Comments by "ncwordman" (@ncwordman) on "MAGA Book Ban BACKFIRES In Ridiculous Fashion" video.

@brushe8025 That's right. The King James wasn't even the first English translation.
3
@brushe8025 Not entirely, but certainly changed a lot. When King James says "by," it means "of, from." But, yes, I agree: Just updating the English brings all kinds of problems, namely shortcuts in approximating the words used, which changes the meaning of the phrases. It gets worse when going from one language to another, and then compounding it by updating the English. It's hard to list many examples here, but there are 4 words for "love" in Greek. (Greek being the oldest and perhaps original language of the New Testament.) So which word did Jesus use in the text? It helps to know that. The Bible isn't cut and dry. No doubt about that, beyond the notion that it's folklore and mythology. Imagine someone listening to one of our hit songs today, not knowing our language and culture.
3
@brushe8025 Exactly. Think of that. Yikes.
3
@jesseswalters The Bible existed before the printing press. The Gutenberg Bible was the first printed. And it had 1,286 pages bound in two volumes, not "like 40 pages of greek text that some famous monk of the time was studying." It was written in Latin, not Greek. It was an edition of the Vulgate, and translated from it; the Vulgate dates back to the 4th century. The Codex Sinaiticus, which I referred to as the oldest surviving Bible, was obviously not printed, but hand written. There are pictures of it. It was the complete Bible plus a bunch more stuff.
3
It doesn't have to be. There are three common pronunciations including the two you listed, as well as "li-bree." That last one is British.
3
@richardp6461 You know the silly thing gun nuts say, about how guns don't kill people? And yet there's no other purpose for the gun, but to kill. Well, the Bible doesn't persecute or kill people. It has been used for that. I mean, wow, has it ever. And it's still used for that. Ever heard of the Curse of Ham, and how it was used in the U.S. to justify slavery? But that's not it's only use. And to act like that's all there is to it is absurd. What @Raheem Gostar was getting at is this: There is bigotry and prejudice against the Bible and the people who hold it dear. Surely you can't deny that? Not every Christian is trying to ban books, or participated in the inquisitions, or the 100 years war. Not every Moslem is willing to strap explosives to their chest, and drive a motorcycle into a crowded area.
2
@Nicpick Absolutely spot on. I've read some of your replies to comments on this video. And you know your stuff. Maybe you're an intellectual like me? Someone who reads voraciously, and so has read the Bible too? I think Joseph Campbell nailed it when he said that religion is misunderstood mythology. I've read a lot of mythology, and the Bible makes much more sense when viewed through that lens.
2
@Nicpick Ever looked into Native American myths? Those are really neat. There are videos here on youtube that tell the stories. And for someone who isn't an intellectual, you're very smart. :)
2
@Nicpick Native Americans are rich in music and stories. For them, especially the plains tribes, everything was recorded in a song and story. I don't have channels really, as I mostly focus on their histories. I'd start with some creation myths. Those are always neat. Any nation will do. Have fun!
2
@TheZenGarden_ I personally know the text, and I have contextual knowledge. So tell me what parts of the Bible are being taken out of context?
2
@jesseswalters King James was written in 1611; first English translation, 1535. And that's just English translations. "it's the last though" Not sure what you mean. There are many, many modern English Bibles out there.
