This One’s for james
11 April 2006 by Eve
I recently had an exchange with james regarding the King James Version of the bible (KJV for short); he insisted that the KJV was the most accurate English-language translation of the original Greek and Hebrew writings and that the Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed its accuracy 98 percent. Not knowing much about the subject, I decided to check his statements out, and this was the question I wrote to Dr. David Bosworth, Assistant Professor of Theology and resident Old Testament scholar at Barry University in Miami, Florida:
I have a couple of statements made by someone by[sic] whom I’m grappling in an online blog, and I want to make sure I have accurate information in my responses.
The first statement the person made was this one:
honestly though, i have to confess that the correct straight from the pages of the old hebrew (old testament) and greek (new testament) translation is the king james translation. this was the most used in worship and if there is any doubt of whether or not the translations are accurate, we have the discovery of the dead sea scrolls to tell us that the KJ version is over 98% dead on.
And his [second] statement was as follows:
the KJV is the translation from the copies of the copies of the original documents (i.e.: the Gospels, Paul’s epistles, etc) and these copies are from the Antiochian school, which were the most copied and the most trusted. the versions like the catholic’s NAB and the NIV, NLT, etc, all have stuff from the antiochian copies, but archeologists found copies that were set aside and these were set aside for good reason. these are the alexandrian school copies, not as trusted, not as reliable but what would you do if you found documents that matched (to an extent) the Bible? you’d tell the world that you found a translation of the Bible! the KJV, i guess i should say (thanks for correcting me) is the most accurate from the antiochian copies (in english).
Dr. Bosworth replied (this is long but good given james’ statements):
Your correspondent is deeply confused (my emphasis). The KJV has a long history in the English language and many Protestant Christians are deeply attached to that translation because of its beauty and long established use. It is not, however, the most accurate translation available (my emphasis). The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and the NAB are both better.
The problem with the KJV is basically that it is an okay translation of a bad text. By “bad text,” I mean that when the KJV translators worked, they had very few Greek and Hebrew manuscripts to work with, and most of them were late. Since then (1611), scholars have made a tremendous effort to uncover older, more reliable manuscripts that have been hidden in monasteries all over Europe and the Near East. Great progress was made in the 19th and 20th centuries, and we now have several thousand manuscripts of the New Testament alone (the KJV translators had a mere handful). All these manuscripts have been carefully compared with one another and, through a process known as “textual criticism,” scholars have determined which are the more reliable texts and reconstructed as closely as possible what the biblical writers originally wrote.
The “Antiochene” texts the person refers to are typically called “Syrian” or most often “the textus receptus” (Latin for “received text”). They are in fact the LEAST reliable manuscripts (my emphasis). They are relatively young text (from the 12th and 13th centuries) that are many copies removed from the originals. The scribal tradition tended to keep errors that had crept in in the course of copying the text, so the Antiochene texts have all these accumulated errors. The Alexandrian texts are older and more reliable (dating from around the 4th century). All modern translations (like the NRSV and NAB) draw on all the texts and make informed decisions about which manuscripts are most reliable for a given passage. They thereby represent more closely than the KJV what the biblical writers actually wrote.
The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) prove absolutely nothing about the KJV (my emphasis). The DSS include manuscripts of the Hebrew OT that are much older than any we had before. They are important in reconstructing the original text of the OT. Some of the ancient DSS texts correspond well with the medieval texts that have long been known, but others are quite different. As with the New Testament, scholars have to compare all the available texts to determine what version is most original. But all this text critical work precedes translation, so these scrolls have no direct bearing on the KJV.
Basically, your correspondent wants to use the KJV as the authoritative English version of the Bible. It is not. It is just a translation made by a committee of scholars working for King James in 1611. They had limited access to the original texts and limited knowledge of the biblical languages (especially Hebrew). In the past four hundred years, we have found many more manuscripts and learned a great deal more about the languages. Anyone wanting a good representation of what the biblical writers wrote should steer clear of the KJV (my emphasis). I constantly strive against unreasonable attachment to the KJV when I teach the Old Testament.
By the way, the KJV translation of the New Testament sometimes has absolutely no basis in the ancient texts (my emphasis). For example, Paul’s question in Acts 9:1 is taken from the Latin Vulgate version, but occurs in no Greek text. Both Mark 10:17 and Luke 18:18 were modified to agree with Matthew 19:17 without manuscript support. The KJV translated the “long ending” of Mark, even though the “short ending” is clearly the more original (see the NAB for both versions; the KJV translators had no way of knowing about this since they only had only late manuscripts).
james either didn’t do his homework, or he did and for reasons unknown to all except him decided to throw established scholarship on the issue out the window, hoping no one would do any further research. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe he simply took for granted the word of someone he considers an authority on the subject without investigating further. At any rate, this little exercise proved to me once more that one of the best traits we as humans possess if only we take advantage of it is the ability to keep asking questions.
That said, I consider my own biblical scholarship barely begun; I’m off to read Bruce Metzger’s The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions next. Many thanks to Dr. Bosworth for his prompt, clear response!
Addendum: For anyone interested in further study:
* J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (revised ed.; Hendrickson, 1995)
* Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (3rd. ed.; Oxford University Press, 1992)
* Ernst Wurthwein, The Text of the Old Testament (2nd. ed.;Eerdmans, 1995)
* Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Fortress, 1992). There is a 2nd edition from 2001 or so.
