Comments on TALK ABOUT A JEALOUS GOD

Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t - Add a comment - Go to TALK ABOUT A JEALOUS GOD

Please note that I stated, "reported to have over 30,000 translation errors," not that I believe this fact.  To read more about KJV reported translation errors, check out these sites:

 

http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume1/tr.htm

http://www.saint-mike.org/apologetics/qa/Answers/Defending_Faith/p0310270094.html

http://www.geocities.com/centrevillechurchofchrist/smelser_j/kjv_prov.htm

http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/bible/kjv5.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/graphic1designer/errors.html

 

posted by Gheeghee on February 11, 2005 at 11:23 AM | link to this | reply

By the way, Kooka, did you know that the authorized King James Version of the Bible is reported to have over 30,000 translation errors?  Because you've based your interpretation on a verse that comes from a Bible that is not viewed as an accurate source, your interpretation has little, if any, credibility.  Additionally, as you yourself have discredited the bible as a source for an explanation of God, your thoughts about God being "jealous" based on such a book are also lacking in any real value.  I'm surprised you missed this error in your own  reasoning.

posted by Gheeghee on February 11, 2005 at 10:07 AM | link to this | reply

"It has always occurred to me that any one who tries to tell me about God is wrong." Interesting. Is this how you always approach any discussion about God?

posted by Gheeghee on February 11, 2005 at 9:23 AM | link to this | reply

Gheeghee

It has always occurred to me that any one who tries to tell me about God is wrong. I have yet to find none who pretend to have answers to be right in fact. For in truth the Bible and a belief in God do not provide many answers at all. Most of it is faith and making it up as one goes. So far you have yet to provide a single answer yourself. I have never meet a believer who really could answer the questions. All they can do is state what they believe and what they feel the Bibles says about such things, most of the time picking bits and pieces and taking them fully out of context in order to claim there is an answer there, when in fact the Bible has no such answers in it.

Once more you are very much helping to show my point on this. Believers do not have all is any of the answers. The true reason why so many try to prevent questions is because they know that hey do not have the answers and so would show weakness in their beliefs to try to answer them.

posted by kooka_lives on February 11, 2005 at 8:53 AM | link to this | reply

Gheeghee

Are you just trying to be comical now?

I love that now you have gone and discredited every version of the Bible as well as every organized religion out there.

I am not doing a book report here. I am writing about the basic beliefs in general. There really is little difference between the translations relating of the Ten Commandments. I have read several and there really would be no point to hunting down just which version these came from. I could be in a dozen different ones. You are very clearly showing that you do not care about eh points i make, but would rather try to discredit my views by pointing out any little things that you feel could show I know not what I say.

What questions have I dodge? You just are not liking the answers because they are not saying what you wish them to say. By your comments you are proving that all versions of the Bible are irrelevant, at which point I ma lost as to why it would matter to anyone.

Do you really believe that he version of the Bible you follow is any more accurate than the version I took these versions of the commandments from?

It is really sad and naive if you believe such. Right now you are not seeking, but trying to discredit me. You already know the answers you wish for me to give, and so when I give answers that go against what you are trying to prove you try to instead claim I know not what I say.

So for the record here those version of the ten commandments came from the 'authorized King James Version of the Bible, published by the American Bible Society.'

posted by kooka_lives on February 11, 2005 at 8:46 AM | link to this | reply

"Why do I think it's not ok to ask? Because I have asked Minister and other strongly religious people and they basic response is 'It is God's will. We should not ask such questions of God.'"

Did it ever occur to you that these religious people were wrong? That these religious people don't know God? Did it ever strike them odd that Thomas asked, and Christ not only did not turn him away without his answer, but let him touch the wounds himself? Had Christ said, "Thomas, it's my will and you have no right to ask," wouldn't that be contrary to anything else He said?

What if I, a very "religious" person, told you that they were all wrong and that you are actually supposed to ask? If you don't have an answer, how can you know the truth? How is a person with an intellect to understand even remotely what God, one of the hardest concepts to grasp, is all about without being allowed to ask questions?

