It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
Not to get off subject... but a quick question for Valhall. What English language Bible do you recommend as the most accurately-translated one? Unfortunately, I don't have enough time in my day to visit as many threads on ATS as I'd like to, so I'm hoping that in addition to answering my question on here that you could also U2U me your answer. I will admit, sadly, that I am someone who has never sat down and read the Bible from cover-to-cover. It is something that I would like to do. Also, if there is an easy to understand, well-translated version that you know of, please let me know also!


I'm not Valhall, and I have no idea what translation she recommended to you, but it might be online at this site which has several Online Bible translations.
rockhay.tripod.com...




posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by ChemicalLaser

But don't you think that saying GD is disrespectful? Further, are you not in essence telling God to damn someone because of what you think? Is that not a vain cause?


I think that saying god-damn is disrespectful.
I do not "damn" anyone.
I do not equate it to the same as employing the Divine name behind your cause. That's much worse.



Perhaps I should have written my original reply in another way:
Is it not disrespectful when one ...?
When one says GD, are they not ...? etc.

I think that is a little less confrontational

Since becoming a Christian, I have been taught that, in the spiritual sense, sin is sin - we are condemned for it and saved from it independent of its severity. Degrees of sin are a man-made attempt to excuse less egregious behavior. As Rasputin points out, our thoughts are not God's thoughts.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChemicalLaser


Perhaps I should have written my original reply in another way:
Is it not disrespectful when one ...?
When one says GD, are they not ...? etc.

I think that is a little less confrontational

Since becoming a Christian, I have been taught that, in the spiritual sense, sin is sin - we are condemned for it and saved from it independent of its severity. Degrees of sin are a man-made attempt to excuse less egregious behavior. As Rasputin points out, our thoughts are not God's thoughts.



I'm sorry, I don't think I can understand your point. You're stating that if some one stubs their toe and says "god damn it" they are saying that to damn some one or something? You're taking a mnemonic and applying an intention to it. And you're doing this because a bad translation has made this important to do so? I'm not stating that as your intention, I'm guessing that might be the impetus behind trying to make a foundation for insinuating some one is sending themselves to hell by slipping a particular utterance in.

Just as an example...if the same situation happens and the mnemonic that slips from my mouth is "Well F*** a duck!" I'm not actually requesting that anybody or anything go F*** a duck and I don't think anybody would even consider that I was! So why the double standard? It has to be because of some ???? teaching? or what?



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by curiousity


Paul realized that the Mars Hill crowd worshipped idols. So the best translation is "superstition", because one of the definitions of superstition is idolatry.


Only if you decide to go with what has been preached to you.



You didn't give your source for the translation you prefer:


While it doesn't matter to me which translation you use - as long it is a translation that tries to stay true to the CONTEXT of passage (which the KJV absolutely does not) - I prefer, for the New Testament, New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament (with NRSV). The problem with the KJV is that it is almost a transliteration. In other words, it translates each word on its own, without trying to stay true to the context. There are many translations which are more correct to the context of the passage. I'm not advocating any of them. I just advocate that that those who wish to hurl scriptures like daggers at others be sure they have looked into the translations (and what the inadequacies of the one they are ignorantly clinging to) can mean for their lack (or fullness) of understanding.

If you choose to TRULY AND FULLY investigate the translations of Acts and decide that Paul condemned the Greeks versus acknowledging them and then teaching them, that's your business. But your choice speaks volumes - and not in what Christ taught, but more in what men have taught in the years since he left us.

[edit on 7-28-2006 by Valhall]


There is no way of determining whether the Greeks listening to Paul were to be insulted at being called superstitious at all, that is what I was saying, and I don't think that what I said had any barb in it to bring out defensiveness. The word he used can be translated either 'deferential of gods', or by 'idolatry' according to the Greek Lexicon. Therefore we could argue forever what he said and how it should have been translated but for the crowd there, they could take it either way. So I am not able to decide whether Paul "condemned the Greeks versus acknowledging them and then teaching them", but then neither can you.

You said, "There are many translations which are more correct to the context of the passage. ", but you didn't say how you know that, other than what seems to be a determination to have Paul being politically correct in an era for which you cannot say what words were considered polite and which were not.

As for whether KJV is the "best" or not, I can't say. I've used any number of versions to study from and trust that the Holy Spirit will "lead me into all truth" as Jesus said He would.

You said, "(you) just advocate that that those who wish to hurl scriptures like daggers at others be sure they have looked into the translations (and what the inadequacies of the one they are ignorantly clinging to) can mean for their lack (or fullness) of understanding."

I agree except that you included the words "ignorantly clinging to" which is not how I see those who persist in emphasizing one translation over another, or condemning one over others, either one. It is simply their opinion You made some valid points about how the KJV brings out the "using God's Name in vain" verse as meaning we're not to use His Name at all except to speak to Him, or bless someone.

Since the earliest translators of the Bible were not necessarily conversant with Jewish customs, we can't suppose that they translated it so because of the Jewish persuasion that using God's Name is unholy, so that they shorten it in various ways, mainly by removing the vowels: ie, YWH for Yahweh, and G-d for God in today's parlance. But if they were aware of the awe for the Name the Jews held, then that could account for their translating it as they did in the KJV.

No doubt, as a Christian, you yourself don't believe that loosely using the Name is a reverent thing to do, even if it doesn't get you condemned to hell, which I fully agree with you, it will not when it is used as per these posts. I also agree that it is a great burden to some who believe that because they slipped up and said one of the G words unadvisedly that they are forever guilty, I was greatly relieved to read your post and understand that I was feeling guilty when I could just ask forgiveness and be done with it.

As for the "hurling Scripture like daggers", I too believe it is unrighteous and ungodly to do so.