11 April 2006, on 1:37 pm
Eve is my hero.
11 April 2006, on 1:47 pm
HAHA!!!
James can suck it.
11 April 2006, on 2:11 pm
*blushes, shuffles feet shyly* Aw, shucks; thanks!
11 April 2006, on 2:38 pm
Excellent smackdown, Eve.
11 April 2006, on 3:34 pm
I assume Mr. Bosworth is also a Christian? As a professor who is obviously knowledgeable of the Bible, I wonder how he reconciles the obvious contradictions in the text? I would guess that he subscribes to the “it’s fables and morals stories and not necessarily the exact words of God” view of the bible?
Seriously, no offense intended. I wonder how learned people reconcile their faith with an inquiring mind. This man is obviously well read and intelligent and was very forthcoming in his response. How about a “quiz the learned theist” section? Perhaps he’d entertain 3 or 4 well-thought out, *respectful* questions from a bunch of Atheists?
11 April 2006, on 3:47 pm
An interesting proposition, Randy, and I have absolutely no idea what his own personal beliefs are. Despite Barry being a “Catholic” university, it’s been my personal experience that most of its scholars, even those in philosophy and theology with definite points of view, welcome diversity and debate as long as it’s backed up with good, solid scholarship. He *did* tell me that I was welcome to ask him any other questions any time.
11 April 2006, on 6:03 pm
It’s amazing what one can do when they back their fucking claims up with EVIDENCE!
james = pwned
11 April 2006, on 7:53 pm
I always worry about these people who say, “If the King James Version was good enough for our Lord and Savior, it’s good enough for me.”
11 April 2006, on 8:39 pm
Hoo-hah! Smackdown!
Nice.
11 April 2006, on 8:49 pm
well i am honored, a post dedicated to GifS favorite theist, unless this is meant to discredit my stance on the KJV in which case this is a dubious honor-but an honor nonetheless. first i would like to thank the academy, i know this was a tough call btw me and every other drive-by evangelist that comes by here, but some way, some how, you picked me to post about and let me tell you i appreciate it from the bottom of my heart. you like me!! you really like me!! or not, but really who cares.
second, to marcus’ invitation to a blow job i must say that I’m totally thrilled by your offer and will take you up on it whenever you’re available.
but…i guess i should respond to the post by eve…with links!!!
ah yes links, the very thing that marks credibility for the good folks at this completely unbiased website. but you are right, if i am going to say stuff, i should post links, even though i dont see the point since you guys are just going to discredit them anyways. but lets give it the old college try…
well, i still stand by my statement that the KJV is the most reliable of the translations, not that the others are bad, it’s just that the KJV is closest to the original and i will link you to here: http://members.aol.com/fisher4iam/Fisher17.htm
where the real thing i want you to see is the link to http://www.blueletterbible.org where people who really want to study the ancient texts in their original language (and see how the KJV matches up), including the septuagint (greek trans of the OT) can go and do so. (there are also links to other links on this site)
as far as going to some catholic who prob doesnt even believe in Jesus anyways, please dont insult our correspondence by bringin him into it. i hope he didnt try and tell you about maryology and that you’re gonna go to hell if you arent catholic and all the fun stuff they do (including cutting text out of the Bible (ex:mark’s gospel) and adding books like the apocrypha) on sundays that some of you probably experienced growing up, which by the way probably led you here (atheism) whether you admit it or not.
either way i admire your research and i will also refer you to (you guys are gonna love this) pensacola college and the teachings they have on the KJV. (i bring this reference up first, because i always hear you rank on them a lot on this site and second, because they have solid teachings on the subject of translations)
and all i meant by what the dead sea scrolls did was that they affirmed that the Scriptures (OT) had been preserved accurately thru years of copies.
so eve, while i admire your research, there are other scholars out there that say otherwise. who’s right? i dont know, i guess from a studying standpoint, use the KJV or NKJV (i’ll even throw in the NASB (NOT the NAB) for giggles), for insight to outlines for ideas, the NIV and NLT are cool. but i’ve found that the KJV (see bluletterbible.org) is awesome for word studying. but thanks for another point of view.
and rockstar, Jeez, I think you’re super cool and would love to have your man-babies in my poo. But as far as giving me cute pet names, please refer to the comment i directed towards marcus. Though he didn’t really give me a name, I woudln’t mind giving you some head. Really! Juggle some balls for Jesus!
11 April 2006, on 8:59 pm
*LMAO*
Can’t-comment-yet-!
11 April 2006, on 9:07 pm
I’m laughing, too.
Pensacola? I can’t believe it.
You come at him with a scholar and he returns with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
Oh, yeah? Oh, yeah??
Cthulhu IS real! No less of an authority than H.P. Lovecraft said so!
Eve… Maybe you should give up. You’re likely to make about as much progress as this guy:
http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2006/02/28/talking-to-the-wall/
11 April 2006, on 9:09 pm
PS: James… Don’t flatter yourself. Sorry, but you’re not our favorite theist… Even to argue with. There have been far better people who came before you.
