| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/05/2013 05:49:21 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Our own church, for example, when listing "what we believe" will make the distinction and say, "That the Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, were verbally inspired by God, inerrant in the original writings, and that they are supreme and final in authority, faith, and life." You can see your point is not missed on them. |
You seem to omit the explicit disclaimer "Our version, however, have almost certainly been altered if not corrupted by generations of traslational, typographic, and interpretive errors." |
Naw. But I get blue in the face when I mention textual criticism. This is coming from the guy who didn't know the OT was in Hebrew... ;) |
I could be wrong in this regard, but I seem to recall that most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew...not all of it. There is a difference.
Ray |
Really, Ray? This is your idea of adding to the conversation? (eye roll) You split hairs based on your seeming recall? Which parts weren't and you did see the post where Paul seemed to say that NONE of the Bible was written in Hebrew, right (there's a difference, no)? Ok, just checking.
You guys wear me out. I'm done today. It's hard having a conversation with six people and I have quite a few more patients to see before the end of the day. Ray can continue the conversation in my place because he obviously has a firm grasp on things! (I kid you Ray, but, honestly, your post made me laugh out loud as so representative of DPC Rant.) |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 06:01:39 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Our own church, for example, when listing "what we believe" will make the distinction and say, "That the Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, were verbally inspired by God, inerrant in the original writings, and that they are supreme and final in authority, faith, and life." You can see your point is not missed on them. |
You seem to omit the explicit disclaimer "Our version, however, have almost certainly been altered if not corrupted by generations of traslational, typographic, and interpretive errors." |
Naw. But I get blue in the face when I mention textual criticism. This is coming from the guy who didn't know the OT was in Hebrew... ;) |
I could be wrong in this regard, but I seem to recall that most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew...not all of it. There is a difference.
Ray |
Really, Ray? This is your idea of adding to the conversation? (eye roll) You split hairs based on your seeming recall? Which parts weren't and you did see the post where Paul seemed to say that NONE of the Bible was written in Hebrew, right (there's a difference, no)? Ok, just checking.
You guys wear me out. I'm done today. It's hard having a conversation with six people and I have quite a few more patients to see before the end of the day. Ray can continue the conversation in my place because he obviously has a firm grasp on things! (I kid you Ray, but, honestly, your post made me laugh out loud as so representative of DPC Rant.) |
OK... so why is your "seemed" not the same as my seemed :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 06:05:38 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
OK... so why is your "seemed" not the same as my seemed :O)
Ray |
I like to be polite when possibly putting words in other people's mouth. Here's his quote: "I believe the languages of the Bible are Aramaic and Greek, not Hebrew." |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 06:07:51 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... Ray can continue the conversation in my place because he obviously has a firm grasp on things! (I kid you Ray, but, honestly, your post made me laugh out loud as so representative of DPC Rant.) |
Glad I could help. :O)
Ray
Message edited by author 2013-02-06 02:36:22. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 06:10:02 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
OK... so why is your "seemed" not the same as my seemed :O)
Ray |
I like to be polite when possibly putting words in other people's mouth. Here's his quote: "I believe the languages of the Bible are Aramaic and Greek, not Hebrew." |
... and based on the translations he could very well be right. If on the other hand he made specific mention to the original text, then he would be only partially right.
...but I have been wrong before. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 06:25:11 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Plus, to add to the fun, the latest study I saw appeared to prove that light is both a particle and a wave at the same time which is deliciously paradoxical, but there it is. |
It's the wave-particle duality. All it requires is a basic understanding of quantum mechanics. Problem solved. |
Actually this experiment went beyond that. Look it up on ArXiv. |
And? |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 06:54:01 PM · #132 |
| I believe Daniel and Ezra, in the Old Testament, were written in Aramaic rather than Hebrew. As far as I know, these are the only significant, non-Hebrew portions of the OT... Regarding the New Testament, which is generally acknowledged to have been originally written largely in Greek, there is considerable evidence that The Gospel of Matthew is a translation into Greek of a Hebrew or Aramaic original. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 07:27:42 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I know the text Don, but we can see it doesn't really talk about the church unless you mash it together with other passages. (Which I believe was done in the movie.)
