Quotehttp://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx?archive=1
Damned hilarious!
I love this one.
Quote[on the subject of a Bible printing company]
Yes, that is a great company. I bought one of their large print version (old eyes... what can I say?).
The only thing I don't like about them is they sell foreign language versions of the KJB. I don't think that's right. We know the only true translation is the 1600's version in English.
It's too risky for anybody to translate that into other languages. Mistakes can creep in... and that can lead to heresy. True Christians should only read English.
leyenda , KJB only [Comments (271)] [2007-Aug-06]
Submitted by Traitor1
:biglaugh:
Might as well point to the home page.
www.fstdt.com
Fundies Say the Darndest Things
Jesus spoke freakin' Aramaic.
No thee or thou for him.
I'm not one to usually defend fundamentalists, but the quote isn't particularly ignorant if you understand the background.
There's a faction of fundamentalists that believe that the King James translation was "divinely" inspired, so it's as "perfect" as the original Hebrew and Greek writing. All he's saying is that the King James translation of the Bible shouldn't be further translated into another language, because such translation would no doubt not have the same divine inspiration behind it.
Why the King James version is considered to be as it is I have no idea.
Here's my "divinely" inspired translation that should not be further translated, "Fuck You". :PatK:
Reminds me of the story of the Tower of Bible . . .
Quote from: Sam A. Robrin on December 04, 2008, 09:12 PM NHFT
Reminds me of the story of the Tower of Bible . . .
Is that one where they kept piling bible on top of bible and scripture on top of scripture so that they could build a tower to reach God and then the pile fell over and killed everyone?
That's a lot like congress.
Quote from: Facilitator to the Icon on December 04, 2008, 08:57 PM NHFT
Here's my "divinely" inspired translation that should not be further translated, "Fuck You". :PatK:
Damn, there needs to be an actual :PatK: smiley.
;D 8)
Quote from: Facilitator to the Icon on December 04, 2008, 09:23 PM NHFT
Quote from: Sam A. Robrin on December 04, 2008, 09:12 PM NHFT
Reminds me of the story of the Tower of Bible . . .
Is that one where they kept piling bible on top of bible and scripture on top of scripture so that they could build a tower to reach God and then the pile fell over and killed everyone?
No, it's the one where there were so many translations of translations that no one had the faintest idea of what was being said . . .
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on December 04, 2008, 08:28 PM NHFT
There's a faction of fundamentalists that believe that the King James translation was divinely inspired, so it's as perfect as the original Hebrew and Greek writing. All He's saying is that the King James translation of the Bible shouldn't be further translated into another language, because such translation would no doubt not have the same divine inspiration behind it.
Hmmm. I've never met any fundies like that. There's a lot of fundamentalists who like the King James Version, but not because it is supposed to be divinely inspired. The more modern translations are based on Hebrew and Greek texts that have been revised to incorporate new archaeological findings. (One of the more famous such texts is the Westcott and Hort Greek text.) The problem is that some of the more popular verses got scrubbed from the text, and the fundies think it is a Satanic conspiracy to destroy Christianity from within. I've even heard fundies accuse Westcott and Hort of being "practicing Satanists".
Quote from: Caleb on December 04, 2008, 10:44 PM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on December 04, 2008, 08:28 PM NHFT
There's a faction of fundamentalists that believe that the King James translation was divinely inspired, so it's as perfect as the original Hebrew and Greek writing. All He's saying is that the King James translation of the Bible shouldn't be further translated into another language, because such translation would no doubt not have the same divine inspiration behind it.
Hmmm. I've never met any fundies like that. There's a lot of fundamentalists who like the King James Version, but not because it is supposed to be divinely inspired. The more modern translations are based on Hebrew and Greek texts that have been revised to incorporate new archaeological findings. (One of the more famous such texts is the Westcott and Hort Greek text.) The problem is that some of the more popular verses got scrubbed from the text, and the fundies think it is a Satanic conspiracy to destroy Christianity from within. I've even heard fundies accuse Westcott and Hort of being "practicing Satanists".
I've never
met any fundamentalists like that, but apparently they exist:—
QuoteKing James Only movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement)
...
- "The Inspired KJV Group" - Individuals in this group believe that the KJV itself was divinely inspired. They see the translation to be preserved by God and as accurate as the original Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts found in its underlying texts. Sometimes this group will even exclude foreign versions based on the same manuscripts claiming the KJV to be the only Bible.
- "The KJV As New Revelation" - This group of individuals would believe that the KJV is a "new revelation" from God, and can and should be the standard from which all other translations originate. Adherents to this belief may also believe that the original-language Hebrew and Greek can be corrected by the KJV. This view is often called "Ruckmanism" after Peter Ruckman, a staunch KJV supporter.
