Snakes and Things - Interpretation - All - The Skeptic's Annotated Bible Discussion Board - Message Board - Yuku

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
2fleas	Snakes and Things		Lead	[-]
Posts: 94 12/23/05 14:19:51	Tags : None It seems this section has been relegated mostly to the JW interpretation of things. I think we should investigate some of the differences between the various "accepted" denominations of christianity. One that sticks out in my mind is Mark 16:17&18 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. We have some obscure Christian sects that follow these verses to the letter. Then we have groups like the pentecostals that look to Acts to help justify doing some of the things listed here. Then we have others that seem to simply ignore both verses. So why is there such a large degree of seperation here? How do the nonconfomists justify ignoring what is clearly written? I already know their reasons but even these are at odds. So if your a Christian could you explain where you stand on these verses and why? Just curious Lastly there is an explanation that I have yet to hear a Christian use that doesn't involve "these verses were not found in some of the copies of Mark" or "These are things that only happened during those times" So try and be creative please. Sorry my spell check never seems to work on here. This is 2fleas reporting live from The Ministry of Vice and Virtue deep in the heart of Alabamistan
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
drseinfeld	Re: Snakes and Things	#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 6286 12/27/05 13:54:53	My mom is a Lutheran but I think this is her own excuse: She takes it figuratively and when I pointed out that the verse was as plainly worded as verse 16 which says that those who believe are saved, and those who don't are damned, she then resorted to saying that Jesus was speaking to his disciples. I said that why would there be a question of who was a True (TM) believer among the disciples? I also pointed out what verse 15 said about going into all the world and preaching to every creature and then it being followed by the signs of the True (TM) believer, so he was talking about the world and not just his disciples.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
David from Texas	Re: Snakes and Things	#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2001 12/27/05 23:28:51	*Quote:* Lastly there is an explanation that I have yet to hear a Christian use that doesn't involve "these verses were not found in some of the copies of Mark" The above explanation is the best in my opinion. It is encouraging to know that professing Christians you talked to so far, have given you the above explanation... I would have guessed that most professing Christians would not have known that Mark 16:9-20 was likely not original in the autograph writing of the gospel of Mark. Other examples of passages that were not likely original include the last phrase of John 5:3, the entire verse of John 5:4, John 7:53-8:11, and 1 John 5:7.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
raphjd	Re: Snakes and Things	#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2169 12/28/05 04:13:16	DfT That is a huge problem with the bible. There is so much that has either been proven to be not original or many think aren't original. "If Homosexuals went back into the closet, then there would be no more Homosexuality in this world" - Tom DeLay, US Congressman R-TX "And secondly, I think we must admit that the discussion of these disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold. So long as we write and talk about them we are much more likely to deter him from entering any Christian communion than to draw him into our own. Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son" - C.S. Lewis
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
2fleas	Re: Snakes and Things	#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 94 12/28/05 12:30:47	Hi David, Actually very few seem to be aware of these verses not being found in all copies. It would seem the majority that choose to ignore what these verses suggest are some sort of dipensationalists? I mean that they seem to believe these things only happened back then and are no longer important today. I may be wrong but I am guessing you choose not to practice any of this stuff. So how do you feel about those who do? Surely you have seen these people do everything described. I know I have right down to drinking stictnine? (poison). Were you not the least bit impressed? Sorry I only spell as well as my Alabamistany education will allow. 2fleas reporting live from the Ministry of Vice and Virtue deep in the heart of Alabamistan
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
