Advertisement
by Neo Rome Republic » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:22 am
by Nationalist State of Knox » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:29 am
The Archregimancy wrote:Nationalist State of Knox wrote: the Bible, with authorship traditionally attributed to a single individual per book(s) (such as Moses for the Pentateuch), is instead the combination of different works by different authors, carefully edited together.
I suppose I have to applaud the effort involved in writing that OP, but if the whole point was to reach the above conclusion - which I thought was common knowledge - I could likely have saved you the trouble with just two or three reputable academic citations.
Ifreann wrote:Knox: /ˈɡɪl.ɡə.mɛʃ/
by Dalmacie » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:30 am
The Archregimancy wrote:Perhaps, but then they're no more than 20% of all Christians, and likely a much smaller percentage than that. So it's a fairly poor broad generalisation if there's any implication that said view is shared more broadly within Christianity.
True, Evangelical Protestant Americans are a particularly loud and shouty group of Christians, but they're wholly unrepresentative of the totality thereof, so it's a regrettable debating tactic to pretend that they are.
Anyway, I've said it before, and I'll say it again... Evangelical American Protestants are actively damaging to Christianity.
by The Archregimancy » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:38 am
NEO Rome Republic wrote:The Archregimancy wrote:
I'm sorry, but I usually only take the trouble to debate people who actually understand the point of the posts to which they're replying.
That's a nice way to dodge the question . While I agree, that not all Christians have such as big a literal interpretation as others however, if you believe Jesus is the son of God and can perform miracles congratulations, you just took the Bible LITERALLY. If most or all Christians believe that about Jesus they are still taking it literally. If all Christians are taking that part of the bible LITERALLY, then my generalization is correct. All Christians still take the Bible literally one way or another.
The Archregimancy wrote:Daistallia 2104 wrote:Seriously - even among Xians, how is this even a question anymore?
It isn't; not for a large majority of Christians, anyway.
But it's no doubt fun to take the beliefs of a minority of a particular group, and then pretend that minority represents the majority, or even the totality.
by Neo Rome Republic » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:42 am
by The Archregimancy » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:48 am
NEO Rome Republic wrote: They do represent the majority as I've stated; They take the idea of Jesus being this Divine character as literally as you do. The only real differance is the depth of literal interpretion one denomination takes over another.Again, nothing I've said is wrong. You also, still went through the trouble of responding to me.
by Farnhamia » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:50 am
NEO Rome Republic wrote:The Archregimancy wrote:
I'm not 'dodging the question'.
It's just that the 'question' you apparently want to ask happens to be wholly unrelated to the point I was making in the post you were replying to.
This is what you're replying to:
And I say it again.... I usually only take the trouble to debate people who actually understand the point of the posts to which they're replying.
They do represent the majority as I've stated; They take the idea of Jesus being this Divine character as literally as you do. The only real differance is the depth of literal interpretion one denomination takes over another.Again, nothing I've said is wrong. You also, still went through the trouble of responding to me.
by Tyriece » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:50 am
by Neo Rome Republic » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:51 am
Farnhamia wrote:NEO Rome Republic wrote:
They do represent the majority as I've stated; They take the idea of Jesus being this Divine character as literally as you do. The only real differance is the depth of literal interpretion one denomination takes over another.Again, nothing I've said is wrong. You also, still went through the trouble of responding to me.
Arch is English and so polite. Don't push it, though, or he'll become Thrungur the Scourge of the Steppes and then you'll be sorry.
by Nationalist State of Knox » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:51 am
The Archregimancy wrote:NEO Rome Republic wrote: They do represent the majority as I've stated; They take the idea of Jesus being this Divine character as literally as you do. The only real differance is the depth of literal interpretion one denomination takes over another.Again, nothing I've said is wrong. You also, still went through the trouble of responding to me.
Since you're persistently completely missing the point - and the comment you think you're replying to wasn't even directed at you anyway - I can assure you that this is the last time I'll make the effort.
Ifreann wrote:Knox: /ˈɡɪl.ɡə.mɛʃ/
by Nationalist State of Knox » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:52 am
Tyriece wrote:Its a book of story's and old laws, do not really think there's much political aims.
Ifreann wrote:Knox: /ˈɡɪl.ɡə.mɛʃ/
by Hydronium » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:53 am
by Neo Rome Republic » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:54 am
by Tyriece » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:55 am
by Nationalist State of Knox » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:59 am
Ifreann wrote:Knox: /ˈɡɪl.ɡə.mɛʃ/
by The Archregimancy » Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:14 am
NEO Rome Republic wrote:The Archregimancy wrote:
Since you're persistently completely missing the point - and the comment you think you're replying to wasn't even directed at you anyway - I can assure you that this is the last time I'll make the effort.
The point was that certain literalist groups don't represent all Christians.