Those who misled you should be ashamed of themselves, as should anyone claiming that you should not ask questions about God.

posted by Gheeghee on February 11, 2005 at 8:27 AM | link to this | reply

"Okay, now you are either just trying to say whatever you can to try and discredit me..."  When you present ideas with nothing to back them up, you discredit yourself.  Every one of these posts would have been given an F in a critical thinking course, in an English course, in any course higher than 8th grade because you've not offered anything substantial to back it up.  You are not answering the questions I ask, as my questions require NAMES, DATES, EVENTS... YOU KNOW, FACTS!  I'm asking you to prove what you say with FACTS.   DONT YOU GET IT??  

"IT is well known that the Bible has gone through many, many translations and what is being read now days is nothing at all like the original text. " SUCH AS? 

"You were the one who started to point out..."  Uh, Isn't this your Blog???  I've asked you questions that you dodge.  Is it because you don't know the answers?  YOU'RE THE REVEREND, remember?  Isn't that what reverends do?  Answer the questions for those that seek?

posted by Gheeghee on February 11, 2005 at 8:18 AM | link to this | reply

Gheeghee

Okay, now you are either just trying to say whatever you can to try and discredit me or your are as about naive as they come. IT is well known that the Bible has gone through many, many translations and what is being read now days is nothing at all like the original text. I have seen more accurate translations of various parts of the Bible to show just how off this is. Stuff like Satan was never presented as being an single being in the early translations, but instead was a title given to whatever angel God was using to play the protagonist in a situation.
You totally go against your own points now. You were the one who started to point out the whole thing about how there are so many translations and such. Now you are trying to say that is not so? Do you really believe that there is an 100% accurate translation of the Bible out there? Sorry, but there is not.
If there are no true translations of the Bible out there, then no one can follow the true Bible. Most of the real documents that have been used over the years are not allowed to be seen by most people. I would say that those who have these documents have a lot they are hiding.
I have provided answers to your question because your questions are easy to answer. You are still dancing around the whole thing. At no point have you really addressed the ideas presented in the post. You are trying to say that all these other aspects need to be considered, if that is so then any and all of God's rules and laws are meaningless because you have to look at the time and translation and so on in order for them to be used. At that point you have taken away any reason for the rules to be handed out as directly as the ten commandments were. If God gives it as a direct rule then it should not matter what any of the underlining issue are, unless of course you are saying that God is imperfect and he's rules are only useful in certain situation and can be ignored at will. Unless of course you are saying to go and pick and choose the rules that you like because certain rules somehow are just of that time and translation.
You really seem to wish to disprove God's power more than I do by presenting these questions. Mostly it seems like you do not wish to listen, because I am answering your questions.

posted by kooka_lives on February 10, 2005 at 9:18 PM | link to this | reply

Gheeghee

"What's the best way to read a book, from cover to cover or by opening it up and arbitrarily picking a line and then trying to piece it together?"

Well it really depends on the book. A collection of stories really does not for the most part need to be read in any order. As for picking out lines and reading them out of context, most Christians are great at that. I could never hope to ever have such a gift as many, many of the Christians I have encountered when it comes to picking and choosing bits and pieces and putting their own little twist to make those verse say what ever it is they wish them to say..
I myself have read most of the Old testament straight through. I know for a fact that you really can not take the Ten Commandments out of context because of the way they are presented, unless you wish to try to say we can all just go and figure out what God really means by all of his laws and rules, at which point the whole idea of God becomes about as silly and pointless as possible (Which if the way I see it anyway, it is just now you are helping to prove that).

posted by kooka_lives on February 10, 2005 at 9:16 PM | link to this | reply

Gheeghee

Why do I think it's not ok to ask? Because I have asked Minister and other strongly religious people and they basic response is 'It is God's will. We should not ask such questions of God.' Either that or they come up with some really stupid explanation that makes it clear that they really are just reaching for any kind of answer, and if asked where in the Bible they got that from they don't really remember. Basically they take the whole Bible out of context at that point.
I also have talked to various Christians who have been more or less told by their religious leaders to not questions 'God's' will.
I know this because of experiences, which I know does not count by your standards because... Well I am really not sure why you do not count my experiences as being valid. Somehow I have to accept what you and other claim when I have already experiences more than enough to show me that you claims are wrong.

posted by kooka_lives on February 10, 2005 at 9:11 PM | link to this | reply

...and you never did answer my first question: 

You wrote this:  "If we were born with a bad heart or some mental retardation then that is God's will and there is a greater reason for it all. And we are not supposed to ask the reason just accept that God makes us flawed at times for some reason."

