Gays, Lesbians to Blame For Sandy, Katrina

[kalm]

Ah... the joys of reading along with this thread
I only have one question - which bible (exactly) are we talking about..?

The pre 1117
or pre 1452
or pre 1764

do tell..?
They are completely different books

Elaborate. I will be up front and say I suspect that's something you read somewhere and took as truth without ever confirming it for yourself. Something you immediately believed because it flattered what you already thought. Probably written by somebody who is anti-Christian and trying to make a case. But tell us about how you know that to be true in case I'm wrong about that.

You're kind of feisty tonight.

[ASUMountaineer]

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/k ... cisco-next" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

San Francisco is next.

Pastor Kevin Swanson of Generations with Vision Ministry dedicated his radio show yesterday to blaming gays and lesbians for not only Hurricane Sandy but also Hurricane Katrina. Swanson, who earlier urged Chick-fil-A to produce “Miss Piggy on a bun” to mock gay rights groups and beseeched America to return to the biblical law of Pilgrim society when homosexuality was punishable by death, warned that hurricanes struck New York and New Orleans because they are among the “most pro-homosexual, pro-liberal cities in America.” He added that San Francisco should soon expect an earthquake for similar reasons. Later, Swanson claimed that abortion rights and the growth of LGBT youth clubs in schools are provoking God’s wrath and intensifying the strength of hurricanes.


And Conks wonder why they lose elections......

Who?

[kalm]

I look forward to having kids who will follow God and Christ. I look forward to watching them defend the faith and to stand up for what is right and true.

You go buddy. Stand your ground. I enjoy seeing someone take on all of the anti-Christian bigots on this board who like to call OTHER people bigots when they are some of the most bigoted and intolerant (with respect to ideas that conflict with their own) people you will ever come across.

No John, it's about freedom and respect. Funny you don't get that.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

I look forward to having kids who will follow God and Christ. I look forward to watching them defend the faith and to stand up for what is right and true.

The Bible is no more 'truth' than any other fairy tale.

Coming from a non-believer...then you are right. If you are not a believer then all religion is fairy tale.

[mainejeff]

Strange...and I thought Katrina was Bush's fault.

Who knew?

I know you're thick but wasn't this enough of a hint?........

[Chizzang]

Ah... the joys of reading along with this thread
I only have one question - which bible (exactly) are we talking about..?

The pre 1117
or pre 1452
or pre 1764

do tell..?
They are completely different books

Elaborate. I will be up front and say I suspect that's something you read somewhere and took as truth without ever confirming it for yourself. Something you immediately believed because it flattered what you already thought. Probably written by somebody who is anti-Christian and trying to make a case. But tell us about how you know that to be true in case I'm wrong about that.

Why would you care what I think John..?
You're obviously a fundamentalist Christian pretending NOT to be, which is disgraceful frankly

Anyway you're probably an expert on the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE
(of which 99% of Christians know nothing)
and the Council of Laodicea in 364 CE
(of which 99.99999999999% of Christians know nothing)

Why should Christians know anything about these meetings John..?

I'm sure your Aramaic or common (koine) Greek is perfect
So you were able to read The Codex Sinaiticus (330 AD) version on file
or was it The Vulgate (400 AD) translated by Jerome
Who fought with Damasus over which books to leave out (46 books) or was it (39)
Interesting that a debate over what to "not include" when it's all infallible..?

I'll skip over about 2 semesters of crap and jump right into John Wycliffe (1380) do you like his version..?

One of my favorites is the Douay-Rheims Bible of 1582 (a fabulous translation)

We're all familiar with King James Version, KJV (1611) this is technically version two from KJ but that's a whole different conversation

How about the now famous revised Version III (1881-1884)
Designed to be a revision of the KJV mark II
This particular revised version had the advantage of "more" access to some of the ancient manuscripts held in Rome - although this revision was sponsored by the Church of England - and I do mean SPONSORED some American scholars were invited to participate...

