The Bible

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
King of out of left field, but I love reading psalms from a King James bible. The language in beautiful. [/quote]

Ditto.

But for a more…“muscular”…version, try:

[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:I suppose if you wanted to refer to an informational component of your directly accessible mental contents as “imaginary” than that would be true[/quote]Some discussions you may find interesting.
Epistemology

Metaphysics

Freewill
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/free_will?id=4523136&pageNo=0

Moral authority
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/claiming_moral_authority?id=5421917&pageNo=11
I still owe Kamui, that intellectual Colossus, a post in this one for the last few months.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Moral authority
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/claiming_moral_authority?id=5421917&pageNo=11
I still owe Kamui, that intellectual Colossus, a post in this one for the last few months. [/quote]

I’d tell you I’m eagerly awaiting that response… but then you could bring up responses I owe you :frowning: Sorry, that link with the piece you gave me has a lot to go over. Maybe one of these days I’ll be able to give it the attention it deserves but it’s going to take time like a book report to do it right and life has a tendency to get in the way.

That’s the point. responses on some of these topics are a literal project and with him I don’t do well with installment writing where I’ll start a document and work on it over time and then post it when I’m done. I need to stay with a train of thought in one sitting to be at my best, which means I need a couple hours minimum sometimes. Like now. Very careful phraseology is also required or the whole post can wind up being for nothing. Take your time Fletch. Obviously I get it.

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
King of out of left field, but I love reading psalms from a King James bible. The language in beautiful. [/quote]

It may be perhaps linguistically aesthetic, but the King James version has serious translation issues and hence I do not trust it for accuracy.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:I suppose if you wanted to refer to an informational component of your directly accessible mental contents as “imaginary” than that would be true[/quote]Some discussions you may find interesting.
Epistemology

Metaphysics

Freewill
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/free_will?id=4523136&pageNo=0

Moral authority
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/claiming_moral_authority?id=5421917&pageNo=11
I still owe Kamui, that intellectual Colossus, a post in this one for the last few months. [/quote]

I strongly suspect this to be Karado’s alter ego. Perhaps to get me caught up in some asshat conspiracy garbage.

[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
Yes you do, you decided to respond to it, then you decided once again to post
anyway even after your so-called “second thought”, when you could just could have stayed
silent and not want to know, and not post in the first place after taking a deep
breath initially deciding on whether you wanted to know or not.

[/quote]

I have decided I don’t want to. I am not interested in conspiracy theories. If you spent as much time on researching history and fact, you would know a lot.[/quote]

Existence is a conspiracy theory, and you are the primary conspirator.

[/quote]
You’re merely a figment of my imagination.[/quote]

I suppose if you wanted to refer to an informational component of your directly accessible mental contents as “imaginary” than that would be true[/quote]

That’s not what that would mean at all. This simple childish assertion actually has deep epistemological implications.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
King of out of left field, but I love reading psalms from a King James bible. The language in beautiful. [/quote]

It may be perhaps linguistically aesthetic, but the King James version has serious translation issues and hence I do not trust it for accuracy. [/quote]

Accuracy.
Word? Image? Understanding?

In one of his prefaces, Robert Alter speaks to the beauty of the KJV, principally because the committee did strive to mimic the music of the original. So much of the Hebrew original had been adopted into the KJV that one would think it was old and established English idiom.

But Alter is a literary critic and translator. His point is that the Hebrew is a compact language, and that the poetry of the Old Testament is one of parallelism of ideas, and not of sounds. And to a remarkable degree, he succeeds in his translations to transmit the power of the image and the metaphor, whereas other translations (English or not) seem flabby or confused.

I can tell you that I never understood Job so well, in the original or in translation, as from Alter’s stunning translation.

The bible which was written by second hand prophets… I find Jesus Christ to be a great example of a humanitarian, however alot seems to not sit right… The teaching is meant to dissolve oneself and see past conditioning, not to follow blindly to random scripture and text and call it truth through a pattern of the mind, theology and belief is just a mental mind construct.

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
The bible which was written by second hand prophets… I find Jesus Christ to be a great example of a humanitarian, however alot seems to not sit right… The teaching is meant to dissolve oneself and see past conditioning, not to follow blindly to random scripture and text and call it truth through a pattern of the mind, theology and belief is just a mental mind construct. [/quote]Well thank you so very much for this penetrating and priceless revelation. The whole of the Christian church has for 20 centuries been languishing in ignorance of the central figure of her equally elusive ancient scriptures until this post, when glory be to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, cstratton2 has now chased the darkness from our hearts.

I am ceasing my life of prayer, throwing away all my books and printing out this post to carry with me always lest I forget what you’ve done for me here today. Nay, not for myself alone, but for the world whose indebtedness to you will persist until the pyramid of Cheops has returned to the dusts of Giza. I simply cannot wait to partake of whatever additional contributions will be forthcoming by the time you learn to shave.

