Since things have been so slow here, I've had to engage in a bizzarre discussion with Geoffy. These guys are so wrapped up in preconceptions that they would argue about whether the sky is blue.
I'm sorry you felt a visit there would go well, that you wouldn't muddy your feet upon your first step. That alone compels me to work harder to come up with subject matter so as to prevent such an event from re-occurring. I went there and found only one post where you showed up; I guess the previous dropped off and Geoffie's crap ain't worth the effort of tip-toeing through his archives.
I will myself drop in there on occasion. There seems to be little effort to engage in discussion there anymore, if there ever was. He seems content to continually make statements he won't support regarding right-wing figures, be they celebrity or lowly bloggers. He's equally short of evidence for his opinions on issues, making ourrageous, albeit typical, lefty charges as if they are true.
And then of course there's Alan, another condescending psuedo-sophisticate who prefers snark to real engagement, as if his positions are actually settled fact.
Geoffie says he sees no point in trying to debate issues as if there will never be any common ground. That would make more sense if he ever did. He usually defaults to the "you don't know science" (for example) type of retort and then drops out as if he can find no way to explain those incredibly complex issues to the unwashed of which he finds us to be a part. The fact is, he's a coward, well read (sorta Feodor-like)but lacking in real ability to be clear, to defend his weak positions, or to understand simple points being made by even some people he lauds.
Yet, I still welcome such as he anytime he and others like him wish to wipe their noses and engage like adults. I just don't hold my breath.
I know, I made the mistake of thinking that he might be interested in some information regarding one of his posts. Instead I got the "I'm not going to change my mind no matter what the facts are". Oh well, it could have been worse.
I dunno, Craig. I'm conflicted. It's really no different than when they come to our blogs, except that their contempt and hatred is far more evident. I often consider the readers who never comment and hope that perhaps I've given them something to consider, though my powers of persuasion are woefully weak.
Now, I will say that not all lefty blogs are that way. Vinny's place, for example, allows for serious discussion without the arrogance and condescension. Whether he feels it or not is another story, but based on my experiences there, I will not make such assumptions.
But Feodor is really a special case. I've checked out his own stuff and found it more cryptic than his comments here. He must really think he's a smart dude. Yet, and very much like Geoff, he often doesn't even understand his own sources, as a recent discussion over Locke began to demonstrate. Just remember that with him, he only impresses himself and the frog in his pocket.
I get that, it's just that Feodor (along with a couple of others) just seems to suck me down with him. I just need t o be able to step back and not get involved, it just doesn't seem to work. It doesn't help when Feodor goes into his "I don't care what your source is it cannot possibly be as good as mine" crap. I don't mind contentious argument, I just can't stand the pretentious pompous attitude you get from Feo and Geoff.
I've been visiting Dan's place lately. He, at least until recently, has still been engaging here, so I check his stuff out more than Geoff's. And I can still enjoy Alan's rapier wit at the same time. (Where's that sarcasm font?)
You wouldn't know Locke if you saw him outside your back door. As evidenced by your inability to process the significance of his "reason over revelation" passages I spoon fed you.
"You wouldn't know Locke if you saw him outside your back door."
Not surprising since I've never laid on eyes on even a picture of the dude. But you thought he was an atheist. I showed he wasn't. You've never countered my evidence. You don't know him as well as you think you do.
"As evidenced by your inability to process the significance of his "reason over revelation" passages I spoon fed you."
First of all, child, all you spoon feed is drivel. You never deliver anything of significance. Secondly, what you did deliver does not trump the premise of the origin of morality. All you've done is present what Locke thinks. Unlike yourself, I worship and trust God, not Locke. Funny how you rely on humans to support your wacky understanding of God. Is that what they teach you when learning to become a false priest?
You know if your words and comments weren't so stupid and lacking in the intelligence you like readers to believe you have, I'd give you props for continuing to visit. But instead, you bring to mind the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. You think you're winning no matter how many limbs are hacked off. That's kinda pathetic, really. But you keep tryin' Skippy. I'm rootin' for ya!
"Not surprising since I've never laid on eyes on even a picture of the dud."
There's your problem right there. If you'd read his books, you'd have run across his portrait.
"But you thought he was an atheist. I showed he wasn't."
Not true. I'd be as pitiful a reader as you if I had placed all those Lockean passages on your blog for serendipity and thought he was an atheist. What I said was that, according to your little sand box of faith, you'd have to judge that he was just another left-wing liberal making up his own doctrines.
"Reason before revelation" would be one example. There are others, but you'd have to be read books.
Your "evidence"? It was a letter that every student finds included in every course of his essays. You're childishly overblown, here.
"Funny how you rely on humans to support your wacky understanding of God."
I'm certain that everything you and I can know about God comes from our own relating to God - therefore, since we are human, we necessarily rely on our human capacity to relate to God - or other human beings, whether Jesus Christ, the saints in heaven, or the saints on earth. Again, Marshall, relying on that black dog of yours is just not the way to go: it's not God.
You remind me of someone the Red Queen describes: "It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place." But not, alas, the Red Queen Principle.
"There's your problem right there. If you'd read his books, you'd have run across his portrait."
It's hardly a problem for me. I get on just fine without reading Locke. It seems, however, to be a problem for you now that you HAVE read his stuff, especially since, based on what you've presented here, you don't seem to understand it.
