Tis the season I guess.Follow

I know you are right, and point taken. If it is not too much trouble, do you mind putting in a disclaimer just to make sure.

Something like...

*Disclaimer*
The following discussion is based completely on fictitious events. They are representations of one mans interpretations of ancient writing. The interpretations are intended to teach people morals and values. None of the event actually happened, nor should be taken as gospel. All views and opinions on said material, shall themselves be considered superfluous. Please enjoy the stimulating intellectual discussion. Remember, It didn't happen!

Hey guys! Look at me! I can read the internet and justify my pointless debate by claiming im an intellectual giant of my time worthy of dictating what everyone believes! I am obviosly better then everyone else in everything cuz im a 40+ year old bastige posting on a game forum, with degrees and studies rivaling einstein and the combined knowledge of all religions on earth!

God you kill me nob.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
/cries with laughter

now i will follow biggitys lead... dont bother replying to me nob, i will not respond to you on this thread... its a waste of something that is actually worth something... my precious time....

You seem to be a Christian who, I assume, believes the Bible to be the inspired Word. Do you honestly believe that there'd only be half a story and that God would strike people dead for secret reasons? They lied to the spirit by putting money before the head of the newly formed Church and lying about it. Nothing more to it than that.

oh, inanity of inanities..

Can we not just agree that this "Force" that "makes things happen" is beyond the realms of human understanding, and thus we are forced to personify said "Force" in easy to chew, bite-size nuggets called dieties, and that all you need is some fu[/b]cking common sense and moral fortitude for the Earth to spin neatly on it's axis and we can all be happy, dancing fu[b]cking hippies once everyone gets that and stops arguing about the true color of the world being the color of the lens' in the glasses of thier perception.

It's a circle jerk of egos.

Jophiel, I am a "christian", and I do believe it to be an inspired word of god, that does not however mean that the man who translated this 500 times might have left something out or misinterpreted something. We are discussing the same thing here... I am agreeing with you, just trying to figure out reasoning is all. I think we are both on the same page, one of us is just at the top where the other is probly in the middle... trying to find a happy medium here is all... I think assuming face value on a book of parables isn't always correct jophiel. There may or may not be more to it then that. What kind of information can you get from the single passage such as this... "And Jesus Wept." So much can be gleened from such a passage both spiritual and worldly. Face value says he cried... big deal... Others see this as a form of compassion and heart ache cuased by iniquities of man. Others see it as tears of joy. Yet others gleen that jesus was a mortal man suceptible to worldly emotion. And finally another might see it as a submission to the world of man. Context is alot of what the bible is about I think. i just think that maybe htere is something there we don't understand, and it may be that way for a reason, or not, It's all about your own way of thinking and the inspiration you recieve from the Holy ghost. Personally I do not see witholding some funds from the church as punishable by death from God. One sin (Unless it is one of the cardinal sins) is just not reason enough for god to give up on one of his children and cast them into hell. I personally believe that there is moreto this story then just the plain fact they withheld some money when asked (not forced) to donate it to the church. The parable of the rich man closely resembles this (Yes it is a bit different) The man said" Lord what do you require of me that I may follow you"(not verbatim, just getting general idea out there) And Jesus said "Give up all that thou posses and follow me" And the man walked away grievous that he had to give up all his worldly possessions.

By Law, this is turning away from jesus, denying him almost outright. According to the 2 disciples that were killed, this man should also be struck dead IMHO. But he was not. There is an underlying reason as to why... is it spelled out for us? No it is not... are we to learn from it? I believe so... but what is to be learned? I do not know. This is the age old problem of personal interpretation, opinion.

Having an opinion of what the scriptures mean to me personaly, that differs from someone elses does not make me any more or less of a christian IMHO. I follow a certain religious sect simply because it resembles the closest thing to what I believe to be correct principles I gained from reading the scriptures and prayer. If someone else believes it another way, that is fine also. There is much to be learned from each other, other then debating which one is correct based upon a mans interpretation thereof. Do I seek to try to teach other poeple and show them a different point of view, of course, am I open to there opinions, how could I not be? Any true follower of Christ seeks to understand more of his ways and tries to become like him by learning the scriptures.