pillsburyz	Re: Snakes and Things	#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 20 12/28/05 14:52:09	If you want to know where you are a good Christrian or not, then stick your hand in a box that has one copperead, one diamond-back rattlesnake, one coral snake . Try to ease them out one at a time. If you get one out wifout gettin bit, you're a fair Christian. If you get two out wifout gettin bit, you're a good Christian. If you get all three out wifout gettin bit, try to drink a quart of undiluted stricnine. If you're still alive, then you're living right.---- Dough Boy
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
David from Texas	Re: Snakes and Things	#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2001 12/28/05 18:37:55	*Quote:* Re: Snakes and Things raphjd DfT That is a huge problem with the bible. I consider the Bible to be the original autographs. The original autographs are not extant, and therefore, what is left are manuscripts that contain copyist errors, deletions, and other problems that are well known to those who study this area. Therefore, the problem is not with the Bible. The problem is with the copies of the copies of the copies of the earliest manuscripts. In spite of these problems, what is left behind is a wonderful collection of documents, albeit with relatively minor problems, that point back to the original autographs. *Quote:* There is so much that has either been proven to be not original or many think aren't original. I don't trust the scholarship of most of those involved in the Jesus Seminar. Much of what they have done is simply conjecture. Some of it is downright dishonest. The so-called problems are blown way out of proportion. The recent NPR interview with Ehrman is a good example.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
David from Texas	Re: Snakes and Things	#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2001 12/28/05 18:58:12	*Quote:* Re: Snakes and Things 2fleas Hi David, Actually very few seem to be aware of these verses not being found in all copies. It would seem the majority that choose to ignore what these verses suggest are some sort of dipensationalists? Disagree. The passage is not ignored, but is rather looked upon in the light of the fact that two of the most trustworthy manuscripts of the N.T. do not contain the passage. Dispensationalism is irrelevant to this issue in my opinion. *Quote:* I mean that they seem to believe these things only happened back then and are no longer important today. Cessationism is a valid perspective in my opinion. *Quote:* I may be wrong but I am guessing you choose not to practice any of this stuff. Correct. *Quote:* So how do you feel about those who do? I have seen films of such groups practicing such things. It is important to remember what Jesus said in Matthew chapter 7... "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:20-23) *Quote:* I know I have right down to drinking stictnine? (poison). Were you not the least bit impressed? I was impressed how with people can become as deceived as they were by offering themselves up to being fools in subjecting themselves to deadly poisonous snakes. Ignorance, deception, and showmanship is what crossed my mind when I saw the films.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
raphjd	Re: Snakes and Things	#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2169 12/28/05 19:04:22	*Quote:* Therefore, the problem is not with the Bible. The problem is with the copies of the copies of the copies of the earliest manuscripts. Agreed to a point. The "bible" as it is today has many things that are known to be not original. However, most christians believe what it says because it's in the "bible" not realising that there are plenty of parts that have been made up or puprosely retranslated to change the meaning. *Quote:* I don't trust the scholarship of most of those involved in the Jesus Seminar. It's not just the Jesus Seminar that says this about the bible. The History and Discovery channels both run some great shows on the bible and biblical events. They have secular, jewish, christian, catholic, etc scholars talking about the bible. *Quote:* Much of what they have done is simply conjecture. Some of it is downright dishonest. The so-called problems are blown way out of proportion. Are you refering to the added parts of Mark {I believe that's the biggest interloptation [sp?]}? But you do admit that there are "copyist errors, deletions, and other problems that are well known to those who study this area". *Quote:* The recent NPR interview with Ehrman is a good example. Do you have a link to this? I looked but couldn't find anything. "If Homosexuals went back into the closet, then there would be no more Homosexuality in this world" - Tom DeLay, US Congressman R-TX "And secondly, I think we must admit that the discussion of these disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold. So long as we write and talk about them we are much more likely to deter him from entering any Christian communion than to draw him into our own. Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son" - C.S. Lewis