2
@brushe8025 Neat. I didn't know that. There's so much history. Hard to get to all of it. :)
2
@Jenifer_R_ Thank you for the kind words. I think that comfort is often overlooked, by some people. Science is wonderful. I love the logic, the reasoning, being able to actually prove something with math. But, have you ever taken a pet to the vet? They have no idea what's going on. They're being taken from their territory, and flying through space at unimaginable speed, going some place where everything smells wrong. That's us. The whole time, I'd be comforting my cat on the way to the vet: telling him he's a good boy, and a pretty boy; and it's okay; it'll be over soon. He'd cry all the way there, and then cling to me once we got to that strange, scary place. And I'd comfort him. That's us. I think everyone gets a little lost. And science is of little to no comfort at a time like that. Everything has it's time and place. :)
2
That's a story told by God to Ezekiel. It's about the woman Oholibah, who commits adultery and is a prostitute. But you left out the part about God's judgment on her. It's too much to quote here. But it's basically a parable, the point of which is: "For this is what the Lord GOD says: ‘Surely I will deliver you into the hands of those you hate, from whom you turned away in disgust" (Ezekiel 23:28). It's really a story about Israel. "Prostitution" was often used in the Old Testament as way of saying people had been unfaithful to God. So, yes, that line is there. There's a little context though. You can read the whole thing in chapter 23 of Ezekiel.
1
I see your point. You can choose to read on your own though. Don't have to leave the room while others chant the words out loud. Keep in mind, just as taking the Bible out of the school follows the wording laid out in the ban, so would keeping the other books banned allow for the Bible.
1
@Rob k If you didn't copy/paste all of that, I'm impressed. If you didn't copy/paste from one web page, where someone else did all the work, I'm impressed. And if you got all of that from memory, I'm very, very impressed.
1
But that just says the government can't establish a state religion.
1
Best part of books is usually at the beginning and the end. :)
1
@natlegend What? lol. I bought a copy of the Book of Mormon sometime last year, but never got around to it. A submarine?
1
They aren't really the exact same. But they do copy each other, and steal from each other. And they are all mythology that has been taken way out of context, and turned into a religion.
1
@xjarheadjohnson Nicely done. I knew about Zoroaster, but hadn't made those other connections. Nice insight! I think the Bible makes a lot more sense when you see it as stories. Like other folklore and myths, it still has lessons to teach, about the good and bad that comes with being human. But it's much easier to focus on those lessons, when we're not distracted by whether or not Mount Olympus is a real place.
1
@xjarheadjohnson "We don't need those ancient stories; we can , far better, determine "right" from "wrong" without them." You're perfectly free to ignore all folklore and myths. Knock yourself out. I enjoy reading. I read a lot. So I've read the Bible too, along with Dickens, Henry Miller, Vonnegut, Joy Harjo, Carl Sagan, Douglas Adams, Albert Einstein, and on and on. And you don't have to look for a needle in a haystack to find the morals in folklore and myths. But you do have to read the stories, and not just dismiss them out of hand, in order to find the morals. Of course we invented them. Who else would have? I'm not religious. Don't assume I am. I'm a writer and an intellectual. Have my B.S., masters, and doctorate in physics. I don't "believe" in anything. I know, or I don't know. You don't have to believe a story is real to learn from it. Edit: Wait, if you really think, ""We don't need those ancient stories; we can , far better, determine "right" from "wrong" without them," then have you not read any of those things you quoted before? Have you not read about Zoroastrianism? Did you just copy/paste all that, and don't really know any of it?
1
@xjarheadjohnson I'm free, but you "think it's misguided." Whatever, jerkwad. Welcome to mute.
1
@ruthdixon3699 Good catch.
1
"blessed is he that dash his children against the rocks." That's not an actual quote. And it takes things out of context. The Bible has plenty of sex and mayhem to go around, without making up stuff. "O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. / Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones" (Psalm 137:8-9). If you don't know, or haven't read the Bible, Babylon enslaved the Jews. It was a huge turning point in Jewish History, and in the story of the Jews in the Bible. The psalms are songs and/or prayers. They have many authors, and cover a long period of time. So, the Babylonians decimated Jerusalem, and carted off the remaining Jews who had not already been enslaved throughout Israel. In turn, the Persian Cyrus the Great took over Babylon. He freed all of Babylon's slaves, including the Jews. That means the Bible wasn't saying to dash your children against the rocks. Okay? They were saying that the Babylonians, who were in the process of being taken over when that psalm was written, would be hating life so much that they would dash their children against rocks to spare them from Cyrus' army--and it was wishful thinking, on the part of the vengeful psalmist's part. If you want to talk about God and children, and hate on the Bible some, then why not talk about how God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his first born son in Genesis 22? That's a weird story. You don't have to make up stuff about the Bible being nutty. Just use what's there. Of course, it would help to read it first....
