BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale II - Knight vs. Zakath

BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale II - Knight vs. Zakath

  • Knight

    Votes: 31 72.1%
  • Zakath

    Votes: 12 27.9%

  • Total voters
    43
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pilgrimagain

Guest
Re: Re: Because of the "cause" clause.

Re: Re: Because of the "cause" clause.

Originally posted by anna


Was he using the New Century version?
I once had a NCV that had that same misquote. It could be a common error in the translation.
ac
Oh..NASB version..well still it could be a translation error.

Anna see above. Just for the record, I have done the text critical work on this passage for myself and the translation. The NASB carries as accurate a translation from the majority text as any. It is not a misquote or a mis translation, it is the result of solid scholarship using the best original language manuscripts and comparing them.

Pilgrim
 

Lion

King of the jungle
Super Moderator
Pil-You said;
I had hoped, however, that having made myself clear, that we as brothers in Christ would be able to find some grace or charity between us so that we could do as the rest of the passage in Matthew tells us, and come to the Lord's table honestly.

First you say that God commanded the Israelites to commit murder and rape, and then you claim you didn’t say it, then you try to get out of it. Is that coming to the Lord’s table honestly?

Let’s review the posts leading up to this; First Binkus accused God of commanding the Israelites to murder, kidnap and rape;
In the Bible, the Christian god's chosen people kidnap, rape and murder under his command. Is that "absolutely" wrong or "absolutely" right? According to who? It is all so confusing...
Then Novice took him to task for this, defending God;
LOL!!! Hey Mr. Zakath errrrrrr I mean Binkus, even if your above statement were true (which it isn't) are you asserting that there IS such a thing as absolute morality???
Then you jump right in to defend Binkus position;
how can you say that it is not true? The Israelites were commanded to do those things. Are you saying they never kidnapped or murdered anyone?
Then, when challenged, you back step quickly;
Settle down people.

Check my posts very carefully. I never once called God a murderer. I asked a question about the Israelites to get the conversation going.
So just where is this honesty?

Look we all make mistakes, and if you misspoke, or didn’t think it through before you typed what you typed, then fine, (although I find your constant siding with the haters of God quite interesting, not to mention scary), but for you to keep trying to justify a wrong statement of this magnitude, as if you never said it, is disgraceful.

And about the “fool” statement. Whether it is in the text or not is really irrelevant at this point because it is obvious from the context that it be added, and the but has nothing to do with it. You need to get the Big Picture, when reading God’s word. God and His people call others fools numerous times in the Bible.

Or perhaps Paul is going to hell for his foolish? statements?
1Cor. 15:36Foolish one, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies.
Gal. 3:1O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified?

Honesty is the best policy.

Well, you have stated this may be dropped, so I will not bring it up again, unless you request me to do so.

One last thing. Go back and read Knight’s illustration of proving the existence of gravity. This is the same tact he is taking on the morality issue and it is brilliant. Remember the scientific argument? Here is a very simple example of how it works;

First you make a repeated observation; “My pen falls when I drop it.” Then you form a theory; “The earth sucks.” Then you test that theory through repeated attempts to disprove the assumption; “I went to the top of a mountain, the bottom of a canyon, in a dessert, in a snow storm and in every place and altitude and condition, it still fell.”

Now you haven’t proven that the earth sucks everywhere because you don’t have the capability to go everywhere, but you have shown that in every place you did go, the theory held. In effect you were trying to punch holes in your stated theory and when you fail to do so, it is time to accept it.

Knight has made the repeated statement that the fact that “Z” admits that there is such a thing as murder (different than killing) whatever definition “Z” wants to put to it, proves the existence of absolute morality. And it does. Otherwise, all killing is just that, “killing.” And there is no such thing as murder. Period. Not just the word, but the actually of it.
 

marcelpo

BANNED
Banned
>>And it does. Otherwise, all killing is just that, “killing.” And there is no such thing as murder. Period. Not just the word, but the actually of it.<<

Which was exactly my point DISPROVING his arguement. He has to prove that according to his definition (which is different from the one used by me) Murder exists objectively. For him to do that, he needs to prove that "wrongfull killing" is an objective definition. Which would require him to prove that "wrongfull" objectively exists (I don't doubt Killing exists objectively). And we are right back at the beginning of the debate, with KNIGHT having to prove that objective (or absolute) wrongness exists.
 

Valmoon

New member
Murder is defined as unlawfull killing in every dictionary I have looked in. If Knight wants to show that being unlawfull is absolutely wrong he is free to do so anytime. Until he does so his argument on murder helps him not.