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Iznomneak	Re: Snakes and Things	#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3079 12/28/05 20:14:16	*Quote:* Do you have a link to this? I looked but couldn't find anything There is a thread open on this already here. You will also find a link posted by David with an opposing POV. with Science Fiction, all things are possible
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
David from Texas	Re: Snakes and Things	#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2001 12/28/05 20:31:17	*Quote:* Quote: I don't trust the scholarship of most of those involved in the Jesus Seminar. It's not just the Jesus Seminar that says this about the bible. The History and Discovery channels both run some great shows on the bible and biblical events. They have secular, jewish, christian, catholic, etc scholars talking about the bible. Agree. *Quote:* Quote: Much of what they have done is simply conjecture. Some of it is downright dishonest. The so-called problems are blown way out of proportion. Are you refering to the added parts of Mark {I believe that's the biggest interloptation [sp?]}? No, I mentioned the Jesus Seminar because much the material from the Seminar has been picked up and used by secular media and anti-Christian apologists such as the Islamic apologists, atheists, etc. *Quote:* But you do admit that there are "copyist errors, deletions, and other problems that are well known to those who study this area". Yes. *Quote:* Quote: The recent NPR interview with Ehrman is a good example. Do you have a link to this? Yes. The NPR link is probably no longer available, but I found another source from the station that recorded the program, and it can be found here... www.wamu.org/programs/dr/05/12/08.php Terry Gross of NPR also interviewed Ehrman on 12/14/05, and it can be found here... www.npr.org/templates/sto...Id=5052156 An interesting and detailed response to the first program from the Christian perspective by James White can be found here... aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1175 The response by James White (linked above) demonstrates how Ehrman's presentation is flawed, exaggerated, and intellectually dishonest.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Rev Etherman	Re: Snakes and Things	#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 401 12/30/05 17:52:50	*Quote:* Other examples of passages that were not likely original include the last phrase of John 5:3, the entire verse of John 5:4, John 7:53-8:11, and 1 John 5:7. I'm familiar with the reasoning behing the ending of Mark and 1 John 5:7, but I hadn't heard about the rest. Could you summarize the argument or point me to any relevant links? Thanks. If God wanted us to be Atheists we'd be born that way.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
David from Texas	Re: Snakes and Things	#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2001 12/30/05 22:49:31	*Quote:* Re: Snakes and Things Rev Etherman Quote: Other examples of passages that were not likely original include the last phrase of John 5:3, the entire verse of John 5:4, John 7:53-8:11, and 1 John 5:7. I'm familiar with the reasoning behing the ending of Mark and 1 John 5:7, but I hadn't heard about the rest. Could you summarize the argument or point me to any relevant links? Thanks. The following links may help... For John 5:3, 4... stanlemon.net/article/767.html For John 7:53-8:11.... www.religioustolerance.org/john_8.htm and www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Rev Etherman	Re: Snakes and Things	#13	[url]	[-]
Posts: 401 12/31/05 13:43:22	I spent all last night researching this. I've found dozens of places in the bible that were altered, almost always for (apparent) dogmatic reasons. One site even mentions that there are about 10,000 variant readings. Actually given the size of the Bible that really isn't much, but it makes it very obvious that God obviously doesn't care about keeping the Bible's transmission clean. If God wanted us to be Atheists we'd be born that way.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
David from Texas	Re: Snakes and Things	#14	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2001 01/01/06 09:38:00	*Quote:* Re: Snakes and Things Rev Etherman I spent all last night researching this. I've found dozens of places in the bible that were altered, almost always for (apparent) dogmatic reasons. One site even mentions that there are about 10,000 variant readings. Actually given the size of the Bible that really isn't much, but it makes it very obvious that God obviously doesn't care about keeping the Bible's transmission clean. Yes, this area is a fascinating topic and it is not surprising that it would keep a person awake at night reading about it... I disagree with your statements here. The alterations for "(apparent) dogmatic reasons" are VERY few. The VAST majority of alterations are simple copyist errors, deletions, duplications, etc. "10,000 variant readings" is a number that is used deceptively. The VAST majority of alterations consist of minor copyist errors that have no implications in changing the meaning of the text at all. If you took a class of 300 students