Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/9/08 11:52 PM, Z-Ezekiel wrote: So do you want me to post the counter argument for every single contradiction it mentions?

Well obviously you have no intention of doing so.

At 3/10/08 12:08 AM, Z-Ezekiel wrote: If you want proof of the Bible that depends what you are asking. The main thing the Bible wants is faith not belief through evidence. What comes first is faith then experience then proof. :

I disagree. You want physical, scientific proof that the Bible is true? Easily done.

Wash in running water (not caught on to until 1860s)
"And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean." Leviticus 15:13

The earth in space (not sitting on a giant animal like people thought)
"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." Job 26:7

The earth is round (not flat like people thought)
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." Isaiah 40:22

The moon reflects the light of the sun (doesn't give its own light like people thought)
"Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not..." Job 25:2

Cycle of evaporation and rainfall
"All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again." Ecclesiastes 1:7

Gulf streams and wind currents over the oceans
"The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits." Ecclesiastes 1:6

Dinosaurs? No problem, look for "Behemoth" in Job 40:15-24
(Look it up yourself, to many verses to post)

And many, many more. So what are you going to do? The Bible has proven itself throughout the ages, that's why we still have the same old Bible and you have to get a new science text book every year. You don't have to believe the Bible by faith alone, the proof is there. Once you understand that there are things in the Bible that people didn't figure out until thousands of years later, then you can believe the rest by faith. Unless of course you didn't harden your heart to things concerning God, then you could just believe.

Here are some sites that have more information about the Bible and Science, if you're interested.

http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingto ol/scientificfactsintheBible.shtml

http://www.fbcny.org/bible/astronomy.htm

At 3/10/08 03:26 AM, Bokushi wrote: Wash in running water (not caught on to until 1860s) Leviticus 15:13

Obviously one needs divine revelation to figure out running water makes things clean.

The earth in space (not sitting on a giant animal like people thought)
"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." Job 26:7

You're kidding, right? I mean, I know that the said verse is as so, but you consider this as proof? Wow.

The earth is round (not flat like people thought)
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." Isaiah 40:22

Yet, there are other verses that make the earth appear as though it is flat. Contradiction time ^_^

The moon reflects the light of the sun (doesn't give its own light like people thought)
"Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not..." Job 25:2

"Dominion and fear [are] with him, he maketh peace in his high places." Erm, what? This is your beloved KJV too, don't you worry.

Cycle of evaporation and rainfall
"All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again." Ecclesiastes 1:7

Too vague to be considered "proof".

Dinosaurs? No problem, look for "Behemoth" in Job 40:15-24
(Look it up yourself, to many verses to post)

Scientific evidence unanimously points towards dinosaurs not existing within the last 6000 years, thank you very much.

So what are you going to do?

Point out how bullshit and pathetic your concepts of "proof" are?

The Bible has proven itself throughout the ages,

Been edited throughout the ages*

that's why we still have the same old Bible and you have to get a new science text book every year.

The bible is blatantly wrong in spots.

You don't have to believe the Bible by faith alone, the proof is there. Once you understand that there are things in the Bible that people didn't figure out until thousands of years later, then you can believe the rest by faith.

Well firstly, I don't see how you can trust so much something that has been edited and changed so heavily.
Secondly, if you consider this proof then you should be a Muslim, as the Koran has infinitely more "scientific proof" in it.

Unless of course you didn't harden your heart to things concerning God, then you could just believe.

No, one can't "Just believe", thank you very much. Belief is not a choice.

At 3/10/08 03:26 AM, Bokushi wrote:

At 3/10/08 12:08 AM, Z-Ezekiel wrote: If you want proof of the Bible that depends what you are asking. The main thing the Bible wants is faith not belief through evidence. What comes first is faith then experience then proof. :

I disagree. You want physical, scientific proof that the Bible is true? Easily done.

So you find various sections of the Bible which show things that could be interpreted as scientific facts? Fantastic. So that must mean everything in the Bible is true.

I could read Harry Potter and notice that they ride on trains. Trains are real, so flying brooms must be too with your logic.