I don't know if you're familiar with Chick publications, but they are the producers of those funny cartoon tracts that Christian fundamentalists leave all over the place. They are usually good for a laugh. Anyway, they produced a little pamphlet attacking Westcott and Hort. The thing about Westcott and Hort is that, so far as I know, not a single translation is actually based on their text. But it is sort of the standard bearer for the Critical Textual tradition. The KJV'ers only like the Textus Receptus. Here's the link to Chick's publication ... http://www.chick.com/reading/books/157/157_08a.asp
J'raxis 270145 is going against Caleb... I'll put $20.00 on this goes at least 5 pages over the next 3o days.
Quote from: Facilitator to the Icon on December 04, 2008, 11:17 PM NHFT
J'raxis 270145 is going against Caleb... I'll put $20.00 on this goes at least 5 pages over the next 3o days.
Lol. Nah, I don't see anything really worth arguing about here. ;D
Nah, we're not fighting, just exchanging different takes on the same thing. :P
You gotta get into the mind of people, you know, figure out what makes them tick. :)
Bullshit.
I don't think either of you have got'n into each others minds and you could not possibly know what makes the other tick!
(If someone takes the bet I'll give you five bucks each.) (No one else can see this part if I put it in brackets... right?)
Way to not just laugh at something funny.
EVERYTHING IS NOT A DEBATE! ::)
Jesus
Quote from: Puke on December 05, 2008, 05:14 AM NHFT
Way to not just laugh at something funny.
EVERYTHING IS NOT A DEBATE! ::)
Jesus
EVERY THING IS SO A DEBATE!
ZEUS
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on December 04, 2008, 08:28 PM NHFT
There's a faction of fundamentalists that believe that the King James translation was "divinely" inspired, so it's as "perfect" as the original Hebrew and Greek writing. All he's saying is that the King James translation of the Bible shouldn't be further translated into another language, because such translation would no doubt not have the same divine inspiration behind it.
Why the King James version is considered to be as it is I have no idea.
they also prefer to pray in King James english.
of course if you were to translate a translation ... it looses something
Quote from: Caleb on December 04, 2008, 10:44 PM NHFT
Hmmm. I've never met any fundies like that.
I have many times ... different levels of course
I had someone trying to convince me that that period's english was superior, so the bible should just stay in that version of english
they are both fundy's in their own way ... so they have to get down to the details
http://www.wycliffe.org/
So these people are wasting their time? I went to Columbia in the 80s and these people go int the forests, the rain forests risk death to learn the Kogis and other jungle anchient dialects of whatever and then writ a neqw testament in the native language of the tribes and then leave them alone and let the tribes decide.
This jackass would burn people and stone people I'm guessing.
When I started reading the Bible from front to back, that's when I thoroughly lost my faith. I had been kind of in a gray area before that point. The version I read was translated into modern English. That made it sort of brutally honest in a way. I think a lot of people are able to write off a lot of it and just chalk it up to an issue of misunderstanding.
Quote from: dalebert on December 05, 2008, 09:56 AM NHFT
When I started reading the Bible from front to back, that's when I thoroughly lost my faith. I had been kind of in a gray area before that point. The version I read was translated into modern English. That made it sort of brutally honest in a way. I think a lot of people are able to write off a lot of it and just chalk it up to an issue of misunderstanding.
For me it started with Matthew V:16, followed immediately by Matthew VI:1-7. If the Revealed Word of God contains inconsistencies, it's not the Revealed Word of God. The quickly ensuing shark-jump was infant damnation.
Quote from: dalebert on December 05, 2008, 09:56 AM NHFT
When I started reading the Bible from front to back, that's when I thoroughly lost my faith.
in what?
Quote from: Sam A. Robrin on December 05, 2008, 11:30 AM NHFT
Quote from: dalebert on December 05, 2008, 09:56 AM NHFT
When I started reading the Bible from front to back, that's when I thoroughly lost my faith. I had been kind of in a gray area before that point. The version I read was translated into modern English. That made it sort of brutally honest in a way. I think a lot of people are able to write off a lot of it and just chalk it up to an issue of misunderstanding.
For me it started with Matthew V:16, followed immediately by Matthew VI:1-7. If the Revealed Word of God contains inconsistencies, it's not the Revealed Word of God. The quickly ensuing shark-jump was infant damnation.
I don't understand the 'shark-jump.
This?
16Even so let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 6
1Take heed that ye do not your righteousness before men, to be seen of them: else ye have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. 2When therefore thou doest alms, sound not a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have received their reward. 3But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: 4that thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret shall recompense thee.
5And when ye pray, ye shall not be as the hypocrites: for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have received their reward. 6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thine inner chamber, and having shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret shall recompense thee. 7And in praying use not vain repetitions, as the Gentiles do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
My understanding of this is to be a good person so to honour God, not to be honoured yourself. For example, do most parents give their kids gifts at christmas time because they love their kids, or because they want the pride of giving the 'best' gift in the neighborhood. Jesus was not an objectivist. He believed in Honouring God, and in altuism, and was very critical of hypocracy, specifically that of the theocratic rulers of the day, the Pharisees.