and assigned each student to make a handwritten copy of the first 10 chapters of the book of John, how many of the copies would be identical? (I would say none, yet most of the copies would be very much the same, but not identical). How many variations would there be? (thousands). Is it possible using the "defective" copies made by the students to reassemble the original? (I would say, yes). The example given above is not my own. I heard it given recently by James White. There is a fascinating discussion regarding this issue lately because of Bart Erhman's new book "Misquoting Jesus". Ehrman has been interviewed on NPR. James White has responded to the NPR program over the past 2 weeks in his program online. All of these programs are found online, and the links are given above in this thread.... I also disagree with your statement "that God obviously doesn't care about keeping the Bible's transmission clean." Paradoxically, the textual variants is the means by which God in His providence has PRESERVED the original text to this day! How can this be? Listen to what James White has to say about it... it is very interesting.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
2fleas	Re: Snakes and Things	#15	[url]	[-]
Posts: 94 01/04/06 00:14:21	Hi David, I agree with your last statement. When I tried being a Christian I had much the same view of these people. Back then we would have probably got along great. I say that after reading you discussion with Waterrock concerning predestination and free will. Calvanism wasn't very popular then and I don't think it is now. I do admire your stance. I tried a similar stance and ended up with Christian enemys rather than friends. 2fleas Live from the Ministry of Vice and Virtue deep in the heart of Alabamistan.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Rev Etherman	Re: Snakes and Things	#16	[url]	[-]
Posts: 401 01/04/06 00:47:21	From what I've seen very few of the difference can be attributed to copyist error. One springs to mind is that in 1 (?) John; we typically get a translations suchs as "There are three that bear witness in Heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." But that's not what it says at all. All of the earliest manuscripts say something very different. Though it's hazardous to guess at the motive behind the copyist, in this case it looks like a clear attempt to create support for the doctrine of the Trinity. One of the more famous (and largest) problems is the ending of Mark. All of the earliest manuscripts lack the ending. The later manuscripts sometimes have two completely different endings. One of these has the famous bit about taking up snakes and drinking poison. This has caused a whole sect of Christians known as Snake Handlers to come into existence. Who knows how many people have died doing this, all based on something that wasn't actually part of the Bible. Obviously this situation wasn't copyist error either. I do think that Bible skeptics sometimes overexaggerate these kinds of problems. Perhaps only about 5% of the text has variations, and in many cases we can figure out what was original. Much more troubling for Bible believers is the contradictions with reason, history, science, and common decency. If God wanted us to be Atheists we'd be born that way.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
David from Texas	Re: Snakes and Things	#17	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2001 01/04/06 14:46:30	*Quote:* Re: Snakes and Things Rev Etherman From what I've seen very few of the difference can be attributed to copyist error. What you have seen are probably the ones that get most all of the attention... i.e., the ones that are not due to copyist error, but instead due to intentional changes to the text. Bart Ehrman, the author of the book "Misquoting Jesus" (he is New Testament scholar... and agnostic apostate) says that the "vast majority" (his own words) of the variants are unintentional such as copyist errors. source of the above... links given above from the NPR program. *Quote:* One springs to mind is that in 1 (?) John; we typically get a translations suchs as "There are three that bear witness in Heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." But that's not what it says at all. All of the earliest manuscripts say something very different. Would you care to elaborate? Which "earliest manuscripts" are you talking about? I disagree with your statement that "All of the earliest manuscripts say something very different..." pertaining to 1 John 5:7. Actually, the early manuscripts say nothing at all! The following is from Daniel Wallace pertaining to 1 John 5:7... *Quote:* ... there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1186 Textual criticism is GOOD for Christianity because it helps to discern what is closer to the original autographs of the New Testament. 