At 3/10/08 04:08 AM, Tancrisism wrote: So you find various sections of the Bible which show things that could be interpreted as scientific facts? Fantastic. So that must mean everything in the Bible is true.

I could read Harry Potter and notice that they ride on trains. Trains are real, so flying brooms must be too with your logic.

Holy shit! Whom do I have to worship around here for flying brooms?

But wait, Harry Potter is cheating! Trains already existed when Harry Potter was writen, whereas dinosaurs came after the Bible. And clearly, the fact that you become clean after washing yourself for SEVEN DAYS is a far greater discovery, one that is completely impossible without a divine revelation.

At 3/10/08 04:06 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 3/10/08 03:26 AM, Bokushi wrote: Wash in running water (not caught on to until 1860s) Leviticus 15:13

Obviously one needs divine revelation to figure out running water makes things clean.

Actually genius, people used to not wash their hands at all when dealing with the sick, and guess what? Sickness spread like fire. And then they started washing their hands but in bowls of water, not running water. So they essentially washed themselves in their own filth... thought this one would be obvious? Apparently people needed this "divine revelation." You can't treat these passages as if someone wrote them today, these things weren't always known!

The earth is round (not flat like people thought)
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." Isaiah 40:22

Yet, there are other verses that make the earth appear as though it is flat. Contradiction time ^_^ :

Go for it.

The moon reflects the light of the sun (doesn't give its own light like people thought)
"Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not..." Job 25:2

"Dominion and fear [are] with him, he maketh peace in his high places." Erm, what? This is your beloved KJV too, don't you worry. :

What was the point of that verse you mentioned? Couldn't find a reason so you answered with a verse that was not adequate?

Cycle of evaporation and rainfall
"All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again." Ecclesiastes 1:7

Too vague to be considered "proof".

The Ecclesiastes passages are clear as day.

Dinosaurs? No problem, look for "Behemoth" in Job 40:15-24
(Look it up yourself, to many verses to post)

Scientific evidence unanimously points towards dinosaurs not existing within the last 6000 years, thank you very much. :

Thank you for your scientific opinion. You won't find scientific facts like these in other religious books, you'll find the opposite.

(To the others jumping on the bandwagon)
Harry Potter? Yeah let's respond to fact with fiction. At least it seems like SadisticMonkey is trying to have a conversation. I shortened the verses to give you the just of the verse, look them up yourself if you're concerned.

You've got to admit, now that we're out of the realm of "I think/I feel" and into "here's fact" you're scared. It's easy to think your opinion is higher than another but hard to refute fact unless of course you're a fool. Belief is a choice, you choose not to believe.

=======
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. Prov. 26:5

At 3/10/08 08:12 AM, Bokushi wrote: You can't treat these passages as if someone wrote them today, these things weren't always known!

Man, not only is your Leviticus quote very dubious in whether it says 'running water gets rid of germs', the quote is about what you should do after having a 'discharge'. And I don't buy your history at all anyway - they still washed their hands with running water when they had crap on them 2000 years ago.

The earth is round (not flat like people thought)
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." Isaiah 40:22

Yet, there are other verses that make the earth appear as though it is flat. Contradiction time ^_^ :

Go for it.

It's a pointless exercise anyway since the Ancient Greeks figured out the Earth was a sphere.

The moon reflects the light of the sun (doesn't give its own light like people thought)
"Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not..." Job 25:2

"Dominion and fear [are] with him, he maketh peace in his high places." Erm, what? This is your beloved KJV too, don't you worry. :

What was the point of that verse you mentioned? Couldn't find a reason so you answered with a verse that was not adequate?

http://bible.cc/job/25-2.htm
That is Job 2-2, dipshit, you've got the wrong quote. And when I track down the right quote, you've taken it out of context, it's not saying anything about the moon being the sun's reflected light, it's saying 'shit scary stuff is happening'.

Too vague to be considered "proof".

The Ecclesiastes passages are clear as day.

Not if you're saying 'this is a revelation about the water cycle'.