My question:  Why do you think it's not ok to ask?

posted by Gheeghee on February 10, 2005 at 8:38 PM | link to this | reply

REGARDING CONTEXT:  What's the best way to read a book, from cover to cover or by opening it up and arbitrarily picking a line and then trying to piece it together?

posted by Gheeghee on February 10, 2005 at 2:32 PM | link to this | reply

”Considering that no one follows the original Bible…” How did you come to this conclusion? Have you translated the original Bible yourself? Exactly what IS the original Bible? Is it a book with binding somewhere? You must know, because you have presented this fact. “No one follows…” No one EVER? Where are the motives, thoughts and feelings of every human being recorded so that you so easily had them at your fingertips to know this fact? Do you have some magical ability to look into every human being’s mind to have ascertained your data supporting your claim? ”As for the commandment I used, it was the second commandment. It came after the first and before the third. It is impossible to have it taken out of context.” It’s very possible to take it out of context. How is this commandment understood in its historical perspective, within the entirety of both the book of the Bible from which it comes and the Bible itself? Toward what group was this commandment aimed? What made it relevant to them? Is there something about that commandment that is relevant today? How does this commandment relate to the rest of the books of the Bible? “It was not part of some great elaborate explanation.” Yes it was taken from a great, elaborate explanation, called the Bible. “You are dancing around what I presented here…” Actually, it’s your blog, your points, your posts. I'm asking you questions and you are not providing answers. Only you can prove your points, only you can explain your thoughts and ideas. If you want to wear the hat of REVEREND, you better be prepared to answer all questions presented with AN ANSWER, not accusations or sarcasm. If I have questions, it's not because I'm "dancing," but because you've not done a complete enough job of presenting your argument.

posted by Gheeghee on February 10, 2005 at 2:25 PM | link to this | reply

Gheeghee

Right here the most interesting thing you have made very clear is an idea that I have been trying to get across for some time. The Bible and the ideas in the Bible are very much out dated. Also that every single translation of the Bible has been changed to fit the needs seen by those who have translated it. At that point, unless you try to claim that God has a hand in one translation (At which point it really becomes a crap shot as to which one God's has chosen) all version of the Bible are meaningless and should be ignored as being fact.
Considering that no one follows the original Bible it really does not matter which version one uses.
As for the commandment I used, it was the second commandment. It came after the first and before the third. It is impossible to have it taken out of context. It was not part of some great elaborate explanation. The whole of what I used was the whole of what was said about the commandment.
You are dancing around what I presented here and are busy trying to distract from the point that was made. Just throwing out questions as you did only helps to show the weaknesses in the Bible.

posted by kooka_lives on February 10, 2005 at 11:32 AM | link to this | reply

More questions for you to consider:

What was the political climate at the time the passages were originally written, or thought to be written?  Was there a society?  What were their societies like?  How were the Hebrews at the time of the passage you quoted treated, viewed?  How did the Hebrews treat and view other cultures?

Back to that bible you chose to quote from, what year was that original translation done?  What was the political climate during that period?  Who commissioned the translation and why?

One other question: What's the best way to read a book, cover to cover or by opening it and reading it a sentence at a time?

posted by Gheeghee on February 10, 2005 at 8:59 AM | link to this | reply

Which version of the bible did you use? What was the meaning as it was

understood in its original language?  Are there other possible ways to translate the original text?  How is the verse you quoted applied in context to the rest of the section?  Chapter?  Book?  The rest of the Bible?  How does it read in other translations?  Are there notes available on the verse you presented?  What do they say?  Are there commentaries available?  What do they say?

Again, you're the reverend, teach, pal.  Hacking apart one arbitrary quote does't cut it.

posted by Gheeghee on February 10, 2005 at 7:53 AM | link to this | reply

kooka_lives -- to me it is more evidence that everything that is claimed

to be the word of God are simply the contrivings of primitive man. Man's shortcomings are completely evident within this so called set of commandments from God.

posted by gomedome on February 9, 2005 at 5:20 PM | link to this | reply