More no-talk than politicians

[Tris]

Every now and then I listen to the christian radio broadcast en masse to the greater Naples, FL area (of which there are appx. 5 stations to choose from). I do this for a few reasons:

1) Find out what the zealots are up to
2) Selling techniques
3) Presentation techniques

There were some broadcasts from the Moody Bibble (perhaps Drivel might be better) Institute out of Chi-town that were rather humorous. The "minister" was supposed to be addressing the errors found in the bibble. He addressed one "error" type, some Greek grammar mistakes ... he went on to state that grammar errors aren't a big thing, and that grammar errors don't show poor communication skills. I wonder, if I make a mistake on my resume, I wonder how the HR department would handle a comment that "If 'God' can make grammar errors, then so can I. Please see Moody Bibble Institute for verfication."

No where did this "minister" ever address questions such as: Rabbits don't chew cud, so why does the bibble say they do? Why is the royal linneage of Babylon completely wrong in Daniel? Why would the alleged King of Babylon see "the handwriting on the wall" when #1 he was never king and #2 Babylon had ceased to exist by the time said person lived? Why would the alleged King of Babylon be holding a party in Babylon four months after the city was taken?

Man, I really wish I had gone into :religion" instead of law. Never have to provide any answers, just babble incessantly about god, hellfire, and brimstone while taking people's money:P

[--Pete]

Hi,

Man, I really wish I had gone into :religion" instead of law. Never have to provide any answers, just babble incessantly about god, hellfire, and brimstone while taking people's money:P

Ron L. Hubbard showed the way. But, as a science fiction author, he had an advantage. He was already familiar with selling the unreal. ;)

--Pete

[Chesspiece_face]

Hi,
Ron L. Hubbard showed the way. But, as a science fiction author, he had an advantage. He was already familiar with selling the unreal. ;)

--Pete

Now look what you did, Bolty is going to get sued and we will all lose the lounge!

Here is my preemptive finger point and blame on you!

[kandrathe]

Also, camels going though the eye's of needles are a pretty preposterous thought.

The greek, kamilos (rope) is confused with kamelos (camel). So, the idea of a rope going though the eye of a needle conveys the same idea in a somewhat more elegant manner, without the non-sequitur reference to livestock.

There are actually many places where the words chosen are incorrect, and convey the "wrong" meaning.

Your example of the incorrect cobbling together of Hebrew Daniel, and Aramaic Daniel is another way in which inconsistency and outright fraud can creep into ancient texts. Biblical scholars analyze Daniel in parts, chapter 1, 2-6, and chapter 7-12. It is considered more of a story, rather than a prophecy. In this case, the character Nebuchadnezzar represents the persecution of Antiochus IV, and was written around 100 to 90 BCE for non-historical purposes.

"The Book of Daniel was written at the time of the profanation of the Temple by Antiochus IV, during the Maccabean revolt which that sacrilege provoked. How do we know? First, stories about Daniel had circulated before the time of Antiochus and had long been used to encourage faithful obedience to and observance of Jewish law. However, all the stories of the book of Daniel relate directly to the persecution under Antiochus: loyalty to the Jewish food laws and the refusal to worship images of other gods had become a question of life and death in Antiochus' crisis-ridden empire. Second, the name Nebuchadnezzar contains a disguised reference to Antiochus to those acquainted with Hebrew numbering. Thirdly, the whole genre of Apocalyptic literature which Daniel represents only developed during the period of crisis and persecution under Antiochus."

This is one reason why the "Bible" should be studied, rather than quoted devoid of understanding it.

[Tris]

Also, camels going though the eye's of needles are a pretty preposterous thought.

The greek, kamilos (rope) is confused with kamelos (camel). So, the idea of a rope going though the eye of a needle conveys the same idea in a somewhat more elegant manner, without the non-sequitur reference to livestock.

There are actually many places where the words chosen are incorrect, and convey the "wrong" meaning.

Your example of the incorrect cobbling together of Hebrew Daniel, and Aramaic Daniel is another way in which inconsistency and outright fraud can creep into ancient texts. Biblical scholars analyze Daniel in parts, chapter 1, 2-6, and chapter 7-12. It is considered more of a story, rather than a prophecy. In this case, the character Nebuchadnezzar represents the persecution of Antiochus IV, and was written around 100 to 90 BCE for non-historical purposes.