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
The bible which was written by second hand prophets… I find Jesus Christ to be a great example of a humanitarian, however alot seems to not sit right… The teaching is meant to dissolve oneself and see past conditioning, not to follow blindly to random scripture and text and call it truth through a pattern of the mind, theology and belief is just a mental mind construct. [/quote]

This is all wrong. I suspect you have not read the whole thing or know a great deal about biblical history. Jesus was not a humanitarian, he was the Christ. God incarnate in the flesh. Much more than a humanitarian and the depth and breath of his presence on Earth is still yet to be fully realized and understood.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
King of out of left field, but I love reading psalms from a King James bible. The language in beautiful. [/quote]

It may be perhaps linguistically aesthetic, but the King James version has serious translation issues and hence I do not trust it for accuracy. [/quote]

Accuracy.
Word? Image? Understanding?

In one of his prefaces, Robert Alter speaks to the beauty of the KJV, principally because the committee did strive to mimic the music of the original. So much of the Hebrew original had been adopted into the KJV that one would think it was old and established English idiom.

But Alter is a literary critic and translator. His point is that the Hebrew is a compact language, and that the poetry of the Old Testament is one of parallelism of ideas, and not of sounds. And to a remarkable degree, he succeeds in his translations to transmit the power of the image and the metaphor, whereas other translations (English or not) seem flabby or confused.

I can tell you that I never understood Job so well, in the original or in translation, as from Alter’s stunning translation.[/quote]

I would agree that understanding is the most important take away and if the KJV did that for you, that’s awesome. But with regards to the accuracy of the text to the original Hebrew and Greek, the KJV has major errors. That doesn’t mean it’s not a useful spiritual tool, it just means that there are more faithful word for word translations, which the KJV is not. It’s a thought translation. I like the word for word translations. The ESV and NRSV are the gold standard in that respect.
Nobody is going to give perfect translation. The best is really to learn Hebrew and Greek and read it from there, but since I am not planning on doing that I rely on a proper scholarly word for word translation.
However, if you understand the word better from the KJV translation, then that’s the one you should use. Perhaps with a good study tool that addresses the translation errors in the notes so you have both sides.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
King of out of left field, but I love reading psalms from a King James bible. The language in beautiful. [/quote]

It may be perhaps linguistically aesthetic, but the King James version has serious translation issues and hence I do not trust it for accuracy. [/quote]

Accuracy.
Word? Image? Understanding?

In one of his prefaces, Robert Alter speaks to the beauty of the KJV, principally because the committee did strive to mimic the music of the original. So much of the Hebrew original had been adopted into the KJV that one would think it was old and established English idiom.

But Alter is a literary critic and translator. His point is that the Hebrew is a compact language, and that the poetry of the Old Testament is one of parallelism of ideas, and not of sounds. And to a remarkable degree, he succeeds in his translations to transmit the power of the image and the metaphor, whereas other translations (English or not) seem flabby or confused.

I can tell you that I never understood Job so well, in the original or in translation, as from Alter’s stunning translation.[/quote]

I studied Job in depth some years ago. It would be interesting to hear your and Alter’s take on it.[/quote]

I lived Job for a few years… It sucked.

Do the people here interested in or otherwise committed to Christian theology believe that communion is communication?

[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
Do the people here interested in or otherwise committed to Christian theology believe that communion is communication? [/quote]

No.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
The bible which was written by second hand prophets… I find Jesus Christ to be a great example of a humanitarian, however alot seems to not sit right… The teaching is meant to dissolve oneself and see past conditioning, not to follow blindly to random scripture and text and call it truth through a pattern of the mind, theology and belief is just a mental mind construct. [/quote]

This is all wrong. I suspect you have not read the whole thing or know a great deal about biblical history. Jesus was not a humanitarian, he was the Christ. God incarnate in the flesh. Much more than a humanitarian and the depth and breath of his presence on Earth is still yet to be fully realized and understood.[/quote]

I know he was much more then a kind person, I believe him to be highly awakened, on a spiritual level as well as many, many others but rather then make mental idols and seek salvation through them we should rely on ourselves. You don’t deepen you’re spiritual nature by just following texts as a product of the mind, or it becomes a theology and blind faith… The Indian sage Ramana Maharshi likened spiritual teachings to thorns used to remove other thorns. There is great insight in segments in the bible but it is never seemingly taught by most, such as In Matthew 16: 24, Jesus says: “If anyone wants to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.” which can mean “When Jesus said ‘Deny thyself’, what he meant was: Negate (and thus undo) the illusion of self. If the self - the ego - were truly who I am, it would be absurd to ‘deny’ it. What remains is the light of consciousness in which perceptions, experiences, thoughts, and feelings come and go. That is Being, that is the deeper, true I.” It has nothing to do with idealogy, belief or religion, it is actually the removal of everything you were ever taught.

Also Jiddu Krishnamurtis qoute is quite interesting… There is no guide, no teacher, no authority. There is only you - your relationship with others and with the world - there is nothing else. When you realize this, it either brings great despair, from which comes cynicism and bitterness, or, in facing the fact that you and nobody else is responsible for the world and for yourself, for what you think, what you feel, how you act, all self-pity goes.

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:<<< I know he was much more then a kind person, >>>[/quote]YOU DO?!?!?!? Well isn’t that jist peachy keen. Look, I’m sure yer a hip n groovy kid, but stick to sages and gurus of which Jesus Christ was not one. Here is a post to another guy a while back that will save me some typing:

[quote]This book (Romans) is one of the toughest in the bible sometimes to interpret and admittedly this passage is probably not immediately self explanatory, but…
Romans 3:19-31 (ESV)

[quote]19-Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20-For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

21-But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it 22-the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23-for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24-and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25-whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God?s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26-It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

27-Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28-For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29-Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30-since God is one who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31-Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.[/quote]
God simply forgiving sin, which in short, sin is to fail the standard of His law, would be the eternal divine equivalent of you simply looking the other way when your children ignore your rules. Only instead of being an attack on the authority of one man who is also sinful, sin against the Lord is an attack on the nature and authority of a blindingly pure, holy and JUST God. A God whose very purity, holiness and justice will not allow Him to simply wink at sin and say “awww, that’s ok, I know how ya’ll are chuckle chuckle!!!” No. His nature and justice demand satisfaction of the violation of His law.

That law was given after the entrance of sin into the world as a tutor to instruct man in his exceeding need of a remedy for his deplorable state of rebellion wherein he is incessantly attempting to run his own life and flipping God off.

This passage is lifted from it’s immediate context, to say nothing of the much larger one that flows through it. However, the short version is that NOBODY in their present state is capable of satisfying God’s perfect law perfectly and as the apostle James said, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.” (James 2:10) Two important lessons are learned here. One, this explains how something so seemingly trivial as a bite from a piece of fruit in defiance of God’s command can bring eternal ruin to our entire specie. Two, it shuts up ALL men (and women) under sin seeing that even the most apparently good and moral among us are still guilty of eternal crimes and under the sentence of death.

Paul says in the passage above that redemption from this sin of ours is in Christ Jesus, who though Himself born under the law is the only specimen of our kind to avoid descension and hence corruption from Adam because God is His Father. Having then obeyed the law perfectly, He is thereby singularly qualified to make satisfaction before the Father on behalf of others. In this way the apostle says in verse 26, God is BOTH just and the justIFIER of those who avail themselves of this most merciful and gracious benefit which is acquired by faith in this Jesus who has died in their place. He is just because His law and it’s penalty have been upheld. He can then JUSTLY forgive those who call on Him by applying the satisfaction of Christ’s sacrifice to them…

Jesus of Nazareth, the man born God, satisfied the law on behalf of His elect by both obeying it for them and dying as if like them He hadn’t. Having therefore no sin of His own, death could not hold Him and when He rose again in victory over sin’s penalty, all those who had been given Him by the Father rose with Him. This is why at our church, make no mistake, we celebrate Jesus my dear friend. We have us one spirit filled hallelujah glory shoutin good time exalting and praising Him for His amazing grace indeed. Here’s a tip. He couldn’t care less that this highly offends you. For the record, He couldn’t have cared less when it highly offended me either.[/quote]

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
The bible which was written by second hand prophets… I find Jesus Christ to be a great example of a humanitarian, however alot seems to not sit right… The teaching is meant to dissolve oneself and see past conditioning, not to follow blindly to random scripture and text and call it truth through a pattern of the mind, theology and belief is just a mental mind construct. [/quote]

This is all wrong. I suspect you have not read the whole thing or know a great deal about biblical history. Jesus was not a humanitarian, he was the Christ. God incarnate in the flesh. Much more than a humanitarian and the depth and breath of his presence on Earth is still yet to be fully realized and understood.[/quote]

I know he was much more then a kind person, I believe him to be highly awakened, on a spiritual level as well as many, many others but rather then make mental idols and seek salvation through them we should rely on ourselves.
[/quote]
Yeah, we see this all the time. It’s called secular humanism and the social despair it brings: fatherless children, abortion, broken families, crime, hatred, fear, misdirection, etc. Sounds way better than people trying to live a faithful life of peace and love and living for a higher purpose than one’s self.
What does ‘ourselves’ bring to the table other than rampant selfishness? I’ll take a neighbor ‘blindly’ trying to lead a life or faith and lover a selfish pig any day.

Incorrect. You do deepen your spiritual nature and self efficacy by reading those texts. The Bible is for man, not God. The more you learn about God, the more you know about yourself. By serving God, you become richer in every way as a person.

Perhaps your experience with Biblical faith is shallow, but for those who care to know, it is opened. And the depth and breadth of the Bible is taught. You cannot liken your lack of experience as the end all be all of Biblical spirituality.

It’s the denial of self, that shows you who you really are. The denial of self, is the removal of being self centered, for living for something more than yourself. But for the grace of God we are hopelessly insignificant.
In that one verse there is so much more than can be reasonably discussed.

Nothing else? Oh there is a great deal more. You don’t need to be some spiritual giant to realize that. Even in physics we know that even the most insignificant movement changes everything about the universe we know, and a great deal more that we don’t.

The problem with this train of thought is that even on it’s surface, is that the reasoning is circular. Things are not a function of themselves, it’s flat logically impossible for that to be so. Without even getting ‘spiritual’, we know deductively, that nothing is a function of itself.
There is never ‘nothing else’ there is always more.