Should I keep going..? There are possibly (depending on which scholars you study with and who you trust - somewhere around 1000 versions of "The infallible word of God"



Next

[Seahawks08]

You're obviously a fundamentalist Christian pretending NOT to be, which is disgraceful frankly

Aren't hypocrites Jesus hates most?

[Benne]

This is informative. I was tricked into believing things like ocean currents and weather patterns were responsible for hurricanes and plate techtonics and fault lines were responsible for earthquakes. I must go pray my stupidity away.

[JoltinJoe]

Elaborate. I will be up front and say I suspect that's something you read somewhere and took as truth without ever confirming it for yourself. Something you immediately believed because it flattered what you already thought. Probably written by somebody who is anti-Christian and trying to make a case. But tell us about how you know that to be true in case I'm wrong about that.

Why would you care what I think John..?
You're obviously a fundamentalist Christian pretending NOT to be, which is disgraceful frankly

Anyway you're probably an expert on the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE
(of which 99% of Christians know nothing)
and the Council of Laodicea in 364 CE
(of which 99.99999999999% of Christians know nothing)

Why should Christians know anything about these meetings John..?

I'm sure your Aramaic or common (koine) Greek is perfect
So you were able to read The Codex Sinaiticus (330 AD) version on file
or was it The Vulgate (400 AD) translated by Jerome
Who fought with Damasus over which books to leave out (46 books) or was it (39)
Interesting that a debate over what to "not include" when it's all infallible..?

I'll skip over about 2 semesters of crap and jump right into John Wycliffe (1380) do you like his version..?

One of my favorites is the Douay-Rheims Bible of 1582 (a fabulous translation)

We're all familiar with King James Version, KJV (1611) this is technically version two from KJ but that's a whole different conversation

How about the now famous revised Version III (1881-1884)
Designed to be a revision of the KJV mark II
This particular revised version had the advantage of "more" access to some of the ancient manuscripts held in Rome - although this revision was sponsored by the Church of England - and I do mean SPONSORED some American scholars were invited to participate...

Should I keep going..? There are possibly (depending on which scholars you study with and who you trust - somewhere around 1000 versions of "The infallible word of God"



Next

So you're talking about different translations. :yawn:

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

This is informative. I was tricked into believing things like ocean currents and weather patterns were responsible for hurricanes and plate techtonics and fault lines were responsible for earthquakes. I must go pray my stupidity away.

LOL.....plus, 'Man' is at fault for the radiation sent from the sun.

[Baldy]

Strange...and I thought Katrina was Bush's fault.

Who knew?

I know you're thick but wasn't this enough of a hint?........

Make that long and thick, bro....but don't get your hopes up, sorry.

[Ibanez]

Ah... the joys of reading along with this thread
I only have one question - which bible (exactly) are we talking about..?

The pre 1117
or pre 1452
or pre 1764

do tell..?
They are completely different books

Elaborate. I will be up front and say I suspect that's something you read somewhere and took as truth without ever confirming it for yourself. Something you immediately believed because it flattered what you already thought. Probably written by somebody who is anti-Christian and trying to make a case. But tell us about how you know that to be true in case I'm wrong about that.

The bible, pre 1117 is different from today's. There are different versions with certain ideas removed. This is why we have the King James version that is a mainstay for Protestants.

[Ibanez]

Elaborate. I will be up front and say I suspect that's something you read somewhere and took as truth without ever confirming it for yourself. Something you immediately believed because it flattered what you already thought. Probably written by somebody who is anti-Christian and trying to make a case. But tell us about how you know that to be true in case I'm wrong about that.

Why would you care what I think John..?
You're obviously a fundamentalist Christian pretending NOT to be, which is disgraceful frankly

Anyway you're probably an expert on the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE
(of which 99% of Christians know nothing)
and the Council of Laodicea in 364 CE
(of which 99.99999999999% of Christians know nothing)

Why should Christians know anything about these meetings John..?