"The Book of Daniel was written at the time of the profanation of the Temple by Antiochus IV, during the Maccabean revolt which that sacrilege provoked. How do we know? First, stories about Daniel had circulated before the time of Antiochus and had long been used to encourage faithful obedience to and observance of Jewish law. However, all the stories of the book of Daniel relate directly to the persecution under Antiochus: loyalty to the Jewish food laws and the refusal to worship images of other gods had become a question of life and death in Antiochus' crisis-ridden empire. Second, the name Nebuchadnezzar contains a disguised reference to Antiochus to those acquainted with Hebrew numbering. Thirdly, the whole genre of Apocalyptic literature which Daniel represents only developed during the period of crisis and persecution under Antiochus."

This is one reason why the "Bible" should be studied, rather than quoted devoid of understanding it.

Well, here, people believe the bibble 100% ... right down to believing that we should follow revelations and operate foreign policy accordingly. See, here people listen to the "ministers" that thunder: science and history have never, ever disproved the historicity, accuracy, scientific value, etc. of the bibble. If anybody tells you that there is an error (not counting grammar issues), they are wrong and going to burn forever and ever and ever. And, that because they are "wrong" you must immediattely avoid them, etc. There are only two "kingdoms" god and satan, if you aren't in god's camp, you're in satan's and deserve to be harassed, harried, etc.

One response to errors is look at prophecy, and how many prophecies come true. Well, it's *very* easy to be prophetic if your prophecy is *after* the fact:) They never, ever mention the "prophecies" that never happened... Tyre being forever abandoned, other prophecies about other kingdoms, and let's not forget Danny Boy and Neb's alleged son.

Its frightening that these people keep trying to get the bibble into schools to teach history and morality. The bibble's history is at best tortured, at worst totally inaccurate in many areas. And as far as morality goes, has anybody proposing this actually read the thing? Jep and roasting his daughter on some altar, Lot offering is daughters to the mob for a little gang bang action, keeping the virgin girls of beaten nations for the same thing, the whole virgin daughter + concubine gang bang that allegedly started a war with the tribe of Benjamin. And jesus sending demons into a swine heard that supposedly ran off and drowned, oh I forgot, the pig is a dirty, nasty, filthy critter.

More on morality: kill them all, the men, women, children, goats, cows, chickens, pigs, camels, etc. for all those things are against god. Interesting study was done with Israeli children, one group was given a story of Josh relating to Josh's supposed conquering of an enemy (it appears that archeology is proving the fantastic claims regarding Josh are wrong), including the full slaughtering etc. Another group was given the same story, but modified with names from one of the Chinese empires. The results? An overwhelming majority believed that Josh was correct and many of the ones said no, focused on killing the animals instead of keeping them. An overwhelming majority found that the actions of the Chinese were wrong. So, if the bibble really does teach morality, then what happened there? The answer is simple: Josh is a hero to Israel, the Chinese general Fling Ing Poo (yes I know:P) is not. So, if the bibble is the true source of morality, then shouldn't the Israeli kids view both Josh and the Chinese general as wrong?

Also on morality ... um... er... something unavoidable with the bibble. Ok, assuming that Adam and Eve (I wonder, if "Eve" is nothing more than a derivation of Adam, did god create Adam and Adam:P) were the start of humanity, here's a challenge: A&E produced Cain & Able, and assumedly other off spring. The bibble says that this is where humanity started, so no other humans were around. This, by default means that the sons and daughters of A&E played humpty-dumpty with each other, there is no other option for taking the bibble literally. Now, that means *incest* ladies and gents ... doesn't christianity rail against incest, and teach the christianity is too "moral" for that stuff? The same problem happens with Noah and his progeny. (Note, one local radio errorist thundered on and on about Lot's daughters screwing Lot, and how evil it was, but if you believe the bibble, humanity came not just once, but twice from incest {A&E's kids and Noah's kids}.)

We have even had these folks protesting sex education, on the basis that if the children hear about it they'll think about it. (Sound like christian science?) I guess they're saving the sex ed for priests, ministers, rabbis, rectors, deacons, elders, etc. Maybe if kids learned about sex, then they might not be so naive about what's happening when a religious leader pressures for sexual relations. Maybe they'd learn that sexual intercourse isn't needed for "purification" or anything else.

Every year, the local religious right pushes for more and more bibble in the classroom, based on its inerrancy. Sadly, the more they win, the more and more ignorant this area will become, until it eventually becomes nothing more than the foetid pile of ignorance that characterized the middle ages.

[kandrathe]

Well, here, people believe the bible 100% ... Sadly, the more they win, the more and more ignorant this area will become, until it eventually becomes nothing more than the foetid pile of ignorance that characterized the middle ages.

Too late.