Anyways, I think we are on the same page joph, just at a difference of opinions as to what each passage means. We simply see it differently. I respect your opinions and have considered them heavily trying to learn more. Thank you for your insight and point of view!!

So you don't think the creator of the universe could take the measures to ensure his Word stayed true despite "500 translations"? You think he would give us his inspired Word as our guide to salvation and let it become corrupt and misinterpreted as to be unusable?

You are, of course, free to believe in what you will. However, if you expect anyone to accept your theory that there is more to Acts 5 than what is presented, the onus is on you to prove it. Find a radically different version or an older text that shows there was more to the story. Until then you don't have anything to back your assertations and really shouldn't be presenting them as probable.

Did you read the story? Peter says Ananais' money was at his own disposal. It was not theft that was the sin, it was lying to Peter about the amount he was giving (claiming it to be the full sum of his property). So then we're left to ask why Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead for their deception when Judas was left alive for lying to Jesus or Peter was unharmed for his claiming not to know the Christ in Gethsemane. The short answer is that God had further use for Judas and Peter and chose to make an example from Ananias and Sapphira, just as he does throughout the entire Old Testament where some sinners he allows to continue so that they may be used as tools and some he strikes (again going back to my statement that the OT and NT God are the same). The last bit of the story of A&S says that the Church heard what had happened and that people were made afraid. No doubt their deaths made people either decide that they weren't going to be lying or else made them decide to leave the Church. Given that they had previously baptised thousands of people in the beginning of Acts, what better way to shake out the chaff early before they could become an issue?

Finally, and no offense, but I doubt God is worried about your opinion on what sins are sufferable by divine wrath and which ones God needs to hold back on.

Theft was an issue... if you believe god created you, then you believe all you have comes from god... and witholding anything asked of you from god is thus considered stealing. I understand what you are saying, but i donot have the time and or resources to learn german french arabic and latin to be able to go back through the endless translations of the bible to justify my belief. Yes i do believe the bible as a whole is correctly translated, but translation of any text from one language to another often makes it lose (even if ever so slight)some of what its original context means. Yes I believe god has the power to preserve his word, but I donot believe that God is going to remove the right of man to make his own decisions (free agency). Why do we have so many versions of the Bible if god has preserved his word in immaculate form?? I believ one version of the bible holds more truths in context better then another yes, but what if im wrong? what if the coran is the correct version? or the JW's green dragon? Who is to say which is divine word on this earth?? A King perhaps? This is going no where...

"Find a radically different version or an older text that shows there was more to the story. Until then you don't have anything to back your assertations and really shouldn't be presenting them as probable."

if you go this route on me then you must begin to back your belief with solid fact... which puts us in an unwinnable battle... I have no desire to go there or start such a conflict with you or anyone else... my belief is my belief... I donnot have to support it with 100% irefutable evidence in order for it to be presented as "Probable" in a discussion on beliefs!!

"Finally, and no offense, but I doubt God is worried about your opinion on what sins are sufferable by divine wrath and which ones God needs to hold back on."

NOR should he be! He is God! My statement of that Is what I BELIEVED not a fact God has to adhere to... I stated a possible reason for my belief, nothing more... if you disagree then fine, I hold no malice to that fact. However you cannot discredit my belief when there is material to justify both sides... Im not discounting that you may be right, and for all I know you might be! I professed earlier that I was not a scholar on the bible, and that this is my beliefs based on what I know. I donot have the time to read and search scriptures whilst I post here at work. Im sorry, I have not had a chance to read the story straight from the Bible, I am relying on your Word to tell me what it says.

Neither of us knows the will of god in its entirety, nor do either of us know what was in the heart of these two disciples. I give possible reasons, you give possible reasons... Both are valid. Im not here to convert you, im here to show possibilities... you donot have to believe me, nor do I have to believe you. This is comming to a discussion of fact and irreputable evidence, which is not possible in a discussion on the omnipotent until we meet him and have knowledge laid before us by that higher power.

Therefore, suffice it to say you have your reasons, I have mine... both valid, both right, both different.

