ancestral so much as Joseph was newly from there- most of Nazareth were from the family of David; yet the whole town didn't show up at Bethlehem

And while you're at it, I'd appreciate a source that verifies both the statements in your response, quoted in the immediately prior posting, and these statements, quoted above.
avatar
DotNotInOz

Posts : 2795
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : St Louis MO burb

Back to top Go down

Re: Literal, inerrant Bible?

Post by TPaine on Mon Dec 28, 2009 9:39 pm

DeavonReye wrote:I really need to pick up one of those "incredible shrinking son of man" books.

Dot, I've never considered that about the census. And it really DOESN'T make any sense to do that [what you stated]. Wow, . . .the things you find out to make you realize that how truly LOST you were as a christian.
Deavon, I can suggest two for starters. Misquoting Jesus and Jesus Interrupted both written by Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina.
avatar
TPaine

Posts : 650
Join date : 2009-04-13
Location : Southeastern Tennessee

Back to top Go down

Re: Literal, inerrant Bible?

Post by DotNotInOz on Tue Dec 29, 2009 3:00 am

What TPaine said. Both are excellent and somewhat more readable than Price's book. His will bog you down at times with references to one bible passage after another as well as to secular critics' works.
avatar
DotNotInOz

Posts : 2795
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : St Louis MO burb

Back to top Go down

Re: Literal, inerrant Bible?

Post by Davelaw on Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:10 pm

DotNotInOz wrote:
Davelaw wrote:not ancestral so much as Joseph was newly from there- most of Nazareth were from the family of David; yet the whole town didn't show up at Bethlehem

And while you're at it, I'd appreciate a source that verifies both the statements in your response, quoted in the immediately prior posting, and these statements, quoted above.

source? thats not science

a hypothesis should not be dependant on the reputation of its author

when we are dealing with scant information its all speculation- based on Nazareth's role in centuries to come it is speculated that its name is derived from the messianic name for the Davidic Messiah the BRANCH

and that since its not recorded that all the people of Judean ancestry returned to their home-that Joseph must have been a newcomer

I apologize for my annoying habit of stating a working theory as a factual statement
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: Literal, inerrant Bible?

Post by gillyflower on Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:43 pm

I think you mean "working hypothesis?" I don't believe there is any proof that Jesus existed or Joseph either for that matter.

_________________
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius
avatar
gillyflower
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3400
Join date : 2009-04-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Literal, inerrant Bible?

Post by Davelaw on Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:53 pm

working hypothesis-works
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: Literal, inerrant Bible?

Post by Davelaw on Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:55 pm

in unrelated news, this months BAR relays evidence for the first time that Nazereth may have actually existed when the gospels say it did; until recently all archeological evidence started at about 100 CE
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: Literal, inerrant Bible?

Post by gillyflower on Tue Dec 29, 2009 7:05 pm

What have they found in the way of archeological evidence? It kind of lacks any mentions by non-Christians until much later and there are I believe several suggestions for where it was and arguments as well for why it never existed.

Ah, found it I think. Alexandre? The dating of it is from 300s but Yardena Alexandre thinks it is from Jesus' time, only she has no proof of that, I think. Do you have a link?

_________________
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius
avatar
gillyflower
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3400
Join date : 2009-04-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Literal, inerrant Bible?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum