a non-inflamitory question for any christians-
Yeah, communion can be pretty brutal
Young-Earth Creationist. Someone who believe the Earth came is 6000 years old and that evolution is an atheistic conspiracy to destroy Christianity. One interesting estimate places the date of creation at October 23 4004 BC at 9:00 AM.
But I'm not a YEC.
Maybe not the variety that believes in a date of creation at 23-10-4004BC, but unless you were just playing devil's advocate for about two solid weeks of nonstop debate, you are a YEC. Or are you one of those "old-Earth creationists?"
Well, I intentionally avoid putting hypocrisy in my posts, so your comment has no real grounds.
You've got a little vendetta against me that blinds you to the actual content of what I write,
and biases you into misconstruing it in only the most negative ways.
_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.
Actually, the chair of religious studies at UNC Chapel Hill has written and spoken widely on this. His book "Misquoting Jesus" documents many such problems with rewriting and translation. While many of these issues are not profound, some do affect doctrine in major ways.
I doubt we've misquoted Jesus in any profound way. I can't prove it of course, but it's a hunch. After 2000 years of translation, copying, transliteration, losing, finding, forgetting, quarelling, I take it as given that what sits on my bookshelf is not a word-for-word historical reconstruction.
Is it possible to have a 100% authentic copy of anything predating both the printing press and common literacy?
Ah - here's an interview with the author of Misquoting Jesus - heard it on the radio when it first came out. Interesting guy - worth a listen if anyone is interested in the Bible. The interview is 38 minutes, and there are excerpts from his book.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=5052156
To some of us, the bible is literature, not scripture.
My premise is what I intended it to me. I'm not asking about the content of the bible, only about how people deal with certain interpretations of it which I have commonly encountered. If you have a less pre-emptive way to ask that, I'm curious to know what it is.
If the bible is only literature then what are you worrying about?
Translations in my opinion are NOT reliable. They are interpretations. Unless a translation has excerpts, quotes, original verse, definitions, and separate information of the mythologies, it is not trustworthy. It must have a thorough explanation of the text.
I can't be concerned with the cultural implications of one of the most influential texts to be assembled in human history?
The majority of Americans profess to some level and variant of Christianity. Not all of them are biggoted morons. . . in fact, I'd really like to believe that most of them aren't.
It seems worthy of effort in understanding.
By the way, thank you, everyone, for your input; I really appreciate it.
_________________
And if I die before I learn to speak
will money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep
The majority of Americans profess to some level and variant of Christianity. Not all of them are biggoted morons. . . in fact, I'd really like to believe that most of them aren't.
It seems worthy of effort in understanding.
By the way, thank you, everyone, for your input; I really appreciate it.
The cultural implications shouldn't be much of a concerned today, unless you live amongst the Bedouins or farming cultures.
Define bigotry? Women aren't the same as men. They are not meant to dress the same nor act the same. Women are assigned special roles as are men. In fact you had a very specific set of rules which were meant to be followed. You must look at the history and culture in which the bible was written.
Today in a society that values individualism, you need not worry about these implications because they are no longer forced upon you by the majority.
_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.
I think it's worth while to try to understand how other people approach important issues, even if they aren't going to force their views on me.
Also, I disagree with pretty much everything else you said as well.
_________________
And if I die before I learn to speak
will money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep
Also, I disagree with pretty much everything else you said as well.
Why and How so? Women are not men and because of such are assigned different roles.
If you believe the bible is infallible, you are meant to follow it. If you do not believe the bible is infallible, why are you worrying? You said "To some of us, the bible is literature, not scripture." What is the point in having and putting faith in such literature? Scripture is meant to be infallible. Literature is not.
It really doesn't make sense to me. The way I see it, it is to ensure the integrity and not loosen any fabric between men, women, and children. Once they become unwoven, then so does society.
_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.
Truth is not a democracy. It is exclusive by its very nature.
I agree, wether is YEC or just Creationist, It is also odd that comment comming from someone who wants Creationism to be teached in public schools, kinda contradictory here, if he does.
Exactly, and well, your opinions are opinions as well, and you seem a lot to give your own opinions as "facts".
_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?
I don't know if that quote is from her or from someone else, but I can say that quote was a discontent because of the women status in the Bible to whoever wrote that, related to equality and women's rights, so it is not as simple as pride, but probably the system at the time would have seen it that way and use it against a woman who wouldn't be happy or comfort about it, especially the ones who weren't that feminine or the ones who were aspies or not and had problems following their gender roles while other women could and did, it is a problem today for some of them, especially some who are aspies here, I can imagine how would that be at the time in that culture.
_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?
Manfrednissley
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: 21 May 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 28
Location: sw georgia, usa
i have some insite for yal. one reason as stated by paul for the use of the veil for the ladies was as a sign to the angels that she is in subjection to her husband.
1 Corinthians 11 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain
1Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
17Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
18For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
20When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
21For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
22What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
23For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
33Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
34And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
look at verse 10
the question now is why do the angels need a sign. could it be that the angels do not know our hearts and therefor need to know by symbols what is going on?
btw the argument that the covering is only for the days of old is like saying that communion is no longer needed. did you notice that the topic of communion is a continuance, and not a separate chapter, of the topic of the headship order?
