This book is literally a fricking joke. It has a million contradictions, and it gets used out of context for the same bullshit the people who study it claim that it remedies. Look at the Crusades. Look at the Catholic Church. Look at the Vatican. Violence, sexually unrighteous, and controlling like pharisees.
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Not real Christianity, mysterious ways, you're interpreting it wrong, it's a meta- oh sorry, allegory, etc
srry you feel that way. will pray for you.
o ye of little faith.. .
Why are you so angry?
Just tired of pretending. The people who follow Christianity think their shit doesn't stink. The 'Church' hasn't had a one single line of logically interpretation since the days of Jesus Christ.
yeah sure thing buddy, dilate
dude you are right now pretending you are holier than me
Why were Roman slaves so angry?
Bibles are inherently up to your interpretation of them anyone who says others wise is a idiot
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."
- 2 Peter 1:20
>it gets used out of context for the same bullshit the people who study it
Most atheists don't study that book.
>It has a million contradictions
Name one.
Not OP, but here's a simple one. Matthew 1:23 cites to Isaiah 7:14 as being a prophecy being about Jesus. Unfortunately for Matthew, his Hebrew isn't quite up to snuff. Even without going into the linguistic weeds as to whether or not הָעַלְמָה means virgin or not, there's a simpler way to demonstrate the passage isn't about Jesus. Look at the 'action' our woman is taking, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן. Preterite (And masculine) word for conception, but non-preterite for giving birth. It's not "She will conceive" it's "She has conceived". She is pregnant right then and there.
So unless Mary was actually immortal and pregnant for like 700 years and absolutely nobody thought to mention this miracle, it's clearly not actually about her, whatever Matthew says.
>HINEI, HAALMAH HARAH VYOLEDET BEN VKARAT SHMO IMMANU-EL (Behold, the Virgin will be with child and will bear Son and will call his name Immanu-El—Isa 7:14; cf page vii), which translated means G-d is with us.
Mattityahu 1:23 OJB
You're wrong. This is huh, wow.
Go on, show me a single Hebrew source that gives הָרָה as pertaining to a future event and not a past one. You're just repeating Matthew's idiotic mistranslation, not actually offering any sense as to how it could possibly be right.
I just did. Ignoring it doesn't invalidate it. You're the Christ-hating israelite who keeps seething at the NT right? When will you catch a break? Do you speak Yiddish or are you a filthy zionist? If you do, I've got something for ya.
>I just did
No, you didn't. You posted some stupid bible, giving a verse translation instead of the individual translation of that word. (And a Messianic israeli Bible, really reaching deep into the moron pool for this) For frick's sake, even your more honest Christian sources admit this, even if they don't go as far as to translate the verse in line with the actual meaning of the word.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/2029.htm
>2029. harah
>Qal Perfect3masculine singular וְהָרָה
What do you know? Past tense, masculine. Almost as if it would be "She has been inseminated", but of course we can't have that because we would then have to admit that we're twisting the passage to say what we want it to say instead of translating it honestly.
If you want to play at the big boy table, show me a source for הָרָה in the abstract being anything other than referring to a past event.
>Inb4 Strong's concordance is a bad source or DA JOOOOOOOOOOOOZ DID IT.
Since you're the one twisting Scripture, you go and show me a Bible which says what you're saying. Here's yet another from my end:
>Mat 1:23 TS2009 “See, an ’almah’[a] shall conceive, and she shall give birth to a Son, and they shall call His Name Immanu’ĕl,” [Isa. 7:14] which translated, means, “Ěl with us.”
[a] According to the Shem Toḇ Hebrew text & Isa. 7:14. Virgin / young woman.
In The Scriptures the Hebrew word 'almah' is translated as 'young woman' and 'bethulah' as 'maiden'. Similarly the Greek word 'parthenos' is translated as 'maiden' with the exception of Mat 1:23 (a quotation from Yesh. 7:14 / Isa 7:14, also confirmed in the Shem Toḇ text of Mattithyahu). None of the Hebrew and Greek words can be translated exclusively as 'virgin' or 'non-virgin'.
You've just confirmed you're a filthy zionist. Shame on you.
>Since you're the one twisting Scripture, you go and show me a Bible which says what you're saying.
I'll do one better Have you ever looked at psalm 7? Specifically verse 15. Here's the Hebrew
>הִנֵּה יְחַבֶּל-אָוֶן; וְהָרָה עָמָל, וְיָלַד שָׁקֶר
You'll note the same הָרָה with a vav prefix for "and".
Let's plug that back into your translations.
>Hinei, he [an evil person] travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived trouble, and brought forth falsehood.
OJB
Masculine, past. Huh. What about the super famous KJV?
>Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood.
Again past, masculine.
