Archive through August 04, 2003
TV ClubHouse: ARCHIVES: Big Brother USA 2003 General Discussions Part 1:
The Bible in the House:
Archive through August 04, 2003
Puzzled | Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 08:49 pm     LOL, Dia, they probably wouldn't mind as long as you didn't ask them to participate. |
Gina8642 | Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 08:59 pm     Cinder - could you be thinking of Survivor? - I believe on Survivor that Neleh brought 'scriptures'. She was a morman. Perhaps this was the Book of Morman? I don't know too much about Mormanism (Church of Latter Day Saints, I believe?), but I do know they have religious writings beyond the bible they hold important. I don't remember anyone on BB bringing anything, but I could be wrong. |
Spudluvr | Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 09:02 pm     On another thread here they said Kent had brought a buddhist book. Anyone remember? |
Teachmichigan | Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 09:07 pm     Puzzled....way up, you said the first five books were the Torah? Aren't Genesis...Deuteronomy the Pentatuch? Is Nate Catholic? If so, his Bible would contain Old Testament, New Testament and 4 books in between the two (that most Protestant Bibles don't have). |
Willsbills | Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 09:09 pm     I know it's been about 10 posts since you guys talked about this but I just wanted to go back to it quickly.There is alot of talk about how we shouldn't judge etc. (Ali, Nate, Dana) and everyone is right, we don't know the hearts of these people,so therefore we only know them by their actions whether we perceive them as good or bad, mean vs. nice, trustworthy vs. backstabbing. Isn't the whole point of this game to judge people (i.e. booting them) depending on their words and actions. that is the only way we ever know anyone. It's like a woman being beat and saying her partner is a good person. As far as scripture which is the ultimate written source of knowledge for Christians there is plenty of scripture that talks about the way you are to act and the people you are to associate with after you decide to walk in the Spirit, so Cajunrambler was right in an earlier post. By the way, kudos to everyone for hearing each others points of views and respecting them. It's hard to come across the way you would like to sometimes but it seems so far so good on this topic. |
Tishala | Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 09:13 pm     Chumash is the name I know for the first five books of scripture. Torah includes Tanach, the Mishna, the Talmuds,and other writings. But this is only one Jew's opinion. You know the saying: you ask 50 rabbis and you get 51 different opinions. |
Twiggyish | Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 09:14 pm     That's very true Willsbills, but the Bible can be interpreted many ways. I also think many people intepret the Bible to suit their own lives and agendas. |
Teachmichigan | Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 09:17 pm     Tishala.... What exactly are the first five books in your Bible? Maybe that's where the confusion is coming in? In the one I think Nate's using the first five are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy (Moses's books). Are we talking about the same set of scriptures?? |
Tishala | Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 09:22 pm     Yes, the five books of Moses. I don't call it my "bible," though. Some Jews do. |
Weinermr | Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 09:24 pm     That's right - The Torah, the Five Books of Moses, are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Also called the Pentateuch in Greek |
Teachmichigan | Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 09:29 pm     Thanks Love learning new stuff. |
Tishala | Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 09:34 pm     If you'd like a good stuff about Torah--I know one tradition, but i other traditions, it is fine to call the five books of Moses "Torah"--you can look here: Torah for Dummies Like Me. I understand "torah" as inclusive of Talmud, Mishna, etc. |
Puzzled | Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 09:47 pm     Well, we agree. The pentateuch is another name for the Torah and the other scriptures are the writings and the prophets. Put them all together and they are the Tanakh aka the "old" testament. |
Mizinvanccouver | Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 10:50 am     BUMP!! Thanks everyone for you contributions. I've learned a lot. I still don't know if I find ok for them to be reading the bible for entertainment, but I guess they could (If BB let them) be reading a lot worse material ie how to make a bomb. LOL (Just kidding!) |