You sure accept some ironclad arguments for absolute morality Lion. :rolleyes:
 
P

Pilgrimagain

Guest
Lion, I'm sorry we can't seem to understand eachother. And I am sorry if my approach was a little wierd. However, I retrack nothing that I said. I was trying to ease into an argument over the meaning of the words and was not jumping in on anybody. My point is that everyone brings a different set of aprioris to the table.

In regards to Knights argument for murder, all that does is prove there is murder and that is what I was trying to get at. From the outsider, what goes on in the OT looks like murder. We say it is not though. Kind of like the Israel and Palestine argument. They are both engaged in acts of terror but neither will admit that is what it was. Different sides think about it differently. So the idea I was hopig to get to was that we can not prove absolute morality (which I beleive in by the way) by simply appealing to human terms. We must demonstrate in some way the reality of a measure greater than human terms.

By the way, the 'but' does have something to do with it. You tell me to get the whole picture, I tell you to stop eisogeting. And what God does and what God calls us to do are sometimes very different things because after all, God is God and we are not.

Anyway, maybe this is all silly because in the end we both beleive in absolute morality. All I was trying to do was suggest the proactive argument might be more convincing than the reactive one. It is always troubleing when people try to define themselves only by what they are not instead of by what they are.

Pilgrim
 

Jaltus

New member
Wow, chill you guys!

Pa has been nothing if not even-keeled in my 9 months on TOL. I went back and read his posts, and it was quite obvious to me that he was asserting a question from "within" the system in order to make people think. If you cannot handle that, then maybe you should not be debating in the first place. Really, is your faith shaken so easily that a simple question by a fellow believer can cause you to bring out the wood and matches for a burning, Salem-style?

As for the "without a cause," I am surprised it is even in the KJV, for it is not part of the MT (majority) but part of the TR (received text, from the Latin "Textus Recepticus"). It is an obvious later addition by a scribe in one of the poor manuscripts from the Roman Era (when Christianity was the official religion of the empire). This addition was liked (because it lets people off the hook), so it became standard thereafter. However, the earliest and best manuscripts just do not have it, even within the Majority tradition.

As for the actual word in Matthew 5:22, it literally means "worthless one." We get the word "moron" from it (more, with the "e" pronounced and a long "o"). Paul uses two completely different words in the passages mentioned by Lion. For that matter, it is the only time that the specific Greek word is used as a vocative in all known literature (normally it is an adjective).
 

webby

Axe dropper
Administrator
Just in case you missed it....

Just in case you missed it....

I posted the following within the Battle thread but apparently some people hadn't seen it and were wondering why the delay.....

Before Battle Royale II began Zakath informed Knight and I that if the debate extended into Wednesday night July 31st he would need to get an exception to the 48 hour posting rule. The debate did indeed extend into Wednesday and Zakath will be away on business until Saturday afternoon or so.

Therefore we have decided to allow Zakath until midnight Sunday August 4th to make his final post in the Battle Royale II, hopefully this extended period will allow Zakath ample time to get back from his trip and compose his closing argument. I hope everyone is enjoying the battle!
 

novice

Who is the stooge now?
Of course you must read what Jaltus says and view it with a filter. He is part of the so called "Christians" that consistently side with the God hating atheists and Pagans like Eireann and Zakath.
 

Goose

New member
When it pertains to non-believers, I don't think Christians can be "even keeled". I don't think Christians are martyred for bein moderate.
 

Jaltus

New member
Of course you must read what Jaltus says and view it with a filter. He is part of the so called "Christians" that consistently side with the God hating atheists and Pagans like Eireann and Zakath.
I do? Please show me where I do such a thing.

Oh, and last time I checked, Jesus sided with those "God-haters" against the belligerent religous right of His day. 2nd degree of separation shows how far you are from God, not how near.
 
P

Pilgrimagain

Guest
This is wierd. Some of the images load and some don't. I can't figure out what's going on.
 

anna

New member
Re: Re: Re: Because of the "cause" clause.

Re: Re: Re: Because of the "cause" clause.

Originally posted by Pilgrimagain


Anna see above. Just for the record, I have done the text critical work on this passage for myself and the translation. The NASB carries as accurate a translation from the majority text as any. It is not a misquote or a mis translation, it is the result of solid scholarship using the best original language manuscripts and comparing them.

Pilgrim

Thanks for the info. I hope that I didn't open a can of worms. I was making an observation based on my own personal experience. I haven't done any indepth study of the different translations so I don't take a strong stance for or against KJV or NKJV only translations. I just go with a translation that I am comfortable with.
thanks again
ac
:thumb:
 
Y

Yxboom

Guest
LOL Why does Zakath get to be Steve Austin?

You would think he would make Zakath a heel like Kurt Angle and not fan favorites like Kane and Austin. Knight gotta brush up on his WWE :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top