|
I agree with you, which is why i referenced that ridiculous movie. How could jesus have preached anything about churches when churches did not exist? |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 09:20:37 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by mike_311:
the correct answer would be that's how long man has been around, there is no written account before then, so whatever happened before man learned to write is theory. |
Geology, the decay of Carbon-14 and the fossil record are not theories. They exist independently of the written word. certain facts exist outside human explanation. |
you mistake my point.
man only knows for fact what happened while he existed and that's assuming he wrote it down. before than he can only theorize and then attempt prove or disprove those theories through scientific methods. Many, like carbon dating, help to prove or disprove those theories.
like you say carbon dating is real, it isn't some made up magic and when that method says the earth is millions of years old, that's a hell of a lot more than 6000yrs.
Message edited by author 2013-02-06 07:17:09. |
|
|
|
02/06/2013 07:04:03 AM · #135 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was forthright in my explanation of things when talking about evolution, for example, ... I think people are a bit more accomodating than often portrayed in our little world of DPC Rant. |
So, what is your response when some "true believer" insists that the Earth (and all the Universe and dinosaur fossils) was created a literal 6000 years (as we know them) ago? |
the correct answer would be that's how long man has been around, there is no written account before then, so whatever happened before man learned to write is theory. |
Actually, DNA studies show that humans have been around closer to 60,000 years. 6,000 years is the (reletively close to) date of written history.
As a "true believer" I usually point those that claim that everything was created in 6 days, 6,000 years ago, that God did not create "day and night" until the 4th "day"... That pretty much works for me to understand that a "day" was not 24 hours in the creation story. In fact other verses throughout Scripture speak of the fact that God's "day" is not the same as our "day".
If you look at Genesis with an open mind you'll likely find that it describes the current scientific understanding of our universe since the Big Bang... "Let there be Light"... pretty descriptive if you ask me.
The problem dates back to the 14th / 15th century "Reformation" when everyone was told that Scripture was open to personal interpetation. This simply defies logic, not to mention the fact that it defies Scripture. Jesus didn't just hand us a book and say "Good luck!" He left us a Church to keep and interpute Scripture. If you think about the idea that everyone can find "THE Truth" by self-interpetation of the written Word, it completely defies logic. For instance consider the following simple sentance :
I never said you stole money
Consider the number of interpetations simply by inflection...
I never said you stole money
I never said you stole money
I never said you stole money
I never said you stole money
I never said you stole money
I never said you stole money
Stress 6 different words, 6 wildly different interpetations...
The Holy Spirit wrote It and the Holy Spirit interputes It...
|
|
|
|
02/06/2013 07:28:31 AM · #136 |
So do you guys get into arguments over the specifics with each other or only non-beleivers?
Message edited by author 2013-02-06 07:28:54. |
|
|
|
02/06/2013 07:30:31 AM · #137 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
The Holy Spirit wrote It and the Holy Spirit interputes It... |
Funny, I've never sen the Holy Spirit on TV or in a pulpit interpreting the Bible, only people ...
Originally posted by mike_311:
So do you guys get into arguments over the specifics with each other or only non-beleivers? |
Maybe you should ask a Lutheran ... ;-)
Message edited by author 2013-02-06 07:36:13. |
|
|
|
02/06/2013 07:36:22 AM · #138 |
| I've just read the entire thread and I still don't know what God wants with $800 (see op). |
|
|
|
02/06/2013 08:14:26 AM · #139 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was forthright in my explanation of things when talking about evolution, for example, ... I think people are a bit more accomodating than often portrayed in our little world of DPC Rant. |
So, what is your response when some "true believer" insists that the Earth (and all the Universe and dinosaur fossils) was created a literal 6000 years (as we know them) ago? |
the correct answer would be that's how long man has been around, there is no written account before then, so whatever happened before man learned to write is theory. |
Actually, DNA studies show that humans have been around closer to 60,000 years. 6,000 years is the (reletively close to) date of written history.
