Texan Bigotry

[Ben Kenobi]

Here's a hint, Muhammed claimed this for the same reason as Joseph Smith claimed it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What happens to the Ammonites?

Considering that Justin Martyr still spoke of their existence in the 2nd century, I assume they intermarried with other folks and a great Mesopotamian blend occurred.

So you're saying that my citation of the NIV, (which is used by conservative Evangelicals), is less viable among Conservatives than your liberal translation. I see. Fun game, Imran.

You mean the conservative NIV that is used by many Anglicans and Presbyterians, who are obviously super liberals . NLT is a conservative evangelical translation. To call it a "liberal translation" is to be stunningly ignorant.

The fun part is that if you read your NIV test the "custom" part comes right after "children".

I'm intrigued to know that the Old Testament was written in English. The Vulgate is much older and much closer to the date of composition than the English translation in the NIV. And the Vulgate has that passage that (oddly enough), the liberal New Living Translation omits. Curious that.

The Vulgate doesn't use the best in Biblical scholarship (ie, the Dead Sea Scrolls are unknown to it). I'll use translations to go to the oldest Greek and Hebrew, rather than some Latin piss.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's an argument from silence. If Arabs really were descended from Ishmael, why don't Arab Christians claim this prior to Muhammed?

Yay for stepping right into this (it was way too easy)!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael

Some Pre-Islamic poetry mentions Ishmael, his father Abraham, and the sacrifice story, such as the Pre-Islamic poet "Umayyah Ibn Abi As-Salt", who said in one of his poems: بكره لم يكن ليصبر عنه أو يراه في معشر أقتال ([The sacrifice] of his first-born of whose separation he [Abraham] could not bear neither could he see him surrounded in foes).[17][18][19]
"Zayd Ibn Amr" was another Pre-Islamic figure who refused idolatry and preached monotheism, claiming it was the original belief of their [Arabs] father Ishmael.[20][21]
Also, some of the tribes of Central West Arabia called themselves the "people of Abraham and the offspring of Ishmael", as evidenced by a common opening of speeches and harangues of reconciliation between rival tribes in that area.[22][23]

[Ben Kenobi]

Nikolai believes a lot of the same stuff as you. People do not think Nikolai is a lying scumbag with no moral compass or human empathy. Put your victim card away, you're embarrassing yourself.

We have evidence in this thread showing the same people who are rude and hostile to me are also rude and hostile to Nikolai. For the exact same reason, they believe his beliefs (and my beliefs) are stupid. They are willing to apologize so that they can save face. Not because they are actually sorry but they know that this entire facade collapses unless they treat Nikolai differently from me.

Lots of repulsive bigots also spread their vile filth without resorting to personal attacks.

Christianity is 'vile filth'?

This not not make them any less bigoted or repulsive.

The only bigots here are conservative Christians. This is a fact.

Just a hint though, when you drop into someones thread celebrating their engagement and **** all over it, that is a form of personal attack.

When the person warns them saying that "this won't end well", is that a personal attack?

You are a compulsive liar. Would you care to disagree?

Where's the evidence? You said, "I was afraid to challenge", and here you are without evidence.

Absolutely. You are everything that is wrong with the world rolled up into a single waste of human body parts.

Hey if you submit it you might make "Apolyton's top 100 insults!"

[Ben Kenobi]

Your source for this is... Wikipedia? Not a reliable source!

Let's dig into the citations...

First source dates to the 8th century.

Second source is Ibn Kaldun writing in the 14th century.

Third source:

"The Signs of Prophethood" Ooh. That sounds like a reliable source!

Fourth Source

"The Collection of the Speeches of Arabs"

No ISBN Number, no reference anywhere. Gosh. All the sources are Islamic and the earliest dates to the eighth century. Next?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Also:

http://unsettledchristianity.com/category/bible-translation/nlt-bible-translation/

So, now comes the inevitable question: Would I recommend the NLT Chronological Life Application Study Bible? I would, but not because of some forlorn loyalty to the translation who kept me reading Scripture. Nor would I because I was provided this as a review copy. There is nothing to actually make me recommended a bible except for the fact that it is a good one. Yes, it is geared to more conservative Christians, including a Christian Worker’s Resource Guide that is, in fact, not about labor unions. Yes, it is deeply evangelical. But it is a solid translation for reading.

It is also a bible endorsed by that great liberal, Billy Graham .

“The Life Application Study Bible is a great step forward in helping Christians apply the Bible’s life-changing message in their own lives.”
Dr. Billy Graham
Billy Graham Evangelistic Association

http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/05discoverthenlt/lasb.asp

[Imran Siddiqui]

Your source for this is... Wikipedia? Not a reliable source!