1
@bobalmighty2925 lol. You paraphrased it, which is fine. But you also missed the entire point of the story, and you misrepresented what was written. But now you know, if you bothered to read my reply. And knowing is half the battle!
1
What an awesome comparison. I love those old Conan books. King David kinda reminds me of Conan, now that you mention it.
1
Are you copying/pasting all this, or have you actually read the Bible enough to know it?
1
@TheZenGarden_ I'm aware of all that. Shall we get down to it? What was taken out of context? Sometimes people do take verses from the Bible out of context. No doubt. I've pointed out several in these comments. Most people don't know the BIBLE. I do. So let's dance! Bring it on!
1
@TheZenGarden_ "What is the "Hebrew" name of the Creator's son?" Trivia? That's not fun. We can just look that up. Besides, I already checked out your username, and I think the answer you're looking for is there. Besides, this is what you wrote: "No, it means people who do not personally know the text, are assuming things that they dont have the contextual knowledge to understand one way or the other." And that's why I said that about taking it out of context, because I thought that's what you meant. And some do take it out of context. I've pointed out quite a few of those in these comments. Are you Jewish? If you are, then I'll respect you and stop calling it the Bible, if you like. But, yeah, trivia is boring to me. Anyone can look up anything. I didn't know the Hebrew name for Israel, for example, which I assume is the answer you're looking for with "the name of the Creator's son." So I looked it up, and copied and pasted it here: Yīsraʾel. Right? Yawn. I want to talk about the Bible in context. I thought that you wanted the same thing. Do you not?
1
@TheZenGarden_ I'm here to ask for you to show the context missing from what people are saying about the Bible. You keep refusing to do that. Why? And what have you done instead? Wasting my time by refusing to answer my question about the missing context. Oh, and just being a little booger about it: "its not a surprise to me that you obviously dont know what you're talking about!" Listen, bud, I never claimed to know much about anything but the Bible. As for Jewish: The 10 (or was it 9?) tribes of Israel separated from Judah and the half tribe of Manasseh. This went back a long way, and was building for a long time, but certainly saw it really go down during David's reign. Those 9-10 (again I forget) were called Israel, while the remainder were of Judah, hence, Jews. That's where the name comes from. I'm going from memory, but that's why I asked if you were Jewish. I asked nicely, and you insult me. Hebrew is what foreign nations called the Israelites in their early days. It was also the name of the Israelites' language, which evolved into Aramaic when Babylon enslaved the Jews. The remainder of what had been the 12 tribes of Jacob (i.e., Israel, as renamed by God) were enslaved by other nations: They were scattered, and most never returned. They are referred to by Jesus as "the lost sheep of Israel." I remember all that from the Bible, which, as I said, I know well. You haven't shown otherwise. But it seems you're wrong about the Jews not being Hebrew, as I stated earlier. So there's that. Maybe it's different outside of the Bible? I am wildly ignorant about their history outside of the Bible. Besides, that's not what I'm here to talk about. I'm here to ask for you to show the context missing from what people are saying about the Bible. You keep refusing to do that. Why?
1
@TheZenGarden_ So you aren't going to talk about how you think people "are assuming things that they dont have the contextual knowledge to understand one way or the other." You're just refusing to do that? Too bad. Could have been fun.
1
@billjohnson9472 It's not "filled with explicit sex." There's certainly some in there though. And it's crazy stuff. But we aren't talking about De Sade, or even Henry Miller here. So let's not get too hyperbolic.