I don't know what you mean by my "choice speaking volumes", but I assume it was a slur on what I said in the post. If you like, please explain if I'm assuming wrongly, or how loud the volume is, if you wish.

As my signature used to say, "I don't know everything but I know the One Who does."

I believe you do also.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Wonderfully done Val. You have done well to defend your faith from some of the fundementalists and fanatics that are trying to hijack it. Too bad more Christians dont realize the danger.

Since checkers takes the bible literally, Im assuming he has a long beard, long hair, banishes all menstruating women from his home, wears single fiber clothing, and everything else levitical law tells him to do.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
You're taking a mnemonic and applying an intention to it.


Forgive me. I don't mean to be pedantic, but is mnemonic the word you mean to use?


[edit on 2006/7/29 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
This may be slightly irreverant, but I think God has more important things to do with his time than minding my vocabulary. I think he's a bit bigger than that...



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
I'm sorry, I don't think I can understand your point.


I think that's because I've been very clumsy in my attempts to make it. I'll give it another try.



You're stating that if some one stubs their toe and says "god damn it" they are saying that to damn some one or something? You're taking a mnemonic and applying an intention to it.


I was attempting to separate two different uses of a phrase, both of which are offensive for different reasons. In the case of using GD against a person - I think that the speaker is absolutely applying an intention to their words. They are invoking the name of God into their dispute with someone. There are probably some very rare instances where that might be appropriate, but I think we can both agree they are few and very far between.

When speaking out of frustration and anger and saying "__ damn it" - you are correct to say that applying the same intention is senseless. However, I believe it is a sin of a different kind to do this - it is disrespectful to use God's name in such a manner.



And you're doing this because a bad translation has made this important to do so? I'm not stating that as your intention, I'm guessing that might be the impetus behind trying to make a foundation for insinuating some one is sending themselves to hell by slipping a particular utterance in.


Val, I think you answered the original post about the danger of applying modern understandings of archaic translations quite well. I acknowledged that in the first sentence of my first response. I was just trying to say that the original poster may have had a point, though not necessarily for the reasons they used.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by checkers
Why is such irreverence condoned in our society?


This is how this discussion began and then it turned into a semantic battle. Semantics is a valid point to bring up, but we have thus far pretty much ignored the sociological component of the topic.

Why indeed does society, not government, tolerate irreverence?

This is a very good topic for our forum, as it allows for myriad points of view.

I've been wracking my brain trying to think of how this thread can be salvaged, but I guess it will be up to the participants to use the original question to generate a fecund discussion.

Perhaps, this post applies here, as well:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 2006/7/30 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Ya know, In some ways I do hope the Almighty comes back just to show all these misguided extremists how foolish they've been.

To me, using the Lord's name in vain, means using his wisdom and kindness for personal gain
or to harm others.

So many " followers" fail to think for themselves and realise that they are sometimes being manipulated by the self serving words of men.

The Bible is a book that may have been inspired by good intentions, but it was published and edited my human beings.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   
I can't speak for society, only for myself, but I not only tolerate irreverence, I embrace it. Being 'reverent', such as not using the Lord's name in vain is simply one's choice of how they behave. When they choose for OTHERS to behave in the same way, it becomes a problem.

And it's about words 99% of the time. I don't follow the same belief system, so I don't see why I should behave the way other people do who are following a determined set of ideas and ideals. I don't follow the same beliefs, so why should I be 'reverent' or not use certain words?

Words don't (can't) hurt anyone. There's a movement in our society to get people to behave and I'm not having any part of it. I'm exercising freedom when I use the word God how I wish to.

People try too much to get other people to act 'right'. I naturally rebel against anyone who trys to control me. I'm in my late 40s, I'm old enough to decide how to talk and behave in public. Everyone gets to decide that for themselves. I have no problem with people who wish to be 'reverent' or pray at restaurants and not use God's name.


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Why indeed does society tolerate irreverence?


Why shouldn't it?

[edit on 30-7-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I'm beginning to think that our bible thumping right wing extremist Evangelicals
are no better that the extreme right wing Islamists wanting to reinstate Vice and Virtue
police squads.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Exodus 20:7
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Proverbs 30:6:
6 Do not add to His words
Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

Deuteronomy 4
2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

Revelation 22
18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
20 He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming quickly " Amen
Come, Lord Jesus.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by checkers
Exodus 20:7
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Have you ever noticed how people cry out God's name in vain as loud and often as they can?
I am always amazed at how common using the Lord's name in vain is. I hear people constantly yelling, "Oh My God!" or "Good Lord!" or "Jesus". This disrespect prevails everywhere!! on television, the radio, schools, churches, my next door neighbors. Even in this forum, people write "OMG" flippantly as if they can't be bothered except to abbreviate the name of the Alpha and the Omega. People seem to antagonize God in every way they can and as often as they can. Then they wonder why God gives them over to despair.

Why is such irreverence condoned in our society?


[edit on 28-7-2006 by checkers]


What I wonder is why is his name "God" thats what he is, thats not really a name ya dig?

Yeah I know probably a moot point but oh well? I drop God Bombs like there is no tomorrow!


Oh Jesus Christ!



God: "Oh Jesus Christ!"
Jesus: "Don't take my name in vain, dad!"
God: "Sorry... Jeezy Creezy..."
Jesus: "DON'T CALL ME JEEZY CREEZY!"




ps: I don't blame "God" for putting me in despairs way, I'm quite capable of that myself!
Jesus Christ stars in Son of God, Jesus Christ as the son of God


Ever have someone call this guys name during intercourse? I mean how am I suppose to compete with that? I'm not even half omnipotent or infallible... sheesh!




edits: for very little sleep

[edit on 6-8-2006 by Lysergic]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join