"Not true. I'd be as pitiful a reader as you if I had placed all those Lockean passages on your blog for serendipity and thought he was an atheist. What I said was that, according to your little sand box of faith, you'd have to judge that he was just another left-wing liberal making up his own doctrines."
True enough since after the evidence I provided, your response was that he was trying to scam by writing that letter. Now you say different? You don't really know, do you? In addition, how you'd THINK I'd have to judge shows how little you understand my "little sandbox of faith". You be better served to worry on your own little sandbox of faith, which the cat uses regularly. Those aren't chocolates buried there.
"Again, Marshall, relying on that black dog of yours is just not the way to go: it's not God."
That's funny. I rely on Scripture. Where I look to scholars at all is when I might need clarification on translations of ancient languages. In that, I choose those who do so objectively in a path toward understanding God's terms, not to find ways to make personal desires acceptable when they aren't. Funnier still is that every incident where you've looked to Scripture, you've read into passages meanings that aren't suggested by the words. Your belief in God's sanctioning of polygamy as opposed to his toleration of it is a good example that comes to mind. You need to believe that to give you any chance of justifying that you believe we should be accepting of sinful homo behavior. But both are woefully false.
I've got news for you. I'm not running at all, thus I do stay in the same place. That place is the Truth of God as clearly presented to us all in Scripture. Your corruption of Scripture is obvious and your lack of understanding more so. All that education...
I didn't say "scam," Marshall. You're getting a bad case of defensiveness and cheap turns while on the run, lately. My point was that he was using persuasion in order to protect market share.
"I rely on Scripture. Where I look to scholars at all is when I might need clarification on translations of ancient languages."
You do know, don't you, that we have no original manuscript? Nor do we have a single authoritative copy, right? We have an assortment of serial copies from which scholars make educated guesses about age and reliability and then editorial boards choose verse by verse which variation they think to be be likely more genuine.
You stand on a stack of scholars and evaluative rationale when you say, "scripture," Marshall. Scholars... sometimes known as human beings. All that you have, Marshall, as a source of faith, are human beings.
Unless you claim that God has given you a direct revelation. And then, as Locke says, to communicate that revelation to anyone else, you'd have to use human language, human concepts, and rely on human understanding. That's why he sees no use for revelation except as limited in the life of the one receiving any such thing.
All you have is your faith, Marshall, and that is implicitly and explicitly built on your trusting a ton of human beings. All the more reason to be humble with one's faith.
"Typical of you that you cannot quote the real thing, but an offhand correlate, where Mr. Locke is covering his ass from the Bishop of Worcester."
Covering his ass? That's a scam. Liars play games with semantics. Typical of false priests.
"You do know, don't you, that we have no original manuscript?"
Is that supposed to be a newsflash? Comparisons of the many copies having yeilded what scholars believe to be as accurate an understanding of what the originals said to satisfy all but the progressive ilk. The lion's share of differences among them were minor ones that didn't affect the message. Recreating the message to its exact form is far different from interpreting the message itself.
But let's set aside all that diversion once again and get back to what you think scored the winning point: whether man's ability to reason matters or not does NOT trump the initial point of that discussion, which was that all truth comes from God. He is the source of those absolutes. They were not invented by man but were realized by him by whatever means sends a tingle up your leg. I happen to give proper credence and respect to Scripture so I believe that those truths were handed down by God through His prophets, apostles and Self. Your used kitty litter box you call faith can't accomodate that for the presence of so much shit deposited by humans too far removed from the Source and upon whom you so heavily rely for your "truth". YOU rely on human beings. I rely on God through His Scripture. That He used men to write down the words and translate them later does not diminish my source whatsoever, since I believe He has faithfully transmitted what He intended to through these men. I place my trust in Him. It is and always has been YOU who places his trust in men. The real trouble is the men in whom you've chosen to place that trust.
"Covering his ass" = "scam" and can't = "protecting his market share"?
Either you've never taken the SAT or English is your second language. You're just making yourself up now, Marshall. That's when I know that you know that we both know that you're losing the argument. When you lead with bare idiocy rather than unconscious idiocy. _______
"Comparisons of the many copies having yielded what scholars believe to be as accurate an understanding of what the originals said to satisfy all but the progressive ilk. The lion's share of differences among them were minor ones that didn't affect the message. Recreating the message to its exact form is far different from interpreting the message itself."
All entirely wrong and ignorant.
Apparently you are unaware of the "apparatus" that is included in every Greek text of the New Testament that explains how the symbols - shot through the whole testament - represent multiple variants and how these variants are labeled A for "probably reliable" to "D" for impossible to tell.
I am aware that you are unaware of this, since you've never studied any of this. But I'll include this note from the recent publication of a new Greek text which comments on the two - the UBS and Nestle-Aland, that form the basis of all bibles, save the King James (which is based on the Textus Receptus, formed from only six manuscripts, none of them early, all of which are incomplete and don't contain the whole New Testament:
"This publication of The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text marks the first time in the twentieth century that a critical edition of the Greek New Testament has used the vast bulk of extant manuscripts as a basis for its text. This text therefore represents a sharp departure from the kind of text found in the currently popular third edition of the United Bible Societies Greek Testament and in the twenty-sixth edition of the Nestle-Aland text. The Majority Text New Testament abandons the one-hundred-year-old theories of Westcott and Hort and the resulting reliance on a few older Egyptian-based manuscripts. It offers students and scholars of the Greek New Testament a significant and viable option to the form of text that has enjoyed currency in recent decades, but which cries out for critical reassessment."