So you have no reasonable response. Check.

[Ben Kenobi]

Considering that Justin Martyr still spoke of their existence in the 2nd century, I assume they intermarried with other folks and a great Mesopotamian blend occurred.

Numbers states that they were dispossessed. Gosh. That sounds like they found favor from God because of incest!

NLT is a conservative evangelical translation. To call it a "liberal translation" is to be stunningly ignorant.

It's a liberal translation. It's got Gender inclusive language.

The fun part is that if you read your NIV test the "custom" part comes right after "children".

The fun part is when I read the Vulgate, it includes sections that the 'conservative' New Liberal Translation excludes. One would think that a 'conservative' translation would be faithful to earlier translations.

The Vulgate doesn't use the best in Biblical scholarship

True, it uses sources that are no longer extant. It had the original Septuagint.

(ie, the Dead Sea Scrolls are unknown to it). I'll use translations to go to the oldest Greek and Hebrew, rather than some Latin piss.

The Greek says the same thing. You'd rather use English inclusive language piss and lie about it being 'conservative'. No, it's not a 'conservative translation'.

[Ben Kenobi]

So you have no reasonable response. Check.

Of the four 'sources', only two are actually citations, and of the two, one is from the 14th century and another is from the 9th century. All are Islamic. All postdate Muhammed confirming my statement that Islam made this up for the same reason Joseph Smith made it up.

[Ben Kenobi]

It is also a bible endorsed by that great liberal, Billy Graham

It's got inclusive language. It's not a 'conservative' translation, no matter what the ad copy you cite claims. I *was* an Evangelical, and we had "New Liberal Translations" available back then too. Just as liberal then as now.

[Sava]

So Imran. Are you just bored? Why do you bother with him?

[Ben Kenobi]

So Imran. Are you just bored? Why do you bother with him?

He's defending the honor of Islam!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Numbers states that they were dispossessed. Gosh. That sounds like they found favor from God because of incest!

The Israelites were never dispossessed of their land? What was that whole exile thing about again?

It's a liberal translation. It's got Gender inclusive language.

Hate to break it to you (not really), so does the NIV now.

The fun part is when I read the Vulgate, it includes sections that the 'conservative' New Liberal Translation excludes. One would think that a 'conservative' translation would be faithful to earlier translations.

It is. Earlier GREEK and HEBREW translations. Or, what, you think the Dead Sea Scrolls were big news because they were a later translation?

True, it uses sources that are no longer extant. It had the original Septuagint.

You mean the late 2nd Century Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament? There is a reason why the vast majority of translations use the Masoretic Text - which is, you know, actually in Hebrew (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia is the one used by translators these days). Why magnify translation eras by translating a translation - of course you are translating a translation of a translation? And the Dead Sea Scrolls dated to the BC era - the Septuagint had no idea they existed.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So Imran. Are you just bored? Why do you bother with him?

I dunno. But after he just basically said Billy Graham was a liberal, he's really gone off the dead end.

[Ben Kenobi]

The Israelites were never dispossessed of their land? What was that whole exile thing about again?

They were dispossessed when they sinned and abandoned God. Dispossession of their land was seen as divine disfavor. By everybody, not just the Jews.

Hate to break it to you (not really), so does the NIV now.

Yeah, I *was* an Evangelical. It bothered me then. It bothers me now. It's all connected. The same folks championing inclusive language are the same folks saying that 'being gay is ok'. The benefit of Catholicism is that if I want to look up a Clementine Vulgate, I can!

It is. Earlier GREEK and HEBREW translations. Or, what, you think the Dead Sea Scrolls were big news because they were a later translation?

The Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed that the Vulgate (as well as the Greek manuscripts such as Codex Vaticanus), are accurate. I hate to break it to you, but the reason the Dead Sea Scrolls are so important is because they are close to 1000 years older than the previous oldest extant Hebrew manuscript. This is the problem with Erasmus. He jettisoned most of the historical documents to put out 'his' bible. And Luther et al took him up on it.

You mean the late 2nd Century Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament?

Yessir. He had the original or an early copy of it which was still extant in the fourth century. He also had the Hexapla, which is Origen's massive compilation. Neither of which are extant today. We have Greek manuscripts that go back to the early 4th century that are even older than the Vulgate. The Codex Vaticanus is still the best complete manuscript out there.

There is a reason why the vast majority of translations use the Masoretic Text

Which is also no earlier than the 10th, or 11th centuries. That reason being that they are not Catholic. They are willing to use inferior sources. We are not.

And the Dead Sea Scrolls dated to the BC era - the Septuagint had no idea they existed.

Umm, the Septuagint is older than the Dead Sea scrolls.