Nationalist State of Knox wrote:The Archregimancy wrote:Since you're persistently completely missing the point - and the comment you think you're replying to wasn't even directed at you anyway - I can assure you that this is the last time I'll make the effort.
Arch, do you happen to have a poll that shows what percentage of Christians/Jews believe in Mosaic authorship?
by Nightkill the Emperor » Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:15 am
Nat: Night's always in some bizarre state somewhere between "intoxicated enough to kill a hair metal lead singer" and "annoying Mormon missionary sober".
Swith: It's because you're so awesome. God himself refreshes the screen before he types just to see if Nightkill has written anything while he was off somewhere else.
by Neo Rome Republic » Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:15 am
The Archregimancy wrote:NEO Rome Republic wrote:
The point was that certain literalist groups don't represent all Christians.
No, that wasn't the point of the post to which you're replying.
The point of the post to which you're replying - which, I repeat, wasn't directed at you anyway - was to agree with Daistallia 2104 that the point posited in the OP about Biblical authorship simply wasn't much of an issue for most Christians.
You, however, persist in replying to a post that wasn't directed at you as if it were making a point about Biblical literalism.
The mistake you're apparently making in reading my post is conflating discussion of Biblical authorship with an entirely separate point you want to make about Biblical literalism; but the latter certainly isn't the point I was making, nor did I say anything about Biblical literalism in the post to which you're replying. Biblical authorship and Biblical literalism are separate academic issues; the former can be discussed without any consideration of the latter.
Again, there's little point in having a discussion with someone unless they actually understand the point of the posts to which they're replying.
Here, for reference, is a question from someone who did understand the point I was making:Nationalist State of Knox wrote:Arch, do you happen to have a poll that shows what percentage of Christians/Jews believe in Mosaic authorship?
So it doesn't look like it was really that hard a point to grasp.
by The Orson Empire » Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:16 am
by Nationalist State of Knox » Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:17 am
The Archregimancy wrote:NEO Rome Republic wrote:
The point was that certain literalist groups don't represent all Christians.
No, that wasn't the point of the post to which you're replying.
The point of the post to which you're replying - which, I repeat, wasn't directed at you anyway - was to agree with Daistallia 2104 that the point posited in the OP about Biblical authorship simply wasn't much of an issue for most Christians.
You, however, persist in replying to a post that wasn't directed at you as if it were making a point about Biblical literalism.
The mistake you're apparently making in reading my post is conflating discussion of Biblical authorship with an entirely separate point you want to make about Biblical literalism; but the latter certainly isn't the point I was making, nor did I say anything about Biblical literalism in the post to which you're replying. Biblical authorship and Biblical literalism are separate academic issues; the former can be discussed without any consideration of the latter.
Again, there's little point in having a discussion with someone unless they actually understand the point of the posts to which they're replying.
Here, for reference, is a question from someone who did understand the point I was making:Nationalist State of Knox wrote:Arch, do you happen to have a poll that shows what percentage of Christians/Jews believe in Mosaic authorship?
So it doesn't look like it was really that hard a point to grasp.
The Orson Empire wrote:It's pretty obvious that the Bible wasn't written by one person.
Ifreann wrote:Knox: /ˈɡɪl.ɡə.mɛʃ/
by Pravengria » Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:42 am
The Realm of God wrote:Pravengria wrote:
Did say correct me if I'm wrong lol, but the first bible was written in Greek. Not saying the Greeks created the content of it btw.
The New Testament was written in Koine at a time when Jews were heavily hellenised and the lingua franca and the language of their common scriptures the Septuagint was Koine Greek. The word Pharisee refers to a teacher who did not adopt hellenistic and taught in the old languages.
by The Archregimancy » Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:44 am
Nationalist State of Knox wrote:The Archregimancy wrote:
Since you're persistently completely missing the point - and the comment you think you're replying to wasn't even directed at you anyway - I can assure you that this is the last time I'll make the effort.
Arch, do you happen to have a poll that shows what percentage of Christians/Jews believe in Mosaic authorship?
Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation.
by Death Metal » Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:58 am
by The Realm of God » Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:59 am
Dalmacie wrote:NEO Rome Republic wrote:
And yet sooooo manyyyy, still believe it was.
Yes, religious misinformation is both unfortunate and dangerous.
I find it to be extremely ridiculous that such normal, honest, mostly intelligent people could honestly believe that some book just fell from the sky, and that it was directly written by God and his angels.
Ridiculous.
That also applies to those who believe the Koran is so as well; I am unsure of how Jews view their holy book, but if they believe so too, then that applies to them as well.
by Dalmacie » Wed Jul 17, 2013 12:04 pm
The Realm of God wrote:
I've never met any Christian who claimed that God sat down and wrote the bible....take from this what you will.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Cyptopir, Eahland, Herador, Kowani, Moreistan, Nanatsu no Tsuki, Plan Neonie, Prion-Cirus Imperium, Tarsonis, The Vooperian Union, Tungstan
Advertisement