So there you have it, two bible translations, Christian ones, that translate it as past and masculine. I can find dozens more. THe problem, of course, is that Matthew didn't say anything about Psalm 7, so there's no need to twist it into being about the future when there's absolutely no grammatical basis to do so. Don't think I haven't noticed your complete refusal to offer any word construction argument as to how הָרָה can possibly be in the future.
By the way, why did you bring up that paragraph about translating it as virgin? That was completely irrelevant to my argument. Are you just really stupid and copy pasting anything you can find about Isiah 7:14?
So you do like OJB and KJV? Why do you think they "got it right" with Psalm 7:15 and "not" with Isaiah 7:14? Because you're the one getting it wrong. As I said, Strong's Concordance says it can mean into the future, which is what every single translation translates it as just that. Meanwhile you're still not bringing up your inexistent sources for any of the alleged "hebrew" shit you're materializing out of your ass. Seethe and cope a lil' harder, israelite. You're wrong, and you'll always be wrong.
>By the way, why did you bring up that paragraph about translating it as virgin? That was completely irrelevant to my argument. Are you just really stupid and copy pasting anything you can find about Isiah 7:14?
To bring up the Shem Toḇ Hebrew text, which you're conveniently ignoring. There, gave you a Heb. source. When will you do the same? Oh, that's right, you won't. You've been exposed time and time again, and pretending to be right and acting obnoxiously and arrogantly will not grant you the right to be right, because you're wrong, and you'll continue to be wrong. Deal with it, israelite.
Imagine getting this riled up about something that is so obviously false. Your book says that pairs of every animal on earth got on a boat together for a few months. That is so childishly and blatantly false that you have to be a moron to believe it in 2022.
I'm glad you're insulting me. Insults from an unbeliever like you honor me before God. Keep it up.
Wow, more holier than thou bullshit. It never ends.
Lol you're hurling around antisemitic insults (you're an awful representative of your religion btw) because you're in such a rage during a translation debate. You haven't ever once stopped to think that maybe an all powerful being wouldn't pick this way to communicate what he wanted to communicate to humanity because it's dumb and fosters debates like the one you're engaged in that distract from the message and bring into question the entire validity of the text.
You also haven't addressed the ridiculousness of the Genesis story or the Arc lol. And stop talking like you're in the Middle Ages, we're in 2022.
Curious how you run to scream "antisemitic" while completely ignoring the plethora of insults I've been subjected to by the israelite in our brief exchange for following the Messiah.
>For you, brothers, became imitators of the assemblies of Elohim which are in Yehuḏah in Messiah יהושע, because you also suffered the same treatment from your own countrymen as they also from the Yehuḏim,
>who killed both the Master יהושע and their own prophets, and have persecuted us, and who displease Elohim and are hostile to all men,
>forbidding us to speak to the nations that they might be saved, so as to fill up their sins always. But the wrath has come upon them to the utmost.
TAS`LONIQIM ALEPH 2:14-16
Lol again, explain to me why the all powerful creator of the universe (lol) would choose a book composed of letters, books, scripts, etc. written over a span of hundreds of years to communicate the most important information in the history of the universe. If you were god, I know for a fact you wouldn't do that because you have some semblance of a functioning brain. You'd probably actually reveal yourself to each person on Earth instead of choosing a medium so inaccessible to the vast majority of humans ever and so unconcise and contradictory that debates rage about what it actually teaches to this day.
And you again ignored the complete fairy tale, fictional nonsense in said book. The hilarious part is that you probably laugh at the ridiculous claims of every single other religion on earth but when it comes to yours, of course it's 100% true lmao. There's about as much evidence for Christianity as there is for the Greek pantheon. Zero.
Since no specific contradiction (verse-wise) is mentioned in your drivel-filled post, I've nothing to say other than good for you if that's how you feel like.
Lol it's not what I "feel," it's an actual thing that you refuse to address because doing so would mean that the thing you build your entire being around is bullshit.
For everyone to see you ignore it for the third time, why would the all-powerful creator choose such a moronic medium to communicate such a vital message?
You don't even have the balls to admit that even you would've chosen a more direct form of communication. How hard would it be for God to just reveal himself to us and ensure that we don't get tortured in fire for eternity (another moronic thing that absolutely did not have to be implemented).
Why would I convince you to believe if you're obviously a staunch unbeliever? You're destined for hell, and I'm not the one who's gonna stop you. You're a child of wrath, that much is evident. The Bible is perfect revelation for me, and I can feel the word of God in it. If it isn't for you, that sucks for you. What do you expect me to say or do? I'll never care about anything you say. You're talking at me from a hole in the ground.
> The _____ is perfect revelation for me
Says the adherent of literally every religion lol.
Says a lot about you that "perfect revelation" is littered with inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and straight up ludicrous nonsense.
Ok.
>hell
kek
Or, you're cursing at me, rather.