Your faith must necessarily stand on the shoulders of millions of people throughout the ages, all saints, some scholars, copyists, translators, publishers, etc. There's no way around it. You're going to have to trust such people, willingly or unwillingly, to have faith in God.
Why would he need to "cover his ass" unless what he was saying is or could be considered wrong? YOU made the claim that he questioned Christ's divinity but the offering I presented showed otherwise. One who preaches the Trinity, or one who believes in it, can't deny Christ's divinity at the same time. So to say that he was covering his ass in light of what YOU claim about the man is a scam to divert attention from his less than orthodox beliefs. You can't have it both ways, Skippy.
"All entirely wrong and ignorant."
Yet nothing that follows this erroneous statement supports it in the least, and actually supports what you claim is wrong in my statement.
"...the first time in the twentieth century that a critical edition of the Greek New Testament has used the vast bulk of extant manuscripts as a basis for its text."
Whether I was referring to this very example, which my previous comments do not mention, or what came before, my original comment is correct. What exists now is based on comparing available manuscripts to determine what the original likely looked like. It is a matter of translation of original language, not interpretation of the message of those manuscripts. Interpretation of the message comes later and for my part, I rely mostly on my own because I believe that the text was meant for all, not just the scholarly and as such is not the cryptic and mysterious tome that liberal liars need it to be in order to justify their self-serving beliefs.
Furthermore and to reiterate, my faith is in God Who is fully capable of getting His message imparted intact through whomever He so chooses to use. I believe, those who have continued through the ages to keep alive the Words of God found in the many books of the Bible, have done so rather faithfully and accurately as so much scholarly study of the matter bears out.
YOU on the other hand, don't make a move without the words of philosophers and liberal theologians telling you what to think. Thus you believe everyone relies on humans for their faith. You're such a sad, pathetic case.
"It is a matter of translation of original language, not interpretation of the message of those manuscripts."
You still don't get it. The manuscripts do not agree. Hundreds of verses in the New Testament say different things. We have not idea which one or if anyone is "original." We have copies of copies, and therefore mistaken copies of copies which themselves may be mistaken. But we have not real clue to what may be more likely to be original than principles of your dreaded "interpretation" by scholars.
So, even if you knew koine greek, Marshall, there's no chance for you to be certain about hundreds of passages.
And this is just gobbledygook which infers that you just make it up and stick to it with a stubbornness that is not faith at all: "I believe that the text was meant for all, not just the scholarly and as such is not the cryptic and mysterious tome that liberal liars need it to be..."
Locke had to cover his ass because the church was bringing heavy pressure, not liking his verging on heresy at all. His attempt to demonstrate that his interpretations could be seen as within the boundaries of orthodoxy was just that: an argument from his viewpoint that the church needed to see things a little more interpretive room because when human beings reflect about God, the possibility within faith is that fresh approaches are found out. Perhaps this is the dual belief in the capacity of human reason (created by God with ever-renewing creativity) to work out a deeper knowledge of God's nature and the presence of the Holy Spirit.
In essence, same dynamic in which many in the church are experiencing and witnessing the welcoming of gay and lesbian folks as full, righteous brothers and sisters: reason and the clear presence of the Holy Spirit.
YOUR liberal scholars think the disparities are significant. My more reasonable and objective scholars do not. YOUR liberal scholars NEED the disparities to be significant in order to allow for unBiblical beliefs to be acceptable. My scholars have no agenda beyond knowing the truth as best as can be ascertained. My scholars say the differences are minimal and do not change the message. YOUR scholars crave uncertainty and use whatever insignificant uncertainty there is to believe what they want, rather than what they should.
There is no such thing as "working out a deeper knowledge of God's nature and the presence of the Holy Spirit" if that means contradicting what the Bible says so clearly. That would be a clear fraud, which is what YOU are, to believe you can "work out" that God blesses homo behavior and/or unions in any way, shape or form. Queers have always been full, righteous brothers and sisters in the same way thieve, murderers and the willfully stupid like yourself are. But like all brothers and sisters they are expected to repent of their sinful behaviors.
Art, what Feodor is trying to say in his own pseudo-intellectual style, is this:
"The Bible has been translated so many times, it can't possibly be accurate".
This is the excuse created by so-called Bible Seminar scholars that gives them license to do whatever they want regardless of what they know God tells them to do.
By pretending God didn't really say that. It is also the first lie Satan told to Adam and Eve in the garden:
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Feodor, like the Bible Seminar scholars, has simply chosen to believe the lie. He, like they, wants to be like God.
Evil man has been trying to attain the level of God since Adam. It is the original sin.
As we read in Isaiah 14:13-14:
You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High."
This is the reason for Feodor's argument. He simply wants to be like God.
And we know what happened to the first rebellious spirit who tried to attain that lofty ambition.
"My scholars have no agenda beyond knowing the truth as best as can be ascertained. My scholars say the differences are minimal and do not change the message."
Just who are your greek new testament scholars, Marshall?