1
@billjohnson9472 Yes it is. But that doesn't mean the Bible is "filled with explicit sex." Let's not mischaracterize it, but show it for what it is. That's not even the worst one, in my opinion. The worst one is when King David's son rapps (spelling intended) his sister, David's daughter. Lot's daughters thought the world had ended, because they had witnessed the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. They assumed they were the last people on earth. That's why they did what they did. King David's son was just outright evil. This takes place in 2 Samuel chapter 13. It's an epic part of an epic story, filled with deceit, vengeance, rapp (sp), an aging king, and his spiteful son.
1
How about a good person? Someone who isn't bigoted against another symbol? I think that's what I'll be. You go right ahead and pick your symbol.
1
@jesseswalters I dunno, bubba. You said: "It was written 400 years ago by king James... that's the kicker. There never was a Bible until then." But there was. "any modern translations are still based on his book." That's not true. "There was no previois Bible, the Bible was written from stories that they chose." And that's not true. I don't know what else to say to you. You're wrong, completely and totally incorrect. The facts are against you. And so on. I don't know why you're insisting on this. The oldest surviving manuscript (still surviving, as in right now, still here) dates back to 325 AD. It sounds like you've read a lot, that you are well read. So I can't understand this kick you're on.
1
@jesseswalters "The quintessential Bible that we have today is a product of King James and the stories they chose. It was not a direct translation of any codex or the Gutenberg Bible." This is getting tiresome. Okay (sigh): The Codex Sinaiticus includes: "the majority of the Greek Old Testament, including the Apocrypha along with the deuterocanonical books, and the Greek New Testament, with both the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas included." So these things already existed. But you want to talk about arrangements: This was done in the Vulgate. It included "included all 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament in the same language: Latin." This was done by St. Jerome, and completed in 384 AD. So they already existed, and were in the order they're in today. For the King James, they had 6 committees, and they used the following: "The New Testament was translated using the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of Greek texts. For the Old Testament, the Masoretic Hebrew text was used, and for the Apocrypha, the Greek Septuagent text was used primarily." "Since the translators were instructed to use the Bishops' Bible (1568) as a guide, which was a revision of the Great Bible (1539), which was a revision of the Matthew's Bible (1537), which was a revision of Coverdale's first Bible that included all of Tyndale's translation work (1535), the King James version includes much of the wording of the Tyndale and Coverdale translations." So they absolutely did not make it up on their own, using nothing else. They did not choose the stories. Keep in mind, King James was published in 1611. I had to do a lot of digging for all that. So I hope it satisfies you, because I'm really tired, and done with this.
1
@panchocarlo Very well said. While I agree, there is one personal thing I learned, after an adulthood of atheism: When I lost a loved one, and they died, I understood for the first time the desire to believe there was a way, a place to see them again, where they were waiting for me. I don't like beliefs. I think they're dangerous, addictive: believing one thing makes it easier to believe another and another. I study science. I either know or I don't know. And it's okay to not know. That said, when I lost a loved one, their death shook all that. And when I lost another the very next week, and the grief was overpowering...I understood the need to believe in an afterlife--not so much that I won't die, but that I'll see them again. Not saying I believe, but I understand.
1
@rogueprince1341 You haven't actually read it? lol. Why are you commenting then? Go read it! Start with Genesis chapter 19, verse 1. That's the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, a fun story. That way you'll know the characters of Lot and his daughters, when you get to the juicy stuff in verse 30.
1
@rogueprince1341 "Maybe try not being a douche nozzle. It may be hard at first, but you may get there one day." I love how you say that, and then you're immediately a nozzle. Good job. And, yeah I remember stories. Who was Luke Skywalker's father? What planet was Superman from? What was the last name of Tom Sawyer's friend Huck? If you know those stories, you know the simple details like that. But you claim to have read that story, and remembered that they wanted to "know each other" in the Biblical way, but don't remember that they actually did it? I'm sorry. I just find that to be really funny.
1
@rogueprince1341 All good points. I shouldn't have been such a nozzle. My bad. I apologize. Hmm. Maybe next time don't bring up something specific from the Twilight books? :P
1