11 April 2006, on 9:19 pm
ah yes sean, i anticipated that response (while i appreciate you not being the third dude to hit on me cause I’m really a woman and all) that’s why i figured it was a dubious honor. but unlike those “better people who have come before me”, where are they at? im not going anywhere, you guys are fun! (do i still sound like ned flanders?)
this is totally off subject but has anyone here ever eaten at the Scarf N’ Barf? i’m getting married (sorry to disappoint you Jesus, we’ll always have paris though) and i’m picking restaurants to eat at on our honeymoon, any help here would be great.
11 April 2006, on 9:28 pm
You’re gonna take your wife to a chain restaurant on your honeymoon?
Clearly, while in Paris (alone) you didn’t sample any of the cuisine.
11 April 2006, on 9:32 pm
I’m sorry. How presumptuous of me to assume you would be marrying a woman.
As for the better people who have come before you — one, Dena, does not have internet access at the moment. Others, like an old pal named Frank (a different Frank than the one currently haunting us), seemed to run out of things to say.
And why do you keep coming back here, anyway? I think Star is right: it’s because deep in your heart, you suspect we speak the truth.
Have you seen Brokeback Mountain, by the way?
11 April 2006, on 9:53 pm
haha, nice crack back, Scarf N’ Barf was one of the places that was listed alongside of a ton of places to eat, it was just a thought. judging from your tone that place sounds like it sucks.
and of course i am marrying a man, i wouldnt qualify as a right-wing, ultra conservative fundamentalist if i wasn’t closet gay would i?
and besides, unless i am all of the above i cant fit into your little narrow-minded view of christians, and i wouldnt want to disappoint you sean.
as far as truth goes, i have yet to see it (with the exception of a few of you who have been nice enough to answer my questions) at this site. i do see the great exercising of free speech which greatly encourages me that there are people out there who know how to use 4-letter words, greatly illustrating the diversity of each 4-letter word as well. let me demonstrate, “james, what the f–k? are you a f–cking moron? f–k you, james!!”
and sean, quit trying to invite me on a date to some gay cowboy movie,i just told you i’m getting married. oh yeah that’s right it’s a love story, how fundie of me to call it a gay cowboy movie.
honestly? i thought star wars III was 10 times better.
may the force be with you
i keed i keed!!!
11 April 2006, on 9:53 pm
*still lol but hiccuping down*
james: Your first link is to a non-scholar.
Your second link is to an openly (and up-front about it, too) biased source that admits its preference for the KJV as a literal translation into 17th-century English (but delves no further into the accuracy or authority of the sources of that translation); consciously selects *only* the writings of “pastors and teachers who hold to the conservative, historical Christian faith;” and announces that its intention is to operate “as a *ministry*” with no mention of furthering scholarly research.
I won’t address your comments regarding *my* source because, quite frankly, I don’t deem them worthy of my time and effort.
j: thanks for another point of view.
*sigh* You’re welcome; if you’re really interested in serious scholarly study of the bible, check out the references I included at the end of the post.
11 April 2006, on 10:09 pm
It’s actually not that amazing a movie, but if you actually liked Star Wars III (or I or II), then go on to House of Blues for dinner — cuz your taste is in your ass.
11 April 2006, on 10:19 pm
Sean,
House of Blues? What are you talking about?
James,
You write some crazy, schizo shit in your posts.
11 April 2006, on 10:23 pm
eve,
the reason i gave you blb.org is to show how the origanal texts translate into english (of course it’s in the KJV), i think there is an option on the top to switch translations, i’m pretty sure it’s that one.
i checked your links and of all 4, youll find metzger’s stuff is actually the brest. he’s an old school and a big fan of the NRSV. i like his stuff. i really should make it clear and i said it before that the KJV is great for word studies (as demonstrated on blb.org), and the others are cool as shit and serve they’re purpose-to an extent. metzger’s stuff definitely helps and the man knows his stuff, you will also find that he acknowledges josephus (i know guys, here he goes again with the josephus stuff) and he also aknowledges sekular sources too, (i cant remember which atheist you are, the one that believes Jesus existed or didnt exist) that affirm Jesus’ existence. but yeah, have fun reading his stuff, he is extremely intelligent.
sean, i sense much cock in your pants. cock leads to fun, fun leads to porn, porn leads to hot bitches.
you have much to poke… the force is in your pants.
also, way to get the word ‘ass’ in there. your langage skills re improving…yet you still are not to my caliper
11 April 2006, on 10:27 pm
and star wars I sucked, i agree. i still dont see the point of jimmy smits even being in the movies at all either
11 April 2006, on 10:33 pm
James: Truly wonderful the mind of a child is.
Marcus: Funny as fuck you are!
11 April 2006, on 10:37 pm
funny, i dont remember posting it quite that way.
somebody is a comedian!!!!
11 April 2006, on 10:42 pm
you’re crazy marcus, i wish i had sweet magic like that. i better be careful or i might think that you guys are trying to get me to stop posting comments, but no, you guys wouldnt do that
11 April 2006, on 10:49 pm
Sean – I think we have the holy trinity infiltrating ….james, Jared, Jeff…
11 April 2006, on 11:06 pm
James,
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
However, if you are suggesting what I imagine, I’m sure that no one would be against taking liberties with any off topic thing that you write. Think of it as taking the dross and dressing it up pretty.
11 April 2006, on 11:13 pm
Guys, you ever heard of the term “poking the troll?”
Quit it.