I'll offer a name or two later if you can justify your position why my "helicopter guy" must be dismissed because he's a "helicopter guy". I notice that you've never made any mention of the other guy in the equation, and the fact that you know the one is in the field dealing with helicopters is just an excuse to trash his knowledge of the Bible. Pretty lame tactic, but typical of the false priest looking to justify unBiblical stances. What is the minimum time sacrificed to a study that suits your demand? How would have any idea of knowing just how long and how deeply this man has studied Scripture, and what makes you think he needs the same time and effort put forth by someone like yourself who has never shown any real wisdom despite your education level? Do you think lack of sheepskin in the field of Biblical study automatically implies he cannot be expert in his knowledge? Are you so pathetically lame as to believe such a thing? (I know a mechanic who never spent a minute in an automotive institution and I would put his knowledge and ability against anyone's.) This is the same stupidity shown by Alan over Glen Beck's statement of how much he learned about history and politics by his personal study in public libraries.
So explain to me why Hodges is beneath the consideration of a false priest like yourself, and explain where he goes wrong in his explanation of why some Levitical laws still apply and others don't. If you can do that, I'll be quicker in providing an answer to your question (if I decide to provide one at all---you don't rate such respect). Frankly, I don't have confidence you won't try to trash anyone I put forth, so you'll first need to explain yourself about Hodges. This should be entertaining.
I'm just saying, I don't remember the helicopter guy being a koine greek scholar. I'm sure he uses the resources of a bible student when it comes to researching the variants in the greek texts. Metzger, the Arndt/Gingrich Bauer lexicon, Aland/Aland, etc. etc.
These are the same sources which detail the massive amount of variations which we cannot date with accuracy or evaluate reliably as to which, if any, come from the original.
So, I assume his trust in these greek scholars - very learned ones from elite institutions like Princeton and hoity toity German universities. According to you, they may well be leading him astray and he knew nothing about it, and, in turn, you are lead astray.
But I doubt it. You seem dedicated to the hard, stony path.
Thank God, I have the living, rising Christ, not the one still dead in ink and paper. And I have the bright minds God endows and uses for holy purposes, to expand the kingdom of love ever more perfectly.
Mark does not get that we have no original inspired documents, does he?
Copies, Mark, not translations are the issue. All we have are imperfectly copied greek manuscripts. We know they are "imperfect" because they differ so much and come from different centuries, though we do not know exactly how old any one of them is.
First off, if you think you get points for pointing out Mark said "translations" rather than "copies", I'm sorry to tell you you don't. The point is the same that lib theologians will contend that we can't trust what now is called our Bible because of human error. You're making the same issue in your own slithering manner.
If you were referring to Bruce Metzger, I would have mentioned him as one of my sources. He is one who finds no significant differences amongst the many manuscript copies used to divine what the originals said. Even the number of differences are less than advertised in the sense that if 2000 copies each have the same misspelled word, it is counted as 2000 variations. In other cases, some words might be out of order, but in the ancient Greek, order isn't as necessary as in our language. That is, in English, to say "Dog bites man" is different from "Man bites dog". But the Greek doesn't work that way and meanings are not confused because of word order in a sentence. What needs to be offered by such as you would be tracts that are totally different in one copy compared to others, something that contains doctrine contrary to another copy. Those don't exist. Indeed, if they did, they'd be common knowledge and at the forefront of any discussion regarding the truth of the Bible.
So you can pretend I'm dealing with dead ink on a page while you pretend to hear new mandates from on high. Whatever makes you feel less guilty about supporting sinfulness, dude. You won't be missed in Paradise. In the meantime, I'll hold fast to that which has been revealed to us as God meant it to be and seek to conform my thoughts, desires and actions to that, rather than insist God conform to me. Which in absolute truth is what you are doing.
Still waiting to hear what was wrong with Oliff and Hodges' presentation. So far, it seems what was wrong was that it wasn't in more simple language that highly educated progressives can understand.
I am not interested in arguing the point with Feodor. And I won't. I simply pointed out the argument that Feodor is using is an old argument repeated ad nauseum by heretics, apostates, and liars throughout history, and has no more validity now then it did when it was first posited by the serpent in the garden. Thus, Feodor is in the company of the great Satanists of history.
Nothing new to see here, folks. Move along.
Again, I will not argue with Feodor, because, being a Liberal, Feodor exhibits Truths about Liberals number 2: "Never try to reason with a liberal. They disregard any evidence that conflicts with their beliefs."
Thus, there is no point in arguing with him. And so, I don't.
The fact is, God has enough power to insure His word remains unchanged, regardless of what so-called Biblical scholars say. Feodor regards himself as some kind of expert on the Bible, I wonder what the words, "Not one jot or tittle" means to him.
I think if God wants to be heard and understood in 17th century English, so be it. You obviously wouldn't understand it if he spoke in 21st century ghetto speak.
33 comments:
HEY! Art learned to upload videos!
And you taught me! Of course, I've posted one or two already since I first became enlightened.
Since things have been so slow here, I've had to engage in a bizzarre discussion with Geoffy. These guys are so wrapped up in preconceptions that they would argue about whether the sky is blue.
Craig,
I'm sorry you felt a visit there would go well, that you wouldn't muddy your feet upon your first step. That alone compels me to work harder to come up with subject matter so as to prevent such an event from re-occurring. I went there and found only one post where you showed up; I guess the previous dropped off and Geoffie's crap ain't worth the effort of tip-toeing through his archives.