1 John 5:7 is not included in many modern translations, and there is good reason for doing this based upon reasons as given above... *Quote:* Though it's hazardous to guess at the motive behind the copyist, in this case it looks like a clear attempt to create support for the doctrine of the Trinity. Agree. *Quote:* One of the more famous (and largest) problems is the ending of Mark. All of the earliest manuscripts lack the ending. The later manuscripts sometimes have two completely different endings. One of these has the famous bit about taking up snakes and drinking poison. This has caused a whole sect of Christians known as Snake Handlers to come into existence. Who knows how many people have died doing this, all based on something that wasn't actually part of the Bible. Obviously this situation wasn't copyist error either. Agree. *Quote:* I do think that Bible skeptics sometimes overexaggerate these kinds of problems. Perhaps only about 5% of the text has variations, and in many cases we can figure out what was original. Agree. However, I have heard that the percentage of potentially problematic passages is actually much smaller... less than 1%.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
David from Texas	Re: Snakes and Things	#18	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2001 01/04/06 15:03:19	*Quote:* Re: Snakes and Things 2fleas Hi David, I agree with your last statement. When I tried being a Christian I had much the same view of these people. Back then we would have probably got along great. I say that after reading you discussion with Waterrock concerning predestination and free will. Calvanism wasn't very popular then and I don't think it is now. I do admire your stance. I tried a similar stance and ended up with Christian enemys rather than friends. I appreciate your comments. I am curious... what made you try "a similar stance"?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Rev Etherman	Re: Snakes and Things	#19	[url]	[-]
Posts: 401 01/06/06 00:28:07	*Quote:* I disagree with your statement that "All of the earliest manuscripts say something very different..." pertaining to 1 John 5:7. Actually, the early manuscripts say nothing at all! You're correct. I was misremebering. If God wanted us to be Atheists we'd be born that way.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
2fleas	Answers	#20	[url]	[-]
Posts: 94 01/10/06 00:15:46	Hi David, David asked:"I am curious... what made you try "a similar stance"?" I was new to Christianity. I started reading the Bible. It took years of off and on reading but I did it. Before I had finished I had come to the same conclusions that you have. The problem was this is not the way others (Friends and Family) believed. Most of them being United Methodist or Baptist. I once had a heated debate with my pastor concerning predestination. He said I sould read some of John Wesley?. Anyway I did and came to the conclusion that the very thing that Wesley used to justify freewill was exactly what damned it. Omnipresence I believe. "To god there is no past present or future only now." I never could fully rap my head around all the omni terms. I have only been to one Presbyterian Church and I am not so sure they were into Calvanism. After my reading of certain things in the Bible I realized I didn't go to God, It was God that drew me to him. It is his grace alone that saves and no act that I could ever do could save me. Including "believing". I believed because god wanted me to believe. I had no choice in it. To me Freewill was an illusion put here by Satan to confuse the Church. (Wow I am begining to sound like a Christian again!) Oh well. I consider myself agnostic now. I figure if there is a god out there he will bring me back around in due time. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since all this took place so I hope I haven't given you the impression that this is the only event that led me away from Christianity. 2fleas live from the Ministry of Vice and virtue deep in the heart of Alabamistan
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply

Replies

Snakes and Things	12/23/05 14:19:51	2fleas
Re: Snakes and Things	12/27/05 13:54:53	drseinfeld
Re: Snakes and Things	12/27/05 23:28:51	David from Texas
Re: Snakes and Things	12/28/05 04:13:16	raphjd
Re: Snakes and Things	12/28/05 18:37:55	David from Texas
Re: Snakes and Things	12/28/05 19:04:22	raphjd
Re: Snakes and Things	12/28/05 20:14:16	Iznomneak
Re: Snakes and Things	12/28/05 20:31:17	David from Texas
Re: Snakes and Things	12/28/05 12:30:47	2fleas
Re: Snakes and Things	12/28/05 14:52:09	pillsburyz
Re: Snakes and Things	12/28/05 18:58:12	David from Texas
Re: Snakes and Things	01/04/06 00:14:21	2fleas
Re: Snakes and Things	01/04/06 15:03:19	David from Texas
Answers	01/10/06 00:15:46	2fleas
Re: Answers	01/10/06 22:08:37	David from Texas
Re: Snakes and Things	12/30/05 17:52:50	Rev Etherman
Re: Snakes and Things	12/30/05 22:49:31	David from Texas
Re: Snakes and Things	12/31/05 13:43:22	Rev Etherman
Re: Snakes and Things	01/01/06 09:38:00	David from Texas
Re: Snakes and Things	01/04/06 00:47:21	Rev Etherman
Re: Snakes and Things	01/04/06 14:46:30	David from Texas
Re: Snakes and Things	01/06/06 00:28:07	Rev Etherman