Is homosexuality a greater sin than others for Christians and why.

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Good book Conjur, I read it recently. I'm pretty sure he will consider it "anti-Christian propaganda", those scholars are such God haters. He has claimed to be a "agnostic/atheist" and yet in effect said the Bible is "perfect Word of God".

There are multiple stories n the Bible that come in double and sometimes triple and often contradict themselves. And this is the stuff they allowed into it.

:roll:

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Good book Conjur, I read it recently. I'm pretty sure he will consider it "anti-Christian propaganda", those scholars are such God haters.

Not having read the book, and also not knowing anyone who has, I can't very well comment much on it. However, judging by the credentials of the author (he has a doctorate from Harvard, for starters), I bet it's fairly accurate with respect to facts, and at least sufficiently sound with respect to speculation. On the other hand, I'm not very interested in reading it at the present time, although I will keep in in mind for the future.

No, anti-Christian propaganda can be identified by unqualified and/or mindless bashing of Christianity based primarily on erroneous facts or reasoning. Here's a good example of such propaganda.

He has claimed to be a "agnostic/atheist" and yet in effect said the Bible is "perfect Word of God".

I can only assure you I do not believe the Bible is the "perfect Word of God." I simply tire from adding an *I do not believe this* disclaimer to every sentence.

There are multiple stories n the Bible that come in double and sometimes triple and often contradict themselves. And this is the stuff they allowed into it.

As I've said earlier, those so-called contradictions disappear if you come at them from a Christian perspective. Also, your implication that the books of the Bible were arbitrarily chosen is not correct.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Todd33
Good book Conjur, I read it recently. I'm pretty sure he will consider it "anti-Christian propaganda", those scholars are such God haters. He has claimed to be a "agnostic/atheist" and yet in effect said the Bible is "perfect Word of God".

There are multiple stories n the Bible that come in double and sometimes triple and often contradict themselves. And this is the stuff they allowed into it.

:roll:

:roll: :roll:

WTF is your problem? He's right. Oh wait, you're not one of those people that think the Bible was dictated by some all-powerful, supernatural apparition and written down by man, are you?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou

Originally posted by: conjur
Wow. That's pretty sad.
I mean, heck, the two stories even contradict each other in the other things were created by God!
There are two stories of the flood, too, btw, that have been intertwined.

I'd be happy to discuss these things in detail, if you'd like.

Read the book first. Heck, the NIV Bible even discusses it. I have one, myself.

BTW, Moses didn't write the Pentateuch, either.

Here's a site to get you going:
http://www.answers.com/topic/creation-according-to-genesis

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: conjur
Read the book first.

I've got too much I want to read before I can get to that, but I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on it here.

Heck, the NIV Bible even discusses it. I have one, myself.
BTW, Moses didn't write the Pentateuch, either.

There are at least three separate authors of the Pentateuch, perhaps more. Moses may or may not have been one of the contributors.

Here's a site to get you going:
http://www.answers.com/topic/creation-according-to-genesis

The dual perspective theory

Biblical scholar Pamela Tamarkin Reis (2001) proposes that Genesis 1 and 2 can be seen as either one story from two perspectives or two separate stories. Both are appropriate. She draws the parallel with the ancient story-telling technique of telling the same sequence of events through the eyes of several different people. This method is best known from its use by Kurosawa in the movie Rashomon. One can make sense of that movie either as four different stories or as four people having four different realistic narratives of the same story.

Ms. Reis analyzes Genesis 1 as God's narrative and Genesis 2 as man's narrative. In Genesis 1, the style of narration is very orderly and logical, proceeding from basics like heaven and earth, through plants and animals to man and woman. And everything is "good" or "very good." Ms. Reis suggests that the story-teller has a bit of whimsy in noting how perfect everything is from God's view.

In contrast, in Genesis 2, man tells the story from his own self-centered perspective. Man is created first, and there are a few flaws. For example, Man is alone, without a woman (in contrast to Genesis 1, where the two were created simultaneously). Where Genesis 1 repeats the phrase "heaven and earth" several times, Genesis 2 uses "earth and heaven." Moreover, Genesis 2 contains a notice that "there was no one to till the ground." The implication that the ground must be tilled contrasts with the completeness implied in Genesis 1.

Even the words used in Genesis 1 suggest serenity, the godly plane of existence. For example, in Genesis 1, the word for God is Elohim, the generic and distant God, while God's name in Genesis 2 is the personal and sacred YHWH Elohim, the Lord of Gods. Even the verb of making is different in the two narratives; in the first narrative the verb is the Hebrew "arb" which means "create from nothing," something that only God can do. In contrast, the verb in the second narrative means "make;" God "made earth and heaven." Furthermore, Man and Woman are both formed from pre-existing matter, in contrast to their creation ex nihil in the first chapter. This brings God's act within the range of human experience. There are also details about where to find gold and lapis lazuli--but only in the second narrative.

Ms. Reis argues that Genesis 1 and 2 make sense either way, just as for Kurosawa's Rashomon. They make sense as two different stories. Or they make sense as two narratives of the same story from different personal perspectives: that of God and that of man.

As you can see, the two "different" versions of creation can easily be interpreted as one.

 

[conjur]

http://www.beliefnet.org/story/111/story_11157_1.html

Pamela Tamarkin Reis is an amateur scripture scholar whose unconventional interpretations of Torah stories have been printed in prestigious Bible journals. Armed with a good knowledge of biblical Hebrew, she's reinterpreted some perplexing stories that have challenged established scholars. Her collection of essays, "Reading the Lines," was published in 2002.

Sort of explains away that one, eh? Her problem appears to be she looks at Genesis as separate from other books in the Bible. Friedman's book shows that certain writing styles and terminology from Genesis appear in other books.

I'll post more info on the separate versions tomorrow.

Once you read Friedman's book, you'll be wondering why you didn't accept or recognize it before.

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: conjur
Sort of explains away that one, eh? Her problem appears to be she looks at Genesis as separate from other books in the Bible. Friedman's book shows that certain writing styles and terminology from Genesis appear in other books.

I'm aware of the complex textual criticism of the Bible. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, though.

Once you read Friedman's book, you'll be wondering why you didn't accept or recognize it before.

You should be careful not to put too much stock in one book, expecially if it's as biased as I suspect.

 

[The Linuxator]

Originally posted by: ironwing
Because it is icky. Except for lesbianism, of course.

FTW!!!! ?

 

[themusgrat]

The Bible never contradicts itself, as long as you read it in context. Sometimes you actually have to think what the people were going through at the time when they wrote it. And instead of quoting an entire book, give specific examples. BTW, KJV is about the most accurate version of the Bible. It is the NIV especially that was translated by less qualified men with less qualified texts. The KJV was translated over a period of many years by dozens of Hebrew and Bible scholars, at the request of, you guessed it, King James.