I will myself drop in there on occasion. There seems to be little effort to engage in discussion there anymore, if there ever was. He seems content to continually make statements he won't support regarding right-wing figures, be they celebrity or lowly bloggers. He's equally short of evidence for his opinions on issues, making ourrageous, albeit typical, lefty charges as if they are true.
And then of course there's Alan, another condescending psuedo-sophisticate who prefers snark to real engagement, as if his positions are actually settled fact.
Geoffie says he sees no point in trying to debate issues as if there will never be any common ground. That would make more sense if he ever did. He usually defaults to the "you don't know science" (for example) type of retort and then drops out as if he can find no way to explain those incredibly complex issues to the unwashed of which he finds us to be a part. The fact is, he's a coward, well read (sorta Feodor-like)but lacking in real ability to be clear, to defend his weak positions, or to understand simple points being made by even some people he lauds.
Yet, I still welcome such as he anytime he and others like him wish to wipe their noses and engage like adults. I just don't hold my breath.
I know, I made the mistake of thinking that he might be interested in some information regarding one of his posts. Instead I got the "I'm not going to change my mind no matter what the facts are". Oh well, it could have been worse.
Looking forward to some new posts though.
Good grief Feodor is an idiot. I've got to stop going (or at least commenting) to/on the dark side.
I dunno, Craig. I'm conflicted. It's really no different than when they come to our blogs, except that their contempt and hatred is far more evident. I often consider the readers who never comment and hope that perhaps I've given them something to consider, though my powers of persuasion are woefully weak.
Now, I will say that not all lefty blogs are that way. Vinny's place, for example, allows for serious discussion without the arrogance and condescension. Whether he feels it or not is another story, but based on my experiences there, I will not make such assumptions.
But Feodor is really a special case. I've checked out his own stuff and found it more cryptic than his comments here. He must really think he's a smart dude. Yet, and very much like Geoff, he often doesn't even understand his own sources, as a recent discussion over Locke began to demonstrate. Just remember that with him, he only impresses himself and the frog in his pocket.
Marshall,
I get that, it's just that Feodor (along with a couple of others) just seems to suck me down with him. I just need t o be able to step back and not get involved, it just doesn't seem to work. It doesn't help when Feodor goes into his "I don't care what your source is it cannot possibly be as good as mine" crap. I don't mind contentious argument, I just can't stand the pretentious pompous attitude you get from Feo and Geoff.
Craig,
I've been visiting Dan's place lately. He, at least until recently, has still been engaging here, so I check his stuff out more than Geoff's. And I can still enjoy Alan's rapier wit at the same time. (Where's that sarcasm font?)
Marshall,
You wouldn't know Locke if you saw him outside your back door. As evidenced by your inability to process the significance of his "reason over revelation" passages I spoon fed you.
"You wouldn't know Locke if you saw him outside your back door."
Not surprising since I've never laid on eyes on even a picture of the dude. But you thought he was an atheist. I showed he wasn't. You've never countered my evidence. You don't know him as well as you think you do.
"As evidenced by your inability to process the significance of his "reason over revelation" passages I spoon fed you."
First of all, child, all you spoon feed is drivel. You never deliver anything of significance. Secondly, what you did deliver does not trump the premise of the origin of morality. All you've done is present what Locke thinks. Unlike yourself, I worship and trust God, not Locke. Funny how you rely on humans to support your wacky understanding of God. Is that what they teach you when learning to become a false priest?
You know if your words and comments weren't so stupid and lacking in the intelligence you like readers to believe you have, I'd give you props for continuing to visit. But instead, you bring to mind the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. You think you're winning no matter how many limbs are hacked off. That's kinda pathetic, really. But you keep tryin' Skippy. I'm rootin' for ya!
"Not surprising since I've never laid on eyes on even a picture of the dud."
There's your problem right there. If you'd read his books, you'd have run across his portrait.
"But you thought he was an atheist. I showed he wasn't."
Not true. I'd be as pitiful a reader as you if I had placed all those Lockean passages on your blog for serendipity and thought he was an atheist. What I said was that, according to your little sand box of faith, you'd have to judge that he was just another left-wing liberal making up his own doctrines.
"Reason before revelation" would be one example. There are others, but you'd have to be read books.
Your "evidence"? It was a letter that every student finds included in every course of his essays. You're childishly overblown, here.
"Funny how you rely on humans to support your wacky understanding of God."
I'm certain that everything you and I can know about God comes from our own relating to God - therefore, since we are human, we necessarily rely on our human capacity to relate to God - or other human beings, whether Jesus Christ, the saints in heaven, or the saints on earth. Again, Marshall, relying on that black dog of yours is just not the way to go: it's not God.
You remind me of someone the Red Queen describes: "It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place." But not, alas, the Red Queen Principle.
"There's your problem right there. If you'd read his books, you'd have run across his portrait."
It's hardly a problem for me. I get on just fine without reading Locke. It seems, however, to be a problem for you now that you HAVE read his stuff, especially since, based on what you've presented here, you don't seem to understand it.
"Not true. I'd be as pitiful a reader as you if I had placed all those Lockean passages on your blog for serendipity and thought he was an atheist. What I said was that, according to your little sand box of faith, you'd have to judge that he was just another left-wing liberal making up his own doctrines."
