|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:50 pm
Well that's it there! If they made it so that the 2 dates had their referances, then it wouldn't be so confusing. In study Bibles(or at least the one I have) they say at the bottom of the page that different acsension systems were used. If current historians wanted to edit the dates so that it could be applicable for other calenders, like the jewish calender, I don't see a problem. I mean, so long as they cite from which calender they got that date, then it would be more understandable. I can't say for sure if other Bibles have that kind of information already, but that's why I would recommend getting a Study Bible so that you can get more information on almost any subject.
And where did you get that year from the jewish calender??? How does it work? Just curious, again........ sweatdrop
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 5:54 pm
kisa-chan9 Well that's it there! If they made it so that the 2 dates had their referances, then it wouldn't be so confusing. In study Bibles(or at least the one I have) they say at the bottom of the page that different acsension systems were used. If current historians wanted to edit the dates so that it could be applicable for other calenders, like the jewish calender, I don't see a problem. I mean, so long as they cite from which calender they got that date, then it would be more understandable. I can't say for sure if other Bibles have that kind of information already, but that's why I would recommend getting a Study Bible so that you can get more information on almost any subject. I don't think you're understanding. Did the author specify which ascension system he was using? No. Your argument is flawed. Quote: And where did you get that year from the jewish calender??? How does it work? Just curious, again........ sweatdrop Well, I believe the current year is 5758, so I just used subtraction. But a Jewish year is slightly shorter, plus you've got 13-month "leap years". But for my purposes, I figured it was close enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:42 pm
Hey, I never said that my argument was going to be perfect. Entirely speculation here, but, I don't think he saw the need to cite what systems he was using. It could be that those were the only ascension systems that he either knew of or were in use at that time. I may be wrong, but that's what I think.
Where did you find out about the Jewish calender? I'm sorry, but this has grabbed my interest. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:19 pm
kisa-chan9 Hey, I never said that my argument was going to be perfect. Entirely speculation here, but, I don't think he saw the need to cite what systems he was using. It could be that those were the only ascension systems that he either knew of or were in use at that time. I may be wrong, but that's what I think. So why did he use two different ones without even mentioning that he was doing so? Quote: Where did you find out about the Jewish calender? I'm sorry, but this has grabbed my interest. sweatdrop I dunno...I have family that's Jewish, I've read a few books on Judaism faith, I've read articles about Judaism, I've read an English translation of the Torah...(At least, the parts that weren't just repeats of the Old Testament. They're pretty much the same book, the Torah just has a couple more books rather than a whole New Testament.) I can't say exactly when I first found out about it. Years ago. Are you telling me you didn't know the Jews had their own calendar?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:35 pm
Lethkhar kisa-chan9 Hey, I never said that my argument was going to be perfect. Entirely speculation here, but, I don't think he saw the need to cite what systems he was using. It could be that those were the only ascension systems that he either knew of or were in use at that time. I may be wrong, but that's what I think. So why did he use two different ones without even mentioning that he was doing so? Quote: Where did you find out about the Jewish calender? I'm sorry, but this has grabbed my interest. sweatdrop I dunno...I have family that's Jewish, I've read a few books on Judaism faith, I've read articles about Judaism, I've read an English translation of the Torah...(At least, the parts that weren't just repeats of the Old Testament. They're pretty much the same book, the Torah just has a couple more books rather than a whole New Testament.) I can't say exactly when I first found out about it. Years ago. Are you telling me you didn't know the Jews had their own calendar? I can't say for sure why in our many different translations he didn't say why he chose not to mention the systems. I don't know what the original said. I think that as soon as you go into "why" about authors in the Bible it's pretty much speculation, unless you have some clear evidence about that subject. And yes, I wasn't sure the Jews had their own calender. But thank you enlightening me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:47 pm
kisa-chan9 Lethkhar kisa-chan9 Hey, I never said that my argument was going to be perfect. Entirely speculation here, but, I don't think he saw the need to cite what systems he was using. It could be that those were the only ascension systems that he either knew of or were in use at that time. I may be wrong, but that's what I think. So why did he use two different ones without even mentioning that he was doing so? Quote: Where did you find out about the Jewish calender? I'm sorry, but this has grabbed my interest. sweatdrop I dunno...I have family that's Jewish, I've read a few books on Judaism faith, I've read articles about Judaism, I've read an English translation of the Torah...(At least, the parts that weren't just repeats of the Old Testament. They're pretty much the same book, the Torah just has a couple more books rather than a whole New Testament.) I can't say exactly when I first found out about it. Years ago. Are you telling me you didn't know the Jews had their own calendar? I can't say for sure why in our many different translations he didn't say why he chose not to mention the systems. I don't know what the original said. I think that as soon as you go into "why" about authors in the Bible it's pretty much speculation, unless you have some clear evidence about that subject. No critical thinking when reading the Bible...Ok, then. Any more rules I should be aware of? Quote: And yes, I wasn't sure the Jews had their own calender. But thank you enlightening me. Glad to be of assistance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:05 pm
I don't think I made myself clear about the author......it could have been mentioned in the original manuscript as a footnote or something, but I would be speculating. I just don't know. It's definatly worth looking into for further research, but I don't have the time or resources to do so. And I doubt you do, but who am I to say so?