Thank you for your scientific opinion. You won't find scientific facts like these in other religious books, you'll find the opposite.

credibility is now gone since you believe in the Flintstones version of prehistory

man you are dumb and it's entirely due to religion

At 3/7/08 09:34 PM, KennyD wrote: Is being athiest a way of not being responsible for your actions? I mean being a christian myself, what we belive in basically boils down to if you live a responsible, honest life, you will be rewarded with Heaven the place of eternal bliss, if not then you are punished in Hell, the eternal place of agony. However being athiest, there is no consequences for your actions on earth. No matter how good or bad you are, once you die, thats it.
I'm not trying to start a christian vs. athiest hate-fest, I'm just wanting to know if this is in fact, one of the reasons for being an athiest?

No. It's not. I just choose not to believe that an old invisible man called God is stalking me and watching my every move. In fact, when I read the Bible, it scares the pants off of me. It's the ultimate 1984 society. I'm also sick of people acting moral because God said so rather than acting upon their own personal humanity to be kind towards each other. I think that if it was proven that Heaven doesn't exist (which is pretty much impossible) there would probably be mass amounts of chaos committed by the CHRISTIAN community because they base all of their moral fibers on "God said so."

At 3/10/08 04:06 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 3/10/08 03:26 AM, Bokushi wrote: Wash in running water (not caught on to until 1860s) Leviticus 15:13

Obviously one needs divine revelation to figure out running water makes things clean.

um......... remeber the dark ages.

The earth is round (not flat like people thought)
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." Isaiah 40:22

Yet, there are other verses that make the earth appear as though it is flat. Contradiction time ^_^

Yet you don't provide them. Curious.

The moon reflects the light of the sun (doesn't give its own light like people thought)
"Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not..." Job 25:2

"Dominion and fear [are] with him, he maketh peace in his high places." Erm, what? This is your beloved KJV too, don't you worry.

WTF?

Cycle of evaporation and rainfall
"All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again." Ecclesiastes 1:7

Too vague to be considered "proof".

Makes plenty of sense. Remember the water chart from school? It showed how the water cycle worked? Those are the last two steps in the chart before it repeats.

Dinosaurs? No problem, look for "Behemoth" in Job 40:15-24
(Look it up yourself, to many verses to post)

Scientific evidence unanimously points towards dinosaurs not existing within the last 6000 years, thank you very much.

Scientific consenses also said that the earth was flat, and maggots came from rotting food.
Herodotus described seeing flying lizards while in arabia and egypt. And that they lived in spice groves where they rested in frankincence trees. Arstotle said in his time it was common knowledge that these creatures also existed in ethiopia, the geographer Strabo also claimed seeing them in india. And my favorite, the Historia Animalium, stated that dragons (lets face it, the descriptions of dinosaurs and dragons are too similar) were still alive during the 1500's, but that they were very rare and small. Ulysses Aldrovandus collected the body of a small dragon that a farmer had killed in italy, that was in 1572. How about a more recent example, lets say... 1915? The german U-boat U28 Captained by Georg von Forstner torpedoed the british steamer Iberian. The steamer sunk and exploded under water. After the explosion the captain witnessed a sea monster struggling in the wreakage. "At that moment, I had with me in the conning tower my officers of the watch, the engineer, the navigator, and the helmsman. Simultaneously we all drew one another attention out to seas..... we were unable to identify it. We did not have time to take a photograph, for the animal sank out of sight after 10 to 15 seconds. It was about 20 meters long, was like a crocodile in shape and had 4 limbs with powerful with powerful webbed feet and a long tail tapering to a point".
If scientists still have yet to identify
If scientists have still yet to idenify every single creature on eaerth, why should they be qualified to judge every single creature that lived in the past....

So what are you going to do?

Point out how bullshit and pathetic your concepts of "proof" are?

Not really you just flammed him.

The Bible has proven itself throughout the ages,

Been edited throughout the ages*

No, not edited. The language has updated from the King James version as to make it easier to understand. There are also direct translations from greek. So you really have no leg to stand on with this comment because you didn't back it up at all, and it seems you don't really know the difference between KJV, NKGJ and NIV.

that's why we still have the same old Bible and you have to get a new science text book every year.

The bible is blatantly wrong in spots.

Show them.