I am not trying to debate you in or out of a particular belief, but I find the selections you posted to be odd. :) They seem pretty straight forward to me. Context is everything.
nice use of the KJV
Quote from: Russell Kanning on December 05, 2008, 12:04 PM NHFT
Quote from: dalebert on December 05, 2008, 09:56 AM NHFT
When I started reading the Bible from front to back, that's when I thoroughly lost my faith.
in what?
At the time, in the religion I was raised under. I no longer considered myself Christian at that point and self-labeled as agnostic for the most part for a long time thereafter. I think it was conversations with Caleb that helped me realize I was better described as "atheist". Oh, and I recall now that it was called "The Living Bible", I'm pretty sure.
Quote from: Pat K on December 05, 2008, 05:22 AM NHFT
EVERY THING IS SO A DEBATE!
OH GOD DAMMIT!LAUGH! LAUGH I SAY!!MMMMMMMMM!
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/146/354955137_0775ce7c1c.jpg?v=0)
Quote from: Puke on December 05, 2008, 03:04 PM NHFT
Quote from: Pat K on December 05, 2008, 05:22 AM NHFT
EVERY THING IS SO A DEBATE!
OH GOD DAMMIT!
LAUGH! LAUGH I SAY!!
MMMMMMMMM!
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/146/354955137_0775ce7c1c.jpg?v=0)
That was a Joke lighten up Francis. ;D
Quote from: Caleb on December 04, 2008, 10:44 PM NHFT
Hmmm. I've never met any fundies like that. There's a lot of fundamentalists who like the King James Version, but not because it is supposed to be divinely inspired.
Almost all fundies and Pentecostals in this part of the country take it as an indisputable element of faith that God wrote the Bible in 1611 in the King's English.
I don't know if it's cause-and-effect, but there is a strong correlation between the "KJV only" people, and anti-Catholicism.
Quote from: dalebert on December 05, 2008, 12:50 PM NHFT
At the time, in the religion I was raised under. I no longer considered myself Christian at that point and self-labeled as agnostic for the most part for a long time thereafter. I think it was conversations with Caleb that helped me realize I was better described as "atheist". Oh, and I recall now that it was called "The Living Bible", I'm pretty sure.
LOL ... I don't think pushing you to atheism was my intent. ;D
Quote from: David on December 05, 2008, 12:24 PM NHFT
I don't understand the 'shark-jump.
This?
Yes, that. I say it's inconsistent, and I say the hell with it!
Quote from: dalebert on December 05, 2008, 12:50 PM NHFT
I recall now that it was called "The Living Bible", I'm pretty sure.
I remember
The Living Bible as part of the whole "Now Generation for Jesus" phenomenon of the early 1970s. I was recently unable to resist picking up a copy with a photograph of--brace yourself--a
clown on the spine!
Quote from: Caleb on December 05, 2008, 08:56 PM NHFT
Quote from: dalebert on December 05, 2008, 12:50 PM NHFT
At the time, in the religion I was raised under. I no longer considered myself Christian at that point and self-labeled as agnostic for the most part for a long time thereafter. I think it was conversations with Caleb that helped me realize I was better described as "atheist". Oh, and I recall now that it was called "The Living Bible", I'm pretty sure.
LOL ... I don't think pushing you to atheism was my intent. ;D
Caleb turning folks into athiests since 2007. ;D
Quote from: Pat K on December 05, 2008, 10:23 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on December 05, 2008, 08:56 PM NHFT
Quote from: dalebert on December 05, 2008, 12:50 PM NHFT
At the time, in the religion I was raised under. I no longer considered myself Christian at that point and self-labeled as agnostic for the most part for a long time thereafter. I think it was conversations with Caleb that helped me realize I was better described as "atheist". Oh, and I recall now that it was called "The Living Bible", I'm pretty sure.
LOL ... I don't think pushing you to atheism was my intent. ;D
Caleb turning folks into athiests since 2007. ;D
Caleb really brings out the illogical nonsense of religion... forcing people to accept the irrationality of a god.
maybe it was Caleb in his king hippy costume
Quote from: Caleb on December 05, 2008, 08:56 PM NHFT
LOL ... I don't think pushing you to atheism was my intent. ;D
Before you lose any sleep over it, you didn't actually change my beliefs. You just helped me to better define them.
:D
Just came across this one:
A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion.
Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they
consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move
against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. -Aristotle,
philosopher (384-322 BCE)
Quote from: KBCraig on December 05, 2008, 05:03 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on December 04, 2008, 10:44 PM NHFT
Hmmm. I've never met any fundies like that. There's a lot of fundamentalists who like the King James Version, but not because it is supposed to be divinely inspired.
Almost all fundies and Pentecostals in this part of the country take it as an indisputable element of faith that God wrote the Bible in 1611 in the King's English.
I don't know if it's cause-and-effect, but there is a strong correlation between the "KJV only" people, and anti-Catholicism.
Historically for centuries the Catholic Church prohibited the latin bibles to be reprinted in English, or any other language. For the same reasons as the fundamentalists. King James openly defied it and apparently became very popular.
There is some mildy bad language, so it may not be safe for work.
:o :o :o