True enough since after the evidence I provided, your response was that he was trying to scam by writing that letter. Now you say different? You don't really know, do you? In addition, how you'd THINK I'd have to judge shows how little you understand my "little sandbox of faith". You be better served to worry on your own little sandbox of faith, which the cat uses regularly. Those aren't chocolates buried there.
"Again, Marshall, relying on that black dog of yours is just not the way to go: it's not God."
That's funny. I rely on Scripture. Where I look to scholars at all is when I might need clarification on translations of ancient languages. In that, I choose those who do so objectively in a path toward understanding God's terms, not to find ways to make personal desires acceptable when they aren't. Funnier still is that every incident where you've looked to Scripture, you've read into passages meanings that aren't suggested by the words. Your belief in God's sanctioning of polygamy as opposed to his toleration of it is a good example that comes to mind. You need to believe that to give you any chance of justifying that you believe we should be accepting of sinful homo behavior. But both are woefully false.
I've got news for you. I'm not running at all, thus I do stay in the same place. That place is the Truth of God as clearly presented to us all in Scripture. Your corruption of Scripture is obvious and your lack of understanding more so. All that education...
I didn't say "scam," Marshall. You're getting a bad case of defensiveness and cheap turns while on the run, lately. My point was that he was using persuasion in order to protect market share.
"I rely on Scripture. Where I look to scholars at all is when I might need clarification on translations of ancient languages."
You do know, don't you, that we have no original manuscript? Nor do we have a single authoritative copy, right? We have an assortment of serial copies from which scholars make educated guesses about age and reliability and then editorial boards choose verse by verse which variation they think to be be likely more genuine.
You stand on a stack of scholars and evaluative rationale when you say, "scripture," Marshall. Scholars... sometimes known as human beings. All that you have, Marshall, as a source of faith, are human beings.
Unless you claim that God has given you a direct revelation. And then, as Locke says, to communicate that revelation to anyone else, you'd have to use human language, human concepts, and rely on human understanding. That's why he sees no use for revelation except as limited in the life of the one receiving any such thing.
All you have is your faith, Marshall, and that is implicitly and explicitly built on your trusting a ton of human beings. All the more reason to be humble with one's faith.
"Typical of you that you cannot quote the real thing, but an offhand correlate, where Mr. Locke is covering his ass from the Bishop of Worcester."
Covering his ass? That's a scam. Liars play games with semantics. Typical of false priests.
"You do know, don't you, that we have no original manuscript?"
Is that supposed to be a newsflash? Comparisons of the many copies having yeilded what scholars believe to be as accurate an understanding of what the originals said to satisfy all but the progressive ilk. The lion's share of differences among them were minor ones that didn't affect the message. Recreating the message to its exact form is far different from interpreting the message itself.
But let's set aside all that diversion once again and get back to what you think scored the winning point: whether man's ability to reason matters or not does NOT trump the initial point of that discussion, which was that all truth comes from God. He is the source of those absolutes. They were not invented by man but were realized by him by whatever means sends a tingle up your leg. I happen to give proper credence and respect to Scripture so I believe that those truths were handed down by God through His prophets, apostles and Self. Your used kitty litter box you call faith can't accomodate that for the presence of so much shit deposited by humans too far removed from the Source and upon whom you so heavily rely for your "truth". YOU rely on human beings. I rely on God through His Scripture. That He used men to write down the words and translate them later does not diminish my source whatsoever, since I believe He has faithfully transmitted what He intended to through these men. I place my trust in Him. It is and always has been YOU who places his trust in men. The real trouble is the men in whom you've chosen to place that trust.
"Covering his ass" = "scam" and can't = "protecting his market share"?
Either you've never taken the SAT or English is your second language. You're just making yourself up now, Marshall. That's when I know that you know that we both know that you're losing the argument. When you lead with bare idiocy rather than unconscious idiocy.
_______
"Comparisons of the many copies having yielded what scholars believe to be as accurate an understanding of what the originals said to satisfy all but the progressive ilk. The lion's share of differences among them were minor ones that didn't affect the message. Recreating the message to its exact form is far different from interpreting the message itself."
All entirely wrong and ignorant.
Apparently you are unaware of the "apparatus" that is included in every Greek text of the New Testament that explains how the symbols - shot through the whole testament - represent multiple variants and how these variants are labeled A for "probably reliable" to "D" for impossible to tell.
I am aware that you are unaware of this, since you've never studied any of this. But I'll include this note from the recent publication of a new Greek text which comments on the two - the UBS and Nestle-Aland, that form the basis of all bibles, save the King James (which is based on the Textus Receptus, formed from only six manuscripts, none of them early, all of which are incomplete and don't contain the whole New Testament:
"This publication of The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text marks the first time in the twentieth century that a critical edition of the Greek New Testament has used the vast bulk of extant manuscripts as a basis for its text. This text therefore represents a sharp departure from the kind of text found in the currently popular third edition of the United Bible Societies Greek Testament and in the twenty-sixth edition of the Nestle-Aland text. The Majority Text New Testament abandons the one-hundred-year-old theories of Westcott and Hort and the resulting reliance on a few older Egyptian-based manuscripts. It offers students and scholars of the Greek New Testament a significant and viable option to the form of text that has enjoyed currency in recent decades, but which cries out for critical reassessment."
Your faith must necessarily stand on the shoulders of millions of people throughout the ages, all saints, some scholars, copyists, translators, publishers, etc. There's no way around it. You're going to have to trust such people, willingly or unwillingly, to have faith in God.