You don't have to believe the Bible by faith alone, the proof is there. Once you understand that there are things in the Bible that people didn't figure out until thousands of years later, then you can believe the rest by faith.

Well firstly, I don't see how you can trust so much something that has been edited and changed so heavily.
Secondly, if you consider this proof then you should be a Muslim, as the Koran has infinitely more "scientific proof" in it.

Both fallacies, the Koran rips off the Torah, and Bible and just rearranges the verses, and adds it's own laws.

Unless of course you didn't harden your heart to things concerning God, then you could just believe.

No, one can't "Just believe", thank you very much. Belief is not a choice.

Yeah.... Prime example of one hardening his heart.....yeah.

At 3/10/08 08:36 AM, Earfetish wrote:

At 3/10/08 08:12 AM, Bokushi wrote: You can't treat these passages as if someone wrote them today, these things weren't always known!

Man, not only is your Leviticus quote very dubious in whether it says 'running water gets rid of germs', the quote is about what you should do after having a 'discharge'. And I don't buy your history at all anyway - they still washed their hands with running water when they had crap on them 2000 years ago. :

The entire chapter is about cleansing yourself. It's not "my" history, its history.

http://bible.cc/job/25-2.htm
That is Job 2-2, dipshit, you've got the wrong quote. And when I track down the right quote, you've taken it out of context, it's not saying anything about the moon being the sun's reflected light, it's saying 'shit scary stuff is happening'. :

Yeah you were right I was off by 3 verses... but you were off by 23 chapters, of course I can understand typos unlike some people. It is Job 25:5 and you're wrong. It's talking about the glory of God and how man is nothing compared to him.

The Ecclesiastes passages are clear as day.

Not if you're saying 'this is a revelation about the water cycle'. :

That's clearly the water cycle, what else could it be?

credibility is now gone since you believe in the Flintstones version of prehistory

man you are dumb and it's entirely due to religion :

Credibility seemed to have left your presence a long time ago... and I don't have a religion. Religion never saved anyone, only Jesus Christ can save you.

I'm glad there's someone else with sense on this forum, valid points ABsoldier17.

=======
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. Prov. 26:5

At 3/9/08 06:49 PM, Bokushi wrote: Hi Iapis, I wasn't denying what the verse said. Faith without works is dead, I agree. I only said read the context because he was saying it went against the verses I quoted.

Yes, when you said "no, it doesn't" as a reply to his "there is a verse that says that faith is dead without good works" I was sort of in doubt as to what you were saying, considering that, if I'm not mistaken, the belief that faith alone is enough to ensure salvation is a rather important tenet of the Lutheran faith, possibly also among other denominations, however I'm glad we now agree. I'm not getting into the Biblical contradictions debate as it can quickly become tedious, but I just have to say something about your reference to Job 25:5 as I find it funny how it ties into the "context" discussion.

If you consider the first part of the verse to be completely distinct from the surrounding verses, as a scientific statement merged into a poetic description of the greatness of God, then it indeed means that the moon has no brightness, that it shines not. But the whole verse goes: "Lo, even the moon it shines not; the stars, not pure in his sight" (hen, ad yarehakh velo yahayil; vekhokhavim, lo tzaku veyenal). It's saying that the moon does not shine, nor are the stars bright in God's eyes. This is meant to explain His high standards. So the verse says the exact opposite of what you said it did, that the moon does shine. As an analogy: let's say we have a man who has a very high standard when it comes to considering things black. It would not make sense for him to point to point at the White House and say "in my eyes, even that building is white". It would only make sense for him to point at something whose colour is virtually black but has the slightest dash of white and say "in my eyes, even that thing's colour is white".

Accordingly, I'm convinced that, based on the context (you replaced the rest of the verse with three dots, but you're only supposed to do this when the rest is irrelevant), the verse does say that the moon shines. A whole lot actually, considering that it's mentioned in the verse, but in the "eyes" of God, even that enormous light is negligible.

At 3/10/08 04:54 PM, Juche2 wrote: All religion is evil, it must be opposed in the name of socialism!

It this was has not been one sentence, I would agree to some extent. But sadly, humans believe they are pawns in the game. Pawns become queens and knights at the end...