Lol this is one of the many issues with Christians. They focus on total horseshit non-issues (or things that shouldn't be issues) like gay marriage or cursing in lieu of focusing on things that can actually improve the lives of people on earth that actually exist. I can guarantee you seethe and cry more about what gay people do with their dicks than actual injustices like the disgusting avarice that plagues the planet.
There's a reason people are becoming less religious and nonsense like this is one of them.
I don't think about you at all.
Lol too busy believing that the earth is 6000 years old, probably.
Ah.
>You haven't ever once stopped to think that maybe an all powerful being wouldn't pick this way to communicate what he wanted to communicate to humanity because it's dumb
No it's not. It filters the wicked and they can't comprehend the truth despite it being right in front of them. Even this is given as a sign for us.
>and fosters debates like the one you're engaged in that distract from the message
I'm not that guy but these types of discussions should only serve to show who has the merits and who distinctly lacks them, and encourages people to read the Bible - something that a talmudist definitely wouldn't want. For those that matter, they definitely don't distract from the message.
>and bring into question the entire validity of the text.
Y'all already ignore the scripture. It's not like this is causing it. But now with believers rising to the occasion to hold forth the word of God, the doubters are exposing the low level of their arguments for everyone to see once again. This isn't so much a debate at this point as a spectacle. I'm just here to attend this shipwreck to shore, and to win a few souls to Christ, for glory to the Lord. Amen.
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." - Isaiah 7:14
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this."
- Isaiah 9:6-7
Strong's Concordance is a good source according to you, right? This shall suffice then:
>Strong's Exhaustive Concordance:
>been, be with child, conceive, progenitor
A primitive root; to be (or become) pregnant, conceive (literally or figuratively) -- been, be with child, conceive, progenitor.
So, we get that it can mean to become as well (which is what this passage is invariably translated as). You're the one unilaterally choosing to be obtuse about the translation because you're israeli. Now go ahead and rage against Strong too. Seethe.
>https://biblehub.com/hebrew/2029.htm
>A primitive root; to be (or become) pregnant, conceive (literally or figuratively) -- been, be with child, conceive, progenitor.
Primitive roots are always masculine and pretirite in Hebrew usage, which is in fact noted in the same link I posted earlier. It cannot in fact mean to become, when it is meaning "to become pregnant" it gets conjugated in a future sense the way you see in passages like all throughout Genesis (וַתַּ֤הַר), cited in Genesis 4:1, 4:17, 16:4, 21:2, 25:21, and numerous other examples. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Even as a Christian, it feels SO good to see Rashi-sama proving Scripture babies wrong CENTURIES later, and on a united statesian japanese-style anonymous anime-themed imageboard, of all places.
Eat your words, know-it-all.
>doesn't understand dual fulfillment
moron
Literally says Mary goes and tells them the next verse moron
9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
>The creation stories in Genesis have contradictions in the same book lol.
No you moron. Genesis two is a close up retelling of day six
Matthew and Luke state that the women left the tomb and went to spread the word of Jesus' resurrection; Mark states that they said nothing due to fear.
The creation stories in Genesis have contradictions in the same book lol.
Lol apparently an almighty and all-knowing god couldn't figure out a better way to communicate his existence and message other than a series of disparate scripts and books compiled into one book that nobody except elites were even able to read until a couple of hundred years ago. LMFAO.
Literally this. Look at the case of Bart Ehrman. He spent his life devoting himself to studying theology in the original manuscripts only to have his professors tell him "maybe there was a typo".
God is all knowing yet doesn't know when figs are in season or when the final hour is
Best book ever since it is the word of God copilated. King James Version still the best after 500 years.
I don't understand. You're against the Bible in general or people misusing it?
>You're against the Bible in general or people misusing it?
Loaded question. Typical Christian mind-game. You are like a foreigner saying 'no speak the English"
95% of Christians have never read it so that really doesn't even matter.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Hebrews-12-2/
Lots of satisfied customers. Iesus the Authour
Those are exactly the point moron. It's fiction for theologians to game theory about and monks to spend their lives drawing fanart of and writing fanfiction of while imposing the LARPing of their fan interpretation to the general population.
its really unfortunate what happened to Oyish with all these mentally sick fundamentalist christians piling on the board and filling the catalogue with the same old tedious , nauseating threads every day.
It seems to have happened about a year ago during COVID, I was under lockdown where I live.
Its odd how sudden it was though and how high the volume of posters / threads, there was no gradual build up or anything. It makes me wonder if it isn't just a wave of bots or something
and on top of that, as a reaction all the tired old atheist cliches and rants of the 2010's have resurfaced to pollute the board as well.
It's all sophomoric drivel that seems to have arisen with the poster demographics turning over to the zoomer generation . Everything millenials were talking about in the late 2000's / early - mid 2010's.
The entire site has gone down the shit can honestly. I'd just love to know how many real people are even left on Oyish vs the number of bots. This is a website from 2006 so I wouldn't be suprised that if you took away the bots all the boards would be at a dead crawl