I'm sure your Aramaic or common (koine) Greek is perfect
So you were able to read The Codex Sinaiticus (330 AD) version on file
or was it The Vulgate (400 AD) translated by Jerome
Who fought with Damasus over which books to leave out (46 books) or was it (39)
Interesting that a debate over what to "not include" when it's all infallible..?

I'll skip over about 2 semesters of crap and jump right into John Wycliffe (1380) do you like his version..?

One of my favorites is the Douay-Rheims Bible of 1582 (a fabulous translation)

We're all familiar with King James Version, KJV (1611) this is technically version two from KJ but that's a whole different conversation

How about the now famous revised Version III (1881-1884)
Designed to be a revision of the KJV mark II
This particular revised version had the advantage of "more" access to some of the ancient manuscripts held in Rome - although this revision was sponsored by the Church of England - and I do mean SPONSORED some American scholars were invited to participate...

Should I keep going..? There are possibly (depending on which scholars you study with and who you trust - somewhere around 1000 versions of "The infallible word of God"



Next

I prefer Thomas Jefferson's Deists bible. It's the bible without all the miracles, magic and unnatural events.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

Why would you care what I think John..?
You're obviously a fundamentalist Christian pretending NOT to be, which is disgraceful frankly

Anyway you're probably an expert on the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE
(of which 99% of Christians know nothing)
and the Council of Laodicea in 364 CE
(of which 99.99999999999% of Christians know nothing)

Why should Christians know anything about these meetings John..?

I'm sure your Aramaic or common (koine) Greek is perfect
So you were able to read The Codex Sinaiticus (330 AD) version on file
or was it The Vulgate (400 AD) translated by Jerome
Who fought with Damasus over which books to leave out (46 books) or was it (39)
Interesting that a debate over what to "not include" when it's all infallible..?

I'll skip over about 2 semesters of crap and jump right into John Wycliffe (1380) do you like his version..?

One of my favorites is the Douay-Rheims Bible of 1582 (a fabulous translation)

We're all familiar with King James Version, KJV (1611) this is technically version two from KJ but that's a whole different conversation

How about the now famous revised Version III (1881-1884)
Designed to be a revision of the KJV mark II
This particular revised version had the advantage of "more" access to some of the ancient manuscripts held in Rome - although this revision was sponsored by the Church of England - and I do mean SPONSORED some American scholars were invited to participate...

Should I keep going..? There are possibly (depending on which scholars you study with and who you trust - somewhere around 1000 versions of "The infallible word of God"



Next

I prefer Thomas Jefferson's Deists bible. It's the bible without all the miracles, magic and unnatural events.

He wrote is own personal bible and avoided organized churches. Considering the time he lived, he was considered a 'atheist' then.

[kalm]

I prefer Thomas Jefferson's Deists bible. It's the bible without all the miracles, magic and unnatural events.

He wrote is own personal bible and avoided organized churches. Considering the time he lived, he was considered a 'atheist' then.

No he wasn't, he was deist. A few of the smarter founders were. Thank god this country was founded on the priniciples of the enlightenment versus christianity, or heredity.

[Ibanez]

I prefer Thomas Jefferson's Deists bible. It's the bible without all the miracles, magic and unnatural events.

He wrote is own personal bible and avoided organized churches. Considering the time he lived, he was considered a 'atheist' then.

Wrong. He was a Diest. His bible is the epitome of Reason and Spirituality

[Ibanez]

He wrote is own personal bible and avoided organized churches. Considering the time he lived, he was considered a 'atheist' then.

No he wasn't, he was deist. A few of the smarter founders were. Thank god this country was founded on the priniciples of the enlightenment versus christianity, or heredity.

Exactly.

[Chizzang]

So you're talking about different translations. :yawn:

Yes I am...
and different translations contain different books entirely

Explain this Joe:
The word in koine Greek that was translated into the English word "Sin" or "To Sin"
What was that Koine Greek word..? (Do you know?) and what is it's present day translation..?

Joe... Translation IS EVERYTHING brother

[Ibanez]

So you're talking about different translations. :yawn:

Yes I am...
and different translations contain different books entirely

Explain this Joe:
The word in koine Greek that was translated into the English word "Sin" or "To Sin"
What was that Koine Greek word..? (Do you know?) and what is it's present day translation..?