At 3/10/08 08:12 AM, Bokushi wrote:

At 3/10/08 04:06 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 3/10/08 03:26 AM, Bokushi wrote: Wash in running water (not caught on to until 1860s) Leviticus 15:13

Obviously one needs divine revelation to figure out running water makes things clean.

Actually genius, people used to not wash their hands at all when dealing with the sick,

Europe and the entire world are not the same thing.

For example, the Aztecs were a very cleanly people in general, and they didn't even have the bible.

At 3/10/08 08:32 PM, Elfer wrote:

Europe and the entire world are not the same thing.

For example, the Aztecs were a very cleanly people in general, and they didn't even have the bible.

lulz, thats because a virgins heart really stains bad and they had to use water :)

At 3/10/08 05:49 PM, lapis wrote:

At 3/9/08 06:49 PM, Bokushi wrote: Hi Iapis, I wasn't denying what the verse said. Faith without works is dead, I agree. I only said read the context because he was saying it went against the verses I quoted.

Yes, when you said "no, it doesn't" as a reply to his "there is a verse that says that faith is dead without good works" I was sort of in doubt as to what you were saying, considering that, if I'm not mistaken, the belief that faith alone is enough to ensure salvation is a rather important tenet of the Lutheran faith, possibly also among other denominations, however I'm glad we now agree. I'm not getting into the Biblical contradictions debate as it can quickly become tedious, but I just have to say something about your reference to Job 25:5 as I find it funny how it ties into the "context" discussion.

I'm also glad we agree, and yes those discussions can be tedious. I'm not always right, but I want to be, so I went back and looked at the Job passage.

But the whole verse goes: "Lo, even the moon it shines not; the stars, not pure in his sight" (hen, ad yarehakh velo yahayil; vekhokhavim, lo tzaku veyenal). :

I found that your verse is different than mine, only slightly. (That's all it takes)

"Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight."

I don't think you're using the King James Bible. I can't really argue one point or another if we have different versions; that doesn't work. Also not sure what language that was after you quoted the verse but I don't speak it, that's why God got me his word in English. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, with your version that probably seems right.

The Bible version debate is another tedious one that I'd like to avoid, all I know to tell you is that when people's religion didn't fit with the Bible they didn't change their religion, they changed the Bible. I believe the King James Bible AV 1611 to be the perfect word of God in the English language, I've done my research and there are plenty of good books out there if you're interested.

Accordingly, I'm convinced that, based on the context (you replaced the rest of the verse with three dots, but you're only supposed to do this when the rest is irrelevant), the verse does say that the moon shines. :

I guess I was kind of looking at it as a stand alone verse, there are many in the Bible. I did encourage people to look it up themselves though. :)

=======
You are not ready to live until you are ready to die.

At 3/10/08 11:08 PM, Bokushi wrote:

I'm also glad we agree, and yes those discussions can be tedious. I'm not always right, but I want to be, so I went back and looked at the Job passage.

But the whole verse goes: "Lo, even the moon it shines not; the stars, not pure in his sight" (hen, ad yarehakh velo yahayil; vekhokhavim, lo tzaku veyenal). :

I found that your verse is different than mine, only slightly. (That's all it takes)

"Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight."

I don't think you're using the King James Bible. I can't really argue one point or another if we have different versions; that doesn't work. Also not sure what language that was after you quoted the verse but I don't speak it, that's why God got me his word in English. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, with your version that probably seems right.

He is transliterating from the original hebrew, (the left side of the link)
You can not get a proper feel for the Torah unless you can read and understand the original hebrew otherwise you get bogged down in conflicting translations.

And lapis how do you know how to read hebrew? I am impressed.
Unless you just know how to speak ivrit and use that to know how to read the hebrew?

At 3/7/08 09:54 PM, KennyD wrote: Basically, if there is no afterlife, then go commit every "dirty" thought you've ever had. If theres no consequences for your actions here on earth and after you die that it, why hold yourself back?

You forgot the part where you go to prison for committing every "dirty" thought you've ever had. Who wants to rot in a cell for 25+ years? So it's not the "no consequences for your actions in the afterlife" That keeps us on the straight path; it's the real world.