Plainly put, it would be like asking why did it take so long for the first accounts of Buddha's life to be written down? Why 700 years? Why did it take 1,250 years for Plato's?? It could be any number of things, but in the end it would still be speculation.
I'm sorry if I'm not making much sense; it makes sense to me in my mind, I just have to figure out how to put it on paper-or in this case, computer screen. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:21 pm
kisa-chan9 I don't think I made myself clear about the author......it could have been mentioned in the original manuscript as a footnote or something, but I would be speculating. I just don't know. It's definatly worth looking into for further research, but I don't have the time or resources to do so. And I doubt you do, but who am I to say so? Plainly put, it would be like asking why did it take so long for the first accounts of Buddha's life to be written down? Why 700 years? Why did it take 1,250 years for Plato's?? It could be any number of things, but in the end it would still be speculation. I'm sorry if I'm not making much sense; it makes sense to me in my mind, I just have to figure out how to put it on paper-or in this case, computer screen. sweatdrop Probably because Buddha didn't know how to write? Neither did Plato, I would assume. But Plato had a whole line of students that followed him. Plato was taught by Socrates, Plato taught Aristotle, who in turn taught Alexander the Great...Who almost took over the entire known world. Point is, Plato was pretty well-documented by actual scholars of the time. I don't see why you as a Christian should assume something that's not in the Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:23 pm
Lethkhar kisa-chan9 I don't think I made myself clear about the author......it could have been mentioned in the original manuscript as a footnote or something, but I would be speculating. I just don't know. It's definatly worth looking into for further research, but I don't have the time or resources to do so. And I doubt you do, but who am I to say so? Plainly put, it would be like asking why did it take so long for the first accounts of Buddha's life to be written down? Why 700 years? Why did it take 1,250 years for Plato's?? It could be any number of things, but in the end it would still be speculation. I'm sorry if I'm not making much sense; it makes sense to me in my mind, I just have to figure out how to put it on paper-or in this case, computer screen. sweatdrop Probably because Buddha didn't know how to write? Neither did Plato, I would assume. But Plato had a whole line of students that followed him. Plato was taught by Socrates, Plato taught Aristotle, who in turn taught Alexander the Great...Who almost took over the entire known world. Point is, Plato was pretty well-documented by actual scholars of the time. I don't see why you as a Christian should assume something that's not in the Bible. Did I assume something that's not in the Bible? I apologise if I misread that last comment, that's how it appeared to me. But I do agree with you that things about the Bible or it's authors shouldn't be assumed-they should be studied. Researched. Same goes for teachings that flourish today amoung churches! There are many teachings that contradict the Bible, and yet many Christians believe them. I'm sorry...kinda went into a rant....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:38 pm
kisa-chan9 Lethkhar kisa-chan9 I don't think I made myself clear about the author......it could have been mentioned in the original manuscript as a footnote or something, but I would be speculating. I just don't know. It's definatly worth looking into for further research, but I don't have the time or resources to do so. And I doubt you do, but who am I to say so? Plainly put, it would be like asking why did it take so long for the first accounts of Buddha's life to be written down? Why 700 years? Why did it take 1,250 years for Plato's?? It could be any number of things, but in the end it would still be speculation. I'm sorry if I'm not making much sense; it makes sense to me in my mind, I just have to figure out how to put it on paper-or in this case, computer screen. sweatdrop Probably because Buddha didn't know how to write? Neither did Plato, I would assume. But Plato had a whole line of students that followed him. Plato was taught by Socrates, Plato taught Aristotle, who in turn taught Alexander the Great...Who almost took over the entire known world. Point is, Plato was pretty well-documented by actual scholars of the time. I don't see why you