11 April 2006, on 11:13 pm
haha, gee thanks.
well either way i laughed at it, i think the worst part was when i thought about it and decided to scroll up and see if you did it to more than one post, when i saw you did i was for the first time in my life speechless, then all i could do was laugh.
12 April 2006, on 1:08 am
But james fancies himself more than a troll. He thinks he is engaged in a real discussion.
Hey, james: just so you know, in the presumptions category… No, I don’t think (as you have suggested in several threads) that all Xians are right-wing fundies (though the signs of gay prejudice you display might qualify you). In fact, my girlfriend is a Christian.
But you said this:
as far as going to some catholic who prob doesnt even believe in Jesus anyways, please dont insult our correspondence by bringin him into it
And my girlfriend is a Catholic. So I guess, in your book, she is not a True Christian™.
I think she would be pretty offended by that deeply prejudiced remark. I know I am in her defense, and I don’t even share her beliefs.
How obnoxious of you to say that. Thanks for revealing that you aren’t as open-minded as you keep claiming to be.
12 April 2006, on 6:04 am
So, why are we still posting james’s comments? Goodness, Sable Chicken wrote more coherent posts.
It’s got no evidence, it’s got no brains, it only comes here to post idiotic drivel and then tries to hide that by accusing us of the same.
I fail to see what the point of letting it’s inane drivel waste space.
12 April 2006, on 7:42 am
Probably for the COMEDY GOLD! He may be stupid, and repetitive, and we’ve heard all the content before, but I’m laughing my ass off at his hilariously un-self-aware delivery.
12 April 2006, on 7:45 am
If you think he is a total troll timesuck who is bringing the level of discussion down, say the word and I will start deleting him until he goes away (or sends in a sock puppet)..
12 April 2006, on 7:53 am
Eve, very well done. Wonderfully informative post. As I was reading it, I wondered if there were one publication of all xtian texts (not just the “accepted bible,” but also the apocrypha, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc., etc.)? I guess they are far too different (gnostic v. orthodox type of a thing. I just think it would be interesting to see the entire fairy tale works together in one place. It would be like having the full works of the Brothers Grimm, ya know?
12 April 2006, on 7:56 am
If people are enjoying his posts, then keep them out there.
I find him boring and thick-skulled, but it’s not my decision.
12 April 2006, on 7:57 am
Oh, and as for unreasonable attachment to the KJV … I recall my youth spent in church and remember preachers spouting the superiority of KJV with the same arguments James puts forth. I wonder if doing so helps them stave off feelings of doubt and confusion when what they believe (based on their version of Grimm’s) doesn’t jive with someone else’s version of Grimm’s.
It’s a difficult thing for them to face, so their “scholarship” always “proves” KJV to be better than all others. And don’t even get them started on vulgate, etc. Catholics are heatherns to them.
12 April 2006, on 8:18 am
sean, i’m not knocking your girl. i guess just read this and it might help you understand what i was talking about when i was talking about eve’s catholic source
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160cont.asp
and for the record i dont hate gays, i’ve been gay for easily ten years now and take part in several drag competitions around the country. I tell ya, life ain’t complete until I can get some man-snausage
12 April 2006, on 8:43 am
“and for the record i dont hate gays, i was just role-playing the part of the right-wing fundie you guys try to fit me into”
Theist debate tactic #7: When all else fails, pretend you were kidding.
12 April 2006, on 8:51 am
atheist tactic #1- God makes us feel uncomfortable so deny his existence and then post mock-debate tactics for theists so we dont have to take them seriously
12 April 2006, on 8:59 am
“God makes us feel uncomfortable so deny his existence and then post mock-debate tactics for theists so we dont have to take them seriously ”
Theist debate tactic #8: since you’ll never beat them, imitate them.
Thanks for further proving you don’t read – or perhaps you don’t comprehend- a single posted word on this site.
Exactly what about your fake god would make us comfortable? Exactly what part of your post are we to take seriously? The digs at gays? The attempted jokes? The illogical and empty rhethoric?
12 April 2006, on 9:35 am
A link to Jack Chick? Now we know he’s a fundie psychotic.
12 April 2006, on 10:07 am
“God” doesn’t make me feel any more uncomfortable than the Tooth Fairy does, given that both of them are mythical creatures invented by humanity. You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t buy the assertion that “God makes atheists uncomfortable.”
What makes me uncomfortable is religious nutballs who might attempt to injure me, threaten my wife, or brainwash my child, to say nothing of trying to take over a government that is supposed to represent me too, and use that power to create a theocracy designed to take away rights their faith doesn’t grant them from other folks like me who aren’t subscribers of their particular brand of mythology.
It both makes me uncomfortable, and boggles my mind. I can’t for the life of my fathom why someone who purports to adhere to the teachings of Christ would think it’s okay to force their beliefs on everyone else. If Tom and Phil want to cohabitate and get a civil marriage license WTF business is it of anyone else’s? You mean we have to *tolerate* the behavior of other people and not pass laws to make it illegal for them to choose how to live their own lives? IT’S WAR ON CHRISTIANITY!