This topic should be locked.

If you need an ancient belief system that works on a reward/punishment system to stop you from killing or raping someone, you have got something wrong with you.

At 3/11/08 02:32 AM, Crxss wrote:

At 3/7/08 09:54 PM, KennyD wrote: Basically, if there is no afterlife, then go commit every "dirty" thought you've ever had. If theres no consequences for your actions here on earth and after you die that it, why hold yourself back?

You forgot the part where you go to prison for committing every "dirty" thought you've ever had. Who wants to rot in a cell for 25+ years? So it's not the "no consequences for your actions in the afterlife" That keeps us on the straight path; it's the real world.

It also implies that being evil somehow makes you happy. If I was to live one life as a murderer who kills all his loved ones and gets execucted, and one life was producive and happy family father, which life am I most likely to enjoy? If atheist where selfish and materalistic, they'd obviously pick the latter one :D

At 3/11/08 05:33 AM, Drakim wrote:

:: It also implies that being evil somehow makes you happy. If I was to live one life as a murderer who kills all his loved ones and gets execucted, and one life was producive and happy family father, which life am I most likely to enjoy? If atheist where selfish and materalistic, they'd obviously pick the latter one :D

Ya, well, uh...Hitler picked the former!

it had to be said.

At 3/11/08 07:57 AM, therealsylvos wrote:

At 3/11/08 05:33 AM, Drakim wrote:

It also implies that being evil somehow makes you happy. If I was to live one life as a murderer who kills all his loved ones and gets execucted, and one life was producive and happy family father, which life am I most likely to enjoy? If atheist where selfish and materalistic, they'd obviously pick the latter one :D

Ya, well, uh...Hitler picked the former!

it had to be said.

But the absolute majority of people picks the latter.

I suppose it's like how somebody can belive in the Christian God yet side with the devil. It doesn't make sense really.

its ridiculous when cristians think we have no morals, my morals arent bound to a tiny book,
they are a combination of all the experiences ive had in my life.

At 3/11/08 08:26 AM, thedo12 wrote: its ridiculous when cristians think we have no morals, my morals arent bound to a tiny book,
they are a combination of all the experiences ive had in my life.

Of course you dont have any morals you're obviously satanic.

(insert sarcasm)

At 3/7/08 09:34 PM, KennyD wrote: Is being athiest a way of not being responsible for your actions?

I don't think so. If anything, it squares "blame" solely on the individual by removing the divinity aspect of moral fortitude.

I mean being a christian myself, what we belive in basically boils down to if you live a responsible, honest life, you will be rewarded with Heaven the place of eternal bliss, if not then you are punished in Hell, the eternal place of agony.

There are two ways of looking at this, as I'm sure you know. One view is that it's our duty to uphold the laws of heaven here on earth, in order to actually bring the joys of heaven onto this earth, which so often turns hellish. The other is the "distraction" method you'll here so much from this board.

However being athiest, there is no consequences for your actions on earth. No matter how good or bad you are, once you die, thats it.

But there are earthly consequences, like torture and imprisonment, along with bona fide enslavement in the form of monetary reimbursement for transgressions against fellow humans.

I'm not trying to start a christian vs. athiest hate-fest, I'm just wanting to know if this is in fact, one of the reasons for being an athiest?

It could be, but I don't think that's the main draw of atheism.

I doubt the OP is reading anymore, but if anyone's interested...

Here's an idea: an atheist might follow the rules and such because he likes the idea of being free and alive.

For every action, there is always a consequence, some good, some not so good. If an atheist breaks the law, he is just as subject to criminal punishment as any Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Shintoist, Muslim, Catholic, or any other religious belief. Many atheists rather enjoy the idea of not being confined to a prison cell (or given the needle), thus why the follow the rules and obey the law.

At 3/10/08 11:08 PM, Bokushi wrote: I don't think you're using the King James Bible.

Nah, I tried to amalgamate the KJV and the Mechon Mamre translations into what I thought best reflected the Hebrew verse and preserved the sentence structure (keeping the nominal sentences intact), that's why I typed the transliteration of the Hebrew right after it. But I don't think there are any semantical differences between what I wrote and the King James version of the verse, so you can read my whole post and just substitute my translation with the verse from the King James version.