Lurknomore | Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 11:16 am     um...jumping in with my 8 years of Hebrew school here...the Talmud is a separate book and not part of the Torah. I've always wanted to find some interesting new book on the Talmud as that is what has been debated by scholars for years and there is some fascinating viewpoints in it. Of course since it came from an oral history I've always wondered how much of it has become based on personal interpretations over the years. Of course it might well exist...since I generally read broader spiritual books now. |
Karuuna | Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 12:15 pm     I don't have a problem with them reading the Bible for entertainment. The Bible is full of lots of things, humor, drama, wisdom and common sense. No one owns it, or can make rules about how people will see it, treat it or understand it, and anyone is free to read it and see what they will. Even in the Christian faith, the Bible itself is not to be worshipped, it is only a means to an end, not the end itself -- a sort of finger pointing to the moon kind of thing. I think sometimes people can get that confused. |
Buttercup | Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 05:24 pm     I agree with Karuuna. Even though some might be reading the Bible for entertainment, they might actually learn something, or get a different perspective on things in the process...it's certainly can't hurt to broaden one's horizon
 |
Lancecrossfire | Sunday, August 03, 2003 - 07:38 pm     Good points Karuuna and Butter. |
Sunshyne4u | Monday, August 04, 2003 - 02:04 am     a completely unrelated comment to this thread...People who read the Bible, yet dont have understanding as to what the context is, could come off skewed as to what the meaning is. Without deeper knowledge, a verse such as "an eye for an eye" becomes permission to do someone personal damage. Just recently I have been researching whether animals have souls. What has become apparent is the different words used in Different translations of the Bible for Greek and Aramaic words for spirits and souls. King James, Modern, New International they all have slightly different wordings of the very important concepts. What I have now been made aware of has changed the way I view things and whether I wish to buy meat from a store (knowing how the animals are raised in concentration camp-like conditions and slaughtered in brutal ways). This is a huge process for me as I am a carnivore and have always loved my big juicy steak(in the past) ********* ON TOPIC!! TO see Nate and Ali joking around with the Bible really bothered me. Like someone said earlier...sacriledge THX to the person earlier who explained "confession" to us nonCatholics |
Lurknomore | Monday, August 04, 2003 - 12:26 pm     I agree with you Karuuna. And in the Spiritualist community the general opinion is that it was what folks today would call a "channeled writing," which means some of it may have come from Spirit and some may have come from the person getting the info. Then add the many translations and interpretations over the years and I think, (my opinion, no offense to anyone who accepts it 100% as the words of God) what we have is some watered down truths mixed in with some personal interpretations. |
Twiggyish | Monday, August 04, 2003 - 03:41 pm     I agree Lurk. For those who literally follow the King James Version of the Bible consider this: http://www.zianet.com/maxey/Ver1.htm |
Cajunrambler | Monday, August 04, 2003 - 03:52 pm     Twiggy and all, Just a friendly advice, let's try to get back to the topic of the original discussion of Nate & Ali. There may be some here who hold their faith and bible beliefs as dear and precious to them. Some post may be construed as Christian bashing which is in violation of this board's policy. Everyone is entitled to their own personal beliefs, however Christianity and those who hold very strong beliefs are normally the first ones to get trashed here as well as many other forums. I am very open to discussions, however this is not the appropiate venue in which to carry such discussions. |
Twiggyish | Monday, August 04, 2003 - 03:54 pm     Thank you Cajun. I am Christian and I am not bashing. Sorry you took it that way. The person who wrote the article I posted is also Christian. Did you read the end?
|
Cajunrambler | Monday, August 04, 2003 - 04:00 pm     So am I Twiggy as well as a KJV preacher and teacher. There are those who call themselves as KJV-onlyist and there are those who hold to the position which believe that the KJV is the closest translation to the Received Text or Textus Receptus. I hold the second opinion. I am just trying to nudge the discussion back to the original topic. |
Twiggyish | Monday, August 04, 2003 - 04:02 pm     Back on topic... The Nate and Ali were using the Bible verses to interpret them for their own use. I think your assumption that others were Christian bashing is what caught my attention..plus you had my name on the post..so I responded. Thank you. |
|