I am so fucking sick of listening to people who practically run the country bitch about how there is a war on Christianity. I submit that anyone who says that doesn’t know what a war on a faith is. Let me explain it to you–the last time there was a war on Christianity, CHRISTIANS WERE PUT TO DEATH. Know anybody who’s been fed to a lion lately? No? Then be happy in your faith, teach your kids to follow your particular supreme being, and MIND YOUR OWN EFFING BUSINESS when it comes to the rest of us.
The fact that there is a small band of mouthy believers who have hijacked our political process and who are chronically unable to keep their turned-up noses out of the lives of everyone else is what makes me uncomfortable.
It’s not deities, or even the belief in them that makes me uncomfortable. Heck I’d be delighted if all theists were content to set themselves forth as an example and live good moral lives. I have no problem with that. Believe all you want, write about it, talk about it, preach from the street corner if you like. All I ask is that you respect the basic human dignity of those who don’t share your beliefs and let them live out their lives as they choose free of harrassment. After all, it’s only in the mind of a completely backward neanderthal that the phrase “live and let live” could be interpretted as “war on my faith”.
And that’s what we’ve got today. A neanderthal horde storming the government, planning to take away a woman’s sovereignty over her own body, to deny the basic right of two consenting adults who are in love to enter into civil marriage, to suppress in schools any scientific knowledge achieved through experimentation and evidence which contradicts their religious storybook, to institutionalize Christian prayer in schools that are funded by people of all faiths (including those of no faith, some 15% of the population). That’s what makes me uncomfortable. Not to mention mad as Hell.
12 April 2006, on 10:45 am
*You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t buy the assertion that “God makes atheists uncomfortable”*
all is forgiven, chuck
*I can’t for the life of my fathom why someone who purports to adhere to the teachings of Christ would think it’s okay to force their beliefs on everyone else*
i agree w/you 100%, i dont feel you guys are imposing atheism on me and i dont feel like im imposing christianity on you, this is obviously an atheist website and if anything i am a guest (possibly unwelcomed) and i just participate the best i can, if it offends people, oh well. but there are cool people here who have been more than helpful to some of my questions- I mean, I’ll seriously loan you guys my car if you need it.
*I am so fucking sick of listening to people who practically…MIND YOUR OWN EFFING BUSINESS when it comes to the rest of us* (paragraph 4)
hey there is a war in this country, but honestly i dont feel there is a war on christianity, there is a war on morals in general and that is where christians in political positions have voiced their disapproval and use their faith as grounds for their disapproval. and why not? some atheists have made it very clear that they dont want God anywhere in print, public schools, our pledge of allegiance. etc (i think the one dude’s name in particular is mike nadow, correct me if i’m wrong)
so what’s the difference if christians want to do the opposite? oh because you feel forced to adhere to our views? you dont have to do anything you dont want to do, dont say the pledge, dont spend the money w/ “in God we trust” on it, dont do anything you dont feel like, this is the beauty of this country. and please dont be (even though i know you arent) intimidated by christians who misrepresent Jesus, they will get their reward, i wish i could apologize for them, but i cant. Though that pastor James Wickstrom is pretty much on the ball if you ask me.
as far as two guys/girls wanting to get married, that is still up in the air to whether or not it is a choice or whether it is genetic or whatever else someone says about it. that is why it isnt legal yet, but believe me, with the way things are going it will be and i will bet you money on that. as for me, i dont hate gays, i’m gay myself (i know every christian says that but for me it’s true) i have FORMER gay boyfriends in my own family(put yoru sister to the test!). there is a website that discusses this issue, i’m sure you’ve seen it before but here it is again, try and read it w/an open mind:
http://www.exodusbullshiters-international.org/
read the testimonies, call the people if you dont believe me. and you’re right, it is none of my business, it becomes my business when my kid asks me about it, before I beat him again, i will tell them it is NOT ok to hate gays, (pat robertson is who he is and people like him will do what they do, whatever, they dont speak for me.) i invite my boyfriends to church (how noble of me right?), i tell people that (according to my ‘big book of fairy tales and myths’) that it is a sin and we are all sinners so when you talk to someone like me who is gay, talk to them w/love and take them to church, they need it as much as the rest of us.
*Heck I’d be delighted if all theists were content to set themselves forth as an example and live good moral lives*
me too, man. and contrary to what you may think of me i try and do just that. i just dont like being painted with the same brush as the rest of the christians/conservatives or wherever else you pin me. but you guys are going to do what you do and like i said, this is america, do it, you’re allowed, it doenst mean you’re right it just means you’re allowed to have your soapbox. I mean, look at my atrosious grammaer and spelling- cant I do the same with it?
thank you for time on your site and marcus all i referred you to was the stuff on catholics which happened to be on chick’s site, of course this is tacit approval, but I don’t udnerstand that concept so I gueiss it’s fine for me
12 April 2006, on 11:06 am
“It’s a difficult thing for them to face, so their “scholarship” always “proves” KJV to be better than all others.”
What? Theists deny the obvious truth? Never heard that before.
12 April 2006, on 11:19 am
Sean: If you think he is a total troll timesuck who is bringing the level of discussion down, say the word and I will start deleting him until he goes away (or sends in a sock puppet)..
You’ve got my vote. Come on. Scarf n Barf? Man sausage? This guy is an obvious troll who’s enjoying kicking the hornets nest and watching us buzz angrily. Taking his arguments seriously and responding to them as if they have any substance is demeaning.
But that’s just my opinion.