I guess I was kind of looking at it as a stand alone verse,

Stand alone half of a verse :)

At 3/10/08 11:15 PM, therealsylvos wrote: And lapis how do you know how to read hebrew? I am impressed.

Lol, don't be, I can read Hebrew letters and with the help of the spoken version on Mechon Mamre I can easily vocalise them, but actually understanding it is a completely different matter. I only know a few grammatical details, like that the suffix -im indicates a normal male plural but it doesn't go very deep. However, I speak some Arabic so I think I can basically recognise the roots of words and the functions that some words have in a sentence and I can always count on the milon.co.il online dictionary for assistance.

As a small litmus test, is the word yahayil a verb and is its root alef-hei-lamed like I suspected?

Anyway, some of the courses that I take for Arabic are both for Arabic and Hebrew students and you sometimes pick up on something, like on some pronouncing letters differently depending on the surrounding letters, the Beghadh-Kephath rule if I'm not mistaken (had to look the exact name up on the Internet though).

At 3/11/08 12:54 PM, lapis wrote:

As a small litmus test, is the word yahayil a verb and is its root alef-hei-lamed like I suspected?

No. Thats what I though until I looked in rashi. To the orthodox it is incomprehensible to learn torah without Rashi. The alef is superflous. the word is similiar to
Isaiah 13:10"yud-hay-lamed-vuv"

Anyway, some of the courses that I take for Arabic are both for Arabic and Hebrew students and you sometimes pick up on something, like on some pronouncing letters differently depending on the surrounding letters, the Beghadh-Kephath rule if I'm not mistaken (had to look the exact name up on the Internet though).

Meh I'm certainly no dikduk expert or (deekdook with the proper dikduk lulz) and I can barely translate myself.
But is the Hebrew that you pick modern day Israeli, or old testament?

At 3/11/08 02:48 PM, therealsylvos wrote: No. Thats what I though until I looked in rashi. To the orthodox it is incomprehensible to learn torah without Rashi. The alef is superflous. the word is similiar to
Isaiah 13:10"yud-hay-lamed-vuv"

Lol, that just destroyed a lot of the already rather little esteem I had for my intuition regarding Biblical Hebrew. I guess a little more prudence is warranted in the future.

But is the Hebrew that you pick modern day Israeli, or old testament?

Mostly modern so far, but it's really varied. We (about 30 students) were allowed to pick any subject that was related to the language/culture/history of the Semitic people as presentation subjects for those (two) courses and I've also seen presentations about Yiddish and even Neo- or modern Aramaic (one of the Hebrew students was an Assyrian Christian who had modern Aramaic as his mother tongue). One of the presentations was about how Paul being a follower of the school of Shammai could have influenced bits of his letters in the New Testament. Not too many of the Hebrew students seemed to care about the Biblical Hebrew though, most were part Israeli and chose a contemporary political subject or a religious subject for which they mostly seemed to rely on relatively modern sources.

logically it would seem that having no deities to punish or influence our actions would make us more responsible for what we do.

Well i've tried reading most of these posts and I've come up with this. No not everything in the bible is true, but thats not its purpose, its mostly just a set of guidelines. Being religious is a good thing, but overdoing it can be a problem. What stops atheists? Jail or death. Seeing how they believe theres nothing for 'em afterwards why do somethin' stupid that'll just take away your remaining time. I don't really like atheism because it can lead to nihilism. Those are the people who don't give a flying fuck. Remember Atheists aren't people who believe in nothing, they just don't believe in god. I myself am a christian. I feel its good to have a few things to believe in whether you can prove 'em or not. By the way . . . although people aren't able to disprove heaven, they managed to do something with hell. While the king was translating the bible from arabic to english, he stumbled upon the word Sheil (that might be an incorrect spelling). Sheil was a word that meant fire pit, the place where people burned garbage, and other unwanted shiz nit. The King translated this word as Hell, the place of punishment. (The more you Know!) For those of you who don't know what a nihilist is, Rent that movie "American Pyscho"