as a Christian should assume something that's not in the Bible. Did I assume something that's not in the Bible? I apologise if I misread that last comment, that's how it appeared to me. Yes, you assumed that the author changed his system midway through writing the book, without any actual evidence to advocate that. Quote: But I do agree with you that things about the Bible or it's authors shouldn't be assumed-they should be studied. Researched. Same goes for teachings that flourish today amoung churches! There are many teachings that contradict the Bible, and yet many Christians believe them. I'm sorry...kinda went into a rant.... I agree wholeheartedly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:55 pm
No...not really. I said that he used 2 different systems to be accurate for other regions. Here, it would seem that you're trying to put words in my mouth, and I don't appreciate that. I don't assume what I have not read or researched.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:13 pm
kisa-chan9 No...not really. I said that he used 2 different systems to be accurate for other regions. Here, it would seem that you're trying to put words in my mouth, and I don't appreciate that. I don't assume what I have not read or researched. Exactly. I'm not putting any words into your mouth. You said he used two different systems. That is an assumption, as I have yet to see any evidence that would help to lead to that conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:18 am
Lethkhar kisa-chan9 No...not really. I said that he used 2 different systems to be accurate for other regions. Here, it would seem that you're trying to put words in my mouth, and I don't appreciate that. I don't assume what I have not read or researched. Exactly. I'm not putting any words into your mouth. You said he used two different systems. That is an assumption, as I have yet to see any evidence that would help to lead to that conclusion. I quoted a book that was written by a respected scholar, who has researched into this matter....and you don't call this evidence? I'm sorry if I'm unable to go into ancient archives and give you the exact quote from the documents there, but that's the limited access I have at this present time. You seem to be ignoring my evidence and you're also trying to make me forget why we even talk about this: supposed contradictions in the Bible. We have discussed this to the point of butchering it, so can we please move on?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:56 pm
thelovelyLIZ The thing is, I know God exists. Even if I weren't Christian, I wouldn't be an athiest. I just look around at the world an I know there's got to be a God. I really do see God in my life, even if everyday life. It's just something I know, a gut instinct, you know? I can't describe it, but it's there. Faith by definition is a confidence in something that we have no proof for. So I guess my belief fits the definition. It also makes life more fulfilling, to an extent. I like my church because the idea we have is that if you live as God wants you too, you'll be living a fulfilling life, and then heaven will just be icing on the cake, you know? Fushigi explained it well. But basically, for me, it comes down to a gut instinct. Wow, I feel the same way. I was an agnostic, but I could never be an athiest. I know that there is a God. I cannot explain why, but if nothing was certain in this world, I would know that God is there. I also know from experiance that Jesus is Jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 6:04 pm
kisa-chan9 Lethkhar kisa-chan9 No...not really. I said that he used 2 different systems to be accurate for other regions. Here, it would seem that you're trying to put words in my mouth, and I don't appreciate that. I don't assume what I have not read or researched. Exactly. I'm not putting any words into your mouth. You said he used two different systems. That is an assumption, as I have yet to see any evidence that would help to lead to that conclusion. I quoted a book that was written by a respected scholar, who has researched into this matter....and you don't call this evidence? I'm sorry if I'm unable to go into ancient archives and give you the exact quote from the documents there, but that's the limited access I have at this present time. You seem to be ignoring my evidence and you're also trying to make me forget why we even talk about this: supposed contradictions in the Bible. We have discussed this to the point of butchering it, so can we please move on? To what?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