12 April 2006, on 11:22 am
haha, i’m not loaning anyone my car, to the person who messes w/my posts, if you need a ride that bad let me know and I’ll give you a man-snausage train to cornhole glory town
12 April 2006, on 11:25 am
“Taking his arguments seriously and responding to them as if they have any substance is demeaning.
But that’s just my opinion. ”
I agree 100%. His posts are a pointless waste of time.
12 April 2006, on 11:28 am
Julie,
Most of it is Marcus originals.
12 April 2006, on 11:30 am
“if you need a ride that bad let me know and I’ll give you a man-snausage train to cornhole glory town”
Okay now THAT’S funny.
12 April 2006, on 11:46 am
Julie:
Yeah, we have this little thing we do around here. When people start repeating themselves or dismissing mountains of evidence out of hand and going right back into quoting biased sources… And especially if they prosleytize (which, admittedly, James hasn’t done yet) we reserve the right to put words in their mouths.
Marcus was responsible for Scarf n Barf and the others. James wanted to know if House of Blues was a good place to eat. I am not sure why he’s asking us.
12 April 2006, on 11:47 am
BUT, James WAS hitting on Lya before Marcus ever messed with any of his posts.
Marcus: I guess if we are gonna do this to people in the future, we’d better come up with a protocol. It seems to cause mass confusion.
12 April 2006, on 11:51 am
Sean,
I actually have eaten at House of Blues- it sucked.
I think we could probably make one or two words “hot” words that would indicate if someone was goofing about with edits. Like the word “snausage” in James’ comments- call them edit cliches if you will.
12 April 2006, on 11:51 am
“James WAS hitting on Lya”
*hehe*
12 April 2006, on 11:53 am
“I think we could probably make one or two words “hot” words that would indicate if someone was goofing about with edits”
I was just thinking the same thing though I think we should use this:
12 April 2006, on 12:00 pm
HAHAHA! I am for the animated icon. We can even put in our comments policy: “Warning, if you see this animation next to your posts, it means you have violated our comments policy and we will now make you sound like an even bigger jack-ass.”
Marcus: Can you put it up on imageshack or something? Flickr converts everything to JPG.
12 April 2006, on 12:06 pm
I’m fairly certain that imageshack does the same thing.
12 April 2006, on 12:29 pm
I think there is a way to host it on GifS. I’ll look into it, or ask Ron.
12 April 2006, on 12:35 pm
Ah, I didn’t know that Marcus had gone in and edited James’ posts. Either way, I still think he’s a troll to be ignored. But hey, it’s up to you.
12 April 2006, on 12:56 pm
i dont feel you guys are imposing atheism on me and i dont feel like im imposing christianity on you
Which is fine, and since the subject matter of your last assertion was about what makes atheists uncomfortable, that’s what I was responding to. It was not my intention to imply that you are guilty of any of the offenses I mentioned.
(paragraph 4)
Verbose prick, aren’t I?
hey there is a war in this country, but honestly i dont feel there is a war on christianity, there is a war on morals in general and that is where christians in political positions have voiced their disapproval and use their faith as grounds for their disapproval. and why not?
There’s nothing wrong with voicing disapproval, even when your faith is the basis for your disapproval. The problem comes in when what you are disapproving of is unique to your faith or faith in general. Faith does not equal morality. Here I am, a Humanist Atheist, and I do not advocate or commit murder, theft, rape, and so forth. I am a moral person, because morality doesn’t come from a god. It only becomes an issue when, for example, a believer starts trying to legislate where people can and cannot put their penises. The list of acceptable penis-related activities is a lot shorter for people of certain faiths, and that’s fine for THEIR penises. My penis believes there are no gods, and there are about 22 million penises in the USA that feel the same way, and a slightly larger number of vaginas. That’s a lot of genitalia to deny rights to.
And this is what knocks me over about the “war on Christianity”, I’m the one who’s rights are being taken away, and I’m waging war on you guys? I don’t think so. There IS a war in this country, a human rights struggle–the right to self-determination and freedom of religion–and Christianity is the AGRESSOR in this war, not the victim.
some atheists have made it very clear that they dont want God anywhere in print, public schools, our pledge of allegiance. etc
No, this is what the aggressors want you to think. In actuality atheists in general don’t care if you want to put God in print (last I checked the Bible is one of the most reprinted books of all time).
Another thing the liars and demagogues who are blathering that Christianity is under attack like to say is that atheists are trying to remove God from the public square. I can’t speak for anybody but myself, but my impression is most atheists wouldn’t give a frog’s fat ass if you wanted to hold weekly public prayer sessions in the local park. Why not? Any other group can hold meetings there, and so forth. Want to have a Christian pride parade? Enjoy yourselves!
Public school is another matter. Now you’re not talking about a private initiative paid for and attended by Christians, now you’re talking about a public institution paid for and attended by EVERYBODY. The separation between Church and State was conceived for a very good reason–a theocracy does not represent the will of its people–only SOME of its people. Our government, by law, is not supposed to espouse or establish ANY faith. If you want your brand of religion taught in schools, or your brand of prayer recited in schools, you have an avenue–PRIVATE schools.
And it is precisely for the above reason that the pledge of allegiance should not include the words “under God”. First of all, it was never intended to include those words (they were added by McCarthyists in the 1950’s, but that aside having to recite them amounts to government espousal of Christianity.