Why would he need to "cover his ass" unless what he was saying is or could be considered wrong? YOU made the claim that he questioned Christ's divinity but the offering I presented showed otherwise. One who preaches the Trinity, or one who believes in it, can't deny Christ's divinity at the same time. So to say that he was covering his ass in light of what YOU claim about the man is a scam to divert attention from his less than orthodox beliefs. You can't have it both ways, Skippy.
"All entirely wrong and ignorant."
Yet nothing that follows this erroneous statement supports it in the least, and actually supports what you claim is wrong in my statement.
"...the first time in the twentieth century that a critical edition of the Greek New Testament has used the vast bulk of extant manuscripts as a basis for its text."
Whether I was referring to this very example, which my previous comments do not mention, or what came before, my original comment is correct. What exists now is based on comparing available manuscripts to determine what the original likely looked like. It is a matter of translation of original language, not interpretation of the message of those manuscripts. Interpretation of the message comes later and for my part, I rely mostly on my own because I believe that the text was meant for all, not just the scholarly and as such is not the cryptic and mysterious tome that liberal liars need it to be in order to justify their self-serving beliefs.
Furthermore and to reiterate, my faith is in God Who is fully capable of getting His message imparted intact through whomever He so chooses to use. I believe, those who have continued through the ages to keep alive the Words of God found in the many books of the Bible, have done so rather faithfully and accurately as so much scholarly study of the matter bears out.
YOU on the other hand, don't make a move without the words of philosophers and liberal theologians telling you what to think. Thus you believe everyone relies on humans for their faith. You're such a sad, pathetic case.
"It is a matter of translation of original language, not interpretation of the message of those manuscripts."
You still don't get it. The manuscripts do not agree. Hundreds of verses in the New Testament say different things. We have not idea which one or if anyone is "original." We have copies of copies, and therefore mistaken copies of copies which themselves may be mistaken. But we have not real clue to what may be more likely to be original than principles of your dreaded "interpretation" by scholars.
So, even if you knew koine greek, Marshall, there's no chance for you to be certain about hundreds of passages.
And this is just gobbledygook which infers that you just make it up and stick to it with a stubbornness that is not faith at all: "I believe that the text was meant for all, not just the scholarly and as such is not the cryptic and mysterious tome that liberal liars need it to be..."
Locke had to cover his ass because the church was bringing heavy pressure, not liking his verging on heresy at all. His attempt to demonstrate that his interpretations could be seen as within the boundaries of orthodoxy was just that: an argument from his viewpoint that the church needed to see things a little more interpretive room because when human beings reflect about God, the possibility within faith is that fresh approaches are found out. Perhaps this is the dual belief in the capacity of human reason (created by God with ever-renewing creativity) to work out a deeper knowledge of God's nature and the presence of the Holy Spirit.
In essence, same dynamic in which many in the church are experiencing and witnessing the welcoming of gay and lesbian folks as full, righteous brothers and sisters: reason and the clear presence of the Holy Spirit.
Locke and gay rights, together again. Ta da!!!
YOUR liberal scholars think the disparities are significant. My more reasonable and objective scholars do not. YOUR liberal scholars NEED the disparities to be significant in order to allow for unBiblical beliefs to be acceptable. My scholars have no agenda beyond knowing the truth as best as can be ascertained. My scholars say the differences are minimal and do not change the message. YOUR scholars crave uncertainty and use whatever insignificant uncertainty there is to believe what they want, rather than what they should.
There is no such thing as "working out a deeper knowledge of God's nature and the presence of the Holy Spirit" if that means contradicting what the Bible says so clearly. That would be a clear fraud, which is what YOU are, to believe you can "work out" that God blesses homo behavior and/or unions in any way, shape or form. Queers have always been full, righteous brothers and sisters in the same way thieve, murderers and the willfully stupid like yourself are. But like all brothers and sisters they are expected to repent of their sinful behaviors.
Art, what Feodor is trying to say in his own pseudo-intellectual style, is this:
"The Bible has been translated so many times, it can't possibly be accurate".
This is the excuse created by so-called Bible Seminar scholars that gives them license to do whatever they want regardless of what they know God tells them to do.
By pretending God didn't really say that. It is also the first lie Satan told to Adam and Eve in the garden:
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Feodor, like the Bible Seminar scholars, has simply chosen to believe the lie. He, like they, wants to be like God.
Evil man has been trying to attain the level of God since Adam. It is the original sin.
As we read in Isaiah 14:13-14:
You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High."
This is the reason for Feodor's argument. He simply wants to be like God.
And we know what happened to the first rebellious spirit who tried to attain that lofty ambition.
"My scholars have no agenda beyond knowing the truth as best as can be ascertained. My scholars say the differences are minimal and do not change the message."
Just who are your greek new testament scholars, Marshall?
Not the helicopter guy, surely?!