Jophiel,

I did not claim it was inaccurate!!! I claimed that there might be the possibility that some of the context is not there! I claimed that it could be interpreted differently was all!

And im so sure you know all the languages that the bible has ever been translated in, and can say for 100% that they are word for word, even in context.... Like I said... until the omnipotent being comes to us and shows us his true wqord and will, everything else is man made or influenced. Which means it is imperfect. It may be 95% correct, but it is still imperfect!

man joph... we are both believers... we believe the same basic principals of god and christ... Our opinions differ in gods meaning of a certain passage of scripture, but neither one of us can say for sure which is right! Only god can bro... lets leave it at that is all im sayin....

You cannot back your belief with 100% accuracy and evidence... neither can I....

you say tomayto i say tomahto....?

A quick couple points:

(1) Knowing "every translation" of the Bible isn't required. Most credible modern translations are based off of the oldest existing (New Testament) texts, dating to c.300-450AD. The earliest known and existing copy of Acts dates around 200-250AD though it's (the book in general, not the phsyical existing text) figured to have been penned around 75AD. See, there could be a version from 1233AD that says God is a tangerine colored zebra but it doesn't matter because we're not using a translation based off that 1233AD version. That's why complaints about the quality of translation during the Middle Ages, etc are large irrelevant -- we're not using those copies as a basis for anything. Now, obviously one could make the point that the c.300AD copy is not an eye-witness account but it's certainly a better frame of reference than the seventen hundred years afterwards. So you check, see is the Latin Vulgate or Sepugaint or whichever says the same thing about Ananias and Sapphira that the NIV or NJKV or whatever version you use says and determine from there if it's accurate.

(2) According to the earlist existing sources, what we have to read about A&S is exactly the same thing they were reading about A&S back when Acts was codified. There is no additional context provided outside of Acts 5:1-11 that might change the intent of the passage. They weren't mentioned prior and they're not mentioned after. Occum's razor states (in simple terms) that the simplest explanation is most likely the accurate one. Acts reads that A&S held back money, it states that Peter said the money was theirs to use at their discretion, it states that Peter called them out for their lies and that they died as a result. If you want to extrapolate a bunch of extra stuff that they were special witnesses or that God actually killed them for some other reason, that's your choice but you're adding to things that have remained essentially unchanged since c.225AD. So go ahead and make up as much extra stuff as you'd like, but don't blame translations for it. Up until about 24 hours ago, you didn't even know that Ananias and Saphirra were in the Book and now you're arguing that the translations are inaccurate and the passage doesn't mean what it says it does in simple language.

(3) I'm not a Christian nor a "believer" in any accurate sense of the word. I tend to jump into Biblical debates because people often get basic things wrong and, though I may not have faith, I do think that people should be accurately informed as to what the Book says if they're going to argue about it.

Ok, so maybe not so quick points

Edited, Wed Dec 1 12:55:39 2004 by Jophiel

sigh.... like I said, I refuse to get into an arguement about proof on a subject based on faith.

heheh CEO, more like owner proprieter...

I wouldn't argue on that one, but 2 observations:

1) Reading some Latin and German versions dating from the reformation, there were some pretty 'loose' translations around, twisted to reinforce either the Lutheran or the Roman perspective. No longer in use, of course, but some of their influences still play a part.

2) Editing. When King James scrapped the bits that didn't suit his agenda (The book of Esdras was always my favourite. The Lord sent a sparrow to sh[i][/i]it into the eyes of a blind man etc etc.) he fundamentally altered the balance between forgiveness/vengeance, Love/Justice, Damnation/Salvation.

Few modern (post 1750) versions survived Mad Jimmy's influence.

But I don't use that as criticism of the Bible. It's beauty lies in the fact that it's survived centuries of adaptation and reinterpretation. Like Al Q'uran, the Guru Garant sahib and the Baghavad Gita, it's a work of literature to be treasured.

It's just crap at providing factual evidence

HOLY ****!!!!

Nobby and I just agreed on something!!!!!!

A HISTORICAL FIRST FOLKS!!!!!!!

LOL! WOOT!

Damn... feels kinda nice to not be at each others throats for once!

Thnx Nobby!