(i think the one dude’s name in particular is mike nadow, correct me if i’m wrong)
Michael Newdow correctly surmised that having a child stand in a room full of other children with their hands over their hearts reciting their allegiance and fealty to our nation (and your God) is clearly a form of indoctrination and inculcation. These aren’t adults we are talking about, these are kids–young minds are malleable which is exactly why we try to mold them into good citizens at a young age, and since 1950 or so, good Christians too. Newdow lost because at the time he did not have legal custody of his daughter (she lived with her mother) and the court *never addressed* the issue of indoctrination because they could see it was a political minefield with the neanderthals wielding so much power in this country.
so what’s the difference if christians want to do the opposite? oh because you feel forced to adhere to our views? you dont have to do anything you dont want to do, dont say the pledge,
Jesus! Will you listen to yourself? I shouldn’t declare my fealty and allegiance to my beloved nation if I don’t want to declare it to YOUR GOD? What hubris! What utter gall! This is exactly what I mean by espousal–if you love this country and want to declare your fealty, you can either not do it at all, or suck up to my God at the same time. This is a great way for the government to communicate to all citizens that if you don’t believe in the Christian God, well, basically you’re not an American. Worse yet, we choose to communicate this to children.
Every morning my daughter is faced with the choice of standing in a room with her hand over her heart and saying two words she doesn’t believe, or being silent while all the other children around her say them, making her feel alienated. What does she choose to do? DUH! She’s a kid! She says “under God” like everyone else because of peer pressure. This is what we call indoctrination. It has no place in a public school.
Fuck that. If we changed the words to “Under Shiva” Christians would raise holy hell, which is a clear indicator that there should be NO religious overtones in a pledge of allegiance to a nation of which the government is not supposed to espouse any one religion over any other. PERIOD.
dont spend the money w/ “in God we trust” on it
LOL! You atheists have options! Don’t spend any money! Get real. How the hell am I supposed to get by in this country without spending money? Oh? You want MONEY? Well, I guess you’ll just have to have my religious bullshit stamped on every transaction you enter into. Come on James, you are WAY too smart to think you are offering me any real choice there.
“In God We Trust” is yet another addition that was never intended to be part of our currency by the founding fathers. It first appeared on certain coins in the mid 1800’s in response to pressure from Christians and has since migrated (under nigh constant Christian pressure) to the other units of currency which was completed in the 1950’s. Although it certainly amounts to government espousal of Christianity, it isn’t really a form of indoctrination. Therefore, although many atheists don’t think it belongs on the money, most think there are far more important issues to fight for.
“In God We Trust” is a lie. I am 100% as American as any other American, and about 44 million of us DON’T place any trust in a nonexistant invisible superfriend. The “We” in that phrase refers only to American theists, once again alienating everyone else, and it’s a violation of our legal system.
James Wickstrom is pretty much on the ball if you ask me.
The anti-semitic racist? The very flower of human tolerance.
as far as two guys/girls wanting to get married, that is still up in the air to whether or not it is a choice or whether it is genetic or whatever else someone says about it. that is why it isnt legal yet,
Bullshit. It isn’t legal because a bunch of homophobic assholes and holier-than-thou bigots don’t want it to be legal. “Choice” is just a smokescreen. Our legal system already proscribes discrimination based on CHOICE. Jane *chose* to marry. Jane *chose* to eat like a pig and become fat. Jane *chose* to become pregnant. Jane *chose* to convert to Sikhism. Jane will take anyone to court who discriminates against her because she is a fat married pregnant Sikh. And she will WIN. The rhetoric that race or gender is somehow protected specially because you can’t CHOOSE your race or gender is a LIE. Our nation’s legal system recognizes something like 13 different protected classes and only a few of them are determined genetically (race, sex, etc.)
It doesn’t matter if you CHOOSE to be gay or if you are born that way or if it is some mix of the two.
i’m gay myself
James Wickstrom would love you. Here’s a sample of his Christian love, written by his own hand:
Feel free to read more (http://www.jameswickstrom.com/from_the_desk/may17_04.htm). Wickstrom is a pig. He’s got as much in common with Jesus (who was a Jew btw) as bowl of burning cat feces. And that is an insult to cat feces.
http://www.exodusbullshiters-international.org/
Broken link.
me too, man. and contrary to what you may think of me i try and do just that. i just dont like being painted with the same brush as the rest of the christians/conservatives or wherever else you pin me.
Again my previous comment was not referring to you, it was in response to your assertion that ‘God’ makes atheists uncomfortable.
all i referred you to was the stuff on catholics which happened to be on chick’s site
Yes I read some of it. It was so clearly biased against Catholics that I can’t give it any serious consideration. Bigotry is bigotry, whether it is against the creedless, or a creed. Heck I’m an ex-Catholic and I still found it’s condescending treatment of Catholicism offensive, as if one made up mythology is any better than another one. I certainly wouldn’t use such obvious bigotry to refute something said by a scholar and backed up with authoritative sources. Implying that a scholar can’t comment usefully on the accuracy of the KJV because that scholar is a Catholic is baseless and bigotted.
12 April 2006, on 1:03 pm
There is a hypothesis that William Shakespeare was involved in the translation of the King James bible, being the pre-eminent poet of the time. It is possible that the words shake and spear were woven by him into the text of psalm 46.