As a "true believer" I usually point those that claim that everything was created in 6 days, 6,000 years ago, that God did not create "day and night" until the 4th "day"... That pretty much works for me to understand that a "day" was not 24 hours in the creation story. In fact other verses throughout Scripture speak of the fact that God's "day" is not the same as our "day".
If you look at Genesis with an open mind you'll likely find that it describes the current scientific understanding of our universe since the Big Bang... "Let there be Light"... pretty descriptive if you ask me.
The problem dates back to the 14th / 15th century "Reformation" when everyone was told that Scripture was open to personal interpetation. This simply defies logic, not to mention the fact that it defies Scripture. Jesus didn't just hand us a book and say "Good luck!" He left us a Church to keep and interpute Scripture. If you think about the idea that everyone can find "THE Truth" by self-interpetation of the written Word, it completely defies logic. For instance consider the following simple sentance :
I never said you stole money
Consider the number of interpetations simply by inflection...
I never said you stole money
I never said you stole money
I never said you stole money
I never said you stole money
I never said you stole money
I never said you stole money
Stress 6 different words, 6 wildly different interpetations...
The Holy Spirit wrote It and the Holy Spirit interputes It... |
Why do we need so many sects of Christianity if this last point is true? If it was all holy spirit writing and interpreting from the beginning- why can't we all just stay Catholic?
And how can you be sure your newly interpreting sect is reading with the proper, Holy spirit sanctioned inflection?
|
|
|
|
02/06/2013 10:06:49 AM · #140 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
So do you guys get into arguments over the specifics with each other or only non-beleivers? |
This is rant.......you're required to argue with everyone.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2013 10:07:27 AM · #141 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Why do we need so many sects of Christianity if this last point is true? If it was all holy spirit writing and interpreting from the beginning- why can't we all just stay Catholic?
And how can you be sure your newly interpreting sect is reading with the proper, Holy spirit sanctioned inflection? |
+1
|
|
|
|
02/06/2013 10:55:04 AM · #142 |
Originally posted by MichaelC:
I've just read the entire thread and I still don't know what God wants with $800 (see op). |
Right. I think on page 2 post #34 there were 2 divorces, so annulment investigations for each would be $400 or $800.
God doesn't need the $800. The cannon lawyers do. My wife went through an annulment process. The lawyers contact all parties to investigate the validity of marriage. The process took 6-9 months and was finally processed. It seemed to me worth the money involved. |
|
|
|
02/06/2013 11:10:38 AM · #143 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Why do we need so many sects of Christianity if this last point is true? If it was all holy spirit writing and interpreting from the beginning- why can't we all just stay Catholic? |
Good question. You'll have to ask the protestants who still protesting and creating the many sects. |
|
|
|
02/06/2013 11:44:35 AM · #144 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by MichaelC:
I've just read the entire thread and I still don't know what God wants with $800 (see op). |
Right. I think on page 2 post #34 there were 2 divorces, so annulment investigations for each would be $400 or $800.
God doesn't need the $800. The cannon lawyers do. My wife went through an annulment process. The lawyers contact all parties to investigate the validity of marriage. The process took 6-9 months and was finally processed. It seemed to me worth the money involved. |
Of course it was worth it to you, otherwise she would have been a bigamist in the eyes of your church, right? Did she have children with her first husband and if so, are they considered "legitimate"? If the marriage "never took place" in the eyes of the church after the annulment and there were children were they then considered to have been conceived "out of wedlock"? |
|
|
|
02/06/2013 12:17:46 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by MichaelC:
I've just read the entire thread and I still don't know what God wants with $800 (see op). |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Right. I think on page 2 post #34 there were 2 divorces, so annulment investigations for each would be $400 or $800.