Joe... Translation IS EVERYTHING brother

You mean how young girl was translated into virgin and hence Virgin Mary was created?

[Chizzang]

Yes I am...
and different translations contain different books entirely

Explain this Joe:
The word in koine Greek that was translated into the English word "Sin" or "To Sin"
What was that Koine Greek word..? (Do you know?) and what is it's present day translation..?

Joe... Translation IS EVERYTHING brother

You mean how young girl was translated into virgin and hence Virgin Mary was created?

The list of contrived translations deliberately altered to meet a specific "end" is incredible...
The Bible (King James KJV III) today is NOTHING even close to what was cobbled together pre 345 CE

The word in Koine (ancient greek) that appears in the original transcrips is "hamartia" (when spoken out loud) and means simply "to miss the mark" or to misunderstand... This was translated to "sin" which means to violate divine commandments against God / These things are not the same / and wildly alter the meaning of the ENTIRE group of books that are today the bible

and that's just ONE word - there are hundreds of interpretations that are even more ridiculous

[JoltinJoe]

Oh, come on. The concept of "sin" did not arise for the first time at the time the Greek "hamatia" was translated into English.

First, you have a whole tradition of the understanding of "sin" evolving from the Old Testament. Then, you have Jesus, who spoke in Aramaic (in all likelihood) and speaks numerous times about the OT concept of "sin." Then you have writers translating Jesus' words into Greek when transcribing the Gospels; and then you have translations into various languages.

Translators did not pull the word "sin" out of thin air when translating "hamatia." The Christian concept of sin derives from the Jewish concept of sin; which is why translators chose that word.

And the King James Bible is not the Catholic bible. Protestants omitted a number of books from the Catholic canon after the Reformation.

[Ibanez]

Where did anyone say King James was the Catholic bible?

[Chizzang]

Oh, come on. The concept of "sin" did not arise for the first time at the time the Greek "hamatia" was translated into English.

First, you have a whole tradition of the understanding of "sin" evolving from the Old Testament. Then, you have Jesus, who spoke in Aramaic (in all likelihood) and speaks numerous times about the OT concept of "sin." Then you have writers translating Jesus' words into Greek when transcribing the Gospels; and then you have translations into various languages.

Translators did not pull the word "sin" out of thin air when translating "hamatia." The Christian concept of sin derives from the Jewish concept of sin; which is why translators chose that word.

And the King James Bible is not the Catholic bible. Protestants omitted a number of books from the Catholic canon after the Reformation.

Right
So you're admitting it's not the infallible word of God then...
I'm glad we've moved past that fallacy - now on to the real issues - Pre 345 CE

[D1B]

Oh, come on. The concept of "sin" did not arise for the first time at the time the Greek "hamatia" was translated into English.

First, you have a whole tradition of the understanding of "sin" evolving from the Old Testament. Then, you have Jesus, who spoke in Aramaic (in all likelihood) and speaks numerous times about the OT concept of "sin." Then you have writers translating Jesus' words into Greek when transcribing the Gospels; and then you have translations into various languages.

Translators did not pull the word "sin" out of thin air when translating "hamatia." The Christian concept of sin derives from the Jewish concept of sin; which is why translators chose that word.

And the King James Bible is not the Catholic bible. Protestants omitted a number of books from the Catholic canon after the Reformation.

Right
So you're admitting it's not the infallible word of God then...
I'm glad we've moved past that fallacy - now on to the real issues - Pre 345 CE

Joe has admitted numerous times the bible is nothing more than allegory used to pass religious tradition on to successive generations.

[Chizzang]

Right
So you're admitting it's not the infallible word of God then...
I'm glad we've moved past that fallacy - now on to the real issues - Pre 345 CE

Joe has admitted numerous times the bible is nothing more than allegory used to pass religious tradition on to successive generations.

With a specific agenda
by carefully misquoting and misinterpreting key information