I'll offer a name or two later if you can justify your position why my "helicopter guy" must be dismissed because he's a "helicopter guy". I notice that you've never made any mention of the other guy in the equation, and the fact that you know the one is in the field dealing with helicopters is just an excuse to trash his knowledge of the Bible. Pretty lame tactic, but typical of the false priest looking to justify unBiblical stances. What is the minimum time sacrificed to a study that suits your demand? How would have any idea of knowing just how long and how deeply this man has studied Scripture, and what makes you think he needs the same time and effort put forth by someone like yourself who has never shown any real wisdom despite your education level? Do you think lack of sheepskin in the field of Biblical study automatically implies he cannot be expert in his knowledge? Are you so pathetically lame as to believe such a thing? (I know a mechanic who never spent a minute in an automotive institution and I would put his knowledge and ability against anyone's.) This is the same stupidity shown by Alan over Glen Beck's statement of how much he learned about history and politics by his personal study in public libraries.
So explain to me why Hodges is beneath the consideration of a false priest like yourself, and explain where he goes wrong in his explanation of why some Levitical laws still apply and others don't. If you can do that, I'll be quicker in providing an answer to your question (if I decide to provide one at all---you don't rate such respect). Frankly, I don't have confidence you won't try to trash anyone I put forth, so you'll first need to explain yourself about Hodges. This should be entertaining.
I'm just saying, I don't remember the helicopter guy being a koine greek scholar. I'm sure he uses the resources of a bible student when it comes to researching the variants in the greek texts. Metzger, the Arndt/Gingrich Bauer lexicon, Aland/Aland, etc. etc.
These are the same sources which detail the massive amount of variations which we cannot date with accuracy or evaluate reliably as to which, if any, come from the original.
So, I assume his trust in these greek scholars - very learned ones from elite institutions like Princeton and hoity toity German universities. According to you, they may well be leading him astray and he knew nothing about it, and, in turn, you are lead astray.
But I doubt it. You seem dedicated to the hard, stony path.
Thank God, I have the living, rising Christ, not the one still dead in ink and paper. And I have the bright minds God endows and uses for holy purposes, to expand the kingdom of love ever more perfectly.
Mark does not get that we have no original inspired documents, does he?
Copies, Mark, not translations are the issue. All we have are imperfectly copied greek manuscripts. We know they are "imperfect" because they differ so much and come from different centuries, though we do not know exactly how old any one of them is.
So, which one did God keep right, Mark?
First off, if you think you get points for pointing out Mark said "translations" rather than "copies", I'm sorry to tell you you don't. The point is the same that lib theologians will contend that we can't trust what now is called our Bible because of human error. You're making the same issue in your own slithering manner.
If you were referring to Bruce Metzger, I would have mentioned him as one of my sources. He is one who finds no significant differences amongst the many manuscript copies used to divine what the originals said. Even the number of differences are less than advertised in the sense that if 2000 copies each have the same misspelled word, it is counted as 2000 variations. In other cases, some words might be out of order, but in the ancient Greek, order isn't as necessary as in our language. That is, in English, to say "Dog bites man" is different from "Man bites dog". But the Greek doesn't work that way and meanings are not confused because of word order in a sentence. What needs to be offered by such as you would be tracts that are totally different in one copy compared to others, something that contains doctrine contrary to another copy. Those don't exist. Indeed, if they did, they'd be common knowledge and at the forefront of any discussion regarding the truth of the Bible.
So you can pretend I'm dealing with dead ink on a page while you pretend to hear new mandates from on high. Whatever makes you feel less guilty about supporting sinfulness, dude. You won't be missed in Paradise. In the meantime, I'll hold fast to that which has been revealed to us as God meant it to be and seek to conform my thoughts, desires and actions to that, rather than insist God conform to me. Which in absolute truth is what you are doing.
Still waiting to hear what was wrong with Oliff and Hodges' presentation. So far, it seems what was wrong was that it wasn't in more simple language that highly educated progressives can understand.
I am not interested in arguing the point with Feodor. And I won't. I simply pointed out the argument that Feodor is using is an old argument repeated ad nauseum by heretics, apostates, and liars throughout history, and has no more validity now then it did when it was first posited by the serpent in the garden. Thus, Feodor is in the company of the great Satanists of history.
Nothing new to see here, folks. Move along.
Again, I will not argue with Feodor, because, being a Liberal, Feodor exhibits Truths about Liberals number 2: "Never try to reason with a liberal. They disregard any evidence that conflicts with their beliefs."
Thus, there is no point in arguing with him. And so, I don't.
The fact is, God has enough power to insure His word remains unchanged, regardless of what so-called Biblical scholars say. Feodor regards himself as some kind of expert on the Bible, I wonder what the words, "Not one jot or tittle" means to him.
Mark,
You'll find neither "jot" nor " tittle" in the text.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. ~ Matthew 5:18
But Feodor says the text doesn't say that...So, now, I'm wondering...Whom shall we believe? Feodor or God? Gee. What a dilemma!
Don't bother to respond, Feodor. I know what you'll say.
"the text has been copied inaccurately", or "the text has been translated wrong. It doesn't really say that."
If you don't mind, Feodor, I prefer to believe God over anything you and/or your liberal Jesus seminar so-called scholar friends say.
Is that the way you think God speaks, in seventeenth century English?
Marshall, Metzger argued that the early church did not find "inspired by God" to be qualification enough to be included in the NT canon.
I think if God wants to be heard and understood in 17th century English, so be it. You obviously wouldn't understand it if he spoke in 21st century ghetto speak.
"Marshall, Metzger argued that the early church did not find "inspired by God" to be qualification enough to be included in the NT canon."
Thanks for another totally irrelevant comment. What's that got to do with anything?
Post a Comment