God doesn't need the $800. The cannon lawyers do. My wife went through an annulment process. The lawyers contact all parties to investigate the validity of marriage. The process took 6-9 months and was finally processed. It seemed to me worth the money involved. |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Of course it was worth it to you, otherwise she would have been a bigamist in the eyes of your church, right? Did she have children with her first husband and if so, are they considered "legitimate"? If the marriage "never took place" in the eyes of the church after the annulment and there were children were they then considered to have been conceived "out of wedlock"? |
Yeah......I'm still waiting on an answer on that question, too.
The way it seems, if the marriage never happened in the church's eyes, then the children must not exist at all.
If they were born during the time when the marriage is stated to have not existed, then they must not exist, either.
And what if they were baptized in the church? Isn't that duly recorded in the church records? What then?
Are the church records altered?
|
|
|
|
02/06/2013 12:21:02 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Did she have children with her first husband and if so, are they considered "legitimate"? If the marriage "never took place" in the eyes of the church after the annulment and there were children were they then considered to have been conceived "out of wedlock"? |
Short answer is "No". Canon 1137 of the Code of Canon Law specifically affirms the legitimacy of children born in both valid and putative marriages (objectively invalid, though at least one party celebrated in good faith). The Catholic Church, as far as I know, has never considered the offspring of subsequently-annulled marriages to be illegitimate, though I suppose they may have done at some point. They certainly don't now.
Message edited by author 2013-02-06 12:26:24. |
|
|
|
02/06/2013 12:24:09 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
The way it seems, if the marriage never happened in the church's eyes, then the children must not exist at all.
If they were born during the time when the marriage is stated to have not existed, then they must not exist, either. |
Jeb, don't be absurd. The issue, if there WAS one, would be the *legitimacy* of the offspring in the eyes of the church (are they bastards or not?), not their existence :-) |
|
|
|
02/06/2013 12:29:04 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Did she have children with her first husband and if so, are they considered "legitimate"? If the marriage "never took place" in the eyes of the church after the annulment and there were children were they then considered to have been conceived "out of wedlock"? |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Short answer is "No". Canon 1137 of the Code of Canon Law specifically affirms the legitimacy of children born in both valid and putative marriages (objectively invalid, though at least one party celebrated in good faith). The Catholic Church, as far as I know, has never deemed the children of later-annulled marriages to be illegitimate, though I suppose they may have done at some point. They certainly don't now. |
That seems mighty convenient........except of course for the children who have to reconcile the fact that despite their parents' differences, they *are* still their children.
It makes a statement to your children to nullify your previous family dynamic. I find that deeply offensive that someone could do that to their children for their own selfish reasons. So much for commitment......don't like the wife & kids? just kick 'em to the curb, pay your $400, and you're a virgin all over again.
Nice!
|
|
|
|
02/06/2013 12:31:02 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
The way it seems, if the marriage never happened in the church's eyes, then the children must not exist at all.
If they were born during the time when the marriage is stated to have not existed, then they must not exist, either. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Jeb, don't be absurd. The issue, if there WAS one, would be the *legitimacy* of the offspring in the eyes of the church (are they bastards or not?), not their existence :-) |
That's my point.......it's bullsh*t. Obviously the marriage existed. So do the kids. But for $400, you can pretend it never did? Explain to me how that works within the church's "Sanctity of Marriage"?
|
|
|
|
02/06/2013 12:57:42 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
The way it seems, if the marriage never happened in the church's eyes, then the children must not exist at all.
If they were born during the time when the marriage is stated to have not existed, then they must not exist, either. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Jeb, don't be absurd. The issue, if there WAS one, would be the *legitimacy* of the offspring in the eyes of the church (are they bastards or not?), not their existence :-) |
That's my point.......it's bullsh*t. Obviously the marriage existed. So do the kids. But for $400, you can pretend it never did? Explain to me how that works within the church's "Sanctity of Marriage"? |
Simple, when you're writing the rules to the game, you can make it work however you want.
Besides, this clearly makes more sense than getting $200 for just passing Go!... ;) |
|