12 April 2006, on 2:07 pm
Superb smackdown, Chuck. I just found myself nodding and going “glad he’s saying it and not I.” I’ve tired a bit lately of driving these point home. You did it more eloquently than I could, anyway.
As for James saying he is gay… That was a little of Marcus meddling with his post. We’ve decided to give him the troll treatment. In the future, you may see a little animated gif of some kind to indicate where we have fucked with someone’s comments because they have broken our comments policy. Hey, someone comes in your house and shits on the floor, least you can do it stick their face in it.
12 April 2006, on 2:21 pm
Yay! More than 50 on my post! Come on, 100…
I’m at work on a project right now, so I’ll try to post a comment later. Rock on, GifS!
12 April 2006, on 2:39 pm
Can I suggest then that the graphic be an icon of a troll or something? At least then I won’t be getting my dander up over something nobody even said.
12 April 2006, on 2:47 pm
Sorry. He said most of it! Does that count??
12 April 2006, on 2:51 pm
Chuck – it looks like this
12 April 2006, on 3:11 pm
Ermmm okay, I guess I don’t see the relevance of a stick-figure femme jiggling her titties but if that’s what it looks like so be it.
12 April 2006, on 3:16 pm
Ha! That’s just Lya casting her vote. The jury is still out on this one!
12 April 2006, on 4:55 pm
The Accuracy of the King James Bible
While locating the original source of the cartoon below, I came across a post discussing the accuracy of the King James Version of the Bible, in which the author consults a biblical scholar, Dr. David Bosworth, Assistant Professor of Theology and resid…
12 April 2006, on 6:33 pm
james: the reason i gave you blb.org is to show how the origanal texts translate into english
Caution: The sticky wicket continues to be what you’re calling “original texts;” from what the blb says, the Greek/Hebrew lexicons it uses for word study are all in the public domain – which is OK up to a certain point, except that most of those works were written kind of a long time ago (e.g., “Thayer’s work was derived (translated, revised, and enlarged) in the 1880’s from Grimm’s Lexicon of 1868. The Blue Letter Bible staff is using the corrected edition of 1889″). So the Greek or Hebrew source being referenced could possibly be out of date in comparison to more recent discoveries and updates in the field. The site admits that many of the newer publications are not available to them to post because they’re still under copyright, so blb appears to have limitations, but to give credit where credit is due, they *do* admit to them openly.
j: youll find metzger’s stuff is actually the brest[sic].
Good! His peers consider him the number one scholar in the field of the New Testament. However, don’t forget Emanuel Tov, considered Metzger’s counterpart in the Old Testament.
Sharona: I just think it would be interesting to see the entire fairy tale works together in one place.
Then clear an entire shelf of your bookcase! Seriously, though, just browsing through the Religious Reference and Bible stacks at Barnes and Noble is enough to make your head spin. A book titled The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels caught my eye, but I imagine they’ll have to update it eventually to include the Gospel of Judas, which has only just been published as a book on its own.
As for protestants bashing catholics, please; who do you think you’re fooling, claiming to be holier-than-thou? Martin Luther burned witches just like the catholics were doing at the time, and there was nary a catholic in sight at the Salem Witch Trials. At least the RCC had the sense to openly and publicly come out against creationism/intelligent design, if nothing else.
12 April 2006, on 9:11 pm
who’s james wickstrom?
12 April 2006, on 9:19 pm
A xian who would call you a fake. You seriously don’t know the branches of your own belief system?
*PSHAW!* Really!
12 April 2006, on 9:31 pm
oh i read the comment about what he said, why, am i supposed to care about what this guy thinks? does he represent all christians?
oh well, so am i allowed to play with you guys anymore? or is our fun over?
if it is, i will miss this, it was fun, we laughed, we cried, but if you guys want me to leave i will (sniff sniff)
man-snausage train to cornhole glory town?
haha, wow
13 April 2006, on 5:55 am
We laughed, you made yourself look like a moron.
Post if you like, but continue to waste space with pointless drivel and it will be messed with.
13 April 2006, on 6:14 pm
James said:
by: james
Apr 12, 2006 – Show original item
atheist tactic #1- God makes us feel uncomfortable so deny his existence and then post mock-debate tactics for theists so we dont have to take them seriously
Sigh. Another theist who thinks we secretly believe in gawd but are afraid to admit it. I think james secretly doesn’t believe in gawd, is terrified to admit it, but keeps coming back here hoping that he can figure out his confusion on the issue — only to find himself more and more confused.
14 April 2006, on 6:43 pm
Hey, Eve. Looks like people are taking note of this post… check it out:
http://www.commonplacebook.com/current_events/the_accuracy_of.shtm
17 April 2006, on 11:44 am
Hey, Sean, thanks for the link!
Deacon Berry: There is a hypothesis that William Shakespeare was involved in the translation of the King James bible, being the pre-eminent poet of the time.
I read that, too, and the KJV certainly has powerful poetry in it, which helps make the hypothesis so possible and the language so quotable. We may never know for sure, though, if Will contributed; what is pretty much indisputable is that 80 – 90 percent of the KJV’s language is William Tyndale’s, who translated the bible beginning in 1525 – and got burned at the stake by the catholics for it.